[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 6, 11:17=A0am, bob wrote:
On Feb 5, 10:15=3DA0pm, Scott wrote:

On Feb 5, 11:42=3D3DA0am, bob wrote:

If some distortion sounds better, then the listener
should control it: DSP, equalizers, etc.

Why? Do you think I could or you could replicate the unique euphonic
distortions of my vinyl playback equipment or the inherent euphonic
colorations of vinyl that seems to draw audiophiles to that medium by
using DSP and equalizers?

No, I think I could do better. Much better, in fact. That's the whole
point of listener controls--one can tailor the sound any way one
likes, and almost certainly come closer to whatever your idea of good
sound is than any fixed set of distortion artifacts.


Another claim I'd love to put to the test. I can send you a list of
titles I have on vinyl that I consider to be SOTA for sound quality of
that given title. If you if have any CD version of any of those titles
you can take those CDs, digitally tweak them to your heart's content.
Then we can find a panel of listeners and have them make blind
comparisons and pick their preferences. My money is on the Euphonic
colorations of vinyl and my rig in particular and the mastering skills
of the pros doing the audiophile reissues over your EQ and DSP. Call
it a hunch.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 6, 11:18=A0am, ScottW wrote:
On Feb 5, 12:19=3DA0pm, Scott wrote:


They most certainly were not dialed in for ceramic cartridges. No
consideration was given to the playback equipment of the time when the
recordings were made. They remain some of the most amazingly realistic
recordings of orchestral music ever made.

=A0 No consideration? =A0I find that unbelievable.

here is a brief snip of an interview with Wilma Cozart Fine

http://www.kcstudio.com/wilmacozartfine2.html

"BD: When you make a compact disc out of the tapes which were
originally pressed onto LP, is there ever any desire to tamper with
the balances or the acoustics or anything at all from the original?

WCF: Quite the opposite. What I strive for and work very hard to
achieve is to actually recreate in two channel form the exact sound of
the original three track master. That was the goal whenever we
recorded the LPs and released them on an LP and that remains the goal
for CD as well.

BD: You have stated elsewhere that the conductor had the final say
about such things. Was the conductor in each case pleased with the LP
as it was issued?

WCF: We would not release it if he had not been. The conductor always
had musical approval and we also had him available, or we were
available to him, to listen to as many playbacks and he chose to at
the time of the session. We used the same three speakers and the same
tape machine that I later used to re-master the LP or the CDs. So when
he heard the playback at the session, he heard it over the same
equipment exactly that we would be using in the studio ourselves.

BD: Does it ever occur to you during the recording process to think
about the people who would be listening in living rooms and bedrooms
with different acoustics.

WCF: Oh absolutely. As a matter of fact, that is with you all the
time. What I have done through the years is try to stay with the same
equipment, both for mastering purposes of LPs and CDs and for playback
purposes, that I have used over the years since the time of the
original sessions. So that whatever works with the public, under
whatever listening conditions they were hearing recordings in the
past, I have relied that that would also work for today. There isn=92t
any way, when doing a recording and re-mastering, that you could take
that into consideration. The only thing that I can do is an honest
recording of the performance itself and try to reproduce that
accurately. The problem of how it=92s heard in the home or as its
broadcast over the airwaves or heard in the car is something that the
producer or the manufacturer cannot possibly engineer, cannot possibly
have control over. We just want to bring home something that=92s an
honest replication of that performance.

BD: Should there be a booklet of instructions telling them how to set
the equipment?"

There have been many accounts of what went into the recording of the
Mercury Living Presence sessions. They all indicate that they were
making the best possible recordings they could make with no
consideration of the playback equipment at the time or in the future.

[bob]

On Feb 6, 2:18=A0pm, Scott wrote:
On Feb 6, 9:52=3DA0am, bob wrote:

By any objective standard, digital reproduction is more accurate to
the original sound than analog reproduction. I think a good case could
be made that people who hear it that way are better listeners than all
the vinylphiles who confuse phase distortion with ambient
reverberation. The latter don't hear at all; they merely imagine.

So do you have some results of any blind listening comparisons that
supports this assertion?

If you had read and understood what I wrote, you would know that
measurements alone would prove the point of my first sentence. The
rest is opinion, and identified as such.

I can cite two blind comparisons that wrought
contrary results to that which you would expect but it seems that when
certain people don't like the hearing such results they go into
personal attack mode. I'm not really interested in going down that
path again

Well, that's constructive.

so lets just examine your assertion on the face of it.
Without the original tape how can one judge actual audible accuracy?

Measurements are a far better means of gauging accuracy than any
listening test. You do understand what accuracy means, don't you?

As for your case " that people who hear it that way are better
listeners than all the vinylphiles who confuse phase distortion with
ambient reverberation" How would you like to put it to a blind test?
Arny chose not to take my challenge on his assertions about the sound
of vinyl under blind conditions but would you like to? In this case
the challenge would be to identify actual recorded reverb (and I would
add accurate soundstaging) with the euphonic effects that vinyl has on
the sense of reverb and soundstaging. Of course you would have to do
this under the same circumstances as do the audiophiles whose hearing
you are calling into question. That would be without an original
master tape as a reference. I think I could design a test that would
be fair and would put the issue to the test. IMO you would find that
those who prefer digital would be just as hard pressed to make such
determinations under blind conditions as those who prefer vinyl.

I would say from this description that you do not know what you are
testing or how one should go about testing it, if it is indeed
testable. At any rate, you're not my go-to guy for objective
testing.

=A0Challenging the hearing of those who prefer vinyl really is a cheap
shot. You don't thinks so too? Put it to the test then.

If you trace the thread back, you'll see that I was responding to a
similar shot taken from the other side:

On Feb 5, 10:13 pm, Audio Empire wrote:
There are some on this forum who continue to posture and make statements
which lead me to believe that in spite of their technical knowledge, they
simply cannot hear

Goose, meet gander.

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 11:17:13 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 5, 8:37=A0pm, bob wrote:
On Feb 5, 7:53=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


I suspect that most audiophile music libraries are dominated by
non-audiophile digital recordings, in terms of music that gets active p=
lay.

If you're a music lover, as opposed to a gear hound, this has to be
the case. There is far too much good music out there that's available
only on CD.


For real? You would put the vast catalog of music recorded in analog
(or even digital but cut on vinyl) from the begining of commercial
recordings to the present day a distant second over the body of
digital recordings that never appeared on vinyl? There certainly is
plenty of music only available on CD. but if we are talking great
music, the best throughout the many decades of recorded music, the
titles available on CD only IMO represent a pretty small fraction of
the pie.


What makes me skeptical about Arny and Bob and others here who try so hard to
dismiss vinyl is that such a stance doesn't really make much sense. Music is
where you find it, and if some of the best music is available on LP and not
CD, then to eschew vinyl simply on technical grounds is, to me, elementary
purpose defeating.

And as far as the sound of vinyl vs the sound of CD is concerned, I don't
"prefer" vinyl to digital per se, I merely prefer good sound over mediocre.
In some cases that good sound comes from CD and digital in general (in all
it's guises), and in some cases that good sound comes from vinyl. Sometimes
it even comes from mono LPs from the early 1950's.

So there are two very good reasons NOT to dismiss vinyl: In some cases a
particular vinyl record might actually sound better than a CD of the same
performance, and secondly, there are many performances that never have and
never will show up on digital media. I prefer having the advantage of being
able to enjoy vinyl for both those reasons, and find those who are so
prejudiced against vinyl that they won't even consider the argumenst put
forth here, to be extremely myopic. It's their call, of course, but it does
seem to be a silly stance to take.

[bob]

On Feb 6, 4:45=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

What makes me skeptical about Arny and Bob and others here who try so har=
d to
dismiss vinyl is that such a stance doesn't really make much sense. Music=
is
where you find it, and if some of the best music is available on LP and n=
ot
CD, then to eschew vinyl simply on technical grounds is, to me, elementar=
y
purpose defeating.

And as far as the sound of vinyl vs the sound of CD is concerned, I don't
"prefer" vinyl to digital per se, I merely prefer good sound over mediocr=
e.
In some cases that good sound comes from CD and digital in general (in al=
l
it's guises), and in some cases that good sound comes from vinyl. Sometim=
es
it even comes from mono LPs from the early 1950's.

So there are two very good reasons NOT to dismiss vinyl: In some cases a
particular vinyl record might actually sound better than a CD of the same
performance, and secondly, there are many performances that never have an=
d
never will show up on digital media. I prefer having the advantage of bei=
ng
able to enjoy vinyl for both those reasons, and find those who are so
prejudiced against vinyl that they won't even consider the argumenst put
forth here, to be extremely myopic. It's their call, of course, but it do=
es
seem to be a silly stance to take. =A0 =A0

I can't speak for Arny, but if you think I have written anything that
disagrees with your points here, then you should go back and read it
again.

Because you didn't understand it the first time.

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 12:22:02 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 5, 7:14pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 10:34:47 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

You didn't say she said the Classic reissues sounded exactly like the
original analog masters. I'm guessing some younger ears at Classic's
took some of that shrill edge off needed to create some sparkle for
aging ears. Or maybe the original analog masters were dialed in for
ceramic cartridges just as todays CDs are mastered for cars and are
really bad to your ears

You're right, she didn't say that (not that I ever saw, anyway). She
also never said that the actual PRODUCTION CDs sounded anything like
the digital masters she produced from the original analog recordings
either! In other words, for the CDs, she produced a digital master.
Period. I doubt seriously if she had anything whatsoever to do with
the consequent transfer of that digital master to CD. Why would she?
She had no expertise or experience in CD production. She hadn't
worked in recording since Mercury closed shop in the late 1960's.

On the other hand, the article I read about her involvement in the
Classic recording project (the last thing she did before she died, I
might add) said that she supervised the transfer from the original
analog master tape to the actual vinyl cut and approved the master
disc before plating and approved the test pressings before
production.

It also doesn't surprise me that if your system is breathtaking on
vinyl, CD's don't measure up.

Nonsense. My system is "breathtaking" on vinyl, well mastered CD,
well mastered SACDs, DVD-As, DATs, analog tape, and even Internet
radio. The only thing that is different about vinyl is that it
requires a decent deck, a decent arm - properly set-up, and a good
cartridge. The rest is just electronic amplification and that is
either accurate to the RIAA curve and quiet or it isn't.

I've had a similar problem and have
concluded that the best setup for either format is not the same
setup. I briefly tinkered with some digital correction, which is now
a really inexpensive option, and think it might be the answer but
haven't had time to really explore it.

If you find that to be true (I don't), then you're doing something
wrong in the front-end of your vinyl setup. Amplifiers, these days
are flat from DC to daylight, have extremely low distortion and low
noise. They amplify what they are fed, whether that is from digital
or analog sources (let's face it, it is, generally speaking, all
analog by the time it hits the amplifier). Speakers? They respond in
the same way to every source. If they sound different from one
source to the next, then it's the source that's at fault not the
speakers, not the amplifiers.

Then we agree. My comment is that one of the source characteristics
are different and can be altered to match better with the speakers
characteristic which are best suited to another source format.
In my case, the variable is speakers (and amplifier though I believe
that impact is nil). I simply find that my old Quads are much more
suited to vinyl than my Orions.
The sources are clearly different, the speakers are clearly different.
I don't understand why a speaker cannot be better suited to a source
than another.


So, if your vinyl setup always sounds better than digital, then it's
probably because the CDs you play simply don't sound very good and given
today's CD production practices, that's very possible. Another (extremely
slight and very unlikely) possibility is that there's something amiss with
your CD player. Either way, within the envelope of your system's capability,
all sources should sound the same, all else being equal.

All else is not equal between vinyl and CD playback...period.
Not in mastering nor reproduction.

All else is not even equal between different master CDs of the same
works and different masters of vinyl and I suppose a digital
correction for every recording could be made.
I think scott has even experimented with opimal VTA for his extensive
vinyl collection.
It's a similar concept.

When I play one of
my old 15 ips half-track analog master tapes and the DAT I made from it and
the CD I made from the DAT, they all sound pretty much the same; I.E., they
might vary a bit in some small details, but their sonic character is the
same. I'm sure that if I had LPs of these tapes, I'd notice the same
similarity of overall sonic character.

Similarity is vague and subjective. One persons similarity is worlds
apart to another.
The simple facts are vinyl has inherent limtations in playback that
must be compensated for in cutting the master. Dynamic range and
channel seperation are not uniform over the frequency range. I'm not
saying these limitations mandate an unacceptable or less appealing
result, but it is obviously quite different IMO.

It's relative easy to prove that CDs can be an accurate reproduction
of vinyl and even capture the postulated euphonic distortions. I don't
disagree with you on this.
But it's also been well documented that vinyl has some limitations and
may not be able to produce an entirely accurate reproduction of a CD.

ScottW

Well, I sure don't do that and good CDs sound good and good vinyl records
sound good. The idea of tailoring one's system to one or the other seems
limiting to me, but I've got to be honest with you, with all of my experience
and knowledge about audio, I wouldn't know where to begin to do something
like that. They way I see it, you makes your system as flat in frequency
response as you can given your particular circumstances, and let the chips
fall where they may. I find that doing that yields sound that is very source
independent and very satisfying.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 6, 1:45=A0pm, bob wrote:
On Feb 6, 2:18=3DA0pm, Scott wrote:

On Feb 6, 9:52=3D3DA0am, bob wrote:

By any objective standard, digital reproduction is more accurate to
the original sound than analog reproduction. I think a good case coul=
d
be made that people who hear it that way are better listeners than al=
l
the vinylphiles who confuse phase distortion with ambient
reverberation. The latter don't hear at all; they merely imagine.

So do you have some results of any blind listening comparisons that
supports this assertion?

If you had read and understood what I wrote, you would know that
measurements alone would prove the point of my first sentence. The
rest is opinion, and identified as such.

You said "any" objective standard. That would include bias controlled
listening tests using a reference. Oh and on a trivial point. audio
ultimately is about what we hear not about what we measure on the
bench. If bench tests run contrary to listening evaluations then it is
the bench tests that have to be adjusted not the listeners.


I can cite two blind comparisons that wrought
contrary results to that which you would expect but it seems that when
certain people don't like the hearing such results they go into
personal attack mode. I'm not really interested in going down that
path again

Well, that's constructive.

It was very much so. No need to bog down the thread in personal
attacks on industry pros who are not here to defend themselves. thank
you for the acknowledgement.



so lets just examine your assertion on the face of it.
Without the original tape how can one judge actual audible accuracy?

Measurements are a far better means of gauging accuracy than any
listening test. You do understand what accuracy means, don't you?

You do understand the point of "audio" don't you? I don't know about
you but I actually listen to my system. If all you do is measure yours
then we really have no common ground to discuss such matters.



As for your case " that people who hear it that way are better
listeners than all the vinylphiles who confuse phase distortion with
ambient reverberation" How would you like to put it to a blind test?
Arny chose not to take my challenge on his assertions about the sound
of vinyl under blind conditions but would you like to? In this case
the challenge would be to identify actual recorded reverb (and I would
add accurate soundstaging) with the euphonic effects that vinyl has on
the sense of reverb and soundstaging. Of course you would have to do
this under the same circumstances as do the audiophiles whose hearing
you are calling into question. That would be without an original
master tape as a reference. I think I could design a test that would
be fair and would put the issue to the test. IMO you would find that
those who prefer digital would be just as hard pressed to make such
determinations under blind conditions as those who prefer vinyl.

I would say from this description that you do not know what you are
testing or how one should go about testing it,

I didn't describe the test yet and you are already criticizing it. I
sense a search for an excuse not to take such a test.

if it is indeed
testable.

It is easily testable.

At any rate, you're not my go-to guy for objective
testing.

Another no show in the name of objectivity. No surprise there.



=3DA0Challenging the hearing of those who prefer vinyl really is a chea=
p
shot. You don't thinks so too? Put it to the test then.

If you trace the thread back, you'll see that I was responding to a
similar shot taken from the other side:

Tit for tat? That is...what were ytour words? oh yeah, Constructive.



On Feb 5, 10:13 pm, Audio Empire wrote:

There are some on this forum who continue to posture and make statement=
s
which lead me to believe that in spite of their technical knowledge, th=
ey
simply cannot hear

Goose, meet gander.


So which are you Bob? The goose or the gander? Unlike you, I haven't
accused anyone of hearing deficiencies on this thread.
Tit for tat doesn't always pan out. If you ever have a change of heart
and care to back your assertions under blind conditions I will happily
outline a test that would work. *After* I outline it you can offer
whatever criticisms you have of the design of the test. I'm not going
to hold my breath though.

[KH]

On 2/6/2011 1:23 PM, Scott wrote:
On Feb 6, 11:17 am, wrote:
On Feb 5, 10:15=A0pm, wrote:

On Feb 5, 11:42=3DA0am, wrote:

If some distortion sounds better, then the listener
should control it: DSP, equalizers, etc.

Why? Do you think I could or you could replicate the unique euphonic
distortions of my vinyl playback equipment or the inherent euphonic
colorations of vinyl that seems to draw audiophiles to that medium by
using DSP and equalizers?

No, I think I could do better. Much better, in fact. That's the whole
point of listener controls--one can tailor the sound any way one
likes, and almost certainly come closer to whatever your idea of good
sound is than any fixed set of distortion artifacts.


Another claim I'd love to put to the test. I can send you a list of
titles I have on vinyl that I consider to be SOTA for sound quality of
that given title. If you if have any CD version of any of those titles
you can take those CDs, digitally tweak them to your heart's content.
Then we can find a panel of listeners and have them make blind
comparisons and pick their preferences. My money is on the Euphonic
colorations of vinyl and my rig in particular and the mastering skills
of the pros doing the audiophile reissues over your EQ and DSP. Call
it a hunch.

Which would prove exactly...Nothing. What a "panel" would choose is
irrelevant to the point being made. Vinyl distortions, euphonic or
otherwise, are constant and invariable (relative to user adjustments),
affecting every recording to some fixed level. The OP's point is that
*he* could provide a much more realistic representation of live music
*to him* using DSP techniques to "personalize" the equalization to his
tastes, as opposed to a one size fits all distortion package. You cannot
credibly argue against that point - you don't get to decide how he
interprets what he hears.

Keith

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 6 Feb 2011 09:52:41 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 5, 10:13=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:


There are some on this forum who continue to posture and make statements
which lead me to believe that in spite of their technical knowledge, they
simply cannot hear

By any objective standard, digital reproduction is more accurate to
the original sound than analog reproduction.

You forgot the word "potentially" in your above statement. Few know this
better than I. Digital is marvelous and can be pretty close to perfect
(especially 24-bit digital or DSD). I know because I record digitally every
week. Unfortunately, commercial digital rarely (if ever) lives up to it's
promise. And the potential of digital doesn't alter the fact that there
remain cases where individual analog LPs sound better than the same works on
CD. That's my only point with regard to LP vs CD.

I think a good case could
be made that people who hear it that way are better listeners than all
the vinylphiles who confuse phase distortion with ambient
reverberation. The latter don't hear at all; they merely imagine.

Don't look now, but your prejudice is showing. I take these things on a
record-by-record basis. Some LPs really do sound much more realistic with
better bass, better highs, and more dynamic range than the CD of the same
release. This isn't due to any euphonic colorations or other distortions,
this is because there is more THERE, there. You should try to give a listen
to some of these discs (like the aforementioned Classics Mercury "Firebird").
You'd be amazed, especially if you could hear it compared to the CD release
of the same performance.

[bob]

On Feb 6, 3:23=A0pm, Scott wrote:

Another claim I'd love to put to the test. I can send you a list of
titles I have on vinyl that I consider to be SOTA for sound quality of
that given title. If you if have any CD version of any of those titles
you can take those CDs, digitally tweak them to your heart's content.
Then we can find a panel of listeners and have them make blind
comparisons and pick their preferences. My money is on the Euphonic
colorations of vinyl and my rig in particular and the mastering skills
of the pros doing the audiophile reissues over your EQ and DSP. Call
it a hunch.

Again, you miss the point. The value of listener-controlled distortion
is that each listener can adjust to his *own" preferences. Why should
I care what your panel thinks, if I am happy--if *I* think my
adjustments have made the recording sound more "lifelike"? You don't
seriously think everyone has the same idea of "what real music sounds
like," do you? Then why should we all be happy with the single set of
distortion artifacts that vinyl imposes on us? Maybe we should regard
vinylphiles as too lazy to try to improve on a weak medium.

And if Arny is right about the strong tug of nostalgia here, then it
is almost certain that your panel of vinylphiles will prefer the old-
fashioned sound. Which would prove what?

bob

[axelstrong]

The problem lies in failing to recognize that many musicians since that time have eclipsed their abilities in huge ways, and often times entire bands have.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 6, 8:47=A0pm, ScottW wrote:
On Feb 6, 1:44=A0pm, Scott wrote:





On Feb 6, 11:18=3DA0am, ScottW wrote:

On Feb 5, 12:19=3D3DA0pm, Scott wrote:

They most certainly were not dialed in for ceramic cartridges. No
consideration was given to the playback equipment of the time when =
the
recordings were made. They remain some of the most amazingly realis=
tic
recordings of orchestral music ever made.

=3DA0 No consideration? =3DA0I find that unbelievable.

here is a brief snip of an interview with Wilma Cozart Fine

http://www.kcstudio.com/wilmacozartfine2.html

"BD: When you make a compact disc out of the tapes which were
originally pressed onto LP, is there ever any desire to tamper with
the balances or the acoustics or anything at all from the original?

WCF: Quite the opposite. What I strive for and work very hard to
achieve is to actually recreate in two channel form the exact sound of
the original three track master. That was the goal whenever we
recorded the LPs and released them on an LP and that remains the goal
for CD as well.

BD: You have stated elsewhere that the conductor had the final say
about such things. Was the conductor in each case pleased with the LP
as it was issued?

WCF: We would not release it if he had not been. The conductor always
had musical approval and we also had him available, or we were
available to him, to listen to as many playbacks and he chose to at
the time of the session. We used the same three speakers and the same
tape machine that I later used to re-master the LP or the CDs. So when
he heard the playback at the session, he heard it over the same
equipment exactly that we would be using in the studio ourselves.

BD: Does it ever occur to you during the recording process to think
about the people who would be listening in living rooms and bedrooms
with different acoustics.

WCF: Oh absolutely. As a matter of fact, that is with you all the
time. What I have done through the years is try to stay with the same
equipment, both for mastering purposes of LPs and CDs and for playback
purposes, that I have used over the years since the time of the
original sessions. So that whatever works with the public, under
whatever listening conditions they were hearing recordings in the
past, I have relied that that would also work for today. There isn=3D92=
t
any way, when doing a recording and re-mastering, that you could take
that into consideration. The only thing that I can do is an honest
recording of the performance itself and try to reproduce that
accurately. The problem of how it=3D92s heard in the home or as its
broadcast over the airwaves or heard in the car is something that the
producer or the manufacturer cannot possibly engineer, cannot possibly
have control over. We just want to bring home something that=3D92s an
honest replication of that performance.

BD: Should there be a booklet of instructions telling them how to set
the equipment?"

There have been many accounts of what went into the recording of the
Mercury Living Presence sessions. They all indicate that they were
making the best possible recordings they could make with no
consideration of the playback equipment at the time or in the future.

=A0 Interesting, thanks for the info.
While they strive for a common outcome, it's pretty clear the masters
for CDs and LPs aren't the same. Obviously they aren't getting to much
into the technical details for that and what consequence on the
outcomes they have.
=A0It does seem to me that vinyl of today has a very noticeable improved
dynamic range relying upon the improved tracking of todays carts vs
those of the 60s.
I wonder if that goes into the master or is simply an altered limit on
the cutting head velocity?

Here is a website that has extensive info on all things Mercury Living
Presence.
http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html
The original pressings were cut from the orginal three track masters.
It does not look like there was all that much difference in the signal
that went to the cutting lathe back in the 50s and the signal used to
master the CDs. I can't speak for the reissues on vinyl made by
Classics or Speaker's Corner. I was not aware that Wilma Cozart Fine
was even involved in those reissues. With that said you can be sure
that minimal tinkering would have been done by Bernie Grundman. He is
a purist almost to a fault.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 6, 8:31=A0pm, KH wrote:
On 2/6/2011 1:23 PM, Scott wrote:



On Feb 6, 11:17 am, =A0wrote:
On Feb 5, 10:15=3DA0pm, =A0wrote:

On Feb 5, 11:42=3D3DA0am, =A0wrote:

If some distortion sounds better, then the listener
should control it: DSP, equalizers, etc.

Why? Do you think I could or you could replicate the unique euphonic
distortions of my vinyl playback equipment or the inherent euphonic
colorations of vinyl that seems to draw audiophiles to that medium by
using DSP and equalizers?

No, I think I could do better. Much better, in fact. That's the whole
point of listener controls--one can tailor the sound any way one
likes, and almost certainly come closer to whatever your idea of good
sound is than any fixed set of distortion artifacts.

Another claim I'd love to put to the test. I can send you a list of
titles I have on vinyl that I consider to be SOTA for sound quality of
that given title. If you if have any CD version of any of those titles
you can take those CDs, digitally tweak them to your heart's content.
Then we can find a panel of listeners and have them make blind
comparisons and pick their preferences. My money is on the Euphonic
colorations of vinyl and my rig in particular and the mastering skills
of the pros doing the audiophile reissues over your EQ and DSP. Call
it a hunch.

Which would prove exactly...Nothing.

Um no, it would be evidence of a common preference.

=A0What a "panel" would choose is
irrelevant to the point being made.

The claim was that Bob could do a better job than my vinyl rig and the
inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl at improving the sound quality.
So it is actually quite relevant to the argument.

Vinyl distortions, euphonic or
otherwise, are constant and invariable (relative to user adjustments),
affecting every recording to some fixed level. The OP's point is that
*he* could provide a much more realistic representation of live music
*to him* using DSP techniques to "personalize" the equalization to his
tastes, as opposed to a one size fits all distortion package. You cannot
credibly argue against that point - you don't get to decide how he
interprets what he hears.


I certainly can put his arguments to the test under blind conditions.
But apparently Bob doesn't want to do that.

I gotta say it is kind of ironic to see so many objectivists making
every excuse under the sun to avoid or dismiss bias controlled testing
of claims of audibility.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 6, 8:46=A0pm, bob wrote:
On Feb 6, 3:23=A0pm, Scott wrote:



Another claim I'd love to put to the test. I can send you a list of
titles I have on vinyl that I consider to be SOTA for sound quality of
that given title. If you if have any CD version of any of those titles
you can take those CDs, digitally tweak them to your heart's content.
Then we can find a panel of listeners and have them make blind
comparisons and pick their preferences. My money is on the Euphonic
colorations of vinyl and my rig in particular and the mastering skills
of the pros doing the audiophile reissues over your EQ and DSP. Call
it a hunch.

Again, you miss the point. The value of listener-controlled distortion
is that each listener can adjust to his *own" preferences. Why should
I care what your panel thinks, if I am happy--if *I* think my
adjustments have made the recording sound more "lifelike"? You don't
seriously think everyone has the same idea of "what real music sounds
like," do you?

I think there is far more commonality to the sound of live music and
with the perceptions of listeners who have extensive experience with
live music. I would expect patterns would emerge in biased controlled
listening tests that test for realism using trained listener panels
that are familia with the sound of live music. I certainly don't think
it is arbitrary.


Then why should we all be happy with the single set of
distortion artifacts that vinyl imposes on us?

A single set? really? All vinyl playback equipment sounds the same?

Maybe we should regard
vinylphiles as too lazy to try to improve on a weak medium.

Well yeah if you chose to ignore what vinylphiles actually do in
chosing their equipment and their LPs. Funny that the sonically
superior medium is now dubbed the weak medium. But it is not about
laziness. it is about acceptance of the fact that it simply is a
better path. I know that I can't do a better job than the best
mastering engineers and I know I don't have the technical chops to
mimic the euphonic colorations of my vinyl rig and the inherent
euphonic colorations of the medium. Certianly not using home DSP and
EQ. Let's not confuse experience and the humility that comes with it
for laziness.



And if Arny is right about the strong tug of nostalgia here, then it
is almost certain that your panel of vinylphiles

"My panel of vinylphiles?" Now I am accused of stacking the deck
before it has been put together and you are already questioning the
credibility of undetermined individuals. Me thinks you are
anticipating unfavorable results and already making excuses.


will prefer the old-
fashioned sound.

I suppose the sound of live music in a real space technically is "old
fashioned."


Which would prove what?


No single test ever "proves" anything. It would simply suggest one
thing or another. but it would be a test of your assertions. Clearly
that is not on the agenda. no point in letting data get in the way of
beliefs. And let's face it. If you get undesirable results it's pretty
hard to attack the people involved in the test.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Feb 5, 7:14 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Feb 4, 6:47 pm, bob wrote:
And would there
be so many if Stereophile and TAS had spent the last 25
years saying, "Look, CD really is technically better.
It's poor CD mastering plus the euphonic distortions
inherent in vinyl that make the vinyl sound better"?

Why would that make a difference?

(1) They wouldn't look as silly as they do now.
(2) They would have the personal satisfaction of having
told the truth all along.
(3) Silly threads like this one, might not being wasting
bandwidth.

Um not sure how to make sense of your response here Arny.

I'm supposed to be surprised by that? ;-)

How does it matter to the audiophile enjoying the
benefits of euphonic distortions

I'm not sure that it is reasonable to expect people who are so deeply into
such questionable things as the purported "euphonic distortions" of vinyl to
care about anything but their own odd beliefs. Therefore, this question can
be dismissed as being unreasonable.

and better mastering on vinyl

In my view the question of better mastering and remastering is similar to
the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The actual
question is "How many times can we resell the same performance and collect
yet another boatload of royalties and administrative fees for it.

Consider Dark Side of the Moon: (source: Wikipedia)

1. The Dark Side of the Moon was released first in the US on 10 March 1973,
and then in the UK on 24 March.
2. The original quadraphonic mix, though commissioned by EMI, was never
endorsed by the band,
3. In 1979, The Dark Side of the Moon was released as a remastered LP by
Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab
4. The album was released by EMI on the then-new compact disc format in 1984
5. The 1984 version was re-released as a 20th-anniversary box set edition
with postcards the following year (1985)
6. Remastered LP by Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab,[89] and in April 1988 on
their "Ultradisc" gold CD format
7. To celebrate the album's 30th anniversary an updated surround version was
released in 2003 (on SACD)
8. The Dark Side of the Moon was also re-released in 2003 on 180-gram virgin
vinyl

(Or) how silly or not silly the writers at Stereophile or TAS look?

The adulation of die-hard LP adherents some 27 years more or less after
being totally and utterly obsoleced by the audio CD was clearly stoked by
these writers. Advertisers paid these jounals hard, cold cash for
advertisements based on their ability to encourge possibly otherwise
sensible people to spend and spend on meaningless "upgrades" again and
again.

How have the audiophiles that have enjoyed
the benefits of euphonic distortions and better mastering
failed to "tell the truth?"

When a recording has been remastered 6 or 8 times like DSOTM, the
probability that the repeated remasteriing is actually improving the end
product signfiicantly each and every time is pretty darn slight.

What is more likely is that people are coming up with derivative
reformulations of the same music that on an unbiased scale would be rated as
being a little better or a little worse, but what is more sure is that it
sounds different. Now, I can make a recording sound appreciably different
to almost anybody by simply turning the volume up or down a fraction of a
dB, and I can make it sound "signficiantly different and improved" to most
people by simply playing the identical same recording again at the identical
same volume while telling them that there has been some dramatic new
technology that was applied for the second playback session. If I'm really
despirate, I can boost or cut the intensity of some band as narrow as 1/3
octave by a dB or two to create yet another different sounding and therefore
*improved* recording.

Clearly silly threads like
this one will exist so long as there are forums that will
allow them.

Given the gullibility of many people, regrettably so.

The results are what they are regardless of why.

Only true if you argue that SP and TAS have no
credibility with audiophiles.

No it's always true. it is a basic truism.The results are
what they are period.


You realize that "they are what they are" is a total and complete trusim and
therefore a gigantic waste of bandwidth all by itself?

One does not magically affect the
sound of their playback by arguing one way or the other
over the credibility of SP and TAS with audiophiles.

Prove it. Please see my former comment: "I can make it sound
"signficiantly different and improved" to most people by simply playing the
identical same recording again at the identical same volume while telling
them that there has been some dramatic new technology that was applied for
the second playback session."

This claim makes absolutely no sense.

Your statement seems to indicate that you are in denial, Scott. Given your
well-documented immense investement in floobydust and snake oil audio
acessories and components...

Better sound is better sound regardless of how you get
there.

Only true if time, effort and equipment have zero cost
associated with acquiring them.

No it is always true.


Please see my former comments about being in denial.

Again it's a basic truism.

Says who that is a reliable and unbiased authority?


better sound does not become inferior sound if one has to spend
time effort or money to get it.


The fact that much "better sound" is an illusion based on unrelaible
listening evaluations and personal influence of industry mavens who are paid
to drum up sales for what is actually the same old, same old. How many
turntables can be sold to a vinylphile? After a while the sequel sales are
probably not for improved technology but rather boredom modification.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 7, 6:59=A0am, Dick Pierce wrote:

False. his claim was VERY specific:

=A0 =A0"No, I think I could do better. Much better, in fact. That's
=A0 =A0the whole point of listener controls--one can tailor the sound
=A0 =A0any way one likes, and almost certainly come closer to whatever
=A0 =A0your idea of good sound is than any fixed set of distortion
=A0 =A0artifacts."

Please address THAT claim and not your misreading, misunderstanding
misinterpretation and/or misrepresentation of that claim.


I did address it.

"I think there is far more commonality to the sound of live music and
with the perceptions of listeners who have extensive experience with
live music. I would expect patterns would emerge in biased controlled
listening tests that test for realism using trained listener panels
that are familia with the sound of live music. I certainly don't
think
it is arbitrary."

So now you can address your misunderstanding of my answer Dick.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 7, 6:40=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Feb 5, 7:14 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Feb 4, 6:47 pm, bob wrote:
And would there
be so many if Stereophile and TAS had spent the last 25
years saying, "Look, CD really is technically better.
It's poor CD mastering plus the euphonic distortions
inherent in vinyl that make the vinyl sound better"?

Why would that make a difference?

(1) They wouldn't look as silly as they do now.
(2) They would have the personal satisfaction of having
told the truth all along.
(3) Silly threads like this one, might not being wasting
bandwidth.
Um not sure how to make sense of your response here Arny.

I'm supposed to be surprised by that? ;-)

How does it matter to the audiophile enjoying the
benefits of euphonic distortions

I'm not sure that it is reasonable to expect people who are so deeply int=
o
such questionable things as the purported "euphonic distortions" of vinyl=
to
care about anything but their own odd beliefs. Therefore, this question c=
an
be dismissed as being unreasonable.

OK so you are using ad hominem to avoid explaining your assertions. We
would call that a logical fallacy.


and better mastering on =A0vinyl

In my view the question of better mastering and remastering is similar to
the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

The analogy fails in that better mastering is a reasonable thing for
an audiophile to explore.

The actual
question is "How many times can we resell the same performance and collec=
t
yet another boatload of royalties and administrative fees for it.

Consider Dark Side of the Moon: (source: Wikipedia)

1. The Dark Side of the Moon was released first in the US on 10 March 197=
3,
and then in the UK on 24 March.
2. The original quadraphonic mix, though commissioned by EMI, was never
endorsed by the band,
3. In 1979, The Dark Side of the Moon was released as a remastered LP by
Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab
4. The album was released by EMI on the then-new compact disc format in 1=
984
5. The 1984 version was re-released as a 20th-anniversary box set edition
with postcards the following year (1985)
6. Remastered LP by Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab,[89] and in April 1988 on
their "Ultradisc" gold CD format
7. To celebrate the album's 30th anniversary an updated surround version =
was
released in 2003 (on SACD)
8. The Dark Side of the Moon was also re-released in 2003 on 180-gram vir=
gin
vinyl

Ah but this list actually falls short. You missed the Japanes Pro
issue and failed to point ou the unique qualities of the original U.K.
v. later masterings not to mention the original U.S. But you see, a
number of folks who care about sound quality and enjoy this album have
actually done comparisons, some under blind conditions and found
substantial differences and were able to chose a prefered version.
These audiophiles are actually enjoying better sound while some folks
spend their time attacking them in endless useless posts on line.



How have the audiophiles that have enjoyed
the benefits of euphonic distortions and better mastering
failed to "tell the truth?"

When a recording has been remastered 6 or 8 times like DSOTM, the
probability that the repeated remasteriing is actually improving the end
product signfiicantly each and every time =A0is pretty darn slight.

Well gish you talk about probabilities here while folks who are
actually interested in getting the best version have done their
homework and got the version they like best.By your logic and
philosophy one would have been best served by the 1984 CD. Have you
ever even heard that version and compared it to the original UK vinyl
version? Oh yeah, in this case that is still the favored version by
most who make the comparisons. Obviously you have not done so. So
ultimately you are just rationalizing your choice of inferior sound
via ignorance of mastering. Bravo.



What is more likely is that people are coming up with derivative
reformulations of the same music that on an unbiased scale would be rated=
as
being a little better or a little worse, but what is more sure is that it
sounds different.

See now if you did your homework you wouldn't have to speculate. How
the various masterings were done is actually pretty well covered by
folks who did the research. Knowledge is power. Your choice to dismiss
the issue of mastering leaves you powerless in the decision making
process and ultimately leads to inferior sound. No wonder you don't
want to take my challenges. Clearly this would expose your dismissal
of all these things as a very poor choice in the persuit of better
sound.

[bob]

On Feb 7, 9:40=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

=A0"I can make it sound
"signficiantly different and improved" =A0to most people by simply playin=
g the
identical same recording again at the identical same volume while telling
them that there has been some dramatic new technology that was applied fo=
r
the second playback session."

I can make it sound better by telling them what a glowing review
Michael Fremer gave the vinyl rig.

I can make it sound better by telling them how much the vinyl rig
cost.

But I repeat myself.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


Another claim I'd love to put to the test. I can send you
a list of titles I have on vinyl that I consider to be
SOTA for sound quality of that given title. If you if
have any CD version of any of those titles you can take
those CDs, digitally tweak them to your heart's content.

You seem to have missed the point, Scott.

The whole point of being able to tweak things to suit your own preferences
is tweaking things to suit *your own* preferences. After all, who knows my
preferences better than me?

It takes a certain amount of knowlege and experience to be able to do this,
but once you can do it, its like riding a bike - you never forget how.

If something is far enough from being normal, the tweaking I do to suit my
own preferences can work for larger audiences. There are some things that
are too bent to be improved. But, I can't predict whether my tweaking will
be perceived as being more or less acceptable to some arbitrary individual.

Most tweaking that is done as part of remastering involves changes to
spectral balance and dynamics. Both of these kind of changes can be done
while adding only minimal amounts of nonlinear distortion. This contrasts
with the inherent audible distortions in the LP format, some of which
involve adding fairly large amounds of nonlinear distortion. You would
probably not knowingly buy a preamp with as much nonlinear distortion as is
inherent in the LP format, except of course that you were convinced that it
would make your CDs sound more like LPs, which might be a deliverable claim.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


The claim was that Bob could do a better job than my
vinyl rig and the inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl
at improving the sound quality.

Much of this is in the eye of the beholder namely you Scott, since the
audible nonlinear distortions that are inherent in the LP format are
generally adverse to the very concept of "High Fidelity" (sonic accuracy).

Your basic methodology, which seems to be to purchase random appliances in
order to recreate a sound that may only exist in your head, lacks
flexibility as compared to the more accepted process of adjusting adjustable
equipment in order to recreate a sound that the operator may have heard
himself in the very recent past.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Feb 7, 6:59=A0am, Dick Pierce
wrote:

False. his (Bob's) claim was VERY specific:

"No, I think I could do better. Much better, in
fact. That's the whole point of listener
controls--one can tailor the sound any way one
likes, and almost certainly come closer to whatever
your idea of good sound is than any fixed set of
distortion artifacts."

Please address THAT claim and not your misreading,
misunderstanding misinterpretation and/or
misrepresentation of that claim.

I did address it.

"I think there is far more commonality to the sound of
live music and with the perceptions of listeners who have
extensive experience with live music. I would expect
patterns would emerge in biased controlled listening
tests that test for realism using trained listener panels
that are familiar with the sound of live music. I
certainly don't think it is arbitrary."

Not at all. Bob made a statement about how the adjustments to sound quality
were made.

Scott, your response discusses the goal of the adjustments of sound quality.

You are now obviously confusing the means with the end. You are attempting
to obfuscate the obvious. I think this is because Bob's points about the
superiority of his means of adjustment are irrefutable and as always, you
don't want to concede him his point.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


I think there is far more commonality to the sound of
live music and with the perceptions of listeners who have
extensive experience with live music.

That's fine and wonderful, but where is even any evidence that this is
indeed how things are?

I would expect
patterns would emerge in biased controlled listening
tests that test for realism using trained listener panels
that are familia with the sound of live music.

You might, with equal amounts of evidence, believe that the moon is made of
green cheese.

I certainly don't think it is arbitrary.

Without any evidence to back your assertions up, they are entirely arbitrary
and self-serving.

Then why should we all be happy with the single set of
distortion artifacts that vinyl imposes on us?

A single set? really? All vinyl playback equipment sounds
the same?

The audible distortion that is inherent in vinyl comes from the same laws of
physics as applied to a very narrow implementation. IME vinyl playback
equipment has a very narrowly-defined set of colorations and distortions.

Maybe we should regard vinylphiles as too lazy to try to improve on a
weak medium.

I don't know if the obviously lack of improvement over the past 30 or so
years is due to their laziness or the refractory nature of the problems they
would need to address.

Well yeah if you chose to ignore what vinylphiles
actually do in chosing their equipment and their LPs.

There is little evidence of an actual rational approach that is being used
by LP-shackled audiophiles to choose equipment above a fairly minimal
quality level.

Funny that the sonically superior medium is now dubbed
the weak medium.

Not funny, this is the consequence of technical progress. The LP is now
generally regarded to be a very technically weak medium.

I know that I can't do a better job than the best
mastering engineers and

I see very little evidence that you've ever tried or even seriously
investigated what it would take.

I know I don't have the technical
chops to mimic the euphonic colorations of my vinyl rig

Well, that's because those euphonic colorations are primarily a creation of
your preferences.


and the inherent euphonic colorations of the medium.

Whether or not such colorations even exist is a controversy.

Certianly not using home DSP and EQ.

At this point the DSP and Eq that is available for use at home may be the
identical same equipment as is used professionally.

Let's not confuse experience and the humility that comes with it for
laziness.

I see no evidence of any relevant experience on your part, Scott.

And if Arny is right about the strong tug of nostalgia
here, then it is almost certain that your panel of
vinylphiles

"My panel of vinylphiles?" Now I am accused of stacking
the deck before it has been put together and you are
already questioning the credibility of undetermined
individuals.

Your biases are well documented, Scott.

Methinks you are anticipating unfavorable
results and already making excuses.

It's called seeing the red herring.

will prefer the old-fashioned sound.

I suppose the sound of live music in a real space
technically is "old fashioned."

You have never responded in a credible way to charges that in fact the sound
of live music in a real space is not your standard.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


But what we have
here is a case where there seem to be several very
disparate points of view.


View one is that it doesn't
matter what path leads to the illusion of live musicians
playing in real space, the illusion is what's important,
not the methodology that got us there.

Sounds good to me.

The second view
says that to be considered high-fidelity a medium must
be, above all, accurate and that a euphonic
representation of a musical performance is no good
because it doesn't sound exactly like the original
recording, no matter how bad that recording might be.

That's an impossible dream at this point in the development of audio.

Only the unvarnished truth is important. To this camp,
those euphonic colorations aren't even listenable, much
less enjoyable.

IMO an overly narrow view of the situation, and possibly due to the fact
that a peculiar set of distortions, namely those that are inherent in the LP
format, are being proposed as being desirable.

The third view is held by what I call the
techno-obsessive. To this camp, vinyl simply cannot be
listened to because it is technically inferior to CD and
they have the math and the specs to prove it.

This looks like a straw man to me. The contemporary question is about why
one would avoid the CD when the vast majority of all well-made recordings
are only available on it or a sequel medium with similar technical
performance.

Their view
is why would anybody want to listen to an obsolete
technology when CD is "perfect"?

I don't think that many here seriously thinks that the actual sonic
perfection of the CD format competely defines the situation that is before
us. The CD is a sonically acurate medium, but the medium does not fully
define what we hear. What we hear is the end of a journey of many steps and
the medium is just one of them.

They won't even
entertain the notion that some LPs might, indeed, sound
better than the CD of the same material, and dismiss
anyone whose opinion differs from that. I think we all
know who falls into which category 8^)

The counterpoint here is the real possibility that to some, "sounds better"
often means music that has suffered the audible corrosive effects of a
caustic medium, namely the LP.

There are some on this forum who continue to posture and
make statements which lead me to believe that in spite of
their technical knowledge, they simply cannot hear - or
if they can, they go out of their way to make it seem
that they can't.

You're confusing hearing ability with preference for an obviously corrupted
level of reproduction.

Of course it could be just a case of
having painted themselves so tightly into a corner, that
they can't get out without looking very foolish, that
does, after all, happen.

What's foolish about preferring to use a medium that is by all reasonable
accounts, simply better?

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 06:40:00 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

When a recording has been remastered 6 or 8 times like DSOTM, the
probability that the repeated remasteriing is actually improving the end
product signfiicantly each and every time is pretty darn slight.

OK, I cannot speak for DSOTM, because I've never heard it in any of its
guises (and I don't even know what's on it, nor do I particularly care but, I
have heard of it), but I can speak to many classical titles that have been
similarly remastered multiple times. RCA Victor was famous (notorious?) for
doing this. First there was the original "Living Stereo" Red Seal "Shaded
Dog" releases in the late '50's and early '60s'. These generally sound great.
Louis Leyton and Richard Mohr were very talented recording engineers who knew
how to use two or three microphones to paint a gorgeous stereo picture. Then
in the late '60's, somebody at RCA came up with the idea of a new "re-issue"
label that was supposed to be more or less analogous to the pulp paperback
book. These two dollar stereo reissues were called the 'Victrola' series.
Generally, they were just OK. A representative title was The Chicago Symphony
under Fritz Reiner's famous recording of Strauss' "Also Sparch Zarathustra".
The original stereo recording was actually made in 1954, but not released on
stereo LP until 1958. The first "Red Seal" version had stupendous bass. The
sustained double - low "C" on the organ which opens this famous piece (used
as the opening to "2001 A Space Odyssey") is rafter rattling on the original
release. On the later Victrola release, it can barely be heard. Then in the
late '70's RCA tried another reissue ploy. This time they called it the RCA
'Gold' series. Still no decent bass. Then came several CD releases - and
here's the strange part. Even with CD's supposed 10 Hz bottom end, none of
the CDs have any bass on them to speak of, either. The opening organ note is
barely audible. The same is true of the hybrid SACD released about 5 years
ago. The bass still does not come anywhere close to equalling that of the
original 1958 LP. Then there was the Classic Records release. This is the
first re-issue of this material that finally sounds RIGHT. Again, the
sustained low 'C' chord shakes the rafters, just like the original Red Seal
did. So, you're right. Most reissues seem to be pale shadows of their
original release. But when somebody finally does get it right, often times
it's right on vinyl, not digital.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Scott" wrote in message


snip

(Or) how silly or not silly the writers at Stereophile or TAS look?

The adulation of die-hard LP adherents some 27 years more or less after
being totally and utterly obsoleced by the audio CD was clearly stoked by
these writers. Advertisers paid these jounals hard, cold cash for
advertisements based on their ability to encourge possibly otherwise
sensible people to spend and spend on meaningless "upgrades" again and
again.

snip

You are aware that at the time CD's were released that The Abso!ute Sound
still was being published with no manufacturer's advertising, are you not?
And five years later it was still accepting ads only from dealers, not
manufacturers. If you are not aware, then stop slandering the audiophile
press. Early CD's on early CD equipment were often unlistenable to many
audiophiles. I have in my possession some of the promo copies of the first
CD releases...The King and I, among others. On my 1989 Phillips CD player
it was literally unlistenable and sounded like it was being played back
through a kazoo (and I only exagerate slightly). Most didn't sound that
bad, but digital glare was much in evidence.

Stereophile was accepting ads by January1988, the first issue I have
retained. It has ads for six CD players, and only one turntable that I can
discover. And here are two interesting excerpts from the letters column of
the issue:

--from reader Thom Lieb--

"Two points really irritate me. First is the magazine's obsession with CD.
Yes, I have heard CDs, and I can understand at least some of the enthusiasm
for them. But until CDs sound markedly better than LPs, I cannot see any
reason to pay more than twice as much for a CD than an LP, other than sheer
gadget craziness."

--and from reader Harry Anderson--

"Recently I went into a record store and found that all the LPs had been
removed from prominent display. In their place there were layers upon
layers of cassettes and CDs. (text deleted explaining his eclectic love of
music and hate for cassettes) I resent, therefore, what appears to be a
push by the record industry to phase out the LP."

So my point is this:

Audiophiles themselves were doing the complaining for the most part, with
critical comments from advertising-free TAS based on sound deficiencies that
was real, at least with some players and some releases. The other leading
magazine was actively promoting CD's and carrying ads almost exclusively for
CD players, while its READERS had complaints about LPs being phased out and
CDs being shoved down their throats. LP's were in full retreat.

Sure sounds like a media-led obsession to convince audiophiles to buy LPs
and record-playing equipment in order to bolster ad revenue, doesn't it?

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 06:38:35 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

Here is a website that has extensive info on all things Mercury Living
Presence.
http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/mercury.html
The original pressings were cut from the orginal three track masters.
It does not look like there was all that much difference in the signal
that went to the cutting lathe back in the 50s and the signal used to
master the CDs. I can't speak for the reissues on vinyl made by
Classics or Speaker's Corner. I was not aware that Wilma Cozart Fine
was even involved in those reissues. With that said you can be sure
that minimal tinkering would have been done by Bernie Grundman. He is
a purist almost to a fault.

Agreed. Grundman is probably one of the most fastidious vinyl mastering
engineers working today. He believes in letting the master tape speak for the
recording and does not believe in reinterpreting it if he can help it.

Thanks for the link the the Mercury Living Presence site. It's pretty good,
but I do take exception to the statement that a stereo recording is only
true-to-life when made with three spaced microphones. This is simply not
true. While it's better than two spaced microphones, Bob Fine once told me
that he didn't do the three-track recording using three tracks strictly for
good stereo. He did it because Mercury was going to sell double-inventory (a
separate stereo and mono pressing of each release) just like every other
record company in the 1950's. The early stereo records would be destroyed if
played with a monaural cartridge (they fixed that later by mixing all the
bass ONLY into the left or lateral-cut channel) so there was a mono version
and a stereo version of each release. Anyway, Fine noticed that when he mixed
right and left together to merge to mono to make a mono cutting master, phase
anomalies caused by the widely spaced omni-directional Telefunken U-47
microphones he used (the caption for the picture on the web-site says that
the mikes are Neumann U-47s, but that's wrong. They were Telefunken U-47s),
caused cancelations and so two mikes don't merge to mono very well. He then
struck upon the idea of making two recordings simultaneously. A stereo
recording using the stage-left and stage-right mikes and a third, overall
mono track by placing a mike stage center and recording it simultaneously
with the stereo version. Initially, he used a separate mono tape recorder for
the center mike, but finding that awkward for the type of location recording
he did, he had Ampex build him a three-track model 300. It was accidental
that he found out that mixing in a bit of the middle track with the left and
right track made for better imaging.

Of course, he could have avoided this entire can of worms by actually doing
an X-Y, A-B, coincident, or M-S stereo pair. When I asked him why he didn't
do that, he said that he wanted to use the mikes in the omni-directional mode
because they had flatter frequency response than they did in either the
cardioid or the figure-of -eight pattern. While this is true, it turns out to
be one of those theoretical things that in reality is a minor-order effect,
that in practical terms is of no consequence. The Fact is you can't do any
kind of X-Y or other stereo pair type recording with closely spaced omnis.
They would be simply too close together to pick-up any left-right difference
and you would get, essentially, only two channel mono. So widely spaced omnis
is the only way to employ that mike pattern stereophonically (unless you're
using Ray Kimbers "Iso-Mike" setup, which hadn't been invented then).

I have used the Mercury spaced-omni microphone setup to record, as well as a
stereo X-Y mike, an A-B pair, a coincident pair, as an M-S configuration (I'm
lucky enough to be able to record the rehearsals of a university symphonic
wind ensemble - I get to "try" everything and anything without fear of
screwing-up a recording). I get the best stereo imaging and the most
realistic soundstage with an X-Y pair or an M-S pair. Spaced omnis doesn't
really work as well as the close-spaced stereo mike set-ups.

I think Mercury would have gotten a much better recording if Fine and Eberenz
had used an original Telefunken ELA M270 stereo mike in either M-S or
cardioid X-Y configuration. Not that they aren't very good as they are 8^)

[bob]

On Feb 7, 2:14=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

Well yeah if you chose to ignore what vinylphiles
actually do in chosing their equipment and their LPs.

There is little evidence of an actual rational approach that is being use=
d
by LP-shackled audiophiles to choose equipment above a fairly minimal
quality level.

Their approach appears to be to compare numerous cartridges with,
among other characteristics, different FR profiles. And yet how many
of them own a decent equalizer?

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message

On Feb 7, 2:14=A0pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

Well yeah if you chose to ignore what vinylphiles
actually do in chosing their equipment and their LPs.

There is little evidence of an actual rational approach
that is being use= d by LP-shackled audiophiles to
choose equipment above a fairly minimal quality level.

Their approach appears to be to compare numerous
cartridges with, among other characteristics, different
FR profiles.

Exactly.


And yet how many of them own a decent equalizer?

Among high end audiophiles, equalizers are generally anathema. OTOH, if the
equalizers are not user-adjustable and sold as cartrdiges or vacuum tube
power amplifiers, then high end audiophiles wax poetic and line up to
sacrifice their dollars.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Scott" wrote in message


snip

(Or) how silly or not silly the writers at Stereophile
or TAS look?

The adulation of die-hard LP adherents some 27 years
more or less after being totally and utterly obsoleced
by the audio CD was clearly stoked by these writers.
Advertisers paid these jounals hard, cold cash for
advertisements based on their ability to encourge
possibly otherwise sensible people to spend and spend on
meaningless "upgrades" again and again.

snip

You are aware that at the time CD's were released that
The Abso!ute Sound still was being published with no
manufacturer's advertising, are you not?


I had long before stopped reading TAS for lack of what was IMO rational
content.

And five years
later it was still accepting ads only from dealers, not
manufacturers.

A nebulus distinction, to say the least.

If you are not aware, then stop slandering the audiophile press.

Why? There's more than enough history since they started accepting ads.

Early CD's on early CD
equipment were often unlistenable to many audiophiles.


Yes, there were a few badly mastered CDs.

I have in my possession some of the promo copies of the
first CD releases...The King and I, among others. On my
1989 Phillips CD player it was literally unlistenable and
sounded like it was being played back through a kazoo
(and I only exagerate slightly). Most didn't sound that
bad, but digital glare was much in evidence.

Digital glare = a malady that tends to disappear when well-made discs are
played, and audiophile hysteria is abated.

Stereophile was accepting ads by January 1988, the first
issue I have retained. It has ads for six CD players,
and only one turntable that I can discover. And here are
two interesting excerpts from the letters column of the
issue:

--from reader Thom Lieb--

"Two points really irritate me. First is the magazine's
obsession with CD. Yes, I have heard CDs, and I can
understand at least some of the enthusiasm for them. But
until CDs sound markedly better than LPs, I cannot see
any reason to pay more than twice as much for a CD than
an LP, other than sheer gadget craziness."

--and from reader Harry Anderson--

"Recently I went into a record store and found that all
the LPs had been removed from prominent display. In
their place there were layers upon layers of cassettes
and CDs. (text deleted explaining his eclectic love of
music and hate for cassettes) I resent, therefore, what
appears to be a push by the record industry to phase out
the LP."

A very limited selection of anecdotes, and one that completely ignores 20
years of publications.

So my point is this:


Audiophiles themselves were doing the complaining for the
most part, with critical comments from advertising-free
TAS based on sound deficiencies that was real, at least
with some players and some releases. The other leading
magazine was actively promoting CD's and carrying ads
almost exclusively for CD players, while its READERS had
complaints about LPs being phased out and CDs being
shoved down their throats. LP's were in full retreat.

...and ignoring the following 20+ years...

Sure sounds like a media-led obsession to convince
audiophiles to buy LPs and record-playing equipment in
order to bolster ad revenue, doesn't it?

If you ignore 20 years of recent data, you can probably prove that pigs fly!
;-)

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 16:17:08 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"bob" wrote in message

On Feb 7, 2:14=A0pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

Well yeah if you chose to ignore what vinylphiles
actually do in chosing their equipment and their LPs.

There is little evidence of an actual rational approach
that is being use= d by LP-shackled audiophiles to
choose equipment above a fairly minimal quality level.

Their approach appears to be to compare numerous
cartridges with, among other characteristics, different
FR profiles.

Exactly.


And yet how many of them own a decent equalizer?

Among high end audiophiles, equalizers are generally anathema. OTOH, if the
equalizers are not user-adjustable and sold as cartrdiges or vacuum tube
power amplifiers, then high end audiophiles wax poetic and line up to
sacrifice their dollars.



Analog equalizers "ring" and even with all the sliders set flat, they
definitely have an "insertion sound" and, believe me, it's not something you
want in your stereo system. Of course that could be avoided with a DSP based
equalizer, but it would need an ADC on one end and a DAC on the other (unless
the whole amplification chain were digital - including the power amp, then it
might be practical).

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 12:33:53 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 7, 2:14=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

Well yeah if you chose to ignore what vinylphiles
actually do in chosing their equipment and their LPs.

There is little evidence of an actual rational approach that is being use=
d
by LP-shackled audiophiles to choose equipment above a fairly minimal
quality level.

Their approach appears to be to compare numerous cartridges with,
among other characteristics, different FR profiles. And yet how many
of them own a decent equalizer?

bob



The best cartridge ever made from the standpoint of flat frequency response
and low distortion, both electrical and tracking, was, believe it or not, the
Shure V15-V MR. Unfortunately, it's no longer made. The funny part is that
when it was being sold, most audiophiles and much of the audiophile press
looked down on it.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 7, 9:05=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



Another claim I'd love to put to the test. I can send you
a list of titles I have on vinyl that I consider to be
SOTA for sound quality of that given title. If you if
have any CD version of any of those titles you can take
those CDs, digitally tweak them to your heart's content.

You seem to have missed the point, Scott.

No I didn't miss the point and this old glib ad hominem is really
getting tired.


Most tweaking that is done as part of remastering involves changes to
spectral balance and =A0dynamics.

You say this from your vast experience as a mastering engineer? Sorry
Arny I get my info on what gores into mastering from actual mastering
engeineers. What you have to say on the subject and what they have to
say on it are very different. Excuse me for siding with the guys who
actually do it.
No point in addressing the rest of your claim as it is founded on a
misunderstanding of the scope of tools, techniquesand other resources
utilized by mastering engineers. there really is no point in
discussing the subject any further until you get a more substantial
education on what goes into high quality mastering.
But just for giggles to tell us how you can use EQ or adjust the
dynamics to compensate for a CD that was mastered using a third
generation copy of the worng master tape that suffered from an a
couple tracks in the multitrack recording being transfered out of
phase? Please tell us how you would even know to fix the problem
without being familiar with the original master tape?

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 7, 11:14=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



I think there is far more commonality to the sound of
live music and with the perceptions of listeners who have
extensive experience with live music.

That's fine and wonderful, but where is even any evidence that this is
indeed how things are?

Before I bother with evidence I have to ask, do you really believe
this is not true? Do you really beleive that there is so little
commonality of the perceptions of people who have extensive experience
with live music that the results of tests gauging realism of various
versions of the same recording will wrought random results and no
patterns will emerge?


I would expect
patterns would emerge in biased controlled listening
tests that test for realism using trained listener panels
that are familia with the sound of live music.

You might, with equal amounts of evidence, believe that the moon is made =
of
green cheese.

=A0I certainly don't think it is arbitrary.

Without any evidence to back your assertions up, they are entirely arbitr=
ary
and self-serving.

Without any evidence to support my assertion that percpetions of
people with extensive experience with live music have certain
commonality and are not completely arbitrary actually makes the
perceptions of said people arbitrary. That is what you are in effect
saying here Arny and I will let that stand on it's own. I don't need
to comment on that position.



Then why should we all be happy with the single set of
distortion artifacts that vinyl imposes on us?
A single set? really? All vinyl playback equipment sounds
the same?

The audible distortion that is inherent in vinyl comes from the same laws=
of
physics as applied to a very narrow implementation. =A0IME vinyl playback
equipment has a very narrowly-defined set of colorations and distortions.

Unfortunately your experience is painfully limited and colored with an
obvious bias. I have offered to put these and other such claims to the
test under blind conditions but you refuse. That says it all.



Well yeah if you chose to ignore what vinylphiles
actually do in chosing their equipment and their LPs.

There is little evidence of an actual rational approach that is being use=
d
by LP-shackled audiophiles to choose equipment above a fairly minimal
quality level.

Do tell us about the evidence Arny. Where do you get your evidence on
the subject of the approaches being used? You clearly failed to either
be aware of or understand my approach. The evidence of that lies in
your gross misrepresentation of my approach.



I know that I can't do a better job than the best
mastering engineers and

I see very little evidence that you've ever tried or even seriously
investigated what it would take.

You probably also see very little evidence of the color of the
furniture in my house. By your logic it is therefore colorless. Arny
it is a basic logical fallacy to use yourself as a reference for
impirical evidence. That is especially true when you remain willfully
ignorant on the subject as shown in your description of the various
masterings of Pink Floyd's DSOTM which was something you cut and
pasted from wickipedia.



I know I don't have the technical
chops to mimic the euphonic colorations of my vinyl rig

Well, that's because those euphonic colorations are primarily a creation =
of
your preferences.

Prove it. I've challenged you to do so under blind conditions and you
continue to be a no show. It's easy to talk the talk. let's see you
walk the walk.



and the inherent euphonic colorations of the medium.

Whether or not such colorations even exist is a controversy.

Yeah like the moon landing is a contraversy.



Let's not confuse experience and the humility that comes with it for
laziness.

I see no evidence of any relevant experience on your part, Scott.

Get back to me on that when you are officially declared the objective
arbitrator of evidence.



And if Arny is right about the strong tug of nostalgia
here, then it is almost certain that your panel of
vinylphiles
"My panel of vinylphiles?" Now I am accused of stacking
the deck before it has been put together and you are
already questioning the credibility of undetermined
individuals.

Your biases are well documented, Scott.

Do show me the documentation that would prove I would stack the deck
in chosing a panel of listeners.



Methinks you are anticipating unfavorable
results and already making excuses.

It's called seeing the red herring.

Do you know what a red herring is?



will prefer the old-fashioned sound.
I suppose the sound of live music in a real space
technically is "old fashioned."

You have never responded in a credible way to charges that in fact the so=
und
of live music in a real space is not your standard.

Sure I have.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 7, 12:33=A0pm, bob wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:14=3DA0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:



"Scott" wrote in message
Well yeah if you chose to ignore what vinylphiles
actually do in chosing their equipment and their LPs.

There is little evidence of an actual rational approach that is being u=
se=3D
d
by LP-shackled audiophiles to choose equipment above a fairly minimal
quality level.

Their approach appears to be to compare numerous cartridges with,
among other characteristics, different FR profiles. And yet how many
of them own a decent equalizer?


Not my approach but anyway keep trying. when you can actually describe
the approach accurately and thereby demonstrate a fair understanding
of it we can then move forward and discuss it's merits. I'm not really
interested in putting out burning straw men which is what this is.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 16:17:08 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"bob" wrote in message

On Feb 7, 2:14=A0pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

Well yeah if you chose to ignore what vinylphiles
actually do in chosing their equipment and their LPs.

There is little evidence of an actual rational approach
that is being use= d by LP-shackled audiophiles to
choose equipment above a fairly minimal quality level.

Their approach appears to be to compare numerous
cartridges with, among other characteristics, different
FR profiles.

Exactly.


And yet how many of them own a decent equalizer?

Among high end audiophiles, equalizers are generally
anathema. OTOH, if the equalizers are not
user-adjustable and sold as cartrdiges or vacuum tube
power amplifiers, then high end audiophiles wax poetic
and line up to sacrifice their dollars.

Analog equalizers "ring"

I've never heard a similar complaint about cartridges and vacuum tube
amplifiers that do exactly the same thing.

Furthermore, a properly designed equalizer will only ring when ringing is a
natural consequence of the correction that has been dialed in and that the
equalizer follows the natural rules of minimum phase filtering. In some
cases the added ringing is actually a compensation for an overdamped
condition elsewhere in the system and is therefore corrective, and not
adverse.

Finally, the criticism was leveled against analog equalzers, which raises
the question what the now-common digital digital equalizers do. The answer
is that many digital equalizers allow the user to adjust phase without
affecting amplitude and/or adjust amplitude without affecting phase. They
are thus not minimum phase filters and may or may not add or subtract
ringing.

This comment shows a lack of understanding of relevant technology.
Equalizers only ring when ringing is indicated by the equalization curve
that they have been directed to implement. The ringing is a consequence of
the filters being minimum-phase filters with the desired bandpass
characteristic.

Again, both a cartridge and an amplifier will ring the same way, if they are
called upon to provide the given frequency response adjustment.

The sad truth is that audiophiles have been taught many misapprehensions
such as this one, in order to sell more expensive and less flexible
solutions to the same general situations.

Equalizers are pretty scary things for many high end audiophiles to interact
with, because unlike many of the vastly overpriced placebo effect-driven
panaceas that the high end audio press has been shoving down their throats
for decades, equalizers are capable of actually audibly changing the sound
quality of an audio system. In a world of placebos, something that actually
has a reliable effect is both strange and scary.

and even with all the sliders
set flat, they definitely have an "insertion sound"

Two problems here. First is the implication that all equalizers have
sliders, i.e., they are graphic equalizers. I personally consider graphic
equalizers to be a lesser tool as compared to parametric equalizers, and
most professionals agree with me. The second is the false claim that all
equalizers color the sound even when their knobs are centered. It is
possible that my correspondent has never had a good equalizer to work with
and I regret this very much. Perhaps he needs more experience with
professional-grade and software-based equalizers.

and, believe me, it's not something you want in your stereo
system.

The irony here is that most audio production environments routinely place
equalizers into the signal path, and often more than one. Thus virtually
every recording that anybody listens to already has one or more of these
tools that are supposedly "not something you want in your stereo system"
already introduced into the non-visible part of their stereo system. Since
we'e talking about LP technology, let us not forget that RIAA equalization
is part and parcel of LP playback and must not be removed from the system.
If equalizers are poison then every LP system is poisoned, and not just a
little.

Of course that could be avoided with a DSP based
equalizer, but it would need an ADC on one end and a DAC
on the other (unless the whole amplification chain were
digital - including the power amp, then it might be
practical).

This is very LP-centric and also outdated thinking. If the recording is
already in the digital domain there is no problem with making the entire
playback chain digital right up to the final power amp. This is outdated
thinking because it obviously presumes that digital analog converters are
necessarily detrimental to sound quality which is no longer true. This is
also wishful thinking because in fact there are no truely digital power amps
on the market. There are power amps with converters and even DSPs inside
their boxes, but these circuits are positioned prior to a totally analog
class A, AB, D, or H power amp. Amps with switchmode output stages are
absolutely not digital. A truely digital power amp would probably be paired
with another non-existent dream (today) called "The truely digital speaker".
They are both like hen's teeth, today.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


Not my approach but anyway keep trying.

Perhaps that would be an indictment of your communication skills?

Scott, I've studied the equipment lists that you've published and the one
thing I see is a lot of placebo effect generators.

This suggests to me that unless your goal is mainly to impress with lists of
makes and models of expensive but ineffective paraphernalia, you're not
following a strategy that is easy to justify or explain.

Please advise!

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Feb 7, 11:14=A0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



I think there is far more commonality to the sound of
live music and with the perceptions of listeners who
have
extensive experience with live music.

That's fine and wonderful, but where is even any
evidence that this is indeed how things are?

Before I bother with evidence I have to ask, do you
really believe this is not true?

I think I've said that in so many words any number of times.

Do you really beleive
that there is so little commonality of the perceptions of
people who have extensive experience with live music that
the results of tests gauging realism of various versions
of the same recording will wrought random results and no
patterns will emerge?

I really believe that remastering is a simple trick that has been a proven
revenue generator. Occasionally the first mastering of a commercial
recording is suboptimal and a re-issue might be in order. The rest of the
time, we're talking about making a recording sound different for the sake of
making it sound different and using trivial changes to generate non-trivial
amounts of money.

[Steven Sullivan]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:02:30 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

how can you claim to speak authoritatively about how digital releases
sound?

I don't claim any authority. My opinion is my opinion. But my opinion
is based on extensive comparisons. I base my opinion on how digital
releases sound by playing them on my system.

And on the result of those comparisons, I concur. CD rarely sounds as good
as it could or should sound and in instances where a CD and a vinyl release
of the same title exist, the LP usually sounds better, as I said before.


Let's remember some history. The fanbase most excited about the coming
of CD circa 1982 wasn't rock or pop or country or jazz. It was 'classical'
fans. These were the listeners championing 'high fidelity' the most
consistently over the previous decades. They were excited about a medium
that promised perfect pitch consistentcy, lack of tracking distortion and
wear, 96dB of dynamic range, flat frequency response from 20Hz to 20kHz,
and immunity from 'pops and tics'.

And it has been classical recording which has continued to hold out
longest against the 'loudness wars' (though some recordings have succumbed).

Do classical releases typically get an LP version these days? And if so,
does it usually 'sound better'?





--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Steven Sullivan]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:18:28 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message

.
We can find many explanations that are strictly due to
sound quality and have nothing to do with nostolgia or
rituals. The large body of better mastered LPs is a very
good and common reason for such a preference along with
the now well documented euphonic distortions that can
lead to a more convincing sense of spaciousness, richness
and realism.

There is no such thing as a "large body of better-mastered LPs", compared to
the huge number of well-mastered CDs that continue to be produced.

Volume-wise, you're probably correct, but today's newly remastered and newly
pressed vinyl from people like Classic Records et al, are generally of older
titles that had a reputation for sounding great back in the day. These
include jazz titles from Verve, Blue Note, and Riverside, (the last two
largely recorded by Rudy Van Gelder), and classic titles from RCA Victor,
Mercury, British Decca, Vox Turnabout, and Everest among others. Just about
every vinyl title that ended up on somebody's "to die for" list is available
again on really high quality pressings. Often these are DMM mastered and
pressed on 180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl, some are cut at 45 RPM, and some are
even single-sided. All are much better than the original pressings from the
original label's manufacturing facilities. And where the same title is also
available on CD, the vinyl USUALLY sounds better.


Says who? The majority of impartial listeners in a double-blind, level matched
comparison of media struck from exactly the same mastering chain?

If not, or if such a subject pool doesn't exist in substantial numbers, then
to say it USUALLY sounds anything, is overstepping...unless you mean,
usually *to you*. In which case the caveats about DBT, level matched etc
still apply.



is evident in the final product. and it's a very rare thing these days. I've
noticed (as have others) that the JVC XRCD Red Book releases of the old RCA
Living Stereo titles actually sound MUCH superior to BMGs own SACD
remasterings of these same titles!

So, why would that be? Do you think the SACD releases, whose background has
was covered well in the audio press, actually was significantly less careful
than JVC's XRCDs?

(Personally, I have the XRCD of the Reiner Bartok, and since getting the
3-channel SACD, haven't looked back. They both sound great to me.)


That's pretty irrelevant to the point here, isn't it Arny? Looks to me that
you have pulled up that old argument confusing quantity with quality. The
purpose of this exercise is to discuss the shortcomings of commercially
available CDs which make them APPEAR to be a medium that is inferior to LP,
SACD, DVD-A and high-resolution downloads, when in fact, it's purely the
execution of those CDs, and not the medium itself which is responsible for
these phenomenon.

Then you're confusing quality and quantity too. You're discussing pop CDs,
mostly. "Commercially available" CDs also include a subset of CDs
that aren't loudness war victims.


Also, I can't help noting that you're not saying anything that hasn't been
said dozens of times before, on this newsgroup....all in the service of
reviving a 'dead' group?

Yes, CD is technically superior to LP on all practical fronts. We know.

Yes, modern recording and mastering practice, particularly of 'popular'
music, often does not exploit the fidelity potential of CD, but does exploit
the loudness potential of digital. Therefore LPs mastered to 'audiophile' standards
could well sound better than their CD counterparts that have been mastered to
a different standard. We know.



--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


You say this from your vast experience as a mastering
engineer?

It is true that I master my own recordings, but that's not my major source
of information.

Sorry Arny I get my info on what goes into
mastering from actual mastering engineers.

There you go, Scott. You obviously don't know an actual mastering engineer
when you see one, because I am one and you obviously deny that indisputable
fact.

I don't do mastering as a separate line of business, but I do quite a bit of
mastering and re-mastering. And, I do mastering and remastering in both the
audio and video domains. I do mastering as an incidental step in the
production of finished audio and video recordings that are viewed by and
sometimes sold to 100s of people in a geographic region that you are
thousands of miles from. Your obvious error is that you seem to think that
you know it all.

What you have
to say on the subject and what they have to say on it are
very different.

Scott, I know that many of the authorities that you follow are actual pied
pipers of audio. They play a song that people want to hear and they obtain a
following. They appeal to people who have obviously (to many professionals)
suspended disbelief in minor but relevant things like the laws of physics.


[ Please bring the discussion back towards audio and away
from the personal. -- dsr ]