[David[_22_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
I think the difference is definitely in production. Some
CD's I own, like Buena Vista Social Club, are just
spectacular.


It seems when the producers want to make a
great sounding CD, they can.

That says it all. No LP can truely be great sounding except in the
imaginations of those very few people who look on a medium that is hobbled
by relatively massive amounts of audible noise and distoriton as being
beneficial.


The thing is Arny, and to get back onto the topic of the thread, the
production of most CDs nowadays is awful.

I know you have a couple of turntables but have you actually bought a vinyl
LP recently and compared it to the same CD? I have bought the CD of most of
the LPs I've bought recently as they are so cheap in comparison and usable
in the car etc.
Invariably the LP will have a much better production with a much wider
dynamic range.

Go out and buy a recently released LP, you might be surprised.

D

[Arny Krueger]

"David" wrote in message


I know you have a couple of turntables but have you
actually bought a vinyl LP recently and compared it to
the same CD?

It's been a while since I did this, so I'm not sure how my LP collection and
my CD collection match up.

I have bought the CD of most of the LPs
I've bought recently as they are so cheap in comparison
and usable in the car etc.
Invariably the LP will have a much better production with
a much wider dynamic range.

Send me some CDs with rips of the LPs and the corresponding CD tracks.
Everytime other people do this for me, the dynamic range issues related to
the LPs are pretty clear.

Go out and buy a recently released LP, you might be
surprised.

I do have a pretty good LP playback system and I did buy some newly minted
LPs, 180 gram vinyl and all just a few years back. No joy!

[Dave Cook]

On Jan 24, 4:22=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
reading the letters-to-the-editor section of a well known and respected
audiophile magazine and found a letter from someone who finished his pean=
to
LP playback (a Garrard 301 turntable, specifically) with the words "I
wouldn't have a CD player if you gave me one." Surely, such passion has s=
ome
root.

Is that root musical? The idea of doing without my favorite
recordings from the last quarter century, much of it music never
available on LP, is unthinkable to me. And then there are all the
reissues of music now nearly impossible to find or prohibitively
expensive on Lp or 78s.

There were people like this who, even late into the Lp era, insisted
on the superiority of 78s!

I have pretty decent analog equipment (Gyro SE + SME 309), but I still
find large-scale classical music better served on CD, and that
includes many originally analog recordings. I like pop on Lp, and
Jazz when I can afford it.

Dave Cook

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 04:18:34 -0800, Dave Cook wrote
(in article ):

On Jan 24, 4:22 pm, Audio Empire wrote:
reading the letters-to-the-editor section of a well known and respected
audiophile magazine and found a letter from someone who finished his pean to
LP playback (a Garrard 301 turntable, specifically) with the words "I
wouldn't have a CD player if you gave me one." Surely, such passion has some
root.

Is that root musical? The idea of doing without my favorite
recordings from the last quarter century, much of it music never
available on LP, is unthinkable to me. And then there are all the
reissues of music now nearly impossible to find or prohibitively
expensive on Lp or 78s.

Well, *I* certainly see that kind of stance as a bit extreme, and don't
personally subscribe to the notion. But OTOH, it is not an unknown or unheard
of stance on this issue. I have seen more than a few people voice a similar
sentiment.

There were people like this who, even late into the Lp era, insisted
on the superiority of 78s!

As one who owns a number of 78's, I can tell you that this opinion makes no
sense at all. The only 78s that sounded decent at all were the British Decca
(London Records in the USA) FFRR discs from the mid-to-late-1940's, and they
touted a frequency response of from only 50 to 14 KHz - and they were,
technically, the BEST 78s ever made. Still, they had the standard 78 surface
noise (a high pitched rushing hiss) that even more mundane 78s always had,
even though beneath that -45 dB S/N ratio, they sounded pretty good. But most
78's simply were not in that league and had little high-frequency response
above 7 Khz.

I have pretty decent analog equipment (Gyro SE + SME 309), but I still
find large-scale classical music better served on CD, and that
includes many originally analog recordings. I like pop on Lp, and
Jazz when I can afford it.

I too have a Gyro SE (which I have had for 11 years and just re-belted and
re-lubed the bearing) and find it an excellent deck. My arm, though, is a new
Jelco SA-750D. I like the 309 and if I could have found one used, in good
condition, at a good price, certainly would have gone for it.

I have some classical LPs that I think sound better than the CD versions, but
these are all re-issues and newly pressed. I too mostly listen to classical
music via CD (like most anybody else) and most often, the sound disappoints
me.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Jan 26, 3:13=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

On Jan 24, 4:22 pm, Audio Empire wrote:
reading the letters-to-the-editor section of a well known and respecte=
d
audiophile magazine and found a letter from someone who finished his p=
ean to
LP playback (a Garrard 301 turntable, specifically) with the words "I
wouldn't have a CD player if you gave me one." Surely, such passion ha=
s some
root.

Is that root musical? =A0The idea of doing without my favorite
recordings from the last quarter century, much of it music never
available on LP, is unthinkable to me. =A0And then there are all the
reissues of music now nearly impossible to find or prohibitively
expensive on Lp or 78s.

Well, *I* certainly see that kind of stance as =A0a bit extreme, and don'=
t
personally subscribe to the notion. But OTOH, it is not an unknown or unh=
eard
of stance on this issue. I have seen more than a few people voice a simil=
ar
sentiment. =A0

There were people like this who, even late into the Lp era, insisted
on the superiority of 78s!

As one who owns a number of 78's, I can tell you that this opinion makes =
no
sense at all. The only 78s that sounded decent at all were the British De=
cca
(London Records in the USA) FFRR discs from the mid-to-late-1940's, and t=
hey
touted a frequency response of from only 50 to 14 KHz - and they were,
technically, the BEST 78s ever made. Still, they had the standard 78 surf=
ace
noise (a high pitched rushing hiss) that even more mundane 78s always had=
,
even though beneath that -45 dB S/N ratio, they sounded pretty good. But =
most
78's simply were not in that league and had little high-frequency respons=
e
above 7 Khz.

I was alive at the time with access to magazines that discussed the
differences between 78's and 33's. And it is just a fact that there
were plenty of letters in magazines extolling the virtues of the
former and the deficiencies of the latter. The debate went on issue
after issue in, if I recall rightly, the pages of "Wireless world",
the premier British electronics magazine and every time I come across
today's "CD's suck and tubes sound ever so much better" tirades in
today's fashionable rags, I am reminded afresh of the 78 vs 33 debates
from all those years ago. In fact, allowing for changes in english
usage over the years many of these early letters could be published
today by just substituting "digital" and "analogue" as appropriate.
Although you don't see too many letters in today's magazines extolling
the virtues of thorn needles over steel ones, or the "real sound" of
the completely sound driven horn gramophones vs the "fake" sound
produced with electronics. And these were tube electronics, mind you.

Ah, the debates of yesteryear.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:14:18 -0800, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):


[ excess quotation snipped -- dsr ]




I was alive at the time with access to magazines that discussed the
differences between 78's and 33's. And it is just a fact that there
were plenty of letters in magazines extolling the virtues of the
former and the deficiencies of the latter.

Yes, I'm aware of that. There were also live vs recorded "shootouts" using
acoustical gramophones back in the early decades of the 20th century that
showed conclusively that there was no difference between a record of the time
and a live performance. This particular bias has followed every advance in
sound reproduction since Edison. Acoustic to electrical transcription, 78 to
LP, mono to stereo, and analog to digital.

The debate went on issue
after issue in, if I recall rightly, the pages of "Wireless world",
the premier British electronics magazine and every time I come across
today's "CD's suck and tubes sound ever so much better" tirades in
today's fashionable rags, I am reminded afresh of the 78 vs 33 debates
from all those years ago. In fact, allowing for changes in english
usage over the years many of these early letters could be published
today by just substituting "digital" and "analogue" as appropriate.
Although you don't see too many letters in today's magazines extolling
the virtues of thorn needles over steel ones, or the "real sound" of
the completely sound driven horn gramophones vs the "fake" sound
produced with electronics. And these were tube electronics, mind you.

Ah, the debates of yesteryear.

It says more about human nature than it does about recorded sound.

[Arny Krueger]

"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message


I was alive at the time with access to magazines that
discussed the differences between 78's and 33's.

As was I. Admittedly I found most of those magazines in storage or used book
stores.

Then there were the controversies of triode versus pentode, transformer
coupling versus capacitor coupling, bass reflex versus acoustic suspension,
Ultra linear taps on output transformers, horns versus direct radiators,
mono versus stereo, tubes versus transistors, etc.

And it is just a fact that there were plenty of letters in
magazines extolling the virtues of the former and the
deficiencies of the latter. The debate went on issue
after issue in, if I recall rightly, the pages of
"Wireless world", the premier British electronics
magazine and every time I come across today's "CD's suck
and tubes sound ever so much better" tirades in today's
fashionable rags, I am reminded afresh of the 78 vs 33
debates from all those years ago.

I still remember the first time I ran into someone who had assidiously
avoided the conversion from mono to stereo.

In fact, allowing for
changes in english usage over the years many of these
early letters could be published today by just
substituting "digital" and "analogue" as appropriate.

Pretty much.

Although you don't see too many letters in today's
magazines extolling the virtues of thorn needles over
steel ones, or the "real sound" of the completely sound
driven horn gramophones vs the "fake" sound produced with
electronics. And these were tube electronics, mind you.

Ah, the debates of yesteryear.

With every sea change there are those who pull their boats up onto the shore
of some desert island, and just stay there forever.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:14:42 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message


I was alive at the time with access to magazines that
discussed the differences between 78's and 33's.

As was I. Admittedly I found most of those magazines in storage or used book
stores.

Then there were the controversies of triode versus pentode, transformer
coupling versus capacitor coupling, bass reflex versus acoustic suspension,
Ultra linear taps on output transformers, horns versus direct radiators,
mono versus stereo, tubes versus transistors, etc.

And it is just a fact that there were plenty of letters in
magazines extolling the virtues of the former and the
deficiencies of the latter. The debate went on issue
after issue in, if I recall rightly, the pages of
"Wireless world", the premier British electronics
magazine and every time I come across today's "CD's suck
and tubes sound ever so much better" tirades in today's
fashionable rags, I am reminded afresh of the 78 vs 33
debates from all those years ago.

I still remember the first time I ran into someone who had assidiously
avoided the conversion from mono to stereo.

Funny story. When I was 17, I worked as a stereo salesman one summer in a
prestigious audio "salon" (we didn't call them high-end stores in those days.
Component audio WAS high end. Period.) in Washington DC called MyerEmco. One
afternoon, a large blustery fellow came storming into the store. It was
obvious that he was head-up about something and I approached him cautiously.
When I asked him what I could help him with, he launched into a tirade about
how MeyerEmco and all other audio shops were bilking the public by selling
them two of everything for this obvious boondoggle called "stereo". I tried
to explain how stereo worked and why it was "a good thing", but he would have
none of it. I even sat him down and played one of those gimmicky "ping-pong"
stereo recordings that were fashionable then. It clearly had two sets of
latin drums on either side of the "soundstage" that called and answered one
another. A left channel drum would speak and the right channel drum would
answer. Nobody could have missed the obvious separation between them. But
even though I could see this guy's eyes shift from left to right and back
again in response to the drums, he insisted that EXACTLY the same thing was
coming from both speakers. He then threatened to sue and to get the Federal
Trade Commission involved in stopping this "obvious fraud". I wandered away
as he continued to rail against stereo and eventually, realizing that nobody
in the store was listening to him any more, he left. To this day, I still
have NO idea what the bee in his bonnet was about.

[Rockinghorse Winner[_6_]]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Arny Krueger wrote:

I still remember the first time I ran into someone who had assidiously
avoided the conversion from mono to stereo.

I know someone who maintains that mono is the better sounding mode.

*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.jamendo.com |/
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis

[Edward Morris]

I find this thread really interesting. I have CD's that sound great, that
seem to be really well miked and engineered and some that really lack
musicality. If some CD's can sound fantastic, why can't all of them sound
that way?

Eddie Morris

"Dave Cook" wrote in message
...
On Jan 24, 4:22=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
reading the letters-to-the-editor section of a well known and respected
audiophile magazine and found a letter from someone who finished his pean=
to
LP playback (a Garrard 301 turntable, specifically) with the words "I
wouldn't have a CD player if you gave me one." Surely, such passion has s=
ome
root.

Is that root musical? The idea of doing without my favorite
recordings from the last quarter century, much of it music never
available on LP, is unthinkable to me. And then there are all the
reissues of music now nearly impossible to find or prohibitively
expensive on Lp or 78s.

There were people like this who, even late into the Lp era, insisted
on the superiority of 78s!

I have pretty decent analog equipment (Gyro SE + SME 309), but I still
find large-scale classical music better served on CD, and that
includes many originally analog recordings. I like pop on Lp, and
Jazz when I can afford it.

Dave Cook

[Arny Krueger]

"Edward Morris" wrote in message


I find this thread really interesting. I have CD's that
sound great, that seem to be really well miked and
engineered and some that really lack musicality. If some
CD's can sound fantastic, why can't all of them sound
that way?

Producing a distributable recording is a journey of several steps.

The delivery media (CD versus LP) is just one of them.

The reelvant steps a

1. Recording of individual tracks, some of which may be synthesized. This
includes choices relating to micing and choice of recording venue
2. Mixing tracks into a master recording, including adding EFX and adjusting
the levels, spectral and dynamic content of the tracks
3. Mastering - final editing and adjustments to the spectral and dynamic
range content of the songs
4. Authoring - laying out the track order on the album, adding fade ins,
fade outs if not already in place, adjust relative audio levels of tracks

At this point how the album plays is fully determined, other than the
mechanics of media duplication. The whole LP versus CD discussion is really
about the mechanics of media duplication as all the other steps can be the
same for either medium.

Steps 1-3 in particual can make or break a recording.

[Robert Peirce]

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

Thought I's stir up some activity here. This place is as dead as a sail-cat.
Most of those who contribute here seem to be of two minds with regard to the
question of which is more "musical", LP or CD. There is also a third point of
view (mine) which says that both have their place and both are viable music
sources and can be enjoyable.

You should have stopped here. Getting into which is actually better
just provokes arguments. The fact is I enjoy both, I suspect most
people would enjoy well setup vinyl playback using quiet sides just as
they enjoy well setup CD systems.

Recently, I have been loading my CDs into iTunes to use as a music
server. While doing that I felt the need to include some LPs. I used a
product called Pure Vinyl to do the transfers. I take very good care of
my LPs, some of which I bought in the late 50s. They are extremely
quiet.

Playback is via an Apple TV optically connected to a Peripheral
Technologies DAC which is connected to the balance of my stereo system.
That system, uses Classe electronics driving Apogee Diva speakers. It
is a pretty old setup but still sounds better than anything else I have
heard that I might reasonably afford.

Here's the interesting thing. I normally use iTunes DJ to play a random
selection of tunes from my library. Unless I happen to recognize the
piece as coming from a specific source, I am hard-pressed to tell if the
original source was a CD or LP.

You might say, well the iTunes system is inferior and masks the source.
Not true. When I play a CD or LP directly, it doesn't sound any better
(or worse) than playing it from iTunes. It is just less convenient.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:08:15 -0800, Robert Peirce wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

Thought I's stir up some activity here. This place is as dead as a
sail-cat.
Most of those who contribute here seem to be of two minds with regard to
the
question of which is more "musical", LP or CD. There is also a third point
of
view (mine) which says that both have their place and both are viable music
sources and can be enjoyable.

You should have stopped here.

Not really. My point is how commercial CDs don't, generally speaking, provide
the performance that they are capable of. The LP was merely mentioned as a
reason perhaps why many people don't see the superiority of CD over vinyl,
and was really just used as an analogy.

Getting into which is actually better
just provokes arguments. The fact is I enjoy both, I suspect most
people would enjoy well setup vinyl playback using quiet sides just as
they enjoy well setup CD systems.

Again, which is better is not really the point. And I too enjoy both.

Recently, I have been loading my CDs into iTunes to use as a music
server. While doing that I felt the need to include some LPs. I used a
product called Pure Vinyl to do the transfers. I take very good care of
my LPs, some of which I bought in the late 50s. They are extremely
quiet.

I use iTunes and an Apple TV as well, but recently I got a Logitech
Squeezebox Touch and I think it is a better streaming appliance (especially
for Internet radio) than is the Apple TV. I up-sample the Toslink digital
from the Apple TV/Squeezebox Touch to 24/96 before feeding my
dual-differential 24/192 DAC.

Playback is via an Apple TV optically connected to a Peripheral
Technologies DAC which is connected to the balance of my stereo system.
That system, uses Classe electronics driving Apogee Diva speakers. It
is a pretty old setup but still sounds better than anything else I have
heard that I might reasonably afford.

Here's the interesting thing. I normally use iTunes DJ to play a random
selection of tunes from my library. Unless I happen to recognize the
piece as coming from a specific source, I am hard-pressed to tell if the
original source was a CD or LP.

You might say, well the iTunes system is inferior and masks the source.
Not true. When I play a CD or LP directly, it doesn't sound any better
(or worse) than playing it from iTunes. It is just less convenient.

Agreed.

[C. Leeds]

On 1/26/2011 7:08 PM, Robert Peirce wrote:

Getting into which is actually better
just provokes arguments. The fact is I enjoy both, I suspect most
people would enjoy well setup vinyl playback using quiet sides just as
they enjoy well setup CD systems.

Bingo! I think this is true of many audiophiles. I also occasionally
listen to reel-to-reel, and I have no problem acknowledging that I think
the iPod is one of the best audio values of all time. Mine gets lots of use.

[Kele]

Wow, this is a heck of a subject. I have done my own experiment
between a Gold CD against a Japanese vinyl pressing of Dark Side of
the Moon. Does that count? I think so. I know which my favorite
rendition is. I suppose to explain the difference is similar to
explaining the difference between live and recorded music. It is
difficult to explain, but it's not difficult to tell which is which.
Even the best sound reproduction systems I've heard aren=92t the same as
live. My memory of hearing live is all I have. And I agree that the
environment of the live also influences my memory. If I compare each,
digital and analog sources, against my memory of live... that answer
would be my preferred medium.

I've done the blind test (unofficial), but all that's doing is helping
prove if there is a difference. The difference between analog and
digital? No, we shouldn=92t stray away from the true goal, the sound of
Live. [I=92m leaving the environment out of this, ok] This is the part
that leaves science behind... Which "feels" closest to live? Or,
which reminds me most of live. That's all. I don't know if digital
discs can potentially sound better than record albums or not. So far
neither sounds like live - really. It's like a ripple sandwiched
between two panes of glass, the ripple can't fully expand. But which,
analog or digital, is the glass further apart? I say lets remove the
glass!

Both digital and analog have their strong and weak points. Is this
topic trying to uncover the weaknesses (against live)? We know vinyl
grooves can=92t be cut to save all the sound, and we know that
converting to digital involves rounding to the nearest whole. Either
way, the information is not all there and that=92s why it sounds flatter
than live. I=92m guessing analog is the least processed, and digital is
capable of holding more information. How then can the best of both be
combined? Saying it to myself like this, I would say digital has the
potential to be better than analog (vinyl) if only the processing can
be truly out of the way. Cannot a laser light track a continuous
groove (sound wave)? If the signal didn=92t have to be converted to
mathematics, there can be greater chance to approach live.

For now, vinyl reminds me more of live, but I think vinyl has reached
its max capability. What if it weren=92t made of vinyl? What if the
recorded medium was made of a substance that could support all the
information and the reader could collect all the information (without
physical touch). No ones & zeros, just ripples. Then we could more
clearly hear what=92s not right about the pick-up devices. Like vinyl,
I fear digital will also plateau short of the mark.

Kele

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

On 2/14/2011 6:54 AM, Kele wrote:
we know that converting to digital involves
rounding to the nearest whole.

And if that's indeed what we "knew", we would
indeed be wrong. While it seems intuitively
correct, it is simply not the case.

Any number of sources have been available for
long before the advent of the CD demonstrating how
this "rounding to the nearest whole" notion is
incorrect. Indeed check Blesser's article in the
late 1970's as to how any properly implemented
digital system can capture information substantially
below the "nearest whole." And he was hardly the
first to describe a process which was, at that
point, a well-understood principle in any number of
disciplines. Definitive articles on the principle
date back at least to the mid-1960's.


Cannot a laser light track a continuous groove (sound wave)?

Ask Finial how their turntable is going. Oh, wait, they're
out of business, never having sold a one.

If the signal didn't have to be converted to mathematics,
there can be greater chance to approach live.

Again, all due respect, while this might seem an
intuitive, comfortable view of how it works, it is
naive and simply is not the case.

And, using your analogy nonetheless, how is, for
example, an analog computer any less "mathematical"
than a digital computer?

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 14, 6:49=A0am, Dick Pierce wrote:

Ask Finial how their turntable is going. Oh, wait, they're
out of business, never having sold a one.

Maybe it would be better to ask the company that bought them out and
still is in business after what? 20 years? They *have* sold laser
turntables. I've actually heard one.
http://www.elpj.com/

ooooooops

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Feb 14, 6:49=A0am, Dick Pierce
wrote:

Ask Finial how their turntable is going. Oh, wait,
they're out of business, never having sold a one.

Maybe it would be better to ask the company that bought
them out and still is in business after what? 20 years?
They *have* sold laser turntables. I've actually heard
one.
http://www.elpj.com/

ooooooops

I've seen and heard the ELP product, and I know what its usage entails. The
inhrent failings of the process are well known. It wasn't the total solution
that it intuitively seems to be.

BTW Scott, how is your ELP turntable working out for you? ;-)

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 14, 9:49=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Feb 14, 6:49=3DA0am, Dick Pierce
wrote:

Ask Finial how their turntable is going. Oh, wait,
they're out of business, never having sold a one.
Maybe it would be better to ask the company that bought
them out and still is in business after what? 20 years?
They *have* sold laser turntables. I've actually heard
one.
http://www.elpj.com/
ooooooops

I've seen and heard the ELP product, and I know what its usage entails. T=
he
inhrent failings of the process are well known. It wasn't the total solut=
ion
that it intuitively seems to be.

The one I heard seemed to work fine. Not my first choice in sound
quality but I'm not sure what the inherent failings were.


BTW Scott, how is your ELP turntable working out for you? =A0 ;-)

I don't own one Arny. I heard one played at one of the many hifi shows
way back.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 06:49:06 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

On 2/14/2011 6:54 AM, Kele wrote:
we know that converting to digital involves
rounding to the nearest whole.

And if that's indeed what we "knew", we would
indeed be wrong. While it seems intuitively
correct, it is simply not the case.

Any number of sources have been available for
long before the advent of the CD demonstrating how
this "rounding to the nearest whole" notion is
incorrect. Indeed check Blesser's article in the
late 1970's as to how any properly implemented
digital system can capture information substantially
below the "nearest whole." And he was hardly the
first to describe a process which was, at that
point, a well-understood principle in any number of
disciplines. Definitive articles on the principle
date back at least to the mid-1960's.


Cannot a laser light track a continuous groove (sound wave)?

Ask Finial how their turntable is going. Oh, wait, they're
out of business, never having sold a one.

I had several prototypes sent to me. It NEVER worked right. The thing
wouldn't stay in alignment and wouldn't track for long. the tracking
mechanism was analog (like the early laserdisc players) and wouldn't stay in
the groove. When it worked, it seemed miraculous, but, alas...

Teldec and Philips both did research in high-resolution analog "disc
recorder" systems in the 1970's but that research never really went anywhere
because it still had all the problems of analog tape: Distortion and noise
build-up generationally, wow and flutter, and easily damaged surfaces. The
Philips system used a laser (and in fact, part of their system ended-up being
used as the sound delivery system for the LasedDisc format). The Teldec
system (IIRC) used a focused RF field to "spot" soften the plastic media of
the disc and a piezo-driven stylus to inscribe the wide-band FM audio
carrier. It went nowhere, but I understand that Teldec did master a couple of
albums using the system. Again, it had all the problems associated with
analog sound and outlined above. Basically analog is a dead-end as far as
either audio or video capture, archiving and playback systems are concerned.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 03:54:11 -0800, Kele wrote
(in article ):

Wow, this is a heck of a subject. I have done my own experiment
between a Gold CD against a Japanese vinyl pressing of Dark Side of
the Moon. Does that count? I think so. I know which my favorite
rendition is. I suppose to explain the difference is similar to
explaining the difference between live and recorded music. It is
difficult to explain, but it's not difficult to tell which is which.
Even the best sound reproduction systems I've heard aren=92t the same as
live. My memory of hearing live is all I have. And I agree that the
environment of the live also influences my memory. If I compare each,
digital and analog sources, against my memory of live... that answer
would be my preferred medium.

OK, this question might SEEM to be an attempt to denigrate rock music as a
reference, but it really isn't. It's an attempt by me to understand how this
kind of music can be used for serious audio evaluations.

I don't listen to rock and never have. Of course, I've heard it all through
high-school and college as everybody else listened to it so I heard it
whether I wanted to or not. But you talk about live vs recorded here, and I
wonder when you have ever heard Pink Floyd "Live"? Now before you list the
number of Pink Floyd concerts that you might have attended, let me define
"live music" as I understand and define the term.

The term "live music" infers (1) real musicians, (2) playing un-amplified
music (3) in real time (IOW, if you go to a symphony orchestra concert, you
have a good chance of hearing the orchestra with NO amplification. That's
"live music"). And while the average rock concert certainly meets criteria
numbers one and three, it misses out on the critical number two. All
hard-rock concerts are artificial. You are not listening to the actual
instruments, you are listening to a public address system. Not only that, but
every rock live sound engineer that I've ever read about says that they mix
and EQ the performance to sound as much like their band's recordings as
possible because that's what the fans want to hear - familiar music that
sounds familiar to them. Solid-body electric guitars, make no sound (to speak
of) without an amplifier. Neither do any other electronic instruments such as
synthesizers and Fender Rhodes pianos. So, in effect, there is no way to hear
most rock "unamplified."

So the question remains: how do you discern the sound of "live" rock from
recorded, when it's never really live in the first place, and when the
concerts are engineered to mimic the group's recordings?

I've done the blind test (unofficial), but all that's doing is helping
prove if there is a difference. The difference between analog and
digital? No, we shouldn=92t stray away from the true goal, the sound of
Live. [I=92m leaving the environment out of this, ok] This is the part
that leaves science behind... Which "feels" closest to live? Or,
which reminds me most of live. That's all. I don't know if digital
discs can potentially sound better than record albums or not. So far
neither sounds like live - really. It's like a ripple sandwiched
between two panes of glass, the ripple can't fully expand. But which,
analog or digital, is the glass further apart? I say lets remove the
glass!

This is, basically, the crux of the debate. Those to whom the sound of vinyl
is anathema say that vinyl is so fatally flawed as to be unlistenable. They
cite all kinds of different types of distortion inherent in the medium. Funny
thing is, people who listen to vinyl and enjoy it, don't notice these
anomalies. Only vinyl's detractors claim to find the act of listening ruined
by these various distortions. Can vinyl feel closest to live? Sometimes, yes,
other times digital is the closest approach to the original sound.

Both digital and analog have their strong and weak points. Is this
topic trying to uncover the weaknesses (against live)? We know vinyl
grooves can=92t be cut to save all the sound, and we know that
converting to digital involves rounding to the nearest whole. Either
way, the information is not all there and that=92s why it sounds flatter
than live. I=92m guessing analog is the least processed, and digital is
capable of holding more information. How then can the best of both be
combined? Saying it to myself like this, I would say digital has the
potential to be better than analog (vinyl) if only the processing can
be truly out of the way. Cannot a laser light track a continuous
groove (sound wave)? If the signal didn=92t have to be converted to
mathematics, there can be greater chance to approach live.

Aside from the fact that your description of the digital process shows a
basic lack of understanding about how the digital quantification process
actually works ("...rounding off to the nearest whole"), this thread started
as an examination of how record companies so purposely dilute and restrict
the sound that they put on CD, that often, the end result is no better than
vinyl and that in some cases, the vinyl is much easier and much more
"lifelike" to listen to.

For now, vinyl reminds me more of live, but I think vinyl has reached
its max capability.

The point is that vinyl shouldn't remind you more of live as digital is much
more accurate. Many recording engineers (including yours truly, here) have
noted that a high-resolution digital recording can be indistinguishable from
the microphone feed from which the recording was made. You really can't ask
any more of a recording medium than that.

What if it weren=92t made of vinyl? What if the
recorded medium was made of a substance that could support all the
information and the reader could collect all the information (without
physical touch). No ones & zeros, just ripples. Then we could more
clearly hear what=92s not right about the pick-up devices. Like vinyl,
I fear digital will also plateau short of the mark.

That's been tried. Analog (ripples) recorders, even very high resolution
analog recorders (there was an analog optical recorder in the early eighties)
suffer from problems that make digital better. For instance, an analog
recording is always going to suffer generational losses when copied (a copy
will always be at least 3 dB noisier and have increased distortion over the
generation from which it is copied). Digital, can, OTOH, theoretically, be
copied, serially, an infinite number of times with no generation loss. In
reality, of course, the added noise with each generation is THERE, it's just
that the noise is analog and the system is looking for ones and zeros. BUT,
eventually, it is conceivable that the background noise can get so high that
the digital intelligence cannot be read through the noise. Of course, when
that happens, you don't really get an increase in noise in the digital
signal, in the digital recording, you get read errors and enough of those
will cause the file to not play at all, and that is the practical limit of
serial copies of a digital file (although, that would indicate a very high
number of generations away from the oriiginal recording, and realistically
speaking, would never happen.

Kele

[Andrew Haley]

Audio Empire wrote:

The term "live music" infers (1) real musicians, (2) playing
un-amplified music (3) in real time (IOW, if you go to a symphony
orchestra concert, you have a good chance of hearing the orchestra
with NO amplification. That's "live music"). And while the average
rock concert certainly meets criteria numbers one and three, it
misses out on the critical number two. All hard-rock concerts are
artificial.

You're saying, then, that the body of a string instrument is not
artificial, and neither is the sound board of a piano, or the bell of
a trumpet, or an organ pipe. But somehow, a guitar amplifier is.
This is a wholly arbitrary definition; it makes no sense. There's
nothing special about purely acoustic amplifying devices. Many (all?)
electric guitarists will tell you that their Marshall (or whatever
they use) is an essential part of the instrument.

Digital, can, OTOH, theoretically, be copied, serially, an infinite
number of times with no generation loss. In reality, of course, the
added noise with each generation is THERE, it's just that the noise
is analog and the system is looking for ones and zeros. BUT,
eventually, it is conceivable that the background noise can get so
high that the digital intelligence cannot be read through the
noise. Of course, when that happens, you don't really get an
increase in noise in the digital signal, in the digital recording,
you get read errors and enough of those will cause the file to not
play at all, and that is the practical limit of serial copies of a
digital file (although, that would indicate a very high number of
generations away from the oriiginal recording, and realistically
speaking, would never happen.

That's not true: noise does not build up between generations of
digital copies. It's quite likely that a second-generation copy has
less analog noise than the original.

Andrew.

[Arny Krueger]

"Andrew Haley" wrote in
message

Audio Empire wrote:

The term "live music" infers (1) real musicians,

What would an effective unreal musican be like?

A robot? ;-)

(2) playing un-amplified music (3) in real time (IOW, if you
go to a symphony orchestra concert, you have a good
chance of hearing the orchestra with NO amplification.
That's "live music"). And while the average rock concert
certainly meets criteria numbers one and three, it
misses out on the critical number two. All hard-rock
concerts are artificial.

You're saying, then, that the body of a string instrument
is not artificial, and neither is the sound board of a
piano, or the bell of a trumpet, or an organ pipe.

Other than the organ pipe, these are all mechanical amplifiers. AFAIK organ
pipes don't amplify, simply make big sound by being big.

But somehow, a guitar amplifier is.

Which begs the question of why we allow amplifiers to be components of hi fi
systems if they are inherently so unnatural.

This is a wholly arbitrary definition; it makes no sense.

The sense it makes lies in the history of the development of musical
instruments, not in the artificial distinction that you correctly question.

There's nothing special about purely acoustic amplifying devices.

In fact they have a lot of nasty inherent limitations, such as the law of
conservation of energy.

Many (all?) electric guitarists will tell you that their
Marshall (or whatever they use) is an essential part of
the instrument.

I look at musical instrument amplifiers as a replacement for or a
continuation of the base musical instrument. Ironically, most of the live
sound gigs I do lack musical instrument amplifiers. We use things that are
closer to hi fi amplifiers and speakers, and encapsulate the simulation of
the sounding board in purpose-built electronics.

Digital, can, OTOH, theoretically, be copied, serially,
an infinite number of times with no generation loss. In
reality, of course, the added noise with each generation
is THERE, it's just that the noise is analog and the
system is looking for ones and zeros. BUT, eventually,
it is conceivable that the background noise can get so
high that the digital intelligence cannot be read
through the noise.

This description seems to miss the point that we zero out the analog media
noise in every new digital generation. The generational noise is corrected
while it is still easily correctable so that it never builds hp.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 14, 7:14=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 03:54:11 -0800, Kele wrote
(in article ):

Wow, this is a heck of a subject. =A0I have done my own experiment
between a Gold CD against a Japanese vinyl pressing of Dark Side of
the Moon. =A0Does that count? =A0I think so. =A0I know which my favorit=
e
rendition is. =A0I suppose to explain the difference is similar to
explaining the difference between live and recorded music. =A0It is
difficult to explain, but it's not difficult to tell which is which.
Even the best sound reproduction systems I've heard aren=3D92t the same=
as
live. =A0My memory of hearing live is all I have. =A0And I agree that t=
he
environment of the live also influences my memory. =A0If I compare each=
,
digital and analog sources, against my memory of live... that answer
would be my preferred medium.

OK, this question might SEEM to be an attempt to denigrate rock music as =
a
reference, but it really isn't. It's an attempt by me to understand how t=
his
kind of music can be used for serious audio evaluations.

I don't listen to rock and never have. Of course, I've heard it all throu=
gh
high-school and college as everybody else listened to it so I heard it
whether I wanted to or not. But you talk about live vs recorded here, and=
I
wonder when you have ever heard Pink Floyd "Live"? Now before you list th=
e
number of Pink Floyd concerts that you might have attended, let me define
"live music" as I understand and define the term.

The term "live music" infers (1) real musicians, (2) playing un-amplified
music (3) in real time (IOW, if you go to a symphony orchestra concert, y=
ou
have a good chance of hearing the orchestra with NO amplification. That's
"live music"). And while the average rock concert certainly meets criteri=
a
numbers one and three, it misses out on the critical number two.

Point 1. Darkside of the Moon isn't a live album. 2. many of the
elements in tht album and many many other rock albums are "acoustic."
3. not much recorded classical these days is Live and real time. Most
of it is edited to hell and back.

All
hard-rock concerts are artificial. You are not listening to the actual
instruments, you are listening to a public address system. Not only that,=
but
every rock live sound engineer that I've ever read about says that they m=
ix
and EQ the performance to sound as much like their band's recordings as
possible because that's what the fans want to hear - familiar music that
sounds familiar to them. Solid-body electric guitars, make no sound (to s=
peak
of) without an amplifier. Neither do any other electronic instruments suc=
h as
synthesizers and Fender Rhodes pianos. So, in effect, there is no way to =
hear
most rock "unamplified."

So the question remains: how do you discern the sound of "live" rock from
recorded, when it's never really live in the first place, and when the
concerts are engineered to mimic the group's recordings?

Certain elements do the trick. We do have experience with human
voices, drum kits, acoustic guitars, painos etc. We can judge the
quality of those elements aginst our experience with live music. Heck
just listen to the barrage of clocks going off at the begining of the
track called Time on Darkside of the Moon. Sounds pretty real.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 08:43:53 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

Point 1. Darkside of the Moon isn't a live album.

I don't recall supposing that it was.

2. many of the
elements in tht album and many many other rock albums are "acoustic."

Yes, of course, the vocals, the drum kit, any brass instruments used, are all
acoustic. But the guitars aren't and neither is the bass (usually a guitar
itself, these days, I suspect)


3. not much recorded classical these days is Live and real time. Most
of it is edited to hell and back.

The fact that classical and acoustic jazz are edited in no way changes the
fact that what is CAPTURED by the recording process is the sound of those
instruments as they played in real time and in a real space, just as you
would hear them on stage. There is no PA system between thos einstruments and
the recording microphone. When I go to the symphony, I hear the music altered
only by the acoustics of the space in which they are playing (and I am
listening) THAT is live music.

So the question remains: how do you discern the sound of "live" rock from
recorded, when it's never really live in the first place, and when the
concerts are engineered to mimic the group's recordings?

Certain elements do the trick. We do have experience with human
voices, drum kits, acoustic guitars, painos etc. We can judge the
quality of those elements aginst our experience with live music. Heck
just listen to the barrage of clocks going off at the begining of the
track called Time on Darkside of the Moon. Sounds pretty real.

OK, I guess that answers the question. It still all seems so very artificial
to me.

[Harry Lavo]

"Scott" wrote in message
...

snip, irrelevant to what follows


Certain elements do the trick. We do have experience with human
voices, drum kits, acoustic guitars, painos etc. We can judge the
quality of those elements aginst our experience with live music. Heck
just listen to the barrage of clocks going off at the begining of the
track called Time on Darkside of the Moon. Sounds pretty real.


Actually, I've heard the clocks sound very real (my grandparents had a house
full of wind-ups...I've head at least eight of various sizes go off at once)
to sounding very unreal. Using the SACD version. And the culprit....the
preamp. Audio Research SP6B vs. Onkyo P301. So much for big-box store
electronics.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Scott" wrote in message
...

snip, irrelevant to what follows


Certain elements do the trick. We do have experience
with human voices, drum kits, acoustic guitars, painos
etc. We can judge the quality of those elements aginst
our experience with live music. Heck just listen to the
barrage of clocks going off at the begining of the track
called Time on Darkside of the Moon. Sounds pretty real.


Actually, I've heard the clocks sound very real (my
grandparents had a house full of wind-ups...I've head at
least eight of various sizes go off at once) to sounding
very unreal. Using the SACD version. And the
culprit....the preamp. Audio Research SP6B vs. Onkyo
P301. So much for big-box store electronics.

I own a weight-driven grandfather clock with chime movement, so I know
exactly what one sounds like. I can move it in my listening room and listen
to it chime, if I want the true live experience.

Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like it is entirely possible with the CD
version, mid-fi electronics and speakers that are well-configured for the
room.

The DSOTM recording was miced incredibly close, so any claims that
close-micing bodes poorly for fidelity is brought into question by the high
end audiophile comments on this thread.

[Arny Krueger]

"Kele" wrote in message


Even the best sound reproduction systems I've heard
aren't the same as live.

Agreed.

My memory of hearing live is all I have.

As a live recordist, I very often have the opportunity to experience the
live performance, the feed from the microphone, and a digitized version of
the microphone feed with as little delay as is humanly possible. I get to do
this with a large number of varying musical groups, and in a reasonable
selection of venues.

And I agree that the environment of the live
also influences my memory. If I compare each, digital
and analog sources, against my memory of live... that
answer would be my preferred medium.

The feed from the microphone and the 16/44 digitized version of it are
indistinguishable when time, frequency response, and amplitude are
reasonably close. With a good digital system, only matching amplitudes need
be observed because the rest matches up automatically.

The difference between analog and digital?

There need not be any. 30 years ago this transparent performance in and out
of the digital domain cost serious money. No more.

No, we shouldn't stray away from the true goal, the sound of
Live. [leaving the environment out of this, ok]

If we can't find the sound of live at the outputs of the microphones, it
would seem like finding it further on down the chain would be an elusive
goal.

This is the part that leaves science behind...

Not necesarily.

Which "feels" closest to live?

This would be emotion and/or perception which are now part of the study of
science.

Or, which reminds me most of live.

Also in the domain of science, just not electronics science.

That's all. I don't know if digital discs can
potentially sound better than record albums or not.

From a technical standpoint the answer seems clear.

So far neither sounds like live - really. It's like a
ripple sandwiched between two panes of glass, the ripple
can't fully expand. But which, analog or digital, is the
glass further apart? I say lets remove the glass!

Digital clearly lets the glass separate the furthest, and not really intrude
on the reproduction process. Getting back to the problem of live sound at
the microphone terminals, we see that the *glass* is in the analog domain.

Both digital and analog have their strong and weak points.

Arguably, the worst thing about digital is that right now all audio has to
start and end in the analog domain. The damage is all done in the analog
domain.

Is this topic trying to uncover the weaknesses
(against live)? We know vinyl grooves can=92t be cut to
save all the sound,

We know no such thing. We know for sure that vinyl grooves absolutely and
positively **cannot** be cut to save all of the analog signal that comes out
of the microphone.

and we know that converting to digital involves rounding to the nearest
whole.

The size of the nearest whole can be reduced to be as small as we wish.
Furthermore, the noise in and distortion that is inherent in the analog
domain is effectively larger than that rounding error.

Either way, the information is not all there and that=92s why it
sounds flatter than live.

The signal coming out of the microphone is best preservd by digitizing it as
early in the process as is practical. It is best preserved by leaving it
digital as far down the chain as is practical. We must remember that the
liveness of sound waves of the live performance were far more hihgly amaged
while they were in the analog domain.

I'm guessing analog is the
least processed, and digital is capable of holding more
information.

You guess wrong if you think that electrical signals receive less damage in
the analog domain.

How then can the best of both be combined?


First step is to do less in the analog domain. The second and more difficult
step is to further reduce the damage that is done in the analog, more
specifically the acoustical domain.

Saying it to myself like this, I would say digital has
the potential to be better than analog (vinyl) if only
the processing can be truly out of the way.

That was done over 30 years ago.

Cannot a
laser light track a continuous groove (sound wave)? If
the signal didn' have to be converted to mathematics,
there can be greater chance to approach live.

Wrong. It is easy to show that converting analog signals to and from the
digital domain can be done a number of times, back-to-back, without audible
degradation.


For now, vinyl reminds me more of live, but I think vinyl
has reached its max capability.

Serious development of the vinyl LP pretty well petered out in the
middle-late 1960s. There have been no new technical developments that were
generally accepted since then.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:56:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Serious development of the vinyl LP pretty well petered out in the
middle-late 1960s. There have been no new technical developments that were
generally accepted since then.



I think that you'd be surprised at just how incorrect that assessment is. DMM
is one innovation that has been added since the '60s as well as things like
digital lathe control, better sounding acceleration limiters for the cutter
stylus, better "lacquer" disc materials (less noise) and generally less
'colored' electronics all through the system.

[Stephen McElroy]

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:56:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Serious development of the vinyl LP pretty well petered out in the
middle-late 1960s. There have been no new technical developments that were
generally accepted since then.



I think that you'd be surprised at just how incorrect that assessment is. DMM
is one innovation that has been added since the '60s as well as things like
digital lathe control, better sounding acceleration limiters for the cutter
stylus, better "lacquer" disc materials (less noise) and generally less
'colored' electronics all through the system.

And there's nothing wrong with incremental improvements.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"Stephen McElroy" wrote in
message
In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:56:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Serious development of the vinyl LP pretty well petered
out in the middle-late 1960s. There have been no new
technical developments that were generally accepted
since then.



I think that you'd be surprised at just how incorrect
that assessment is. DMM is one innovation that has been
added since the '60s as well as things like digital
lathe control, better sounding acceleration limiters for
the cutter stylus, better "lacquer" disc materials (less
noise) and generally less 'colored' electronics all
through the system.

And there's nothing wrong with incremental improvements.

The proof is in the pudding. LP test records made using the best modern
procedures and equipment measure no quieter than classics from the 1960s and
1970s such as those by CBS Laboratories.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:56:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Serious development of the vinyl LP pretty well petered
out in the middle-late 1960s. There have been no new
technical developments that were generally accepted
since then.

I think that you'd be surprised at just how incorrect
that assessment is. DMM is one innovation that has been
added since the '60s

DMM fails the test of general acceptance. Plenty of recordings are being
made by traditional metal plating, to this day. Classic Records for example
if you can believe their PR.

as well as things like digital lathe control,

Again failing the test of general acceptance. Many experienced cutters
prefer to control the lathe manually to this day.

better sounding acceleration limiters for the cutter stylus,

Ditto.

better "lacquer" disc materials (less noise)

Questionable benefit.

My measurements show that modern 180 gram pressings are no quieter than well
made LPs from the 60s and 70s.

and generally less 'colored' electronics all through the system.

Not really an advancement of the vinyl LP, but an advancement of the general
audio art.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 15, 5:30=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in message



On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:56:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Serious development of the vinyl LP pretty well petered
out in the middle-late 1960s. =A0There have been no new
technical developments that were generally accepted
since then.
I think that you'd be surprised at just how incorrect
that assessment is. DMM is one innovation that has been
added since the '60s

DMM fails the test of general acceptance.

Since when is 'general accpetance" any sort of test of the state of
the art? May as well say CD having a wider dynamic range fails the
test of "general acceptance" due to the general use of compression.

Plenty of recordings are being
made by traditional metal plating, to this day. =A0Classic Records for ex=
ample
if you can believe their PR.

I think what you mean is there are still people cutting with laquer.
And it is true that a lot of cutting engineers think laquer is still
the superior medium for cutting records.



=A0as well as things like digital lathe control,

Again failing the test of general acceptance. =A0Many experienced cutters
prefer to control the lathe manually to this day.

Forget the failed llogic of this "general acceptance" argument and
name one cutting engineer doing this manually these days. I'm not even
going to limit this hoice to top flight cutting engineers. none of
them are doing this manually. Just name one anywhere these days.



better "lacquer" disc materials (less noise)

Questionable benefit.

How so?



My measurements show that modern 180 gram pressings are no quieter than w=
ell
made LPs from the 60s and 70s.

But you are using fatally flawed equipment.


and generally less 'colored' electronics all through the system.

Not really an advancement of the vinyl LP, but an advancement of the gene=
ral
audio art.

No it would be an advancement in LP production because it would lead
to better sounding LPs. Period.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 05:30:47 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:56:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Serious development of the vinyl LP pretty well petered
out in the middle-late 1960s. There have been no new
technical developments that were generally accepted
since then.

I think that you'd be surprised at just how incorrect
that assessment is. DMM is one innovation that has been
added since the '60s

DMM fails the test of general acceptance. Plenty of recordings are being
made by traditional metal plating, to this day. Classic Records for example
if you can believe their PR.

Many current releases are DMM mastered and many aren't. Those that are
benefit from it with quieter surfaces. Also records are premium products
these days with some titles costing as much as $60. They all use
super-high-grade virgin vinyl which was generally not used in vinyl's heyday
- especially for non-classical releases. Even where virgin vinyl was used, it
wasn't of the quality used today.

as well as things like digital lathe control,

Again failing the test of general acceptance. Many experienced cutters
prefer to control the lathe manually to this day.

And many don't. There is no "test of general acceptance". And even if there
were, I doubt that you have a poll of all the mastering engineers in the
business today to be able to tell us what the "general acceptance" actually
is. IOW, you are basing these conclusions on your own prejudices.

better sounding acceleration limiters for the cutter stylus,

Ditto.

Ditto to you as well.

better "lacquer" disc materials (less noise)

Questionable benefit.

To who? You? Given your prejudicial attitude toward vinyl, I don't doubt that
everything associated with LPs is of "questionable value" to you.

My measurements show that modern 180 gram pressings are no quieter than well
made LPs from the 60s and 70s.

Your measurements? Where would you find a large enough cross section of
un-played pressings from the 60s and 70's with which to make such a
comparison?

and generally less 'colored' electronics all through the system.

Not really an advancement of the vinyl LP, but an advancement of the general
audio art.

It would still provide a better sounding LP

[Kele]

Thank you for replies. You are all sound experts in my eyes. Being
without the technical knowledge, my hope is that you can interpret my
simplistic conveyance of my opinion.

When I walk into the mall and hear music playing, I=92ll focus on it and
know if it=92s live =96 sight unseen. As I progress toward the sound (the
central atrium), I become more sure of my guess. Then as I peer down
to the first floor, I see the band playing with PV house speakers.
I=92m hearing amplified (processed) music, but it=92s not as if I were
listening to a recording regardless that I had ever heard the band or
song(s) before. I never heard Floyd live, but Live=92s unique
properties hasn=92t been conveyed by any recording I=92ve heard, to
include all the audio test CD=92s & jazz samplers I=92ve collected via
magazine subscriptions. Maybe my stereo is the weakest link.

Where I live there are numerous sidewalk minstrels of varying talent.
It=92s open air and I=92m able to be arms length from musicians playing
their instruments, even violinists. I=92ve even recorded myself playing
an acoustic guitar. I=92m just saying that we can always get out Live
memory reinforced. I understand what you=92re saying about un-amplified
music as the truest form of live, but either way, I can=92t think of a
time I=92ve been fooled into thinking a recording played back is Live.

In the studio, when you can=92t see whether it=92s live or a recording
being played back, you can=92t tell? I would love to experience that.
I would have to follow that recording through the process (to market)
to identify when and where the change occurs. By change I mean when
the recording no longer fools me into thinking it=92s live. I=92d have to
pitch a fit wherever that transition occurs, intentional or not.
That=92s what I=92m trying to ask of you. I know the post-processing
plays a big part. I=92m thinking that each pass through another board
of electronics impacts the sound thus reducing its =93Liveliness=94 =96 eve=
n
in the digital domain. There must be specific culprits that can be
addressed to help eliminate the recorded sound. Does the industry
share the same equipment? Maybe there is bad-actor sound gear that is
most influential at squashing realism.

Sounds like a light tracking record groove idea has already been made
into reality=85 I didn=92t know. Nor did I know that materials other than
vinyl have been tried. With all the nano-technology being developed,
it seemed a good time to ask the question. Since the audiophile
approved CDs do sound better than most, it does stand to reason that
the major problems are upstream. It would probably be more beneficial
to address those first, or the next medium will continue to suffer.

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Kele wrote:
Thank you for replies. You are all sound experts in my eyes. Being
without the technical knowledge, my hope is that you can interpret my
simplistic conveyance of my opinion.

When I walk into the mall and hear music playing, I=92ll focus on it and
know if it=92s live =96 sight unseen. As I progress toward the sound (the
central atrium), I become more sure of my guess. Then as I peer down
to the first floor, I see the band playing with PV house speakers.
I=92m hearing amplified (processed) music, but it=92s not as if I were
listening to a recording regardless that I had ever heard the band or
song(s) before. I never heard Floyd live, but Live=92s unique
properties hasn=92t been conveyed by any recording I=92ve heard, to
include all the audio test CD=92s & jazz samplers I=92ve collected via
magazine subscriptions. Maybe my stereo is the weakest link.

Where I live there are numerous sidewalk minstrels of varying talent.
It=92s open air and I=92m able to be arms length from musicians playing
their instruments, even violinists. I=92ve even recorded myself playing
an acoustic guitar. I=92m just saying that we can always get out Live
memory reinforced. I understand what you=92re saying about un-amplified
music as the truest form of live, but either way, I can=92t think of a
time I=92ve been fooled into thinking a recording played back is Live.

If you're talking about live unamplified instruments then OK. But in
case if aplified music -- many "preformers" use full playback. Are you
sure you've never been fooled?


In the studio, when you can=92t see whether it=92s live or a recording
being played back, you can=92t tell? I would love to experience that.

My brother, who is a professional musician says, he experienced it once
in some specially equipped experimental studio (full 3D sound setup from
i don't know how many speakers (~10) in specially prepared room). That
was with live instruments.
In case of some liveaplified music -- it's not a problem at all.

I would have to follow that recording through the process (to market)
to identify when and where the change occurs. By change I mean when
the recording no longer fools me into thinking it=92s live. I=92d have to
pitch a fit wherever that transition occurs, intentional or not.
That=92s what I=92m trying to ask of you. I know the post-processing
plays a big part. I=92m thinking that each pass through another board
of electronics impacts the sound thus reducing its =93Liveliness=94 =96 eve=
n
in the digital domain.

This has been proven to be false. There were tests where sound was
passed via components about 20 times and listener was not able to tell
the difference.

There must be specific culprits that can be
addressed to help eliminate the recorded sound. Does the industry
share the same equipment? Maybe there is bad-actor sound gear that is
most influential at squashing realism.

Sounds like a light tracking record groove idea has already been made
into reality=85 I didn=92t know. Nor did I know that materials other than
vinyl have been tried. With all the nano-technology being developed,
it seemed a good time to ask the question. Since the audiophile
approved CDs do sound better than most, it does stand to reason that
the major problems are upstream. It would probably be more beneficial
to address those first, or the next medium will continue to suffer.


It's Audio Emire's main point, that the problem is upstream. Addidg to
that there is obvious fact that stereo system itself is simply not
capable of full realism.

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 03:54:57 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):

Kele wrote:
Thank you for replies. You are all sound experts in my eyes. Being
without the technical knowledge, my hope is that you can interpret my
simplistic conveyance of my opinion.

When I walk into the mall and hear music playing, I=92ll focus on it and
know if it=92s live =96 sight unseen.

I think most humans can do that.


As I progress toward the sound (the
central atrium), I become more sure of my guess. Then as I peer down
to the first floor, I see the band playing with PV house speakers.
I=92m hearing amplified (processed) music, but it=92s not as if I were
listening to a recording regardless that I had ever heard the band or
song(s) before. I never heard Floyd live, but Live=92s unique
properties hasn=92t been conveyed by any recording I=92ve heard, to
include all the audio test CD=92s & jazz samplers I=92ve collected via
magazine subscriptions. Maybe my stereo is the weakest link.

Where I live there are numerous sidewalk minstrels of varying talent.
It=92s open air and I=92m able to be arms length from musicians playing
their instruments, even violinists. I=92ve even recorded myself playing
an acoustic guitar. I=92m just saying that we can always get out Live
memory reinforced. I understand what you=92re saying about un-amplified
music as the truest form of live, but either way, I can=92t think of a
time I=92ve been fooled into thinking a recording played back is Live.

It certainly isn't, and I can well believe you. But even if a band playing in
a mall atrium is using sound reinforcement, any live, acoustic instruments in
that group (like the drum kit or a trumpet of a sax) are going to be heard
BOTH from the loudspeakers of the reinforcement system, and directly from the
instrument to your ears because acoustic instruments can play loudly. But in
a concert situation, unless you are up front, near the stage, you'll be
getting pretty much everything you hear via speakers. So that's a somewhat
different animal.

If you're talking about live unamplified instruments then OK. But in
case if aplified music -- many "preformers" use full playback. Are you
sure you've never been fooled?


In the studio, when you can=92t see whether it=92s live or a recording
being played back, you can=92t tell? I would love to experience that.

My brother, who is a professional musician says, he experienced it once
in some specially equipped experimental studio (full 3D sound setup from
i don't know how many speakers (~10) in specially prepared room). That
was with live instruments.
In case of some liveaplified music -- it's not a problem at all.

I would have to follow that recording through the process (to market)
to identify when and where the change occurs. By change I mean when
the recording no longer fools me into thinking it=92s live. I=92d have to
pitch a fit wherever that transition occurs, intentional or not.
That=92s what I=92m trying to ask of you. I know the post-processing
plays a big part. I=92m thinking that each pass through another board
of electronics impacts the sound thus reducing its =93Liveliness=94 =96 eve=
n
in the digital domain.

Microphones, even very good ones, are not perfect (after all, they're
transducers, just like speakers and phonograph cartridges), mixers aren't
perfect, and the analog to digital process is not perfect. And that's just on
the "capture" side of the equation. Usually, the record producer and the mix
engineer can't resist making it sound "better" with EQ and compression and
that adds another layer of abstraction. On the playback side, the already
flawed CD goes through digital to analog conversion. then the amplification
is not perfect and certainly one's speakers are far from perfect as is the
listening room. The fact that we can get any semblance of music from such a
lash-up is more of a miracle than it is anything else. 8^)

This has been proven to be false. There were tests where sound was
passed via components about 20 times and listener was not able to tell
the difference.

Depends upon what kind of processing you're talking about. Analog? I doubt
it, but an A/D - D/A loop? That's possible,

There must be specific culprits that can be
addressed to help eliminate the recorded sound. Does the industry
share the same equipment? Maybe there is bad-actor sound gear that is
most influential at squashing realism.

On the record side, microphones are probably the biggest variable along with
venue and post-capture manipulation. And no there really aren't any standards
for those things.

Sounds like a light tracking record groove idea has already been made
into reality=85 I didn=92t know. Nor did I know that materials other than
vinyl have been tried. With all the nano-technology being developed,
it seemed a good time to ask the question. Since the audiophile
approved CDs do sound better than most, it does stand to reason that
the major problems are upstream. It would probably be more beneficial
to address those first, or the next medium will continue to suffer.


It's Audio Emire's main point, that the problem is upstream. Addidg to
that there is obvious fact that stereo system itself is simply not
capable of full realism.

Yes, that's very true.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


Microphones, even very good ones, are not perfect (after
all, they're transducers, just like speakers and
phonograph cartridges), mixers aren't perfect, and the
analog to digital process is not perfect.

Wrong on 2 counts. Mixers and converters are often sonically transparent.
Comparing the sonic purity of phono cartrdiges to good converters is like
comparing mud to milk.

And that's just on the "capture" side of the equation. Usually, the
record producer and the mix engineer can't resist making
it sound "better" with EQ and compression and that adds
another layer of abstraction.

Those are artistic choices that may or may not be done. Railing against
equalization is "The Audiophile thing to do" but shows ignorance. When you
equalize to overcome losses in other parts of the recording chain, you can
easily be stepping in the direction of greater sonic accuracy.

On the playback side, the
already flawed CD goes through digital to analog
conversion.

Again, absolutely nothing to worry about in modern times with modern
equipment.

When the amplification is not perfect

But it is again, often sonically transparent especially if you stay away
from tubes...

and certainly one's speakers are far from perfect as is the
listening room.

But again, they can work well enough.

The fact that we can get any semblance of
music from such a lash-up is more of a miracle than it is
anything else. 8^)

These are all hits on technology. Yet in current days the worst sonic damage
is done by people for artistic reasons.

This has been proven to be false. There were tests where
sound was passed via components about 20 times and
listener was not able to tell the difference.

Depends upon what kind of processing you're talking
about. Analog?

If you define analog as tubes then audible flaws are likely.

I doubt it, but an A/D - D/A loop? That's possible,

That's a given, and not even requiring the best available components.

There must be specific culprits that can be
addressed to help eliminate the recorded sound. Does
the industry
share the same equipment? Maybe there is bad-actor
sound gear that is
most influential at squashing realism.

On the record side, microphones are probably the biggest
variable along with venue and post-capture manipulation.

Difrerences among microphones pale in comparison to differences in
microphone technique.


And no there really aren't any standards for those things.

Just the ears and the experience of the recording staff.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:53:09 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


Microphones, even very good ones, are not perfect (after
all, they're transducers, just like speakers and
phonograph cartridges), mixers aren't perfect, and the
analog to digital process is not perfect.

Wrong on 2 counts. Mixers and converters are often sonically transparent.
Comparing the sonic purity of phono cartrdiges to good converters is like
comparing mud to milk.

Talk about wrong! Nothing made by man is perfect, including audio
electronics. If you think so, then you are either 1) very naive, 2) have some
hearing deficiency, or 3) an extreme technophile with absolutely no hint of
reality with regard to this subject. While these electronic devices are as
good as modern technology can make them, they are far from perfect. If they
were, their would be no difference between the recording and the live event
and there most certainly IS a difference!

Also go back and read what I said once again. I didn't compare microphones to
speakers or phonograph cartridges, I said that microphones were TRANSDUCERS
as are phonograph cartridges and speakers. Are you now going to contentiously
argue that microphones are NOT transducers? If you are, you're the only
person in audio who holds that belief.

And that's just on the "capture" side of the equation. Usually, the
record producer and the mix engineer can't resist making
it sound "better" with EQ and compression and that adds
another layer of abstraction.

Those are artistic choices that may or may not be done. Railing against
equalization is "The Audiophile thing to do" but shows ignorance. When you
equalize to overcome losses in other parts of the recording chain, you can
easily be stepping in the direction of greater sonic accuracy.

And, that they are artistic choices changes the fact that they represent
another layer of abstraction between the performance and the listener, how?
You need to stay more on the topic here. As usual, you seem more interested
in making others look less knowledgeable and experienced than you are rather
than actually discussing the issue. That attitude has been noticed, and not
just by me.

On the playback side, the
already flawed CD goes through digital to analog
conversion.

Again, absolutely nothing to worry about in modern times with modern
equipment.

Says you. Again, if this stuff were as Pollyanna perfect as you paint it, a
CD would sound exactly like a live performance, and it can't. You're fooling
no one.

When the amplification is not perfect

But it is again, often sonically transparent especially if you stay away
from tubes...

Again, you're wrong. and again, if all amps were as perfect as you seem to
think they are, they'd all sound the same - or rather, they'd all have NO
sound and that is simply not the case. Not only is it not the case, but there
is no science that says that they will or that they should. And to show you
how out of touch you are with what's going on in the real world of audio, a
good, modern solid-state and a good, modern tube amp sound more alike than
different these days. In fact in a recent double blind test between several
modern 225 W/channel amps, one of which was a tube amp and the other two
being solid-state, the differences were quite small, and after the test all
the participants agreed that they could happily live with any of the three of
them. So your characterization of tube amps is obviously based on older
designs like Dynacos and old 60's through the 80's era Marantzes, McIntoshes,
and Audio Research products. Few (if any) of the modern amps sound
particularly "tubey'" these days.

and certainly one's speakers are far from perfect as is the
listening room.

But again, they can work well enough.

What's your definition of "well enough"? We're not talking about "well
enough" in this post, we're talking about why recordings don't sound perfect.
That was OP's actual question and the one that I attempted to answer.

The fact that we can get any semblance of
music from such a lash-up is more of a miracle than it is
anything else. 8^)

These are all hits on technology. Yet in current days the worst sonic damage
is done by people for artistic reasons.

Well, at last you have said something that is correct. A well engineered,
modern recording can sound remarkably good, but even without the "artistic
license" afforded many so-called artists, their producers, and engineers, a
great modern recording still falls woefully short of the live sound of
musicians playing acoustic instruments in real space. I don't know about you,
but the pursuit of that sound is, initially, the reason I got into audio and
knowing that it's an impossible goal, worth pursuing, is what has kept me
interested all these years. Indeed, it's the reason the high-fidelity
industry was started in the first place.

This has been proven to be false. There were tests where
sound was passed via components about 20 times and
listener was not able to tell the difference.

Depends upon what kind of processing you're talking
about. Analog?

If you define analog as tubes then audible flaws are likely.

No offense meant, but, again, you don't seem to know what you're talking
about with regard to modern tube circuitry and practice.

I doubt it, but an A/D - D/A loop? That's possible,

That's a given, and not even requiring the best available components.

Given your seemingly (based on what you've posted here since I've been
following this group), mediocre standards, that remains to be proven for many
of us,

There must be specific culprits that can be
addressed to help eliminate the recorded sound. Does
the industry
share the same equipment? Maybe there is bad-actor
sound gear that is
most influential at squashing realism.

On the record side, microphones are probably the biggest
variable along with venue and post-capture manipulation.

Difrerences among microphones pale in comparison to differences in
microphone technique.

I didn't make the distinction between the two. But since you raise the point,
yes, there are a lot of different ways to mike an ensemble. Some are better
than others, and they're all situation dependent. That translates to lots of
room for error.

And no there really aren't any standards for those things.

Just the ears and the experience of the recording staff.

Personal taste, is hardly a "standard" in any subject, no matter how
experienced or refined that taste might be.