| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helen Schmidt wrote:
Hi, I've been lurking here recently. There was a post by a self-described "newbie" on CD vs. vinyl, which actually leads to a very important point. I repeat the post he snip eaning the whole idea and claiming the superiority of "objective evidence." This misunderstands so many things, the main thing being that life is not "objective evidence versus introspection;" the two can and must be integrated. I will postpone this discussion for now, but later I can explain how the conclusions of so-called "objective" experiments collapse over the shaky foundation of introspective naivety. Helen Aside from this looking awfuly lot like a troll, here's the actual answer: 1- some material is not available and never will be on CD 2- CD not analog is a technically superior medium in terms of *most* of the measurable parameters - the most obvious being S/N and ergo dynamic range. 3- listened to on Technics TT and Stanton cartridges with somewhat of an average signal chain to follow, CD is likely to "sound better." Therefore for the average listener or consumer, CD is the preferred medium - witness the sales and shift to CD 4- For the sophisticated "high-end" enthusiast or even the budget "DIY" enthusiast LP does hold some true beauty in terms of the sonic presentation - which is usually different than what the CD provides, and sometimes "more pleasant to listen to." You don't usually get this result with random or run-of-the-mill gear. 5- So, yes one does need to spend some time and/or money in order to get outstanding results from LP. Imho, the issues of psychology, visual prejudice, or "objective measurement" really are moot and irrelevant in their entirety to the question of how "good" is LP or not. For those who enjoy LP, it is better that more people than not do not think LP is any good, that way there are more LPs around for those that like them? :- ) _-_-bear |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005 17:45:43 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 30 Jun 2005 17:45:45 GMT, wrote: Per Stromgren wrote: On 30 Jun 2005 03:16:37 GMT, "jeffc" wrote: Technically, digital is crude compared to vinyl, because vinyl is analog which is pure. Stewart has described why this argument is wrong in the first place. I would like to add that the absolute majority of LP:s are digital whatever recording techniques was used in the studio! I doubt the absolute majority are digital. They are now.............. Not likely. I would bet the vast majority of records produced were were produced before that technology ws being used. Which part of 'now' did you fail to comprehend? What part of absolute majority did you fail to understand? If you didn't mean absolute majority why say it? I'm referring to *current* production, not the contents of everyone's attics. Then absolute majority was a poor choice of words. Try to say what you mean please. Would it have been so hard to say curent production to begin with? There sits a digital delay line in nearly all mastering equipment on the planet, That would be interesting to investigate. It shouldn't be that hard since thee are only a few places that still cut laquers. Indeed - which should tell you something, all by itself. That excellence becomes marginalized by convenience and economic influences. I already knew that. McDonalds remind me of that fact every time I see one. And yet the world remains full of excellent restaurants, As well as excellent turntables, pickup arms and cartridges. which have not been superceded by something comprehensively superior - unlike vinyl. They certainly have been superceded in sales by the likes of McDonalds, just like vinyl. and this delay line is implemented by a digital design... The delay line is used to autmatically give way for loud passages on the master. When the LP-sleeve says "Absolute Pure Analogue", I would guess most of them are right, but only at the input of the mastering equipment. I think a great deal of the world's LPs were made without such a device in the chain. IIRC, the old analogue mastering tape consoles had an extra playback head to provide the required 'read ahead' time delay needed for Varigroove operation. Um yeah. Your point? Simply agreeing that different technologies were used in olden days. *Current* production however, is entirely digital. Are you sure about that? So, folks, vinyl lovers listen to digital all the time and likes it. But digital isn't the issue it is CDs v. LPs. Indeed I have some LPs made from digital recodings that I quite like. I like some, in fact many, better than the CD version. Go figure. No need for much figgerin' here, as the well-known euphonic artifacts of vinyl have been described ad nauseam. Really? I have yet to see any of them described and I have yet to see any studies on the matter that support this claim. Were that true, it woukld indicate a *severe* lack of attention......... Balony. I se you failed to do once again. Posturing is no substitute for substance. "Where's the beef?" "Show me the money." You have to the best of my knowledge no one has prsented anything that would support the claims about euphonic distortions being the source of preference for vinyl. Please cite your source. Can you point out any AESJ papers supporting your claims? It's time to put up or shut up. I'm not saying it isn't true, maybe it is. One would not know that from the generic posturing one finds on RAHE on the matter. instead of just claiming it ad nauseam how about supporting it for a change with some real evidence? Just go look up noise masking, for starters. Lots of research there by the perceptual coding guys. Oh balony. As far as I can see you are just making things up. Prove me wrong and show us the research. If you like those, as opposed to the neutral transparency of digital, then of course you'll prefer vinyl to CD, regardless of the master tape origins. The only time you wouldn't is when the LP has been badly mastered. This is just a load of broad stroked nonsense. It's backed by your every post. How would you know? you seem to miss their points quite consistantly. You are a vinylphile who cooks up all kinds of preposterous nonsense in support of your personal preference. Prove it. Quotes please. Till then your posturing is noted. I guess you figure every CD has been mastered and produced exactly the same way. Nope, there are *lots* of badly recorded and/or mastered CDs out there. Ditto for LP, of course. Unfortunately your claims about the CD v. LP debate completely ignore this important fact. Hence my claim that your views are overly broad and overly simple. But hey, if you do pay attention to these things then you would have also encountered cases where digitally recorded albums actually sonded beter on LP than CD but I bet you can't name one example. Again, I think you pay too little attention to reality and too much attention to your broad stroked biases and over simplifications. Get a clue and start listening to the actual CDs and LPs for a change I do that all the time - in fact I'm doing it now. Please excuse my skeptism but I doubt one who really listens to variations of masterings and recordings with an open mind would make such broad an simplistic claims about CDs v. Lps as you do with regularity. instead of listening to your overly broad and overly simple presumptions. Just how many CDs do you really think sound exactly like the original master tapes? Most of them. Well there you go. Thank you for confirming my point. Again, i suggest you reread that wonderful AESJ article that outlines the pitfalls of turning a master tape into a CD. It becomes quite clear that most commercial CDs are anything but exactly like the master tapes from which they come. Then tell us what blind comparisons you have made between original master tapes and their commercial CD releases. None. Yeah I figured. I suggest you pay attention to what the folks who actually make those comparisons say on the subject. OTOH, I've made a few dozen such comparisons between 15ips two-track analogue tapes and their CD-R copies. To bad that is totally irrelevant. Scott Wheeler |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 3 Jul 2005 15:48:31 GMT, "Helen Schmidt"
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 2 Jul 2005 14:47:27 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: And, relative to my listening, vinyl conveys these aspects of form better. OTOH, relative to *my* listening, CD conveys these aspects of form better than does vinyl. Anyone's concept of truth-to-life is relative to that person's set of potential concepts and how they are weighted; in short, how they listen and what they listen for. Although the objectivists would like to claim some special weight to their opinions about the life-like-ness of audio systems, their opinions are merely their opinions, and hold no special weight above the opinions of others. You mistake the position. Objectivists mostly report what is verifiable. Regarding their *personal* opinions, I haven't seen anyone claim excessive weight. OTOH, the 'subjectivists' are utterly notorious for claims of heavier weight for their personal opinions, Jenn and Scott Wheeler being prime examples. Indeed, *you* seem to be claiming a degree of intellectual superiority which is not supported by your posted arguments...... In that vein, note that my comment above is a simple negation of your own statement, with no claim of superiority on my part. It appears that a couple of times I wrote "Vinyl is better at XYZ" and forgot to put "relative to my listening;" however, this was simply an oversight. (Because I never expected that all other people in the world would share my experience, I didn't realize how I had to make this *absolutely clear* to the objectivists.) The objectivists are quick to remind anyone who starts a sentence "Vinyl is better at ..." that they are "merely stating an opinion." Funny how they never apply that to their own opinions about digital. That's because most such statements about digital relate to readily verifiable *facts*, not to mere opinions. The real argument here is not about who's opinion is right. That would be a very boring argument. Of course some people find digital to be more lifelike and some find analog to be more lifelike. That is elementary. Had you thought about that statement, you might not have posted it. If it's 'elementary' that opinions on this matter will vary, why are you attempting to build an absolute argument in favour of one opinion? The real argument is about the way objectivists attempt to undermine the conceptual basis of opinions they don't like, and their subtle epistemological errors in doing so. What does any of this matter, if we aren't going to change our opinions? After all, I'm not trying to convince Stewart to prefer vinyl. At the end of the day, Stewart will still like CD, Chung and Bob and Steven Sullivan will still like the things they like. So why does this matter? Personally, the reason it matters to me is the effect on new people entering the hi-fi field, and kids growing up and starting to learn about audio. They hear the adults and the more experienced people assert things about the world, and they are influenced by that. A kid might hear an explanation of why format XYZ is superior to format ABC, and he might internalize this assertion, and (and this is key) he might take this explanation to be a truth about his *subjective* experience. People are prone to taking objective statements and thinking they define in some way subjective truth. If I drop an anvil on your head from twenty feet up, it *will* do you severe damage, and will probably kill you. This doesn't require much in the way of philosophical argument or 'subjective internalisation'. This definitely works both ways; I have the same issue with a high-end salesman who gives an explanation of why vinyl is technically superior to digital. Ah, would that involve purity and infinite resolution? :-) So to be more specific about the objectivist's errors: or, to be even more specific, your *claims* that they are errors.... A pervasive error is what I call the "level transfer fallacy." This is the notion that all means of characterizing, describing, or perceiving a signal at one level will transer directly to that signal at another level. A visual analogy will make clear that this is not generally true: Suppose we have a photograph which reproduces a scene. We can inspect it one of two ways: we can view it as a whole, or we can inspect it one square cm at a time through a viewfinder. It is trivial to propose distortions in the photograph which would be perceivable at one level but not the other. A grainy texture would be far more apparent in close inspection and possibly invisible at a distance. On the other hand, a distortion in perspective (such as slight barrel distortion) would be imperceptible in close inspection, but immediately obvious in a whole view. Agreed. Since the objectivist is no longer concerned that looking at the low-level details misses some part of the big picture, he then declares that the lowest level is *fundamental,* absolutely the most important level to work on in the service of fidelity. BZZZZT! Who ever made such a statement? This is an understandable mistake, because often in science, knowledge is built layer-on-layer. Most complex truths are built on simpler truths. In mathematics, a theorem can be proven by breaking it down and proving each component separately. So surely audio perception can be understood by breaking it into elemental components? Musical form can be understood by breaking it down into individual notes and perceiving those notes separately? No it can't. That's the error--to take the composition property of objective reality and apply it to subjective reality, where things aren't the same. Understanding musical notes *does not* move one closer to understanding musical phrases. Understanding how a microphone sounds *does not* move one closer to understanding how the details of music work together to create the musical meaning. It does however move one closer to understanding how closely the reproduced sound can match the original soundfield. This would appear to be a basic mistake on your part. I call this the "subjective composition fallacy"--that subjective reality can be understood by composing together many smaller subjective impressions. I call this vague handwaving, and fundamentally flawed. Stewart wrote to Jenn: I think you'll find that most of us are quite well aware of what conductors are trained to do. One thing is certain - it's *not* to distinguish, among various reproduction media, which sounds most like a live performance on any given system. Here Stewart is implying that a person such as a recording engineer works on a more fundamental level than Jenn; that his opinions about fidelity somehow count more. This is the level transfer fallacy and the subjective composition fallacy. I do wish you'd stop making up spurious terminology, and then claiming failure on the part of another. It is the purpose of a conductor to maximise the musical value of a live performance. It is the purpose of a recording engineer (given that we're talking about a 'live' recording) to capture the musical integrity of a live performance and deliver that to the mixdown master tape. Which person would you consider to be more aware of the fundamentals of the *reproduction* of music? Later, Jenn wrote: OF COURSE they are above the thresholds of human hearing, or I wouldn't be able to hear them. I'm also fairly pretty confident that you wouldn't be able to hear what I hear. Stewart replied: Now, exactly what gives you reason to think that? Stewart is so focused on the low level details he has a hard time even acknowledging the existence of the higher level. It's *obvious* that a highly trained conductor like Jenn can hear things Stewart can't. Is it? In terms of fidelity to an original live performance? Why? Someone operating under the level transfer fallacy thinks that a pattern merely needs to be above the threshold of hearing to be perceivable. It must be nice to be able to assign failure on the basis of a terminology you just made up. Later, someone (I think Mark DeBellis) wrote: But there is training and there is training. There are lots of different things on which one can focus attention, and some are more musically significant than others. I'd be inclined to give a lot of weight (at least initially) to Jenn's sense of what to listen *for*. Stewart replied: I wouldn't, as she's listening for faults in the *performance*, not in the sound quality per se. I'm not saying that she isn't well trained and a good listener, just that her specific training gives her no special advantage in terms of live vs recorded sound. Again Stewart is implying her level of perception is not useful in discriminating live and recorded sound.. very telling that he uses the word "sound" and not "music," because again he is working on just the lowest level. The level transfer fallacy and the subjective composition fallacy is what leads Stewart to think that this level is more fundamental. You are making assumptions here which have no basis in reality. The recorded sound is *more* than the music, not less. It includes hall ambience, audience noise, all the subtle cues that divide the original performance from the recording. I suggest that it's Jenn who is operating on the simpler level here............. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 2 Jul 2005 17:30:18 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 2 Jul 2005 02:06:04 GMT, "jeffc" wrote: "Gary Rosen" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... But digital isn't the issue it is CDs v. LPs. Indeed I have some LPs made from digital recodings that I quite like. I like some, in fact many, better than the CD version. Go figure. I figure you've never done a blind test. Of course, you can't really do a blind test with CD vs. LP since there is always surface noise to let you know it's an LP. No, not really. With a good record and record player, the surface noise can easily be below level of tape hiss of the master from which the 2 sources were made. Utter rubbish. Utter rubbish to your utter rubbish. No, I bow to your superior ability to produce the stuff. I have many 'audiophile' LPs, and master tape noise is *always* lower than record surface noise. Then you must be using damaged records. Otherwise this is complete nonsense or you have a unique selection of "audiophile" LPs or, again your LPs are just wrecked by mistracking or poor cleaning methods. My LPs are mostly in mint condition, since I never buy used items and I am careful in my cleaning regime. Plus of course you miss one very obvious point - digital recordings. There's absolutely no question of being able to hear the natural noise floor of those recordings on LP. Your persistent claims of physically impossible things for vinyl are becoming tiresome. Indeed, the most basic knowledge of the relevant dynamic ranges of vinyl and 15 ips analogue tape would indicate how risible is your claim. OTOH, I have many rock and pop records where tape noise is certainly audible.... :-( But you can't hear tape hiss on any of your audiophile LPs? Something is wrong there. I can often hear tape hiss in quiet passages, and particularly if it's faded out between tracks, but it's generally *below* the surface noise. As you'd expect. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering I find the opposite that tape hiss is considerably above that of the records surface noise, fade out between tracks is very clearly heard. A combination of stylus profile, cartridge quality, machine cleaned vinyl and high-end phono stage. I do have valve hiss but this is barely discernable by ear due selected low noise signal valves. I'm really surprised that you find the reverse to be true. Mike |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helen Schmidt wrote:
Anyone's concept of truth-to-life is relative to that person's set of potential concepts and how they are weighted; in short, how they listen and what they listen for. Although the objectivists would like to claim some special weight to their opinions about the life-like-ness of audio systems, their opinions are merely their opinions, and hold no special weight above the opinions of others. It appears that a couple of times I wrote "Vinyl is better at XYZ" and forgot to put "relative to my listening;" however, this was simply an oversight. (Because I never expected that all other people in the world would share my experience, I didn't realize how I had to make this *absolutely clear* to the objectivists.) The objectivists are quick to remind anyone who starts a sentence "Vinyl is better at ..." that they are "merely stating an opinion." Funny how they never apply that to their own opinions about digital. The real argument here is not about who's opinion is right. That would be a very boring argument. Of course some people find digital to be more lifelike and some find analog to be more lifelike. That is elementary. The real argument is about the way objectivists attempt to undermine the conceptual basis of opinions they don't like, and their subtle epistemological errors in doing so. What does any of this matter, if we aren't going to change our opinions? After all, I'm not trying to convince Stewart to prefer vinyl. At the end of the day, Stewart will still like CD, Chung and Bob and Steven Sullivan will still like the things they like. So why does this matter? Personally, the reason it matters to me is the effect on new people entering the hi-fi field, and kids growing up and starting to learn about audio. They hear the adults and the more experienced people assert things about the world, and they are influenced by that. A kid might hear an explanation of why format XYZ is superior to format ABC, and he might internalize this assertion, and (and this is key) he might take this explanation to be a truth about his *subjective* experience. People are prone to taking objective statements and thinking they define in some way subjective truth. This definitely works both ways; I have the same issue with a high-end salesman who gives an explanation of why vinyl is technically superior to digital. So to be more specific about the objectivist's errors: A pervasive error is what I call the "level transfer fallacy." This is the notion that all means of characterizing, describing, or perceiving a signal at one level will transer directly to that signal at another level. A visual analogy will make clear that this is not generally true: Suppose we have a photograph which reproduces a scene. We can inspect it one of two ways: we can view it as a whole, or we can inspect it one square cm at a time through a viewfinder. It is trivial to propose distortions in the photograph which would be perceivable at one level but not the other. A grainy texture would be far more apparent in close inspection and possibly invisible at a distance. On the other hand, a distortion in perspective (such as slight barrel distortion) would be imperceptible in close inspection, but immediately obvious in a whole view. Since the objectivist is no longer concerned that looking at the low-level details misses some part of the big picture, he then declares that the lowest level is *fundamental,* absolutely the most important level to work on in the service of fidelity. True, and not an error or fallacy on the objectivist's part. If it were merely an assumption, as you imply, then it might well be a fallacy. But it is not an assumption; it is an evidence-based theory. It is a physical, biological, and psychological fact. If you have evidence to the contrary, we'd all like to hear it. But if all you can do is pretend that the evidence against you doesn't exist, you are contributing nothing. This is an understandable mistake, because often in science, knowledge is built layer-on-layer. Most complex truths are built on simpler truths. In mathematics, a theorem can be proven by breaking it down and proving each component separately. So surely audio perception can be understood by breaking it into elemental components? Musical form can be understood by breaking it down into individual notes and perceiving those notes separately? No it can't. That's the error--to take the composition property of objective reality and apply it to subjective reality, where things aren't the same. Understanding musical notes *does not* move one closer to understanding musical phrases. Understanding how a microphone sounds *does not* move one closer to understanding how the details of music work together to create the musical meaning. I call this the "subjective composition fallacy"--that subjective reality can be understood by composing together many smaller subjective impressions. This is what we call a straw man. No one claims it. But you need to pretend that someone claims it, because you need someone easy to argue with. bob |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
I would like to see Jenn's perspective inform more kids and newcomers
to the audio field, although of course everyone is free to develop their hearing as they like. I would like to see Jenn's complete name and perhaps hear recordings of some performances she has conducted.. |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 3 Jul 2005 17:43:08 GMT, "Mike Gilmour"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... I can often hear tape hiss in quiet passages, and particularly if it's faded out between tracks, but it's generally *below* the surface noise. As you'd expect. I find the opposite that tape hiss is considerably above that of the records surface noise, fade out between tracks is very clearly heard. Given that surface noise is *never* more than 75dB below peak cutting level, even on ridiculously 'hot' cuts, that suggests that you listen to pretty noisy masters! :-) A combination of stylus profile, cartridge quality, machine cleaned vinyl and high-end phono stage. None of this can overcome the basic level of surface roughness exhibited by even the very best 'virgin' vinyl. This is not a matter of opinion - it's readily measurable. I do have valve hiss but this is barely discernable by ear due selected low noise signal valves. I'm really surprised that you find the reverse to be true. I'm really surprised that you seem to have no well-recorded LPs.... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 3 Jul 2005 17:26:38 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 2 Jul 2005 17:45:43 GMT, wrote: I guess you figure every CD has been mastered and produced exactly the same way. Nope, there are *lots* of badly recorded and/or mastered CDs out there. Ditto for LP, of course. Unfortunately your claims about the CD v. LP debate completely ignore this important fact. No, they don't. Hence my claim that your views are overly broad and overly simple. But hey, if you do pay attention to these things then you would have also encountered cases where digitally recorded albums actually sonded beter on LP than CD but I bet you can't name one example. Actually no, I can't. This may have something to do withy the fact that mastering on CD is very straightforward from a digital master. Esentially, you just push the 'master' button............ Compare and contrast with the required peak limiting, low-level compression summing to mono below 100Hz, and rolloff above 15kHz and below 40Hz, that are required for LP mastering. Again, I think you pay too little attention to reality and too much attention to your broad stroked biases and over simplifications. I think that you pay no attention at all to reality. Get a clue and start listening to the actual CDs and LPs for a change I do that all the time - in fact I'm doing it now. Please excuse my skeptism but I doubt one who really listens to variations of masterings and recordings with an open mind would make such broad an simplistic claims about CDs v. Lps as you do with regularity. The differences are both obvious and simple. Only if you are desperately attempting to justify a personal preference, would you feel a need to complicate the matter. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Per Stromgren" wrote in message
... On 3 Jul 2005 15:17:49 GMT, wrote: What happens to that signal between there and the loudspeakers is another matter. If you mean vinyl, then say vinyl. BTW, as noted elsewhere, since every modern vinyl cutting facility includes a digital delay line for Varigroove purposes, *all* new music recordings are digital by definition, whether purchased on black or silver discs. Every? Are you sure about this? Please name one vinyl cutting facility, used above hobby scale, that doesn't have this! Per. To quote Tim de Paravicini: "I do ensure that the old digital delay lines for Varigroove are not used. Most of the stuff cut nowadays is constant pitch anyway, so we dispense with that sort of thing" Discuss :-) |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
... Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 2 Jul 2005 02:06:04 GMT, "jeffc" wrote: "Gary Rosen" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... But digital isn't the issue it is CDs v. LPs. Indeed I have some LPs made from digital recodings that I quite like. I like some, in fact many, better than the CD version. Go figure. I figure you've never done a blind test. Of course, you can't really do a blind test with CD vs. LP since there is always surface noise to let you know it's an LP. No, not really. With a good record and record player, the surface noise can easily be below level of tape hiss of the master from which the 2 sources were made. Utter rubbish. Utter rubbish to your utter rubbish. I have many 'audiophile' LPs, and master tape noise is *always* lower than record surface noise. Then you must be using damaged records. Otherwise this is complete nonsense or you have a unique selection of "audiophile" LPs or, again your LPs are just wrecked by mistracking or poor cleaning methods. Are you claiming that an LP being played in any place other than a clean room can possibly be 100% free of dust and particles? And shouldn't audiophiles, with their superior discernment and perception, be able to hear that being tracked by the stylus? - Gary Rosen |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
[Moderator's note: This subthread has become an argument between 2
people that has become rather repetitive and so is ended. -- deb ] Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 3 Jul 2005 17:26:38 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 2 Jul 2005 17:45:43 GMT, wrote: I guess you figure every CD has been mastered and produced exactly the same way. Nope, there are *lots* of badly recorded and/or mastered CDs out there. Ditto for LP, of course. Unfortunately your claims about the CD v. LP debate completely ignore this important fact. No, they don't. Yes they do. I just reviewed this thread. Your claims completely ignore the important fact that mastering and reccording qualities are major issues until I raised the issue. Facts is facts. Hence my claim that your views are overly broad and overly simple. But hey, if you do pay attention to these things then you would have also encountered cases where digitally recorded albums actually sonded beter on LP than CD but I bet you can't name one example. Actually no, I can't. What a surprise. This is indicitive of some one who is simply not doing that much careful open-minded listening IMO. This may have something to do withy the fact that mastering on CD is very straightforward from a digital master. No it would most likely have something to do with your limited experiences and/or biases regarding LP v. CD sound. If you want an example take a listen to Peter Gabriel's digit,lly recorded titles when they were first released on Cd and compare them the the Classic reissues. No contest, even Gabriel, a supporter of digital technology agrees. Now if you can tell me what they did wrong when these CDs were first mastered give it a shot. i mean if mastering is so straight forward what went wrong there? The original recordings were digital after all. What went so terribly wrong? I think the audiophiles who are really interested in better sound and not so caught up in their desire to be right about things understand these things happen and make their decisions based on caeful listening rather than make assumptions based on any particular belief system. I strongly suspect that any audiophile that cannot name a situation where the CD sounds better than the Lp or visa versa is operating out of a belief system rather than relying on careful open minded comparisons. A lot can happen on the road to making a commercial CD or LP. Esentially, you just push the 'master' button............ It would seem the folks who made those fine CDs of the Mercury catalog would disagree with you. given their results i would tend to believe them rather than you, someone with no experience in mastering or producing commercial CDs. Compare and contrast with the required peak limiting, low-level compression summing to mono below 100Hz, and rolloff above 15kHz and below 40Hz, that are required for LP mastering. Better et listen to the folks who do the best jobs of mastering LPs and CDs. They seem to disagree with you on all counts. Again i have to give the pros more credibility. Again, I think you pay too little attention to reality and too much attention to your broad stroked biases and over simplifications. I think that you pay no attention at all to reality. If careful comparisons instead of judgement via biases is not paying attention to reality you may be right. I'm not sure what *reality* you would be refering to though. Get a clue and start listening to the actual CDs and LPs for a change I do that all the time - in fact I'm doing it now. Please excuse my skeptism but I doubt one who really listens to variations of masterings and recordings with an open mind would make such broad an simplistic claims about CDs v. Lps as you do with regularity. The differences are both obvious and simple. No the differences vary from title to title. so they are not obvious or simple. Your answers continue to suggest you simply don't know that much about the subject. desperately attempting to justify a personal preference, would you feel a need to complicate the matter. I feel no need to justify my personal preferences. The fact of the matter is the answers are compluicated and vary from title to title. This is something any serious audiophile would know. Scott Wheeler |
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
Russ Button wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: Russ Button wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: I don't like to do quick A-B comparisons. Instead I like to listen to one for a while, and then later switch to the other. I find that I seem to have different reactions to things over time in a fashion I can only describe as emotional. As I said earlier, the edginess I experienced seemed rather subtle, but there nonetheless. The more reasonable conclusion is that it *might* be there, rather than 'it is there nonetheless'. Oh pick, pick, pick... Also, the crux of many, many a debate in audio-land. You asserted a conclusion that was more definitive than your evidence justified. I heard what I heard. You weren't there. Nobody else besides my wife was there and she heard the same thing. This is just an anecdotal story and is only worth what it is. Everything we truly know, we know from our own personal experience. Everything else is just hearsay. Yet you accept some 'hearsay' as being more plausible than others, right? Or have you gone out and verified all the laws of chemistry and physics yourself? -- -S "You know what love really is? It's like you've swallowed a great big secret. A warm wonderful secret that nobody else knows about." - 'Blame it on Rio' |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 17:43:08 GMT, "Mike Gilmour" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... I can often hear tape hiss in quiet passages, and particularly if it's faded out between tracks, but it's generally *below* the surface noise. As you'd expect. I find the opposite that tape hiss is considerably above that of the records surface noise, fade out between tracks is very clearly heard. Given that surface noise is *never* more than 75dB below peak cutting level, even on ridiculously 'hot' cuts, that suggests that you listen to pretty noisy masters! :-) Pop/rock music masters are the most likely suspects. ; |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote: I would like to see Jenn's perspective inform more kids and newcomers to the audio field, although of course everyone is free to develop their hearing as they like. I would like to see Jenn's complete name and perhaps hear recordings of some performances she has conducted.. 1. I don't tend to give my full name in newsgroups, for obvious reasons (I was burned in that regard years ago.) But I would be happy to email it to you, and send you any number of files of my work. 2. The interesting question is: Why do you want it? |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005 17:30:18 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 2 Jul 2005 02:06:04 GMT, "jeffc" wrote: "Gary Rosen" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... But digital isn't the issue it is CDs v. LPs. Indeed I have some LPs made from digital recodings that I quite like. I like some, in fact many, better than the CD version. Go figure. I figure you've never done a blind test. Of course, you can't really do a blind test with CD vs. LP since there is always surface noise to let you know it's an LP. No, not really. With a good record and record player, the surface noise can easily be below level of tape hiss of the master from which the 2 sources were made. Utter rubbish. Utter rubbish to your utter rubbish. No, I bow to your superior ability to produce the stuff. Wrong as usual. I have many 'audiophile' LPs, and master tape noise is *always* lower than record surface noise. Then you must be using damaged records. Otherwise this is complete nonsense or you have a unique selection of "audiophile" LPs or, again your LPs are just wrecked by mistracking or poor cleaning methods. My LPs are mostly in mint condition, since I never buy used items and I am careful in my cleaning regime. What does that have to do with what i said? Anyone can damage their own records no matter how carefully they do it if their methods are wrong and mistracking will destroy a new record pretty quickly. If your records really are mint then they cannot possibly be so damaged as you describe them. Plus of course you miss one very obvious point - digital recordings. I didn't mis that point at all. IMO most of the best sounding records wer from analog sources. with the exception of D2Ds they all have some tape hiss. many of them have tape hiss that far excedes the surface noise. This is something you seem to be denying. If this is the case something is seriously wrong with your playback. I never said the surface noise was *always* less than the tape hiss. Try to keep up. There's absolutely no question of being able to hear the natural noise floor of those recordings on LP. I wouldn't dispute that. Although these are the same recordings that are famously devoid of quality low level information like hall ambience and instrument decay. Your persistent claims of physically impossible things for vinyl are becoming tiresome. Then stop making them up. Indeed, the most basic knowledge of the relevant dynamic ranges of vinyl and 15 ips analogue tape would indicate how risible is your claim. OTOH, I have many rock and pop records where tape noise is certainly audible.... :-( But you can't hear tape hiss on any of your audiophile LPs? Something is wrong there. I can often hear tape hiss in quiet passages, and particularly if it's faded out between tracks, but it's generally *below* the surface noise. As you'd expect. No, I wouldn't expect it at all. and it is hardly true that often. Scott Wheeler |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
Per Stromgren wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 15:17:49 GMT, wrote: What happens to that signal between there and the loudspeakers is another matter. If you mean vinyl, then say vinyl. BTW, as noted elsewhere, since every modern vinyl cutting facility includes a digital delay line for Varigroove purposes, *all* new music recordings are digital by definition, whether purchased on black or silver discs. Every? Are you sure about this? Please name one vinyl cutting facility, used above hobby scale, that doesn't have this! I just asked Stan Ricker via email if the signal is ever converted to digital when he masters LPs. His answer, in a word, no. I am still waiting to hear the answer about RTI but I expect the answer to be the same. Scott Wheeler. |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gary Rosen wrote:
wrote in message ... Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 2 Jul 2005 02:06:04 GMT, "jeffc" wrote: "Gary Rosen" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... But digital isn't the issue it is CDs v. LPs. Indeed I have some LPs made from digital recodings that I quite like. I like some, in fact many, better than the CD version. Go figure. I figure you've never done a blind test. Of course, you can't really do a blind test with CD vs. LP since there is always surface noise to let you know it's an LP. No, not really. With a good record and record player, the surface noise can easily be below level of tape hiss of the master from which the 2 sources were made. Utter rubbish. Utter rubbish to your utter rubbish. I have many 'audiophile' LPs, and master tape noise is *always* lower than record surface noise. Then you must be using damaged records. Otherwise this is complete nonsense or you have a unique selection of "audiophile" LPs or, again your LPs are just wrecked by mistracking or poor cleaning methods. Are you claiming that an LP being played in any place other than a clean room can possibly be 100% free of dust and particles? No. Are you suggesting that this is the only way to maintain a high level of integrity of the condition of LPs? And shouldn't audiophiles, with their superior discernment and perception, be able to hear that being tracked by the stylus? If the record is clean before it hits the turntable the answer is basically no. Scott Wheeler |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005 19:42:24 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 1 Jul 2005 19:51:02 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: wrote: Now, you might argue that, in *addition* to research on listener preferences, we might like to see some research on the effectiveness of audio systems at what you call "re-stimulation of...percepts." I'm not sure how much work has actually been done on that. It would not be easy work to do, at least if you want to get beyond simply asking listeners, "Which of these sounds more realistic?" Right, and without that research, any correlation of the technical parameters of audio to a certain musical experience is premature. I suggest that objectivists are very premature in claiming that a preference for analog can be "understood" as a preference for certain kinds of distortions. The whole thing is much simpler than you pretend. Not everyone shares *your* preference for vinyl, or your *opinion* that vinyl is more 'lifelike', hence there is no need to search for mysterious mechanisms in support of your personal opinion. It isn't just his personal opinion. It is a common opinion held by many audiophiles with extensive experience with high end Lp playback. A preference for CD is also a common opinion held by many audiophiles with extensive experience with high end LP playback. Common? I think not. Do you have a survey that supports your opinion? First comes the verifiable observation of an effect, *then* comes the search for a cause. The verifiable observations have been with us since the advent of CDs. No, they most certainly have not. yes they most certainly have. The majority opinion was *always* that, while CD certainly wasn't 'perfect sound forever', it was definitely a significant advance over vinyl. majority? Majority amoung what people? People who see things the same way you do? OK. The majority amoung audiophiles with experience listening to high end LP playback.? Not IME. But I'm not interested in popularity poles. Are you? Only a tiny but very vocal minority disagreed - and that has not changed. Tiny? That would aptly describe the amount of people who have actually had significant experience with high end Lp playback.So it stands to reason that a tiny number would follow that prefer LP playback, if that is really true. Seems some prefer vinyl before the rig rises to the level of high end. Now if we want to talk about real tiny numbers lets talk about the number of audiophiles that have had extensive experience with high end vinyl playback and still prefer CDs. There is you.... I know a few others actually, but really, I haven't had to abandon my fingers yet in this count. *That* is a tiny number. Go figure. It is most definitely *not* a fact that vinyl *is* more 'true to life', that is simply your personal opinion. No it isn't just his opinion. It is a common opinion amoung audiophiles that are familiar with the sound of high end vinyl playback. Unfortunately that experience is rare and unfairly dismissed by many. You're just attempting to trot out the worn-out and snobbish old "if you prefer CD, that's because you've never heard top-class LP" argument, which simply doesn't wash. No that isn't what I was doing at all. i was simply pointing out that his opinion was not unique as your post semed to infer. Try to do a better job of reading my posts please so I don't have to waste time putting out burning straw men. Lots of audiophiles with extensive experience of top-class LP playback prefer CD. So says you. That being the case, That premise comes when you prove it. there's no need to search for any mechanism which causes LP to be 'more lifelike', because it simply isn't for most listeners. So why all the posturing abou the "well known euphonic distortions?" if no search has been made then the claim you have been making all this time is, well, bogus. That might explain why you dodge every one of my calls for proof. Scott Wheeler |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jenn" wrote in message
... In article , "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote: I would like to see Jenn's perspective inform more kids and newcomers to the audio field, although of course everyone is free to develop their hearing as they like. I would like to see Jenn's complete name and perhaps hear recordings of some performances she has conducted.. 1. I don't tend to give my full name in newsgroups, for obvious reasons (I was burned in that regard years ago.) But I would be happy to email it to you, and send you any number of files of my work. 2. The interesting question is: Why do you want it? I appreciated learning your thoughts and feelings expressed here and possibly want to learn how this is reflected in your professional contributions and *public* life. After all conductors do perform in public and therefore are *public people*. When I read an editorial in a newspaper or magazine, I think it important to know who the writer is, and perhaps learn more from that individual's other writings. I don't see the "obvious" reasons for your not revealing your identity, unless you think a stalker or deviate is present here and possibly is going to invade your "private" life. I have CCed you in this response to the group and perhaps time will allow us to take it from there. |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... You're just attempting to trot out the worn-out and snobbish old "if you prefer CD, that's because you've never heard top-class LP" argument, which simply doesn't wash. Lots of audiophiles with extensive experience of top-class LP playback prefer CD. That being the case, there's no need to search for any mechanism which causes LP to be 'more lifelike', because it simply isn't for most listeners. For example, I prefer CD most of the time. The fact remains, you view things in black and white when they don't exist that way, you've been wrong about half of the stuff you've written in this thead, you really don't understand what good vinyl sounds like, and you're so hopelessly biased that at this point that it's not really possible for you to contribute anything much to the thread that's credible. |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Norman M. Schwartz" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote: I would like to see Jenn's perspective inform more kids and newcomers to the audio field, although of course everyone is free to develop their hearing as they like. I would like to see Jenn's complete name and perhaps hear recordings of some performances she has conducted.. 1. I don't tend to give my full name in newsgroups, for obvious reasons (I was burned in that regard years ago.) But I would be happy to email it to you, and send you any number of files of my work. 2. The interesting question is: Why do you want it? I appreciated learning your thoughts and feelings expressed here and possibly want to learn how this is reflected in your professional contributions and *public* life. After all conductors do perform in public and therefore are *public people*. When I read an editorial in a newspaper or magazine, I think it important to know who the writer is, and perhaps learn more from that individual's other writings. I don't see the "obvious" reasons for your not revealing your identity, unless you think a stalker or deviate is present here and possibly is going to invade your "private" life. I have CCed you in this response to the group and perhaps time will allow us to take it from there. Sorry if I seem overly guarded about this. I had a very bad incident a couple of years ago with a newsgroup poster from a political group actually showing up at my door one day. It was a scary situation. Let me sleep on the idea of getting some files and information about my work to you, if you don't mind. And honestly, thank you for your interest. :-) |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
jeffc wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... You're just attempting to trot out the worn-out and snobbish old "if you prefer CD, that's because you've never heard top-class LP" argument, which simply doesn't wash. Lots of audiophiles with extensive experience of top-class LP playback prefer CD. That being the case, there's no need to search for any mechanism which causes LP to be 'more lifelike', because it simply isn't for most listeners. For example, I prefer CD most of the time. The fact remains, you view things in black and white when they don't exist that way, you've been wrong about half of the stuff you've written in this thead, I'm realluy curious here. Which are "half of the stuff" Stewart Pinkerton wrote that you considered wrong, and which are the other "half of the stuff" he wrote that you considered right? you really don't understand what good vinyl sounds like, and you're so hopelessly biased that at this point that it's not really possible for you to contribute anything much to the thread that's credible. I would surmise, based on your posts, that Stewart understands a lot more about good vinyl sound, and that he is a lot less biased, than you. |
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 3 Jul 2005 17:43:08 GMT, "Mike Gilmour" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... I can often hear tape hiss in quiet passages, and particularly if it's faded out between tracks, but it's generally *below* the surface noise. As you'd expect. I find the opposite that tape hiss is considerably above that of the records surface noise, fade out between tracks is very clearly heard. Given that surface noise is *never* more than 75dB below peak cutting level, even on ridiculously 'hot' cuts, that suggests that you listen to pretty noisy masters! :-) Measurements on http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...CDformats2.php range from -84dB around 1kHz to -96dB around 10 Khz for a mass produced LP bought at a 'thrift' store for 1$, you'll see the measurements of quality MSFL vinyl are considerably better, as expected. combination of stylus profile, cartridge quality, machine cleaned vinyl and high-end phono stage. None of this can overcome the basic level of surface roughness exhibited by even the very best 'virgin' vinyl. This is not a matter of opinion - it's readily measurable. It would be helpful if you actually managed to substantiate claims via your own or others research rather than making broad sweeping statements. I do have valve hiss but this is barely discernable by ear due selected low noise signal valves. I'm really surprised that you find the reverse to be true. I'm really surprised that you seem to have no well-recorded LPs.... That statement is groundless as I have collected quality recordings for over 40 years owning a large collection of well recorded LP's including many Mercurys and UHQR's. I suggest you research verifiable measurements relative to high end vinyl systems before making such extraordinary statemernts. Mike -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 3 Jul 2005 20:46:05 GMT, "Mike Gilmour"
wrote: "Per Stromgren" wrote in message ... On 3 Jul 2005 15:17:49 GMT, wrote: What happens to that signal between there and the loudspeakers is another matter. If you mean vinyl, then say vinyl. BTW, as noted elsewhere, since every modern vinyl cutting facility includes a digital delay line for Varigroove purposes, *all* new music recordings are digital by definition, whether purchased on black or silver discs. Every? Are you sure about this? Please name one vinyl cutting facility, used above hobby scale, that doesn't have this! Per. To quote Tim de Paravicini: "I do ensure that the old digital delay lines for Varigroove are not used. Most of the stuff cut nowadays is constant pitch anyway, so we dispense with that sort of thing" Discuss :-) Tim is a well-known 'off the wall' extremist who restores ancient all-valve tape recorders. Not to be regarded as 'above hobby scale'. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 4 Jul 2005 01:59:12 GMT, "jeffc" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... You're just attempting to trot out the worn-out and snobbish old "if you prefer CD, that's because you've never heard top-class LP" argument, which simply doesn't wash. Lots of audiophiles with extensive experience of top-class LP playback prefer CD. That being the case, there's no need to search for any mechanism which causes LP to be 'more lifelike', because it simply isn't for most listeners. For example, I prefer CD most of the time. The fact remains, you view things in black and white when they don't exist that way, you've been wrong about half of the stuff you've written in this thead, you really don't understand what good vinyl sounds like, and you're so hopelessly biased that at this point that it's not really possible for you to contribute anything much to the thread that's credible. Aside from Porky Wheeler twisting everything I've said, and shifting his position faster than a cruise missile, you'll find that I haven't said anything wrong at all. I certainly do understand what good vinyl sounds like, and *objectively*, LP vs CD very much *is* a black and white issue. Please explain why my simple statements of very basic facts regarding the relative performance of CD and LP has anything to do with bias. The only bias I can see comes from the 'subjectivists', who make claims for vinyl that simply have *no* evidential support whatever. There is also widespread ignorance of how digital actually works, and you appear to be one of the main culprits in this regard. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jenn" wrote in message
... In article , "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Norman M. Schwartz" wrote: I would like to see Jenn's perspective inform more kids and newcomers to the audio field, although of course everyone is free to develop their hearing as they like. I would like to see Jenn's complete name and perhaps hear recordings of some performances she has conducted.. 1. I don't tend to give my full name in newsgroups, for obvious reasons (I was burned in that regard years ago.) But I would be happy to email it to you, and send you any number of files of my work. 2. The interesting question is: Why do you want it? I appreciated learning your thoughts and feelings expressed here and possibly want to learn how this is reflected in your professional contributions and *public* life. After all conductors do perform in public and therefore are *public people*. When I read an editorial in a newspaper or magazine, I think it important to know who the writer is, and perhaps learn more from that individual's other writings. I don't see the "obvious" reasons for your not revealing your identity, unless you think a stalker or deviate is present here and possibly is going to invade your "private" life. I have CCed you in this response to the group and perhaps time will allow us to take it from there. Sorry if I seem overly guarded about this. I had a very bad incident a couple of years ago with a newsgroup poster from a political group actually showing up at my door one day. It was a scary situation. Let me sleep on the idea of getting some files and information about my work to you, if you don't mind. And honestly, thank you for your interest. :-) Well, as speaking for myself, I'm happy that I can still show up at my own door. The day might soon arise that I can't; that's going to even a scarier situation for me. :-( |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 3 Jul 2005 20:46:05 GMT, "Mike Gilmour" wrote: "Per Stromgren" wrote in message ... On 3 Jul 2005 15:17:49 GMT, wrote: What happens to that signal between there and the loudspeakers is another matter. If you mean vinyl, then say vinyl. BTW, as noted elsewhere, since every modern vinyl cutting facility includes a digital delay line for Varigroove purposes, *all* new music recordings are digital by definition, whether purchased on black or silver discs. Every? Are you sure about this? Please name one vinyl cutting facility, used above hobby scale, that doesn't have this! Per. To quote Tim de Paravicini: "I do ensure that the old digital delay lines for Varigroove are not used. Most of the stuff cut nowadays is constant pitch anyway, so we dispense with that sort of thing" Discuss :-) Tim is a well-known 'off the wall' extremist who restores ancient all-valve tape recorders. Not to be regarded as 'above hobby scale'. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering A hobby indeed. Pink Floyd happily uses Tim's modified equipment aboard Astoria Sound Studios. Ry Cooder also achieved Grammy winning recordings via T de P's work refer also Water Lily, Chesky, Island Records and many others who have produced excellent results thanks to Tim's work.. He modifies a variety of valve equipment not just 'ancient all-valve tape recorders' as valve equipment is still used in some studios as are valve microphones. Yes I knew Tim, eccentric yes but 'off the wall' extremist are very harsh words. Tim's work is respected in many quarters. Mike |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike Gilmour wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 3 Jul 2005 17:43:08 GMT, "Mike Gilmour" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... I can often hear tape hiss in quiet passages, and particularly if it's faded out between tracks, but it's generally *below* the surface noise. As you'd expect. I find the opposite that tape hiss is considerably above that of the records surface noise, fade out between tracks is very clearly heard. Given that surface noise is *never* more than 75dB below peak cutting level, even on ridiculously 'hot' cuts, that suggests that you listen to pretty noisy masters! :-) Measurements on http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...CDformats2.php range from -84dB around 1kHz to -96dB around 10 Khz for a mass produced LP bought at a 'thrift' store for 1$, you'll see the measurements of quality MSFL vinyl are considerably better, as expected. This is a classical mistake made by vinylists. They do not understand measurements, and simply embrace anything resembling data that justify their references in a quasi-technical manner, without understanding what the data is saying. You cannot pick a spot noise density, and made statements like vinyl has -84 dB S/N ratio at some frequencies, and use that to compare S?N against CD. S/N is measured by integrating the noise over the complete audio frequency range, and compared to the largest signal that can be produced with no distortion. In other words, you take the total noise measured from 20Hz to 20KHz, usually after a weighting filter is applied, then compared the total *rms* noise voltage to the maximum output signal without clipping to arrive at the S/N number. It makes no sense to say the spot noise is -84 dB at 1 KHz, without saying what is the measurement bandwidth, and stating the spot noise at other parts of the audio band. If you choose to compare it your way, then at least do it with technical honesty: the spot noise of LP at 500 Hz according to that *study*, a very critical range, is a whopping -50 dB, or at least 40 dB *worse* than CD! Or you can come up with a ridiculous conclusion like SACD is 50 dB worse than CD! The fact that you glare over those points that don't support your claim really shows your bias. I made the comment once that when I see technically clueless claims, they are more often made by vinyl lovers/sunbjectivists (who do not like CD's) than by CD lovers or non-sunjectivists. Some people seem to take offense at that comment. The posts I have read in this and other similar threads really support my comment. This has nothing to do with objectivist/subjectivist, or audio/perceptipons issues. It is simply based on technical accuracies, or lack thereof, displayed in these posts. The *work* that is shown in that website has been criticized many times, on a *technical* basis. Do a rahe search and you can see some of the serious errors in the conclusions that person arrived at. (rest snipped) |
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
... Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Nope, there are *lots* of badly recorded and/or mastered CDs out there. Ditto for LP, of course. Unfortunately your claims about the CD v. LP debate completely ignore this important fact. As do yours. Your claims about LP are at least as absolutist as Stewart's if not more so. - Gary Rosen |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 20:46:05 GMT, "Mike Gilmour" wrote: "Per Stromgren" wrote in message ... On 3 Jul 2005 15:17:49 GMT, wrote: What happens to that signal between there and the loudspeakers is another matter. If you mean vinyl, then say vinyl. BTW, as noted elsewhere, since every modern vinyl cutting facility includes a digital delay line for Varigroove purposes, *all* new music recordings are digital by definition, whether purchased on black or silver discs. Every? Are you sure about this? Please name one vinyl cutting facility, used above hobby scale, that doesn't have this! Per. To quote Tim de Paravicini: "I do ensure that the old digital delay lines for Varigroove are not used. Most of the stuff cut nowadays is constant pitch anyway, so we dispense with that sort of thing" Discuss :-) Tim is a well-known 'off the wall' extremist who restores ancient all-valve tape recorders. Not to be regarded as 'above hobby scale'. How sad, another proven industry pro has to endure the personal attacks of an amateur simply because he does not adhere to the misinformed beliefs of said amateur. IMO it's just plain ugly. We can now add Tim to the long list of proven indstry pros that you have done this to. Stewart, you are the hobbyist, the amateur. Tim is the pro with the track record of excellent work. Deal with it. Scott Wheeler |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 3 Jul 2005 15:17:49 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 1 Jul 2005 19:55:25 GMT, "jeffc" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... This is a common, but completely wrong, argument. There is nothing 'pure' about vinyl, as it is a very *poor* analogue of the master tape signal, whereas CD provides a very *good* analogue of that signal. I didn't say CD provided a bad analog. The "pure" should be taken in context. It is pure in the sense that it never left the analog domain. Purity however implies unsullied, and vinyl is seriously sullied by surface noise, by rolled-off and summed to mono bass, by inner groove distortion, by midrange phase problems, and by severe harmonic distortion. Vinyl is 'pure'? I think not.......... "Analog" itself also has different meanings, as you are well aware, so there is not sense in trying to use a different meaning than I used. No, analogue has a single meaning, which you appear not to undertstand. The electrical signal coming from the microphone(s) is an analogue of the original soundfield. Well, no it's not unless you live in a one dimesional two channel universe of course. i don't. the soundfield and the signal comming from the microphone are not analogus at all. That would be a neat trick though. I take it that you have never heard of the Calrec Soundfield microphone? I haven't. Does it send a two channel analog signal out the other end? If so It doesn't matter that I haven't heard of it. As ever, you attempt to deflect the argument in order to distract attention to your lack of a substantive argument. No, I was just pointing out your gross factual error. This basic debate is regarding vinyl vs CD, so two-channel reproduction, however crippled in real terms, is a given. Then you ought not to make such grossly eroneous claims that the soundfield and the two channel signal off the mic are analogus. Any serious audiophile would know this is a gross mistake. What happens to that signal between there and the loudspeakers is another matter. If you mean vinyl, then say vinyl. BTW, as noted elsewhere, since every modern vinyl cutting facility includes a digital delay line for Varigroove purposes, *all* new music recordings are digital by definition, whether purchased on black or silver discs. Every? Are you sure about this? I'll cover myself by saying more than 99%, as there may be some backstreet loon somewhere still using an all-analogue cutting rig. You wouldn't be covering yourself. You are painfully wrong on both counts. One would expect any audiophile worth his or her salt to at least check the facts before making such claims. You cannot seriously present yourself as someone who is in any way knowledgable about the state of LP mastering and not know your claims are painfully wrong. I tried to be polite and give you the room to correct your gross error by doing a little homework. It seems your belief superceded your interest in the facts even when i suggested you go back and check the facts. That's an approximate 99%, BTW, as I seriously doubt that there remain 100 vinyl mastering facilities on the planet. You could refer to the facts instead of speculation. It would be refreshing. Did you know that a stereo that isn't playing has no distortion whatsoever? think about it. OTOH, it also has 100% distortion. Think about it. ;-) Better keep those CD players on all the time after all. Scott Wheeler |
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Chung" wrote in message
... I would surmise, based on your posts, that Stewart understands a lot more about good vinyl sound, and that he is a lot less biased, than you. What exactly do you think I'm biased about? |
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chung wrote:
jeffc wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... You're just attempting to trot out the worn-out and snobbish old "if you prefer CD, that's because you've never heard top-class LP" argument, which simply doesn't wash. Lots of audiophiles with extensive experience of top-class LP playback prefer CD. That being the case, there's no need to search for any mechanism which causes LP to be 'more lifelike', because it simply isn't for most listeners. For example, I prefer CD most of the time. The fact remains, you view things in black and white when they don't exist that way, you've been wrong about half of the stuff you've written in this thead, I'm realluy curious here. Which are "half of the stuff" Stewart Pinkerton wrote that you considered wrong, and which are the other "half of the stuff" he wrote that you considered right? I don't know about the ratios but if you want a list of things Stewart said that are factually wrong just in this thread. 1."The reconstruction filter ensures that the output is a smooth curve, following the original bandwidth-limited input signal *exactly*, not approximately." Fact is it can never be "exact." 2. "Purity however implies unsullied, and vinyl is seriously sullied by surface noise, by rolled-off and summed to mono bass, by inner groove distortion, by midrange phase problems, and by severe harmonic distortion. Vinyl is 'pure'? I think not.......... " While bass is commonly summed i is not aways summed, severe harmonic distortion? B.S. Bass rolled off? Balony that is not an inherent limitation of vinyl so long as we are limmiting our discussion to the audible bandwidth. Midrang phase problems/ I'd like to see the evidence that Lp has inherent audible "midrange phase poblems." 3."No, analogue has a single meaning, which you appear not to undertstand." that's a good one. Main Entry: [1]an?a?logue Variant(s): or an.a.log /'a-n&l-"og, -"?g/ Function: noun Etymology: French analogue, from analogue analogous, from Greek analogos Date: 1826 1 : something that is analogous or similar to something else 2 : an organ similar in function to an organ of another animal or plant but different in structure and origin 3 : usually analog : a chemical compound that is structurally similar to another but differs slightly in composition (as in the replacement of one atom by an atom of a different element or in the presence of a particular functional group) 4 : a food product made by combining a less expensive food (as soybeans or whitefish) with additives to give the appearance and taste of a more expensive food (as beef or crab) Seems it has at least four definitions. 5. "The electrical signal coming from the microphone(s) is an analogue of the original soundfield." Thats a good one. A soundfield is a three dimensional space yet the signals from the mic are one dimensional. Amplitude either goes up or down. It's a gross error in fact. 6. "*all* new music recordings are digital by definition, whether purchased on black or silver discs." This one is the king of factual errors on this thread. Turns out that this is a load of nonsense. One would have to be pretty oblivious of the state of audiophile LP mastering to make such a gross error. Now I could go on and on but the day is short and the thread is long. This is just from Stewart's first four posts. Stewart has made 23 posts so far and at a rate of 1 1/2 factual rrors per post (assuming he didn't get any better) I can see how someone would genrealize and claim that half his stuff is just plain wrong. All quotes can be found here.http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...54cc8846232%3F you really don't understand what good vinyl sounds like, and you're so hopelessly biased that at this point that it's not really possible for you to contribute anything much to the thread that's credible. I would surmise, based on your posts, that Stewart understands a lot more about good vinyl sound, and that he is a lot less biased, than you. Maybe you could compile a larger list of factual errors from Jeff in a mere four posts on this subject? I think not. It would seem that Stewart is among the most out of touch with the facts when it comes to vinyl playback on RAHE. Less biased? IMO his biases completely dominate his opinions on the subject. Scott Wheeler |
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 4 Jul 2005 01:59:12 GMT, "jeffc" wrote: Aside from Porky Wheeler twisting everything I've said Now that's ironic. I certainly do understand what good vinyl sounds like You have shown unequivocally that you do not. Please explain why my simple statements of very basic facts regarding the relative performance of CD and LP has anything to do with bias. Since you make wrong statements, I can only assume it's due to bias. I could be wrong though - it might be due to something else. The only bias I can see comes from the 'subjectivists', who make claims for vinyl that simply have *no* evidential support whatever. There is also widespread ignorance of how digital actually works, and you appear to be one of the main culprits in this regard. The fact that you don't even acknowledge that converting to the digital domain and back to analog is a fundamental problem, and doesn't occur in most of the best vinyl recordings, leaves us no where to even start. |
Linear Mode
