| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Heaven!
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love
it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jenn" wrote in message
... So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! One man's euphonic distortion is another man's compression. I would find it interesting to know what, if any differences in the mix might be. My suspcion is that the LP mix you like is simply different than that of the same recordings on CD. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! One man's euphonic distortion is another man's compression. I would find it interesting to know what, if any differences in the mix might be. My suspcion is that the LP mix you like is simply different than that of the same recordings on CD. Hmmm... generally, I don't know. But, the classical and solo folk guitar recordings I tend to listen to the minimum miking, so minimum mixing differences, I would imagine. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
"Jenn" wrote in message
... In article , " wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! One man's euphonic distortion is another man's compression. I would find it interesting to know what, if any differences in the mix might be. My suspcion is that the LP mix you like is simply different than that of the same recordings on CD. Hmmm... generally, I don't know. But, the classical and solo folk guitar recordings I tend to listen to the minimum miking, so minimum mixing differences, I would imagine. Don't be misled by this "different mix" statement, Jenn. It is incorrect. Discs are cut, and CDs are mastered from the same master tape. In the case of the music which you describe there is no mixing anyway, it is recorded straight stereo. Cordially, Iain |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jenn" wrote in message
... So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! I just copied a few CD's for my daughter...Joan Jett's first two albums...her favs and very danceable. Copied them first through my main system analog to a Marantz 530 pro recorder circa 1999..using a 4x Samsung CD-R (top quality)..this was in real time. This was recorded near-maximum signal but at no time did the overload light come on. Then copied that via my DAW at 16x to another CD-R (current Memorex 52X variety) using a full disk copy. On these two records there are several tracks that have much ambience surrounding back up vocals. Also, several tracks with featured drum segments with extremely natural sounding drum recording. On my LP rig (Dual 701, Accuphase AC-2, modified Marcof PPA-2 headamp), these tracks sounded very fine...the backups floated in natural ambience, and the drums sounded taut and with extremely natural sounding transients. On the direct-recorded 4X CD, the ambience comes through okay. But transients in general and especially on the drum sound "sharp" and unnatural. Moreover, the drums loose their "tautness" and sound "hollow". On the second recording (52X CD recorded at 16X) the recording has deteriorated...with "grunge" creeping into the sound, ambience greatly reduced, and both the transient info and "hollowness" of the drum sound deteriorated further, almost to the point of pain in listening. I don't know how to record to CD any cleaner than the Marantz transfer...and the effects here were remarkably defined. I've also recorded other disks this way (Dylan, other folk-rockers) and felt they didn't sound quite as good as the vinyl, but didn't pay as much attention to why. This is the first time I tried a second generation copy on my DAW, and I was taken aback by how bad it sounded. It is possible that the "read" CD-RW/R player was having trouble picking up a clean transfer from the original CD-R, but I think it goes beyond that. For I have also noticed that CD transfers done one-to-one on the DAW don't sound nearly as clean as CD transfers from my main system to the Marantz through my DTI Pro - Proceed Converter chain. .I have some hunches about why this may be so, but need to do more investigation. My conclusion: take what you hear about the transparency of CD's with two, maybe three grains of salt. Some of it may be equipment- or blank-induced, but the deterioration is noticeable in a side-by-side -- ranging from subtle to apparent. And if this is true in home recording under controlled conditions, it is also likely true (as has been asserted) in production runs of commercial CD's. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "Jenn" wrote in message ... So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! I just copied a few CD's for my daughter...Joan Jett's first two albums...her favs and very danceable. Copied them first through my main system analog to a Marantz 530 pro recorder circa 1999..using a 4x Samsung CD-R (top quality)..this was in real time. This was recorded near-maximum signal but at no time did the overload light come on. Then copied that via my DAW at 16x to another CD-R (current Memorex 52X variety) using a full disk copy. On these two records there are several tracks that have much ambience surrounding back up vocals. Also, several tracks with featured drum segments with extremely natural sounding drum recording. On my LP rig (Dual 701, Accuphase AC-2, modified Marcof PPA-2 headamp), these tracks sounded very fine...the backups floated in natural ambience, and the drums sounded taut and with extremely natural sounding transients. On the direct-recorded 4X CD, the ambience comes through okay. But transients in general and especially on the drum sound "sharp" and unnatural. Moreover, the drums loose their "tautness" and sound "hollow". On the second recording (52X CD recorded at 16X) the recording has deteriorated...with "grunge" creeping into the sound, ambience greatly reduced, and both the transient info and "hollowness" of the drum sound deteriorated further, almost to the point of pain in listening. I don't know how to record to CD any cleaner than the Marantz transfer...and the effects here were remarkably defined. I've also recorded other disks this way (Dylan, other folk-rockers) and felt they didn't sound quite as good as the vinyl, but didn't pay as much attention to why. That just helps prove what has been said many times, that feelings and bias don't have much to do with reality, since a CD copy is an exact copy of whatever thesource material was. It is possible to loose some of the quality of the source if you copy at to fast a rate. IIRC 4X is the max. This is the first time I tried a second generation copy on my DAW, and I was taken aback by how bad it sounded. It is possible that the "read" CD-RW/R player was having trouble picking up a clean transfer from the original CD-R, but I think it goes beyond that. Then to discuss it properly, one would need to know whar were the circumstnaces. For I have also noticed that CD transfers done one-to-one on the DAW don't sound nearly as clean as CD transfers from my main system to the Marantz through my DTI Pro - Proceed Converter chain. .I have some hunches about why this may be so, but need to do more investigation. Whatever, it is not a fault with the fact that it is a digital recording. My conclusion: take what you hear about the transparency of CD's with two, maybe three grains of salt. Only in the sense thatif somebody tells you there some problem with making a digital copy they are incorrect. Done properly, you get an exact copy. Some of it may be equipment- or blank-induced, but the deterioration is noticeable in a side-by-side -- ranging from subtle to apparent. Check the instructions for making a music CD, as data CD copies have different rules. And if this is true in home recording under controlled conditions, it is also likely true (as has been asserted) in production runs of commercial CD's. Nope, that's bias. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... My conclusion: take what you hear about the transparency of CD's with two, maybe three grains of salt. Only in the sense thatif somebody tells you there some problem with making a digital copy they are incorrect. Done properly, you get an exact copy. This is correct, except for the terminology. The word "copy" implies a separate generation from the master. In the case of digital it is a clone. Iain |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... My conclusion: take what you hear about the transparency of CD's with two, maybe three grains of salt. Some of it may be equipment- or blank-induced, but the deterioration is noticeable in a side-by-side -- ranging from subtle to apparent. And if this is true in home recording under controlled conditions, it is also likely true (as has been asserted) in production runs of commercial CD's. Hello Harry. I attend many mastering sessions to ensure that what I have recorded reaches the CD without substantial changes. I can promise you that it is a simple task to produce a CD which is an exact clone of the studio master. In classical and jazz music this is how it is normally done. The problem is that in pop music these days, CD mastering is regarded as a another step in the creative process - another chance to tweak the track overall. The old adage of "fix it in the mix" has moved down one step in the chain:-) There is no longer the opportunity to work on the individual elements within the mix, but it is quite common for extra compression and EQ to be added at the mastering stage. The result is quite often a retrograde step, but "make it louder" is the order of the day as far as pop CD's are concerned. The CD has zero headroom. Vinyl, like analogue tape, is much more forgiving. Iain |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
On 27 Oct 2005 02:27:39 GMT, "Iain M Churches"
wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... My conclusion: take what you hear about the transparency of CD's with two, maybe three grains of salt. Some of it may be equipment- or blank-induced, but the deterioration is noticeable in a side-by-side -- ranging from subtle to apparent. And if this is true in home recording under controlled conditions, it is also likely true (as has been asserted) in production runs of commercial CD's. Hello Harry. I attend many mastering sessions to ensure that what I have recorded reaches the CD without substantial changes. I can promise you that it is a simple task to produce a CD which is an exact clone of the studio master. In classical and jazz music this is how it is normally done. The problem is that in pop music these days, CD mastering is regarded as a another step in the creative process - another chance to tweak the track overall. The old adage of "fix it in the mix" has moved down one step in the chain:-) There is no longer the opportunity to work on the individual elements within the mix, but it is quite common for extra compression and EQ to be added at the mastering stage. The result is quite often a retrograde step, but "make it louder" is the order of the day as far as pop CD's are concerned. The CD has zero headroom. Vinyl, like analogue tape, is much more forgiving. What utter nonsense! CD has *vastly* more headroom than vinyl, some 93dB of headroom compared to the 70-75 of the very best vinyl. Or were you attempting some kind of faked definition of 'headroom'? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... What utter nonsense! CD has *vastly* more headroom than vinyl, some 93dB of headroom compared to the 70-75 of the very best vinyl. Or were you attempting some kind of faked definition of 'headroom'? Stewart, do not confuse headroom with dynamic range. They are not one and the same thing. Studio personel define headroom as the ability to record above the nominal max recording level. CD has zero headroom, while analogue tape can have as much as +6dB. Cordially., Iain |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
On 29 Oct 2005 02:39:53 GMT, "Iain M Churches"
wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... What utter nonsense! CD has *vastly* more headroom than vinyl, some 93dB of headroom compared to the 70-75 of the very best vinyl. Or were you attempting some kind of faked definition of 'headroom'? Stewart, do not confuse headroom with dynamic range. They are not one and the same thing. Yes, they are. Shame that you do not understand this. Studio personel define headroom as the ability to record above the nominal max recording level. CD has zero headroom, while analogue tape can have as much as +6dB. Typical engineering ignorance from you. The nominal max recording level on a CD can be set to 10dB below FFFF should you be daft enough to want to do this, while still retaining greater dynamic range than analogue tape. The great thing about CD as a *distribution* medium is that, at the mastering stage, you don't *need* headroom, as peak levels are exactly defined. Any competent recordist is well aware that one of the nice things about *recording* at the ubiquitous 24/96 standard, is that you have an extra 48dB of headroom for mistakes with mic levels and as much EQ as you like. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
Iain M Churches wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... My conclusion: take what you hear about the transparency of CD's with two, maybe three grains of salt. Some of it may be equipment- or blank-induced, but the deterioration is noticeable in a side-by-side -- ranging from subtle to apparent. And if this is true in home recording under controlled conditions, it is also likely true (as has been asserted) in production runs of commercial CD's. Hello Harry. I attend many mastering sessions to ensure that what I have recorded reaches the CD without substantial changes. I can promise you that it is a simple task to produce a CD which is an exact clone of the studio master. In classical and jazz music this is how it is normally done. The same question applies here as for LP mastering: How do you objectively assess whether 'substantial' changes have or have not occurred, in any medium? Wiht digital-to-digital, it's easy to check for perfect fidelity between master and clone. With tape vs digital (or LP) , one could at least measure the frequency profiles, dynamic range, average levels, etc of the master versus the final product. A blind A/B wouldn't hurt either. I suspect that Harry's suspicious would collapse if these checks were done of tape vs. digital. Tape vs LP would be another story. There is no longer the opportunity to work on the individual elements within the mix, but it is quite common for extra compression and EQ to be added at the mastering stage. A minority of CDs (and of course all 'surround' SACD, DVD-A, DTS,etc) are true remixes, starting from multitracks. The result is quite often a retrograde step, but "make it louder" is the order of the day as far as pop CD's are concerned. The CD has zero headroom. Vinyl, like analogue tape, is much more forgiving. But you cannot put the amounts of loud *bass* on vinyl, that you can on CD -- so it's not more forgiving in every sense. -- -S "The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jenn wrote:
So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion. The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think vinyl is truer to life. For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness", "enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc. Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening. And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions. I also think it is amusing that the objectivists suggest that people who, as their full-time job, discern small differences in timbre, and have a mature "taste" (not simply wowed over by "more midrange" or "more ambience") would somehow drop all mature discernment and be unable to judge the "lifelike" quality of different means of reproduction. For example, I doubt that you think "more ambience" is always better--you think the RIGHT AMOUNT of ambience is best. I doubt you think that a "warmer tone" is always better--you think that the right tone for the job is best. I challenge any objectivist here to simply repeat the arguments I've made above in their own words without distorting my meaning. It has never been done before. Mike |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
wrote in message
... Jenn wrote: So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion. The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think vinyl is truer to life. It's like arguing with someone who is convinced that God exists and that miracles happen. There is no way that an inferior medium can be better than an inferior one. Vinyl playback is limited by the medium which is inherently flawed. It is rife with distortions of speed accuracy, wow and flutter and the media that it is transcibed on, not to mention the differences in equipment. For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness", "enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc. It's not stuff, it's the way it is. Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening. The differences are due to the way LP's are mixed and the things you are used to. And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions. Again, you'd have to see how they were mixed. I also think it is amusing that the objectivists suggest that people who, as their full-time job, discern small differences in timbre, and have a mature "taste" (not simply wowed over by "more midrange" or "more ambience") would somehow drop all mature discernment and be unable to judge the "lifelike" quality of different means of reproduction. It's not possible for a medium limited in dynamic range the way LP is to be as lifelike as a CD recording, assuming it used the full capability for dynamic range available for a CD recording. For example, I doubt that you think "more ambience" is always better--you think the RIGHT AMOUNT of ambience is best. I think the right amount is the amount that the recoring engineer applied, no more and no less. I doubt you think that a "warmer tone" is always better--you think that the right tone for the job is best. I think the right amount is the amount that the engineer applied, no more,no less. I challenge any objectivist here to simply repeat the arguments I've made above in their own words without distorting my meaning. It has never been done before. Oooh, you've set up a self fulfilling prophecy. You like what you like for anynumber of reasons, none of which have to do with LP playback or analog tape being any way superior to digital recording. The best way to hear what teh artist and engineer intended you to hear is from a digital recording. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
wrote in message
... Most of your post here expresses the basic objectivist's error of conflating measured (objective) performance with the *experience* of listening to something. More specific points below: wrote: wrote in message ... Jenn wrote: So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion. The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think vinyl is truer to life. It's like arguing with someone who is convinced that God exists and that miracles happen. There is no way that an inferior medium can be better than an inferior one. Vinyl playback is limited by the medium which is inherently flawed. It is rife with distortions of speed accuracy, wow and flutter and the media that it is transcibed on, not to mention the differences in equipment. For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness", "enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc. It's not stuff, it's the way it is. Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening. The differences are due to the way LP's are mixed and the things you are used to. Funny--what I'm "used to" is live music. This is also true for the numerous musicians and engineers who share my view that analog has higher fidelity to life. And you've never been made aware of the fact that audio memory is incredibly bad, it is completeley worthless after a few seconds, which is what quickly switching between 2 sources is preferred? I listen mostly to perspective-miked classical, so I don't know what "mixing" has to do with it. That would seem to be obvious. The mix for LP's tends to be different than that for CD. or some other digital medium. Depending on the music and the engineer things like compression may be used, that wouldn't be necessary (although sometimes still are) for a digital recording. And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions. Again, you'd have to see how they were mixed. "Mixed" seems to be your magic word for explaining any "preference" or particular subjective experience. Not alt all, only when tlaking about different media. A surround mix is different than a 2 channel one and CD mix is often different from an LP one, I also think it is amusing that the objectivists suggest that people who, as their full-time job, discern small differences in timbre, and have a mature "taste" (not simply wowed over by "more midrange" or "more ambience") would somehow drop all mature discernment and be unable to judge the "lifelike" quality of different means of reproduction. You haven't read Mr. sullivan's post below yet then about how badly such people tend to do. It's not possible for a medium limited in dynamic range the way LP is to be as lifelike as a CD recording, assuming it used the full capability for dynamic range available for a CD recording. For example, I doubt that you think "more ambience" is always better--you think the RIGHT AMOUNT of ambience is best. I think the right amount is the amount that the recoring engineer applied, no more and no less. The recording engineer *applied*??? I guess you are in a different world, but in perspective-miked classical recording, the right amount is the amount that was actually present in the hall. Many listeners, musicians, and engineers experience analog as doing the better job of getting that right. They are entitled to their opinion, but since abience tends to live in teh low frequency area, and since LP can't go as low as CD, then..........well you get the picture. I doubt you think that a "warmer tone" is always better--you think that the right tone for the job is best. I think the right amount is the amount that the engineer applied, no more,no less. The right amount is the amount the musician used in performing. It's funny how the objectivists think that musicians who modulate their tone carefully so that it has the right balance for the job, would think that arbitrarily changing the tonal balance would be an improvement! And yet it happens. If the engineer and the artists agree not to play with the amibeince, I applaud them for that. The more lifelike the recording the better IMO. I challenge any objectivist here to simply repeat the arguments I've made above in their own words without distorting my meaning. It has never been done before. Oooh, you've set up a self fulfilling prophecy. Check your dictionary.. a prophecy requires future tense. I would be happy to have an objectivist accurately repeat my arguments, but it has never been done before.. certainly not by you. Since yo are issuing a challenge for something tohappen which hasn't yet, I just assumed it would take place in the future. You like what you like for any number of reasons, none of which have to do with LP playback or analog tape being any way superior to digital recording. What you seem to mean by this is that *you* are more comfortable with any number of reasons other than "analog is more lifelike," because you wouldn't know how to explain that. Actually it's because with a digital recording and someone with a modicum of expertise, recording any kind of music, digital recording is capable of more of what you want in a recirding, accuracy, FR, dynamic range, and so on. In short it's capable of more realism. If that's not your experience then either you have had exremely bad luck finding decent digital recordings or you just have a bias of some sort, probably based on what you grew used to. That's all well and good, it doesn't change the fact that digital recording is superior and more real sounding when you look at all the things that pertain to live music. The best way to hear what the artist and engineer intended you to hear is from a digital recording. Funny that many artists and engineers disagree. We should poll them then. :-) |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... Most of your post here expresses the basic objectivist's error of conflating measured (objective) performance with the *experience* of listening to something. More specific points below: wrote: wrote in message ... Jenn wrote: So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion. The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think vinyl is truer to life. It's like arguing with someone who is convinced that God exists and that miracles happen. There is no way that an inferior medium can be better than an inferior one. Vinyl playback is limited by the medium which is inherently flawed. It is rife with distortions of speed accuracy, wow and flutter and the media that it is transcibed on, not to mention the differences in equipment. For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness", "enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc. It's not stuff, it's the way it is. Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening. The differences are due to the way LP's are mixed and the things you are used to. Just to put the record straight, LPs are not mixed:-) There is a master which may be a stereo mix from an analogue or digital multitrack, or it may be a straight stereo recording. The CD is made from the same master from which the disc is cut. In disc cutting, the object of the exercise was to transfer as faithfully as possible the signal from the master tape to the acetate disc. No more, no less. This in itself is a considerable challenge - any fool can make it different. In CD production, the mastering stage is often regarded as an extension of the recording process, at which changes are made. Oddly enough the increased dynamic of CD would lead one to believe that compression would not be necessary. There is in fact much more compression used in CD production of pop music than was normally used in disc cutting. Iain |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
|
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
wrote:
wrote: wrote in message ... Jenn wrote: So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion. The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think vinyl is truer to life. It's like arguing with someone who is convinced that God exists and that miracles happen. i find arguing with objectivists to be very muh like this. Your following statements are very much on that level as i will demonstrate. There is no way that an inferior medium can be better than an inferior one. assuming you meant superior one, lest look at this statement and how it resembles your characterizaton of some people. your statemnet assumes facts in it's premise and makes value judgements as though they were objective. i might agree with you an say that vinyl as a superior medium cannot be bettered by CD, an inferior medium. But that would be a silly dogmatic claim. it assumes that both technologies are monliths without any degree of technological variations. It ignores all the rst that goes into producing a CD or LP. It simplifies a complex comparison. Very much what the miracle believer does as well. Anyone who believes an LP cannot sound better than a CD or visa versa is being a true believer and is not using their powers of observation. Vinyl playback is limited by the medium which is inherently flawed. So are CDs. It is rife with distortions of speed accuracy, wow and flutter and the media that it is transcibed on, not to mention the differences in equipment. Actually this is a common false claim made by many objectivists. audible speed acuracy distortions , wow and flutter and the like are not inherent distortons in the medium but problems that can be found in less than ideal playback equipment and less than ideal mnufactured LPs. one can find numerous ugly distortions in poorly produced CDs and badly engineered CD players. For some reason advocates of CD like to compare the theretical ideal of CD to something far less than the actual ideal of vinyl playback. IOW they like to stack the deck against LP playback. What good does this do for the person interested in getting the best sound? Nothing. The lesson of value is in the listening and that does not involve comparing theoretical specs against specs of substandard equipment. It involves extensive side by side comparisons with one's biases set aside if possible. I have learned that it simply isn't possible for some people. that is their loss. For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness", "enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc. It's not stuff, it's the way it is. How do you know? you can hear a more realistic redition of a title on LP and identify that greater realism as midrange phasiness? I'd like to see that. Hi Scott, Your response hear makes me think of something. Objectivists *expect* to hear vinyl as less true to life since that is the way it measures. And, yes, they agree vinyl has a specific *sound* to it--and the words they choose to describe this sound *always* imply something unlife-like or lower fidelity to the master tape. Meanwhile, other people use words to describe the "sound of vinyl" which imply *greater* fidelity to life. This simple fact has never been acknowledged by the objectivists--not *one* has ever been able to repeat back the way I describe vinyl without substituting their own words. My challenge stands: to any objectivist, repeat how I've described vinyl in your own words without distorting my meaning. Mike |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
wrote in message
... This simple fact has never been acknowledged by the objectivists--not *one* has ever been able to repeat back the way I describe vinyl without substituting their own words. My challenge stands: to any objectivist, repeat how I've described vinyl in your own words without distorting my meaning. My challenge: It depends upon the azimuth, tracking angle, overhang, tracking weight, degree of anti-skate applied, turntable and geometry and material of attached tone arm, the condition of elastomer suspension ( how dried up it is), degree of smoke and pollution in the environment, relative humidity, and last but not least; how large of a dust ball has adhered to the stylus? (There must be many other factors I've overlooked.) |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
wrote in message
... wrote: wrote: wrote in message ... Hi Scott, Your response hear makes me think of something. Objectivists *expect* to hear vinyl as less true to life since that is the way it measures. It's not an expectation, it's simply the way it is and has always been from the very first digital recording I ever heard, classical by the way. At 56 years old I grew up listening to LP's, so it's not like I never hear them or only had brief exposure to them. But the very fist time I ever heard a CD I knew ho badly LP sucked. And, yes, they agree vinyl has a specific *sound* to it--and the words they choose to describe this sound *always* imply something unlife-like or lower fidelity to the master tape. Meanwhile, other people use words to describe the "sound of vinyl" which imply *greater* fidelity to life. This simple fact has never been acknowledged by the objectivists--not *one* has ever been able to repeat back the way I describe vinyl without substituting their own words. My challenge stands: to any objectivist, repeat how I've described vinyl in your own words without distorting my meaning. It would be unreasonable to call LP more lifelike when it is so vastly inferior in cpaturing dynamic range and so full of noise, and speed variations. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
Jenn wrote:
In article , wrote: Jenn wrote: So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion. The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think vinyl is truer to life. For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness", "enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc. Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening. And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions. Just a moment ago, I listened to the Speaker's Corner reissue of the Fennell/Eastman Wind Ensemble Mercury recording of Grainger: Linclonshire Posy (for the first time with my new TT rig.) Now, I know this recording REALLY well; the conductor was my mentor, I've heard music in the Eastman Theater several times, and there are, frankly, only maybe 20 or 30 people in the world who know this work as well as I do. I've heard a first generation copy of the master tape. For the past 7 years or so, I've only heard the Mercury CD reissue of this recording. My CD player (Rotel) is highly rated by the "guru" magazines, but is not of the very high priced variety. I last conducted this work 5 months ago, for the 9th time. I swear to you that I was in tears listening to this LP tonight. There is so much more MUSIC there. There is also more objective information; lines that one doesn't hear on the CD, timbres that are more "true" on the LP, etc. But mostly I'm struck by the message of Percy and Fred that comes though so much more clearly on this recording. The difference, in this case at least, between the media has never been more clear to me. I also think it is amusing that the objectivists suggest that people who, as their full-time job, discern small differences in timbre, and have a mature "taste" (not simply wowed over by "more midrange" or "more ambience") would somehow drop all mature discernment and be unable to judge the "lifelike" quality of different means of reproduction. For example, I doubt that you think "more ambience" is always better--you think the RIGHT AMOUNT of ambience is best. I doubt you think that a "warmer tone" is always better--you think that the right tone for the job is best. I don't understand this either, but....whatever. I don't claim that either media is more "accurate" than another, or that one displays "less distortion" than another. All is know is that based on my very real daily exposure to live acoustic music, analogue gets it right (especially instrumental and vocal timbres) more often ON AVERAGE than does digital. I agree. If this occurs due to a distortion in vinyl, no one has EVER proposed such a distortion that would accurately convey the musician's intentions---and you have hit the nail on the head, it is the musician's intentions that come through clearly. I feel free to use the word "accurate" since there is an original event which is being reproduced--namely the intentions of the musicians. Every single proposed distortion mechanism of analog, *without exception* would change some aspect of the sound in a way that brings it further from the musician's intentions. Not only have the objectivists never proposed a distortion mechanism that would more accurately convey musical intentions, they have never even been able to repeat back this simple description of analog. Mike |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
|
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 19 Oct 2005 02:29:12 GMT, wrote: Not only have the objectivists never proposed a distortion mechanism that would more accurately convey musical intentions, they have never even been able to repeat back this simple description of analog. More to the point, they have never agreed with your insistence that vinyl sounds more natural. Actually you have demonstrated precisely, once again, that you miss the point. I have never insisted that *everyone* finds it "more natural." I have stated that some people find analog to have a number of qualities that are truer to the experience of listening live. No objectivist has ever been able to repeat back this list of qualities without substituting their own language. Here, for example, you could have simply repeated my statement that analog more accurately conveys musical intentions--not that that would have demonstrated you understood it--but you chose not to. More natural than what? The original tape? The original mic feed? The original performance? I think you know perfectly well what the answer to this question is. Mike |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 19 Oct 2005 02:29:12 GMT, wrote: Not only have the objectivists never proposed a distortion mechanism that would more accurately convey musical intentions, they have never even been able to repeat back this simple description of analog. More to the point, they have never agreed with your insistence that vinyl sounds more natural. More natural than what? The original tape? The original mic feed? The original performance? What remains true is that you can make a digital recording of an LP which is audibly indistinguishable from the original LP. I hope to hear this comparison soon. This is pretty much definite proof that digital audio can be totally transparent, and that your preference is based on artifacts *added* by vinyl. That you *think* they sound more natural, in a 'whiter than white' kind of way, doesn't make it so. Same applies to Jenn. Again, I don't care why LPs overall sound more like music to me. For all I care, maybe it's because Lenny Bernstein wore polkadotted panties when he made them. I only know that they do. I know what music sounds like, and to my ears (the only ones that I listen with) LPs sound more like that than do CDs. |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
your preference is based on artifacts *added* by vinyl. That you *think* they sound more natural, in a 'whiter than white' kind of way, doesn't make it so. Same applies to Jenn. Once again, an objectivist shows he cannot repeat my description of analog. First of all, drop "vinyl" from your statement--it is all analog. Second, no recording matches the qualities of live music, including the initimate connection to the musician's intentions that is possible--but analog, for my ears (and apparently for Jenn's) gets closer. Choosing analogies such as "whiter than white" demonstrates that you don't understand this basic experience. Amateur musicians such as myself and even more so professional musicians such as Jenn are aware that music exists as a balance of qualties. The only distortion mechanisms you've ever proposed, if they were the cause of this vinyl preference, would *upset*, not *preserve* these balances. You have never proposed a distortion mechanism that would preserve the musician's intentions, and yet that is how I (and apparently Jenn) experience analog. Mike |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 19 Oct 2005 02:29:12 GMT, wrote: Not only have the objectivists never proposed a distortion mechanism that would more accurately convey musical intentions, they have never even been able to repeat back this simple description of analog. More to the point, they have never agreed with your insistence that vinyl sounds more natural. Which is kind of silly given that it is to some degree a subjective matter. More natural than what? Than their CD counterparts. The original tape? In xome cases according to some of the best mastering engineers in the world. Neither of us would know though since we haven't had the privilidge of making those comparisons. The original mic feed? Same answer as above. The original performance? Never. that is the ultimate reference. What remains true is that you can make a digital recording of an LP which is audibly indistinguishable from the original LP. You can also make one that is not. This is pretty much definite proof that digital audio can be totally transparent, and that your preference is based on artifacts *added* by vinyl. While that may be true to a degree it is not a fact that all or even many commercial CDs sound exactly like the master tapes from which they were made nor is it alay o even often desirable for that to happen. And that is supported by testimony of many of the best recording and mastering engineers in the business. That you *think* they sound more natural, in a 'whiter than white' kind of way, doesn't make it so. Actually it does. It is a matter of opinion and opinions other than yours count as well. Same applies to Jenn. Heaven forbid anyone should listen to the opinions of what sounds more natural in playback from someone who lives and works wit live music. Scott |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
wrote in message
... Jenn wrote: So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion. The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think vinyl is truer to life. For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness", "enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc. Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening. And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions. Mike. An interesting development in recent years in many CD mastering facilities has been the appearance of an analogue tape machine (the old Studer C37, a valve machine from the 1960s, is the most sought-after) Often clients ask for an "analogue pass" during the mastering process, by which they mean that the digital data stream is converted to analogue recorded and replayed by the analogue recorder, using Dolby SR and then converted back to digital for mastering. Iain |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
On 27 Oct 2005 02:26:56 GMT, "Iain M Churches"
wrote: wrote in message ... Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening. And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions. Mike. An interesting development in recent years in many CD mastering facilities has been the appearance of an analogue tape machine (the old Studer C37, a valve machine from the 1960s, is the most sought-after) Often clients ask for an "analogue pass" during the mastering process, by which they mean that the digital data stream is converted to analogue recorded and replayed by the analogue recorder, using Dolby SR and then converted back to digital for mastering. Quite so - and this is positive proof that the preference is for the *added* artifacts of analogue tape, not for anything mysteriously 'lost' by the digital process. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 27 Oct 2005 02:26:56 GMT, "Iain M Churches" wrote: wrote in message ... Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening. And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions. Mike. An interesting development in recent years in many CD mastering facilities has been the appearance of an analogue tape machine (the old Studer C37, a valve machine from the 1960s, is the most sought-after) Often clients ask for an "analogue pass" during the mastering process, by which they mean that the digital data stream is converted to analogue recorded and replayed by the analogue recorder, using Dolby SR and then converted back to digital for mastering. Quite so - and this is positive proof that the preference is for the *added* artifacts of analogue tape, not for anything mysteriously 'lost' by the digital process. I assume that they ask for an analogue pass as the result of feedback from the listening public regarding the perception of digital quality. The client makes up his own mind, and takes the decision which best suits his product, and the reputation of his label. That's fine as far as I am concerned. The client is happy, and we all get paid:-) Cordially, Iain |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 27 Oct 2005 02:26:56 GMT, "Iain M Churches" wrote: wrote in message ... Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening. And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions. Mike. An interesting development in recent years in many CD mastering facilities has been the appearance of an analogue tape machine (the old Studer C37, a valve machine from the 1960s, is the most sought-after) Often clients ask for an "analogue pass" during the mastering process, by which they mean that the digital data stream is converted to analogue recorded and replayed by the analogue recorder, using Dolby SR and then converted back to digital for mastering. Quite so - and this is positive proof that the preference is for the *added* artifacts of analogue tape, not for anything mysteriously 'lost' by the digital process. It proves only that *some* people like analog *some* of the time for *some* reason that may or may not have to do with audibility of analog "artifacts." If "what clients often ask for" is proof of anything, then the fact that old vinyl is good condition is highly valuable, while digital copies of it could be had virtually for free, makes exactly the opposite point. Mike |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
|
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
|
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
wrote in message
... If "what clients often ask for" is proof of anything, then the fact that old vinyl is good condition is highly valuable, while digital copies of it could be had virtually for free, makes exactly the opposite point. It is true that vinyl does command very high prices in the second hand market. Recently a Decca contract pressing of the Beatles LP Please Please Me, on Parlophone was sold for more than GBP600. The CD can be had second hand for Euro 2. But what has that to do with current practices in CD mastering? Iain |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
Iain M Churches wrote:
wrote in message ... Jenn wrote: So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion. The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think vinyl is truer to life. For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness", "enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc. Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening. And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions. Mike. An interesting development in recent years in many CD mastering facilities has been the appearance of an analogue tape machine (the old Studer C37, a valve machine from the 1960s, is the most sought-after) 'recent' years? People were introducing analog stages into the digital recording chain back in the mid 80's. See the SPARRS code of Peter Gabriel's 'So' for example. Often clients ask for an "analogue pass" during the mastering process, by which they mean that the digital data stream is converted to analogue recorded and replayed by the analogue recorder, using Dolby SR and then converted back to digital for mastering. rarely, I suspect, do they ever do a proper blind A/B to see how much their preference is influenced by non-audio factors. -- -S "The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Heaven!
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... Iain M Churches wrote: wrote in message ... Jenn wrote: So, after a week of living with the Clearaudio TT/arm/cartridge, I love it more and more. The sound that I am getting from my records is just so effortless and easy... like a good concert hall. I just put on several CDs, and I just don't get that with them. The timbres are thinner and less life-like. I wish that it were the other way around, but it's not. If this is due to "euphonic distortion", bring on more of it! We know the objectivists think it is euphonic distortion. The funny thing is, I have NEVER, not ONCE met an objectivist who could accurately repeat the description of vinyl provided by those who think vinyl is truer to life. For example, we get all this stuff about "midrange phasiness", "enhanced ambience", "pleasant timbre," etc. Of course, none of that describes the reason I like vinyl---and your word "effortless" above conveys this: the way the sound comes to my attention, how it feels to pay attention to it, particularly to pay attention to multiple voices, more accurately reflects live listening. And of course I get the same effect from analog tape, so this matter goes beyond vinyl-specific distortions. Mike. An interesting development in recent years in many CD mastering facilities has been the appearance of an analogue tape machine (the old Studer C37, a valve machine from the 1960s, is the most sought-after) 'recent' years? People were introducing analog stages into the digital recording chain back in the mid 80's. See the SPARRS code of Peter Gabriel's 'So' for example. Yes of course. And also at that time there were still a high percentage of analogue masters, plus a grreat deal of analogue outboard processing equipment. Interesting that in this digital age, mic preamps from Ampex 351 tape recorders, Pultec, Urei, and later Neve 2254A limiters, and early Neuman M47,M49 and M50 microphones command very high prices indeed. There was however a long period, in my experience where the mastering chain was totally digital. I know of three mastering rooms here in Scandinavia that have bought (at great expense) Studer C37s in very recent years. Each of us can draw his/her own conclusion. Often clients ask for an "analogue pass" during the mastering process, by which they mean that the digital data stream is converted to analogue recorded and replayed by the analogue recorder, using Dolby SR and then converted back to digital for mastering. rarely, I suspect, do they ever do a proper blind A/B to see how much their preference is influenced by non-audio factors. It is the responsibility of the mastering engineer to offer the various alternatives, but the final decision is made by the client, and he who pays the fiddler calls the tune:-) Iain |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| HDTV in heaven | Car Audio | |||
| *Thank Heaven For Arnie Kroo* | Audio Opinions | |||
Hybrid Mode
