[Arny Krueger]

Author's profile:

David Satz. B. Mus. degree, 1973, New England Conservatory (Boston);
teaching assistant to Rudolf Kolisch. Played in orchestras and chamber music
groups; recorded zillions of concerts and recitals. Moved to New York in
1981. Recording engineer, mainly remastering Red Seal LP recordings for CD,
at RCA Studios; Grammy award for "Best Historical Album", 1995. Programmer
and instructor of Windows programming (C, C++, C#). Translator (German to
English) and editorial nit-picker of technical and sales literature for
Schoeps GmbH.

Comment:

David Satz" wrote in message
ups.com
"

"
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
"

"
Within the last few years [ ... ] I've found that I can
make a transfer from vinyl to CDR that I can't really
tell from the original, other than the cleaning rituals
[ ... ]
"

"
Chris, I just would like to say that you've come up with
the most (perhaps only) meaningful, realistic, practical
comparison method between LP and CD that I've ever heard
of.
"

"
Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the
CD of the same album, play them both and compare the
results, they weren't really comparing the two media.
Instead, they were comparing the (generally quite
separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting, etc.--behind
the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
their LP and CD playback equipment.
"

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
factor, either.
"

[Jeff Findley]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Author's profile:

David Satz. B. Mus. degree, 1973, New England Conservatory (Boston);
teaching assistant to Rudolf Kolisch. Played in orchestras and chamber
music groups; recorded zillions of concerts and recitals. Moved to New
York in 1981. Recording engineer, mainly remastering Red Seal LP
recordings for CD, at RCA Studios; Grammy award for "Best Historical
Album", 1995. Programmer and instructor of Windows programming (C, C++,
C#). Translator (German to English) and editorial nit-picker of technical
and sales literature for Schoeps GmbH.

Comment:

David Satz" wrote in message
ups.com
"

"
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
"

"
Within the last few years [ ... ] I've found that I can
make a transfer from vinyl to CDR that I can't really
tell from the original, other than the cleaning rituals
[ ... ]
"

"
Chris, I just would like to say that you've come up with
the most (perhaps only) meaningful, realistic, practical
comparison method between LP and CD that I've ever heard
of.
"

"
Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the
CD of the same album, play them both and compare the
results, they weren't really comparing the two media.
Instead, they were comparing the (generally quite
separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting, etc.--behind
the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
their LP and CD playback equipment.
"

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
factor, either.
"

A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from what he understands
from working there, the type of media used to deliver the master to the CD
plant could make some difference. If the media was digital, then the CD's
pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media was analog, that
meant that what the plant got was going to be an "AAD" CD with the
additional possibility that the CD plant's analog to digital conversion
might not be as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing studio.

SPARS Code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_Code

Once the CD's were cut, they'd sample a few and play them in both a "low
end" and a "high end" CD player. The high end CD player would actually
report error detection/correction information and a certain amount of errors
were allowed in the final product, but I think they only allowed errors
which were able to be corrected by the CD player.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

[Keith G]

"Jeff Findley" wrote


A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from what he understands
from working there, the type of media used to deliver the master to the CD
plant could make some difference. If the media was digital, then the CD's
pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media was analog, that
meant that what the plant got was going to be an "AAD" CD with the
additional possibility that the CD plant's analog to digital conversion
might not be as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing studio.

SPARS Code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_Code

Once the CD's were cut, they'd sample a few and play them in both a "low
end" and a "high end" CD player. The high end CD player would actually
report error detection/correction information and a certain amount of
errors were allowed in the final product, but I think they only allowed
errors which were able to be corrected by the CD player.



Interesting, but not entirely *news*, Jeff - this is why a few of us (with a
higher *anxiety threshold* than some here) don't trouble too much about what
processes (D or A) went into making various LPs and CDs and just get on with
getting the best out of them as an *end product* on our own kit....

(That said, I believe I can see why some of the 'pre digital/ss' stuff
commands the high prices it does from *discerning* collectors...)

[Jeff Findley]

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Interesting, but not entirely *news*, Jeff - this is why a few of us (with
a higher *anxiety threshold* than some here) don't trouble too much about
what processes (D or A) went into making various LPs and CDs and just get
on with getting the best out of them as an *end product* on our own
kit....

(That said, I believe I can see why some of the 'pre digital/ss' stuff
commands the high prices it does from *discerning* collectors...)

Agreed.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

[Arny Krueger]

"Jeff Findley" wrote in
message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
Author's profile:

David Satz. B. Mus. degree, 1973, New England
Conservatory (Boston); teaching assistant to Rudolf
Kolisch. Played in orchestras and chamber music groups;
recorded zillions of concerts and recitals. Moved to New
York in 1981. Recording engineer, mainly remastering Red
Seal LP recordings for CD, at RCA Studios; Grammy award
for "Best Historical Album", 1995. Programmer and
instructor of Windows programming (C, C++, C#).
Translator (German to English) and editorial nit-picker
of technical and sales literature for Schoeps GmbH. Comment:

David Satz" wrote in message
ups.com
"

"
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
"

"
Within the last few years [ ... ] I've found that I can
make a transfer from vinyl to CDR that I can't really
tell from the original, other than the cleaning rituals
[ ... ]
"

"
Chris, I just would like to say that you've come up with
the most (perhaps only) meaningful, realistic, practical
comparison method between LP and CD that I've ever heard
of.
"

"
Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the
CD of the same album, play them both and compare the
results, they weren't really comparing the two media.
Instead, they were comparing the (generally quite
separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular
characteristics of their LP and CD playback equipment.
"

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
factor, either.
"

A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from
what he understands from working there, the type of media
used to deliver the master to the CD plant could make
some difference. If the media was digital, then the CD's
pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media
was analog, that meant that what the plant got was going
to be an "AAD" CD with the additional possibility that
the CD plant's analog to digital conversion might not be
as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing
studio.
SPARS Code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_Code

Once the CD's were cut, they'd sample a few and play them
in both a "low end" and a "high end" CD player. The high
end CD player would actually report error
detection/correction information and a certain amount of
errors were allowed in the final product, but I think
they only allowed errors which were able to be corrected
by the CD player.

That sounds similar to what I've heard from people who worked at CD plants.
The idea of people in CD plants mastering CD intended for wide-scale
distribution is a bit scary.

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" wrote in message


Interesting, but not entirely *news*, Jeff - this is why
a few of us (with a higher *anxiety threshold* than some
here) don't trouble too much about what processes (D or
A) went into making various LPs and CDs and just get on
with getting the best out of them as an *end product* on
our own kit....

Sometimes getting the most of of them as an end product is facilitated by
knowing about processes went into making various LPs and CDs.

[Walt]

Arny Krueger wrote:
Chris Hornbeck wrote:

Within the last few years [ ... ] I've found that I can
make a transfer from vinyl to CDR that I can't really
tell from the original, other than the cleaning rituals
[ ... ]

Chris, I just would like to say that you've come up with
the most (perhaps only) meaningful, realistic, practical
comparison method between LP and CD that I've ever heard
of.


I beg to differ. I don't think this really demonstrates a comparrison
between the two media at all - if the CD copy sounds just like the vinyl
it just means that the CD is a very good storage media where you get out
(almost) exactly what you put in.

Imagine going the other way - take a CD and press a vinyl record from it
(going through all the mother/master/stamping steps). Do you think that
the end result would be inidistinguishable?

Or to put a finer point on it, imagine the third generation cassette
copy of "Abba's greatest hits" that spent the summer on the back
dashboard of my car. Transfer it to CD, and you'll find that the CD
sounds just like the third-generation sun-damaged Sweedish crooning on
the tape. What conclusions would you draw from that fact?

//Walt

[Serge Auckland]

Walt wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
Chris Hornbeck wrote:

Within the last few years [ ... ] I've found that I can
make a transfer from vinyl to CDR that I can't really
tell from the original, other than the cleaning rituals
[ ... ]

Chris, I just would like to say that you've come up with
the most (perhaps only) meaningful, realistic, practical
comparison method between LP and CD that I've ever heard
of.


I beg to differ. I don't think this really demonstrates a comparrison
between the two media at all - if the CD copy sounds just like the vinyl
it just means that the CD is a very good storage media where you get out
(almost) exactly what you put in.

Imagine going the other way - take a CD and press a vinyl record from it
(going through all the mother/master/stamping steps). Do you think that
the end result would be inidistinguishable?

Or to put a finer point on it, imagine the third generation cassette
copy of "Abba's greatest hits" that spent the summer on the back
dashboard of my car. Transfer it to CD, and you'll find that the CD
sounds just like the third-generation sun-damaged Sweedish crooning on
the tape. What conclusions would you draw from that fact?

//Walt


I think your example of the Abba tape illustrates the point perfectly:-

A CD copy of an LP or cassette will sound like the LP or cassette to the
limits of the A-D conversion process, which today can be of a VERY high
order. In practical terms, I would say that a CD copy is sonically
identical to the analogue source.

The converse is not true:- An LP cut from a CD will not sound identical,
whatever mastering it has gone through. There are those who think the LP
will sound better, that's fine as their opinion, but the fact that it
*is* different means that CD is a transparent medium (what you put in
you get out) whilst LP is not.

S.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Serge Auckland wrote:
The converse is not true:- An LP cut from a CD will not sound identical,
whatever mastering it has gone through. There are those who think the LP
will sound better, that's fine as their opinion, but the fact that it
*is* different means that CD is a transparent medium (what you put in
you get out) whilst LP is not.

You can say this 'till you're blue in the face but it won't make a scrap
of difference to vinyl freaks. Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.

--
*Save the whale - I'll have it for my supper*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[plew@csus_abcdefghij.edu]

On 2006-11-02, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Serge Auckland wrote:
The converse is not true:- An LP cut from a CD will not sound identical,
whatever mastering it has gone through. There are those who think the LP
will sound better, that's fine as their opinion, but the fact that it
*is* different means that CD is a transparent medium (what you put in
you get out) whilst LP is not.

You can say this 'till you're blue in the face but it won't make a scrap
of difference to vinyl freaks. Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.

Also Vinyl allows people to create different sounds on the fly by moving
the record by hand forwards & backwards; something that cannot be done
easily with a CD. It is quite possible that the ability to move the
records is a main reason that vinyl is in demand since the records get
"ruined" and the sonic qualities of the recorded material doesn't matter.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On 2006-11-02, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article ,
Serge Auckland
wrote:
The converse is not true:- An LP cut from a CD will not
sound identical, whatever mastering it has gone
through. There are those who think the LP will sound
better, that's fine as their opinion, but the fact that
it *is* different means that CD is a transparent medium
(what you put in you get out) whilst LP is not.

You can say this 'till you're blue in the face but it
won't make a scrap of difference to vinyl freaks. Vinyl
*adds* realism to anything. Magic it may be but how and
why they don't care.

It is called "habit", "sentimentality", and "ritual".

Also Vinyl allows people to create different sounds on
the fly by moving the record by hand forwards &
backwards; something that cannot be done easily with a
CD.

Actually, that's a solved problem, two different ways.

(1) There are "DJ" CD players that simulate a LP being "scratched".

http://www.djdeals.com/denonDNS1000.htm

(2) There is software that simulates very similar things using a mouse.

http://cdscratch.com/

It is quite possible that the ability to move the
records is a main reason that vinyl is in demand since
the records get "ruined" and the sonic qualities of the
recorded material doesn't matter.

[Geoff]

Walt wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
Chris Hornbeck wrote:

Within the last few years [ ... ] I've found that I can
make a transfer from vinyl to CDR that I can't really
tell from the original, other than the cleaning rituals
[ ... ]

Chris, I just would like to say that you've come up with
the most (perhaps only) meaningful, realistic, practical
comparison method between LP and CD that I've ever heard
of.


I beg to differ. I don't think this really demonstrates a comparrison
between the two media at all - if the CD copy sounds just like the
vinyl it just means that the CD is a very good storage media where
you get out (almost) exactly what you put in.

That was, I think, the point !

geoff

[Richard Crowley]

Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.

Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year.

"Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before posting it?
Or are they using a different definintion of "real" than the
rest of us?

[Arny Krueger]

"Geoff" wrote in message

Walt wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
Chris Hornbeck wrote:

Within the last few years [ ... ] I've found that I
can make a transfer from vinyl to CDR that I can't
really tell from the original, other than the
cleaning rituals [ ... ]

Chris, I just would like to say that you've come up
with the most (perhaps only) meaningful, realistic,
practical comparison method between LP and CD that
I've ever heard of.


I beg to differ. I don't think this really demonstrates
a comparrison between the two media at all - if the CD
copy sounds just like the vinyl it just means that the
CD is a very good storage media where you get out
(almost) exactly what you put in.

That was, I think, the point !

Which begs the questions raised by people who claim that the CD format
somehow inherently makes music unacceptable for the purpose of them
listening for their enjoyment.

[Arny Krueger]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message

Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.

Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year.

"Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before posting it?

More to the point, do they think about what it means.

I suspect that the *realism* that is added is akin to air-brushing a la
Vargas in Playboy.

Or are they using a different definintion of "real" than the rest of us?

More real, as in conforming to their preconceived notions of what real
sounds like.

Vinyl does have a sort of mixmaster affect on sound. Because of its inherent
distortion and lack of dynamic range, vinyl mastering and recording tends to
remove a certain amount of natural diversity from recordings.

[Keith G]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.


Hmmm...

That looks like a *twisted* version of my own view that vinyl sounds more
realistic than CD (which it does)....??

Now, I *wonder* who it could be...??

:-)


rest of the silly bluster snipped

[Dave Platt]

In article ,
Richard Crowley wrote:

Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.

Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year.

"Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before posting it?
Or are they using a different definintion of "real" than the
rest of us?

I think that a valid distinction can be made between "accuracy" (a
term I use here to denote an objective relationship between source and
playback) and "realism" (which term I use to indicate a _subjective_
perception).

It's well known, for example, that adding some amount of delayed,
out-of-phase signal components to a piece of music can create a sense
of "air" or "ambience" that makes the playback seem more like
listening to the music as it might be when played in a live venue.
Multi-channel playback systems such as the venerable Dynaquad, or the
various digital-delay ambience-synthesis systems such as Yamaha and
a/d/s have made, have been used to good advantage for this for decades.
Although such systems tend to work best with additional loudspeakers,
they can have a subjective benefit even when used with a stereo
playback system.

In particular, multi-miked studio recordings are often largely or
completely free of realistic performance-room ambience, and the
injection of some (artificial) delayed and phase-incoherent components
into the music can "open up" such recordings and make them sound more
pleasant to many listeners.

Such modification of the signal is artifical. The resulting signal is
less accurate (in the objective sense). It may, on the other hand, be
more "realistic", in the sense that the music sounds more like it
might if the musicians were actually present in the listening room,
performing the music in a real live venue.

I believe that a very similar phenomenon can and does occur with LP
playback. There are a couple of physical mechanisms which can cause
an LP playback to include delayed, non-phase-coherent copies of the
music signal which were not present in the original recording (master
tape, direct-to-disk signal, or whatever). Acoustic feedback to the
LP, from the music playing from the speakers, is one such... this will
create delayed sound on the order of tens of milliseconds. Direct
"ringing" of sound impulses in the vinyl LP itself is another...
sound waves radiate outwards in the platter from the point of contact
of the stylus (action/reaction) and ring around the platter in various
ways.

It's probably not a coincidence that those turntables which had/have a
reputation for "extracting" the most "air" and "ambience" from an LP
recording, are those which tended to use hard mats, or discrete
multi-point support systems for the LP itself (and thus have a minimal
amount of physical damping of the platter). The Linn turntable was
perhaps the exemplar of this class. Turntables which use soft,
sticky, well-damped platter mats (e.g. the original Oracle) had a
reputation for sounding more "dry".

These delayed-signal artifacts of the LP playback process (created
through purely mechanical mechanisms rather than through digital
delay) are, once again, inaccuracies almost by definition. However, I
believe that they can make many recordings sound more subjectively
pleasant and "realistic" than otherwise.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

[Arny Krueger]

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.


Hmmm...

That looks like a *twisted* version of my own view that
vinyl sounds more realistic than CD (which it does)....??

That makes as much sense as saying: "I like the way this chef spices the
beef - it makes it taste fresher"

[Keith G]

"Dave Platt" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Richard Crowley wrote:

Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.

Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year.

"Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before posting it?
Or are they using a different definintion of "real" than the
rest of us?

I think that a valid distinction can be made between "accuracy" (a
term I use here to denote an objective relationship between source and
playback) and "realism" (which term I use to indicate a _subjective_
perception).

It's well known, for example, that adding some amount of delayed,
out-of-phase signal components to a piece of music can create a sense
of "air" or "ambience" that makes the playback seem more like
listening to the music as it might be when played in a live venue.
Multi-channel playback systems such as the venerable Dynaquad, or the
various digital-delay ambience-synthesis systems such as Yamaha and
a/d/s have made, have been used to good advantage for this for decades.
Although such systems tend to work best with additional loudspeakers,
they can have a subjective benefit even when used with a stereo
playback system.

In particular, multi-miked studio recordings are often largely or
completely free of realistic performance-room ambience, and the
injection of some (artificial) delayed and phase-incoherent components
into the music can "open up" such recordings and make them sound more
pleasant to many listeners.

Such modification of the signal is artifical. The resulting signal is
less accurate (in the objective sense). It may, on the other hand, be
more "realistic", in the sense that the music sounds more like it
might if the musicians were actually present in the listening room,
performing the music in a real live venue.

I believe that a very similar phenomenon can and does occur with LP
playback. There are a couple of physical mechanisms which can cause
an LP playback to include delayed, non-phase-coherent copies of the
music signal which were not present in the original recording (master
tape, direct-to-disk signal, or whatever). Acoustic feedback to the
LP, from the music playing from the speakers, is one such... this will
create delayed sound on the order of tens of milliseconds. Direct
"ringing" of sound impulses in the vinyl LP itself is another...
sound waves radiate outwards in the platter from the point of contact
of the stylus (action/reaction) and ring around the platter in various
ways.

It's probably not a coincidence that those turntables which had/have a
reputation for "extracting" the most "air" and "ambience" from an LP
recording, are those which tended to use hard mats, or discrete
multi-point support systems for the LP itself (and thus have a minimal
amount of physical damping of the platter). The Linn turntable was
perhaps the exemplar of this class. Turntables which use soft,
sticky, well-damped platter mats (e.g. the original Oracle) had a
reputation for sounding more "dry".

These delayed-signal artifacts of the LP playback process (created
through purely mechanical mechanisms rather than through digital
delay) are, once again, inaccuracies almost by definition. However, I
believe that they can make many recordings sound more subjectively
pleasant and "realistic" than otherwise.



This has leaked into ukra from the tech group, I presume?

I perhaps do not agree with everything I've read, but (as ukra's leading
'vinyl bigot') I would just like to say how refreshing it is to see an
intelligent rationale like this one - the digital bigots in ukra can't do
anything like it without getting all twisted out of shape!!

[Nick Gorham]

Richard Crowley wrote:
Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.


Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year.

"Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before posting it?
Or are they using a different definintion of "real" than the
rest of us?



No, but you do seem to be using a different method of clipping a post to
make the point you want, and attempting to acredit the author of a
statement to the wrong group in this case.

--
Nick

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
I perhaps do not agree with everything I've read, but (as ukra's leading
'vinyl bigot') I would just like to say how refreshing it is to see an
intelligent rationale like this one - the digital bigots in ukra can't
do anything like it without getting all twisted out of shape!!

Really? Calling people c**nts like you do?

--
*Many hamsters only blink one eye at a time *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Richard Crowley]

"Nick Gorham" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.


Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year.

"Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before posting it?
Or are they using a different definintion of "real" than the
rest of us?

No, but you do seem to be using a different method of clipping a post to
make the point you want, and attempting to acredit the author of a
statement to the wrong group in this case.

Huh? If you look closely, you will see that I "accredited" it
to NO specific author. I neither know nor care who said it.

I'm questioning the concept of "adding realism" quite apart from
whether this applies to vinyl or digital, or even to audio as such.

[Arny Krueger]

"Dave Platt" wrote in message

In article ,
Richard Crowley wrote:

Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.

Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year.

"Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before posting
it? Or are they using a different definintion of "real"
than the rest of us?

I think that a valid distinction can be made between
"accuracy" (a term I use here to denote an objective
relationship between source and playback) and "realism"
(which term I use to indicate a _subjective_ perception).

It's well known, for example, that adding some amount of
delayed, out-of-phase signal components to a piece of
music can create a sense of "air" or "ambience" that
makes the playback seem more like listening to the music
as it might be when played in a live venue.

Yes, the well-known phasiness, which is actually not usually characteristic
of a high quality live venue such as a symphony hall.

Multi-channel
playback systems such as the venerable Dynaquad, or the
various digital-delay ambience-synthesis systems such as
Yamaha and a/d/s have made, have been used to good
advantage for this for decades.

Again, many listeners observe that many recordings give strong directional
cues that actually don't exist in a quality live venue.

In particular, multi-miked studio recordings are often
largely or completely free of realistic performance-room
ambience, and the injection of some (artificial) delayed
and phase-incoherent components into the music can "open
up" such recordings and make them sound more pleasant to
many listeners.

Counterpoint - multi-miced recordings can sound "phasey" due to leakage
between the mics, while coincident-mic minimla-miced recordings tend to
create sound fields that implement "intensity stereo" that have vastly
reduced phase differences between the channels.




Such modification of the signal is artifical. The
resulting signal is less accurate (in the objective
sense). It may, on the other hand, be more "realistic",
in the sense that the music sounds more like it might if
the musicians were actually present in the listening
room, performing the music in a real live venue.

I believe that a very similar phenomenon can and does
occur with LP playback. There are a couple of physical
mechanisms which can cause an LP playback to include
delayed, non-phase-coherent copies of the music signal
which were not present in the original recording (master
tape, direct-to-disk signal, or whatever). Acoustic
feedback to the LP, from the music playing from the
speakers, is one such... this will create delayed sound
on the order of tens of milliseconds. Direct "ringing"
of sound impulses in the vinyl LP itself is another...
sound waves radiate outwards in the platter from the
point of contact of the stylus (action/reaction) and ring
around the platter in various ways.

It's probably not a coincidence that those turntables
which had/have a reputation for "extracting" the most
"air" and "ambience" from an LP recording, are those
which tended to use hard mats, or discrete multi-point
support systems for the LP itself (and thus have a
minimal amount of physical damping of the platter). The
Linn turntable was perhaps the exemplar of this class.
Turntables which use soft, sticky, well-damped platter
mats (e.g. the original Oracle) had a reputation for
sounding more "dry".

These delayed-signal artifacts of the LP playback process
(created through purely mechanical mechanisms rather than
through digital delay) are, once again, inaccuracies
almost by definition. However, I believe that they can
make many recordings sound more subjectively pleasant and
"realistic" than otherwise.

[bob]

Dave Platt wrote:

I think that a valid distinction can be made between "accuracy" (a
term I use here to denote an objective relationship between source and
playback) and "realism" (which term I use to indicate a _subjective_
perception).

It's well known, for example, that adding some amount of delayed,
out-of-phase signal components to a piece of music can create a sense
of "air" or "ambience" that makes the playback seem more like
listening to the music as it might be when played in a live venue.
Multi-channel playback systems such as the venerable Dynaquad, or the
various digital-delay ambience-synthesis systems such as Yamaha and
a/d/s have made, have been used to good advantage for this for decades.
Although such systems tend to work best with additional loudspeakers,
they can have a subjective benefit even when used with a stereo
playback system.

In particular, multi-miked studio recordings are often largely or
completely free of realistic performance-room ambience, and the
injection of some (artificial) delayed and phase-incoherent components
into the music can "open up" such recordings and make them sound more
pleasant to many listeners.

Such modification of the signal is artifical. The resulting signal is
less accurate (in the objective sense). It may, on the other hand, be
more "realistic", in the sense that the music sounds more like it
might if the musicians were actually present in the listening room,
performing the music in a real live venue.

I believe that a very similar phenomenon can and does occur with LP
playback. There are a couple of physical mechanisms which can cause
an LP playback to include delayed, non-phase-coherent copies of the
music signal which were not present in the original recording (master
tape, direct-to-disk signal, or whatever). Acoustic feedback to the
LP, from the music playing from the speakers, is one such... this will
create delayed sound on the order of tens of milliseconds. Direct
"ringing" of sound impulses in the vinyl LP itself is another...
sound waves radiate outwards in the platter from the point of contact
of the stylus (action/reaction) and ring around the platter in various
ways.

It's probably not a coincidence that those turntables which had/have a
reputation for "extracting" the most "air" and "ambience" from an LP
recording, are those which tended to use hard mats, or discrete
multi-point support systems for the LP itself (and thus have a minimal
amount of physical damping of the platter). The Linn turntable was
perhaps the exemplar of this class. Turntables which use soft,
sticky, well-damped platter mats (e.g. the original Oracle) had a
reputation for sounding more "dry".

These delayed-signal artifacts of the LP playback process (created
through purely mechanical mechanisms rather than through digital
delay) are, once again, inaccuracies almost by definition. However, I
believe that they can make many recordings sound more subjectively
pleasant and "realistic" than otherwise.

To the extent that this is correct, the technically preferable way to
induce this effect is to start with the cleanest, most accurate
recording possible and then use digital signal processing to introduce
phase distortion at the user's discretion. This allows you to adjust
the effect to the recording, rather than accepting the fixed distortion
of a particular vinyl rig.

bob

[Mr.T]

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from what he understands
from working there, the type of media used to deliver the master to the CD
plant could make some difference. If the media was digital, then the CD's
pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media was analog, that
meant that what the plant got was going to be an "AAD" CD with the
additional possibility that the CD plant's analog to digital conversion
might not be as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing studio.

In fact many CD plants would not touch an analog tape these days. Any who do
would probably perform as good a job as the tape allows for. The only
difference being the quality of the tape machine.


Once the CD's were cut, they'd sample a few and play them in both a "low
end" and a "high end" CD player. The high end CD player would actually
report error detection/correction information and a certain amount of
errors
were allowed in the final product, but I think they only allowed errors
which were able to be corrected by the CD player.

Unfortunately they even ADD C1 errors these days and call it copy
protection!

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.

Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year.

"Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before posting it?
Or are they using a different definintion of "real" than the
rest of us?

That was established long ago. They simply make up the definitions to suit
their argument.

But he did give a good explanation of their thinking, the stylus is a
"magic" crystal :-)

MrT.

[Nick Gorham]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Nick Gorham" wrote ...

Richard Crowley wrote:

Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.


Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year.

"Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before posting it?
Or are they using a different definintion of "real" than the
rest of us?

No, but you do seem to be using a different method of clipping a post to
make the point you want, and attempting to acredit the author of a
statement to the wrong group in this case.


Huh? If you look closely, you will see that I "accredited" it
to NO specific author. I neither know nor care who said it.

I'm questioning the concept of "adding realism" quite apart from
whether this applies to vinyl or digital, or even to audio as such.



I did look closely, I see two "they"'s and a "us". To me that involves
at least two groups, and you are placing yourself in the not "them" one.

--
Nick

[Jim Lesurf]

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Dave Platt" wrote in message
[snip]


It's probably not a coincidence that those turntables which had/have a
reputation for "extracting" the most "air" and "ambience" from an LP
recording, are those which tended to use hard mats, or discrete
multi-point support systems for the LP itself (and thus have a minimal
amount of physical damping of the platter). The Linn turntable was
perhaps the exemplar of this class. Turntables which use soft,
sticky, well-damped platter mats (e.g. the original Oracle) had a
reputation for sounding more "dry".

These delayed-signal artifacts of the LP playback process (created
through purely mechanical mechanisms rather than through digital
delay) are, once again, inaccuracies almost by definition. However, I
believe that they can make many recordings sound more subjectively
pleasant and "realistic" than otherwise.



This has leaked into ukra from the tech group, I presume?

I perhaps do not agree with everything I've read, but (as ukra's leading
'vinyl bigot') I would just like to say how refreshing it is to see an
intelligent rationale like this one - the digital bigots in ukra can't
do anything like it without getting all twisted out of shape!!

If you think the above is 'new', then you may find

http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioM.../feedback.html

interesting. :-)

The above page was put onto the web in Jan 2003 and summarises work by
Noel Keywood and others back in the late 1970's and early 1980's.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

[Rob]

Arny Krueger wrote:
Author's profile:

David Satz. B. Mus. degree, 1973, New England Conservatory (Boston);
teaching assistant to Rudolf Kolisch. Played in orchestras and chamber music
groups; recorded zillions of concerts and recitals. Moved to New York in
1981. Recording engineer, mainly remastering Red Seal LP recordings for CD,
at RCA Studios; Grammy award for "Best Historical Album", 1995. Programmer
and instructor of Windows programming (C, C++, C#). Translator (German to
English) and editorial nit-picker of technical and sales literature for
Schoeps GmbH.


I'm not sure if this is an independent view - seems to me the author has
a number of vested interests.

Comment:

David Satz" wrote in message
ups.com
"

"
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
"

"
Within the last few years [ ... ] I've found that I can
make a transfer from vinyl to CDR that I can't really
tell from the original, other than the cleaning rituals
[ ... ]


I'd go along with that to a point - LP-CD provides a mighty fine
rendition. LP-CD sounds particularly marked in compilations, and really
makes the case for LP IMO. I do find that the CD copy gives a flatter
sound stage.
"

"
Chris, I just would like to say that you've come up with
the most (perhaps only) meaningful, realistic, practical
comparison method between LP and CD that I've ever heard
of.


Um - listening to the results is a good idea?! Well, obviously :-)
"

"
Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the
CD of the same album, play them both and compare the
results, they weren't really comparing the two media.
Instead, they were comparing the (generally quite
separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting, etc.--behind
the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
their LP and CD playback equipment.


OK, yes.
"

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
factor, either.
"

Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has managed two
maxims from anecdote. This is a problem because it still doesn't explain
*why* some people prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl. It's just
another attampt at closure of the point: 'They can not, they must not'.

Onwards and sideways ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Nick Gorham" wrote ...

Richard Crowley wrote:

Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.


Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year.

"Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before
posting it? Or are they using a different definintion
of "real" than the rest of us?

No, but you do seem to be using a different method of
clipping a post to make the point you want, and
attempting to acredit the author of a statement to the
wrong group in this case.


Huh? If you look closely, you will see that I
"accredited" it to NO specific author. I neither know nor care who said
it.

I'm questioning the concept of "adding realism" quite
apart from whether this applies to vinyl or digital, or
even to audio as such.

I did look closely, I see two "they"'s and a "us". To me
that involves at least two groups, and you are placing
yourself in the not "them" one.

Note that Nick is picking at words to avoid dealing with the important
issues that were raised.

Nick has effectively conceeded the points raised to Richard, but lacks the
candor to come out and say it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
factor, either.
"

Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has
managed two maxims from anecdote.

No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

This is a problem
because it still doesn't explain *why* some people prefer
a similar/same recording on vinyl.

That wasn't the point.

It's just another attampt at closure of the point: 'They can not, they
must
not'.

Completely missed the point.

[Nick Gorham]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Nick Gorham" wrote in message


Richard Crowley wrote:

"Nick Gorham" wrote ...


Richard Crowley wrote:


Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.


Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year.

"Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before
posting it? Or are they using a different definintion
of "real" than the rest of us?

No, but you do seem to be using a different method of
clipping a post to make the point you want, and
attempting to acredit the author of a statement to the
wrong group in this case.


Huh? If you look closely, you will see that I
"accredited" it to NO specific author. I neither know nor care who said
it.


I'm questioning the concept of "adding realism" quite
apart from whether this applies to vinyl or digital, or
even to audio as such.

I did look closely, I see two "they"'s and a "us". To me
that involves at least two groups, and you are placing
yourself in the not "them" one.


Note that Nick is picking at words to avoid dealing with the important
issues that were raised.

Nick has effectively conceeded the points raised to Richard, but lacks the
candor to come out and say it.



Actually I don't give a toss if you think I am one one side or the other
in this, it just seemed to be rather sad, that Dave created a comment
that he tried to put in the mouths of the pro-vinyl group, then Richard
seems to have taken this point out of context and tried to make it the
subject of a strawman argument. Then following this several people
(including yourself Arni) has then jumped on this as a excuse to wheel
out the normal old stuff.

As it happens, I doubt you have ever head me claim that I believe that
vinyl has anywhere near the SN of CD, anywhere the low level of
distortion or anywhere near the convienence.

But what seems to be interesting, is that given I know all the above, I
(and it seems many others) still generally get greater pleasure from
listening to vinyl than I do CD.

I would have thought that would have been a interesting thing to
investigate, but you seem to prefer to disregard the fact that there are
people that prefer vinyl, and just insult them with a religious ferver
as far as I can see.

Oh, and by the way, last time I looked many of the training files on
your ABX site were missing or broken. And I have doubts about the
validity of some of them, For instance I would have expecetd 1% 2nd
harmonic distortion to be harder to spot, I seem to get a 100% result
given the files that are there at the moment.

--
Nick

[Rob]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
factor, either.
"

Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has
managed two maxims from anecdote.

No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire LP music recording.
Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording captures in entirety any variance
in sources.

These assumptions aren't facts.


This is a problem
because it still doesn't explain *why* some people prefer
a similar/same recording on vinyl.

That wasn't the point.


Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no attempt is made
to explain cause. If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.

It's just another attampt at closure of the point: 'They can not, they
must
not'.

Completely missed the point.


I don't think so. Perhaps I could have rephrased to: "It's another
attempt by Arny to achieve closure ...". Why else would you have posted?

[Arny Krueger]

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message


As it happens, I doubt you have ever head me claim that I
believe that vinyl has anywhere near the SN of CD,
anywhere the low level of distortion or anywhere near the
convienence.

Good.

But what seems to be interesting, is that given I know
all the above, I (and it seems many others) still
generally get greater pleasure from listening to vinyl
than I do CD.

I don't have any problems with that. I was just watching a TV program called
"Car Crazy". The particular show talked about a guy who restored a 1964
Corvair which happened to be the first car he ever drove regularly, and
found that driving it around gave him greater pleasure than driving any
other car. Pretty much the same thing.

I would have thought that would have been a interesting
thing to investigate, but you seem to prefer to disregard
the fact that there are people that prefer vinyl, and
just insult them with a religious ferver as far as I can
see.

I think that if you review the facts, you will find that by the time I
started posting to the "Vinyl To CD on a PC" thread that things were not the
same as you have started out here.

Oh, and by the way, last time I looked many of the
training files on your ABX site were missing or broken.

Got any particulars?

And I have doubts about the validity of some of them, For
instance I would have expecetd 1% 2nd harmonic distortion
to be harder to spot, I seem to get a 100% result given
the files that are there at the moment.

Blind or sighted?

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely,
and the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't
a factor, either.
"

Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has
managed two maxims from anecdote.

No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire
LP music recording.

Not all of the recording, just all of the audible parts, and with a very
considerable safety magin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It can be verified with
both listening tests and measurements.

Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording
captures in entirety any variance in sources.

Not all of the sources, just all of the audible parts, and with a
considerable margin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It can be verified with
both listening tests and measurements. The measurements need to be
coordinated with what is known about human perception of sound. This has
been done.

These assumptions aren't facts.

Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used. Properly stated they are
findings of science that have been verified by just about anybody who has
bothered to take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or even
collect their own data. There are no known adverse findings that are
anywhere as near unbiased.

This is a problem
because it still doesn't explain *why* some people
prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl.

That wasn't the point.

Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no
attempt is made to explain cause.

The cause is pretty easy to figure out. Preference is based on stimulus and
perception. Perception is based on the body's sensory reaction to stimulus
and how the brain processes those reactions. If you trace through the steps,
you find the most variations in how different people's brains work.

If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.

The reason why can be easily understood if you are well-informed about
sensation and perception.

It's just another attampt at closure of the point:
'They can not, they must
not'.

Completely missed the point.


I don't think so. Perhaps I could have rephrased to:
"It's another attempt by Arny to achieve closure ...". Why else would
you have posted?

Error correction. Education.

[Richard Crowley]

"Nick Gorham" wrote ...
I did look closely, I see two "they"'s and a "us". To me that involves
at least two groups, and you are placing yourself in the not "them"
one.

And your point is what?
No opinion on the actual question?

[jwvm]

On Nov 2, 5:07 pm, "Richard Crowley" wrote:
Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year.

"Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before posting it?
Or are they using a different definintion of "real" than the
rest of us?

Hey, these are the same people that spend $1000 for power cords and
$500 for wooden knobs and you are asking about their definition of
real? " :-)

[Richard Crowley]

"jwvm" wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote:
Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.

Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year.

"Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before posting it?
Or are they using a different definintion of "real" than the
rest of us?

Hey, these are the same people that spend $1000 for power cords and
$500 for wooden knobs and you are asking about their definition of
real? " :-)

LOL :-)) Excellent point.
Thanks for the reality-check.

[Rob]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely,
and the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't
a factor, either.
"
Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has
managed two maxims from anecdote.
No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.
Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire
LP music recording.

Not all of the recording, just all of the audible parts, and with a very
considerable safety magin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It can be verified with
both listening tests and measurements.

Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording
captures in entirety any variance in sources.

Not all of the sources, just all of the audible parts, and with a
considerable margin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It can be verified with
both listening tests and measurements. The measurements need to be
coordinated with what is known about human perception of sound. This has
been done.


That's fine - I didn't know that. Reading lots of waffle about
supertweeters you can't hear, and subwoofers you shouldn't hear, makes
the notion of 'audible' a problem for dunces like me :-)

These assumptions aren't facts.

Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used. Properly stated they are
findings of science that have been verified by just about anybody who has
bothered to take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or even
collect their own data. There are no known adverse findings that are
anywhere as near unbiased.


Okeydokey. I'm probably expecting too much, but do you have a reference
to a (preferably peer reviewed) source to substantiate this?

This is a problem
because it still doesn't explain *why* some people
prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl.

That wasn't the point.

Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no
attempt is made to explain cause.

The cause is pretty easy to figure out. Preference is based on stimulus and
perception. Perception is based on the body's sensory reaction to stimulus
and how the brain processes those reactions. If you trace through the steps,
you find the most variations in how different people's brains work.


Is this your opinion or another robust fact?

If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.

The reason why can be easily understood if you are well-informed about
sensation and perception.


I think you're steering towards a rational/'nature'/positivist
explanation. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but you do understand
there are different ways of thinking about things?!

It's just another attampt at closure of the point:
'They can not, they must
not'.

Completely missed the point.


I don't think so. Perhaps I could have rephrased to:
"It's another attempt by Arny to achieve closure ...". Why else would
you have posted?

Error correction. Education.


Is that some sort of crossword clue?

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in
its audible sound quality than CD playback
equipment does. But your method eliminates that
variable completely, and the mastering decisions of
a commercial CD aren't a factor, either.
"
Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer
has managed two maxims from anecdote.
No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire
LP music recording.

Not all of the recording, just all of the audible parts,
and with a very considerable safety magin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It
can be verified with both listening tests and
measurements.

Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording
captures in entirety any variance in sources.

Not all of the sources, just all of the audible parts,
and with a considerable margin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It
can be verified with both listening tests and
measurements. The measurements need to be coordinated
with what is known about human perception of sound. This
has been done.

That's fine - I didn't know that. Reading lots of waffle
about supertweeters you can't hear, and subwoofers you
shouldn't hear, makes the notion of 'audible' a problem
for dunces like me :-)

These assumptions aren't facts.

Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used.
Properly stated they are findings of science that have
been verified by just about anybody who has bothered to
take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or
even collect their own data. There are no known adverse
findings that are anywhere as near unbiased.

Okeydokey. I'm probably expecting too much, but do you
have a reference to a (preferably peer reviewed) source
to substantiate this?

Here's an example of some people who tried to collect their own data:

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm

The digital delay device being tested used the identical same data format as
audio CDs and was of professional grade. It acted like a CD recorder and CD
player back-to-back. Similar tests have been rerun from time to time in more
modern contexts with identical results.


This is a problem
because it still doesn't explain *why* some people
prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl.

That wasn't the point.

Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no
attempt is made to explain cause.

The cause is pretty easy to figure out. Preference is
based on stimulus and perception. Perception is based on
the body's sensory reaction to stimulus and how the
brain processes those reactions. If you trace through
the steps, you find the most variations in how different
people's brains work.

Is this your opinion or another robust fact?

Robust fact.

If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.

The reason why can be easily understood if you are
well-informed about sensation and perception.

I think you're steering towards a
rational/'nature'/positivist explanation. Nothing wrong
with that in itself, but you do understand there are
different ways of thinking about things?!

It seems to me that when a bunch of audiophiles and recording engineers
listen to high quality live and recorded analog sources and find that they
can't tell the difference between a short piece of wire and relatively
complex digital encoding and decoding in the signal path, a lot of heavy
philosophical thinking can be bypassed.