[Arny Krueger]

If you check google, you'll find that Harry Lavo has made at least 37 posts
claiming that one important reason why CDs can't sound sonically accurate or
sound inferior to LPs, is their transient response.

Here's some typical quotes:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...bb1da448b638a?

"As to LP's, you're criticism of the medium is that high frequencies have to
be shelved in maximum volume to avoid overload. That says nothering about
transient performance below the shelved overload point. LP's have a more
extended frequency response than CD when required...and reproducing
transients well tends to be one of the things requiring it. "

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...94aac7eddad17?

"Basically, the argument is that you need 10x the highest audible
frequencies
in order to be able to pass a square wave correctly, and hence high
frequency transient response correctly. I challenged the new head of CBS
Labs on this back in 1970. Being a good engineer he took the party line
that it didn't make a difference, but then later told me that they had
played with it in the lab and that at least some of the folks thought a wide
bandwidth design sounded better. "

"Still true for digital. You've got to get to 192/24 before at least some
listeners claim to no longer be able to hear a difference from analog. And
if you look at a very short pulse, it takes that high a frequency until the
pre-ripple of PCM gets insufficiently small and short (in time) to not be a
problem. However, I'll agree that for most pop music, 96/24 is more than
enough since their is so little analog "reality" at work to begin with. "

So, when I offer to assist Jenn in setting up a live versus digital
comparison, that fully includes this effect, does Harry jump on board?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo!



Looks like Harry has major problems with being consistent with himself, eh?

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
If you check google, you'll find that Harry Lavo has made at least 37
posts claiming that one important reason why CDs can't sound sonically
accurate or sound inferior to LPs, is their transient response.

Here's some typical quotes:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...bb1da448b638a?

"As to LP's, you're criticism of the medium is that high frequencies have
to
be shelved in maximum volume to avoid overload. That says nothering about
transient performance below the shelved overload point. LP's have a more
extended frequency response than CD when required...and reproducing
transients well tends to be one of the things requiring it. "

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...94aac7eddad17?

"Basically, the argument is that you need 10x the highest audible
frequencies
in order to be able to pass a square wave correctly, and hence high
frequency transient response correctly. I challenged the new head of CBS
Labs on this back in 1970. Being a good engineer he took the party line
that it didn't make a difference, but then later told me that they had
played with it in the lab and that at least some of the folks thought a
wide
bandwidth design sounded better. "

"Still true for digital. You've got to get to 192/24 before at least some
listeners claim to no longer be able to hear a difference from analog.
And
if you look at a very short pulse, it takes that high a frequency until
the
pre-ripple of PCM gets insufficiently small and short (in time) to not be
a
problem. However, I'll agree that for most pop music, 96/24 is more than
enough since their is so little analog "reality" at work to begin with. "

So, when I offer to assist Jenn in setting up a live versus digital
comparison, that fully includes this effect, does Harry jump on board?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo!



Looks like Harry has major problems with being consistent with himself,
eh?

Has nothing to do with me. Has to do with the fact that you weren't
proposing to test what Jenn claimed....namely that commercial CD's often
affected the timbre of sound.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
If you check google, you'll find that Harry Lavo has made at least 37
posts claiming that one important reason why CDs can't sound sonically
accurate or sound inferior to LPs, is their transient response.

Here's some typical quotes:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...bb1da448b638a?

"As to LP's, you're criticism of the medium is that high frequencies have
to
be shelved in maximum volume to avoid overload. That says nothering
about
transient performance below the shelved overload point. LP's have a more
extended frequency response than CD when required...and reproducing
transients well tends to be one of the things requiring it. "

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...94aac7eddad17?

"Basically, the argument is that you need 10x the highest audible
frequencies
in order to be able to pass a square wave correctly, and hence high
frequency transient response correctly. I challenged the new head of CBS
Labs on this back in 1970. Being a good engineer he took the party line
that it didn't make a difference, but then later told me that they had
played with it in the lab and that at least some of the folks thought a
wide
bandwidth design sounded better. "

"Still true for digital. You've got to get to 192/24 before at least some
listeners claim to no longer be able to hear a difference from analog.
And
if you look at a very short pulse, it takes that high a frequency until
the
pre-ripple of PCM gets insufficiently small and short (in time) to not be
a
problem. However, I'll agree that for most pop music, 96/24 is more than
enough since their is so little analog "reality" at work to begin with. "

So, when I offer to assist Jenn in setting up a live versus digital
comparison, that fully includes this effect, does Harry jump on board?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo!



Looks like Harry has major problems with being consistent with himself,
eh?

Has nothing to do with me.

Thanks Harry for showing once again that you don't want to take
responsibility for your own claims and statements.

Has to do with the fact that you weren't proposing to test what Jenn
claimed....namely that commercial CD's often affected the timbre of sound.

Thanks again Harry for showing that not only can't you be consistent with
yourself, you can't properly state Jenn's position in the matter of timbre
changes on CDs. She's on record as saying that while she has listened to a
zillion CDs, she's never heard a CD that captures timbre as well as her
LPs.

Just so you can't complain that I won't state my position or be consistent
with it, it is my position that the CD format does not necessarily cause
audible changes to audio signals, even audio signals piped in directly from
a live performance.

I claim that I can illustrate this fact by taking an audio signal piped in
directly from an live performance of Jenn's contriving, and interpose a
conversion to CD format and back using inexpensive off-the-shelf converters.
Jenn won't be able to reliably hear the difference the conversion to CD
format makes.

IOW Harry, contrary to your repeated claims the CD format does not
necessarily cause loss of SQ from live performances all by itself.

I obviously can't control the production of every commercial recording, so
it may be true that the sum of all production procedures may change the
timbre of the sound in some CD recordings. However, that is true of LPs as
well, and to a greater extent due to the well-known audible limitations of
the LP format which vastly exceed those in the CD format.

[R. Stanton]

On Nov 9, 9:37 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
If you check google, you'll find that Harry Lavo has made at least 37 posts
claiming that one important reason why CDs can't sound sonically accurate or
sound inferior to LPs, is their transient response.

Here's some typical quotes:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...bb1da448b638a?

"As to LP's, you're criticism of the medium is that high frequencies have to
be shelved in maximum volume to avoid overload. That says nothering about
transient performance below the shelved overload point. LP's have a more
extended frequency response than CD when required...and reproducing
transients well tends to be one of the things requiring it. "

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...94aac7eddad17?

"Basically, the argument is that you need 10x the highest audible
frequencies
in order to be able to pass a square wave correctly, and hence high
frequency transient response correctly. I challenged the new head of CBS
Labs on this back in 1970. Being a good engineer he took the party line
that it didn't make a difference, but then later told me that they had
played with it in the lab and that at least some of the folks thought a wide
bandwidth design sounded better. "

"Still true for digital. You've got to get to 192/24 before at least some
listeners claim to no longer be able to hear a difference from analog. And
if you look at a very short pulse, it takes that high a frequency until the
pre-ripple of PCM gets insufficiently small and short (in time) to not be a
problem. However, I'll agree that for most pop music, 96/24 is more than
enough since their is so little analog "reality" at work to begin with. "

So, when I offer to assist Jenn in setting up a live versus digital
comparison, that fully includes this effect, does Harry jump on board?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo!

Looks like Harry has major problems with being consistent with himself, eh?


So, some people claim they need to get to 192/24 before it is no longer
possible to hear a difference from analog. Has this been verified with
a double bind listening test? I doubt it.

Bob Stanton

[Harry Lavo]

"R. Stanton" wrote in message
ups.com...


On Nov 9, 9:37 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
If you check google, you'll find that Harry Lavo has made at least 37
posts
claiming that one important reason why CDs can't sound sonically accurate
or
sound inferior to LPs, is their transient response.

Here's some typical quotes:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...bb1da448b638a?

"As to LP's, you're criticism of the medium is that high frequencies have
to
be shelved in maximum volume to avoid overload. That says nothering
about
transient performance below the shelved overload point. LP's have a more
extended frequency response than CD when required...and reproducing
transients well tends to be one of the things requiring it. "

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...94aac7eddad17?

"Basically, the argument is that you need 10x the highest audible
frequencies
in order to be able to pass a square wave correctly, and hence high
frequency transient response correctly. I challenged the new head of CBS
Labs on this back in 1970. Being a good engineer he took the party line
that it didn't make a difference, but then later told me that they had
played with it in the lab and that at least some of the folks thought a
wide
bandwidth design sounded better. "

"Still true for digital. You've got to get to 192/24 before at least some
listeners claim to no longer be able to hear a difference from analog.
And
if you look at a very short pulse, it takes that high a frequency until
the
pre-ripple of PCM gets insufficiently small and short (in time) to not be
a
problem. However, I'll agree that for most pop music, 96/24 is more than
enough since their is so little analog "reality" at work to begin with. "

So, when I offer to assist Jenn in setting up a live versus digital
comparison, that fully includes this effect, does Harry jump on board?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo!

Looks like Harry has major problems with being consistent with himself,
eh?


So, some people claim they need to get to 192/24 before it is no longer
possible to hear a difference from analog. Has this been verified with
a double bind listening test? I doubt it.

Some folks on, I believe, RAP reported that this was the case in a
comparison of live feed vs. 96/24 vs. 192/24. I myself find a complete
absence of "digital nerviouso" at 192/24 vs. 96/24 on those few DVD-A's
where there is a chance to make the comparison. I'd like to try it on my
DAW, but my mic/line preamp is only 96/24 so I can't.

I have no problem with 96/24 for most pop music...I have heard enough to
convince me it is a superior standard without a controlled test. But if I
was recording classical (and I intend to in the not too distant future
again) I will only do it at 192/24. The technology exists, so why not make
it a non-issue. Same, I hope, goes for all commercial audio eventually
following Blue-Ray or whatever comes after. We already have video chips for
games in the works that can outperform the largest supercomputer from seven
years ago...so why not audio? Good enough has always been enemy of the
best.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..

So, some people claim they need to get to 192/24 before it is no longer
possible to hear a difference from analog. Has this been verified with
a double bind listening test? I doubt it.

Agreed.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...2ca804fb14333e

George Massenburg wrote:

"What it isn't is what you might call the [golden-ear pantload name
here] demonstration where this guy sits you down and plays you a
couple of things (could be anything: the levels aren't calibrated and
could be anywhere). [G.E.P.L.] proceeds to switch sounds for you
saying, "O.K., listen to this. RIght, NOW listen to THIS!" (maybe he
actually turns the monitor gain up) "Wow, that's great, huh?" And this
other? HEY, you couldn't possibly like THAT, could you??? I mean,
c'mon, you'd be an IDIOT not to hear the difference...
Any test where you know which piece of gear you're listening to...any
test that's not perfectly blindfolded and well-controlled cannot
possibly be called scientific. As much as I don't like the downsides
of the A-B-C-Hidden Reference it's a very useful discipline to reveal
modest differences.

"The best listening tests demand that you objectify what you hear.

"An example of a useful, forthright listening test is the high-octave
test suggested and implemented by Bob Katz, where he takes a 96/24
file (presumably rich in 20kHz content), and filters it at 20kHz or
so. Then he listens (through exactly the same hardware, and under
exactly the same circumstances, removing conversion, to name one
factor, as a possible variant) to see if he can tell the difference
between the two (filtered and unfiltered) files. Can I be brave here
and tell you the truth? Neither of us have had significant successes
with differentiating between the samples.

Some folks on, I believe, RAP reported that this was the case in a
comparison of live feed vs. 96/24 vs. 192/24.

Reporting something that is a complete illusion is pretty easy. Please see
the collected posts of Harry Lavo, for many examples.

[R. Stanton]

On Nov 9, 7:31 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in messagenews:VeCdnYsnVo0rW87YnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comca st.com...

So, some people claim they need to get to 192/24 before it is no longer
possible to hear a difference from analog. Has this been verified with
a double bind listening test? I doubt it.Agreed.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...2ca804fb14333e

George Massenburg wrote:"What it isn't is what you might call the [golden-ear pantload name
here] demonstration where this guy sits you down and plays you a
couple of things (could be anything: the levels aren't calibrated and
could be anywhere). [G.E.P.L.] proceeds to switch sounds for you
saying, "O.K., listen to this. RIght, NOW listen to THIS!" (maybe he
actually turns the monitor gain up) "Wow, that's great, huh?" And this
other? HEY, you couldn't possibly like THAT, could you??? I mean,
c'mon, you'd be an IDIOT not to hear the difference...
Any test where you know which piece of gear you're listening to...any
test that's not perfectly blindfolded and well-controlled cannot
possibly be called scientific. As much as I don't like the downsides
of the A-B-C-Hidden Reference it's a very useful discipline to reveal
modest differences.

"The best listening tests demand that you objectify what you hear.

"An example of a useful, forthright listening test is the high-octave
test suggested and implemented by Bob Katz, where he takes a 96/24
file (presumably rich in 20kHz content), and filters it at 20kHz or
so. Then he listens (through exactly the same hardware, and under
exactly the same circumstances, removing conversion, to name one
factor, as a possible variant) to see if he can tell the difference
between the two (filtered and unfiltered) files. Can I be brave here
and tell you the truth? Neither of us have had significant successes
with differentiating between the samples.

Some folks on, I believe, RAP reported that this was the case in a
comparison of live feed vs. 96/24 vs. 192/24.Reporting something that is a complete illusion is pretty easy. Please see
the collected posts of Harry Lavo, for many examples.

I'm not surprised that cutting off signal above 20KHz has no audible
effect.

I did some flatness and distortion tests on a sound card and on a CD
player. They were both ruler flat. The distortion was less then 0.003%
and 0.01%. That level of distortion is inaudible. Is there something
else that could cause commertial CD's to sound so poor?

I'm wondering if *jitter* could be the cause of commertial CD's
sounding harsh. Perhaps in the mass production process of stamping out
of CD's, excessive jitter distortion is introduced.

Bob Stanton

[Arny Krueger]

"R. Stanton" wrote in message
ps.com...


On Nov 9, 7:31 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in
messagenews:VeCdnYsnVo0rW87YnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comca st.com...

So, some people claim they need to get to 192/24 before it is no
longer
possible to hear a difference from analog. Has this been verified
with
a double bind listening test? I doubt it.Agreed.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...2ca804fb14333e

George Massenburg wrote:"What it isn't is what you might call the
[golden-ear pantload name
here] demonstration where this guy sits you down and plays you a
couple of things (could be anything: the levels aren't calibrated and
could be anywhere). [G.E.P.L.] proceeds to switch sounds for you
saying, "O.K., listen to this. RIght, NOW listen to THIS!" (maybe he
actually turns the monitor gain up) "Wow, that's great, huh?" And this
other? HEY, you couldn't possibly like THAT, could you??? I mean,
c'mon, you'd be an IDIOT not to hear the difference...
Any test where you know which piece of gear you're listening to...any
test that's not perfectly blindfolded and well-controlled cannot
possibly be called scientific. As much as I don't like the downsides
of the A-B-C-Hidden Reference it's a very useful discipline to reveal
modest differences.

"The best listening tests demand that you objectify what you hear.

"An example of a useful, forthright listening test is the high-octave
test suggested and implemented by Bob Katz, where he takes a 96/24
file (presumably rich in 20kHz content), and filters it at 20kHz or
so. Then he listens (through exactly the same hardware, and under
exactly the same circumstances, removing conversion, to name one
factor, as a possible variant) to see if he can tell the difference
between the two (filtered and unfiltered) files. Can I be brave here
and tell you the truth? Neither of us have had significant successes
with differentiating between the samples.

Some folks on, I believe, RAP reported that this was the case in a
comparison of live feed vs. 96/24 vs. 192/24.Reporting something that
is a complete illusion is pretty easy. Please see
the collected posts of Harry Lavo, for many examples.

I'm not surprised that cutting off signal above 20KHz has no audible
effect.

Many people are. In fact, an inaudible brick-wall cutoff can be somewhat
lower than 20 KHz. 16 KHz is a common number that is used in perceptual
coders, even when high SQ is the goal.

I did some flatness and distortion tests on a sound card and on a CD
player. They were both ruler flat. The distortion was less then 0.003%
and 0.01%. That level of distortion is inaudible. Is there something
else that could cause commertial CD's to sound so poor?

Commercial CDs that sound like crap, do so because of other steps in the
process. The strongest influences in the SQ of a recording are, and in my
estimated order of importance:

(1) Artistic content - well-written, well-arranged, well-played music tends
to sound better. Since I record artists with a wide range of skill levels,
and in various degrees of being properly rehearsed, I'm very aware of this.

(2) The acoustical environment where the recording was made, including the
microphones and microphone technique. Since I record in a variety of
acoustical environments, I'm also very aware of this. Really good venues can
make mediocre musicanship sound not that bad.

(3) The mix-down, editing and mastering. This interacts with (1) and (2). If
(1) and (2) are good, then the mixdown is pretty much set levels and go, the
editing is clean up the start and finish, and the mastering is pretty
straight-forward. If (1) and (2) are substandard, then I have to monitor the
mix like a hawk and do lots of adjustements to restore balance, I may do a
lot of editing to conceal artistic flaws, and mastering takes a lot of
shucking and jiiving to get things to sound right in a variety of playback
environments.

I'm wondering if *jitter* could be the cause of commertial CD's
sounding harsh.

I seriously doubt it.

I do suspect that a lot of perceived sonic problems of particularly early CD
players were due to borderline tracking. I've found that there can be a lot
of error concealment going on, and it doesn't sound so much like error
concealment. Rather it sounds like other flaws like harshness and emptiness.
It can produce a general state of listener malease. It can even upset the
pace and timing of the music.

In the past 25 years there have been two definate and undeniable
improvements in optical disc players - they cost tremendously less money for
a high level of performance, and they can properly track a far wider range
of imperfect discs.

Perhaps in the mass production process of stamping out
of CD's, excessive jitter distortion is introduced.

The data signal that comes into the CD player from the optical pickup is
often very jittery. The buffering and clocking circuits in any CD player
minimize this to an inaudible level, as a matter of course. Not to say that
every CD player ever made always did this right.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"R. Stanton" wrote in message
ps.com...


On Nov 9, 7:31 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in
messagenews:VeCdnYsnVo0rW87YnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comca st.com...

So, some people claim they need to get to 192/24 before it is no
longer
possible to hear a difference from analog. Has this been verified
with
a double bind listening test? I doubt it.Agreed.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...2ca804fb14333e

George Massenburg wrote:"What it isn't is what you might call the
[golden-ear pantload name
here] demonstration where this guy sits you down and plays you a
couple of things (could be anything: the levels aren't calibrated and
could be anywhere). [G.E.P.L.] proceeds to switch sounds for you
saying, "O.K., listen to this. RIght, NOW listen to THIS!" (maybe he
actually turns the monitor gain up) "Wow, that's great, huh?" And this
other? HEY, you couldn't possibly like THAT, could you??? I mean,
c'mon, you'd be an IDIOT not to hear the difference...
Any test where you know which piece of gear you're listening to...any
test that's not perfectly blindfolded and well-controlled cannot
possibly be called scientific. As much as I don't like the downsides
of the A-B-C-Hidden Reference it's a very useful discipline to reveal
modest differences.

"The best listening tests demand that you objectify what you hear.

"An example of a useful, forthright listening test is the high-octave
test suggested and implemented by Bob Katz, where he takes a 96/24
file (presumably rich in 20kHz content), and filters it at 20kHz or
so. Then he listens (through exactly the same hardware, and under
exactly the same circumstances, removing conversion, to name one
factor, as a possible variant) to see if he can tell the difference
between the two (filtered and unfiltered) files. Can I be brave here
and tell you the truth? Neither of us have had significant successes
with differentiating between the samples.

Some folks on, I believe, RAP reported that this was the case in a
comparison of live feed vs. 96/24 vs. 192/24.Reporting something that
is a complete illusion is pretty easy. Please see
the collected posts of Harry Lavo, for many examples.

I'm not surprised that cutting off signal above 20KHz has no audible
effect.

Many people are. In fact, an inaudible brick-wall cutoff can be somewhat
lower than 20 KHz. 16 KHz is a common number that is used in perceptual
coders, even when high SQ is the goal.

I did some flatness and distortion tests on a sound card and on a CD
player. They were both ruler flat. The distortion was less then 0.003%
and 0.01%. That level of distortion is inaudible. Is there something
else that could cause commertial CD's to sound so poor?

Commercial CDs that sound like crap, do so because of other steps in the
process. The strongest influences in the SQ of a recording are, and in my
estimated order of importance:

(1) Artistic content - well-written, well-arranged, well-played music
tends to sound better. Since I record artists with a wide range of skill
levels, and in various degrees of being properly rehearsed, I'm very aware
of this.

(2) The acoustical environment where the recording was made, including the
microphones and microphone technique. Since I record in a variety of
acoustical environments, I'm also very aware of this. Really good venues
can make mediocre musicanship sound not that bad.

(3) The mix-down, editing and mastering. This interacts with (1) and (2).
If (1) and (2) are good, then the mixdown is pretty much set levels and
go, the editing is clean up the start and finish, and the mastering is
pretty straight-forward. If (1) and (2) are substandard, then I have to
monitor the mix like a hawk and do lots of adjustements to restore
balance, I may do a lot of editing to conceal artistic flaws, and
mastering takes a lot of shucking and jiiving to get things to sound right
in a variety of playback environments.

I'm wondering if *jitter* could be the cause of commertial CD's
sounding harsh.

I seriously doubt it.

I do suspect that a lot of perceived sonic problems of particularly early
CD players were due to borderline tracking. I've found that there can be a
lot of error concealment going on, and it doesn't sound so much like error
concealment. Rather it sounds like other flaws like harshness and
emptiness. It can produce a general state of listener malease. It can even
upset the pace and timing of the music.

In the past 25 years there have been two definate and undeniable
improvements in optical disc players - they cost tremendously less money
for a high level of performance, and they can properly track a far wider
range of imperfect discs.

Perhaps in the mass production process of stamping out
of CD's, excessive jitter distortion is introduced.

The data signal that comes into the CD player from the optical pickup is
often very jittery. The buffering and clocking circuits in any CD player
minimize this to an inaudible level, as a matter of course. Not to say
that every CD player ever made always did this right.

While most of what Arny says here is correct (and it is nice to be able to
agree with him for a change) there is one specific statement that addresses
your hypothesis that I take issue with:

"Commercial CDs that sound like crap, do so because of other steps in the
process."

Arny doesn't provide a basis for his conclusion, but a few years ago there
was a long discussion on Usenet (I believe RAP but I am not certain of that)
different CD's from different plants sounding different, and the role of
the producer and/or engineer in giving final approval of the process. The
general thrust was that the differences were likely the degree with which
error correction was required, and the degree to which on-disk jitter needed
to be corrected. There was also some discussion that the problem was worse
when plants were being provided with analog tape and doing their own
production mastering (thus making the analog and digital quality of their
own D/A's an issue). As Arny says, this was perceived to have been more of
a problem in '80's / early '90's than at the time of the discussion.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
. ..

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

While most of what Arny says here is correct (and it is nice to be able to
agree with him for a change) there is one specific statement that
addresses your hypothesis that I take issue with:

"Commercial CDs that sound like crap, do so because of other steps in the
process."

Arny doesn't provide a basis for his conclusion, but a few years ago there
was a long discussion on Usenet (I believe RAP but I am not certain of
that) different CD's from different plants sounding different, and the
role of the producer and/or engineer in giving final approval of the
process. The general thrust was that the differences were likely the
degree with which error correction was required, and the degree to which
on-disk jitter needed to be corrected.

Both issues can and are effectively dealt with by a good player. Some early
players had specific problems when there were erorrs, particularly with
discs that were substandard at the time they were played. Some of these
problems became latent when disc quality improved, and became apparent again
when we started trying to play CD-Rs on these legacy players.

BTW when people talk about jitter at the CD pressing level, they aren't
necessarily talking about jitter as it is usally applied to audio signals.
Jitter at the disc level can show up in the audio more like missing data.


There was also some discussion that the problem was worse when plants were
being provided with analog tape and doing their own production mastering
(thus making the analog and digital quality of their own D/A's an issue).

IME, the worst thing about a pressing plant doing their own mastering would
relate to artistic and production timing issues. They are much more likely
to try to make a go out of a bad situation that would be corrected by
finding a different master, earlier in the process. They are less likely to
put a lot of time into tweaking the transfer until they had a good sounding
result.

As Arny says, this was perceived to have been more of a problem in '80's /
early '90's than at the time of the discussion.

[R. Stanton]

On Nov 10, 10:15 am, Here in Ohio wrote:
On 10 Nov 2006 03:50:09 -0800, "R. Stanton"
wrote:



I did some flatness and distortion tests on a sound card and on a CD
player. They were both ruler flat. The distortion was less then 0.003%
and 0.01%. That level of distortion is inaudible. Is there something
else that could cause commertial CD's to sound so poor?

I'm wondering if *jitter* could be the cause of commertial CD's
sounding harsh. Perhaps in the mass production process of stamping out
of CD's, excessive jitter distortion is introduced.Jitter is simply a non-issue. If you actually look into it, the fuss
seems to go back to an article in Stereophile in the early '90s.
('93?)

It isn't clear that it was a widespread problem even at that time, and
it certainly isn't a problem with modern D/A converters.

I'm sure you are right.

The 44.1/16 CD can have flat response, inaudible distortion, inaudible
jitter and low noise. That doesn't leave much in the way of problems.

The group delay of the output filter will degrade the transient
response slightly. However, the rise time of a square wave will be only
50 microseconds or less. Nobody could detect that with the ear.

I don't see any (audible) technical problems with the 44.1/ 16
technology. All we need now is for the recording companys to put out
good quality, good sounding products. I'm not holding my breath waiting
for that. :-)

Bob Stanton

[paul packer]

On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 07:43:16 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


I'm wondering if *jitter* could be the cause of commertial CD's
sounding harsh.

I seriously doubt it.

I remember around the mid 90s Hi-Fi choice began to claim that they
had managed to correlate the difference in CD players to measured
jitter, and all their reviews included jitter tests. It was pretty
convincing, though they never seemed to go on with it.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 07:43:16 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


I'm wondering if *jitter* could be the cause of commertial CD's
sounding harsh.

I seriously doubt it.

I remember around the mid 90s Hi-Fi choice began to claim that they
had managed to correlate the difference in CD players to measured
jitter, and all their reviews included jitter tests. It was pretty
convincing, though they never seemed to go on with it.

Every CD player ever made reclocks the audio that comes off the disc. The
book answer is that the only source of jitter is the word clock that drives
the DAC. In fact, there are primary and secondary paths by which disc
condition can trigger jitter in crappy players.

As a rule, one just doesn't see jitter at audible levels in good CD players.

[paul packer]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:36:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


I remember around the mid 90s Hi-Fi choice began to claim that they
had managed to correlate the difference in CD players to measured
jitter, and all their reviews included jitter tests. It was pretty
convincing, though they never seemed to go on with it.

Every CD player ever made reclocks the audio that comes off the disc. The
book answer is that the only source of jitter is the word clock that drives
the DAC. In fact, there are primary and secondary paths by which disc
condition can trigger jitter in crappy players.

As a rule, one just doesn't see jitter at audible levels in good CD players.


Here's a serious question for you, Arnie, in line with Jenn's new
parameters for a well behaved NG.

To what degree do you believe tracking error or poor error-correction
in CD players contributes to sound quality? How important do you rate
efficient error-correction in the design of a CD player?

I have further questions along this line.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" wrote in message


To what degree do you believe tracking error or poor
error-correction in CD players contributes to sound
quality?

Almost entirely dependent on the condition of the player. It's pretty safe
to assume that most players are in good shape right after QC in the factory.
As soon as they are shipped the downhill slide begins. That slide ends when
the player becomes unusable in the eyes of the user.

The hidden agenda in any discussion of CD player sound quality is whether or
not the player has deteriorated significantly.

How important do you rate efficient
error-correction in the design of a CD player?

Error detection and correction is standardized. All players that meet the
redbook standard are basically the same in this regard.

Error generation is not standardized.

[paul packer]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:03:13 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message


To what degree do you believe tracking error or poor
error-correction in CD players contributes to sound
quality?

Almost entirely dependent on the condition of the player. It's pretty safe
to assume that most players are in good shape right after QC in the factory.
As soon as they are shipped the downhill slide begins. That slide ends when
the player becomes unusable in the eyes of the user.

The hidden agenda in any discussion of CD player sound quality is whether or
not the player has deteriorated significantly.

How important do you rate efficient
error-correction in the design of a CD player?

Error detection and correction is standardized. All players that meet the
redbook standard are basically the same in this regard.

Error generation is not standardized.

Exactly. Which leads to another question: Is it possible for different
pressing plants to generate different rates of error in a disc, and
what effect does this have on sound quality even in a new player? IOW,
will a player sound significantly worse when operating at near "full
correction", if that term is valid. Has anyone ever done mass
inspections of discs from different plants to check error rate?

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:03:13 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message


To what degree do you believe tracking error or poor
error-correction in CD players contributes to sound
quality?

Almost entirely dependent on the condition of the
player. It's pretty safe to assume that most players are
in good shape right after QC in the factory. As soon as
they are shipped the downhill slide begins. That slide
ends when the player becomes unusable in the eyes of the
user.

The hidden agenda in any discussion of CD player sound
quality is whether or not the player has deteriorated
significantly.

How important do you rate efficient
error-correction in the design of a CD player?

Error detection and correction is standardized. All
players that meet the redbook standard are basically the
same in this regard.

Error generation is not standardized.

Exactly. Which leads to another question: Is it possible
for different pressing plants to generate different rates
of error in a disc,

Yes. There's only one error rate that is likely to be the consistent outcome
of a production process, and that is zero errors.

All other error rates would follow some kind of probability distribution,
and are therefore inherently inconsistent. The usual rate of uncorrected
errors on a CD or CD-R is extremely low - a few per full disc or zero. OTOH,
if a player is failing, then the error rate is higher.

Most CD players stop working when the error rate is so high that they can't
reliably read the table of contents (TOC) on the disc. Then then fail to
load the disc and stop. CDs are written from the inside out, and the TOC is
on the inside tracks. The inside tracks of a CD are less likely to be
damaged by abuse.

and what effect does this have on
sound quality even in a new player?

Detected uncorrected errors are handled by the error concealment functions
of the player, which are not standardized. Undetected errors can occur and
will take the form of variable-length bursts of random noise. Most error
concealment functions replace missing data with data that resembles the data
around the area where the error took place.

IOW, will a player
sound significantly worse when operating at near "full
correction", if that term is valid.

The more undetected and uncorrected errors there are, the worse the player
sounds. However, these errors have patterns that can vary, and therefore
affect the sound in differnt ways.

Has anyone ever done
mass inspections of discs from different plants to check
error rate?

I would expect that production facilities are doing this sort of thing all
the time. It's part of an effective QC program.

[Sander deWaal]

(paul packer) said:


Exactly. Which leads to another question: Is it possible for different
pressing plants to generate different rates of error in a disc, and
what effect does this have on sound quality even in a new player? IOW,
will a player sound significantly worse when operating at near "full
correction", if that term is valid. Has anyone ever done mass
inspections of discs from different plants to check error rate?


An informal test, done by Jacco Dekkers from NXP (former Philips
science lab) showed that when there are so much errors that the error
correction can't cope anymore and the player has to interpolate, the
result sounded noticeably different to a test panel of listeners, and
most people liked it better than a CD with less errors.

Unfortunately, the test report is in Dutch, and an informal one at
that.

The errors were generated by coloring the edges of the CD with a
Lumicolor green marker, and in a later stadium, to put small dots on
the CD surface with a black marker, small enough to not let the player
skip.


This isn't scientific proof of course, but the result is a bit
surprising, at least to me.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

(paul packer) said:


Exactly. Which leads to another question: Is it possible
for different pressing plants to generate different
rates of error in a disc, and what effect does this have
on sound quality even in a new player? IOW, will a
player sound significantly worse when operating at near
"full correction", if that term is valid. Has anyone
ever done mass inspections of discs from different
plants to check error rate?

An informal test, done by Jacco Dekkers from NXP (former
Philips science lab) showed that when there are so much
errors that the error correction can't cope anymore and
the player has to interpolate, the result sounded
noticeably different to a test panel of listeners,

That should be no surprise. Interpolated data has less resolution.

and most people liked it better than a CD with less errors.

Perhaps the listening panel were Vinyl Bigots or Tube Bigots?

Unfortunately, the test report is in Dutch, and an
informal one at that.

The errors were generated by coloring the edges of the CD
with a Lumicolor green marker, and in a later stadium, to
put small dots on the CD surface with a black marker,
small enough to not let the player skip.

This isn't scientific proof of course, but the result is
a bit surprising, at least to me.

It is consistent with some people's ideas that some people prefer the sound
of music with added noise and distortion.

Thanks for showing the similarity between preferring tubes and vinyl and
preferring hopelessly damaged CDs.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" said:


An informal test, done by Jacco Dekkers from NXP (former
Philips science lab) showed that when there are so much
errors that the error correction can't cope anymore and
the player has to interpolate, the result sounded
noticeably different to a test panel of listeners,


That should be no surprise. Interpolated data has less resolution.


If that's no susprise, and if the estimated resolution of LP playback
is 12 bits, what are we argueing about? ;-)


and most people liked it better than a CD with less errors.


Perhaps the listening panel were Vinyl Bigots or Tube Bigots?


Gratuitous insult noted.


Unfortunately, the test report is in Dutch, and an
informal one at that.

The errors were generated by coloring the edges of the CD
with a Lumicolor green marker, and in a later stadium, to
put small dots on the CD surface with a black marker,
small enough to not let the player skip.

This isn't scientific proof of course, but the result is
a bit surprising, at least to me.


It is consistent with some people's ideas that some people prefer the sound
of music with added noise and distortion.



About time to wake up and smell the coffee, Arns (I like that one,
thanks ****R!) ;-)

Just accept that different people have different preferences, and RAO
(as well as your life) will be trouble free, audio-wise.


Thanks for showing the similarity between preferring tubes and vinyl and
preferring hopelessly damaged CDs.


Thanks for living up to the expectation of many, and to your abysmal
reputation in particular, again.

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Jenn]

In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote:


This isn't scientific proof of course, but the result is a bit
surprising, at least to me.

Pun intended? ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote:


This isn't scientific proof of course, but the result is
a bit surprising, at least to me.

Pun intended? ;-)

Difference being that whole words are missing.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote:


This isn't scientific proof of course, but the result is
a bit surprising, at least to me.

Pun intended? ;-)

Difference being that whole words are missing.

Holy hell, Arny. Let me try this: we are in orbit around the Sun. Any
problem with that?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote:


This isn't scientific proof of course, but the result is
a bit surprising, at least to me.

Pun intended? ;-)

Difference being that whole words are missing.

Holy hell, Arny. Let me try this: we are in orbit around the Sun. Any
problem with that?

That's entirely debatable, Jenn. I'm surprised jenn that you aren't
aware that some planets are not really planets Jenn while some moons
are planets and then there are asteroids comets black holes and other
cosmic flotsam and jetsam which reduces your argumentative point to
nothing and has jenn now been thoroughly debunked jenn Lot';S.

Now I've been a patient amn Jenn to the point of martyrdom. I was in an
AES paper on martyrdom as the example of forebearance Jenn so let's not
forget that. Next!

So now that I have prove4n your point to be worthless Jenn I wonder how
long you Jenn will argue to try to prove she's right when we all can
see that you are wrong. Dead wrong jenn.

[Jenn]

In article .com,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

.com
In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote:


This isn't scientific proof of course, but the result is
a bit surprising, at least to me.

Pun intended? ;-)

Difference being that whole words are missing.

Holy hell, Arny. Let me try this: we are in orbit around the Sun. Any
problem with that?

That's entirely debatable, Jenn. I'm surprised jenn that you aren't
aware that some planets are not really planets Jenn while some moons
are planets and then there are asteroids comets black holes and other
cosmic flotsam and jetsam which reduces your argumentative point to
nothing and has jenn now been thoroughly debunked jenn Lot';S.

Now I've been a patient amn Jenn to the point of martyrdom. I was in an
AES paper on martyrdom as the example of forebearance Jenn so let's not
forget that. Next!

So now that I have prove4n your point to be worthless Jenn I wonder how
long you Jenn will argue to try to prove she's right when we all can
see that you are wrong. Dead wrong jenn.

lol

[Sander deWaal]

Jenn said:


This isn't scientific proof of course, but the result is a bit
surprising, at least to me.


Pun intended? ;-)


How long are you participating now, Jenn?

Long enough to know me a teensy tiny little bit, I hope?

;-)

--
"Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks."

[Jenn]

In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote:

Jenn said:


This isn't scientific proof of course, but the result is a bit
surprising, at least to me.


Pun intended? ;-)


How long are you participating now, Jenn?

Long enough to know me a teensy tiny little bit, I hope?

;-)

lol

[paul packer]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:49:53 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

(paul packer) said:


Exactly. Which leads to another question: Is it possible for different
pressing plants to generate different rates of error in a disc, and
what effect does this have on sound quality even in a new player? IOW,
will a player sound significantly worse when operating at near "full
correction", if that term is valid. Has anyone ever done mass
inspections of discs from different plants to check error rate?


An informal test, done by Jacco Dekkers from NXP (former Philips
science lab) showed that when there are so much errors that the error
correction can't cope anymore and the player has to interpolate, the
result sounded noticeably different to a test panel of listeners, and
most people liked it better than a CD with less errors.

Well, surprising or not, I think we now know how to improve the sound
of CDs. That wasn't hard, was it? What universal problem can we solve
now?

Unfortunately, the test report is in Dutch, and an informal one at
that.

Double Dutch, eh?

The errors were generated by coloring the edges of the CD with a
Lumicolor green marker,

I used to do that in the hope of achieving the opposite effect.