Vinyl colorations, inherent, euphonic and inherent euphonic.
S888...@aol.com
thread. i thought it may benefit from having it's own thread. On that
thread there have been assertions about inherent euphonic colorations
of vinyl.
"You haven't noticed 'the' superior quality, you've noticed a
quality that you consider to sound superior. This could be the
different mastering used for LPs compared to CDs, or it could be
inherent sound qualities added by the vinyl medium and playback
devices, or it could be both."
Steven Sullivan
"For live recordings, a 'clean' digital 2-channel recording will
capture the original 'ambience' as well as the master tape did (which
is to say, only moderately well, given the limits of 2-channel) -- but
transcribing that to LP will actually ADD some spurious, if pleasing
to some, 'ambience' of its own, via euphonic distortion inherent in
vinyl playback."
Steven Sullivan
And those assertions have been challenged.
"Please tell us how you know about this distortion that is "inherent"
in LP playback. What playback equipment have you used to determine
this? Please be specific: turntables, pickup arms, phono cartridges,
phono preamplifiers. Because you claim this playback characteristic is
"inherent," you must have experimented with more than one playback
system. Did you conduct any measurements which document your claim? If
so, please share. Have you mastered any LPs yourself, or participated
in the LP mastering process, that further establishes the veracity of
your claim? If so, are these recordings that we can purchase and
listen to ourselves?
I'd also be interested in what physical properties of LP playback
result in this "inherent" result. Surely, you must have a theory or
two.
Or, as I suspect, is this claim simply opinion stated as fact?"
C.Leeds
OK....
My two cents.
Inherent colorations:
Yep, they do exist. Surface noise. If you have a source signal that
excedes the dynamic range that the medium will allow (somewhere in the
75-80 db range) You will hear the surface noise during the quitest
passages of the music. Surface noise does have some specific
characteristics that gives it a distinctive sound which allows much
lower level musical information to be heard through that noise. But it
is fair to say in cases of extreme dynamic range from the source one
cannot avoid audible surface noise. That is an 'inherent' coloration.
Another alleged inherent coloration is channel cross talk. My
cartridge, a Koetsu Rosewood Signature, has a measured channel
separation of just over 30db. I don't know what the measured
thresholds of audibility are for channel separation. I also don't know
what the maximum channel separation achievable is in vinyl production
and playback although I do know there are cartridges that have greater
meausred channel separation than mine. I do know on my system with
test records the effects of cross talk seem to be inaudible in as much
as I can get a clean signal out of one channel without hearing any of
the crosstalk from the other channel from the listening position.
To the best of my knowledge the lowest measured wow,flutter and rumble
found in vinyl playback fall under the thresholds of human hearing. So
while these are inherent colorations they apparently are not audible
in SOTA vinyl playback.
Euphonic colorations:
Yep, they do exist as well. I should know, I paid about 15K for them
in my TT rig. I don't have any hard data to back up my assertion. My
assertion is based on side by side blind comparisons between the TT
rig I eventually bought (The Forsell Air Reference with the flywheel)
(I eventually bought the same make and model not the same physical
rig) and one that was famous for being SOTA in the elimination of TT
rig colorations (the Rockport Sirius III). I am confident that they
sounded substantially different. The differences were easily
identifiable under blind conditions. Based on their designs I am
fairly confident that the Rockport Sirius III was the less colored of
the two rigs. I very much prefered the Forsell. IMO that is evidence
of euphonic colorations present in the Forsell.
Inherent euphomic colorations:
I have listed the inherent colorations that I know of. I have seen
claims that both colorations can be euphonic. I have not seen any
contolled listening tests that support that assertion. Maybe in some
form and in some proportion they can be euphonic.Maybe not. To date it
seems like a theory at best given the lack of meaningful supporting
evidence. It strikes me as a reasonable theory. But I think it is a
fact that at certain levels and above, those colorations (we are
talking levels well above the inherent limitations of the medium)
those colorations become inarguably bad ones. It is entirely possible
that like any spice, these colorations added in moderation with taste
can be euphonic and like any spice when added in excess spoil the
dish.
ScottW
>>
> Another alleged inherent coloration is channel cross talk. My
> cartridge, a Koetsu Rosewood Signature, has a measured channel
> separation of just over 30db.
The spec is 25 db @ 1kHz.
http://www.koetsuusa.com/koetsu_products2.php
IME experience all carts have declining channel separation
with frequency. For example, mine is spec'd at 31 db @
1 kHz and 21 db @ 10 kHz. I think you'd find it to be easily
audible if you disable the primary channel so it doesn't mask
the crosstalk. If you're playing a 90 db tone in one channel,
the 60 db crosstalk won't be hard to hear if the primary
channel is muted.
I don't particularly find the lack of perfect channel separation
an impediment to good vinyl mastering engineers creating
a very convincing image.
ScottW
Arny Krueger
news:6m8ekfF...@mid.individual.net
I agree. It is difficult or impossible to achieve large amounts of
separation acoustically. If you can't achieve separation acoustically, then
there will not be high seperation in accurate recordings of the acoustical
situation. The important point is that the natural acoustical context of a
live performance does not have large amounts of separation.
The far greater impediment to achieving a reliable stereo image with vinyl
is the fact that the relative phase and amplitude of the two channels are
being constantly being changed by the low frequency oscillations of the tone
arm with respect to the surface of the LP. Those who favor the LP may be
mistakenly perceiving these distortions as an enhanced stereo image.
Arny Krueger
news:gdlke...@news6.newsguy.com
> This is a continuation of a topic that has split off from
> another thread. i thought it may benefit from having it's
> own thread. On that thread there have been assertions
> about inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl.
> "You haven't noticed 'the' superior quality, you've noticed a
> quality that you consider to sound superior. This could
> be the different mastering used for LPs compared to CDs,
> or it could be inherent sound qualities added by the
> vinyl medium and playback devices, or it could be both."
I'll vote for both. The fact of the matter is that just about everybody has
abandoned vinyl but a few. The preference has to be based on the
perception of a desired sound quality, not better sonic accuracy.
> "For live recordings, a 'clean' digital 2-channel
> recording will capture the original 'ambience' as well as
> the master tape did (which is to say, only moderately
> well, given the limits of 2-channel) -- but transcribing
> that to LP will actually ADD some spurious, if pleasing
> to some, 'ambience' of its own, via euphonic distortion
> inherent in vinyl playback."
I do a ton of digital 2-channel live recording using a good-quality
coincident pair. It works.
> And those assertions have been challenged.
Of course! ;-)
> "Please tell us how you know about this distortion that
> is "inherent" in LP playback.
Please compare
Note that this graphic shows a 1 KHz tone, with the second harmonic about 20
dB down, which I call 10% second harmonic nonlinear distortion. 10%
distortion is a lot of distortion by any standard.
to:
http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif
Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the second and third
harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I call less than one percent second and
third harmonic distortion.
> What playback equipment
> have you used to determine this?
Looking at the two examples, it appears that we have quite a range of
equipment.
The PCAVTech equipment is obviously very humble - Turntable was a Rega
Planar 2 with RB-100 Tone Arm. Test media was the HFN Test LP . Preamp was a
Conrad Johnson CJ-2. The cartridge was either a Shure M44-7 or a Rega
Silver. Kinda doesn't matter, their performance is not that dissimilar.
The hometheaterhifi.com equipment a McIntosh MT10 Turntable with factory
cartridge (made by Clearaudio), seems to be very elegant. It seems to have
been set up with great care.
> Please be specific:
> turntables, pickup arms, phono cartridges, phono
> preamplifiers. Because you claim this playback
> characteristic is "inherent," you must have experimented
> with more than one playback system. Did you conduct any
> measurements which document your claim?
I've done this kind of test many times over the decades, and the results I
posted at http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/index.htm are very
typical of a wide range of equipment. I don't think I could get as good
performance out of a $100 plastic USB turntable/arm/cartrdige, but maybe I'm
saying that in a state of ignorace and negative prejudice. ;-)
The real surprise is the seemingly poor performance posted at
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/april-2008/vinyl-vs-cd-mt10-stock-cartridge-1-khz-25-ohms-thd+n-graph-large.gif
I call that really poor performance, and we don't even have a frequency
response curve that actually involves playing vinyl.
IME you don't get 7-10% THD by accident - that equipment had to be
intentionally designed to perform that poorly.
S888...@aol.com
> On Oct 21, 3:17�pm, S888Wh...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Another alleged inherent coloration is channel cross talk. My
> > cartridge, a Koetsu Rosewood Signature, has a measured channel
> > separation of just over 30db.
>
> �The spec is 25 db @ 1kHz.http://www.koetsuusa.com/koetsu_products2.php
We have a case of conflicting specs here.
http://pachome2.pacific.net.sg/~angmelvin/Range.html
I doubt either distributor is doing independent measurments. One of
them is simply mistaken.
>
> IME experience all carts have declining channel separation
> with frequency. For example, mine is spec'd at 31 db @
> 1 kHz and 21 db @ 10 kHz. �I think you'd find it to be easily
> audible if you disable the primary channel so it doesn't mask
> the crosstalk. If you're playing a 90 db tone in one channel,
> the 60 db crosstalk won't be hard to hear if the primary
> channel is muted.
Actually with my test records I can hear pure cross talk when
adjusting the azimuth of my stylus. Yes I can hear it. That's how I
adjust for cross talk, by slowly turning the azimuth until it is at
it's lowest level. The difference in level compared to the actual
signal when I switch back to stereo to hear the full signal is
enormous. And as I stated, I can't hear the opposite channel on the
test tones that play one channel. So it seems the cross talk is
sufficiently masked enough to not call direct attention to itself. A
lot of different distortions become audible when they are separated
from the whole signal. The important question is what is their effect
when they are fully integrated not isolated.
>
> I don't particularly find the lack of perfect channel separation
> an impediment to good vinyl mastering engineers creating
> a very convincing image.
>
It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk as much as
possible with proper azimuth adjustment one improves the sound stage
in every way. So if this cross talk is in fact a euphonic coloration
that enhances the sense of space on LPs it clearly has to the right
amount. An amount that is at most near the minimum threshold allowed
by the technology.
Serge Auckland
harmonic distortions of the order of 2-3%, some higher, some perhaps a
little lower. Considering that an analogue tape machine will also have 3%
distortion (that's how peak level is defined, the 3% distortion point) and I
have no idea how much distortion the cutter itself has, plus springback on
the lacquer which leads to harmonic distortion, the total is considerable.
That's another form of inherent coloration.
S888...@aol.com
> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:gdlke...@news6.newsguy.com
>
> > This is a continuation of a topic that has split off from
> > another thread. i thought it may benefit from having it's
> > own thread. On that thread there have been assertions
> > about inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl.
> > "You haven't noticed 'the' superior quality, you've noticed a
> > quality that you consider to sound superior. This could
> > be the different mastering used for LPs compared to CDs,
> > or it could be inherent sound qualities added by the
> > vinyl medium and playback devices, or it could be both."
>
> I'll vote for both.
I think that is a reasonable "vote." I certainly would vote for the
mastering. I have to say I am still on the fence on the inherent
euphonic distortions. OTOH it seems you are not considering the
possibility of euphonic distortions that are not neccessarily inherent
in vinyl playback may be in play as well. I can vouch for those in my
system. For whatever vouching is worth.
> The fact of the matter is that just about everybody has
> abandoned vinyl but a few. The preference has to be based on the
> perception of a desired sound quality, not better sonic accuracy.
I think this is a classic case of....
6. Confusing association with causation This is similar to the post-
hoc fallacy in that it assumes cause and effect for two variables
simply because they are correlated, although the relationship here is
not strictly that of one variable following the other in time. This
fallacy is often used to give a statistical correlation a causal
interpretation. For example, during the 1990’s both religious
attendance and illegal drug use have been on the rise. It would be a
fallacy to conclude that therefore, religious attendance causes
illegal drug use. It is also possible that drug use leads to an
increase in religious attendance, or that both drug use and religious
attendance are increased by a third variable, such as an increase in
societal unrest. It is also possible that both variables are
independent of one another, and it is mere coincidence that they are
both increasing at the same time. A corollary to this is the
invocation of this logical fallacy to argue that an association does
not represent causation, rather it is more accurate to say that
correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but it can. Also,
multiple independent correlations can point reliably to a causation,
and is a reasonable line of argument.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp
>
> > "Please tell us how you know about this distortion that
> > is "inherent" in LP playback.
>
> Please compare
>
> http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/april-2008/vinyl-vs-cd-...
>
> Note that this graphic shows a 1 KHz tone, with the second harmonic about 20
> dB down, which I call 10% second harmonic nonlinear distortion. 10%
> distortion is a lot of distortion by any standard.
Looks to me like a 40db difference. Maybe I am reading it incorrectly.
But more importantly, how do you differentiate the distortion that is
inherent from the distortion that is unique to that particular rig and
the test record?
>
> to:
>
> http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif
>
> Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the second and third
> harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I call less than one percent second and
> third harmonic distortion.
OK. But again, how do you tell the difference between the inherent
distortion in the medium and the distortion that is unique to your rig
and the test record?
>
> > What playback equipment
> > have you used to determine this?
>
> Looking at the two examples, it appears that we have quite a range of
> equipment.
I don't agree at all. I would argue that neither rig would be found to
be SOTA. If you are looking for the thresholds of the medium I think
you have to start with a disc cut at one of the handful of state of
the art mastering studios and you would have to use a Rockport Sirius
III or the top model Continuum or maybe the top model Transrotor rig.
One may have to use several such assults on the state of the art and
sift out the common distortions. I suspect one would need measurements
that are far more specific than levels of harmonic distortion.
>
> The PCAVTech equipment is obviously very humble - Turntable was a Rega
> Planar 2 with RB-100 Tone Arm. Test media was the HFN Test LP . Preamp was a
> Conrad Johnson CJ-2. The cartridge was either a Shure M44-7 or a Rega
> Silver. Kinda doesn't matter, their performance is not that dissimilar.
I think it matters tremendously.
>
> The hometheaterhifi.com equipment a McIntosh MT10 Turntable with factory
> cartridge (made by Clearaudio), seems to be very elegant. It seems to have
> been set up with great care.
I'm sure it was.
>
> > Please be specific:
> > turntables, pickup arms, phono cartridges, phono
> > preamplifiers. Because you claim this playback
> > characteristic is "inherent," you must have experimented
> > with more than one playback system. Did you conduct any
> > measurements which document your claim?
>
> I've done this kind of test many times over the decades, and the results I
> posted athttp://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/index.htm are very
> typical of a wide range of equipment. I don't think I could get as good
> performance out of a $100 plastic USB turntable/arm/cartrdige, but maybe I'm
> saying that in a state of ignorace and negative prejudice. ;-)
I think that is a possibility. If one really wants to get a handle on
inherent colorations one has to be extremely careful to differentiate
colorations that are inherent from those that are unique to the rig
and test record.
>
> The real surprise is the seemingly poor performance posted athttp://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/april-2008/vinyl-vs-cd-...
>
> I call that really poor performance, and we don't even have a frequency
> response curve that actually involves playing vinyl.
But aren't you making a qualitative judgement without even knowing
what it sounds like?
>
> IME you don't get 7-10% THD by accident - that equipment had to be
> intentionally designed to perform that poorly.
If that is the case then clearly we have something more than just
"inherent" distortion present don't we?
S888...@aol.com
wrote:
> In addition to all the above, don't forget that all pick-up cartridge have
> harmonic distortions of the order of 2-3%, some higher, some perhaps a
> little lower. Considering that an analogue tape machine will also have 3%
> distortion (that's how peak level is defined, the 3% distortion point) and I
> have no idea how much distortion the cutter itself has, plus springback on
> the lacquer which leads to harmonic distortion, the total is considerable.
> That's another form of inherent coloration.
>
> S.
> --http://audiopages.googlepages.com- Hide quoted text -
>
A valid point. But how much of that harmonic distortion is audible?
ScottW
>
> It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk as much as
> possible with proper azimuth adjustment one improves the sound stage
> in every way. So if this cross talk is in fact a euphonic coloration
> that enhances the sense of space on LPs it clearly has to the right
> amount. An amount that is at most near the minimum threshold allowed
> by the technology.
I think you'll find that the crosstalk method of alignment also
serves
to optimize channel balance which is, IMO, the reason for
improved sound stage. Not a properly applied amount of crosstalk.
ScottW
Arny Krueger
news:gdo9r...@news7.newsguy.com
> It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk as
> much as possible with proper azimuth adjustment one
> improves the sound stage in every way.
That would be an example of proof by assertion.
However, given the basic poor performance of the LP format, and its acute
sensitivity to slight mechanical maladjustment, I'm prone to believe your
claim.
Serge Auckland
It's hard to say as it depends on many factors. However, tests done on
harmonic distortion that I recall reading many years ago indicated that 1%
was the lower limit for audibility, but it depended on frequency and masking
by other sounds. As I recall, that was the origin of the 0.1% distortion
desiderata for amplifiers as it was 10x better than was likely to be
audible, and could therefore be comfortably taken as being completely
inaudible under all circumstances. Nothing in the intervening 50 years or so
has made this invalid as far as I know.
As to vinyl, I suppose one could cut a record from an unequalised digital
master and similarly produce a CD and compare the two. However, the limited
dynamic range that would result from having necessarily to cut from an
unequalised master would not be a valid comparison with "real world" LPs.
Practical LPs are cut from masters specially equalised and compressed to get
the best subjective result from the limited medium. There is also a great
deal of skill (art rather than science) on the part of the Cutting Engineer
who will try and balance the conflicting requirements of noise against
level, frequency response against level against distortion, level against
playing time and pre-echo, level against playability by less sophisticated
record players, managing stereo difference i.e stylus vertical movement, and
possibly other things I haven't thought of.
Can you imaging someone starting out today, with no knowledge of vinyl, and
trying to invent a mechanical engraving system to reproduce Hi-Fi sound? I
think anyone would conclude it's just not possible, and yet......
S.
--
http://audiopages.googlepages.com
S888...@aol.com
> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:gdo9r...@news7.newsguy.com
>
> > It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk as
> > much as possible with proper azimuth adjustment one
> > improves the sound stage in every way.
>
> That would be an example of proof by assertion.
No it's merely an observation. Not any claim of universal fact. Scott
W. has just suggested the improved sound stage is due to better
channel balanced which may be achieved through the same adjustment. He
may be right. I'm just reporting what I did and the results.
>
> However, given the basic poor performance of the LP format, and its acute
> sensitivity to slight mechanical maladjustment, I'm prone to believe your
> claim.
Poor performance? That depends on one's criteria for excellenct
performance. If one is judging excellence on a purely aesthetic meter
we always have to consider the effects of one's prejudices. They can
in some instances totally dominate a person's opinion on aesthetic
merits.
S888...@aol.com
wrote:
> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:gdoq3...@news1.newsguy.com...
> > On Oct 22, 3:35 pm, "Serge Auckland" <sergeauckl...@btinternet.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> In addition to all the above, don't forget that all pick-up cartridge
> >> have
> >> harmonic distortions of the order of 2-3%, some higher, some perhaps a
> >> little lower. Considering that an analogue tape machine will also have 3%
> >> distortion (that's how peak level is defined, the 3% distortion point)
> >> and I
> >> have no idea how much distortion the cutter itself has, plus springback
> >> on
> >> the lacquer which leads to harmonic distortion, the total is
> >> considerable.
> >> That's another form of inherent coloration.
>
> >> S.
>
> > A valid point. But how much of that harmonic distortion is audible?
>
> It's hard to say as it depends on many factors. However, tests done on
> harmonic distortion that I recall reading many years ago indicated that 1%
> was the lower limit for audibility, but it depended on frequency and masking
> by other sounds. As I recall, that was the origin of the 0.1% distortion
> desiderata for amplifiers as it was 10x better than was likely to be
> audible, and could therefore be comfortably taken as being completely
> inaudible under all circumstances. Nothing in the intervening 50 years or so
> has made this invalid as far as I know.
So it stands to reason that this may actually be a source of euphonic
distortion in vinyl playback.
>
> As to vinyl, I suppose one could cut a record from an unequalised digital
> master and similarly produce a CD and compare the two. However, the limited
> dynamic range that would result from having necessarily to cut from an
> unequalised master would not be a valid comparison with "real world" LPs.
Actually James Boyk did something quite similar. He made a comparison
pachage with his recording of Pictures at an Exhibition. He took the
direct feed from the mic preamp and recorded it both in analog and hi
rez digital. From the analog tapes he cut both a CD and an LP with
xero signal proccessing other than the obvious RIAA EQ for the LP and
A/D conversion for the CD. He included the digital recording on the CD
for a comparison between the digital and analog recorders.
> Practical LPs are cut from masters specially equalised and compressed to get
> the best subjective result from the limited medium.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "practical" LP. I can tell you though
that I own a good many LPs that have not been compressed at all. OTOH
unfortunately I own a good many CDs that have been compressed to
death. It is a sad state of affairs in today's music industry.
> There is also a great
> deal of skill (art rather than science) on the part of the Cutting Engineer
> who will try and balance the conflicting requirements of noise against
> level, frequency response against level against distortion, level against
> playing time and pre-echo, level against playability by less sophisticated
> record players, managing stereo difference i.e stylus vertical movement, and
> possibly other things I haven't thought of.
I can't argue with that. It is a job that takes tremendous skill to do
well, so I am told.
>
> Can you imaging someone starting out today, with no knowledge of vinyl, and
> trying to invent a mechanical engraving system to reproduce Hi-Fi sound? I
> think anyone would conclude it's just not possible, and yet......
And yet... I remember back when I first got into CDs back in 84. It
was the begining of my persuit of the hobby of high end audio. I
thought the idea of dragging a rock over a piece of plastic to make a
sound seemed pretty absurd in the face of this new digital technology.
And yet.... to this day I am still for the most part getting my best
sound from dragging a rock over a piece of plastic.
Sonnova
(in article <6mbnasF...@mid.individual.net>):
I like the previous poster's "Let's-throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water"
attitude. He seems to overlook the fact that that the entire audio industry
grew up with the LP as the primary, and in some cases, the only source
material. Using the LP, all manner of audio equipment improved on a yearly
basis, and some, such as amplification, became mature technologies, not
really improved upon since. All while reproducing this "basic poor
performance." LP gave millions of people great pleasure and access to the
greatest musical performances in history (as well as some which were not so
great). Good stereos sounded good with LP as their source material, and just
because CD has SOME advantages, such as no surface noise and perfect pitch,
to many, CD just doesn't sound as "good" as a good LP (realizing, of course,
that peoples' ideas about what constitutes "good" differ). I certainly have
LPs that sound far superior to the CDs eventually mastered from the same
source material. Even so, there are many great performances that have never
been transferred (and probably will NEVER be transferred) to CD, leaving LP
as still the only source for these performances. New technologies can be
great, and modern CDs mastered from recent recording sessions which take full
advantage of the truly excellent tools and technologies available today, can
sound superb. Of that there is no doubt or argument. But to dismiss LP with a
wave of the hand and a dismissive comment about "poor performance" is truly
myopic and definitely a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Arny Krueger
news:6mbnasF...@mid.individual.net
> On Oct 23, 6:15�am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:gdo9r...@news7.newsguy.com
>>
>>> It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk
>>> as much as possible with proper azimuth adjustment one
>>> improves the sound stage in every way.
>>
>> That would be an example of proof by assertion.
> No it's merely an observation.
In turn, all of the findings of science and technology are observations.
E = MC squared is an observation.
All preferences are observations.
All facts are observations.
IOW, calling something an observation is like saying that water is wet. It's
a truism.
> Not any claim of universal fact.
There are no universal facts. There are only the current set of findings and
observations.
> Scott W. has just suggested the improved sound
> stage is due to better channel balanced which may be
> achieved through the same adjustment. He may be right.
> I'm just reporting what I did and the results.
But, we don't know how reliable your account of the results are. If you're
going to dismiss 100% of my findings because they disagree with your
beliefs, then your observations deserve nothing more.
>> However, given the basic poor performance of the LP
>> format, and its acute sensitivity to slight mechanical
>> maladjustment, I'm prone to believe your claim.
> Poor performance?
Call it an observation.
> That depends on one's criteria for excellent performance.
In the end we have two extreme cases.
In one extreme case, the criteria for excellent performance is whatever
flies into my head at that instant. In the other extreme, the criteria for
excellent performance is sonic performance that is completely and utterly
indistinguishable from the original live performance.
In the case of stereo recorded media, we don't have to go all the way back
to the original live performance, because recording and playing back stereo
is all about just 4 electrical signals. The 4 electrical signals are:
(1-2) The line-level stereo signal that we wish to record and play back,
such as the output of a mixing console (as in Sheffield), a digital recorder
(as in Telarc and current practice,) or a high quality analog tape recorder
(as in the extreme majority of recordings originally released before 1980.
(3-4) the stereo signal that appears at the line-level electrical outputs of
the media playback facility.
(a) Bottom line, if nobody can reliably distinguish 1-2 from 3-4 by means of
just listening to level-matched, time-synched signals in a bias-controlled
test, then we should all be able to agree that we have excellent
performance.
(b) Given that examples of (a) are not uncommon, if anybody can reliably
distinguish 1-2 from 3-4 by means of just listening to level-matched,
time-synched signals in a bias-controlled test, then we should all be able
to agree that we don't have excellent performance.
[I think that most readers of RAHE in recent years can fill in the rest of
this post, so I shan't waste the bandwidth by actually typing it and sending
it in.]
Arny Krueger
> On Oct 22, 3:35 pm, S888Wh...@aol.com wrote:
>> It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk
>> as much as possible with proper azimuth adjustment one
>> improves the sound stage in every way.
Since picking at the logic in statements has become so common around here, I
feel that I am remiss by not pointing out that aside from documented proof
that the claimant actually knows "every way" that the sound stage could be
improved, the statement is obviously false. ;-)
Also, the word "improves" has a number of logical problems. One would be
the standard by which improvement is being judged, which is far from being
clear. Secondly even given a proper standard, there is the matter of how
conformance to that standard is judged. Since human bias might intrude, it
is possible that bias-controlled testing would be the only reasonable means.
;-)
>> So if this cross talk is in fact a euphonic coloration that enhances the
>> sense of space on LPs it clearly has to the right amount.
It is clear that cross talk is not always an euphonic coloration, because
the extreme case of cross talk would transform every stereo recording into
mono. OTOH, perhaps I am being presumptuous in thinking that the author
would not want all of his stereo recordings turned into mono. ;-)
Then there is the unsupported claim that "...the sense of space on LPs
clearly has to the right amount..." Fool that I am, I believe that the
sense of space at the original performance is the only sense of space that
clearly has to be the right amount. ;-)
>> An amount that is at most near the minimum
>> threshold allowed by the technology.
Which technology is "the technology". ;-)
> I think you'll find that the crosstalk method of
> alignment also serves
> to optimize channel balance which is, IMO, the reason for
> improved sound stage. Not a properly applied amount of
> crosstalk.
Getting serious for just a moment, it is the sense of space at the original
performance that is the only right amount. Unfortunately, the sense of space
at the original performance is not just one thing, it varies with the
location and orientation of the observer's ears. I find no general agreement
about which seat is the best seat in the house. Therefore, using one's
perceptions of the sound stage as a technical standard for making technical
adjustments is highly subjective and inexact to say the least.
Arny Krueger
message news:6mbj47F...@mid.individual.net
>> A valid point. But how much of that harmonic distortion
>> is audible?
Harmonic distortion is not audible nor is it the intent that it be audible.
Harmonic distortion is an abstract means that is commonly, but often
erroneously used to characterize something that *IS* relevant, which is
nonlinear distortion.
The general rule is that nonlinear distortion that would produce 0.1% THD
if you properly chose to characterize it that way, can cause reliably
audible consequence.
> It's hard to say as it depends on many factors. However,
> tests done on harmonic distortion that I recall reading
> many years ago indicated that 1% was the lower limit for
> audibility, but it depended on frequency and masking by
> other sounds.
The 1% rule is easy to debunk on the grounds that it can easily be too high.
> As I recall, that was the origin of the
> 0.1% distortion desiderata for amplifiers as it was 10x
> better than was likely to be audible, and could therefore
> be comfortably taken as being completely inaudible under
> all circumstances.
Actually, if I get to pick the music, there is a high probability that
nonlinear distortion of 0.1% in the 20-20 KHz range would likely be
objectionable to you, even if you were listening to a good car radio at 70
mph.
> As to vinyl, I suppose one could cut a record from an
> unequalised digital master and similarly produce a CD and
> compare the two.
Vinyl is so limited in terms of dynamic range that many if not most digital
masters would require further processing if a good-sounding LP were the
desired outcome. It is perfectly trivial to create a digital master that
would damage most LP cutting equipment if not operated by an expert. The
expert would start out by changing the master. Producing an acceptable LP
from an unaltered digital master of ordinary music might be impossible.
> However, the limited dynamic range that
> would result from having necessarily to cut from an
> unequalised master would not be a valid comparison with
> "real world" LPs.
Agreed.
> Practical LPs are cut from masters
> specially equalised and compressed to get the best
> subjective result from the limited medium. There is also
> a great deal of skill (art rather than science) on the
> part of the Cutting Engineer who will try and balance the
> conflicting requirements of noise against level,
> frequency response against level against distortion,
> level against playing time and pre-echo, level against
> playability by less sophisticated record players,
> managing stereo difference i.e stylus vertical movement,
> and possibly other things I haven't thought of.
Agreed.
If we want to compare the LP format to the CD format, we first have to bias
the test to favor the LP.
Obviously, unbiased comparisons of the two are impossible.
Arny Krueger
news:6m9uj8F...@mid.individual.net
>>
>>> "Please tell us how you know about this distortion that
>>> is "inherent" in LP playback.
>>
>> Please compare
>>
>> http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/april-2008/vinyl-vs-cd-...
>> Note that this graphic shows a 1 KHz tone, with the
>> second harmonic about 20
>> dB down, which I call 10% second harmonic nonlinear
>> distortion. 10% distortion is a lot of distortion by any standard.
As you point out, I was mislead by the author's commentary. The difference
is just about exactly 40 dB, which is still very poor performance for a
modern playback device. The accompanying text talks about 7-10% THD+N which
mislead me.
> But more importantly, how do you
> differentiate the distortion that is inherent from the
> distortion that is unique to that particular rig and the
> test record?
One presumes competence on the part of the person doing the test - that they
used an adequate test record.
>> to:
>> http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif
>> Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the
>> second and third
>> harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I call less than one
>> percent second and third harmonic distortion.
> OK. But again, how do you tell the difference between the
> inherent distortion in the medium and the distortion that
> is unique to your rig and the test record?
I used a SOTA test record. My modest rig outperformed a highly-expensive
rig.
Actually, your point is well taken. The poor technical performance is
partially due to the test record in the sense that as a rule, no test like
this ever obtains significantly better results, because after all, this is
LP playback.
Note that while my test results are still signficantly better - almost 6 dB
better, they are in the same rather pathetic range.
>>> What playback equipment
>>> have you used to determine this?
>> Looking at the two examples, it appears that we have
>> quite a range of
>> equipment.
> I don't agree at all. I would argue that neither rig
> would be found to be SOTA.
You've missed the point - the cheaper rig which most would agree is far
less SOTA than the more expensive one, outperformed the more expensive rig
by a signficant margin.
> If you are looking for the
> thresholds of the medium I think you have to start with a
> disc cut at one of the handful of state of the art
> mastering studios and you would have to use a Rockport
> Sirius III or the top model Continuum or maybe the top
> model Transrotor rig.
Persons with such equipment are free to publish their results. They haven't,
and that is because their results won't be signficantly better (i.e., 10
times better) than either of the above tests.
But, I've already show that a humble, apparently outdated rig can outperform
a modern, far more apparently sophisticated expensive one. If you check
the timing of the tests, my test predated the test of the expensive rig by
about 7 years.
>> The real surprise is the seemingly poor performance
>> posted
>> athttp://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/april-2008/vinyl-vs-cd-...
>> I call that really poor performance, and we don't even
>> have a frequency
>> response curve that actually involves playing vinyl.
> But aren't you making a qualitative judgement without
> even knowing what it sounds like?
We already know what both rigs sound like - they sound like vinyl, with
audible tics, timbre changes both static and dynamic, pops, rumble, hiss,
and distortion.
Serge Auckland
news:6mck8pF...@mid.individual.net...
> Snipped
>> As I recall, that was the origin of the
>> 0.1% distortion desiderata for amplifiers as it was 10x
>> better than was likely to be audible, and could therefore
>> be comfortably taken as being completely inaudible under
>> all circumstances.
>
> Actually, if I get to pick the music, there is a high probability that
> nonlinear distortion of 0.1% in the 20-20 KHz range would likely be
> objectionable to you, even if you were listening to a good car radio at 70
> mph.
>
This is interesting:- What music would have 0.1% distortion that's audible?
That's 60dB down on peak, so I would be very surprised to be able to hear
anything 60dB down on programme, especially when correlated to the
programme.
C. Leeds
> We already know what both rigs sound like - they sound like vinyl, with
> audible tics, timbre changes both static and dynamic, pops, rumble, hiss,
> and distortion.
As this lengthy thread has demonstrated, there have been no reliable
primary sources shown here to substantiate that this is inherently what
vinyl sounds like. It's just an oft-repeated canard.
Arny Krueger
news:6me0ulF...@mid.individual.net...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
So all those JAES articles that Stephen cited are what, secondary sources?
Where do they teach that sort of thinking as good academic research?
Have you even looked at their abstracts?
Do you know who their authors were?
> It's just an oft-repeated canard.
It is all a trivially-demonstrable fact.
I challenge you to post a digital transcription of a LP that contains no
detectible evidence of *any* of the problems mentioned above.
S888...@aol.com
> Vinyl is so limited in terms of dynamic range that many if not most digital
> masters would require further processing if a good-sounding LP were the
> desired outcome. It is perfectly trivial to create a digital master that
> would damage most LP cutting equipment if not operated by an expert. The
> expert would start out by changing the master. Producing an acceptable LP
> from an unaltered digital master of ordinary music might be impossible.
>
To the best of my knowledge there are very few commercial recordings
that have an excess of 75 db dynamic range. This is rarely an issue at
all.
S888...@aol.com
> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6m9uj8F...@mid.individual.net
>
>
>
> >>> "Please tell us how you know about this distortion that
> >>> is "inherent" in LP playback.
>
> >> Please compare
>
> >>http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/april-2008/vinyl-vs-cd-...
> >> Note that this graphic shows a 1 KHz tone, with the
> >> second harmonic about 20
> >> dB down, which I call 10% second harmonic nonlinear
> >> distortion. 10% �distortion is a lot of distortion by any standard.
>
> As you point out, I was mislead by the author's commentary. The difference
> is just about exactly 40 dB, which is still very poor performance for a
> modern playback device. The accompanying text talks about 7-10% THD+N which
> mislead me.
>
> > �But more importantly, how do you
> > differentiate the distortion that is inherent from the
> > distortion that is unique to that particular rig and the
> > test record?
>
> One presumes competence on the part of the person doing the test - that they
> used an adequate test record.
I find that presumption to be unacceptable. One cannot draw such
universal conclusions about the inherent colorations of the medium
based on such a limited sampling.
>
> >> to:
> >>http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif
> >> Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the
> >> second and third
> >> harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I call less than one
> >> percent second and third harmonic distortion.
> > OK. But again, how do you tell the difference between the
> > inherent distortion in the medium and the distortion that
> > is unique to your rig and the test record?
>
> I used a SOTA test record. �My modest rig �outperformed a highly-expensive
> rig.
I disagree. The test record you used was not cut on the latest most
advanced cutting lathes and does not represent the state of the art of
vinyl mastering.
>
> Actually, your point is well taken. The poor technical performance is
> partially due to the test record �in the sense that as a rule, no test like
> this ever obtains significantly better results, because after all, this is
> LP playback.
This is a faulty logical argument.
18. Tautology A tautology is an argument that utilizes circular
reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise.
The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the
premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not
immediately apparent as such. For example, saying that therapeutic
touch works because it manipulates the life force is a tautology
because the definition of therapeutic touch is the alleged
manipulation (without touching) of the life force.
>
> Note that while my test results are still signficantly better - almost 6 dB
> better, �they are in the same rather pathetic range.
It still tells us very little about what distortions are inherent in
the technology and what distortions are unique to each device. It does
tell us that one device clearly must have some distortion that is not
inherent in the medium. We have no way of determining how much of that
measured distortion is inherent in the medium and how much is added by
the specific propperties of that rig and that test record. We simply
can deduct that at least some of it is indeed added by that specific
rig and/or that specific test record. This leaves us with your rig,
The one with the lower measured distortion. One would have to presume
that your rig and test record are both SOTA and free from any of the
added distortion we can deduct is likely present in the other rig and
test record to assume that these measurments are purely a measurement
of only the inherent colorations of the medium. I think this would be
a terribly irrational presumption with no foundation. This leaves us
in the same situation we started. We don't know how much of the
measured distortion in either test is inherent in the medium. You
simply can't determine this just by these two examples.
>
> >>> What playback equipment
> >>> have you used to determine this?
> >> Looking at the two examples, it appears that we have
> >> quite a range of
> >> equipment.
> > I don't agree at all. I would argue that neither rig
> > would be found to be SOTA.
>
> You've missed the point - the cheaper �rig which most would agree is far
> less SOTA than the more expensive one, outperformed the more expensive rig
> by a signficant margin.
My point is that one cannot deduct from these two sets of
measurements what distortions are inherent in the medium. This was
never about the subjective evaluation of additional distortions that
are unique to each rig. That is an entirely different subject.
>
> > If you are looking for the
> > thresholds of the medium I think you have to start with a
> > disc cut at one of the handful of state of the art
> > mastering studios and you would have to use a Rockport
> > Sirius III or the top model Continuum or maybe the top
> > model Transrotor rig.
>
> Persons with such equipment are free to publish their results. They haven't,
> and that is because their results won't be signficantly better (i.e., 10
> times better) than either of the above tests.
This is a faulty argument.
12. Non-Sequitur In Latin this term translates to "doesn't follow".
This refers to an argument in which the conclusion does not
necessarily follow from the premises. In other words, a logical
connection is implied where none exists.
It tells nothing about what measured distortions in your rig and your
test record are inherent in the medium and what distortions are not
inherent in the medium.
>
> >> The real surprise is the seemingly poor performance
> >> posted
> >> athttp://www.hometheaterhifi.com/images/stories/april-2008/vinyl-vs-cd-...
> >> I call that really poor performance, and we don't even
> >> have a frequency
> >> response curve that actually involves playing vinyl.
> > But aren't you making a qualitative judgement without
> > even knowing what it sounds like?
>
> We already know what both rigs sound like
No we don't. You have some idea what one of them sounds like under
sighted conditions with your personal sound system which makes your
opinions limited in scope and subject to your biases. Neither one of
us has even listened to the other rig.
C. Leeds
-
>> Improved sound quality is what initially sold the CD....It wasn't
cost, because both the players and the discs were far more expensive.
I answered:
> Don't be silly. Even the very earliest CD players were far less
expensive than the best turntable rigs of the era.
Arny responds:
> when talking about prices, I'm talking about LP playback equipment
with top-of-the line Thorens and Linn turntables, etc.
Arny, I don't know what you paid for your first Sony CD player. "Early
adopters" of new technology often pay inflated prices in exchange for
"bragging rights" about being the first kid on the block with a new toy.
But here are some facts, using list prices.
The Sony CDP-101 first sold for $900. According to the 1984 Audio
magazine equipment directory, the Linn LP12 cost $794. At Ittok pickup
arm was $520. To make them work, you'd still need a phono cartridge and
a phono preamplifier. So you can't claim that the earliest CD players
were expensive compared to LP rigs. They weren't; they were cheap by
comparison. They still are.
> Many people in their 40's were not even teenagers at the time. What
can they remember if it never happened to them?
They can look it up, Arny.
Arny Krueger
news:6mei35F...@mid.individual.net...
If we consider the results posted at www.hometheatrehifi.com, their LP
system tests show 22 dB audio-band dynamic range, which is far worse than a
typical uncompressed classical CD which has 65 dB or better audio-band
dynamic range.
Butt audio-band dynamic range is not the LP format's weakest link. Dynamic
range at high frequencies the far more significant weakness of the LP
format.
High frequencies within the audio band is where modern CDs would likely need
the most *adjustment* if they were to be recorded on a LP without damaging
the cutter head.
Arny Krueger
The undistorted music would be composed of instruments that are very rich in
high frequency overtones, such as certain percussion and brass instruments.
The nonlinear distortion would be effective in the top octave of the normal
audio band - 10 KHz and up. This is a range where the nonlinear distortion
of most equipment is increasing because of decreasing open loop gain
(amplifiers) or tracking distortion (LP). Now for a good power amplifier,
this distortion increase might be from 0.005% at 2 KHz to 0.02% at 20 KHz.
Still not a serious issue. For SET amplifiers and LP playback, the
distortion increase might be from a little less than 1% to 5-10% or more.
Potentially a very serious issue.
The relevant psychoacoustic effect makes the ear far less sensitive to the
high frequency overtones than it is to the IM spurious responses which show
up at lower frequencies where the ear is far more sensitive.
Note that the ear is about 20 dB more sensitive in the 2.5 to 5 KHz range
than it is in the 10-20 KHz range. So psychoacoustically, our 0.1 %
nonlinear distortion is perceived as being more like 1% nonlinear
distortion.
I believe that there is little controversy among many of us over the idea
that nonlinear distortion in the 1% range can be reliably detected. This is
particularly true when the spurious responses are aharmonic, which IM is
very likely to be.
Arny Krueger
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> Improved sound quality is what initially sold the CD....It wasn't
> cost, because both the players and the discs were far more expensive.
> I answered:
> > Don't be silly. Even the very earliest CD players were far less
> expensive than the best turntable rigs of the era.
> Arny responds:
> > when talking about prices, I'm talking about LP playback equipment
> with top-of-the line Thorens and Linn turntables, etc.
> Arny, I don't know what you paid for your first Sony CD player.
$936 including tax.
> "Early adopters" of new technology often pay inflated prices in exchange
> for
> "bragging rights" about being the first kid on the block with a new toy.
Or, people go so frustrated with the LP that they were willing to pay any
reasonable price to get something better. Done deal!
> But here are some facts, using list prices.
How about some real world numbers?
> The Sony CDP-101 first sold for $900. According to the 1984 Audio
> magazine equipment directory, the Linn LP12 cost $794. At Ittok pickup
> arm was $520.
Those were list prices. The CDP 101 being new sold for list for the first
few months. I know a number of people who had LP12s, but none of them paid
list price for them.
My TD 125/SM3 3009/Shure V-15 4 system cost me far less than my CDP 101.
If anybody wanted a CDP 101, they paid the store's price for the first few
months. There was nothing that sold for appreciably less. If they wanted a
LP playback system, they had unending choices at a wide variety of price
points.
> To make them work, you'd still need a phono cartridge and
> a phono preamplifier.
In those days the nearest phono preamp was as close as the nearest preamp,
integrated amp or receiver. Incremental cost = zero. Very good Shure
cartridges were under $100.
> So you can't claim that the earliest CD players
> were expensive compared to LP rigs.
Sure I can, especially if I'm not so bold as to claim that everybody paid
list price for everything, and that everybody had a very expensive LP
playback system.
The average audiophile in the early 80s was using something like a Dual
turntable/cartridge combo that cost less than $200, $300 at the most. And
BTW there's no evidence that they were losing out on significant amounts of
technical performance by doing so. I admit it - overspent on my
Thorens/Shure rig.
> They weren't; they were cheap by comparison. They still are.
It appears that the high price of many LP playback systems can't be
justified on technical grounds. The current pricing of a
sonically-transparent CD player is so low that its not even worthy of
discussion.
> > Many people in their 40's were not even teenagers at the time. What
> can they remember if it never happened to them?
> They can look it up, Arny.
If they can't look up JAES papers, how can we reasonably expect them to look
up old copies of Audio.
BTW, I learned a lot about LP technology from old copies of Audio, because
they used to echo the interesting parts of some JAES papers.
S888...@aol.com
>
> news:gdptc...@news5.newsguy.com
>
> > On Oct 22, 3:35 pm, S888Wh...@aol.com wrote:
> >> It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk
> >> as much as possible with proper azimuth adjustment one
> >> improves the sound stage in every way.
>
> Since picking at the logic in statements has become so common around here, I
> feel that I am remiss by not pointing out that aside from documented proof
> that the claimant actually knows "every way" that the sound stage could be
> improved, the statement is obviously false. ;-)
>
> Also, the word "improves" �has a number of logical problems. One would be
> the standard by which improvement is being judged, which is far from being
> clear. Secondly even given a proper standard, there is the matter of how
> conformance to that standard is judged. Since human bias might intrude, it
> is possible that bias-controlled testing would be the only reasonable means.
> ;-)
That is all true and well worth pointing out. The improvements I noted
were indeed subjective and made under sighted conditions.
>
> >> So if this cross talk is in fact a euphonic coloration that enhances the
> >> sense of space on LPs it clearly has to the right amount.
>
> It is clear that cross talk is not always an euphonic coloration, because
> the extreme case of cross talk would transform every stereo recording into
> mono. �OTOH, perhaps I am being presumptuous in thinking that the author
> would not want all of his stereo recordings turned into mono. ;-)
You are correct.
>
> Then there is the unsupported claim that "...the sense of space on LPs
> clearly has to the right amount..." �Fool that I am, I believe that the
> sense of space at the original performance is the only sense of space that
> clearly has to be the right amount. ;-)
actually I was refering to the crosstalk when I said "right amount." I
pretty much agree with your opinion that the sense of space at the
original performance is "the right amount" for the playback. I don't
think one could go terribly wrong with that if they are looking for an
illusion of live music.
>
> >> �An amount that is at most near the minimum
> >> threshold allowed by the technology.
>
> Which technology is "the technology". ;-)
The production and playback of vinyl.
>
> > I think you'll find that the crosstalk method of
> > alignment also serves
> > to optimize channel balance which is, IMO, the reason for
> > improved sound stage. �Not a properly applied amount of
> > crosstalk.
>
> Getting serious for just a moment, �it is the sense of space at the original
> performance that is the only right amount.
No it is the only "accurate" amount. One would not be "wrong" to use a
different reference to judge excellence. I think you and I are
actually on the same page here as to what we would like to achieve but
that is hardly a universal standard by which all audiophiles are
forced to judge a sense of space. There are many a DSP that allows one
to vary that sense of space to one's personal taste. No one is wrong
for using such a device. It is a personal choice.
> Unfortunately, the sense of space
> at the original performance is not just one thing, it varies with the
> location and orientation of the observer's ears. I find no general agreement
> about which seat is the best seat in the house. Therefore, using one's
> perceptions of the sound stage as a technical standard for making technical
> adjustments is highly subjective and inexact to say the least.
You make a very important point. No recording captures an "original
acoustic event" in total. At best all a recording engineer can to is
make a recording that when played back creates a less than perfect
illusion of the original event from a single particular listening
position. That is one of many aesthetic choices made by a skilled
recording engineer.
S888...@aol.com
> "C. Leeds" <cleeds...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6me0ulF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> We already know what both rigs sound like - they sound like vinyl, with
> >> audible tics, timbre changes both static �and dynamic, pops, rumble,
> >> hiss,
> >> and distortion.
> > As this lengthy thread has demonstrated, there have been no reliable
> > primary sources shown here to substantiate that this is inherently what
> > vinyl sounds like.
>
> So all those JAES articles that Stephen cited are what, secondary sources?
They are references to papers with no established relevance to the
subject of inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl.
If one were to at least quote a passage from any of the cited papers,
those of us who don't have them in their possesion can at least see if
they actually address the issue being discussed.
>
> Where do they teach that sort of thinking as good academic research?
>
> Have you even looked at their abstracts?
No. so we have no way of knowing their relevance to the subject of
inherent euphonic colorations of vinyl
>
> Do you know who their authors were?
>
Wasn't that information included in the citations?
Arny Krueger
news:6mell1F...@mid.individual.net...
I find flat, unjustified, unsupported dismissal of the work of a well-known
technician to be unacceptable.
> One cannot draw such
> universal conclusions about the inherent colorations of the medium
> based on such a limited sampling.
Scott, that would be proof positive that you haven't bothered to do your
reading. You asked for the references, which makes you responsible for
reviewing them before you dismiss them.
>> >> to:
>> >>http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif
>> >> Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the
>> >> second and third
>> >> harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I call less than one
>> >> percent second and third harmonic distortion.
>> > OK. But again, how do you tell the difference between the
>> > inherent distortion in the medium and the distortion that
>> > is unique to your rig and the test record?
>
>> I used a SOTA test record. �My modest rig �outperformed a
>> highly-expensive
>> rig.
> I disagree. The test record you used was not cut on the latest most
> advanced cutting lathes and does not represent the state of the art of
> vinyl mastering.
Prove it.
>> Actually, your point is well taken. The poor technical performance is
>> partially due to the test record �in the sense that as a rule, no test
>> like
>> this ever obtains significantly better results, because after all, this
>> is
>> LP playback.
> This is a faulty logical argument.
Only if one has not done his homework.
> 18. Tautology A tautology is an argument that utilizes circular
> reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise.
It's only a tautology to people who are unfamiliar with the technical
literature of LP technology. References to a goodly sample of that
literature has been posted here in good bibliographical style. Pretending
it doesn't exist would not appear to be a well-justified course of action.
>> Note that while my test results are still signficantly better - almost 6
>> dB
>> better. IOW, they are in the same rather pathetic range.
> It still tells us very little about what distortions are inherent in
> the technology and what distortions are unique to each device.
The only people who know little about what distortions are inherent in the
various aspects
LP technology are those who have at this point intentionally ignored the
supplied references to the technical literature of LP technology. The two
samples of real-world performance at hand are representative of what the LP
format does, and is consistent with a body of knowledge that is available to
the general public and has been published over the past 40 years.
Anybody who thinks they can obtain better performance from their LP playback
systems need only invest in one or more test records and make effective use
of a reasonably up-to-date PC or Mac. Thus, it is up to them to obtain
reliable evidence that supports their beliefs or have their beliefs
dismissed on the ground that they are unwilling to provide reasonable
support for their beliefs.
S888...@aol.com
> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6mbnasF...@mid.individual.net
>
> > On Oct 23, 6:15 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> > wrote:
> >> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:gdo9r...@news7.newsguy.com
>
> >>> It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk
> >>> as much as possible with proper azimuth adjustment one
> >>> improves the sound stage in every way.
>
> >> That would be an example of proof by assertion.
> > No it's merely an observation.
>
> In turn, all of the findings of science and technology are observations.
>
> E = MC squared is an observation.
I think you have it backwards there. Einstien hypothesized E=MC
squared well before it was ever observed.
>
> All preferences are observations.
Not really. Preferences are subjective evaluations. They may be based
on observation. They may be based on other things like prejudice. But
they are not really an observation.
>
> All facts are observations.
Not at all. we have a whole world of mathematical facts and linguistic
facts that are anything but observations.
> > Scott W. has just suggested the improved sound
> > stage is due to better channel balanced which may be
> > achieved through the same adjustment. He may be right.
> > I'm just reporting what I did and the results.
>
> But, we don't know how reliable your account of the results are. If you're
> going to dismiss 100% of my findings because they disagree with your
> beliefs, then your observations deserve nothing more.
That is true. I could be mistaken. Or I could be giving a personal
opinion on the quality of the soundstage which may not jive with other
peoples' qualitative opinions. That is why I assert my observations
based on listening as my observations based on listening. Nothing more
nothing less.
>
> >> However, given the basic poor performance of the LP
> >> format, and its acute sensitivity to slight mechanical
> >> maladjustment, I'm prone to believe your claim.
> > Poor performance?
>
> Call it an observation.
I will call it the same thing I called it for myself and I call it
for all others. It is your "subjective evaluation. It may be based on
observation. It may be based on other things like prejudice. but it is
not really an observation."
>
> > That depends on one's criteria for excellent performance.
>
> In the end we have two extreme cases.
>
> In one extreme case, the criteria for excellent performance is whatever
> flies into my head at that instant. In the other extreme, the criteria for
> excellent performance is sonic performance that is completely and utterly
> indistinguishable from the original live performance.
I completely disagree with this premise. it is yet another case of
faulty logic. 9. False Dichotomy Arbitrarily reducing a set of many
possibilities to only two. For example, evolution is not possible,
therefore we must have been created (assumes these are the only two
possibilities). Ultimately when one talks about "excellence" there is
at least one leap from the objective world to the world of pure
subjectivity. One can objectively say something is bigger than another
or faster than another or hotter than another etc. But as soon as you
say something is "better" then you have to have made a subjective
choice of a reference by which you measure. You have picked two out of
a nearly unlimited number of possible goals and arbitrarily claimed
that they are extremes. One of them simply isn't a point of reference
at all. The other is merely one of many possible points of reference.
On a practical level you have cited a point of reference/goal a "sonic
performance that is completely and utterly indistinguishable from the
original live performance." that is simply not available as a
practical reference for audiophiles like myself who are simply looking
to get the best sound out of their favorite commercial recordings.
>
> In the case of stereo recorded media, we don't have to go all the way back
> to the original live performance, because recording and playing back stereo
> is all about just 4 electrical signals. �
If one's goal is to get "sonic performance that is completely and
utterly indistinguishable from the original live performance." one can
not possibly cut to the half way point of the stereo chain and now
call that the reference. The electrical signals you refer to are in
fact not the same as the "original live performance." Not even close.
The original live performance was a complex series of sound waves that
took place in a three dimensional space. These signals you speak of
are nothing more than a couple one dimensional electrical waves. They
are anything but the same as the original performance. Once the
original perfomance happens it is lost. If *you* wish to use an
electrical signal as a point of reference by which to judge excellence
that is a choice you get to make. I have no problem with *your*
aesthetic goals. But make no mistake about it, you have just abandoned
your reference of the "original performance" and put an intermediate
electrical signal with all the baggage it carries from the inherent
colorations of the hardware, the inherent limitations of stereo
recording and playback and most significantly all the aesthetic
choices made by the recording engineer in place of the "original
perfomance" as your reference. Now this is a choice any audiophile may
make. But it would be a profound mistake to believe these two points
of reference are interchangable or indistinguishable. They are not.
S888...@aol.com
> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6mei35F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > On Oct 23, 5:47 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >> Vinyl is so limited in terms of dynamic range that many if not most
> >> digital
> >> masters would require further processing if a good-sounding LP were the
> >> desired outcome. It is perfectly trivial to create a digital master that
> >> would damage most LP cutting equipment if not operated by an expert. The
> >> expert would start out by changing the master. Producing an acceptable LP
> >> from an unaltered digital master of ordinary music might be impossible.
> > To the best of my knowledge there are very few commercial recordings
> > that have an excess of 75 db dynamic range.
>
> If we consider the results posted at �www.hometheatrehifi.com, their LP
> system tests show 22 dB audio-band dynamic range,
The link doesn't work but any claim that the inherent dynamic range of
medium is 22db would simply be eroneous. By most accounts from those
involved with state of the art vinyl reproduction report that the
inherent dynamic range ia anywhere from 75 to 80 db. Also we have to
remember the noise floor of vinyl has a specific sonic signature which
allows for hearing signals well below the noise floor. If their rig is
only able to achieve 22db dynamic range it has some serious problems.
> which is far worse than a
> typical uncompressed classical CD which has 65 dB or better audio-band
> dynamic range.
65 db is well within the inherent limitations of vinyl. It's also
extremely dynamic by recording standards. You will find the vast
majority of commercial recordings have far less dynamic range. Not to
say we shouldn't try to accomedate recordings with exceptionally wide
dynamic ranges.
>
> Butt audio-band dynamic range is not the LP format's weakest link. Dynamic
> range at high frequencies the far more significant weakness of the LP
> format.
That is true. Things like cymbal crashes with close microphone
techniques and other such signals are an issue with vinyl. The cutting
engineer will likely use a limiter if that kind of high frequency
energy is in the signal.
S888...@aol.com
I do too but that isn't what I have done. I have pointed out that the
test results are due in no small part to the added didtortions of the
test record and the rig being tested. There is no way to look at the
results on their face and determine what portion of the measured
distortion is an inherent distortion of the medium and what portion is
not. I don't believe any calim is made by the authors as to what
portion of the distortion they measured is inherent in the medium. I
have not dismissed their work.
>
> > One cannot draw such
> > universal conclusions about the inherent colorations of the medium
> > based on such a limited sampling.
>
> Scott, that would be proof positive that you haven't bothered to do your
> reading. You asked for the references, which makes you responsible for
> reviewing them before you dismiss them.
I'm not sure what your point is here but I did read the article cited
that reported the tests with the McIntosh TT. Please feel free to cite
any specific excerpts that you feel will show what portion of the
measured distortion in that test is inherent in the medium and what
portion is not. I apologize in advance for anything I may have missed.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> to:
> >> >>http://www.pcavtech.com/play-rec/rega-2/grado-SNR.gif
> >> >> Note that this graphic shows a 300 Hz tone, with the
> >> >> second and third
> >> >> harmonics each 40-45 dB down, which I call less than one
> >> >> percent second and third harmonic distortion.
> >> > OK. But again, how do you tell the difference between the
> >> > inherent distortion in the medium and the distortion that
> >> > is unique to your rig and the test record?
>
> >> I used a SOTA test record. My modest rig outperformed a
> >> highly-expensive
> >> rig.
> > I disagree. The test record you used was not cut on the latest most
> > advanced cutting lathes and does not represent the state of the art of
> > vinyl mastering.
>
> Prove it.
HiFi News and record review test record correct? The one cut back in
the late 60s right?
Steven Sullivan
> On Oct 24, 2:33???pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> > <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:6mei35F...@mid.individual.net...
> >
> > > On Oct 23, 5:47 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> > >> Vinyl is so limited in terms of dynamic range that many if not most
> > >> digital
> > >> masters would require further processing if a good-sounding LP were the
> > >> desired outcome. It is perfectly trivial to create a digital master that
> > >> would damage most LP cutting equipment if not operated by an expert. The
> > >> expert would start out by changing the master. Producing an acceptable LP
> > >> from an unaltered digital master of ordinary music might be impossible.
> > > To the best of my knowledge there are very few commercial recordings
> > > that have an excess of 75 db dynamic range.
> >
> > system tests show 22 dB audio-band dynamic range,
> The link doesn't work
Even with *just* the information 'www.hometheatrehifi.com" it's possible
to find the articles in question quickly.
www.hometheatrehifi.com takes you to the Secrets portal, where one of the prominent
tabs is 'Technical Articles'. Click n that, and you are taken directly to the first of
the LP vs CD articles in the series.
Why do some here seem to often need to be led 'by hand'
to references and information they could easly find themselves, if they were
really interested in doing so?
--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy
Arny Krueger
> On Oct 23, 3:35?pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:6mbnasF...@mid.individual.net
>>
>> > On Oct 23, 6:15 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:gdo9r...@news7.newsguy.com
>>
>> >>> It has been my observation that by reducing cross talk
>> >>> as much as possible with proper azimuth adjustment one
>> >>> improves the sound stage in every way.
>>
>> >> That would be an example of proof by assertion.
>> > No it's merely an observation.
>>
>> In turn, all of the findings of science and technology are observations.
>>
>> E = MC squared is an observation.
>
> I think you have it backwards there. Einstien hypothesized E=MC
> squared well before it was ever observed.
At this point, both the hypothesis and the observation are ancient history.
To say otherwise would seem
to be liveing in the past and ignoring everything that happened after an
arbitrary time of arbitrary choice.
However, even the hypothesis was a kind of observation. It was a
mathematical observation.
>> All preferences are observations.
> Not really.
Sure they are, they are observations of a state of mind.
> Preferences are subjective evaluations.
That does not keep them from being observations.
Here we see a very basic kind of logical error. I say, "there's a cat". You
say, "Its not a cat, its a mammal". Obviously the idea the the animal that
we see is both a cat and a mammal has escaped you.
At this point I dispair of ever agreeing with you about anything, so I quit.
Arny Krueger
> On Oct 24, 5:26?pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
..
>> > I disagree. The test record you used was not cut on the latest most
>> > advanced cutting lathes and does not represent the state of the art of
>> > vinyl mastering.
>> Prove it.
> HiFi News and record review test record correct? The one cut back in
> the late 60s right?
Wrong again. The HFN test record was been recut in recent times. I have one
of the newly cut versions.
Here is a discussion of the more recent version of the HFN test record:
Chung
Arny Krueger
news:6mfck8F...@mid.individual.net...
> On Oct 24, 2:33�pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:6mei35F...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> > On Oct 23, 5:47 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> >> Vinyl is so limited in terms of dynamic range that many if not most
>> >> digital
>> >> masters would require further processing if a good-sounding LP were
>> >> the
>> >> desired outcome. It is perfectly trivial to create a digital master
>> >> that
>> >> would damage most LP cutting equipment if not operated by an expert.
>> >> The
>> >> expert would start out by changing the master. Producing an acceptable
>> >> LP
>> >> from an unaltered digital master of ordinary music might be
>> >> impossible.
>> > To the best of my knowledge there are very few commercial recordings
>> > that have an excess of 75 db dynamic range.
>>
>> If we consider the results posted at �www.hometheatrehifi.com, their LP
>> system tests show 22 dB audio-band dynamic range,
> The link doesn't work but any claim that the inherent dynamic range of
> medium is 22db would simply be erroneous.
Not really.
shows even worse results than that.
Test results with the Manly Preamp and MacIntosh MT10 Turntable/Arm/Cartdige
show 20% THD+N, which corresponds to 13 dB dyanamic range.
These results were obtained using the same standard that they used for
evaluating CD players, to make the comparison an apples-to-apples
comparison.
There is a long-standing convention of using a relaxed standard for testing
LP noise and distortion, which I used in my PCAVTech tests. As a rule,
broadband measurements of LP Noise and distortion is performed using a
roll-off that is very steep, starting just below the test frequency. Since
the LP has relatively large amounts of noise below 200 Hz, this provides
better results for THD+N.
> By most accounts from those
> involved with state of the art vinyl reproduction report that the
> inherent dynamic range ia anywhere from 75 to 80 db.
It's not a matter of the state of the art, its a matter of a biased
criteria. The biased criteria has been in use for at least 40 years. It's a
tradition. I used it without thinking.
> Also we have to
> remember the noise floor of vinyl has a specific sonic signature which
> allows for hearing signals well below the noise floor.
This is also true for the CD format, even though its broadband noise floor
is far lower. So, this is a moot point. Furthermore, the noise floor of the
CD format is commonly manipulated to improve the subjectively weighted
dynamic range into the 120 dB range.
> If their rig is only able to achieve 22db dynamic range it has some
> serious problems.
No, there are very serious dynamic range problems with the LP format as
compared to even 30-year-old digital formats. Low frequency noise and high
frequency dynamic range are serious problems. We've been sweeping those
problems under the rug for decades with biased measurement techniques.
>> which is far worse than a
>> typical uncompressed classical CD which has 65 dB or better audio-band
>> dynamic range.
> 65 db is well within the inherent limitations of vinyl.
Not if noise below 200 Hz is treated the same as we treat it when
characterizing the CD format.
> It's also extremely dynamic by recording standards.
That would appear to be a meaningless statement.
> You will find the vast
> majority of commercial recordings have far less dynamic range.
Actually, 65 dB dynamic range is easy to achieve. Of course its possible to
compress program material so that it has zero dynamic range, but that's an
artistic choice, not a characteristic of CD technology.
> Not to say we shouldn't try to accomedate recordings with exceptionally
> wide
> dynamic ranges.
If you want to accomodate wide dynamic range, you are forced out of the LP
format.
>> Butt audio-band dynamic range is not the LP format's weakest link.
>> Dynamic
>> range at high frequencies the far more significant weakness of the LP
>> format.
> That is true. Things like cymbal crashes with close microphone
> techniques and other such signals are an issue with vinyl. The cutting
> engineer will likely use a limiter if that kind of high frequency
> energy is in the signal.
And the effects of the limiter will be audible and some sparkle and liveness
will be sacrificed to accomodate the technical limitations of the LP format.
Arny Krueger
> On Oct 24, 5:26?pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> HiFi News and record review test record correct? The one cut back in
> the late 60s right?
Ahh, I found the reference I couldn't find while researching my previous
response, just a few minutes ago.
At least two new versions of the HFN test record have been cut in recent
times , following the only one that you seem to know exists from the 1960s.
The 1996 version:
http://www.tnt-audio.com/accessories/hfnrrdisc_e.html
The Y2K version:
http://www.garage-a-records.com/hifinews.html
I have the more recent version. I have two of them, one that I use for
setup, and one that I only use for critical tests. They were purchased a few
months before I ran my www.pcavtech.com tests back in 2001. The reserved
version produces similar results, only a bit less surface noise.
I have a library of test records going back to the 1960s. In general, they
produce similar results. The problem is with the LP medium at a very basic
level, and any such new production methods as have been claimed to have
been innovated in recent times, in general are futile.
Arny Krueger
news:gdvqt...@news6.newsguy.com...
> S888...@aol.com wrote:
> Why do some here seem to often need to be led 'by hand'
> to references and information they could easily find themselves, if they
> were
> really interested in doing so?
Good question.
There seems to be a lot of resistance among certain people towards ideas
that have been in the well-established technical literature of audio
technology for decades.
For example, we were initially told:
"I think you'll find this group nowadays largely populated with folks
quoting
"settled science", "trusted authorities", "well-proven" etc. in support of
the conventional wisdom. But when you ask for specifics, suddenly
conventional wisdom seems more like pass-along verities than it does
science."
This was followed up with no less than 20 relevant citations from the JAES,
which is a well-known, relevant, generally-accepted independently-refereed
academic journal. These articles catalog the inherent technical problems
with vinyl, the audible tics, timbre changes both static and dynamic, pops,
rumble, hiss, noise and distortion.
There is no evidence that these same people have even read the abstracts of
these articles, let alone studied the articles for themselves and understood
their contents and application.
We were then told that:
"There have been no reliable primary sources shown here to substantiate that
this is inherently what vinyl sounds like."
One wonders what could be meant by "primary sources" and "substantiate". :-(
S888...@aol.com
> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6mfck8F...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 2:33 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:6mei35F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> >> > On Oct 23, 5:47 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >> >> Vinyl is so limited in terms of dynamic range that many if not most
> >> >> digital
> >> >> masters would require further processing if a good-sounding LP were
> >> >> the
> >> >> desired outcome. It is perfectly trivial to create a digital master
> >> >> that
> >> >> would damage most LP cutting equipment if not operated by an expert.
> >> >> The
> >> >> expert would start out by changing the master. Producing an acceptable
> >> >> LP
> >> >> from an unaltered digital master of ordinary music might be
> >> >> impossible.
> >> > To the best of my knowledge there are very few commercial recordings
> >> > that have an excess of 75 db dynamic range.
>
> >> system tests show 22 dB audio-band dynamic range,
> > The link doesn't work but any claim that the inherent dynamic range of
> > medium is 22db would simply be erroneous.
>
> Not really.
>
Thank goodness we now have a working link. I have combed the article
and I must say I don't see any claim that the tests show a 22 dB
dynamic range.
>
> shows even worse results than that.
>
> Test results with the Manly Preamp and MacIntosh MT10 Turntable/Arm/Cartdige
> show �20% THD+N, which corresponds to 13 dB dyanamic range.
Harmonic distortion is not a measure of dynamic range. 20% THD+N does
not have any direct corlation to the dynamic range of any system. Your
conclusion that this leads to a measured dynamic range of 13 Db is
completely eroneous.
>
>
> > By most accounts from those
> > involved with state of the art vinyl reproduction report that the
> > inherent dynamic range ia anywhere from 75 to 80 db.
>
> It's not a matter of the state of the art, its a matter of a biased
> criteria. �The biased criteria has been in use for at least 40 years. It's a
> tradition. I used it without thinking.
They have been used eroneously IYO?
>
> > Also we have to
> > remember the noise floor of vinyl has a specific sonic signature which
> > allows for hearing signals well below the noise floor.
>
> This is also true for the CD format,
Irrelevant. We are talking about the colorations of vinyl, inherent,
euphonic and inherent euphonic.
>
> > If their rig is only able to achieve 22db dynamic range it has some
> > serious problems.
>
> No, there are very serious dynamic range problems with the LP format as
> compared to even 30-year-old digital formats.
No. The inherent dynamic range is somewhere in the 75 dB range.
> Low frequency noise and high
> frequency dynamic range are serious problems. We've been sweeping those
> problems under the rug for decades with biased measurement techniques.
The low frrequency noise is a problem. It's seriousness is a matter of
opinion. One the one hand it leads to an arguably misleading poor
measured performance for dynamic range since most of the musical
material is spead well beyond the limited spectrum of this inherent
noise and therefore allows for one to hear musical information way
below the measured noise floor of vinyl. OTOH this does come at the
price of audible surface noise during the quietest passages. The
degree to which this bothers a listener is a function of the biases
and sensitivities of each individual listener.
>
> >> which is far worse than a
> >> typical uncompressed classical CD which has 65 dB or better audio-band
> >> dynamic range.
> > 65 db is well within the inherent limitations of vinyl.
>
> Not if noise below 200 Hz is treated the same as we treat it when
> characterizing the CD format.
But it is if one is actually considering music with a dynamic range of
65 dB being transcribed to vinyl. It can be done and has been done
with out any compression. In listening to music the accurate portrayal
of the dynamics in the music is what matters and vinyl is quite
capable of doing that with the vast majority of commercial recordings.
>
> > It's also extremely dynamic by recording standards.
>
> That would appear to be a meaningless statement.
No it is an accurate statement. You will be hard pressed to find any
studio recordings with a dynamic range greater than 25dB much less 65
dB. You will find very few live recordings that excede 65 dB dynamic
range.
>
> > You will find the vast
> > majority of commercial recordings have far less dynamic range.
>
> Actually, 65 dB dynamic range is easy to achieve. �Of course its possible to
> compress program material so that it has zero dynamic range, but that's an
> artistic choice, not a characteristic of CD technology.
That is irrelevant to my point.
>
> > Not to say we shouldn't try to accomedate recordings with exceptionally
> > wide
> > dynamic ranges.
>
> If you want to accomodate wide dynamic range, you are forced out of the LP
> format.
Not really. I can name literally hundreds of LPs produced with no
compression that have very dynamic original material.
>
> >> Butt audio-band dynamic range is not the LP format's weakest link.
> >> Dynamic
> >> range at high frequencies the far more significant weakness of the LP
> >> format.
> > That is true. Things like cymbal crashes with close microphone
> > techniques and other such signals are an issue with vinyl. The cutting
> > engineer will likely use a limiter if that kind of high frequency
> > energy is in the signal.
>
> And the effects of the limiter will be audible and some sparkle and liveness
> will be sacrificed to accomodate the technical limitations of the LP format
In some rare cases, yes.
S888...@aol.com
> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:gdvjq...@news2.newsguy.com...
Actually that isn't the most recent version of The Hifi News test
record. here is a link to the latest version
http://www.soundscapehifi.com/hifi-news-test-lp.htm
""The 'Producer's Cut' is the successor to the original HFNRR Test LP,
first pressed in 1996.
Len Gregory, The Cartridge Man, who produced the original version, had
over the years concluded that there were a number of improvements that
could be made to his earlier work which in the four years since it's
release had sold an amazing 10,000 copies around the world."
Here is an excerpt from a review of the latest version
"As a satisfied user of the original HFN test record I was looking
forward to the release of the latest version and wasn't disappointed.
The new protractor is a joy to use, and while the tests are pretty
much as before, the pressing I received is of a much higher quality
with lower background noise than previously. Highly recommended."
http://www.vinylengine.com/hfn-002-test-lp.shtml
So it looks like you do indeed have a test record that contains
Arny Krueger
>
> Harmonic distortion is not a measure of dynamic range. 20% THD+N does
> not have any direct corlation to the dynamic range of any system. Your
> conclusion that this leads to a measured dynamic range of 13 Db is
> completely eroneous.
>
>>
>
>>
>> > By most accounts from those
>> > involved with state of the art vinyl reproduction report that the
>> > inherent dynamic range ia anywhere from 75 to 80 db.
>>
>> It's not a matter of the state of the art, its a matter of a biased
>> tradition. I used it without thinking.
>
> They have been used eroneously IYO?
>
>>
>> > Also we have to
>> > remember the noise floor of vinyl has a specific sonic signature which
>> > allows for hearing signals well below the noise floor.
>>
>> This is also true for the CD format,
>
> Irrelevant. We are talking about the colorations of vinyl, inherent,
> euphonic and inherent euphonic.
>
>>
>> > If their rig is only able to achieve 22db dynamic range it has some
>> > serious problems.
>>
>> No, there are very serious dynamic range problems with the LP format as
>> compared to even 30-year-old digital formats.
> No. The inherent dynamic range is somewhere in the 75 dB range.
The actual inherent dynamic range of most recordings in use is generally far
poorer than that. 75 dB is an exceptional number.
Since this is in the same range as the dynamic range of musical recordings,
the music is audibly contaminated by it during quiet passages. Compare that
to the dynamic range of the CD format, which is 20 dB or so lower than that
of the music. With LPs the listener's ear has to thread its way through a
thicket of mechanical noise in order to enjoy the music in quiet passages.
With CDs one can hear the music in low level passages far more clearly.
>> Low frequency noise and high
>> frequency dynamic range are serious problems. We've been sweeping those
>> problems under the rug for decades with biased measurement techniques.
> The low frrequency noise is a problem. It's seriousness is a matter of
> opinion.
If one is willing to accept substandard reproduction, then it is no problem
at all.
> One the one hand it leads to an arguably misleading poor
> measured performance for dynamic range since most of the musical
> material is spead well beyond the limited spectrum of this inherent
> noise and therefore allows for one to hear musical information way
> below the measured noise floor of vinyl.
One can hear musical information way below the measured noise floor of all
commercial recorded formats, analog or digital. However, one has to question
the process of trying to listen under degraded conditions like this when
there is usually no need to do so.
> OTOH this does come at the
> price of audible surface noise during the quietest passages. The
> degree to which this bothers a listener is a function of the biases
> and sensitivities of each individual listener.
Why tolerate audible noise at all?
>> >> which is far worse than a
>> >> typical uncompressed classical CD which has 65 dB or better audio-band
>> >> dynamic range.
>> > 65 db is well within the inherent limitations of vinyl.
>> Not if noise below 200 Hz is treated the same as we treat it when
>> characterizing the CD format.
> But it is if one is actually considering music with a dynamic range of
> 65 dB being transcribed to vinyl.
There are commercial musical recordings with dynamic range of 72 dB or more.
I have several of them in my possession, and many more are on the
marketplace.
> It can be done and has been done with out any compression.
You seem to misundertand compression - when applied to recordings it
decreases their dynamic range. In fact avoiding compression is how you make
a recording with the best possbile dynamic range. Compression need not be
used while recording Cds, but is almost manditory when trying to force wide
dynamic range music onto a LP.
> In listening to music the accurate portrayal
> of the dynamics in the music is what matters and vinyl is quite
> capable of doing that with the vast majority of commercial recordings.
IOW, the LP format is only capable of handling the vast majority of
commerical recordings, but not all of them. The CD format is capable of
handling the dynamic range of all known recordings.
> > It's also extremely dynamic by recording standards.
>> That would appear to be a meaningless statement.
> No it is an accurate statement. You will be hard pressed to find any
> studio recordings with a dynamic range greater than 25dB much less 65
> dB.
Virtually every studio recording I have has more than 25 dB dynamic range,
and that includes 100's of recordings. Your information is completely in
error, probably based on urban legend and rumor. If you can't produce
statistics from a recognized industry source like the RIAA, then its status
as urban legend and rumor is an accomplished fact.
> You will find very few live recordings that excede 65 dB dynamic
> range.
I make them all the time with fairly ordinary recording equipment.
>> > You will find the vast
>> > majority of commercial recordings have far less dynamic range.
>> Actually, 65 dB dynamic range is easy to achieve. ?Of course its possible
>> to
>> compress program material so that it has zero dynamic range, but that's
>> an
>> artistic choice, not a characteristic of CD technology.
> That is irrelevant to my point.
Your so-called point appears to be based on urban legend and rumor.
>> > Not to say we shouldn't try to accomedate recordings with exceptionally
>> > wide
>> > dynamic ranges.
>> If you want to accomodate wide dynamic range, you are forced out of the
>> LP
>> format.
> Not really. I can name literally hundreds of LPs produced with no
> compression that have very dynamic original material.
What is "very dynamic"? 25 dB? 55 dB? 75 dB?
It is well known that vinyl's already audible distortion greatly increases
during loud passages, and increases the perception of loudness, especially
among naive listeners.
>> >> But audio-band dynamic range is not the LP format's weakest link.
>> >> Dynamic
>> >> range at high frequencies the far more significant weakness of the LP
>> >> format.
>> > That is true. Things like cymbal crashes with close microphone
>> > techniques and other such signals are an issue with vinyl. The cutting
>> > engineer will likely use a limiter if that kind of high frequency
>> > energy is in the signal.
>> And the effects of the limiter will be audible and some sparkle and
>> liveness
>> will be sacrificed to accomodate the technical limitations of the LP
>> format
> In some rare cases, yes.
No, in a high proportion of cases. Many cases where people who favor the LP
format complain about the harshnes of digital recording, are due to them
becoming accustomed to loud passages being limited, and confuse accurate
reproduction with harshness. You can find this information in the
references that have been posted here, you know the ones that you have not
even read the abstracts of, let alone studied and understood their contents.
Arny Krueger
news:6mn08uF...@mid.individual.net...
> On Oct 25, 2:39�pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:gdvjq...@news2.newsguy.com...
>> > On Oct 24, 5:26?pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> ..
>> >> > I disagree. The test record you used was not cut on the latest most
>> >> > advanced cutting lathes and does not represent the state of the art
>> >> > of
>> >> > vinyl mastering.
>> >> Prove it.
>> > HiFi News and record review test record correct? The one cut back in
>> > the late 60s right?
>>
>> Wrong again. The HFN test record was been recut in recent times. I have
>> one
>> of the newly cut versions.
>>
>> Here is a discussion of the more recent version of the HFN test record:
>>
>> http://www.tnt-audio.com/accessories/hfnrrdisc_e.html
>
> Actually that isn't the most recent version of The Hifi News test
> record. here is a link to the latest version
> http://www.soundscapehifi.com/hifi-news-test-lp.htm
> ""The 'Producer's Cut' is the successor to the original HFNRR Test LP,
> first pressed in 1996.
You obviously missed my post of about an hour later, wherein I said exactly
that, and explained the omission.
C. Leeds
>
> There seems to be a lot of resistance among certain people towards ideas
> that have been in the well-established technical literature of audio
> technology for decades.
Evidence?
> This was followed up with no less than 20 relevant citations from the JAES,
> which is a well-known, relevant, generally-accepted independently-refereed
> academic journal.
Please feel free to quote excerpts from these articles that support your
beliefs. That would be permitted under "fair use." The rest of us aren't
interested in an expensive wild-goose chase. After all, the readily
available sources you cited didn't reveal anything that supported your
oft-repeated claims.
> These articles catalog the inherent technical problems
> with vinyl...
Again, please feel free to quote excerpts. Remeber: at question here is
the inherent audibility of these problems.
> There is no evidence...
Exactly.
Arny Krueger
> Please feel free to quote excerpts from these articles that support your
> beliefs. That would be permitted under "fair use." The rest of us aren't
> interested in an expensive wild-goose chase. After all, the readily
> available sources you cited didn't reveal anything that supported your
> oft-repeated claims.
I know of no examples of a cited source that *didn't* support my claims.
I do seem to recall some rush-to-judgement out-of-hand dismissals based on
obviously incomplete understandings of the issues.
I have zero reason to believe that any source I cite will receive fair,
insightful treatment.
Therefore, I have zero motivation to do people's homework for them.
S888...@aol.com
> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:ge5gr...@news6.newsguy.com...
That is what I have been saying.
>
> Since this is in the same range as the dynamic range of musical recordings,
> the music is audibly contaminated by it during quiet passages.
You are not making sense first you acknowledge that 75 db dynamic
range is an exceptional number then you say " this is in the same
range as the dynamic range of musical recordings." It is eaither
exceptional or it is not. You were right the first time. It is
exceptional.
>
> >> Low frequency noise and high
> >> frequency dynamic range are serious problems. We've been sweeping those
> >> problems under the rug for decades with biased measurement techniques.
> > The low frrequency noise is a problem. It's seriousness is a matter of
> > opinion.
>
> If one is willing to accept substandard reproduction, then it is no problem
> at all.
Substandard? What constitutes "standard" reproduction? What are you
using as your reference and what meters are you using to judge
deviations from that reference and what points of deviation are you
calling "standard?"
>
> > �One the one hand it leads to an arguably misleading poor
> > measured performance for dynamic range since most of the musical
> > material is spead well beyond the limited spectrum of this inherent
> > noise and therefore allows for one to hear musical information way
> > below the measured noise floor of vinyl.
>
> One can hear musical information way below the measured noise floor of all
> commercial recorded formats, analog or digital. However, one has to question
> the process of trying to listen under degraded conditions like this when
> there is usually no need to do so.
That simply is not true if one is actually interested in listening to
commercial recordings. Surface noise is nothing comparred to the sort
of audible degredations found on the vast majority of commercial CDs.
I also don't have the benefit of euphonic colorations provided by my
turntable, cartridge and preamp with CD playback so even some of the
best CDs fall short subjectively compared with their LP counterparts
in my system. So if I want the best subjective sound from my favorite
recordings I do have to live with hearing a little surface noise on
the ones with very wide dynamic range.
>
> > OTOH this does come at the
> > price of audible surface noise during the quietest passages. The
> > degree to which this bothers a listener is a function of the biases
> > and sensitivities of each individual listener.
>
> Why tolerate audible noise at all?
Because there is more to the quality of playback than whether or not
there is audible noise.
>
> >> >> which is far worse than a
> >> >> typical uncompressed classical CD which has 65 dB or better audio-band
> >> >> dynamic range.
> >> > 65 db is well within the inherent limitations of vinyl.
> >> Not if noise below 200 Hz is treated the same as we treat it when
> >> characterizing the CD format.
> > But it is if one is actually considering music with a dynamic range of
> > 65 dB being transcribed to vinyl.
>
> There are commercial musical recordings with dynamic range of 72 dB or more.
> I have several of them in my possession, and many more are on the
> marketplace.
They are the exception not the rule. In those cases some compression
would be needed to transcribe them to vinyl.
>
> > It can be done and has been done with out any compression.
>
> You seem to misundertand compression - when applied to recordings it
> decreases their dynamic range.
You drew an eroneous conclusion. I do understand compression. I simply
asserted, correctly, that recordings with 65 dB dynamic range can be
trnascribed to vinyl without the use of compression.
> In fact avoiding compression is how you make
> a recording with the best possbile dynamic range. �Compression need not be
> used while recording Cds, but is almost manditory when trying to force wide
> dynamic range music onto a LP.
Nope. I have many LPs with no compression of music with a wide dynamic
range.
>
> > In listening to music the accurate portrayal
> > of the dynamics in the music is what matters and vinyl is quite
> > capable of doing that with the vast majority of commercial recordings.
>
> IOW, the LP format is only capable of handling the vast majority of
> commerical recordings, but not all of them.
Without using compression. Yes
>
> > > It's also extremely dynamic by recording standards.
> >> That would appear to be a meaningless statement.
> > No it is an accurate statement. You will be hard pressed to find any
> > studio recordings with a dynamic range greater than 25dB much less 65
> > dB.
>
> Virtually every studio recording I have has more than 25 dB dynamic range,
> and that includes 100's of recordings. Your information is completely in
> error, probably based on urban legend and rumor.
Actually it is based on measurements made by various mastering
engineers who actually have to be aware fo the dynamic range of every
master tape they deal with. If you wish to check with those mastering
engineers I will happily provide names and email addresses so you can
check for yourself. no need to take my word for it and no need to pay
20 dollars per inquiry. It's free and easy to actually check with
legitimate reliable sources.
> If you can't produce
> statistics from a recognized industry source like the RIAA, then its status
> as urban legend and rumor is an accomplished fact.
Perhaps you could produce statistics from the same source that
supports your assertion. I was not aware that they actually kept a
running score on the dynamic ranges of every recording.
>
> > You will find very few live recordings that excede 65 dB dynamic
> > range.
>
> I make them all the time with fairly ordinary recording equipment.
I am concerned with commercial recordings.
>
> >> > You will find the vast
> >> > majority of commercial recordings have far less dynamic range.
> >> Actually, 65 dB dynamic range is easy to achieve. ?Of course its possible
> >> to
> >> compress program material so that it has zero dynamic range, but that's
> >> an
> >> artistic choice, not a characteristic of CD technology.
> > That is irrelevant to my point.
>
> Your so-called point appears to be based on urban legend and rumor.
I will happily supply references if you want to follow up on them.
>
> >> > Not to say we shouldn't try to accomedate recordings with exceptionally
> >> > wide
> >> > dynamic ranges.
> >> If you want to accomodate wide dynamic range, you are forced out of the
> >> LP
> >> format.
> > Not really. I can name literally hundreds of LPs produced with no
> > compression that have very dynamic original material.
>
> What is "very dynamic"? 25 dB? 55 dB? 75 dB?
Live piano, Live orchestral music, Live jazz.....
>
> It is well known that vinyl's already audible distortion greatly increases
> during loud passages, and increases the perception of loudness, especially
> among naive listeners.
Really? where is the research that implies naive listeners are
particularly suseptable to this? are you suggesting that less than
naive listeners will somehow not percieve this increased loudness? I'd
like to see the listening tests that support this assertion.
>
> >> >> But audio-band dynamic range is not the LP format's weakest link.
> >> >> Dynamic
> >> >> range at high frequencies the far more significant weakness of the LP
> >> >> format.
> >> > That is true. Things like cymbal crashes with close microphone
> >> > techniques and other such signals are an issue with vinyl. The cutting
> >> > engineer will likely use a limiter if that kind of high frequency
> >> > energy is in the signal.
> >> And the effects of the limiter will be audible and some sparkle and
> >> liveness
> >> will be sacrificed to accomodate the technical limitations of the LP
> >> format
> > In some rare cases, yes.
>
> No, in a high proportion of cases.
Prove it.
C. Leeds
>
>> Please feel free to quote excerpts from these articles that support your
>> beliefs. That would be permitted under "fair use." The rest of us aren't
>> interested in an expensive wild-goose chase. After all, the readily
>> available sources you cited didn't reveal anything that supported your
>> oft-repeated claims.
Arny Krueger answers::
> I have zero reason to believe that any source I cite will receive fair,
> insightful treatment.
>
> Therefore, I have zero motivation to do people's homework for them.
Certainly, participation here is purely optional; you have no obligation
to anyone here. However, if you decline to provide documentation to
support your beliefs, you cannot also claim to have provided evidence
that supports those beliefs. Naturally, this doesn't mean that you can't
continue to assert your beliefs. It simply puts your beliefs on par with
others who lack anything to substantiate their claims.
Arny Krueger
>I told Arny:
> However, if you decline to provide documentation to
> support your beliefs, you cannot also claim to have provided evidence
> that supports those beliefs.
Not a problem, since both Steven and I have provided evidence that supports
those beliefs, in a standard format.
Again, given the instant and frivolous dismissal of such evidence as was
provided from online sources, it is quite clear what is going on here.
None is as blind as one who does not want to see.
bob
> Certainly, participation here is purely optional; you have no obligation
> to anyone here. However, if you decline to provide documentation to
> support your beliefs, you cannot also claim to have provided evidence
> that supports those beliefs. Naturally, this doesn't mean that you can't
> continue to assert your beliefs. It simply puts your beliefs on par with
> others who lack anything to substantiate their claims.
But only in the eyes of those who choose not to know anything about
the subject. Folks who know something about the subject can easily
differentiate those who know what they're talking about from the other
kind. And those who at least *want* to know something about the
subject can consult the relevant literature (copious relevant examples
of which have been supplied here) and confirm that the claims stand up
to scrutiny.
Given the nature of rec.audio.high-end, I suspect that the vast
majority of its readers are very interested in understanding the
technical side of audio reproduction (though fewer probably care about
vinyl reproduction anymore). I doubt, therefore, that too many of them
will confuse Arny's arguments with those of the typical Usenet
sophist.
bob
Richard Tollerton
> You are not making sense first you acknowledge that 75 db dynamic
> range is an exceptional number then you say " this is in the same
> range as the dynamic range of musical recordings." It is eaither
> exceptional or it is not. You were right the first time. It is
> exceptional.
As a semi-lurker (who was indirectly led into this debate by Steve), I
really think we should care less about exact decibel ranges for
dynamic range. As Andy has pointed out, they're not all that
comparable between LP and CD to begin with. And you can define the
recording level to some arbitrarily high value and get an arbitrarily
increased SNR (at the expense of tracking/tracing distortion and
mistracking).
But I *will* say that, on several records I have, the dynamic range of
the music has been clearly and obviously constrained by the noise
floor of the vinyl. The biggest example here is a (sealed!) copy of a
Mahler 3 by Horenstein on Nonesuch I bought a couple years ago -
wonderfully produced, but I need to struggle through the noise to
understand the quiet solo sections. There's a Mahler 1 I bought a
month ago with about the same problem. On Shellac's "Excellent Italian
Greyhound", there is clearly audible tape print-through in one song on
the CD version that is lost in the noise on the LP version. This one,
in particular, was produced entirely on tape and is a brand-new
pressing from 2007 on 180g vinyl cut on Abbey Road's DMM lathe - so it
likely represents something pretty close to the state of the art in
vinyl production nowadays.
Quite simply, I have experienced several obvious examples where I
can't hear something nearly as well as I ought to on the vinyl because
the noise (which I believe to be surface noise) obscures it. And I've
listened to a lot more CDs and I've only encountered *one* CD whose
dynamic range reasonably exceeded the medium (and it was experimental
electronic, so CDs kind of get a by on that). That alone is reasonable
proof to me that the dynamic range of vinyl is not sufficient for at
least *some* real music out there, and IMNSHO, it should be reasonable
proof for you, too.
S888...@aol.com
> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
It came after I already made my post. But I am not clear what you are
trying to say in those two posts it seems there may be some
conflicting information in them so I will try to sumarize what
happened and you can make any corrections. In a nutshell you decided
to get the most SOTA test record in 2001 and chose to buy both the
2000 cut of the HFN test record and the 1996 HNN test record. Then on
this thread you cited tests done by you with the 2000 cut but posted a
link to the 1996 cut when identifying the record you used to do your
tests. Then after checking your references found that you posted a
link to the wrong HFN test record. But you actually did buy that
record as well as the 2000 cut back in 2001 when you decided to do
these tests on your turntable rig.
I just have a few questions because a lot of this just isn't making
sense to me. If you bought these records somewhere around 2001 why
would you buy both versions? There is no advantage to owning the 1996
version. These are expensive records, teh 2000 cut is 50 bucks why buy
a second, inferior version at the same time for an additional 35
bucks? Everything on the 96 cut is on the 2000 cut. Why would you then
post a link to the 1996 version if you owned the 2000 version? They
are clearly unmistakably different records. And how would you forget
buying both versions? That is an unusual choice to say the least. It's
not one I would easily forget. I'm just not understanding what
transpired here.
Richard Tollerton
> You are not making sense first you acknowledge that 75 db dynamic
> range is an exceptional number then you say " this is in the same
> range as the dynamic range of musical recordings." It is eaither
> exceptional or it is not. You were right the first time. It is
> exceptional.
As a guy who got indirectly dragged into this discussed by Steven
(thanks for nothing! :P), I'd like to point out that there are several
records I own where real music seems to be obscured by the surface
noise of the records.
The most prominent example I like to throw out is Shellac's "Excellent
Italian Greyhound", believed to be mastered almost identically between
the vinyl and CD releases (and the CD comes for free with the vinyl,
and it should still be available at record stores, so it's triply easy
to compare!). On "Genuine Lulabelle", the tape print-through on Steve
Albini's voice is quite audible when listening to the CD version in a
suitably quiet environment. It's drowned in the noise on the vinyl
version. I bought this new in 2007, and it was cut on the Abbey Road
DMM lathe and produced entirely on tape and otherwise subjected to
Albini's TLC, so I think this is an eminently reasonable example of a
real record produced to modern specs that just doesn't cut the mustard
compared to CD.
If you want an example of "real" music that is affected by the reduced
dynamic range of vinyl, as opposed to print-through: My 1970 Mahler 3
by Horenstein on Nonesuch (still sealed when I bought it!) has solo
instrument parts which are quite difficult to tell out due to, I
believe, the noise of the medium. My Mahler 1 on vinyl has similar
issues. Besides some experimental electronic I have (aeo3/3hae) I've
never encountered anything like that on CD.
If that's not clear-cut personal experience of the reduced dynamic
range of vinyl cutting into real-world signal fidelity, I don't know
what is.
S888...@aol.com
wrote:
I don't think it is really all that safe to assume a DMM at Abby Road
somehow insures a state of the art mastering job. It may or may not
be. It would help to know what choices were made by the mastering
engineer. The question is are these problems a result of the inherent
limitations of the medium or a result of that particular mastering.
Unfortunately very few mastering engineers have the skill or
inclination to fully exploit the capacities of the medium. IME the LPs
that do the best at handling the widest dynamic range possible for the
medium were cut at 45 rpm and are never cut close to the label. I have
many LPs of orchestral works that do not suffer from the sort of
obscuring of low level detail that you describe as lost or very
difficult to hear due to surface noise. Perhaps the recording you
speak of actually is more dynamic than any of the recordings I am
thinking of here. These would include several offererings from
Sheffield Labs and Refference Recordings along with some terrific
reissues from King Super Analog, Analog Productions, Speaker's Corner,
Cisco and Classics. There is some pretty dynamic stuff there. Dare I
say that there is always the possibility that your gear may also be
contributing to the problem? I suspect this suggestion may send some
into a tizzy but the reality is not all vinyl playback equipment is
created equal. I found that as I upgraded my vinyl playback equipment
I was able to extract more and more low level information from the he
grooves.
C. Leeds
his vinyl beliefs)
>
>>...if you decline to provide documentation to
>> support your beliefs, you cannot also claim to have provided evidence
>> that supports those beliefs. Naturally, this doesn't mean that you can't
>> continue to assert your beliefs. It simply puts your beliefs on par with
>> others who lack anything to substantiate their claims.
nabob answers:
>
> But only in the eyes of those who choose not to know anything about
> the subject. Folks who know something about the subject can easily
> differentiate those who know what they're talking about from the other
> kind.
That's usually true.
> And those who at least *want* to know something about the
> subject can consult the relevant literature (copious relevant examples
> of which have been supplied here)
No, the examples have not been provided. What Arny did do was present a
laundry list of sources, then insist readers engage in a wild goose
chase to discover whatever it is that Arny might be referring to. Big
difference.
> Given the nature of rec.audio.high-end, I suspect that the vast
> majority of its readers are very interested in understanding the
> technical side of audio reproduction... I doubt, therefore, that too many of them
> will confuse Arny's arguments with those of the typical Usenet
> sophist.
Agreed; few Usenet readers would confuse Arny with "the typical Usenet
sophist." His voluminous postings, on here and on r.a.o., distinguish
him as being in a class of one. As you said, knowledgeable readers can
decide for themselves who is an expert, and who isn't.
Arny Krueger
news:6mq7maF...@mid.individual.net...
> On Oct 27, 7:50�pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:6mn08uF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 25, 2:39 pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> >> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in
>> >> messagenews:gdvjq...@news2.newsguy.com...
>> >> > On Oct 24, 5:26?pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> >> ..
>> >> >> > I disagree. The test record you used was not cut on the latest
>> >> >> > most
>> >> >> > advanced cutting lathes and does not represent the state of the
>> >> >> > art
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > vinyl mastering.
>> >> >> Prove it.
>> >> > HiFi News and record review test record correct? The one cut back in
>> >> > the late 60s right?
> But I am not clear what you are trying to say in those two posts
It should be totally clear. You've been conclusively proven to be grossly
wrong in a rush to judgment. Twice on just the topic of my choice of test
records. And now you're going to make it wrong three times, at least.
> it seems there may be some
> conflicting information in them so I will try to summarize what
> happened and you can make any corrections.
You get to be wrong again.
> In a nutshell you decided
> to get the most SOTA test record in 2001 and chose to buy both the
> 2000 cut of the HFN test record and the 1996 HNN test record.
No, I just bought the latest test record available, which was the 2000 test
record.
> Then on
> this thread you cited tests done by you with the 2000 cut but posted a
> link to the 1996 cut when identifying the record you used to do your
> tests.
No, I didn't know offhand what test record I used, but I knew it wasn't the
late-60s version. Not that it would make a difference in terms of the final
outcome. I searched around and found the reference to 1996 record, and
posted it. Feeling that this wasn't right, I searched around and found the
link to the 2000 record, which matched my other recollections better.
> Then after checking your references found that you posted a
> link to the wrong HFN test record. But you actually did buy that
> record as well as the 2000 cut back in 2001 when you decided to do
> these tests on your turntable rig.
No, I only bought the 2000 record. In fact the 2000 record was produced
because people ran out of stock of the 1996 record.
> I just have a few questions because a lot of this just isn't making
> sense to me. If you bought these records somewhere around 2001 why
> would you buy both versions?
Because that illogical act was a figment of your imagination.
>There is no advantage to owning the 1996
> version. These are expensive records,
You obviously have no idea about the costs involved in testing audio
equipment. $50 for a test record is a nominal expense. Remember, I have two
of them.
That's one of the mysteries of dealing with some people - they will spend
thousands on equipment, lust after $10,000s worth of equipment and then
choke on the idea of paying $50 to find out what it really does.
If one actually does their homework, they find out that expensive vinyl
playback equipment is yet another example of "audio jewelry". If you want
to have the time accurately and clearly presented, buy a Timex. If you want
a LP played back well, buy a used Rega with a sub-$100 phono cartridge. If
you want bragging rights, go elsewhere.
Arny Krueger
news:ge8kt...@news2.newsguy.com...
> On Oct 28, 11:30 am, S888Wh...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> You are not making sense first you acknowledge that 75 db dynamic
>> range is an exceptional number then you say " this is in the same
>> exceptional or it is not. You were right the first time. It is
>> exceptional.
>
> As a semi-lurker (who was indirectly led into this debate by Steve), I
> really think we should care less about exact decibel ranges for
> dynamic range.
Not even the technical experts are interested in the *exact* dB ranges.
However the fact that one is at least 30 dB more than the other, and one is
bad enough to muddy up the sound of low-level passages does interest us.
> As Andy has pointed out, they're not all that
> comparable between LP and CD to begin with.
Right, a LP performs poorly compared to just about everything, and a CD
performs about as well as the finest amplifiers.
> And you can define the
> recording level to some arbitrarily high value and get an arbitrarily
> increased SNR (at the expense of tracking/tracing distortion and
> mistracking).
That's an unfair comparison that no competent techhie would make. Music with
high distortion isn't music well-reproduced. This almost looks like a straw
man argument. And you can't define recording levels arbitrarily high. At
some point not that far beyond where vinyl normally operates, its output
gets to be so distorted that it simply stops increasing.
> But I *will* say that, on several records I have, the dynamic range of
> the music has been clearly and obviously constrained by the noise
> floor of the vinyl. The biggest example here is a (sealed!) copy of a
> Mahler 3 by Horenstein on Nonesuch I bought a couple years ago -
> wonderfully produced, but I need to struggle through the noise to
> understand the quiet solo sections.
That's what I was trying to point out to Mr. Wheeler. The way we have
historically characterized the dynamic range of vinyl including giving it
the benefit of a number of doubts or if you will, Mulligans. With all those
Mulligans in place, its noise floor is at or above the quietest passages of
many real-world wide-dynamic range recordings. In contrast the CD format's
noise floor as measured with zero Mulligans, is still about 20 dB below the
music in the quietest passage. Furthermore, the noise floor of a CD shaped
during mastering so that perceptually, the noise floor is more like 40 dB
below the music in the quietest passage.
> There's a Mahler 1 I bought a
> month ago with about the same problem. On Shellac's "Excellent Italian
> Greyhound", there is clearly audible tape print-through in one song on
> the CD version that is lost in the noise on the LP version. This one,
> in particular, was produced entirely on tape and is a brand-new
> pressing from 2007 on 180g vinyl cut on Abbey Road's DMM lathe - so it
> likely represents something pretty close to the state of the art in
> vinyl production nowadays.
In fact the state of the art of vinyl hasn't changed in decades. DMM is
maybe 2-3 decades old. It never received general acceptance. It was a
solution looking for a problem, in many people's eyes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_metal_mastering
"The original inventor of the DMM method (Neumann) has completely stopped
making cutting lathes and neither do they have any spare parts left for
existing systems."
> Quite simply, I have experienced several obvious examples where I
> can't hear something nearly as well as I ought to on the vinyl because
> the noise (which I believe to be surface noise) obscures it. And I've
> listened to a lot more CDs and I've only encountered *one* CD whose
> dynamic range reasonably exceeded the medium (and it was experimental
> electronic, so CDs kind of get a by on that). That alone is reasonable
> proof to me that the dynamic range of vinyl is not sufficient for at
> least *some* real music out there, and IMNSHO, it should be reasonable
> proof for you, too.
We see people who want to give the obsolete vinyl format any number of
allowances or as I call them, Mulligans.
There's the tic and pop Mulligan. There's the inner-groove distortion
Mulligan. There's the low frequency noise Mulligan. There is the high
distortion Mulligan. There's the high background noise Mulligan. There's the
warp-induced jitter Mulligan.
There's the "I have thousands invested in LP playback gear and media, but a
$50 test record will break my bank" Mulligan. There's the "I don't want to
find a library with JAES back issues and do my homework" Mulligan.
There is something kind of warm and comforting about recording and listening
to music via a medium like the CD that needs no Mulligans! ;-)
Arny Krueger
>I wrote to Arny (after he declined to cite evidence that would support his
>vinyl beliefs)
>>>...if you decline to provide documentation to
>>> support your beliefs, you cannot also claim to have provided evidence
>>> that supports those beliefs. Naturally, this doesn't mean that you can't
>>> continue to assert your beliefs. It simply puts your beliefs on par with
>>> others who lack anything to substantiate their claims.
> nabob answers:
>> But only in the eyes of those who choose not to know anything about
>> the subject. Folks who know something about the subject can easily
>> differentiate those who know what they're talking about from the other
>> kind.
> That's usually true.
Yes, it is common courtesy to not bite the hand that feeds.
>> And those who at least *want* to know something about the
>> subject can consult the relevant literature (copious relevant examples
>> of which have been supplied here)
> No, the examples have not been provided. What Arny did do was present a
> laundry list of sources, then insist readers engage in a wild goose chase
> to discover whatever it is that Arny might be referring to. Big
> difference.
Actually, I only personally provided two sources, both of which are
reasonably brief and well known to me.
>> Given the nature of rec.audio.high-end, I suspect that the vast
>> majority of its readers are very interested in understanding the
>> technical side of audio reproduction... I doubt, therefore, that too many
>> of them
>> will confuse Arny's arguments with those of the typical Usenet
>> sophist.
> Agreed; few Usenet readers would confuse Arny with "the typical Usenet
> sophist."
Yes, providing relevant test results that illustrate the problems being
discussed is not what Sophists usually do. Ironic that the test results I
provided were the better part of a decade old, and actually showed better
and more relevant results than more recent tests of far more elaborate and
expensive equipment.
> His voluminous postings, on here and on r.a.o., distinguish him as being
> in a class of one. As you said, knowledgeable readers can decide for
> themselves who is an expert, and who isn't.
Why is there any mention of who is an expert here? Perhaps someone thinks
that anybody with relevant hands-on experience has to think of himself as
being an expert? Or, do only experts have any familiarity with classic JAES
papers?
bob
>
> No, the examples have not been provided. What Arny did do was present a
> laundry list of sources, then insist readers engage in a wild goose
> chase to discover whatever it is that Arny might be referring to. Big
> difference.
Learning is neither easy nor a wild goose chase. That some choose not
to learn does not diminish Arny's credibility.
> > Given the nature of rec.audio.high-end, I suspect that the vast
> > majority of its readers are very interested in understanding the
> > technical side of audio reproduction... I doubt, therefore, that too many of them
> > will confuse Arny's arguments with those of the typical Usenet
> > sophist.
>
> Agreed; few Usenet readers would confuse Arny with "the typical Usenet
> sophist."
There is plenty of sophistry around here, but Arny's not responsible
for much of it.
bob
Richard Tollerton
> I don't think it is really all that safe to assume a DMM at Abby Road
> somehow insures a state of the art mastering job. It may or may not
> be. It would help to know what choices were made by the mastering
> engineer. The question is are these problems a result of the inherent
> limitations of the medium or a result of that particular mastering.
> Unfortunately very few mastering engineers have the skill or
> inclination to fully exploit the capacities of the medium. IME the LPs
> that do the best at handling the widest dynamic range possible for the
> medium were cut at 45 rpm and are never cut close to the label.
I do know that Steve Albini is unusually picky with his choice of
mastering firm and cutting house, and as far as I know, the only
difference between the vinyl and CD masters of that album is that the
vinyl mastering engineer pressed "play" an extra time. They really do
sound the same (besides the noise).
> I have
> many LPs of orchestral works that do not suffer from the sort of
> obscuring of low level detail that you describe as lost or very
> difficult to hear due to surface noise. Perhaps the recording you
> speak of actually is more dynamic than any of the recordings I am
> thinking of here. These would include several offererings from
> Sheffield Labs and Refference Recordings along with some terrific
> reissues from King Super Analog, Analog Productions, Speaker's Corner,
> Cisco and Classics. There is some pretty dynamic stuff there.
Point taken, and while I've been tapping the cheap classical stacks
lately, I probably should investigate an audiophile release from one
of those guys. That said... I'm really not getting my hopes up here.
And many of those labels as we all know have had significant QC
issues, in some cases relating specifically to noise.
At the same time, even if they did have superior dynamic range, I
don't think it's particularly fair to argue about the dynamic range of
vinyl based solely on audiophile pressings such as those. They form a
small fraction of even the existing new vinyl market - outside of very
few individuals, you will not find people buying exclusively new vinyl
from labels like that. If you were saying specifically "audiophile-
quality vinyl has equal or superior dynamic range to CDs", that's
another thing, but then I would hope that you would at least concede
that mainstream pressed vinyl (even the "good" stuff from Nonesuch
etc) from decades past is very likely to have inferior SNR. And that
significantly constrains the argument that vinyl has a comparable
dynamic range....
I would also like to point out that - and I admit I have very little
references to back me up on this, this is largely anecdotal - quite a
few classical releases were subject to significant dynamic range
compression for precisely this reason (to pull up quiet sections from
the background noise). I'm not presuming that you would have those
releases, but it's at least worth mentioning.
> Dare I
> say that there is always the possibility that your gear may also be
> contributing to the problem? I suspect this suggestion may send some
> into a tizzy but the reality is not all vinyl playback equipment is
> created equal. I found that as I upgraded my vinyl playback equipment
> I was able to extract more and more low level information from the he
> grooves.
I haven't, and I have never seen any really compelling evidence that
improved gear improves SNR, besides the bare baseline stuff like non-
defective bearings. The role of cables and preamps on the matter is
complete BS. And in particular, if tonearms really did affect noise
levels that much, as a function of the arm acoustics, you'd see pops
and ticks reflect back to the cartridge a significant fraction of a
millisecond (or more!) after they are tracked - and I've never seen
evidence of that in my own recordings, or anybody else's for that
matter. It is just really hard to believe that anything that happens
after the groove is traced causes any significant kind of increase in
transient noise. (Moreover, I clean my vinyl and I have an OC9
mounted, and OC9s are simply not well known for increasing surface
noise.)
Frankly, I'd probably turn that back around and question if your
system isn't resolving enough. I always listen with headphones - noise-
reducing Etymotics ER-4Ss to be exact - and they are murderously
sensitive to noise. John Elison at Vinyl Asylum did a ABX shootout a
while back with CD-Rs of needledrops, and commented that others
thought their (megabucks) systems were truly silent, but in fact had
plainly audible surface noise in his listening rig. This may also just
boil down to that. ER-4Ss are cheap nowadays - you should buy a pair
and hear what I'm listening. :)
I'm sorry, but my mind is rather closed on the matter. My own ears
tell me the dynamic range is insufficient; none of the evidence I have
read to the contrary is compelling to me. The one thing that would
probably convince me is a needledrop with a peak-to-noise ratio that
is significantly higher than my own - and note, mine's only 60db! Even
showing a vinyl record with a provable 75db SNR is going to be a
challenge, I would predict.
S888...@aol.com
wrote:
> On Oct 29, 8:12�am, S888Wh...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I don't think it is really all that safe to assume a DMM at Abby Road
> > somehow insures a state of the art mastering job. It may or may not
> > be. It would help to know what choices were made by the mastering
> > engineer. The question is are these problems a result of the inherent
> > limitations of the medium or a result of that particular mastering.
> > Unfortunately very few mastering engineers have the skill or
> > inclination to fully exploit the capacities of the medium. IME the LPs
> > that do the best at handling the widest dynamic range possible for the
> > medium were cut at 45 rpm and are never cut close to the label.
>
> I do know that Steve Albini is unusually picky with his choice of
> mastering firm and cutting house, and as far as I know, the only
> difference between the vinyl and CD masters of that album is that the
> vinyl mastering engineer pressed "play" an extra time. They really do
> sound the same (besides the noise).
I would hesitate to say that one could simply just press play when
cutting a master from a very dynamic source.There are important
choices made by the cutting engineer in every step of the process.
There is also a real hands on craft involved in the act of cutting and
not all cutting engineers are equally skilled.
>
> > I have
> > many LPs of orchestral works that do not suffer from the sort of
> > obscuring of low level detail that you describe as lost or very
> > difficult to hear due to surface noise. Perhaps the recording you
> > speak of actually is more dynamic than any of the recordings I am
> > thinking of here. These would include several offererings from
> > Sheffield Labs and Refference Recordings along with some terrific
> > reissues from King Super Analog, Analog Productions, Speaker's Corner,
> > Cisco and Classics. There is some pretty dynamic stuff there.
>
> Point taken, and while I've been tapping the cheap classical stacks
> lately, I probably should investigate an audiophile release from one
> of those guys. That said... I'm really not getting my hopes up here.
> And many of those labels as we all know have had significant QC
> issues, in some cases relating specifically to noise.
>
> At the same time, even if they did have superior dynamic range, I
> don't think it's particularly fair to argue about the dynamic range of
> vinyl based solely on audiophile pressings such as those.
If we are talking about inherent limitations of the medium then it is
unfair to reference anything less. If we are talking real world LPs
and CDs (audiophile LPs are real world, anyone who wishes to can buy
them) then it has to be a case by case basis and one has to always
consider the substantial variations in audible performance of the wide
variety of turntable rigs out there.
> They form a
> small fraction of even the existing new vinyl market - outside of very
> few individuals, you will not find people buying exclusively new vinyl
> from labels like that.
I do find myself buying them along with audiophile CDs. It does not
matter to me what the neighbors are doing. It seems to me that if one
is really interested in getting the best sound from the music they
love that they will put together the best playback system they can and
collect the best sounding LPs and CDs of the music they wish to listen
to. Getting a better mastered LP or CD of a title one enjoys
listening to is one of the least expensive and most effective upgrades
an audiophile can make. I can't understand why anyone would shut off
all the opportunities to get their favorite music at it's best over
some idealogoical objection to either format. That strikes me as a
classic case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
> If you were saying specifically "audiophile-
> quality vinyl has equal or superior dynamic range to CDs", that's
> another thing,
I'm not really saying anything in general about either format other
than that a well mastered LP can sustain a very wide dynamic range.
> but then I would hope that you would at least concede
> that mainstream pressed vinyl (even the "good" stuff from Nonesuch
> etc) from decades past is very likely to have inferior SNR. And that
> significantly constrains the argument that vinyl has a comparable
> dynamic range....
I have not argued that the dynamic range is comparable to anything. I
have argued that it's inherent limitation is in the neighborhood of
75-80 dB and that is plenty for the vast majority of commercial
recordings. of course we can find examples both on LP and CD where the
capacities of either medium were not fully exploited.
>
> I would also like to point out that - and I admit I have very little
> references to back me up on this, this is largely anecdotal - quite a
> few classical releases were subject to significant dynamic range
> compression for precisely this reason (to pull up quiet sections from
> the background noise). I'm not presuming that you would have those
> releases, but it's at least worth mentioning.
I am not denying that compression has been used on a good many records
over the years. It has. But today's state of the art cutting engineers
on state of the art cutting equipment can transcribe very dynamic
source material without using any compression. And this is actually
being done with a good many of the greatest (IMO) recordings in
history. It actually is a very exciting time to be an audiophile with
a high end turntable rig.
>
> > Dare I
> > say that there is always the possibility that your gear may also be
> > contributing to the problem? I suspect this suggestion may send some
> > into a tizzy but the reality is not all vinyl playback equipment is
> > created equal. I found that as I upgraded my vinyl playback equipment
> > I was able to extract more and more low level information from the he
> > grooves.
>
> I haven't, and I have never seen any really compelling evidence that
> improved gear improves SNR,
I have under controlled listening tests heard some pretty profound
differences in various rig's ability to portray low level information.
I base this on what I hear not on any bench tests. We are talking
about a transducer when we talk about vinyl playback. Even the biggest
tech heads usually concede that the final proof of performance is in
the listening not on the test bench with transducers.
> besides the bare baseline stuff like non-
> defective bearings. The role of cables and preamps on the matter is
> complete BS.
I think you are really underestimating the role of phono preamps and
phono cables. I think you may even find some "objective" support for
this assertion. I'll dig something up if you wish.
> And in particular, if tonearms really did affect noise
> levels that much, as a function of the arm acoustics, you'd see pops
> and ticks reflect back to the cartridge a significant fraction of a
> millisecond (or more!) after they are tracked - and I've never seen
> evidence of that in my own recordings, or anybody else's for that
> matter. It is just really hard to believe that anything that happens
> after the groove is traced causes any significant kind of increase in
> transient noise. (Moreover, I clean my vinyl and I have an OC9
> mounted, and OC9s are simply not well known for increasing surface
> noise.)
>
> Frankly, I'd probably turn that back around and question if your
> system isn't resolving enough.
Fair enough. My speakers are Sound Lab A3 electrostatic speakers with
a Vandersteen sub.
http://www.soundlab-speakers.com/a3.htm
My room is heavily damped and very well isolated. It is remarkably
quite.
I also have the Stax SRX headphones.
> I always listen with headphones - noise-
> reducing Etymotics ER-4Ss to be exact - and they are murderously
> sensitive to noise.
Heightened portrayal of detail is not always a sign of better sounding
playback. Just as one can turn up the contrast on an image and see
more detail at the overall expense of the image quality one can have
playback equipment that is hypersensitive to detail but not to the
benefit of the naturalness of the sound.
> John Elison at Vinyl Asylum did a ABX shootout a
> while back with CD-Rs of needledrops, and commented that others
> thought their (megabucks) systems were truly silent, but in fact had
> plainly audible surface noise in his listening rig. This may also just
> boil down to that. ER-4Ss are cheap nowadays - you should buy a pair
> and hear what I'm listening. :)
I'll look into it. But understand that I want to detail to sound like
detail when I listen to music. I'm not looking for etched
hyperanalytical sound. I find that to be very fatiguing and just plain
unpleasant to listen to. I am looking for the natural balance of
detail one finds with the best live acoustic music. It is easy to find
exaggerated detail in playback. I don't like it.
>
> I'm sorry, but my mind is rather closed on the matter. My own ears
> tell me the dynamic range is insufficient; none of the evidence I have
> read to the contrary is compelling to me. The one thing that would
> probably convince me is a needledrop with a peak-to-noise ratio that
> is significantly higher than my own - and note, mine's only 60db! Even
> showing a vinyl record with a provable 75db SNR is going to be a
> challenge, I would predict.
If you have made up your mind I am not going to try to persuede you to
change it. hopefully, if nothing else, I have better explained my
beliefs.
Arny Krueger
> I would hesitate to say that one could simply just press play when
> cutting a master from a very dynamic source.There are important
> choices made by the cutting engineer in every step of the process.
It would appear that this is a serious fault of the LP format - there are so
many important choices to be made before and while the master is being cut.
For openers, it is a *not* given that the LP will ever be able to
accurately reproduce *anything* that is on the master recording. The master
has to be constrained, either through the playing of the music, or by
limiting and compression during the production process.
In contrast, a CD master can be prepared (no cutting is involved) pretty
much by pressing the start button. For openers, it is a given that the CD
*will* be able to accurately reproduce *anything* that is on the master
recording.
>> At the same time, even if they did have superior dynamic range, I
>> don't think it's particularly fair to argue about the dynamic range of
>> vinyl based solely on audiophile pressings such as those.
One of the unsolved problems of vinyl is the fact that it is a wildly
inconsistent medium. In addition to the preparations that need to be made
during cutting, the remaining many steps in the process will audibly
adversely affect the sound quality of the recording.
For example, the LP master needs to be plated within 24 hours of cutting,
which is practically impossible unless the cutting room and plating room are
close to each other. The plating room is generally at the pressing plant,
but for obvious reasons must be carefully separated from the mastering room.
So you have a conundrum right there, to meet time constraints you would like
to cut and plate in places that are close to each other, but the cutting
room and the plating room have to be carefully separated from each other.
> If we are talking about inherent limitations of the medium then it is
> unfair to reference anything less.
Not true. One of the inherent limitations of the LP medium is that its
quality has always been so variable. One of the strengths of the CD medium
is that its quality is so consistent. However, the LP medium at its best
falls woefully short of the CD medium, even when both are judged under the
best possible circumstances.
> If we are talking real world LPs
> and CDs (audiophile LPs are real world, anyone who wishes to can buy
> them) then it has to be a case by case basis and one has to always
> consider the substantial variations in audible performance of the wide
> variety of turntable rigs out there.
In fact there is no reliable evidence at all that a megabuck playback system
has any actual benefits over fairly modest systems, vis-a-vis sound quality.
Many if not all of the "substantial variations" are based on appearance and
hype.
>> They form a
>> small fraction of even the existing new vinyl market - outside of very
>> few individuals, you will not find people buying exclusively new vinyl
>> from labels like that.
> I do find myself buying them along with audiophile CDs. It does not
> matter to me what the neighbors are doing.
In a similar fashion it matters even less to your neighbors what you are
doing, since what you are doing is virtually impossible to justify on
anything but personal bias for audibly degraded reproduction of music.
> It seems to me that if one
> is really interested in getting the best sound from the music they
> love that they will put together the best playback system they can and
> collect the best sounding LPs and CDs of the music they wish to listen to.
Actually, if you want the best sound from the music you love, go to live
performances and/or become a good enough musician that you can entertain
yourself. Millions of people do exactly this.
> Getting a better mastered LP or CD of a title one enjoys
> listening to is one of the least expensive and most effective upgrades
> an audiophile can make.
However, this is an relatively expensive crap shoot. If you are that picky,
then you need to realize that mastering is often about frequency response
variations that a person with educated ears and fingers can adjust for
themselves.
>I can't understand why anyone would shut off
> all the opportunities to get their favorite music at it's best over
> some ideological objection to either format.
This isn't about ideology, it is about practical considerations such as:
The LP format is so process-dependent that there can easily be audible
differences between media from the same production run. So, when you buy a
LP, you don't know if it was from the beginning of the pressing run and the
end of the pressing run or how long the pressing run was or what the process
was like during the run. Every LP is a pig in a poke.
> That strikes me as a
> classic case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
First off, compared to the number of new titles released on digital media,
there are almost no new titles released on LP. Relatively speaking, titles
released in the LP format are almost completely unavailable. For example,
you can't download a LP. Fact of the matter is that people who are
committed to the LP often buy certain titles because they are available on
LP, rather than any a priori love for the specific musical performance.
>> If you were saying specifically "audiophile-
>> quality vinyl has equal or superior dynamic range to CDs", that's
>> another thing,
That other thing would be that it is completely and totally false.
> I'm not really saying anything in general about either format other
> than that a well mastered LP can sustain a very wide dynamic range.
Not by comparison to what the CD format reliably delivers. Remember, that a
recording with 70 dB dynamic range delivered on a medium with 70 dB dynamic
range has zero SNR at some points. Zero SNR is not considered to be typical
of a high quality listening experience.
>> but then I would hope that you would at least concede
>> that mainstream pressed vinyl (even the "good" stuff from Nonesuch
>> etc) from decades past is very likely to have inferior SNR. And that
>> significantly constrains the argument that vinyl has a comparable
>> dynamic range....
>
> I have not argued that the dynamic range is comparable to anything. I
> have argued that it's inherent limitation is in the neighborhood of
> 75-80 dB and that is plenty for the vast majority of commercial
> recordings.
There is now, and there never has been a LP with even 65 dB dynamic range if
we judge the LP by the same standards we use for judging even the cheapest
CD player. We do judge CD players using "unweighted" (actually 20-20k flat
bandwidth) noise measurements, while similarly unweighted noise measurements
are generally not used for judging LP hardware. We have a few examples at
hand where unweighted noise measurements were used, and the results for the
LP were horrific - on the order of 20 dB.
> of course we can find examples both on LP and CD where the
> capacities of either medium were not fully exploited.
Irrelevant. Exploiting the medium is an artistic and business choice. It's
not a technical choice.
>> I would also like to point out that - and I admit I have very little
>> references to back me up on this, this is largely anecdotal - quite a
>> few classical releases were subject to significant dynamic range
>> compression for precisely this reason (to pull up quiet sections from
>> the background noise). I'm not presuming that you would have those
>> releases, but it's at least worth mentioning.
> I am not denying that compression has been used on a good many records
> over the years. It has. But today's state of the art cutting engineers
> on state of the art cutting equipment can transcribe very dynamic
> source material without using any compression.
Again we have a entirely vague claim: "very dynamic". My "very dynamic" is
85 dB, which is the dynamic range of the widest dynamic range recording I've
ever been able to find, and approximates the dynamic range of the widest
dynamic range music recording I've ever been able to make by acoustical
means.
The LP format falls at least 10 dB short, even with every Mulligan and every
marginally-reasonable weighting curve applied. If we drop the Mulligans and
perceptual weighting curves, the LP format *fails* by at least 40 and
possibly 65 dB.
> And this is actually
> being done with a good many of the greatest (IMO) recordings in
> history.
Again, we have an entirely vague criteria, "In My Opinion". This isn't
technology, it is solipsism.
>It actually is a very exciting time to be an audiophile with
> a high end turntable rig.
Depending on how we define yet another vague term, namely "high end
turntable rig", you've probably never had the privilege of even being in the
same room with one.
However, we have evidence before us that the presumed ultra-high performance
of a ""high end turntable rig" (whatever that is) is largely myth and hype.
>> > Dare I
>> > say that there is always the possibility that your gear may also be
>> > contributing to the problem? I suspect this suggestion may send some
>> > into a tizzy but the reality is not all vinyl playback equipment is
>> > created equal. I found that as I upgraded my vinyl playback equipment
>> > I was able to extract more and more low level information from the he
>> > grooves.
>>
>> I haven't, and I have never seen any really compelling evidence that
>> improved gear improves SNR,
> I have under controlled listening tests heard some pretty profound
> differences in various rig's ability to portray low level information.
Please document. Skepticism is indicated because of the absence of a
rigorous context for this claim.
> I base this on what I hear not on any bench tests.
So what does "controlled test" mean in this context, other than perhaps the
room was temperature-controlled? (but what about humidity - that matters to
LP SQ, too).
> We are talking
> about a transducer when we talk about vinyl playback. Even the biggest
> tech heads usually concede that the final proof of performance is in
> the listening not on the test bench with transducers.
The final proof of performance is contingent on what we discover during the
lead-up. If we find that a transducer measures out with hallacious
performance, we generally never get to the final steps. And, compared to
even a good loudspeaker in a good room, the LP format leaves a lot to be
desired.
>> besides the bare baseline stuff like non-
>> defective bearings. The role of cables and preamps on the matter is
>> complete BS.
> I think you are really underestimating the role of phono preamps and
> phono cables. I think you may even find some "objective" support for
> this assertion. I'll dig something up if you wish.
I'd love to see a vinyl advocate dig up even just one "objective" support
for any claim they make.
>> And in particular, if tonearms really did affect noise
>> levels that much, as a function of the arm acoustics, you'd see pops
>> and ticks reflect back to the cartridge a significant fraction of a
>> millisecond (or more!) after they are tracked - and I've never seen
>> evidence of that in my own recordings, or anybody else's for that
>> matter.
Probably true as long as we ignore some real abortions like pressed-tin tone
arms. ;-)
>> It is just really hard to believe that anything that happens
>> after the groove is traced causes any significant kind of increase in
>> transient noise. (Moreover, I clean my vinyl and I have an OC9
>> mounted, and OC9s are simply not well known for increasing surface
>> noise.)
OC9s are good. But, they aren't magic.
Richard Tollerton
> I would hesitate to say that one could simply just press play when
> cutting a master from a very dynamic source.There are important
> choices made by the cutting engineer in every step of the process.
> There is also a real hands on craft involved in the act of cutting and
> not all cutting engineers are equally skilled.
Understood, but my understanding is that besides the extremely hands-
on matter of maintaining the cutting head assembly and managing the
pitch, it's quite possible to cut a record that is a direct transfer
of the master material - as long as specific thresholds aren't
exceeded. eg, don't have enough stereo bass to compromise tracking,
don't incur so much acceleration that the coils fry, etc. Steve
Hoffman, at least, advertised that some of the vinyl work he's done (I
want to say Tres Hombres in particular) was cut flat from the master
tapes. But then again, he doesn't do the vinyl mastering, KG does.
At one extreme I could argue that because test records are a clear
example of something where the records are not "mastered" in the
audible sense. Also, don't direct-to-disc releases rely on very little
input from the mastering engineer?
I'll take a look through the Electrical Audio forums and dig up some
more info on this particular Shellac album, as far as what
specifically might have gone on with the vinyl.
> I do find myself buying them along with audiophile CDs. It does not
> matter to me what the neighbors are doing. It seems to me that if one
> is really interested in getting the best sound from the music they
> love that they will put together the best playback system they can and
> collect the best sounding LPs and CDs of the music they wish to listen
> to. Getting a better mastered LP or CD of a title one enjoys
> listening to is one of the least expensive and most effective upgrades
> an audiophile can make. I can't understand why anyone would shut off
> all the opportunities to get their favorite music at it's best over
> some idealogoical objection to either format. That strikes me as a
> classic case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
I disagree, but more because I've made a conscious effort to distance
my emotional reaction to the music from the sound quality (or the
price). I prefer to choose more based on price nowadays, and with a
lot of reportory vinyl in the $1-$3 range nowadays, screw good
masterings! I've bought tons of CBS Masterworks vinyl (not the most
highly rated) and have been more or less pleased with all of it.
Ultimately what I'm getting at (and this may be less of an attack on
you than an attack on pro-vinyl arguments in general) is that while
the advantages of high-quality vinyl are highly touted, in terms of
what people actually *mean* when they refer to vinyl, they don't
always mean that. I've heard all sorts of people tout vinyl's
"improved dynamics", "extended range", etc. when listing to very
mainstream, non-audiophile vinyl - rock LPs, new or used, the
occasional Decca 60s pressing, etc. Stuff that in my experience has
none of these attributes, And when those statements are confronted,
people seem to dodge the question and go "well, if you had a mint UHQR
pressing, you'd clearly see the advantages of vinyl!"
Of course I'm exaggerating, but not by much. If one touts audiophile-
grade vinyl as the true example of the medium's potential, and lesser-
grade stuff as not, you're essentially saying that all of people who
love the sound of vinyl who haven't listened to said systems simply do
not know what they are talking about, because the criticisms stick to
them, and not to the audiophile stuff.
> > If you were saying specifically "audiophile-
> > quality vinyl has equal or superior dynamic range to CDs", that's
> > another thing,
>
> I'm not really saying anything in general about either format other
> than that a well mastered LP can sustain a very wide dynamic range.
And I'll agree with that. Certainly it's high enough for most music.
It's not high enough for *all* music, though.
> > I would also like to point out that - and I admit I have very little
> > references to back me up on this, this is largely anecdotal - quite a
> > few classical releases were subject to significant dynamic range
> > compression for precisely this reason (to pull up quiet sections from
> > the background noise). I'm not presuming that you would have those
> > releases, but it's at least worth mentioning.
>
> I am not denying that compression has been used on a good many records
> over the years. It has. But today's state of the art cutting engineers
> on state of the art cutting equipment can transcribe very dynamic
> source material without using any compression. And this is actually
> being done with a good many of the greatest (IMO) recordings in
> history. It actually is a very exciting time to be an audiophile with
> a high end turntable rig.
How do you reconcile this statement with your beliefs that cutting a
record is a "hands on craft"? If compression is not employed, and the
source material remains more or less intact, doesn't that mean that
there is really very little "hands on" work employed? That seems to
undercut your previous argument about very dynamic sources requiring
that sort of thing.
As mentioned above, I more or less agree with you here, but then that
challenges your claim about highly dynamic works needing massaging
even further.
> I have under controlled listening tests heard some pretty profound
> differences in various rig's ability to portray low level information.
> I base this on what I hear not on any bench tests. We are talking
> about a transducer when we talk about vinyl playback. Even the biggest
> tech heads usually concede that the final proof of performance is in
> the listening not on the test bench with transducers.
That may be true, but if I'm completely unable to figure it out on the
bench, I am highly inclined to say that what I listened to was
placebo. The human mind is a somewhat deceptive device. Obviously it
can see things that a test environment can't see, but that doesn't
mean it can see things that *no* test environment can't see. And the
power of analysis tools to tease stuff like this out nowadays is
staggering.
> > besides the bare baseline stuff like non-
> > defective bearings. The role of cables and preamps on the matter is
> > complete BS.
>
> I think you are really underestimating the role of phono preamps and
> phono cables. I think you may even find some "objective" support for
> this assertion. I'll dig something up if you wish.
Please do.
> > And in particular, if tonearms really did affect noise
> > levels that much, as a function of the arm acoustics, you'd see pops
> > and ticks reflect back to the cartridge a significant fraction of a
> > millisecond (or more!) after they are tracked - and I've never seen
> > evidence of that in my own recordings, or anybody else's for that
> > matter. It is just really hard to believe that anything that happens
> > after the groove is traced causes any significant kind of increase in
> > transient noise. (Moreover, I clean my vinyl and I have an OC9
> > mounted, and OC9s are simply not well known for increasing surface
> > noise.)
>
> > Frankly, I'd probably turn that back around and question if your
> > system isn't resolving enough.
>
> Fair enough. My speakers are Sound Lab A3 electrostatic speakers with
> a Vandersteen sub.http://www.soundlab-speakers.com/a3.htm
> My room is heavily damped and very well isolated. It is remarkably
> quite.
> I also have the Stax SRX headphones.
>
> > I always listen with headphones - noise-
> > reducing Etymotics ER-4Ss to be exact - and they are murderously
> > sensitive to noise.
>
> Heightened portrayal of detail is not always a sign of better sounding
> playback. Just as one can turn up the contrast on an image and see
> more detail at the overall expense of the image quality one can have
> playback equipment that is hypersensitive to detail but not to the
> benefit of the naturalness of the sound.
Sure (and I'm not saying I'd choose my environment over yours!), but
just because it doesn't happen on a system that isn't as
"hypersensitive" as mine, doesn't mean it's not a problem. It just
means it's a problem that only shows up in certain environments. The
way I listen to music is no less valid.
Etys, in fact, have essentially no response above 16k, and have a very
tight response below that, so they can't really be compared to
traditional "hyperdetailed" kit in the peaky-treble sense. I wouldn't
go so far as to call them hypersensitive.
> I'll look into it. But understand that I want to detail to sound like
> detail when I listen to music. I'm not looking for etched
> hyperanalytical sound. I find that to be very fatiguing and just plain
> unpleasant to listen to. I am looking for the natural balance of
> detail one finds with the best live acoustic music. It is easy to find
> exaggerated detail in playback. I don't like it.
Again, if you think my system is hypersensitive, you're mistaken. It
sounds perfectly natural and balanced to me. The whole meaning of
"naturalness" and "sensitivity" is ultimately subjective, of course -
unless you resort to frequency response measurements. (And the Etys
have a very flat response, top end excluded.)
> > I'm sorry, but my mind is rather closed on the matter. My own ears
> > tell me the dynamic range is insufficient; none of the evidence I have
> > read to the contrary is compelling to me. The one thing that would
> > probably convince me is a needledrop with a peak-to-noise ratio that
> > is significantly higher than my own - and note, mine's only 60db! Even
> > showing a vinyl record with a provable 75db SNR is going to be a
> > challenge, I would predict.
>
> If you have made up your mind I am not going to try to persuede you to
> change it. hopefully, if nothing else, I have better explained my
> beliefs.
You have (and this has been more civil than most conversations on the
matter, heh). I'm not saying I'm infallible or that my mind is just
sprung shut on the matter - I'm saying that the evidence that would
convince me is in my opinion rather easy to get a hold of, and rather
than debate the theoretics of SNR, some WAV samples would do a lot to
change my and others' perspective. (They don't even have to be
recorded with an audiophile sound card, you know.)
S888...@aol.com
> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:gecc2...@news4.newsguy.com...
> > I would hesitate to say that one could simply just press play when
> > cutting a master from a very dynamic source.There are important
> > choices made by the cutting engineer in every step of the process.
>
> It would appear that this is a serious fault of the LP format
Not at all. Just because a task requires skill to do well does not
mean it is inherently faulty. But mastering in general is a job that
requires skill and judgement. that is true for all formats not just
LPs.
>- there are so
> many important choices to be made before and while the master is being cut.
> For openers, it is a *not* given that the LP will ever �be able to
> accurately reproduce *anything* that is on the master recording.
I personally am not terribly concerned with absolute accuracy to the
master. I find that to be a rather arbitrary reference that is
inherently flawed because it sets up playback equipment as part of
one's reference and I find it an impractical reference because I don't
have access to the master tapes.
> The master
> has to be constrained, either through the playing of the music, or by
> limiting and compression during the production process.
There are any number of LPs that simply run completely contrary to
this assertion.
>
> In contrast, a CD master can be prepared (no cutting is involved) pretty
> much by pressing the start button. For openers, it is a given that the CD
> *will* be able to accurately reproduce *anything* that is on the master
> recording.
I would hate to think that mastering engineers are so careless as to
actually do what you describe. Even when mastering CDs there is always
more to it than just pressing the start button. It would be utterly
irresponsible for a mastering engineer not to preview a tape and check
levels at the very least. More often there is plenty more to do when
mastering a CD than just pressing the start button. Mastering is both
an art and a skill set. If it were in practice as simple as just
pressing the start button we wouldn't have mastering engineers.
>
> >> At the same time, even if they did have superior dynamic range, I
> >> don't think it's particularly fair to argue about the dynamic range of
> >> vinyl based solely on audiophile pressings such as those.
>
> One of the unsolved problems of vinyl is the fact that it is a wildly
> inconsistent medium. In addition to the preparations that need to be made
> during cutting, the remaining many steps in the process will audibly
> adversely affect the sound quality of the recording.
There is an error in your logic with this argument. Just because the
medium requires skilled hands and ears and technical excellence to be
done well does not mean that it is a wildly inconsistant medium.
>
> For example, the LP �master needs to be plated within 24 hours of cutting,
> which is practically impossible unless the cutting room and plating room are
> close to each other.
That is much ado about nothing. take a look at how they do it at RTI.
http://www.recordtech.com/default.htm
State of the art cutting, plating and pressing all under one roof.
> The plating room is generally at the pressing plant,
> but for obvious reasons must be carefully separated from the mastering room.
> So you have a conundrum right there, to meet time constraints you would like
> to cut and plate in places that are close to each other, but the cutting
> room and the plating room have to be carefully separated from each other.
That really isn't a big problem. They actually offer tours of the
facilities at RTI. Just go visit them. See for yourself how easily
they solved this problem.
>
> > If we are talking about inherent limitations of the medium then it is
> > unfair to reference anything less.
>
> Not true.
No it is very true. Any short comings in any vinyl that is due to less
than state of the art execution is by definition not an inherent
limitation of the medium.
> One of the inherent limitations of the LP medium is that its
> quality has always been so variable.
That is not an inherent limitation.
> > If we are talking real world LPs
> > and CDs (audiophile LPs are real world, anyone who wishes to can buy
> > them) then it has to be a case by case basis and one has to always
> > consider the substantial variations in audible performance of the wide
> > variety of turntable rigs out there.
>
> In fact there is no reliable evidence at all that a megabuck playback system
> has any actual benefits over fairly modest systems, vis-a-vis sound quality.
> Many if not all of the "substantial variations" are based on appearance and
> hype.
IME there has been a plethera of evidence provided by controlled
listening comparisons to demonstrate there are significant differences
in the sonic signature of turntables and pickup arms. If you have some
actual reliable evidence in that way of published controlled listening
tests that would suggest otherwise I'd be happy to look at them.
>
> >> They form a
> >> small fraction of even the existing new vinyl market - outside of very
> >> few individuals, you will not find people buying exclusively new vinyl
> >> from labels like that.
> > I do find myself buying them along with audiophile CDs. It does not
> > matter to me what the neighbors are doing.
>
> In a similar fashion it matters even less to your neighbors what you are
> doing, since what you are doing is virtually impossible to justify on
> anything but personal bias for audibly degraded reproduction of music.
What anyone does in this hobby is for all practical purposes only
justifiable on a personal level in that it provides personal pleasure
to the hobbyist. You are making many assertions about excellence
throughout this thread as though they were somehow objective
assertions. They are not. It is an undeniable fact that any
qualitative aesthetic judgement is at it's very base not an objective
measure. Personal non-objective choices are made about what
constitutes aesthetic excellence before any measure is made of said
excellence. I can describe my aesthetic values in music and how I use
them to judge excellence in playback. But that is perhaps a subjct for
a seperate thread. Suffice to say that when I speak of sonic
excellence it is with the undersatnding that ultimately any aesthetic
judgment is premised on a personal non-objective set of aesthetic
values. Whether or not any given LP degrades the sound is a matter of
judgement based on goals set by each individual listener and is
unfortunately in most cases strapped with the biases and prejudices of
each individual. When you find people making blanket evaluations of
the medium without considering excellence on a case by case basis it
usually suggests the assertion is born more of prejudice and strong
bias than any geniune interest in sonic excellence. I can not imagine
anyone with anything less than a profound bias against vinyl playback
not being able to appreciate the excellent sound one can get from
playing an outstanding LP on an excellent playback system that
includes excellent vinyl playback equipment.
>
> > It seems to me that if one
> > is really interested in getting the best sound from the music they
> > love that they will put together the best playback system they can and
> > collect the best sounding LPs and CDs of the music they wish to listen to.
>
> Actually, if you want the best sound from the music you love, go to live
> performances
I do that quite often. We are blessed with a few of the best sounding
halls in the world. Disney hall and Royce Hall at UCLA to name two.
> and/or become a good enough musician that you can entertain
> yourself. Millions of people do exactly this.
That aint gonna happen.
>
> > Getting a better mastered LP or CD �of a title one enjoys
> > listening to is one of the least expensive and most effective upgrades
> > an audiophile can make.
>
> However, this is an relatively expensive crap shoot.
It can be a crap shoot. but if one is willing to do a little research
and learn about the people who are behind the masterings it is far
less of a crap shoot. But just blindly buying something on CD because
it is on CD is worse than a crap shoot. that is more like the odds you
get from a lottery. no thank you. I will do my homework instaead and
make informed decisions about what to buy. and I will continue to buy
all the contenders with my very favorite titles be it CD or LP and do
my own personal shoot outs.
>
> >I can't understand why anyone would shut off
> > all the opportunities to get their favorite music at it's best over
> > some ideological objection to either format.
>
> This isn't about ideology
When people are making blanket dismisals of the format I think it very
much is about ideology. the only practical consideration would
logically be what one hears in actual listening.
>
> > That strikes me as a
> > classic case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
>
> First off, compared to the number of new titles released on digital media,
> there are almost no new titles released on LP.
In those cases there is no choice involved. If there is only one
mastering of a given title regardless of the format one has to take
that one mastering if they want that music.
> �Relatively speaking, titles
> released in the LP format are almost completely unavailable.
Reletive to what? I have no trouble finding the LPs I want that are in
print. This is simply not an issue.
> �Fact of the matter is that people who are
> committed to the LP often buy certain titles because they are available on
> LP, rather than any a priori love for the specific musical performance.
That is simply not true at least for myself. I have obviously made a
pretty significant financial commitment to the vinyl medium. but I
don't let that stop me from buying music on CD.
>
> > of course we can find examples both on LP and CD where the
> > capacities of either medium were not fully exploited.
>
> Irrelevant.
Only if one has no geniune interest in the sound quality of commercial
music. Otherwise it is one of the most important factors in audio.
> Exploiting the medium is an artistic and business choice. It's
> not a technical choice.
Sound quality is an aesthetic judgement and exploitation of the vinyl
medium these days is often an aesthetic choice that has wrought superb
results.
> > And this is actually
> > being done with a good many of the greatest (IMO) recordings in
> > history.
>
> Again, we have an entirely vague criteria, "In My Opinion". This isn't
> technology, it is solipsism.
I am interested in the aesthetic experience of audio first and
foremost. Any interest in the technical aspects are secondary and
subserviant to my primary interest. Others may have different
priorities. Nothing wrong with that.
>
> >It actually is a very exciting time to be an audiophile with
> > a high end turntable rig.
>
> Depending on how we define yet another vague term, namely "high end
> turntable rig", you've probably never had the privilege of even being in the
> same room with one.
That is an odd assertion from you given that I have been in the room
with many Regas including the Rega 2.
>
> However, we have evidence before us that the presumed ultra-high performance
> of a ""high end turntable rig" (whatever that is) is largely myth and hype.
I haven't seen this alleged evidence. Perhaps you could cite it. Now
remember that "performance" ultimately is measured by some asesthetic
standard. before you start tot alk about performance you have to make
clear what you see as the standard and by what meter you measure al
things against it.
>
> >> > Dare I
> >> > say that there is always the possibility that your gear may also be
> >> > contributing to the problem? I suspect this suggestion may send some
> >> > into a tizzy but the reality is not all vinyl playback equipment is
> >> > created equal. I found that as I upgraded my vinyl playback equipment
> >> > I was able to extract more and more low level information from the he
> >> > grooves.
>
> >> I haven't, and I have never seen any really compelling evidence that
> >> improved gear improves SNR,
> > I have under controlled listening tests heard some pretty profound
> > differences in various rig's ability to portray low level information.
>
> Please document. �Skepticism is indicated because of the absence of a
> rigorous context for this claim.
I did not formally document anything. It was always done for to inform
me on a personal level. That is the nature of home brewed listening
tests. even ones done under blind conditions. It does not matter to me
if you believe my results or not.
>
> > I base this on what I hear not on any bench tests.
>
> So what does "controlled test" mean in this context, other than perhaps the
> room was ...
extended single blind comparisons.
Richard Tollerton
> For example, the LP master needs to be plated within 24 hours of cutting,
> which is practically impossible unless the cutting room and plating room are
> close to each other. The plating room is generally at the pressing plant,
> but for obvious reasons must be carefully separated from the mastering room.
> So you have a conundrum right there, to meet time constraints you would like
> to cut and plate in places that are close to each other, but the cutting
> room and the plating room have to be carefully separated from each other.
They solved this problem 20 years ago. It's called DMM. (Ignore for a
moment the fact that so many audiophiles abhor it.)
> Actually, if you want the best sound from the music you love, go to live
> performances and/or become a good enough musician that you can entertain
> yourself. Millions of people do exactly this.
Heh - to be completely snarky, I'll choose an LP of My Bloody
Valentine over the live performance any day of the year. I enjoy not
having hearing damage, thank you. :)
> > Getting a better mastered LP or CD of a title one enjoys
> > listening to is one of the least expensive and most effective upgrades
> > an audiophile can make.
>
> However, this is an relatively expensive crap shoot. If you are that picky,
> then you need to realize that mastering is often about frequency response
> variations that a person with educated ears and fingers can adjust for
> themselves.
You're right, and this bears particular repeating. It's abundantly
clear on the forums that buying audiophile LPs nowadays is A COMPLETE
CRAP SHOOT. In some cases (notably Classic) the QC is arguably worse
than with mainstream LPs back in the day. Hopefully they'll have good
luck with their new formulation, but the fact that they're doing so
much of the work themselves nowadays gives me less reassurance, not
more.
That makes for a particularly malicious form of nonfalsifiability on
the whole matter. Let's say that I *did* take everybody's word for it
and bought a top-shelf new pressing of something for $50. Suhprize
surprize, the dynamic range isn't any better than the $15 release. As
soon as I'd open my mouth saying that, I'm sure I'll get people saying
"yeah, well, you just got unlucky and got a bad pressing, mine is
lightyears better".
That is a really compelling reason for me to not touch high-end
pressings with a ten foot pole. The whole argument about them being a
superior method of comparison is a tar pit of sophistry, at least
until the QC becomes beyond repute.
Also note that, IIRC, the JVC UHQR formulations still have not been
beaten by modern formulations, so in a very real sense, the art of
vinyl production has regressed in that respect in the last 20 years.
> >> It is just really hard to believe that anything that happens
> >> after the groove is traced causes any significant kind of increase in
> >> transient noise. (Moreover, I clean my vinyl and I have an OC9
> >> mounted, and OC9s are simply not well known for increasing surface
> >> noise.)
>
> OC9s are good. But, they aren't magic.
No, but they're close enough to SOTA that I haven't found a compelling
need to switch. I do have occasional fears about the stylus polish/
mounting quality though - and I will say that I suspect that has much
more to do with the quality of the playback than most other things
people talk about. Unfortunately I haven't figured out any
particularly good way of evaluating that, besides buying near the top
of the line from a manufacturer to get good binning.
S888...@aol.com
wrote:
> On Oct 30, 9:23 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
> > However, this is an relatively expensive crap shoot. If you are that picky,
> > then you need to realize that mastering is often about frequency response
> > variations that a person with educated ears and fingers can adjust for
> > themselves.
>
> You're right, and this bears particular repeating. It's abundantly
> clear on the forums that buying audiophile LPs nowadays is A COMPLETE
> CRAP SHOOT. In some cases (notably Classic) the QC is arguably worse
> than with mainstream LPs back in the day. Hopefully they'll have good
> luck with their new formulation, but the fact that they're doing so
> much of the work themselves nowadays gives me less reassurance, not
> more.
I think there has been many exagerrations about the poor QC from
Classics. I have over two hundred of their LPs. Only a few were
really bad. But there really isn't much of a crapshoot. If you get a
bad pressing you get to exchange it for a good one. Show me a craps
table in vegas that lets you throw the dice until you win. It can be
an inconvenience. It rarely is a geniune crap shoot.
>
> That makes for a particularly malicious form of nonfalsifiability on
> the whole matter. Let's say that I *did* take everybody's word for it
> and bought a top-shelf new pressing of something for $50. Suhprize
> surprize, the dynamic range isn't any better than the $15 release. As
> soon as I'd open my mouth saying that, I'm sure I'll get people saying
> "yeah, well, you just got unlucky and got a bad pressing, mine is
> lightyears better".
While forums like the Steve Hoffman forum are often helpful and very
informative about what went into the mastering of many CDs and LPs
ultimately there is a degree of risk that you just might not like the
same things other people like.but that is not unique to LPs. You can
get the same problems with any CD too. we are talking about aesthetic
judgements here. It aint science.
>
> That is a really compelling reason for me to not touch high-end
> pressings with a ten foot pole. The whole argument about them being a
> superior method of comparison is a tar pit of sophistry, at least
> until the QC becomes beyond repute.
Any aesthetic choice ultimately is an act of sophistry is it not?
Ultimately any time you buy a CD or LP you run the risk that it was
poorly mastered as measured by your personal standards.
>
> Also note that, IIRC, the JVC UHQR formulations still have not been
> beaten by modern formulations, so in a very real sense, the art of
> vinyl production has regressed in that respect in the last 20 years.
I have many LPs made from both formulations. I am not so convinced
that the old JVC formulations are actually any better. Hard to say.
There are so many other variables.
Arny Krueger
news:6mv4juF...@mid.individual.net...
> On Oct 30, 7:23�am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:gecc2...@news4.newsguy.com...
>> > I would hesitate to say that one could simply just press play when
>> > cutting a master from a very dynamic source.There are important
>> > choices made by the cutting engineer in every step of the process.
>> It would appear that this is a serious fault of the LP format
> Not at all. Just because a task requires skill to do well does not
> mean it is inherently faulty.
Sure it does.
Plan A: obsess over every step of the many steps of the process, and face
the potential of failure at every step. When you are all done, you have
created a highly flawed product, anyway. Furthermore the market for the
product is miniscule.
Plan B: It's a one-step process and it just about can't fail. When you are
done, you have a perceptually perfect product. Just about everybody can
benefit from your product with no additional investements on their part.
Plan A = LP from master to playable disk.
Plan B = CD from master to playable disc
How many rational people would take long to make their decision?
> But mastering in general is a job that
> requires skill and judgement. that is true for all formats not just LPs.
Not true for all formats. The comparison above is totally factual.
>>- there are so
>> many important choices to be made before and while the master is being
>> cut.
>> For openers, it is a *not* given that the LP will ever �be able to
>> accurately reproduce *anything* that is on the master recording.
> I personally am not terribly concerned with absolute accuracy to the
> master.
To me, and 99% of the marketplace for recorded music, accuracy at a higher
level than the LP is my day-to-day expectation. Just like I don't like
prime rib roasted with sawdust and straw, I don't like music with audible
noise and distortion.
> I find that to be a rather arbitrary reference that is
> inherently flawed because it sets up playback equipment as part of
> one's reference and I find it an impractical reference because I don't
> have access to the master tapes.
It has always been true that the CD format can deliver an audibly perfect
copy of the master tapes. For most audiophiles the master tapes are someone
else's property, and they can't control what additional processing they go
through. However, some of us produce our own master tapes, and for us the CD
format is a very big benefit. In addition, there have always been owners of
master tapes such as Telarc, who were committed to distributing more
accurate renditions of their master tapes.
>> The master
>> has to be constrained, either through the playing of the music, or by
>> limiting and compression during the production process.
> There are any number of LPs that simply run completely contrary to
> this assertion.
Prove it, technically, with charts and graphs such as the ones that have
already been used to show that the LP format at its best or close to it, is
a very noisy and distorted medium. All we've seen here so far counter to
our evidence is anecdotes, hype, unreliable and biased sources, and quotes
of sales pitches.
>> In contrast, a CD master can be prepared (no cutting is involved) pretty
>> much by pressing the start button. For openers, it is a given that the CD
>> *will* be able to accurately reproduce *anything* that is on the master
>> recording.
> I would hate to think that mastering engineers are so careless as to
> actually do what you describe.
Once a CD master is prepared, that's all it takes. I can do it on a modest
scale in my living room. Our church secretary does it every week for longer
runs, up to several 100. A full-scale CD production facility can be fit into
a garage, run off of house current, and produce negligable hazardous waste.
> Even when mastering CDs there is always
> more to it than just pressing the start button. It would be utterly
> irresponsible for a mastering engineer not to preview a tape and check
> levels at the very least.
There are no levels to check. It's digital. Everything is as the person who
produced the master intended it. If you send a blank disc to many CD
production facilites, you just might get a thousand blank discs back!
> More often there is plenty more to do when
> mastering a CD than just pressing the start button. Mastering is both
> an art and a skill set. If it were in practice as simple as just
> pressing the start button we wouldn't have mastering engineers.
But the mastering doesn't have to be done at the manufacturing facility.
There's no need to plate the cut master within 24 hours.
>> >> At the same time, even if they did have superior dynamic range, I
>> >> don't think it's particularly fair to argue about the dynamic range of
>> >> vinyl based solely on audiophile pressings such as those.
>> One of the unsolved problems of vinyl is the fact that it is a wildly
>> inconsistent medium. In addition to the preparations that need to be made
>> during cutting, the remaining many steps in the process will audibly
>> adversely affect the sound quality of the recording.
> There is an error in your logic with this argument. Just because the
> medium requires skilled hands and ears and technical excellence to be
> done well does not mean that it is a wildly inconsistant medium.
There's no error in a statement that describes the fabrication of the LP
product as it has been all along, and is today.
There are people who actually believe every sales pitch they hear.
>> For example, the LP �master needs to be plated within 24 hours of
>> cutting,
>> which is practically impossible unless the cutting room and plating room
>> are
>> close to each other.
> That is much ado about nothing. take a look at how they do it at RTI.
> http://www.recordtech.com/default.htm
> State of the art cutting, plating and pressing all under one roof.
Exceptional enough that they make a big point of advertising it. I didn't
say it can't be done, I said it had to be done. BTW, do you know how much
hazardous waste the plating process involves? Do you really want your
masters cut right next to a plating factory? Do you want a plating factory
next door?
>> The plating room is generally at the pressing plant,
>> but for obvious reasons must be carefully separated from the mastering
>> room.
>> So you have a conundrum right there, to meet time constraints you would
>> like
>> to cut and plate in places that are close to each other, but the cutting
>> room and the plating room have to be carefully separated from each other.
> That really isn't a big problem. They actually offer tours of the
> facilities at RTI. Just go visit them. See for yourself how easily
> they solved this problem.
Did they really solve the problems or are you being misled by a fancy web
site?
Do plant tours always reveal day-to-day operations?
If you are naive enough to believe all that, lets hope you never get a job
as an industrial job site inspector.
>> > If we are talking about inherent limitations of the medium then it is
>> > unfair to reference anything less.
>> Not true.
> No it is very true. Any short comings in any vinyl that is due to less
> than state of the art execution is by definition not an inherent
> limitation of the medium.
Show technical evidence that so-called state-of-the art execution have
appreciably better performance than what has already been shown in technical
documents, or give it up!
>> One of the inherent limitations of the LP medium is that its
>> quality has always been so variable.
> That is not an inherent limitation.
In what alternative universe?
>> > If we are talking real world LPs
>> > and CDs (audiophile LPs are real world, anyone who wishes to can buy
>> > them) then it has to be a case by case basis and one has to always
>> > consider the substantial variations in audible performance of the wide
>> > variety of turntable rigs out there.
>> In fact there is no reliable evidence at all that a megabuck playback
>> system
>> has any actual benefits over fairly modest systems, vis-a-vis sound
>> quality.
>> Many if not all of the "substantial variations" are based on appearance
>> and
>> hype.
> IME there has been a plethera of evidence provided by controlled
> listening comparisons
AFAIK, completely undocumented. Besides listening evaluations need to be
confirmed by technical tests. The two should correspond to each other. The
technical results I've seen posted here exactly agree with what I hear.
> to demonstrate there are significant differences
> in the sonic signature of turntables and pickup arms.
No reliable evidence has been shown at all - just unsupported assertions.
> If you have some
> actual reliable evidence in that way of published controlled listening
> tests that would suggest otherwise I'd be happy to look at them.
First show me your evidence of relaible listening tests. You're making the
unbelivable claims.
>> >> They form a
>> >> small fraction of even the existing new vinyl market - outside of very
>> >> few individuals, you will not find people buying exclusively new vinyl
>> >> from labels like that.
>> > I do find myself buying them along with audiophile CDs. It does not
>> > matter to me what the neighbors are doing.
>> In a similar fashion it matters even less to your neighbors what you are
>> doing, since what you are doing is virtually impossible to justify on
>> anything but personal bias for audibly degraded reproduction of music.
> What anyone does in this hobby is for all practical purposes only
> justifiable on a personal level in that it provides personal pleasure
> to the hobbyist.
Getting pleasure out of unecessarily listening to good music unecessarily
contaminated by gratuitous noise and distortion strikes me as being as much
fun as having bamboo splints pushed under my fingernails and toe nails. They
tell me that people called masochists acctually love that sort of thing/.
Not my cup of tea!
> You are making many assertions about excellence
> throughout this thread as though they were somehow objective
> assertions.
I've even produced reliable objective evidence of my own, and cited similar
or more damning objective evidence published by others.
> They are not.
If wishes were fishes.
> It is an undeniable fact that any
> qualitative aesthetic judgement is at it's very base not an objective
> measure.
Perceptual mashochism could be an attractive hobby for some, just not 99% of
all music lovers.
>> >> > Dare I
>> >> > say that there is always the possibility that your gear may also be
>> >> > contributing to the problem? I suspect this suggestion may send some
>> >> > into a tizzy but the reality is not all vinyl playback equipment is
>> >> > created equal. I found that as I upgraded my vinyl playback
>> >> > equipment
>> >> > I was able to extract more and more low level information from the
>> >> > he
>> >> > grooves.
>
>> >> I haven't, and I have never seen any really compelling evidence that
>> >> improved gear improves SNR,
>> > I have under controlled listening tests heard some pretty profound
>> > differences in various rig's ability to portray low level information.
>
>> Please document. �Skepticism is indicated because of the absence of a
>> rigorous context for this claim.
> I did not formally document anything.
So then your hands are empty.
> It was always done for to inform
> me on a personal level. That is the nature of home brewed listening
> tests. even ones done under blind conditions. It does not matter to me
> if you believe my results or not.
Then why aren't you keeping them to yourself?
>> So what does "controlled test" mean in this context, other than perhaps
>> the
>> room was ...
> extended single blind comparisons.
IOW, nothing reliable at all - intentionally flawed.
S888...@aol.com
wrote:
> On Oct 30, 8:16�ｿｽam, S888Wh...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I would hesitate to say that one could simply just press play when
> > cutting a master from a very dynamic source.There are important
> > choices made by the cutting engineer in every step of the process.
> > There is also a real hands on craft involved in the act of cutting and
> > not all cutting engineers are equally skilled.
>
> Understood, but my understanding is that besides the extremely hands-
> on matter of maintaining the cutting head assembly and managing the
> pitch, it's quite possible to cut a record that is a direct transfer
> of the master material - as long as specific thresholds aren't
> exceeded. eg, don't have enough stereo bass to compromise tracking,
> don't incur so much acceleration that the coils fry, etc. Steve
> Hoffman, at least, advertised that some of the vinyl work he's done (I
> want to say Tres Hombres in particular) was cut flat from the master
> tapes. But then again, he doesn't do the vinyl mastering, KG does.
Sure. But when you are dealing with source material with a dynamic
range that is close to the thresholds of the medium you have this sort
of gambit that the cutting engineer has to play. The engineer has to
figure how high a level can be used to cut without breaking the groove
or running out of room on the laquer. If one playes it safe and
doesn't push the boundaries of the upper limits and they choose not to
use compression or a limiter then that cutting engneer will drive the
lower level information further into the noise floor. For the most
dynamic material KG and SH have been pushing the normal limitations by
cutting at 45 rpm and cutting shorter sides. You just cant get push
the groove as far if you are trying to cram more time per side. Now
with most pop/rock material the dynamic range is not wide enough to
have to resort to this sort of solution. It is less of a challenge to
cut something like Tres Hombres without using compression. What
Hoffman brings to the formula are his personal tweaks to improve the
sound of the master. Kevin does the dirty work on the lathe.
>
> At one extreme I could argue that because test records are a clear
> example of something where the records are not "mastered" in the
> audible sense. Also, don't direct-to-disc releases rely on very little
> input from the mastering engineer?
They rely heavily on the cutting engineer to get the maximum peak
levels cut without screwing up the adjacent grooves and without
running out of room. It is a highly skilled hands on job. The gambit
of choosing the highest peak level is predicated on the cutting
engineer's skills of navigating the cutter without breaking the
groove, distorting the adjacent grooves or running out of room on the
laquer. If the cutting engineer shoots to high, the session is lost on
a D2D rrecording. If the cutting engineer playes it safe the dynamic
range is reduced. I don't think it would be much of an exaggeration to
liken it to surgery.
>
> I'll take a look through the Electrical Audio forums and dig up some
> more info on this particular Shellac album, as far as what
> specifically might have gone on with the vinyl.
>
> > I do find myself buying them along with audiophile CDs. It does not
> > matter to me what the neighbors are doing. It seems to me that if one
> > is really interested in getting the best sound from the music they
> > love that they will put together the best playback system they can and
> > collect the best sounding LPs and CDs of the music they wish to listen
> > to. Getting a better mastered LP or CD �ｿｽof a title one enjoys
> > listening to is one of the least expensive and most effective upgrades
> > an audiophile can make. I can't understand why anyone would shut off
> > all the opportunities to get their favorite music at it's best over
> > some idealogoical objection to either format. That strikes me as a
> > classic case of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
>
> I disagree, but more because I've made a conscious effort to distance
> my emotional reaction to the music from the sound quality (or the
> price). I prefer to choose more based on price nowadays, and with a
> lot of reportory vinyl in the $1-$3 range nowadays, screw good
> masterings! I've bought tons of CBS Masterworks vinyl (not the most
> highly rated) and have been more or less pleased with all of it.
That is a choice to ignore better sound. That choice does not negate
my assertion.
>
> Ultimately what I'm getting at (and this may be less of an attack on
> you than an attack on pro-vinyl arguments in general) is that while
> the advantages of high-quality vinyl are highly touted, in terms of
> what people actually *mean* when they refer to vinyl, they don't
> always mean that. I've heard all sorts of people tout vinyl's
> "improved dynamics", �ｿｽ"extended range", etc. when listing to very
> mainstream, non-audiophile vinyl - rock LPs, new or used, the
> occasional Decca 60s pressing, etc. Stuff that in my experience has
> none of these attributes,
It is all relative. Lets take another recent Gray/Hoffman mastering.
Joni Mitchell's Blue. For the first time this title was cut from the
actual original master rather than the EQed 2;1 compressed copy master
that had been the source for evey other version of this title
including the CDs. If someone raves about the better dynamics of this
over the CD they are simply telling the truth. Just because the source
material isn't state of the art doesn't mean that the differences in
mastering don't make a big difference. They usually do. In this day
and age when so many CDs are being compressed to 5dB dynamic range in
these crazy loudness wars it should be no surprise when people rave
about the improvements heard with audiophile LPs of the same material.
These are the real world choices audiophiles have to make. I don't see
why the enthusiasm of vinyl enthusiasts should in any way obscure or
negate these truisms for any audiophile interested in just getting the
best sound they can with their favorite music. To dismiss vinyl
because one is put off by the hyperbole of rabid vinyl enthusiasts
really is an act of cutting off one's nose.
> And when those statements are confronted,
> people seem to dodge the question and go "well, if you had a mint UHQR
> pressing, you'd clearly see the advantages of vinyl!"
It is a case by case question. There simply are many instances where
the audiophile vinyl really is the best mastered source. But it always
is a case by case thing.
>
> Of course I'm exaggerating, but not by much. If one touts audiophile-
> grade vinyl as the true example of the medium's potential, and lesser-
> grade stuff as not, you're essentially saying that all of people who
> love the sound of vinyl who haven't listened to said systems simply do
> not know what they are talking about, because the criticisms stick to
> them, and not to the audiophile stuff.
Not at all. Again, case by case. In many cases IME that scratchy old
original really does have the prefered sound. Sometimes that is due in
no small part to the effects of euphonic colorations found in some of
those old cutting consoles. If someone has not come along and mastered
a better CD or LP, that old euphonically colored original LP often is
the prime cut.
>
> > > If you were saying specifically "audiophile-
> > > quality vinyl has equal or superior dynamic range to CDs", that's
> > > another thing,
>
> > I'm not really saying anything in general about either format other
> > than that a well mastered LP can sustain a very wide dynamic range.
>
> And I'll agree with that. Certainly it's high enough for most music.
> It's not high enough for *all* music, though.
>
> > > I would also like to point out that - and I admit I have very little
> > > references to back me up on this, this is largely anecdotal - quite a
> > > few classical releases were subject to significant dynamic range
> > > compression for precisely this reason (to pull up quiet sections from
> > > the background noise). I'm not presuming that you would have those
> > > releases, but it's at least worth mentioning.
>
> > I am not denying that compression has been used on a good many records
> > over the years. It has. But today's state of the art cutting engineers
> > on state of the art cutting equipment can transcribe very dynamic
> > source material without using any compression. And this is actually
> > being done with a good many of the greatest (IMO) recordings in
> > history. It actually is a very exciting time to be an audiophile with
> > a high end turntable rig.
>
> How do you reconcile this statement with your beliefs that cutting a
> record is a "hands on craft"?
What is there to reconcile? Kevin Gray is allegedly one of, if not the
best cutting engineer ever. With these audiophile reissues he and
Steve Hoffman have been given free reign to do it the way they want
to. That is 4 sides cut at 45 rpm. They are making no holds barred
state of the art LPs. If you have that kind of freedom and a boss who
says make it as good as it can be instead of saying get it done cheap
and fast and you got the best guys in the business doing the work....
you get very dynamic source material on LP with no compression. You
also get all kinds of tweaks by these guys that just make the sound
even betterer.
> If compression is not employed, and the
> source material remains more or less intact, doesn't that mean that
> there is really very little "hands on" work employed?
Quite the opposite. Just consider the surgery analogy. The tougher the
task the better the surgeon needs to be. i think it is fair to say
that lesser cutting engineers just couldn't get the material on laquer
without compression. I think it is fair to say most would not try to
do it without compression. It takes more skill when the source
material is more demanding of the medium.
> That seems to
> undercut your previous argument about very dynamic sources requiring
> that sort of thing.
>
> As mentioned above, I more or less agree with you here, but then that
> challenges your claim about highly dynamic works needing massaging
> even further.
More navigating than massaging. Here is another analogy. Think of it
as a Formula One car and track. You need the most skilled driver to
turn in the best time. Likewise you need the most skilled cutting
engineer to capture the widest dynamics without screwing the pooch.
AND when the boss says push the envelope regardless of what it takes
that frees you up to push the envelope. When the boss says faster
cheaper you have to play it safe.
>
> > I have under controlled listening tests heard some pretty profound
> > differences in various rig's ability to portray low level information.
> > I base this on what I hear not on any bench tests. We are talking
> > about a transducer when we talk about vinyl playback. Even the biggest
> > tech heads usually concede that the final proof of performance is in
> > the listening not on the test bench with transducers.
>
> That may be true, but if I'm completely unable to figure it out on the
> bench, I am highly inclined to say that what I listened to was
> placebo. The human mind is a somewhat deceptive device. Obviously it
> can see things that a test environment can't see, but that doesn't
> mean it can see things that *no* test environment can't see. And the
> power of analysis tools to tease stuff like this out nowadays is
> staggering.
No doubt. But if one is using blind protocols....
>
> > > besides the bare baseline stuff like non-
> > > defective bearings. The role of cables and preamps on the matter is
> > > complete BS.
>
> > I think you are really underestimating the role of �ｿｽphono preamps and
> > phono cables. I think you may even find some "objective" support for
> > this assertion. I'll dig something up if you wish.
>
> Please do.
>
I'll see what I can dig up
Validity is not really an issue. If one prefers to listen to playback
that is hyper revealing of detail that is a fair personal choice. but
with some choices there is baggage.
>
> Etys, in fact, have essentially no response above 16k, and have a very
> tight response below that, so they can't really be compared to
> traditional "hyperdetailed" kit in the peaky-treble sense. I wouldn't
> go so far as to call them hypersensitive.
I'll take your word for it. I have never heard them.
>
> > I'll look into it. But understand that I want to detail to sound like
> > detail when I listen to music. I'm not looking for etched
> > hyperanalytical sound. I find that to be very fatiguing and just plain
> > unpleasant to listen to. I am looking for the natural balance of
> > detail one finds with the best live acoustic music. It is easy to find
> > exaggerated detail in playback. I don't like it.
>
> Again, if you think my system is hypersensitive, you're mistaken.
I don't know one way or the other. I have never heard your system. I
am going by what you say. If I am misunderstanding what you are saying
then I stand corrected.
> It
> sounds perfectly natural and balanced to me.
I have never heard headphones sound perfectly natural. They simply
don't image naturally. I have heard some pretty amazing imaging with
headphones and binaural recordings.
> The whole meaning of
> "naturalness" and "sensitivity" is ultimately subjective, of course -
> unless you resort to frequency response measurements. (And the Etys
> have a very flat response, top end excluded.)
no argument there and different people have different sensitivities to
different colorations and they have different aestheitc priorities.
Those things are inagruable.
>
> > > I'm sorry, but my mind is rather closed on the matter. My own ears
> > > tell me the dynamic range is insufficient; none of the evidence I have
> > > read to the contrary is compelling to me. The one thing that would
> > > probably convince me is a needledrop with a peak-to-noise ratio that
> > > is significantly higher than my own - and note, mine's only 60db! Even
> > > showing a vinyl record with a provable 75db SNR is going to be a
> > > challenge, I would predict.
>
> > If you have made up your mind I am not going to try to persuede you to
> > change it. hopefully, if nothing else, I have better explained my
> > beliefs.
>
> You have ...
>
Richard Tollerton
> I think there has been many exagerrations about the poor QC from
> Classics. I have over two hundred of their LPs. Only a few were
> really bad. But there really isn't much of a crapshoot. If you get a
> bad pressing you get to exchange it for a good one. Show me a craps
> table in vegas that lets you throw the dice until you win. It can be
> an inconvenience. It rarely is a geniune crap shoot.
Anecdotally, I've heard of people getting 50% defect rates on the
Classics they buy. That said, I've also heard of a lot of people with
no defective discs, or a very small number. It is fortunate that the
major LP sellers online have gracious return policies - although I've
also heard that most/all labels refuse to honor LP returns, which is a
really crummy thing to do, and some local shops are starting to refuse
new LP returns too.
> While forums like the Steve Hoffman forum are often helpful and very
> informative about what went into the mastering of many CDs and LPs
> ultimately there is a degree of risk that you just might not like the
> same things other people like.but that is not unique to LPs. You can
> get the same problems with any CD too. we are talking about aesthetic
> judgements here. It aint science.
I disagree. In the case of dynamic range specifically, it is rather
easy to quantify, as long as a suitable section of silence exists on
the record.
> Any aesthetic choice ultimately is an act of sophistry is it not?
> Ultimately any time you buy a CD or LP you run the risk that it was
> poorly mastered as measured by your personal standards.
Not at all. CDs of the same pressing have essentially zero differences
between them. If somebody raves about the dynamic range of a
particular CD, I can buy that CD and be absolutely guaranteed that
I'll be hearing the same PCM signal (assuming it tracked properly and
jitter is not an issue which is a quite reasonable assumption
nowadays). With well-pressed vinyl, the differences are significant
but small. With poorly pressed vinyl, the differences can be huge. And
those differences ultimately compromise the meaning of statements of
their audio quality.
> > Also note that, IIRC, the JVC UHQR formulations still have not been
> > beaten by modern formulations, so in a very real sense, the art of
> > vinyl production has regressed in that respect in the last 20 years.
>
> I have many LPs made from both formulations. I am not so convinced
> that the old JVC formulations are actually any better. Hard to say.
> There are so many other variables.
I haven't had the opportunity yet of listening to a good UHQR myself,
and I agree that there are many other factors, but my understanding
was that they were all largely optimal with UHQR, and that the
formulation does dictate an upper bound on the dynamic range.
Shouldn't this be pretty easy to test strictly in terms of background
noise?
Sonnova
(in article <6moi8iF...@mid.individual.net>):
Nobody disputes that vinyl has "inherent technical problems", After all,
vinyl playback involves a transducer and several different mechanical
processes. The amazing thing is that a good record can sound so astonishingly
real. Admittedly, such records are few and far between, but the best can
sound significantly more real than a CD of the same performance.
Sonnova
(in article <geap1...@news5.newsguy.com>):
Expert or no, AES papers cost money to access. Less for a member, but they
cost to download, just the same.
>
Sonnova
(in article <ge8kt...@news2.newsguy.com>):
Nonesuch, Turnabout, and Vox were notorious for poor pressings which was a
shame because they had two of the best producers of classical music
recordings in the business: Marc Aubort and the late Joanna Nickrenz. Any
recording produced by this pair was properly miked, well produced and
musically satisfying. Getting decent pressing of these recordings was another
story. I had the Vox Box set of LPs with Skrowaczewsk conducting the
Minnesota Orchestra in the complete orchestral works of Maurice Ravel. It was
largely unplayable. I went through several pressings of this set and never
found a satisfactory one. I had to wait for CD to come along to actually get
a glimpse of how good these performances and recordings really were, and I
still didn't get to hear their full glory until Mobile Fidelity remastered
some of the works a couple of years ago for release on SACD.
Most of Vox/Turnabout/Nonesuch's pressing problems were the result of not
using 100% virgin vinyl (they were budget labels, after all) and using
cut-rate pressing plants. What one got was noisy "regrind" vinyl, compromised
further by indifferent pressing practices resulting in records characterized
by under-fill (not enough vinyl to completely fill the press), records which
were removed from the press to soon after being pressed (causing warpage).
off-center holes, records pressed at other than the ideal temperature for the
vinyl mix being used (this is characterized by gray-ish dull appearance to
the finished disc), etc. I had some luck buying British pressings (by British
Decca) of some of these (like the Turnabout Dallas Symphony recording of
Copland's "Rodeo" and "Billy the Kid" which was recorded with only two
excellent, custom-made ribbon microphones using passive attenuation. It was
one of the best sounding commercial recordings ever made, but you'd never
know it from the lousy domestic LP pressings).
>
> Quite simply, I have experienced several obvious examples where I
> can't hear something nearly as well as I ought to on the vinyl because
> the noise (which I believe to be surface noise) obscures it. And I've
> listened to a lot more CDs and I've only encountered *one* CD whose
> dynamic range reasonably exceeded the medium (and it was experimental
> electronic, so CDs kind of get a by on that). That alone is reasonable
> proof to me that the dynamic range of vinyl is not sufficient for at
> least *some* real music out there, and IMNSHO, it should be reasonable
> proof for you, too.
Premium records made on 180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl are very quiet (-56 to
-60 dB), and careful handling and storage can keep them that way.
Sonnova
(in article <ge9nh...@news3.newsguy.com>):
But Arny, like most audiophiles, is heavily opinionated. He naturally tends
to present arguments and sources of information that reinforce his own
opinions. That doesn't make his opinions or his sources suspect, but it does
leave "wiggle room" for the rest of us.
C. Leeds
> >Actually, I've had several platters that rang pretty nicely if I
held them
> >in the air. Some were made out of steel sheet and also die cast
aluminum
> >or similar metal.
This description goes a long way to explain your deep dissatisfaction
with LP playback.
> >Only if it happens to an audible degree. Ever wonder why exotic LP
> >playback equipment provide zero technical tests for their products,
and
> >Stereophile has AFAIK only done one? Technical testing would
not show
a
> >real-world advantage for a lot of expensive tool work and materials.
It's
> >audio jewelry, plain and simple.
Do you mean that things like lower wow and flutter and better s/n specs
don't count? Such standard specs clearly give the advantage to better
turntables... much better than the Rega you've pronounced thusly:
> If you want
> a LP played back well, buy a used Rega with a sub-$100 phono cartridge. If
> you want bragging rights, go elsewhere.
> >It is ironic that so much is made of jitter in digital equipment
that
is
> >100 dB down or more, and so little is made of similar jitter
from LPs
that
> >is only 30 to 50 dB down.
>
So which is it? Either these things matter, or they don't.
C. Leeds
> What anyone does in this hobby is for all practical purposes only
> justifiable on a personal level in that it provides personal pleasure
> to the hobbyist. You are making many assertions about excellence
> throughout this thread as though they were somehow objective
> assertions. They are not. It is an undeniable fact that any
> qualitative aesthetic judgement is at it's very base not an objective
> measure. Personal non-objective choices are made about what
> constitutes aesthetic excellence before any measure is made of said
> excellence... When you find people making blanket evaluations of
> the medium without considering excellence on a case by case basis it
> usually suggests the assertion is born more of prejudice and strong
> bias than any geniune interest in sonic excellence.
This pretty much summarizes the problem with this discussion. It is
prejudice that drives the most vocal LP objectors. In a way, though,
it's not hard to understand. For example, Mr. Krueger wrote:
> It has always been true that the CD format can deliver an audibly perfect
> copy of the master tapes.
With that as the basis of a belief system, comparison to any other media
is virtually doomed. Nothing can be better than "audibly perfect," can it?
> I can not imagine
> anyone with anything less than a profound bias against vinyl playback
> not being able to appreciate the excellent sound one can get from
> playing an outstanding LP on an excellent playback system that
> includes excellent vinyl playback equipment.
These critics have nothing less than a "profound bias." Hence the
futility of trying to "discuss" the matter with them. Their minds are
sealed shut.
S888...@aol.com
wrote:
> On Oct 31, 8:49 am, S888Wh...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > �I think there has been many exagerrations about the poor QC from
> > Classics. I have over two hundred of their LPs. Only �a few were
> > really bad. But there really isn't much of a crapshoot. If you get a
> > bad pressing you get to exchange it for a good one. Show me a craps
> > table in vegas that lets you throw the dice until you win. It can be
> > an inconvenience. It rarely is a geniune crap shoot.
>
> Anecdotally, I've heard of people getting 50% defect rates on the
> Classics they buy. That said, I've also heard of a lot of people with
> no defective discs, or a very small number. It is fortunate that the
> major LP sellers online have gracious return policies - although I've
> also heard that most/all labels refuse to honor LP returns, which is a
> really crummy thing to do, and some local shops are starting to refuse
> new LP returns too.
I have not heard that about the labels. It is not true about analog
Productions, Classics or Music Matters. there is plenty of
documentation of Music Matters and Classics taking back defective LPs
and I know Analog Productions do it since they are my primary dealer
for audiophile records.
>
> > While forums like the Steve Hoffman forum are often helpful and very
> > informative about what went into the mastering of many CDs and LPs
> > ultimately there is a degree of risk that you just might not like the
> > same things other people like.but that is not unique to LPs. You can
> > get the same problems with any CD too. we are talking about aesthetic
> > judgements here. It aint science.
>
> I disagree. In the case of dynamic range specifically, it is rather
> easy to quantify, as long as a suitable section of silence exists on
> the record.
There is more to the quality of sound then just a measurement of
dynamic range. It is ultmatately an aesthetic judgement and all
aesthetic judgements involve some purely subjective criteria. But then
I'd have to ask, where do we get a set of objective measurements of
every mastering of every title we as music lovers may want to buy?
>
> > Any aesthetic choice ultimately is an act of sophistry is it not?
> > Ultimately any time you buy a CD or LP you run the risk that it was
> > poorly mastered as measured by your personal standards.
>
> Not at all. CDs of the same pressing have essentially zero differences
> between them. If somebody raves about the dynamic range of a
> particular CD, I can buy that CD and be absolutely guaranteed that
> I'll be hearing the same PCM signal (assuming it tracked properly and
> jitter is not an issue which is a quite reasonable assumption
> nowadays).
And you may find out that person grossly exagerated the dynamic range
or you may find out that the mastering was denoised to death etc etc
etc. there are all kinds of things that affect sound quality. i think
it is way overly simplistic to thing one can just look at a waveform
and know what the subjective sound quality will be.
> With well-pressed vinyl, the differences are significant
> but small. With poorly pressed vinyl, the differences can be huge. And
> those differences ultimately compromise the meaning of statements of
> their audio quality.
To a degree. IME to a vastly smaller degree than the differences one
hears in different masterings or the differences one hears in uprades
of vinyl playback equipment.
>
> > > Also note that, IIRC, the JVC UHQR formulations still have not been
> > > beaten by modern formulations, so in a very real sense, the art of
> > > vinyl production has regressed in that respect in the last 20 years.
>
> > I have many LPs made from both formulations. I am not so convinced
> > that the old JVC formulations are actually any better. Hard to say.
> > There are so many other variables.
>
> I haven't had the opportunity yet of listening to a good UHQR myself,
> and I agree that there are many other factors, but my understanding
> was that they were all largely optimal with UHQR, and that the
> formulation does dictate an upper bound on the dynamic range.
> Shouldn't this be pretty easy to test strictly in terms of background
> noise?
I have plenty of JVC vinyl. I can not say that it is any quieter than
the offerings from the current crop of top rate pressing plants.
S888...@aol.com
> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6mv4juF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > On Oct 30, 7:23 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >> <S888Wh...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:gecc2...@news4.newsguy.com...
> >> > I would hesitate to say that one could simply just press play when
> >> > cutting a master from a very dynamic source.There are important
> >> > choices made by the cutting engineer in every step of the process.
> >> It would appear that this is a serious fault of the LP format
> > Not at all. Just because a task requires skill to do well does not
> > mean it is inherently faulty.
>
> Sure it does.
>
> Plan A: obsess over every step of the many steps of the process, and face
> the potential of failure at every step. When you are all done, you have
> created a highly flawed product, anyway. Furthermore the market for the
> product is miniscule.
>
> Plan B: It's a one-step process and it just about can't fail. When you are
> done, you have a perceptually perfect product. Just about everybody can
> benefit from your product with no additional investements on their part.
>
> Plan A = LP from master to playable disk.
>
> Plan B = CD from master to playable disc
>
some of todays top mastering engineers say about their own jobs,
http://emusician.com/tutorials/emusic_masters_mastering/
"Mastering is an interesting profession, because there's no substitute
for experience” says Marcussen. “You can be a mastering engineer with
18 months of experience, but you're really still a babe in the woods.
Every day in mastering offers a different set of issues. When I first
started mastering, getting the ball rolling seemed to take forever. I
was learning the craft.” There is indeed a lot to learn, especially
considering that mastering engineers typically must be able to handle
projects in many different genres of music that have diverse sonic
requirements."
"Everybody wants their disc to sound great, but it seems that nowadays
a lot of people equate “best” with “loudest.” That puts a lot of
pressure on mastering engineers to compress their masters heavily so
that they can achieve as hot a level as possible.
Gateway Mastering and DVD's Bob Ludwig is concerned that some people's
practice of making masters can get as loud as possible can detract
from the musicality of the final product.
According to Ludwig, however, this is anything but a healthy
development. “This horrible trend started about eight years ago, with
the invention of digital-domain ‘look-ahead’ compressors,” he says.
“First was the German Junger compressor, then the Waves stuff, and the
most infamous of all, the TC Electronic Finalizer, a great piece of
gear that's often misused. I'm so glad these devices didn't exist when
the Beatles were making their music. Never in the history of the human
race have people been exposed to sounds as compressed as in the past
few years."
"what's the trick to keeping the natural dynamics? “That's the
creative part of mastering” says Marcussen, “and I try to fit the
creative part into the competitive part today. I was working with a
client yesterday, and we had a situation where we had an extremely
dynamic song sandwiched in between two songs that were far from that.
And when you master, the goal is that each song comes in and hold its
own.
“We had a piece that was literally a whispered vocal that went into a
huge chorus,” he continues. “It was one of those things where I had to
go ahead and manipulate the level, the rides, the moves, the this, the
that, and the other to make the song loud enough — while keeping some
honesty to the dynamics of the song. It just becomes an issue of
trying to work within the guidelines that are set up. Fortunately,
yesterday's project was a project that was a loud record but didn't
have to be the loudest record in the world. So it gave me a little
more room to work with to give the illusion of level and dynamics.”
I can easily line up ten fold this amount of testimonials from actual
mastering engineers describing the complexities of their job.
If one were to take your story about life in the mastering suite as
actually being representative of what happens with real commercial
recordings then one would be lead to believe that with every CD we
would have as you say "a perceptually perfect product" and with every
LP we would have a universlly subjectively "highly flawed poroduct."
Now lets just take a look of one example of what has happened in the
real world.
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f9/amazing-waveform-stadium-arcadium-cd-vs-upcoming-vinyl-184499/
Wow, does that look like the CD is going to sound better than the LP?
That is one of many many real world examples. I could once again line
up over a hundred examples just like this one. Now if one were to
abandon the LP format as you seem to be advocating then one would be
stuck with CDs like Stadium Arcadium. This is not the exception by the
way. This is a plague on commercial music. Don't believe me? Just read
the words above from Robert Ludwig.
An audio philosophy that would abandon vinyl would lead to the music
lover being forced to listen to many many inferior versions of the
music they want to hear. I think the picture you paint here suffers
from a profound disconnect from the real world of commercial music.
>
> > But mastering in general is a job that
> > requires skill and judgement. that is true for all formats not just LPs.
>
> Not true for all formats. The comparison above is totally factual.
Yogi Barra said it best. "In theory, there is no difference between
theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." If everything you
say is true how do you explain what happened to Stadium Arcadium along
with the vast majority of CD releases over the past decade? Would you
say your desciption of the process of mastering CDs "It's a one-step
process and it just about can't fail. When you are done, you have a
perceptually perfect product." is an accurate desciption of how the
vast majority of commercial CDs are mastered? Is it not obvious that
if one abandons vinyl one is largely stuck with these real world
mastering messes?
>
> >>- there are so
> >> many important choices to be made before and while the master is being
> >> cut.
> >> For openers, it is a *not* given that the LP will ever be able to
> >> accurately reproduce *anything* that is on the master recording.
> > I personally am not terribly concerned with absolute accuracy to the
> > master.
>
> To me, and 99% of the marketplace for recorded music, accuracy at a higher
> level than the LP is my day-to-day expectation.
That begs the question, what have you been listening to lately?
Obviously not Stadium Arcadium or any of the other thousands of CDs
that suffer from the same problems. If you liken yourself with 99% of
the market place then it would seem like the marley place you are OK
with the loudness wars. I would say that clearly puts your aesthetic
priorities in a very different place than mine. nothing wrong with
that.
> Just like I don't like
> prime rib roasted with sawdust and straw, I don't like music with audible
> noise and distortion.
If you consider yourself to be like minded with 99% of the market
place I think that puts a great deal of perspective on your aesthetic
values.
>
> > I find that to be a rather arbitrary reference that is
> > inherently flawed because it sets up playback equipment as part of
> > one's reference and I find it an impractical reference because I don't
> > have access to the master tapes.
>
> It has always been true that the CD format can deliver an audibly perfect
> copy of the master tapes.
That opinion seems to run contrary to a good many mastering enginners
who actually have had the opportunity to do side by side comparisons.
> For most audiophiles the master tapes are someone
> else's property, and they can't control what additional processing they go
> through. However, some of us produce our own master tapes, and for us the CD
> format is a very big benefit. In addition, there have always been owners of
> master tapes such as Telarc, who were committed to distributing more
> accurate renditions of their master tapes.
That accounts for very little of what I want to listen to. Are you
suggesting that I am making an irrational choice as an audiophile to
seek the best sounding masterings on either format and seek the best
sound from my vinyl playback gear because you make CDs of your
personal recordings? That makes no sense to me.
>
> >> The master
> >> has to be constrained, either through the playing of the music, or by
> >> limiting and compression during the production process.
> > There are any number of LPs that simply run completely contrary to
> > this assertion.
>
> Prove it, technically, with charts and graphs such as the ones that have
> already been used to show that the LP format at its best or close to it, is
> a very noisy and distorted medium. All we've seen here so far counter to
> our evidence is anecdotes, hype, unreliable and biased sources, and quotes
> of sales pitches.
I'll simply cite the records I am refering to.
The entire AP top 100 jazz recordings
The entire AP Blue Note series
The entire Music Matters Blue Note series
The Hoffman/Gray mastered Warner Brothers reissues.
The entire King Super Analog reissue series from the London Decca
classical catalogue
That is literally hunrdreds of LPs of some of the greatest recordings
ever made. The fact that no compression was used in mastering these
LPs is well documented. Feel free to prove using charts and graphs
that these LPs have in fact secretly been " constrained, either
through the playing of the music, or by limiting and compression
during the production process."
>
> >> In contrast, a CD master can be prepared (no cutting is involved) pretty
> >> much by pressing the start button. For openers, it is a given that the CD
> >> *will* be able to accurately reproduce *anything* that is on the master
> >> recording.
> > I would hate to think that mastering engineers are so careless as to
> > actually do what you describe.
>
> Once a CD master is prepared, that's all it takes. I can do it on a modest
> scale in my living room. Our church secretary does it every week for longer
> runs, up to several 100. A full-scale CD production facility can be fit into
> a garage, run off of house current, and produce negligable hazardous waste.
Clearly your world is very different than that of actual real world
commercial mastering engineers. As a consumer I am more concerned
about what goes on in the mastering suites where real world commercial
CDs are mastered than what happens in your living room. Any mastering
engineer who is given a master tape to master onto CD is simply
incompetent if they don't preview the tape to get levels. Find one
mastering engineer who is actually working in the business who will
tell you otherwise.
>
> > Even when mastering CDs there is always
> > more to it than just pressing the start button. It would be utterly
> > irresponsible for a mastering engineer not to preview a tape and check
> > levels at the very least.
>
> There are no levels to check.
That is an interesting claim.
>
> > More often there is plenty more to do when
> > mastering a CD than just pressing the start button. Mastering is both
> > an art and a skill set. If it were in practice as simple as just
> > pressing the start button we wouldn't have mastering engineers.
>
> But the mastering doesn't have to be done at the manufacturing facility.
> There's no need to plate the cut master within 24 hours.
Are you arguing that the reason we still have a mastering industry in
the CD age that employs many full time mastering engineers is because
"the mastering doesn't have to be done at the manufacturing facility.
There's no need to plate the cut master within 24 hours.?"
>
> >> >> At the same time, even if they did have superior dynamic range, I
> >> >> don't think it's particularly fair to argue about the dynamic range of
> >> >> vinyl based solely on audiophile pressings such as those.
> >> One of the unsolved problems of vinyl is the fact that it is a wildly
> >> inconsistent medium. In addition to the preparations that need to be made
> >> during cutting, the remaining many steps in the process will audibly
> >> adversely affect the sound quality of the recording.
> > There is an error in your logic with this argument. Just because the
> > medium requires skilled hands and ears and technical excellence to be
> > done well does not mean that it is a wildly inconsistant medium.
>
> There's no error in a statement that describes the fabrication of the LP
> product as it has been all along, and is today.
That is irrelevant to the error in your logic.
>
> >> For example, the LP master needs to be plated within 24 hours of
> >> cutting,
> >> which is practically impossible unless the cutting room and plating room
> >> are
> >> close to each other.
> > That is much ado about nothing. take a look at how they do it at RTI.
> >http://www.recordtech.com/default.htm
> > State of the art cutting, plating and pressing all under one roof.
>
> Exceptional enough that they make a big point of advertising it. I didn't
> say it can't be done, I said it had to be done.
And I simply pointed out that it is being done. So it was much ado
about nothing.
>
> >> The plating room is generally at the pressing plant,
> >> but for obvious reasons must be carefully separated from the mastering
> >> room.
> >> So you have a conundrum right there, to meet time constraints you would
> >> like
> >> to cut and plate in places that are close to each other, but the cutting
> >> room and the plating room have to be carefully separated from each other.
> > That really isn't a big problem. They actually offer tours of the
> > facilities at RTI. Just go visit them. See for yourself how easily
> > they solved this problem.
>
> Did they really solve the problems or are you being misled by a fancy web
> site?
The problem of cutting and plating within 24 hours? Yes, they really
have solved that problem.
>
> Do plant tours always reveal day-to-day operations?
I don't know about always. You could visit for yourself if you have
any doubts.
Jenn
Richard Tollerton <richard....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anecdotally, I've heard of people getting 50% defect rates on the
> Classics they buy. That said, I've also heard of a lot of people with
> no defective discs, or a very small number.
Count me among the later. I have 12 Classic LPs, and have had no
problems. Perhaps I'm just lucky. In fact, I've had no problems among
any of the modern "audiophile" lablels...Classic, Speakers Corner, et
al. Nor have I ever had any problems with "audiophile" LPs of a little
older vintage... Reference, Chesky, Opus 3, et al.
Arny Krueger
news:geg0s...@news7.newsguy.com
> Nobody disputes that vinyl has "inherent technical
> problems", After all, vinyl playback involves a
> transducer and several different mechanical processes.
> The amazing thing is that a good record can sound so
> astonishingly real. Admittedly, such records are few and
> far between, but the best can sound significantly more
> real than a CD of the same performance.
Two words: Bad mastering. There is zero technical justification for a LP to
*ever* sound better or even as good as a CD.
But, the human factor is unavoidable - nothing prevents people from doing
crazy or stupid or even just lazy things during tracking and mastering,
regardless of the delivery medium.
Arny Krueger
> Premium records made on 180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl are
> very quiet (-56 to -60 dB), and careful handling and
> storage can keep them that way.
Trouble is that just about every live performance of classical music has
more like 65 dB dynamic range, and some go up into the 80s.
It is a rule of thumb that the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) must at all times
at least be positive, for there to be an effective listening situation. If
the actual sound level is very low, then SNRs of as low as 10 dB can be
permissible.
Arny Krueger
news:geg2u...@news3.newsguy.com
>> Sure it does.
Wrong.
You've obviously confused by the various meaning sof the word mastering. I
tried to make the difference between mastering a CD and mastering a LP clear
but it clearly didn't work.
Here's a document from an independent source that explains the difference.
http://www.josephson.com/audiofaq
Q6.3 - What is mastering?
Mastering is a multifaceted term that is often misunderstood. Back in
the days of vinyl records, mastering involved the actual cutting of
the master that would be used for pressing. This often involved a
variety of sonic adjustments so that the mixed tape would ultimately
be properly rendered on vinyl.
The age of the CD has changed the meaning of the term quite a bit.
There are now two elements often called mastering. The first is the
eminently straightforward process of preparing a master for pressing.
<break>
Compare
"Back in the days of vinyl records, mastering involved the actual cutting of
the master that would be used for pressing. This often involved a
variety of sonic adjustments so that the mixed tape would ultimately
be properly rendered on vinyl."
This is what I called "Plan A"
and contrast:
"The age of the CD has changed the meaning of the term quite a bit.
There are now two elements often called mastering. The first is the
eminently straightforward process of preparing a master for pressing."
This is what I called "Plan B"
Note that the FAQ acknowleges that my Plan B is as I said: "eminently
straightforward".
Now we get into a different process that you confused with my "Plan A" and
"Plan B":
<end break>
" Mastering's more common meaning, however, is the art of making a
recording sound "commercial." Is is the last chance one has to get
the recording sounding the way it ought to. Tasks often done in
mastering include: adjustment of time between pieces, quality of
fade-in/out, relation of levels between tracks (such that the listener
doesn't have to go swinging the volume control all over the place),
program EQ to achieve a desired consistency, compression to make one's
disc sound LOUDER than others on the market, the list goes on.
"A good mastering engineer can often take a poorly-produced recording
and make it suitable for the market. A bad one can make a good
recording sound terrible. Some recordings are so well produced,
mixed, and edited that all they need is to be given PQ subcode and
sent right out. Other recordings are made by people on ego trips, who
think they know everything about recording, and who make recordings
that are, technically speaking, wretched trash.
"Good mastering professionals are acquainted with many styles of music,
and know what it is that their clients hope to achieve. They then use
their tools either lightly or severely to accomplish all the multiple
steps involved in preparing a disc for pressing.
The process described in the 3 paragraphs above is *not* what I was talking
about. It *is* what the varioius quotes you provided were talking about.
In other words, from this point onward, one selects "Plan A" to make vinyl
and "Plan B" to make a CD.
Arny Krueger
> Arny wrote:
> > >Actually, I've had several platters that rang
> pretty nicely if I held them
> > >in the air. Some were made out of steel sheet and
> also die cast aluminumor similar metal.
> This description goes a long way to explain your deep
> dissatisfaction with LP playback.
Not at all.
> Do you mean that things like lower wow and flutter and
> better s/n specs don't count?
Show me the results of appropriate technical tests showing that exotic
turntables as a rule have better wow, flutter, and s/n performance than good
moderately priced turntables.
> Such standard specs clearly
> give the advantage to better turntables... much better
> than the Rega you've pronounced thusly:
Show me actual technical test results that support this claim.
Arny Krueger
For example, Mr. Krueger
> wrote:
>> It has always been true that the CD format can deliver
>> an audibly perfect copy of the master tapes.
> With that as the basis of a belief system, comparison to
> any other media is virtually doomed. Nothing can be
> better than "audibly perfect," can it?
The logical error here is that a medium need not be better than "audibly
perfect" in order to succeed.
Two counter-examples come to mind
(1) Pre-recorded cassettes which were very sucessful at taking market share
away from the LP even though as a rule they did not sound better.
(2) Digital music downloads, which seem to be taking market share away from
the CD even though they can never sound better, all other things being
equal.
The logical error is symptomatic the narrow idea that "sounding better" as
the only chance that a medium has to survive. A person who makes this error
cannot comprehend that other properties, such as being more convenient, can
matter to a great many people. They will assert to their dying day that
whatever medium they prefer *must* sound better.
S888...@aol.com
> "Sonnova" <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
Which of these CDs would you say were badly mastered?
http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=1252170&cart=793517002
http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/pid/1230801/a/Moanin'+(Blue+Note).htm
http://www.tower.com/mudcrutch-mudcruth-cd/wapi/111980258
http://www.amazon.com/Sunday-Village-Vanguard-Bill-Evans/dp/B000000Y87
http://www.amazon.com/Raising-Robert-Plant-Alison-Krauss/dp/B000UMQDHC
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
>
> (2) Digital music downloads, which seem to be taking market share away from
> the CD even though they can never sound better, all other things being
> equal.
>
>
It's not quite true that MP3s can't sound better than the absolute best CD.
It's not quite true that CDs are perfect.
First, the CD does have an audible limitation in frequency response. Now
I can't comment, at this time, on the effect of that, because I'm 63 years old
and can't hear above 14 kHZ. BUT ... when I was a teenage audiophile
(we did exist back then!) I could hear quite well to 22 kHZ and even a bit
farther out, to 23 kHz. I'd be will it suggest that a bunch of
teenage audiophiles today (never having been to a rock concert, of course,
or a terrorist bombing) could tell the difference between
a 20 kHZ cutoff and a 23 kHZ one, on suitable material (e.g. cymbals,
triangle, etc.) MP3s are capable of higher frequencies than CDs are.
Also, MP3s are capable of larger dynamic range than are CDs. Unless played
loud enough to soon ruin the hearing above 20 kHz, and in a really really
quiet room, I, like Arny, doubt that a CD is inadequate even for the
widest dynamic range of real music (e.g. Mahler 2nd or 8th symphonies,
not volume compressed.) But if the CD is in fact inadequate, the MP3
would do OK. That's assuming that 320 kB/sec is "OK".
I've used "MP3" as synonymous for "digital download" ... but of course,
there ARE losslessly encoded downloads that can be more than 16 bit, more than
44.1 kHZ sampling.
Let me emphasize that I am not claiming that **I** can hear the difference ...
I can't. I make my own MP3s with a 14 kHz cutoff at VBR at about 166 to 180
kB/sec and they sound perfect to me, compared to the source.
Doug McDonald
Sonnova
(in article <gehop...@news7.newsguy.com>):
> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
> news:geg10...@news7.newsguy.com
>
>> Premium records made on 180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl are
>> very quiet (-56 to -60 dB), and careful handling and
>> storage can keep them that way.
>
> Trouble is that just about every live performance of classical music has
> more like 65 dB dynamic range, and some go up into the 80s.
That's true, but in most domestic situations that kind of dynamic range is
impractical. Turn it up loud enough to hear the soft passages well and the
fffs will be lease breakers. Limited dynamic range is really not the problem
some of you make it out to be.
Sonnova
(in article <6n1r68F...@mid.individual.net>):
All of the Classic Records titles that I have purchased (at $60+ a pop for
the single-sided, 45 RPM Classics) have been very high quality.
Sonnova
(in article <6n37h0F...@mid.individual.net>):
Most people don't care about quality -in anything. That includes good, or
even accurate sound (not always the same thing).
Sonnova
(in article <6n217jF...@mid.individual.net>):
I don't buy that. I have a number of single-sided, 45 RPM Classic Records LPs
of old RCA Victor Red Seal, and Mercury Living Presence recordings that sound
better than the CDs or the more recently mastered SACDs of these
performances. The CDs of the Mercury recordings were mastered by Wilma Cozert
Fine, the recordings' original producer and are advertised to sound exactly
like the master tape. But the CLassic Records LPs sound MUCH better. Even you
would agree if you heard both side-by-side. I recently bought the newly
mastered SACD of this same title to see if they did a better job this time
and it sounds just exactly like the older CD release. The same thing is true
of the RCA Victor reissues on CD and later on SACD. None sound as good as the
Classic Records LPs.
I don't doubt that the CDs sound more like the master tape than do the
Classic Records reissues on vinyl, but the records sound more like I remember
a live performance sounding (and since I record a lot, I know what live
performances sound like). To me this is about the illusion of having a real
performance in my own living room. Anything that gets me closer to that
illusion is, in my humble opinion, good, and accuracy be damned. If I can
have both, I'll take that too. I'm going to go for the source that is the
most musically satisfying - every time. If that's CD, then it's CD, if its LP
in some cases, then so be it. And in SOME cases it IS LP, despite your
protestations to the contrary.
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
>
> (2) Digital music downloads, which seem to be taking market share away from
> the CD even though they can never sound better, all other things being
> equal.
>
>
It's not quite true that MP3s can't sound better than the absolute best CD.
Arny Krueger
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:37:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <6n217jF...@mid.individual.net>):
>
>> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
>> news:geg0s...@news7.newsguy.com
>>
>>> Nobody disputes that vinyl has "inherent technical
>>> problems", After all, vinyl playback involves a
>>> transducer and several different mechanical processes.
>>> The amazing thing is that a good record can sound so
>>> astonishingly real. Admittedly, such records are few and
>>> far between, but the best can sound significantly more
>>> real than a CD of the same performance.
>>
>> Two words: Bad mastering. There is zero technical
>> justification for a LP to *ever* sound better or even as
>> good as a CD.
>>
>> But, the human factor is unavoidable - nothing prevents
>> people from doing crazy or stupid or even just lazy
>> things during tracking and mastering, regardless of the
>> delivery medium.
> I don't buy that. I have a number of single-sided, 45 RPM
> Classic Records LPs of old RCA Victor Red Seal, and
> Mercury Living Presence recordings that sound better than
> the CDs or the more recently mastered SACDs of these
> performances.
I'd bet money that if we did a good digital transcription of those oldies,
you'd like the transcriptions just as much in a bias-controlled evaluation.
> The CDs of the Mercury recordings were
> mastered by Wilma Cozert Fine, the recordings' original
> producer and are advertised to sound exactly like the
> master tape.
She ain't the same lady who was there when they were recorded, and AFAIK she
didn't do the original mastering all by herself.
> But the CLassic Records LPs sound MUCH
> better.
Mastering is a profound enough process that its powers can explain all that
and more.
> Even you would agree if you heard both
> side-by-side. I recently bought the newly mastered SACD
> of this same title to see if they did a better job this
> time and it sounds just exactly like the older CD
> release.
Hmmm. It might be the older CD release's master, transcribed onto new media.
> The same thing is true of the RCA Victor
> reissues on CD and later on SACD. None sound as good as
> the Classic Records LPs.
> I don't doubt that the CDs sound more like the master
> tape than do the Classic Records reissues on vinyl, but
> the records sound more like I remember a live performance
> sounding (and since I record a lot, I know what live
> performances sound like).
I disagree with that. I record a lot and I'm sure that I don't know squat
about most live performances sound like, other than perhaps the ones I
recorded. Furthermore, the live performances I've recorded have as many
distinct sounds as there are spots in the room where they were recorded,
that are more than about six feet apart.
> To me this is about the
> illusion of having a real performance in my own living
> room.
I've never ever heard a recording sound like much more than a
semi-believable approximation of a live performance.
> Anything that gets me closer to that illusion is,
> in my humble opinion, good, and accuracy be damned.
The idea that the arbitrary twists and turns that recordings go through in
the production process can some how become closer because of the random
addition of the even more arbitrary twists and turns inherent in the LP
recording process surely taxes the imagination.
Arny Krueger
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 07:23:53 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <gehop...@news7.newsguy.com>):
>
>> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
>> news:geg10...@news7.newsguy.com
>>
>>> Premium records made on 180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl are
>>> very quiet (-56 to -60 dB), and careful handling and
>>> storage can keep them that way.
>>
>> Trouble is that just about every live performance of
>> classical music has more like 65 dB dynamic range, and
>> some go up into the 80s.
> That's true, but in most domestic situations that kind of
> dynamic range is impractical.
I agree, but this is a high end audio forum, and hopefully we aren't talking
about listening to recordings in "most domestic situations".
Furthermore, while providing 80 dB dynamic range in a good listening room
can be challenging, providing 65 dB is not that much of a challenge.
> Turn it up loud enough to
> hear the soft passages well and the fffs will be lease
> breakers. Limited dynamic range is really not the problem
> some of you make it out to be.
Limited dynamic range can even be a boon if you are listening to a cheap
stereo and/or listening in a noisy room.
S888...@aol.com
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:37:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Sonnova" <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
> >news:geg0s...@news7.newsguy.com
>
> >> Nobody disputes that vinyl has "inherent technical
> >> problems", After all, vinyl playback involves a
> >> transducer and several different mechanical processes.
> >> The amazing thing is that a good record can sound so
> >> astonishingly real. Admittedly, such records are few and
> >> far between, but the best can sound significantly more
> >> real than a CD of the same performance.
>
> > Two words: Bad mastering. There is zero technical justification for a LP to
> > *ever* sound better or even as good as a CD.
>
> > But, the human factor is unavoidable - nothing �prevents people from doing
> > crazy or stupid or even just lazy things during tracking and mastering,
> > regardless of the delivery medium.
>
> I don't buy that. I have a number of single-sided, 45 RPM Classic Records LPs
> of old RCA Victor Red Seal, and Mercury Living Presence recordings that sound
> better than the CDs or the more recently mastered SACDs of these
> performances. The CDs of the Mercury recordings were mastered by Wilma Cozert
> Fine, the recordings' original producer and are advertised to sound exactly
> like the master tape. But the CLassic Records LPs sound MUCH better. Even you
> would agree if you heard both side-by-side. I recently bought the newly
> mastered SACD of this same title to see if they did a better job this time
> and it sounds just exactly like the older CD release. The same thing is true
> of the RCA Victor reissues on CD and later on SACD. None sound as good as the
> Classic Records LPs.
The Mercury Living Presence CD reissues were actually remastered by
Dennis Drake. Dennis Drake is a top flight mastering engineer and he
went to amazing lengths to do the best job he could on these CDs. Here
is a paper that documents the work he did on this project.
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=6891
Unfortunately I can't find the article on line any more, It used to be
available on line for everyone to read. It documents the great lengths
Dennis went through to get a proper set up using vintage playback
equipment to get the most accurate signal from the master tapes. He
also went to great lengths to find the best A/D converter. He found
significant differences between competing converters at the time. It
required a tremendous effort to get a signal from the tapes that was
true to their original input and to get a near transparent transfer of
that signal to the CDs. It would seem that he needed to do more than
just press the start button. So we are indeed talking about CDs that
are about as well mastered as possible if one is looking for
transparency to the original mic feed.
>
> I don't doubt that the CDs sound more like the master tape than do the
> Classic Records reissues on vinyl, but the records sound more like I remember
> a live performance sounding (and since I record a lot, I know what live
> performances sound like). To me this is about the illusion of having a real
> performance in my own living room. Anything that gets me closer to that
> illusion is, in my humble opinion, good, and accuracy be damned. If I can
> have both, I'll take that too. I'm going to go for the source that is the
> most musically satisfying - every time. If that's CD, then it's CD, if its LP
> in some cases, then so be it. And in SOME cases it IS LP, despite your
> protestations to the contrary. �- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That is exactly my feeling about the aesthetic evaluation of playback
too. What it boils down to is one has to ask what is good sound? IMO
good sound is sound that makes the music more intrinsically beautiful
and involving on an emotional level. The reason we value "accuracy" is
because we have already found this beauty and emotional involvement in
live music for centuries. With experience in listening to live music
we can find a sphere of sounds that we find beautiful and emotionally
involving. The point of audio was originally to create an illusion of
the original performance from a single perspective because that sound
was usually within that sphere of sounds that we commonly find
beautiful and emotionally involving. I would assert that accuracy for
the sake of accuracy is a philosophy that misses the point. To me the
only value in accuracy is in how it helps us create an illusion of
live music that falls within the sphere of sounds that we commonly
find beautiful and emotionally involving. Beyond getting us within
that sphere of aesthetic beauty and emotional involvement, accuracy
becomes academic. The problem is of course that the sphere of sound
one finds in recording and playback often has little crossover with
that sphere of sound we treasure from live music. IMO the more our
playback crosses over with the sphere of sounds we idealize the better
the playback is. I don't care whether I get there via greater
technical accuracy in the recording and playback chain or not. The
technology has to serve the aesthetic goals, not the other way around.
This makes some people uncomfortable because it is a lot more
difficult to quantify intirinsic beauty and emotional involvement than
it is to quantify the measured accuracy of an electrical waveform.
And I must say that my experience with the Classics and Speaker's
Corner reissues on vinyl mirror yours. Despite the superb efforts made
by Dennis Drake in mastering the Mercury Living Presence recordings
the reissues from Classics and Speaker's Corner, in a few head to head
comparisons, were more lifelike, beautiful and involving.
I would add this note for any jazz lovers. Look into the reissue
series from Analog Productions and Music Matters on 45 RPM. The
improvement in sound wrought over any previous versions of those
titles is amazing. And the music? Forget it, were talking about a
substantial portion of the greatest jazz ever recorded. The two series
from Analog Productions and the one from Music Matters are IMO the
most significant series of reissues in the history of recorded music
and are an amazing treasure for audiophiles and music lovers.
Mike Gilmour
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 07:23:53 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
> (in article <gehop...@news7.newsguy.com>):
>
>> "Sonnova" <son...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
>> news:geg10...@news7.newsguy.com
>>
>>> Premium records made on 180 or 200 gram virgin vinyl are
>>> very quiet (-56 to -60 dB), and careful handling and
>>> storage can keep them that way.
>>
>> Trouble is that just about every live performance of classical music has
>> more like 65 dB dynamic range, and some go up into the 80s.
>
> That's true, but in most domestic situations that kind of dynamic range is
> impractical. Turn it up loud enough to hear the soft passages well and the
> fffs will be lease breakers. Limited dynamic range is really not the
> problem
> some of you make it out to be.
>>
I agree, that amount of dynamic range is impractical. Generally records give
me all the dynamic range need or want, occasionally on some 45 rpm cuts its
too much dynamic range and I fear for my ears and the speakers & quickly
lower the level. In my room, on my system, it gives me all the range I want
going from a whisper to crescendo - why should I want more?
I live in the countryside, it is really quiet in my listening room so a
whisper really is just that.
Arny Krueger
in message news:gei2a...@news1.newsguy.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> (2) Digital music downloads, which seem to be taking
>> market share away from the CD even though they can never
>> sound better, all other things being equal.
> It's not quite true that MP3s can't sound better than the
> absolute best CD. It's not quite true that CDs are
> perfect.
> First, the CD does have an audible limitation in
> frequency response.
No, they don't. There is a measurable limitation at 22 KHz, but there is
plenty of evidence that a brick wall filter at say 18 KHz is simply not
heard when applied to virtually all music.
> BUT
> ... when I was a teenage audiophile (we did exist back
> then!) I could hear quite well to 22 kHZ and even a bit
> farther out, to 23 kHz.
Ignores the principle of masking. Hearing a pure tone at some frequency and
hearing the removal of all sound above that frequency are two vastly
different things. When you listen to music, what hear more strongly masks
out a great deal of things that are not as strong, until those things are in
a different critical band. This is the effect that makes MP3s work at all.
Were it not for masking, even the best MP3s would sound like something from
outer space.
The critical bands vary in frequency, but above 1 KHz they range from about
1/2 to 1/3 octave in width. The strongest sound in a critical band
dominates what you hear, and other weaker sounds in the critical band can be
completely masked from your perception if they lack sufficient strength.
Above about 4 KHz it gets harder and harder to hear sounds at higher
frequencies, as Fletcher and Munson found about 50 years ago, and as people
re-confirm every once in a while.
Put this together with masking, and we find that in the critical band above
about 13 Khz, the sounds at the lower end of this final critical band tend
to dominate even if sounds at higher frequencies are somewhat stronger.
because they are naturally stronger because of how musical instruments work
and because the ear's sensitivity is falling off rapidly. The net effect
is that the sounds below 16 kHz generally mask the sounds above 16 KHz.
This effect is so strong that a brick wall filter can be placed in the 16-18
KHz range with no audible effect whatsoever.
Compared to 16-18 KHz, the 22 KHz low pass filtering is completely benign,
and extending response up to 22 KHz is actually overkill.
> I'd be will it suggest that a bunch of teenage audiophiles today (never
> having been to a rock
> concert, of course, or a terrorist bombing) could tell the difference
> between
> a 20 kHZ cutoff and a 23 kHZ one, on suitable material
> (e.g. cymbals, triangle, etc.) MP3s are capable of higher
> frequencies than CDs are.
Those tests have been done a great many times, and in fact a brick-wall low
pass filter in the 16-18 KHz band has no audible effect, even for young
people with excellent hearing.
> Also, MP3s are capable of larger dynamic range than are
> CDs.
No, they are not. The practical dynamic range of MP3s typically maxes out
at about 80 dB due to the limitations of the filters that are used to
identify and remove sounds that are masked out.
Furthermore, it is exceedingly common for MP3 encoders to summarily remove
all sounds above 16 kHz because they are simply not missed by human
listeners.
out...@city-net.com
soliloquy. As I recall, it originated on this ng. A digital recording
was made of an lp. In blind tests the two could not be distinguished.
Whatever was on the lp was faithfully reproduced for the listeners from
the digital copy. If it was on the lp as it was carried in the signal it
was copied well enough in all its detail on the digital copy so as to also
appear in the signal from the digital copy. Nothing was added nor removed
to such a degree that it could be distinguished above some threshold
inherent to making them sound alike.
The below could easily be used to repeat the test. Record the copies unto
a cd and see if they can be distinguished as to medium or any other
criteria for that matter.
Mike Gilmour
news:6n1r68F...@mid.individual.net...
I'm very surprised at the 50% defect rates on Classics - I have a number of
Classics (not counted them) and I don't recall any being defective, in fact
they all are to my knowledge of excellent quality.
S888...@aol.com
> "Sonnova" <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message> > (in article <6n217jFisau...@mid.individual.net>):
>
> >> "Sonnova" <sonn...@audiosanatorium.com> wrote in message
> >>news:geg0s...@news7.newsguy.com
>
> > The CDs of the Mercury recordings were
> > mastered by Wilma Cozert Fine, the recordings' original
> > producer and are advertised to sound exactly like the
> > master tape.
>
> She ain't the same lady who was there when they were recorded, and AFAIK she
> didn't do the original mastering all by herself.
Actually she is the same lady. But you are right about her not doing
the original mastering. That was done by George Piros.
>
> > �But the CLassic Records LPs sound MUCH
> > better.
>
> Mastering is a profound enough process that its powers can explain all that
> and more.
Given the efforts made by Dennis Drake what explination would you
offer here?
>
> > Even you would agree if you heard both
> > side-by-side. I recently bought the newly mastered SACD
> > of this same title to see if they did a better job this
> > time and it sounds just exactly like the older CD
> > release.
>
> Hmmm. It might be the older CD release's master, transcribed onto new media.
Nope.
http://www.deccaclassics.com/music/mercurylivingpresence/press_release.html
>
> > The same thing is true of the RCA Victor
> > reissues on CD and later on SACD. None sound as good as
> > the Classic Records LPs.
> > I don't doubt that the CDs sound more like the master
> > tape than do the Classic Records reissues on vinyl, but
> > the records sound more like I remember a live performance
> > sounding (and since I record a lot, I know what live
> > performances sound like).
>
> I disagree with that.
How can you possibly disagree with another person's aesthetic
evaluation of records and CDs you have not even heard?
jwvm
<snip->
> First, the CD does have an audible limitation in frequency response. Now
> I can't comment, at this time, on the effect of that, because I'm 63 years old
> and can't hear above 14 kHZ. BUT ... when I was a teenage audiophile
> (we did exist back then!) I could hear quite well to 22 kHZ and even a bit
> farther out, to 23 kHz. I'd be will it suggest that a bunch of
> teenage audiophiles today (never having been to a rock concert, of course,
> or a terrorist bombing) could tell the difference between
> a 20 kHZ cutoff and a 23 kHZ one, on suitable material (e.g. cymbals,
> triangle, etc.) MP3s are capable of higher frequencies than CDs are.
There is a difference between being able to hear a pure frequency and
a frequency when other frequencies are present. Extremely high
frequencies are very likely to be inaudible in the presence of louder
lower frequencies. This, in fact, is one of the strategies used when
mp3 files are created. Perceptual coding removes frequencies that are
masked by other frequencies.
>
> Also, MP3s are capable of larger dynamic range than are CDs.
It is difficult to make a case that there is any advantage to having a
format with more dynamic range than a CD. The dynamic range of real-
world recordings are well below the 96 dB range of the CD standard.
> Unless played
> loud enough to soon ruin the hearing above 20 kHz, and in a really really
> quiet room, I, like Arny, doubt that a CD is inadequate even for the
> widest dynamic range of real music (e.g. Mahler 2nd or 8th symphonies,
> not volume compressed.) But if the CD is in fact inadequate, the MP3
> would do OK. That's assuming that 320 kB/sec is "OK".
>
> I've used "MP3" as synonymous for "digital download" ... but of course,
> there ARE losslessly encoded downloads that can be more than 16 bit, more than
> 44.1 kHZ sampling.
Note that bit rates must be something like twice as high as 320 kB/
second for truely lossless CD-quality recordings.
>
> Let me emphasize that I am not claiming that **I** can hear the difference ...
> I can't. I make my own MP3s with a 14 kHz cutoff at VBR at about 166 to
> 180 > kB/sec and they sound perfect to me, compared to the source.
Many people would agree with you here. Others claim that such
recordings sound terrible. Unbiased testing might provide interesting
results, however.
Sonnova
(in article <geitn...@news4.newsguy.com>):
What makes you think that I would dispute that assertion? I'm sure of it.
That in no way alters the fact that the Classic LP releases sound better than
the commercial CDs and SACD releases of the same performances. A well-made CD
copy of one of these LPs will likewise sound better than does the commercial
releases of these same titles.
>> The CDs of the Mercury recordings were
>> mastered by Wilma Cozert Fine, the recordings' original
>> producer and are advertised to sound exactly like the
>> master tape.
>
> She ain't the same lady who was there when they were recorded, and AFAIK she
> didn't do the original mastering all by herself.
True, but she's the only one left who was there.
>
>> But the CLassic Records LPs sound MUCH
>> better.
>
> Mastering is a profound enough process that its powers can explain all that
> and more.
Doesn't alter the fact...
>> Even you would agree if you heard both
>> side-by-side. I recently bought the newly mastered SACD
>> of this same title to see if they did a better job this
>> time and it sounds just exactly like the older CD
>> release.
>
> Hmmm. It might be the older CD release's master, transcribed onto new media.
Whatever, it doesn't change the fact that the LP sounds better.
>
>> The same thing is true of the RCA Victor
>> reissues on CD and later on SACD. None sound as good as
>> the Classic Records LPs.
>
>> I don't doubt that the CDs sound more like the master
>> tape than do the Classic Records reissues on vinyl, but
>> the records sound more like I remember a live performance
>> sounding (and since I record a lot, I know what live
>> performances sound like).
>
> I disagree with that. I record a lot and I'm sure that I don't know squat
> about most live performances sound like, other than perhaps the ones I
> recorded. Furthermore, the live performances I've recorded have as many
> distinct sounds as there are spots in the room where they were recorded,
> that are more than about six feet apart.
That's your prerogative.
>
>> To me this is about the
>> illusion of having a real performance in my own living
>> room.
>
> I've never ever heard a recording sound like much more than a
> semi-believable approximation of a live performance.
That's your problem. I realize that the illusion is to a degree and adjust my
expectations accordingly.
>
>> Anything that gets me closer to that illusion is,
>> in my humble opinion, good, and accuracy be damned.
>
> The idea that the arbitrary twists and turns that recordings go through in
> the production process can some how become closer because of the random
> addition of the even more arbitrary twists and turns inherent in the LP
> recording process surely taxes the imagination.
It sure seems to tax yours. No offense meant.