A *Real Engineer* Speaks on LP versus CD
Arny Krueger
news:dvpae...@news4.newsguy.com
I myself am an analog designer. I have 30 years experience designing
analog microcircuits and have 22 patents. I also have several honors
from EDN and Electronic Design magazines. I mention this so you can
understand I have a strong appreciation for analog design.
Nevertheless, as a realistic engineer, I know that digital does a
better job in many areas, including CD and records. Given the same
music source for both, then
1) To make the record you must use a lathe to cut spiral groves into a
laquer coated aluminum disc, then the music source is used to modulate
a second, precise cutting stylus to cut the music grooves, then the
disc is metal plated multiple times, and the original disc is removed,
leaving a metal negative suitable for stamping vinyl. Each processing
step is a later generation copy, and every step results in some degree
of degradation, hopefully not audible, but there nevertheless. Also,
the cutting stylus is controlled by an electromechanical transducer,
which has a non-linear response, so the transducer is operated in an
approximately linear range, and it is hoped that the non-linearities
are small enough not to be audible. The next step is stamping the
vinyl, and each pressing degrades the metal stamping negative, they
are only good for about 1000 pressings, and the 1000th record is not
as good as the first, but again, hopefully the degradation will not be
noticed. Further, due to the limitations of the vinyl and to reduce
certain distortions, particularly distorions of the required
electromechanical transducer required for playback, a defined
amplitude distorion in introduced on the stamping master, called RIAA
equalization. To play the resulting record, we have to drag a stylus
through the grooves, using again a non-linear electromechanical
transducer, and again we need a good transducer so the non-linear
region is far enough outside the operating region that they are small
enough not to be noticable. Of course, we have to introduce a defined
distortion to compensate for the RIAA distorion, and hope they match
well enough not to be audible.
2) To make a CD, a digital music source is preferred, but if an analog
master is used, it goes through an A/D converter. A/D converters come
in different speeds and accuracies. and it is easy to find one that
has accuracy as arbitrarily low as desired. Very high quality A/D's
are used and 0.001% accuracy is commonly available. The CD also has a
number of manufacturing steps, but each digital generation, unlike the
succeeding analog generations above, lose no data. No soft harmonics
are lost or noise generated because the copied data are large
amplitude pulses. If a pulse were to be dropped due to a defect in the
medium, there is sufficient data for digital algorithyms to precisely
recover the pulse, resulting in an exact copy. There is no
electromechanical transducer used anywhere, and light is used to read
the digital data stream. It is easy to find a high accuracy D/A
converter to keep distortion levels extremely low.
So, one medium degrades at each step of the manufacturing process,
requires a defined distortion to be introduced, uses non-linear
electromechanical transducers as part of the manufacturing and
playback process, and each stamped copy is degraded from the previous
one as the stamping master grooves degrade. Further, the resulting
record degrades each playback as the mechanical stylus wears the
vinyl. When the first records were wax cyliners, the manufacturing and
playback ditortions were obvious, when they were 78 discs, they were
better but still obvious, when they were 45's and electronics were
used, they were better still, but still there, and with 33's and
better electronics and manufacturing methods, they are much better
yet. They are still there, but at a level most people don't notice.
Further, the record has significantlimitations on dynamic range and
stereo separation, again because of the use of electromechanical
transducers in the manufacturing and playback.
The other medium makes exact copies at all manufacturing steps,
results in an exact copy, is played back with light as a pickup, and
reproduces the original source with all fundamentals and harmonics,
alll amplitudes and phases, and does so with distortion levels on the
0.001% level. No mechanical transducers, no playback wear, no dynamic
range compromises, no stereo limitations, and distortion levels prders
of magnitude lower than vinyl.
It's no wonder the CD replaced the record overnight. If someone claims
to prefer the sound of the record, that's fine, but they are not
listening to a cleaner, more accurate recording, it just means that
the remaining distortions give a sound that is pleasing to them. Do
not make the claim, though, that the record is more accurate or has
less distortion, or that digital processing loses information that one
can hear in the record. This is nonsense.
MINe 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> <mel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dvpae...@news4.newsguy.com
<snip>
> So, one medium degrades at each step of the manufacturing process,
> requires a defined distortion to be introduced, uses non-linear
> electromechanical transducers as part of the manufacturing and
> playback process, and each stamped copy is degraded from the previous
> one as the stamping master grooves degrade. Further, the resulting
> record degrades each playback as the mechanical stylus wears the
> vinyl. When the first records were wax cyliners, the manufacturing and
> playback ditortions were obvious, when they were 78 discs, they were
> better but still obvious, when they were 45's and electronics were
> used, they were better still, but still there, and with 33's and
> better electronics and manufacturing methods, they are much better
> yet. They are still there, but at a level most people don't notice.
> Further, the record has significantlimitations on dynamic range and
> stereo separation, again because of the use of electromechanical
> transducers in the manufacturing and playback.
Limits rarely challenged on commercial recordings.
> The other medium makes exact copies at all manufacturing steps,
> results in an exact copy, is played back with light as a pickup, and
> reproduces the original source with all fundamentals and harmonics,
> alll amplitudes and phases, and does so with distortion levels on the
> 0.001% level.
Below 20 kHz, that is, and assuming competent playback.
> No mechanical transducers, no playback wear, no dynamic
> range compromises, no stereo limitations, and distortion levels prders
> of magnitude lower than vinyl.
>
> It's no wonder the CD replaced the record overnight. If someone claims
> to prefer the sound of the record, that's fine, but they are not
> listening to a cleaner, more accurate recording, it just means that
> the remaining distortions give a sound that is pleasing to them. Do
> not make the claim, though, that the record is more accurate or has
> less distortion, or that digital processing loses information that one
> can hear in the record. This is nonsense.
He left out recording and mastering, and his opinion of "accurate" is an
engineer's view that doesn't include the perceptual process, or
"listening," as we call it.
Stephen
Robert Morein
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:jZadnSIahqX...@comcast.com...[snip]
This is, to me, old hat.
My understanding of the issue is that most people who prefer vinyl
understand that measured distortion of vinyl is much, much higher than any
digital format. The reason they prefer vinyl is because it agrees with their
ears more.
I accept the "vinyl process" as one which modifies sound to be more
agreeable to some listeners. They may additionally argue that the result
sounds to them more like the live event. Since this is a subjective
statement, there really is nothing to argue about.
Is there anyone out there who actually believes that vinyl can best CD in
the "live mic feed" distinguishability test?
Arny Krueger
news:smcatut-B8013A...@news-fe-03.texas.rr.com
Untrue.
The audible limitations of the LP format are extremely intrusive and
pervasive. The intergenerational losses inherent in the LP format are
generally intolerable for commercial purposes, except in extreme situations.
Note how quickly magnetic tape replaced LPs as mastering media back in the
1950s, never to return.
>> The other medium makes exact copies at all manufacturing
>> steps, results in an exact copy, is played back with
>> light as a pickup, and reproduces the original source
>> with all fundamentals and harmonics, alll amplitudes and
>> phases, and does so with distortion levels on the
>> 0.001% level.
> Below 20 kHz, that is,
There's no known generally-accepted scientific reason to worry about
response above 20 KHz.
> and assuming competent playback.
A straw man argument if there ever was one.
>> No mechanical transducers, no playback wear, no dynamic
>> range compromises, no stereo limitations, and distortion
>> levels prders of magnitude lower than vinyl.
>> It's no wonder the CD replaced the record overnight. If
>> someone claims to prefer the sound of the record, that's
>> fine, but they are not listening to a cleaner, more
>> accurate recording, it just means that the remaining
>> distortions give a sound that is pleasing to them. Do
>> not make the claim, though, that the record is more
>> accurate or has less distortion, or that digital
>> processing loses information that one can hear in the
>> record. This is nonsense.
> He left out recording and mastering, and his opinion of
> "accurate" is an engineer's view that doesn't include the
> perceptual process, or "listening," as we call it.
That's true for *any* distribution format, which means that its inclusion
here is yet another straw man argument.
Arny Krueger
news:qsmdnToF_YYhpr3Z...@giganews.com
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:jZadnSIahqX...@comcast.com...
>> <mel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:dvpae...@news4.newsguy.com
>>
> [snip]
>
> This is, to me, old hat.
> My understanding of the issue is that most people who
> prefer vinyl understand that measured distortion of vinyl
> is much, much higher than any digital format. The reason
> they prefer vinyl is because it agrees with their ears
> more.
Not generally true, even in the case of the RAHE thread from which this post
was taken.
There are a lot of people who think that the LP format has even one
technical leg to stand on. For example, see Stephen's response to my OP. He
started on the issue of response > 20 KHz. IOW he believes that there is a
technical justification for the LP format based on its purported ability to
respond > 20 KHz. BTW the LP's response above 10 KHz, let alone 20 KHz has
severely limited dynamic range and is generally highly distorted.
> Is there anyone out there who actually believes that
> vinyl can best CD in the "live mic feed"
> distinguishability test?
Please see the RAHE thread this text came from, which is currently active.
MINe 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> "Robert Morein" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:qsmdnToF_YYhpr3Z...@giganews.com
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> > news:jZadnSIahqX...@comcast.com...
> >> <mel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:dvpae...@news4.newsguy.com
> >>
> > [snip]
> >
> > This is, to me, old hat.
> > My understanding of the issue is that most people who
> > prefer vinyl understand that measured distortion of vinyl
> > is much, much higher than any digital format. The reason
> > they prefer vinyl is because it agrees with their ears
> > more.
>
> Not generally true, even in the case of the RAHE thread from which this post
> was taken.
>
> There are a lot of people who think that the LP format has even one
> technical leg to stand on. For example, see Stephen's response to my OP. He
> started on the issue of response > 20 KHz. IOW he believes that there is a
> technical justification for the LP format based on its purported ability to
> respond > 20 KHz. BTW the LP's response above 10 KHz, let alone 20 KHz has
> severely limited dynamic range and is generally highly distorted.
But present.
> > Is there anyone out there who actually believes that
> > vinyl can best CD in the "live mic feed"
> > distinguishability test?
>
> Please see the RAHE thread this text came from, which is currently active.
Mic feed is still the winner.
Stephen
MINe 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
jj says lp is equivalent to about 11 bits. You've said 13 bits is enough
for transparent playback. Lots of fuss for two bits, eh?
> The audible limitations of the LP format are extremely intrusive and
> pervasive. The intergenerational losses inherent in the LP format are
> generally intolerable for commercial purposes, except in extreme situations.
> Note how quickly magnetic tape replaced LPs as mastering media back in the
> 1950s, never to return.
Noise is bad, but not necessarily intolerable. Low-rate mp3 and whatever
goes on satellite radio is enjoyed by many despite audible limitations.
Aren't we mixing up production and reproduction? Editing by lp is
awkward enough to be avoided no matter the fidelity.
> >> The other medium makes exact copies at all manufacturing
> >> steps, results in an exact copy, is played back with
> >> light as a pickup, and reproduces the original source
> >> with all fundamentals and harmonics, alll amplitudes and
> >> phases, and does so with distortion levels on the
> >> 0.001% level.
>
> > Below 20 kHz, that is,
>
> There's no known generally-accepted scientific reason to worry about
> response above 20 KHz.
Unless you really want to relax to gamelan music or get the most of your
Harmon-muted trumpet recordings.
> > and assuming competent playback.
>
> A straw man argument if there ever was one.
No, an oblique reference to jitter.
> >> No mechanical transducers, no playback wear, no dynamic
> >> range compromises, no stereo limitations, and distortion
> >> levels prders of magnitude lower than vinyl.
>
> >> It's no wonder the CD replaced the record overnight. If
> >> someone claims to prefer the sound of the record, that's
> >> fine, but they are not listening to a cleaner, more
> >> accurate recording, it just means that the remaining
> >> distortions give a sound that is pleasing to them. Do
> >> not make the claim, though, that the record is more
> >> accurate or has less distortion, or that digital
> >> processing loses information that one can hear in the
> >> record. This is nonsense.
>
> > He left out recording and mastering, and his opinion of
> > "accurate" is an engineer's view that doesn't include the
> > perceptual process, or "listening," as we call it.
>
> That's true for *any* distribution format, which means that its inclusion
> here is yet another straw man argument.
No, because the mature analog recording process wasn't instantly
equalled by the new digital recording process.
Stephen
Walt
>
> There's no known generally-accepted scientific reason to worry about
> response above 20 KHz.
Remember quadrophonic vinyl records where the rear channels were
multiplexed above 20 khz? That's a reason. Maybe not a particularly
relevant one to this thread, but a reason nonetheless.
//Walt
Arny Krueger
Actually, mic feed is still the loser, compared to live.
Anecdote - I just spent two days seated about 12' from the front edge of a
stage in a very good-sounding classic old high school auditorium about 100
miles from here. I was recording a high school band competition. I had the
opportunity to listen to the mic feed through a pair of well-respected
high-accuracy headphones and compare that to the life sound. Close, but no
cigar. I also auditioned every CD I burned with the same headphones. Within
the obvious limits of non-level-matched non bias-controlled comparisons
which many deny exist, the CDs sounded just like the mic feed.
Arny Krueger
Right.
> You've said 13 bits is enough for transparent playback. Lots of fuss for
> two bits, eh?
You've missed the point which is that since the LP format is the equivalent
of 11 bits and it takes at least 13 bits for transparency, the LP format is
two bits shy of a full load.
>> The audible limitations of the LP format are extremely
>> intrusive and pervasive. The intergenerational losses
>> inherent in the LP format are generally intolerable for
>> commercial purposes, except in extreme situations. Note
>> how quickly magnetic tape replaced LPs as mastering
>> media back in the 1950s, never to return.
> Noise is bad, but not necessarily intolerable. Low-rate
> mp3 and whatever goes on satellite radio is enjoyed by
> many despite audible limitations.
If you want to characterize the LP format as being comparable to the sonic
drek that the satellite radio providers current dish out, be my guest.
> Aren't we mixing up production and reproduction? Editing
> by lp is awkward enough to be avoided no matter the fidelity.
If you've ever heard a second-generation LP transcription, you'd know that
editing while problematical, was not the most serious problem.
>>>> The other medium makes exact copies at all
>>>> manufacturing steps, results in an exact copy, is
>>>> played back with light as a pickup, and reproduces the
>>>> original source with all fundamentals and harmonics,
>>>> alll amplitudes and phases, and does so with
>>>> distortion levels on the
>>>> 0.001% level.
>>
>>> Below 20 kHz, that is,
>>
>> There's no known generally-accepted scientific reason to
>> worry about response above 20 KHz.
> Unless you really want to relax to gamelan music
That claim is far from being accepted by the general scientific community.
Harry Lavo is one of the very few people I know who is desperate enough to
even bring that study up.
> or get the most of your Harmon-muted trumpet recordings.
There are no scientific claims about audibility in that paper at all, and
the paper in question has AFAIK never been published in a refereed journal
or even given at a an appropriate professional gathering.
>>> and assuming competent playback.
>>
>> A straw man argument if there ever was one.
> No, an oblique reference to jitter.
See "scientific claims".
>>>> No mechanical transducers, no playback wear, no dynamic
>>>> range compromises, no stereo limitations, and
>>>> distortion levels prders of magnitude lower than vinyl.
>>
>>>> It's no wonder the CD replaced the record overnight. If
>>>> someone claims to prefer the sound of the record,
>>>> that's fine, but they are not listening to a cleaner,
>>>> more accurate recording, it just means that the
>>>> remaining distortions give a sound that is pleasing to
>>>> them. Do not make the claim, though, that the record
>>>> is more accurate or has less distortion, or that
>>>> digital processing loses information that one can hear
>>>> in the record. This is nonsense.
>>> He left out recording and mastering, and his opinion of
>>> "accurate" is an engineer's view that doesn't include
>>> the perceptual process, or "listening," as we call it.
>> That's true for *any* distribution format, which means
>> that its inclusion here is yet another straw man
>> argument.
> No, because the mature analog recording process wasn't
> instantly equalled by the new digital recording process.
See "scientific claims".
The recording process (i.e., 16/44 stereo digitization) was proven to be
sonically transparent several years before the first commercial CD was even
released.
Arny Krueger
news:7nXTf.699$hi2...@news.itd.umich.edu
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> There's no known generally-accepted scientific reason to
>> worry about response above 20 KHz.
> Remember quadrophonic vinyl records where the rear
> channels were multiplexed above 20 khz? That's a reason.
Huh?
> Maybe not a particularly relevant one to this thread, but
> a reason nonetheless.
Reason for what?
MINe 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
"At least"? Your argument was "at most."
> >> The audible limitations of the LP format are extremely
> >> intrusive and pervasive. The intergenerational losses
> >> inherent in the LP format are generally intolerable for
> >> commercial purposes, except in extreme situations. Note
> >> how quickly magnetic tape replaced LPs as mastering
> >> media back in the 1950s, never to return.
>
> > Noise is bad, but not necessarily intolerable. Low-rate
> > mp3 and whatever goes on satellite radio is enjoyed by
> > many despite audible limitations.
>
> If you want to characterize the LP format as being comparable to the sonic
> drek that the satellite radio providers current dish out, be my guest.
It speaks to your "intolerable."
> > Aren't we mixing up production and reproduction? Editing
> > by lp is awkward enough to be avoided no matter the fidelity.
>
> If you've ever heard a second-generation LP transcription, you'd know that
> editing while problematical, was not the most serious problem.
Noise would be a problem. Still, "Sheik of Araby" was done with acetates
and was a hit.
> >>>> The other medium makes exact copies at all
> >>>> manufacturing steps, results in an exact copy, is
> >>>> played back with light as a pickup, and reproduces the
> >>>> original source with all fundamentals and harmonics,
> >>>> alll amplitudes and phases, and does so with
> >>>> distortion levels on the
> >>>> 0.001% level.
> >>
> >>> Below 20 kHz, that is,
> >>
> >> There's no known generally-accepted scientific reason to
> >> worry about response above 20 KHz.
>
> > Unless you really want to relax to gamelan music
>
> That claim is far from being accepted by the general scientific community.
> Harry Lavo is one of the very few people I know who is desperate enough to
> even bring that study up.
Neither has it been refuted.
It's desperate to bring up real science?
> > or get the most of your Harmon-muted trumpet recordings.
>
> There are no scientific claims about audibility in that paper at all, and
> the paper in question has AFAIK never been published in a refereed journal
> or even given at a an appropriate professional gathering.
If it's there, you want it on the record.
> >>> and assuming competent playback.
> >>
> >> A straw man argument if there ever was one.
>
> > No, an oblique reference to jitter.
>
> See "scientific claims".
Jitter is audible.
> >>>> No mechanical transducers, no playback wear, no dynamic
> >>>> range compromises, no stereo limitations, and
> >>>> distortion levels prders of magnitude lower than vinyl.
> >>
> >>>> It's no wonder the CD replaced the record overnight. If
> >>>> someone claims to prefer the sound of the record,
> >>>> that's fine, but they are not listening to a cleaner,
> >>>> more accurate recording, it just means that the
> >>>> remaining distortions give a sound that is pleasing to
> >>>> them. Do not make the claim, though, that the record
> >>>> is more accurate or has less distortion, or that
> >>>> digital processing loses information that one can hear
> >>>> in the record. This is nonsense.
>
> >>> He left out recording and mastering, and his opinion of
> >>> "accurate" is an engineer's view that doesn't include
> >>> the perceptual process, or "listening," as we call it.
>
> >> That's true for *any* distribution format, which means
> >> that its inclusion here is yet another straw man
> >> argument.
>
> > No, because the mature analog recording process wasn't
> > instantly equalled by the new digital recording process.
>
> See "scientific claims".
No, we can hear this for ourselves using commercial releases.
> The recording process (i.e., 16/44 stereo digitization) was proven to be
> sonically transparent several years before the first commercial CD was even
> released.
But not necessarily the recording equipment.
Stephen
MINe 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
Cd equals mic feed live over headphones in the same room 12' from the
performers? How did cd replicate the skin response?
Stephen
nyo...@peoplepc.com
useful in the future.
Obviously, as indicated by the responses, you can lead a man to light,but
you can't makehim see.
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:jZadnSIahqX...@comcast.com...
MINe 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
For >20 kHz response, if not for audibility.
Stephen
Arny Krueger
Huh?
>>>> The audible limitations of the LP format are extremely
>>>> intrusive and pervasive. The intergenerational losses
>>>> inherent in the LP format are generally intolerable for
>>>> commercial purposes, except in extreme situations. Note
>>>> how quickly magnetic tape replaced LPs as mastering
>>>> media back in the 1950s, never to return.
>>> Noise is bad, but not necessarily intolerable. Low-rate
>>> mp3 and whatever goes on satellite radio is enjoyed by
>>> many despite audible limitations.
>> If you want to characterize the LP format as being
>> comparable to the sonic drek that the satellite radio
>> providers current dish out, be my guest.
> It speaks to your "intolerable."
IT speaks well, I might add.
>>> Aren't we mixing up production and reproduction? Editing
>>> by lp is awkward enough to be avoided no matter the
>>> fidelity.
>>
>> If you've ever heard a second-generation LP
>> transcription, you'd know that editing while
>> problematical, was not the most serious problem.
>
> Noise would be a problem. Still, "Sheik of Araby" was
> done with acetates and was a hit.
>
>>>>>> The other medium makes exact copies at all
>>>>>> manufacturing steps, results in an exact copy, is
>>>>>> played back with light as a pickup, and reproduces
>>>>>> the original source with all fundamentals and
>>>>>> harmonics, alll amplitudes and phases, and does so
>>>>>> with distortion levels on the
>>>>>> 0.001% level.
>>>>
>>>>> Below 20 kHz, that is,
>>>>
>>>> There's no known generally-accepted scientific reason
>>>> to worry about response above 20 KHz.
>>
>>> Unless you really want to relax to gamelan music
>>
>> That claim is far from being accepted by the general
>> scientific community. Harry Lavo is one of the very few
>> people I know who is desperate enough to even bring that
>> study up.
> Neither has it been refuted.
Says who?
> It's desperate to bring up real science?
>
>>> or get the most of your Harmon-muted trumpet
>>> recordings.
>>
>> There are no scientific claims about audibility in that
>> paper at all, and the paper in question has AFAIK never
>> been published in a refereed journal or even given at a
>> an appropriate professional gathering.
>
> If it's there, you want it on the record.
>
>>>>> and assuming competent playback.
>>>>
>>>> A straw man argument if there ever was one.
>>
>>> No, an oblique reference to jitter.
>> See "scientific claims".
> Jitter is audible.
It is true that the LP format with inherent jitter orders of magnitude
greater than that of the CD, has audible jitter.
>> See "scientific claims".
You're confusing poor implementations (e.g. no mastering or incompetent
mastering) with inherent problems with the technology.
>>The recording process (i.e., 16/44 stereo digitization)
>> was proven to be sonically transparent several years
>> before the first commercial CD was even released.
> But not necessarily the recording equipment.
When the CD format was introduced, Sony and Philips had 100% control over
the production of CDs - all CDs were made in their plants. They produced
100% of all of the digital masters. The recording equipment that was unique
to the CD format was under their control. The new digital recording process
was standardized by them and known to be sonically transparent.
Arny Krueger
From the standpoint of music, quad LP's did not have > 20 KHz response.
Furthermore, LP performance above 10 KHz, let alone 20 KHz is very troubled.
Arny Krueger
message news:uen022t1v22avurcl...@4ax.com
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:36:18 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> The recording process (i.e., 16/44 stereo digitization)
>> was proven to be sonically transparent several years
>> before the first commercial CD was even released.
> It is not.
> The Compact Disc format was chosen because it was within
> the technological bounds of the end of the 70's: disc
> size was initially set, based on the size of a compact
> cassette; Philips wanted to fit 74 minutes; the 16-bit
> approach was pushed by Sony while Philips wanted to go
> the 14-bit route (their first players were 14-bit only,
> while Sony shared the same 16-bit DA converter,
> alternating it between the two channels - a clever
> kludge, but a kludge anyway); leaving sampling rate as
> the sole remaining variable.
> As it had to be compatible with PAL or NTSC tape
> recorders - the media of choice for recording and
> mastering at that time - and digital technology was in
> it's infancy, Philips and Sony only considered 44.056 and
> 44.1 KHz sampling rates. Finally 44.1 KHz was picked
> because it was easier to remember.
> Compact disc was born out of convenience, nothing more.
No evidence has been provided to support this exceptional claim.
> For more info, please read "The Compact Disc Story", Kees
> A. Schouhamer Immink, Journal of the Audio Engineering
> Society, vol. 46, pp. 458-465, May 1998.
> A poor quality - but readable - copy is available on
> Immin's personal web site:
> http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~immink/pdf/cdstory.pdf
It's plenty readible. I see nothing there that supports any claim that the
CD was born solely out of convenience, and nothing more. It is true that the
exact details of certain choices were borne out of convenience. However
these choices were made within ranges known to produce excellent sonic
performance.
> Getting back to it's sonic transparency, later works have
> demonstrated that 16/44 is *close* to being transparent,
> but that around 20 bits with proper noise shaping (21.5
> bits flat) at a sample rate of at least 55 KHz are
> required to properly encode audio signals. Some
> researchers such as Fielder dissent and propose even
> higher resolutions - I would tend to agree with them.
>
> Please refer to "Auditory modelling related to the bit
> budget", J.R. Stuart Proceedings of AES UK Conference
> "Managing the Bit Budget", 167-178, 1994 or to ARA's "A
> Proposal for the High-Quality Audio Application
> High-Density CD Carriers" - available at
> http://www.meridian-audio.com/ara/ara13.pdf - for more
> details.
It's already been more recently shown that at the time these papers were
written, Mr. Stuart had misapprehensions about psychoacoustics.
> A 55 KHz sample rate doesn't exist, you can either
> downgrade to 48 KHz, forgetting some transparency, or go
> higher. The two next options are 88.2 and 96 Khz. The
> former isn't widely used, leaving only 96 KHz as a viable
> option.
There remains no evidence that the 16/44 KHz format is incapable of
sonically transparent reproduction of music.
> Ditto for resolution : 21.5-bit DA and AD converters
> aren't the norm, 24-bit models are. Additionally, as all
> converters are far from linear when it comes to LSB's,
> going the 24-bit route allows for a clean monotonic
> operation down to 22 bits or so.
In fact sigma-delta converters are inherently free of practical problems
with monotonicity.
In fact commercial recordings with more than 14 bit resolution just don't
seem to exist. We don't need 5.5 bits to reproduce the noise floor of our
mic preamps when that noise floor is masked over by ambient nose in studios
and concert halls.
> So basically, a properly implemented 24/96 system -
> widely available today in professional or consumer
> equipment - is required for transparent digital recording
> and playback, very far from what the humble Compact Disc
> can offer.
Reaserching the papers cited above shows that any problems are with the
outdated assumptions contained in those papers. Note that none of the cited
papers that call for greater than 16 bit resolution or more than 22 KHz
bandwidth have passed review by the usual relevant accredited referees.
There is at least one JAES paper that calls for > 16 bit resolution, but it
contains assumptions that have zero real-world relevance.
Arny Krueger
Since the acoustic source was headphones in either case, this would be yet
another straw man argument.
Steven Sullivan
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:36:18 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >The recording process (i.e., 16/44 stereo digitization) was proven to be
> >sonically transparent several years before the first commercial CD was even
> >released.
> It is not.
> The Compact Disc format was chosen because it was within the technological
> bounds of the end of the 70's: disc size was initially set, based on the
> size of a compact cassette; Philips wanted to fit 74 minutes; the 16-bit
> approach was pushed by Sony while Philips wanted to go the 14-bit route
> (their first players were 14-bit only, while Sony shared the same 16-bit DA
> converter, alternating it between the two channels - a clever kludge, but a
> kludge anyway); leaving sampling rate as the sole remaining variable.
> As it had to be compatible with PAL or NTSC tape recorders - the media of
> choice for recording and mastering at that time - and digital technology was
> in it's infancy, Philips and Sony only considered 44.056 and 44.1 KHz
> sampling rates. Finally 44.1 KHz was picked because it was easier to
> remember.
> Compact disc was born out of convenience, nothing more.
> For more info, please read "The Compact Disc Story", Kees A. Schouhamer
> Immink, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, vol. 46, pp. 458-465, May
> 1998.
> A poor quality - but readable - copy is available on Immin's personal web
> site:
> http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~immink/pdf/cdstory.pdf
> Getting back to it's sonic transparency, later works have demonstrated that
> 16/44 is *close* to being transparent, but that around 20 bits with proper
> noise shaping (21.5 bits flat) at a sample rate of at least 55 KHz are
> required to properly encode audio signals. Some researchers such as Fielder
> dissent and propose even higher resolutions - I would tend to agree with
> them.
Keep in mind the 'transparency' needs of *recording*, versus playback.
20 bits of resolution for a normal playback environment is excessive, for
pretty much any commerical recording.
> Please refer to "Auditory modelling related to the bit budget", J.R. Stuart
> Proceedings of AES UK Conference "Managing the Bit Budget", 167?178, 1994 or
> to ARA's "A Proposal for the High-Quality Audio Application
> High-Density CD Carriers" - available at
> http://www.meridian-audio.com/ara/ara13.pdf - for more details.
Meridian has never, to my knowledge, demonstrated that such specs are
*necessary* to achieve audible transparency in a normal listening
environment. They have published more than one paper on why such specs can make
transparency easier to achieve...or why they would be needed if *other*
unproved hypotheses turn out to be true (e.g., audible content above
20 kHz).
> A 55 KHz sample rate doesn't exist, you can either downgrade to 48 KHz,
> forgetting some transparency, or go higher. The two next options are 88.2
> and 96 Khz. The former isn't widely used, leaving only 96 KHz as a viable
> option.
> Ditto for resolution : 21.5-bit DA and AD converters aren't the norm, 24-bit
> models are. Additionally, as all converters are far from linear when it
> comes to LSB's, going the 24-bit route allows for a clean monotonic
> operation down to 22 bits or so.
>
> So basically, a properly implemented 24/96 system - widely available today
> in professional or consumer equipment - is required for transparent digital
> recording and playback, very far from what the humble Compact Disc can
> offer.
The higher bitdepth allows for extensive digital processing without
information loss -- *that*, as I understand it, is the main reason for
its adoption.
--
___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority
Arny Krueger
news:dvpqdo$fp0$1...@reader2.panix.com
> The higher bitdepth allows for extensive digital
> processing without information loss -- *that*, as I understand it, is
> the
> main reason for its adoption.
Exactly.
BTW at my two-day recording session last week, here are some numbers that
relate to observed resolution. The equivalent noise of the mics is speced at
< 16 dB SPL.
(1) Peak level for any discernable amount of time (1 sample or a trio of
samples that suggest a higher excursion) - call that -1 dB FS. This
corresponded to about 95 dB SPL, A-weighted and slow meter averaging.
(2) Noise floor of all electronics with phantom power removed from
mics - -95 dB
(3) Noise floor of empty room with phantom power applied to mics -65 dB
(4) Noise floor of room with performers present and ready to play but
maximally quiet -60 dB
I estimate that the noise floor of the mics in this context was -75 dB or
better. IOW, they were not the weakest link. The room was.
Arny Krueger
message news:ncr022t9fa1i0plmr...@4ax.com
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:50:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> Furthermore, LP performance above 10 KHz, let alone 20
>> KHz is very troubled.
> Not with a properly set-up turntable/arm/cartridge combo
> reading quality vinyl LP's.
How much time have you spent reading the classic papers about theoretical
and practical LP performance in the JAES, François?
George M. Middius
François Yves Le Gal said to CheapskateBorg:
> >Furthermore, LP performance above 10 KHz, let alone 20 KHz is very troubled.
> Not with a properly set-up turntable/arm/cartridge combo reading quality
> vinyl LP's.
You know perfectly well that the Krooborg does not have the means to procure
such hardware. Please stop rubbing Mr. Shit's indigence in his face.
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
MINe 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> "MINe 109" <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:smcatut-D8AFBF...@news-fe-03.texas.rr.com
> > In article <8omdnbnNMqoy373Z...@comcast.com>,
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >> Anecdote - I just spent two days seated about 12' from
> >> the front edge of a stage in a very good-sounding
> >> classic old high school auditorium about 100 miles from
> >> here. I was recording a high school band competition. I
> >> had the opportunity to listen to the mic feed through a
> >> pair of well-respected high-accuracy headphones and
> >> compare that to the life sound. Close, but no cigar. I
> >> also auditioned every CD I burned with the same
> >> headphones. Within the obvious limits of
> >> non-level-matched non bias-controlled comparisons which
> >> many deny exist, the CDs sounded just like the mic feed.
> >
> > Cd equals mic feed live over headphones in the same room
> > 12' from the performers? How did cd replicate the skin
> > response?
>
> Since the acoustic source was headphones in either case, this would be yet
> another straw man argument.
No, it's not, and it may be time to amend the RAO Krooglish dictionary
to include "strawman" on the list of inoperative responses best ignored.
How could you listen to a live mic feed while in the same room as the
performance without skin contact? Whole body headphone enclosure?
Didn't your chair rumble with the bass drum? One would espect 12' from
the lip of the stage with a marching band on it to be somewhat loud. You
even claimed being close to a band was inherently deafening a week or
two ago.
Stephen
MINe 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
You don't remember "Arny's thirteen bit mastering studio"? Because you
ran tests in which your listeners couldn't id 13-bit from 16-bit you
claimed that 13 was enough. Of course, this was in a context of
discussing high rez formats which you argued were overkill.
> >>>> The audible limitations of the LP format are extremely
> >>>> intrusive and pervasive. The intergenerational losses
> >>>> inherent in the LP format are generally intolerable for
> >>>> commercial purposes, except in extreme situations. Note
> >>>> how quickly magnetic tape replaced LPs as mastering
> >>>> media back in the 1950s, never to return.
>
> >>> Noise is bad, but not necessarily intolerable. Low-rate
> >>> mp3 and whatever goes on satellite radio is enjoyed by
> >>> many despite audible limitations.
>
> >> If you want to characterize the LP format as being
> >> comparable to the sonic drek that the satellite radio
> >> providers current dish out, be my guest.
>
> > It speaks to your "intolerable."
>
> IT speaks well, I might add.
Yes, lps and mp3s have potentially pleasing and high fidelity playback
capabilities.
Cite the refuting study, please.
> > It's desperate to bring up real science?
> >
> >>> or get the most of your Harmon-muted trumpet
> >>> recordings.
> >>
> >> There are no scientific claims about audibility in that
> >> paper at all, and the paper in question has AFAIK never
> >> been published in a refereed journal or even given at a
> >> an appropriate professional gathering.
> >
> > If it's there, you want it on the record.
> >
> >>>>> and assuming competent playback.
> >>>>
> >>>> A straw man argument if there ever was one.
> >>
> >>> No, an oblique reference to jitter.
>
> >> See "scientific claims".
>
> > Jitter is audible.
>
> It is true that the LP format with inherent jitter orders of magnitude
> greater than that of the CD, has audible jitter.
Cd jitter should be considered a pressing defect or a mastering failure.
I see Francois has addressed the scientific part of the claim with JAES
cites.
> >>The recording process (i.e., 16/44 stereo digitization)
> >> was proven to be sonically transparent several years
> >> before the first commercial CD was even released.
>
> > But not necessarily the recording equipment.
>
> When the CD format was introduced, Sony and Philips had 100% control over
> the production of CDs - all CDs were made in their plants. They produced
> 100% of all of the digital masters. The recording equipment that was unique
> to the CD format was under their control. The new digital recording process
> was standardized by them and known to be sonically transparent.
Until it was improved by dithering techniques. Then it was even more
transparent. Then came higher rez recordings and it more transparent
still.
Salome should have so many layers of transparency.
Stephen
Arny Krueger
>> It's already been more recently shown that at the time
>> these papers were written, Mr. Stuart had
>> misapprehensions about psychoacoustics.
> Care to back this with some facts for a change?
I'm referring to a claim made in HFN by Bob Stuart that distortions might be
audible when
accompanied by the waveform they were changing even if the distortion was
so low a level as to be inaudible when unaccompanied. This is of course
counter to the what has been since clearly proven by the science of
psychoacoustics, and was effectively rebutted at the time by no less than
Peter Baxandall
>> There remains no evidence that the 16/44 KHz format is
>> incapable of sonically transparent reproduction of music.
> There's an ample body of evidence, widely discussed
> everywhere and accepted by all bar the resident luddites.
???????????
> Here's what I posted some four years ago on rahe:
> Let me begin by quoting an AES preprint, "Compatible Resolution
> Enhancement in Digital Audio Systems", [1] by Keith O.
> Johnson, an AES Fellow, and Michael W. Pflaumer:
> "As the compact disc (CD) has become a widely used medium
> for
> distribution of high fidelity audio, it has become
> apparent that its
> sound quality is not as high as original expectations,
> which were based primarily on conventional distortion and
> frequency response
> measurements. This view has been expressed both by those
> involved in the production of CD's and by fidelity
> conscious consumers.
> Dissatisfaction with the fidelity of CD digital
> recordings when compared to analog master tapes of the same recording
> sessions
> prompted the authors to investigate the factors responsible for the
> loss of fidelity and to devise approaches for improving the situation.
These were of course sighted evaluations. I've seen that experiment done
both sighted and in a bias-controlled test. Needless to say removing the
biases removed the supposed effect.
> The peak dynamic range requirement for professional
> recording has been shown to approach 130 dB [2]. Even
> conservative estimates produce
> numbers greater than 120 dB [3]. While the capabilities
> of an average home playback system cannot cover this range because the
> average home speaker system cannot reach the necessary
> peak sound pressure level (SPL), there will always be
> some systems which can. In addition, edit situations and
> listeners who change gain during a program pose added
> dynamic requirements. Therefore, these numbers remain a
> valid target.
The major problem with this theory is estimating dynamic range by comparing
very high peak levels with the threshold of hearing. One serious practical
problem is that SPL's this high make a complete and total mess of the ear
at least in the short and intermediate term, causing tremendous shifts of
the threshold of hearing. A second major problem is that this theory ignores
the well-known fact that the noise floor in concert halls is *always* vastly
more than the threshold of hearing.
> ../...
>
> Research [2] has shown that distortion products other
> than low order harmonics must be kept at least 120 dB
> below peak levels in the presence
> of complex signals in order to achieve a satisfactory
> level of accuracy
> in a critical listening environment.
Complete and total nonsense. Between the nonlinearity of the human ear above
75 dB, and concurrent masking, 120 dB is about half science fiction and I'm
not saying 6 dB science fiction, I', saying more like 60 dB science fiction.
Even Stuart admits to far more conservative numbers for hearing nonlinear
distortion, some of which are even in some of his papers advocating DVD-A. I
reproduce some of them at my PCAVTech web site.
> Since interactions
> with different listening systems may bring out different
> problems, this level of performance is required to be
> safe for all cases.
"All cases" in this case being cases that are so deep into error and science
fiction as to be completely laughable.
> ../...
>
> Our current research indicates that infrequent distortion
> products with peak levels in the -120 dB full scale
> (dBFS) range are potentially
> audible [4]".
See above.
> Johnson and Pflaumer very clearly establish that the
> dynamic range of CD
> is vastly insufficient, building on research conducted by
> Louis D.
> Fielder, an AES Fellow and a former AES president [2 and
> 4], who had established years earlier that the
> "reproduction of music at natural
> sound levels requires very high peak sound levels of up
> to 129dB spl",
> with some instruments, such as percussions or brass
> sections, being "capable of producing over 40 acoustic
> watts".
<snip, snip, snip>
Cutting to the chase...
Many of these papers are from the late 1980s and early 1990s, which predates
widespread exposure of the well-known Psychoacoustics book by Zwicker and
Fastl. For this reason Fielder's paper, which was hyping the now-failed
HDCD process, would not pass the AES review board if resubmitted today, or
even near the end of the previous century.
Arny Krueger
Shows ignornace of the fact that CD jitter is rampant at the laser pickup
but vastly reduced by the data buffer and reclocking that is by definition
and absolute necessity present in every CD player, no matter how cheap or
simple.
His cites don't stand the test of time. Two words: Zwicker and Fastl. Two
other words: concurrent masking.
>>>> The recording process (i.e., 16/44 stereo digitization)
>>>> was proven to be sonically transparent several years
>>>> before the first commercial CD was even released.
>>
>>> But not necessarily the recording equipment.
>>
>> When the CD format was introduced, Sony and Philips had
>> 100% control over the production of CDs - all CDs were
>> made in their plants. They produced 100% of all of the
>> digital masters. The recording equipment that was unique
>> to the CD format was under their control. The new
>> digital recording process was standardized by them and
>> known to be sonically transparent.
> Until it was improved by dithering techniques.
That happened well before the CD format was even a twinkle in anybody's eye.
> Then it was even more transparent.
No, it was transparent at the outset, aside from possible imperfections in
some players. As is often the case, the recording equipment was better than
some of the players.
> Then came higher rez
> recordings and it more transparent still.
You can't improve on transparent.
> Salome should have so many layers of transparency.
Yawn.
Steven Sullivan
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:50:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >Furthermore, LP performance above 10 KHz, let alone 20 KHz is very troubled.
> Not with a properly set-up turntable/arm/cartridge combo reading quality
> vinyl LP's.
So, what's the frequency response of the best LP + LP playback system like
from, say 15-20 kHz? How linear/undistorted is it?
From what I've read, not so hot. This, from people like jj, not just Arny.
Steven Sullivan
> wrote:
> >Keep in mind the 'transparency' needs of *recording*, versus playback.
> >20 bits of resolution for a normal playback environment is excessive, for
> >pretty much any commerical recording.
> Why should playback be limited at the source? It's pretty trivial to
> dynamically compress the signal during playback if needed.
> >Meridian has never, to my knowledge, demonstrated that such specs are
> >*necessary* to achieve audible transparency in a normal listening
> >environment.
> The ARA white paper pretty well summarizes the state of the art. Please cf.
> to one of my posts on rahe
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/71206151ba514ff9?dmode=source&hl=en
> giving full references as well as relevant quotes from various publications.
where your post didn't exactly go unchallenged.
> >The higher bitdepth allows for extensive digital processing without
> >information loss -- *that*, as I understand it, is the main reason for
> >its adoption.
> Agreed, but more and more software is delivered in 24/96, compressed or not.
For necessary reasons, or simply for marketing reasons?
> Most DAW's work at least on 32-bit words. Recent models go up to 64 bits,
> using the latest 64-bit DSP's.
And again.
Arny Krueger
message news:9ku022t72j1qblaje...@4ax.com
>> versus playback. 20 bits of resolution for a normal
>> playback environment is excessive, for pretty much any
>> commerical recording.
>
> trivial to dynamically compress the signal during
> playback if needed.
>
>> such specs are *necessary* to achieve audible
>> transparency in a normal listening environment.
>
> the art.
You mean
http://www.meridian-audio.com/ara/ara13.pdf ?
> Please cf. to one of my posts on rahe
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/71206151ba514ff9?dmode=source&hl=en
> giving full references as well as relevant quotes from
> various publications.
The ARA paper showed considerable ignorance of the dynamic range of real
world recordings and emerging understanding of psychoacoustics.
The same year it came out, in 1996 Stuart was presenting data that rebutted
the alleged but totally fallacious requirment for 120 dB dynamic range in
The Psychoacoustics of Multichannel Audio, please see figures 9 and 14:
http://www.meridian-audio.com/ara/multips3.pdf
>> The higher bitdepth allows for extensive digital
>> processing without information loss -- *that*, as I
>> understand it, is the main reason for its adoption.
>
> Agreed, but more and more software is delivered in 24/96,
> compressed or not. Most DAW's work at least on 32-bit
Arny Krueger
> Fran?ois Yves Le Gal <fle...@aingeal.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 15:50:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>> <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>>> Furthermore, LP performance above 10 KHz, let alone 20
>>> KHz is very troubled.
>
>> Not with a properly set-up turntable/arm/cartridge combo
>> reading quality vinyl LP's.
>
> So, what's the frequency response of the best LP + LP
> playback system like from, say 15-20 kHz? How
> linear/undistorted is it?
>
> From what I've read, not so hot. This, from people like
> jj, not just Arny.
Also, there are the Ben Bauer JAES papers that detail the limitions of the
LP format.
Arny Krueger
Oh, that. I guess skin contact isn't that significant at normal SPLs.
> Didn't your chair rumble with the bass drum?
No. Cement floor, I guess.
> One would
> espect 12' from the lip of the stage with a marching band
> on it to be somewhat loud.
They weren't marching at the time.
> You even claimed being close
> to a band was inherently deafening a week or two ago.
I did some measurements with a SPL meter and found my ear plugs to limit
long-term exposures.
dave weil
wrote:
>> One would
>> espect 12' from the lip of the stage with a marching band
>> on it to be somewhat loud.
>
>They weren't marching at the time.
Yeah, the sound of marching feet certainly adds at least 20dB to the
sound.
That's why The Who was so loud - Townsend's big feet and all...
Jenn
MINe 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
To be fair, I think that he was at a concert band contest.
ScottW
Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:dvpqdo$fp0$1...@reader2.panix.com
>
> > The higher bitdepth allows for extensive digital
> > processing without information loss -- *that*, as I understand it, is
> > the
> > main reason for its adoption.
>
> Exactly.
>
> BTW at my two-day recording session last week, here are some numbers that
> relate to observed resolution. The equivalent noise of the mics is speced at
> < 16 dB SPL.
>
> (1) Peak level for any discernable amount of time (1 sample or a trio of
> samples that suggest a higher excursion) - call that -1 dB FS. This
> corresponded to about 95 dB SPL, A-weighted and slow meter averaging.
Peak levels measured on slow meter averaging? That sounds wrong to
me.
http://www.norsonic.cz/web_pages/sound_level_assessment.html
Matter of fact it is wrong.... incredibly wrong...infinintely wrong....
ScottW
John Atkinson
I had a similar experience a couple of weekends ago, recording a
4-piece free jazz group in a smallish room. I was recording 8 tracks of
digital but also a 2-channel mixdown for the musicians to take away
with them. You just can't judge the sound of the mix on headphones
when the musicans are playing in the same room.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Arny Krueger
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:00:32 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> Cutting to the chase...
>
> As usual, you've neither adressed a single issue by
> properly refuting what was advanced by the authors of the
> papers I've quoted, nor supplied any references backing
> your claims.
>
> Here's a partial deconstruction of your so-called
> arguments.
>
> "Many of these papers are from the late 1980s and early
> 1990s, which predates widespread exposure of the
> well-known Psychoacoustics book by Zwicker and Fastl."
>
> Models" was published by Springer Verlag in 1990. As
> anyone can verify by getting back to the list of papers
> and publications I've supplied, the vast majority was
> published fater Z & F
That's why I included the catchwords "widespread exposure". Their ideas
were not accepted immediately by everybody.
> Fielder has never hyped HDCD
I may be wrong about that.
> - he happens to work for
> Dolby Labortories, a competitor; his paper was published
> *five* years after Z & F and his credentials, including
> being an AES Fellow as well as serving as president of
> the Audio Engineering Society, are impeccable.
Impeccable except that something like 5 years after . Zwicker and H. Fastl's
"Psychoacoustics Facts and Models" was published by Springer Verlag in
1990, Fielder allowed a paper about dynamic range requirements be published
over his name that failed to mention threshold shifting, concurrent masking,
temporal masking, and ambient noise levels in concert halls and recording
studios.
You know François all you have to do is show us some real world recordings
made with real world mics in a real world room that have 120 dB worth of
dynamic range. Tell you what - I'll even give you an order of magnitude
break - just do 100 dB, special for you, today! ;-)
Arny Krueger
news:1142983894.5...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> news:dvpqdo$fp0$1...@reader2.panix.com
>>
>>> The higher bitdepth allows for extensive digital
>>> processing without information loss -- *that*, as I
>>> understand it, is the
>>> main reason for its adoption.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> BTW at my two-day recording session last week, here are
>> some numbers that relate to observed resolution. The
>> equivalent noise of the mics is speced at < 16 dB SPL.
>>
>> (1) Peak level for any discernable amount of time (1
>> sample or a trio of samples that suggest a higher
>> excursion) - call that -1 dB FS. This corresponded to
>> about 95 dB SPL, A-weighted and slow meter averaging.
>
> Peak levels measured on slow meter averaging? That
> sounds wrong to me.
It is what it was.
If you had much real world experience with SPL meters, you'd see that this
is not an oxymoron.
You see, you have this SPL meter set for slow averaging, and you keep track
of the peak readings on the meter.
> http://www.norsonic.cz/web_pages/sound_level_assessment.html
So what?
> Matter of fact it is wrong.... incredibly wrong...infinintely wrong....
Like I said - much real world experience with a SPL meter...
> ScottW
Arny Krueger
message news:394122ls7hsu248um...@4ax.com
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:11:11 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> So, what's the frequency response of the best LP + LP
>> playback system like from, say 15-20 kHz? How
>> linear/undistorted is it?
>
> records, of course), with a very low disto by mechanical
> playback standards.
IOW disortion that is low by a standard that is high by CD standards. ;-)
Also, the recorded levels have to be low or geometric tracking distortion
will be horrendous.
True fact - I put a suite of test signals and musical samples on the most
recent of the CD sets that rec.audio.pro circulates from time to time. I
then challenged any and all of the guys who cut LPs to cut a LP with that
test suite on it. No takers!
nyo...@peoplepc.com
> Fran?ois Yves Le Gal <fle...@aingeal.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:36:18 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >The recording process (i.e., 16/44 stereo digitization) was proven to be
>> >sonically transparent several years before the first commercial CD was
>> >even
>> >released.
>
>
>> The Compact Disc format was chosen because it was within the
>> technological
>> bounds of the end of the 70's: disc size was initially set, based on the
>> size of a compact cassette; Philips wanted to fit 74 minutes; the 16-bit
>> approach was pushed by Sony while Philips wanted to go the 14-bit route
>> (their first players were 14-bit only, while Sony shared the same 16-bit
>> DA
>> converter, alternating it between the two channels - a clever kludge, but
>> a
>> kludge anyway); leaving sampling rate as the sole remaining variable.
>
>> As it had to be compatible with PAL or NTSC tape recorders - the media of
>> choice for recording and mastering at that time - and digital technology
>> was
>> in it's infancy, Philips and Sony only considered 44.056 and 44.1 KHz
>> sampling rates. Finally 44.1 KHz was picked because it was easier to
>> remember.
>
>> Compact disc was born out of convenience, nothing more.
>
>> For more info, please read "The Compact Disc Story", Kees A. Schouhamer
>> Immink, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, vol. 46, pp. 458-465,
>> May
>> 1998.
>
>> A poor quality - but readable - copy is available on Immin's personal web
>> site:
>> http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~immink/pdf/cdstory.pdf
>
>> Getting back to it's sonic transparency, later works have demonstrated
>> that
>> 16/44 is *close* to being transparent, but that around 20 bits with
>> proper
>> noise shaping (21.5 bits flat) at a sample rate of at least 55 KHz are
>> required to properly encode audio signals. Some researchers such as
>> Fielder
>> dissent and propose even higher resolutions - I would tend to agree with
>> them.
>
>
> Keep in mind the 'transparency' needs of *recording*, versus playback.
> 20 bits of resolution for a normal playback environment is excessive, for
> pretty much any commerical recording.
>
>
>> Stuart
>> Proceedings of AES UK Conference "Managing the Bit Budget", 167?178, 1994
>> or
>> to ARA's "A Proposal for the High-Quality Audio Application
>> High-Density CD Carriers" - available at
>> http://www.meridian-audio.com/ara/ara13.pdf - for more details.
>
>
> Meridian has never, to my knowledge, demonstrated that such specs are
> *necessary* to achieve audible transparency in a normal listening
> can make
> transparency easier to achieve...or why they would be needed if *other*
> unproved hypotheses turn out to be true (e.g., audible content above
> 20 kHz).
>
>
>
>> A 55 KHz sample rate doesn't exist, you can either downgrade to 48 KHz,
>> forgetting some transparency, or go higher. The two next options are 88.2
>> and 96 Khz. The former isn't widely used, leaving only 96 KHz as a viable
>> option.
>
>> Ditto for resolution : 21.5-bit DA and AD converters aren't the norm,
>> 24-bit
>> models are. Additionally, as all converters are far from linear when it
>> comes to LSB's, going the 24-bit route allows for a clean monotonic
>> operation down to 22 bits or so.
>>
>> So basically, a properly implemented 24/96 system - widely available
>> today
>> in professional or consumer equipment - is required for transparent
>> digital
>> recording and playback, very far from what the humble Compact Disc can
>> offer.
>
>
> The higher bitdepth allows for extensive digital processing without
> information loss -- *that*, as I understand it, is the main reason for
> its adoption.
>
>
or transparency.
Arny Krueger
in message
news:1142984168.5...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Thats not really what I said, BTW.
>>> Since the acoustic source was headphones in either
>>> case, this would be yet another straw man argument.
>> No, it's not, and it may be time to amend the RAO
>> Krooglish dictionary to include "strawman" on the list
>> of inoperative responses best ignored.
>> How could you listen to a live mic feed while in the
>> same room as the performance without skin contact? Whole
>> body headphone enclosure?
>
> I had a similar experience a couple of weekends ago,
> recording a 4-piece free jazz group in a smallish room. I
> was recording 8 tracks of digital but also a 2-channel
> mixdown for the musicians to take away with them. You
> just can't judge the sound of the mix on headphones when
> the musicans are playing in the same room.
I'd like to exapand on that - few if any can do well at judging anything
they hear just once.
Arny Krueger
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:12:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> You mean
>
> References and links, when appropriate, were supplied in
> my post.
>
>> The same year it came out, in 1996 Stuart was presenting
>> data that rebutted the alleged but totally fallacious
>> requirment for 120 dB dynamic range in The
>> Psychoacoustics of Multichannel Audio, please see
>> figures 9 and 14:
>>
>> http://www.meridian-audio.com/ara/multips3.pdf
>
> effected by the presence of a broad-band white-noise
> masker. The white noise intensity is varied between 0dB
> and 50dBspl."
>
> "Figure 14 Showing the monaural masked threshold for a
> multi-tone stimulus (in this case a bowed violin note)."
>
> Both are linked to masking effects, not dynamic range.
You miss tsome important points - masking sets a limit on actual perceived
dynamic range and distortion thresholds. So does threshold shifting.
Arny Krueger
message news:sj4122hsfjagitrsl...@4ax.com
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:13:56 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> where your post didn't exactly go unchallenged.
>
>
>>> Agreed, but more and more software is delivered in
>>> 24/96, compressed or not.
>> For necessary reasons, or simply for marketing reasons?
>
I've also seen audiophiles rant and rave about how much more dynamic range
the 24/96 version of the 16/48 recording has.... ;-)
nyo...@peoplepc.com
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:aLmdnTB0IPxaDb3Z...@comcast.com...
with an SPL meter and never gotten to 120 dB, and damn it's loud. The
planes are roughly 100 feet or less above you.
Bozo the Clown
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:00:32 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Cutting to the chase...
>
> As usual, you've neither adressed a single issue by properly refuting what
> was advanced by the authors of the papers I've quoted, nor supplied any
> references backing your claims.
>
> Here's a partial deconstruction of your so-called arguments.
>
my response. I'd just like you to know that I take your side in this
argument. My experience is that, as good as CD is, it is not the ultimate. I
have been extremely impressed with the improvement in high frequency
content, such as cymbals, in the SACD recordings that I've heard.
Please continue your excellent deconstruction of Arny Krueger's flawed rant.
Regards,
Bob Morein
Robert Morein
"John Atkinson" <Stereophi...@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
>
[snip nonsense]
>
> I had a similar experience a couple of weekends ago, recording a
> 4-piece free jazz group in a smallish room. I was recording 8 tracks of
> digital but also a 2-channel mixdown for the musicians to take away
> with them. You just can't judge the sound of the mix on headphones
> when the musicans are playing in the same room.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>
consistently apply his own standards.
Arny, you should not have posted that comment.
ScottW
Arny Krueger wrote:
> "ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1142983894.5...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >> news:dvpqdo$fp0$1...@reader2.panix.com
> >>
> >>> The higher bitdepth allows for extensive digital
> >>> processing without information loss -- *that*, as I
> >>> understand it, is the
> >>> main reason for its adoption.
> >>
> >> Exactly.
> >>
> >> BTW at my two-day recording session last week, here are
> >> some numbers that relate to observed resolution. The
> >> equivalent noise of the mics is speced at < 16 dB SPL.
> >>
> >> (1) Peak level for any discernable amount of time (1
> >> sample or a trio of samples that suggest a higher
> >> excursion) - call that -1 dB FS. This corresponded to
> >> about 95 dB SPL, A-weighted and slow meter averaging.
> >
> > Peak levels measured on slow meter averaging? That
> > sounds wrong to me.
>
> It is what it was.
>
> If you had much real world experience with SPL meters, you'd see that this
> is not an oxymoron.
It means your 95 dB number is useless to represent peaks.
>
> You see, you have this SPL meter set for slow averaging, and you keep track
> of the peak readings on the meter.
>
> > http://www.norsonic.cz/web_pages/sound_level_assessment.html
>
> So what?
>
> > Matter of fact it is wrong.... incredibly wrong...infinintely wrong....
>
> Like I said - much real world experience with a SPL meter...
Yes... and I know you can't read peaks accurately with an analog meter
(that isn't sophisticated enough to incorporate a peak hold so you can
read it), a digital meter set to peak display is the right way to get
the numbers.... and using slow setting is beyond wrong....its
incompetent.
ScottW
Arny Krueger
news:WB0Uf.8555$sL2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net
Been there, done that.
Yeah, but what's the background noise level, between planes?
Arny Krueger
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:58:28 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> You miss tsome important points - masking sets a limit
>> on actual perceived dynamic range and distortion
>> thresholds. So does threshold shifting.
>
Apparently far better than many have.
Arny Krueger
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:53:07 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> I
>> then challenged any and all of the guys who cut LPs to
>> cut a LP with that test suite on it. No takers!
>
> good lacquer while risking to ruin a very expensive
> cutting head?
Because it is there. ;-)
And you illustrate my point - this track which burns onto a CD in a blink of
an eye, poses a grave danger to many LP cutter heads.
The hidden agenda is that if actually cut onto a LP at a decent level, this
little CD track would be a tough one to track cleanly, even with a V15
type-whatever.
Harry Lavo
"John Atkinson" <Stereophi...@Compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:1142984168.5...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
Yeah, even with Pro 4AA's and chamber music it's a problem.
Steven Sullivan
> >So, what's the frequency response of the best LP + LP playback system like
> >from, say 15-20 kHz? How linear/undistorted is it?
> I've seen TT's flat to above 30 KHz (using suitable test records, of
> course), with a very low disto by mechanical playback standards.
So, tell me more about these 'suitable test records', and what constituted
'very low disto'?
Steven Sullivan
> wrote:
> >where your post didn't exactly go unchallenged.
> It wasn't refutated.
From your POV, no doubt it wasn't.
> >> Agreed, but more and more software is delivered in 24/96, compressed or not. > >For
necessary reasons, or simply for marketing reasons?
> Both. I've even seen 16/48 repackaged as 24/96...
What necessary reason is there for this?
___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority
MINe 109
<jennconducts-B597...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
Jenn <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <smcatut-260B77...@news-fe-03.texas.rr.com>,
> > Didn't your chair rumble with the bass drum? One would espect 12' from
> > the lip of the stage with a marching band on it to be somewhat loud. You
> > even claimed being close to a band was inherently deafening a week or
> > two ago.
> To be fair, I think that he was at a concert band contest.
My high school was so small, the concert band was the marching band!
Still, even a concert band will have a bass-drum thwack or two.
Speaking of live mixes and concert bands, UT's recording guys
occasionally contribute to radio broadcasts. I recently heard the Austin
Lyric Opera's Shostakovich "Lady Macbeth" live over the Quads in the
living room. Concert band time was a similar but shorter experience of
the last quarter hour of the premier of Corigliano's new wind symphony a
year or two ago.
One concession to church jobs with Wednesday services was missing all
those UT Wind Ensemble concerts.
Stephen
MINe 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> "MINe 109" <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:smcatut-260B77...@news-fe-03.texas.rr.com
> Oh, that. I guess skin contact isn't that significant at normal SPLs.
Didn't there seem to be a difference in acoustic energy between live and
headphones?
> > Didn't your chair rumble with the bass drum?
>
> No. Cement floor, I guess.
I suppose. Winter clothes and all.
> > One would
> > espect 12' from the lip of the stage with a marching band
> > on it to be somewhat loud.
>
> They weren't marching at the time.
They were probably playing.
> > You even claimed being close
> > to a band was inherently deafening a week or two ago.
>
> I did some measurements with a SPL meter and found my ear plugs to limit
> long-term exposures.
This raises other questions.
Stephen
MINe 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
<massive snip of presumed Arny agreement>
> > Cd jitter should be considered a pressing defect or a
> > mastering failure.
>
> Shows ignornace of the fact that CD jitter is rampant at the laser pickup
> but vastly reduced by the data buffer and reclocking that is by definition
> and absolute necessity present in every CD player, no matter how cheap or
> simple.
That's why I think is should be considered a pressing defect or a
mastering failure.
Stephen
MINe 109
> >>>> The recording process (i.e., 16/44 stereo digitization)
> >>>> was proven to be sonically transparent several years
> >>>> before the first commercial CD was even released.
> >>
> >>> But not necessarily the recording equipment.
> >>
> >> When the CD format was introduced, Sony and Philips had
> >> 100% control over the production of CDs - all CDs were
> >> made in their plants. They produced 100% of all of the
> >> digital masters. The recording equipment that was unique
> >> to the CD format was under their control. The new
> >> digital recording process was standardized by them and
> >> known to be sonically transparent.
>
> > Until it was improved by dithering techniques.
>
> That happened well before the CD format was even a twinkle in anybody's eye.
They just forgot to include it in the recorders and mastering equipment.
> > Then it was even more transparent.
>
> No, it was transparent at the outset, aside from possible imperfections in
> some players. As is often the case, the recording equipment was better than
> some of the players.
Yet it has improved.
> > Then came higher rez
> > recordings and it more transparent still.
>
> You can't improve on transparent.
>
> > Salome should have so many layers of transparency.
>
> Yawn.
Dance of the Seven Veils. Get it?
Stephen
Jenn
MINe 109 <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
LOL. Well, sad to say that in most schools, whether a band is a MB or a
CB depends on the season of the year. The situation ya'll have down
there in TX with some of those huge high school programs where there is
CB the entire school year is VERY rare.
>
> Still, even a concert band will have a bass-drum thwack or two.
Indeed, but it depends on the literature, of course.
>
> Speaking of live mixes and concert bands, UT's recording guys
> occasionally contribute to radio broadcasts. I recently heard the Austin
> Lyric Opera's Shostakovich "Lady Macbeth" live over the Quads in the
> living room. Concert band time was a similar but shorter experience of
> the last quarter hour of the premier of Corigliano's new wind symphony a
> year or two ago.
What a GREAT work that is! I heard the second performance of it which
took place last Feb. at Carnegie with the UT Wind Ensemble and my good
friend Jerry Judkin. They then recorded it for Chandos, but the release
might be doomed, last I heard. They would have done it with Reference,
but they were still out of business at that point.
>
> One concession to church jobs with Wednesday services was missing all
> those UT Wind Ensemble concerts.
Dang! I wish that I could have recordings of those broadcasts. Maybe I
can work out something with Jerry.
I was at UT last October, at Jerry's invitation, to be part of a "Think
Tank for a New Era"; a small group of conductors who spent 3 days
together talking through the future of the conducting profession in the
U.S. It was a great weekend. I liked Austin a great deal, and Jerry
took us for some great food!
MINe 109
<jennconducts-C7CA...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
Jenn <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > To be fair, I think that he was at a concert band contest.
> >
> > My high school was so small, the concert band was the marching band!
>
> LOL. Well, sad to say that in most schools, whether a band is a MB or a
> CB depends on the season of the year. The situation ya'll have down
> there in TX with some of those huge high school programs where there is
> CB the entire school year is VERY rare.
Texas does some things well, education-wise. There are big choirs, too.
> > Still, even a concert band will have a bass-drum thwack or two.
>
> Indeed, but it depends on the literature, of course.
The loudest sound I've heard at an ensemble performance was from a gong
during a Strauss fanfare.
> > Speaking of live mixes and concert bands, UT's recording guys
> > occasionally contribute to radio broadcasts. I recently heard the Austin
> > Lyric Opera's Shostakovich "Lady Macbeth" live over the Quads in the
> > living room. Concert band time was a similar but shorter experience of
> > the last quarter hour of the premier of Corigliano's new wind symphony a
> > year or two ago.
>
> What a GREAT work that is! I heard the second performance of it which
> took place last Feb. at Carnegie with the UT Wind Ensemble and my good
> friend Jerry Judkin. They then recorded it for Chandos, but the release
> might be doomed, last I heard. They would have done it with Reference,
> but they were still out of business at that point.
Too bad. The premiere should be available to UT faculty.
> > One concession to church jobs with Wednesday services was missing all
> > those UT Wind Ensemble concerts.
>
> Dang! I wish that I could have recordings of those broadcasts. Maybe I
> can work out something with Jerry.
Sorry to mislead you: the concerts are routinely recorded but they
aren't regular broadcasts. I would have been happy to attend in person.
> I was at UT last October, at Jerry's invitation, to be part of a "Think
> Tank for a New Era"; a small group of conductors who spent 3 days
> together talking through the future of the conducting profession in the
> U.S. It was a great weekend. I liked Austin a great deal, and Jerry
> took us for some great food!
Austin is good for visits. UT hosts many interesting events such as the
one you participated in as well as composer visits.
Stephen
paul packer
wrote:
>Anecdote - I just spent two days seated about 12' from the front edge of a
>stage in a very good-sounding classic old high school auditorium about 100
>miles from here. I was recording a high school band competition. I had the
>opportunity to listen to the mic feed through a pair of well-respected
>high-accuracy headphones and compare that to the life sound. Close, but no
>cigar. I also auditioned every CD I burned with the same headphones. Within
>the obvious limits of non-level-matched non bias-controlled comparisons
>which many deny exist, the CDs sounded just like the mic feed.
You mean crap?
I think people who complain about CD sound, and I'm one, aren't
necessarily condemning digital out of hand as simply wondering why CD
can't seem to capture the delicate, sweet instrumental timbre one
hears live. They don't know, and I certainly don't, and I doubt you do
either, if the fault is digital-limitations related, engineer related,
acoustics related or a combination of all three. They just know most
of their CDs don't sound like what they hear in the concert hall or
the high school band auditorium. Hence the retreat into analogue.
paul packer
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>François Yves Le Gal said to CheapskateBorg:
>. Please stop rubbing Mr. Shit's indigence in his face.
George, a cheapskate is someone who has money but won't spend it. An
indigent is one who has no money. Make up your mind.
jeffc
> <mel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dvpae...@news4.newsguy.com
>
> I myself am an analog designer. I have 30 years experience designing
> analog microcircuits and have 22 patents. I also have several honors
> from EDN and Electronic Design magazines.
Yet, you're still a virgin and people avoid you at cocktail parties.
> It's no wonder the CD replaced the record overnight. If someone claims
> to prefer the sound of the record, that's fine, but they are not
> listening to a cleaner, more accurate recording, it just means that
> the remaining distortions give a sound that is pleasing to them.
Many early CD recordings were especially harsh (distorted) in the treble.
This was immediately obvious to anyone with any experience in listening to
music. As someone who can't hear the differences between CD players or
amplifiers, you should go hide away in a cave somewhere and not make any
more embarrassing comments about audio.
George M. Middius
paul packer said:
> >. Please stop rubbing Mr. Shit's indigence in his face.
>
> George, a cheapskate is someone who has money but won't spend it. An
> indigent is one who has no money. Make up your mind.
Sometimes the evidence points to one, and sometimes to the other. I'm just
hedging on the side of inclusiveness.
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
Arny Krueger
You don't get it Stephen, there is lots of jitter even when there is no
defect or mastering failure. Relatively massive simply what happens when the
most perfect CD ever made gets played. Every CD player, even the $19.95
cheapies make the jitter go away.
Arny Krueger
Players improved a tad, but the major improvements were in terms of size and
cost.
>>> Then came higher rez
>>> recordings and it more transparent still.
>>
>> You can't improve on transparent.
>>
>>> Salome should have so many layers of transparency.
>> Yawn.
> Dance of the Seven Veils. Get it?
Of course. Not worthy of being said. Hence the yawn.
Arny Krueger
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:43:41 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>>> Have you *read* and understood Z & F ?
>>
>> Apparently far better than many have.
>
Yes, I've read and studied Z&F from cover to cover. I'v parts of it several
times.
This happened a number of years ago. Z&F was a major source book behind the
creation of www.pcabx.com. I used information in Z&F to estimate thresholds
of audiblity so that my site provided a rannge of sound samples that made
various sonic problems range from easy to hear to difficult to hear to
impossible to hear.
Do I understand Z&F ? Not perfectly, but apparently well enough for the
purposes at hand. If I were to think of any questions that it addressed, I
of course would reread parts of it to improve my understanding of it.
Z&F is getting a little long in the tooth. Recently I've been finding
resources on the web that make some of the issues it raises more clear.
Arny Krueger
news:dvqbn3$877$4...@reader2.panix.com
> Fran?ois Yves Le Gal <fle...@aingeal.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 23:13:56 +0000 (UTC), Steven
>> Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>> where your post didn't exactly go unchallenged.
>
>> It wasn't refutated.
>
> From your POV, no doubt it wasn't.
>
>
>>>> Agreed, but more and more software is delivered in
>>>> 24/96, compressed or not. > >For
> necessary reasons, or simply for marketing reasons?
>
>> Both. I've even seen 16/48 repackaged as 24/96...
>
> What necessary reason is there for this?
Have something to sell that people will buy.
Arny Krueger
news:4420d75d...@news.iprimus.com.au
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:40:49 -0500, George M. Middius
> <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>
>> François Yves Le Gal said to CheapskateBorg:
>
>> . Please stop rubbing Mr. Shit's indigence in his face.
This is yet another one of George's lies.
> George, a cheapskate is someone who has money but won't
> spend it. An indigent is one who has no money. Make up
> your mind.
I'm neither. In 2004 I spent about $5,000 on audio and in 2005 I spent about
$15,000.
BTW Paul I bought a pair of Sennheiser HD 280 Pro headphones in an atttempt
to have headphones that sound nearly as good as my HD580s, but are not open
air. I was hoping for something that sounded better than my Sony MDR 7506s.
For home listening the HD580s are superior in just about any way I can think
of. Even the MDR 7506s are better - better balanced and more warm and
detailed.
Looks like I'm going to have to try the HD595s, like the ones you have.
Arny Krueger
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:46:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> And you illustrate my point - this track which burns
>> onto a CD in a blink of an eye, poses a grave danger to
>> many LP cutter heads.
>
Exactly.
Arny Krueger
Also, what constitutes "flat"?
Sonic transparency demands response through the midrange within a +/- 0.2 dB
envelope, more or less.
If one tries to measure the response of a LP playback system (one of those
things that apparently only I have done of all the RAO *eggspurts*) it's
just about impossible to get a measurement that is even stable within +/-
0.2 dB, let alone be consistently within +/- 0.2 dB of flat.
As the record rotates the output of the cartridge changes too much, even
with careful filtering. Some cartridges impose amplitude modulation on the
order of a dB or more on the audio signal as the cartridge wavers above the
disk. If the LP has an off-center hole, there is even more amplitude
modulation. Needless to say, this is audible and creates the impression of a
certain kind of imaging.
So much for LP midrange response. Let's tell the truth about response at 30
KHz.
The truth about LP playback response at 30 KHz is that simply playing the
LP more than a few times grinds the signal down.
Anybody who has a CD4 LP 4-channel decoder will tell you that after
anywhere from 5 to 20 plays, the light that indicates reliable detection of
the ultrasonic carrier goes out. This represents many DB of degradation of
signals in the 30 KHz range simply due to a nominal number of plays.
Arny Krueger
Yeah, what about the conductor who was at the epicenter fo this sonic
explosion of sorts.
Arny Krueger
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:13:08 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Anecdote - I just spent two days seated about 12' from
>> the front edge of a stage in a very good-sounding
>> classic old high school auditorium about 100 miles from
>> here. I was recording a high school band competition. I
>> had the opportunity to listen to the mic feed through a
>> pair of well-respected high-accuracy headphones and
>> compare that to the life sound. Close, but no cigar. I
>> also auditioned every CD I burned with the same
>> headphones. Within the obvious limits of
>> non-level-matched non bias-controlled comparisons which
>> many deny exist, the CDs sounded just like the mic feed.
>
> You mean crap?
Not at all. In fact a couple of the bands were so good that I cribbed some
tracks for my private collection.
> I think people who complain about CD sound, and I'm one,
> aren't necessarily condemning digital out of hand as
> simply wondering why CD can't seem to capture the
> delicate, sweet instrumental timbre one hears live.
There are several explanations for that.
First off, sometimes one does capture delicate sweet instrumental timbres in
digital recordings. I've been making a "best of" CD from my recordings at
church. As they play better and I continue to refine my micing and mixdown
techniques, I get a higher proportion of "keepers".
Secondly, you really can't hear that much detail in just one instance of
listening. I inevitably hear far more musical errors and nuances the more I
listen to my recordings. This after hearing a piece played maybe 6-8 times
in 5 days as a consequence of the usual rehearsal and performance cycle.
Thirdly, it's difficult or impossible to get your body to what seem to be
the best places for picking up sound. It's pretty much standard to place
mics in different places than a listener's ears would be. This is the result
of years of experimention by zillions of people with all kinds of micing,
including binaural recording which simulates a listener's ears and head very
closely.
For example I make a lot of recordings using X-Y micing, which involves a
coincident pair of cardioid mics. The best place for X-Y micing a band,
choir or orchestra is usually high in the air, anywhere from 6 to 12 feet
up, or more. The mic stand is usually placed a dozen or so feet behind the
conductor, which is somewhere near the lip of the stage, well ahead of the
first row of seats.
Another example, I also make a lot of recordings using close-micing. There
just aren't a lot of people who can put their ears about 4 inches from the
mouths of 5 vocalists at the same time. ;-)
>They
> don't know, and I certainly don't, and I doubt you do
> either, if the fault is digital-limitations related,
> engineer related, acoustics related or a combination of
> all three.
I've done all of the implied experiments many times, and digital-related
limitations are off the bottom of the list. It's all about mics, rooms, the
guy recording the gig, the guy doing the mixing, the guy doing the
mastering, and the guy listening and the equipment being used for playback.
>They just know most of their CDs don't sound
> like what they hear in the concert hall or the high
> school band auditorium. Hence the retreat into analogue.
It's a retreat into oblivion. There's a lot to be said for going forward
from 1968 technology. Just about everybody did it. Most of those of us who
have looked back, give forth with a hearty "Yecch!" and turn around and
resume going forward.
Harry Lavo
Or you could try Koss 4AA's, which are very fine monitoring headphones for
live recording.
Arny Krueger
news:jennconducts-C7CA...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
> LOL. Well, sad to say that in most schools, whether a
> band is a MB or a CB depends on the season of the year.
> The situation ya'll have down there in TX with some of
> those huge high school programs where there is CB the
> entire school year is VERY rare.
The high shools I've been working with have up to 4 bands - a cadet bend, a
intermediate band of some sort, a varsity band and a concert or symphonic
band. Depending on the school, the hierarchy is pretty clear from their
playing, or not. For esample, the varsity band and the concert band may
play better than the other, depending on who is having a good day.
A really good high school group can play about as well or better than some
adult volunteer, academic or semi-professional groups.
Arny Krueger
news:wd5Uf.40344$915....@southeast.rr.com
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:jZadnSIahqX...@comcast.com...
>> <mel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:dvpae...@news4.newsguy.com
>>
>> I myself am an analog designer. I have 30 years
>> experience designing analog microcircuits and have 22
>> patents. I also have several honors from EDN and
>> Electronic Design magazines.
>
> Yet, you're still a virgin and people avoid you at
> cocktail parties.
Gratuitous childish subjectivist personal attack noted.
>> It's no wonder the CD replaced the record overnight. If
>> someone claims to prefer the sound of the record, that's
>> fine, but they are not listening to a cleaner, more
>> accurate recording, it just means that the remaining
>> distortions give a sound that is pleasing to them.
>
> Many early CD recordings were especially harsh
> (distorted) in the treble. This was immediately obvious
> to anyone with any experience in listening to music.
The reason why is well known - bad mastering.
> As someone who can't hear the differences between CD players
> or amplifiers, you should go hide away in a cave
> somewhere and not make any more embarrassing comments
> about audio.
Gratuitous childish subjectivist personal attack noted.
And folks, is your typical subjectivist post on an audio group.
Arny Krueger
news:yNmdnRl5XaU...@comcast.com
Been there done that many times. I can even remember when Pro 4AAs were
among the best we had. I'd rather have holes drilled in my eardrums than
listen through Pro 4AAs.
Arny Krueger
message news:j4g222ttm20uskman...@4ax.com
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 06:57:48 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> Sonic transparency demands response through the midrange
>> within a +/- 0.2 dB envelope, more or less.
> Do you require the same response from a loudspeaker
> placed in a room?
I have no hopes of a speaker ever being transparent in the same sense as we
routinely observe with electonics and digital.
>> (one of those
>> things that apparently only I have done of all the RAO
>> *eggspurts*)
> Meep, wrong again.
Prove it!
>> So much for LP midrange response.
> So much for yet another series of irrelevant ramblings:
> well maintained test records are flat and stay centered.
> Transposing your examples to CD, you would have to use
> badly scratched or rotted dics...
Meep, wrong again.
>> The truth about LP playback response at 30 KHz is that
>> simply playing the LP more than a few times grinds the
>> signal down.
> That's incorrect. HF content can be preserved for
> hundreds or thousands of plays if the
> turntable/arm/cartridge is of sufficent quality as well
> as properly set-up.
Prove it!
MINe 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
Glass Onion.
Stephen
MINe 109
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> "MINe 109" <smc...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:smcatut-D76134...@news-fe-01.texas.rr.com
> > In article <qKCdnTbMOsO...@comcast.com>,
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >
> > <massive snip of presumed Arny agreement>
> >
> >>> Cd jitter should be considered a pressing defect or a
> >>> mastering failure.
> >>
> >> Shows ignornace of the fact that CD jitter is rampant at
> >> the laser pickup but vastly reduced by the data buffer
> >> and reclocking that is by definition and absolute
> >> necessity present in every CD player, no matter how
> >> cheap or simple.
> >
> > That's why I think is should be considered a pressing
> > defect or a mastering failure.
>
> You don't get it Stephen, there is lots of jitter even when there is no
> defect or mastering failure. Relatively massive simply what happens when the
> most perfect CD ever made gets played. Every CD player, even the $19.95
> cheapies make the jitter go away.
Stephen
MINe 109
Arny Krueger
Oh, wow an article that was written 17 years ago, in 1989.
It's true as far as it goes, but it leaps to some questionable conclusions:
"The plant used the correct master, cut the glass master at 1x, and as far
as I could tell, did everything right. But the CDs sounded different… unless
you played them on a $10,000 CD player. Then they sounded the same."
One of the things that was happening around 1989 is that this was around the
time that people were getting cocky and trying to burn glass masters faster
than the traditional 1X. I believe it was JVC who was telling them that
they'd improved the glass master media to make this possible. JVC was
probably right under ideal conditions, but they weren't right in every real
world situation. Some people including Roger Nichols and some friends of
mine got burned. Later on, JVC fixed the problem and it became permissiable
to burn glass masters at higher speeds. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
The other thing that was happening was that people were getting cocky about
making CD players. Instead of sticking to the established sweet spots for
various parameters, they were fudging things around to cut costs and obtain
other benefits. Like with some of the early portable CD players.
Bottom line - if you had a proper mastering setup that was dead nuts on, you
could probably burn the new glass masters at higher speeds. If you had a CD
player that was right on the money or close to it, you could listen to
suboptimal CDs and there wouldn't be a problem. You didn't need a $10K CD
player, you just needed one that was better than the portable player and
maybe some other desktop players that Roger Nichols was using.
Fast forward to today or even 5 years ago, or rewind to the early days of
CDs, and these problems just don't happen. CD players are good enough that
even the good cheap ones can play iffy discs like nothing bad could ever
happen.
A few exceptions don't disprove the basic rules, no matter how traumatic the
exceptions are to the people who have to struggle with them. Technology will
always bite you. Its just a matter of when it will bite you next.
Arny Krueger
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 07:34:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> Prove it!
>
> Mr. Krüger, I won't waste my time again and again
> addressing your rants, ad hominem attacks and assorted
> brain farts.
Yawn.
dave weil
wrote:
>So much for LP midrange response. Let's tell the truth about response at 30
>KHz.
Yes, that being such an important frequency for audibility.
Since you are on record as saying that >20kHz is audibly
insignificant, I guess you have trouble with math.