High resolution CD - SACD/DVD-A
Rick Stadelmaier
few observations.
When 16/44 CD came out, we were told about *perfect* sound forever,
vastly superior than vinyl!
As consumer learned and listened to this amazing new format, they soon
discovered this perfect sound was not so perfect.
Many claim LP is still so much better than CD, that they can't even
listen to there CD's anymore. Of course, many claim the exact opposite.
And the debate still continues as to which is better, CD or LP.
The new contenders are claiming superior sound to what was once claimed
perfect sound, how can this be?
On paper they look great, so did CD.
Will they sound great? They have the potential to sound sensational but
I bet many of the recordings will still be awful as many of our present
CD's are.
This has nothing to do with the format, though with the recording
engineers.
My CD collection rates as follows :
10% sound hideous, virtually non listenable.
20% are poor but listenable only because of the great music.
40% are ok.
20% are very good.
10% are superb.
The sad thing about this is many of the hideous CD's is the latest
music, while some of the superb CD's are more than 10 years old.
Technology doesn't always do us any favors.
Do we also make the same efforts to make our mediums sound there best?
Does anyone who owns a state of the art CD transport / DAC which perhaps
took 6 months or more to decide on, go to the same trouble of listening
for a turntable / arm / cartridge / pre-amp combination? And of course
the opposite?
In both scenarios, probably not.
Is all the information above 20khz on SACD/DVD-A going to make all the
difference?
Probably not, more likely the extra resolution in the *more* important
range of frequencies (20-20,000hz) will be (perhaps) more audible to us.
Then of course we still have to contend with the substandard way in
which many are inevitably going to be recorded.
Anyway, personally I think the new formats are a good thing, I just hope
they will be used to more of there potential, more of the time, unlike
CD has been.
BTW, I only own a CD player, not even a state of the art one. In fact
it's a Rotel RB-965BX, which sounds quite ordinary. I DO also have a
system which readily reveals the limitations of most sources.
I don't own a TT and may never.
This does not in anyway mean I prefer one over the other as I have heard
great things from both mediums, unfortunately I don't have the money to
buy into either in the way which I would really like.
Rick.
--
Rick Stadelmaier
Equinox Audio
http://www.equinoxaudio.com.au
equ...@pip.com.au
Sydney, Australia
Mark
on cd's to make the quiet parts sound louder , severely limiting
the dynamic range on the disc. The louder you turn it up the worse it
sounds.
Try the red hotchilli peppers ..californication .or black crowes ..by your
side for
examples of unlistenable discs.
I,ve been sucked in to buying "remastered " copies of some of my favourite
discs only to find they sound louder ,harsher and with a lot less dynamics
than the original cd release .
There has been much discussion of these issues on rec.audio.pro,it seems
the trend is to compress everything for the radio co's louder is better
right ?
Trevor
"Rick Stadelmaier" <equ...@pip.com.au> wrote in message
news:3AB412CE...@pip.com.au...
> All this talk about the new super CD formats I thought I would make a
> few observations.
>
> When 16/44 CD came out, we were told about *perfect* sound forever,
> vastly superior than vinyl!
Marketing hype of course, but closer to perfect for a LOT longer time.
> As consumer learned and listened to this amazing new format, they soon
> discovered this perfect sound was not so perfect.
They found that recording practices were not as perfect as the medium.
Nothing new there.
> Many claim LP is still so much better than CD, that they can't even
> listen to there CD's anymore. Of course, many claim the exact opposite.
The enjoyment of the user is all that matters surely?
> And the debate still continues as to which is better, CD or LP.
Gives people something to talk about.
> The new contenders are claiming superior sound to what was once claimed
> perfect sound, how can this be?
Superior specification means *potentially* superior quality.
> On paper they look great, so did CD.
Still does.
> Will they sound great? They have the potential to sound sensational but
> I bet many of the recordings will still be awful as many of our present
> CD's are.
Very true, potential quality and actual quality are two different things,
regardless of medium.
> This has nothing to do with the format, though with the recording
> engineers.
And many other things, as always.
> My CD collection rates as follows :
> 10% sound hideous, virtually non listenable.
> 20% are poor but listenable only because of the great music.
> 40% are ok.
> 20% are very good.
> 10% are superb.
Sounds about right for CD, for vinyl I would increase the percentage in the
first 2 categories.
> The sad thing about this is many of the hideous CD's is the latest
> music, while some of the superb CD's are more than 10 years old.
> Technology doesn't always do us any favors.
Yes it does. It is now possible to make a CD of listenable quality, for next
to no cost. That was totally impossible before. The million dollar LP
production would still be better, but there is a lot more music now being
made on a shoe string budget, which actually sounds OK, depending on the
abilty of those involved.
> Is all the information above 20khz on SACD/DVD-A going to make all the
> difference?
> Probably not, more likely the extra resolution in the *more* important
> range of frequencies (20-20,000hz) will be (perhaps) more audible to us.
In what way? Will you be able to hear better than the 96 dB S/N+D of CD??
Not in any house at any reasonable listening level.
> Then of course we still have to contend with the substandard way in
> which many are inevitably going to be recorded.
And this is the same old problem regardless of distribution medium.
> Anyway, personally I think the new formats are a good thing, I just hope
> they will be used to more of there potential, more of the time, unlike
> CD has been.
I can't see how they will possibly use the extra potential even a miniscule
portion of the time. And I wouldn't want them to. I couldn't possibly listen
to music with 148 dB dynamic range, or 48 kHz frequency response. Maybe when
they invent a direct brain interface, to bypass our less than perfect
auditory system.
However most people already own a CD player, so they have to stimulate the
market with new technology. I am willing to bet MP3 players outsell SACD for
quite a while yet though. As many people have found, MP3 doesn't sacrifice
as much as they might think, simply because most recordings are poor to
start with. I have yet to meet a person with a pair of speakers, or a pair
of ears, that will benefit from SACD. Improved recordings, definitely.
Trevor.
Rick Stadelmaier
>
> "Rick Stadelmaier" <equ...@pip.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3AB412CE...@pip.com.au...
> > All this talk about the new super CD formats I thought I would make a
> > few observations.
> >
> > When 16/44 CD came out, we were told about *perfect* sound forever,
> > vastly superior than vinyl!
>
> Marketing hype of course, but closer to perfect for a LOT longer time.
Agreed.
> > As consumer learned and listened to this amazing new format, they soon
> > discovered this perfect sound was not so perfect.
>
> They found that recording practices were not as perfect as the medium.
> Nothing new there.
Yes, and the fact that the medium does have flaws, which are audible.
> > Many claim LP is still so much better than CD, that they can't even
> > listen to there CD's anymore. Of course, many claim the exact opposite.
>
> The enjoyment of the user is all that matters surely?
Of course.
> > And the debate still continues as to which is better, CD or LP.
>
> Gives people something to talk about.
Not quite, they do sound different. Each one has strengths and
weaknesses.
> > The new contenders are claiming superior sound to what was once claimed
> > perfect sound, how can this be?
>
> Superior specification means *potentially* superior quality.
Of course.
> > On paper they look great, so did CD.
>
> Still does.
Mostly.
> > Will they sound great? They have the potential to sound sensational but
> > I bet many of the recordings will still be awful as many of our present
> > CD's are.
>
> Very true, potential quality and actual quality are two different things,
> regardless of medium.
Of course.
> > This has nothing to do with the format, though with the recording
> > engineers.
>
> And many other things, as always.
Agreed.
> > My CD collection rates as follows :
> > 10% sound hideous, virtually non listenable.
> > 20% are poor but listenable only because of the great music.
> > 40% are ok.
> > 20% are very good.
> > 10% are superb.
>
> Sounds about right for CD, for vinyl I would increase the percentage in the
> first 2 categories.
Dunno, I haven't had enough experience with vinyl to know, but I don't
doubt you, if your speaking from personal experience.
> > The sad thing about this is many of the hideous CD's is the latest
> > music, while some of the superb CD's are more than 10 years old.
> > Technology doesn't always do us any favors.
>
> Yes it does. It is now possible to make a CD of listenable quality, for next
> to no cost. That was totally impossible before. The million dollar LP
> production would still be better, but there is a lot more music now being
> made on a shoe string budget, which actually sounds OK, depending on the
> abilty of those involved.
Sure it's possible, I'll re-word what I said, we don't always get what
technology allows.
> > Is all the information above 20khz on SACD/DVD-A going to make all the
> > difference?
> > Probably not, more likely the extra resolution in the *more* important
> > range of frequencies (20-20,000hz) will be (perhaps) more audible to us.
>
> In what way? Will you be able to hear better than the 96 dB S/N+D of CD??
> Not in any house at any reasonable listening level.
CD's can't do 96dB at any decent resolution. Potentially, low level
detail will be improved.
> > Then of course we still have to contend with the substandard way in
> > which many are inevitably going to be recorded.
>
> And this is the same old problem regardless of distribution medium.
Yep.
> > Anyway, personally I think the new formats are a good thing, I just hope
> > they will be used to more of there potential, more of the time, unlike
> > CD has been.
>
> I can't see how they will possibly use the extra potential even a miniscule
> portion of the time. And I wouldn't want them to. I couldn't possibly listen
> to music with 148 dB dynamic range, or 48 kHz frequency response. Maybe when
> they invent a direct brain interface, to bypass our less than perfect
> auditory system.
Of course you couldn't. No live music has 148dB dynamic range, and
nobody wants this on our CD's. It's about storing the music the way it
should be, whether it be 60dB or 90dB, normal CD's can't do this with
total accuracy, even though they claim to. And I think I mentioned the
importance of information above 20k, it may or may not be important, I
know where my money is.
> However most people already own a CD player, so they have to stimulate the
> market with new technology. I am willing to bet MP3 players outsell SACD for
> quite a while yet though.
I'm sure it will too, what does this say though? A ford Festiva outsells
a <insert model> Ferrari too.
> As many people have found, MP3 doesn't sacrifice
> as much as they might think, simply because most recordings are poor to
> start with.
MP3 is not real hi-fi, it is a convenience thing, it has it's place
though.
> I have yet to meet a person with a pair of speakers, or a pair
> of ears, that will benefit from SACD. Improved recordings, definitely.
Maybe you met enough people :)
Seriously, your right to a point, most people won't hear any difference
on there systems. It is the very small percentage of the population
which own the equipment to realise the (potential) improvements which
the new mediums may have, this is why it may never happen on a
worthwhile scale.
Andrew Reilly
>Trevor wrote:
>> In what way? Will you be able to hear better than the 96 dB S/N+D of CD??
>> Not in any house at any reasonable listening level.
>
>CD's can't do 96dB at any decent resolution. Potentially, low level
>detail will be improved.
What do you mean by that? CDs (the disks themselves) get 96dB
S/N+D without really trying, and across the entire frequency
range. Modern dithering techniques can improve on this in
critical ranges, like the few kHz of vocals. (This is the same
"noise shaping" technology that produced SACD in the first
place.)
--
Andrew
Trevor
> Trevor wrote:
> > They found that recording practices were not as perfect as the medium.
> > Nothing new there.
>
> Yes, and the fact that the medium does have flaws, which are audible.
Not on normal music, in a normal environment at normal listening levels they
aren't. The flaws in the recording often are though. And sometimes the flaws
in the equipment used (i.e. DAC)
> Not quite, they do sound different. Each one has strengths and
> weaknesses.
Agreed, though the objective strengths of vinyl are few.
> > Sounds about right for CD, for vinyl I would increase the percentage in
the
> > first 2 categories.
>
> Dunno, I haven't had enough experience with vinyl to know, but I don't
> doubt you, if your speaking from personal experience.
With over 500 vinyl LP's plus 45 and 78's, I have more experience than many
who claim to know better.
> Sure it's possible, I'll re-word what I said, we don't always get what
> technology allows.
Agreed.
> > In what way? Will you be able to hear better than the 96 dB S/N+D of
CD??
> > Not in any house at any reasonable listening level.
>
> CD's can't do 96dB at any decent resolution. Potentially, low level
> detail will be improved.
The resolution IS plus/minus 1 db at -96 dB. Since the best analog system
has a dynamic range of no better than 80 dB (60 dB being about average) then
the "resolution" could be said to be 16 dB at the same level. Whilst it is
possible to measure/hear signals below the noise floor in an analog system,
there is a limit unless the noise is narrow band. The noise floor of vinyl
is wide band, (plus impulse noise) and you will never hear/measure any
signal at - 96 dB. Don't be fooled by those who claim the resolution of
vinyl is unnafected by level. They just don't understand the physics
involved.
> > I can't see how they will possibly use the extra potential even a
miniscule
> > portion of the time. And I wouldn't want them to. I couldn't possibly
listen
> > to music with 148 dB dynamic range, or 48 kHz frequency response. Maybe
when
> > they invent a direct brain interface, to bypass our less than perfect
> > auditory system.
>
> Of course you couldn't. No live music has 148dB dynamic range, and
> nobody wants this on our CD's. It's about storing the music the way it
> should be, whether it be 60dB or 90dB, normal CD's can't do this with
> total accuracy, even though they claim to. And I think I mentioned the
> importance of information above 20k, it may or may not be important, I
> know where my money is.
A CD can store 96 dB of dynamic range and a bandwidth of 22 kHz *completely*
Only people who don't understand physics claim otherwise.
If you believe you can hear more than 22 kHz, there are 2 simple tests.
1) Sine waves. Can you hear a 23 kHz sine wave at ANY level?
2) Filtering. Listen to specially recorded music, place a 23 kHz low pass
filter in the chain. Can you reliably tell the difference under a double
blind test?
AFAIK, nobody over 20 has ever passed the second test, but if you can pass
the first, then SACD's may help you.
> > However most people already own a CD player, so they have to stimulate
the
> > market with new technology. I am willing to bet MP3 players outsell SACD
for
> > quite a while yet though.
>
> I'm sure it will too, what does this say though? A ford Festiva outsells
> a <insert model> Ferrari too.
Exactly, fortunately we don't all need to buy a Ferrari to use the road.
>
> > As many people have found, MP3 doesn't sacrifice
> > as much as they might think, simply because most recordings are poor to
> > start with.
>
> MP3 is not real hi-fi, it is a convenience thing, it has it's place
> though.
That was my point. MP3 isn't HiFi, but many people are very happy with the
improvement over cassette.
The number of "hifi" buffs that taped their vinyl LP's to cassette, so they
could listen to them without wearing them out, was quite large,(including
me). They even spent thousands on Nakamichi's which were well made, but
still not HiFi. Thankfully technology has improved and we now have CD's.
> > I have yet to meet a person with a pair of speakers, or a pair
> > of ears, that will benefit from SACD. Improved recordings, definitely.
>
> Maybe you met enough people :)
> Seriously, your right to a point, most people won't hear any difference
> on there systems. It is the very small percentage of the population
> which own the equipment to realise the (potential) improvements which
> the new mediums may have, this is why it may never happen on a
> worthwhile scale.
Exactly my prediction, and I for one won't mourn it's loss. I would rather
see a 44/16 lossless non mechanical format. The technology is here, the
price may soon be viable.
Trevor.
Rick Stadelmaier
Not quite. Go have a read.
http://www.anstendig.org/CDandDig.html
Don't think I hate CD's, quite the opposite, as I stated, this is all I
listen too, but I also am well aware of it's shortcomings.
Rick Stadelmaier
>
> "Rick Stadelmaier" <equ...@pip.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3AB52CAB...@pip.com.au...
> > Trevor wrote:
> > > They found that recording practices were not as perfect as the medium.
> > > Nothing new there.
> >
> > Yes, and the fact that the medium does have flaws, which are audible.
>
> Not on normal music, in a normal environment at normal listening levels they
> aren't. The flaws in the recording often are though. And sometimes the flaws
> in the equipment used (i.e. DAC)
In your opinion, which I respect.
> > Not quite, they do sound different. Each one has strengths and
> > weaknesses.
>
> Agreed, though the objective strengths of vinyl are few.
One would think so, but there are a lot of supporters and as I said,
they can sound stunning.
> > > Sounds about right for CD, for vinyl I would increase the percentage in
> the
> > > first 2 categories.
> >
> > Dunno, I haven't had enough experience with vinyl to know, but I don't
> > doubt you, if your speaking from personal experience.
>
> With over 500 vinyl LP's plus 45 and 78's, I have more experience than many
> who claim to know better.
This is good, no need to doubt you then.
Go have a read of this.
http://www.anstendig.org/CDandDig.html
> If you believe you can hear more than 22 kHz, there are 2 simple tests.
> 1) Sine waves. Can you hear a 23 kHz sine wave at ANY level?
> 2) Filtering. Listen to specially recorded music, place a 23 kHz low pass
> filter in the chain. Can you reliably tell the difference under a double
> blind test?
> AFAIK, nobody over 20 has ever passed the second test, but if you can pass
> the first, then SACD's may help you.
I never said I can hear above 22k (16.7, actually). If you re-read my
original post, I stated that the (very) little information above 20k
will hardly make an audible difference and is NOT important (IMHO). What
I did state, is the extra bandwidth will allow higher resolution in the
audible band (20-20,000).
> > > However most people already own a CD player, so they have to stimulate
> the
> > > market with new technology. I am willing to bet MP3 players outsell SACD
> for
> > > quite a while yet though.
> >
> > I'm sure it will too, what does this say though? A ford Festiva outsells
> > a <insert model> Ferrari too.
>
> Exactly, fortunately we don't all need to buy a Ferrari to use the road.
No, but I asked what does your statement say?
> > > I have yet to meet a person with a pair of speakers, or a pair
> > > of ears, that will benefit from SACD. Improved recordings, definitely.
> >
> > Maybe you met enough people :)
> > Seriously, your right to a point, most people won't hear any difference
> > on there systems. It is the very small percentage of the population
> > which own the equipment to realise the (potential) improvements which
> > the new mediums may have, this is why it may never happen on a
> > worthwhile scale.
>
> Exactly my prediction, and I for one won't mourn it's loss. I would rather
> see a 44/16 lossless non mechanical format. The technology is here, the
> price may soon be viable.
Why? You were just saying that CD's are near enough to perfect to be
audibly perfect?
Malcolm Short
You have raised some interesting issues here. I am particularly looking
forward to some resolution of the SACD/DVD-A issue. I have heard both (to a
limited extent) and I think the potential is fantastic.
However, the real problem is the quality of the software. Redbook CD's may
have certain limitations which SACD or DVD-A may address, but the biggest
issue I find is that 95% of recordings do not exploit the quality available
in the normal CD format. Whether its just crappy recordings, or whether the
generation that we get here in Oz is of lesser quality than other versions
elsewhere, doesn't matter, it's the same result - CD's generally do not use
the available technology. On the other hand if you listen to some great
recordings or re-masterings - take some of the JVC XRCD CDs for example -
the redbook CD can sound pretty stunning.
Of course, afficionados of vinyl can say the same for the quality of vinyl
recordings which suffers from the same problem. Perhaps look at the early
Sheffield Labs direct to disk recording for great examples of vinyl
recordings which exploit the limits in the available technology.
The real question is will there be enough care taken with the new formats to
properly exploit the available quality. I hope so, but I am not confident. I
fear that the majority of recordings will be ok, but only ok. On the other
hand there will probably be a smaller percentage of recordings which are
truly wonderful.
regards
Malcolm
(sorry, I originally posted this direct to Rick by mistake, rather than the
group)
Rick Stadelmaier <equ...@pip.com.au> wrote in message
news:3AB412CE...@pip.com.au...
Andrew Reilly
>Not quite. Go have a read.
>
>http://www.anstendig.org/CDandDig.html
Thanks for that. I haven't had such a good chortle for ages!
That page reminds me of an academic paper that a senior
lecturer at Uni wrote to debunk the usefulnes of the (then new)
transistor. The University had been sent one of the first
production samples, and this lecturer had prompty vapourised it
by trying to get it to switch power current for some rotating
machine.
Anyway, I'm sure that many readers will have gone to read the
article themselves, but I can't help myself from quoting some
good bits:
> Because, for nearly a century, playback systems have not been
> able to reproduce the most subtle expressive nuances and
> exquisite modulation of music, many people hear those qualities
> so seldom that they no longer know about or listen for them.
So: just how good were those record players in 1901?
> Everything in this room, including the walls, ceilings,
> speakers, electronics, and even the resonance factors of
> the building materials has been precisely computed to be an
> integral part of the sound reproduction. It is a perfect
> acoustical environment. Live, but with absolutely no ringing
> and no resonances. The speakers, custom-built to Cotter's
> specifications, radiate in such a manner that the sound remains
> the same throughout the room.
That certainly sounds like a good design principle. Or not.
> The Anstendig Institute has used digital processors for half a
> year and has carefully investigated the sound quality, including
> comparisons of audience reaction to programs of digital and
> programs of analog sound.
Wow. They've posessed a digital processor for six whole months!
> Mr. Cotter explains that the reason for so much
> misunderstanding and misinformation regarding digital is
> that most of the important research and development of
> digital technology was done under government contract for
> defense purposes, particularly in the development of radar
> technologies to disguise the presence of radar signals and
> in further technologies aimed at detecting those disguised
> signals. Therefore, the most important research into the
> necessary sampling density for detection of transients, etc.,
> belongs to different disciplines, much of which lies under the
> blanket of National Security and is not readily accessible,
> even to the professional audio world.
As someone who did some of that government defense radar
transient detection research, and read and reviewed many other's
work while I was at it, I can comfortably say that Nyquist's
work was never in the slightest doubt.
Hell: no need to make it all mysterious. _Most_ of the real
work involved in the sampling theorem came straight out of the
telephone industry. Nyquist sampling frequency and Shannon's
sampling theorem work just as well at 8kHz as they do at 44.1kHz
or 96kHz or 1MHz. (Hint: Shannon worked for Bell labs at the
time...)
> The sampling rate of 44,000 samples per second is not even
> close to being fast enough to reproduce that information
> accurately. Mr. Cotter emphasizes that this limitation is
> not a matter of imperfection of circuitry but, rather, a
> fundamental mathematical limitation from the lack of sampling
> density. It is, therefore, simple ignorance to be speaking-of
> the Nyquist theory in relation to the recording of sound
> information. Anything approaching a true resemblance of the
> original sound-patterns first begins at at least 10 times
> the Nyquist limit, or twenty times the frequency of the tone
> being reproduced. And much greater sampling density than that
> is necessary for true accuracy that can match the fidelity of
> analog recordings. To improve upon the best of today's analog
> sound a sampling rate approaching one million samples per second
> (one megahertz) would be necessary.
So all you SACD afficionados can just give up. You might have
3MHz sampling, but you need 32 bits per sample at that rate...
> well-known, major crisis in the music world due to the
> deterioration in the quality of music-making
Ha, ha!
--
Andrew
Rick Stadelmaier
>
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:01:46 +1100, Rick Stadelmaier wrote:
> >Not quite. Go have a read.
> >
> >http://www.anstendig.org/CDandDig.html
>
> Thanks for that. I haven't had such a good chortle for ages!
>
> That page reminds me of an academic paper that a senior
> lecturer at Uni wrote to debunk the usefulnes of the (then new)
> transistor. The University had been sent one of the first
> production samples, and this lecturer had prompty vapourised it
> by trying to get it to switch power current for some rotating
> machine.
>
>
>
> --
> Andrew
Andrew, you may well make fun of what is written, of course that
particular piece of literature is very old and perhaps *exaggerated*,
things have improved.
The point I am trying to make is that our current CD although very good,
is not as perfect as some think and that the newer formats should go a
long way to make things a little better
Anyway.....
Rick Stadelmaier
>
> Rick,
>
> You have raised some interesting issues here. I am particularly looking
> forward to some resolution of the SACD/DVD-A issue. I have heard both (to a
> limited extent) and I think the potential is fantastic.
>
> However, the real problem is the quality of the software. Redbook CD's may
> have certain limitations which SACD or DVD-A may address, but the biggest
> issue I find is that 95% of recordings do not exploit the quality available
> in the normal CD format. Whether its just crappy recordings, or whether the
> generation that we get here in Oz is of lesser quality than other versions
> elsewhere, doesn't matter, it's the same result - CD's generally do not use
> the available technology. On the other hand if you listen to some great
> recordings or re-masterings - take some of the JVC XRCD CDs for example -
> the redbook CD can sound pretty stunning.
Yep.
> Of course, afficionados of vinyl can say the same for the quality of vinyl
> recordings which suffers from the same problem. Perhaps look at the early
> Sheffield Labs direct to disk recording for great examples of vinyl
> recordings which exploit the limits in the available technology.
Yep, which also sound stunning.
> The real question is will there be enough care taken with the new formats to
> properly exploit the available quality. I hope so, but I am not confident. I
> fear that the majority of recordings will be ok, but only ok. On the other
> hand there will probably be a smaller percentage of recordings which are
> truly wonderful.
I'd say you have it in one.
Andrew Reilly
>Andrew, you may well make fun of what is written, of course that
>particular piece of literature is very old and perhaps *exaggerated*,
>things have improved.
Indeed they have.
>The point I am trying to make is that our current CD although very good,
>is not as perfect as some think and that the newer formats should go a
>long way to make things a little better
No, of course CD isn't perfect. However it's limitations
are both very well understood, and "quite high", compared to
run-of-the-mill reproducton equipment and even production-side
equipment. There's no magic involved: the maths works.
It's perfectly reasonable to question whether bandlimiting
everything to 20kHz is truly adequate for music reproduction.
It seemed so at the time, but now we're getting a chance to see
if extra headroom really makes any difference.
I too have heard amazing things from vinyl records, but the
systems that can impress that way are way past my personal
cost-bennefit knee, and simply dealing with the fragility of the
recordings themselves is too much of a drag.
Yes, I'm looking forward to DVD-A (well, I would be if you
could get hold of the high-sample-rate digital output), and I'm
curious about SACD.
--
Andrew
Richard Norman
<3AB667CA...@pip.com.au>:
>The point I am trying to make is that our current CD although very
>good, is not as perfect as some think and that the newer formats
>should go a long way to make things a little better
>Anyway.....
That may well be the case, althought with current trends in commercial
mastering we could probably get by with two or three bit recordings
without significant degradation.
However, referring to that paper to support your case is a bit like
quoting 'Fox In Socks' to disprove the theory of general relativity.
Richard
--
"It's a very very very very
very very very very very very
very large mystery."
Trevor
claim, but I think you have done it better already :-)
Trevor.
"Richard Norman" <ofe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:906A6224Dofe...@139.130.250.4...
Trevor
doubt that a recording that IS beyond the range of standard CD's WILL sound
any better to any of us when played on the equipment we own (or can possibly
afford), in our homes, using our ears. Since that is subjective, I am happy
if you disagree and are willing to spend the amount necessary to find out.
That in itself may give you great pleasure, and as I have stated previously,
that's the important thing after all. Just don't try a double blind test
with the same material on a standard CD.
Trevor.
"Rick Stadelmaier" <equ...@pip.com.au> wrote in message
news:3AB66C33...@pip.com.au...
Trevor
> Trevor wrote:
> >
> > "Rick Stadelmaier" <equ...@pip.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:3AB52CAB...@pip.com.au...
> > > Trevor wrote:
> > Agreed, though the objective strengths of vinyl are few.
>
> One would think so, but there are a lot of supporters and as I said,
> they can sound stunning.
I have never said otherwise. I have some Sheffield labs, Crystal Clear labs,
and Denon recordings which are superb. They still do not contain any
information which couldn't be contained on CD. But the big problem is that
they were far from the normal record. Since they were recorded direct to
disk, they were very limited in the sort of music that could be presented.
Techniques like half speed mastering couldn't be used, so high frequency
response was limited by the cutter lathe head. The number of disks that
could be pressed from the master was limited before deterioration was
obvious. etc.
And the best 30 IPS tape machines with Dolby A NR had their own problems,
like trading LF response to achieve HF response. Not that it mattered as the
LF response was usually rolled off dramatically to fit a reasonable amount
of music on each side.
The best record in my whole collection is a JVC live recording of classical
music, quarter speed mastered to white vinyl at 45 RPM replay with ~10
minutes per 12 inch side. It was considered a great demo disk in it's day. I
have had people tell me how much better it sounds to CD, before I point out
with a smile that it was recorded using 48kHz/16 bit digital!
> > A CD can store 96 dB of dynamic range and a bandwidth of 22 kHz
*completely*
> > Only people who don't understand physics claim otherwise.
>
> Go have a read of this.
> http://www.anstendig.org/CDandDig.html
I don't see any physics that contradicts Nyquist, Shannon etc. Please quote
proveable scientific evidence that contradicts the accepted physical
scientific facts. Or at least theory that is not demonstrably incorrect.
> I never said I can hear above 22k (16.7, actually). If you re-read my
> original post, I stated that the (very) little information above 20k
> will hardly make an audible difference and is NOT important (IMHO). What
> I did state, is the extra bandwidth will allow higher resolution in the
> audible band (20-20,000).
You still haven't stated HOW it will allow higher "resolution" in the
audible band. I assume you are using a non accepted form of the term
Resolution. So for our benefit can you please define what you mean by it,
and how it will be improved in the audible band. Are you inferring you need
more than 96 dB dynamic range in your listening room? If so then I will
accept that CD is a limitation to you. There are not many people with
background noise levels less than 30 dB SPL though, and even fewer who can
play or listen to peaks above 120 dB SPL!
I will admit that using a good pair of sealed headphones can sometimes allow
you to listen to the air conditioner hum of the recording studio :-) I still
wonder if it's necessary though, or if you really believe recording
standards will improve that much.
> > > I'm sure it will too, what does this say though? A ford Festiva
outsells
> > > a <insert model> Ferrari too.
> >
> > Exactly, fortunately we don't all need to buy a Ferrari to use the road.
>
> No, but I asked what does your statement say?
Not much, the whole car thing is a pointless analogy. However a Ferrari is
definitely better to drive on any road to almost any driver.
Comparing SACD with CD is more like a normal driver arguing whether a
Maclaren F1 car is better than a Ferrari F1 car. Who apart from a F1 driver
on a race track could tell? And would it matter if you had to drive it on
normal roads with 100kph speed limits?
> > Exactly my prediction, and I for one won't mourn it's loss. I would
rather
> > see a 44/16 lossless non mechanical format. The technology is here, the
> > price may soon be viable.
>
> Why? You were just saying that CD's are near enough to perfect to be
> audibly perfect?
Audibly more than adequate. Obviously the benefit would not be audible, it
would be a convenience. Much smaller, no moving parts etc.
Actually there would be an audible benefit, since the drive motor of any CD
player in the same room as the listener, will generate more noise than the
noise floor of the CD being played, it will allow you to put the player in
the same room. Something you WONT be able to do with SACD if you want the
benefit of that lower noise floor.
Trevor.
Rick Stadelmaier
>
> equ...@pip.com.au (Rick Stadelmaier) wrote in
> <3AB667CA...@pip.com.au>:
>
> >The point I am trying to make is that our current CD although very
> >good, is not as perfect as some think and that the newer formats
> >should go a long way to make things a little better
> >Anyway.....
>
> That may well be the case, althought with current trends in commercial
> mastering we could probably get by with two or three bit recordings
> without significant degradation.
Slight exageration, like the paper eh......
> However, referring to that paper to support your case is a bit like
> quoting 'Fox In Socks' to disprove the theory of general relativity.
Maybe, maybe not, some of the problems, still and always will, apply.
Anyway, we should probably let this go, before someone takes to the
boxing ring.
Which somehow some topics always end up there.
Ahhh well...
Richard Norman
>> That may well be the case, althought with current trends in commercial
>> mastering we could probably get by with two or three bit recordings
>> without significant degradation.
>
>Slight exageration, like the paper eh......
Would that it were so! There are really major label recordings being
released with less than 10 dB of dynamic range. The last Red Hot Chilli
Peppers disc comes to mind; load some of the tracks into an audio editor
and you'll see waveforms shaped like rectangles.
>Anyway, we should probably let this go, before someone takes to the
>boxing ring.
>Which somehow some topics always end up there.
Yes. I think A vs D could be considered one of the lesser of the permanent
floating usenet flamewars, alongside gun control, abortion and Starship
Troopers.
Richard
--
"The platypus has the brain of a dolphin and can
be seen driving a forklift in his natural habitat
of kelp. He is the larva of the flatworm and has
the ability to regenerate after injury. No relation
to the flounder."
Rick Stadelmaier
>
> Which is exactly what I have been saying except for one thing, I very much
> doubt that a recording that IS beyond the range of standard CD's WILL sound
> any better to any of us when played on the equipment we own (or can possibly
> afford), in our homes, using our ears. Since that is subjective, I am happy
> if you disagree and are willing to spend the amount necessary to find out.
> That in itself may give you great pleasure, and as I have stated previously,
> that's the important thing after all. Just don't try a double blind test
> with the same material on a standard CD.
>
> Trevor.
It's not a matter of me disagreeing, I'm sure you know yourself there
are systems which can resolve a lot of fine detail and they are not
necessarily ridiculously expensive.
But your right in saying the huge majority will most likely not.
Rod Crawford
Sorry not to have commented earlier but I have been as usual bogged down in
other things (getting in last year's tax return etc!). Below are my
experiences (IMHO etc) without any theoretical justification.
To put my comments in context, my current system consists of (built up
slowly over many years and much of it acquired second
hand/wholesale/scrounged)
Linn LP12 turntable(Wakonded, trampolined etc )/Ekos/Troika
Sony 5ES CD player (heavily modified to near 7ES standard))
Pioneer 717 DVD player
Sony 9000ES preamp/processor (with 2.01 firmware upgrade)
Classe DR4 preamp (heavily modified)
Levinson 29 amp
Legend TOR prototypes (fronts), Kurka (centre), Joey (rears)
My first CD player (1991) was a Luxman 105 and the Linn turntable
combination generally knocked the socks off it (except perhaps in the bass).
The 5ES (in 1998) drew pretty level before modification and slightly ahead
of the Linn after modification (improving the 5ES power supply, upgrading
op-amps and replacing internal wiring with Cardas). The recent 2.01
firmware upgrade (9000ES processor fed coax digital from 5ES CD player) drew
substantially ahead of the Linn in all aspects (detail, bass power/control,
airiness in treble etc) with normal (red-book) CDs - and streets ahead on
96kHz/24 bit recordings (the 717/9000 combination does not down-sample). I
suspect the latter is also partly due to the experience/care Chesky etc take
with their recordings but where I have been able to compare the 96/24 with
the 44/16 on the recording the 96/24 is undoutably better (resolution, bass
detail, treble air etc). However, I agree with your comments that the
recording has a very large influence on sound quality and many records (CD
or vinyl) are pretty average - like speaker design, recording is also a
mechanical/electrical interface and so is partly a science and partly a
black art. I have noticed a general improvement in recording standard over
the past 5 years or so - not sure if it is better training, better/more
affordable microphones, better ADCs, better recording rooms (not backyard
garages) - probably a combination of all . IMHO, those who hark back to the
(BBC) 'golden days' of recording of the 1950s are deluded - both vinyl and
CD re-issues sound thin and muddled compared to recent recordings, at least
on my system. I have not yet tried SACD - am waiting to see if an
affordable universal player (SACD/DVDA) player is coming out in the near
future (does anyone know???).
Hope these comments generate more light than heat.
Cheers
Rod
(Dr) Rod Crawford
for Legend Acoustics
"Fast, open, Australian speakers"
www.legendspeakers.com.au
ABN 32 812 648 096
Rick Stadelmaier <equ...@pip.com.au> wrote in message
news:3AB412CE...@pip.com.au...
John Circosta
Trevor you mentioned in an earlier posting on this subject that a simple test to
prove the adequacy of the CD bandwidth limited response was to check if you
could hear a tone out at 22Khz and as you rightly mention this is not normally
possible for the average human. This test unfortunately is the one small piece
of objective evidence that scientists/engineers cling on to in the belief that
the Nyquist theory somehow vaguely relates to complex music passages ! The
Nyquist theory is a nice formulae for predicting how many samples are required
to reconstruct a single tone waveform nothing more nothing less, music is far
from a single tone.
If you believe your theory to be true that we can accurately reproduce music
with a bandwidth limited to 22 Khz because we can't hear past 20Khz then I would
suggest a much more reliable test for you. Listen to a 12Khz pure sine wave
produced through a reliable transducer and then listen to a 12Khz square wave
produced through the same transducer. if your theory is correct and for it to
hold true the two tones should sound identical since we cannot hear the 2nd, 3rd
etc harmonic of the square wave, we should hear only the fundamental sine wave.
Hmmm but strangely enough they sound totally different , how can that be ?
I would suggest ( as I have before on this NG) that we certainly don't hear
individual sine waves but what we do hear is the timbre of the fast rising
edges produced by the high frequencies which are imparted onto the musical
wavefront which changes the tonal quality of what we hear. When we hear a drum
stick striking the rim we hear the wavefront of the transient attack which gives
it that characteristic "crack", we do not hear a series of sine waves striking
our eardrum ! Fourier transforms are a nice mathematical model of how to
reconstruct a sine wave but it certainly does not model in any known way what we
hear, take the 2nd or 3rd harmonic of the drum stick strike away (pass the
waveform through a low pass filter) and what are we left with - a dull thud.
Bob Stuart of Meridian produced a white paper some years ago suggesting that an
adequate sample rate to reproduce true hi-fidelity music music had to be a
minimum of 80Khz this derived from objective measured spectral analysis of
music.
More recently John Atkinson from Stereophile did some comprehensive spectral
analysis of music recorded on Master tapes (both analogue and Digital) and off
LP's and the overwhelming result was that there is indeed high levels of
spectral content occurring typically out to 40Khz even for instruments such as
a piano which might have fundamentals occuring at 1Khz ! ( For further reading
see Stereophile October 2000).
And yes by the way LP's certainly contain spectral content out past 30Khz as do
analogue tapes from the sixties, those that hang on to the mistaken belief that
the old analogue tapes and cutting heads etc for LP's are not capable of
producing high frequency content have been nicely duped by the Philips/Sony CD
marketing machine....
By the way Bob Stuart also concluded that the "bit" issue was a non issue, his
research showed that any audible differences are lost past 18 bit recordings,
with 24 bit being laughable in that no D/A convertors exist that are capable of
true 24 bit performance, indeed with a 0db reference level the smallest steps
are well and truely into the thermal noise of the circuits being utilised. I'm
not sure we are ready for super-cooled convertors just yet !
For me personally the audible difference of any high frequency medium compared
to CD replay is so obviously audibly different that I find it hard to listen to
CD's and call them hi-fidelity, yes I own a Sony XA7ES CD player considered to
be a reference level player (it's for sale by the way if anyone is interested)
and yes, well recorded CD's such as JVC, Chesky, DMP etc sound good but I'm
afraid that my humble budget Turntable runs rings around them and whilst the TT
is certainly exceptional on good recordings Sheffield (and the like), standard
old LP recordings Willie Nelson etc still sound more natural with cymbals and
guitars that actually sound close to the real thing unlike the dead CD versions
!
Oh and by the way there is nothing wrong with a 96Khz Digitally recorded LP if
it has been transferred to analogue with a true 48kHz bandwidth simply because
an LP will reproduce the full spectral content whereas a downconverted CD of the
same thing simply cannot and will not reproduce it. (again those that argue
otherwise believe that for some reason all LP's roll off in the top end perhaps
because their old Pioneer direct drive turntable sounded that way !)
Now don't misunderstand my posting I'm not here to argue the Analogue Vs Digital
debate, true high rate digitally sampled recordings 96Khz or 192Khz are
fantastic when done well and I can't wait for a true high sample rate Digital
system be it SACD or DVD/A to become standard because I firmly believe that this
is where the future is. CD with it's 44khz sampling was a marketing ends to a
means which satisfied the market of it's day, it was chosen because it was
limited by the technology of the day not because it was seen to be perfect.
The bottom line for me is that to sample at 44Khz and throw away information is
no different to a lossy compression algorithm that we all hate with things like
MP3, the info is being lost there is no argument.
High sample rates are the issue, high resolution (more bits) are simply there
for marketing purposes !
Regards
John Circosta
Andrew Reilly
_except_ for the first paragraph that claims that the Nyquist
theory is wrong. The rest of the article gives perfectly
reasonable explanation about why the information between 20kHz
and 40kHz that is (or may be) reproduced by LP, 96kHz PCM and
SACD is important. I have no argument with that. That doesn't
refute the sampling theorem at all.
The issue with CD is that the initial assumption that a 20kHz
bandwidth was sufficient for music, just because that's how far
we can hear pure tones, was wrong. There's nothing wrong with the
way CDs reproduce the content _up_ to 20kHz, though. Shannon's
sampling theorem and the Nyquist sample rate work just as well
there as they do at 96kHz, or 192kHz, or even 8kHz in Telephone
systems.
The issue is how large is the bandwidth that you want to record?
For telephones, 4kHz seems to be enough. The guys who specc'd
CD thought that 20kHz was enough. Now we know better, so we're
building systems that can do 40kHz or more.
So?
I've certainly derived a great deal of pleasure from my CD
collection over the years, and I don't consider that the 20kHz
bandwidth limit was a significant impediment to that enjoyment.
Sure, I'm looking forward to higher quality recordings now, but
there's an awful lot of politics and bad faith wrapped up in
those formats too, that is a significant damper on the technical
upside.
--
Andrew
Matthew Kirkcaldie
this topic. And the 12kHz square wave is an exact demonstration of the
supposed "inaudibles" which are afforded by upping sampling rates and
word lengths beyond the sinewave response of the ear.
In fact, to my untrained mind, it almost seems as if a sinewave is the
"stealthiest" form of sound since its pressure variation is always
first, second and third-order continuous (I think). I wouldn't mind
betting that a person unable to hear a 17kHz sinewave could hear a 17kHz
square-wave or a complex waveform with that periodicity.
Now, if only I had the gear and the ear to definitively pick up these
things! I suspect I would spend my entire life listening to music.
Cheers,
Matthew.
John Circosta
Now that is an interesting thought, I will have to try it somehow myself.
Regards
John Circosta
John Circosta
Sorry, I did not mean to say that the Nyquist theory is wrong it is of
course correct , I was just attempting to illustrate the point that the
Nyquist theory is somehow magically used to justify the 44Khz sampling
rate as being perfect for music reproduction, as if having a single
mathematical fact somehow is argument enough !!
And yes I fully agree with you that both the new formats are also being
pushed by huge marketing machines which are more interested in
plundering it for all they can rather get than for the quality of music
reproduction just as the CD was back in the 80's.
I for one am waiting till the dust settles before committing to any new
format.
Regards
John Circosta
John Knight
imaging? These are areas where vinyl excels and where even very expensive CD
players get left behind. It is probably one of the main reasons fanatics
stick with vinyl.
Cheers
John K
Patrick Scully
news:3AB8495F...@ness.com.au...
> Mathew
> Now that is an interesting thought,
Time to smell the coffee, guys! Here is an interesting question (or two).
1. Will one of you guys reintroducing the LP/analogue debate answer this
question: which vinyl records have YOU auditioned that got as far as 20KHz,
what was the turntable, arm and cartridge, and how do you know that it was
actually reproducing 20KHz? And if you can identify one such LP, please
advise how many plays were possible before the frequency response dropped
below 15KHz.
2. Which LP have you found that was able to reproduce a square wave, as one
of you appears to be suggesting? People are interested to hear about this
miracle, verily Nobel prizes await-:))
3. When playing a 17KHz square wave, that should sound the same as a sine
wave, are we talking about a digitally encoded square wave? Addendum to the
question, which digital sample is NOT made up of square waves. Surely a
square wave is what is produced by the quantization of sampling. And
finally, don't you know that the critical part of the DAC as far as sound
quality is concerned is the analogue domain, which depends on lots of
things, not least the smoothing filters and the quality of the power supply!
I will have to try it somehow myself.
>
> Regards
> John Circosta
--
regards
Patric Scully
The Sound Man
Trevor
> Hmmm can't let this go without my two cents worth ! (sorry if this is
long)
>
> Trevor you mentioned in an earlier posting on this subject that a simple
test to
> prove the adequacy of the CD bandwidth limited response was to check if
you
> could hear a tone out at 22Khz and as you rightly mention this is not
normally
> possible for the average human. This test unfortunately is the one small
piece
> of objective evidence that scientists/engineers cling on to in the belief
that
> the Nyquist theory somehow vaguely relates to complex music passages !
The
> Nyquist theory is a nice formulae for predicting how many samples are
required
> to reconstruct a single tone waveform nothing more nothing less, music is
far
> from a single tone.
Agreed, why do you ignore the 2nd test I stated. i.e. take specially
recorded music with very wide band width, insert a 22 kHz low pass filter at
random using double blind test. AFAIK nobody has reliably passed this test
except for a female under 20 YO. This was a few years ago, if you can show
me evidence to the contrary, I will accept it.
However Nyquist theory holds for ALL bandwidth limited waveforms, nothing to
do with single tones only. Better re-read any good text on digital sampling
theory.
>
> If you believe your theory to be true that we can accurately reproduce
music
> with a bandwidth limited to 22 Khz because we can't hear past 20Khz then I
would
> suggest a much more reliable test for you. Listen to a 12Khz pure sine
wave
> produced through a reliable transducer and then listen to a 12Khz square
wave
> produced through the same transducer. if your theory is correct and for
it to
> hold true the two tones should sound identical since we cannot hear the
2nd, 3rd
> etc harmonic of the square wave, we should hear only the fundamental sine
wave.
>
> Hmmm but strangely enough they sound totally different , how can that be
?
Non linearities in the transducer perhaps? Or is that too simple for you.
Not all distortion is harmonic distortion.
All transducers have non linearities we consider totally unacceptable
elsewhere.
> I would suggest ( as I have before on this NG) that we certainly don't
hear
> individual sine waves but what we do hear is the timbre of the fast
rising
> edges produced by the high frequencies which are imparted onto the musical
> wavefront which changes the tonal quality of what we hear. When we hear a
drum
> stick striking the rim we hear the wavefront of the transient attack which
gives
> it that characteristic "crack", we do not hear a series of sine waves
striking
> our eardrum ! Fourier transforms are a nice mathematical model of how to
> reconstruct a sine wave but it certainly does not model in any known way
what we
> hear, take the 2nd or 3rd harmonic of the drum stick strike away (pass the
> waveform through a low pass filter) and what are we left with - a dull
thud.
The attack of the waveform is completely described by it's component parts,
fourier analysis DOES model exactly any bandwidth limited waveform. I think
you better study the maths better before you dispute it. However you are
correct in as much as limiting the bandwidth as per your drum example, will
increase the rise time of the transient, or to put it another way, reduce
the higher frequency components of the waveform. DUH.
Nobody has argued otherwise!
> Bob Stuart of Meridian produced a white paper some years ago suggesting
that an
> adequate sample rate to reproduce true hi-fidelity music music had to be a
> minimum of 80Khz this derived from objective measured spectral analysis of
> music.
Not peer reviewed scientific paper though. I wouldn't suggest that he is
primarily a business man!
I would love to see the data though. Do you have a reference?
> More recently John Atkinson from Stereophile did some comprehensive
spectral
> analysis of music recorded on Master tapes (both analogue and Digital) and
off
> LP's and the overwhelming result was that there is indeed high levels of
> spectral content occurring typically out to 40Khz even for instruments
such as
> a piano which might have fundamentals occuring at 1Khz ! ( For further
reading
> see Stereophile October 2000).
> And yes by the way LP's certainly contain spectral content out past 30Khz
as do
> analogue tapes from the sixties, those that hang on to the mistaken
belief that
> the old analogue tapes and cutting heads etc for LP's are not capable of
> producing high frequency content have been nicely duped by the
Philips/Sony CD
> marketing machine....
I have first hand experience with the problems inherent in 15 and 30 IPS
tape machines of the era and cutter burn out in Scully lathes etc. I have
even done my own spectral analysis on some records in my collection. I have
CD4 records with measureable high frequency response, and yes some stereo
records manage output at over 20 kHz. Definitely not on any normal recording
though. Only the ones that were specially made to prove it could be done,
when enough time, effort and expense was put into it. And that is the
problem that I was talking about. It won't be any different in future. Some
records will be made to show it can be done, most people will go Ho Hum, and
the majority of studios will get on with business as usual.
> By the way Bob Stuart also concluded that the "bit" issue was a non issue,
his
> research showed that any audible differences are lost past 18 bit
recordings,
> with 24 bit being laughable in that no D/A convertors exist that are
capable of
> true 24 bit performance, indeed with a 0db reference level the smallest
steps
> are well and truely into the thermal noise of the circuits being utilised.
I'm
> not sure we are ready for super-cooled convertors just yet !
Rather pointless unless you have an anechoic chamber anyway.
> For me personally the audible difference of any high frequency medium
compared
> to CD replay is so obviously audibly different that I find it hard to
listen to
> CD's and call them hi-fidelity, yes I own a Sony XA7ES CD player
considered to
> be a reference level player (it's for sale by the way if anyone is
interested)
> and yes, well recorded CD's such as JVC, Chesky, DMP etc sound good but
I'm
> afraid that my humble budget Turntable runs rings around them and whilst
the TT
> is certainly exceptional on good recordings Sheffield (and the like),
standard
> old LP recordings Willie Nelson etc still sound more natural with cymbals
and
> guitars that actually sound close to the real thing unlike the dead CD
versions
> !
As long as your happy. That's all that matters to you surely. Claiming
technical superiority requires proof though.
> Oh and by the way there is nothing wrong with a 96Khz Digitally recorded
LP if
> it has been transferred to analogue with a true 48kHz bandwidth simply
because
> an LP will reproduce the full spectral content whereas a downconverted CD
of the
> same thing simply cannot and will not reproduce it. (again those that
argue
> otherwise believe that for some reason all LP's roll off in the top end
perhaps
> because their old Pioneer direct drive turntable sounded that way !)
My cartridge is capable of 50 KHz thank you. My records aren't though.
Please provide spectrum analyser print out of the ones you own that are.
> Now don't misunderstand my posting I'm not here to argue the Analogue Vs
Digital
> debate, true high rate digitally sampled recordings 96Khz or 192Khz are
> fantastic when done well and I can't wait for a true high sample rate
Digital
> system be it SACD or DVD/A to become standard because I firmly believe
that this
> is where the future is. CD with it's 44khz sampling was a marketing ends
to a
> means which satisfied the market of it's day, it was chosen because it was
> limited by the technology of the day not because it was seen to be
perfect.
OK I agree with that, and you are probably right. Now that it is possible to
do high rate for minimal extra cost, there is no reason not to.
Don't hold your breath waiting for real audible improvements in the normal
release recordings though. I got sick of buying "demo" disks decades ago. I
prefer live music anyway, but enjoy CD's every day.
> The bottom line for me is that to sample at 44Khz and throw away
information is
> no different to a lossy compression algorithm that we all hate with things
like
> MP3, the info is being lost there is no argument.
No argument, the question is whether the information lost is audible to
normal people. If you think it is to you, fine.
> High sample rates are the issue, high resolution (more bits) are simply
there
> for marketing purposes !
Of course some argue the opposite. Those that quote "resolution" limitations
as being CD's problem. Each to his own opinion :-)
Trevor.
Trevor
"Patrick Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ab8...@usenet.per.paradox.net.au...
> Time to smell the coffee, guys! Here is an interesting question (or two).
>
> 1. Will one of you guys reintroducing the LP/analogue debate answer this
> question: which vinyl records have YOU auditioned that got as far as
20KHz,
> what was the turntable, arm and cartridge, and how do you know that it was
> actually reproducing 20KHz? And if you can identify one such LP, please
> advise how many plays were possible before the frequency response dropped
> below 15KHz.
I asked the same question, but it was ignored. What makes you think they
have EVER measured ANY record?
>
> 2. Which LP have you found that was able to reproduce a square wave, as
one
> of you appears to be suggesting? People are interested to hear about this
> miracle, verily Nobel prizes await-:))
Very good point, although "squareish" waves are possible, depending on
frequency. Remember that the groove shape is NOT the same as the waveform.
Vinyl does have a LOT more trouble at the low frequency end of the spectrum
than CD's do at the high frequency end. Vinyl fanatics choose to ignore that
severe limitation of course.
>
> 3. When playing a 17KHz square wave, that should sound the same as a sine
> wave, are we talking about a digitally encoded square wave? Addendum to
the
> question, which digital sample is NOT made up of square waves. Surely a
> square wave is what is produced by the quantization of sampling. And
> finally, don't you know that the critical part of the DAC as far as sound
> quality is concerned is the analogue domain, which depends on lots of
> things, not least the smoothing filters and the quality of the power
supply!
The digital square wave shape into the DAC has nothing to do with the
ability to get an audible square wave out. As long as jitter is not a
problem, the Dac will produce the same square wave out even if the input
waveform is a sine wave. A CD has NO waveform of course, only pits and
lands.
Trevor.
Patrick Scully
news:3ab8b795$0$25488$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Patrick Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote in > snip <
> I asked the same question, but it was ignored. What makes you think they
> have EVER measured ANY record?
As you may have guessed, what I really think is probably they NEVER measured
ANYTHING, not just records:-))
>
> >
> > 2. Which LP have you found that was able to reproduce a square wave, as
> one
> > of you appears to be suggesting? People are interested to hear about
this
> > miracle, verily Nobel prizes await-:))
>
> Very good point, although "squareish" waves are possible, depending on
> frequency.
True, but the accelerations required to deliver true square, and possibly
others such as triangular waves in the mechanical domain would defy the Laws
of Physics. Inertia guarantees that such is not possible, as I'm sure you
would agree.
>Remember that the groove shape is NOT the same as the >waveform.
Yes, but to achieve the instant change in direction of the wave in the
electrical domain, requires instant changes in the mechanical domain that
produces them. Yes, it is possible to get all sorts of wave shapes in the
other analogue domain, on a magnetic device such as tape, disc, etc.
> Vinyl does have a LOT more trouble at the low frequency end of the
spectrum
> than CD's do at the high frequency end. Vinyl fanatics choose to ignore
that
> severe limitation of course.
Which is why the RIAA equalisation curve was invented to make a reasonable
level of bass extension possible from the mechanical medium. And yes, vinyl
fanatics do choose ... but don't fanatics create their own view of the world
that by definition is more extreme than that created by non-fanatics.
I have been listening to recorded music since 1948, so I've been told. The
media have ranged from using thorns as needles, through steel needles with
totally mechanical gramophones; through all the interim media to the current
digital systems. Also, I have been a musician since 1953, started early, as
well as an engineer for the last 30 years and all I can say is that I have
enjoyed each significant improvement in bandwidth along with the reductions
in distortion that have moved us up the high fidelity ladder towards perfect
fidelity. Not that I would ever expect to achieve audio nirvana, other than
in my perception.
I am waiting for the next stage, which I visualise as the totally solid
state storage medium, one that is way better than the current flash card ram
options of MP3. This is something that I visualised over 30 years ago,
courtesy of StarTrek. I even remember the episode that used small shiny
optical disks that looked remarkably like CD singles.
>
>
> The digital square wave shape into the DAC has nothing to do with the
> ability to get an audible square wave out. As long as jitter is not a
> problem, the Dac will produce the same square wave out even if the input
> waveform is a sine wave. A CD has NO waveform of course, only pits and
> lands.
Granted, and that was what I thought I was saying. The output of the DAC at
a certain stage will resemble a collection of pulses, or square waves -
which are pulses in fact - as you would know it is the smoothing filters
that restore the complex sine wave nature of the original signal and the
ultimate quality of the outputs depends on the efficacy of these filters and
the power supply.
But I have serious difficulty in coming to grips with the claims for the
higher sampling regime that the 96/24 and higher sampling regime proponents
are talking about. And I do think that some of the people posting should
know better, if the details of their signatures are accurate.
It is a matter of physiological fact that human hearing is normal in the
range 20Hz - 20KHz. Mine appears to be heading towards 20Hz - 10KHz, and
very few adults that I know, including my younger daughter at 20 and younger
son at 24 even perceive 20KHz. More like 18 - 20KHz. and their hearing has
been consciously protected, by negotiation after demonstrations of what
damaged hearing sounds like, from before they were inclined to run personal
stereos at silly levels.
But to keep a properly open mind about things, I would like to know exactly
what bodily transducer is picking up these high frequencies that the
proponents of the new regimes are claiming. Verily it is NOT the human ear,
except in ultra rare cases, if any. Perhaps it is the skeleton that is
picking up these sounds, but what is the mechanism whereby these ultrasonics
are getting to the brain. I can find NOTHING in literature that addresses
this claimed phenomenon!
But please, would those who claim all these great things for vinyl, 96/24
and higher sampling regimes, valves, etc., please base their claims on at
least blind testing. I know that many things, like SET amplifiers can be
identified under even double blind conditions. But preferring these types of
things is a matter of preference, NOT a matter of greater ACCURACY, which
really IS what high fidelity is about.
>
> Trevor.
Trevor Wilson
"Patrick Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ab8...@usenet.per.paradox.net.au...
> "John Circosta" <jcir...@ness.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3AB8495F...@ness.com.au...
> > Mathew
>
> > Now that is an interesting thought,
>
> Time to smell the coffee, guys! Here is an interesting question (or two).
>
> 1. Will one of you guys reintroducing the LP/analogue debate answer this
> question: which vinyl records have YOU auditioned that got as far as 20KHz,
> what was the turntable, arm and cartridge, and how do you know that it was
> actually reproducing 20KHz?
**Every descrete 4 channel LP, from the 70's. A handful of direct disk
recordings, from various manufacturers. Pretty much any decent recording which
was mastered on analogue tape. As to how much audible material was up past
20kHz, well, that's a whole 'nuther story. There's certainly bugger all up
there. More serious, are the effects of filters, with shallow rolloffs in the
audio band. Wider bandwidths are beneficial here.
And if you can identify one such LP, please
> advise how many plays were possible before the frequency response dropped
> below 15KHz.
**It depends on many factors.
How long the LP has had to 'rest' between plays.
Stylus profile and condition.
Tracking pressure.
'Trackability' of the stylus assembly.
Vinyl quality.
>
> 2. Which LP have you found that was able to reproduce a square wave, as one
> of you appears to be suggesting? People are interested to hear about this
> miracle, verily Nobel prizes await-:))
**I own just such a recording. It is on one of my CBS test recordings. Very
useful for measuring transient performance of high quality cartridges. No Nobel
prize is necessary.The recording is more than 20 years old. The technology is
not that sophisticated.
>
> 3. When playing a 17KHz square wave, that should sound the same as a sine
> wave, are we talking about a digitally encoded square wave?
**A MUCH more important question is: "What does a 5kHz square wave look like,
from 16/44 digital and from LP?" 16/44 digital can barely produce a decent
square wave at 5kHz. By 7kHz, the waveform no longer comes even remotely close
to a square wave. A GOOD LP system can reproduce quite acceptable 10kHz square
waves.
Addendum to the
> question, which digital sample is NOT made up of square waves. Surely a
> square wave is what is produced by the quantization of sampling.
**Not the same thing. The DAC reconstructs a given waveform from digital
information. The limitations of the reconstructed waveform lie with:
The DAC
The filters
The analogue circuitry
The sample frequency
In fact, the fastest possible rise time, from a 16/44 digital system is around
23 uSec. Typical, high quality, moving coil cartridges can reach rise times of
better than 5 uSec.
And
> finally, don't you know that the critical part of the DAC as far as sound
> quality is concerned is the analogue domain, which depends on lots of
> things, not least the smoothing filters and the quality of the power supply!
**Agreed.
Don't forget, a square wave, when placed on an LP, looks just like a triangular
wave. Not a difficult feat, for a well constructed cartridge to reproduce
correctly. In fact, a really good cartridge (say: Dynavector 17D) can reproduce
50kHz at 3dB down.
--
Trevor Wilson
http://www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
"Patrick Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ab8...@usenet.per.paradox.net.au...
> "Trevor" <trevor@home> wrote in message
> news:3ab8b795$0$25488$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> >
> > "Patrick Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote in > snip <
>
> > I asked the same question, but it was ignored. What makes you think they
> > have EVER measured ANY record?
>
> As you may have guessed, what I really think is probably they NEVER measured
> ANYTHING, not just records:-))
**I can't speak for others in this thread, but my meaurement experience extends
over 30 years. LP's have been a part of that measurement experience. I have
several CBS test disks, for just that purpose.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > 2. Which LP have you found that was able to reproduce a square wave, as
> > one
> > > of you appears to be suggesting? People are interested to hear about
> this
> > > miracle, verily Nobel prizes await-:))
> >
> > Very good point, although "squareish" waves are possible, depending on
> > frequency.
>
> True, but the accelerations required to deliver true square, and possibly
> others such as triangular waves in the mechanical domain would defy the Laws
> of Physics. Inertia guarantees that such is not possible, as I'm sure you
> would agree.
**I dunno about Trevor, but I disagree. As Trevor intimated, square waves, don't
look like square wave, on an LP. They look like triangle waves. A good quality
arm/cartridge system can reproduce square waves with remarkable fidelity. FAR
greater fidelity (above a couple of kHz) than any 16/44 digital system.
>
> >Remember that the groove shape is NOT the same as the >waveform.
>
> Yes, but to achieve the instant change in direction of the wave in the
> electrical domain, requires instant changes in the mechanical domain that
> produces them. Yes, it is possible to get all sorts of wave shapes in the
> other analogue domain, on a magnetic device such as tape, disc, etc.
**The relationship between the various mechanical components of an LP playback
system are complex. Complex, but not insurmountable. The previously mentioned,
Dynavector 17D, utilises a diamond cantilever. Diamond is the toughest, stongest
substance known to human-kind. By a considerable margin. Properly executed (as
the 17D is) a moving coil cartridge can reproduce a square wave with excellent
fidelity. I have waveforms, published by Audio magazine, if you want to see
them.
>
> > Vinyl does have a LOT more trouble at the low frequency end of the
> spectrum
> > than CD's do at the high frequency end. Vinyl fanatics choose to ignore
> that
> > severe limitation of course.
>
> Which is why the RIAA equalisation curve was invented to make a reasonable
> level of bass extension possible from the mechanical medium. And yes, vinyl
> fanatics do choose ... but don't fanatics create their own view of the world
> that by definition is more extreme than that created by non-fanatics.
**I know of very few LP afficiondos, who don't appreciate the superior fidelity
of 16/44 digital at the low end. Nor the lack of surface noise. Nor the accuracy
of the sine wave response, from 20Hz to 20kHz. Those points are beyond dispute.
Was is in dispute, however, are the compromises inherent to 16/44 digital, WRT
to square wave response and extreme HF response and it's subsequent effects on
transient phenomena and the relationship of upper harmonics, with their
fundamental waveforms (don't forget that 23uSec rise time).
>
> I have been listening to recorded music since 1948, so I've been told. The
> media have ranged from using thorns as needles, through steel needles with
> totally mechanical gramophones; through all the interim media to the current
> digital systems. Also, I have been a musician since 1953, started early, as
> well as an engineer for the last 30 years and all I can say is that I have
> enjoyed each significant improvement in bandwidth along with the reductions
> in distortion that have moved us up the high fidelity ladder towards perfect
> fidelity. Not that I would ever expect to achieve audio nirvana, other than
> in my perception.
>
> I am waiting for the next stage, which I visualise as the totally solid
> state storage medium, one that is way better than the current flash card ram
> options of MP3. This is something that I visualised over 30 years ago,
> courtesy of StarTrek. I even remember the episode that used small shiny
> optical disks that looked remarkably like CD singles.
**Solid state media will certainly come, but don't hold your breath. The cost is
high and the cost of optical storage is phenomenally low (<AUS$0.50 per disk).
It will be quite some time before 660MB of flash RAM is that inexpensive. Then,
of course, there's SACD and DVD-A. Both of which require large increases in the
number of bits used for storage.
>
> >
> >
> > The digital square wave shape into the DAC has nothing to do with the
> > ability to get an audible square wave out. As long as jitter is not a
> > problem, the Dac will produce the same square wave out even if the input
> > waveform is a sine wave. A CD has NO waveform of course, only pits and
> > lands.
>
> Granted, and that was what I thought I was saying. The output of the DAC at
> a certain stage will resemble a collection of pulses, or square waves -
> which are pulses in fact - as you would know it is the smoothing filters
> that restore the complex sine wave nature of the original signal and the
> ultimate quality of the outputs depends on the efficacy of these filters and
> the power supply.
**Yes, but you still run up against the basic limitation of the sampling rate,
itself. In 16/44 digital, that sets the absolute limits. SACD and DVD-A set the
bar at a higher level.
>
> But I have serious difficulty in coming to grips with the claims for the
> higher sampling regime that the 96/24 and higher sampling regime proponents
> are talking about. And I do think that some of the people posting should
> know better, if the details of their signatures are accurate.
**I've not listened to 24/96, nor SACD, but I have no problems in coming to
grips with the alleged improvements. The limitations of 16/44 digital are easy
to prove and measure.
>
> It is a matter of physiological fact that human hearing is normal in the
> range 20Hz - 20KHz. Mine appears to be heading towards 20Hz - 10KHz, and
> very few adults that I know, including my younger daughter at 20 and younger
> son at 24 even perceive 20KHz. More like 18 - 20KHz. and their hearing has
> been consciously protected, by negotiation after demonstrations of what
> damaged hearing sounds like, from before they were inclined to run personal
> stereos at silly levels.
**True, but there is much more to hearing than absolute limits. Human hearing
does not experience some kind of 'brickwall' filter at 20kHz. It is much more
complex than that. I recall measuring my hearing, when I was 24, at 18.5kHz. At
the time I worked for Marantz (Aust) P/L. Marantz had another factory, just down
the street. I recall that I couldn't stay inside the factory, for ore than a few
seconds, due to the extremely high intensity ultrasonic noise in the factory.
The noise came from the burglar alarm system. Intrigued, I measured it, with
some test equiment. The fundamental waveform was at around 25kHz. Yet I could
hear it. Likewise, ultrasonic waveforms can produce interference effects, within
the ear/brain system. Take away the ultrasonics (as happens in 16/44 digital)
and some part of the music dissappears.
>
> But to keep a properly open mind about things, I would like to know exactly
> what bodily transducer is picking up these high frequencies that the
> proponents of the new regimes are claiming. Verily it is NOT the human ear,
> except in ultra rare cases, if any. Perhaps it is the skeleton that is
> picking up these sounds, but what is the mechanism whereby these ultrasonics
> are getting to the brain. I can find NOTHING in literature that addresses
> this claimed phenomenon!
**One of my instructors, some 30 years ago, walked around with cotton wool in
his ears. He was in his 50's and enjoyed a measured response of around 22kHz!
What must his hearing have been, when he was younger?
>
> But please, would those who claim all these great things for vinyl, 96/24
> and higher sampling regimes, valves, etc., please base their claims on at
> least blind testing. I know that many things, like SET amplifiers can be
> identified under even double blind conditions. But preferring these types of
> things is a matter of preference, NOT a matter of greater ACCURACY, which
> really IS what high fidelity is about.
**I agree. However, My reference is a number of Sheffield Direct Disk LP's. I
have never heard a CD approach the quality of these recordings. If SACD or DVD-A
can equal, or surpass these recordings, I will be a happy chappy.
John Knight
Have you got a hang up about measuring stuff - Listen to the music :~)
Recently a group of us Sydney vinyl nuts got together to compare decks and
play some music. Our host had a good CD rig as well, a Marantz CD-63 KI
Signature.
Nothing he played on it came near to the imaging and soundstaging abilities
of the TTs present. Even the pacing and rhythm of the KI Sig seemed a bit
"wooden" in comparison.
Maybe the TTs can draw on higher frequency information to provide the extra
spatial detail, maybe (gasp horror!) good quality turntables, arms and
cartridges are actually able to put more precise information through the
speakers. I don't know - I don't know if any technical experts anywhere
have ever been able to explain it, but listening to it, it was undeniable.
IF SACD or DVD-A can come closer to vinyl in grasping the ambient and
spatial details - then, maybe a lot of vinyl fanatics will start to convert.
Cheers
John K
Matthew Kirkcaldie
"Patrick Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote:
> 2. Which LP have you found that was able to reproduce a square wave, as one
> of you appears to be suggesting? People are interested to hear about this
> miracle, verily Nobel prizes await-:))
Well, thanks for the sarcasm, Patrick, but the thought experiment being
suggested was to compare sine and square waves at 12kHz. No mention of
source was made, and I can rustle up a benchtop tone generator which
will make those signals pretty damned accurately without disrupting the
theoretical framework of physics.
If (and I haven't done it) the square wave is audibly different from the
sine wave, it is indeed possibly due to nonlinearities in the
transducer, good point. Perhaps using different kinds of transducers
(cone, ribbon, piezo, electrostatic) would give some idea. But those
issues aside, Fourier analysis would say they should not be audibly
different IF hearing cuts out above 20kHz.
In fact, now that I think about it, Fourier analysis describes a square
wave as the superimposition of the fundamental and the ODD order
harmonics. So in fact a 7kHz sinewave and squarewave should sound
identical, since the third harmonic clocks in at 21kHz - and should
produce no perceptible difference if sounds above 20kHz make no
contribution to audition. Probably less effect of transducer
nonlinearity too.
Please correct me if this is incorrect, I last studied Fourier series
about eight years ago!
Now I think I am creeping too far out on a limb here, since I am not an
audio expert. I am, however, in the process of finishing a PhD in
neuroscience, and I would have to say that the idea of the auditory
system having a frequency response which drops off a cliff at 20kHz is
fairly absurd. I realise that under laboratory testing conditions it's
not possible to raise a finger for a 24kHz tone in the headphones, but I
wouldn't mind betting the farm that at least some aspect of that tone
influences the signals heading down the auditory nerve. The means by
which hair cells in the cochlea encode frequency is very poorly
understood, and psychoacoustically it is possible, for example, to
construct the illusion of a fundamental tone by presenting the
appropriate overtones. We're not dealing with an oscilloscope here.
I hope this post isn't taken as an attack on anyone's point of view.
Like I said, I don't have the equipment or the ear to hear CD's flaws
that I am aware of, it's just that the disussion has raised some
extremely interesting ideas which I want to chew over.
Cheers,
Matthew.
Trevor S
> All this talk about the new super CD formats I thought I would make a
> few observations.
>
> My CD collection rates as follows :
> 10% sound hideous, virtually non listenable.
> 20% are poor but listenable only because of the great music.
> 40% are ok.
> 20% are very good.
> 10% are superb.
<snip>
This is similar to my observations, in fact the negative experiences have put me off so
much that I hardly purchase ANY CD's anymore. How the hell do I go about finding out what
recordings are done with the attention and care they deserve and sound good on a
semi-decent system ?
eg I recently imported a few recording from mapleshade records in the USA and found them
to be superb recordings, they even have a "blurb"on the cover sheet to indicate there is
never any use of Eq, reverb etc and one particularly recording was an eye opener in it's
clarity (Blue Rider Trio - Harp Steel & Guts) but it took me a decade to find these sorts
of recordings.
http://www.mapleshaderecords.com/main/music.html
My question :) Is there somewhere that rates the quality of the recording itself ? I am
not talking about title reviews and whether an artist is better than another artist but
the technical aspects of the recording.
Trevor S
Matthew Kirkcaldie
"Trevor S" <trevor_s@_No_SPAMO_bigfoot.com> wrote:
> My question :) Is there somewhere that rates the quality of the recording
> itself ? I am
> not talking about title reviews and whether an artist is better than another
> artist but
> the technical aspects of the recording.
Don't a lot of hi-fi magazines rate recent releases on the basis of
their recording as well as the music? Or are you after a reference for
older material?
The AudioReview web site has a "Rave Recordings" forum to talk about
these kinds of things, but I suspect the signal to noise ratio might be
lower than this group!
Cheers,
Matthew.
PS: I think Water Lily Acoustics have a good reputation as microphone,
recording and mastering purists - I have a Ry Cooder / V. S. Bhatt disc
called "A Meeting By the River" which sounds pretty amazing.
http://www.waterlilyacoustics.com/
They do SACD as well.
Mark Pakula
One track compared, was Michael Jackson's Billy Jean.
First CD, then 2 Channel SACD.
SACD was noticably smoother, and more detailed, esp the top end.
Much more like vynil. :)
Tubular Bells MSACD sounded pretty cool too.
Full review with photos comming on www.dvd.net.au soon.
.m.
Trevor
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:4H8u6.15137$992....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Patrick Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3ab8...@usenet.per.paradox.net.au...
> > "Trevor" <trevor@home> wrote in message
> > news:3ab8b795$0$25488$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> > >
> > > "Patrick Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote in > snip <
> >
> > > I asked the same question, but it was ignored. What makes you think
they
> > > have EVER measured ANY record?
> >
> > As you may have guessed, what I really think is probably they NEVER
measured
> > ANYTHING, not just records:-))
>
> **I can't speak for others in this thread, but my meaurement experience
extends
> over 30 years. LP's have been a part of that measurement experience. I
have
> several CBS test disks, for just that purpose.
So do I, but I was speaking about recoded music. I already admitted that
there are recordings such as Sheffield labs that do have wide band music.
They are few however, and personally I would't bother buying HiFi if that's
all I had to listen to. Fortunately the normal records I can buy in the
shops and listen to every day, are much better now than the average vinyl
ever was.
> > > > 2. Which LP have you found that was able to reproduce a square wave,
as
> > > one
> > > > of you appears to be suggesting? People are interested to hear about
> > this
> > > > miracle, verily Nobel prizes await-:))
> > >
> > > Very good point, although "squareish" waves are possible, depending on
> > > frequency.
> >
> > True, but the accelerations required to deliver true square, and
possibly
> > others such as triangular waves in the mechanical domain would defy the
Laws
> > of Physics. Inertia guarantees that such is not possible, as I'm sure
you
> > would agree.
>
> **I dunno about Trevor, but I disagree. As Trevor intimated, square waves,
don't
> look like square wave, on an LP. They look like triangle waves. A good
quality
> arm/cartridge system can reproduce square waves with remarkable fidelity.
FAR
> greater fidelity (above a couple of kHz) than any 16/44 digital system.
True, but a good quality arm/cartridge still requires a good quality vinyl
disk to play. These have never been readily available, and I get sick of
Lincoln Mayorga after a while, even if the disks didn't get worse with every
playing. The first thing to go on a vinyl disk is the high frequency
response as the grooves get rounded off. And the noise floor increases as
dust gets embedded into the grooves by the pressure of the stylus.
> > >Remember that the groove shape is NOT the same as the >waveform.
> >
> > Yes, but to achieve the instant change in direction of the wave in the
> > electrical domain, requires instant changes in the mechanical domain
that
> > produces them. Yes, it is possible to get all sorts of wave shapes in
the
> > other analogue domain, on a magnetic device such as tape, disc, etc.
Please name an analog tape machine that has superior performance to the best
vinyl systems?
> **The relationship between the various mechanical components of an LP
playback
> system are complex. Complex, but not insurmountable. The previously
mentioned,
> Dynavector 17D, utilises a diamond cantilever. Diamond is the toughest,
stongest
> substance known to human-kind. By a considerable margin. Properly executed
(as
> the 17D is) a moving coil cartridge can reproduce a square wave with
excellent
> fidelity. I have waveforms, published by Audio magazine, if you want to
see
> them.
A great cartridge, but a diamond cantilever is not necessary to get to 50
KHz. Others have done it with Berrylium or Saphire. However it is more
difficult for a moving coil than a moving magnet cartridge because of the
increased moving mass.
Even with RIAA eq, there are very few records with content below 40 Hz, and
certainly not flat at that fequency. I simply cannot understand the logic
that says :
Frequency response above the normal hearing limit is imperitive, but the
lowest octave of the accepted audible range is unnecessary? Everybody is
entitled to their opinion, and I couldn't care in the slightest how you
spend your money, but sacrificing low frequencies, increasing audlible noise
substantially, increasing audible distortion substantially and serious
deterioration due to wear, are not trade offs I am prepared to make just to
get ultra sonic frequency response.
> > I have been listening to recorded music since 1948, so I've been told.
The
> > media have ranged from using thorns as needles, through steel needles
with
> > totally mechanical gramophones; through all the interim media to the
current
> > digital systems. Also, I have been a musician since 1953, started early,
as
> > well as an engineer for the last 30 years and all I can say is that I
have
> > enjoyed each significant improvement in bandwidth along with the
reductions
> > in distortion that have moved us up the high fidelity ladder towards
perfect
> > fidelity. Not that I would ever expect to achieve audio nirvana, other
than
> > in my perception.
> >
> > I am waiting for the next stage, which I visualise as the totally solid
> > state storage medium, one that is way better than the current flash card
ram
> > options of MP3. This is something that I visualised over 30 years ago,
> > courtesy of StarTrek. I even remember the episode that used small shiny
> > optical disks that looked remarkably like CD singles.
They didn't need a player though, they only needed to be spun by hand :-)
> **Solid state media will certainly come, but don't hold your breath. The
cost is
> high and the cost of optical storage is phenomenally low (<AUS$0.50 per
disk).
> It will be quite some time before 660MB of flash RAM is that inexpensive.
Then,
> of course, there's SACD and DVD-A. Both of which require large increases
in the
> number of bits used for storage.
Points I already covered, however I expect it will happen within the next
ten years or so.
> > > The digital square wave shape into the DAC has nothing to do with the
> > > ability to get an audible square wave out. As long as jitter is not a
> > > problem, the Dac will produce the same square wave out even if the
input
> > > waveform is a sine wave. A CD has NO waveform of course, only pits and
> > > lands.
> >
> > Granted, and that was what I thought I was saying. The output of the DAC
at
> > a certain stage will resemble a collection of pulses, or square waves -
> > which are pulses in fact - as you would know it is the smoothing filters
> > that restore the complex sine wave nature of the original signal and the
> > ultimate quality of the outputs depends on the efficacy of these filters
and
> > the power supply.
>
> **Yes, but you still run up against the basic limitation of the sampling
rate,
> itself. In 16/44 digital, that sets the absolute limits. SACD and DVD-A
set the
> bar at a higher level.
I think we have all agreed on that at least.
> > But I have serious difficulty in coming to grips with the claims for the
> > higher sampling regime that the 96/24 and higher sampling regime
proponents
> > are talking about. And I do think that some of the people posting should
> > know better, if the details of their signatures are accurate.
>
> **I've not listened to 24/96, nor SACD, but I have no problems in coming
to
> grips with the alleged improvements. The limitations of 16/44 digital are
easy
> to prove and measure.
As are the far more serious limitations of vinyl, so what? It obviously
doesn't stop your enjoyment.
I can much more readily identify 20 Hz waves, as can most people. That is
considered unnecessary though for some reason? Even the lowest note on a
piano is lower than records can really handle without severe limitations on
playing time.
I have listened to a demonstration of the Telarc 1812 overture on vinyl and
CD, the difference is not in any way subtle. I am far more annoyed by things
on a recording that I shouldn't hear (noise and distortion) than by what is
missing that I would never know should be there or not (ultrasonic response)
>
> >
> > But to keep a properly open mind about things, I would like to know
exactly
> > what bodily transducer is picking up these high frequencies that the
> > proponents of the new regimes are claiming. Verily it is NOT the human
ear,
> > except in ultra rare cases, if any. Perhaps it is the skeleton that is
> > picking up these sounds, but what is the mechanism whereby these
ultrasonics
> > are getting to the brain. I can find NOTHING in literature that
addresses
> > this claimed phenomenon!
>
> **One of my instructors, some 30 years ago, walked around with cotton wool
in
> his ears. He was in his 50's and enjoyed a measured response of around
22kHz!
> What must his hearing have been, when he was younger?
It must have been hell, that's why he walked around with cotton wool in his
ears I guess :-) Seriously though, the abilty to hear dog whistles and
communicate with bats, is no more important than being able to communicate
with elephants and whales. Their low end response is far greater than ours
too.
The enjoyment of music is not very dependent on either.
> > But please, would those who claim all these great things for vinyl,
96/24
> > and higher sampling regimes, valves, etc., please base their claims on
at
> > least blind testing. I know that many things, like SET amplifiers can be
> > identified under even double blind conditions. But preferring these
types of
> > things is a matter of preference, NOT a matter of greater ACCURACY,
which
> > really IS what high fidelity is about.
>
> **I agree. However, My reference is a number of Sheffield Direct Disk
LP's. I
> have never heard a CD approach the quality of these recordings. If SACD or
DVD-A
> can equal, or surpass these recordings, I will be a happy chappy.
Haven't you worn out your Sheffield recordings yet? Mine aren't because I
never play them. My CD's however I can play every day!
Trevor.
Trevor
"John Knight" <johnknight...@primus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ab92f05$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> Patrick,
> Have you got a hang up about measuring stuff - Listen to the music :~)
Yes listen to live music.
> Recently a group of us Sydney vinyl nuts got together to compare decks and
> play some music. Our host had a good CD rig as well, a Marantz CD-63 KI
> Signature.
> Nothing he played on it came near to the imaging and soundstaging
abilities
> of the TTs present. Even the pacing and rhythm of the KI Sig seemed a bit
> "wooden" in comparison.
"Pacing and rhythm" were "wooden" ? Reminds me of wine buffs, make up new
terms so that nobody knows what the hell you are talking about. Or do you
mean the vinyl systems were all running faster than the CD version? Many CD
masters have been produced at slow speeds because the tape machines were not
adjusted properly prior to transfer. Worse yet, I have a CD in which they
failed to convert from 48 KHz sample rate to 44.1. The vinyl sounds **FAR**
superior by comparison. I blame the mastering engineer though, not the CD
player.
And what was the bass performance of the vinyl systems like in comparison to
the Marantz? Did you try the 1812 Overture or Thus Spake Zarathustra for
comparison?
> Maybe the TTs can draw on higher frequency information to provide the
extra
> spatial detail, maybe (gasp horror!) good quality turntables, arms and
> cartridges are actually able to put more precise information through the
> speakers. I don't know - I don't know if any technical experts anywhere
> have ever been able to explain it, but listening to it, it was undeniable.
> IF SACD or DVD-A can come closer to vinyl in grasping the ambient and
> spatial details - then, maybe a lot of vinyl fanatics will start to
convert.
I doubt it, religion can never be converted by facts. It is based on faith.
Trevor.
Trevor
My vinyl copy of Tubular Bells is much better than my CD version, simply
because the CD transfer is total crap. A 2 YO with a computer could do a far
better job.
When you consider how it was recorded, ping pong multi-tracked on a cheap
tape machine, I would be amazed if there is any frequency response at all
over 15 kHz on Tubular bells anyway!
Trevor.
"Mark Pakula" <MPa...@macquarie.com.au> wrote in message
news:99c4ln$aqc$1...@isdserv3.macbank...
Mark Pakula
>And you know it had nothing to do with the mastering quality how exactly?
I dont.
Im not a big tubular bells fan.
I dont own one copy.
I have borrowed two tho, one CD and one HDCD.
And listened to them a few times.
>My vinyl copy of Tubular Bells is much better than my CD version, simply
>because the CD transfer is total crap. A 2 YO with a computer could do a far
>better job.
Fine.
>When you consider how it was recorded, ping pong multi-tracked on a cheap
>tape machine, I would be amazed if there is any frequency response at all
>over 15 kHz on Tubular bells anyway!
Yup.
The extended freq range of SACD has bugger all to do with the extra
SQ. In my view anwyay.
More bits is where its at.
>Trevor.
Adam F
"Trevor" <trevor@home> wrote in message
>
> "John Knight" <johnknight...@primus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3ab92f05$1...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> > Patrick,
> > Have you got a hang up about measuring stuff - Listen to the music :~)
>
> Yes listen to live music.
Heh, forget about reproduction altogether - the NG will fade away as though
it never existed...
Adam F
Trevor Wilson
"Trevor" <trevor@home> wrote in message
**Perhaps. My argument against 16/44 digital has always been that it should
outperform the BEST which vinyl could. Given the obvious quality (leaving
aside the musical content, for the moment) of many direct disk recordings,
it has always been obvius that 16/44 has a ways to go. SACD and 24/96 will
likely surpass vinyl.
**No argument. Please see my comments above.
>
> > > >Remember that the groove shape is NOT the same as the >waveform.
> > >
> > > Yes, but to achieve the instant change in direction of the wave in the
> > > electrical domain, requires instant changes in the mechanical domain
> that
> > > produces them. Yes, it is possible to get all sorts of wave shapes in
> the
> > > other analogue domain, on a magnetic device such as tape, disc, etc.
>
> Please name an analog tape machine that has superior performance to the
best
> vinyl systems?
**You've quoted another's comments as my own. Nevertheless, a 1/2 track
Studer machine runnning at 15 ips, will easily outperform vinyl in just
about every way imaginable (with the possible exception of square wave
response). It will certainly outputperform 16/48 digital, in every way, with
the exception of S/N and. possibly frequency response lineraity, between
20hZ and 20kHz. Certainly, sonically, such a machine SOUNDS better to most
listeners.
>
> > **The relationship between the various mechanical components of an LP
> playback
> > system are complex. Complex, but not insurmountable. The previously
> mentioned,
> > Dynavector 17D, utilises a diamond cantilever. Diamond is the toughest,
> stongest
> > substance known to human-kind. By a considerable margin. Properly
executed
> (as
> > the 17D is) a moving coil cartridge can reproduce a square wave with
> excellent
> > fidelity. I have waveforms, published by Audio magazine, if you want to
> see
> > them.
>
> A great cartridge, but a diamond cantilever is not necessary to get to 50
> KHz. Others have done it with Berrylium or Saphire. However it is more
> difficult for a moving coil than a moving magnet cartridge because of the
> increased moving mass.
**I've never seen a Beryllium cantilever. Beryllium forms an extremely
poisonous oxide and tends not to be used for many domestic products. Boron,
is the preferred metal for lightweight, strong alloys. Sapphire, has never
been a successful (on it's own) material for cantilevers. It's resonant
frequency is too low and it's 'Q' is way too high. Diamond, on the other
hand, is many, many time stiffer and stronger than any other material
(weight for weight). As such, it's resonant frequency lies up around 100kHz
(for the dimensions used in a 17D), thus a cartridge using it, will have an
accurate phase response, down into the audio band. Sapphire cantilevers,
tend to possess either serious phase anomalies, or frequency response
anomalies, well down into the audio band. Moving magnets rarely possess a
frequency response as extended as a good MC unit, due to the large amounts
of inductance, possessed by the coils. MC carts have very, very low
inductance figures.
**I have never seen that written (by me, at least). What is important, to
many listeners, however, is the preservation of harmonics structure and
imaging. Neither of which is affected by extended bass response. Further,
many people have listening rooms, which can be excited by LF information,
thus damaging musical enjoyment. In these cases, restricting bass
performance can be beneficial.
Everybody is
> entitled to their opinion, and I couldn't care in the slightest how you
> spend your money, but sacrificing low frequencies, increasing audlible
noise
> substantially, increasing audible distortion substantially and serious
> deterioration due to wear, are not trade offs I am prepared to make just
to
> get ultra sonic frequency response.
**Fair enough. In fact, I very rarely play LP's, myself. Pain in the neck.
That does not take away from the facts that 16/44 does not sound as good
(accurate) as GOOD vinyl, IN SOME AREAS. 16/44 was promised to be all things
to all people. It was not.
**No. MUCH more than 10 years. Accoring to Moore's Law, 512MB (presently
around $600.00) of RAM (not Flash RAM) will be around $1.17, in 15 years
(though I think it will be MUCH more expensive, in reality). For Flash RAM,
512 MB (presently around $2,000.00), the cost will be around $1.00, in 17
years. The above assumes, of course, the following:
*That Moore's Law still holds true. There is adequate evidence that we are
nearing the end of conventional Silicon chip development. Future density
reductions (and consequent price reductions) are unlikely to continue much
past the end of 2010, due to the inherent limitation of Silicon, itself.
This means that Flash RAM is likely to fall in price, until that time, then
plateau.
*That compression schemes are not part of the equation. Obviously, schemes
like MP3 make more efficient use of storage media. If a compression scheme
can be developed, which allows (say) 64MB of RAM the performance of CD's,
then all bets are off.
*That a wholesale switch to SACD, or DVD-A does not occur. Such a switch
will move the goal posts even further for Flash RAM, since such media have
HUGE storage capacities.
*That the record companies don't throw a spanner in the works (highly
likely).
**See my initial argument.
**See previous argument.
Even the lowest note on a
> piano is lower than records can really handle without severe limitations
on
> playing time.
> I have listened to a demonstration of the Telarc 1812 overture on vinyl
and
> CD, the difference is not in any way subtle. I am far more annoyed by
things
> on a recording that I shouldn't hear (noise and distortion) than by what
is
> missing that I would never know should be there or not (ultrasonic
response)
**As is your right to do so. Equally, it is the right of others, to be
annoyed by the limitations in a medium, which was described as: "Perfect
sound, forever." It seems consumers were lied to.
>
> >
> > >
> > > But to keep a properly open mind about things, I would like to know
> exactly
> > > what bodily transducer is picking up these high frequencies that the
> > > proponents of the new regimes are claiming. Verily it is NOT the human
> ear,
> > > except in ultra rare cases, if any. Perhaps it is the skeleton that is
> > > picking up these sounds, but what is the mechanism whereby these
> ultrasonics
> > > are getting to the brain. I can find NOTHING in literature that
> addresses
> > > this claimed phenomenon!
> >
> > **One of my instructors, some 30 years ago, walked around with cotton
wool
> in
> > his ears. He was in his 50's and enjoyed a measured response of around
> 22kHz!
> > What must his hearing have been, when he was younger?
>
> It must have been hell, that's why he walked around with cotton wool in
his
> ears I guess :-) Seriously though, the abilty to hear dog whistles and
> communicate with bats, is no more important than being able to communicate
> with elephants and whales. Their low end response is far greater than ours
> too.
> The enjoyment of music is not very dependent on either.
**Since you cannot hear 22kHz (I presume), then you cannot speak for his
enjoyment. Neither can you speak for those who like to hear the upper
harmonics of music in the form they were originally performed in. I have
owned speakers which were flat (-3dB) to 20Hz. Personally, I can easily live
without the bottom octave. I can, however, understand how some people
cannot. That is their choice.
>
> > > But please, would those who claim all these great things for vinyl,
> 96/24
> > > and higher sampling regimes, valves, etc., please base their claims on
> at
> > > least blind testing. I know that many things, like SET amplifiers can
be
> > > identified under even double blind conditions. But preferring these
> types of
> > > things is a matter of preference, NOT a matter of greater ACCURACY,
> which
> > > really IS what high fidelity is about.
> >
> > **I agree. However, My reference is a number of Sheffield Direct Disk
> LP's. I
> > have never heard a CD approach the quality of these recordings. If SACD
or
> DVD-A
> > can equal, or surpass these recordings, I will be a happy chappy.
>
> Haven't you worn out your Sheffield recordings yet? Mine aren't because I
> never play them. My CD's however I can play every day!
**I bought up, big, when they were being run out. When I wear one out, I
unwrap to next one.
--
Trevor Wilson
http://rageaudio.com.au
John Knight
> Yes listen to live music.
Yes, I listen to live music; but what does that have to do with hifi?
> "Pacing and rhythm" were "wooden" ? Reminds me of wine buffs, make up new
> terms so that nobody knows what the hell you are talking about.
Translation - Vinyl rocked more than CD. It just sounds better, smoother,
you can play it louder without hurting your ears - because of an infinitely
higher sampling rate? - I dunno.
> And what was the bass performance of the vinyl systems like in comparison
to
> the Marantz? Did you try the 1812 Overture or Thus Spake Zarathustra for
> comparison?
I've never put a Telarc 1812 on my TT but it can track everything else I've
played on it. Bass slam - no problems - I think that bass is often
constrained more by amps and speakers than sources. I believe the Telarc
1812 has modulations down to about 8 Hz - nothing can play that. In theory,
I can get down to about 15Hz. My TT goes lower than my speakers can.
> > IF SACD or DVD-A can come closer to vinyl in grasping the ambient and
> > spatial details - then, maybe a lot of vinyl fanatics will start to
> convert.
>
> I doubt it, religion can never be converted by facts. It is based on
faith.
You are right, no one has been able to measure the existence of God.
Similarly, the best tools to measure the enjoyment of music are not
scientific, they are your own ears. Use your ears and your heart - not your
brain.
Regards
John K
John Knight
> **I've never seen a Beryllium cantilever. Beryllium forms an extremely
> poisonous oxide and tends not to be used for many domestic products.
For your interest, the Audio Technica OC9 MC cart uses a gold plated
Beryllium cantilever. I don't know how popular this material is with other
cart mfrs though.
I'll make sure I never smoke it :<)
Cheers
John K
Trevor
"Mark Pakula" <ma...@uow.edu.au> wrote in message
news:3abd3cb9$1...@news.uow.edu.au...
> "Trevor" <trevor@home> writes:
> >When you consider how it was recorded, ping pong multi-tracked on a cheap
> >tape machine, I would be amazed if there is any frequency response at all
> >over 15 kHz on Tubular bells anyway!
>
> Yup.
> The extended freq range of SACD has bugger all to do with the extra
> SQ. In my view anwyay.
> More bits is where its at.
Even more amazing when you consider Tubular Bells couldn't have a dynamic
range much over 60 dB (if that) How could you possibly need more bits to
capture that on digital? 16 bits will give you 96 dB or at least 30 dB more
than the recording.
Trevor.
Trevor
>
> "Trevor" <trevor@home> wrote in message
> news:3abc5105$0$25513$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> > Please name an analog tape machine that has superior performance to the
> best
> > vinyl systems?
>
> **You've quoted another's comments as my own. Nevertheless, a 1/2 track
> Studer machine runnning at 15 ips, will easily outperform vinyl in just
> about every way imaginable (with the possible exception of square wave
> response). It will certainly outputperform 16/48 digital, in every way,
with
> the exception of S/N and. possibly frequency response lineraity, between
> 20hZ and 20kHz. Certainly, sonically, such a machine SOUNDS better to most
> listeners.
No, I realise it was Patrick who wrote that. However having aligned some
Studer machines in the past, I beg to differ about your concept of their
performance. I do agree they have problems with square waves (ringing),
problems with frequency linearity (although pretty good between 50 and 20
kHz at anything below -10 dB below reference), problems with signal to noise
ratio (Dolby A helps at the expense of introduced artifacts nobody seems to
mention here) Such a machine never sounded sonically superior to me.
Of course some tape machine was necessary to get the best onto vinyl, as
half speed mastering was impossible with direct to disk.
> **I've never seen a Beryllium cantilever. Beryllium forms an extremely
> poisonous oxide and tends not to be used for many domestic products.
Boron,
> is the preferred metal for lightweight, strong alloys. Sapphire, has never
> been a successful (on it's own) material for cantilevers. It's resonant
> frequency is too low and it's 'Q' is way too high. Diamond, on the other
> hand, is many, many time stiffer and stronger than any other material
> (weight for weight). As such, it's resonant frequency lies up around
100kHz
> (for the dimensions used in a 17D), thus a cartridge using it, will have
an
> accurate phase response, down into the audio band. Sapphire cantilevers,
> tend to possess either serious phase anomalies, or frequency response
> anomalies, well down into the audio band. Moving magnets rarely possess a
> frequency response as extended as a good MC unit, due to the large amounts
> of inductance, possessed by the coils. MC carts have very, very low
> inductance figures.
All very true to some degree. B&O as well as others used Berrylium at one
stage. Their MMC 6000 CD4 cartridge was very flat to 45 kHz, at a reasonable
price. I am not arguing that some moving coil cartridges are not better,
just much more expensive if you want that HF response. They also suffer from
a lower level of trackability (in general, I have not tested any $1K plus
cartridges personally) so that ultrasonic response is at risk with every
play.
> > I simply cannot understand the logic that says :
> > Frequency response above the normal hearing limit is imperitive, but the
> > lowest octave of the accepted audible range is unnecessary?
>
> **I have never seen that written (by me, at least). What is important, to
> many listeners, however, is the preservation of harmonics structure and
> imaging. Neither of which is affected by extended bass response. Further,
> many people have listening rooms, which can be excited by LF information,
> thus damaging musical enjoyment. In these cases, restricting bass
> performance can be beneficial.
Yes we are all able to decide what trade offs we are willing to accept. The
argument here is about superiority of one system over another, and many are
claiming just that by choosing to ignore what doesn't suit their argument.
It seems you and I at least can agree that both systems have their
limitations. I still claim that CD has less limitations. Which one we prefer
to listen to is obviously our own choice.
> **Fair enough. In fact, I very rarely play LP's, myself. Pain in the neck.
> That does not take away from the facts that 16/44 does not sound as good
> (accurate) as GOOD vinyl, IN SOME AREAS. 16/44 was promised to be all
things
> to all people. It was not.
As I said many posts ago, that was marketing hype which I never bought into
at the time (1980) and I still don't buy into now. However "Better sound for
a hell of a long time" just doesn't do it for an advertising executive!
> **No. MUCH more than 10 years. Accoring to Moore's Law, 512MB (presently
> around $600.00) of RAM (not Flash RAM) will be around $1.17, in 15 years
> (though I think it will be MUCH more expensive, in reality). For Flash
RAM,
> 512 MB (presently around $2,000.00), the cost will be around $1.00, in 17
> years. The above assumes, of course, the following:
>
> *That Moore's Law still holds true. There is adequate evidence that we are
> nearing the end of conventional Silicon chip development. Future density
> reductions (and consequent price reductions) are unlikely to continue much
> past the end of 2010, due to the inherent limitation of Silicon, itself.
> This means that Flash RAM is likely to fall in price, until that time,
then
> plateau.
>
> *That compression schemes are not part of the equation. Obviously, schemes
> like MP3 make more efficient use of storage media. If a compression scheme
> can be developed, which allows (say) 64MB of RAM the performance of CD's,
> then all bets are off.
>
> *That a wholesale switch to SACD, or DVD-A does not occur. Such a switch
> will move the goal posts even further for Flash RAM, since such media have
> HUGE storage capacities.
>
> *That the record companies don't throw a spanner in the works (highly
> likely).
OK, very good argument. I do agree that compression will be used on such
systems though, and the arguments will start again. IMO this will happen
inside 10 years. I believe new types of non volatile memory will be
available before then. Remember we are not talking about flash RAM, we are
talking ROM only. Why on earth would a record company issue anything on
rewritable media?
> > I have listened to a demonstration of the Telarc 1812 overture on vinyl
> and
> > CD, the difference is not in any way subtle. I am far more annoyed by
> things
> > on a recording that I shouldn't hear (noise and distortion) than by what
> is
> > missing that I would never know should be there or not (ultrasonic
> response)
>
> **As is your right to do so. Equally, it is the right of others, to be
> annoyed by the limitations in a medium, which was described as: "Perfect
> sound, forever." It seems consumers were lied to.
Of course, as they will be about SACD DVDA etc.
It's called marketing, you should be used to the concept by now.
> **Since you cannot hear 22kHz (I presume), then you cannot speak for his
> enjoyment. Neither can you speak for those who like to hear the upper
> harmonics of music in the form they were originally performed in. I have
> owned speakers which were flat (-3dB) to 20Hz. Personally, I can easily
live
> without the bottom octave. I can, however, understand how some people
> cannot. That is their choice.
Agreed. Never argued otherwise. I just get annoyed by people claiming
superiority of anything, without defining the actual limitations of that
"superiority".
Trevor.
VAF Research
> Even more amazing when you consider Tubular Bells couldn't have a dynamic
> range much over 60 dB (if that)
The master tape would offer much greater than 60dB dynamic range and the
SACD version was re-mastered from the master tape.
Best regards
Philip Vafiadis
VAF Research Pty Ltd
www.vaf.com.au
Trevor
> Trevor wrote - <snipped>
>
> > Yes listen to live music.
>
> Yes, I listen to live music; but what does that have to do with hifi?
It's my basis for comparison, isn't it yours?
> > "Pacing and rhythm" were "wooden" ? Reminds me of wine buffs, make up
new
> > terms so that nobody knows what the hell you are talking about.
>
> Translation - Vinyl rocked more than CD. It just sounds better, smoother,
> you can play it louder without hurting your ears - because of an
infinitely
> higher sampling rate? - I dunno.
Possibly due to the HF roll off (smoother?). Personnally I don't find terms
like "smoother" or "rocked" much more use than "wooden" etc. when talking
about technical limitations.
Anybody who uses the word "infinitely" when talking about anthing to do with
music let alone sample rates, is not thinking straight.
> > And what was the bass performance of the vinyl systems like in
comparison
> to
> > the Marantz? Did you try the 1812 Overture or Thus Spake Zarathustra for
> > comparison?
>
> I've never put a Telarc 1812 on my TT but it can track everything else
I've
> played on it. Bass slam - no problems - I think that bass is often
> constrained more by amps and speakers than sources. I believe the Telarc
> 1812 has modulations down to about 8 Hz - nothing can play that. In
theory,
> I can get down to about 15Hz. My TT goes lower than my speakers can.
I bet it can. But that's my point, you are quite happy to discard a part of
the audible frequency range in favour of what may be inaudible frequency
range. This is your decision and I have no problem with that. Others make
different decisions that suit them.
> You are right, no one has been able to measure the existence of God.
> Similarly, the best tools to measure the enjoyment of music are not
> scientific, they are your own ears. Use your ears and your heart - not
your
> brain.
I have no problems using my ears AND my brain. In fact your ears don't work
without your brain. Apart from sustaining my bodily functions like blood
flow to the ears and brain, I don't believe my heart is involved in the
listening process?
The fact is we can all enjoy a great musical performance on cheap audio
gear, and conversely the best HiFi in the world wont help a lot of crap that
is available on recordings. This is where the "heart and soul" of the
listening experience comes in.
Trevor.
Trevor
time to produce his masterpiece on a shoe string budget. No 30 IPS 32 track
Studer tape machines used for this baby! Not to mention the fact that all
the other processing equipment was less than state of the art for 1972 even.
My CD version has less than 60 dB dynamic range. What sort of re-processing
did they do for the SACD version?
Trevor.
"VAF Research" <phi...@vaf.com.au> wrote in message
news:99mhgs$7ka$1...@pinah.connect.com.au...
John Knight
>
> It's my basis for comparison, isn't it yours?
It is good to get acoustic guitars, trumpets, voices etc sounding natural,
but really, apart from orchestral recordings, almost everything else is
multiple miked, manipulated, mixed etc making it a complete folly to try to
compare it to live music.
> Possibly due to the HF roll off (smoother?). Personnally I don't find
terms
> like "smoother" or "rocked" much more use than "wooden" etc. when talking
> about technical limitations.
I'm not talking technical limitations, just how it sounds.
> Anybody who uses the word "infinitely" when talking about anthing to do
with
> music let alone sample rates, is not thinking straight.
When comparing digital v/s analog, you can say that analog is analogous to a
signal quantised into an infinite number of infinitely small pieces of
digital data.
> I bet it can. But that's my point, you are quite happy to discard a part
of
> the audible frequency range in favour of what may be inaudible frequency
> range. This is your decision and I have no problem with that. Others make
> different decisions that suit them.
Realistically, even most subs are down 40-50dB at 10 or 15 Hz anyway. As
already stated elsewhere in the thread, it is possible, with the right vinyl
to extend above 20kHz, so we make it up at the other end. 98% of people
however, do not have the speakers to hear this stuff on the edges anyway.
I'm still unconvinced by technical arguments. I just checked the specs on my
cartridge - Channel separation is 31/21 (dB at 1 kHz/10 kHz). This is piss
poor compared to any CD player (80-90 dB), even a walkman. If that is the
case, why does the image focus so much better?
Cheers
John K
Andrew Reilly
>It is good to get acoustic guitars, trumpets, voices etc sounding natural,
>but really, apart from orchestral recordings, almost everything else is
>multiple miked, manipulated, mixed etc making it a complete folly to try to
>compare it to live music.
>I'm still unconvinced by technical arguments. I just checked the specs on my
>cartridge - Channel separation is 31/21 (dB at 1 kHz/10 kHz). This is piss
>poor compared to any CD player (80-90 dB), even a walkman. If that is the
>case, why does the image focus so much better?
I don't know the answer to this specific question, but have one
in return for you:
What does "focus" mean in the multi-miked/manipulated/mixed
world, or is that a term that only applies to coherently miked
recordings of live music?
I'm a technical boy, and am still learning the touchy-feely
lingo of audiophiledom as I prepare to do a major hi-fi upgrade
at my place...
Speaking of which: I have a largish collection of LPs from
around '82 to maybe the early '90s, and I have certainly
never experienced the rhapsodic sensations that LPs have been
described capable of in this group. Well, I enjoyed the music
plenty, but I have no memory of conciously noticing any "focus".
No doubt my listening and my equipment left a lot to be desired.
I haven't listened to any of them since the early '90s, because
that was when I lost access to a record player. Since the new
setup is likely to be able to separate the beating of a gnat's
wings from the howl of a hurricane :-) would it be worth my
while to add a record player to the mix again, or just consign
that collection to oblivion?
--
Andrew
AudioEnz
and...@gurney.reilly.home wrote on 27/03/2001 4:27 PM:
> Since the new
> setup is likely to be able to separate the beating of a gnat's
> wings from the howl of a hurricane :-) would it be worth my
> while to add a record player to the mix again, or just consign
> that collection to oblivion?
If your collection is full of A Flock of Seagulls and Aha lps, then throw
them out!
:-)
Michael Jones
--------------------
New Zealand's online hi-fi and home theatre resource
http://www.audioenz.co.nz
John Knight
> What does "focus" mean in the multi-miked/manipulated/mixed
> world, or is that a term that only applies to coherently miked
> recordings of live music?
It's just a stunt, meant (I guess) to simulate the layout of musicians on
the stage. I was listening to a Black Sabbath album the other day and they
had guitar riffs bouncing around from side to side - it sounded silly.
>
> I'm a technical boy, and am still learning the touchy-feely
> lingo of audiophiledom as I prepare to do a major hi-fi upgrade
> at my place...
>
> Speaking of which: I have a largish collection of LPs from
> around '82 to maybe the early '90s, and I have certainly
> never experienced the rhapsodic sensations that LPs have been
> described capable of in this group. Well, I enjoyed the music
> plenty, but I have no memory of conciously noticing any "focus".
> No doubt my listening and my equipment left a lot to be desired.
> I haven't listened to any of them since the early '90s, because
> that was when I lost access to a record player. Since the new
> setup is likely to be able to separate the beating of a gnat's
> wings from the howl of a hurricane :-) would it be worth my
> while to add a record player to the mix again, or just consign
> that collection to oblivion?
I grew up listening to my records on my Dads 1973 Kenwood TT. Dad still has
it. Then I bought a B&O second hand that did a better job. However, compared
to the TT I have now, they both sounded like they were playing records under
a sheet of tissue paper. Good turntables can pick up a lot of detail and
neuances that lesser ones simply miss. Go to a decent hifi shop that still
knows about analog, like Len Wallis or Audio Connection in Sydney and listen
to some records there - I'm sure if your 1982 record player was like mine,
you will hear a difference .....................
Cheers
John K
Ps - You could consign the collection to me if you decide not to go that way
;>)
Dale
--
remove NOSPAM when replying via email
John Circosta
Don't throw them in the bin without offering them for sale....I'm always
interested !
Regards
John Circosta
Andrew Reilly
>If your collection is full of A Flock of Seagulls and Aha lps, then throw
>them out!
Hey! I had much better taste than that at high school! It's
full of Sky, Jarre, Tull, Pink Floyd, Died Pretty and Nick cave
:-)
Actually, now I think a new record player is going to be a must,
because I've just had a pang to listen to my Lighthouse Keepers
records again...
What's a reasonable price for a record player that only has to
do justice to 80's pop, and what do you look for?
--
Andrew
TT
do justice to 80's pop, and what do you look for?
Hey Andrew,
I like your taste in music but listen to Floyd's "The Wall" on DVD in DD and
I think you will end up spending a lot of money on a TT (not me but a Turn
Table) to do justice to mere 80's pop. As much as I love my old LP's I
find it such a pain to try and clean them and then when you do finally sit
down no sooner has the record started but you have to get up and turn it
over! I for one will not be sorry at this formats demise. But I have
stocked up on styli (styluses?) and will continue to play them and get
sentimental about the "good ol' days". Pop.Crackle.Hiss and it's not a
website or breakfast cereal ;-)
Regards TT
"Andrew Reilly" <and...@gurney.reilly.home> wrote in message
news:slrn9c0k72....@gurney.reilly.home...
AudioEnz
and...@gurney.reilly.home wrote on 27/03/2001 8:35 PM:
> What's a reasonable price for a record player that only has to
> do justice to 80's pop, and what do you look for?
The Rega 2 and 3 are always safe recommendations. I'd suggest going to a
retailer who stocks a few turntables and getting a demonstration of the
sound differences between turntables. That, more than anything anyone here
can say, will show you what you should be purchasing.
Michael Jones
Editor, AudioEnz
Patrick Scully
news:Matthew.Kirkcaldie-3...@babel.its.utas.edu.au...
> In article <3ab8...@usenet.per.paradox.net.au>,
> "Patrick Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote:
>
> > 2. Which LP have you found that was able to reproduce a square wave, as
one
> > of you appears to be suggesting? People are interested to hear about
this
> > miracle, verily Nobel prizes await-:))
>
> suggested was to compare sine and square waves at 12kHz. No mention of
> source was made, and I can rustle up a benchtop tone generator which
> will make those signals pretty damned accurately without disrupting the
> theoretical framework of physics.
Thanx for the correction, Matthew. But I was under the impression that the
thread was about the merits of analogue vs. digital, and vinyl vs. CD vs.
SACD/HDCD?DVD-A. Perhaps I can be forgiven for not reading your mind:-))
>
> If (and I haven't done it) the square wave is audibly different from the
> sine wave,
As an empiricist first and theorist second, I think it might be worth your
while to do the test, then you will KNOW!
>
> Please correct me if this is incorrect, I last studied Fourier series
> about eight years ago!
Bit longer for me, so I don't think that I will presume to correct you.
>
> Now I think I am creeping too far out on a limb here, since I am not an
> audio expert.
Neither am I, just a musician who keeps in touch the world of music through
live performances. Not just of acoustic intruments, electronic and amplified
also.
I am, however, in the process of finishing a PhD in
> neuroscience, and I would have to say that the idea of the auditory
> system having a frequency response which drops off a cliff at 20kHz is
> fairly absurd.
I have been referred to as absurd on many occasions, but I can testify to
the following, as far as my experience is concerned. MY ear, when following
a tone that was calibrated 0dB at 1KHz, drops below MY threshold of hearing
now at 12KHz. I am 56 years old, and know many people over 50 whose hearing
follows a similar pattern. The reference to my children in my post was based
on the same test. Not using metrology other than an a frequency meter, just
reported sensory perception. If this what you mean by "dropping off a
cliff", then for you to call this absurd is in itself absurd, given that you
did not witness the phenomenon.
I realise that under laboratory testing conditions it's
> not possible to raise a finger for a 24kHz tone in the headphones, but I
> wouldn't mind betting the farm that at least some aspect of that tone
> influences the signals heading down the auditory nerve.
If you have a farm, then bet away. Those more experienced than you would
probably be more cautious.
The means by
> which hair cells in the cochlea encode frequency is very poorly
> understood, and psychoacoustically it is possible, for example, to
> construct the illusion of a fundamental tone by presenting the
> appropriate overtones. We're not dealing with an oscilloscope here.
This phenomenon is well known to me. In the domain of sensory perception,
there has been a good deal of research, particularly by psychologists with
an interest in these phenomena that work in the behaviour modification
domain, including marketing.
>
> I hope this post isn't taken as an attack on anyone's point of view.
Verily, it appeared to be just that. But don't worry about it, your attack
was delivered in a civil and considered manner, and should not give offence
to a reasonable person.
> Like I said, I don't have the equipment or the ear to hear CD's flaws
> that I am aware of, it's just that the disussion has raised some
> extremely interesting ideas which I want to chew over.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matthew.
--
regards
Patric Scully
The Sound Man
Conrad Drake
TT wrote:
>
> a record player that only has to
> do justice to 80's pop, and what do you look for?
I don't really like Jarre, but there's several 'audiophile grade'
recordings (MoFi, IIRC) of his work out there. Roll out the
Lyra/Graham/Gyro/OzLoech combo to 'do justice' to that pop.
Depending on the pressing (and what horrors the piece of black
has endured) Pink Floyd also pushed the boundaries of what the
format was capable of.
If you've only heard 'rice bubble' vinyl before a) clean your
records b) beg/borrow/steal a rega (or better) tt and be
amazed. Even my run-of-the-mill rotel RP-850 is damn quiet.
Personally, I've got St Nick's "best of" in both silver and
black. Neither my CD nor LP playback is good enough to say which
format is better. But they're different.
CD
>
> "Andrew Reilly" <and...@gurney.reilly.home> wrote in message
> news:slrn9c0k72....@gurney.reilly.home...
> > On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 17:54:32 +1200, AudioEnz wrote:
> > >If your collection is full of A Flock of Seagulls and Aha lps, then throw
> > >them out!
> >
> > Hey! I had much better taste than that at high school! It's
> > full of Sky, Jarre, Tull, Pink Floyd, Died Pretty and Nick cave
> > :-)
> >
> > Actually, now I think a new record player is going to be a must,
> > because I've just had a pang to listen to my Lighthouse Keepers
> > records again...
> >
> > What's a reasonable price for a record player that only has to
> > do justice to 80's pop, and what do you look for?
> >
> > --
> > Andrew
--
Yours,
Conrad Drake
--
Direct West Invs. P/L Solutions for Embedded Systems.
con...@directwest.ii.net (ph)+61 40 747 1611
http://directwest.ii.net (fx)+61 8 9285 1011
12 Gayton Road, City Beach, WA 6015 AUSTRALIA
Malcolm Short
> I grew up listening to my records on my Dads 1973 Kenwood TT. Dad still
has
> it. Then I bought a B&O second hand that did a better job. However,
compared
> to the TT I have now, they both sounded like they were playing records
under
> a sheet of tissue paper. Good turntables can pick up a lot of detail and
> neuances that lesser ones simply miss. Go to a decent hifi shop that still
> knows about analog, like Len Wallis or Audio Connection in Sydney and
listen
> to some records there - I'm sure if your 1982 record player was like mine,
> you will hear a difference .....................
I support this view. After a succession of belt drive turntables and one
direct drive turntable, I bought a B&O Beocord? 4000 in the late 70's. Great
technology, but iys performance was mediocre. I was astounded when I
replaced it with a 200 buck AR77XB with a 90 buck Garrott bros cartridge
which just blew it away in terms of the retrieved detail and musical
quality. I've stuck with LP12's since then although I use the TT less
frequently now in preference to CD for several reasons including convenience
and lack of audible noise (of the background variety).
Malcolm
Patrick Scully
>
> "Patrick Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3ab8...@usenet.per.paradox.net.au...
> > news:3AB8495F...@ness.com.au...
> > > Mathew
> >
> > > Now that is an interesting thought,
> >
> > Time to smell the coffee, guys! Here is an interesting question (or
two).
> >
> > 1. Will one of you guys reintroducing the LP/analogue debate answer this
> > question: which vinyl records have YOU auditioned that got as far as
20KHz,
> > what was the turntable, arm and cartridge, and how do you know that it
was
> > actually reproducing 20KHz?
>
> **Every descrete 4 channel LP, from the 70's. A handful of direct disk
> recordings, from various manufacturers. Pretty much any decent recording
which
> was mastered on analogue tape. As to how much audible material was up past
> 20kHz, well, that's a whole 'nuther story. There's certainly bugger all up
> there. More serious, are the effects of filters, with shallow rolloffs in
the
> audio band. Wider bandwidths are beneficial here.
Thanx Trevor, I was pretty sure that the only ones available were in fact
the four channel jobs like SQ, etc. My experience of these was that with
commonly used vinyl replay equipment they were frequently wrecked on the
firs few plays.
But you only answered part of my question, the other bits would demonstrate
what is the real basis of my opinion about vinyl vs. CD. Which is, in the
popular domain, average people are extremely happy about the improvement in
their enjoyment brought about by CD. In many cases, particularly in
Australia, the medium replaced by CD was not so much the vinyl LP as the
compact cassette.
Many of the reasons for the popularity of the CC were lifestyle ones, again
particularly in Australia. People choose this medium because of its abilty
to enhance their lifestyle - outdoor living, extended play, recordability
(to a lesser extent) and mobility both in a vehicle and moving around
generally. The CD gave all but one of these lifestyle features, the
exception being recordability. And now even this is available.
Research that I have seen strongly suggests that unless these higher order
CD players become available at NO increase in cost, they will probably fail.
This is because it appears that the quality of current CD media and players
is more than adequate for the majority of the market. Just as Elcassette,
DCD, and other media failed because they did not represent a significant
improvement over existing offerings it is very possible that these
innovations will not only fail but will be superceded by other media that
enhance lifestyle further than is currently the case with CD.
Perhaps my terminology about solid state media was incorrect, no matter.
Perhaps the innovation will not be subject to Moore's Law, e.g., will take
place in the optical domain. I don't know but as I posted, I have lived
through the mechanical gramophone from circa 1949 - my aunt and uncle played
music for me at the age of four on such a machine - and all of the other
developments, and I don't think that it will really take as long as you
suggest. But of course that's just an opinion:-)
Back to the "improvements" in CD, if the mass market doesn't adopt the
product, i.e. the early and late majorities and the laggards, only 16% of
the potential market will adopt the technology - ever. I know of very few
producers of consumer equipment that would have much time for the economics
represented by these figures, not to mention those who control the
distribution of the software for the players. And I don't think that they
can force the issue in this case, either. Examples abound about markets'
resistance to innovations that are not perceived to offer sufficient
improvement to alter the status quo.
>
> **I own just such a recording. It is on one of my CBS test recordings.
Very
> useful for measuring transient performance of high quality cartridges. No
Nobel
> prize is necessary.The recording is more than 20 years old. The technology
is
> not that sophisticated.
But certainly NOT representative of the average production on vinyl, yes? I
am reminded of how many copies of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon that I
had to through before I found one that did not possess distortion that
created an "edgy" feeling that totally spoiled the enjoyment of the music.
The current CD of this that I have is the one that came out mid 90's in the
cardboard box. This is very different to earlier CD versions, as I found out
one afternoon at a friends house auditioning some of the electrostatic
systems that he used to produce as kits.
And that, basically is my position concerning these developments in the CD
medium. At my age I am very much NOT an innovator or early adopter except in
areas other than home entertainment. And to the extent that I have seen
research in lifestyles of those who are, they are not really clamouring for
the so-called improvements in the medium.
Also, for the music to which I regularly listen: Baroque, Baroque Organ,
Acoustic guitar, acoustic folk music and blues, the system that I have
sounds perfect to me. And I use two sources, the Marantz CD 63 Mk II through
Rotel pre/power amplification using the direct setting on the preamplifier,
and the Pioneer DV717 through the decoder in the Pioneer VSX D608 HT
receiver set on Direct. The sounds that I get are continually referenced to
reality, on my own performances (stress inducing hobby) and the occasions
that I can get to concerts.
Your mileage may vary>
> --
> Trevor Wilson
> http://www.rageaudio.com.au
John Knight
> I support this view. After a succession of belt drive turntables and one
> direct drive turntable, I bought a B&O Beocord? 4000 in the late 70's.
Great
> technology, but iys performance was mediocre. I was astounded when I
> replaced it with a 200 buck AR77XB with a 90 buck Garrott bros cartridge
> which just blew it away in terms of the retrieved detail and musical
> quality. I've stuck with LP12's since then although I use the TT less
> frequently now in preference to CD for several reasons including
convenience
> and lack of audible noise (of the background variety).
>
> Malcolm
I've got a LP12/Ittok/ATOC9 set up and I swear I've never heard Skyhooks
sound so good :~)
My noise floor is a little bit higher through the phono stage too, but I
really don't notice any hum at all unless I switch between phono and CD on
the amp with the volume at 1 or 2 o'clock.
As far as surface noise goes, I've been amazed over the last few years to
hear so many recordings where crackly surface noise is sampled and placed in
the mix on purpose. Massive Attack's Teardrop is one and Portishead's Glory
Box is another that I've noticed. I'm sure there are many more. It's funny
that younger (than me) generations must think that surface noise is one of
the mediums endearing features!
Cheers
John K
Trevor Wilson
**Yes and, no. It could be argued that the sub-carrier information was very
critical to the performance of the 4 channel system. Any supersonic
information on regular LP's is likely to be low in level and (possibly) less
likely to be damaged. Having said that, I've played my square wave test LP,
many times, with little visible (on a CRO) degradation. I ONLY use when
testing top notch vinyl systems, which have PERFECTLY adjusted and with the
best quality and condition stylus profile. I never replay the tracks twice,
in quick succession, as vinyl can spring back after a suitable rest period.
As most of us are aware, repeated playing of vinyl disks destroy the disk,
if it is not allowed to rest between plays.
>
> But you only answered part of my question, the other bits would
demonstrate
> what is the real basis of my opinion about vinyl vs. CD. Which is, in the
> popular domain, average people are extremely happy about the improvement
in
> their enjoyment brought about by CD. In many cases, particularly in
> Australia, the medium replaced by CD was not so much the vinyl LP as the
> compact cassette.
**No argument from me. The vast majority (99.9%) have little interest in
quality (in almost any form). One need only witness the failure of:
Elcassette
Reel to reel tapes
The Beta video system
HDTV (Oh, sorry, that hasn't happened, YET)
For that reason, the 16/44 digital system is entirely adequate, for most of
the population. Nevertheless, last time I looked, this group was dedicated
to the best in audio, not mediocrity. Given the abject failure of Sony's
marketing department, I do fear for the long term viability of SACD. I
sincerely hope it succeeds, which will allow the 0.1%, who care about high
quality audio, the source to obtain material and hardware appropriate for
the task. The rest can enjoy their 16/44 digital.
>
> Many of the reasons for the popularity of the CC were lifestyle ones,
again
> particularly in Australia. People choose this medium because of its abilty
> to enhance their lifestyle - outdoor living, extended play, recordability
> (to a lesser extent) and mobility both in a vehicle and moving around
> generally. The CD gave all but one of these lifestyle features, the
> exception being recordability. And now even this is available.
**Absolutely correct. CD's are cheap, a giant leap foreward in sound quality
(for the vast majority), convenient and fast for track access. It is for
precisely these reasons that I predicted the failure of DAT, way back in the
mid-80's. The CD recorder merely put the final nails in the coffin.
>
> Research that I have seen strongly suggests that unless these higher order
> CD players become available at NO increase in cost, they will probably
fail.
**Possibly. It depends on the record companies. If they see the possibility
of releasing product, which cannot be copied (SACD, f'rinstance), then they
may become interested, particularly if there is plenty of hardware
available. IMO, the key lies with the software producers.
> This is because it appears that the quality of current CD media and
players
> is more than adequate for the majority of the market.
**For around 99.5%, yep.
Just as Elcassette,
> DCD, and other media failed because they did not represent a significant
> improvement over existing offerings it is very possible that these
> innovations will not only fail but will be superceded by other media that
> enhance lifestyle further than is currently the case with CD.
**No. Elcasette demonstrated a significant improvement over the Compact
Cassette. What it didn't do, however, was offer:
Increased convenience (quite the opposite, in fact).
Increased performance, for the majority of the population.
Software availability (Sony marketing, again).
Lower costs (quite the opposite, in fact).
The DCD was just dumb. It provided nothing of any worthwhile benefit to
anyone, but at increased cost.
>
> Perhaps my terminology about solid state media was incorrect, no matter.
> Perhaps the innovation will not be subject to Moore's Law, e.g., will take
> place in the optical domain.
**Perhaps. Moore's Law has been with us for 4 decades. It has so far shown
to be remarkably accurate. Whilst I would be reluctant to predict (say) 50
years into the future, I think 10 years is not unreasonable. With the
exception of certain applications (MP3 style systems and extrmely portable
ones) rotating media will be the mainstay for the forseeable future. DVD
will see to that. The multi-gigabyte requirements of modern audio/video
systems require large chumks of storage. Storage which solid state systems
will not be able to provide for quite some time.
I don't know but as I posted, I have lived
> through the mechanical gramophone from circa 1949 - my aunt and uncle
played
> music for me at the age of four on such a machine - and all of the other
> developments, and I don't think that it will really take as long as you
> suggest. But of course that's just an opinion:-)
**Yep. Opinions are like arseholes. Every body's got one.
>
> Back to the "improvements" in CD, if the mass market doesn't adopt the
> product, i.e. the early and late majorities and the laggards, only 16% of
> the potential market will adopt the technology - ever. I know of very few
> producers of consumer equipment that would have much time for the
economics
> represented by these figures, not to mention those who control the
> distribution of the software for the players. And I don't think that they
> can force the issue in this case, either. Examples abound about markets'
> resistance to innovations that are not perceived to offer sufficient
> improvement to alter the status quo.
**Agreed. Still, see my comments about record companies above.
> >
> > **I own just such a recording. It is on one of my CBS test recordings.
> Very
> > useful for measuring transient performance of high quality cartridges.
No
> Nobel
> > prize is necessary.The recording is more than 20 years old. The
technology
> is
> > not that sophisticated.
>
> But certainly NOT representative of the average production on vinyl, yes?
**I have no interest in (nor have I ever had) ANY interest in average vinyl.
My comments are totally directed to the top end of vinyl and vinyl replay
systems. In these systems, there is adequate evidence to suggest that vinyl
offers SOME benefits to SOME users.
I
> am reminded of how many copies of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon that
I
> had to through before I found one that did not possess distortion that
> created an "edgy" feeling that totally spoiled the enjoyment of the music.
**Sure. I recall purchasing 4 copies of Abbey and three copies of The Wall,
before I could find listenable versions. More importantly, when Elton John's
Two Low for Zero came out, I compared the vinyl and the CD. The CD was
clearly and unequivocally superior in every way. I have heard many similar
examples, since. Nonetheless, I have yet to hear ANY digital recording which
offers what most of the Sheffield Direct Disk recordings offered (WRT sound
quality).
Matthew Kirkcaldie
"Patrick Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote:
> Verily, it appeared to be just that. But don't worry about it, your attack
> was delivered in a civil and considered manner, and should not give offence
> to a reasonable person.
Thanks for your considered response, Patrick - if I come off as a little
pugnacious, it could be because my thesis is due this week! What am I
doing in aus.hi-fi??
I think we are arguing at slightly different tangents here - I don't
dispute that the conscious perception of sound has a definite frequency
range, and I have no argument with your personal experiences. My
contention is that ultrasonics most likely influence the sensation of
sound, since energy is still being delivered to the eardrum. I believe
there is a roll-off in terms of sound's effects on activity in the
auditory nerve which extends to higher frequencies than we are aware of
as a distinct tone or sound when they are individually presented. It
could well be an interference effect with sounds we genuinely *can*
hear, but I think some kind of effect would be there nonetheless.
An analogy would be those details of surface texture which are below the
limits of the eye's resolving power, but which make realism in computer
graphics so difficult to achieve because they influence the quality of
the sensory experience without being individually visible.
I know I am hand-waving, it's an embarrassing situation for an
empiricist, but I don't have the time to do the research just now!
I am well and truly interested in this topic now, perhaps one day I will
try to attack it in the lab ...
Cheers,
Matthew.
Matthew Kirkcaldie
MedLine turned up several articles about the perception of sound above
20kHz objectified with electrophysiological recordings. For instance,
this abstract (slightly garbled in translation):
-----
[Measurements of hearing sensations in ultrasound range by electrical
response audiometry (ERA) (author's transl)]
Flach M, Hofmann G, Ertel H, Knothe J
Laryngol Rhinol Otol (Stuttg) 1978 Jul 57:7 680-6
Abstract
Hearing sensations induced by ultrasound in the frequency range 20-80
kcps are determinable with the Electrical Response Audiometry (ERA). The
latency periods of the evoked potentials occured is amounted between 100
and 300 msec. It isn't founded a difference between ultrasound-induced
potentials and the potentials evoked by usual tonal stimulies.
-----
i.e. measuarable cortical electrical activity is evoked by sounds in the
range 20-80kHz, and this activity is not qualitatively different to the
activity produced by sounds in the usual 20Hz-20kHz range. Other papers
describe similar phenomena using direct electrical recording from the
brainstem auditory relay nuclei.
So esoteric and subliminal as it might be, sound in the frequency range
above usual tonal perception does get through, and hence would form part
of the perceptual experience of a recording.
I don't know how rigorous this work is, but there seemed to be quite a
lot of it from the late 70s and early 80s. I could order a copy of this
paper, but I don't speak German so it might not do much good!
Cheers,
Matthew.
Trevor
>
> "Patrick Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3ac0...@usenet.per.paradox.net.au...
> > DCD, and other media failed because they did not represent a significant
> > improvement over existing offerings it is very possible that these
> > innovations will not only fail but will be superceded by other media
that
> > enhance lifestyle further than is currently the case with CD.
> The DCD was just dumb. It provided nothing of any worthwhile benefit to
> anyone, but at increased cost.
I assume you guys mean DCC. What is DCD? Personnally I think the same
applies to MD, but considering how overpriced the units are, sales have been
better than I expected.
> **Perhaps. Moore's Law has been with us for 4 decades. It has so far shown
> to be remarkably accurate. Whilst I would be reluctant to predict (say) 50
> years into the future, I think 10 years is not unreasonable. With the
> exception of certain applications (MP3 style systems and extrmely portable
> ones) rotating media will be the mainstay for the forseeable future. DVD
> will see to that. The multi-gigabyte requirements of modern audio/video
> systems require large chumks of storage. Storage which solid state systems
> will not be able to provide for quite some time.
You forget your own statement about users wanting convenience. A non
volatile ROM format using compressed data of slightly higher quality than
128 kbs MP3, should prove VERY convenient for walkman and car audio purposes
etc. As always the viability will depend on price. So yes they may be
"exceptions", but quite a large market none the less.
> **I have no interest in (nor have I ever had) ANY interest in average
vinyl.
> My comments are totally directed to the top end of vinyl and vinyl replay
> systems. In these systems, there is adequate evidence to suggest that
vinyl
> offers SOME benefits to SOME users.
OK, at last a statement we can agree on.
> > I am reminded of how many copies of Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon
that
> > I had to through before I found one that did not possess distortion that
> > created an "edgy" feeling that totally spoiled the enjoyment of the
music.
>
> **Sure. I recall purchasing 4 copies of Abbey and three copies of The
Wall,
> before I could find listenable versions. More importantly, when Elton
John's
> Two Low for Zero came out, I compared the vinyl and the CD. The CD was
> clearly and unequivocally superior in every way. I have heard many similar
> examples, since. Nonetheless, I have yet to hear ANY digital recording
which
> offers what most of the Sheffield Direct Disk recordings offered (WRT
sound
> quality).
And I still have vinyl disks that were replaced 2 or 3 times and still not
getting anything remotely listen. Thank god CD's cover up the errors so
well. Now we can buy music based on what we want to listen to, not just the
minute range of records that had high production and manufacturing
standards.
Trevor.
Trevor
> It is good to get acoustic guitars, trumpets, voices etc sounding natural,
> but really, apart from orchestral recordings, almost everything else is
> multiple miked, manipulated, mixed etc making it a complete folly to try
to
> compare it to live music.
I wasn't referring to rock bands at the local pub. But would you expect
supersonic frequencies from such music?
> I'm not talking technical limitations, just how it sounds.
The discussion was about technical limitations. How it sounds is always
subjective and cannot be argued.
> When comparing digital v/s analog, you can say that analog is analogous to
a
> signal quantised into an infinite number of infinitely small pieces of
> digital data.
You are misusing the word "infinite" once again. Do you not understand the
limitations of analog, or not understand the meaning of the word infinite?
No real world analog system can have infinite resolution. Thermal noise will
always be the limit of an analog electrical signal, but at least you can use
liquid nitrogen cooling to reduce the problem. How you store the data is a
much bigger problem.
You can easily measure the votage differential produced by a CD player for a
1 dB change in 90. You simply cannot do the same for ANY record ever
produced when played on ANY turntable ever produced.
> Realistically, even most subs are down 40-50dB at 10 or 15 Hz anyway. As
> already stated elsewhere in the thread, it is possible, with the right
vinyl
> to extend above 20kHz, so we make it up at the other end. 98% of people
> however, do not have the speakers to hear this stuff on the edges anyway.
Agreed, and that's what I said, 98% of people or more will not
want/need/benefit from SACD. Therefore it is going to be a hard sell to
convince them otherwise.
>
> I'm still unconvinced by technical arguments. I just checked the specs on
my
> cartridge - Channel separation is 31/21 (dB at 1 kHz/10 kHz). This is
piss
> poor compared to any CD player (80-90 dB), even a walkman. If that is the
> case, why does the image focus so much better?
I can't answer that because it has not been my experience. 20 dB seperation
is quite enough to produce a good sound stage though, I never thought of
that as a real limitation for vinyl. You will really only benefit from more
when using headphones anyway, and that's when you usually want less.
Trevor.
Patrick Scully
> In article <3ac0...@usenet.per.paradox.net.au>,
> "Patrick Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Verily, it appeared to be just that. But don't worry about it, your
attack
> > was delivered in a civil and considered manner, and should not give
offence
> > to a reasonable person.
>
> Thanks for your considered response, Patrick - if I come off as a little
> pugnacious, it could be because my thesis is due this week!
I teach, so I have experience of you current context, from both sides. Good
luck with it.
>What am I doing in aus.hi-fi??
Hopefully for the fun that having a hobby and a place to discuss it
brings:-))
>
> I think we are arguing at slightly different tangents here - I
snip
> It could well be an interference effect with sounds we
> genuinely *can* hear, but I think some kind of effect
> would be there nonetheless.
So you are suggesting sonic interferometry, similar to that which operates
in the optical domain. Seems like a plausible hypothesis. Do you know of any
research in this area?
>
> An analogy would be those details of surface texture
> which are below the limits of the eye's resolving power,
> but which make realism in computer graphics so difficult
> to achieve because they influence the quality of
> the sensory experience without being individually visible.
I'm not sure that this is a valid analogy. The work done on perceptual
coding in the audio domain, with respect to the amplitude related masking
effect with similar frequencies seems to challenge this. And the ability of
the eye to perceive something that is below its resolving power, surely is
zero? At least that is what they taught us in Physics when I did my
engineering in the 70's. Have you any references to this?
Having full regard to your comment below re time:-))
>
> I know I am hand-waving, it's an embarrassing situation for an
> empiricist, but I don't have the time to do the research just now!
>
> I am well and truly interested in this topic now, perhaps one day I will
> try to attack it in the lab ...
And I am sure that many people who post (and lurk) hereabouts would be
interested in reading about the outcomes of such an assault.
Patrick Scully
> ... and I don't know why I didn't do this before, but a quick trawl of
> MedLine turned up several articles about the perception of sound above
> 20kHz objectified with electrophysiological recordings. For instance,
> this abstract (slightly garbled in translation):
This is useful stuff. It is the first evidence that I have seen to make the
case of frequencies higher than the "normal" producing a measurable effect
with people. Good!
> snip <
> I don't know how rigorous this work is, but there seemed to be quite a
> lot of it from the late 70s and early 80s. I could order a copy of this
> paper, but I don't speak German so it might not do much good!
Aber manchmal vier haben hier nicht schlect Deutsch gesprechen!
Stimmt, Mick D?
Dale
interested in reading about the outcomes of such an assault.
yes, i work within the medical field, (slightly left of centre) and have
read (or may even still have) several pieces of material that talks about
the movements of the cranial bones (within microns) and how they vibrate at
different frequencies and set up resonant frequencies.
another is the harmonising of the heart and movement of cranial fluid that
occasionally one can hear as a soft ringing or droning if your still enough.
i would imagine high frequencies would affect these functions/phenomena and
would ad to an over-all impression of the sound/music, perhaps even
frequencies we cannot directly hear.
dale
Malcolm Short
> I've got a LP12/Ittok/ATOC9 set up and I swear I've never heard Skyhooks
> sound so good :~)
> My noise floor is a little bit higher through the phono stage too, but I
> really don't notice any hum at all unless I switch between phono and CD on
> the amp with the volume at 1 or 2 o'clock.
I'm not so sure that at my advanced age I would admit to listening to
Skyhooks.
I don't have a particularly noiticeable noise floor through the amps, its
just recording imperfections that spoil things. I for one do not regard them
as endearing. Mind you, I do have some very quiet vinyl.
Not sure what an ATOC9 is ... ?? Do you mean an ASAK9
regards
Malcolm
John Knight
> Not sure what an ATOC9 is ... ?? Do you mean an ASAK9
Sorry, Audio Technica OC9 moving coil cartridge. They are very nice and
a bargain for the money.
Regards
John K
Matthew Kirkcaldie
"Patrick Scully" <soun...@starwon.com.au> wrote:
> I'm not sure that this is a valid analogy. The work done on perceptual
> coding in the audio domain, with respect to the amplitude related masking
> effect with similar frequencies seems to challenge this. And the ability of
> the eye to perceive something that is below its resolving power, surely is
> zero? At least that is what they taught us in Physics when I did my
> engineering in the 70's. Have you any references to this?
Thanks for such thought provoking responses, Patrick. In this case my
argument about detail below the limit of resolution has more to do with
things like specular reflection. I mean, you can tell the difference
between matt and gloss surfaces without being able to resolve the
structures responsible for the difference in reflective properties.
But I think the articles about ultrasonic perception measured
electrophysiologically are where it's at. Less handwaving, more science!
Now, anyone want to sell me a Rotel RCD950?! I'm looking forward to
training my ears, and I'm willing to forgive the lack of frequencies
above 20kHz ...
Cheers,
Matthew.