The truth about accuracy of CD v. LP
Thepork...@aol.com
views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose
some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to
get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from
objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions
. It is my impression that
1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to
the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of
the signal used to make them.
2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor
quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering
engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or
manugfacturing of those CDs.
3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been
done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding
version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus
will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/
engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the
master.
4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when
not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic
colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like
them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the
original sound of a live recording.
5. Objectivists believe the primary source of preferences for LPs over
CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases.
Let me know if I am making any misrepresentations of objectivists
beliefs on this subject.
michae...@yahoo.com
> Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my
> views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose
> some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to
> get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from
> objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions
> . It is my impression that
> 1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to
> the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of
> the signal used to make them.
You know, at this point I'm going to concede that the objectivists have
researched this very carefully and know what they are talking about.
I will just say that I have spent a lot of time listening to live feeds
in Boyk's class at Caltech, and they have a liveliness and musical
accuracy that I have *never* heard in CD. Analog gets closer. If that's
sighted bias, or a preference for distortion, or fallible audio memory,
so be it. That's my experience, nonetheless.
> 2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor
> quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering
> engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or
> manugfacturing of those CDs.
> 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been
> done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding
> version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus
> will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/
> engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the
> master.
> 4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when
> not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic
> colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like
> them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the
> original sound of a live recording.
Just as one example, I can hear the harmonic quality of intervals in
analog. A fifth on a harpsichord is a beautiful, stable interval, that
makes musical sense in context. On CD, this quality of beauty is lost.
If distortion is what creates this wonderful effect (even though for
some reason this effect resembles live music) then so be it.
Mike
MC
are uniformly good.
bob
> Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my
> views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose
> some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to
> get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from
> objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions
> . It is my impression that
> 1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to
> the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of
> the signal used to make them.
No. They are audibly transparent transfers of the "master tapes" (by
which I mean, the very last stage of processing) used to make
them--assuming no manufacturing screw-ups. or other incompetence.
> 2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor
> quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering
> engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or
> manugfacturing of those CDs.
OK, assuming no manufacturing screw-ups. or other incompetence.
> 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been
> done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding
> version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus
> will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/
> engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the
> master.
No, because the phrase "a more accurate representation of the
artists/producer/engineer's intentions" has no meaning here. The
"artists/producer/engineer's intentions" are presumably to put out a
recording that sounds like what the recording sounds like. If it
doesn't, then they screwed up.
> 4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when
> not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic
> colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like
> them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the
> original sound of a live recording.
LPs are never more accurate to the master tape. But "accurate to . .
the original sound of a live recording" has no meaning here. There are
an infinite number of "sounds of a live recording."
> 5. Objectivists believe the primary source of preferences for LPs over
> CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases.
No. They are simply preferences.
bob
MC
> analog. A fifth on a harpsichord is a beautiful, stable interval, that
> makes musical sense in context. On CD, this quality of beauty is lost.
>
> If distortion is what creates this wonderful effect (even though for
> some reason this effect resembles live music) then so be it.
It is perfectly possible for even-harmonic distortion to enhance the
harmonies in music.
Steven Sullivan
> I think the objectivist position is not that CDs are perfect, but that they
> are uniformly good.
Or rather, capable of more objectively *accurate* reproduction of the source,
than LP.
--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)
Serge Auckland
news:dtlkq...@news1.newsguy.com...
> Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my
> views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose
> some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to
> get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from
> objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions
> . It is my impression that
> 1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to
> the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of
> the signal used to make them.
> quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering
> engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or
> manugfacturing of those CDs.
> done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding
> version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus
> will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/
> engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the
> master.
> not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic
> colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like
> them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the
> original sound of a live recording.
> CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases.
> beliefs on this subject.
You have stated the position extremely well. One small quibble, however, is
the use of the word "belief". With the exception of the 5th item, it is not
a question of belief, but of measurable and repeatable objective evidence.
S.
pf...@aol.com
>beliefs on this subject.
Just one.
Some people prefer beer to burgundy, some people prefer rye to Napoleon
brandy, and some people prefer Twinkies to mousse. Without reference to
which is which, the attempt to disguse what amount to simple
preferences within a bunch of folderol and fancy labels is akin to
elevating preference to some sort of deeply meaningful and important
issue of "right" and "wrong".
Actually, it is of no more significance than the difference between
Cherry-Vanilla and Rocky Road. One picks what one likes.... without the
need to preclude enjoyment of other flavors as well.
If the choice of one flavor excludes all others, it is no longer a
preference but a religion. And religion cannot be discussed with any
meaning amongst non-aligned true-believers. War, sure. Discussion...
not hardly.
Are you a Big Ender or a Little Ender?
(and I have written all of this before)
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
NYO...@peoplepc.com
> Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my
> views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose
> some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to
> get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from
> objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions
> . It is my impression that
> 1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to
> the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of
> the signal used to make them.
There have been a few changes, such as anti-aliasing filters, but
essentially that is true AFAIK.
> 2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor
> quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering
> engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or
> manugfacturing of those CDs.
Again, essentially true.
> 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been
> done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding
> version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus
> will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/
> engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the
> master.
I doubt that you can find such a thing as a recording that has not been
tweaked. but the end result with a CD is that what is on the master
tape is what is on the CD.
> 4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when
> not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic
> colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like
> them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the
> original sound of a live recording.
There seems to be evidence for this idea. It is impossible for
anything to be more accurate than the master tape or the original
recording and I'd be surprised if anybody claiming to be any kind of
objectivist ever said otherwise.
> 5. Objectivists believe the primary source of preferences for LPs over
> CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases.
What else might it be?
> Let me know if I am making any misrepresentations of objectivists
> beliefs on this subject.
Let us know if you will ever concede that LP is iherently inferior to
CD.
dpi...@cartchunk.org
> Just as one example, I can hear the harmonic quality of intervals in
> analog. A fifth on a harpsichord is a beautiful, stable interval, that
> makes musical sense in context. On CD, this quality of beauty is lost.
I had read this thread and promised to stay far away from it
because, frankly, I have never seen so many strawmen erected in
a single post.
However, I feel I MUST adress this specific point directly. Let
me provide you with a little background so that my response
makes some sense in context.
In 1973, I started studying harpsichord and later went on to
build, restore, tune and repair a number more. I have,
althogether built about 1 dozen such instruments, all but one
generally faithful reproductions of historical examples. I have
also restored and repaired many more, the most recent (last
year) being a major structural rebuild of an early 1970's
Zuckerman 1x8, 1x4 single manual based on the general Ruckers
prototype.
I spent a goodly amount of time (almost a year) in Brussells,
and there was able to gain ready access to the keyboard section
of the Royal Instrument Museum and had a chance to extensively
study, measure and play a number of instruments by the likes of
Hass, Couchet and others. Marvelous instruments all.
Probably the largest single block of music in my collections of
recordings is Baroque keyboard music, and I probably have an
equal number of LPs and CDs in this genre. They all range from
the truly beautiful to the horrifically grotesque.
Let's just say that I believe I speak from a position of some
knowledge on the topic. That mush said, let's look at what I
find objectionable in your comments. You stated:
"A fifth on a harpsichord is a beautiful, stable interval,
that makes musical sense in context."
You state that as if the "beautifully, stable interval [of a]
fifth] is an intrinsic property of the harpsichord which can
only be captured on the LP to your satsisfaction. I will, for
the moment, defer on any response to the LP vs CD issue, but get
to the meat of my point.
The "beautifully stable" fifth is most assuredly NOT an
intrinsic property of harpsichord, any more than it is less so
for a piano or ANY fretted instrument. It is in fact, a property
of the specific TUNING applied to the instrument, and is not a
property of the instrument itself.
There are any number of tunings in vogue for use with
harpsichords, ranging from equal temperement (which,
interestingly enough, has about the closets to pure fifth
intervals of any practical keyboard tuning scheme) to any number
of just intonations and beyond. They can be applied at the whim
of the performer or the tuner, and can and often are changed to
suit different genres of music. Myself, I generally use one of
the so-called equal-beating temperements, such as Werkmeister
III or Kirnberger, and occasionally try one of the temperements
suggested by Rameau.
That being said, the "purity of the fifths" as you might put it,
indeed the sound of any other interval is there or not there NOT
because it's a harpsichord, but because that's they weay THAT
instrument was tined for THAT performance.
Now, let's go back and address the remainder of your comment:
"I can hear the harmonic quality of intervals in analog. On
CD, this quality of beauty is lost."
If you assume that this "harmonic quality" is an intrinsic
property of the instrument, then I would say this claim might
have some validity. But as it most definitely does not, then I
suggest your opinion is based on noth an assumption and skewed
data. DO you have, for instance, the precise SAME performance
(that is, the very same original recording) on both LP and CD by
which you can make the comparison?
Well, in fact, I do, and LOTS of them. Just to give one example:
when I was in Brussells, I picked up the complete set of Kenneth
Gilbert's landmark recordings of the complete Livre de Clavecin
on LP (Harmonia Mundi) originally recorded in 1970-71. Later, I
was able to acquire the Harmonia Mundi 1989 CD release of
precisely the same recordings.
Without a lot of handwaving, let me make a simple statement:
you're wrong. I have an a number of recordings sat down and
listened to to both for extensive periods of time, and the
beauty, the subtlety of the temperment used, Couperin's
exploitation of it, and Gilberts sensitive and brilliant
realization of it shines through equally well on BOTH media.
And this impression holds forth on the the more than dozen LP's
and CD's in this collection, and on every other example where I
am able to make the direct comparison.
Now, there ARE some CD's that, in fact, these harmonic
properties are NOT apparent. But, they are ALSO not apparent on
the LP version as well. Why? Because, inthose cases, the
performer decided to use a temperement not suited to the genre,
such as equal temperement.
Off the top of my head, I probably could come up with at least
20 individual LP/CD releases which are from the same original
recording session that simply do NOT support your assertion.
Now, that's not to say that you didn't hear what you claim, just
that it's not for the reason you think. During the 1960's and
70's, recordings where made by performers who were fastidious
about historically authentic tunings. This was during probably
the zenith of the historically -appropriate Baroque keyboard
performance practice. For a lot of reasons, less attention is
often paid to such, with the result that there are a lot of
recrodings out there where these subtle plays of intervals,
deleiberate properties, again, of the tuning and NOT of teh
instrument, are simply lost. And since MOST new classical music
in the last 25 years has been released on CD and not LP, more of
these types of performances are going to find their way on to
CD.
But it's NOT a CD issue: it's a performance issue, it's a tuning
issue.
My fear is, once again, that someone hears a recording of
performer A playing music M on harsichord Q with tuning X on a
CD, and compares it to performer B playing music M on
harpsichord P with tuning Y on an LP, and draws the conclusion
that the LP sounds different than the CD in such and such a way.
Yes, it absolutely does, but neither the CD or the LP can be
fingered as the culprit.
All THAT being said, I am prepared to say, given that I have
sitting in the next room (a 1975 Hubbard reproduction of the
1760 Pascal Taskin prototype), an instrument VERY similar to the
one used by Gilbert in the Couperin recordings, what I feel the
differences between the LP and CD versions are.
But, let me start with the reference: French double manual
harpsichords from the first half of the 18th century, as an
intrinsic property that was caused by the basic geometry,
materials and structure, one very unmistakable quality: the
lower registers had a solid articulation and authority that is
almost unexpected when you first hear such an instrument live.
One normally expects a light, complex almost metallic quality to
the instrument, but when confronted with an instrument that,
when played in the two octave below the middle of the keyboard,
has real power to it, it's something of a very pleasant shock.
Both the CD and LP version convey that, but the LP version is
EVER so slightly less distinct and articulate. It's almost as
iff a small portion of the solid aithority has been replaced
with a subtle "boom." It's not unpleasant, but it is noticeably
different.
And have said ALL OF THAT, let me part with one anecdote which,
in many ways, bespeaks all that is wrong with high-end
self-appointed experts. Please note that I am NOT attempting to
whitewash our respondant here as one of this ilk, but more as an
example of how the high-end drivvle often ends up besmirching a
prefectly wonderful instrument and repetoire.
I believe it was a review of a piece of equipment some years ago
in Absolute Sound (it might have been stereophile or something
else: that's irrelevant). The reviewer was waxing eloquently
about how wonderful this equipment was, and made the statement,
which I paraphrase, how the device clearly imaged the sound,
giving the example of a harpsichord recording on which he could
clearly discern how the strings were arrayed on two levels.
Here is a guy who ASSUMED if the instrument has two keyboards,
the strings must be on two levels, and took that same assumption
and essentially invented some attribute that he then heard.
Unfortunately, the way he THOUGH the instrument constructed had
NOTHING to do with how they really are. There are two very
important reasons why is was, in a word, full of it:
1. The unison strings in the harpsichord are indeed on exactly
the same plane, in fact they pass over exactly the same nut
on the wrestplank and over the same bridge on the soundboard.
Unison strings for the same note are about 3/8" apart, just
enough for the jacks to pass up between them.
2. The strings themselves contribute almost NOTHING to the sound
of the instrument: their radiation impedance is SO high that
they can vibrate all they want and you would be hard pressed
to hear them even with your ear right next to them. The VAST
majority of the acoustic radiation is from the soundboard, to
which the strings are mechanically coupled by the brass
bridge pins and through the wooden bridge. And, with al that,
the sound does NOT eminate from one particualr place, but is
all over the place in a very complex fashion that is highly
dependent upon the note.
What this guy THOUGHT he heard, I have NEVER once heard from ANY
harpsichord from ANY position under ANY circumstances. And I am
quite sure that if he had ever heard a live harpsichord himself,
neither would he.
As to the rest of the original post, I will simply make the
comment that I find the assertions to be grossly simplistic
misrepresentations constructed for the purpose of argumentation
only, and thus I will at this point withdraw from any further
discussion.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my
>views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose
>some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to
>get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from
>objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions
> . It is my impression that
>1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to
>the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of
>the signal used to make them.
Certainly, they *can* be, and I have some examples from 1983. There
will of course always be plenty of badly-produced CDs - just as with
vinyl in the '70s!
>2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor
>quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering
>engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or
>manugfacturing of those CDs.
Manufacturing *can* be at fault, but I'd hope that's a rare occurrence
after 23 years of manufacturing experience. Similarly with modern A/D
converters.
>3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been
>done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding
>version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus
>will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/
>engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the
>master.
Yes, that's true.
>4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when
>not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic
>colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like
>them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the
>original sound of a live recording.
Yes, that's true.
>5. Objectivists believe the primary source of preferences for LPs over
>CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases.
Can't speak for the others, but I believe that the very real audible
differences generate a preference which is based on a combination of
euphonic distortions, mastering differences, and a feeling of
involvement with the mechanical complexity of the medium which is
missing with 'load and press play' CD.
> Let me know if I am making any misrepresentations of objectivists
>beliefs on this subject.
Seems a reasonable analysis, with the caveats given above.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Thepork...@aol.com
> Thepork...@aol.com wrote:
> > Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my
> > views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose
> > some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to
> > get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from
> > objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions
> > . It is my impression that
> > 1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to
> > the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of
> > the signal used to make them.
>
> No. They are audibly transparent transfers of the "master tapes" (by
> which I mean, the very last stage of processing) used to make
> them--assuming no manufacturing screw-ups. or other incompetence.
OK. i meant the same thing by signal. but if you wish to refer to the
master tape that is fine. so you agree with that statement so long as
we refer to the master tape itslef rather than the signal. Fine with
me.
>
> > 2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor
> > quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering
> > engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or
> > manugfacturing of those CDs.
>
> OK, assuming no manufacturing screw-ups. or other incompetence.
Which begs the question how many commercial CDs are out there that
suffer from
" manufacturing screw-ups or other incompetence?" So what say you on
this question? Common problem, rare problem not a problem?
>
> > 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been
> > done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding
> > version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus
> > will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/
> > engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the
> > master.
>
> No, because the phrase "a more accurate representation of the
> artists/producer/engineer's intentions" has no meaning here.
Sure it does. It means exacty what it says. Are you suggesting that the
artists/producer/engineer's intentions were and are a nonexistant
entity? I think it's hard to argue that they never had any intentions
as to how their releases will sound.
> The
> "artists/producer/engineer's intentions" are presumably to put out a
> recording that sounds like what the recording sounds like.
They don't put out "recordings" they put out CDs and LPs of recordings.
So the statement that there intentions are to put out "recording that
sounds lik what the recording sounds like" has no meaning in this
context.
> If it
> doesn't,
If what doesn't? The CD the LP?
> then they screwed up.
Who screwed up?
So intentions aside would you agree with the first part of #3
Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been
done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate
sounding
version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig.
>
> > 4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when
> > not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic
> > colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like
> > them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the
> > original sound of a live recording.
>
> LPs are never more accurate to the master tape. But "accurate to . .
> the original sound of a live recording" has no meaning here.
My bad. I sould have said *the* original sound of *the* live event
that was recorded.
>"There are
> an infinite number of "sounds of a live recording."
I'm not going to nit pick hyperbole.
>
> > 5. Objectivists believe the primary source of preferences for LPs over
> > CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases.
>
> No. They are simply preferences.
I know that preferences are preferences. The question I ask is do you
believe those preferences are more commonly the result of biases rather
than actual sound?
Thank you for your response.
Steven Sullivan
> S.
Yes, but how do you know you aren't just a brain in a jar, dreaming it
all? ;>
As for Scott's list,
1. can be, if done well and compared blind. Assuming the 'signal
used to make them' refers to the signal after having been captured
by a microphone.
2. the digital conversion *can* be at fault, but it is not
an *inherent* problem
3. *if* accuracy is defined as measurable accuracy. If accuracy
is defined subjectively, then it is best determined by *well-controlled*
comparison to source. It is slightly dodgy of Scott to stick in that
bit about 'artists' intentions'. It is entirely possible that
the 'intention' may not have been finalize until the cutting stage
of an LP, as is the case when last minute fades or dubs
are introduced. Hence some CD reissues end up lacking the fade
or the part of the original 'mix' (e.g. recent reissues of Yes and
Jethro Tull albums). To that extent they are less
accurate representations of the artists original intentions.
THis of course is not an inherent flaw of digital, or an inherent
benefit of vinyl. It's simply careless remastering.
4) again, define what 'accurate' means in this context. *Objective* accuracy is
measurable and repeatable -- two different people measuring it with the same
equipment, will arrive at the same result. *Subjective* sense of 'accuracy'
can only be measured reliably by directly comparing the sound to the source of
the recording ...e.g., LP or CD to the master tape (it simply isn't
feasible to compare either to a live performance in real time, though
the signal chain leading up to them can be, to a degree).
6) only if preference for euphonic distortion is considered a form
of *bias*. If so, then preference for lack of same, is also a 'bias'.
But I don't think this is what objectivists mean when they speak of bias
towards LPs. They are referring to non-audible factors , such as
preconceptions arising from the *reputation* of vinyl amongst audiophiles
and the audiophile press.
Steven Sullivan
> Thepork...@aol.com wrote:
> > 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been
> > done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding
> > version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus
> > will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/
> > engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the
> > master.
> I doubt that you can find such a thing as a recording that has not been
> tweaked. but the end result with a CD is that what is on the master
> tape is what is on the CD.
Well, the digital master derived from an analog master tape
can actually end up being rather different from
the original master, if it has been tweaked during remastering.
I doubt today's crop of highly compressed, low-dynamic-range
remasters sound the same as their original master tapes.
To the extent a remaster has been 'tweaked' it represents some
remastering engineer's or producer's idea of how the recording
*should* sound. This might be with reference to an LP, or
to modern fads (e.g. louder than loud), or to the engineer's
personal conception of 'good sound'. They may justify this
by saying they are only 'trying to be faithful to the master'
but that's a bit of malarkey unless the master's actually
*damaged*.
> Let us know if you will ever concede that LP is iherently inferior to
> CD.
Depending on how terms are defined, that may not be
necessary, or could even be wrong. If part of what gives you pleasure
about LP is the process of using a turntable, a CD will never be
superior.
michae...@yahoo.com
clear. I can't hear the beauty of intervals on CD. More below....
Okay, agreed, but the point remains. As you ask later, I do have the
same performance on CD and LP in several cases, including digital and
analog master recordings.
You clearly are an authority on harpsichord building and tuning. My own
experience is in composition and analysis of Bach. I've also hear
numerous recordings of most of his keyboard music.. digital & analog,
piano & harpsichord & keyboard, and I've analyzed a fair bit of it. I
think I'm pretty sensitive to the relationship of the tuning to the
composition.
I'm sure we agree that a tuning provides a beautiful "color,"
(equal-temperament being a bit bland) and a lot of Bach's compositions
make much sense when you hear them in something other than
equal-temperament... the colors "make sense" compositionally...
Listening to his keyboard music on LP is a series of "aha"
experiences.. "Ah, the color of the harmonies meshes with this phrase..
I get it!"
I don't have as extensive a collection of harpsichord music as you, and
I only have the matching CD/LP in 3 cases.
Nonetheless, these Aha! experiences happen *only* on analog recordings.
The "colors" of the harmonies come through *only* on analog. Your
experience may be different. I'm only describing my experience.
It's like eating at Mcdonald's and then at a fine restaurant. Do I have
to eat the exact same dish in both places to make a fair comparison?
No, there are qualities to fine food---freshness, presentation,
contrast of flavors---which are simply non-existent at McDonald's.
My experience.. the same kind of contrast happen with analog and
digital. I'm still waiting for the first CD that comes close to the
beauty and compositional integrity of a good analog recording.
>
> There are any number of tunings in vogue for use with
> harpsichords, ranging from equal temperement (which,
> interestingly enough, has about the closets to pure fifth
> intervals of any practical keyboard tuning scheme) to any number
> of just intonations and beyond. They can be applied at the whim
> of the performer or the tuner, and can and often are changed to
> suit different genres of music. Myself, I generally use one of
> the so-called equal-beating temperements, such as Werkmeister
> III or Kirnberger, and occasionally try one of the temperements
> suggested by Rameau.
>
> That being said, the "purity of the fifths" as you might put it,
> indeed the sound of any other interval is there or not there NOT
> because it's a harpsichord, but because that's they weay THAT
> instrument was tined for THAT performance.
>
> Now, let's go back and address the remainder of your comment:
>
> "I can hear the harmonic quality of intervals in analog. On
> CD, this quality of beauty is lost."
>
> If you assume that this "harmonic quality" is an intrinsic
> property of the instrument, then I would say this claim might
> have some validity. But as it most definitely does not, then I
> suggest your opinion is based on noth an assumption and skewed
> data. DO you have, for instance, the precise SAME performance
> (that is, the very same original recording) on both LP and CD by
> which you can make the comparison?
Yup.
>
> Well, in fact, I do, and LOTS of them. Just to give one example:
> when I was in Brussells, I picked up the complete set of Kenneth
> Gilbert's landmark recordings of the complete Livre de Clavecin
> on LP (Harmonia Mundi) originally recorded in 1970-71. Later, I
> was able to acquire the Harmonia Mundi 1989 CD release of
> precisely the same recordings.
>
> Without a lot of handwaving, let me make a simple statement:
> you're wrong.
I can't be wrong about my own experience.
> I have an a number of recordings sat down and
> listened to to both for extensive periods of time, and the
> beauty, the subtlety of the temperment used, Couperin's
> exploitation of it, and Gilberts sensitive and brilliant
> realization of it shines through equally well on BOTH media.
To your ears. That's all you can say. I would be delighted if CD
possessed this wonderful qualities because it would be a lot more
convenient, but it's just not true for my ears.
Mike
Thepork...@aol.com
> On 24 Feb 2006 00:43:03 GMT, Thepork...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my
> >views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose
> >some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to
> >get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from
> >objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions
> > . It is my impression that
> >1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to
> >the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of
> >the signal used to make them.
>
> Certainly, they *can* be, and I have some examples from 1983. There
> will of course always be plenty of badly-produced CDs - just as with
> vinyl in the '70s!
So are you saying that there are some unkown number of commercial CDs
that have been soncially degraded during the digitaztion/ manufacturing
part of production?
>
> >2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor
> >quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering
> >engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or
> >manugfacturing of those CDs.
>
> Manufacturing *can* be at fault, but I'd hope that's a rare occurrence
> after 23 years of manufacturing experience. Similarly with modern A/D
> converters.
OK so it seems you are saying there is some unknown number of
commercial CDs that have been sonically degraded by the A/D conversion
or manufacturing?
>
> >3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been
> >done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding
> >version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus
> >will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/
> >engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the
> >master.
>
> Yes, that's true.
>
> >4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when
> >not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic
> >colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like
> >them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the
> >original sound of a live recording.
>
> Yes, that's true.
>
> >5. Objectivists believe the primary source of preferences for LPs over
> >CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases.
>
> Can't speak for the others, but I believe that the very real audible
> differences generate a preference which is based on a combination of
> euphonic distortions, mastering differences, and a feeling of
> involvement with the mechanical complexity of the medium which is
> missing with 'load and press play' CD.
>
> > Let me know if I am making any misrepresentations of objectivists
> >beliefs on this subject.
>
> Seems a reasonable analysis, with the caveats given above.
Thank you.
Scott
michae...@yahoo.com
You know how objectivists are irritated that they are told "You don't
like vinyl because you've never really listened to a good rig?"
This post is an exact parallel. I'm confused about the qualities of
analog because I've never heard good cd's, or never heard the same
music on both.
It's the same red herring in both cases.
Mike
MC
news:dtnrp...@news3.newsguy.com...
> The "beautifully stable" fifth is most assuredly NOT an
> intrinsic property of harpsichord, any more than it is less so
> for a piano or ANY fretted instrument. It is in fact, a property
> of the specific TUNING applied to the instrument, and is not a
> property of the instrument itself.
I was thinking about that. Das Wohltempierte Klavier and all that, right?
> Now, that's not to say that you didn't hear what you claim, just
> that it's not for the reason you think. During the 1960's and
> 70's, recordings where made by performers who were fastidious
> about historically authentic tunings. This was during probably
> the zenith of the historically -appropriate Baroque keyboard
> performance practice. For a lot of reasons, less attention is
> often paid to such, with the result that there are a lot of
> recrodings out there where these subtle plays of intervals,
> deleiberate properties, again, of the tuning and NOT of teh
> instrument, are simply lost. And since MOST new classical music
> in the last 25 years has been released on CD and not LP, more of
> these types of performances are going to find their way on to
> CD.
Can you recommend some good harpsichord recordings with fastidious old-style
tuning that have been re-released on CD? I'm interested.
MC
> Some people prefer beer to burgundy, some people prefer rye to Napoleon
> brandy, and some people prefer Twinkies to mousse. ...
That is of course true. Is the goal of "high fidelity" to produce the sound
of the original instruments, or to produce a copy of that sound that is
colored to reflect the hearer's further preferences? And what if the music
was electronically synthesized, so there was never any original sound to
begin with? Then, is it purely a matter of taste how any particular
listener chooses to make it sound?
Maybe all we can say is that "high fidelity" means delivering a copy of the
master tapes into the listener's final amplifier stages as faithfully as
possible.
Serge Auckland
news:dtq4o...@news4.newsguy.com...
> Or the short answer to this post:
>
> You know how objectivists are irritated that they are told "You don't
> like vinyl because you've never really listened to a good rig?"
>
> This post is an exact parallel. I'm confused about the qualities of
> analog because I've never heard good cd's, or never heard the same
> music on both.
>
the mastering process. If a recording is well mastered for vinyl, the
mastering engineer will make allowances for the disc-cutting process. This
results in a completely different sound going on vinyl and CD, which doesn't
have the same limitations.
I don't know of any commercial recordings which have been mastered
deliberately identically, although I suspect that some of the early CD
releases were done using a disc-cutting master rather than a specific CD
master, either out of ignorance or economy, with the result that the CD was
less than ideal.
It would be an interesting exercise if someone were to press a vinyl record
from a CD master, I suspect that the resulting record would be pretty nasty.
This is why, in my view, questions of which is better, CD or vinyl, can
never be answered properly, as one is never comparing two identical
recordings. Also, there is no accounting for taste, and some may genuinely
prefer vinyl, in spite of all the measurable limitations.
S.
Thepork...@aol.com
The position has nothing to do with posibilities or capabilities of CD.
So it says nothing about what "can be." It states a very simple
assertion of what has happened when it comes to commercial CDs. If you
feel it is not accurate then please say so and perhaps add why. If you
feel it does represent what you believe then just says so.
>
>
> 2. the digital conversion *can* be at fault, but it is not
> an *inherent* problem
So you believe there are commercial CDs out there that have been
audibly degraded during the A/D conversion?
>
>
> 3. *if* accuracy is defined as measurable accuracy. If accuracy
> is defined subjectively, then it is best determined by *well-controlled*
> comparison to source.
It is defined subjectively. So it is best determined by well controlled
comparison to the source. I agree. So do you agree with the assertion
or disagree with it? lets just address the first part. Do you agree
that commercial CDs always are subjectively more accurate than LPs to
the source that they were made from. Again . I'm not talking about
anything the mastering engineer may hav done to manipulate the sound of
the original master. I am talking fidelity to the signal that fed
either the cutting console for an LP or the A/D converter in the case
of CD.
> It is slightly dodgy of Scott to stick in that
> bit about 'artists' intentions'.
I stuck it in because it has been claimed that commercial CDs are a
bettr representation of the intentions of those who made the original
recording because they are transaparent copies of the master tape
provided no mastering engineer has tampered with them. Again this is my
impression of the objectivsts POVs on the subject and not mine. If you
don't agree just say so and perhaps say why. I'm trying to get the most
accurate account of objectivists beliefs at this point.
> It is entirely possible that
> the 'intention' may not have been finalize until the cutting stage
> of an LP, as is the case when last minute fades or dubs
> are introduced. Hence some CD reissues end up lacking the fade
> or the part of the original 'mix' (e.g. recent reissues of Yes and
> Jethro Tull albums). To that extent they are less
> accurate representations of the artists original intentions.
OK that answers the question to a degree.
> THis of course is not an inherent flaw of digital, or an inherent
> benefit of vinyl. It's simply careless remastering.
True, but a real world reality none the less.
>
> 4) again, define what 'accurate' means in this context.
Same as above. In terms of audio the subjective is all that matters
IMO.
> *Objective* accuracy is
> measurable and repeatable -- two different people measuring it with the same
> equipment, will arrive at the same result. *Subjective* sense of 'accuracy'
> can only be measured reliably by directly comparing the sound to the source of
> the recording ...e.g., LP or CD to the master tape (it simply isn't
> feasible to compare either to a live performance in real time, though
> the signal chain leading up to them can be, to a degree).
OK. I agree. So are you saying that you don't think CDs will
subjectively sound more like the master tape than LPs? Are you saying
you just don't know? Are you saying sometimes yes sometimes no? It's
not about possibilities. I am interested in your beliefs on the reality
of the state of CDs and Lps.
>
> 6) only if preference for euphonic distortion is considered a form
> of *bias*.
No. a preference for ephonic colorations is a seperate issue and is
caused by actual sound and not expectations.
> If so, then preference for lack of same, is also a 'bias'.
> But I don't think this is what objectivists mean when they speak of bias
> towards LPs. They are referring to non-audible factors , such as
> preconceptions arising from the *reputation* of vinyl amongst audiophiles
> and the audiophile press.
I agree. So do you agree with the above assertion that vinyl
enthusiasts' preference is largely driven by bias or not?
Scott
pf...@aol.com
>master tapes into the listener's final amplifier stages as faithfully as
>possible.
We might. As long as we accept GI-GO as an abiding principle.
Essentially, the reproducing system should neither add nor remove any
artifact(s). The operative word being "should". Some systems do add
artifacts, to the peculiar (in the sense of specific and unique, not
odd) tastes and preferences of its owner.
But between vinyl and CD, all other things being equal, THAT is purely
a matter of taste and preference that does not bear discussion outside
of that designation.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 24 Feb 2006 00:43:03 GMT, Thepork...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> >Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my
>> >views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose
>> >some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to
>> >get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from
>> >objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions
>> > . It is my impression that
>> >1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to
>> >the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of
>> >the signal used to make them.
>>
>> Certainly, they *can* be, and I have some examples from 1983. There
>> will of course always be plenty of badly-produced CDs - just as with
>> vinyl in the '70s!
>
>So are you saying that there are some unkown number of commercial CDs
>that have been soncially degraded during the digitaztion/ manufacturing
>part of production?
Sure, just as there were lots of rubbish LPs issued in the '70s,
likely still ongoing in the current 'DJ' market. One might of course
have known that your questions lacked a certain impartiality.........
>> >2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor
>> >quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering
>> >engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or
>> >manugfacturing of those CDs.
>>
>> Manufacturing *can* be at fault, but I'd hope that's a rare occurrence
>> after 23 years of manufacturing experience. Similarly with modern A/D
>> converters.
>
>OK so it seems you are saying there is some unknown number of
>commercial CDs that have been sonically degraded by the A/D conversion
>or manufacturing?
Sure, just as there were lots of rubbish LPs issued in the '70s,
likely still ongoing in the current 'DJ' market. One might of course
have known that your questions lacked a certain impartiality.........
The essential point is that a well-made CD will be *much* closer to
the sound of the master tape than will a well-made LP. Check out the
JVC XRCD issues of Miles Davis' music for examples.
Thepork...@aol.com
> <michae...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dtq4o...@news4.newsguy.com...
> > Or the short answer to this post:
> >
> > You know how objectivists are irritated that they are told "You don't
> > like vinyl because you've never really listened to a good rig?"
> >
> > This post is an exact parallel. I'm confused about the qualities of
> > analog because I've never heard good cd's, or never heard the same
> > music on both.
> >
> It's pretty near impossible to hear the same music on CD and vinyl due to
> the mastering process.
mastering doesn't change the musc just the sound of the music. Thee are
thousands of titles in which one can choose betwen a CD or an LP based
on sound quality.
> If a recording is well mastered for vinyl, the
> mastering engineer will make allowances for the disc-cutting process.
Not always true.
> This
> results in a completely different sound going on vinyl and CD, which doesn't
> have the same limitations.
>
> I don't know of any commercial recordings which have been mastered
> deliberately identically,
James Boyk did it for the sake of comparisons with his release of
Pictures at an Exhibition. You can compare the LP to the CD with no
alterations done in the mastering of either. It is the purest
comparison you can find of the actual media. Both were done as best as
they possibly could be done and are both from the same mic feed.
> although I suspect that some of the early CD
> releases were done using a disc-cutting master rather than a specific CD
> master, either out of ignorance or economy, with the result that the CD was
> less than ideal.
You really think that is limited to early releases?
>
> It would be an interesting exercise if someone were to press a vinyl record
> from a CD master, I suspect that the resulting record would be pretty nasty.
It has been done by Simply Vinyl.
> This is why, in my view, questions of which is better, CD or vinyl, can
> never be answered properly, as one is never comparing two identical
> recordings.
But as audiophiles we are faced with the choice quite often when buying
commercial recordings. Whether or not it is ever a fair representation
of the two media it is a real world issue.
> Also, there is no accounting for taste, and some may genuinely
> prefer vinyl, in spite of all the measurable limitations.
What does this have to do with taste?
Scott
bob
> bob wrote:
> > Thepork...@aol.com wrote:
> > > Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my
> > > views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose
> > > some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to
> > > get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from
> > > objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions
> > > . It is my impression that
> > > 1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to
> > > the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of
> > > the signal used to make them.
> >
> > No. They are audibly transparent transfers of the "master tapes" (by
> > which I mean, the very last stage of processing) used to make
> > them--assuming no manufacturing screw-ups. or other incompetence.
>
>
> OK. i meant the same thing by signal. but if you wish to refer to the
> master tape that is fine. so you agree with that statement so long as
> we refer to the master tape itslef rather than the signal. Fine with
> me.
Check.
> > > 2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor
> > > quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering
> > > engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or
> > > manugfacturing of those CDs.
> >
> > OK, assuming no manufacturing screw-ups. or other incompetence.
>
> Which begs the question how many commercial CDs are out there that
> suffer from
> " manufacturing screw-ups or other incompetence?" So what say you on
> this question? Common problem, rare problem not a problem?
Outside my area of expertise. I suspect bad choices at the
mixing/mastering stage are far more common, however.
> > > 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been
> > > done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding
> > > version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus
> > > will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/
> > > engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the
> > > master.
> >
> > No, because the phrase "a more accurate representation of the
> > artists/producer/engineer's intentions" has no meaning here.
>
>
> Sure it does. It means exacty what it says. Are you suggesting that the
> artists/producer/engineer's intentions were and are a nonexistant
> entity? I think it's hard to argue that they never had any intentions
> as to how their releases will sound.
But you're using code words that often mean something very different.
The "artists' intentions" often refers to the choices they make in
their musical performance, rather than the choices they (or the
engineers they entrust with the task) make at the mixing/mastering
stage.
> > The
> > "artists/producer/engineer's intentions" are presumably to put out a
> > recording that sounds like what the recording sounds like.
>
>
> They don't put out "recordings" they put out CDs and LPs of recordings.
> So the statement that there intentions are to put out "recording that
> sounds lik what the recording sounds like" has no meaning in this
> context.
What I had in mind was the idea that the "artists/producer/engineer's
intentions" are whatever's on the master tape. Then we can ask which
medium more accurately reproduces that.
> > If it
> > doesn't,
>
>
> If what doesn't? The CD the LP?
>
>
> > then they screwed up.
>
>
> Who screwed up?
>
> So intentions aside would you agree with the first part of #3
> Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been
> done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate
> sounding
> version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig.
I'd put it this way: If we have a common 15ips analog "master tape," a
CD made from that tape will sound closer to the tape than an LP made
from that tape. Part of the reason for that, however, is that in order
to make an LP you do have to do some further tweaking first.
> > > 4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when
> > > not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic
> > > colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like
> > > them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the
> > > original sound of a live recording.
> >
> > LPs are never more accurate to the master tape. But "accurate to . .
> > the original sound of a live recording" has no meaning here.
>
> My bad. I sould have said *the* original sound of *the* live event
> that was recorded.
That's what I thought you meant. But which original sound? The sound at
the point where the mike(s) are, or at some other point in the room?
What if the mikes are more than 6 inches apart? Then they are picking
up a "sound" that no human being could possibly hear.
> >"There are
> > an infinite number of "sounds of a live recording."
>
>
> I'm not going to nit pick hyperbole.
This may be unnecessary nitpicking. I was just laying the basis for an
objection to an argument I suspect you'll make at some point. But we
can put this aside for now.
> > > 5. Objectivists believe the primary source of preferences for LPs over
> > > CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases.
> >
> > No. They are simply preferences.
>
> I know that preferences are preferences. The question I ask is do you
> believe those preferences are more commonly the result of biases rather
> than actual sound?
Like Stewart, I suspect there's a combination of factors, and trying to
disaggregate and assign weights to them seems rather pointless. That's
why I said they are simply preferences.
bob
vlad
Serge,
I think situation is not so hopeless :-)
Let's say we will take LP that is made very well. By this I mean only
one thing - it is prized highly by high-enders. Then we will take
SOTA (again judged by high-enders) equipment and very good A to D box
(judged by competent engineers). We will digitize the signal from LP
the best way we can, say 192kHz/24bit. After that we will down sample
it to 44.1/16 the best way we can - dithering and all this. There are
people here who can advise how to do it. But no fiddling with the
sound, no additional mastering.
After all this we will cut CD from 44.1kHz/16bit file.
My naïve understanding is that we will get exact copy of LP on CD. I
wander if it will preserve all analog 'beauty' and 'magic' in a
blind test.
I would run very basic version of blind test - I would collect dozen
of golden ears high-enders in a room and offer them the sound of
equipment of their choice with only one component unknown - the
source CD/LP.
My guess is they will be unable to tell CD from LP.
Would it work?
I would be particularly interested if Jenn can recognize CD by
deterioration in violin's timbre.
vlad
.
Steven Sullivan
We at home generally don't deal with the recording and mastering stages
ourselves, but only with playback. Most of us can't know personally
how the master tape sounded in the mastering suite, much less how the live
performance sounded. So we can't even say for sure how 'faithful' the
reproduction of is. We can't know in fine detail how it's 'supposed
to ' sound. Thus for the vast majority of listeners, 'high
fidelity' as a hobby comes down to reaching for what they *believe*
the 'right sound' is. And the 'right sound' ends up being, of course,
'what sounds good to me'. Lots of audiophiles then make the leap backwards
to : 'this is the way it's *supposed to* sound'. ;>
michae...@yahoo.com
music enthusiast. Let's not let a disagreement about the preferred
format come between us.
I can see that you are very knowledgeable about harpsichord
construction and tuning. I have no doubt that if we sat down to listen
to a CD together, you would point out many subtleties and I would be
quite enlightened.
My collection is focused on Gustav Leonhardt playing Bach. I love his
Goldberg Variations, which I have on Musical Heritage Society 512400Z.
Alas, I have this only on CD. I believe this is a 1965 performance. I
have an earlier performance on LP (Vanguard SRV-175 SD) but my goodness
did he grow in subtlties between these. I love Leonhardt's use of
rhythm, his subtle timing variations in the beat, the way he can bring
out a feeling quality in a line while at the same time you are hardly
aware of exactly what he's doing with timing.
I have Leonhardt's French Suites, Inventions, and Sinfonias on Seon
LP's. These are the clearest examples of when I can hear qualities of
intervals that I have never heard on CD.
Mike
Steven Sullivan
But you can prepare a digital copy of an LP at home and
with some effort, do a blind comparison -- to determine,
at least, if your digital recording and playback chain at home , is
'transparent' to you when using an LP source. You are comparing the
same music on CD and vinyl in this case.
jjn...@sonic.net
> Dick, I'm just talking about my experience. Sorry if I didn't make that
> clear.
Thank you for this clarification.
> > I have an a number of recordings sat down and
> > listened to to both for extensive periods of time, and the
> > beauty, the subtlety of the temperment used, Couperin's
> > exploitation of it, and Gilberts sensitive and brilliant
> > realization of it shines through equally well on BOTH media.
> To your ears. That's all you can say. I would be delighted if CD
> possessed this wonderful qualities because it would be a lot more
> convenient, but it's just not true for my ears.
The distortions of LP can be pleasant in the same sense that a certain
degree of randomness is necessary to make a musical sound. This is why
electronic organs fail miserably in comparison to pipes: i.e. they don't
have the randomess that a mass of pipes in 3 dimensional acoustic space have,
and technically, this is 'distortion.' (for lack of a better term in this
context) Simularly, saying that fifth's on harpsichords are a
stable interval ignores the fact that in tuning, one tunes the beats
produced immediately after the pluck, not to the after ring, which has more
inharmonicity, and thus is part of the 'randomness' I mentioned that makes a
musical sound more interesting. Since <all> reproduced music is sadly lacking
in realism and musicality compared to a live acoustic event, some people prefer
to add random-like distortions to their setup as a compromise. Frankly, I'm
sick to death of claims or insinuations that these approaches to music
reproduction are 'more accurate' with any qualifying conditional statements
by the person making them. It's just a civilized courtesy to do so.
The said approach is also very unweildy in the sense that the user has
quite limited and relatively imprecise control over how a system behaves.
I gave up on it because assuming a reproduction system is a musical instrument
might be good for one handful (at best) of recordings, but terrible for another
and I'm not content to listen only to recordings that might have the best sound,
(i.e. the 'audio quality') most of which IME have mediocre performances.
What's the point of that for those interested primarilly in the music? DSP
correction (i.e. fancy tone controls) are a very nice compromise for this
problem in sort of the same sense that temperaments are a compromise, and since
<all> audio systems are pretty large compromises, I feel it's a bit silly to
focus on perfection for a few recordings. What's the point other than a
'mine is bigger than yours' attitude?
FYI, the latest offering on Bach temperaments to my knowledge is here:
There is also Hermann Keller's work, but it doesn't appear to be up on the
web since his passing, but maybe I missed it. Owen Jorgensen's work also
has some good practical points, but it has been criticized for the lack of
precision in its approach by those who prefer analyzing temperaments
mathematically, a perspective that has considerable merit.
Skeeter
I am neither a full blooded subjectivist, nor objectivist. I tend to
believe what I subjectively experience, from an objective perspective.
So this may be a little mixed.
Thepork...@aol.com wrote:
> Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my
> views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose
> some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to
> get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from
> objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions
> . It is my impression that
> 1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to
> the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of
> the signal used to make them.
***Perhaps true for some narrow minded objectivists that listen with
statistical studies, calculators, D/A analysis, and algorithm
comparisons, etc... Being open minded, I would comment that it is
truly rare to find anything; either analogue or digital, that is
absolutely "audibly transparent".
> 2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor
> quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering
> engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or
> manugfacturing of those CDs.
***This is a fair criticism, and likely correct in many cases.
However, audio digital conversion is mainly a mathmatical approximation
of an analogue audio occurance. Although the technology is
mathmatically accurate, it cannot be perfect. No doubt that there
would exist possible issues with poor process and quality control of CD
manufacturing as well.
> 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been
> done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding
> version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus
> will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/
> engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the
> master.
***Tough one here. To cut a master on a lathe, the signal needs to be
tweaked a bit to satify the RIAA equalization requirements. For a CD,
this would not be necessary (I think). In terms of non-tweaking "what
you hear is what you get", I think that the CD should get the nod as
the more foolproof provider of the master. On the other hand, when a
master is cut on a lathe, there is sometime much involvement from the
recording engineers, producer, and occasionally the artist(s).
Successful tweaking at this stage of the analogue process may bring the
finished product closer yet to the intent of the people involved with
the production.
> 4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when
> not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic
> colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like
> them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the
> original sound of a live recording.
***Probably a good portion of truth here as well. The analogue
recording and reproduction signal chain is more vulnerable to pollution
and degradation than digital. Especially at the end-user side. The
variety of turntables, plinths, mats, belts, motors, tonearms, wiring
capacitance, cartridges/stylii, tracking setups, preamps, etc... it is
incredible. There rightly are some combinations of variables that have
less influence, colouration, distortion, and occasionaly combinations
of complementary issues that help cancel each other, or minimise ill
effects on the resulting fidelity.
***There are of course many analogue recordings that were manufactured
using the direct-to-disc method. This skips out much of the inherent
pollution from tape and post recording mastering. In my opinion, this
is the best analogue method for accuracy and spontaneity available.
Always live, no overdubs, this can capture a live performance with
excetional accuracy. A very short signal chain that is all analogue.
Very demanding of performers and engineers however.
***There are older recordings that are better represented on vinyl than
CD however. You must, or course own a pressing made from the master
tape when the master tape was new. The pressing, if not overplayed and
stored/maintained properly will not degrade with time. The master tape
does degrade over time. Many CD remasterings have to work with tired,
degraded master tapes that simply have lost informantion, frequency
response issues, and increased noise. It would have been great if
engineers would have saved a pristine set of mothers that were never
used to make pressings.
> 5. Objectivists believe the primary source of preferences for LPs over
> CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases.
> Let me know if I am making any misrepresentations of objectivists
> beliefs on this subject.
***Yes, this is correct. It doesn't make it universally true in all
cases, but the great majority... yes.
Cheers,
Skeeter.
Thepork...@aol.com
> Thepork...@aol.com wrote:
> > bob wrote:
> > > > 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been
> > > > done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding
> > > > version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus
> > > > will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/
> > > > engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the
> > > > master.
> > >
> > > No, because the phrase "a more accurate representation of the
> > > artists/producer/engineer's intentions" has no meaning here.
> >
> >
> > Sure it does. It means exacty what it says. Are you suggesting that the
> > artists/producer/engineer's intentions were and are a nonexistant
> > entity? I think it's hard to argue that they never had any intentions
> > as to how their releases will sound.
>
> But you're using code words that often mean something very different.
No. there is nothing ambiguous about the word "intentions."
> The "artists' intentions" often refers to the choices they make in
> their musical performance, rather than the choices they (or the
> engineers they entrust with the task) make at the mixing/mastering
> stage.
But we aren't talking about that we are talking about sound. We are
talking about which one would the artists/producer/engineers say 'yeah
that one sounds more like what we were trying to do than that other
one." There is no trickery going on here.
>
> > > The
> > > "artists/producer/engineer's intentions" are presumably to put out a
> > > recording that sounds like what the recording sounds like.
> >
> >
> > They don't put out "recordings" they put out CDs and LPs of recordings.
> > So the statement that there intentions are to put out "recording that
> > sounds lik what the recording sounds like" has no meaning in this
> > context.
>
> What I had in mind was the idea that the "artists/producer/engineer's
> intentions" are whatever's on the master tape. Then we can ask which
> medium more accurately reproduces that.
That question was addressed seperately. If you don't feel comfortable
saying that commerical CDs that have not ben tampered with by the
mastering engineer are a better epresentation than the
artists/producer/engineer's intentions then feel free to say so. You
can say yes, no sometimes yes somethims no, or I don't really know or
have an opinion. I just want to get an understanding of what *you*
believe.
>
> > > If it
> > > doesn't,
> >
> >
> > If what doesn't? The CD the LP?
> >
> >
> > > then they screwed up.
> >
> >
> > Who screwed up?
> >
> > So intentions aside would you agree with the first part of #3
> > Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been
> > done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate
> > sounding
> > version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig.
>
> I'd put it this way: If we have a common 15ips analog "master tape," a
> CD made from that tape will sound closer to the tape than an LP made
> from that tape. Part of the reason for that, however, is that in order
> to make an LP you do have to do some further tweaking first.
OK that clarifies your belief. thank you.
>
> > > > 4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when
> > > > not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic
> > > > colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like
> > > > them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the
> > > > original sound of a live recording.
> > >
> > > LPs are never more accurate to the master tape. But "accurate to . .
> > > the original sound of a live recording" has no meaning here.
> >
> > My bad. I sould have said *the* original sound of *the* live event
> > that was recorded.
>
> That's what I thought you meant. But which original sound? The sound at
> the point where the mike(s) are, or at some other point in the room?
> What if the mikes are more than 6 inches apart? Then they are picking
> up a "sound" that no human being could possibly hear.
True but a recording engineer does step into the room and listen and
then goes back and listens to the monitors. so I would say from the
reference perspective of the recording engineers.
>
> > >"There are
> > > an infinite number of "sounds of a live recording."
> >
> >
> > I'm not going to nit pick hyperbole.
>
> This may be unnecessary nitpicking. I was just laying the basis for an
> objection to an argument I suspect you'll make at some point. But we
> can put this aside for now.
>
> > > > 5. Objectivists believe the primary source of preferences for LPs over
> > > > CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases.
> > >
> > > No. They are simply preferences.
> >
> > I know that preferences are preferences. The question I ask is do you
> > believe those preferences are more commonly the result of biases rather
> > than actual sound?
>
> Like Stewart, I suspect there's a combination of factors, and trying to
> disaggregate and assign weights to them seems rather pointless. That's
> why I said they are simply preferences.
OK so you offer no opinion on the source of vinyl enthusiasts'
preference. Fair enough and thanks for your clarifications.
Scott
MC
news:dtr05...@news3.newsguy.com...
> MC <m...@uga.edu> wrote:
>> Maybe all we can say is that "high fidelity" means delivering a copy of
>> the
>> master tapes into the listener's final amplifier stages as faithfully as
>> possible.
>
> We at home generally don't deal with the recording and mastering stages
> ourselves, but only with playback. Most of us can't know personally
> how the master tape sounded in the mastering suite, much less how the live
> performance sounded. So we can't even say for sure how 'faithful' the
> reproduction of is. We can't know in fine detail how it's 'supposed
> to ' sound. Thus for the vast majority of listeners, 'high
> fidelity' as a hobby comes down to reaching for what they *believe*
> the 'right sound' is. And the 'right sound' ends up being, of course,
> 'what sounds good to me'. Lots of audiophiles then make the leap backwards
> to : 'this is the way it's *supposed to* sound'. ;>
That is the most intelligent thing I've heard anybody say for several days.
dpi...@cartchunk.org
> You know what, I'm really glad to meet another Baroque harpsichord
> music enthusiast. Let's not let a disagreement about the preferred
> format come between us.
Actually, I have no "preferred format," only preferred results.
> I can see that you are very knowledgeable about harpsichord
> construction and tuning. I have no doubt that if we sat down to listen
> to a CD together, you would point out many subtleties and I would be
> quite enlightened.
>
> My collection is focused on Gustav Leonhardt playing Bach. I love his
> Goldberg Variations, which I have on Musical Heritage Society 512400Z.
> Alas, I have this only on CD. I believe this is a 1965 performance. I
> have an earlier performance on LP (Vanguard SRV-175 SD) but my goodness
> did he grow in subtlties between these. I love Leonhardt's use of
> rhythm, his subtle timing variations in the beat, the way he can bring
> out a feeling quality in a line while at the same time you are hardly
> aware of exactly what he's doing with timing.
>
> I have Leonhardt's French Suites, Inventions, and Sinfonias on Seon
> LP's. These are the clearest examples of when I can hear qualities of
> intervals that I have never heard on CD.
Well, your revelations are telling. Much of Leonhardt's recordings paid
little attention to the subleties of temperements and I find them, in
fact
quite bland and boring, be they CD's or LP's. In short, he is not be
preferred performer. I find him while virtuostic, he's dry, academic
and somewhat soulless.
Try finding the Bach Inventions and Sinfonias (aka, the two-part and
three-part inventions) performed by Gilbert on Archiv. Much better
instrument, better tuning, better performance, better everything.
See if you can find Gabe Weiners CDs on the PGM label, two come
to mind: The Buxtehude project Vol II: Harpsichord music and
Ricercare: Keyboard music in Germany before Bach. I find both to
have all those lush qualities that many LP enthusiasts wax on about.
Both recordings are on better instruments with better tuning and
better recording and mastering than anything Leonhardt did, and I
find the performance far more engaging and less, well, "academic."
And see if the Couperin by Gilbert is still around: it's reletaively
unknown to the listening pubic and represents a genre of work
that's very different: collections of pieces that are as much little
minitures or caricatures, many of them playful, some sarcastic,
a few very biting, of life in the pre-revolutionary French Court.
And there's lots of stuff out there performed by Sylvia Marlow
which is junk. I have most of the LP's she did and I think she
is a good performer, but the recordings are almost uniformly
dreadful enough that I don't care to even try to find out for sure.
And avoid anything by Wanda Landowska: the instrument she
played (essentially a plucking Pleyel Piano), how she played
and all is so far removed from the literature that I find here stuff
almost farcical. This despite her lofty reputation as a founding
"diva" of the modern harpsichord revival.
And, as an aside, the appropriate tunings for the literature, in
fact, have less pure fifths than equal temperement. They are
generally more compromised than equal temperement in
exchange to FAR better tunings of the major thirds, sixths
and simialr intervals that in equal temperement, are just plain
disonant. This is one reason why I focused on your comment
about the "purit6y and beauty of the fifths" as a telling indication
that you've clued into something that is not right. And your further
comments about the older Leonhardt recordings seem to make
it all make more sense.
We'll make a proper clavicinista out of you yet.
michae...@yahoo.com
> michae...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Dick, I'm just talking about my experience. Sorry if I didn't make that
> > clear.
>
> Thank you for this clarification.
>
>
> > > I have an a number of recordings sat down and
> > > listened to to both for extensive periods of time, and the
> > > beauty, the subtlety of the temperment used, Couperin's
> > > exploitation of it, and Gilberts sensitive and brilliant
> > > realization of it shines through equally well on BOTH media.
>
> > To your ears. That's all you can say. I would be delighted if CD
> > possessed this wonderful qualities because it would be a lot more
> > convenient, but it's just not true for my ears.
>
>
You have some interesting theories here.
A thought I've had: could we say that the ear/brain system is highly
tuned to the types of sounds which normally occur in nature, and can
recognize sounds which, in some way, don't correspond to natural
occurances?
For example, a hobby of mine is digital sound synthesis. Using a
program called Csound, I write digital "instruments". some of them are
meant to imitate real acoustic instruments, while others are purely
electronic-sounding. A guy named Perry Cook is leading the way in
digital modeling of acoustic instruments, and Csound incorporates some
of his models.
Anyway, I've had a chance to play with these digital instruments, and
in particular notice what types of sounds seem "real" and which seem
"electronic" (not like something occuring in the physical world). I've
noticed a few things. Tonal balance needs to be right. Some sounds have
too much highs or too little highs.. they don't sound like something
that could occur physically. Humans have an intuition about natural
events, like two things bonking together. You are going to hear a lot
of high frequencies when two rocks hit each other, but not *too* much
high frequencies.
Just as you mention, putting several copies of an instrument together,
and detuning them slightly especially with random tuning fluctuations,
makes a much richer sound that resembles something real.
Nevertheless, this effect never gets away from an "artificial sound."
Listen to a recording of a real instrument and Wow! you know right away
you are listening to a real thing, and that the electronic sounds are
not like something in the physical world.
Consider artificial reverberation generators. The simplest ones sound
fake. The more complex ones sound pretty good, but I haven't heard one
that fools me into thinking these sounds are taking place inside a real
room.
And this is not surprising.. real rooms and concert halls are far too
complex to model digitally (the impulse response and convolution is one
possibility but still not a complete model).
> The distortions of LP can be pleasant in the same sense that a certain
> degree of randomness is necessary to make a musical sound. This is why
> electronic organs fail miserably in comparison to pipes: i.e. they don't
> have the randomess that a mass of pipes in 3 dimensional acoustic space have,
> and technically, this is 'distortion.' (for lack of a better term in this
> context)
What's interesting to me about an organ in 3 dimensional acoustic
space, is that it is a complex system, but a physical one. I don't
think 'random' or 'distortion' is a good term here. That's because when
you add randomness to electronic sounds, you don't get "real-sounding"
sounds. You get richer sounds, yes, but you don't come anywhere close
to crossing that real/artifical divide. I suspect that's because the
ear/brain knows pretty well what complexity results from real (complex)
physical models, and what complexity has been inserted after the fact
via some algorithm.
Consider audio: it's an illusion in that it doesn't recreate the same
soundfield (two channel, anyway), and it tries to portray several
instruments scattered in space, but in reality all the sounds are
coming from some paper/cloth/whatever cones positioned on the left and
right side. Perhaps this is one reason we can't be completely fooled.
> Simularly, saying that fifth's on harpsichords are a
> stable interval ignores the fact that in tuning, one tunes the beats
> produced immediately after the pluck, not to the after ring, which has more
> inharmonicity, and thus is part of the 'randomness' I mentioned that makes a
> musical sound more interesting. Since <all> reproduced music is sadly lacking
> in realism and musicality compared to a live acoustic event, some people prefer
> to add random-like distortions to their setup as a compromise.
Okay, that's one theory.. that we prefer analog because it adds
random-like distortion. But what's curious is that you can easily find
recording engineers who spend a lot of time in concert halls, then make
recordings of those same performances, in both digital and analog
form.. so they have plenty of experience with the choices involved..
and for their ears, analog is a better representation of the musical
event, as a fairly clear general trend.
And as I said above, "randomness" doesn't make things real.. it makes
them more complex, but I think a better word for what you are
describing is "complex" -- that is, complex, but very real, physical
models. The after ring is not random, it is the consequence of a real,
and complex, physical system acting as it acts.
I can tell you from experience that adding random fluctuations of
frequency to a sustained tone or interval does *not* make it sound
real. It sounds richer, yes, but not real.
Perhaps the fact that analog is a complex and physical system adds just
the right kind of distortion. (as opposed to digital models)
> Frankly, I'm
> sick to death of claims or insinuations that these approaches to music
> reproduction are 'more accurate' with any qualifying conditional statements
> by the person making them. It's just a civilized courtesy to do so.
If you accept that different people are listening for different things,
then ALL statements about the ability of an audio system to create
authentic reproductions of sound are *relative* to what that person
listens for. I know you would like qualitifications, but they really
aren't necessary. Every single statement anyone makes about what audio
systems best reproduce musc, is truest to the orignal---in short, is
"accurate"---has an implicit qualification, "Relative to what I listen
for."
>
> The said approach is also very unweildy in the sense that the user has
> quite limited and relatively imprecise control over how a system behaves.
> I gave up on it because assuming a reproduction system is a musical instrument
> might be good for one handful (at best) of recordings, but terrible for another
> and I'm not content to listen only to recordings that might have the best sound,
The curious thing is that for some of us, using analog means is not
unweildy.. it is not an attempt to create distortions that compensate
for flaws in recordings.. it is simply the best way to reproduce music.
> (i.e. the 'audio quality') most of which IME have mediocre performances.
> What's the point of that for those interested primarilly in the music? DSP
> correction (i.e. fancy tone controls) are a very nice compromise for this
> problem in sort of the same sense that temperaments are a compromise, and since
> <all> audio systems are pretty large compromises, I feel it's a bit silly to
> focus on perfection for a few recordings. What's the point other than a
> 'mine is bigger than yours' attitude?
I would really like to hear a CD processed through DSP such that it
sounds like analog. That would be wonderful. I'm also going to be
making CD-R recordings of some of my records, so we'll see.
Mike
jjn...@sonic.net
> claims or insinuations that these approaches to music
> reproduction are 'more accurate' with any qualifying conditional statements
> by the person making them.
Should read '<without> any qualifying statements...'
(perhaps an obvious error, but offensive if taken literally as written)
> There is also Hermann Keller's work...
That's <Herbert Kellner>
Organbuilder John Brombaugh, who I apprenticed with, used this temperament in
the last part of his career.
This temperament can be viewed at:
http://www.music.indiana.edu/som/piano_repair/temperaments/5thkwt.html
and articles:
Http://homepages.bw.edubachbib/script/bach1.pl?0=Kellner%20Herbert%20A
Stewart Pinkerton
>Serge Auckland wrote:
>> <michae...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:dtq4o...@news4.newsguy.com...
>> > Or the short answer to this post:
>> >
>> > You know how objectivists are irritated that they are told "You don't
>> > like vinyl because you've never really listened to a good rig?"
>> >
>> > This post is an exact parallel. I'm confused about the qualities of
>> > analog because I've never heard good cd's, or never heard the same
>> > music on both.
>> >
>> It's pretty near impossible to hear the same music on CD and vinyl due to
>> the mastering process.
>
>mastering doesn't change the musc just the sound of the music. Thee are
>thousands of titles in which one can choose betwen a CD or an LP based
>on sound quality.
Agreed, but all those 'digitally remastered' versions of well-known
albums do rather cloud the issue. I'd probably trust Wilma Cozart
Fine's efforts as being genuine and highly skilled attempts to extract
the very best from each medium and from the original session tapes.
>> If a recording is well mastered for vinyl, the
>> mastering engineer will make allowances for the disc-cutting process.
>
>Not always true.
It is if it's *well* mastered, since the fundamental flaws of vinyl
should be well known to the mastering engineer. That's what he *does*
for a living!
>> This
>> results in a completely different sound going on vinyl and CD, which doesn't
>> have the same limitations.
>>
>> I don't know of any commercial recordings which have been mastered
>> deliberately identically,
>
>James Boyk did it for the sake of comparisons with his release of
>Pictures at an Exhibition. You can compare the LP to the CD with no
>alterations done in the mastering of either. It is the purest
>comparison you can find of the actual media. Both were done as best as
>they possibly could be done and are both from the same mic feed.
This is not entirely true.
>From Boyk's own site:
"World's only comparison of (a) pure digital, (b) digital-from-analog,
and (c) pure analog recordings, made at the same time from the same
microphones; (a) and (b) on the CD, (c) on the LP. The analog master
tape was the first tape made on MagnesaurusTM. From the album notes:
"Interested listeners may use this double release of LP and CD to
investigate some timely questions: Given an analog master tape, which
medium preserves its virtues better, LP or CD? (Compare the LP with
the analog half of the CD.) Does a CD sound better made from digital
or analog master tape? (Compare the two versions on the CD.) And most
important, which preserves the emotional impact of the music better,
purely analog or purely digital recording? (Compare the LP with the
digital half of the CD.)"
In order to have mastered the LP as well as possible, it would
*necessarily* have been altered from the original master tape - that's
why 'cutting masters' *exist*, fer gosh sakes.
Having said that, it's certainly a very interesting comparison, which
would be even more interesting if we knew what was used to make the
all-digital version. Given Boyk's well-known preference for analogue,
and his seriously off-the-wall pronouncements on cables, one cannot
help but raise a somewhat cynical eyebrow at this 'world's only
comparison', given that there in fact *dozens* of examples of LPs and
CDs having been made from the same mixdown master, if not of course
the same cutting master.
Personally, I've found that I mostly prefer the CD, although there are
certainly exceptions to this rule.
>> although I suspect that some of the early CD
>> releases were done using a disc-cutting master rather than a specific CD
>> master, either out of ignorance or economy, with the result that the CD was
>> less than ideal.
>
>You really think that is limited to early releases?
I certainly do. There are very few cutting masters around these
days......
Serge Auckland
news:dtqvi...@news3.newsguy.com...
> Serge Auckland wrote:
>> <michae...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:dtq4o...@news4.newsguy.com...
>> > Or the short answer to this post:
>> >
>> > You know how objectivists are irritated that they are told "You don't
>> > like vinyl because you've never really listened to a good rig?"
>> >
>> > This post is an exact parallel. I'm confused about the qualities of
>> > analog because I've never heard good cd's, or never heard the same
>> > music on both.
>> >
>> It's pretty near impossible to hear the same music on CD and vinyl due to
>> the mastering process.
>
>
> mastering doesn't change the musc just the sound of the music. Thee are
> thousands of titles in which one can choose betwen a CD or an LP based
> on sound quality.
OK, Agreed, if you want to be pedantic:-)
>
>
>> If a recording is well mastered for vinyl, the
>> mastering engineer will make allowances for the disc-cutting process.
>
>
> Not always true.
It was always true when I was closer to the mastering process in the '70s.
The Mastering engineer worked closely with the cutting engineer(sometimes of
course they were the same person), so ensure that the LP was optimally cut.
If you know that has changed, I would be interested to know.
>
>
>> This
>> results in a completely different sound going on vinyl and CD, which
>> doesn't
>> have the same limitations.
>>
>> I don't know of any commercial recordings which have been mastered
>> deliberately identically,
>
>
> James Boyk did it for the sake of comparisons with his release of
> Pictures at an Exhibition. You can compare the LP to the CD with no
> alterations done in the mastering of either. It is the purest
> comparison you can find of the actual media. Both were done as best as
> they possibly could be done and are both from the same mic feed.
>
But that's my point, they were both done as best they could. That does not
necessarily mean that they are identical. I am not familiar wth the James
Boyk PaaE recording. You could be right that they have deliberately cut the
LP and the CD from the same master, but was the master optimised for LP or
was it a straight unequalised, uncompressed recording? If so, I would be
interested in hearing the two versions. Do you have a label and catalogue
No?.
>
>> although I suspect that some of the early CD
>> releases were done using a disc-cutting master rather than a specific CD
>> master, either out of ignorance or economy, with the result that the CD
>> was
>> less than ideal.
>
> You really think that is limited to early releases?
>
Hopefully, they would have learnt that the two media are different and a
disc-cutting master needs to be optimised differently, but you may well be
right, that out of laziness or ignorance it still goes on.>
>>
>> It would be an interesting exercise if someone were to press a vinyl
>> record
>> from a CD master, I suspect that the resulting record would be pretty
>> nasty.
>
>
> It has been done by Simply Vinyl.
Any references for titles, URL etc? I'd like to hear some of these.
>
>
>
>> This is why, in my view, questions of which is better, CD or vinyl, can
>> never be answered properly, as one is never comparing two identical
>> recordings.
>
>
> But as audiophiles we are faced with the choice quite often when buying
> commercial recordings. Whether or not it is ever a fair representation
> of the two media it is a real world issue.
>
>
>> Also, there is no accounting for taste, and some may genuinely
>> prefer vinyl, in spite of all the measurable limitations.
>
>
> What does this have to do with taste?
>
Only insofar as somone may prefer the sound of vinyl, even though it can be
show by repeatable measurements that CD can be an identical clone of the
Digital Master, and if the master is analogue, that it is a very close copy,
so close tha any differences will be below the threshold for audibility.
The buying public does not have access to the original masters for
comparison, nor do I suspect, it matters if they did. People will buy the
medium that gives them the most pleasure, whether that is vinyl or CD (or
any of the newer media).
If your question is what is the most accurate representation of a
disc-cutting master tape, then I don't think there can be any arguement that
CD is more accurate, every measurement you care to make will confirm this.
However, if you are asking which does one prefer the sound of, that is a
subjective view, which of course is a matter of taste.
S.
Serge Auckland
news:dtqvs...@news3.newsguy.com...
>Serge Auckland wrote:
>> <michae...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:dtq4o...@news4.newsguy.com...
>> > Or the short answer to this post:
>> >
>> > You know how objectivists are irritated that they are told "You don't
>> > like vinyl because you've never really listened to a good rig?"
>> >
>> > This post is an exact parallel. I'm confused about the qualities of
>> > analog because I've never heard good cd's, or never heard the same
>> > music on both.
>> >
>> It's pretty near impossible to hear the same music on CD and vinyl due to
>> mastering engineer will make allowances for the disc-cutting process. This
>> results in a completely different sound going on vinyl and CD, which
>> doesn't
>> have the same limitations.
>>
>> I don't know of any commercial recordings which have been mastered
>> releases were done using a disc-cutting master rather than a specific CD
>> master, either out of ignorance or economy, with the result that the CD
>> was
>> less than ideal.
>>
>> record
>> from a CD master, I suspect that the resulting record would be pretty
>> nasty.
>> never be answered properly, as one is never comparing two identical
>> prefer vinyl, in spite of all the measurable limitations.
>>
>Serge,
>I think situation is not so hopeless :-)
>Let's say we will take LP that is made very well. By this I mean only
>one thing - it is prized highly by high-enders. Then we will take
>SOTA (again judged by high-enders) equipment and very good A to D box
>(judged by competent engineers). We will digitize the signal from LP
>the best way we can, say 192kHz/24bit. After that we will down sample
>it to 44.1/16 the best way we can - dithering and all this. There are
>people here who can advise how to do it. But no fiddling with the
>sound, no additional mastering.
>After all this we will cut CD from 44.1kHz/16bit file.
>My naïve understanding is that we will get exact copy of LP on CD. I
>wander if it will preserve all analog 'beauty' and 'magic' in a
>blind test.
>I would run very basic version of blind test - I would collect dozen
>of golden ears high-enders in a room and offer them the sound of
>equipment of their choice with only one component unknown - the
>source CD/LP.
>My guess is they will be unable to tell CD from LP.
>Would it work?
>I would be particularly interested if Jenn can recognize CD by
>deterioration in violin's timbre.
>vlad
What you suggest would create an accurate digital copy of the LP, and
preserve all the Vinyl attributes, so it would be a valid test. I would
suggest that it would then be impossible to tell if one was listening to the
CD copy of the LP or the LP direct.
S.
.
michae...@yahoo.com
> michae...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > You know what, I'm really glad to meet another Baroque harpsichord
> > music enthusiast. Let's not let a disagreement about the preferred
> > format come between us.
>
> Actually, I have no "preferred format," only preferred results.
Right. I have a preferred format though, but I am interested in your
suggestions.
>
> > I can see that you are very knowledgeable about harpsichord
> > construction and tuning. I have no doubt that if we sat down to listen
> > to a CD together, you would point out many subtleties and I would be
> > quite enlightened.
> >
> > My collection is focused on Gustav Leonhardt playing Bach. I love his
> > Goldberg Variations, which I have on Musical Heritage Society 512400Z.
> > Alas, I have this only on CD. I believe this is a 1965 performance. I
> > have an earlier performance on LP (Vanguard SRV-175 SD) but my goodness
> > did he grow in subtlties between these. I love Leonhardt's use of
> > rhythm, his subtle timing variations in the beat, the way he can bring
> > out a feeling quality in a line while at the same time you are hardly
> > aware of exactly what he's doing with timing.
> >
> > I have Leonhardt's French Suites, Inventions, and Sinfonias on Seon
> > LP's. These are the clearest examples of when I can hear qualities of
> > intervals that I have never heard on CD.
>
> Well, your revelations are telling.
Come now... these "revelations" don't tell you about how I experience
analog vs. digital. There are two issues here.. how my ears experience
analog and digital, and how much I know about tunings.
My comment about the fifth was perhaps not the best way to express what
I was thinking. The character of ALL intervals, and especially their
functional relationship to the composition, come through more clearly
on analog (to my ears).
Whether Leonhardt uses the most authentic and/or beautiful tunings is
not relevant. Whatever tunings he does use, they sound better on
analog.. and in fact NO cd I've heard has EVER come close to portraying
intervals with the integrity of an analog recording.
The comment about the fifth came because I was thinking of the fugue in
C major from WTC I, which has a part where the left hand moves though
some intervals and lands on a fifth. On analog, I heard the
compositional "sense" of this passage clearly for the first time.
Perhaps it had more to do with the intervals in the right hand, so in
that sense mentioning the fifth was inappropriate.
> Much of Leonhardt's recordings paid
> little attention to the subleties of temperements and I find them, in
> fact
> quite bland and boring, be they CD's or LP's. In short, he is not be
> preferred performer. I find him while virtuostic, he's dry, academic
> and somewhat soulless.
Whoa, whoa, whoa... I don't find him "dry, academic" at all.. and
as far as "soulless," that's just bizarre to me. His earlier Goldbergs
I have on Vanguard, perhaps can be described this way. But his 1965
Goldbergs is everything but soulless, and so is every other recording I
have by him.
There never is accounting for taste...
>
> Try finding the Bach Inventions and Sinfonias (aka, the two-part and
> three-part inventions) performed by Gilbert on Archiv. Much better
> instrument, better tuning, better performance, better everything.
Well, okay I will see if I can locate this recording and the ones
below.
>
> See if you can find Gabe Weiners CDs on the PGM label, two come
> to mind: The Buxtehude project Vol II: Harpsichord music and
> Ricercare: Keyboard music in Germany before Bach. I find both to
> have all those lush qualities that many LP enthusiasts wax on about.
> Both recordings are on better instruments with better tuning and
> better recording and mastering than anything Leonhardt did, and I
> find the performance far more engaging and less, well, "academic."
>
> And see if the Couperin by Gilbert is still around: it's reletaively
> unknown to the listening pubic and represents a genre of work
> that's very different: collections of pieces that are as much little
> minitures or caricatures, many of them playful, some sarcastic,
> a few very biting, of life in the pre-revolutionary French Court.
>
> And there's lots of stuff out there performed by Sylvia Marlow
> which is junk. I have most of the LP's she did and I think she
> is a good performer, but the recordings are almost uniformly
> dreadful enough that I don't care to even try to find out for sure.
>
> And avoid anything by Wanda Landowska: the instrument she
> played (essentially a plucking Pleyel Piano), how she played
> and all is so far removed from the literature that I find here stuff
> almost farcical. This despite her lofty reputation as a founding
> "diva" of the modern harpsichord revival.
Yeah, I once owned a cd by Landowska which I sold later on Ebay.
By the way, do you have an opinion on a good WTC book II?
>
> And, as an aside, the appropriate tunings for the literature, in
> fact, have less pure fifths than equal temperement. They are
> generally more compromised than equal temperement in
> exchange to FAR better tunings of the major thirds, sixths
> and simialr intervals that in equal temperement, are just plain
> disonant. This is one reason why I focused on your comment
> about the "purit6y and beauty of the fifths" as a telling indication
> that you've clued into something that is not right.
As I said, what was behind the comment was my memory of WTC I fugue in
C major, and perhaps it was the other intervals that were creating my
experience of the piece. Certainly I don't know much about tunings, so
I didn't use the right words in expressing it; however, my experience
about analog and digital stands.
And I know when a tuning is beautiful and makes sense compositionally.
Mike
Thepork...@aol.com
> <Thepork...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:dtqvi...@news3.newsguy.com...
> > Serge Auckland wrote:
> >> <michae...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:dtq4o...@news4.newsguy.com...
> >> > Or the short answer to this post:
> >> >
> >> > You know how objectivists are irritated that they are told "You don't
> >> > like vinyl because you've never really listened to a good rig?"
> >> >
> >> > This post is an exact parallel. I'm confused about the qualities of
> >> > analog because I've never heard good cd's, or never heard the same
> >> > music on both.
> >> >
> >> It's pretty near impossible to hear the same music on CD and vinyl due to
> >> the mastering process.
> >
> >
> > mastering doesn't change the musc just the sound of the music. Thee are
> > thousands of titles in which one can choose betwen a CD or an LP based
> > on sound quality.
>
> OK, Agreed, if you want to be pedantic:-)
No, just crystal clear.
> >
> >
> >> If a recording is well mastered for vinyl, the
> >> mastering engineer will make allowances for the disc-cutting process.
> >
> >
> > Not always true.
>
> It was always true when I was closer to the mastering process in the '70s.
No it wasn't. just check with Doug Sax about his D2D recordings at
Sheffield.
> The Mastering engineer worked closely with the cutting engineer(sometimes of
> course they were the same person), so ensure that the LP was optimally cut.
> If you know that has changed, I would be interested to know.
I don't know that *that* has changed but i do know of a number of LPs
that have been made without "allowances for the disc cutting process."
> >
> >
> >> This
> >> results in a completely different sound going on vinyl and CD, which
> >> doesn't
> >> have the same limitations.
> >>
> >> I don't know of any commercial recordings which have been mastered
> >> deliberately identically,
> >
> >
> > James Boyk did it for the sake of comparisons with his release of
> > Pictures at an Exhibition. You can compare the LP to the CD with no
> > alterations done in the mastering of either. It is the purest
> > comparison you can find of the actual media. Both were done as best as
> > they possibly could be done and are both from the same mic feed.
> >
> But that's my point, they were both done as best they could. That does not
> necessarily mean that they are identical.
They are identical except for the diffeences in the technologies.
> I am not familiar wth the James
> Boyk PaaE recording. You could be right that they have deliberately cut the
> LP and the CD from the same master, but was the master optimised for LP or
> was it a straight unequalised, uncompressed recording?
yes it was a straight unequalized uncompressed recording. The only
difeence between the LP and CD is that the CD has two versions of the
recording on it. One from the digital master one from the analog
master. No tweaking was done to either version.
> If so, I would be
> interested in hearing the two versions. Do you have a label and catalogue
> No?.
Peformance Recordings. PR 7
http://www.performancerecordings.com/albums.html
> >
>
> >> although I suspect that some of the early CD
> >> releases were done using a disc-cutting master rather than a specific CD
> >> master, either out of ignorance or economy, with the result that the CD
> >> was
> >> less than ideal.
> >
> > You really think that is limited to early releases?
> >
> Hopefully, they would have learnt that the two media are different and a
> disc-cutting master needs to be optimised differently, but you may well be
> right, that out of laziness or ignorance it still goes on.
If you want the skinny on these things Steve Hoffman's forum is very
informative. There are hundreds of threads that go into the details of
how many CDs and LPs were mastered. Much information comes from
insiders that have direct knowledge or even did the mastering
themselves.
>
> >>
> >> It would be an interesting exercise if someone were to press a vinyl
> >> record
> >> from a CD master, I suspect that the resulting record would be pretty
> >> nasty.
> >
> >
> > It has been done by Simply Vinyl.
>
> Any references for titles, URL etc? I'd like to hear some of these.
I think you can find some references to specific titles over at
SteveHoffman.tv
> >
> >
> >
> >> This is why, in my view, questions of which is better, CD or vinyl, can
> >> never be answered properly, as one is never comparing two identical
> >> recordings.
> >
> >
> > But as audiophiles we are faced with the choice quite often when buying
> > commercial recordings. Whether or not it is ever a fair representation
> > of the two media it is a real world issue.
> >
> >
> >> Also, there is no accounting for taste, and some may genuinely
> >> prefer vinyl, in spite of all the measurable limitations.
> >
> >
> > What does this have to do with taste?
> >
> Only insofar as somone may prefer the sound of vinyl, even though it can be
> show by repeatable measurements that CD can be an identical clone of the
> Digital Master, and if the master is analogue, that it is a very close copy,
> so close tha any differences will be below the threshold for audibility.
Sorry but this has nothing to do with taste. We are talking about
commercial CDs and commercial LPs here.
>
> The buying public does not have access to the original masters for
> comparison, nor do I suspect, it matters if they did.
It does seem to matter to some.
> People will buy the
> medium that gives them the most pleasure, whether that is vinyl or CD (or
> any of the newer media).
>
> If your question is what is the most accurate representation of a
> disc-cutting master tape, then I don't think there can be any arguement that
> CD is more accurate, every measurement you care to make will confirm this.
No that isn't quite the question. The question is which is the more
accurate n the real world with actual commercial CDs and commercial
LPs.
> However, if you are asking which does one prefer the sound of, that is a
> subjective view, which of course is a matter of taste.
I thinkthat question does come into play but I haven't ben asking that
question so far.
Scott
Harry Lavo
news:dtske...@news4.newsguy.com...
>
> If your question is what is the most accurate representation of a
> disc-cutting master tape, then I don't think there can be any arguement
> that
> CD is more accurate, every measurement you care to make will confirm this.
> However, if you are asking which does one prefer the sound of, that is a
> subjective view, which of course is a matter of taste.
>
More accurate, perhaps, but not totally accurate. And this matters. The
areas of controversy are:
1) high frequency reproduction, especially notable of strings, triangles,
and cymbals
2) depth of image
Both are thought, with some experimental proof, to relate to the problems of
transient accuracy in the high frequencies.
People who like vinyl generally cite either the accuracy of the upper
registers or ease and naturalness of the overall sound as a reason for that
preference. Both are thought to relate to the above.
Thepork...@aol.com
> On 26 Feb 2006 01:17:19 GMT, Thepork...@aol.com wrote:
> >> If a recording is well mastered for vinyl, the
> >> mastering engineer will make allowances for the disc-cutting process.
> >
> >Not always true.
>
> It is if it's *well* mastered, since the fundamental flaws of vinyl
> should be well known to the mastering engineer. That's what he *does*
> for a living!
OK so how did this choice adversly affect the sound on James Boyks LPs?
How did it hurt the sound of the APO Top 100 Jazz reissue series? What
issues do you have with the sound of these LPs?
wrong. Once again, I suggest you get the facts before jumping into
this.
>
> Having said that, it's certainly a very interesting comparison, which
> would be even more interesting if we knew what was used to make the
> all-digital version.
That information is readily available.
> Given Boyk's well-known preference for analogue,
> and his seriously off-the-wall pronouncements on cables, one cannot
> help but raise a somewhat cynical eyebrow at this 'world's only
> comparison', given that there in fact *dozens* of examples of LPs and
> CDs having been made from the same mixdown master, if not of course
> the same cutting master.
Ah another ad hominum attack on Boyk. Sad. All the technical
information is readliy available on these CDs and LPs. I suggest you
bring easily informed facts rather than personal attacks to the table
next time.
>
> Personally, I've found that I mostly prefer the CD, although there are
> certainly exceptions to this rule.
>
> >> although I suspect that some of the early CD
> >> releases were done using a disc-cutting master rather than a specific CD
> >> master, either out of ignorance or economy, with the result that the CD was
> >> less than ideal.
> >
> >You really think that is limited to early releases?
>
> I certainly do. There are very few cutting masters around these
> days......
who told you this?
Scott
bob
> bob wrote:
> > Thepork...@aol.com wrote:
> > > bob wrote:
> > > > > 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been
> > > > > done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding
> > > > > version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus
> > > > > will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/
> > > > > engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the
> > > > > master.
> > > >
> > > > No, because the phrase "a more accurate representation of the
> > > > artists/producer/engineer's intentions" has no meaning here.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sure it does. It means exacty what it says. Are you suggesting that the
> > > artists/producer/engineer's intentions were and are a nonexistant
> > > entity? I think it's hard to argue that they never had any intentions
> > > as to how their releases will sound.
> >
> > But you're using code words that often mean something very different.
>
>
> No. there is nothing ambiguous about the word "intentions."
Google phrases like "musicians' intentions" on audio sites and you will
see plenty of ambiguity--all from the subjectivist side, of course. If
you mean something specific by it, you are going to have to tell us
what that is.
> > The "artists' intentions" often refers to the choices they make in
> > their musical performance, rather than the choices they (or the
> > engineers they entrust with the task) make at the mixing/mastering
> > stage.
>
>
> But we aren't talking about that we are talking about sound. We are
> talking about which one would the artists/producer/engineers say 'yeah
> that one sounds more like what we were trying to do than that other
> one." There is no trickery going on here.
Well, that's what I'm talking about. Glad to hear it's what you're
talking about, too. So we can agree that the master tape represents the
true intentions of the artists/producer/engineers, right? And the only
remaining question is, which medium better preserves the sound of that
master tape.
> > > > The
> > > > "artists/producer/engineer's intentions" are presumably to put out a
> > > > recording that sounds like what the recording sounds like.
> > >
> > >
> > > They don't put out "recordings" they put out CDs and LPs of recordings.
> > > So the statement that there intentions are to put out "recording that
> > > sounds lik what the recording sounds like" has no meaning in this
> > > context.
> >
> > What I had in mind was the idea that the "artists/producer/engineer's
> > intentions" are whatever's on the master tape. Then we can ask which
> > medium more accurately reproduces that.
>
>
> That question was addressed seperately.
I hadn't seen you address it previously. If you agree with it, say so.
If not, explain.
> If you don't feel comfortable
> saying that commerical CDs that have not ben tampered with by the
> mastering engineer are a better epresentation than the
> artists/producer/engineer's intentions then feel free to say so. You
> can say yes, no sometimes yes somethims no, or I don't really know or
> have an opinion. I just want to get an understanding of what *you*
> believe.
I believe that the master tape represents the intentions of its
producers, and that CD better preserves the sound of that master tape
than LP. What more do you want?
"Reference perspective" is an oxymoron. A personal perspective cannot
be a reference, because it isn't fixed. What we heard yesterday and
what we now think we heard yesterday are two different things. (That
aside, do you not care what the performers themselves think?) The only
clear indication we have of anyone's perspective is what winds up on
that master tape.
bob
Serge Auckland
news:dtst0...@news3.newsguy.com...
> Serge Auckland wrote:
>> <Thepork...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:dtqvi...@news3.newsguy.com...
>> > Serge Auckland wrote:
>> >> <michae...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:dtq4o...@news4.newsguy.com...
>> >> > Or the short answer to this post:
>> >> >
>> >> > You know how objectivists are irritated that they are told "You
>> >> > don't
>> >> > like vinyl because you've never really listened to a good rig?"
>> >> >
>> >> > This post is an exact parallel. I'm confused about the qualities of
>> >> > analog because I've never heard good cd's, or never heard the same
>> >> > music on both.
>> >> >
>> >> It's pretty near impossible to hear the same music on CD and vinyl due
>> >> to
>> >> the mastering process.
>> >
>> >
>> > mastering doesn't change the musc just the sound of the music. Thee are
>> > thousands of titles in which one can choose betwen a CD or an LP based
>> > on sound quality.
>>
>> OK, Agreed, if you want to be pedantic:-)
>
>
> No, just crystal clear.
Ok, no issue here.
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >> If a recording is well mastered for vinyl, the
>> >> mastering engineer will make allowances for the disc-cutting process.
>> >
>> >
>> > Not always true.
>>
>> It was always true when I was closer to the mastering process in the
>> '70s.
>
>
> No it wasn't. just check with Doug Sax about his D2D recordings at
> Sheffield.
I accept that Sheffield may well be a special case, I was actually thinking
about normal commercial releases. In my visits to both CBS and EMI, in the
early '70s, it was the case that they created a disk-cutting master from
which the disk was cut, and this was different from the master used to copy
cassettes and indeed 8-tracks, as they optimised the sound for the medium.
My understanding was that all commercial record companies did much the same.
At the time CD wasn't around.
>
>
>
>> The Mastering engineer worked closely with the cutting engineer(sometimes
>> of
>> course they were the same person), so ensure that the LP was optimally
>> cut.
>> If you know that has changed, I would be interested to know.
>
>
> I don't know that *that* has changed but i do know of a number of LPs
> that have been made without "allowances for the disc cutting process."
I can't agree with this because the cutting engineer always has to allow for
RIAA equalisation. Even with Direct to Disk recordings, the level sent to
the cutter is done in the knowledge of the RIAA eq, even if no other
compression or equalisation takes place. At high frequencies, the level has
to be kept low otherwise the cutter head overloads. At low frequencies, the
level has to be kept low if the record is not going to overload the replay
chain, although this second case is less important if the record company
(like Sheffield) have expectations that the purchaser's replay chain will be
good. CBS, EMI etc had to cut for the general run of replay systems, not
just for the top end. If you are creating a disk-cutting master, these
decisions are made at that time, if you are doing a direct-to-disc, then it
is more difficult, as the only control is overall level.
>
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >> This
>> >> results in a completely different sound going on vinyl and CD, which
>> >> doesn't
>> >> have the same limitations.
>> >>
>> >> I don't know of any commercial recordings which have been mastered
>> >> deliberately identically,
>> >
>> >
>> > James Boyk did it for the sake of comparisons with his release of
>> > Pictures at an Exhibition. You can compare the LP to the CD with no
>> > alterations done in the mastering of either. It is the purest
>> > comparison you can find of the actual media. Both were done as best as
>> > they possibly could be done and are both from the same mic feed.
>> >
>> But that's my point, they were both done as best they could. That does
>> not
>> necessarily mean that they are identical.
>
>
> They are identical except for the diffeences in the technologies.
>
>
>> I am not familiar wth the James
>> Boyk PaaE recording. You could be right that they have deliberately cut
>> the
>> LP and the CD from the same master, but was the master optimised for LP
>> or
>> was it a straight unequalised, uncompressed recording?
>
>
> yes it was a straight unequalized uncompressed recording. The only
> difeence between the LP and CD is that the CD has two versions of the
> recording on it. One from the digital master one from the analog
> master. No tweaking was done to either version.
>
>
>> If so, I would be
>> interested in hearing the two versions. Do you have a label and catalogue
>> No?.
>
> Peformance Recordings. PR 7
> http://www.performancerecordings.com/albums.html
>
Thanks, I'll look it up
>> >
>>
>> >> although I suspect that some of the early CD
>> >> releases were done using a disc-cutting master rather than a specific
>> >> CD
>> >> master, either out of ignorance or economy, with the result that the
>> >> CD
>> >> was
>> >> less than ideal.
>> >
>> > You really think that is limited to early releases?
>> >
>> Hopefully, they would have learnt that the two media are different and a
>> disc-cutting master needs to be optimised differently, but you may well
>> be
>> right, that out of laziness or ignorance it still goes on.
>
>
>
> If you want the skinny on these things Steve Hoffman's forum is very
> informative. There are hundreds of threads that go into the details of
> how many CDs and LPs were mastered. Much information comes from
> insiders that have direct knowledge or even did the mastering
> themselves.
>
Again thanks, I'll look it up.
Sorry, I don't understand quite what we're arguing about here.
>
>
>>
>> The buying public does not have access to the original masters for
>> comparison, nor do I suspect, it matters if they did.
>
>
> It does seem to matter to some.
>
>
>> People will buy the
>> medium that gives them the most pleasure, whether that is vinyl or CD (or
>> any of the newer media).
>>
>> If your question is what is the most accurate representation of a
>> disc-cutting master tape, then I don't think there can be any arguement
>> that
>> CD is more accurate, every measurement you care to make will confirm
>> this.
>
>
> No that isn't quite the question. The question is which is the more
> accurate n the real world with actual commercial CDs and commercial
> LPs.
It depends what you mean by "accurate" If I compare the commercial CD with
the stereo master tape, I would expect the CD to be an exact copy, hence
totally accurate. If I compare the disk-cutting master with what comes off
the LP, that depends on the accuracy of replay as well as the disk cutting
process, but if we assume for a moment a SOTA replay system, the result will
be close, but cannot be totally accurate due to the limitations of vinyl
replay, especially noise, distortion and frequency response errors.
This is where taste comes in, that even if the vinyl replay is not totally
accurate, some listeners may well prefer it, but as you say, that's another
question!
S.
michae...@yahoo.com
> Thepork...@aol.com wrote:
> > bob wrote:
> > > Thepork...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > bob wrote:
> > > > > > 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been
> > > > > > done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding
> > > > > > version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus
> > > > > > will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/
> > > > > > engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the
> > > > > > master.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, because the phrase "a more accurate representation of the
> > > > > artists/producer/engineer's intentions" has no meaning here.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sure it does. It means exacty what it says. Are you suggesting that the
> > > > artists/producer/engineer's intentions were and are a nonexistant
> > > > entity? I think it's hard to argue that they never had any intentions
> > > > as to how their releases will sound.
> > >
> > > But you're using code words that often mean something very different.
> >
> >
> > No. there is nothing ambiguous about the word "intentions."
>
> Google phrases like "musicians' intentions" on audio sites and you will
> see plenty of ambiguity--all from the subjectivist side, of course. If
> you mean something specific by it, you are going to have to tell us
> what that is.
bob, the intentions of musicians will never be hard science. But if you
pick up an instrument, practice very hard for 20 years, pay careful
attention to sound and musical structure, and peform a piece with the
intention of using sound qualities to bring about a desired effect, the
term will be more concrete.
Furthermore, if you listen to musicians with this same careful ear,
then get involved in recording them and evaluating the records re how
clear the desired patterns come through, the term will be more
concrete.
Music is not hard science---right?
Mike
Dennis Moore
higher speeds. Some of them barely played. In the early days of CD, using
a Studer Revox in good repair, we compared those to LP's and CD's for a
dozen or so recordings we had in all three formats.
Most of the time, the general sound of the reels and the CD were fairly
close.
LP's always sounded quite different. Equalized or effected in one way or
another.
I find it odd so many high enders proclaim LP the standard of fidelity by
which
others are judged. When obviously if you wanted to use an older format of
high quality to make the standard of comparison, high speed reel to reel is
the one you should pick. And well done CD's will sound more like those
reels than LP's.
Dennis
bob
Right. Which is why using scientific terms like "reference" and
"accuracy" to discuss musicians' intentions is pseudoscience.
bob
Thepork...@aol.com
Well, actually no but I will get into that when I lay down *my* views
on the subject.
> And the only
> remaining question is, which medium better preserves the sound of that
> master tape.
No,IMO the questions are which *have* done a better job of it, is that
the best option for a given recording.
>
> > > > > The
> > > > > "artists/producer/engineer's intentions" are presumably to put out a
> > > > > recording that sounds like what the recording sounds like.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > They don't put out "recordings" they put out CDs and LPs of recordings.
> > > > So the statement that there intentions are to put out "recording that
> > > > sounds lik what the recording sounds like" has no meaning in this
> > > > context.
> > >
> > > What I had in mind was the idea that the "artists/producer/engineer's
> > > intentions" are whatever's on the master tape. Then we can ask which
> > > medium more accurately reproduces that.
> >
> >
> > That question was addressed seperately.
>
> I hadn't seen you address it previously. If you agree with it, say so.
> If not, explain.
I think the questions have to remain seperate. Whether or not i agree
with it I will get into later.
>
> > If you don't feel comfortable
> > saying that commerical CDs that have not ben tampered with by the
> > mastering engineer are a better epresentation than the
> > artists/producer/engineer's intentions then feel free to say so. You
> > can say yes, no sometimes yes somethims no, or I don't really know or
> > have an opinion. I just want to get an understanding of what *you*
> > believe.
>
> I believe that the master tape represents the intentions of its
> producers, and that CD better preserves the sound of that master tape
> than LP. What more do you want?
Well, i find the first half of your answer quite direct and completely
relevant to my assertions on the objectivists POV. I find the second
half a bit dodgey. I am not talking about what CDs and LPs can do but
what has actually been done. "CD better preserves the sound of that
master tape than LP" is IMO a substantially different claim then
"Commercial CDs have preserved the sound of master tapes provided no
tinkering has been done with the master tape better than LPs have
regardless of the playback equipment." The difference is the first is
not refering to real world instances and the second is. And it is the
real world availablity of commercial CDs and LPs that the audiophile
has to deal with.
> >
> > >
> > > > > > 4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when
> > > > > > not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic
> > > > > > colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like
> > > > > > them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the
> > > > > > original sound of a live recording.
> > > > >
> > > > > LPs are never more accurate to the master tape. But "accurate to . .
> > > > > the original sound of a live recording" has no meaning here.
> > > >
> > > > My bad. I sould have said *the* original sound of *the* live event
> > > > that was recorded.
> > >
> > > That's what I thought you meant. But which original sound? The sound at
> > > the point where the mike(s) are, or at some other point in the room?
> > > What if the mikes are more than 6 inches apart? Then they are picking
> > > up a "sound" that no human being could possibly hear.
> >
> >
> > True but a recording engineer does step into the room and listen and
> > then goes back and listens to the monitors. so I would say from the
> > reference perspective of the recording engineers.
>
> "Reference perspective" is an oxymoron. A personal perspective cannot
> be a reference, because it isn't fixed.
I quite disagree with you here. Jut because a reference isn't perfectly
precise doesn't mean it is nonexistant.
> What we heard yesterday and
> what we now think we heard yesterday are two different things.
Quite irrelevant to the perspective of a recording engnineer doing his
job on the day.
> (That
> aside, do you not care what the performers themselves think?)
Depends on the performers and the recording engineer. But all peformers
are going to hear of a live peformance for a recording session is
playback. What say so they should have is highly situational. The value
of their opinion is likewise.
> The only
> clear indication we have of anyone's perspective is what winds up on
> that master tape.
I'll give you my take on that when I spell out my beliefs on the whole
topic. But let's just say for now i think it is again highly
situational.
Scott
Thepork...@aol.com
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> If a recording is well mastered for vinyl, the
> >> >> mastering engineer will make allowances for the disc-cutting process.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Not always true.
> >>
> >> It was always true when I was closer to the mastering process in the
> >> '70s.
> >
> >
> > No it wasn't. just check with Doug Sax about his D2D recordings at
> > Sheffield.
>
> I accept that Sheffield may well be a special case, I was actually thinking
> about normal commercial releases.
Well then it wasn't "always true" was it?
> In my visits to both CBS and EMI, in the
> early '70s, it was the case that they created a disk-cutting master from
> which the disk was cut, and this was different from the master used to copy
> cassettes and indeed 8-tracks, as they optimised the sound for the medium.
OK. I know that this was a common practice. I wouldn't go so far as to
say it is so universally representative of record making though. The
journies that recordings go through to become Lps or CDs is quite
varied.
> My understanding was that all commercial record companies did much the same.
> At the time CD wasn't around.
Sheffield was a commercial record company.As are the record companies
like APO that are doing things that way now.
> >
> >
> >
> >> The Mastering engineer worked closely with the cutting engineer(sometimes
> >> of
> >> course they were the same person), so ensure that the LP was optimally
> >> cut.
> >> If you know that has changed, I would be interested to know.
> >
> >
> > I don't know that *that* has changed but i do know of a number of LPs
> > that have been made without "allowances for the disc cutting process."
>
> I can't agree with this because the cutting engineer always has to allow for
> RIAA equalisation. Even with Direct to Disk recordings, the level sent to
> the cutter is done in the knowledge of the RIAA eq, even if no other
> compression or equalisation takes place.
I am not talking about that. making an issue of that is much like
making an issue of the fact that a digital bit stream when fed into an
analog input will not sound right to say the least either. RIAA
equalization is a part of the chain much like A/D D/A conversion is a
part of it. My point is that there are records that have not been
altered before beeing fed to the RIAA equalizer just as there are
recordings that have not been altered before beeing fed to an A/D
converter.
> At high frequencies, the level has
> to be kept low otherwise the cutter head overloads. At low frequencies, the
> level has to be kept low if the record is not going to overload the replay
> chain, although this second case is less important if the record company
> (like Sheffield) have expectations that the purchaser's replay chain will be
> good.
This does not change the *fact* that there are records out there that
were not altered in order to cut them other than the equired RIAA
equalization. That equalization is a part of the LP format so to call
that an alteration is about as fair as calling A/D or D/A conversion an
alteration.
>
> >> >
> >>
> >> >> although I suspect that some of the early CD
> >> >> releases were done using a disc-cutting master rather than a specific
> >> >> CD
> >> >> master, either out of ignorance or economy, with the result that the
> >> >> CD
> >> >> was
> >> >> less than ideal.
> >> >
> >> > You really think that is limited to early releases?
> >> >
> >> Hopefully, they would have learnt that the two media are different and a
> >> disc-cutting master needs to be optimised differently, but you may well
> >> be
> >> right, that out of laziness or ignorance it still goes on.
> >
> >
> >
> > If you want the skinny on these things Steve Hoffman's forum is very
> > informative. There are hundreds of threads that go into the details of
> > how many CDs and LPs were mastered. Much information comes from
> > insiders that have direct knowledge or even did the mastering
> > themselves.
> >
> Again thanks, I'll look it up.
great. You will find a wealth of information on what went into the
making of many LPs and CDs.
> >> >> Also, there is no accounting for taste, and some may genuinely
> >> >> prefer vinyl, in spite of all the measurable limitations.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > What does this have to do with taste?
> >> >
> >> Only insofar as somone may prefer the sound of vinyl, even though it can
> >> be
> >> show by repeatable measurements that CD can be an identical clone of the
> >> Digital Master, and if the master is analogue, that it is a very close
> >> copy,
> >> so close tha any differences will be below the threshold for audibility.
> >
> >
> > Sorry but this has nothing to do with taste. We are talking about
> > commercial CDs and commercial LPs here.
> >
> Sorry, I don't understand quite what we're arguing about here.
Whether or not one's "taste" has anything to do with their preference
for vinyl when it comes to commercial releases.
> >> If your question is what is the most accurate representation of a
> >> disc-cutting master tape, then I don't think there can be any arguement
> >> that
> >> CD is more accurate, every measurement you care to make will confirm
> >> this.
> >
> >
> > No that isn't quite the question. The question is which is the more
> > accurate n the real world with actual commercial CDs and commercial
> > LPs.
>
> It depends what you mean by "accurate"
That may be true in some cases.
> If I compare the commercial CD with
> the stereo master tape, I would expect the CD to be an exact copy, hence
> totally accurate. If I compare the disk-cutting master with what comes off
> the LP, that depends on the accuracy of replay as well as the disk cutting
> process, but if we assume for a moment a SOTA replay system, the result will
> be close, but cannot be totally accurate due to the limitations of vinyl
> replay, especially noise, distortion and frequency response errors.
Ah, that was a great answer. Thank you. But then it does bring up the
fact that one does not alway get what one expects. So I suppose the
only thing to add is your level of confidence.
>
> This is where taste comes in, that even if the vinyl replay is not totally
> accurate, some listeners may well prefer it, but as you say, that's another
> question!
I agree that it is another question. I think you did nice job of
clarifying your beliefs an I thank you for that.
Scott
michae...@yahoo.com
"reference" and "accuracy" are not scientific terms.
Music is neither science nor pseudoscience; however, it does involve
human intentions, communication of said intentions, and reproduction of
said intentions, and an abundance of concepts which are well described
by words like "reference" and "accuracy".
Mike
Thepork...@aol.com
sorry but the word "reference" is not exlusive to the scientific domain
nor is "accuracy." it isn't pseudoscience. It simply isn't science at
all.
Scott
jjn...@sonic.net
> A thought I've had: could we say that the ear/brain system is highly
> tuned to the types of sounds which normally occur in nature, and can
> recognize sounds which, in some way, don't correspond to natural
> occurances?
You're basically talking about training, which can be formal or informal.
> For example, a hobby of mine is digital sound synthesis. Using a
> program called Csound, I write digital "instruments". some of them are
> meant to imitate real acoustic instruments, while others are purely
> electronic-sounding. A guy named Perry Cook is leading the way in
> digital modeling of acoustic instruments, and Csound incorporates some
> of his models.
I know about Perry's work. In fact, I used to sing right next to him in a
church choir while he was a doctoral student at Stanford. He sings a
wonderful bass.
> Anyway, I've had a chance to play with these digital instruments, and
> in particular notice what types of sounds seem "real" and which seem
> "electronic" (not like something occuring in the physical world). I've
> noticed a few things. Tonal balance needs to be right. Some sounds have
> too much highs or too little highs.. they don't sound like something
> that could occur physically. Humans have an intuition about natural
> events, like two things bonking together. You are going to hear a lot
> of high frequencies when two rocks hit each other, but not *too* much
> high frequencies.
I've never been fooled by these synthetic systems, but they are fun.
If enough could be controlled, perhaps I would, but it's not there yet
and may never be. But that is not terribly germane to a REproduction of
an acoustic event. I thought that's what the subject was here.
> Just as you mention, putting several copies of an instrument together,
> and detuning them slightly especially with random tuning fluctuations,
> makes a much richer sound that resembles something real.
> Nevertheless, this effect never gets away from an "artificial sound."
> Listen to a recording of a real instrument and Wow! you know right away
> you are listening to a real thing, and that the electronic sounds are
> not like something in the physical world.
I'm not so sure about that. Some organs I've heard are so hiddeous
that I might prefer an good electronic counterfeit, because I swore they
sounded like an electronic until I found out it was pipes buried in a
distant chamber and so there was little actual effect of pipes in 3 dimensional
space. I thought this discussion was about better quality than that.
> What's interesting to me about an organ in 3 dimensional acoustic
> space, is that it is a complex system, but a physical one. I don't
> think 'random' or 'distortion' is a good term here. That's because when
> you add randomness to electronic sounds, you don't get "real-sounding"
> sounds. You get richer sounds, yes, but you don't come anywhere close
> to crossing that real/artifical divide. I suspect that's because the
> ear/brain knows pretty well what complexity results from real (complex)
> physical models, and what complexity has been inserted after the fact
> via some algorithm.
Words fail, but those terms were used freely by John Brombaugh when I
worked for him to describe these effects. He's arguably themost infuential
organ builder in the last 35 years who received several patents designing
electronic organs before he gave up in frustration in order to build
historically inspired tracker instruments. Arguing about semantics isn't
productive. Use the Google to find out more about him and his many
associates that started their own workshops after learning from him.
> Consider audio: it's an illusion in that it doesn't recreate the same
> soundfield (two channel, anyway), and it tries to portray several
> instruments scattered in space, but in reality all the sounds are
> coming from some paper/cloth/whatever cones positioned on the left and
> right side. Perhaps this is one reason we can't be completely fooled.
At best, it can only be aproximated like an asymptote. Our ears are
filters that have properties that are getting better mapped out every day in
research. The subjectivist wing of high end audio contributes NOTHING to
this. Zero. In fact, their contribution is negative to understanding the
subject better.
> > Simularly, saying that fifth's on harpsichords are a
> > stable interval ignores the fact that in tuning, one tunes the beats
> > produced immediately after the pluck, not to the after ring, which has more
> > inharmonicity, and thus is part of the 'randomness' I mentioned that makes a
> > musical sound more interesting. Since <all> reproduced music is sadly lacking
> > in realism and musicality compared to a live acoustic event, some people prefer
> > to add random-like distortions to their setup as a compromise.
> Okay, that's one theory.. that we prefer analog because it adds
> random-like distortion. But what's curious is that you can easily find
> recording engineers who spend a lot of time in concert halls, then make
> recordings of those same performances, in both digital and analog
> form.. so they have plenty of experience with the choices involved..
> and for their ears, analog is a better representation of the musical
> event, as a fairly clear general trend.
That's simply not a factual statement, sorry. They are a small minority, even
in the highest quality circles. Maybe you need to get out more.
> And as I said above, "randomness" doesn't make things real.. it makes
> them more complex, but I think a better word for what you are
> describing is "complex" -- that is, complex, but very real, physical
> models. The after ring is not random, it is the consequence of a real,
> and complex, physical system acting as it acts.
I'm not going to debate semantics. Words fail. See above.
> I can tell you from experience that adding random fluctuations of
> frequency to a sustained tone or interval does *not* make it sound
> real. It sounds richer, yes, but not real.
Random is not added. It is uncontrolled. It just IS. Consider the after
ring of a harpsichord. A lot can be done by the voicer to infulence it the
way he likes, thickness of the soundboard, bracing of the frame, type of
wood, bridge, string choice, etc., but not everything. But these effects
are huge compared to the difference between well designed audio electronics.
It is amazing to me how many people simply don't understand that.
> Perhaps the fact that analog is a complex and physical system adds just
> the right kind of distortion. (as opposed to digital models)
For REproduction systems, the goal is <<<NO>>> distortion, unless you want
to add it.
> > Frankly, I'm
> > sick to death of claims or insinuations that these approaches to music
> > reproduction are 'more accurate' with any qualifying conditional statements
> > by the person making them. It's just a civilized courtesy to do so.
> If you accept that different people are listening for different things,
> then ALL statements about the ability of an audio system to create
> authentic reproductions of sound are *relative* to what that person
> listens for. I know you would like qualitifications, but they really
> aren't necessary. Every single statement anyone makes about what audio
> systems best reproduce musc, is truest to the orignal---in short, is
> "accurate"---has an implicit qualification, "Relative to what I listen
> for."
A REproduction system has an input and an output that can be compared,
quatitatively (measurements) and qualtatively. (just listening i.e. - blind)
You can make correlations between to the two and use simple logic to
determine what is likely true and not true. You are talking about what
you LIKE. That's okay, but don't confuse the two. All true advancements in
audio have been by the above method, despite the insistence of the handwaving
mythology believers. Audio mythology is ersatz, sorry.
> > The said approach is also very unweildy in the sense that the user has
> > quite limited and relatively imprecise control over how a system behaves.
> > I gave up on it because assuming a reproduction system is a musical instrument
> > might be good for one handful (at best) of recordings, but terrible for another
> > and I'm not content to listen only to recordings that might have the best sound,
> The curious thing is that for some of us, using analog means is not
> unweildy.. it is not an attempt to create distortions that compensate
> for flaws in recordings.. it is simply the best way to reproduce music.
They are not created per se. They just ARE. And people like them, including
myself at times, which is fine. It is not accurate in terms of signal processing.
That's the evidence. What's the problem here? Are you having trouble admitting
that you just LIKE something? Is there something the matter with that? Why?
I find all this beating around the bush quite strange and a waste of time.
I've been there, I know the experience, and it's so full of cul-de-sacs that
one ends up doing virtually nothing but chasing their own tail. With audio,
I'm looking for general progress in REcreating realism of acoustic events and
discovering the new things that go there that are better than before. If I
want to please myself with music to a greater degree, I ultimately turn off
the stereo, play my instruments and/or go to a concert. True, I'm fortunate
to be able to play, something that not everybody can do, but I want to LEARN
first and foremost. You may differ. As Dick Pierce put it earlier, the
results are what is important. And being correctly informed makes a
difference.
> I would really like to hear a CD processed through DSP such that it
> sounds like analog. That would be wonderful. I'm also going to be
> making CD-R recordings of some of my records, so we'll see.
Just record an LP to a CD with a very good soundcard. Lynx Two is the best I know
of, but probably not necessary.
It should go without saying, but make sure any comparison is blind, level matched,
time synched, and has a bull detector if you want it to carry any
significance beyond yourself. As you said, "<we'll> see." (emphasis mine)
Enjoy the music.
---MIKE---
be equalized to the RIAA curve. All decent playback systems will insert
the reciprocal RIAA curve. If the LP is not so equalized, it will not
sound right when played back. Also, stereo LPs have the bass channels
combined to mono to prevent the cutter from bottoming on heavy bass.
These modifications are not necessary when producing a CD. This means
that the LP cutting master can't possibly be identical to the master
tape for a CD.
---MIKE---
>>In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
>> (44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')
bob
> bob wrote:
> > I believe that the master tape represents the intentions of its
> > producers, and that CD better preserves the sound of that master tape
> > than LP. What more do you want?
>
>
> Well, i find the first half of your answer quite direct and completely
> relevant to my assertions on the objectivists POV. I find the second
> half a bit dodgey. I am not talking about what CDs and LPs can do but
> what has actually been done. "CD better preserves the sound of that
> master tape than LP" is IMO a substantially different claim then
> "Commercial CDs have preserved the sound of master tapes provided no
> tinkering has been done with the master tape better than LPs have
> regardless of the playback equipment." The difference is the first is
> not refering to real world instances and the second is. And it is the
> real world availablity of commercial CDs and LPs that the audiophile
> has to deal with.
Oh, is that what this is about? Something made me think you were
talking about the *accuracy* of CDs and LPs. Like the title of your
thread? Not exactly truth in advertising, I'd say.
In that case, I think I'll just take a pass on *your* views, then. I
can't imagine anything less interesting than your opinion about the
quality of commercially available CDs.
bob
Thepork...@aol.com
> This has been brought up before but I will be more specific. An LP MUST
> be equalized to the RIAA curve.
I'm not sure why you are rying to be more specific. I already know
that.
> All decent playback systems will insert
> the reciprocal RIAA curve.
Actually they all will insert some form of EQ with a reciprical EQ in
the phono stage of the preamp. Decent or not.
> If the LP is not so equalized, it will not
> sound right when played back.
If? You know of any that are not?
> Also, stereo LPs have the bass channels
> combined to mono to prevent the cutter from bottoming on heavy bass.
Most, not all.Not that i see this as a big issue.
> These modifications are not necessary when producing a CD. This means
> that the LP cutting master can't possibly be identical to the master
> tape for a CD.
But it can and many are. Sometimes for ambitious reasons sometimes for
the wrong reasons.
Scott
chung
If the discussion is about real world availability of commercial CD's
and LP's that the audiophile has to deal with (and not about accuracy of
the media and the underlying technologies), that it should be a short
discussion. In the real world, almost all new music performances are on
CD's. Only a tiny minority is available on LP's. Not much sense in
comparing, since if you want to listen to those new performances, you're
stuck with listening to CD's.
Thepork...@aol.com
> Thepork...@aol.com wrote:
> > bob wrote:
> > > I believe that the master tape represents the intentions of its
> > > producers, and that CD better preserves the sound of that master tape
> > > than LP. What more do you want?
> >
> >
> > Well, i find the first half of your answer quite direct and completely
> > relevant to my assertions on the objectivists POV. I find the second
> > half a bit dodgey. I am not talking about what CDs and LPs can do but
> > what has actually been done. "CD better preserves the sound of that
> > master tape than LP" is IMO a substantially different claim then
> > "Commercial CDs have preserved the sound of master tapes provided no
> > tinkering has been done with the master tape better than LPs have
> > regardless of the playback equipment." The difference is the first is
> > not refering to real world instances and the second is. And it is the
> > real world availablity of commercial CDs and LPs that the audiophile
> > has to deal with.
>
> Oh, is that what this is about? Something made me think you were
> talking about the *accuracy* of CDs and LPs. Like the title of your
> thread?
I am.
Not exactly truth in advertising, I'd say.
Why? Because I was talking about actual real world commercially
released Lps and Cds? You know, the things we actually listen to?
>
> In that case, I think I'll just take a pass on *your* views, then.
Fine with me.
> I
> can't imagine anything less interesting than your opinion about the
> quality of commercially available CDs.
Really? You'd rather argue about theoretical capacities than discuss
the qualities of real world commercial releases? How does that help you
as an audiophile? Does it make a lousy sounding CD sound better to you
to think about how many bits the format has?
Scott
bob
> bob wrote:
> > michae...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Music is not hard science---right?
> >
> > Right. Which is why using scientific terms like "reference" and
> > "accuracy" to discuss musicians' intentions is pseudoscience.
> >
> > bob
>
> "reference" and "accuracy" are not scientific terms.
>
> Music is neither science nor pseudoscience;
I wasn't referring to music; I was referring to your assertions about
audio.
> however, it does involve
> human intentions, communication of said intentions, and reproduction of
> said intentions, and an abundance of concepts which are well described
> by words like "reference" and "accuracy".
Yeah, right. These are technical terms in audio, which subjectivists
insist on misusing in order to give their baseless opinions a
scientific gloss. Hence, pseudoscience.
bob
nyo...@peoplepc.com
news:dtthe...@news1.newsguy.com...
> Serge Auckland wrote:
>> <Thepork...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:dtst0...@news3.newsguy.com...
>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> If a recording is well mastered for vinyl, the
>> >> >> mastering engineer will make allowances for the disc-cutting
>> >> >> process.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Not always true.
>> >>
>> >> It was always true when I was closer to the mastering process in the
>> >> '70s.
>> >
>> >
>> > No it wasn't. just check with Doug Sax about his D2D recordings at
>> > Sheffield.
>>
>> I accept that Sheffield may well be a special case, I was actually
>> thinking
>> about normal commercial releases.
>
>
> Well then it wasn't "always true" was it?
>
the D2D ones is that they were very short in comparison to most LP's. About
15 minutes per side max, in most cases. There's a very good reason for this
of course, it allows for better bass.
The following excerpt from http://www.urpressing.com/tips.html explains it
better than I could.
Remember this is an organization whose mission statement is as follows "
United is committed to the promotion and preservation of the unique sound
qualities of vinyl recordings."
The amount of time possible on a record side is entirely dependent on the
cutting level (volume) and the amount of low frequency information (bass).
Bass uses more space than treble.
The record groove is an analog of a sound wave. Try to picture looking down
on a narrow river or stream. The left bank is the left channel and the right
bank is the right channel. Your turntable's stylus is a wide round raft that
is going to travel that river. For simplicity, imagine that the banks stay
parallel, (left and right the same) which means the sound is monaural. The
louder the sound and or the heavier the bass, the wider the whole river (and
your boat) wiggles side to side. The higher the pitch (frequency), the
closer together the wiggles get. In other words the sharper the twists and
turns, the higher the pitch. Obviously, everything from bass to treble is
happening at once, so the gently sweeping wide curves (bass guitar and bass
drum) have smaller, more jagged wiggles (vocals, guitars, keyboards,
cymbals, percussion, etc.) superimposed on them. It should be mentioned here
that if the bass information is too loud, your raft gets thrown over the
embankment (skips). So now you should be able to see that the louder the
music is cut, the wider the groove wiggles, and the less time can fit on the
side. Or looking at it the other way around, the longer the side, the less
room for wiggles (volume and bass).
Although 25kHz response is possible, excessive transients are a problem.
There are several reasons for this. It was decided with the advent of the
first electrical transcription phonograph record, to reduce bass and boost
treble in the cutting of the master record. This reduces bass wiggles and
makes treble louder. And we aren't talking about a little bit of cut and
boost here, we're talking about a 40 dB change from bottom to top!
>
>> In my visits to both CBS and EMI, in the
>> early '70s, it was the case that they created a disk-cutting master from
>> which the disk was cut, and this was different from the master used to
>> copy
>> cassettes and indeed 8-tracks, as they optimised the sound for the
>> medium.
>
> OK. I know that this was a common practice. I wouldn't go so far as to
> say it is so universally representative of record making though. The
> journies that recordings go through to become Lps or CDs is quite
> varied.
>
I think it was with all but very few record companies. If you have other
information....
>
>> My understanding was that all commercial record companies did much the
>> same.
>> At the time CD wasn't around.
>
>
> Sheffield was a commercial record company.As are the record companies
> like APO that are doing things that way now.
>
They were a tiny niche company that never evolved beyond that and they used
the best possible methods to get the most out of their LP's.
>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> The Mastering engineer worked closely with the cutting
>> >> engineer(sometimes
>> >> of
>> >> course they were the same person), so ensure that the LP was optimally
>> >> cut.
>> >> If you know that has changed, I would be interested to know.
>> >
>> >
>> > I don't know that *that* has changed but i do know of a number of LPs
>> > that have been made without "allowances for the disc cutting process."
>>
And what % of all LP's would that be? Or what % of Claasical and Jazz
recordings would that be? I ask because I believe those to be the most
carefully recorded LP's or genre's for that matter.
snip
>
> This does not change the *fact* that there are records out there that
> were not altered in order to cut them other than the equired RIAA
> equalization. That equalization is a part of the LP format so to call
> that an alteration is about as fair as calling A/D or D/A conversion an
> alteration.
>
But the question again becomes, what % of LP's are they? And then there's
the noise from the Vinyl itself, clicks and pops. Oddly enough I played one
of my LP's last night that didn't seem to have any that I heard. It was the
LP The Kingston Trio: Aspen Gold, an LP from a digital master cut in Japan
IIRC.
Serge Auckland
You're welcome. Always a pleasure in entering a good debate. Now that I have
clarified my beliefs, and others seem to have also, it would be nice to know
what prompted this question, and what your views are.
S.
Codifus
> <michae...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:dtq4o...@news4.newsguy.com...
>
>>Or the short answer to this post:
>>
>>You know how objectivists are irritated that they are told "You don't
>>like vinyl because you've never really listened to a good rig?"
>>
>>This post is an exact parallel. I'm confused about the qualities of
>>analog because I've never heard good cd's, or never heard the same
>>music on both.
>>
>
> It's pretty near impossible to hear the same music on CD and vinyl due to
> mastering engineer will make allowances for the disc-cutting process. This
> have the same limitations.
>
> I don't know of any commercial recordings which have been mastered
> master, either out of ignorance or economy, with the result that the CD was
> less than ideal.
>
> from a CD master, I suspect that the resulting record would be pretty nasty.
> never be answered properly, as one is never comparing two identical
>
>
It's very easy to make a CD copy of vinyl, so why not start there?
Take a record. Play it on your system while recording it to your
computer. Burn a CD. Lisen to both. Which do you prefer and why?
CD
Thepork...@aol.com
> >> In my visits to both CBS and EMI, in the
> >> early '70s, it was the case that they created a disk-cutting master from
> >> which the disk was cut, and this was different from the master used to
> >> copy
> >> cassettes and indeed 8-tracks, as they optimised the sound for the
> >> medium.
> >
> > OK. I know that this was a common practice. I wouldn't go so far as to
> > say it is so universally representative of record making though. The
> > journies that recordings go through to become Lps or CDs is quite
> > varied.
> >
> I think it was with all but very few record companies. If you have other
> information....
Well, sure. There are a number of eissue labels out there right now
doing it as wee here a number of audiophile labels in the past. Are you
looking for a list?
> >
> >> My understanding was that all commercial record companies did much the
> >> same.
> >> At the time CD wasn't around.
> >
> >
> > Sheffield was a commercial record company.As are the record companies
> > like APO that are doing things that way now.
> >
> They were a tiny niche company that never evolved beyond that and they used
> the best possible methods to get the most out of their LP's.
They were still a "commercial record company" hence the claim "all *
commercial record companies* did much the same" was eroneous. And
Sheffield was one example not simply the only one.
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> The Mastering engineer worked closely with the cutting
> >> >> engineer(sometimes
> >> >> of
> >> >> course they were the same person), so ensure that the LP was optimally
> >> >> cut.
> >> >> If you know that has changed, I would be interested to know.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I don't know that *that* has changed but i do know of a number of LPs
> >> > that have been made without "allowances for the disc cutting process."
> >>
>
> And what % of all LP's would that be?
Can't begin to answer that question. Tell me how many records were ever
made.
> Or what % of Claasical and Jazz
> recordings would that be? I ask because I believe those to be the most
> carefully recorded LP's or genre's for that matter.
I still can't begin to answer that question. The point was simple
though. There are records that were cut directly from the original
master tapes despite claims to the contrary.
>
> snip
>
> >
> > This does not change the *fact* that there are records out there that
> > were not altered in order to cut them other than the equired RIAA
> > equalization. That equalization is a part of the LP format so to call
> > that an alteration is about as fair as calling A/D or D/A conversion an
> > alteration.
> >
> But the question again becomes, what % of LP's are they?
Why does that become the question? The fact that any such LPs exist
simply allows one to compare the inherent attributes of each medium
without any alterations to the signal from which they were mastered.
Others were claiming that such a comparison was imposible because *all*
LPs have been altered for the sake of cutting them. I was simply
pointing out the facts.
Scott
MC
news:du05p...@news3.newsguy.com...
> It's very easy to make a CD copy of vinyl, so why not start there?
> Take a record. Play it on your system while recording it to your computer.
> Burn a CD. Lisen to both. Which do you prefer and why?
Consider the possible results:
(a) Can't tell the difference: This is actually the result I expect, and it
means that CD quality is good enough for your ears; CD recording delivers
what went into it with no perceptible loss of quality; now whether you
*like* what went into it is a separate question.
(b) Prefer the vinyl: This means CD recording, under these circumstances
and as measured by your ears, is imperfect, i.e., involves perceptible loss.
(c) Prefer the CD: This also means CD recording is imperfect but the
imperfections are something you like, perhaps because they compensate for
other imperfections already present.
Stewart Pinkerton
No, it's because you shift your ground and compare apples with
nutmegs. You grab at the possibility that *some* CDs have been badly
made on one side of your argument, and then use direct-cut 'audiophile
specials' as examples of 'real world' vinyl.
If you *genuinely* want to compare CD to LP, then you must either
choose the very best of which each medium is capable, or stick to
standard 'mainstream' commercial output. If the latter, then LP
vanishes without trace - which you tacitly admit by your biased
argument.
This would be akin to my comparing 1970s 'Music for Pleasure' vinyl to
JVC XRCDs, to the exclusion of everything else.
>> In that case, I think I'll just take a pass on *your* views, then.
>
>Fine with me.
>
>> I
>> can't imagine anything less interesting than your opinion about the
>> quality of commercially available CDs.
>
>Really? You'd rather argue about theoretical capacities than discuss
>the qualities of real world commercial releases? How does that help you
>as an audiophile? Does it make a lousy sounding CD sound better to you
>to think about how many bits the format has?
The point is that *any* reasonably well made CD is pretty much dead on
the theoretical capacity of the medium (and - aside from treble
extension - exceeds the capability of any analogue master tape),
whereas LP requires heroic efforts such as direct-cutting with less
than fifteen minutes of music per side, in order to demonstrate its
capability. That's not 'real world' Scott - and you know it. Indeed,
your risible reference to Sheffield Labs as a 'real commercial
company' is a complete giveaway.
'Real world' vinyl is full-speed mastered from a tape cutting master,
has its bass summed to mono below 100Hz and rolled off below 40 Hz,
has its dynamic range compressed to lift the 'low level' detail above
surface noise and soft-clip sharp peaks, and has its treble rolled off
above 13-15 kHz to protect the cutter head. That's the *real* world of
commercial vinyl, in the same way that a straight transfer of the
master tape to the glass master is the *real* world of commercial CD.
In CD, mastering basically involves not degrading the sound of the
master tape on the way to the pressed CD, whereas in LP it involves
many 'dark arts' to squeeze as much as possible of the master tape
onto a medium which can only a encompass a part of the master tape
sound. This has nothing to do with which medium you may prefer, but it
certainly *does* have to do with the thread title.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
michae...@yahoo.com
> michae...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > A thought I've had: could we say that the ear/brain system is highly
> > tuned to the types of sounds which normally occur in nature, and can
> > recognize sounds which, in some way, don't correspond to natural
> > occurances?
>
> You're basically talking about training, which can be formal or informal.
Well, actually I'm considering whether the "training" we all receive by
growing up as human beings, not to mention the genetic wiring of our
brains, means we are attuned to the kinds of sounds which occur in
"nature".. that is, the kinds of sounds which were normal and
commonplace during our evolution.
Then I'm looking at audio reproduction, and wondering if things like
the distortion caused by speakers, or the resonances, vibrations, and
distortions of vinyl, would be perceived as "natural" sounds, or not.
>
>
> > For example, a hobby of mine is digital sound synthesis. Using a
> > program called Csound, I write digital "instruments". some of them are
> > meant to imitate real acoustic instruments, while others are purely
> > electronic-sounding. A guy named Perry Cook is leading the way in
> > digital modeling of acoustic instruments, and Csound incorporates some
> > of his models.
>
> I know about Perry's work. In fact, I used to sing right next to him in a
> church choir while he was a doctoral student at Stanford. He sings a
> wonderful bass.
Neat! He sure is a master of the math. I have one of his books. A
great explanation of the math.
>
>
> > Anyway, I've had a chance to play with these digital instruments, and
> > in particular notice what types of sounds seem "real" and which seem
> > "electronic" (not like something occuring in the physical world). I've
> > noticed a few things. Tonal balance needs to be right. Some sounds have
> > too much highs or too little highs.. they don't sound like something
> > that could occur physically. Humans have an intuition about natural
> > events, like two things bonking together. You are going to hear a lot
> > of high frequencies when two rocks hit each other, but not *too* much
> > high frequencies.
>
> I've never been fooled by these synthetic systems, but they are fun.
> If enough could be controlled, perhaps I would, but it's not there yet
> and may never be. But that is not terribly germane to a REproduction of
> an acoustic event. I thought that's what the subject was here.
Yeah, the subject (for me anyway) is what makes a reproduction sound
more real or natural than another one.
I don't see this as a semantic argument. Two posts above you wrote
this:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The distortions of LP can be pleasant in the same sense that a certain
degree of randomness is necessary to make a musical sound. This is why
electronic organs fail miserably in comparison to pipes: i.e. they
don't
have the randomess that a mass of pipes in 3 dimensional acoustic space
have,
and technically, this is 'distortion.' (for lack of a better term in
this
context) Simularly, saying that fifth's on harpsichords are a
stable interval ignores the fact that in tuning, one tunes the beats
produced immediately after the pluck, not to the after ring, which has
more
inharmonicity, and thus is part of the 'randomness' I mentioned that
makes a
musical sound more interesting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are talking about what sounds pleasant and suggesting that LP
sounds pleasant for reasons having to do with the distortion. I'm
interested in this idea.. and I'm simply pointing out that different
physical systems will be perceived differently. I'm also pointing out
that these systems (an acoustic space, or a harpsichord string) have
very complex behavior, but this behavior occurs as the spinning out of
a physical system acting according to phsycial laws. I'm curious to
know if this kind of system corresponds to anything we evolved to
detect.. or is it something totally new?
If the distortions of LP correspond to systems we evolved to detect,
perhaps that explains why they are "pleasant".
Ha! Actually, if I 'got out more', all I would do is run into more
engineers who find analog to better reproduce the musical experience.
I said they are easy to find, and they are. They are also very sane,
intelligent, perceptive people who are often masters of musical
knowledge.
>
>
> > And as I said above, "randomness" doesn't make things real.. it makes
> > them more complex, but I think a better word for what you are
> > describing is "complex" -- that is, complex, but very real, physical
> > models. The after ring is not random, it is the consequence of a real,
> > and complex, physical system acting as it acts.
>
> I'm not going to debate semantics. Words fail. See above.
>
>
> > I can tell you from experience that adding random fluctuations of
> > frequency to a sustained tone or interval does *not* make it sound
> > real. It sounds richer, yes, but not real.
>
> Random is not added. It is uncontrolled. It just IS.
I have no idea what this means.
I do like analog. And I also think it sounds more like live music. As
far as I can tell, it is the objectivists who have the difficulty
admitting these are two distinct experiences.
>Is there something the matter with that? Why?
> I find all this beating around the bush quite strange and a waste of time.
> I've been there, I know the experience, and it's so full of cul-de-sacs that
> one ends up doing virtually nothing but chasing their own tail. With audio,
> I'm looking for general progress in REcreating realism of acoustic events and
> discovering the new things that go there that are better than before. If I
> want to please myself with music to a greater degree, I ultimately turn off
> the stereo, play my instruments and/or go to a concert. True, I'm fortunate
> to be able to play, something that not everybody can do, but I want to LEARN
> first and foremost. You may differ. As Dick Pierce put it earlier, the
> results are what is important. And being correctly informed makes a
> difference.
>
>
> > I would really like to hear a CD processed through DSP such that it
> > sounds like analog. That would be wonderful. I'm also going to be
> > making CD-R recordings of some of my records, so we'll see.
>
> Just record an LP to a CD with a very good soundcard. Lynx Two is the best I know
> of, but probably not necessary.
>
> It should go without saying, but make sure any comparison is blind, level matched,
> time synched, and has a bull detector if you want it to carry any
> significance beyond yourself. As you said, "<we'll> see." (emphasis mine)
I'm not going to make a comparison, at least not planning to now. I'm
just going to put the recording in my iPod, go to a quiet space, and
enjoy the music. If I find myself enjoying it as much as I ever do
listening directly to vinyl, that's all the evidence I need.
>
> Enjoy the music.
Yup!
Mike
---MIKE---
>>Actually they all will insert some form of
>> EQ.
Mike wrote:
>>These modifications are not necessary
>> when producing a CD. This means that
>> the LP cutting master can't possibly be
>> identical to the master tape for a CD.
Scott replied:
>>But it can and many are. Sometimes for
>> ambitious reasons sometimes for the
>> wrong reason.
You contradict yourself. If they ALL insert some form of EQ (RIAA) then
your last statement can't be correct. LP Master tapes MUST be
equalized.
Thepork...@aol.com
>
> If the discussion is about real world availability of commercial CD's
> and LP's that the audiophile has to deal with
It is about real world commercial releases on both formats period. I
have many Lps and CDs that are out of print but they still work. They
don't cease to be real world LPs and CDs once they go out of print.
> (and not about accuracy of
> the media and the underlying technologies),
It is about that too but only in terms of real world commercial
releases sine *that* is what we have as audiophiles.
> that it should be a short
> discussion. In the real world, almost all new music performances are on
> CD's. Only a tiny minority is available on LP's.
Well not entirely true but with that mind set one should not be
listening to anything recorded in years past. that would be tragic.
> Not much sense in
> comparing, since if you want to listen to those new performances, you're
> stuck with listening to CD's.
That is a legitimate issue. But there is more to music than this year's
releases don't you think? OTOH as a big Neil Young fan I found a
comparison between the LP (yes it was released on LP) and the CD of his
latest release to be quite telling. On another note many of the best
CDs I have ever heard have been reissues. The scope extends past this
years titles.
Scott
Thepork...@aol.com
Absolutely not.
> You grab at the possibility that *some* CDs have been badly
> made on one side of your argument,
1. I haven't made any argument here *yet* I have only tried to get an
accuate objectivist POV so far. By the way we are not talking about a
*posibility* here but a *reality.* And I have been focused on realities
rather than possibilities because realities are what audiophiles have
to deal with in the end.
> and then use direct-cut 'audiophile
> specials' as examples of 'real world' vinyl.
1. Direct cut audiophile LPs are "real world" examples of LPs. They
really do exist.
2. I have only discussed them becaus ofe eroneous claims that have been
made about *all* LPs beeing made from masters that have been adjusted
for the purpose of cutting LPs. By the way I have not exclusively
pointed to D2Ds. I have also cited reissues made from master tapes.
Again, I have not made any pro LP arguments yet. I have only corrected
eroneous claims.
>
> If you *genuinely* want to compare CD to LP, then you must either
> choose the very best of which each medium is capable, or stick to
> standard 'mainstream' commercial output. If the latter, then LP
> vanishes without trace - which you tacitly admit by your biased
> argument.
Sorry but you do not get to dictate the rules of comparing LPs and CDs.
I will spell out how I compare them and how I reached my position on
their merits. You can complain then about my choices but you don't get
to tell me what initial choices I have to make about comparing them.
>
> This would be akin to my comparing 1970s 'Music for Pleasure' vinyl to
> JVC XRCDs, to the exclusion of everything else.
No it wouldn't. There is nothing unfair about how I compare Cds and
LPs. Nothing. But I suggest you reserve judgement till I actually talk
about it. Don't get so worked up over my fact finding questions about
other peoples' beliefs just because I make a few corrections on facts I
know about.
>
> >> In that case, I think I'll just take a pass on *your* views, then.
> >
> >Fine with me.
> >
> >> I
> >> can't imagine anything less interesting than your opinion about the
> >> quality of commercially available CDs.
> >
> >Really? You'd rather argue about theoretical capacities than discuss
> >the qualities of real world commercial releases? How does that help you
> >as an audiophile? Does it make a lousy sounding CD sound better to you
> >to think about how many bits the format has?
>
> The point is that *any* reasonably well made CD is pretty much dead on
> the theoretical capacity of the medium (and - aside from treble
> extension - exceeds the capability of any analogue master tape),
> whereas LP requires heroic efforts such as direct-cutting with less
> than fifteen minutes of music per side, in order to demonstrate its
> capability.
well that is a worth while assertion to consider since it does involve
rel world Cds and Lps although there is a slefserving qualification,
that being a "reasonably well made" CD. Now if you have a means of
finding out which ones were "reasonably well made" and which ones were
not.... It certainly can be investigated to a degree but there are
things that you simply will not know about a lot of LPs and CDs. But I
will get into that later as well.
> That's not 'real world' Scott - and you know it.
Please don't tell me what I know until you collect the million dollar
challenge from Randi for showing you can read minds. The "real world"
for audiophiles is the vast catalog of commercail releases of CDs and
LPs the world over. by the way, one does not need to find a D2D to find
an Lp that has not had to have the mastr adjusted for the pupose of
cutting it. I'm not really sure why you are fixating on D2Ds.
> Indeed,
> your risible reference to Sheffield Labs as a 'real commercial
> company' is a complete giveaway.
Ridiculous. I cited the Shefields *along with other LPs* only to show
that certain claims made about *all* Lps were eroneous. Nothing more
nothing less.
>
> 'Real world' vinyl is full-speed mastered from a tape cutting master,
> has its bass summed to mono below 100Hz and rolled off below 40 Hz,
> has its dynamic range compressed to lift the 'low level' detail above
> surface noise and soft-clip sharp peaks, and has its treble rolled off
> above 13-15 kHz to protect the cutter head. That's the *real* world of
> commercial vinyl, in the same way that a straight transfer of the
> master tape to the glass master is the *real* world of commercial CD.
Wrong. Real worl vinyl is *any* vinyl that really exists from the best
to the worst.That goes way beyond the scope you are trying to set here.
It seems you want to argue the best vinyl out of existance to justify
your beliefs. That would be quite unfair and unreasonable for anyone
genuinely interested in what is better.
>
> In CD, mastering basically involves not degrading the sound of the
> master tape on the way to the pressed CD, whereas in LP it involves
> many 'dark arts' to squeeze as much as possible of the master tape
> onto a medium which can only a encompass a part of the master tape
> sound. This has nothing to do with which medium you may prefer, but it
> certainly *does* have to do with the thread title.
This is not an accurate view of the art of mastering. Not even close.
It is a belief that IMO has lead to a large number of highly
compramised CDs which IMO is a root cause for many a preference for
vinyl. It does strike me as ironic that those who are willing to have a
blind faith in CD superiority are willing to do so to the point that it
would lead to an inferior product. Excellent mastering is not a simple
thing for either Lps or CDs.
Scott
Norman M. Schwartz
news:du5e7...@news1.newsguy.com...
> Scott wrote:
>
> >>Actually they all will insert some form of
> >> EQ.
>
> Mike wrote:
> >>These modifications are not necessary
> >> when producing a CD. This means that
> >> the LP cutting master can't possibly be
> >> identical to the master tape for a CD.
>
> Scott replied:
> >>But it can and many are. Sometimes for
> >> ambitious reasons sometimes for the
> >> wrong reason.
>
> You contradict yourself. If they ALL insert some form of EQ (RIAA) then
> your last statement can't be correct. LP Master tapes MUST be
> equalized.
Exactly. And then your phone pre-amp has to offer the reverse equalization,
and since none can expected to be exactly accurate reversals or neutral, the
master tape is yet another step removed from what you can hear on any LP.
Stewart Pinkerton
>jjn...@sonic.net wrote:
>> michae...@yahoo.com wrote:
<snipping to the chase>
>> > Okay, that's one theory.. that we prefer analog because it adds
>> > random-like distortion. But what's curious is that you can easily find
>> > recording engineers who spend a lot of time in concert halls, then make
>> > recordings of those same performances, in both digital and analog
>> > form.. so they have plenty of experience with the choices involved..
>> > and for their ears, analog is a better representation of the musical
>> > event, as a fairly clear general trend.
>>
>> That's simply not a factual statement, sorry. They are a small minority, even
>> in the highest quality circles. Maybe you need to get out more.
>
>Ha! Actually, if I 'got out more', all I would do is run into more
>engineers who find analog to better reproduce the musical experience.
>
>I said they are easy to find, and they are. They are also very sane,
>intelligent, perceptive people who are often masters of musical
>knowledge.
They are also in a small minority, as JJN stated, so it's not rational
to use their existence to support your argument. You could replace
'analog' with 'digital' in your statements above, and it would remain
a true statement - but more in tune with the majority opinion at any
level of skill and experience.
>> > The curious thing is that for some of us, using analog means is not
>> > unweildy.. it is not an attempt to create distortions that compensate
>> > for flaws in recordings.. it is simply the best way to reproduce music.
>>
>> They are not created per se. They just ARE. And people like them, including
>> myself at times, which is fine. It is not accurate in terms of signal processing.
>> That's the evidence. What's the problem here? Are you having trouble admitting
>> that you just LIKE something?
>
>I do like analog. And I also think it sounds more like live music. As
>far as I can tell, it is the objectivists who have the difficulty
>admitting these are two distinct experiences.
I have never seen any objectivist have a problem with this, but it
*is* a minority opinion, even among 'serious' audiophiles, recording
engineers and musicians.
I like analogue too, but I *don't* think it sounds more like live
music, and I have no problem separating the two experiences.
Stewart Pinkerton
>Scott wrote:
>
>>>Actually they all will insert some form of
>>> EQ.
>
>Mike wrote:
>>>These modifications are not necessary
>>> when producing a CD. This means that
>>> the LP cutting master can't possibly be
>>> identical to the master tape for a CD.
>
>Scott replied:
>>>But it can and many are. Sometimes for
>>> ambitious reasons sometimes for the
>>> wrong reason.
>
>You contradict yourself. If they ALL insert some form of EQ (RIAA) then
>your last statement can't be correct. LP Master tapes MUST be
>equalized.
While I generally support the argument that anyone using a 'flat'
cutting master is not getting the best possible sound from an LP, it's
not reasonable to describe RIAA pre-emphasis as 'EQ', because *all*
vinyl replay systems have the corresponding RIAA de-emphasis, the net
effect being flat.
It's certainly *possible* to run a mixdown master straight into a
cutting lathe - but you'll have a 'long playing' record with less than
ten minutes of music per side, and you'll need to be careful that you
don't totally lose the groove with off-centre bass notes, or melt the
cutter head with heavy cymbal work. Chances are too, that the
resultant LP will only be playable by a Shure V15.....
Stewart Pinkerton
>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> If you *genuinely* want to compare CD to LP, then you must either
>> choose the very best of which each medium is capable, or stick to
>> standard 'mainstream' commercial output. If the latter, then LP
>> vanishes without trace - which you tacitly admit by your biased
>> argument.
>
>Sorry but you do not get to dictate the rules of comparing LPs and CDs.
>I will spell out how I compare them and how I reached my position on
>their merits. You can complain then about my choices but you don't get
>to tell me what initial choices I have to make about comparing them.
I get to point out that you are comparing apples with nutmegs, because
we all know where you're going with this phony 'fact-finding'
exercise.
>> This would be akin to my comparing 1970s 'Music for Pleasure' vinyl to
>> JVC XRCDs, to the exclusion of everything else.
>
>No it wouldn't.
Sure it would. You wish to compare badly made CDs to immaculately made
'audiophile' label LPs, which is ridiculous. BTW, even those LPs still
suck compared to CD in accuracy terms, but you already know that.
>The "real world"
>for audiophiles is the vast catalog of commercail releases of CDs and
>LPs the world over. by the way, one does not need to find a D2D to find
>an Lp that has not had to have the mastr adjusted for the pupose of
>cutting it. I'm not really sure why you are fixating on D2Ds.
I'm not the one who brought Sheffield Labs into the debate.
>> Indeed,
>> your risible reference to Sheffield Labs as a 'real commercial
>> company' is a complete giveaway.
>
>Ridiculous. I cited the Shefields *along with other LPs* only to show
>that certain claims made about *all* Lps were eroneous. Nothing more
>nothing less.
No Scott, because you are reaching in one direction for badly made
CDs, but in the other for the *tiny* minority of heroically made LPs,
in order to create an unrealistic comparison of LP and CD.
If you want to refer to Sheffield output, then you must compare
'Treasury' LPs to the equivalent CDs, otherwise you're just concocting
a fairy tale.
>> 'Real world' vinyl is full-speed mastered from a tape cutting master,
>> has its bass summed to mono below 100Hz and rolled off below 40 Hz,
>> has its dynamic range compressed to lift the 'low level' detail above
>> surface noise and soft-clip sharp peaks, and has its treble rolled off
>> above 13-15 kHz to protect the cutter head. That's the *real* world of
>> commercial vinyl, in the same way that a straight transfer of the
>> master tape to the glass master is the *real* world of commercial CD.
>
>Wrong. Real worl vinyl is *any* vinyl that really exists from the best
>to the worst.That goes way beyond the scope you are trying to set here.
>It seems you want to argue the best vinyl out of existance to justify
>your beliefs. That would be quite unfair and unreasonable for anyone
>genuinely interested in what is better.
Nope, quite happy to accept the very best direct-cuts, versus a
mainstream' classical or jazz CD. You see, supporters of CD don't
*need* to make your outlandish stretches in order to establish the
truth about the accuracy of CD vs LP.
My statement above is simply a return to the reality of what you can
find in your local record store, rather than in your local 'high end'
audio store - where I bought all my Sheffields, Crystal Clear, Water
Lily etc etc.
>> In CD, mastering basically involves not degrading the sound of the
>> master tape on the way to the pressed CD, whereas in LP it involves
>> many 'dark arts' to squeeze as much as possible of the master tape
>> onto a medium which can only a encompass a part of the master tape
>> sound. This has nothing to do with which medium you may prefer, but it
>> certainly *does* have to do with the thread title.
>
>This is not an accurate view of the art of mastering. Not even close.
>It is a belief that IMO has lead to a large number of highly
>compramised CDs which IMO is a root cause for many a preference for
>vinyl. It does strike me as ironic that those who are willing to have a
>blind faith in CD superiority are willing to do so to the point that it
>would lead to an inferior product. Excellent mastering is not a simple
>thing for either Lps or CDs.
For CD, it certainly is. Shame that you don't understand this.
NYO...@peoplepc.com
> NYO...@peoplepc.com <NYO...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> > Thepork...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been
> > > done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding
> > > version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus
> > > will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/
> > > engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the
> > > master.
>
> > tweaked. but the end result with a CD is that what is on the master
> > tape is what is on the CD.
>
> Well, the digital master derived from an analog master tape
> can actually end up being rather different from
> the original master, if it has been tweaked during remastering.
> I doubt today's crop of highly compressed, low-dynamic-range
> remasters sound the same as their original master tapes.
>
If it's remastered and tweaked, then we now have a new master that is
used to make CD's from and the CD will be an exact clone of that
master. Given the limitations of LP such an outcome is almost
impossible unless the album being made is very short. Assuming no
changes to the master to make an LP that would be 15 minutes or less
per side, you still have something that is a generation removed from
the master. You also have the added noise from the stylus tracking the
grooves.
> To the extent a remaster has been 'tweaked' it represents some
> remastering engineer's or producer's idea of how the recording
> *should* sound. This might be with reference to an LP, or
> to modern fads (e.g. louder than loud), or to the engineer's
> personal conception of 'good sound'.
Which is true for either LP or CD.
They may justify this
> by saying they are only 'trying to be faithful to the master'
> but that's a bit of malarkey unless the master's actually
> *damaged*.
>
> > Let us know if you will ever concede that LP is iherently inferior to
> > CD.
>
> Depending on how terms are defined, that may not be
> necessary, or could even be wrong.
I don't see how something that is at least one generation away from the
source, unless it's a D2D can ever be equal to a CD which is an exact
clone of the material that it is derived from.
If part of what gives you pleasure
> about LP is the process of using a turntable, a CD will never be
> superior.
>
>
But then we're no longer talking about the accuracy of the 2 media and
all bets are off.
Thepork...@aol.com
> On 2 Mar 2006 00:35:08 GMT, Thepork...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> >> If you *genuinely* want to compare CD to LP, then you must either
> >> choose the very best of which each medium is capable, or stick to
> >> standard 'mainstream' commercial output. If the latter, then LP
> >> vanishes without trace - which you tacitly admit by your biased
> >> argument.
> >
> >Sorry but you do not get to dictate the rules of comparing LPs and CDs.
> >I will spell out how I compare them and how I reached my position on
> >their merits. You can complain then about my choices but you don't get
> >to tell me what initial choices I have to make about comparing them.
>
> I get to point out that you are comparing apples with nutmegs,
Sure, should I ever do so. Please provide any quotes of me making any
such unfair comparisons on this or any other thread. Put up or ....
> because
> we all know where you're going with this phony 'fact-finding'
> exercise.
Phoney? Please show how it was phoney. "We all know/" Did you collect
the million for mind reading?
>
> >> This would be akin to my comparing 1970s 'Music for Pleasure' vinyl to
> >> JVC XRCDs, to the exclusion of everything else.
> >
> >No it wouldn't.
>
> Sure it would. You wish to compare badly made CDs to immaculately made
> 'audiophile' label LPs, which is ridiculous.
What is ridiculous is your gross misrepresnetations of my wishes.
Again, arwe you a million dollars richer? You can read my mind? Or can
you quote me ever ever making any unfair comparisons between LPs and
CDs. Please quote me or drop this nonsense.
> BTW, even those LPs still
> suck compared to CD in accuracy terms, but you already know that.
Stop teling me wghat i know. It is ridiculous. I know no such thing.
your claim is ridiculous on all levels.Talk about comparing apples to
oranges. *You* are now comparing actual LPs to a theoretical posibility
of CDs. I suggest you take care of your own comparisons before pointing
any fingers.
>
> >The "real world"
> >for audiophiles is the vast catalog of commercail releases of CDs and
> >LPs the world over. by the way, one does not need to find a D2D to find
> >an Lp that has not had to have the mastr adjusted for the pupose of
> >cutting it. I'm not really sure why you are fixating on D2Ds.
>
> I'm not the one who brought Sheffield Labs into the debate.
No, you are the one who doesn't seem to understand the point that was
being made by bringing them up. What don't you understand about citing
LPs that are made from unaltered sources to prove that not *all* LPs
are made from altered sources for the purpose of cutting?
>
> >> Indeed,
> >> your risible reference to Sheffield Labs as a 'real commercial
> >> company' is a complete giveaway.
> >
> >Ridiculous. I cited the Shefields *along with other LPs* only to show
> >that certain claims made about *all* Lps were eroneous. Nothing more
> >nothing less.
>
> No Scott,
Yes Stewart. That is exactly what I did. Just because you didn't
understand it doesn't mean it isn't true.
> because you are reaching in one direction for badly made
> CDs, but in the other for the *tiny* minority of heroically made LPs,
> in order to create an unrealistic comparison of LP and CD.
Wrong worng wrong. I am not reaching for anything. All I have done was
try to varify my beliefs about the objectivists positions on the
subject of CD accuracy and seperately corrct eroneous claims made about
LPs.
>
> If you want to refer to Sheffield output, then you must compare
> 'Treasury' LPs to the equivalent CDs, otherwise you're just concocting
> a fairy tale.
Please show me where I have made any such comparisons thus far.
although you are wrong about this claim I have not made the comparison
thus far.
>
> >> 'Real world' vinyl is full-speed mastered from a tape cutting master,
> >> has its bass summed to mono below 100Hz and rolled off below 40 Hz,
> >> has its dynamic range compressed to lift the 'low level' detail above
> >> surface noise and soft-clip sharp peaks, and has its treble rolled off
> >> above 13-15 kHz to protect the cutter head. That's the *real* world of
> >> commercial vinyl, in the same way that a straight transfer of the
> >> master tape to the glass master is the *real* world of commercial CD.
> >
> >Wrong. Real worl vinyl is *any* vinyl that really exists from the best
> >to the worst.That goes way beyond the scope you are trying to set here.
> >It seems you want to argue the best vinyl out of existance to justify
> >your beliefs. That would be quite unfair and unreasonable for anyone
> >genuinely interested in what is better.
>
> Nope, quite happy to accept the very best direct-cuts, versus a
> mainstream' classical or jazz CD.
Really? Because I would consider that an unfair comparison. and you are
complaining about me. wow.
> You see, supporters of CD don't
> *need* to make your outlandish stretches in order to establish the
> truth about the accuracy of CD vs LP.
i disagree with that. And I will make that point as well.
>
> My statement above is simply a return to the reality of what you can
> find in your local record store, rather than in your local 'high end'
> audio store -
Again you are trying to set unrealistic boundries to suit your beliefs.
Aint gonna happen. It isn't reality. Anyone can shop for audiophile LPs
and CDs online with great ease.
> where I bought all my Sheffields, Crystal Clear, Water
> Lily etc etc.
Where you bought things does not represent any universal reality. Who
cares where *you* bought anything? How is it relevant to anything here?
>
> >> In CD, mastering basically involves not degrading the sound of the
> >> master tape on the way to the pressed CD, whereas in LP it involves
> >> many 'dark arts' to squeeze as much as possible of the master tape
> >> onto a medium which can only a encompass a part of the master tape
> >> sound. This has nothing to do with which medium you may prefer, but it
> >> certainly *does* have to do with the thread title.
> >
> >This is not an accurate view of the art of mastering. Not even close.
> >It is a belief that IMO has lead to a large number of highly
> >compramised CDs which IMO is a root cause for many a preference for
> >vinyl. It does strike me as ironic that those who are willing to have a
> >blind faith in CD superiority are willing to do so to the point that it
> >would lead to an inferior product. Excellent mastering is not a simple
> >thing for either Lps or CDs.
>
> For CD, it certainly is.
Wrong.
> Shame that you don't understand this.
Luckily you are not mastering CDs. That would be the real shame.
Scott
nyo...@peoplepc.com
news:du2ps...@news4.newsguy.com...
> nyo...@peoplepc.com wrote:
>> <Thepork...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:dtthe...@news1.newsguy.com...
>> >> In my visits to both CBS and EMI, in the
>> >> early '70s, it was the case that they created a disk-cutting master
>> >> from
>> >> which the disk was cut, and this was different from the master used to
>> >> copy
>> >> cassettes and indeed 8-tracks, as they optimised the sound for the
>> >> medium.
>> >
>> > OK. I know that this was a common practice. I wouldn't go so far as to
>> > say it is so universally representative of record making though. The
>> > journies that recordings go through to become Lps or CDs is quite
>> > varied.
>> >
>> I think it was with all but very few record companies. If you have other
>> information....
>
>
>
> Well, sure. There are a number of eissue labels out there right now
> doing it as wee here a number of audiophile labels in the past. Are you
> looking for a list?
>
>
>> >
>> >> My understanding was that all commercial record companies did much the
>> >> same.
>> >> At the time CD wasn't around.
>> >
>> >
>> > Sheffield was a commercial record company.As are the record companies
>> > like APO that are doing things that way now.
>> >
>> They were a tiny niche company that never evolved beyond that and they
>> used
>> the best possible methods to get the most out of their LP's.
>
>
> They were still a "commercial record company" hence the claim "all *
> commercial record companies* did much the same" was eroneous. And
> Sheffield was one example not simply the only one.
>
>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> The Mastering engineer worked closely with the cutting
>> >> >> engineer(sometimes
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> course they were the same person), so ensure that the LP was
>> >> >> optimally
>> >> >> cut.
>> >> >> If you know that has changed, I would be interested to know.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't know that *that* has changed but i do know of a number of
>> >> > LPs
>> >> > that have been made without "allowances for the disc cutting
>> >> > process."
>> >>
>>
>> And what % of all LP's would that be?
>
>
> Can't begin to answer that question. Tell me how many records were ever
> made.
>
>
>
>> Or what % of Claasical and Jazz
>> recordings would that be? I ask because I believe those to be the most
>> carefully recorded LP's or genre's for that matter.
>
>
> I still can't begin to answer that question. The point was simple
> though. There are records that were cut directly from the original
> master tapes despite claims to the contrary.
>
>
same way, with allowances made for the medium. Not much of a market for
10-15 minute per side LP's.
>>
>> snip
>>
>> >
>> > This does not change the *fact* that there are records out there that
>> > were not altered in order to cut them other than the equired RIAA
>> > equalization. That equalization is a part of the LP format so to call
>> > that an alteration is about as fair as calling A/D or D/A conversion an
>> > alteration.
>> >
>> But the question again becomes, what % of LP's are they?
>
>
> Why does that become the question? The fact that any such LPs exist
> simply allows one to compare the inherent attributes of each medium
> without any alterations to the signal from which they were mastered.
> Others were claiming that such a comparison was imposible because *all*
> LPs have been altered for the sake of cutting them. I was simply
> pointing out the facts.
>
>
overwhelming majority people's time and energy, to find.
CD's offer the most accurate reproduction possible, there's more dynamic
range, better dynamic range and in every way that it is possible, better
reproduction. LP is simply an inferior medium from every technical aspect.
That people may prefer that sound is up to them.
It's not coming back.
Thepork...@aol.com
> Scott wrote:
>
> >>Actually they all will insert some form of
> >> EQ.
>
> Mike wrote:
> >>These modifications are not necessary
> >> when producing a CD. This means that
> >> the LP cutting master can't possibly be
> >> identical to the master tape for a CD.
>
> Scott replied:
> >>But it can and many are. Sometimes for
> >> ambitious reasons sometimes for the
> >> wrong reason.
>
> You contradict yourself.
No, not at all.
> If they ALL insert some form of EQ (RIAA) then
> your last statement can't be correct.
Look, I have already explained this. The RIAA curve is a part of the LP
format just as digitization is a part of the CD format. This is
completely different from tweeking a master so it can be cut on LP. The
claim was made that you can't use the same master for both LPs and CDs
because LPs need to tweek a master to cut an LP. The fact is there are
CDs and LPs that were cut from the same master with no tweaking. Do the
things that are needed to transfer master to either format is something
entirely different.
> LP Master tapes MUST be
> equalized.
They must go through the RIAA equalization and then be played through a
phono preamp to reconstruct the curve to a flat response. Master tapes
must be converted to digital and then reconverted to analog to be
played. Thsi does not prevent either from being made from the same
source. the big point being that you can compare them to the original
source for accuracy should one choose to do so.
Scott
Thepork...@aol.com
> On 2 Mar 2006 00:28:20 GMT, twinmo...@webtv.net (---MIKE---) wrote:
>
> >Scott wrote:
> >
> >>>Actually they all will insert some form of
> >>> EQ.
> >
> >Mike wrote:
> >>>These modifications are not necessary
> >>> when producing a CD. This means that
> >>> the LP cutting master can't possibly be
> >>> identical to the master tape for a CD.
> >
> >Scott replied:
> >>>But it can and many are. Sometimes for
> >>> ambitious reasons sometimes for the
> >>> wrong reason.
> >
> >You contradict yourself. If they ALL insert some form of EQ (RIAA) then
> >your last statement can't be correct. LP Master tapes MUST be
> >equalized.
>
> While I generally support the argument that anyone using a 'flat'
> cutting master is not getting the best possible sound from an LP, it's
> not reasonable to describe RIAA pre-emphasis as 'EQ', because *all*
> vinyl replay systems have the corresponding RIAA de-emphasis, the net
> effect being flat.
Thank you.
>
> It's certainly *possible* to run a mixdown master straight into a
> cutting lathe - but you'll have a 'long playing' record with less than
> ten minutes of music per side, and you'll need to be careful that you
> don't totally lose the groove with off-centre bass notes, or melt the
> cutter head with heavy cymbal work.
Well, Steve Hoffman and Kevin Grey have managed to get more than that
on each side for their top 100 Jazz series and they are cutting at 45
rpm.
> Chances are too, that the
> resultant LP will only be playable by a Shure V15.....
My Koetsu Rosewood signature has no trouble tracking these records or
any of the other records I have that were not tweaked for the purpose
of cutting.
Scott
Steven Sullivan
I don't disagree. But it is an overstatement to say that what
is on the 'master tape' is what is on the CD...if only because
a digital master might not even be on a tape. Not because a
CD can't fully capture what we can hear on a tape.
> > To the extent a remaster has been 'tweaked' it represents some
> > remastering engineer's or producer's idea of how the recording
> > *should* sound. This might be with reference to an LP, or
> > to modern fads (e.g. louder than loud), or to the engineer's
> > personal conception of 'good sound'.
> Which is true for either LP or CD.
Of course. What strikes me as historically interesting is that
much of 'mastering' was originally a *necessity* due to the limitations
of the playback medium (vinyl). One couldn't simply transcribe the
tape contents to a platter -- for the reasons already mentioned.
Seems to me that with the invention of CD, where exceedingly accurate
copying of the analog master tape contents to the playback medium is
possible, 're-mastering' from analog tape to CD should have been reduced
simply to the 'art' of 1) ensuring that the proper master tape was
used, 2) ensuring that the CD tracks were sequenced
and spaced properly and 2) ensuring that the digital transfer chain was
high-quality and accurate. Occasionally 3) ensuring that fades
or other post-'mastering' moves applied during the cutting stages,
were replicated, would be a requirement too, as might 4) restoration
of sound from damaged master tapes. But that's it.
Yet somehow it evolved quickly into 'tweaking' the original
2-track master tape contents for digital release -- either to make
the CD 'more faithful' to the original (? a paradoxical idea) or
to 'improve' on it. Which keeps 'remastering' engineers employed, if
nothing else. Apparently a 'flat' digital transfer of an analog
tape still requires the 'breath of life'...except when it doesn't,
of course.
> They may justify this
> > by saying they are only 'trying to be faithful to the master'
> > but that's a bit of malarkey unless the master's actually
> > *damaged*.
> >
> > > Let us know if you will ever concede that LP is iherently inferior to
> > > CD.
> >
> > Depending on how terms are defined, that may not be
> > necessary, or could even be wrong.
> I don't see how something that is at least one generation away from the
> source, unless it's a D2D can ever be equal to a CD which is an exact
> clone of the material that it is derived from.
Because something measureably 'inferior' can still be subjectively
'superior'. That's why defining the *terms* is important.
> If part of what gives you pleasure
> > about LP is the process of using a turntable, a CD will never be
> > superior.
> >
> >
> But then we're no longer talking about the accuracy of the 2 media and
> all bets are off.
Yes, in which case the arguers are talking past each other. Which happens
constantly.
--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)
Thepork...@aol.com
regarding their views on the accuracy of CDs in the real word. So it's
high time to state my case.
1. Live music in a goo acoustic space is my genereal reference. james
Boyk says it better than I can.
"What interest me in audio is perception, not technology. One
perception often lost in all the getting and spending is that live
sound is beautiful, while reproduced sound rarely is."
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~boyk/ear.htm
It is the *intrinsic* beauty of live music that I seek when I listen to
recordings of acoustic music. I know what it is. It is easily
recognizable when I hear live music and it is recognizably missing in
most playback. When it is there it is amazing. It is a matter of degree
not a black and white issue though.
OK my views on CDs vs.LPs as they help me achieve my goals in audio.
1. All else being equal IME LPs offer more of the intrinsic beauty than
CDs. I base this on comparisons of CDs and LPs made from the same
source by the same team of mastering enginees and producers. One
example I cited was the James Boyk recording of Pictures at an
Exhibition. i have also made the comparison with a number of oferings
fom Classics and APO. The diffeences were not huge but I did favor the
LPs.
2. The best sounding LPs sound better to me than the best sounding CDs
I have heard. Granted there is a limited sampling to sure and one can
claim I am comparing apples to oranges here but I am comparing the best
of the best on both sides. All in all it seems fair if one wants to
know which is providing the very best.
3. By and large when I compare the many CDs and LPs of a given title an
LP will usually sound the best. It used to be almost all of the time
but now it is about 70 to 80 percent of the time.
As for accuracy. Well I have a number of opinions on that but lets
start with the asertions below.
Thepork...@aol.com wrote:
> Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my
> views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose
> some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to
> get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from
> objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions
> . It is my impression that
> 1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to
> the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of
> the signal used to make them.
Some objectivists agree with this some acknowledged that in some cases
AD/converters and manufacturing can muk up the sound. IMO this is a
very very common problem with CDs. Cds have often been considered harsh
and strident and lacking in dimensionality and lower level harmonic
detail by many who prefer LPs. It has been my experience as well. The
claims that A/D converters are audibly transparent seems to me to be n
eroneous one.
"As Mrs. Cozart Fine and I began our evaluation sessions in April 1989,
it becamevery clear to us that the A/D conversion process was a very
critical step in our produc-tion work. As the producer once described
it, the sounds from different converters wereall different "bowls of
soup"."
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:K8hjhyAokagJ:www.themusiclab.net/aespaper.pdf++Dennis+M.+Drake+Mercury+cds&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&ie=UTF-8
> 2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor
> quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering
> engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or
> manugfacturing of those CDs.
Some objectivists agreed with this assertion as well. While I agree it
is a common cause of some serious problems, especially in the past 10
years i don't agree that it is the only problem as claimed above.
> 3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been
> done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding
> version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus
> will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/
> engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the
> master.
Again It seems that the objectivists largely agreed with this. Up to
the intent of the artist/engineers/producers. And while I suspect it is
often true I think there is ample reason to believe it is often not
true. of course i am not speaking in terms of measured performance but
of subjective compaisons. many noted mastering engineers such as Doug
Sax and Bernie Grundman have claimed as much. They, unlike the rest of
us , actually have made direct comparisons to draw their conclusions.
> 4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when
> not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic
> colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like
> them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the
> original sound of a live recording.
Again I disagree based on cliams made by actual mastering and recording
engineers of the very LPs and CDs I have often compared of the same
titles. Audible acuracy is subjective and if an added distortion seems
to comensate for something that is lost then that add distortion will
make something more accurate to the original as far as our perceptions
go. And that is what interests me.
> 5. Objectivists believe the primary source of preferences for LPs over
> CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases.
> Let me know if I am making any misrepresentations of objectivists
> beliefs on this subject.
ok not a big issue really.
But lets talk about accuracy
It seems to me that a number of objectivists seem to think a master
recording is the proper reference for audio. Aside from my position
that the common belief that if it isi on CD and hasn't been mukked with
that CDs will be more accurate to the master than LPs is often eroneous
and that many many CDs are inroducing very ugly colorations that make
their distortions more problematic in many many cases, setting up a
master tape as a reference can be a very misguided idea. Why set it up
as a reference/ Because it represents the artists intentions? How?
1. You are setting up playback as a reference for playback. master
tapes have no sound of their own. They have to be played back. The
artists recorded over mics (transducers) and listened back over another
set of transducers. It is a troublesome reference. here is yet another
problem. Many artists/enginees/ producers did not use the master tape
to judge the product. In popular music final judgement was largly based
on test pressings of the LP. IOW the LP was the reference. Matser tapes
were tweaked to get the "artists/engineers/producers intentions" for
the actual final product. One can easily go to a master tape, depending
on what tape is chosen and get nothing like what the artists intended.
The fact is mastering old mateil is not simple. choosing the right
master tape is essential and having the artists/engineers present to
guide the reissue is also very important if one is so worried about
intent of artsists and the like. Most, almost all CDs were not made
this way. OTOH just about all LPs form the advent of the medum to the
80s were. Ironically, if intent matters to you then many many LPs are
more accuratce. Consider what Rudy Van Gelder says about the subject
for a moment.
But is accuracy to the master tape the be all end all? Obviously not
in many cases. Is accuracy to the artists/engineers/producers intent
always the be all end all? in many cases I' say no. Have any of you
heard the Led Zeppelin reissues supervised by Jimi Page? Ear bleeding
trebble to say the least. should I like that better cause Jimi Page
does?
Bottom line.
There are too many variables that havegone into the making of LPs and
CDs to make any reasonableblanket claims about accuracy to the master.
We do not have access to masters and so it is difficult for us to make
our own comparisons. This along with the fact that when one uses a
master as a reference one has to use playback as a reference amkes
master tapes an unvarifiable, some what arbitrary and inherently
compramised reference. The bottom line is my goal is to get as much of
the intrinsic beauty of live music in my playback. The way I make this
call is by simply listening and comparing. My conclusions were based on
that. Thsoe conclusions being...
1. All else being equal IME LPs offer more of the intrinsic beauty than
CDs. I base this on comparisons of CDs and LPs made from the same
source by the same team of mastering enginees and producers. One
example I cited was the James Boyk recording of Pictures at an
Exhibition. i have also made the comparison with a number of oferings
fom Classics and APO. The diffeences were not huge but I did favor the
LPs.
2. The best sounding LPs sound better to me than the best sounding CDs
I have heard. Granted there is a limited sampling to sure and one can
claim I am comparing apples to oranges here but I am comparing the best
of the best on both sides. All in all it seems fair if one wants to
know which is providing the very best.
3. By and large when I compare the many CDs and LPs of a given title an
LP will usually sound the best. It used to be almost all of the time
but now it is about 70 to 80 percent of the time.
I think it is odd to adjust one's preferences to one's expectations. I
think many objectivists have done so by wrongly expecting CDs to be
accurate to the master, believing that the master is always a
reasonable and meaningful reference to begin with and thinking all
problems one hears from Cds should be accepted becasue the technology
is "superior" and that it is right even if it is not pretty. It makes
more sense to simply evaluate the playback on the merits of the sound.
Scott
MD
For those who believe CD is superior overall (I conceded the medium has
it's technical advantages over LP) have you performed a comparison
utilizing a good (and i know that's somewhat subjective) analog system -
table, arm, preamp and especially - cartridge? I used to think the
comparison, depending on the quality of the mastering of the CD - was
almost a toss up. As such I played the CD when the CD version I had was
mastered well (usually a reissue). Recently however I upgraded to a much
better cartridge with a much smaller line stylus. Now every LP I have
is superior (in most ways not all) to the CD. Two examples - the
original 6 Eye pressing of Kind of Blue to the Sony remastered CD and
the half speed mastered LP of Kansas' Leftoveture to the remastered CD.
The difference is very obvious and especially so with respect to
clarity and crispness of the high frequencies.
Serge Auckland
news:ducdu...@news3.newsguy.com...
So, if I can paraphrase a long post, and distill it down to a few words,
what it looks to me you're saying is that if it sounds good to you, then it
*is* good and that accuracy is a subjective thing. That's fine, but we went
through a very long thread to get to a basic subjectivist position.
I will take issue with a few specific points:
quote
> But is accuracy to the master tape the be all end all? Obviously not
> in many cases. Is accuracy to the artists/engineers/producers intent
> always the be all end all? in many cases I' say no. Have any of you
> heard the Led Zeppelin reissues supervised by Jimi Page? Ear bleeding
> trebble to say the least. should I like that better cause Jimi Page
> does?
Yes, if Jimi Page has produced it that way, that's the way he means for you
to hear it. Now, bear in mind that JP's hearing in all probability has
little treble left, both the normal ageing process, and the sonic abuse it
has had to stand over the years. So I'm not surprised it would have a lot of
top. More surprised that no-one told him it had excessive top, but it's hard
to tell a great man he's got it wrong......
However, if you accept that the LZ reissue is a work of art, then you have
to accept it as it is. No-one should complain, for example, because
Picasso's or Van Gogh's paintings weren't geometically accurate, even though
they are great art. If you don't like it, that's fine by me, but that's down
to you, and not a reflection on the quality of what is being provided.
Next point, A/D conversion
You say that " The claims that A/D converters are audibly transparent seems
to me to be an eroneous one."
Whilst I accept that some, especially early, A/D converters weren't perfect,
for the past 5 or so years, you can take an A/D and put it back-to-back with
a D-A whichever way round you like, and you can't hear the processes
working, they are that transparent. There's therefore absolutely no excuse
for any record company to have poor A/D conversion, or D/A conversion if
cutting vinyl from digital material. If you do this with Apogee, dCS or
Prism Audio converters, you will find them subjectively transparent.
Everything else seems to me to be confirmation of your basic premise that
your subjective reaction is your arbiter of quality. Nothing wrong with
that, but it's not objective.
S.
Thepork...@aol.com
> <Thepork...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:ducdu...@news3.newsguy.com...
> > Ok. I have spent enough time getting feedback from objectivists
> > regarding their views on the accuracy of CDs in the real word. So it's
> > high time to state my case.
> >
[quoted text deleted -- deb]
you have stripped away too much. Your summary left out the fact that I
do have specific goals with audio and a basic reference by which to
judge the merits of playback. Your summary makes my aproach to audio
look like it might be random.
> That's fine, but we went
> through a very long thread to get to a basic subjectivist position.
We went through long thread because I wanted to get a fair overview of
the POVs of objctivists on the many aspects of CDs sound v. LP sound. I
think a lot of you did nice job of putting the rhetoric aside and
explained yor beliefs quite nicely. I thought it was worth while and
informative.
>
> I will take issue with a few specific points:
>
> quote
> > But is accuracy to the master tape the be all end all? Obviously not
> > in many cases. Is accuracy to the artists/engineers/producers intent
> > always the be all end all? in many cases I' say no. Have any of you
> > heard the Led Zeppelin reissues supervised by Jimi Page? Ear bleeding
> > trebble to say the least. should I like that better cause Jimi Page
> > does?
>
> Yes, if Jimi Page has produced it that way, that's the way he means for you
> to hear it. Now, bear in mind that JP's hearing in all probability has
> little treble left, both the normal ageing process, and the sonic abuse it
> has had to stand over the years. So I'm not surprised it would have a lot of
> top. More surprised that no-one told him it had excessive top, but it's hard
> to tell a great man he's got it wrong......
> However, if you accept that the LZ reissue is a work of art, then you have
> to accept it as it is. No-one should complain, for example, because
> Picasso's or Van Gogh's paintings weren't geometically accurate, even though
> they are great art. If you don't like it, that's fine by me, but that's down
> to you, and not a reflection on the quality of what is being provided.
I disagree. we as consumers have the right to take issue with choices
made by artists. It seems you are suggesting that the Led Zeppelin
remasters should be taken as definitive even though other versions
sound much better to me. This takes me back to my conclusion. I don't
believe i have to adjust my opinions on quality because something is
"supposed" to be right even if it is ugly.By the way, art is not above
criticism.
>
> Next point, A/D conversion
>
> You say that " The claims that A/D converters are audibly transparent seems
> to me to be an eroneous one."
>
> Whilst I accept that some, especially early, A/D converters weren't perfect,
> for the past 5 or so years, you can take an A/D and put it back-to-back with
> a D-A whichever way round you like, and you can't hear the processes
> working, they are that transparent. There's therefore absolutely no excuse
> for any record company to have poor A/D conversion, or D/A conversion if
> cutting vinyl from digital material. If you do this with Apogee, dCS or
> Prism Audio converters, you will find them subjectively transparent.
That is all fine and well but you are talking about a subset of A/D
converters. While I was talking about all of them. Not all of them used
in the making of actual commercial CDs were transparent.
>
> Everything else seems to me to be confirmation of your basic premise that
> your subjective reaction is your arbiter of quality. Nothing wrong with
> that, but it's not objective.
There is just as much objectivity in my choices as those made by
others.
Scott
bob
<snip all>
Shorter Scott:
1. To me, the euphonic distortions of digital are beautiful.
2. Lots of recordings are badly made.
3. It's all digital's fault.
bob
Steven Sullivan
> >
> For those who believe CD is superior overall (I conceded the medium has
> it's technical advantages over LP) have you performed a comparison
> utilizing a good (and i know that's somewhat subjective) analog system -
> table, arm, preamp and especially - cartridge? I used to think the
> comparison, depending on the quality of the mastering of the CD - was
> almost a toss up. As such I played the CD when the CD version I had was
> mastered well (usually a reissue). Recently however I upgraded to a much
> better cartridge with a much smaller line stylus. Now every LP I have
> is superior (in most ways not all) to the CD. Two examples - the
> original 6 Eye pressing of Kind of Blue to the Sony remastered CD and
> the half speed mastered LP of Kansas' Leftoveture to the remastered CD.
> The difference is very obvious and especially so with respect to
> clarity and crispness of the high frequencies.
For heaven's sake, how many times does it have to be pointed out that
in such situations, you are comparing *different mastering* as much, or
more, than any difference in formats??? THis before we even get to such things
as euphonic distortion.
Moderators, why do you even let such well-trod, much-answered, badly-formed arguments through
at this late date?
[ Moderator's note: Because I still do not consider it appropriate to
judge the technical or logical merits of a post, that should be part
of the discussion itself. Besides, if I did so, the vast majority of
incoming posts would be rejected, yours included. :) -- deb ]
Steven Sullivan
> Ok. I have spent enough time getting feedback from objectivists
> regarding their views on the accuracy of CDs in the real word. So it's
> high time to state my case.
> 1. Live music in a goo acoustic space is my genereal reference. james
> Boyk says it better than I can.
> "What interest me in audio is perception, not technology. One
> perception often lost in all the getting and spending is that live
> sound is beautiful, while reproduced sound rarely is."
> http://www.its.caltech.edu/~boyk/ear.htm
> It is the *intrinsic* beauty of live music that I seek when I listen to
> recordings of acoustic music. I know what it is. It is easily
> recognizable when I hear live music and it is recognizably missing in
> most playback. When it is there it is amazing. It is a matter of degree
> not a black and white issue though.
Live music is not 'intrinsically' beautiful. It beggars belief to
imply that live sound can't be downright *ugly*, either due to acoustics,
playing, or the music itself.
This sort of vague 'standard' is no sort of standard at all.
It's just a subjective call, again.
bob
1. To me, the euphonic distortions of vinyl are beautiful.
Steven Sullivan
Which has already been happening due to 'quote mangling'.
But anyway, please do so, then. I give you permission to block posts of
mine you consider wrong on technical or logical grounds. I'm willing to
improve the S/N ratio here in any small way I can, especially if I'm
contributing as much N as you imply.
[ Moderator's note: I thought I'd said "some of yours included" above.
I did not mean to imply that I meant most of your posts. As to the
'quote mangling', if a post does not correctly attribute who said what
in a post, then it is liable to be rejected. I have approved some of
your posts which have that problem, but I decided that you had to obey
that guideline too. -- deb ]
Thepork...@aol.com
> MD <imi...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> > >
> > For those who believe CD is superior overall (I conceded the medium has
> > it's technical advantages over LP) have you performed a comparison
> > utilizing a good (and i know that's somewhat subjective) analog system -
> > table, arm, preamp and especially - cartridge? I used to think the
> > comparison, depending on the quality of the mastering of the CD - was
> > almost a toss up. As such I played the CD when the CD version I had was
> > mastered well (usually a reissue). Recently however I upgraded to a much
> > better cartridge with a much smaller line stylus. Now every LP I have
> > is superior (in most ways not all) to the CD. Two examples - the
> > original 6 Eye pressing of Kind of Blue to the Sony remastered CD and
> > the half speed mastered LP of Kansas' Leftoveture to the remastered CD.
> > The difference is very obvious and especially so with respect to
> > clarity and crispness of the high frequencies.
>
> For heaven's sake, how many times does it have to be pointed out that
> in such situations, you are comparing *different mastering* as much, or
> more, than any difference in formats???
So what? Does that negate the man's experience with better vinyl
playback equipment making such a difference that it tips the scales for
him in favor of LPs when he now compares his LPs with his CDs?
> THis before we even get to such things
> as euphonic distortion.
Well gosh, if a euphonic distortion is involved we better get rid of it
before we start liking it.
>
> Moderators, why do you even let such well-trod, much-answered, badly-formed arguments through
> at this late date?
Badly formed argument? Looked like a pretty clearly stated recounting
of an experience. Should people not talk about their experiences with
high end audio?
Scott
Thepork...@aol.com
Wow, you managed to get everything wrong. Extremely wrong. (And no, I
am not talking about you mistakenly saying digital when you obviously
meant analog) At least you were brief. Given how well I represented
the views of objectists and how badly you represented mine it ought to
give you cause to take another look with the blinders removed. I have
always believed in any debate or disagreement that the ability to
accurately present the opposing position says so much about one's
overall understanding of the issue. If you can't even come close to
getting my views right even when they are put right in front of you how
can you begin to form a meaningful opinion about them?
Scott
Stewart Pinkerton
I presume that 1. above should have been "To me, the euphonic
distortions of analog are beautiful."
I think Scott actually thinks that the euphonic distortions of
analogue somehow make the sound more 'realistic', to him at least.
However, 2 and 3 seem to be accurate - even though Scott *very*
carefully edits highlights from reality to argue this case. Scott does
appear to think that because *some* CDs were badly mastered and/or
used poor ADCs back in the '80s, the base technology is somehow
inferior to vinyl.
To someone who was buying the garbage that mostly passed for vinyl in
the '70s, that's absolutely hilarious. And yes, I also bought a lot of
superb Sheffields etc in the same period, but that doesn't make vinyl
more accurate than CD.
Thepork...@aol.com
> Thepork...@aol.com wrote:
> > Ok. I have spent enough time getting feedback from objectivists
> > regarding their views on the accuracy of CDs in the real word. So it's
> > high time to state my case.
>
> > 1. Live music in a goo acoustic space is my genereal reference. james
> > Boyk says it better than I can.
> > "What interest me in audio is perception, not technology. One
> > perception often lost in all the getting and spending is that live
> > sound is beautiful, while reproduced sound rarely is."
> > http://www.its.caltech.edu/~boyk/ear.htm
> > It is the *intrinsic* beauty of live music that I seek when I listen to
> > recordings of acoustic music. I know what it is. It is easily
> > recognizable when I hear live music and it is recognizably missing in
> > most playback. When it is there it is amazing. It is a matter of degree
> > not a black and white issue though.
>
> Live music is not 'intrinsically' beautiful. It beggars belief to
> imply that live sound can't be downright *ugly*, either due to acoustics,
> playing, or the music itself.
Well gosh Steve, I didn't know I had to explain the obvious to such a
smart group of people. Of course, live music played badly or played in
a poor acoustic space is ugly. It's inaudible if the listener is deaf
too. It's all for nothing if the listener is struck by lightning and
dies on the spot as well. Are there any other obvious things that need
explaining?
>
> This sort of vague 'standard' is no sort of standard at all.
wrong. You have to tke my position out of context to challenge it. Sad.
> It's just a subjective call, again.
It's always a subjective call when aesthetics are involved.
Scott
---MIKE---
to compensate for the slower speed at the inner grooves of an LP. This
compensation could be a boost in the higher frequencies or a boost in
the overall levels. Does anyone know about this?
---MIKE---
>>In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
>> (44° 15' N - Elevation 1580')
Jenn
wrote:
<snip>
Thanks, Scott, for eloquently summing up my thoughts on this topic. By
the way, I just received Boyk's LP of Debussy, Stravinsky, et al.
FANTASTIC! I had all of his LPs before I sold my collection in '95, so
I'm in the process of getting them again.
Thepork...@aol.com
> On 4 Mar 2006 19:20:14 GMT, "bob" <nab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Thepork...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> ><snip all>
> >
> >Shorter Scott:
> >1. To me, the euphonic distortions of digital are beautiful.
> >2. Lots of recordings are badly made.
> >3. It's all digital's fault.
>
> I presume that 1. above should have been "To me, the euphonic
> distortions of analog are beautiful."
>
> I think Scott actually thinks that the euphonic distortions of
> analogue somehow make the sound more 'realistic', to him at least.
You really need to collect that million dollars from Randi before you
go into what you think i think. Maybe you will do better just reading
what i write and understanding it.
>
> However, 2 and 3 seem to be accurate - even though Scott *very*
> carefully edits highlights from reality to argue this case. Scott does
> appear to think that because *some* CDs were badly mastered and/or
> used poor ADCs back in the '80s, the base technology is somehow
> inferior to vinyl.
Well you got most of that wrong. Still amazes me when i spell out
exactly what I believe in very simple language. I do think a lot not
just some commercial Cds have been badly mastered and/or used ADCs that
colored the sound not to mention othe problems that can be found in the
making of many commercial CDs. I do not believe this is unique to the
eighties nor do I think it is a reflection of the base technology. so
once again we have an objctivist either misunderstnading a simply
stated position or misrepresenting it as a basis for an argument. Weak,
very weak.
>
> To someone who was buying the garbage that mostly passed for vinyl in
> the '70s, that's absolutely hilarious. And yes, I also bought a lot of
> superb Sheffields etc in the same period, but that doesn't make vinyl
> more accurate than CD.
Although I find the claim rather bizzarre I have to agree with your
claim that your puchases of superb Sheffields does not make vinyl more
accurate than CD. I suggest you reread what I did say about the
accuracy of CDs and LPs in real world applications and try to
understand it. I do not make any mention of which is more accurate but
which has been more accurate in real world applications. I also do not
mention your buying habbits as a cause of anything
Scott
Dennis Moore
Part way down the page is the info you are asking about.
http://www.sickoftalk.com/whyvinyl.html
And here is other useful explanations of how records are made.
I do however disagree with his reasons for why vinyl is better or that it is
better.
In this article he mentions that reference discs are cut to allow producers
to see how the transfer to LP will sound compared to the master tape.
If vinyl were so much superior, why wouldn't it sound like the master tape?
Well because of all the EQ, varying frequency response and other factors not
to mention to modest S/N values of vinyl.
Dennis
"---MIKE---" <twinmo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:duffl...@news2.newsguy.com...
Thepork...@aol.com
If great piano is what you are after I highly recomend the following.
Nojima plays Ravel Reference Recordings RR-25
Nojima plays Liszt Reference Recordings RR-35
They are amoung the best sounding piano recordings I have ever heard.
While different than the Performance recordings they don't really give
up anything in sonics. I don' know how they landed this amazing artist.
Nojima's performances on these records is second to none. This is quite
rare for an audiophile label. These rcords are that rare combination of
world class sound and world class performance of great music.
Debussy & Ravel Piano works Ivan Moravec Athena ALSY-10002
Great sound, ruly great sound. Ivan Moravec is far and away my favorite
pianist. Maybe I am mising something or am out of touch but I think
this guy plays circles around the most acclaimed pianists. Also check
out his Beethoven sonatas available on (gasp) CD. I think I have heard
all the staples when it comes to the "definitive versions" of these
works. I think the Moravec performances leave them all deep in the
dust.
Scott
Stewart Pinkerton
> OK my views on CDs vs.LPs as they help me achieve my goals in audio.
> 1. All else being equal IME LPs offer more of the intrinsic beauty than
> CDs. I base this on comparisons of CDs and LPs made from the same
> source by the same team of mastering enginees and producers. One
> example I cited was the James Boyk recording of Pictures at an
> Exhibition. i have also made the comparison with a number of oferings
> fom Classics and APO. The diffeences were not huge but I did favor the
> LPs.
I have made similar comparisons, and I favour CD.
> 2. The best sounding LPs sound better to me than the best sounding CDs
> I have heard. Granted there is a limited sampling to sure and one can
> claim I am comparing apples to oranges here but I am comparing the best
> of the best on both sides. All in all it seems fair if one wants to
> know which is providing the very best.
The best sounding CDs sound better to me than the best sounding LPs I
have heard. Granted there is a limited sampling to sure and one can
claim I am comparing apples to oranges here but I am comparing the
best of the best on both sides. All in all it seems fair if one wants
to know which is providing the very best.
> 3. By and large when I compare the many CDs and LPs of a given title an
> LP will usually sound the best. It used to be almost all of the time
> but now it is about 70 to 80 percent of the time.
By and large when I compare the many CDs and LPs of a given title an
CD will usually sound the best. Not always, but certainly at least 3
out of 4 times.
OK, now we've established that our opinions differ. End of yet another
pointless exercise. It still remains the case that CD is *vastly* more
accurate than LP in technical terms, and that virtually all of the
'magic' of LP can be retained by recording it to CD-R, rather proving
the point.
chung
Add (4):
4. Any attempt to summarize my (Scott's) position by objectivists will
fail.
chung
And, of course, one of the reasons why *sometimes* live music is
beautiful is because it is visually beautiful. Reproduced music, played
on audio systems, can never capture that visual beauty.
I attended a concert performed by an excellent college orchestra last
Friday, and indeed, it was beautiful. The great hall, the great
atmosphere, and the young musicians who are also some of the brightest
students in the world, all add to the intrinsic beauty of live music.