LP standards v. hi-fi?
Brianonei
If I recall, the industry wrote specifications related to the
record-playback needle against the frequency response of an LP. (The
needle hold the LP's freq. response to a minunum level)
Can anyone relate the standards and how they affected the playback
response of an LP.
What is the actual physical frequency response of an LP at 33 RPMs and
45 RPM's?
--
Brian at US Enclosures-- the only company to produce spherical and ovid
loudspeaker enclosures for the DIY'ers, and to also provide driver installation
services for the less-than DIY'ers
Arny Kr|ger
Brianonei wrote in message <65n5hk$n...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>...
>If I recall, the industry wrote specifications related to the
>record-playback needle against the frequency response of an LP. (The
>needle hold the LP's freq. response to a minunum level)
>
>Can anyone relate the standards and how they affected the playback
>response of an LP.
>
>What is the actual physical frequency response of an LP at 33 RPMs and
>45 RPM's?
The frequency response of vinyl records is limited mostly by cartridge
trackability. The RIAA equalization curve requires immense amounts of
high frequency amplitude handling capabilities at high frequencies,
and also there are cutter geometry problems which are based on the
fact that you can only cut in the forward direction with a cutter
whose cutting edge has finite width.
So, the question is not really what frequencies you can cut on vinyl,
but what frequencies can be cut with useful amplitudes and play it
back reliably.
Now you hit a lowest-common-denominator problem because few record
companies want to limit their sales of vinyl to folks with SOTA
playback equipment. But even so, vinyl does not have anything like
the abiltity of digital to handle full amplitude out to 20kHz.
At low frequencies, the limitation is mostly based on how much program
material you want to get on one side of a disk, and what percentage of
all prospective customers will be able to play it with any degree of
sucess. Again, amplitude is an issue.
So, there are no easy answers to your question, but it is safe to say
that from DC (which vinyl can't handle at all) to 22 kHz, 44/16
digital trumps vinyl in both theoretical and practical terms if you
want useful output.
Bruce Kinch
In article <65n5hk$n...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>, bria...@aol.com
(Brianonei) wrote:
> If I recall, the industry wrote specifications related to the
> record-playback needle against the frequency response of an LP. (The
> needle hold the LP's freq. response to a minunum level)
>
> Can anyone relate the standards and how they affected the playback
> response of an LP.
>
> What is the actual physical frequency response of an LP at 33 RPMs and
> 45 RPM's?
The "groove" cut (pressed, really) in an LP (at 33 or 45 rpm) is
capable of a wider bandwidth than CD digital. The higher rotational
velocity of 45 rpm increases the upper limit, at the expense of
playing time. Modern line contact styli are typically rated to 30-50
kHz. The practical low frequency limit is determined by the stylus
compliance/tonearm mass resonant frequency, typically 9-12 Hz.
The industry standard RIAA record/playback equalization curve affects
the amplitude of the analog signal (the size of the "wiggles" in the
groove) not the frequency range. In practice, the frequency limits are
determined in the mastering stage, not in playback. Hence the appeal
of audiophile or import pressings without LF or HF limiting or
compression. The designed-in limits of the CD were the simply the
recording industry's continuation of the philosophy of compromising
sound quality for acceptable playback in lo-fi environments.
--
Bruce Kinch
Editor
Primyl Vinyl Exchange
The Audiophile Record Collectors Newsletter
JohnAFR
In article <65pln3$q...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>,
>So, there are no easy answers to your question, but it is safe
>to say that from DC (which vinyl can't handle at all) to 22 kHz,
>44/16 digital trumps vinyl in both theoretical and practical
>terms if you want useful output.
I disagree with the "practical" part of this statement. While it may
be true that vinyl cannot reproduce ultra low frequencies (DC to
20Hz), I believe it has no trouble with high frequencies up to the
limits of CD capabilities, at least not from a practical standpoint.
I come to this conclusion from listening as well as observing
oscilloscope waveforms of test records.
Tracking distortion is primarily composed of harmonic distortion, and
although harmonic distortion increases in the high frequencies, it
becomes less audible the higher you go. For example, the second
harmonic of 22KHz is 44KHz---not very audible and probably not very
reproducible by most speakers. This also holds true for the ultra low
frequencies---DC to 20Hz. Furthermore, even though RIAA equalization
expands groove amplitude in the high frequencies, if you've ever
observed a spectrum analysis of real music, you'll see there is little
musical energy above 5KHz. Most modern phono cartridges and
turntables easily and accurately reproduce the small amount of musical
energy contained in the higher frequencies.
However, the proof of the "practical" pudding is simply listening to
both formats. If you've ever done this using high-quality equipment,
you'll find there is very little audible difference between the two.
Whether one format sounds better to you is a matter of personal
preference, but the audible differences are small. I own a handful of
audiophile quality recordings on both formats and I can assure you
that records sound every bit as good, if not better than their CD
counterparts from a musical and "practical" perspective.
Best Regards,
John Elison
Arny Kr|ger
JohnAFR wrote in message <65shum$s...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>...
>In article <65pln3$q...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>,
>"Arny Kr|ger" <ar...@concentric.net> writes:
>
>>So, there are no easy answers to your question, but it is safe
>>to say that from DC (which vinyl can't handle at all) to 22 kHz,
>>44/16 digital trumps vinyl in both theoretical and practical
>>terms if you want useful output.
>
>I disagree with the "practical" part of this statement. While it may
>be true that vinyl cannot reproduce ultra low frequencies (DC to
>20Hz), I believe it has no trouble with high frequencies up to the
>limits of CD capabilities, at least not from a practical standpoint.
>I come to this conclusion from listening as well as observing
>oscilloscope waveforms of test records.
The fact is that audio CD's have no problems recording peak levels
right up to about half the sampling frequency. Certainly, 0 dB at 20
or 21 kHz is just not a problem.
When you are comparing levels on vinyl and CD, you have to remember
that digital 0 dB is the end of the road, but levels for vinyl are
chosen so that recording above 0 dB, at least at middle frequencies,
is very possible, and can be permissable, and is often done in
practice. Therefore, to match 0 dB on a CD, vinyl would have to do +5
dB or more. I've never seen anybody who even claimed they could cut
and track vinyl cut at 20kHz at these kinds of levels. In fact, I
think the loudest high frequency tone I've ever seen tracked off a
record was probably -10 at 15 kHz. Perhaps with more modern equipment
that has evolved since then, folks do a little better, but the limit
is geometrical, and therefore not likely to change dramatically with
advances in technology.
>Tracking distortion is primarily composed of harmonic distortion, and
>although harmonic distortion increases in the high frequencies, it
>becomes less audible the higher you go. For example, the second
>harmonic of 22KHz is 44KHz---not very audible and probably not very
>reproducible by most speakers.
Nonlinear distortion produces both harmonics and intermodulation
products. Just because harmonics are cut off by the bandpass of the
system, and therefore not readily measurable, or too high to be
audible, does not mean that measurable and audible intermodulation
products don't exist. In fact, many folks measure nonlinearity in the
10-20kHz range with twin tone tests, (19 and 20kHz are a good start)
and they produce reliable results, most notably a difference tone at
1 kHz.
There is no question that much musical program material contains a
wealth of different frequencies above 10 kHz. Any significant
nonlinearity at high frequencies will therefore produce
intermodulation products. Intermodulation products are based on the
differences between frequencies. Since it is likely that there will
be program material at frequecies that are only a few Hz, 100 Hz, or
KHz apart, it is likely that any high frequency nonlinearty at high
frequencies will product difference tones that are in the lower
frequency range where they are very audible. This is not only a
liklihood, but an observable reality.
Therefore, it is fallacious to argue that the vinyl recording
processes' often acute nonlinearity at high levels at high
frequencies is acceptable because it creates harmonics that are too
high to hear. The reason why, is that the same nonlinearity causes
intermodulation products that are at far lower frequencies which are
easy to hear.
>This also holds true for the ultra low
>frequencies---DC to 20Hz.
The major unreasolvable problem with the vinyl recording process at
low frequencies is that recording low freqencies unacceptably
decreases the length of program material that can be recorded on 1
side of a disc. I find vinyl's ca. 20-30 minute practical capacity to
be unacceptable given the existence of a ready alternative with other
benefits, but if you try to record serious bass on vinyl, you get
even less capacity.
>Furthermore, even though RIAA equalization
>expands groove amplitude in the high frequencies, if you've ever
>observed a spectrum analysis of real music, you'll see there is little
>musical energy above 5KHz.
"If I've ever observed the spectrum of real music"? Surely you jest!
I have microphones, FFT's, and musical instruments all over my
house. The spectrum of musical program material is whatever the
musicans want it to be! There are musical instruments (particularly
percussion instruments) whose power spectrum is rising in amplitude
througout the audible range and continues to rise beyond it!
For the history of recorded music, up to the general availability of
digital, engineers and producers counseled musicians to avoid
producing program material that was hard to squeeze onto vinyl. A
whole industry sprung up dedicated to making processors that squeezed
something onto vinyl that was perceived as being reminiscent of the
original musical sound. They did this with a combination of linear
and nonlinear distortion.
>Most modern phono cartridges and
>turntables easily and accurately reproduce the small amount of musical
>energy contained in the higher frequencies.
Hardly. Ever measure the in-situ playback response of your typical
cartridge? Variations on the order of several dB at 15-20kHz are the
rule. This is not accurate reproduction, at least by digital
standards.
>However, the proof of the "practical" pudding is simply listening to
>both formats. If you've ever done this using high-quality equipment,
>you'll find there is very little audible difference between the two.
In the past, on other NGs' that accept binary posts, I have posted
the spectrum analysis of selected musical passages, comparing CD
reproduction with vinyl reproduction. I could email them to you if
you requested.
The net of it is that it is easy to show broad frequency ranges with
2-4 dB variations, where the vinyl is inevitably weaker than the CD.
The reason for this is pretty obvious - the folks who cut the vinyl
knew its limitations. Now, this might be "...very little audible
difference between the two." to your stereo and your ears, but it
does not wash for me. ;-) This difference is particularly striking
since this program material was originally performed and produced for
the vinyl world - it predates CD. Modern program material often has a
power spectrum that is far less forgiving of the rather significant
technical limiations of vinyl.
>Whether one format sounds better to you is a matter of personal
>preference,...
No doubt.
...but the audible differences are small.
Perhaps with your stereo and your ears. But gross distortion, limited
dynamic range, and major frequency response aberration is not what
High Fidelity is about in my book or my living room, or my office,
etc.
> I own a handful of
>audiophile quality recordings on both formats and I can assure you
>that records sound every bit as good, if not better than their CD
>counterparts from a musical and "practical" perspective.
I have not owned vinyl or vinyl playback equipment for about 12
years, and the above is only some of the reasons why.
Vinyl might be fun to listen to from time to time and some may prefer
it, and some musically satisfying progam material may be available no
other way.
In MY book, vinyl is NOT High Fidelity. It is technically
substandard. At its best it is worse than good mid-fi. It is lower
fidelity.
Vinyl has been technically eclipsed for 14 years in general public
use, and is technically obsolete.
Why bother with vinyl if you don't have to?
Dave Edwards
[ For the sake of avoiding an unnecessary argument, consider Mr. Edward's
"clear fact" to be his "firm opinion." -- jwd ]
On 30 Nov 1997 15:22:46 -0500, joh...@aol.com (JohnAFR) wrote:
>In article <65pln3$q...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>,
>"Arny Kr|ger" <ar...@concentric.net> writes:
>>So, there are no easy answers to your question, but it is safe
>>to say that from DC (which vinyl can't handle at all) to 22 kHz,
>>44/16 digital trumps vinyl in both theoretical and practical
>>terms if you want useful output.
>I disagree with the "practical" part of this statement.
[ quoted text deleted -- jwd ]
>However, the proof of the "practical" pudding is simply listening to
>both formats. If you've ever done this using high-quality equipment,
>you'll find there is very little audible difference between the two.
>Whether one format sounds better to you is a matter of personal
>preference, but the audible differences are small. I own a handful of
>audiophile quality recordings on both formats and I can assure you
>that records sound every bit as good, if not better than their CD
>counterparts from a musical and "practical" perspective.
John.. I have often heard and read about the CD vs. LP debate. I
cannot see why it is a debate. The answer is quite clear to me. At
the NYC HiFi show a few winters back, I listened to a few systems
playing vinyl. The sound was unbeatable. So was the price. What I
have found is that vinyl can sound better than CD, but given a
realistic budget, say 500 bucks, CDs are better in all respects by a
substantial margin.
I don't think anyone can argue this clear fact.
...Dave
JohnAFR
[ I shouldn't have to say this, but knowing the passion of the
participants in this thread, I think I should anyway. You're free to
have a spirited discussion, but let's try to avoid the nastiness that
these LP vs. CD threads tend to bring out. Remember that for most of
us this is a hobby, and that the people you might want to yell at
across your keyboard are still worthy of your respect and civility.
In other words, keep the burner down around medium. -- jwd ]
In article <65uvdu$4...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>,
"Arny Kr|ger" <ar...@concentric.net> writes:
>I have not owned vinyl or vinyl playback equipment for about 12
>years, and the above is only some of the reasons why.
Well, that pretty much says it all, Arny. I would suggest you listen
to some before you condemn the practical virtues of the medium.
>Vinyl might be fun to listen to from time to time and some
>may prefer it, and some musically satisfying progam material
>may be available no other way.
The vast majority of people who prefer it are high-end audiophiles.
>In MY book, vinyl is NOT High Fidelity. It is technically
>substandard. At its best it is worse than good mid-fi. It is
>lower fidelity.
Perhaps you should read some other books on the subject.
Vinyl has been technically eclipsed for 14 years in general
>public use, and is technically obsolete.
I can't argue that point; I just wish the other technically
superior medium sounded as musically pleasing.
Best Regards,
John Elison
Bob Myers
JohnAFR (joh...@aol.com) wrote:
> The vast majority of people who prefer it are high-end audiophiles.
This may very well be, but it's important to note that the above
statement does NOT equate to "the majority of high-end audiophiles
prefer vinyl." Nor is it likely that this latter statement is
meaningful, either; we'd have to get into a really sticky discussion
about just what is meant by "high-end audiophile", and run the risk of
getting a circular definition going ("a high-end audiophile is one who
prefers vinyl..." :-)).
Does it really matter what any individual prefers? You like vinyl,
and find it more "musically pleasing"; I prefer the CD, and find
exactly the opposite (to me, the sound of vinyl is an annoying veil
between me and the "real" music). BOTH of us are correct, since
"musically pleasing" is an individual value judgement independent of
the objective accuracy of the medium in question.
It would not even matter is 99% of "the people" agreed with one of us
and not the other; that still is no reason to change one's personal
tastes, and is certainly no measure of "goodness".
--
Bob Myers | "Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but
my...@fc.hp.com | most of the time he will pick himself up and continue."
O- | - Winston Churchill
JohnAFR
In article <65v5ab$2...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>,
h...@cybercomm.net (Dave Edwards) writes:
>John.. I have often heard and read about the CD vs. LP
>debate. I cannot see why it is a debate. The answer is
>quite clear to me. At the NYC HiFi show a few winters
>back, I listened to a few systems playing vinyl. The sound
>was unbeatable. So was the price. What I have found is
>that vinyl can sound better than CD, but given a realistic
>budget, say 500 bucks, CDs are better in all respects by
>a substantial margin.
I agree completely. A good turntable/tonearm/cartridge combination
is definitely a design exercise in vibration analysis and elimination.
Mechanical engineering and mechanical construction don't come
cheaply. Furthermore, the phono preamp will either make or break an
otherwise well constructed record player. There's no doubt that at the
$500 level CDs will outperform vinyl. But, at the $5,000 level it
becomes an entirely different matter.
I have a rather small record collection (about 500), but included in
these are 200 audiophile pressings (direct-to-discs, half-speed
masters, etc.), and the majority of my audiophile records sound as
good or better than my finest audiophile CDs. I don't have a mega-
buck system, either. My record player is a Thorens/'SME III/AT-OC9
connected to a Mark Levinson No. 28. The preamp is relatively
expensive, but its phono section only added $500 to its retail price.
My CD player is an Audio Alchemy DDS Pro transport connected to
a DDE v3.0 DAC and it definitely sounds very good to me---much
better than any CD player I've owned in the past. I would say that
price-wise, my record player (including phono section) and my CD
player are about equal---approximately $2,000 each, retail. I think
that once you get up into this price range vinyl can sound awfully
good.
Best Regards,
John Elison
Arny Kr|ger
JohnAFR wrote in message <65v5r5$2...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>...
>>I have not owned vinyl or vinyl playback equipment for about 12
>>years, and the above is only some of the reasons why.
>Well, that pretty much says it all, Arny. I would suggest you listen
>to some before you condemn the practical virtues of the medium.
Where did I say I don't listen to Vinyl from time to time? I do, but
despite yet more claims of "dramatic improvements", I hear pretty
much the same-old, same-old. It is those immutable laws of physics at
work, I think. ;-)
>>Vinyl might be fun to listen to from time to time and some
>>may prefer it, and some musically satisfying progam material
>>may be available no other way.
>The vast majority of people who prefer it are high-end audiophiles.
All things considered, 'nuff said. ;-)
But you might be wrong. Most of the people I know who listen to vinyl
don't have high end systems, and in fact are so low-end that they
have not changed their stereo in like 20 years - since before CD came
out. I'm not talking about antique components that have been
cherished and nurtured, I'm talking about stuff that was at best
mid-fi on the best day of its life, and has simply worked and been
used routinely for all that time.
>>Vinyl has been technically eclipsed for 14 years in general
>>public use, and is technically obsolete.
>I can't argue that point; I just wish the other technically
>superior medium sounded as musically pleasing.
An old axiom: "There is no accounting for taste", and that is why I
made my comments in such a way that there was no adverse discussion
of folks whose taste runs that way. If you love vinyl, then I think
that is great. If you prefer it, then I think that is great. If you
try to argue that it is technically superior, then there are a few
facts that need to be reviewed... ;-)
I think this one is pretty well beat to death. Can we move on?
SDuraybito
In article <65uvdu$4...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>, "Arny Kr|ger"
<ar...@concentric.net> writes:
>publicuse, and is technically obsolete.
>Why bother with vinyl if you don't have to?
My experience has been different.
To date, digital reproduction lacks a sense of "liveness" and musical
involvement that I get both from analog LPs and reel tape.
And don't get me wrong - it's not for lack of trying. I can't tell
you how many times I've listened to a new CD player in the last
15-plus years desperately hoping for good digital sound.
Honest, guys, I'd really like to hear CDs sound as good as LPs. But
they convey a sense of harshness and a sense of timing delay that,
while it's quite subtle, makes me reach for LPs when it's time for
serious listening.
Wish it weren't so...
Siegfried
-- My bark is worse than my bite --
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <65v5ab$2...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>,
Dave Edwards <h...@cybercomm.net> wrote:
>[ For the sake of avoiding an unnecessary argument, consider Mr. Edward's
> "clear fact" to be his "firm opinion." -- jwd ]
Then he should say "opinion".
>On 30 Nov 1997 15:22:46 -0500, joh...@aol.com (JohnAFR) wrote:
>I listened to a few systems
>playing vinyl. The sound was unbeatable. So was the price. What I
>have found is that vinyl can sound better than CD, but given a
>realistic budget, say 500 bucks, CDs are better in all respects by a
>substantial margin.
This is your preference.
You're not the only one to visit such shows, and some of us come off
not liking the vinyl, or liking the vinyl despite being able to hear
obvious distortions in the vinyl. In general, I find that I do not
like vinyl, except for certain performances on certain recordings.
Yes, I dislike low-level noise a lot.
It's a preference, one can't argue with a preference, but:
>I don't think anyone can argue this clear fact.
It's not a fact, except in that it's a fact YOU prefer vinyl.
Nobody can (or should) argue with you on that point, BUT you can't
argue that your preference for vinyl is a FACT in the sense that
vinyl is "better". You prefer it, and I have no problem with that,
but it's a preference. Plain and simple.
Now, it's not, as jwd sais above, an "opinion". You undoubtedly
known your preference, and it's vinyl if you pay enough money for the
right system. I don't doubt that, but I can't accept that this
preference holds for everyone, and I don't want to see you speak for
me on this issue.
As to who usually does not prefer vinyl, I'm one such person, and
even when I do prefer vinyl, it's in the face of what I would have to
call "pretty obvious distortions, some of them quite euphonic".
Yes, this means that sometimes I prefer vinyl, it's just that,
perhaps due to my having listened to various distortions for 20+
years, more like 25+ now (shudder) I've come to recognize some of
what I hear as distortion.
There is, for at least the 99th time, nothing wrong with preferring
distortion of a sort that makes something sound better TO YOU.
But that is still a PREFERENCE, and the only "fact" involved is that
you are factually stating YOUR preference.
In any objective sense, it's very hard to say that LP is "better",
except perhaps in the bandwidth sense. Of course, the amount of
information recorded on the LP at high bandwidth is very VERY
minimal at best, most of what you see from an LP playback is due to
stylus vs. vinyl behavior, i.e. it's distortion.
I've been quoted a couple of times as saying that one might make a
vinyl simulator for LP, but one would need a higher sampling rate.
This does not mean that one needs a higher INPUT sampling rate, only
that one must use a higher PROCESSING sampling rate in order to keep
the nonlinearities one introduces from doing bad things,
signalprocessingwise, and one will have double the bandwidth AT THE
OUTPUT OF THE BOX (and therefore at least double the sampling rate).
--
Copyright alice!jj 1997, all rights reserved, except transmission by USENET
and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any use by a
provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this article
and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
JohnAFR
Bob Myers (my...@hpfcla.fc.hp.com) wrote:
>JohnAFR (joh...@aol.com) wrote:
>> The vast majority of people who prefer it are high-end audiophiles.
> This may very well be, but it's important to note that the above
> statement does NOT equate to "the majority of high-end audiophiles
> prefer vinyl."
You are absolutely correct. I did not mean to infer that the majority
of audiophiles prefer the sound of vinyl to the sound of CD. I only
meant to suggest that most of the people that prefer vinyl today are
people who own relatively high-quality record players.
> Does it really matter what any individual prefers?
Well, I think it does. I think that's why you wrote your post, and I
think that's why I'm writing mine, now. I gain a great deal of
pleasure in talking about my hobby, my experiences, and my
preferences. I also enjoy reading about other's experiences and
preferences as well as engaging in the discussions that follow.
> You like vinyl, and find it more "musically pleasing"; I prefer the
> CD, and find exactly the opposite (to me, the sound of vinyl is an
> annoying veil between me and the "real" music). BOTH of us are
> correct, since"musically pleasing" is an individual value judgement
> independent of the objective accuracy of the medium in question.
You may be correct, but my experience is quite different.
Because of my experience, I feel that you may never have heard
a good record played on a good turntable. I remember a time in
my life when I spent a lot of money just trying to find one CD
playable on one CD player that sounded as good as any of my
audiophile records. By mid 1985 I owned more than 300 CDs
and I had purchased five different CD players trying to achieve
this goal. Being an engineer, I knew that digital couldn't be
perfect, but I definitely believed it must be significantly better
than analog. However, for some unknown reason, I could not
find the right combination of CD and player to prove it to my
ears. Today I own an Alchemy DDS Pro/DDE v3.0 and it is the
best sounding CD player I've ever heard, but it still does not
impress me as sounding better than my aging Thorens TD-126/
SME III/AT-OC9/ML28.
>It would not even matter if 99% of "the people" agreed with one of
>us and not the other; that still is no reason to change one's
>personal tastes, and is certainly no measure of "goodness".
What you say may be very true, but it is still fun to discuss the
subject. After all, what else are we supposed to do in these
newsgroups?
Best Regards,
John Elison
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <65v5r5$2...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>,
JohnAFR <joh...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <65uvdu$4...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>,
>>I have not owned vinyl or vinyl playback equipment for about 12
>>years, and the above is only some of the reasons why.
Well, I still have oh, I dunno, a whole lot of vinyl sitting in my
listening room along with a decent table and a decent cartridge.
>Well, that pretty much says it all, Arny. I would suggest you listen
>to some before you condemn the practical virtues of the medium.
Well, I have both readily accessable. I find that almost all the time
I listen to CD, unless I don't have whatever it is on CD, in which
case I get out the vinyl. The very rare recording sounds better on
vinyl, it's nearly always a recording that has some odd imaging
characteristics and that benefits from some channel incoherence,
phase modulation, etc, or some low-level rumble (I mean LOW level,
too), i.e. from a vinyl distortion.
>The vast majority of people who prefer it are high-end audiophiles.
As long as they express this as a preference, there's no reason
in the world to disagree with them.
I disagree, in general, but so it goes.
>Perhaps you should read some other books on the subject.
Um, why should one go to a book? How about just listen to what one
hears?
Curtis Leeds
Leave it to jj, the curmudgeon and tiring philalethist, to lure me into this
thread when he wrote:
> In any objective sense, it's very hard to say that LP is "better",
> except perhaps in the bandwidth sense.
That's probably true.
> Of course, the amount of
> information recorded on the LP at high bandwidth is very VERY
> minimal at best, most of what you see from an LP playback is due to
> stylus vs. vinyl behavior, i.e. it's distortion.
No, I don't think that "most" of what is heard from LP playback
is distortion. "Most" of what is heard is signal. Nor do I think that
it is safe to conclude that a preference for the LP is the
consequence of a preference for typical vinyl distortions. Indeed,
many LP listeners chase after ever lower noise and distortion (from
their cartridges, from their preamps, from their turntables and
pickup arms) in a quest for optimal sound. As these distortions are
ameliorated, many of us find that our listening satisfaction
increases. This would not be the case were we all entranced with the
"euphonic" distortion of the LP. We've had this discussion before,
of course, and it is not a moot point. If we can determine exactly
what properties of LP playback are responsible for an LP preference,
then we are one step closer to a more satisfying CD or other digital
medium. There has not been any evidence presented here that would
prove that distortion is the root cause of this preference. That some
distortions common to LP playback are "euphonic" does not constitute
proof of the cause of the preference.
--
***************************************************
cle...@idt.net "I stood unwound beneath the skies
And clouds unbound by laws.
The cryin' rain like a trumpet sang
And asked for no applause." (Bob Dylan)
***************************************************
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <661gqg$r...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>,
Curtis Leeds <cle...@idt.net> wrote:
> No, I don't think that "most" of what is heard from LP playback
>is distortion.
Well, given the bandwidth of the devices used to record the signal
for cutting onto the LP, I'll repeat my statement, it's
save to say taht most of what is heard from LP playback
for nearly all (well done) LP's is distortion.
This doesn't have to mean that it's bad, of course.
But, there is not very much information to be had up there, for
other than some percussion, up close, and the various devices used
to record for mastering rarely get much above 20K. Some do get up
to 30kHz-ish, at some reduced level.
The thing to remember is that most of the output from a good
LP cartridge at ultrasonic frequencies WAS NOT put on the LP
in the first place. I've seen several reports on this in the AES,
where some very high-frequency signals were detected, and shown to
be due, in the best of cases, to micro-mistracking.
John Busenitz
Curtis Leeds wrote:
> Leave it to jj, the curmudgeon and tiring philalethist, to lure me
> into this thread when he wrote:
> > Of course, the amount of information recorded on the LP at high
> > bandwidth is very VERY minimal at best, most of what you see from
> > an LP playback is due to stylus vs. vinyl behavior, i.e. it's
> > distortion.
> No, I don't think that "most" of what is heard from LP playback
> is distortion. "Most" of what is heard is signal.
Perhaps jj meant at high frequencies, in which case most of the
"information" IS indeed noise and distortion.
> Nor do I think that it is safe to conclude that a preference for the
> LP is the consequence of a preference for typical vinyl
> distortions. Indeed, many LP listeners chase after ever lower noise
> and distortion (from their cartridges, from their preamps, from
> their turntables and pickup arms) in a quest for optimal sound. As
> these distortions are ameliorated, many of us find that our
> listening satisfaction increases. This would not be the case were we
> all entranced with the "euphonic" distortion of the LP.
This is a good point. However, I think that it generalizes distortion
to a fault. Certain kinds of distortion are inherent in ALL vinyl
playback, but different distortion (non-euphonic, probably) are the
result of poor equipment. So the argument above does not hold, I
think.
Additionally, there is no consensus on which turntable/cartridge/arm
sounds "best". There are those who swear by Linn gear, which has
pretty poor performance compared to the better turntable systems.
> We've had this discussion before, of course, and it is not a moot
> point. If we can determine exactly what properties of LP playback
> are responsible for an LP preference,
I think that "we" have; euphonic distortion. jj and others have
pointed this out repeatedly and substantiated such statements. I
explained why your reasoning above doesn't hold.
> then we are one step closer to a more satisfying CD or other digital
Who decides how "satisfying" the sound is, and based on what? That's
your problem. "Satisfying" is subjective, and so it has very many
definitions. Yet there can only be one (or a few) audio standards.
> medium. There has not been any evidence presented here that would
> prove that distortion is the root cause of this preference.
I beg to differ. jj and others have listed numerous references and
explained some of the concepts in this very forum. The fact that you
or others haven't bothered to read them does not mean that they don't
exist.
> That some distortions common to LP playback are "euphonic" does not
> constitute proof of the cause of the preference.
Why not?
_____________________________________________________________
John Busenitz buse...@ecn.purdue.edu
P.U. ECE http://shay.ecn.purdue.edu/~busenitz
Disclaimer: My statements do not represent Purdue University.
JohnAFR
[ Gentlemen, crank the tone back a few notches, or this thread will see a
quick death. We've soon too many tempers flaring of late. The moderators
and, I assume, most of the readers, have had their fill. -- jwd ]
In article <661rdk$a...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>,
j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist) writes:
> Well, given the bandwidth of the devices used to record the signal
> for cutting onto the LP, I'll repeat my statement, it's save to say
> taht most of what is heard from LP playback for nearly all (well
> done) LP's is distortion.
The above statement is totally absurd. What is heard from any
properly operating audio system, regardless of quality or type of
source, is primarily signal, not distortion. This is fact, not
opinion.
Best Regards,
John Elison
Arny Kr|ger
Curtis Leeds wrote in message <661gqg$r...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>...
>>
> No, I don't think that "most" of what is heard from LP playback
>is distortion. "Most" of what is heard is signal.
OK, that only requires distortion be at the 49% level or less. Most of the
time, vinyl qualifies! ;-)
> Nor do I think that
>it is safe to conclude that a preference for the LP is the
>consequence of a preference for typical vinyl distortions.
Since vinyl's limitations are well known to be in the audible range by even
conservative standards, the conclusion that preference for vinyl over
less-distorted media is related to a preference for audible distortion is
easy to support; but as always, hard to prove conclusively.
>Indeed,
>many LP listeners chase after ever lower noise and distortion (from
>their cartridges, from their preamps, from their turntables and
>pickup arms) in a quest for optimal sound.
It is true that you have to chase down all those problems with vinyl. In
technical terms, their fix are a done deal with CD!
>As these distortions are ameliorated, many of us find that our listening
satisfaction
>increases.
Most of the distortion in vinyl that could actually be removed was gone
before CD's came on the scene. Much of the distortion in vinyl is inherent
and still in place. The problems are often based on things like geometry,
which is tough to change! If you have a disc rotating against a stylus at 33
rpm, you have certain geometry. The stylus can only be so small before wear
gets to be a big problem, and so on.
>This would not be the case were we all entranced with the
>"euphonic" distortion of the LP.
However, few, if any of these perceptions of improved performance are
reliably repeatable in controlled listening tests.
> We've had this discussion before,
>of course, and it is not a moot point. If we can determine exactly
>what properties of LP playback are responsible for an LP preference,
>then we are one step closer to a more satisfying CD or other digital
>medium.
Vinyl has poorer S/N than CD. There is high frequency noise which sometimes
comes in bursts and it creates a sort of "velvet fog" effect. It also
creates a sense of spaciousness. There is low frequency noise which varies a
lot from disk to disk and from turntable to turntable. This gives a
perception of "weight".
Vinyl has a lot more linear distortion than CD. Cartridges and preamp
combinations are never, ever as flat as CD players over just about all of
the audible range. The possibiltiiy of euphonic frequency response
colorations therefore abound. There are locally generated variations in
phase and ampltude response that repeat about 33 times per minute or
multiples there of, which gives a more spacious image, even to material
recorded in mono. (!).
Vinyl has a ton more nonlinear than CD. There is high frequency distortion
which adds even more highs. There is midrange distortion which creates the
perception of greater loudness at moderate listening levels. There is often
quite a bit of compression in the recorded material to avoid gross
expressions of both of these.
>There has not been any evidence presented here that would
>prove that distortion is the root cause of this preference.
The noise, linear, and nonlinear distortion in vinyl all exists at levels
well known to be audible, even by conservative standards. The noise, linear
and nonlinear distortion in CD is at levels where audibility is either known
to not exist, or its existence is controversial.
>That some
>distortions common to LP playback are "euphonic" does not constitute
>proof of the cause of the preference.
The causes of preference are hard to "prove". However, the existence of
audible stimulus for media preference based on preference for increased
distortion is easy to show for vinyl.
If you like increased distortion, I have no complaint. After all, preferred
forms of distortion is what many applications of electronics to musical
instruments is all about.
I do have problems with preference for audible distortion during
reproduction being called "High Fidelity".
Arny Kr|ger
JohnAFR wrote in message <66280n$6...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>...
>In article <661rdk$a...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>,
>j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist) writes:
>> Well, given the bandwidth of the devices used to record the signal
>> for cutting onto the LP, I'll repeat my statement, it's save to say
>> taht most of what is heard from LP playback for nearly all (well
>> done) LP's is distortion.
>The above statement is totally absurd.
Nope, it is well supported by the literature and practical experience.
>What is heard from any properly operating audio system, regardless of
>quality or type of source, is primarily signal, not distortion. This
>is fact, not opinion.
Yes, but this could be a word play. For a system to reproduce
primarily signal, distortion need only be at or below the 49%
level. For distortion to not be reliably perceived with musical
program material, it has to be at or below the 10% level, and far less
for certain kinds of distortion.
Obviously a signal that has 5-10% distortion is not "High Fidelity",
but it fits a possible meaning of your words.
Curtis Leeds
earlier, I wrote:
> > Nor do I think that it is safe to conclude that a preference for the
> > LP is the consequence of a preference for typical vinyl
> > distortions. Indeed, many LP listeners chase after ever lower noise
> > and distortion (from their cartridges, from their preamps, from
> > their turntables and pickup arms) in a quest for optimal sound. As
> > these distortions are ameliorated, many of us find that our
> > listening satisfaction increases. This would not be the case were we
> > all entranced with the "euphonic" distortion of the LP.
...and John Busenitz answers:
> This is a good point. However, I think that it generalizes distortion
> to a fault. Certain kinds of distortion are inherent in ALL vinyl
> playback...
Well, there's distortion in all audio systems, of course.
> ...but different distortion (non-euphonic, probably) are the
> result of poor equipment. So the argument above does not hold, I
> think.
How is is that "poor equipment" has only non-euphonic distortion, but
good equipment has "euphonic" distortion? On what basis have you made
this distinction between different grades of equipment? What LP
playback equipment have you measured to support this conclusion?
> Additionally, there is no consensus on which turntable/cartridge/arm
> sounds "best". There are those who swear by Linn gear, which has
> pretty poor performance compared to the better turntable systems.
There's also no consensus among audiophiles on what constitutes the
best CD player, or the best mini-monitor, or the best recording. This
does not negate the value of these products.
I had also written:
> > We've had this discussion before, of course, and it is not a moot
> > point. If we can determine exactly what properties of LP playback
> > are responsible for an LP preference...
and Mr. Busenitz answers:
> I think that "we" have; euphonic distortion. jj and others have
> pointed this out repeatedly and substantiated such statements. I
> explained why your reasoning above doesn't hold.
Your "explanation" above lacks substantiation. Nor have you or jj or
anyone proven anything about this preference for LP; that is why the
debate still rages.
> I beg to differ. jj and others have listed numerous references and
> explained some of the concepts in this very forum. The fact that you
> or others haven't bothered to read them does not mean that they don't
> exist.
On what basis do you conclude that I "haven't bothered to read them"?
I also wrote:
> > That some distortions common to LP playback are "euphonic" does not
> > constitute proof of the cause of the preference.
...and Mr. Busenitz snaps back:
> Why not?
You are applying faulty logic, to wit: LP's have inherent distortion,
some people prefer LPs, therefore that preference for LPs is caused by
a preference for distortion. You have not shown a relationship between
your claimed cause (distortion) and your observed effect (LP
preference). It amuses me that some in this group with the highest
claims of having science on their side will repeatedly assert this
illogic as fact.
Richard D Pierce
In article <66280n$6...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>,
JohnAFR <joh...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <661rdk$a...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>,
>j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist) writes:
>> Well, given the bandwidth of the devices used to record the signal
>> for cutting onto the LP, I'll repeat my statement, it's save to say
>> taht most of what is heard from LP playback for nearly all (well
>> done) LP's is distortion.
>The above statement is totally absurd. What is heard from any
>properly operating audio system, regardless of quality or type of
>source, is primarily signal, not distortion. This is fact, not
>opinion.
It would do Mr. Elison, Mr. Leeds and other naysayers well to go back
and both READ what JJ said IN CONTEXT, as well as QUOTE what JJ said,
IN CONTEXT.
JJ SPECIFICALLY was talkgin about the information present in the
extreme upper frequency range of LP's. He was NOT, by my
understanding, talking about broadband issues. I understood his
comments to mean that while the raw bandwidth capabilities might well
be better than 20 kHz, that extra bandwidth, in practicallity, is made
up MOSTLY of distortion products, NOT of actual signal.
THAT is demonstrable fact, simply by observing the output of even the
best cartridges attempting to track what is well-characterized signal
that someone attempted to put on the vinyl.
The goal is NOT to simply have SOMETHING above 20 kHz, the goal, as I
am sure you will agree, is to have something that is a replica of
original stuff above 20 kHz, if such stuff exists and is significant
to begin with. Simply pointing to artifacts that are produced is no
proof of any "superior" bandwidth capabilities: it is proof more of
the INABILITY to produce very high frequency information.
The measurement of LP systems has, in many ways, lagged far behind
that of other portions of the reproduction chain. Few, if any, have
applied many of the modern techniques that have lent themselves so
well to the measurement of, for example, loudspeakers. Most of the LP
response measurements are simple swept sine waves measured with
broad-band indiscriminant detectors (the standard B&K test record
recorded by a graphic level recorder is de rigor in most setups). Such
a setup is ONLY capable of measuring ALL the output, not not
differentiating between the original output and all artifacts. These
artifacts could EASILY overwhelm the original and the measurement
system would never know the difference. (And this is one of the
reasons why such measurement techniques have largely been abandoned in
every other realm of audio measurement.)
But, Mr. Elison, READ what he said in context and respond to THAT, not
to the strawman argued here.
--
+---- Dick Pierce ---------------------------------------------+
| Professional Audio Product Development |
| Transducer Design and Measurement |
+---- (781) 826-4953 (Voice and FAX) DPi...@world.std.com -----+
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <66280n$6...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>,
JohnAFR <joh...@aol.com> wrote:
>The above statement is totally absurd. What is heard from any
>properly operating audio system, regardless of quality or type of
>source, is primarily signal, not distortion. This is fact, not
>opinion.
John, the context of the paragraph you object to was referring to
signals ABOVE 20kHz (give or take).
For signals above 20kHz, as the original context, I stand on my
statement. Period. Furthermore, many sets of measurements
show this clearly.
For signals OUT of context, I didn't take a position, you gave me
one. Signals in the main audio bandwidth of 20 - 20Khz were not under
discussion in this context, although I will submit that most of us
"hear" 20Hz via its harmonics, too. :-)
Arny Kr|ger
Curtis Leeds wrote in message <663s6v$7...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>...
>
>You are applying faulty logic, to wit: LP's have inherent distortion,
>some people prefer LPs, therefore that preference for LPs is caused by
>a preference for distortion. You have not shown a relationship between
>your claimed cause (distortion) and your observed effect (LP
>preference). It amuses me that some in this group with the highest
>claims of having science on their side will repeatedly assert this
>illogic as fact.
>
Try this logic:
(1) The most readily observable audible difference between
reproduction of music via CD and vinyl seems to come from the fact
that vinyl has a lot more readily observed noise and distortion than
CD.
(2) Some folks prefer reproduction via vinyl over CD.
(3) Therefore, it would seem that some people prefer the audible
distortion provided by vinyl.
Seem weird??? I think that all of the folks arguing this, are willing
to grant that tubed musical intstrument amps are preferred by many
because of the kinds of distortion they produce. Why should vinyl be
that much different?
Curtis Leeds
Arny Kruger wrote:
> Since vinyl's limitations are well known to be in the audible range by even
> conservative standards, the conclusion that preference for vinyl over
> less-distorted media is related to a preference for audible distortion is
> easy to support; but as always, hard to prove conclusively.
That depends on what you mean by "vinyl's limitations". Yes, the limitations
of LP playback, when played on cheap turntables through low-grade
preamplifiers, result in well known audible distortion. But these are not
inherent limitations. If you have references and documentation proving the gross
audibility of LP distortion when playing music on state-of-the-art equipment,
however, you'll have to share it with the group if you expect to obtain
consensus with your assertion
> It is true that you have to chase down all those problems with vinyl. In
> technical terms, their fix are a done deal with CD!
It's true that the CD isn't plagued with potential feedback, mistracking,
geometry errors, and the like. That does not mean that these potential LP
problems cannot be effectively managed, however.
> The problems are often based on things like geometry,
> which is tough to change! If you have a disc rotating against a stylus at 33
> rpm, you have certain geometry. The stylus can only be so small before wear
> gets to be a big problem, and so on.
This is one of the most tired canards that ever appears under this tired and
tedious LP vs. CD thread. Please explain how wear can be a "big problem" when
there are thousands and thousands and thousands of LPs in the hands of
audiophiles, music lovers, and collectors, and that many of these LPs are 30
years old and older, have been played hundreds and hundreds of times, and yet
can still provide a musical illusion of real music. With proper care, LP wear
is a non-factor. How much documentation of this do you require?
> Vinyl has poorer S/N than CD...
(long laundry list of potential LP playback problems mercifully snipped)That LP
playback is fraught with potential potholes is not the issue. It's not a perfect
medium and no one here has ever claimed that it was.
> I do have problems with preference for audible distortion during reproduction
> being called "High Fidelity".
Again, a cause/effect relationship has not been shown between preference for
LP playback and its common distortions. That is, the preference for LP playback
may be caused by other factors. Since Mr. Kruger wears the white-lab coat of
science, perhaps he should investigate the matter, rather than assert this
illogic ad infinitum. When a music system of any sort can convey the power
and emotion of music, when it can move the listener to joy or tears or rage, it
deserves the label "high fidelity". This is what the high-end is all about. It
is not our problem that this creates a problem for Mr. Kruger.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <6648rj$k...@jamesv.Warren.MENTORG.COM>,
Curtis Leeds <cle...@idt.net> wrote:
>That depends on what you mean by "vinyl's limitations". Yes, the limitations
>of LP playback, when played on cheap turntables through low-grade
>preamplifiers, result in well known audible distortion. But these are not
>inherent limitations. If you have references and documentation proving the gross
>audibility of LP distortion when playing music on state-of-the-art equipment,
>however, you'll have to share it with the group if you expect to obtain
>consensus with your assertion
Curtis, go study the AES collection of papers on LP recording. It's a
single (or maybe two-volume) report containing a lot of papers, and it's
available to the general public.
>That does not mean that these potential LP
>problems cannot be effectively managed, however.
Some are inherent. They come with the medium. Seriously.
Richard D Pierce
>
>> Since vinyl's limitations are well known to be in the audible range by even
>> conservative standards, the conclusion that preference for vinyl over
>> less-distorted media is related to a preference for audible distortion is
>> easy to support; but as always, hard to prove conclusively.
>
>of LP playback, when played on cheap turntables through low-grade
>preamplifiers, result in well known audible distortion. But these are not
>inherent limitations.
The stylus tip mass and the effective stiffness of the vinyl itself
are responsible for the tip resonance, which is the ultimate cutoff
at the high end, and as that limit is approached, it determines the
maximum trackability of the system. THIS IS AN INHERENT LP SYSTEM
LIMITATION THAT WILL NOT RESPOND IN ANY WAY TO MONEY. That is, of
course, you are willing to stick your neck out and propose that
enough money will buy stylii with 0 mass or vinyl with infinite
stiffness.
>If you have references and documentation proving the gross
>audibility of LP distortion when playing music on state-of-the-art equipment,
>however, you'll have to share it with the group if you expect to obtain
>consensus with your assertion
As much as you might wish, ophysical reality cares not one wit about
the consensus of ANY group, and to suggest that one can vote on the
way materials and system behave is either naive or knowingly
ludicrous.
You keep insisting that these distortions are, on a sufficiently
expensive system (you suggest this because the opposite of cheap is
expensive), inaudible. I have heard and I have and do now own very
good LP playback systems, and they sound VERY good, but I STILL hear
the surface noise, I STILL hear the problems in the bass and more. I
think that such data suggests, sir, that if YOU can't hear these
flaws, maybe YOUR system is not good enough, eh?
>> It is true that you have to chase down all those problems with vinyl. In
>> technical terms, their fix are a done deal with CD!
>
>It's true that the CD isn't plagued with potential feedback, mistracking,
>geometry errors, and the like. That does not mean that these potential LP
>problems cannot be effectively managed, however.
The fundamental problems in LP systems imposed by the INHERENT low
frequency high-pass function of the cartridge-compliance/tone-arm
mass resonance CAN NEVER BE eliminated. They are an INHERENT
limitation in the system, and the errors they cause are a FUNDAMENTAL
property of an underdamped, second order mechanically resonant high
pass filter function.
The fundamental problems in LP systems imposed the the INHERENT
high-frequency, loww-pass functions of the stylus tip mass/surface
stiffness resonance CAN NEVER BE ELIMINATED. They are an INHERENT
limitation in the system, and the errors they cause are a FUNDAMENTAL
property of an underdamped, second order mechanically resonant low
pass filter function.
While off-center pressings are not an INHERENT property of the LP
paradigm per se, they ARE AN INHERENT PROPERTY OF THOSE LP'S THAT ARE
OFF-CENTER AND CANNOT BE MANAGED EFFECTIVELY.
>
>> The problems are often based on things like geometry,
>> which is tough to change! If you have a disc rotating against a stylus at 33
>> rpm, you have certain geometry. The stylus can only be so small before wear
>> gets to be a big problem, and so on.
>
>This is one of the most tired canards that ever appears under this tired and
>tedious LP vs. CD thread. Please explain how wear can be a "big problem" when
>there are thousands and thousands and thousands of LPs in the hands of
>audiophiles, music lovers, and collectors, and that many of these LPs are 30
>years old and older, have been played hundreds and hundreds of times, and yet
>can still provide a musical illusion of real music.
>With proper care, LP wear is a non-factor. How much documentation of this
>do you require?
Enough to overcome the reams of research, much of which was presented
in the 70's in places like JAES, that suggest your claims are simply
unsupported.
>That LP playback is fraught with potential potholes is not the issue.
>It's not a perfect medium and no one here has ever claimed that it was.
You have made the claim often that it was, in the realm of the right
equipment, "good enough." Sorry, but for many people, regardless of
how much monetary incense one is willing to burn at that altar, "good
enough" for Leeds is not good enough.
You have also made the claim more than once that no "inherent
limitations" exist, which is utter nonsense.
SDuraybito
Are there any CD listeners on this thread who have even the slightest
reservation about the way CD's reproduce string tone? Would you say string
tone you get from CDs is pretty much perfect?
If not, please describe how it deviates from your perception of ideal string
tone.
Arny Kr|ger
Curtis Leeds wrote in message <6648rj$k...@jamesv.Warren.MENTORG.COM>...
>Arny Kruger wrote:
>
>> Since vinyl's limitations are well known to be in the audible range by even
>> conservative standards, the conclusion that preference for vinyl over
>> less-distorted media is related to a preference for audible distortion is
>> easy to support; but as always, hard to prove conclusively.
>
> That depends on what you mean by "vinyl's limitations". Yes, the limitations
>of LP playback, when played on cheap turntables through low-grade
>preamplifiers, result in well known audible distortion. But these are not
>inherent limitations.
The limitations of vinyl I describe are not based on experience with
cheap turntables and low grade preamps. In former posts I ascribed
many of them to simple geometry, such as the fact that styli have
finite radius, and record grooves have a specified linear velocity
that decreases substantially as the disk is played.
>If you have references and documentation proving the gross
>audibility of LP distortion when playing music on state-of-the-art equipment,
>however, you'll have to share it with the group if you expect to obtain
>consensus with your assertion
Last time I looked, LP's were cut to be played at 33 rpm, styli had
radii of about the same thing they were 20 years ago, and records are
played at a constant rotational velocity, and on a diminishing groove
radius. The analysis of distortion due to these causes that held 20
years ago, holds true today. At one time in my life references on
these subject were at hand because they were of interest. But that
was >12 years ago.
If I thought it would really convince anybody, I would fire up the
modern tools I use to analyze modern equipment and test some LP's the
same way. It would be a cakewalk compared to the difficulty we had
doing good measurement way back when.
Are you taking advantage of what is public knowlege on RAO - I own no
vinyl playing equipment and have owned none for about 12 years. The
vinylphiles I know have no interest in lloaning me their equipment to
show them the technical deficiencies of their equipment. And there is
no chance I'm going to take my own money and buy some. So, when a
SOTA vinyl setup shows up on my front porch, I'll measure it and post
the results on RAO. ;-)
When you want a real thrill - try to prove that vinyl has 90+ dB
unweighted broadband s/n, <0.01% THD or other relevant measures of
nonlinearity 20-15kHz at peak recorded level, <0.01% unweighted FM
distortion, +/-0.1 dB frequency response 50-15kHz, etc., etc., etc.
Real world for vinly numbers are more like 55 dB, 5%, >0.08%, and
maybe +/-1.0 dB on a really good day. Most of these are audible
levels.
>
>> It is true that you have to chase down all those problems with vinyl. In
>> technical terms, their fix are a done deal with CD!
>
>It's true that the CD isn't plagued with potential feedback, mistracking,
>geometry errors, and the like. That does not mean that these potential LP
>problems cannot be effectively managed, however.
Audibility for frequency response over the kind of bands where vinyl
is prone to errors is no less than 0.5 dB. For distortion, its no
more than 2%. For FM distortion, its someplace under 0.1%. For S/N it
is about 70 dB. Last time I measured it, vinyl looses on just about
every case but FM distortion, and if records are not perfectly flat,
that is a loss, too.
>
>> The problems are often based on things like geometry,
>> which is tough to change! If you have a disc rotating against a stylus at 33
>> rpm, you have certain geometry. The stylus can only be so small before wear
>> gets to be a big problem, and so on.
>This is one of the most tired canards that ever appears under this tired and
>tedious LP vs. CD thread. Please explain how wear can be a "big problem" when
>there are thousands and thousands and thousands of LPs in the hands of
>audiophiles, music lovers, and collectors, and that many of these LPs are 30
>years old and older, have been played hundreds and hundreds of times, and yet
>can still provide a musical illusion of real music.
You are missing the point. The reason why this kind of durabiltiy
(which I think is a myth) is that styli have certain rather large
radius, compared to what is required to accept peak levels at high
frequencies.
Is record wear a myth? Why do most folks who seriously measure
cartridges have a stack of test records, each of which is discarded
after only a few dozen uses?
>With proper care, LP wear
>is a non-factor. How much documentation of this do you require?
Simple. Have someone cut you a record with 18 and 20 kHz cut at a
peak recording level. Then play if back a few times and see whether
the 2 kHz difference tone is audible.
>
>> Vinyl has poorer S/N than CD...
>
>(long laundry list of potential LP playback problems mercifully snipped) That LP
>playback is fraught with potential potholes is not the issue. It's not a perfect
>medium and no one here has ever claimed that it was.
>
>> I do have problems with preference for audible distortion during reproduction
>> being called "High Fidelity".
>
> Again, a cause/effect relationship has not been shown between preference for
>LP playback and its common distortions.
It has. It is in the geometry. It is in the plastic. It is in the
cartridges. When vinyl was all there was I did all kinds of listening
and measurements to ensure that my playback aparatus was working at
SOTA levels. Tell me about all the measurements of vinyl-based
playback systems that you have done.
>That is, the preference for LP playback
>may be caused by other factors. Since Mr. Kruger wears the white-lab coat of
>science, perhaps he should investigate the matter, rather than assert this
>illogic ad infinitum.
As soon as I have vinyl equipment at my disposal to test, I will do
so. ;-)
> When a music system of any sort can convey the power
>and emotion of music, when it can move the listener to joy or tears or rage, it
>deserves the label "high fidelity". This is what the high-end is all about. It
>is not our problem that this creates a problem for Mr. Kruger.
Tears - what forms in my eyes when I hear rumble, compression,
tracing distortion, and record wear.
JohnAFR
In article <6643bs$m...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>,
>In article <66280n$6...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>,
>JohnAFR <joh...@aol.com> wrote:
> >The above statement is totally absurd. What is heard from any
> >properly operating audio system, regardless of quality or type of
> >source, is primarily signal, not distortion. This is fact, not opinion.
>John, the context of the paragraph you object to was referring to
>signals ABOVE 20kHz (give or take).
Okay! I apologize for my rash, abrupt, and tactless response. I
obviously did not interpret your statement in the proper context.
However, I still do not necessarily agree with you. From a
mathematical and physical standpoint you may be correct, but
I'm not really convinced of that. I have observed oscilloscope
displays of cartridges tracing 20KHz sinusoidal grooves and I will
acknowledge they are grossly distorted, but I do not know that
what I saw constitutes more distortion than signal. Furthermore,
I believe that the vast majority of distortion I observed was
harmonic distortion. If this is the case, then the distortion
components begin at 40KHz and continue on to 60KHz, 80KHz,
etc. None of these distortion components can be reproduce by
most speakers, and even if they could, they would not be
audible to the human ear.
A CD uses only two data points to describe a 22Khz sinewave.
It can do this only because all higher frequency harmonics are
filtered out of the resulting squarewave just like what I believe is
happening with record players at the same frequency. You can
not convince me that two data points can describe a perfect
sinewave unless you acknowledge that harmonics are being
removed in the process. But, this is not even an argument
because we all know that everything on CD is filtered out above
22Khz. Well, my argument is the same for phonograph records.
I believe that the human ear and the speakers naturally filter out
all ultra high-frequency distortion components so that the
frequency actually heard at 20KHz is probably very close to
being a pure, undistorted sinusoidal waveform.
If you recall, my very first post on this subject voiced an
argument toward the "practical" aspect of the sound of records
versus CDs. I was never arguing the theoretical or "measurable"
aspects of LP vs. CD. It is quite clear to me and many others
that the sound of a high-quality record played on a high-quality
record player contains very little audible distortion. The vast
majority of what we hear is beautiful, pleasing, captivating music.
>For signals above 20kHz, as the original context, I stand on my
>statement. Period. Furthermore, many sets of measurements
>show this clearly.
Well, you may stand on your statement, but my ears do not
hear measurements---they never have. That's why I studied
engineering and that's why I also learned how to make
measurements. But, measurements are really quite
meaningless unless you know how to interpret them within
the context of physical reality.
>For signals OUT of context, I didn't take a position, you gave me
>one. Signals in the main audio bandwidth of 20 - 20Khz were not
>under discussion in this context, although I will submit that most
>of us "hear" 20Hz via its harmonics, too. :-)
I doubt you'll hear 20Hz via harmonics or anything else unless
you listen to freight trains and cannon shots.
Anyway, I don't think you are going to convince me that my
Reference Recordings, Sheffield's, Inak's, Century's, Crystal
Clear's, Opus', Wilson's and Umbrella's are producing more
distortion than signal, whatever the frequency. And, I don't think I
am going to convince you that phonograph records constitute a
high-fidelity medium, so this is my last post on the subject. I
also believe the RAHE moderators are pretty much sick of me
and this thread, too.
[ The thread, yes, but not you John. :) -- deb ]
Best Regards,
John Elison
Chuck Ross
[quoted text deleted -- deb]
I am wondering why noone has even mentioned the distortion produced
by the transducer, the speaker! I am quite certain that measurement
of speaker distortion will come up with results that far exceed the
small amount of distortion inherent in the LP recording/playback
system. In fact, I'd bet than any two speakers you want to try will
sound completely different from each other!
If that distortion is tolerable, why would anyone concern themselves
with the endless argument about how LPs are INFESTED with distortion
and CDs are not?
I agree with John. There are some pretty gross-sounding LPs out there,
but some of them sound quite heavenly, despite their "inherent"
distortion.
Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.
_____________________________________________
Reply to ckr...@enteract.com
Stewart Pinkerton
Curtis Leeds <cle...@idt.net> writes:
>> I do have problems with preference for audible distortion during
>> reproduction being called "High Fidelity".
> Again, a cause/effect relationship has not been shown between
>preference for LP playback and its common distortions. That is, the
>preference for LP playback may be caused by other factors. Since
>Mr. Kruger wears the white-lab coat of science, perhaps he should
>investigate the matter, rather than assert this illogic ad infinitum.
>When a music system of any sort can convey the power and emotion of
>music, when it can move the listener to joy or tears or rage, it
>deserves the label "high fidelity". This is what the high-end is all
>about.
Personally, I find that this has much less to do with the reproduction
system than with the performance. Jacqueline du Pre playing the Elgar
Cello Concerto, is as capable of delivering gut-wrenching emotion on a
Bose Wave Radio as on the Smithsonian reference system. I believe this
is a combination of music, performance and the psyche of the listener,
not 'high fidelity reproduction' as such. I agree that the full power
of a large orchestral piece can only be conveyed by a high quality
system, sensibly flat from 20-20kHz, but no one can seriously suggest
that Caruso on a Victrola is incapable of conveying the power and
emotion of music!
Just my $0.02.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
ASP Consulting |
(44) 1509 880112 |
Richard D Pierce
In article <666n6u$i...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>, Chuck Ross
<ckr...@enteract.com> wrote:
>I am wondering why noone has even mentioned the distortion produced
>by the transducer, the speaker! I am quite certain that measurement
>of speaker distortion will come up with results that far exceed the
>small amount of distortion inherent in the LP recording/playback
>system.
In fact, this is not true. The non-linear products produced by most of
todays tweeters is FAR less than that of VERY good LP playback
equipment at these sorts of frequencies. It's not uncommon to measure
harmonic products at 95-100 dB above 10 kHz at 0.1% and less. IM
products are similar.
>If that distortion is tolerable, why would anyone concern themselves
>with the endless argument about how LPs are INFESTED with distortion
>and CDs are not?
Simply because they don't have the distortion.
>I agree with John. There are some pretty gross-sounding LPs out there,
>but some of them sound quite heavenly, despite their "inherent"
>distortion.
Nobody is arguing that point. Rather, the argument is being made
against those claims that LPs DO NOT have distortions.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <666ikn$d...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>,
JohnAFR <joh...@aol.com> wrote:
>I have observed oscilloscope
>displays of cartridges tracing 20KHz sinusoidal grooves and I will
>acknowledge they are grossly distorted, but I do not know that
>what I saw constitutes more distortion than signal.
Well, on the general LP, (well made, etc) there isn't much
if any 20kHz or above material to be put there in the first
place, and above 25khz, it's very rare to have ANY real
energy.
But, one can easily find energy up above 100kHz, on a good
table under good circumstances.
>A CD uses only two data points to describe a 22Khz sinewave.
So?
>You can
>not convince me that two data points can describe a perfect
>sinewave unless you acknowledge that harmonics are being
>removed in the process.
Well, all the harmonics ARE being removed, and yes, 2+delta points
are absolutely, positively enough to reproduce the signal under
any circumstances, as long as it's bandwidth stays under half the
sampling rate.
>frequency actually heard at 20KHz is probably very close to
>being a pure, undistorted sinusoidal waveform.
Actually, at that sort of frequency, distinguishing tones is
not particularly easy any more.
And what's heard in the upper critical band (17-18khz and above)
is what you're hearing up there, that cochlear filter contains
all the energy up to the cutoff frequency of the mechanical
parts of the system.
The perceptability is indeed in question, yes.
>It is quite clear to me and many others
>that the sound of a high-quality record played on a high-quality
>record player contains very little audible distortion.
Well, actually, a lot of what you hear as pleasing is due to
distortions. You say that this is opposite what is clear to you,
but recordings made from digital materials, etc, can show that
the distortion mechanisms are there, and that they are further
quite euphonic. There are many mechanisms, not one, at work here,
and there's nothing WRONG with liking distortion at all, but yes,
it IS distortion.
>The vast
>majority of what we hear is beautiful, pleasing, captivating music.
And part of that "pleasing" is due precisely to distortions
in the LP.
>But, measurements are really quite
>meaningless unless you know how to interpret them within
>the context of physical reality.
Well, I guess that sums it up. That's what I do for a living,
btw, relating measurements to audio perception.
>I doubt you'll hear 20Hz via harmonics or anything else unless
>you listen to freight trains and cannon shots.
Agreed.
>distortion than signal, whatever the frequency.
Well, the measurements and evidence are there, and there is
very little other than distortion above the audio band.
Cutter impedence alone ensures this, sadly enough. It's not an
easy problem.
Still, there's nothing wrong with LIKING that distortion.
Andre T. Yew
sdura...@aol.com (SDuraybito) writes:
>Are there any CD listeners on this thread who have even the slightest
>reservation about the way CD's reproduce string tone? Would you say string
>tone you get from CDs is pretty much perfect?
I have reservations about the way mics and recorders capture string tone!
>If not, please describe how it deviates from your perception of ideal string
>tone.
The real thing in a good hall has warmth without muddiness, detail
without exaggerated highs, good tonality without being thin or honky,
ambience that envelops instead of obstructs, gets loud without shouting,
and is the most indescribably transparent (sorry, can't quantify that
in SI units) sound I have ever heard. The texture of the orchestration
is so immediately obvious and in-your-face at a live performance that
I am always amazed when I get to listen to a real orchestra. In my
mind, the greatest demonstration of these things for me was when I got
to hear a concert with Ravel's Mother Goose suite and Lutoslawksi's
Concerto for Orchestra. Listening to the stereo after a concert can
be a real non-event, and even the gross differences between LP and CD
are insignificant compared to the gap between the real thing and the
electrons coming out of the mic wire.
--Andre
--
PGP public key available
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <666n6u$i...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>,
Chuck Ross <ckr...@enteract.com> wrote:
>I am wondering why noone has even mentioned the distortion produced
>by the transducer, the speaker! I am quite certain that measurement
>of speaker distortion will come up with results that far exceed the
>small amount of distortion inherent in the LP recording/playback
>system.
Yes and no. Speakers distort quite a bit, and their radiation
patterns and frequency responses make nearly any two pair of speakers
(of different kinds) sound quite different, BUT
The spectrum of distortion determines audiblity, and some of the
LP distortions are of the audible (but inoffensive at least) kind.
>In fact, I'd bet than any two speakers you want to try will
>sound completely different from each other!
See above.
John Busenitz
Curtis Leeds wrote:
>
> > > Nor do I think that it is safe to conclude that a preference for the
> > > LP is the consequence of a preference for typical vinyl
> > > distortions. Indeed, many LP listeners chase after ever lower noise
> > > and distortion (from their cartridges, from their preamps, from
> > > their turntables and pickup arms) in a quest for optimal sound. As
> > > these distortions are ameliorated, many of us find that our
> > > listening satisfaction increases. This would not be the case were we
> > > all entranced with the "euphonic" distortion of the LP.
Curtis Leeds also wrote:
>
> How is is that "poor equipment" has only non-euphonic distortion, but
> good equipment has "euphonic" distortion?
I think you answered your own question. If, that is, one defines "bad"
by "possessing only, or mostly, non-euphonic distortion". And while
not an exhaustive definition, it would seem to have some merit. Is it
unimaginable to you that the distortion inherent in the vinyl medium
is mostly euphonic, while distortion in a lousy preamp, cartridge,
or some such is NOT euphonic? Thus, eliminating the distortion that
is not euphonic leads to an increase in listening satisfaction. Do
you disagree?
> On what basis have you made
> this distinction between different grades of equipment? What LP
> playback equipment have you measured to support this conclusion?
None. It was a supposition, not a statement of fact. It is certainly
reasonable to assume that the distortions of the vinyl medium differ
from distortions in poor quality equipment, don't you think? We can
put your question back to you: what equipment have you measured that
substantiates your implication (if not straight-out assertion) that
distortion inherent to vinyl is no different than distortion with
poor equipment? You have completely ignored the relevance of different
types of distortion. Can you prove that euphonic distortion is
not reason that vinyl is sometimes preferred?
Even assuming you are correct, why do some people (a small minority,
I might add) prefer vinyl over CD? You assert that it's not because
of euphonic distortion, but you fail to even provide a rebuttal to
the existing research that more or less states the contrary, much
less a scientifically sound one. On what basis do you ignore such
research? Don't play ignorant and ask "what research". Such references
have been posted more than once on this forum; look in Deja Vu.
So is it the surface noise? The band-limiting? The non-flat frequency
response? Tell us, please. And don't overlook listening bias, either.
> > Additionally, there is no consensus on which turntable/cartridge/arm
> > sounds "best". There are those who swear by Linn gear, which has
> > pretty poor performance compared to the better turntable systems.
>
> There's also no consensus among audiophiles on what constitutes the
> best CD player, or the best mini-monitor, or the best recording. This
> does not negate the value of these products.
Agreed, but you clearly stated that for many LP listeners, lowering
noise and distortion leads to greater listening satisfaction. Lower
noise and distortion are not things that demand consensus. They are
objective parameters. I assume you mean that lower noise and distortion
is better? There doesn't seem to be any such consensus among those
that listen to vinyl. How do you explain the Linnies? They obviously
do not enjoy lower distortion, etc.
And why is the semiconductor-transducer Winn cartridge not more
popular, if your assertion is true? From what I've read, it offers
lower distortion than most, if not all, conventional phono carts.
And, I would add, among audiophiles that aren't interested in deluding
themselves into hearing differences that don't exist, there is no such
conundrum with regard to the sound of CD players.
> Your "explanation" above lacks substantiation. Nor have you or jj or
> anyone proven anything about this preference for LP; that is why the
> debate still rages.
The debate rages among those who haven't done the research or are aware
of the results and what they mean. The fact that non-experts (I am not
calling myself an expert, certainly) or the ignorant and uniformed
do not agree means very little.
> > I beg to differ. jj and others have listed numerous references and
> > explained some of the concepts in this very forum. The fact that you
> > or others haven't bothered to read them does not mean that they don't
> > exist.
>
> On what basis do you conclude that I "haven't bothered to read them"?
Remember, I said "you OR others", which means that I did not assert
that you have, without a doubt, not read them. It's possible that you
have read them and ignored them. At any rate, I conclude such on the
basis of your assertions that seem to run contrary to such data.
> I also wrote:
>
> > > That some distortions common to LP playback are "euphonic" does not
> > > constitute proof of the cause of the preference.
>
> > ...and Mr. Busenitz snaps back:
>
> > Why not?
Perhaps it would be helpful if you would not deign to attempt to
perceive and judge my attitude and manner of speech. I merely asked
a very valid question, to prompt explanation. Your assertion that I
snapped, aside from being false, does not add anything of value to
the debate. In fact, it only serves to inject needless animosity
and obscure good communication. I'm sure we could all learn more
and enjoy the debate were this sort of thing eliminated. Agreed?
> You are applying faulty logic, to wit: LP's have inherent distortion,
> some people prefer LPs, therefore that preference for LPs is caused by
> a preference for distortion.
Important to my hypothesis is the distinction of *certain types* of
distortion. Distortion is not just distortion.
> You have not shown a relationship between
> your claimed cause (distortion) and your observed effect (LP
> preference).
That is not my goal. Others have done this. My objective was
to suggest you and others why your argument may not be valid.
> It amuses me that some in this group with the highest
> claims of having science on their side will repeatedly assert this
> illogic as fact.
I agree. There are people, believe it or not, who ignore mounds
of research and do not differentiate between different types of
distortion. Pity, isn't it?
Curtis Leeds
Mr. Kruger has been asserting that the preference for LP is the result of a
preference for distortion, and writes:
> Try this logic:
>
> (1) The most readily observable audible difference between
> reproduction of music via CD and vinyl seems to come from the fact
> that vinyl has a lot more readily observed noise and distortion than
> CD.
The operative words that you used here are "...*seems* to come...". In
truth, we really just don't know. We do know that some of the distortions
common to LP are "euphonic". But - again - so many audiophiles have
succeeded in reducing these distortions to minuscule levels, and yet they
report increased listening enjoyment, not diminished satisfaction. That
observation alone would suggest that - maybe - there are other factors at
work here. Just why this possibility is so abhorrent to some I do not
know. Why do you discount the idea so quickly?
> Seem weird??? I think that all of the folks arguing this, are willing
> to grant that tubed musical intstrument amps are preferred by many
> because of the kinds of distortion they produce. Why should vinyl be any
> different?
Well, I tend to question faulty logic where ever I encounter it. Applying
still more faulty reasoning to it accomplishes nothing meaningful.
Curtis Leeds
John Busenitz wrote (about equipment):
> ...that is, one defines "bad"
> by "possessing only, or mostly, non-euphonic distortion". And while
> not an exhaustive definition, it would seem to have some merit. Is it
> unimaginable to you that the distortion inherent in the vinyl medium
> is mostly euphonic, while distortion in a lousy preamp, cartridge,
> or some such is NOT euphonic? Thus, eliminating the distortion that
> is not euphonic leads to an increase in listening satisfaction. Do
> you disagree?
This is begging the question of your assertion that "good equipment " has
euphonic distortion and "bad equipment" has non-euphonic distortion. In truth,
good equipment has the lowest distortion possible and - all other things being
equal - low levels of distortion is always desirable.
> It is certainly reasonable to assume that the distortions of the vinyl
> medium differ
> from distortions in poor quality equipment, don't you think?
Well, I do think. ;) But distortion is distortion, and it plagues the LP and
the CD and everything other audio component. Some of it is more audible or
offensive than others. What distortions are you describing here?
> We can
> put your question back to you:
Uh, did I ask a question?
> what equipment have you measured that
> substantiates your implication (if not straight-out assertion) that
> distortion inherent to vinyl is no different than distortion with
> poor equipment?
I've not made this assertion. I've asserted that low distortion is a high-end
objective.
> You have completely ignored the relevance of different
> types of distortion. Can you prove that euphonic distortion is
> not reason that vinyl is sometimes preferred?
I haven't in any way ignored anything about the relevance of different types
of distortion. Rather, it is you who are vague and all over the place in this
discussion. I've simply questioned the illogic of arguing that a preference
for LP is a result of a preference for distortion, and you've offered no
contrary evidence.
> Even assuming you are correct, why do some people (a small minority,
> I might add) prefer vinyl over CD? You assert that it's not because
> of euphonic distortion,
No, I've not made this assertion. I've said that it is illogic to state: "LPs
have euphonic distortion, some people prefer LPs, therefore the LP preference
is a result of the distortion." You've not demonstrated cause and effect.
> ..but you fail to even provide a rebuttal to
> the existing research that more or less states the contrary, much
> less a scientifically sound one. On what basis do you ignore such
> research? Don't play ignorant and ask "what research". Such references
> have been posted more than once on this forum; look in Deja Vu.
Again: the cause and effect has not been demonstrated
> So is it the surface noise? The band-limiting? The non-flat frequency
> response? Tell us, please. And don't overlook listening bias, either.
This is the sort smarmy, unctuous, sophistic "question" that is responsible
for where these threads lead: n-o-w-h-e-r-e. Music lovers, audiophiles, and
engineers alike have a genuine interest in answering the question: what
characteristics of LP playback - that CD often lacks - accounts for its
preference by some listeners?
> ...you clearly stated that for many LP listeners, lowering
> noise and distortion leads to greater listening satisfaction. Lower
> noise and distortion are not things that demand consensus. They are
> objective parameters. I assume you mean that lower noise and distortion
> is better? There doesn't seem to be any such consensus among those
> that listen to vinyl. How do you explain the Linnies? They obviously
> do not enjoy lower distortion, etc.
I'm not sure what this means. I've described my own experience and do not
claim to speak for others. For myself, and a significant number of people that
I know, listening satisfaction from LPs has increased as the playback
equipment has improved (through design or set-up) so that distortion is
lower. If you have some information on Linn that you'd like to share, then by
all means provide it. I'm particularly interested in how you've concluded that
"Linnies" don't enjoy lower distortion. (And not incidentally, the term
"Linnies" is loaded with an imagery of a cultist nature that does not lend
itself to what you are pretending is an objective discussion.)
> And why is the semiconductor-transducer Winn cartridge not more
> popular, if your assertion is true? From what I've read, it offers
> lower distortion than most, if not all, conventional phono carts.
I don't know, I've never heard one. Price? Marketing? Compatibility? Do you
believe everything that you've read about it? Is it the best phono cartridge?
I don't claim to have the answer to this.
> And, I would add, among audiophiles that aren't interested in deluding
> themselves into hearing differences that don't exist, there is no such
> conundrum with regard to the sound of CD players.
Well, after all this illogic you've applied, you now refer to me as "deluded"?
> Perhaps it would be helpful if you would not deign to attempt to
> perceive and judge my attitude and manner of speech. I merely asked
> a very valid question, to prompt explanation.
Your questions are vague, deceptive, and loaded with presumption. You are
judged based on the words that you write, and for that I will not apologize.
JJMcF
For me, one of the great mysteries of high end is why people spend so
much effort debating LP vs CD, when analog tape sounds so much better
than either of these media. Why is the high end crowd so indifferent
to analog tape? Exceptional professional tape machines are now
available for a song (well, maybe along with several months of
restoration, but that's another story).
JJMcF
I've never heard a CD that produced an acceptable facsimile of the
sound of massed strings. Analog tape does the best job of that.
Maybe it''s because of the right mix of odd-order harmonics in the
tape recording process--who knows?
Curtis Leeds
JJMcF wrote:
Currently, I'm not sure that anyone knows the reasons for your
observation. But I do think it's worth effort to try to ascertain it.
The more we know about the nature of sound and how we perceive it, the
better we can make the listening experience in the future. There are
professionals at work on these things as we speak; it is only a
percentage of people who would pretend that the answers are already
known, or unobtainable, or moot.
Arny Kr|ger
JJMcF wrote in message <66980n$c...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>...
>For me, one of the great mysteries of high end is why people spend so
>much effort debating LP vs CD, when analog tape sounds so much better
>than either of these media.
Well, certainly the LP side of your claim is pretty easy to support,
technically.
What were just about all LP's and what are some CD's made through
today mastered from? The answer is 15 ips, 1/8" or so wide track
analog tape (i.e., quarter inch, 2 track or equivalent for more
tracks).
> Why is the high end crowd so indifferent to analog tape?
How about this one - it sounds too much like CD's ;-)
>Exceptional professional tape machines are now available for a song (well,
>maybe along with several months of restoration, but that's another story).
High speed (15 ips) analog tape machines in a good state of
maintenance work pretty well. One generation of record/play is almost
transparent. This contrasts with LP, where 1 generation of recording
works fairly grevious audible and technical ill on most program
material. Of course the caveat "good state of maintentance" is part
of the story.
Analog tape is often bulky and expensive compared to modern
alternatives, particularly when the number of tracks gets to be
something like 8 (as in A-DAT) ;-) Maintenance needs can be more than
infrequent.
The performance of high speed analog tape was a major contributor to
my impatience with LP when analog was all we had. Anybody who
followed a piece of program material through the studio and out into
the mastering lab and then onto a good turntable got the bad news at
the end. Been there, done that.
gdg...@vnet.ibm.com
After a long absence, my "return" to the occasional post on r.a.h-e,
with misgivings, as described below...
In this eternal thread, which was roaring violently in a different
Subject: when I stopped reading rec.audio.high-end in February 1996 or
so, HOWARD W FERSTLER <hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> writes (I edited):
>Lately, a lot has been written here about the supposed advantags of
>the LP over the CD, and vice versa.
>
>Each side has made some interesting claims, + I have to favor the CD
>group's conclusions, because the goal of a high-fidelity "system"
>should be as high a degree of playback accuracy as possible. In terms
>of measureable performance, the CD has it all over the LP .... (edit)
>I think what we have been doing here is confusing the experience of
>listening to music (on any kind of system) with the technical
>requirements that must be satisfied when doing a decent job of
>reproducing sound. .... (end of edit)
Oh, heavens, me! When I departed from _any_ rec.audio.high-end
participation back in early 1996, it was with a STRONG sense of
frustration and sadness at the intransigence of positions on all
sides. Rather than open debate, one side would thrust 'science'
and 'measurements' as the "answer" to all audio conundrums and/or
preferences, while the other side, taking an alternate approach
to the audio discussion, would continue to make their assertions
based on personal experience, if not preference.
Alas, this continues, as I return. Consider the following (edited)
examples. Curtis Leeds wrote:
>Nor do I think that it is safe to conclude that a preference for the
>LP is the consequence of a preference for typical vinyl
>distortions. Indeed, many LP listeners chase after ever lower noise
>and distortion.......... in a quest for optimal sound. As
>these distortions are ameliorated, many of us find that our
>listening satisfaction increases. This would not be the case were we
>all entranced with the "euphonic" distortion of the LP.
John Busenitz <buse...@ecn.purdue.edu> responded:
>Even assuming you are correct, why do some people (a small minority,
>I might add) prefer vinyl over CD? You assert that it's not because
>of euphonic distortion, but you fail to even provide a rebuttal to
>the existing research that more or less states the contrary, much
>less a scientifically sound one. On what basis do you ignore such
>research? .......
>So is it the surface noise? The band-limiting? The non-flat frequency
>response? Tell us, please. And don't overlook listening bias, either.
> ..... There are people, believe it or not, who ignore mounds
>of research and do not differentiate between different types of
>distortion. Pity, isn't it?
This is the kind of argument that drove ME out of r.a.h-e. On one
side, Mr Leeds' comments are based upon his experience; as an LP
fan myself, I have had experiences similar to his, as I've changed
and upgraded my analog front-ends over the years. Yet one has to be
VERY careful how one phrases such comments on rec.audio.high-end. In
another example, JohnAFR <joh...@aol.com> wrote:
>It is quite clear to me and many others
>that the sound of a high-quality record played on a high-quality
>record player contains very little audible distortion.
j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist) noted:
>Well, actually, a lot of what you hear as pleasing is due to
>distortions. You say that this is opposite what is clear to you,
>but recordings made from digital materials, etc, can show that
>the distortion mechanisms are there, and that they are further
>quite euphonic. There are many mechanisms, not one, at work here,
>and there's nothing WRONG with liking distortion at all, but yes,
>it IS distortion.
Now, I don't mean any of my comments as "bashing" any particular
poster. If anything, it seems to me that jj has _mellowed_ over the
years since I began following r.a.h-e; right before I "left" I
came to enjoy his postings and respect his viewpoint. I'm actually
happy, too, that Dick Pierce has recovered from his past illness
well enough to begin posting again, though I *do* worry that his
intense feelings about some of Siegfried Duray-Bito's posts may
drive him to apoplexy or worse(!).
Still, let me (gingerly!) offer the following observations and
comments. JohnAFR's and jj's posts brought to mind an uneasy
observation I've made recently: As I've upgraded my digital front
end as well as my analog one, to me, LPs and CDs are gradually
sounding more _alike_ to me, rather than different. Does this
mean that I am indeed reducing audible distortion in my LP play-
back process? Or am I somehow _increasing_ distortion in my CD
playback process, by choice of CD player?
Now, I'm well aware of the "personal bias" argument that the
science-minded give in explanation of the subjective views of
some posters, and which they say is a justification of blind
testing (which I have 'informally' participated in, by the way).
However, I will now have the temerity to propose an alternate,
counter, "engineering bias" that some posters on r.a.h-e may
have -- i.e. the belief that some measurements are better than
none, regardless of situation or context, and that those dis-
cussing audio without the benefit of measurement or related
engineering expertise may be "less credible" than those WITH
such expertise.
To state a practical, real-world example, take the phrase "Perfect
Sound Forever", a catchphrase coined to describe the benefits of CD
over LP. While the die-hard engineers among the group may retort
"WE never said that -- Marketing did" (and that's always been another
r.a.h-e concern of mine, the battling rather than cooperation of
"marketing" and "engineering" in a variety of realms), it still, to
me, captures the assertions-backed-by-measurement tone of those
stating CD's "superiority" to LP. Alas, look at Mr or Ms-Potential-
Audio-Purchaser, who may love music very much, but lack the technical/
engineering skills to evaluate one piece of audio gear versus another
on a "numbers" basis, or be able to technically determine 'why' one
piece sounds better than another in a store, and how that piece will
sound when he/she buys it and takes it home for their system. It
still bothers me that while r.a.h-e covers the same argumentative
ground over and over, such debate doesn't help the 'real-world'
buyer we'd like to see discover the benefits of High-End sound,
regardless of playback medium. At the end of the day, there are
_still_ a lot of cassettes and Bose equipment being sold, folks.
To return to my previous paragraph's comments on "engineer", versus
"non-engineer", and CD: I personally believe (and I hope that most
readers would agree) that the quality of digital sound has improved
over the years, as have the technical measurements of systems using
digital technology, as compared to, say, fifteen years ago. Yet,
fifteen years ago, a non-technician like me (who said these things
then, that's why I remember) who said, "Not sure why, but these CDs
sound lousy, compared to my LPs," was then told, "You're crazy! You
have NO proof to support your assertions! Our measurements show
accuracy in reproduction of these characteristics..." Yet, in those
15 years, we've seen the improvement in the technical specs of
digital technology... to address the subjective concerns of people
like myself. Just because I didn't have the 'language' to describe
the shortcomings I heard then, was I incorrect in hearing them? I
don't think so.
Which leads to my concluding point. In a related-but-different thread,
"This month's Stereophile depression", Dick Pierce and other posters
asked Siegfried Duray-Bito, "if YOU have a preference, why do you care
what others think?" Well, given the nature and biases of r.a.h-e, to
put it plainly, Siegfried (I think) would like more "respect" than
he's getting, for the reasons I described in the previous paragraph.
Now, I actually disagree with Mr Duray-Bito on a number of subjective
points he's made -- most notably, his sense that a system is "best"
when optimized for early, preferably-recorded-using-tubes, first-
pressing "vintage" analog vinyl such as the Mercury Living Presences
and RCA Shaded Dogs, while *I* think a "best" system should handle
everything from Beethoven string quartets to Einsturzende Neubauten
and even (horrors!) rap music -- but I at least respect his reasoning,
which I don't see that others do.
Don't know how often I'll ever post again to rec.audio.high-end --
because of the nature, experience, and skills of r.a.h-e's reading
clientele, and their oft-stated desire for "quantitative proof",
ANY post I make to this group takes longer, is more thought-out, and
probably vetted more closely than posts I make elsewhere. I'm sure
(though again, I can't prove it) that others that could/would post
more often with "unpopular" viewpoints (a reference to Mr Pierce's
comments about Siegfried being the 'sole occupant of Fool's Hill' -
he's certainly not, and that address *is* demeaning) are dissuaded
from doing so, for reasons similar to mine.
Regards, Geoff Gray, c/o IBM Corporation * Standard disclaimers apply.
Arny Kr|ger
Curtis Leeds wrote in message <6692of$m...@jamesv.Warren.MENTORG.COM>...
>Mr. Kruger has been asserting that the preference for LP is the result of a
>preference for distortion, and writes:
>
>> Try this logic:
>>
>> (1) The most readily observable audible difference between
>> reproduction of music via CD and vinyl seems to come from the fact
>> that vinyl has a lot more readily observed noise and distortion than
>> CD.
>
> The operative words that you used here are "...*seems* to come...". In
>truth, we really just don't know.
What we do know is that LP has a lot more readily observed noise and
distortion than CD.
>We do know that some of the distortions common to LP are "euphonic".
In some people's taste. Not mine!
>But - again - so many audiophiles have succeeded in reducing these
>distortions to minuscule levels, and yet they report increased
>listening enjoyment, not diminished satisfaction.
I seriously doubt that. I go to a vinylphile's home. The really avid
ones have the record cleaning machine and the turntable on the siesmic
slab. $1000's spent. They put on a disc of something I am familiar
with from CD. It sounds really pretty good except for the occasional
tic, the rumbling on the quiet passages if the guy has a really good
subwoofer, and of course there is the warp wow, and the flutter;
particularly noticable on piano concertos, which I really like to
listen to. Then there is the "crunching" on the loud passages, and
either audibly rolled off treble or more "pinching" towards the end of
the disk, should the engineer had the temerity to put some loud
passages there.
>That >observation alone would suggest that - maybe - there are other
factors at >work here.
Ever hear of the Placebo Effect? ;-)
>Just why this possibility is so abhorrent to some I do not know. Why
>do you discount the idea so quickly?
Been listening to LP's since I was about 6. 45 years. When do I get
time off for good behaviour?
Arny Kr|ger
Curtis Leeds wrote in message <669jto$d...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>...
>JJMcF wrote:
>> I've never heard a CD that produced an acceptable facsimile of the
>> sound of massed strings. Analog tape does the best job of that.
>> Maybe it''s because of the right mix of odd-order harmonics in the
>> tape recording process--who knows?
>Currently, I'm not sure that anyone knows the reasons for your
>observation. But I do think it's worth effort to try to ascertain it.
Ever hear of criterial biasing? It is what happens when people apply a
criteria that tilts the table towards one of the outcomes. In this
case, the true statement is more like "I've never heard a CD that
sounds like a LP on massed strings". And depending on your tastes,
that could very well be true.
I am very willing to stipulate that it is the rare LP's rendition of
massed strings that sounds like CD, and vice versa. Of course, FFT
analysis of the two tracks will show differences that should be
audible.
Now, lets compare a FFT of the master recording and either the CD or
the LP. Which version of the master recording will more strongly
resemble the master itself - the LP or the CD? Well, if the criteria
is technical, then the answer is pretty certain - the CD.
The fact is that any digital or analog master can be turned into a CD
with precise technical accuracy with less than $2000 worth of new
equipment that has totally reasonable installation and maintenance
costs, which can be operated by most people with at most a few hours
of instruction. Can you say that about LP?
>The more we know about the nature of sound and how we perceive it, the
>better we can make the listening experience in the future. There are
>professionals at work on these things as we speak; it is only a
>percentage of people who would pretend that the answers are already
>known, or unobtainable, or moot.
I guess the only thing you have not discounted is not known, but
knowable. Well, that may be true for some people, but the majority of
listeners and producers have already determined the answer and voted
with their pocketbooks. It is a digital world out there.
In fact, most listeners and producers are working towards the
generation of reproduction past the CD - being the multichannel
digital program.
How long before 5.1 channel LP's? ;-)
I don't think they ever got 4 channel LP's to work realiably and
durably - how will they ever do 5.1? ;-)
FMCNICOL
>The "groove" cut (pressed, really) in an LP (at 33 or 45 rpm) is
>capable of a wider bandwidth than CD digital. The higher rotational
>velocity of 45 rpm increases the upper limit, at the expense of
>playing time. Modern line contact styli are typically rated to 30-50
>kHz. The practical low frequency limit is determined by the stylus
>compliance/tonearm mass resonant frequency, typically 9-12 Hz.
[ quoted text deleted -- jwd ]
Could you tell me how much the high-end response of an LP is degraded
though-out it's life by the physical contact of the stylus?
I had even read a paragraph ( cannot remember where or by who) that
even during the mastering stage, that this is a problem. i.e. the
response is less at the end of the recording than at the start because
of the wear of the cutter.
Fraser.
John Busenitz
Curtis Leeds wrote:
>
> John Busenitz wrote (about equipment):
>
> > ...that is, one defines "bad"
An "if" belongs here.
> > by "possessing only, or mostly, non-euphonic distortion". And while
> > not an exhaustive definition, it would seem to have some merit. Is it
> > unimaginable to you that the distortion inherent in the vinyl medium
> > is mostly euphonic, while distortion in a lousy preamp, cartridge,
> > or some such is NOT euphonic? Thus, eliminating the distortion that
> > is not euphonic leads to an increase in listening satisfaction. Do
> > you disagree?
>
> This is begging the question of your assertion that "good equipment " has
> euphonic distortion and "bad equipment" has non-euphonic distortion. In truth,
> good equipment has the lowest distortion possible and - all other things being
> equal - low levels of distortion is always desirable.
I agree, and actually did not assert what you assert I asserted. ;-)
Anyway, perhaps we might say that good equipment has inaudible
distortion? But everything has distortion, and so sometimes more
distortion, if it is less noticeable or more pleasant, is better than
a bit less distortion which is audible and unpleasant. Would you
agree? That is, responding to your last sentance above, all other
things are usually not equal. So we must consider the type of
distortion.
> Well, I do think. ;) But distortion is distortion, and it plagues the LP and
> the CD and everything other audio component. Some of it is more audible or
> offensive than others. What distortions are you describing here?
Even order harmonic vs odd and/or high order harmonic, IMD, TIMD,
etc. I don't think that "distortion is distortion", because different
types of distortions have varying audible effects.
> Uh, did I ask a question?
Yes, I think so. The same one I asked you.
> > what equipment have you measured that
> > substantiates your implication (if not straight-out assertion) that
> > distortion inherent to vinyl is no different than distortion with
> > poor equipment?
>
> I've not made this assertion. I've asserted that low distortion is a high-end
> objective.
Maybe, maybe not; I don't even care anymore. But above you did state
that "distortion is distortion". This ignores the psychoacoustical
importance of different types of distortion.
> > You have completely ignored the relevance of different
> > types of distortion. Can you prove that euphonic distortion is
> > not reason that vinyl is sometimes preferred?
>
> I haven't in any way ignored anything about the relevance of different types
> of distortion. Rather, it is you who are vague and all over the place in this
> discussion. I've simply questioned the illogic of arguing that a preference
> for LP is a result of a preference for distortion, and you've offered no
> contrary evidence.
I don't need to. You are the one who made the assertion; the burden
of proof falls on you. Especially because your assertion, or
"questioning", flies in the face of the results of research and
analysis done on this topic that have been referred to in this very
forum. My intent is to try to get you to back up your assertions, and
to reason with you about your conclusions.
> > Even assuming you are correct, why do some people (a small minority,
> > I might add) prefer vinyl over CD? You assert that it's not because
> > of euphonic distortion,
>
> No, I've not made this assertion. I've said that it is illogic to state: "LPs
> have euphonic distortion, some people prefer LPs, therefore the LP preference
> is a result of the distortion." You've not demonstrated cause and effect.
I've not even stated this cause and effect. There is also the issue
of subjective bias, which might well be enough to explain the
preference. At any rate, this preference is not the result of less
distortion than CD, and any other superior technical performance.
> > So is it the surface noise? The band-limiting? The non-flat frequency
> > response? Tell us, please. And don't overlook listening bias, either.
>
> This is the sort smarmy, unctuous, sophistic "question" that is responsible
> for where these threads lead: n-o-w-h-e-r-e. Music lovers, audiophiles, and
> engineers alike have a genuine interest in answering the question: what
> characteristics of LP playback - that CD often lacks - accounts for its
> preference by some listeners?
So you mean to tell us that you don't even have a basis for
questioning the reasoning that euphonic distortion is the cause of
vinyl preference? My question is not smarmy at all; your name calling
appears to be a cop-out. It is valid, not unctuous, to want to know
your reason for doubting the reasoning under discussion. If you think
that vinyl is superior to CD, why?
> > ...you clearly stated that for many LP listeners, lowering
> > noise and distortion leads to greater listening satisfaction. Lower
> > noise and distortion are not things that demand consensus. They are
> > objective parameters. I assume you mean that lower noise and distortion
> > is better? There doesn't seem to be any such consensus among those
> > that listen to vinyl. How do you explain the Linnies? They obviously
> > do not enjoy lower distortion, etc.
>
> I'm not sure what this means. I've described my own experience and do not
> claim to speak for others.
Then we cannot assume that your assertions of "greater listening
pleasure arises from using lower-distortion components" are
applicable to anyone but yourself. In fact, we know Sduraybito would
undoubtedly disagree with you, having reached musical nirvana on
earth with those crazy distorting SE tube amps.
> For myself, and a significant number of people that
> I know, listening satisfaction from LPs has increased as the playback
> equipment has improved (through design or set-up) so that distortion is
> lower.
If lower distortion is universally better, then why do you not enjoy
CD even more than vinyl? It has lower distortion. What I'm getting at
is, is there something besides distortion that you feel is important?
Something that vinyl has that CD doesn't?
> If you have some information on Linn that you'd like to share, then by
> all means provide it. I'm particularly interested in how you've concluded that
> "Linnies" don't enjoy lower distortion.
I don't have anything original to share, but Dick Pierce (and perhaps
others) have expounded on why the Linn record player is inferior to
properly engineered and well-built record players. I am perhaps
assuming too much in inferring that this means the Linn equipment has
greater distortion, I'll admit. But it is a reasonable assumption, I
think.
> (And not incidentally, the term
> "Linnies" is loaded with an imagery of a cultist nature that does not lend
> itself to what you are pretending is an objective discussion.)
I don't agree. First of all, I've never pretended that this is an
objective discussion. If you think I have, please provide evidence of
such. The term "Linnies" refer to those who use Linn equipment and
believe Linn philosophy. How is that unacceptable?
> > And, I would add, among audiophiles that aren't interested in deluding
> > themselves into hearing differences that don't exist, there is no such
> > conundrum with regard to the sound of CD players.
>
> Well, after all this illogic you've applied, you now refer to me as "deluded"?
I didn't say "Curtis Leeds is deluded." Are you interested in
debating the point you brought up, or in feigning injury? My
statement stands. There isn't such a difference in the sound of CD
players. There might be very slight differences, audible under the
most clinical circumstances. But this isn't the discussion at hand.
> Your questions are vague, deceptive, and loaded with presumption. You are
> judged based on the words that you write, and for that I will not apologize.
I'm not asking for an apology. I'm asking for civilized discussion,
devoid of petty insults. Above all, I'm asking that you not foist an
emotional attitude on me, presuming to somehow discern (ESP?) that I
am snapping a feisty retort, instead of merely asking a question. I
think that there is little harm in not assuming the worst of someone.
At least in this forum. Wouldn't we all get along much nicer if we
gave each other the benefit of the doubt?
Stewart Pinkerton
jj...@aol.com (JJMcF) writes:
>I've never heard a CD that produced an acceptable facsimile of the
>sound of massed strings. Analog tape does the best job of that.
>Maybe it''s because of the right mix of odd-order harmonics in the
>tape recording process--who knows?
A well-mastered CD made from an analogue tape master, such as the JVC
XRCD series, gets around both questions pretty well, to my ears.
There's nothing wrong with CD per se, but there is a lot of badly
recorded/mastered dross on the market, as there was on '70s vinyl.
Gordon Gilbert
JohnAFR had this to say about:
Re: LP standards v. hi-fi?
> A CD uses only two data points to describe a 22Khz sinewave.
You say "only two data points" as if it needs more. Two samples
per frequency are all that is needed in digital audio--not 1, not
2000, not 2 million, just TWO. No more are needed to almost perfectly
reproduce a sine wave.
> It can do this only because all higher frequency harmonics are
> filtered out of the resulting squarewave just like what I believe is
Resulting square wave? You don't get a square wave by removing
harmonics from sine wave. Pure sine waves don't have harmonics!
Square waves require infinite bandwidth to truly reproduce (less to
aproximate).
Now, if you said you were trying to reproduce a square wave at
22kHz with the CD medium, then you would get a sine wave at 22kHz
since all the harmonics of the square wave would be removed by
filtering. Square waves have harmonics. Pure sine waves do not.
> happening with record players at the same frequency. You can not
> convince me that two data points can describe a perfect sinewave
> unless you acknowledge that harmonics are being removed in the
> process. But, this is not even an argument because we all know
There are no harmonics in pure sine waves to remove!
> that everything on CD is filtered out above
> 22Khz. Well, my argument is the same for phonograph records.
I think you need to restate your argument.
> I believe that the human ear and the speakers naturally filter out
> all ultra high-frequency distortion components so that the
> frequency actually heard at 20KHz is probably very close to
> being a pure, undistorted sinusoidal waveform.
A CD player can reproduce an almost perfect sine wave at any
frequency within its operating range. Again, there are no harmonics
in a sine wave. You'd have a better argument if you were trying to
argue that an LP can produce a "better" square wave than a CD player
at 20kHz because an LP might possibly get "some dirty" approximation,
while a CD would give you a perfect sine wave instead.
> versus CDs. I was never arguing the theoretical or "measurable"
> aspects of LP vs. CD. It is quite clear to me and many others
> that the sound of a high-quality record played on a high-quality
> record player contains very little audible distortion. The vast
> majority of what we hear is beautiful, pleasing, captivating music.
And on a CD player with an excellent recording, there is
virtually no distortion at all, let alone audible distortion.
Besides, even the best records inevitably have clicks, ticks,
pops, and surface noise not long after their initial playing and
require frequent cleaning to keep them in their best condition
(assuming they get frequent play). So, while the best vinyl
recordings might sound comparable to a similarly well recorded CD
(let's not compare crappy CDs with good LPs), that vinyl version won't
stay that way for long and it'll always have some level of surface
noise, wow, flutter, etc. that is probably audible at low level
whereas CD players have no inherent such problems (of course if
they're in the recording, they will be on the CD).
> measurements. But, measurements are really quite
> meaningless unless you know how to interpret them within
> the context of physical reality.
What's the real argument here? You like LPs? You think they're
high fidelity? You think they sound consistantly better than CDs?
OK, so what? Does that mean I have to think the same way you do? I'm
not going to argue with your opinion. Facts are another matter.
> I doubt you'll hear 20Hz via harmonics or anything else unless
> you listen to freight trains and cannon shots.
Not really. I do listen to pipe organs, occasionally, though,
and the big ones have fundamentals as low as 16Hz. No problem for a
CD. Definitely a problem for an LP.
--
- Gordon Gilbert | g...@sssnet.com | g...@uakron.edu -
- Visit The Audiophile Asylum for CD Reviews with Standardized -
- Sound Quality Ratings at http://pages.sssnet.com/glg -
Bob Myers
Curtis Leeds (cle...@idt.net) wrote:
> This is begging the question of your assertion that "good equipment " has
> euphonic distortion and "bad equipment" has non-euphonic distortion. In truth,
> good equipment has the lowest distortion possible and - all other things being
> equal - low levels of distortion is always desirable.
True, but nothing contradicting that has been said. The "bad
equipment" to which you refer ADDS "non-euphonic" distortions to the
euphonic distortions which are an *inherent* part of the LP system.
"Good" equipment ADDS the lowest amount of additional distortion
possible, but as Dick Pierce has already pointed out, there ARE
distortions which are an unavoidable part of the LP system. ALL
equipment, no matter how "good" it is, will still deliver these
distortions for that very reason.
> Well, I do think. ;) But distortion is distortion, and it plagues the LP and
> the CD and everything other audio component. Some of it is more audible or
> offensive than others. What distortions are you describing here?
"Distortion is distortion" is only true in the absolute, objective,
quantitative sense. It is NOT true in the subjective realm, since it
is readily shown that some forms of distortion are more objectionable
than others, even in the same absolute-quantity level, and it is also
readily shown that some forms of distortion are actually perceived as
pleasing by most people at low levels.
> I haven't in any way ignored anything about the relevance of different types
> of distortion. Rather, it is you who are vague and all over the place in this
> discussion. I've simply questioned the illogic of arguing that a preference
> for LP is a result of a preference for distortion, and you've offered no
> contrary evidence.
It is not an illogical argument. The full line of reasoning is:
1. We know that certain types of "distortion" are actually perceived
as pleasant additions to the sound (even though they are NOT
perceived as an "addition") at low levels.
2. The LP system DOES, inherently, produce higher levels of
distortion than the CD in an absolute, objective sense (i.e., the
signal coming from an LP will NOT be as faithful a copy of that
which was deivered by the master tape as will be the corresponding
version from a CD of that same tape). Further, we know that many
of the kinds of distortion added by the LP system are those which
fall into the category mentioned above.
3. Even if the subsequent amplification of the LP signal were to be
done completely without FURTHER distortion (i.e., the ideal
playback system being fed a signal from an LP), the presence of
the distortions mentioned in (2) above make the conclusion that at
least some of the preference for the "LP sound", where it exists,
is the result of these artifacts.
What is so difficult about this? The sources of these distortions,
as well as the research which shows them to be "euphonic", are all
well documented and many references have been given, including some
in this very string. There is nothing "wrong" about preferring the
sound of something due to its colorations of the original signal;
what you like is what you like, period. (If this weren't true, at
least half the speaker manufacturers on the planet would be out of
business! :-))
What IS illogical is to assume that there must be some OTHER factor,
undetectable when the signals from the two media are compared, which
IS present in LP playback and which is lacking in the CD system, when
the differences which ARE observable can reasonably be shown to
account for the sonic differences/preferences.
Bob Myers KC0EW Hewlett-Packard Co. |Opinions expressed here are not
O- Workstations Systems Div.|those of my employer or any other
my...@fc.hp.com Fort Collins, Colorado |sentient life-form on this planet.
Stewart Pinkerton
ckr...@enteract.com (Chuck Ross) writes:
>[quoted text deleted -- deb]
>
>I am wondering why noone has even mentioned the distortion produced
>by the transducer, the speaker! I am quite certain that measurement
>of speaker distortion will come up with results that far exceed the
>small amount of distortion inherent in the LP recording/playback
>system. In fact, I'd bet than any two speakers you want to try will
>sound completely different from each other!
While any two speakers will most likely sound quite different, this is
not because of distortion (hopefully!). There are literally dozens of
speakers on the market today which will output a 96dB sound level
(which is pretty loud for most folks) with less than 0.1% distortion
at all audio frequencies above 100Hz. I believe some of the big guns
like the Grande Utopia and Grand SLAMM can manage this at 30Hz.
>If that distortion is tolerable, why would anyone concern themselves
>with the endless argument about how LPs are INFESTED with distortion
>and CDs are not?
Partly because there isn't that much distortion from speakers. Mostly
because there *is* no argument, but some vinylphiles keep insisting
that there is................
>I agree with John. There are some pretty gross-sounding LPs out there,
>but some of them sound quite heavenly, despite their "inherent"
>distortion.
No one ever argued against that position, but some of the extreme
vinylphiles try to pretend that LP *has* no inherent distortions,
which is patently rubbish.
Stewart Pinkerton
jj...@aol.com (JJMcF) writes:
>For me, one of the great mysteries of high end is why people spend so
>much effort debating LP vs CD, when analog tape sounds so much better
>than either of these media. Why is the high end crowd so indifferent
>to analog tape?
Because there is no pre-recorded material on sale. Duh!
Serious home recordists have always favoured high speed open-reel tape
(I have a Nagra and a Tandberg, as it happens).
>Exceptional professional tape machines are now
>available for a song (well, maybe along with several months of
>restoration, but that's another story).
It's also a story with no relevance to high-end audio, which is
distinct from amateur recording. Besides, the sad truth is that a $300
Sony MD recorder will whip the ass of most analogue tape machines,
while a $1,000 Pioneer 96kHz DAT recorder will totally trash *any*
analogue machine, including an analogue Nagra (Sorry Scott, mait c'est
vrais)
Curtis Leeds
John Busenitz wrote:
> I agree, and actually did not assert what you assert I asserted. ;-)
Yipee! Then we can end this thread and all go listen to some music!
> Anyway, perhaps we might say that good equipment has inaudible
> distortion?
Or, as close to inaudible as possible, yes. I had written:
> > I've asserted that low distortion is a high-end
> > objective.
and Mr. Busenitz answers:
> Maybe, maybe not; I don't even care anymore.
Yipee! Let's all go listen to some music!
> But above you did state
> that "distortion is distortion". This ignores the psychoacoustical
> importance of different types of distortion.
I did add "...all other things being equal". C'mon, we all know that
not all distortion is created equal; it is not all equally audible,
nor is it all equally offensive. But I did write:
> >I've said that it is illogic to state: "LPs
> > have euphonic distortion, some people prefer LPs, therefore the LP preference
> > is a result of the distortion." You've not demonstrated cause and effect.
Mr. Busenitz responds:
> I've not even stated this cause and effect.
Yipee! Then we agree! Let's all go listen to some music!
> There is also the issue
> of subjective bias, which might well be enough to explain the
> preference. At any rate, this preference is not the result of less
> distortion than CD, and any other superior technical performance.
Here we differ. The phrase "any other technical performance" is too
broad. There may be areas where CD has certain types of distortion
that the LP lacks. That might explain the preference by some for LP.
> So you mean to tell us that you don't even have a basis for
> questioning the reasoning that euphonic distortion is the cause of
> vinyl preference?
No, I have a perfectly good basis. The logic has been well explain in
this thread again and again: many audiophiles prefer the lowest
possible distortion from LP. If we were all addicted to LP
distortion, that would decrease our listening satisfaction. But the
opposite is what many listeners discover. Moreover, the logic that
euphonic distortion accounts for LP preference is illogic, as
explained a few paragraphs above. So there is plenty of basis for
questioning that "euphonic distortion is the cause of vinyl
ptrefernce". Or, are you suggesting that I need to get your
permission first before I question something?
> It is valid, not unctuous, to want to know
> your reason for doubting the reasoning under discussion. If you think
> that vinyl is superior to CD, why?
No-ooooooooo. I never said "LP is superior to CD". I have said - in
so many words - "frequently, LP does a better job of conveying the
illusion of live music than CD".
> If lower distortion is universally better, then why do you not enjoy
> CD even more than vinyl? It has lower distortion. What I'm getting at
> is, is there something besides distortion that you feel is important?
> Something that vinyl has that CD doesn't?
No, you've already stated it very strongly: distortion is not
necessarily distortion. There are differnet kinds of distortion.
> ... First of all, I've never pretended that this is an
> objective discussion.
Yipee! Then we can all go listen to some music. If the discussion is
not intended to be objective, then we are all wasting our time.
> I'm not asking for an apology. I'm asking for civilized discussion,
> devoid of petty insults.
Yes, but you don't care if it's objective, and it's only the remarks
of others that you regard as "petty insults". Your insults are valid,
it seems.
> I
> think that there is little harm in not assuming the worst of someone.
> At least in this forum. Wouldn't we all get along much nicer if we
> gave each other the benefit of the doubt?
Yipee! We agree! Let's all go listen to some music!
Doctor Gonzo
jj...@aol.com (JJMcF) wrote:
>I've never heard a CD that produced an acceptable facsimile of the
>sound of massed strings. Analog tape does the best job of that.
Can you be more specific - including ancillary microphone/preamp
equipment used to record the music in question?
I find both digital and analog do a reasonable job of recording
string instruments, with digital sounding much closer to what's
coming out of the mics. But the mic/preamp gear selected is going to
be a more crucial determiner of the sound accuracy than the recording
media (assuming pro analog or digital gear).
The Doc
Stewart Pinkerton
gdg...@vnet.IBM.COM writes:
>Don't know how often I'll ever post again to rec.audio.high-end --
>because of the nature, experience, and skills of r.a.h-e's reading
>clientele, and their oft-stated desire for "quantitative proof",
>ANY post I make to this group takes longer, is more thought-out, and
>probably vetted more closely than posts I make elsewhere.
This would pretty well ensure that you won't receive any gratuitous
violence in return, as the problem is with those who assert without
thinking, inviting the kind of dismissive retort to which you refer.
>I'm sure
>(though again, I can't prove it) that others that could/would post
>more often with "unpopular" viewpoints (a reference to Mr Pierce's
>comments about Siegfried being the 'sole occupant of Fool's Hill' -
>he's certainly not, and that address *is* demeaning) are dissuaded
>from doing so, for reasons similar to mine.
IMO, Siegfried deserves all he gets, having been responsible for many
transparently deliberate distortions of arguments presented, with the
sole intent of promoting his own viewpoint at any cost.
Others promotors of the LP, such as Curtis Leeds, are at least
prepared to argue rationally, if somehat coy about retreating to the
undefinable 'no *audible* problems on a good system' when challenged
on the inherent technical problems of LP.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | If you can't measure what you're making,
A S P Consulting | how do you know when you've got it made?
tel & fax (44) 1509 880112 |
The Old Forge
School Lane
Rempstone
Leicestershire
England
LE12 6RH
Chuck Ross
> ckr...@enteract.com (Chuck Ross) writes:
> >[quoted text deleted -- deb]
> >I am wondering why noone has even mentioned the distortion produced
> >by the transducer, the speaker! I am quite certain that measurement
> >of speaker distortion will come up with results that far exceed the
> >small amount of distortion inherent in the LP recording/playback
> >system. In fact, I'd bet than any two speakers you want to try will
> >sound completely different from each other!
> While any two speakers will most likely sound quite different, this is
> not because of distortion (hopefully!).
Oh, really? What then is the cause of two different speaker systems
reproducing the same signal quite differently? Attitude?
Somewhere...there has to be distortion! You mentioned relatively
little distortion above 100 Hz, but what about below that frequency?
> >I agree with John. There are some pretty gross-sounding LPs out there,
> >but some of them sound quite heavenly, despite their "inherent"
> >distortion.
> No one ever argued against that position, but some of the extreme
> vinylphiles try to pretend that LP *has* no inherent distortions,
> which is patently rubbish.
Everything has inherent distortions. When you hear a totaly undistorted
reproduction of a live concert, let me know, and I'll send it in to
Guiness.
If you want to talk about "accuracy", hie thee to a recording studio
some day and listen to the raw tracks from a recording. Then tell me
there's no distortion in the final mix, and that it's "accurate".
Humbug! No way. It's mixed to be pleasing to the final purchasers,
and certainly not to be "accurate".
Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.
_____________________________________________
Reply to ckr...@enteract.com
Curtis Leeds
Here we go again within the thread of eternal life. Earlier, I wrote (along with
l-o-t-s of other stuff that seems to be rather summarily discarded):
> .... But distortion is distortion, and it plagues the LP and
> > the CD and everything other audio component. Some of it is more audible or
> > offensive than others.
...and Bob Meyers answers:
> "Distortion is distortion" is only true in the absolute, objective,
> quantitative sense. It is NOT true in the subjective realm, since it
> is readily shown that some forms of distortion are more objectionable
> than others, even in the same absolute-quantity level, and it is also
> readily shown that some forms of distortion are actually perceived as
> pleasing by most people at low levels.
I've acknowledged this time and time again. Indeed, my quote above
which Bob references, states "some of it is more audible or offensive
than others". Of course, this applies to the LP system as well as to
other components. So it may be possible that some of the distortion
common to CD (note that I don't insist that the problems and
distortions are inherently audible) is of the less-than-euphonic
variety. So it is possible that even these minute amounts of common
CD distortion are more "audible", more offensive, than the distortion
that might be present in a given LP playback system.
Next, Bob argues the "LPs have euphonic distortion, some people like
euphonic distortion, therefore a preference for the LP is a
preference for distortion" logistic fallacy:
> It is not an illogical argument. The full line of reasoning is:
>
> 1. We know that certain types of "distortion" are actually perceived
> as pleasant additions to the sound (even though they are NOT
> perceived as an "addition") at low levels.
Yes.
> 2. The LP system DOES, inherently, produce higher levels of
> distortion than the CD in an absolute, objective sense ... Further, we know
> that many of the kinds of distortion added by the LP system are those which fall
> into the category mentioned above.
...yes... (I'm getting nervous already)...
> 3. Even if the subsequent amplification of the LP signal were to be
> done completely without FURTHER distortion (i.e., the ideal
> playback system being fed a signal from an LP), the presence of
> the distortions mentioned in (2) above make the conclusion that at
> least some of the preference for the "LP sound", where it exists,
> is the result of these artifacts.
Yes.
> What is so difficult about this?
Nothing. What you have not shown is cause/effect. Yes, those LP
distortions - in whatever tiny levels remain in today's best
equipment - remain in the playback. That still doesn't prove that
they account for the preference. In this version of the argument,
you've completely overlooked the type of distortions that CD
pocesses, and failed to account for its presence and therefore its
possible factor in influencing the perception of its sound. Part
of the problem when we have this discussion is that the LP is a
mature technology, and so just about all there is to understand about
it is already well known. (Unfortunately, much of the research that
has been done on the LP was NOT done with the benefit of today's best
equipment. For example, in another post in this thread, Arny Kruger
argues that a 90dB broadband unweighted s/n is an impossible dream
from LP, but some of today's tables get v-e-r-y close to this.) The
CD, however, remains more of an unknown. While the engineers
understand perfectly well how it works (and it is a remarkable
engineering feat, without any doubt or question), they understand
less about how it doesn't work. That is, they remain to learn all of
the factors that influence how we percieve its sound. It is those
factors - the flaws in current CD implementation - that may well be
responsible for LP preference.
JohnAFR
In article <669vh5$e...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>,
"FMCNICOL" <FMCN...@colloquium.co.uk> writes:
>Could you tell me how much the high-end response of an LP is
>degraded though-out it's life by the physical contact of the stylus?
1) Not much. :)
2) A whole lot. :)
3) How could high frequencies become degraded if they already
contain more distortion than signal? :)
4) I don't know. :)
5) They don't become degraded at all because the life of LPs
ended 14 years ago. :)
6) Less than the high frequencies of brand new CDs. :)
7) I have 25-year-old LPs that have been played well over 50
times and they still sound good to me. :)
8) ???? :)
>I had even read a paragraph ( cannot remember where or by who)
>that even during the mastering stage, that this is a problem. i.e.
>the response is less at the end of the recording than at the start
>because of the wear of the cutter.
This is probably not so much a result of wear of the cutter as it is
due to a reduction in the linear velocity of the groove as the groove
circumference becomes smaller closer to the center of the record.
This is because a record spins at a constant rotational speed, so the
wavelength of any specific frequency becomes shorter on inner grooves
and is consequently more difficult cut accurately and more difficult
for a stylus to trace accurately.
Best Regards,
John Elison
Arny Kr|ger
Curtis Leeds wrote in message <66enqo$7...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>...
>
> Nothing. What you have not shown is cause/effect.
It strikes me that if the cause is large enough, then showing effect
is pretty trivial. If a 747 lands on my house, how far do I have to
go to show that it was the cause of the destruction of my house?
>Yes, those LP
>distortions - in whatever tiny levels remain in today's best
>equipment - remain in the playback.
You keep saying "tiny" but by modern standards they are gross. I've
presented a challenge to you to prove that they are tiny, by the
numbers. Prove your point there, or stop making these baseless claims
that so many of know, from personal experience, to be false.
>That still doesn't prove that
>they account for the preference.
But, compared to other parts of the reproduction chain, they are like
a 747 landing on my house!
>In this version of the argument,
>you've completely overlooked the type of distortions that CD
>processes, and failed to account for its presence and therefore its
>possible factor in influencing the perception of its sound.
Please list them and give estimates for their levels. I've provided a
list in another post and you apparently don't agree with them. If you
don't, then you should be willing to step up to the challenge and
post some numbers of your own.
>Part
>of the problem when we have this discussion is that the LP is a
>mature technology, and so just about all there is to understand about
>it is already well known. (Unfortunately, much of the research that
>has been done on the LP was NOT done with the benefit of today's best
>equipment.
Interesting claim. Got any proof?
For example, in another post in this thread, Arny Kruger
>argues that a 90dB broadband unweighted s/n is an impossible dream
>from LP, but some of today's tables get v-e-r-y close to this.)
I said unweighted. You have to be talking weighted. Cite an
independent example. Remember, I said broadband, so this includes not
only rumble, but surface noise. It is not uncommon for turntable
vendors to cite impressive numbers, but they are based on the
following unrealistic situations:
(1) Test record made under lab conditions to eliminate common sources
of low frequency noise that appears in virtually all commercial
pressings. You can fix the turntable maybe, but you have to fix the
whole process to get the desired result.
(2) Weighting (this one is closest to realistic, but allows for a lot
of fudging, if abused)
(3) Additional filtering of surface noise, since that is not really
the TT manufacturer's problem.
>The
>CD, however, remains more of an unknown. While the engineers
>understand perfectly well how it works (and it is a remarkable
>engineering feat, without any doubt or question), they understand
>less about how it doesn't work.
In order to prove that point you will have to invent some "new" form
of distortion because we know quite well how CD performs w/r/t the
old ones. Remember, the last "new" form of distortion "found"
probably dates back to Mattye Otala's TIM or Walt Jung's SID, and
both are now known to be special cases of nonlinear distortion, which
is hardly new.
>That is, they remain to learn all of
>the factors that influence how we perceive its sound. It is those
>factors - the flaws in current CD implementation - that may well be
>responsible for LP preference.
You are beating a dead horse because in terms of all the known forms
of distortion, most if not all of which actually predate the advent
of the LP as we know it, the LP comes out way behind the CD. Now
these forms of distortion were not thought up to characterize LP,
because they predate it. They were mostly thought up to characterize
amplifiers and movie film recording.
Your claim that our current understanding of distortion is part of
our allegedly better understanding of the LP is thus false, because
these understandings of distortion predate the LP. Obviously they
predate the CD.
Since the CD has come out, no new forms of distortion have been
found. Indeed, I don't think that any new forms of distortion have
been found since before W.W.II, which is back in the days of hard
plastic and condensed bug juice (Shellac).
Dave Edwards
On 2 Dec 1997 16:35:02 GMT, j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and
tiring philalethist) wrote:
>In article <65v5ab$2...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>,
>Dave Edwards <h...@cybercomm.net> wrote:
[quoted text deleted -- deb]
>>I listened to a few systems
>>playing vinyl. The sound was unbeatable. So was the price. What I
>>have found is that vinyl can sound better than CD, but given a
>>realistic budget, say 500 bucks, CDs are better in all respects by a
>>substantial margin.
>This is your preference.
>You're not the only one to visit such shows, and some of us come off
>not liking the vinyl, or liking the vinyl despite being able to hear
>obvious distortions in the vinyl. In general, I find that I do not
>like vinyl, except for certain performances on certain recordings.
>Yes, I dislike low-level noise a lot.
>It's a preference, one can't argue with a preference, but:
>>I don't think anyone can argue this clear fact.
>It's not a fact, except in that it's a fact YOU prefer vinyl.
Well, I would if I could afford it.
As it were, I rarely spin vinyl.
Even if I could afford the kilobucks for quality
phono equipment, there is still the problem of clicks
and pops on even virgin lps.
So I guess it would be more clear to say I prefer vinyl in
a perfect world where cost were no option.
JJMcF
>the high end crowd so indifferent
>>to analog tape?
>
>Because there is no pre-recorded material on sale. Duh!
>
>
To some degree this is also true of LPs, yet audiophiles cling fiercely to
their turntables. Like LPs, most of the prerecorded tape stuff is available
only on the secondhand market. Really this is a chicken and egg problem--if
there was audiophile demand, there would be more prerecorded tape material
available--it's pretty easy to produce. But tape has one huge advantage over
LP in this regard--if you don't like what's available, you can make your own!
There are lots of underemployed, very talented musicians out there.
Curtis Leeds
Here we go again within the thread of eternal life. Earlier, I wrote (along with
l-o-t-s of other stuff that seems to be rather summarily discarded):
> .... But distortion is distortion, and it plagues the LP and
> > the CD and everything other audio component. Some of it is more audible or
> > offensive than others.
...and Bob Meyers answers:
> "Distortion is distortion" is only true in the absolute, objective,
> quantitative sense. It is NOT true in the subjective realm, since it
> is readily shown that some forms of distortion are more objectionable
> than others, even in the same absolute-quantity level, and it is also
> readily shown that some forms of distortion are actually perceived as
> pleasing by most people at low levels.
I've acknowledged this time and time again. Indeed, my quote above which Bob
references, states "some of it is more audible or offensive than others". Of
Yes.
Yes.
Nothing. What you have not shown is cause/effect. Yes, those LP
distortions - in whatever tiny levels remain in today's best equipment -
remain in the playback. That still doesn't prove that they account for the
preference. In this version of the argument, you've completely overlooked
the type of distortions that CD processes, and failed to account for its
presence and therefore its possible factor in influencing the perception of
its sound. Part of the problem when we have this discussion is that the
LP is a mature technology, and so just about all there is to understand
about it is already well known. (Unfortunately, much of the research that
has been done on the LP was NOT done with the benefit of today's best
equipment. For example, in another post in this thread, Arny Kruger argues
that a 90dB broadband unweighted s/n is an impossible dream from LP, but
some of today's tables get v-e-r-y close to this.) The CD, however, remains
more of an unknown. While the engineers understand perfectly well how it
works (and it is a remarkable engineering feat, without any doubt or
question), they understand less about how it doesn't work. That is, they
remain to learn all of the factors that influence how we perceive its
sound. It is those factors - the flaws in current CD implementation - that
may well be responsible for LP preference.
--
JJMcF
> esides, the sad truth is that a $300 Sony MD recorder will whip the
> ass of most analogue tape machines, while a $1,000 Pioneer 96kHz DAT
> recorder will totally trash *any* analogue machine, including an
> analogue Nagra (Sorry Scott, mait c'est vrais)
This is an easy assertion to make, because only a few people are in a
position to make the comparison. But let me assure our readers that
there are many people who have done it and disagree with you.
Scott Frankland
Arny Kr|ger wrote:
> Remember, the last "new" form of distortion "found" probably dates
> back to Mattye Otala's TIM or Walt Jung's SID, and both are now
> known to be special cases of nonlinear distortion, which is hardly
> new.
Just a historical note. TIM was known to audio engineers as early as
1952. See, in particular, J.E. Flood, "Negative Feedback Amplifiers
Overloading Under Pulse Conditions" (Wireless Eng., Aug 1952,
pp. 203-211). It was probably known to control theorists even before
then, but I haven't been able to find a reference to substantiate that
as yet. Anybody got one?
~SF~
Bob Myers
Curtis Leeds (cle...@idt.net) wrote:
> Next, Bob argues the "LPs have euphonic distortion, some people like
> euphonic distortion, therefore a preference for the LP is a
> preference for distortion" logistic fallacy:
Well, if there IS a flaw in the logic, please point it out. You
seemed to agree with the reasoning up to this point:
> Nothing. What you have not shown is cause/effect. Yes, those LP
> distortions - in whatever tiny levels remain in today's best
> equipment - remain in the playback. That still doesn't prove that
You are confusing the "tiny levels of distortion" resulting from the
playback equipment with the distortion to which I refer, which is that
INHERENT in the LP system itself. In short, an undistorted, accurate
representation of the original signal IS NOT PRESENT on the LP, and
even what IS there cannot be recovered without further distortion
under the LP standard. It matters not one bit what the distortion
figures are on the amp, "phono" front end, etc.. The levels of
distortion which are INHERENT in the LP are considerably larger than
those inherent in the CD.
> they account for the preference. In this version of the argument,
> you've completely overlooked the type of distortions that CD
> pocesses, and failed to account for its presence and therefore its
> possible factor in influencing the perception of its sound. Part
Well, unless you're going to invent something new, the only
"distortions" which are INHERENT in the CD system - meaning that it is
impossible to get around them within the confines of the standard -
are a response which is limited to 22.05 kHz and a noise floor which
is CONSIDERABLY below that of the best LP. What other "types of
distortion that the CD posesses" are you concerned about?
> of the problem when we have this discussion is that the LP is a
> mature technology, and so just about all there is to understand about
> it is already well known. (Unfortunately, much of the research that
> has been done on the LP was NOT done with the benefit of today's best
> equipment. For example, in another post in this thread, Arny Kruger
> argues that a 90dB broadband unweighted s/n is an impossible dream
> from LP, but some of today's tables get v-e-r-y close to this.) The
The table itself may get there. Can the LP?
--
Scott Frankland
Dave Edwards wrote:
>
> >It's not a fact, except in that it's a fact YOU prefer vinyl.
>
> Well, I would if I could afford it.
> As it were, I rarely spin vinyl.
> Even if I could afford the kilobucks for quality
> phono equipment, there is still the problem of clicks
> and pops on even virgin lps.
On most modern 180g LP's, ticks 'n pops 'ardly ever 'appen.
Tis true. Try, for example, any of the new Speaker's Corner
Decca's; the Testament EMI's; or even the lowly OJC's
(Original Jazz Classics) on 120g. Quiet. Very quiet.
~SF~
Rgvivace
This whole thread seems like two medieval priests in argument. One
discusses how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (stylus) and
the other how many souls are contained in a beam of light (laser).
Of course, both will eat well as long as their village keeps up on
their taxes.
Beyond any doubt, the LP system sucks -- Rube Goldberg mechanics,
impossibility of accurate set-up, enviornmental decay to the systems
and wear to the software, difficulty of isolating from mechanical
resonances, lousy pitch accuracy, the need for extra electronics in
the signal path, too many generations in the production process,
fragile hardware, ad infinituum. Apart from the big, neat album art,
the only thing going for this system is that digital -- in the
current cd format -- does not in general practice sound as real.
I cannot claim the technical expertise necessary to say why cd's --
so vastly superior in technical specifications (at least those that
can be measured), longevity and convenience -- miss the mark. I
*can* claim, from attendance at almost 1,000 orchestra and chamber
musc rehearsals and performances over the last 20 years in scores of
venues from superb to sleazy, to know what real unamplified
instruments sound like and that I have yet to hear *any* cd system
(again, in the current format) that does not sound essentially
"wrong."
I doubt that the digital process is, in itself, at fault and that
several of the new extended frequency range - longer word length -
higher sampling rate - formats now being vetted will essentially
eradicate my rejection of cd.
I hope so. Like I said, LP sucks. But until then, I'm keeping the
Oracle/ETII/BPS and my 1,000 plus vinyl collection.
Rob Gold
John Busenitz
Curtis Leeds wrote:
> Here we differ. The phrase "any other technical performance" is too
> broad. There may be areas where CD has certain types of distortion
> that the LP lacks. That might explain the preference by some for LP.
OK, what are these mysterious distortions?
> > So you mean to tell us that you don't even have a basis for
> > questioning the reasoning that euphonic distortion is the cause of
> > vinyl preference?
>
> No, I have a perfectly good basis. The logic has been well explain in
> this thread again and again: many audiophiles prefer the lowest
> possible distortion from LP. If we were all addicted to LP
> distortion, that would decrease our listening satisfaction. But the
> opposite is what many listeners discover. Moreover, the logic that
> euphonic distortion accounts for LP preference is illogic, as
> explained a few paragraphs above. So there is plenty of basis for
> questioning that "euphonic distortion is the cause of vinyl
> ptrefernce". Or, are you suggesting that I need to get your
> permission first before I question something?
Again, your argument fails if the distortion that is eliminated
from LP playback EXCLUDING inherent distortion is anti-euphonic.
And if less distortion is better, then CD would be preferred.
And let me propose a second reason: distortion above a certain
point (perhaps that point of only distortion inherent to vinyl
and no more) detracts from listening enjoyment - a nonlinear
preference behavior.
> No-ooooooooo. I never said "LP is superior to CD". I have said - in
> so many words - "frequently, LP does a better job of conveying the
> illusion of live music than CD".
If you tack "in my opinion", I won't have any argument. But
in MY opinion, CD usually does a better job the same. Differing
opinions cancel each other out (I'm being generous here, since
I think there are quite a few more audiophiles and people in
general that prefer CDs to LPs). So we are left with the objective.
> > ... First of all, I've never pretended that this is an
> > objective discussion.
>
> Yipee! Then we can all go listen to some music. If the discussion is
> not intended to be objective, then we are all wasting our time.
Hold on; I didn't state my intent. I would like this to be an
objective discussion, but I realize that it probably can't be
truly 100% objective; we're only human, and we all have our
biases. In spite of this, I'm doing my best to keep it as objective
as possible.
> > I'm not asking for an apology. I'm asking for civilized discussion,
> > devoid of petty insults.
>
> Yes, but you don't care if it's objective, and it's only the remarks
> of others that you regard as "petty insults". Your insults are valid,
> it seems.
Nope, read above. I have tried to avoid insulting anyone. If you
have been insulted, how?
> > I
> > think that there is little harm in not assuming the worst of someone.
> > At least in this forum. Wouldn't we all get along much nicer if we
> > gave each other the benefit of the doubt?
>
> Yipee! We agree! Let's all go listen to some music!
I'm afraid "we" don't agree. I don't mean to continue harping on a
point, but you clearly accused me of "snapping" when you had no
idea of my emotional state or attitude. That is hardly giving me
the benefit of the doubt.
Richard D Pierce
In article <66enqo$7...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>,
Kept alive by vagueires, strawman and such that don't know when they
are dead.
> Nothing. What you have not shown is cause/effect. Yes, those LP
>distortions - in whatever tiny levels remain in today's best
>equipment - remain in the playback.
More wiggle words, Curtis. How tiny are they. You keep saying this.
So how tiny are they?
And you are claiming that the gross phase errors due to the variety
of resonance present are "tiny?" What's your definition of "tiny?"
Or is "tiny" merely a rhetorical answer that gives you enough wiggle
room to squirm out of whatever corner you find yourself in?
>Part
>of the problem when we have this discussion is that the LP is a
>mature technology, and so just about all there is to understand about
>it is already well known.
Then go out and look it up. Hardly ANY of the technical claims to
specific distortion, resonance, phase, noise and other such problems
are unknown, in fact, most of them were well understood in the
1970's. The literatuire is there, rather than speculate and come up
with nonsense, content free terms like "tiny" why not use the real
data.
> (Unfortunately, much of the research that
>has been done on the LP was NOT done with the benefit of today's best
>equipment. For example, in another post in this thread, Arny Kruger
>argues that a 90dB broadband unweighted s/n is an impossible dream
>from LP, but some of today's tables get v-e-r-y close to this.)
Tables? NOBODY plays turntables, Curtis. This is a completely
specious argument for several reasons and you know it. People don't
listen to turntables. People listen to records on turntables, not
turntables alone. 90 dB unweighted s/n ratio IS animpossible dream
for the best LPs on the best turntables. And the vast majority of
measurements that claim to get even remotely close to this utilise
either DIN 45539 weighted or ANSI A-weighted measurements.
>The CD, however, remains more of an unknown. While the engineers
>understand perfectly well how it works (and it is a remarkable
>engineering feat, without any doubt or question), they understand
>less about how it doesn't work.
How do YOU know this? What engineers have made such a statement? Or
is this merely YOUR interpretation?
--
+---- Dick Pierce ---------------------------------------------+
| Professional Audio Product Development |
| Transducer Design and Measurement |
+---- (781) 826-4953 (Voice and FAX) DPi...@world.std.com -----+
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <669r8s$3...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>,
<gdg...@vnet.IBM.COM> wrote:
>>It is quite clear to me and many others
>>that the sound of a high-quality record played on a high-quality
>>record player contains very little audible distortion.
>j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist) noted:
>>Well, actually, a lot of what you hear as pleasing is due to
>>distortions. You say that this is opposite what is clear to you,
>>but recordings made from digital materials, etc, can show that
>>the distortion mechanisms are there, and that they are further
>>quite euphonic. There are many mechanisms, not one, at work here,
>>and there's nothing WRONG with liking distortion at all, but yes,
>>it IS distortion.
>Now, I don't mean any of my comments as "bashing" any particular
>poster. If anything, it seems to me that jj has _mellowed_ over the
>years since I began following r.a.h-e;
That's interesting, I've always suspected I'm getting a lot
crankier, myself, at least to people who put words in my mouth
(not you, here). Seigfried, who you think I'm rude to, for instance,
I've not mellowed at all about. Of course, perhaps you've
avoided the criminal accusations that Seigfried has made of me
in other network forums, regarding ABX testing and the existance
of actual tests.
>JohnAFR's and jj's posts brought to mind an uneasy
>observation I've made recently: As I've upgraded my digital front
>end as well as my analog one, to me, LPs and CDs are gradually
>sounding more _alike_ to me, rather than different. Does this
>mean that I am indeed reducing audible distortion in my LP play-
>back process? Or am I somehow _increasing_ distortion in my CD
>playback process, by choice of CD player?
Hmm. <grumble, rules...> Well, some products that have been released
have greatly reduced the anti-aliasing filter, and allowed quite a bit
of aliasing into the signal from the CD player. I have no idea
if you have such a DAC or not.
It would be interesting if you did, it would help establish what
(from the technical point of view) you prefer. Have you any idea
what kind of filtering, DAC, and so on that are present in your
preferred CD player?
>To state a practical, real-world example, take the phrase "Perfect
>Sound Forever", a catchphrase coined to describe the benefits of CD
>over LP. While the die-hard engineers among the group may retort
>"WE never said that -- Marketing did" (and that's always been another
>r.a.h-e concern of mine, the battling rather than cooperation of
>"marketing" and "engineering" in a variety of realms), it still, to
>me, captures the assertions-backed-by-measurement tone of those
>stating CD's "superiority" to LP.
CD is analytically superior. That is the only sensible claim being made.
Given that both analog and digital capture so little of the actual
listening experience (lack of soundfield information, etc), actual
"accuracy" isn't very relevant, except perhaps in a delivery mechanism
that allows accurate delivery. For that CD is clearly more accurate
(in a good instantiation, we've all met really bad DAC's and such
at this point). However, this brings up what I'd rather do than
argue about LP vs. CD, I'd much rather have a 2x sampling rate
DAC that I could make an LP simulator to feed. The results would
be interesting, because one could separate the various distortion
mechanisms and find out which is which, perceptually, or if the
whole set is required.
>Well, given the nature and biases of r.a.h-e, to
>put it plainly, Siegfried (I think) would like more "respect" than
>he's getting, for the reasons I described in the previous paragraph.
NOBODY argues with Seigfried's preferences, or nobody in this newsgroup
(I did see some rather rude bashing in r.a.o, which is quite out of place,
but rather sadly typical for the slanderous atmosphere that seems to
rule there) did.
I'm willing to give Seigfried all the respect he wants UNTIL he gets into
(again) claiming that his preference is somehow better than other people's
preferences. It's when I'm accused of criminal acts, or told that
his preference is better than mine, or worse, that we get into a hostile
debate.
There is where he runs afoul of the debate, to me. He has claimed both
that his preference is superior, and that his preference is trVth.
(more than in the trVth that it is his preference, that is).
Therein is the problem.
(Oh, as far as perfect sound forever, I know at least two people on this
list in the engineer catagory that complained very LOUDLY to the
people who wrote that (*&*Y(%&* advertisement. One of those isn't even
second-hand knowledge.)
Perfect sound forever version 1 was ridiculous.
Perfect sound forever version 2 was DCC, wasn't it? I forget, which of
the "new" formats was it? Who needs a new format anyhow? <grin>
--
Copyright alice!jj 1997, all rights reserved, except transmission by USENET
and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any use by a
provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this article
and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <66ennj$7...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>,
Chuck Ross <ckr...@enteract.com> wrote:
>Oh, really? What then is the cause of two different speaker systems
>reproducing the same signal quite differently? Attitude?
Frequency response, polar response, power response vs. polar response,
room surfaces, ...
>Somewhere...there has to be distortion! You mentioned relatively
>little distortion above 100 Hz, but what about below that frequency?
Why does distortion have to be involved? You say there HAS to
be distortion, why?
What about below 100 Hz, probably a lot of distortion, but I can
find a lot of good chamber music with no signal there to distort,
and still find speakers that sound radically different.
>Everything has inherent distortions. When you hear a totaly undistorted
>reproduction of a live concert, let me know, and I'll send it in to
>Guiness.
You're waffling seriously here. Two channels can NEVER reproduce a
"totally undistorted reproduction of a live concert". Is this about
if there are distortions in speakers, or is this about the basic
issue of stereo reproduction?
The idea that two-channel sound suffices for stereo reproduction
has been dismissed by some revealing results all the way back to
the time of Fletcher. (Chapter 13 of the ASA reprints of his work)
If we're talking about that, then speakers are the least of the problem.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <66enqo$7...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>,
Curtis Leeds <cle...@idt.net> wrote:
> Nothing. What you have not shown is cause/effect. Yes, those LP
>distortions - in whatever tiny levels remain in today's best
>equipment - remain in the playback.
Curtis, please go read the literature! Yes, people have added some of
those LP distortions and done preference tests.
As to "tiny levels", well, we have to argue about that.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <66evvg$g...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>,
JohnAFR <joh...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <669vh5$e...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>,
>"FMCNICOL" <FMCN...@colloquium.co.uk> writes:
>>Could you tell me how much the high-end response of an LP is
>>degraded though-out it's life by the physical contact of the stylus?
>1) Not much. :)
True, under the best situation.
>2) A whole lot. :)
Also true under that best situation, which is why you NEVER play a good
LP twice without a day in between.
>3) How could high frequencies become degraded if they already
>contain more distortion than signal? :)
This is completely out of context. In one case, "high frequencies"
is sub-20kHz, and in the other, supra-20kHz, so what's the point.
>7) I have 25-year-old LPs that have been played well over 50
>times and they still sound good to me. :)
So do I.
Um, what's the point? I see all sorts of smiley faces here, but
I can't see either the humor OR the point to the article? Somebody
smarter than I want to explain this to me?
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <66f4l2$l...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>,
Arny Kr|ger <ar...@concentric.net> wrote:
>(3) Additional filtering of surface noise, since that is not really
>the TT manufacturer's problem.
Um, wait a minute. I recall some basic calculations from the
1940's (might have been the 1930's) on selecting linear velocity
for turntables, that used the information content (noise
vs. bandwidth) and the desired bandwidth (20-15khz back then),
to argue for some particular linear velocities. Some of these
works at least mentioned basic limits to surface noise, so
I think it's a fundamental problem with the system, not a problem
of LP manufacture.
>Since the CD has come out, no new forms of distortion have been
>found. Indeed, I don't think that any new forms of distortion have
>been found since before W.W.II, which is back in the days of hard
>plastic and condensed bug juice (Shellac).
Well, in the sense of mean-squared-error, there is no way to
avoid noticing distortion. If the signal is different after
treatment by the system, it shows up. Period.
As to "distortion" I find that a slippery, hard to define word
that begs many of the means of its creation.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <6692of$m...@jamesv.Warren.MENTORG.COM>,
Curtis Leeds <cle...@idt.net> wrote:
> The operative words that you used here are "...*seems* to come...". In
>truth, we really just don't know. We do know that some of the distortions
>common to LP are "euphonic". But - again - so many audiophiles have
>succeeded in reducing these distortions to minuscule levels, and yet they
>report increased listening enjoyment, not diminished satisfaction.
Curtis, you have said this many times, we've discussed this in e-mail,
and there's still no resolution on the issue.
You say "minuscule levels". How do you get rid of tracing
distortion? Surface noise? Out-of-phase rumble (many measurements
make a mono measurement of rumble, that reduces the result by about
20dB in may tables without any justification for eliminating the
out-of-phase rumbe)? Partial mistracking (this is shown to happen in
any cartridge with finite moving mass, i.e. all cartridges), and so
on?
There is a long list of distortions peculiar to rotating media going
by a tracing device, I've just touched the surface here. How do you
avoid the ones that can't be avoided?
Yes, there are results out there in the industry that DO show that
various kinds of distortion "sound better". There are results that
show that LP's have those kinds of distortion, and that even in the
most advanced setups, that they are more than "minuscule".
John Busenitz
Curtis Leeds wrote:
> So it may be possible that some of the distortion
> common to CD (note that I don't insist that the problems and
> distortions are inherently audible) is of the less-than-euphonic
> variety. So it is possible that even these minute amounts of common
> CD distortion are more "audible", more offensive, than the distortion
> that might be present in a given LP playback system.
If you are arguing this, then where is the evidence thereof? Do
you mean shoddy practice in mastering? Poor equipment? With
good equipment and implementation, these aren't any more of a
problem than the distortion common to LP which can be attenuated
with good equipment and setup. So what's your point? If it is
not an inherent distortion, why do you bring it up? I'm just
curious, because you are very quick to point out that audible
flaws in vinyl playback can be eliminated with proper equipment
and setup. I might add that there is no consensus on what "good"
equipment for vinyl playback IS! However, among those who know
how to analyze CD playback, there is much less controversy.
It all comes back to the flaws inherent in each medium, not
incidental or common non-inherent flaws. And CD comes ahead
in fidelity hands down, it seems to me. How about you? Agree,
and we can forget this and go listen to some music. ;-)
Larry
Rgvivace wrote:
<SNIP>
> Oracle/ETII/BPS and my 1,000 plus vinyl collection.
>
> Rob Gold
I'm sure this thread was meant in good spirit, like the political
comment: "Democracy is the worst form of government, but it is better
than the rest." [Churchill, I think.] While there is a measure of truth
to it, it overstates its case and loses something.
With less hyperbole, I'd say, no playback system I've heard, including a
$330,000.00 Cello system, has fooled me into mistaking playback for
reality. That said, there is a lot of pleasure to be had from lp and cd.
But for my money, I'll search long and hard for the lp before settling
for the cd.
Brian Drummond
my...@hpfcla.fc.hp.com (Bob Myers) wrote:
>Curtis Leeds (cle...@idt.net) wrote:
>
>> Next, Bob argues the "LPs have euphonic distortion, some people like
>> euphonic distortion, therefore a preference for the LP is a
>> preference for distortion" logistic fallacy:
>
>Well, if there IS a flaw in the logic, please point it out. You
>seemed to agree with the reasoning up to this point:
I had written the post below and decided not to send it because I
thought the fallacy was obvious. But since you ask:
my...@hpfcla.fc.hp.com (Bob Myers) wrote:
>Curtis Leeds (cle...@idt.net) wrote:
>> This is begging the question of your assertion that "good equipment " has
>> euphonic distortion and "bad equipment" has non-euphonic distortion.
[...]
>What IS illogical is to assume that there must be some OTHER factor,
>undetectable when the signals from the two media are compared, which
>IS present in LP playback and which is lacking in the CD system, when
>the differences which ARE observable can reasonably be shown to
>account for the sonic differences/preferences.
However what is _not_ illogical is to assume that there _may_ (not must)
be some other factor, which is either present in LP playback, or a form
of distortion present in CD playback but currently unrecognised.
Either because it is undetected so far, or MUCH more likely, assumed to
be unimportant because it measures at a relatively low level.
Thus we can account for the occasional preference for LP _either_
through the euphonic nature of its relatively high levels of
distortions, _or_ the non-euphonic nature of the relatively low-level
forms of distortion associated with CD.
It is illogical to dismiss the second of these possibilities out of
hand. These distortions - small though they are - may be of such a form
that they cannot be so easily ignored ( the ear/brain combination may be
abnormally sensitive to them in some way). Here we are discussing the
difference for example between a theoretically perfect CD player and one
made with real components such as commercial "20-bit" DACs. Or clock
jitter. Or the filter artefacts raised by Dick Pierce. (IMO one of the
prime suspects given the attention paid to the others nowadays) Or
non-linear settling times in the DAC switches. Or...
- Brian
Chuck Ross
j...@research.att.com, curmudgeon, wrote:
> Chuck Ross <ckr...@enteract.com> wrote:
> >Oh, really? What then is the cause of two different speaker systems
> >reproducing the same signal quite differently? Attitude?
>
> Frequency response, polar response, power response vs. polar response,
> room surfaces,
All these different contributions to the sound of speakers aside, if
two speakers sound different from each other, at least one of them is
distorting the original signal!
I am NOT talking about 2-channel sound, I am talking about the sound
of the signal as reproduced thru the speaker system. If the sound
of two speakers playing the same input signal thru the same source, amp
etc. is different, at least one of them is distorting! How much clearer
do I have to get??
> What about below 100 Hz, probably a lot of distortion, but I can
> find a lot of good chamber music with no signal there to distort,
> and still find speakers that sound radically different.
Then at least one of them is distorting the input signal!
> You're waffling seriously here. Two channels can NEVER reproduce a
> "totally undistorted reproduction of a live concert". Is this about
> if there are distortions in speakers, or is this about the basic
> issue of stereo reproduction?
This is most assuredly about distortions in speakers, which, as I have
previously stated, present levels of distortion that are MUCH higher
than either the CD or LP sources.
> The idea that two-channel sound suffices for stereo reproduction
> has been dismissed by some revealing results all the way back to
> the time of Fletcher. (Chapter 13 of the ASA reprints of his work)
Never said that....you're off on some sort of tangent, aren't you?
> If we're talking about that, then speakers are the least of the problem.
Nope, we're still on speakers; transducers are the worst of the problem.
Argueing about other minor distortions is like argueing about how many
angels can sit on the head of a pin.
JJMcF
I don't doubt that the LP has distortion (heck, I can even hear some
of it, to the detriment of the music) but the idea that euphonic
distortions are what LP fans like about the LP is troublesome because
(1) reducing some of the distortions of disc recordings, say by
recording at 45rpm or 78 rpm, or listening to the master disc itself,
almost always sounds better--ie, the better the LP distortionwise,
the better it sounds and (2) while the LP does some things poorly
(wow, tracing distortion) it's still possible that it does some
things better than other media--maybe reproduces a saxophone more
accurately or something like that--that makes it a better music
carrier. Is that mathematically impossible, or is the math just
inadequate to make this distinction? I'm not carrying a torch for
the LP here, just trying to figure out what's happening. Actually I
don't like LPs much, just think that on the whole they sound better
to me than CD for specific musical listening purposes.
Richard D Pierce
In article <66k3ff$4...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>,
Chuck Ross <ckr...@enteract.com> wrote:
> j...@research.att.com, curmudgeon, wrote:
>
>> Chuck Ross <ckr...@enteract.com> wrote:
>> >Oh, really? What then is the cause of two different speaker systems
>> >reproducing the same signal quite differently? Attitude?
>>
>> Frequency response, polar response, power response vs. polar response,
>> room surfaces,
>
>All these different contributions to the sound of speakers aside, if
>two speakers sound different from each other, at least one of them is
>distorting the original signal!
Well, what we have here is, in the overall realm of conventional
usage, an >unconventional< usage of the term "distortion." The
conventional usage of the term "distortion" is perturbation of the
signal by a nonlinear amplitude transfer function.
If your are going to generalize the use of the term "distortion" to
cover ANY difference in the sound, then it can easily be shown that
even moving to a slightly different position while listening to a
concert is a distortion-generating process, because there WILL be a
difference in the sound as a result. That further begs the question
of what constitutes "undistorted," since by your unconventional usage
of the term ANY difference constitutes distortion. Difference, then,
from what?
By broadlay redefining the use of the term which, in fact, is being
used in a fairly precise objective context by JJ and others and has
quite a few decades of such usage to bolster that convention, you
have, essentially, made the discussion impossible.
Now, if you want to talk about "perturbations, linear and non-linear
in both the time and amplitude domains," then, in fact, you have
established a reasonable point based on a common understanding of the
terminology involved to move forward.
However, now that it apparent that you are extending the term
"distortion" to mean something much larger than it conventionally
means, the commonality necessary in the language has been
compromised.
"Distortion" is taken to mean the addition of signals due to
non-linear processes in the intermediate chains.
>> The idea that two-channel sound suffices for stereo reproduction
>> has been dismissed by some revealing results all the way back to
>> the time of Fletcher. (Chapter 13 of the ASA reprints of his work)
>
>Never said that....you're off on some sort of tangent, aren't you?
No, he is not. He is specifically saying, using YOUR unconventional
use of the term "distortion", that stereo is an inherently
distortion-generating process. But, by that same unconventional
definition, moving your head while listening is ALSO a
distortion-generating process.
>> If we're talking about that, then speakers are the least of the problem.
>
>Nope, we're still on speakers; transducers are the worst of the problem.
Nopt in terms of non-linear distortion generating mechanisms, they
are not. And in terms of the inability to present a reasonable sample
of the sound field to the listener, speakers ARE, indeed, among the
least of the problems. THE problem, in that sense, is the basic
concept of two-channel stereo. It is an inherently flawed medium for
conveying a reasonable facsimile of a live-music sound field.
That's what JJ was talking about, that's what Fletcher was talking
about.
>Argueing about other minor distortions is like argueing about how many
>angels can sit on the head of a pin.
It can't be as bad as someone redefining what is to the relevant
community a well understood term.
Arny Kr|ger
Chuck Ross wrote in message <66k3ff$4...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>...
> j...@research.att.com, curmudgeon, wrote:
>> Chuck Ross <ckr...@enteract.com> wrote:
>> >Oh, really? What then is the cause of two different speaker systems
>> >reproducing the same signal quite differently? Attitude?
>> Frequency response, polar response, power response vs. polar response,
>> room surfaces,
>All these different contributions to the sound of speakers aside, if
>two speakers sound different from each other, at least one of them is
>distorting the original signal!
We know for sure that they both are! ;-)
>I am NOT talking about 2-channel sound, I am talking about the sound
>of the signal as reproduced thru the speaker system. If the sound
>of two speakers playing the same input signal thru the same source, amp
>etc. is different, at least one of them is distorting! How much clearer
>do I have to get??
We know for sure that they both are! ;-)
>> a lot of distortion, but I can
>> find a lot of good chamber music with no signal there to distort,
>> and still find speakers that sound radically different.
>Then at least one of them is distorting the input signal!
We know for sure that they both are! ;-)
>> You're waffling seriously here. Two channels can NEVER reproduce a
>> "totally undistorted reproduction of a live concert". Is this about
>> if there are distortions in speakers, or is this about the basic
>> issue of stereo reproduction?
>This is most assuredly about distortions in speakers, which, as I have
>previously stated, present levels of distortion that are MUCH higher
>than either the CD or LP sources.
Depends on the frequency. At low frequencies, there is a possibility
that the LP has less distortion. At middle and particularly at high
frequencies, good speakers can do what LP's can't.
>Nope, we're still on speakers; transducers are the worst of the problem.
This was true 20 years ago when LP was still all we had, but speakers
have improved a lot since then, in terms of nonlinear distortion. In
terms of linear distortion, it gets hard to separate the speaker, the
room, and the problems that JJ was correctly pointing out. Basic
drivers can now be about as flat as cartridges. In terms of dynamic
range, above 10-12 kHz, good drivers can hold their output up better
than LP's. They have to - most people play CD's through them! ;-)
>Argueing about other minor distortions is like argueing about how many
>angels can sit on the head of a pin.
But in the LP process, the distortion can be pretty gross. Some
things that speakers can handle, LP's just can't do.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <66hdsg$6...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>,
Rgvivace <rgvi...@aol.com> wrote:
>I doubt that the digital process is, in itself, at fault and that
>several of the new extended frequency range - longer word length -
>higher sampling rate - formats now being vetted will essentially
>eradicate my rejection of cd.
Do you have any response at all to the long-established fact that
LP's have euphonic distortions?
Do you have any evidence that for HOME PLAYBACK, 16 bits isn't enough?
Do you have any evidence that a wider bandwidth in and of itself
is required?
If so, I would love to see it.
Brian Drummond
Scott Frankland <audi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Arny Kr|ger wrote:
I seem to recall Williamson's articles in Wireless World, while not
mentioning the distortion as such, listed the design criteria for
avoiding it, and his power amp design met those criteria.
Mar? Apr, May? 1947.
- Brian
Chuck Ross
Richard D Pierce wrote:
> In article <66k3ff$4...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>,
> Chuck Ross <ckr...@enteract.com> wrote:
> > j...@research.att.com, curmudgeon, wrote:
> >
> >> Chuck Ross <ckr...@enteract.com> wrote:
> >> >Oh, really? What then is the cause of two different speaker systems
> >> >reproducing the same signal quite differently? Attitude?
> >>
> >> Frequency response, polar response, power response vs. polar response,
> >> room surfaces,
> >
> >All these different contributions to the sound of speakers aside, if
> >two speakers sound different from each other, at least one of them is
> >distorting the original signal!
>
> Well, what we have here is, in the overall realm of conventional
> usage, an >unconventional< usage of the term "distortion." The
> conventional usage of the term "distortion" is perturbation of the
> signal by a nonlinear amplitude transfer function.
I emphatically disagree, and since this is not technically an
"engineering" forum ( and from what goes on here, it's hard to
tell sometimes), I feel that your definition of the term "distortion"
is applicable only to a very speciallized case.
"4. Electronics a. An undesired change in the waveform of a signal. b. A
consequence of such a change, especially a lack of fidelity in reception
or reproduction."
This is the American Heritage definition of "distortion" as it applies
to electronics. Certainly, there are special types of distortion that
are actually not necessarily non-linear, such as a certain type of
phase distortion that is audible on some recordings ONLY when playing
the recordings monaurally, but sounds perfectly normal when playing
the recording in stereo.
> If your are going to generalize the use of the term "distortion" to
> cover ANY difference in the sound, then it can easily be shown that
> even moving to a slightly different position while listening to a
> concert is a distortion-generating process, because there WILL be a
> difference in the sound as a result. That further begs the question
> of what constitutes "undistorted," since by your unconventional usage
> of the term ANY difference constitutes distortion. Difference, then,
> from what?
The thread began, and will no doubt, end with a trivial discussion about
the measurably greater distortion of LP vs that of CD due to certain
factors, such as vinyl's elasticity, mechanical impossibility of stylus
tracing the modulation in an LP groove, etc, etc., NONE of which actually
diminish the listening pleasure many, many people get from listening to
LPs. So WHAT if you can proove that LPs don't measure as well....they
sure as hell can certainly sound pretty damn good. The "engineers"
on board are apparently trying to say that because of some miniscule
quantities of measureable distortion inherent in the media, that LPs
are a complete waste of time.
> By broadlay redefining the use of the term which, in fact, is being
> used in a fairly precise objective context by JJ and others and has
> quite a few decades of such usage to bolster that convention, you
> have, essentially, made the discussion impossible.
The discussion, as I saw it was impossible to begin with, because the
differences in the sounds of two different speakers, given the same
driving power amps, etc., in the same rooms, sound REALLY different
from each other....now, if that's not a "distortion" of what the
recording producer intended for the listener to hear, I don't know
what is.
> Now, if you want to talk about "perturbations, linear and non-linear
> in both the time and amplitude domains," then, in fact, you have
> established a reasonable point based on a common understanding of the
> terminology involved to move forward.
I don't want to talk about that because I have not the slightest idea
of what you're talking about, but of course, you're only showing off
your vast knowledge of engineering terms. I was under the impression
that this was a discussion group about high-end audio equipment, and
the enjoyment thereof.
> However, now that it apparent that you are extending the term
> "distortion" to mean something much larger than it conventionally
> means, the commonality necessary in the language has been
> compromised.
>
> "Distortion" is taken to mean the addition of signals due to
> non-linear processes in the intermediate chains.
>
> >> The idea that two-channel sound suffices for stereo reproduction
> >> has been dismissed by some revealing results all the way back to
> >> the time of Fletcher. (Chapter 13 of the ASA reprints of his work)
> >
> >Never said that....you're off on some sort of tangent, aren't you?
>
> No, he is not. He is specifically saying, using YOUR unconventional
> use of the term "distortion", that stereo is an inherently
> distortion-generating process. But, by that same unconventional
> definition, moving your head while listening is ALSO a
> distortion-generating process.
Yep, that would do it too, probably resulting in a distortion far
greater than the difference between the LP recording and the digital
version.
> >> If we're talking about that, then speakers are the least of the problem.
> >
> >Nope, we're still on speakers; transducers are the worst of the problem.
>
> Nopt in terms of non-linear distortion generating mechanisms, they
> are not. And in terms of the inability to present a reasonable sample
> of the sound field to the listener, speakers ARE, indeed, among the
> least of the problems. THE problem, in that sense, is the basic
> concept of two-channel stereo. It is an inherently flawed medium for
> conveying a reasonable facsimile of a live-music sound field.
True. No-one, particularly not myself is arguing that. That wasn't
what I had in mind. What I had in mind was that all transducers do NOT
sound alike, inferring that some of them produce more gross distortions
of the intended sound than others. Like headphones, for example, to
remove this from the speaker domain for a moment. They all sound different.
Distortion, or not?
>
> That's what JJ was talking about, that's what Fletcher was talking
> about.
>
> >Arguing about other minor distortions is like arguing about how many
> >angels can sit on the head of a pin.
>
> It can't be as bad as someone redefining what is to the relevant
> community a well understood term.
Aha! Well-understood by the esoteric ones, eh? Perhaps not by everyone.
We're not all engineers, here Mr. Pierce, and frankly, I find your
insinuation that you think we all should be is rather insulting. I am
not intimidated by engineers who have no idea what the average Joe who
merely wants to listen to music is all about.
(flame-proof suit is somewhere around here, I think....)
Michael R. Hobaugh
In article <66h817$j...@eyrie.graphics.cornell.edu>,
Indeed. I would recommend to the first poster that he listen to any of
the Naim CDs recorded by Ken Christianson on his analogue Nagra using a
simple 2 mic set up. They sound _fantastic_. Very realistic. DAT tends
to sound quite compressed spacially...
MRH
Curtis Leeds
Chuck Ross wrote:
> The thread began, and will no doubt, end with a trivial discussion about...
I just wish that I could believe that this thread will, indeed, end in no doubt,
or even that it will end at all. ;)
> We're not all engineers, here Mr. Pierce, and frankly, I find your
> insinuation that you think we all should be is rather insulting. I am
> not intimidated by engineers who have no idea what the average Joe who
> merely wants to listen to music is all about.
This is an excellent observation, imo. Watch the flames that result.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <66k3ff$4...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>,
Chuck Ross <ckr...@enteract.com> wrote:
> j...@research.att.com, curmudgeon, wrote:
>> Frequency response, polar response, power response vs. polar response,
>> room surfaces,
>All these different contributions to the sound of speakers aside, if
>two speakers sound different from each other, at least one of them is
>distorting the original signal!
Abjectly fallacious.
Then you say->
>I am NOT talking about 2-channel sound, I am talking about the sound
>of the signal as reproduced thru the speaker system.
Ok, the stuff we discuss here is 99.95% 2-channel. You say "the
signal". What is "the signal"? If it's the electronic signal, that
2-channel electronic signal (and even a 5 or 7 channel electronic
signal or more) includes NO information about the original soundfield
polar response, power response, and room surfaces, and so now in the
WORLD can you accuse the SPEAKER of distorting something that was
never recorded?
The information is NOT THERE. In its absense, different speakers
make different compromises, for different listening tastes. How can
you concievably call something that MUST be a compromise, given that
THE INFORMATION IS MISSING, "distortion".
You've made a whole multitude of omissions. First, you've omitted the
fact that the soundfield is NOT conveyed through the electronic
signal, and in general cannot be conveyed through an electronic
signal. Second, you assert that when two speakers reproduce missing
information differently, one of them must be wrong, when in fact the
information is lost, and there is no "right" or "wrong" to be had,
now or ever.
You can certainly pick a speaker whose estimate of the soundfield
matches your preference, or the kind of venue you're accustomed to,
and why not, but that is not any kind of evidence of distortion, it's
pure and abject preference.
Now, if you mean "the signal" means the original venue, the
"distortion" takes place at the original miking. So why make this
"speaker distortion"?
>If the sound
>of two speakers playing the same input signal thru the same source, amp
>etc. is different, at least one of them is distorting! How much clearer
>do I have to get??
Well, you may think you're being clear, but you're leaving out so
many things that not only are you not clear, you're flat-out wrong.
I've mentioned a few of the things you've left out, a complete list
would constitute a full course in stereo and multichannel recording.
Perhaps mgod or someone more into this might do this for you, but I
haven't the time or interest, especially since you seem to me to be
more interested in making fun of me than learning something from the
dialog.
>> What about below 100 Hz, probably a lot of distortion, but I can
>> find a lot of good chamber music with no signal there to distort,
>> and still find speakers that sound radically different.
>Then at least one of them is distorting the input signal!
You keep making this statement as a matter of faith, but why
do you persist in my agreeing with your religious decision?
>This is most assuredly about distortions in speakers, which, as I have
>previously stated, present levels of distortion that are MUCH higher
>than either the CD or LP sources.
Hmm. Not that LP, for a good part of the audio spectrum, actually,
but that's a different issue than what you assert above.
>Never said that....you're off on some sort of tangent, aren't you?
No, it's your tangent, you've asserted that two speakers with
different polar patterns sound different, so one of them distorts.
Since there is no information in the recording to be able to tell
what the original signal had in a radiation pattern, it's
absolutely impossible to say which one distorts, or that one or the
other is right, or wrong.
Only if you go to the original venue can you make some assertion, and
then the distortion IS IN THE RECORDING METHOD, not in the poor
loudspeaker that can not POSSIBLY know what to do.
In order to determine "distortion" you must have an original referent
to go by, and the information mentioned at the beginning of the
article in your quote of me IS MISSING FROM THE STEREO SIGNAL,
period, and that's all there is to it, so YOU HAVE NO REFERENCE, and
calling any problems resulting from that "distortion" (well, other
than the original elimination of the information during miking and
such) is simply fallacious.
>Nope, we're still on speakers; transducers are the worst of the problem.
Ok, I can agree that transDUCTION is the worst problem. But the
problems in transduction happen a long time before the loudspeaker.
Yes, there are a whole myriad of problems in the mechanical
realization of loudspeakers, but the real problem happens long before
the signal gets to the reproduction end of the chain.
And the real transduction problem is a real doozie, too.
>Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.
Please retract your offensive claim that I am an idiot.
[ It's his signature, JJ. -- deb ]
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <66k3s5$4...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>,
JJMcF <jj...@aol.com> wrote:
>I don't doubt that the LP has distortion (heck, I can even hear some
>of it, to the detriment of the music) but the idea that euphonic
>distortions are what LP fans like about the LP is troublesome because
>(1) reducing some of the distortions of disc recordings, say by
>recording at 45rpm or 78 rpm, or listening to the master disc itself,
>almost always sounds better--ie, the better the LP distortionwise,
>the better it sounds and
First, a faster recording speed does NOT reduce the "distortions"
some of them get worse, some get better, some don't change.
Second, listening to a master already has the distortions we're
talking about introduced in a substantial fashion.
>(2) while the LP does some things poorly
>(wow, tracing distortion) it's still possible that it does some
>things better than other media--maybe reproduces a saxophone more
>accurately or something like that--that makes it a better music
>carrier.
Yes, it distorts in a way that makes a saxiphone (using your example)
sound better? Why is this a problem? Why do you continue to think
that a 2-channel representation would even sound marginally like a
saxiphone when soundfield (which one automatically considers) is
considered? Why would you have any problem with the idea that
distorting a very limited medium could create an improvement?
>Is that mathematically impossible, or is the math just
>inadequate to make this distinction?
It distorts in a way that makes your saxiphone sound better. Why is
this a problem? No, euphonic distortions present no problem to the
mathematics.
Why, pray tell, must you reject more than 30 years of work on LP's
and claim that they do not have euphonic distortions? Why must you
reject 80+ years of evidence the euphonic distortions exist?
Why must you create fallacious arguments like the ones above
regarding distortions, instead of going to study the field, and
learning something about how the various mechanisms work, first?
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <66jr8t$q...@jamesv.Warren.MENTORG.COM>,
Brian Drummond <br...@shapes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>However what is _not_ illogical is to assume that there _may_ (not must)
>be some other factor, which is either present in LP playback, or a form
>of distortion present in CD playback but currently unrecognised.
>Either because it is undetected so far, or MUCH more likely, assumed to
>be unimportant because it measures at a relatively low level.
The problem, Brian, is that in a working CD player (and many current
ones only function, they don't work right, we could get into a
diatribe about bad DAC's here, easily :-) the level of distortions
and noise is known to be below the absolute threshold of hearing for
most really good boxes.
Now, the threshold of hearing isn't some new result, it goes way back
to the mid 1800's, and it doesn't matter what for the signal takes if
it's just BELOW the absolute threshold of hearing.
Now, having said that, a system with a really bad gain structure, set
up to play loud enough to cause hearing damage, can make the
low-level noise of a working CD player audible.
Is that relevant? I don't think so.
>Thus we can account for the occasional preference for LP _either_
>through the euphonic nature of its relatively high levels of
>distortions, _or_ the non-euphonic nature of the relatively low-level
>forms of distortion associated with CD.
Except that the existance of the "low-level ... CD" is dismissed
through measurments that show they are below the threshold of human
hearing. Ergo, one option is shown to be nonexistant. What's more,
the other option is proven, documented, etc, to a fair-thee-well.
Given that one option (euphonic distortions of LP) is long ago and
bloody well established, and out in the literature for all to read,
and the other is dismissed by measurements that are much more
sensitive than human hearing, your argument fails, I think, to
convince.
In fact, I submit that in the absense of your showing BOTH that
euphonic distortions do not exist, despite the literature and
many people's experience (including mine), and that CD distortions
of higher level DO exist, your argument must be completely rejected.
Evidence? Can you show evidence?
Curtis Leeds
John Busenitz wrote:
> ... I'm just
> curious, because you are very quick to point out that audible
> flaws in vinyl playback can be eliminated with proper equipment
> and setup.
Here's another contributor who paraphrases me mistakenly, rather than
provide an exact quote. I have never asserted that audible flaws in
any audio component can be eliminated. So any argument that follows
this silly assertion is just felonious.
> I might add that there is no consensus on what "good"
> equipment for vinyl playback IS! However, among those who know
> how to analyze CD playback, there is much less controversy.
Is this true? I don't really know. Actually, I think there is quite a
bit of agreement about what some of today's best LP playback gear is.
There are quite a number of good turntables, arms, cartridges, and
preamps presently available.
> It all comes back to the flaws inherent in each medium, not
> incidental or common non-inherent flaws.
Isn't everything flawed to some extent? LP, CD, tape of all sorts,
minidisk, Windows95?? You pick the poison, and you pay the price.
Fred Thompson
Arny, I have a question for you, and here it is: can you hear a
difference between CD (16 bit, 44K sampling) and state of the art
digital (24 bit, 100K+ sampling)?
Arny, the rest of us CAN. If you can't, then please butt out, as your
ears are burnt out! And Arny, if you can hear it, then hear this: the
difference is the same difference us "idiots" hear when comparing CD to
analog. Maybe you should go out and get a good turntable, and hear what
you've been missing!
Fred
"The Road to Enlightenment is Long and Difficult... so Bring Snacks and
a Magazine."
Brian Drummond
j...@research.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist) wrote:
to demonstrate the logical correctness of Bob Myers' argument...
>In article <66jr8t$q...@jamesv.Warren.MENTORG.COM>,
>Brian Drummond <br...@shapes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[Brian]
>>Thus we can account for the occasional preference for LP _either_
>>through the euphonic nature of its relatively high levels of
>>distortions, _or_ [...]
[JJ]
>In fact, I submit that in the absense of your showing BOTH that
>euphonic distortions do not exist, despite the literature and
>many people's experience (including mine), and [...]
This is supposed to be a defence of Bob Myers' logic?
Really, its so blatantly flawed it needs no comment from me.
Perhaps you should read the post to which you are replying, before
replying to it. You will find that I was NOT saying Bob Myers' point was
WRONG - but that it is ILLOGICAL.
It is surprising how often those who claim to have the full weight and
authority of science on their side in this argument, so often fail in
the simplest of scientific justifications - logic - for their arguments.
To address a lesser point as another illustration of this:
>
>Now, the threshold of hearing isn't some new result, it goes way back
>to the mid 1800's, and it doesn't matter what for the signal takes if
>it's just BELOW the absolute threshold of hearing.
>
And both Newtonian mechanics and the Phlogiston theory go way back too.
Your point?
More precisely, the threshold of hearing is not just a result. It is
both a theory - a model - an artificial construct - and data supporting
that model. The data is not in doubt. There are whole volumes of peer
reviewed papers of data supporting the model. We should be complacent
that it is correct and need not be rigorous in how we select or ignore
evidence that may call it into question. Furthermore anyone who
questions it in any way is ipso facto a fool. Right?
And therefore we can take the quality of what we are being sold on trust
and we can believe the chip manufacturers and we can always rely on the
scientists to get it right. Right?
I wonder if you have any idea what percentage of the highest grade of
20-bit (R-2R ladder) monolithic DACs you have to throw away, if you want
to actually _meet_ 16-bit performance or better.
I wonder if any unwary designer actually believed the data sheet on a
particular part and followed the analog circuit recommendations, where
using the DAC in non-oversampling mode delivers several percent
non-linear distortion. But with an oversampling filter you'll have to
look in the right place to measure it... Actually I don't have to wonder
- I've seen people fall into the trap through complacency.
I wonder if anyone has taken the phase noise spectrum of their crystal
oscillator on trust, or if every designer identifies and recommends the
solution that gives the lowest noise sidebands. Though the fact that a
fair percentage of product seems to ship with crystals cut for the wrong
_mode_ of oscillation suggests that people don't even bother to get the
BASICS right, let alone caring about performance.
I wonder if simply ignoring the Gibbs phenomenon is as valid as the
experts tell us. Or used to tell us...
I wonder if Pioneer's experiments on hearing above 20kHz are all
completely flawed or if there just might be something there.
I wonder if ... but enough!
The point is that ONLY by critical examination of what we do can we
expect to improve it. After all, you could have said everything you're
saying today about the near-perfection of CD, almost fifteen years ago.
After all, if its "pure perfect sound forever", there's no point trying
to improve it! And yet - I would say there HAVE been improvements. Would
you?
And that (critical examination) means, taking the criticisms of the
illiterate unwashed unscientific CUSTOMERS on board and examining it for
just possibly a germ of truth buried within the farrago of lies and
logical errors and misunderstandings when they tell it like it is, or
like it sounds like to them.
Instead of responding with a scientific farrago of lies and logical
errors and misunderstandings and weight of authority and a hundred and
fifty years of measurement data and hoping they'll shut up.
- Brian
Arny Kr|ger
Chuck Ross wrote in message <66mqii$s...@jamesv.Warren.MENTORG.COM>...
>The thread began, and will no doubt, end with a trivial discussion about
>the measurably greater distortion of LP vs that of CD due to certain
>factors, such as vinyl's elasticity, mechanical impossibility of stylus
>tracing the modulation in an LP groove, etc, etc., NONE of which actually
>diminish the listening pleasure many, many people get from listening to
>LPs.
Thus, you support JJ's point that there is distortion that when present,
still leads to listening pleasure.
>So WHAT if you can proove that LPs don't measure as well.
The fact that you present this as if it were just a possibility, and not the
well-known certainty it is, indicates that you may be strongly biased in
favor of LP.
>...they sure as hell can certainly sound pretty damn good.
And so can under $200 CD players, Radio Shack wires, appliance store
receivers and speakers... What is your point?
>The "engineers"
>on board are apparently trying to say that because of some miniscule
>quantities of measureable distortion inherent in the media, that LPs
>are a complete waste of time.
This time you would appear to be grossly distorting the amounts of
measurable distortion inherent in the LP recording process. It is not "some
miniscule quantity".
The egregious amounts of noise and distortion inherent in the LP process are
readily audible in controlled tests.
Since so much of the High End is devoted to expending vast resources to deal
with noise and distortion that is NOT readily audible in controlled tests,
what kind of statement of priorities are we seeing here? ;-)
Chuck Ross
In article <66nc7g$p...@merckx.graphics.cornell.edu>, j...@research.att.com
(jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist) wrote:
> >All these different contributions to the sound of speakers aside, if
> >two speakers sound different from each other, at least one of them is
> >distorting the original signal!
>
> Abjectly fallacious.
NOT Fallacious. Please be so kind as to read exactly what I said. I said,
"At least one of them is distorting the original signal".
Now, Mr. Curmudgeon, what this would mean to _most_ people is that quite
possible _both_ speakers are distorting the original signal, which is
rather likely the case.
> Then you say->
> >I am NOT talking about 2-channel sound, I am talking about the sound
> >of the signal as reproduced thru the speaker system.
>
> Ok, the stuff we discuss here is 99.95% 2-channel. You say "the
> signal". What is "the signal"? If it's the electronic signal, that
> 2-channel electronic signal (and even a 5 or 7 channel electronic
> signal or more) includes NO information about the original soundfield
> polar response, power response, and room surfaces, and so now in the
> WORLD can you accuse the SPEAKER of distorting something that was
> never recorded?
Whatever signal you would like it to be is what the signal is. Whether
it's a mono signal, 2-channel stereo, or however many channels of sound
you think you can count up to...that's the signal.
As I said several times, "All these different contributions to the sound
of speakers aside, if two speakers sound different from each other, at
least one of them is distorting the original signal!" Got that?
> The information is NOT THERE. In its absense, different speakers
> make different compromises, for different listening tastes. How can
> you concievably call something that MUST be a compromise, given that
> THE INFORMATION IS MISSING, "distortion".
Well put. This makes it rather obvious that if two speakers sound
different from each other, AT LEAST ONE OF THEM IS DISTORTING THE
INPUT SIGNAL. (I figure maybe you could make it out more better and
more clearer if in caps....)
> You've made a whole multitude of omissions. First, you've omitted the
> fact that the soundfield is NOT conveyed through the electronic
> signal, and in general cannot be conveyed through an electronic
> signal. Second, you assert that when two speakers reproduce missing
> information differently, one of them must be wrong, when in fact the
> information is lost, and there is no "right" or "wrong" to be had,
> now or ever.
Are you now saying that the characteristics of the original recording
venue (soundfield) are NOT conveyed through the electronic signal?
Oy, vey.
> You can certainly pick a speaker whose estimate of the soundfield
> matches your preference, or the kind of venue you're accustomed to,
> and why not, but that is not any kind of evidence of distortion, it's
> pure and abject preference.
Yes. But since there do not seem to be any *perfect* transducers at
this point in time, then it would seem that you would be choosing your
favorite form of distortion to make you happy.
> Now, if you mean "the signal" means the original venue, the
> "distortion" takes place at the original miking. So why make this
> "speaker distortion"?
Because, if one speaker almost sounds like the original venue did at
the recording and another one doesn't, then at least one of the
speakers is distorting the input signal. (My fingers are getting sore)
> Well, you may think you're being clear, but you're leaving out so
> many things that not only are you not clear, you're flat-out wrong.
You and Pierce just seem to relish this phraseology: "You're WRONG!"
> I've mentioned a few of the things you've left out, a complete list
> would constitute a full course in stereo and multichannel recording.
> Perhaps mgod or someone more into this might do this for you, but I
> haven't the time or interest, especially since you seem to me to be
> more interested in making fun of me than learning something from the
> dialog.
Making fun of you?? Heaven Forefend! I do believe it may be the other
'way round, tho.
> >> What about below 100 Hz, probably a lot of distortion, but I can
> >> find a lot of good chamber music with no signal there to distort,
> >> and still find speakers that sound radically different.
>
> >Then at least one of them is distorting the input signal!
>
> You keep making this statement as a matter of faith, but why
> do you persist in my agreeing with your religious decision?
It's most definitely not a religious decision, it's a rather simple
excercise in rather basic deductive logic.
> >This is most assuredly about distortions in speakers, which, as I have
> >previously stated, present levels of distortion that are MUCH higher
> >than either the CD or LP sources.
>
> Hmm. Not that LP, for a good part of the audio spectrum, actually,
> but that's a different issue than what you assert above.
>
> >Never said that....you're off on some sort of tangent, aren't you?
>
> No, it's your tangent, you've asserted that two speakers with
> different polar patterns sound different, so one of them distorts.
Yeah!! Hey, I think now you actually might have it, Mudge!
> Since there is no information in the recording to be able to tell
> what the original signal had in a radiation pattern, it's
> absolutely impossible to say which one distorts, or that one or the
> other is right, or wrong.
Yeah, right. But, as I said, if two speakers sound...oh, well...you know...
> Only if you go to the original venue can you make some assertion, and
> then the distortion IS IN THE RECORDING METHOD, not in the poor
> loudspeaker that can not POSSIBLY know what to do.
Again, you seem to be off on some sort of tangent! Now you're bringing
in recording techniques! Incredible! Mudge, it makes no diff what sort
of recording method was used, if two speakers sound...oh, you know...
> In order to determine "distortion" you must have an original referent
> to go by, and the information mentioned at the beginning of the
> article in your quote of me IS MISSING FROM THE STEREO SIGNAL,
> period, and that's all there is to it, so YOU HAVE NO REFERENCE, and
> calling any problems resulting from that "distortion" (well, other
> than the original elimination of the information during miking and
> such) is simply fallacious.
It's late, and the preceding paragraph is so obtuse as to defy any
comprehension. What reference? Two speakers. One sounds different from
the other. Therefore, one, (or maybe both) ain't quite right, Mudge.
(In case this causes a furrowed brow, "Mudge" is affectionate for
"Curmudgeon")
> >Nope, we're still on speakers; transducers are the worst of the problem.
>
> Ok, I can agree that transDUCTION is the worst problem. But the
> problems in transduction happen a long time before the loudspeaker.
> Yes, there are a whole myriad of problems in the mechanical
> realization of loudspeakers, but the real problem happens long before
> the signal gets to the reproduction end of the chain.
The problems in transduction happen all the way along the line from
the very first transducer, the microphone, unless, of course, you're
recording direct to digital (No microphone). The FINAL transducer adds
much more distortion (talking about 20-20k here) than the last two
popular signal sources, the LP and CD, and what the hell...tape too.
[ quoted text deleted -- jmv ]
Cordially,
Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot.
_____________________________________________
Reply to ckr...@enteract.com
Stewart Pinkerton
Curtis Leeds <cle...@idt.net> writes:
>Here we go again within the thread of eternal life. Earlier, I wrote (along with
>l-o-t-s of other stuff that seems to be rather summarily discarded):
And yet another round, with vague hand-waving 'summarily' discarded.
> Part of the problem when we have this discussion is that the
>LP is a mature technology, and so just about all there is to understand
>about it is already well known. (Unfortunately, much of the research that
>has been done on the LP was NOT done with the benefit of today's best
>equipment. For example, in another post in this thread, Arny Kruger argues
>that a 90dB broadband unweighted s/n is an impossible dream from LP, but
>some of today's tables get v-e-r-y close to this.)
This is arrant misrepresentation! Some of today's tables are capable
of putting up *rumble* figures below -80dB, but these are often
weighted figures, and are often measured in mono, thereby eliminating
vertical noise. Put an LP on the turntable and play it with a
top-class moving-coil pickup cartridge, and your s/n ratio collapses
to an *absolute limit* of less than 75dB, with state-of-the-art
equipment. The perfect turntable and perfect tone arm with the best
possible pickup cartridge will not improve those numbers, any
deviation from perfection will simply degrade them, and add the
several forms of distortion with which LP is *inherently* plagued,
despite your constant handwaving about 'miniscule' and 'inaudible'
distortion levels. Above 5kHz, we're talking *gross* distortion, not
anything which could be described as 'miniscule', even by Clintons
spin doctors..........
>The CD, however, remains
>more of an unknown. While the engineers understand perfectly well how it
>works (and it is a remarkable engineering feat, without any doubt or
>question), they understand less about how it doesn't work. That is, they
>remain to learn all of the factors that influence how we perceive its
>sound. It is those factors - the flaws in current CD implementation - that
>may well be responsible for LP preference.
What flaws? Any flaws which exist in current CD reproduction are at
levels typically 40dB below the noise floor of LP! Flaws *inherent* to
CD reproduction, to use your favourite comparison, are limited to
those inevitably introduced by a 22kHz bandwidth and a 96dB dynamic
range. There are *no* other inherent flaws.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
ASP Consulting |
(44) 1509 880112 |
Chuck Ross
Arny Kr|ger <ar...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Chuck Ross wrote in message <66mqii$s...@jamesv.Warren.MENTORG.COM>...
>
> >The thread began, and will no doubt, end with a trivial discussion about
> >the measurably greater distortion of LP vs that of CD due to certain
> >factors, such as vinyl's elasticity, mechanical impossibility of stylus
> >tracing the modulation in an LP groove, etc, etc., NONE of which actually
> >diminish the listening pleasure many, many people get from listening to
> >LPs.
>
> Thus, you support JJ's point that there is distortion that when present,
> still leads to listening pleasure.
Oh, certainly. I'd go along with that any time. In fact, even when there's
distortion present in CD, I'd still go along with that.
Just in case you don't think distortion is possible in a CD, please allow
me to send you a really distorted CD to listen to.
> >So WHAT if you can proove that LPs don't measure as well.
>
> The fact that you present this as if it were just a possibility, and not the
> well-known certainty it is, indicates that you may be strongly biased in
> favor of LP.
I accept it as not just a possibility, but an absolute certainty that you can
proove that LPs don't measure as well. I did not present it as a possibility
that LPs would not measure as well. But, as we all eventually realize, the
measurements don't tell the whole story.
>
> >...they sure as hell can certainly sound pretty damn good.
You have committed a gross error in inductive logic. I simply stated that
even tho LPs have some inherent flaws due to the format, they are still more
than just tolerably listenable, some of them are superb, musically speaking,
even with the ticks, pops and inherent distortion.
But "strongly biased in favor of LP"?? No way, doc. I hate LP's inconvenience,
hiss, ticks, pops, turnover the side after 15 minutes, put the pickup on
carefully, clean the stylus, clean the record, put them very carefully away,
clean the turntable mat...all of it a terrific pain in the ass. I've felt
that way for many years and was delighted when CDs hit the market, but
somewhat disappointed in the quality of early (and some fairly recent) CD
issues and the sound.
You and others seem to be hell-bent on some sort of campaign to discourage
everyone who prefers the sound of LPs and show them how wrong they are. I
think you've campaigned too long already. I do believe we all know that
digital is the wave of the future, perhaps, but that a great deal of
enjoyment can be had from vinyl is well-known by some of us.
>
> And so can under $200 CD players, Radio Shack wires, appliance store
> receivers and speakers... What is your point?
(Hmmm...I had a point. You've managed to confuse the issue....(:))
>
> >The "engineers"
> >on board are apparently trying to say that because of some miniscule
> >quantities of measureable distortion inherent in the media, that LPs
> >are a complete waste of time.
AHA! There's my point! Thank you for reposting it for me!
>
> This time you would appear to be grossly distorting the amounts of
> measurable distortion inherent in the LP recording process. It is not "some
> miniscule quantity".
>
> The egregious amounts of noise and distortion inherent in the LP process are
> readily audible in controlled tests.
AHA! But in UN-controlled listening, people don't seem to notice the distortion
and if they do, generally seem to prefer it to the harsh distortions of many
digital releases.
The other day, I sat my 89-year-old aunt down and played a CD for her, then
played the same music from an LP. When I was finished, I said, "Which one
sounded better"?
She replied, "Vot, are you krezzy?? Die rekort is MOTCH BATTER!"
So there you have it.
Richard D Pierce
You've proved that the claims by some that they do are false, and
their preferences for the medium are simply their preferences,
choises that have no need for justification. Why, then, do they
insist on launching on a campaign of misrepresentationa and
falsehoods just to support their personal preference?
>>The "engineers"
>>on board are apparently trying to say that because of some miniscule
>>quantities of measureable distortion inherent in the media, that LPs
>>are a complete waste of time.
All right, Mr. Ross, you have made a specific accusation here that
the "on board engineers" say that "LP's are a waste of time." Which
on-board engineer said this? Me? Mr. Krueger? JJ? Who?
Or is this yet another misrepresentation? Already, Curtis Leeds,
based on NO knowledge whatsoever of what equipment I own, made claims
about my non-existant public admissions of what I owned and proceeded
to carry on an argument against that position. Now you have claimed
that certain "on board engineers" have stated that LP's are a waste
of time."
Since I have not said that, would you care to provide a quote of who
did? Is it time to throw away my many hundreds of LP's simply because
YOU claim that me or someone else declared them a "waste of time?"
No, what is a waste of tie is this continuous misrperesentation and
fabrication about non-existant statements made like "on-board
engineers say LP's are a waste of time" and completely false and
possibly malicious comments about my non-existant insinuations.
Show us the specific quotes or knock the misrepresentation off.
Please.
Sheesh.
Stewart Pinkerton
FREDTH...@webtv.net (Fred Thompson) writes:
>Arny, I have a question for you, and here it is: can you hear a
>difference between CD (16 bit, 44K sampling) and state of the art
>digital (24 bit, 100K+ sampling)?
>Arny, the rest of us CAN.
Oh, really? When you have you ever heard this 'comparison', *with the
same filters* in circuit? Incidentally, damn few people have ever
heard >100k sampling..........
>If you can't, then please butt out, as your
>ears are burnt out! And Arny, if you can hear it, then hear this: the
>difference is the same difference us "idiots" hear when comparing CD to
>analog. Maybe you should go out and get a good turntable, and hear what
>you've been missing!
Maybe you should keep your *personal preferences* to yourself, you're
clearly unable to do anything other than stamp your feet and shout
'analogue is better', without any rational argument as to why you
think this is so.........