 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
83.84.177.139
In Reply to: Re: AES? Geez, you mean... posted by geoffkait on November 13, 2005 at 07:41:10:
Yeah, VTA induced distortion is an AES invention, absolute bogus, skating force also in an AES invention, pure humbug, RIAA equalisation and de-equalisation is sheer fantasy, groove echo, probably aural hallucinations, lateral tracking error, in which garbage bin did Wilson, Löfgren, Baerwald find this one, tracing error, record warps, pinch effect, diameter compensation, father Xmas, easter bunny, all brothers in arms.Fortunately there are those who can hear to tell us that by simple listening all that disappears, vinyl is perfect, physics and mathematics are games for dumbnuts.
Klipsch couldn't hear, but we'll see in 2050 if your stupid chip is still produced and selling, Bayliff couldn't hear, how come that he was able to design the Decca London, Anderson and Kogen couldn't hear, strangely enough the V15 is one of the best-selling carts ever, Olson couldn't hear, how comes that cabinet edge diffraction is a major concern for serious speaker designers, without Shibata we probably still would use antique stylus shapes, Allison, Villchur, Obata, Fincham, Griesinger, Kantor, Stuart, D'Appolito, Risch, Walker, Theiss, all deaf like a dead cat!!!
Klaus
Follow Ups:
Fremer is not anywhere near as closed minded to digital playback as you suggest. Let me give you an example:"Best Sound at Show?"
by Michael Fremer, in his Stereophile CES 2002 Review, April 2002"Of what I did hear, easily the best sound was in the Rockport Technology (speakers)/Tenor Audio room."
As I (Machina Dynamica) was part of this particular system at CES 2002, I can assure you the system was Digital.
Auf leiderhosen - GK
"Best Sound at Show?"
by Michael Fremer, in his Stereophile CES 2002 Review, April 2002"Of what I did hear, easily the best sound was in the Rockport Technology (speakers)/Tenor Audio room."
Isn't that a bit like saying you've eaten at the best restaurant in Evansville Indiana? One has to consider the quality of competition. For the past few years I've been reading one post after another bemoaning the deplorable sound at CES venues.
Depends on which venues one attends at CES. Competition in the Tuscany Hotel, where the Tenor/Rockport exhibit was set up, was quite intense, with extremely large rooms and very big expenisive systems, unlike the other venues. I should add that many people who heard the Tenor/Rockport rig, including Jonathan Valin, reviewer of note, opined that it was not only the best they had ever heard at a show, but the best they had ever heard anywhere. (blush)
No one has claimed that vinyl is perfect. Where you're getting the notion that afficionados of the format believe it is is a mystery. But from your posts, it is clear that you are not a listener, but a chart-reader, and not too many around here have time, patience or respect for that position (and it doesn't help that when questioned or doubted, you fire off arrogant missive after arrogant missive). Try lightening up. Just because you like charts and numbers and "expert's opinions" doesn't make you the authority on audio.
we all would still be listening to Edison wax cylinders, or maybe not even that!Once again, what I was suggesting was, instead of continuing to bash digital, to have a closer look at what's behind vinyl. Not for the sake of bashing vinyl, but for reasons of simple curiosity and interest.
I'm sure that, if we had had digital first and engineers had then invented vinyl's "perfect sound forever", bashing vinyl would have been the order of the day.
Klaus
Did you actually hear how bad early digital was? Many professionals would love to return back to analog and some even do. The fact that vinyl is experiencing a bit of a renaissance should clue you in to the dissatisfaction. Perhaps your system lacks the resolution to tell the difference? It wouldn't be the first time someone is arguing from a point of perceptual ignorance.People bought the "perfect sound forever" hook line and sinker because the convenience made it easy to swallow and let's admit it, most people had crappy analog playback systems as well. They didn't have good analog sound to begin with. So it was more of a parallel move. Those with good analog playback that got rid of it soon regretted it.
BTW, the best vinyl recordings are "direct to disk", not so far away from the Edison wax cyninder afterall (direct to wax). Going first to tape adds one more veil to the sound. Converting to digital likewise (AD conversion of the analog signal). The best is analog cut directly into grooves or playing back the master tape directly (again only 1 step). If you haven't heard either then I doubt you will understand.
"I'm sure that, if we had had digital first and engineers had then invented vinyl's "perfect sound forever", bashing vinyl would have been the order of the day."
You are assumming that had analog been created second that the devices would have been as crude as Edisons first recordings. Given the number of engineers, modern engineering prowess and the technology at hand I sincerely doubt that. More likely it would be like one of ultra sophisticated designs we have today.
Also, people can hear and at first people swallowed the hype but soon their ears told them something else (at least those people whose ears tell them anything at all!). I think people would hear the superiority and while they might not change over (due to convenience of digital) they would say analog was crap.
Every single non-audiophile I have played records for has preferred the sound to digital (and I have a pretty good digital system). They all say things like, "gee its quieter than I remember" and "man the sound is much more relaxing" etc. etc. They perhaps don't remember how good analog was because likely they never heard good analog just cheap analog.
Yes, I heard early digital during my university time, a friend had the top-loading Philips CD100 or something similar, he had Musical Fidelity amp and DIY speakers. I was not shocked by bad sound.Also I heard that early digital suffered from mistakes not due to the format itself, such as taking the analog masters intended for vinyl and simply use those for CDs.
Yes I also have one DMM, what strikes me on that record is the "speed" of the church the organ is playing in.
I frankly don't quite understand why everyone here is turning the issue into a digital vs vinyl attack. Did I ever say anythin against vinyl? I said "why not write articles that look deeper into vinyl than what we are used to". Bashing digital may be for good reasons, but there are equally valid reasons for bashing vinyl.
Klaus
is that future technologies improve upon older technologies. Here's a case that does not support that notion.I said "why not write articles that look deeper into vinyl than what we are used to".
Given that digital is here to stay, why not focus on fixing it?
rw
Fixing digital: just like vinyl, the medium has specifications that have to be respected, like RIAA for vinyl, or 44.1 kHz for CD. You can't "fix" such specifications without being confronted with major problems are all levels.However, before fixing a problem you need to know whether there actually is a problem that needs to be fixed.
Digital jitter has been identified as problem, but how do current CD players perform in that respect? Is their jitter below threshold of audibility?
Sampling rate: is there solid evidence that 44.1 is not sufficient? I mean evidence from perceptional science under controlled test conditions.
Bit rate : ditto
Klaus
...you need to know whether there actually is a problem that needs to be fixed.Do you really think that RBCD has the high frequency extension of the real thing?
Do you really think that the engineers from many companies working on the hi resolution formats are wasting their time?
I mean evidence from perceptional science under controlled test conditions.
Do you ever attend live acoustical concerts? Do you know what a triangle or a cymbal really sounds like? It would seem not.
rw
"Do you really think that RBCD has the high frequency extension of the real thing?"Because vinyl has? And of course 40 dB of groove noise are no problem at all! And of course at my age I can hear up to 100 kHz!!!
Yes, I think that hi-rez as mass market format is a waste of time. is it more comfortable than RBCD? Does it add something substantial as compared to RBCD? Where is the evidence that hi-rez is audibly better? Evidence obtained from perceptional scientist. RBCD has dynamic range of 115 dB, do you miss those more 5%? Is your system capable to produce 120 dB?
Why should I attend live concerts with classical music when I don't like classical music. Otherwise, yes I do attend concerts every now and then: in concert halls with acoustics known to be bad, in halls built for sport events (concrete and iron), in old fashioned overdamped theaters, open air rock concerts, that's where I should get the impression of the real thing?
Klaus
Maybe you don't like classical music because you have never heard it live? What do you have to lose by going to a concert (a good one. If you don't know what is good then ask.). Most people don't like classical because of lack of live exposure and quite simply most stereo systems make an awful mess of classial music. I too didn't like it when my system lacked the sufficient resolution and coherence to "get" classical music. Perhaps your system is insufficient for you to "get" classical as well?
With our daughter we are going to see stuff like Nutcracker, Swan Lake, Peter and the Wolf, but I still don't like it enough to buy records. I don't like Jazz, Blues, Dixieland, Rap, Techno and many other stuff. I don't like spiced food. I don't like swimming, surfing, sky-diving.Why should a "good" system change my musical taste? Why should a 3 star cook make me like spiced food?
Since you are worrying that much about my system, please note that the speakers got a first grade rating in one of the major German audio mags. It would hence appear that they do have even audiophile qualities:-)
Klaus
I am sorry to say this but you seem to me to be a narrowminded individual Klaus and that explains why you have difficulty seeing beyond the measurements or even reading deeply into them. It also explains why you are trying to tell us that your profi monitors are the best when you don't have much experience with what they sound like with acoustic music. I see your agruments now in a whole new light and it is unfortunately a harsh and critical light.Have you asked yourself WHY you don't like classical, jazz, dixieland etc.?? I have found that I can appreciate most kinds of music when I hear them live. Until my system reached a level of refinement that at least suggested live music I didn't "get" a lot of types of music either. In order to "get" many types of music, especially acoustic music that you seem to mostly reject, you need to be able to hear and appreciate the nuance and subtlty of the performance. This is simply not possible with most hifi. It is why classical music lovers are probably the most obsessive in getting the most from their systems, it is simply the most demanding music to accurately reproduce.
Hell if I had stayed with Rock or electronic music as my primary listening music I would have stayed with my Dynaudio Contour 1.8MkII speakers and big Simaudio Celeste W4250 amp (or the Sumo 9 I had before that). It even sounded OK with jazz. Maybe I would have bought a big pair of Klipsch speakers again (I used to own La Scallas and boy could they rock and loud!).
"Why should a "good" system change my musical taste? Why should a 3 star cook make me like spiced food?"
The why is simple, because a new or startling experience CAN change your perception of what you once thought you didn't like. A 3 star cook can perhaps make a meal so sublime that you end up not minding that there are spices that you supposedly don't "like". You control that aspect of your life Klaus by being open to experience or not being open. I would suggest that you see your mindset for what it is and that is set in concrete and not open to the experience. Hearing a Prokofiev symphony live will wake up the most dead set mind.
My girlfriend recently played 4 concerts for solo violin. At each concert she played the 24 Paganini Caprices. I don't expect you to know them but they are about the most difficult thing one can play in the entire violin repretoire. If you heard them on cd with a so so hifi you might find them unlistenable and unable to appreciate the superb musicianship that is necessary to perform them. Hearing them live in a hall had even those people who are not big classical lovers (but who came in a show of support) raving about how amazing the sound was how impressive to hear the musicianship she displayed. These people "got" it. I even turned one group into audiophiles partially because of the experience.
As I have told Amerigo below, I do have some records with classical music with pieces I like, but you will never get me into a Mahler or violin concert. Or Jazz or Blues, or Dixieland, Country, Rap. If you call that narrowminded, so be it. However, by the same token I could call you narrowminded because you don't like Techno (or whatever genre you happen not to like).And who told you that I'm rejecting acoustical music? It's not only Symphony orchestras that use non-amplified instruments! You know Peter Horton, Sigi Schwab? Or Michael Hedges? Or Barbara Higbie?
I think that you should not think that what has worked for you also works for others. My wife could play solo violin concerts all day long, I still would not like it. She also could play saxophone, same result.
We all are individuals with individual opinions and tastes. I don't judge your taste and I expect you to not judge mine.
And before ditching speakers on grounds of what people say or don't say, you'd better give them a listen. That may well be an ear opener:-)
Klaus
You could perhaps judge me about food (I don't like sushi for example) but I doubt about music.All the music you list is guitar music or sometimes with a piano. Michael Hedges is cool but the others I don't know. Looks new agey.
"My wife could play solo violin concerts all day long, I still would not like it. She also could play saxophone, same result." If so then you would likely end up divorced. You either learn to love it (as I have) or you leave it. My guess is that if you have any open mind you would try to find out what your wife is so passionate about. Learning works this way Klaus, try it you might like it.
"We all are individuals with individual opinions and tastes. I don't judge your taste and I expect you to not judge mine." Whether you like it or not taste and aesthetics are judged all the time. So are people's opinions.
I judge you not on your taste in music but in your lack of experience in the genres of music that are generally considered the most difficult for a credible high end system to reproduce correctly.
I wouldn't judge you about this even if you were not parading around a supposed sense of superiority relating to some numbers that don't even correlate well with sound quality. The fact is that vinyl sounds better inspite of its flaws, which seem worse on paper perhaps...or perhaps not, and digital worse because of its flaws when it should sound better on paper. Analog for sure has a higher information density than digital and this is perhaps the reason as the brain is a very sensitive pattern recognition device. If the pattern is disrupted then the artificiality of the sound may be detected.
I am sorry if this upsets your tidy precise world but your ear is much more highly evolved to judge these things than the basic measurements made to generate sales specifications. I suggest you go out and use them in the real world more. BTW, I made plenty of measurements when desiging my DIY speakers. I began with a ruler flat in-room response. THe universal comments from my friends was that the speakers were too bright. I found that a natural roll-off above 8khz was more natural sounding. Interestingly, the microphone company B&K published a downward sloping curve as the most natural one for reproduction.
You cannot ignore the psychoacoustics of sound reproduction Klaus. To do so is why we have endless streams of crap components and speakers. Once engineering takes this seriously then we will have components that really make music transparently (to us maybe not to a meter) and musically natural. Ironically, tubes better fit this ideal than transistors. Their transfer functions and distortion patterns better mimic the human ear/brain's own patterns.
I've had the good fortune to see him live on three different occasions before his untimely auto accident. Unfortunately, however, I've never heard him live. Damn pro gear. I have a friend who plays 12 string who provides me with truly live sonic performances.One of my "here's where the analog version sounds better than the CD" recordings is an original vinyl copy of Hedge's Breakfast in the Field . The sheen of his twelve string is rendered more naturally here than found on later digital recordings such as Aerial Boundaries . Naturally the recording was done with a pair of AKG mikes using "minimal EQ" direct to 30 ips two track tape with no overdubs or multi-tracking.
I've seen three other Windham Hill artists perform at the Woodruff Arts Center, home of the ASO. My favorite of those is Liz Story, a classically trained pianist from Julliard. Hearing her was the first time I had ever heard any artist's live version of a composition sound exactly like the recorded version. Amazing. Similarly, her 1981 album, Wedding Rain serves as an analog masterpiece. Once again, recording direct to two track tape using zero EQ, noise reduction, or any other gizmos in the process. The result is an exceptionally natural sounding recording never equalled with her later digital albums. The harmonics from the pedal sustain last forever. My wife and I used the "Wedding Rain" cut in our wedding.
rw
I have a recording of the Ukranian Radio and TV orchestra performing Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet. Now what is interesting about this recording is that it was made with a single STEREO ribbon microphone, through a mic preamp, and direct on to DAT tape. The distance from the orchestra to the microphone was about 6 meters. Now you may say to yourself, "an entire orchestra with one stereo mic??" Yep. I tell you it is the most realistic sounding recording of orcehstra I own bar none. Dynamics, OOHHHH boy! Tone color? Ribbon mics are simply the best for preserving the tone and decay of instruments. It is the best recording I own in terms of sound quality.Recently (one and a half months ago) I heard the same piece performed here in Zürich by the Zürich Tonhalle Orchestra (very good orchestra) at Tonhalle. I had good seats: center and about 10th row (so about 7-8 meters from the stage). The sound that I heard in the hall was VERY similar to what I hear at home on either my Apogees or Acoustats. The exception of course is dynamics. Live it was simply more visceral but in terms of tone and capturing all the instruments it was close indeed.
I use that recording now when going to hear a friend's system or at shows to separate the men from the boys so to speak. Many systems simply can't distinguish the instruments tone colors properly or make a mess of the strings. Some can't do a decent job on the low level passages without cranking up the volume and then overload on the peaks. Some lack the transparency and low self-noise to keep all the elements imaging properly and so on. Many systems that can do the Diana Krall, Norah Jones, Jazz from the Pawn Shop, etc. cannot do some of my more difficult recordings correctly and especially this one. When it is done right though, it sounds like live :).
And you want folks to accept your views about issues relating to the reproduction of music?I must be missing something here.
Oh, that's right, you're talking about specs and stats. You don't really HAVE to listen.
Curiouser and curiouser.
What else could they possibly do?I don't expect them to agree or to make my views their own.
If you think that only lovers of classical, blues and jazz are entitled to have acceptable views, then yes, IMO you are missing something.
Klaus
KlausLet's not start a discussion about German audio mags here :-)
Look what happened to my musical taste - once I got that ASR Emitter, a decent CD player and nice speakers, the world of classical music opened up for me. If you like real instruments, you'll have a hard time NOT to love classical music, because it's all just organic and real.
You don't like surfing? Have you tried?
Cheers
Amerigo
Hi,AA wouldn't be the appropriate place anyway, I don't know if you are busy on German forums, just like S'phile, TAS and others, the German mags do get their share:-)
It's not that I've never been exposed to classical music, my brother gave me about 100 Lps with classical stuff, I listened to them all, I kept maybe 10-15 with pieces I really like, I would attend concerts where these pieces are played, but that's about it.
No, I didn't try surfing, but I hate water, so I won't.
Klaus
KlausYou write: "No, I didn't try surfing, but I hate water, so I won't."
Maybe if you tried windsurfing, or surfing, you'd start to realize that you actually start to like water?
And maybe your way of deduction is also the problem about your perception of classical music? Maybe if you found a direct access to it, you'd start to like it? You know, classical music is a universe of it's own, it's such a variety! Usually, one starts to like that music when either you are being touched in a live concert, or when your HiFi gear starts to play at a level where it can actually reproduce this - difficult - music.
So, surf that music!
Cheers
Amerigo
I have heard enough of classical music to know that I like some pieces (Peer Gynt, Dvorak: New World symphony, Tchaikovsky 2nd, Saint-Saëns, Organ symphony, Rachmaninoff, 2nd piano concerto, just to name a few), but it's that because I like Tchaikovsky's 2nd that I like all of his work. I have heard all Beethoven symphonies, I don't like them, I have heard some Mahler, awful, and so forth.What I do reject is the oh so often pronounced notion that classical music is good and all other music is bad. That's immature.
Klaus
No one is saying that classical = good and all else = bad, that is silly statement to make anyway. What is true though is that in general classical is much more demanding on a system in terms of dynamic range and dynamic contrast, tone color and shading, and low level resolution. This means that it is an ideal test for a high resolution system. Conversely those who need such a system the most are classical music lovers and those who end up building such a system end up gravitating towards classical music as they can now understand better what its all about.
If you don't regularly listen to acoustic instruments in good spaces you have nothing with which to ground your opinions about the sound of your system.I'm not talking about the "absolute sound" here, I think that's largely a myth. And I know you can tell a Strat from a Gibson both live and on records, I do it all the time.
It's about accuracy. I have found that a system that makes acoustic instruments sound right will do perfectly well with pop music. I have heard pretty wildly innacurate systems sound nice on pop music, too, but I'd rather have the accurate one: more discs will sound good and you will retrieve more information from the disc with it.
Because vinyl has? And of course 40 dB of groove noise are no problem at all!I'm primarily referring to the limitations of RBCD digital vs. analog, not particular delivery systems like vinyl. An analog master tape has far better HF extension IMHO than RBCD. While vinyl is not as good as a master tape, it nevertheless does do some things better than a CD.
Yes, I think that hi-rez as mass market format is a waste of time.
I see. You're one of those "they only did it to increase sales" guys. Try running that by one of the engineers who developed the standards. :)
I don't like classical music.
Now I understand your inability to hear any differences using electronic music. Synthesizers and electric guitars do not have particularly complex harmonic overtone structures.
...that's where I should get the impression of the real thing?
Klaus, have you never heard, for example, a live drum kit? It doesn't matter where. A high school gym. A bar. A broadway show. The soft and extended envelope of cymbals? Have you never heard a xylophone up close and personal? The complex harmonic structure of said? It sounds like your musical experience is quite limited.
rw
"An analog master tape has far better HF extension IMHO than RBCD. "
Frankly, why care about HF extension of the tape when the final product, which in every case is the record, sets the limits, lower limits.
Hi-rez: Did it really increase sales? Is it formats adopted by the mass? I honestly think that the mass couldn't care less. How do hi-rez player sales compare to CD?
Classical music: how do you know that only classical music allows to hear differences? And yes, every rock band uses drum kits, but I'm not going to concerts to train my hearing!! I'm not an audiophile, you know!!
Klaus
Frankly, why care about HF extension of the tape...Because it has always exceeded that of the "perfect music forever" RBCD format.
Hi-rez: Did it really increase sales?
Irrelevant to our discussion about audio quality. It is your (incorrect) assumption that is the reason behind the new formats.
how do you know that only classical music allows to hear differences?
You really had to ask? Acoustical music has significantly more dynamics, true soundstaging, and instrumental subtlety than multitracked pop.
The MP3 format works just fine for your non-demanding musical tastes.rw
because there's nothing that can be judged.Acoustical music has more dymanics? You are kidding aren't you? I think the record stands at 150 dB for amplified music. Not that I would like to be close to the speakers.
Anyway, you don't get the full dynamic range of Symphony Orchestra onto vinyl, I suggest reading
JAES 1970, p.530 : Gravereaux (CBS): The dynamic range of disc and tape records
Have you ever attened a DBT of MP3 vs CD? You would be surprised, and very much so!
Klaus
Klaus,
Ultimate loudness has nothing to do with dynamic range. NOTHING. The question of dynamic range is how LOW can your system play without losing its character. The change from low level to high level is dynamic range.However, with recorded rock music there is very little dynamic range, often not more than 10db. There are some exceptions like some Dire Straits but mostly not the case.
How well do you speakers reproduce low level sounds in the 50-60db range Klaus? You probably wouldn't know because if your average listening level is 85db then you never hear anything from your speakers below about 70db. Do they lose realism when you turn the volume way down? If so then they are poor at low level resolution.
I have some classical recordings, Klaus, that have about 40db of dynamic range. Is this as good as live? Nearly. You see the ambient noise level in a music hall is still probably in the 40db range. If the peaks are 95-100db (rare but can happen with a full orchestra) then you have a 55-60db dynamic range. So 40db is not doing too badly I would say. Most stereo systems would find that range nearly impossible to do. Sure the cd player and amps have 70-90db dynamic range but what about the speakers? Do you ever see a dynamic range spec for them?? Most stereos on the recordings I am talking about require you to turn up the volume quite high to get quiet passages to come through ok but then the high level passages are much louder than in real life (or for the comfort of the speaker). If you have to listen louder than life to get a "live" feeling then your speaker has poor dynamic range.
The simple fact is that most music doesn't use the dynamic bandwidth of cd anyway. The ambient noise level when recording eliminates 30-40db of that automatically. Rock engineers eliminate the rest with compression. I have a Red Hot Chili Peppers album that has a whole 7db dynamic range. So much for 96db of the format. If they don't use the dynamic range then what's the point of having it?? At least with classical they use more of what is available. The 50 or 60db of Lp is more than nearly any recording has anyway or that your stereo system is likely to handle properly.
I also have a recording of Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet that was recorded with a single stereo ribbon microphone directly to DAT tape. No processing. It has a dynamic range in excess of 40db and it is the closest to live sounding recording I own. It is my acid test for all systems I listen to. Most do a poor job with it because the dynamics are simply too wide. Also, the tone colors of instruments are very close to live (thanks to the ribbon microphones) and it tells me how colored a system is. BTW, I heard this same piece live recently and I can tell you the recording is close to what is heard live.
I guess that without exact knowledge of what SPL has been recorded and without using a SPL meter at home you won't know if a given speaker is capable of reproducing the recorded dynamic range correctly.However, I wonder if a manufacturer like K+H, being in business for more than 50 years, can afford launching a first of its kind, aiming at audio professionals, that has a major weakness such as limited dynamic range. FYI, amps and digital controller have dynamic range of more than 115 dB, and the pro-audio review did not find any weakness in that respect, FWIW of course. Give it a listen, then you know.
Klaus
"FYI, amps and digital controller have dynamic range of more than 115 dB". So what? The speakers themselves don't have that kind of dynamic range. Look its real simple almost no speakers on the planet are capable of accurately reproducing 30db or 40db level signals. Even if they could the ambient noise level in your home is in this range. There goes 30-40db right off the bat. Now what is the highest sustained listening level that won't cause hearing damage? Low 90db range at best. For peaks let's say 100db is tolerable (but not realistic for live music). So now the REAL dynamic range is at best 70db and more realistically around 50db. That's the best Klaus regardless of what the dynamic range and SN ratio of the amps are. Now most speakers start to lose it really around 60db and start thermal compression at not much over 90db. However, they start to sound strained long before 100db even. So in reality the range for realistic representation of music is maybe 30db. This is already a good speaker system believe it or not.I can tell you that realistic levels inside a music hall with an orchestra if you are sitting middle hall probably doesn't exceed 90db and is easily down to the low 50s during quiet passages. If you are close maybe 95db (this is already very loud and would only be present during a large crescendo most of the time the average level is likely in the 60-80 db range). I have an SPL meter and I use it Klaus. Also, my ears tell me if the level is realistic or not (as I have the experience to tell).
Do you see how this 115db number is simply fluff for advertising? Do you see how impossible this number is with regard to real world reproduction? Do you see how there is probably not a single speaker on the planet that can reproduce a 10db sound level and even if it could it would likely be masked by the environment?
Think of the extreme case of masking, Klaus, in your car when driving. What is the ambient noise level in the car? Typically around 75dbA. Now I know that you have had this experience of driving with the stereo blasting and the level seems just fine...until you slow to a stop. Now you realize the level is way too high and you turn down the volume, right? The same is true in the home environment just the threshold is lower. its around 40db instead of 75db. However, most speakers are unable to do a credible job at 40db (some sound will come out but it will sound very unlike a real sound at that level). Enter compression, engineers of the music you prefer boost the low level and squash the peaks to make the whole thing fit in a range that virtually ANY system can handle (like a car radio or boombox). The same limited dynamic range is present regardless of the sytem because its in the recording. This is why this music is undemanding of a systems dynamic capabilities. Get it?
Very funny!Alas, Klaus won't get it. He might crap his pants if he ever found out his 115dB "dynamic range" system couldn't do justice to a single trumpet at close range.
Oh well!
is the difference between the softest to the loudest passages. PA amplified rock concerts demonstrate precious little despite their high virtually constant ear damaging levels.Have you ever attened a DBT of MP3 vs CD?
All I can do is shake my head and smile. You proved my point!
rw
that doesn't change the results of that test. You too have proved a point.
Klaus
Oh, yeah! I hear one daily. There ain't no audio system in the world--and damn few recordings--that even come close.A real eye-opener.
then you understand the HF limitations of redbook digital!rw
I understand the *dynamic* limitations of any playback system yet devised.The first thing a producer/engineer does in the studio is put a peak limiter on the drums, else he can't get them to sound right in his mix.
And I'm here to tell you, as one who plays in symphony orchestras almost daily, most audiophiles would crap their pants if they ever heard the dynamic range of a violin at close range. A trumpet? Forgeddaboutit.
I am fortunate enough to hear my girlfriend playing violin in our apartment almost daily. She is playing a strad and the sheer acoustic power of the instrument is frightening. It pressurizes the room and I can actually hear my ears making distortion from it (like a low buzzing)! I sat recently in the 6th row of Tonhalle in Zürich listening to Prokofiev's Romeo and Juliet (Tchaikovsky's as well) and the sound was simply breathtaking.What orchestra do you play in and what instrument do you play?
"And I'm here to tell you, as one who plays in symphony orchestras almost daily, most audiophiles would crap their pants if they ever heard the dynamic range of a violin at close range. A trumpet?"Listening to any of these instruments at close range is not the problem, it is listening to them in domestic setting that is problem. Much the same problem as it is trying to fit an large orchestra into standard size living rooms, won't fit and if it did, it will sound horrible cos of room size limitations.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
but that is not the discussion I'm having with Klaus. The realities of recording involve dynamic limiting for sure.He, on the other hand, is of the opinion that RBCD can handle the high frequency content of those instruments I mentioned. My point is that you can easily hear what I'm referring to at reasonable levels that are not necessarily that dynamic in nature. A triangle. Brushes on a cymbal.
rw
There was a paper by James Boyk regarding the energy content of instruments above 20khz. He found that some instruments like trumpet have substantial content above our nominal hearing limits. If we can perceive these sounds then it will affect our overall pattern recognition of these instruments and thus affect the realism with which they are portrayed.
Audio at its finest has traditionally been a pursuit of classical music lovers.clark
Music lovers are people who like music. Their favorite music. Period. There is no such thing as good music or bad music. My dad played trumpet, piano and guitar. He liked Big Band Jazz. He had an all Pioneer rack system. I play the piano. I like pop music. My brother plays the piano and owns a last century Bösendorfer Grand. He likes classical and opera. He has Rehdeko/Creek/Technics. Who of us three is not a genuine music lover?Klaus
First, it wasn't the chart-makers and readers who got us from Edison cylinders to lacquers to 200-gr. vinyl. In fact, we got quite a long way before anyone had a clue about either taking or representing measurements, and even when that became possible, the question still existed (and still exists today) about whether the measurements themselves are about anything that really matters.Second, people have been taking a closer look at what's behind vinyl for decades. From wooden Grados to early SMEs to the Infinity Black Widow to Frank Schroeder's (wooden armed)Reference, arms have been developed, improved, dicarded, and reinvented, based not on charts and measurements, but on the designer's ears. But why were they trying to advance the technology? Because of the inherent, and audible, flaws in vinyl. That they have managed (Schroeder, Kuzma, SME, et. al.) to address many of the flaws in such superb and different ways is a testiment not to number crunching, but to good ol' scientific trial and error.
Third, your last sentence contains a major flawed assumption: the inventors of vinyl weren't the ones who claimed "perfect sound forever." That lays entirely with the digital world. A claim that absurd ought to have you, Klaus, steaming from the ears, given your penchant for running at snake-oil audio. The digitalites deserve the pounding they get for having made such a specious claim.
d
to get the message across?I'm not talking about playback devices and their designers/designs!
I'm talking about the record itself and the recording process. Both are loaded with compromises and trade-offs. If people like Fremer had a genuine interest in vinyl, they would cover all aspects of that technology, not only the subjectively positive ones.
Audio is not art, audio is engineering and it's engineers, hence chart-makers and number crunchers, who developed vinyl, and they didn't do that with their ears. If you read the early vinyl related papers in JAES you would see that charts and numbers are all over the place.
As for the last sentence in my previous post: I don't think I had got the grammar wrong, but what I intended to say was : imagine we have digital, we get used to that sound. Then vinyl comes up, fresh, new, with claims such as "perfect sound forever". Don't you think, given the fact that there's a basic difference in sound, that vinyl would have been bashed all day long?
Since you are mentioning Schröder, I have followed the patenting procedure closely, since it had been treated here where I work. The patent was finally granted, but Schröder was not the first to invent that magnetic bearing feature! If the case had been treated by me, the granted claims would have been very different. But it's a niche in a niche industry, so nobody cared.
Klaus
then you need to build up some experience...
"Not necessarily beautiful, but mutated"
If you're intending to break the world record in, say, 100 m sprint, you're not going to send your TV-watching, Coke-sipping little brother. You're sending those guys who are national sprint champions.So if you want to know if amplifiers sound the same (or different), have those guys do the blind testing who are used to it. Unless there's evidence from blind testing that amps sound different, and up to date there is not, I don't believe that they do. Subjective listening has never provided more than opinions, it can't provide facts.
Klaus
.
"Not necessarily beautiful, but mutated"
the recording process is loaded with compromises no matter whether it is digital or analog.
of course optimization always requires close attention to minimizing the compromises, which is expensive no matter which format you use.
the obvious stumbling block to doog digital is the relatively low sampling rate. there just isn't space to practically implement a 48 bit, 768 kHz smpling rate on recording/playback/production and get CDs into stores for 15.00.
It's all about limitation and markets and who is taking the risk to develop the formats, etc.
SACD is clearly superior to PCM in some respects but not others. It's a whole other kettle of fish to record and produce than PCM as well.
Obviously DVD audio is the best compromise at this point. But even then, there is phase shift, digititis from phase shift in poor recording chains, etc.
I am sorry but at this point inexpensive vinyl at 5 dollars an LP used and a decent playback system at the $1000 level still beats out a CD player at the price point in terms of musical enjoyment on some material. But of course my ears are biased by my history of listening to LPs before CDs and by what is available to me in the marketplace. I think that is true of most posters on the board.
of course audio is engineering but it is also necessarily marketing and so on. For better or worse. There is no state sponsored audio department or cabinet level post, or 5 year plan determining which formats everyone listens to. There are enginners and enthusiasts, and yes, artists at work to bring replay into the home.
NT
...analog still gets to the essence better on acoustic music in my experience. but i would love to listen to this player and do a comparison. thanks.
you argue from both sides of your mouth, Klaus.I understood what you were saying. My point was that, like current improvements in redbook playback, it is the work of inventors with ears who work to overcome the basic flaws in the medium.
The concept of a groove cut into a turning (rotating or revolving) medium didn't come from engineers with charts. It came from inventors (Edison first, not a lab-coated member of the JAES). If you really believe your position, then I suggest you read your charts, and I'll listen to music.
You had your grammer right, you're just changing your position. And yes, vinyl would have been bashed, not because it sounds different, but because in your scenario, it would have claimed "perfect sound forever." The maker of such a claim deserves to be bashed.
Ah, let's try a little slight under-the-radar slap at Schroeder! Regardless of your patent office, he hass pushed the knnown limits of tonearm performance to new levels. If he wasn't the inventor, that doesnt change the fact that he applied the idea better than anyone else has. Patents, like charts, don't have anything to do with listening to music. If you tried that line of thought, you might find some new joy in music.
Given the nature of your posts (and I use the word "nature" with regret), I think you will finally achieve audio nirvana when your brain can process a digital signal without the evil intervention of a DAC.
Good luck to you.
s
But that's how forums work. So let's digress further.The V-shaped stereo groove was adopted purely because of its better technical aspects as compared to the competitor: charts and numbers.
None of the basic flaws has been overcome, the engineers had to agree on a set of compromises just to be able to produce records at all. RIAA equalisation is merely one example. Slope and curvature overload another.
Edison and Berliner were way before AES was born, but vinyl stereo was engineered and improved by AES members, like it or not. Did you ever read the relevant technical papers?
Schröder, all the nice guy he is, how do you know that he "pushed known limits of tonearm performance to new levels" ? Is it because his arms are expensive? Is because Fremer (or any other subjective reviewer for that matter) wrote enthusiastically about the arm?
That may be the opinion of a lot of people and reviewers, but what does an opinion prove? Right, it proves nothing.
Don't worry, I'm enjoying music every day, I just try to keep away from the hype.
Klaus
You're blinded by your own point of view. To create a priviledged role in the development of vinyl playback for engineers alone is a highly dubious effort, and does no service to your credibility.And how do I know anything about the Schroeder arm? Well, let's see. Oh, I remember: I have one. And It's not the first arm I've ever owned, nor is it the first that is considered at the top of the heap. But interestingly enough, I couldn't find a single chart or measurement to go with the arm, though I have to admit I didn't look very hard. You see, I know what music played live sounds like, as I play quite a few instruments rather well, so I just had to listen to the arm to hear how good it was.
Cheers! and happy listening.
I'm not the only one who is blinded by his point of view, however my point of view is different from yours (or others). Does that make my point of view less relevant? I don't think so.Schröder arm : you can look as hard as you can, you won't find any measurements. Nobody measures vinly gear anymore, at least to my knowledge. My SME 309 is he first arm I ever bought, it does a good job guiding the cart across the record. I'm glad that you like your arm but your assessment of the arm is subjective...
Klaus
Klaus, I'm glad you admitted to be blinded by your point of view. However, I don't suffer from that problem, as I acknowledge your points, but choose not to give them primacy. I don't see the need to be the last one standing in the sand box, either by claiming a scientific highground or by simply wearing everyone else out."I'm glad that you like your arm but your assessment of the arm is subjective..."
Isn't that all that matters? Best arm I've ever heard, and nothing else has come close (in my beautifully subjective opinion). But I'm the one listening, so I don't care about any "objective" proof that it's as good as I think it is (or not).
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
