|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
32.215.23.118
Most audio reviewers don't make dogmatic statements. Sometimes, a component impresses them and they let us know. Thankfully, it's usually devoid of outright falsity.Now we have Jon Valin of The Absolute Sound (in the magazine's editorial) telling his readers that digital recording cannot sample music correctly. Then states that LP sounds better than (even great) digital sources.
If we check what U.S. reviewers have in their systems (as a primary source), it appears that 93-94% of them have digital.
The problem gets worse when we actually study the problem of analog recording and playback. It's late in the game to be discussing this. But we have to, due to people like Jon Valin, who continue to mislead his readers.
Reviewers are supposed to tell the truth. Analog/LP are clearly worse than digital.
There are (2) links below. But Herb Reichert of Stereophile recently drove another nail in LPs coffin. He stated, when comparing digital to analog, the standard for flat-disc was 7" 45rpm or 10" 78rpm - not 12" LP.
I'm assuming LP is lower in sound quality (vs. these others) due its oversize, slow speed and less-solid substrate.
Edits: 04/15/17 04/15/17 04/15/17 04/15/17 04/16/17 04/16/17 04/16/17 04/16/17Follow Ups:
Everyone has a right to their opinion. They just don't have the right to force others to accept their opinion as fact. In any case I've ignored Valin for years. His ethical lapses are widely known. Though I did enjoy his mystery novel.
When they discover the center of the universe, a lot of people will be disappointed to discover they are not it. ~ Bernard Bailey
So the Dog faction comes out barking: "Cats are no damn good!"
Cats respond with major hissy fit. Dogs are happy to bark back.
Is ANY of this news???
PS on the Dog vs Cat debate here. I am in the 'listen to Dogs howling 95% of the time. But my Cats meowing really DOES sound better...
(Probably because I spent more money on the Cats...)
It's misinformation. Whether or not it is worth it to call it out and corret it is a matter of opinion I suppose but I don't think calling out misinformation and correcting it is just a dog and cat fight. I'd like to think there is some benefit to countering misinformation with accurate information.
Now IMO if the 'misinformation actually mattered. and was not just a cry for help, in the dark... or an attempt to start a lot of quibbling among the rabble..
I might agree with you on helping to correct the 'misinformation'.
You may have just made the best case for abandoning all audio internet forums
/
but it didn't trend
.
This is not the first time you have spewed on this forum a lot of questionable to outright false information. It is hard to tell if you are really lacking in researching skills or that you do it on purpose as a troll.
Troll is my opinion.
Apocalypse Now
Trainspotting
Pulp Fiction
.
Conspiracy Theory.
From those out there (still) telling us that analog recording and playback are better than digital..
If they here it that way, who are you to tell them they are wrong?
For the record, not always the best measuring digital products sound the best. There are some that are demonstrably worse measuring that still sound more realisitic and natural than those that have "perfect" measurements. What would you say about that??
You said "for the record"
:)
Any LP system has bandwidth to at least 35KHz. Stock cutter systems designed in the late 1950s went to over 50KHz and were usually bandwidth limited at about 40-45KHz; ours is set at 42KHz).
This bandwidth exists in playback- we can easily cut a 35KHz signal and play it back on very modest equipment without distortion.
The second thing is a type of distortion that the digital industry does not like to talk about! This is known in several guises: 'Inharmonic distortion, which is in this case a form of IMD where the spurious tones generated are related to intermodulations between the scan frequency and the actual fundamental tone.
The digital industry does not like to admit to distortion so they call this 'aliasing'. The problem with it is not detectable unless you use an analog source. This is because digital algorithms are designed to avoid the problem!
To easily hear the issue, use an analog sweep generator and set up a slow rising tone from 20Hz to 20Khz. Record; in playback you will hear the spurious intermodulations as 'birdies' (the term coined by the radio industry decades ago).
These spurious tones only occur in analog systems with a serious malfunction!
Since the music usually played by audiophiles is not sweep tones, the spurious tones are not audible as tones- the ear converts them though to the brightness for which digital is traditionally known.
Analog lacks such brightness or any tonality for that matter (those being properties of some recordings but not others- clearly an issue of recording gear, its use and that of the playback as well). Its biggest problem is noise floor, but if set up correctly and if the LP is mastered and pressed with care it has no problem being quieter than the electronics used to play it back.
That does not sound like digital is 'better' to me, the suggestion of such sounds like an opinion that really isn't based on a sound understanding of the issues.
A subjective proof of a medium's faithfulness to any signal, is given by a generation loss test as was normal to do in the days of audio tape.
The argument being the more faithful the process was to the original signal, the more generations the music could survive without transmogrification.
Since the errors accumulate with each generation one gets a caricature of "what's wrong" and at work, this proved to be a useful tool developing loudspeakers.
My point is, here is a way to prove your argument subjectively.
For instance one could do a low respolution digital copy of an analog tape recording and on the first pass lose an aweful lot of audible information. But...one can also take that low res digital copy and do a thousand generational copies with zero degradation. OTOH in the analog domain one can do a one to one copy on analog tape and have the first generation be virtually indistiguishable from the original but if one were to make a thousand generations of that original recording in analog you'd have an end copy that was far far more degraded than the low res digital copy. This test just doesn't hold up when condiering digital media. different rules
I don't think so.
Here's the problem, which has nothing to do with how media has or has not generation loss:
The human ear/brain system converts all forms of distortion into tonality. It only detects distortion as such when it predominates, such as clipping in an amplifier.
Otherwise what the ear does is assign tonality; in most cases this usually results in the playback being "brighter" than the original (as an example, the 2nd harmonic often associated with tubes causes 'warmth' or 'lush' qualities).
However if one were to measure the frequency response, the 'brightness' would not show up in the frequency response test. That is because its not the result of a frequency response error!
The reason it won't show up is that the additional harmonics (or inharmonics) only need to be in trace amounts. This is because the human ear is tuned to birdsong frequencies and also because higher ordered harmonics are used by the ear/brain system to gauge sound pressure. As a result, in this regard the ear is more sensitive than the best test equipment.
The audio industry in general likes to ignore this fact; this is why most audio systems sound like audio systems rather than real music.
So 'A subjective proof of a medium's faithfulness to any signal' has nothing at all to do with generation loss, and everything to do with not making distortion. It does not matter if you can duplicate endlessly if the master recording is distorted. Right now the LP does that better than digital...
In a nutshell, this is the cutting edge of digital technology. We are pushing of course for greater scan frequencies and more bits, but if the basic problem of inharmonic distortion is not solved, then analog will continue to be around. That's the bringing home the bacon aspect that digital has not solved.
Mind you, its a lot better now than it was! So I have hope for the future, but from what I've seen of the industry so far, it regards this matter as trivial because its pulled the wool over its own eyes.
I am not sure that there would be any kind of alteration to the signal, that would not be captured and then when fed back as the input signal on the next generation, accumulate.
The ONLY thing that doesn't accumulate is the original unaltered signal. The result is a caricature of what's wrong with the original signal.
In an old days analogue tape system, each generation accumulated noise and whatever distortion present was also made more obvious each pass. Digital is not immune to generation loss if even one bit or timing is altered.
Fwiw, back when CD's were first introduced, at least at the studio level, they were intentionally made a bit brighter to drive home that they were "clearer" and "better" than lp's.
I think one can see this in the tests Floyd Toole did which shows what the listener preffered loudspeaker response shape is and guess what it is, about a -1 dB /oct roll off broad band (which over the entire band would imply a -10dB reduction at 20Khz) compared to "Flat response " which used to be the target in analogue days.
Record's have another thing CD's don't have, the cartridge on the record is also a microphone of sorts, it's picks up some amount of room sound while playing the record and that goes back for another pass through the system. It isn't much but you can hear it if you put one speaker in another room, put on an old record but not rotating and set the needle down on the lead in. Then turn the volume up to a normal level and have friends talk or the tv on so you can hear how much is coming out of the speaker in the other room. After doing this in the old days, I ended up putting the Thorens on a granite slab on springs and using a brass weight to keep the record down as much as possible.
Consider too that by any measure you choose, loudspeakers are by far the weak link so far as reaching realism, even when abundant in a recording. For example you can have two sets of loudspeakers with very similar frequency responses and yet with one pair, a mono phantom floats solidly in the center and you are not even aware of a right and left source. With the other, there is a phantom image if you're in exactly the right position and the right and left sources are obvious. What properties could be behind this kind of difference, one that has a profound effect on imaging and not on timbre or frequency response?
Record's [sic] have another thing CD's don't have, the cartridge on the record is also a microphone of sorts, it's picks up some amount of room sound while playing the record and that goes back for another pass through the system. It isn't much but you can hear it if you put one speaker in another room, put on an old record but not rotating and set the needle down on the lead in. Then turn the volume up to a normal level and have friends talk or the tv on so you can hear how much is coming out of the speaker in the other room. After doing this in the old days, I ended up putting the Thorens on a granite slab on springs and using a brass weight to keep the record down as much as possible.
That's not a fault of the media, its a fault of the playback apparatus, which clearly has problems! Its not that hard to solve that one BTW- my 'table has no issues with that at all.
Its the initial encoding of the audio which is an area where the problem exists. Once there, sure you can copy it endlessly (much to the dismay of the music industry) but the damage was done on the initial encoding and does not seem to be something that the consumer can fix with better gear (although that certainly helps).
Don't get me wrong- I'm not against digital. I want it to work. I'm just pointing out that when the industry does not think it has a problem, it won't do anything to fix it. That's the case and that is why no matter how much we talk about it, the LPs are still around decades on. They're old but not obsolete.
It was no contest, LP was better than digital in the 80s. But vinyl is still around due to a hobbyist movement. Digital sources, DSP crossovers, etc. are doing the real work and taking us closer to the elusive goal of a live mike-feed.Look at the measurements of LP -inc. speed stability and explain how this could be a high-resolution system. How about inner-groove distortion ?
Strange -as LP 'improved', here comes tape ! The reference (now) for some audio writers.
Even more scary was the finding that 45 and 78rpm records are better sounding than LP. Robert Harley and Jacob Heilbrunn (of TAS) wrote blogs on systems that used 45's (as a source), not LP. Herb Reichert recently made comments in line with these demos.
I had no idea analog recording/LP playback were that bad. Maybe I'm doing too much reading. But most reviewers have given up LP, so my findings can't be too far off...
Edits: 04/19/17 04/19/17 04/19/17 04/19/17 04/19/17
what the **** is that?
I believe the change is partly because so much of music is mixed to be played on ear buds and low rate mp3. The recording industry's loudness wars are responding to th every low dynamic range one has in the car or limited systems, they raise the average volume without raising the peak level with compression.
In other words, it is the companies who in effect decided and determine what is popular and implemented through mass marketing. The folks here are the 1% who have been known to sit down and listen as opposed to having musical background entertainment.
Anyone who is working in that direction gets my vote.
-
Re-written, but high end *is* a movement. Just has no name.
J. Gordon Holt thought of it as a movement, wanted accuracy and truth, and never listened to LP as such.
-
Read his interviews -he used tapes as a reference.
Ralph: Analog on playback is limited to 15-16 kHz, not 35 kHz.Digital brightness is gone and has been for years. (2) false things already.
The problems of analog are so large that no one serious in audio is using it. No classical recording labels, not Bob Ludwig, not anyone investigating (or producing) cutting-edge crossovers. In order to advance sound quality, XOs are going DSP.
Edits: 04/17/17 04/17/17
Analog on playback is limited to 15-16 kHz, not 35 kHz.
If that were true, the CD-4 records produced in the 70s would never have worked.
The second half of his statement, however, is true:
"Specifically, the frequency bandwidth of LPs and FM multiplex broadcasts were limited from 30 Hz to 15 KHz .
Yes, FM radio was limited by convention to that range. Why? Because, like the CD-4 recordings, the other channel rode on a higher frequency carrier. In the case of multiplexed FM, it is 19khz, while the back channels of CD-4 rode on a 30kHz carrier.
The poor man must be deaf. Here are some other *jewels*:
"192 KBPS is considered "CD quality." No human can hear any difference between an MP3 at that rate (or higher) and a CD. "
"CD quality is so accurate that you can't hear any difference between a properly-recorded CD and the original microphone feed."
Some 'false information' that is not just 'opinion'!
Took a while!
"Analog on playback is limited to 15-16 kHz, not 35 kHz. "
Where are you getting that information?
View YouTube Video
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
...Alex Jones has to say about this.
It ranges from 15-20 kHz. But not recommended over 15-16 kHz due to noise and distortion.
Edits: 04/17/17
The real reason that they posted that is they don't want to spend time with any given project.
It takes time and expertise to cut a good LP. If you want to avoid processing, you have to identify problem areas in the recording and then do test cuts to see if you can sort it out. That takes time.
When you're billing at $400/hour, taking time is not what the customer wants.
We do it by the LP side and spend the time to do a quality project. As a result we have no worries putting 35KHz+ in the cut, although there is nothing up there except harmonics. The main reason to have that bandwidth is not because there is signal, its to prevent phase shift which affects things like imaging.
This is one reason why an LP can have a better more 3-dimensional soundstage than a CD; there is less phase shift. The ear uses phase as part of its image locating mechanism.
More reading. Best part -a few paragraphs below '3 answers', (starts with) 'playing a vinyl 'LP'.Apparently, LP struggles with content over 10 kHz !!
Edits: 04/17/17 04/17/17
"Apparently, LP struggles with content over 10 kHz !!"
Yes, with a conical stylus.
You might want to look at the physics using a fine line stylus.
You seem have little understanding of the subject at hand.
Have a good day.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
The Dynavector 17D3 has a microridge stylus and short diamond cantilever and has a flat response to about 50Khz. The first resonanance is around 100Khz. That is probably the best example of a wide bandwidth cartridge that I know of. Many MCs have a resonance just below 20khz but not the Dynavector.
Analog master-engineers, what few remain, recommend a cut off at 15-16 kHz.
And the link I provided was in fact, physics. Have you read it ?
"Analog master-engineers, what few remain, recommend a cut off at 15-16 kHz."
Which ones? Certainy none of the top guys. Are you doing this on purpose? ya know, getting everything wrong? I am begining to wonder.....
-
...uh, the link I provided. But then, LP seems to struggle (mechanically) with frequencies over 10 kHz (other link).If anyone here thinks I'm wrong, prove it. I provided links - now it's your turn...
Edits: 04/17/17
http://www.recordtech.com/prodsounds.htm
I provided you with a link to a you tube video showing the FR from a crappy turntable well above 20kHz (all the way out to 60kHz). Just imagine how much better a hi-end turntable and cartridge would be.
Did you view it?
We can go back and forth on this but you need to do some studying and try to understand the issues at hand.
You clearly have very little knowledge.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I'd prefer a study or an expert's opinion.
If you tube is the best you can do, then *you* have very little knowledge.
First of all, I am an expert.
To find out what the FR of a LP is one needs to measure it.
That is what the guy in the you tube video is doing.
What part of the video did you not understand?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Tre':I respect you knowledge, I just thought a hard-paper would be better than you tube.
However, it's too confusing for the limits of LP. Search on chat rooms and you'll get all different answers -15, 18, 20 even 40 kHz. Then, is this musical content ? noise ? harmonics ? Can the stylus actually read signals that far up (without side effects) ?
The record-pressing site I linked was very clear: cut off at 16 kHz. Did you read this ?
The main concern here is overall sound quality: speed accuracy (belt LP gets an "F' here), inner-groove pressure -leading to distortion of our music, etc.
Edits: 04/18/17 04/18/17
Let's examine what you find in the link posted here.
" The high frequency response of vinyl depends on the cartridge. CD4 records contained frequencies up to 50 kHz, while some high-end turntable cartridges have frequency responses of 120 kHz while having flat frequency response over the audible band (e.g. 20 Hz to 15 kHz +/-0.3 dB).[5] In addition, frequencies of up to 122 kHz have been experimentally cut on LP records."
"Mechanically then, LPs cannot record much beyond 10 kHz without using a smaller-than-standard stylus. In fact the cutoff of frequencies recorded today is around 24 kHz ."
Note the qualification with this one. This refers to using a conical, not a multi-radial or Shibata stylus designed for higher frequency response.
Tre',
There's no sense in trying to debate a 'right fighter'. They'll dig themselves into a deeper and deeper hole in their futile attempts to prove themselves 'right'. Arguing with them is a fools errand. All it accomplishes is to provide them another platform for their madness. Put this guy on 'ignore' and you'll starve his never ending appetite for inane blather.
IOW - quit feeding the troll :-)
Cheers,
SB
-
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
If you prefer an expert opinion Ijust gave you one in another response. But speaking of expert opinions can you cite one actual cutting engineer who agrees with your assertions on the high frequency response of vinyl?
The (linked) vinyl-pressing website is one, Roger Sander's white paper is another. I trust Sanders because he's an industry veteran.The limit is dependent on many factors -it could be 15 to 25 kHz. The point is after 16 kHz, it's all noise and distortion. Let the mass-market listen to these -we're audiophiles, I thought.
Even though you're trying (hard) to prove I'm wrong, this is a minor issue. It's the sound quality of LP that matters. And it's doing TERRIBLE if we look at what classical labels use to record *and* what reviewers use for playback.
Edits: 04/18/17
Roger Sander's white paper is another...
You mean like his *interconnect test* ? :)
What actual real world records did he actually engineer? Kevin Gray, the mastering engineer I cited has a resume that is second to none. Did you read what he said about vinyl's frequency response?
"It must be true, I read it on the INTERNETS!"
"No music microphone records above 20 KHz,"
So there is no output from professional microphones above 20kHz?
Interesting. I learn something new every day. :-)
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
> > No music microphone records above 20kHz...
>
> So there is no output from professional microphones above 20kHz?
There are microphones that extend higher in frequency 20kHz. I have a pair
of Earthworks omnis, for example, that have a flat response up to 40kHz.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Even mics that roll off below 20kHz have output above 20kHz it's just down in amplitude.
I found other gems (again, sarcasm) like that in the Digital Recording White Paper.
"By comparison, analog recordings were limited to 15 KHz."
I guess I must have been wasting my time setting the 20kHz tones using a MRL Calibration tape while aligning the ATR 102 in the studio all those years?
Don't get me wrong, I have some great sounding Red Book CDs.
I just don't like it when people spread false information.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
> Even mics that roll off below 20kHz have output above 20kHz it's just down
> in amplitude.
Indeed. It's just that sarcasm doesn't do well in forum postings!
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
With all our communication going to written words.. English mavens should create a punctuation mark to indicate the sentence is humor/ irony/ sarcasm.
This would save billions of lines of rebuttal, complaints and misunderstandings from being written!!!
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
This assertion has no meaning as it does say what and why it is worse. For instance, analog has decreasing distortion with level, whereas digital has increasing distortion and so it can be said to be 'better'.
When it comes to emotive responses as in music replay, measurement results cannot be said to translate into a 'better or worse' categorisation.
"Reviewers are supposed to tell the truth. Analog/LP are clearly worse than digital."
That is a subjective opinion you get to have but hardly "the truth" as you have asserted. Perhaps you should clean up your own act before condemning others on this issue of "false information."
Isaak J. Garvey could use a little help in the thread below.
Nt
Hi, J.Phelan,
Despite your assertion that Mr. Valin was providing factual information when he wrote that LPs were superior to digital, it was his opinion and so cannot be "false". Opinions can provide us with information about how someone thinks or feels but opinions are not fact.
Your opinion is clearly stated and taken as such. :-)
Regards,
Tom
From Valin's piece:"No matter what the bit rate or digital delivery system, you cannot sample the continuous-time sound of instruments or vocalists, turn it into discrete-time numbers, then turn those back into instruments or vocalists without losing some of the very continuous of presentation..(flow) of articulations, dynamics and timbres."
This was NOT opinion. Then it's wrong anyway -digital is a continuous recording system.
Then, "I positively dare you to listen to a (computer file-DAC) then listen to the same recording on a (really good turntable) and tell me with a straight face, that the digital sounds more like the real thing. It doesn't."
This one is opinion. But besides Michael Fremer, has any other writer used statements like this ?
Valin even adds "compare at your peril" at the end !
Edits: 04/16/17 04/16/17 04/16/17 04/16/17 04/16/17 04/16/17 04/16/17 04/16/17
"Then, "I positively dare you to listen to a (computer file-DAC) then listen to the same recording on a (really good turntable) and tell me with a straight face, that the digital sounds more like the real thing. It doesn't.""
says the EXPERT who doesn't list his system (in inmate systems) nor state whether he even OWNS a vinyl playing system.
i have a question, how does one reassemble correctly, hamburger back into meat?
...regards...tr
In audio terms that is taking a digital recording and making a LP of it. Done many many times and seems to be the new standard for LP production.
Even old tape masters taken and remastered while in the digital format. Then turned into an LP.
And enen then,the LP sounds better than on rbcd. There's just something thd cd processing that diminishes the sound. Maybe the brickwall filters that prevents complete enjoyment.
...regards...tr
Well, technically correct information often borders on semantics and then becomes a debate over interpretation of the "facts", which morphs into opinion due to the weakness of basing a debate on a semantically correct technicality.
My take is that you have to accept that opinions are all wrong, some are useful. '-)
Tom
But don't feel bad, because your opinion is an opinion as well!
.
To 3+4=5:There are (2) quotes -(1) definitely not opinion.
Almost all reviewers are digital -have been for years/decades. Audiophiles on top of that. Then to use such confident language in a multi-page editorial, this was the biggest (and sloppiest) hit-job I've ever seen.
Edits: 04/16/17 04/16/17
As hit jobs go, that one doesn't even register.
You're wrong about vinyl too :-)
...yeah, I figured vinyl lovers would come out against this post.
'Sheltered' would be someone who actually believes LP is better than today's digital. Most reviewers have left LP. But the few who SWORE by it are abandoning ship (or at the least, are a lot less confident about it).
One is Herb Reichert, with his Schiit DAC review, posted in January. He loved it so much, he spent a full year with it. Then said it offered 'oceans of magic' and if he wasn't an audio reporter, would keep it 'until the Fate of the Gods is nigh'.
Just because Reichert loves the Schiit doesn't mean he's abandoned vinyl. He uses vinyl in every review he does of speakers, amps, preamps, cables, etc. It's right there in black and white for anyone, except you, apparently, to read.
You're making some moronic leaps of logic even for a troll.
Read my comments. I didn't say he "gave up LP", but would "live with the Schiit". Just can't, due to logistical (not sound quality) reasons.
Edits: 04/17/17 04/17/17 04/17/17 04/17/17
"'Sheltered' would be someone who actually believes LP is better than today's digital."No that wouldn't be the result of living a sheltered life. And this is kind of 5th grade level rhetoric. The sheltered life jab doesn't even make sense.
generally speaking, the belief that LP is **better** (note the subjective quality being asserted) would be the result of listening, comparing and forming a personal aesthetic preference based on that experience.
It looks like you are struggling with the the basic fundamental differences between objective facts and subjective opinions. Until you can fully grasp the difference you are stuck in the mud on the subject.
Edits: 04/17/17 04/17/17
To Analog Scott:No classical/jazz record label (in the world) uses analog recording. No pro studio uses LP to hear their masters. Analog recording is a lossy system - that is un-contested.
I said "false" because Valin said digital "cannot sample music correctly". FALSE - it does.
There is a reason why most folks dumped LP - it is NOT a high-quality format.
In order of accuracy, here is a list of playback systems. My opinion of course.
Solid-state drive w/ digital amplifier (digital pulse-widths, not analog switching-amp commonly reviewed)
Solid-state drive w/discrete R2R DAC
Hard-disk w/R2R
Optical disc/CDRs w/R2R
Any digital drive w/hybrid DAC
Analog tape 30 ips
Cylinder
45rpm/78rpm
LP -idler drive
LP -direct-drive
LP -belt-drive
Cassette/8 track
Edits: 04/17/17 04/17/17 04/17/17 04/17/17 04/17/17 04/17/17 04/17/17 04/17/17 04/17/17 04/17/17 04/18/17
"No classical recording label (in the world) uses analog recording."
Wrong
"No pro studio uses LP to hear their masters."
Wrong
"Analog recording is a lossy system - that is un-contested."
That doesn't even make sense since "lossy" is a term used in the world of digital codecs not LPs.
You are on quite the streak here.
Prove I'm wrong.
Then 'lossy' means what it says. The entire industry knows how poor analog recording is, why they gave it up...
"Prove I'm wrong."
Fine. since you made extreme assertion of "none" in each of your claims I will provide you with and example of 1 for each. There are more than that but 1 is all I need to prove you wrong.
https://www.tacet.de/main/seite1.php?language=en&filename=welcome.php&layout=willkommen
https://www.abbeyroad.com/mastering
"Then 'lossy' means what it says."
It says "lossy" here is what it means as applied to audio. "relating to data compression in which unnecessary information is discarded." absolutely inapplicable to vinyl.
"The entire industry knows how poor analog recording is, why they gave it up..."
You don't get to speak for the entire industry. Your steady stream of "false information" is quite ironic though given your original post.
These are not recording labels. There are a thousand labels in the world.Analog recording is LOSSY -meaning the copies sound worse than the master, esp. LP !!
Edits: 04/17/17
"These are not recording labels."
I only showed you one and yes it is a recording label. Again you assert "false Information.
"There are a thousand labels in the world."
There may be. I don't have a count and I bet neither do you. But what does that have to do with your assertion that is plainly "false information" that "no" classical labels record in analog? And this is just i by the way. There are others too. You asked me to prove you wrong and I did. Case closed.
Oh and did you read up on Abby Road Mastering? Proved you wrong there too. And they are the norm not the exception.
"Analog recording is LOSSY -meaning the copies sound worse than the master, esp. LP !!"
Sorry but you don't get to redefine the meaning of technical terms in audio. Once again you assert "false information."
Are you trying to be ironic? It's hard to imagine one being so ironic without doing it on purpose.
Analog Scott: One (unheard of) label is the same as none. Classical recording engineers know better.Analog recording is lossy -ask any engineer. Been known for 100 years.
Edits: 04/17/17 04/17/17
and it's getting boring.
an intelligent conversation with someone who consistently demonstrates a profoundly poor ability to understand the written word?
With (presumably a straight face?), he says this:
But then, LP seems to struggle (mechanically) with frequencies over 10 kHz (other link).
When the very next sentence in his reference clearly explains the highly qualified nature of the original statement. An earlier statement (which obviously he speed read over) even clearly refutes his ridiculous assertion before the quoted text was ever presented.
Why would anyone take this guy seriously?
Please, clear English..
"I" never said such thing, that was the *reference* I cited. It's a brief study but a study nonetheless.
You quote one sentence of a source out of context when the very next one refutes the conclusion you attempt to make!
It is the reference itself which refutes your ridiculous claim. Yet another painfully obvious point which continues to elude your *keen* senses.
Suggestion: When you read a source, read ALL the sentences. And then read them again. Especially the ones that follow to see if you've (yet again) clearly missed important information!
McFly? Hello! Is anyone home?
Sheesh!
Get a life. The source I cited states that LP has mechanical issues with signals over 10 kHz. And that it's very hard for the format to reproduce over 20 kHz.
The other source was a pressing site that said 16 kHz should be the max. Yet we're told by Fremer, etc. that LP goes to 35-40 kHz. False information, the point of the thread.
You have certainly achieved that "point" over and over again. Well done...I guess........
I don't understand your reading challenge. Your conclusion:
The source I cited states that LP has mechanical issues with signals over 10 kHz
What you really find stated in the reference:
"Mechanically then, LPs cannot record much beyond 10 kHz without using a smaller-than-standard stylus .
May I suggest you consult a dictionary to understand the meaning of the word "without"? That references conical styli, not multi-radial ones. Why did you ignore the sentence that immediately follows to clarify the assertion?
In fact the cutoff of frequencies recorded today is around 24 kHz."
Do you really not understand the words presented?
a lot
.
Right -and I'll keep saying the same thing. It MUST have issues if we "need a smaller than standard stylus". Which many may not have. Can one stylus retrieve all frequencies without adding noise and distortion ?
Probably not -and that's why pickup is going optical. The old cartridges were no good.
The scarier thing was Sanders white-paper and the pressing site I linked. Too much noise and distortion over 15-16 kHz.
It MUST have issues if we "need a smaller than standard stylus".
You don't have the remotest idea what you're talking about. When all else fails, just make $hit up, right?
Multi-radials have been available for almost fifty years. I purchased my first, a Sonus Blue, in 1975.
The scarier thing was Sanders white-paper ...
It is scary. You likely don't have the remotest clue as to why his interconnect test I linked to is utterly bogus. He must be plain deaf if he cannot hear the difference between a 192kbs MP3 and CD quality. And claims that CD quality is like a mic feed!
Only your irrational posts are funnier. :)
Does everyone have multi-radial ? Then the article's conclusion (which you avoided): "frequency response varies drastically across the record".As for Sanders, his interconnect-test was not bogus, only you say it is. And just listen to 192kbs and then CD. NO DIFFERENCE in sound quality.
His points on analog recording and digital playback were the reasons I cited it. But like the styli study, you avoid the big points and pick on the small ones.
Edits: 04/20/17 04/20/17 04/20/17 04/20/17 04/20/17 04/20/17
you demonstrate more lack of understanding and dig yourself deeper with more untruths.
Does everyone have multi-radial ?
That question is irrelevant when discussing its performance envelope.
Then the article's conclusion (which you avoided): "frequency response varies drastically across the record".
Let's make $hit up, part deux! The words "varies" and "drastically" are nowhere to be found in Roger's unsubstantiated opinion piece . Most browsers have a built in search which can be quickly accessed using the CTRL F accelerator keys. Try it! Better still, try it the next time you get the impulse to post the next outright lie.
As for Sanders, his interconnect-test was not bogus, only you say it is.
And the reason I say that is that I have measured what happens when you attempt such as setup. As opposed to uninformed speculation on your part. The concept of a comparison is to be able to evaluate one DUT vs another independently and determine if either results in a difference. When you use a simple capacitance meter, what you find is that attaching two interconnects via a Y-adapter as the test requires sums the values of both cables as measured at the end of either one. Result? You end up "comparing" cables A+B at one end and, not surprisingly cables A+B at the other end. This - no comparison at all!
Here's cable A measuring 544 pF:
Here's cable B measuring 50 pF:
Here's cable B with the Y-adapter attached now at 88 pF:
Now what happens when you attach cable A to the other end of the Y-adapter, while continuing to measure the leads attached to cable B? You get 597 pF!
Since electrical interaction is beyond your level of understanding, think of comparing glasses of wine or soft drinks. This test is equivalent to pouring equal amounts of Wine A and Wine B in each of the two cups for evaluation. Why would anyone expect a perceived difference? His smug conclusion:
"After doing this test, you will discover that all the hype surrounding interconnects is just that. The fact is that all well-designed interconnects sound identical. Only poorly designed interconnects will reveal differences in sound."
only demonstrates ignorance, not insight.
And just listen to 192kbs and then CD. NO DIFFERENCE in sound quality.
I have several albums on LP, CD and 24/96 (or better) and have compared them extensively. While it may be true that you and Roger don't hear any difference, I'm along with countless others including many professionals who do.
Is vinyl perfect? No, it isn't. I find that digital offers better and more extended bass response vs Redbook. On the other hand, it excels at the top where the 1980 CD resolution fails.
Maybe one of these days, you'll begin to actually comprehend the technologies in question, what is truly written about them and avoid fabricating outright lies as to what folks are alleged to have said. Such pathological behavior is not missed by others here.
You said "multi-radials have been out for 50 years". But the majority don't have one. So it's VERY relevant -esp when discussing performance.
And it wasn't Sanders that said "response varies drastically", my other link did !!
You're dead wrong on 192kbs. Chat rooms are loaded with opinions *right in line* with mine and Sanders.
Your cable study is ignored because it's a red herring. Trying to get off topic. The measured performance of LP, not cables, is what scares the hell out of me.
and the technology.
And it wasn't Sanders that said "response varies drastically", my other link did !!
Fair enough. Let's look at the entirety of the assumptions made and the conclusions.
the frequency response varies drastically across the record, with much better response on the outer diameter (the start of the recording) than on the inner diameter (end of the recording)
That doesn't occur with linear arms and the amount necessarily varies depending upon the arm length and design. What is the assumed length?
Obviously, one will never know. Uninformed speculation applied to all designs by Norbert Schuch who is not a recording industry professional. Fail.
A couple of other things worth noting: if you have a stylus with a finer tip, you will get lower distortion at the expense of much higher pressure between the stylus and the record;
Now, we find that he assumes we're using a crude stylus shape. It's really easy to burn Straw Men, isn't it?
Chat rooms are loaded with opinions *right in line* with mine and Sanders.
I am in no way challenging your inability to hear what others do. :)
..."this doesn't occur (with this)", "if we use (that)". You're proving my point, LP is a mess. Improve one thing and harm another.
Common styli as noted.
this doesn't occur (with this)", "if we use (that)".
Aka, what is commonly used by experienced vinyl enthusiasts which you clearly are not.
We're not talking about one of these. :)
Common styli as noted
You had to look that up?
I've been using turntables for fifty years and have owned examples of every type. The difference being that I actually understand what all of that means. :)
So by your logic that means the CD format suffers from low dynamic range. Objective proof that vinyl is objectively superior. Well reasoned. Glad you finally saw the light of day on this subject.
Classical labels have a LOT MORE than that!!But throw out the 'range' for a second, it's the sound quality of LP that scares me. This piece says CD can be 'compressed', but no audiophile label commits this crime.
Edits: 04/21/17
The majority of CDs are not classical. By your logic that can't be ignored so CD suffers from poor dynamic range. "Common *CD* as noted." Thank you for making my point
Edits: 04/21/17
If you're an audiophile, then you don't *care* about most CDs. Audiophile labels like Hyperion and Naxos have more dynamic range than LP, that is pure-fact.
There are thousands of CDs like this, 'classics today' (online) is a good place to start. You can get JRiver software to show the dynamic range.
This doesn't have to be hard (or confusing). It's guys like you and E-Stat that *make it* that way, with ad hominem attacks and red herrings. 'Ralph' completes the picture with pyscho-babble.
Like Jon Valin and Michael Fremer, trying to trick people into thinking that digital is flawed and LP is better.
"But the majority" aren't audiophiles. "So it's (common CDs) VERY relevant -esp when discussing performance." and common CDs have very limited dynamic range. So CDs perform poorly. LPs are superior. Your logic. Thank you for conceding the point
First, let's see the evidence that the "majority of CDs have 5db of dynamic range". It should count all releases since 1982.But it doesn't matter anyway -as audiophiles, we have a choice of many thousands of albums with dynamic range of 70 to 90db.
Of course, you won't talk about LPs problems, but it's all over the internet. Here's another piece.
Edits: 04/21/17 04/21/17 04/21/17 04/21/17
prove Im wrong.
Edits: 04/22/17
(nt)
Nt
(PS my LP playback sounds better than my CD) but my LP playback i more expensive too.
Actually I listen to CDs most of the time.
I am not worried about which one is 'superior'. LOL
The other - we weren't even doing LP right.
Nt
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: