 
|
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 |
209.166.164.65
In Reply to: Mercifully posted by E-Stat on November 28, 2005 at 12:35:20:
I can play my early CD's on my good player.Guess what, y'all, there's that preemphasis, plain and simple. And about as nice as a dentist's whizzer in the ear.
Follow Ups:
you got it bass ackwards. The suggestion was to try an early CDP with a current CD.No wonder you stay confused. Oh, well.
rw
It's easy enough to try an OLD cd with a new player, and yes, there is still a nasty case of that old "digitis". This shows that at least some of the problem is on the CD.Y'all don't try too hard, do y'all?
why don't ya just share the titles. Who knows some may have the very items in their collections and be able to give them a whirl. The reports back would be interesting.
I'll try to find it again tonight. Oddly, I don't usually play it... It was one of the 4 original CD's I bought. I remember it for its unbelievable awfulness.
Sorry, y'all.
but misses the point.My complaints of early CD players has nothing to do with the position of the treble control. I've always had speakers with an HF level control. Big deal.
The difference was qualitative , not quantitative.
rw
Vinyl EQ is nothing like a treble control. It's only y'all what seems to think otherwise.
is vinyl EQ to which you refer like?rw
Hell, slick, I'm using my ears. Got a suggestion how to explain it, other than "pretty damn unpleasant", sorta like having your eardrum drilled at by a dentist?
Vinyl EQ is nothing like a treble control.Is "vinyl EQ" a standard? What is it?
rw
http://www.aes.org/publications/anth.cfmY'all can buy the first two books on that list and read them.
Then y'all have a chance of understanding what this is all about. Nothing like a "treble control".
I suppose I should hand ye some more abuse like y'all like to hand out all the time, but I'm tired this afternoon.
jj, I don't think that you know what you are talking about. EQ for phono is a complementary curve and is done both in the disc cutter and the RIAA reproduce of the phono circuit. I, personally, have never heard of any special EQ curve that would be added to an analog tape, in order to make it sound right, when a vinyl record is pressed from it. If there is any special EQ, it should be possible to EQ it out, once we know what sort of curve it follows. Is it a slight treble boost, or what?
And, no, I am not talking about RIAA equalization.And, yes, there are several kinds of EQ that were conventionally added to master tapes BEFORE RIAA (or the earlier forms) of EQ. It all comes down to compression vs. displacement in LP's.
Now y'all go read. There are things in this world y'all ain't heard of, then, I guess.
And, yes, there are several kinds of EQ that were conventionally added to master tapes BEFORE RIAA (or the earlier forms) of EQ.Ok, I sit corrected. I'll restate my comment from earlier based upon your correction.
My complaints of early CD players has nothing to do with the position of the equalizer , not treble control.
rw
It has nothing to do with any normal sort of "equalizer", either.
rw
...if y'all can.Why do you act like such an idiot primadonna instead of trying to inform and help folks understand?
Or maybe y'all don't know how...
Y'all won't listen when people who know better talk to you, maybe y'all can read better. I dunno.
...between those who say they know the answers and WON'T explain......and those who don't know the answers and CAN'T explain.
You say you're one...you just might be the other.
I'm interested in understanding his notion of what a "regular" equalizer is. After all, it requires an irregular equalizer to correct the undisclosed "vinyl EQ".rw
Who used the words "irregular equalizer"?Why are you lying about what I said?
Let's see if you follow this.You assert that one of the audible differences between old and new digital recordings is caused by "vinyl EQ"
I said that early digital problems were caused in part by the use of master tapes that had some EQ intended for vinyl on them.
Vinyl EQ is nothing like a treble control. It's only y'all what seems to think otherwise.
I ask the question so what is vinyl EQ? After first dodging the question, you respond to JC:
And, no, I am not talking about RIAA equalization.
And, yes, there are several kinds of EQ that were conventionally added to master tapes BEFORE RIAA (or the earlier forms) of EQ.
Fine. I stand corrected. My response is to correct my earlier statement with this:
My complaints of early CD players has nothing to do with the position of the equalizer, not treble control.
You then respond with this comment:
It has nothing to do with any normal sort of "equalizer", either.
Let's sit back for a moment and digest the facts:
1. I say adjust the treble.
2. You say "Vinyl EQ" is not like a treble control
3. I ask then what is it?
4. You respond that is it not "any normal sort of equalizer"Ok. So if "vinyl equalization" is NOT "normal equalization" then ergo it MUST BE abnormal equalization. I used the term irregular instead of abnormal but any thesaurus will agree on the interchangeability of the terms:
"Regular - Synonyms: usual, normal, ordinary, customary, habitual, expected, accepted, conventional, standard, common"
The question remains: What is "normal equalization" as you put it?
Are you always this defensive and paranoid?
rw
What a s**tstorm!Y'all try reading what's written sometimes. Y'all don't believe what I tell y'all, so go read the AES work, and then y'all might know the answer.
(nt)
I told y'all the facts. Y'all didn't believe it.I cited work that shows the facts.
Y'all dishonestly call that "evasion".
You, sir, are pathetic, and obviously malicious.
for your definition of "normal sort of equalizer". By the way THOSE ARE YOUR EXACT WORDS since you seem to have trouble identifying what you said previously. Hint: the bold italics in my referenced post are likewise VERBATIM YOUR. Do you understand what that means?I am likewise amused by the contents of your now deleted response referring to another thread entirely. Lemme 'splain somethig to you sparky. We're talking about YOUR COMMENTS in this post. Can you remember that far back? Comprende?
rw
Quiz on Sunday morning:1) What's the shape of a standard EQ, either parametric or octave, 1/3 octave, whatever.
2) What's the shape of a compression vs. displacement EQ curve?
What is the shape, Dorky? I haven't heard of it. Perhaps, George Massenberg, Bob Ludwig or some other vinyl mastering engineer has heard of it, but I haven't seen any direct references to it.
Why don't y'all ask somebody who has mastered LP's then, Mr. Expert.
I spoke to a disc mastering engineer, just yesterday. His name is Stan Ricker. He just mastered the latest 'Cream Concert' record, so he is up-to-date. He says that there is no specific EQ for disc recording, except to mono the bass so that the vertical excursion will not get out of hand. What is your story?
Yep, y'all have to mono bass, too. Different problem.Duno, maybe they build it into lathes these days. Used to be on the final tape.
First of all, I doubt seriously there was a *single* answer. You can find a number of references where producers wanted a hot top end to "punch through" on radio. Here is one of the vintage EQ units employed for mastering. It is simply a parametric EQ.Whatever the case, it still is EQ which means that for any slope you produce, you can reverse it.
I'm gonna check out of this discussion having grown very tired of the faux Southerner's shell games. My experience is that the problem lay with the first gen players, not so much the recordings other than typical pop mix antics. Naturally, this boost theory would mean that some early recordings would still sound inherently different from the original vinyl version. I have a number of CDs for which I also have the vinyl and don't find huge HF differences. Maybe that was more prevalent with the country music he listens to - a genre I do not.
Anyway, I remember replacing my Magnavox POS with a Pioneer PD-54 Elite back in '93 and noticing the same kinds of differences I recall when I compared my Citation 11 to a JC-2 over a decade before: bigger soundstage, more focus throughout, and a much more refined top end. And my current GamuT CD-1 does better still on top with the same recordings (especially using a Harmonic Tech Magic PC).
rw
That's somebody playing games with production for radio play.Back to the books, 'stat.
That's what I thought. By the way, George Massenberg designed the Sontek EQ for this very purpose, decades ago.
Aphex (processing) is also a contender that could be a real 'screamer' when added into early CD's. I know from experience with Aphex that it could improve the subjective sound of an over-dark mid fi system with a cheap moving magnet cartridge, and then sound rather harsh on a hi end system on vinyl, almost unusable. CD's should be worse.
and continue to evade.No surprise.
rw
.
After all, better people than I have tried to teach y'all and y'all didn't listen.
.
The whiners whined, and I pointed to the written work.Now, y'all whine that I pointed you to the written work.
It comes down to this, y'all willing to make claim after claim, but y'all won't support it, and y'all won't even read the work, or do the job, to find out if y'all even know what y'all arguin' about.
.
I provided a REFERENCE to the EVIDENCE.Y'all want more than what I have to say, y'all have to go to the REFERENCE to see the EVIDENCE.
I don't owe y'all a copy of somebody else's property, smart***.
rw
You don't believe what I tell y'all, so it's just plain dishonest on your part to complain when I point you to an authoritive source. It's even beyond dishonest of y'all to state that I don't know something when I point you to the source.Y'all won't believe me no matter what I say, so go read the source, then y'all might get the start of a trace of a hint of a suggestion of an idea.
Dorky response.
Y'all made up something and accused me of it. Now y'all can't do nothin but call names.You lost, buddy-boy, you lost, and you know it.
Lost what? Dorky
A name that comes to mind is Ken Pohlman. If you have any objective data that indicate the new CDPs generally sound much different than the old ones (even the original Sony), I would be happy to see it.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
> If you have any objective data that indicate the new CDPs generally sound much different than the old ones (even the original Sony), I would be happy to see it.>So just keep listening to your 1985 Sony CD player, Pat. I'm sure it's as good or better than anything out today.
LOL!
like a dentist drill has been added, you know, like as in rattling your brain dentist drill. If fact that you seem to think 'objective' data would be required in such a case only goes to show how truly messed up you are. What is it?, you equate audiophiles with pathological liars?BTW, there a alot of not so old CDs that sound like hell as well, Alanis Morissette's (original, 1995) Jagged Little Pill for example, which although there's no dentist in residence, sounds like to was mixed for a boom box, i.e. it's nearly unbearably bright on a high definition system.
But you see that's not what I had in mind, I was thinking along the lines of recordings of classical or Jazz setting, you know the ones where there was an attempt to capture natural sound, that sort of thing.
I would have thought this would have been obvious, thus the reference to Telarc CDs makes sense, but I suppose like in most things you've just got to spell it all out for out the resident 'objective' types.
Actually, both claims have been made and both have been discussed in this thread.. Certainly some CDs sound bad, and there may be a number of reasons for them. However, I have lots of older CDs from Telarc, London, Denon, Nimbus, and others that sound just fine. London in particular seems to have known how to do reissues from the analog very well from the beginning.However, the claim has also been made that the older CDPs sound bad compared to today's models. Well, I suppose some of them do, but many of the older players sound just fine even today as long as they are in proper working order.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
.
Mr. Kuller simply attempted ridicule, offering no evidence.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
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 ]
