CD Vs. Vinyl?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d2ftba01ju5@news1.newsguy.com...
> Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> > On 30 Mar 2005 00:39:09 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> > <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Codifus wrote:
> >
> > >> We can only judge the better format by really being able to
> compare the
> > >> CD or vinyl to the original master recordings. If we as consumers
> had
> > >> access to those, we would easily see that CD blows away vinyl.
> > >
> > >An even better test is to listen to a live feed, then listen to its
> > >reproduction in analog and digital. Some engineers I know in the
> Los
> > >Angeles area did that and said that the analog "blew away" the
> digital.
> > > I've done it informally by hearing James Boyk perform live in
> Dabney
> > >Concert Hall, then hearing the same piece recorded on LP and
> recorded
> > >on CD. The LP "blew away" the CD. And it does sound more accurate.
> >
> > An interesting anecdote, but others will tell the opposite tale.
>
> Precisely. Others will tell the opposite tale, because everyone has
> their own way of processing information, of making conscious experience
> out of the raw input of senses. In your way, digital artifacts are
> negligible. In mine, they are not.

What "digital artifacts" are you referring to?

- Gary Rosen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 31 Mar 2005 04:12:26 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 30 Mar 2005 00:39:09 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
>> <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >An even better test is to listen to a live feed, then listen to its
>> >reproduction in analog and digital. Some engineers I know in the Los
>> >Angeles area did that and said that the analog "blew away" the digital.
>> > I've done it informally by hearing James Boyk perform live in Dabney
>> >Concert Hall, then hearing the same piece recorded on LP and recorded
>> >on CD. The LP "blew away" the CD. And it does sound more accurate.
>>
>> An interesting anecdote, but others will tell the opposite tale.
>
>Precisely. Others will tell the opposite tale, because everyone has
>their own way of processing information, of making conscious experience
>out of the raw input of senses. In your way, digital artifacts are
>negligible. In mine, they are not.

This is not 'your way', or 'my way', you are making a very specific
claim - that digital artifacts exist. What are these 'digital
artifacts' whose existence you claim?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 31 Mar 2005 01:03:18 GMT, Michael <newsoffthewire@comcast.net>
wrote:

>uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>The preference for tubes is hardly based on the idea that "older is
>>>better." There may indeed be a tiny band of people that believe this
>>>but that hardly acounts for the majority of people that prefer tube
>>>amplification.
>>>
>> What evidence do you have that the majority prefer tube amplification?
>> I certainly don't, and I have good ears. Tubes distort in rather
>> unpleasant ways.
>
>I prefer solid state amplifiers as well.
>
>I'd like to point out that in regards to the original comment, the
>audiophiles I know will tell one that tubes only sound better in certain
>conditions and they are not indeed for all types of music. Most of my
>friends that have tube amps also run solid state amps for pop and rock
>music. So obviously, tube amplification is not some universal,
>audiophile truth.

Interesting, and somewhat weird. One might have hoped that they'd use
the less distorting solid state amps for classical music. Is this
perhaps just some simple snobbery we are discussing, whereby these
people feel that the more expensive and crankier tube amps *must*
somehow be superior for upper-class music?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 31 Mar 2005 01:07:04 GMT, Richard Dale
<Richard_Dale@tipitina.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> On 29 Mar 2005 02:25:52 GMT, Richard Dale
>> <Richard_Dale@tipitina.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Stewart wrote:

>>We see many claims that vinyl has 'infinite resolution',
>> that it has more low-level detail, and that CD has 'stairsteps' and is
>> only a series of snapshots, whereas vinyl somehow retains the 'gestalt
>> of the performance' due to its continuous nature. These are all
>> objective claims, and they are all wrong.

>They are only trying to account for the obvious subjective superiority of a
>SOTA vinyl or tube component.

Another false claim. You must realise that the *vast* majority of
audiophiles do *not* find tube amps or SOTA vinyl to be superior to SS
and CD.

> If an oscilloscope differs with my perception
>of the quality of musical reproduction, then I don't care - I just want to
>hear Duke Ellington or whoever in my living room in a way which involves me
>most in the music.

Me too, which is why I have a CD player and a SS amp. I also have a
decent vinyl rig, because not everything is available on CD.

>>>These problems are amusing in the same way that Einstein or Newton found
>>>their scientific research problems 'amusing'. It doesn't mean they are
>>>trivial problems, or that we currently understand very well at all.
>>
>> Oh, I think we understand the *added* euphonic artifacts of tubes and
>> vinyl pretty well. The problem is getting 'high enders' to admit their
>> existence, even though it's easy to prove.

>No we don't. In what way is it easy to prove?

It's easy to prove by adding these artifacts to an otherwise clean
recording. Indeed, mixdown and mastering engineers often do just this
to 'sweeten up' otherwise dry recordings.

Another obvious proof is to make a CD-R from vinyl. Most people can't
tell the difference, and all the 'magic realism' of vinyl is retained.
This pretty much proves which is the more transparent medium.

> You have a scientific theory?

Not just me, there are lots of scientific theories concerning euphonic
artifacts, they have been studied for a century or more, and they are
very well known. That you feel the need to invent some kind of mystery
to justify your preference for these artifacts, is not my problem.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:

>
> I was a student at Caltech 1987 to 1991.

Let me get this straight. You went to Caltech, and you believe that
interconnects may sound different? Don't you think that if there were
audible differences, they will be accompanied by easily meaasureable
differences? So why not make measurements, instead of long DBT's? Do you
have any theory as to why they may sound different?

Just out of curiosity, what did you major in at Caltech?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 30 Mar 2005 00:43:15 GMT, Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:

> >Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> wrote:

> >> C'mon, now, less than 30 db of separation, 80 db dynamic range if you're
> >> lucky, etc. Vinyl is inferior, but it's analoge artifiacts make it sound
> >> "nice"
> >
> >http/www.airwindows.com/analysis/VinylNoise.html
> >
> >" It would be reasonable to concede that in practice, with usual program
> >content, maybe 80 or 90 db of dynamic range could be expected from a vinyl
> >record, considered as background noise relative to peak modulation (and
> >overlooking rumble, which in many cases will be far worse than my high end
> >vinyl playback system's performance)."

> This is a classic scam, clearly done by a vinyl apologist.

Who, btw, used to post here. I don;t know that he's really trying
to 'scam' so much as present an analysis he thinks is cogent but which
is actually flawed.


> Note that
> that this is a *narrow band* analysis, and bears no relation whatever
> to the correct measure, which is full bandwidth dynamic range.

Heh.


> For comparison, note the results obtained from the 16-bit TPF dither
> graph, which is conventionally acknowledged as sitting 93dB below peak
> level. He claims more than 130dB! Now, take that 37dB difference from
> his claim of 105 dB or so for vinyl (only above 1kHz, you'll notice),
> and we get back to a more realistic 68dB for vinyl, much less if you
> use the full 20-20k bandwidth.

I'm just wondering if he still reads this ng.




--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 31 Mar 2005 04:12:05 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I was a student at Caltech 1987 to 1991. James Boyk introduced me to
>an engineer at Sheffield Lab. A group of engineers at the Sheffield
>Lab had, a few years prior, compared a live feed to its recording, in
>digital, analog tape, and direct-to-disk master. The direct-to-disk
>was the best reproduction of the live feed, followed by the analog tape
>and digital.
>
>If you want to know more, contact the folks at Sheffield Lab. Which,
>by the way, has the best recordings I've ever heard.

And guess what, Sheffield Lab made their money by selling direct-cut
vinyl. Of course *they* will say that DD is best, but many others
disagree, including the late, great Gabe Wiener of PGM, who also made
many superb recordings. For some of the best music you'll ever hear,
also try the JVC XRCD range, which are all made from analog tape
masters.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 31 Mar 2005 04:14:57 GMT, Michael <newsoffthewire@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >
> > The so-called 'High End' market is in itself tiny, and is
> > ever-shrinking, as ARC can confirm.
>
>This is incorrect.

<snip most of massive ramble with little content>

>With the new crop of mini systems that carry a three
>hundred dollar price tag, one receives a much better system than what a
>baseline system would have ran them many years back. Inflation aside,
>the interest in audio is still alive and well, just as it was many years
>back.

This has *nothing* to do with 'high-end' audio.

>To make sure that my point is made obvious, I will finish restating the
>essence of my post: years ago, during the proclaimed heyday of the high
>fidelity market, the number of sales of high end equipment was neither
>less or greater than it currently is.

It was greater. This is not conjecture, check out industry sales
figures.

> Sure, people will point out that
>this or that former-great company is out of business and it obviously
>proves that the market is shrinking. Yet, I would combat this by
>pointing out how many small companies are out there selling high end
>products.

Less than there used to be............

>Similarly, one may point out the demise of
>the mom and pop stereo stores and try to use that to define the downfall
>of the market. Again, I would combat this by pointing out the natural
>progression of the consumer market across all market segments: large,
>corporate chains and the internet. With these new ways of retail, if
>anything, the number of high fidelity stores has most likely increased.

*High end* stores, however, are going out of business, and you can't
buy high end gear in supermarkets.

>For one last proof, if one truly believed that consumers of old cared
>more about high fidelity than current consumers, then the obvious
>outcomes of their buying habits would be a used market filled with high
>end equipment from yesteryear.

Not if no one is replacing their 'high end' equipment. That is the
truly obvious outcome.

>In the end, the demand for high fidelity equipment is neither smaller
>nor greater than it was long ago.

Utter nonsense, and all the rambling and handwaving in the world won't
change the *fact* that the 'high end' two-channel market is shrinking
rapidly, which is why the brighter companies like Krell are rushing
into the Home Theater market, which certainly is expanding.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 31 Mar 2005 01:06:12 GMT, Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> wrote:

>I've seen some threads on these newsgroups presenting technical
>arguments that support the notion that SACD does indeed sound as good as
>or better than vinyl, CD, and even DVD-A.

Heck, you've seen threads here presenting technical arguments
supporting the notion that vinyl is better than CD!

>Basically, and forgive me for
>my limited technical understanding, SACD D/A converters seem to be able
>handle highly dynamic transients better than CD and even DVD-A.

What on earth gives you that impression? If by transients you mean
high frequencies, SACD in fact has very *low* dynamic range at high
frequencies. It's only in the bass and midrange that it can claim
superior dynamics to CD, as it is a system which has continuously
decreasing dynamic range with increasing frequency, as opposed to the
consistent range of linear PCM, aka CD and DVD-A.

> There
>was also mention that DVD-A players in Europe have had their D/A
>converters adjusted to have that same capability as SACD D/A converters.
>DVD-A players in the US can't have the adjustment done b/c of some
>potential lawsuit.

Sounds like an urban myth to me...........

>I hope DVD-A wins the battle for the next generation optical digital
>audio disc simply because it is better than CD at everything, something
>that SACD cannot claim.

OTOH, is it *audibly* better than CD? That's a matter of debate among
industry professionals, never mind domestic audiophiles.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 30 Mar 2005 00:42:38 GMT, uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:

>> The preference for tubes is hardly based on the idea that "older is
>> better." There may indeed be a tiny band of people that believe this
>> but that hardly acounts for the majority of people that prefer tube
>> amplification.
>>
>
>
>What evidence do you have that the majority prefer tube amplification?

He didn't say that. He said of those who prefer tube amps, the majority do
not prefer them simply because they're old technology.

>I certainly don't, and I have good ears. Tubes distort in rather
>unpleasant ways.

Unpleasant for you, perhaps not so for others?

Paul Chefurka

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Chung wrote:
> Michael Mossey wrote:
>
> > An even better test is to listen to a live feed, then listen to its
> > reproduction in analog and digital. Some engineers I know in the
Los
> > Angeles area did that and said that the analog "blew away" the
digital.
> > I've done it informally by hearing James Boyk perform live in
Dabney
> > Concert Hall, then hearing the same piece recorded on LP and
recorded
> > on CD. The LP "blew away" the CD. And it does sound more
accurate.
>
> Check out this article:
>
> http/www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm
>
> This is one of the early ABX tests establishing the transparency of
> digital audio. Also check out posts by the late Gabe Wiener, a
> well-known recording engineer, on this subject, right here on rahe.

"Establishing the transperency of digital audio"? That seems like too
grand and universal conclusion from the test you mentioned. It was a
quick-switching test, and not only that, the writeup said they "quickly
did 37 trials." I can't pay good attention to anything that I do
quickly, 37 times. And that was just ONE part of a day's work. James
Boyk told me that he did something similar with a live feed as source,
and could hear the degradation of digital, but I don't have any
details.

If we get away from a reductionist viewpoint, we also realize that a
live digital feed is a different system than stored digital recordings.
So the fact that most CD's sound like degraded live feeds to me, and
my hypothesis that this occurs from artifacts in the process, is still
tenable.

Best,
Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

michael wrote:
> Michael Mossey wrote:
>
>
> > I'm sure what you say is true for *some* people. Some people can't
> > hear the difference between a digital copy of a record and the
> > original.
>
> > I'm embarking on a project of recording some LPs so I will have an
> > occasion to see for myself what I think of digital copies of them.
>
> The copies I make sound exceedingly like the records. I can readily
> distinguish the two different cartridges I use: Denon 103 and Shure
V15x.
> But that is the beauty of digital-the copies are very exact. I think
a
> limitation may be the quality of your sound card, but I haven't been
able
> to hear any differences that would make me want to upgrade this part
of my
> computer. I simply use the integrated chipset on my Intel
motherboard.
> They key is keeping levels within the range of the ADC. When copying
CDs
> this is not an issue, or course, since most people accomplish this
within
> the digital domain.
>

I believe you when you say that your digital copies sound very much
like the records, but it is remarkable to me that the integrated
chipset on a motherboard accomplishes this. Why are more expensive
digital recorders necessary, then? Maybe inexpensive digital recorders
are completely transparent. I do want to test this possibility; my
basic point is that I don't think it has been tested well in any test
I've seen described.

Best,
Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Vinyl does not have 'infinite resolution' nor anything close to it.

In the first place, you have a hot cutting stylus working its way
through a physical medium (the lacquer) which resists its movement.

The cutting head has its own resonant frequency and magnetic distortion
products.

The mothering, plating, and stamping processes introduce noise, and
require limiting and compression.

The closer you get to the end, the less rotational velocity there is,
which induces inner-groove distortion.

The pick-up tone-arm cannot hold the stylus at the same angle at which
the record was cut.

The stylus shape of the pick-up cannot be made to match that of the
cutting stylus.

ALL records have some eccentricty, usually audible. (The only
phonograph playback system to defeat this was, I believe, the Nakamichi
Dragon.)

I owned 1200 LP's at one point. I'll never go back.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2005 01:07:04 GMT, Richard Dale
> <Richard_Dale@tipitina.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >
> >> On 29 Mar 2005 02:25:52 GMT, Richard Dale
> >> <Richard_Dale@tipitina.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Stewart wrote:
>
> >>We see many claims that vinyl has 'infinite resolution',
> >> that it has more low-level detail, and that CD has 'stairsteps'
and is
> >> only a series of snapshots, whereas vinyl somehow retains the
'gestalt
> >> of the performance' due to its continuous nature. These are all
> >> objective claims, and they are all wrong.
>
> >They are only trying to account for the obvious subjective
superiority of a
> >SOTA vinyl or tube component.
>
> Another false claim. You must realise that the *vast* majority of
> audiophiles do *not* find tube amps or SOTA vinyl to be superior to
SS
> and CD.
>
> > If an oscilloscope differs with my perception
> >of the quality of musical reproduction, then I don't care - I just
want to
> >hear Duke Ellington or whoever in my living room in a way which
involves me
> >most in the music.
>
> Me too, which is why I have a CD player and a SS amp. I also have a
> decent vinyl rig, because not everything is available on CD.
>
> >>>These problems are amusing in the same way that Einstein or Newton
found
> >>>their scientific research problems 'amusing'. It doesn't mean they
are
> >>>trivial problems, or that we currently understand very well at
all.
> >>
> >> Oh, I think we understand the *added* euphonic artifacts of tubes
and
> >> vinyl pretty well. The problem is getting 'high enders' to admit
their
> >> existence, even though it's easy to prove.
>
> >No we don't. In what way is it easy to prove?
>
> It's easy to prove by adding these artifacts to an otherwise clean
> recording. Indeed, mixdown and mastering engineers often do just this
> to 'sweeten up' otherwise dry recordings.
>
> Another obvious proof is to make a CD-R from vinyl. Most people can't
> tell the difference, and all the 'magic realism' of vinyl is
retained.
> This pretty much proves which is the more transparent medium.
>
> > You have a scientific theory?
>
> Not just me, there are lots of scientific theories concerning
euphonic
> artifacts, they have been studied for a century or more, and they are
> very well known. That you feel the need to invent some kind of
mystery
> to justify your preference for these artifacts, is not my problem.
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:
> Chung wrote:
> >
> > Check out this article:
> >
> > http/www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm
> >
> > This is one of the early ABX tests establishing the transparency of
> > digital audio. Also check out posts by the late Gabe Wiener, a
> > well-known recording engineer, on this subject, right here on rahe.
>
> "Establishing the transperency of digital audio"? That seems like
too
> grand and universal conclusion from the test you mentioned. It was a
> quick-switching test,

Which is the best kind, as any expert in psychoacoustics (i.e., NOT
James Boyk) could explain to you.

> and not only that, the writeup said they "quickly
> did 37 trials."

Did you miss the part where he explained that the switching was
controlled by the subject? If he'd needed more time, he could have
taken it. The reason it went so quickly is that the subject had no
trouble "hearing the difference." Of course, it turned out he wasn't
hearing any difference at all, but once he'd made up his mind that he
had, it's highly unlikely that further listening would have helped him
any.

> I can't pay good attention to anything that I do
> quickly, 37 times. And that was just ONE part of a day's work.
James
> Boyk told me that he did something similar with a live feed as
source,
> and could hear the degradation of digital, but I don't have any
> details.

"James Boyk told you"???? Did he ever publish one of these little
experiments of his? Ever?
>
> If we get away from a reductionist viewpoint, we also realize that a
> live digital feed is a different system than stored digital
recordings.
> So the fact that most CD's sound like degraded live feeds to me, and
> my hypothesis that this occurs from artifacts in the process, is
still
> tenable.

Not if you can't even tell us what these artifacts are, it isn't.

bob

 

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:
> Chung wrote:
>> Michael Mossey wrote:
>>
>> > An even better test is to listen to a live feed, then listen to its
>> > reproduction in analog and digital. Some engineers I know in the
> Los
>> > Angeles area did that and said that the analog "blew away" the
> digital.
>> > I've done it informally by hearing James Boyk perform live in
> Dabney
>> > Concert Hall, then hearing the same piece recorded on LP and
> recorded
>> > on CD. The LP "blew away" the CD. And it does sound more
> accurate.
>>
>> Check out this article:
>>
>> http/www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm
>>
>> This is one of the early ABX tests establishing the transparency of
>> digital audio. Also check out posts by the late Gabe Wiener, a
>> well-known recording engineer, on this subject, right here on rahe.
>
> "Establishing the transperency of digital audio"? That seems like too
> grand and universal conclusion from the test you mentioned. It was a
> quick-switching test, and not only that, the writeup said they "quickly
> did 37 trials." I can't pay good attention to anything that I do
> quickly, 37 times. And that was just ONE part of a day's work. James
> Boyk told me that he did something similar with a live feed as source,
> and could hear the degradation of digital, but I don't have any
> details.
>

Of course, there is no requirement in that ABX test on how quikly the
trails have to be run. Simply, the testee determined that he had heard
sufficently to pick a choice. You could take longer to make that choice,
I suppose.

> If we get away from a reductionist viewpoint, we also realize that a
> live digital feed is a different system than stored digital recordings.

So, how is the live digital feed different than digital recordings?
Certainly the live digital feed can be recorded with no degradation
(meaning no change in information content), right? If there are digital
artifacts inherent in the digitizing process (anti-alias filtering, A/D
and D/A), those artifacts must be present in the digitized version of
the live feed that the testees heard in that ABX test, correct? Or are
you now suggesting that the digital artifacts are caused by the storage
process, and not the A/D and A/D processes?


> So the fact that most CD's sound like degraded live feeds to me, and
> my hypothesis that this occurs from artifacts in the process, is still
> tenable.
>

I don't think you understand what was tested. It was not to test whether
CD's sound like degraded live feeds. The test established that the
testee could not tell the difference between a live feed and a digitized
redbook version of that live-feed.

I see how yor mind works. You decided that quick-switching could not
possibly work, and hence all test results based on quick switching must
be invalid. And of course you find it convenient to ignore the fact that
quick switching has been used to detect very subtle differences (like a
0.3 dB difference) that may not be detectible with slow/long switching.
I guess any data that contradicts your theory is simply bad data as far
as you're concerned.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 31 Mar 2005 04:14:57 GMT, Michael <newsoffthewire@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >
> > The so-called 'High End' market is in itself tiny, and is
> > ever-shrinking, as ARC can confirm.
>
>This is incorrect.

Anyone who doubts the truth of this matter is directed to Ken
Kessler's article on the back page of this month's Hi-Fi News, just
out.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 1 Apr 2005 01:13:54 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Chung wrote:
>> Michael Mossey wrote:
>>
>> > An even better test is to listen to a live feed, then listen to its
>> > reproduction in analog and digital. Some engineers I know in the
>Los
>> > Angeles area did that and said that the analog "blew away" the
>digital.
>> > I've done it informally by hearing James Boyk perform live in
>Dabney
>> > Concert Hall, then hearing the same piece recorded on LP and
>recorded
>> > on CD. The LP "blew away" the CD. And it does sound more
>accurate.
>>
>> Check out this article:
>>
>> http/www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm
>>
>> This is one of the early ABX tests establishing the transparency of
>> digital audio. Also check out posts by the late Gabe Wiener, a
>> well-known recording engineer, on this subject, right here on rahe.
>
>"Establishing the transperency of digital audio"? That seems like too
>grand and universal conclusion from the test you mentioned.

He said it was *one* of the early tests which established
transparency.

> It was a
>quick-switching test, and not only that, the writeup said they "quickly
>did 37 trials." I can't pay good attention to anything that I do
>quickly, 37 times.

As you would doubtless suggest, others may not have this
problem............

>And that was just ONE part of a day's work. James
>Boyk told me that he did something similar with a live feed as source,
>and could hear the degradation of digital, but I don't have any
>details.

If you read more of Boyk's stuff, you'll find that he says many very
strange things................

>If we get away from a reductionist viewpoint, we also realize that a
>live digital feed is a different system than stored digital recordings.

Why do you accuse everyone else of 'reductionism'? And in exactly what
way is a stored digital recording different from a live feed? Stop
making vague claims, and offer something tangible.

> So the fact that most CD's sound like degraded live feeds to me, and
>my hypothesis that this occurs from artifacts in the process, is still
>tenable.

Your hypothesis is not tenable until you offer some *evidence* to
support it. You have been asked several times exactly what 'digital
artifacts' you are referencing, but you have never answered this
simple question.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2005 04:12:05 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >I was a student at Caltech 1987 to 1991. James Boyk introduced me
to
> >an engineer at Sheffield Lab. A group of engineers at the Sheffield
> >Lab had, a few years prior, compared a live feed to its recording,
in
> >digital, analog tape, and direct-to-disk master. The direct-to-disk
> >was the best reproduction of the live feed, followed by the analog
tape
> >and digital.
> >
> >If you want to know more, contact the folks at Sheffield Lab.
Which,
> >by the way, has the best recordings I've ever heard.
>
> And guess what, Sheffield Lab made their money by selling direct-cut
> vinyl. Of course *they* will say that DD is best,

I think that it is convenient for you to believe that people who
disagree with you have some ulterior motive.

I'm sure you've done listening tests in which the result came back
null. Perhaps you've compared two amplifiers or inserted a digital
processor into a live feed. And very likely you reported hearing no
difference. Now, if I wanted to do the same thing you are doing, I
could say that you didn't hear a difference because you didn't want to
hear a difference. After all, it is far more comforting to live in a
world that's logical, predictable, and can be understood via
reductionism. To hear a difference would threaten this world.

Do you admit to this possibility? Are you at least willing to say, "I
could have failed to hear a difference because I was biased?"

If you refuse to admit this, then you have to allow the possibility
that Sheffield Lab engineers ranked storage media in that order because
that's honestly how they experienced the relationship to the live feed.


Any by the way, they also make the best CD's I've ever heard, in terms
of recorded sound.


>but many others
> disagree, including the late, great Gabe Wiener of PGM, who also made
> many superb recordings.

How can they be located?

>For some of the best music you'll ever hear,
> also try the JVC XRCD range, which are all made from analog tape
> masters.
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Michael]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:

> michael wrote:

>> computer. I simply use the integrated chipset on my Intel
> motherboard.
>> They key is keeping levels within the range of the ADC. When copying
> CDs
>> this is not an issue, or course, since most people accomplish this
> within
>> the digital domain.

> I believe you when you say that your digital copies sound very much
> like the records, but it is remarkable to me that the integrated
> chipset on a motherboard accomplishes this. Why are more expensive
> digital recorders necessary, then? Maybe inexpensive digital recorders
> are completely transparent. I do want to test this possibility; my
> basic point is that I don't think it has been tested well in any test
> I've seen described.

The Intel site is skimpy on audiophile specs but S/N is listed at <90dB. No
FR parameters or THD figures are given, at least from my cursory check.
However, I suspect that ADC conversion is probably carried out within
tolerances that, when recording something like records, is non-critical.
As I said, I can readily detect no differences. Maybe with more critical
listening someone else could, who knows?

I found the following specs on a "high-end" PC card ($250.00 SB Audigy 4):
16/44 rate: FR within 0.36db from 40Hz to 15kHz, SN -95dB, dynamic range
94.2dB, THD 0.003% (FR not specified), crosstalk -96dB (FR not specified).
These figures are pretty good, nothing special, but the card should be able
to handle any analog source without significant compromise.

I would guess that most any PC ADC is going to be transparent as long as
record levels are not exceeded, and the basic electro-mechanical integrity
of the drive and laser unit is intact--that is, gross error rates are not
observed. More expensive recorders are necessary due to specific user
demands, and features. A PC with a soundcard is best for copying CDs. That
way, no analog steps are involved. No one is going to use such a device in
a recording studio for recording. Also, the specs on something like the
Benchmark DAC 1 are what a professional will expect, and what the buyer of
his product will expect. No "consumer" sound card will have this type of
engineering built in to it.

In any case, please post your results when you get them.

michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d2i73o01uiq@news2.newsguy.com...
> On 31 Mar 2005 01:06:12 GMT, Codifus <codifus@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >I've seen some threads on these newsgroups presenting technical
> >arguments that support the notion that SACD does indeed sound as good as
> >or better than vinyl, CD, and even DVD-A.
>
> Heck, you've seen threads here presenting technical arguments
> supporting the notion that vinyl is better than CD!
>
> >Basically, and forgive me for
> >my limited technical understanding, SACD D/A converters seem to be able
> >handle highly dynamic transients better than CD and even DVD-A.
>
> What on earth gives you that impression? If by transients you mean
> high frequencies, SACD in fact has very *low* dynamic range at high
> frequencies. It's only in the bass and midrange that it can claim
> superior dynamics to CD, as it is a system which has continuously
> decreasing dynamic range with increasing frequency, as opposed to the
> consistent range of linear PCM, aka CD and DVD-A.
>

It is based on the lack of pre-transient ringing compared to both CD and
DVD-A. I even refenced an article here in the past that pointed it out. It
is fact. You can argue about its audibility, but not its existence. The
"US legal issue" is Wadia's design, which was specifically done to get rid
of this artifact.

> > There
> >was also mention that DVD-A players in Europe have had their D/A
> >converters adjusted to have that same capability as SACD D/A converters.
> >DVD-A players in the US can't have the adjustment done b/c of some
> >potential lawsuit.
>
> Sounds like an urban myth to me...........

See comment above.

>
> >I hope DVD-A wins the battle for the next generation optical digital
> >audio disc simply because it is better than CD at everything, something
> >that SACD cannot claim.
>
> OTOH, is it *audibly* better than CD? That's a matter of debate among
> industry professionals, never mind domestic audiophiles.

The industry is firmly committed to high res as sounding better. They just
don't know what its commercial future is. Hard to find a sound engineer
anywhere who will support your position. Hard to find any pro gear that is
not upgrading to 24/96 (in or out) or greater. Would Benchmark have built
in 24/96 downconversion if it didn't count in monitoring quality? And don't
tell me that it is only for mixing...that may hold for the inputs, but not
for the outputs. The ordinary pro audio world is moving to 24/96 surround
as a needed output, whether as straight DVD-A, or as downmixed Dolby Digital
/ DTS. With the stereo tracks maintained at this or a higher 24/192 rate.
And a substantial portion of the classical pro audio world has moved to DSD
for its superior naturalness as a mastering technology using simple micing.