[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:21:22 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 14, 7:14=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

That's been tried. Analog (ripples) recorders, even very high resolution
analog recorders (there was an analog optical recorder in the early eight=
ies)
suffer from problems that make digital better. For instance, an analog
recording is always going to suffer generational losses when copied (a co=
py
will always be at least 3 dB noisier and have increased distortion over t=
he
generation from which it is copied). Digital, can, OTOH, theoretically, b=
e
copied, serially, an infinite number of times with no generation loss. In
reality, of course, the added noise with each generation is THERE, it's j=
ust
that the noise is analog and the system is looking for ones and zeros.

No...it's not. A bit perfect recording of a digital recording is
relatively trivial.
There is no added analog noise with each generation of digital.
There is no cumulative analog noise passed from recording to another.

BUT,
eventually, it is conceivable that the background noise can get so high t=
hat
the digital intelligence cannot be read through the noise.

It may be conceivable but it simply isn't correct.

Of course, when
that happens, you don't really get an increase in noise in the digital
signal, in the digital recording, you get read errors and enough of those
will cause the file to not play at all, and that is the practical limit o=
f
serial copies of a digital file (although, that would indicate a very hig=
h
number of generations away from the oriiginal recording, and realisticall=
y
speaking, would never happen.

Nor does it happen in theory. The recording of digital music is just
copying bits.
There is nothing passed from a source to a recording except the bits.
There may be some "noise" in the system along the way but as long as
that noise doesn't change the value of a bit...it's irrelevant and
won't get passed along to the next stage. There is no cumulative
effect and it's very common to be able create bit identical
recreations of massive data files....digital music is no different.

So you're saying that there is no circumstance under which background noise
can get so high that it makes detection of the digital data difficult? Tell
that to people who deal in digital communications.

[Harry Lavo]

"Scott" wrote in message
...

snip, irrelevant to what follows


Certain elements do the trick. We do have experience with human
voices, drum kits, acoustic guitars, painos etc. We can judge the
quality of those elements aginst our experience with live music. Heck
just listen to the barrage of clocks going off at the begining of the
track called Time on Darkside of the Moon. Sounds pretty real.


Actually, I've heard the clocks sound very real (my grandparents had a house
full of wind-ups...I've head at least eight of various sizes go off at once)
to sounding very unreal. Using the SACD version. And the culprit....the
preamp. Audio Research SP6B vs. Onkyo P301. So much for big-box store
electronics.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 06:48:29 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message


I don't agree that the *inherent*
colorations of vinyl are so gross that one can easily
identify them by ear alone

But, you won't take reasonable steps to demonstrate that
assertion.

and I also disagree that the
colorations are so severe that no LP can ever truly
sound great.

Given the current market penetration of the LP,
essentially a moot point. Virtually nobody ever listens
to LPs any more. Very few people even have turntables.

OK, let's see your facts and figures Arny. What
percentage of audio enthusiasts do have turntables in the
world and do listen to vinyl?

Based on the 40 or so people in my audio club, nobody listens to vinyl any
more, even the few people like me who still have a turntable.

You see, your constant assertion that "virtually nobody"
listens to LPs any more", doesn't seem to Jibe with
reality.

OK, let's see your facts and figures. What percentage of audio enthusiasts
do have turntables in the world and do listen to vinyl?

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 06:48:45 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

I feel the same way. Like I said, I don't dismiss any
source of music (except iTunes store stuff. Everything
I've ever downloaded from them sounds execrable).

Given that iTunes seems to have a reasonable
cross-section of music available, and a delivery system
that passes technical scrutiny and works for millions,
this seems to be an incredible claim.

I can't help that. I listen with MY ears, you listen with
yours, and as has been demonstrated here more than once,
we don't hear the same things. I hear MP3 artifacts, you
seem not to.

One difference between you and I is that I would only say that I've heard
MP3 artifacts would be based on a DBT.

I hear an improvement in high-resolution
digital formats, you seem not to.

One difference between you and I is that I would only say that I've heard
differences based on the use of hi rez formats if based on a DBT.

I don't hear many of
the "gross distortions" that you say makes it unpleasant
for you to listen to vinyl.

I think you may hear them, but you might not perceive them.

[Kele]

Thank you for replies. You are all sound experts in my eyes. Being
without the technical knowledge, my hope is that you can interpret my
simplistic conveyance of my opinion.

When I walk into the mall and hear music playing, I=92ll focus on it and
know if it=92s live =96 sight unseen. As I progress toward the sound (the
central atrium), I become more sure of my guess. Then as I peer down
to the first floor, I see the band playing with PV house speakers.
I=92m hearing amplified (processed) music, but it=92s not as if I were
listening to a recording regardless that I had ever heard the band or
song(s) before. I never heard Floyd live, but Live=92s unique
properties hasn=92t been conveyed by any recording I=92ve heard, to
include all the audio test CD=92s & jazz samplers I=92ve collected via
magazine subscriptions. Maybe my stereo is the weakest link.

Where I live there are numerous sidewalk minstrels of varying talent.
It=92s open air and I=92m able to be arms length from musicians playing
their instruments, even violinists. I=92ve even recorded myself playing
an acoustic guitar. I=92m just saying that we can always get out Live
memory reinforced. I understand what you=92re saying about un-amplified
music as the truest form of live, but either way, I can=92t think of a
time I=92ve been fooled into thinking a recording played back is Live.

In the studio, when you can=92t see whether it=92s live or a recording
being played back, you can=92t tell? I would love to experience that.
I would have to follow that recording through the process (to market)
to identify when and where the change occurs. By change I mean when
the recording no longer fools me into thinking it=92s live. I=92d have to
pitch a fit wherever that transition occurs, intentional or not.
That=92s what I=92m trying to ask of you. I know the post-processing
plays a big part. I=92m thinking that each pass through another board
of electronics impacts the sound thus reducing its =93Liveliness=94 =96 eve=
n
in the digital domain. There must be specific culprits that can be
addressed to help eliminate the recorded sound. Does the industry
share the same equipment? Maybe there is bad-actor sound gear that is
most influential at squashing realism.

Sounds like a light tracking record groove idea has already been made
into reality=85 I didn=92t know. Nor did I know that materials other than
vinyl have been tried. With all the nano-technology being developed,
it seemed a good time to ask the question. Since the audiophile
approved CDs do sound better than most, it does stand to reason that
the major problems are upstream. It would probably be more beneficial
to address those first, or the next medium will continue to suffer.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:56:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Serious development of the vinyl LP pretty well petered
out in the middle-late 1960s. There have been no new
technical developments that were generally accepted
since then.

I think that you'd be surprised at just how incorrect
that assessment is. DMM is one innovation that has been
added since the '60s

DMM fails the test of general acceptance. Plenty of recordings are being
made by traditional metal plating, to this day. Classic Records for example
if you can believe their PR.

as well as things like digital lathe control,

Again failing the test of general acceptance. Many experienced cutters
prefer to control the lathe manually to this day.

better sounding acceleration limiters for the cutter stylus,

Ditto.

better "lacquer" disc materials (less noise)

Questionable benefit.

My measurements show that modern 180 gram pressings are no quieter than well
made LPs from the 60s and 70s.

and generally less 'colored' electronics all through the system.

Not really an advancement of the vinyl LP, but an advancement of the general
audio art.

[Arny Krueger]

"Stephen McElroy" wrote in
message
In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:56:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Serious development of the vinyl LP pretty well petered
out in the middle-late 1960s. There have been no new
technical developments that were generally accepted
since then.



I think that you'd be surprised at just how incorrect
that assessment is. DMM is one innovation that has been
added since the '60s as well as things like digital
lathe control, better sounding acceleration limiters for
the cutter stylus, better "lacquer" disc materials (less
noise) and generally less 'colored' electronics all
through the system.

And there's nothing wrong with incremental improvements.

The proof is in the pudding. LP test records made using the best modern
procedures and equipment measure no quieter than classics from the 1960s and
1970s such as those by CBS Laboratories.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 14, 5:57=A0pm, ScottW wrote:
On Feb 14, 3:54=3DA0am, Kele wrote:





Wow, this is a heck of a subject. =3DA0I have done my own experiment
between a Gold CD against a Japanese vinyl pressing of Dark Side of
the Moon. =3DA0Does that count? =3DA0I think so. =3DA0I know which my f=
avorite
rendition is. =3DA0I suppose to explain the difference is similar to
explaining the difference between live and recorded music. =3DA0It is
difficult to explain, but it's not difficult to tell which is which.
Even the best sound reproduction systems I've heard aren=3D3D92t the sa=
me a=3D
s
live. =3DA0My memory of hearing live is all I have. =3DA0And I agree th=
at the
environment of the live also influences my memory. =3DA0If I compare ea=
ch,
digital and analog sources, against my memory of live... that answer
would be my preferred medium.

I've done the blind test (unofficial), but all that's doing is helping
prove if there is a difference. =3DA0The difference between analog and
digital? =3DA0No, we shouldn=3D3D92t stray away from the true goal, the=
sound=3D
=A0of
Live. =3DA0[I=3D3D92m leaving the environment out of this, ok] =3DA0Thi=
s is the=3D
=A0part
that leaves science behind... =3DA0Which "feels" closest to live? =3DA0=
Or,
which reminds me most of live. =3DA0That's all. =3DA0I don't know if di=
gital
discs can potentially sound better than record albums or not. =3DA0So f=
ar
neither sounds like live - really. =3DA0It's like a ripple sandwiched
between two panes of glass, the ripple can't fully expand. =3DA0But whi=
ch,
analog or digital, is the glass further apart? =3DA0I say lets remove t=
he
glass!

=A0I've heard Pink Floyd live....I actually like the reproductions from
my system(s) much much better. Even going all the way back my Original
Large Advents.
It's not even close. =A0 Live is, IMO, sometimes overrated .


When we are talking rock concerts no one I know goes for the great
sound. they go to *see* the performers and the show. That never was
the sort of "live" music being talked about as a reference or goal in
audio. I've seen Pink Floyd live when they did The Wall back in 1980.
It was a spectacular show.
I still very much enjoy seeing my favorite acts in rock live just to
see them. The last one I went to was Rocco DeLuca and Daniel Lanois
with his band Black Dub. It was a sensational show.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 17:57:38 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 14, 3:54=A0am, Kele wrote:
Wow, this is a heck of a subject. =A0I have done my own experiment
between a Gold CD against a Japanese vinyl pressing of Dark Side of
the Moon. =A0Does that count? =A0I think so. =A0I know which my favorite
rendition is. =A0I suppose to explain the difference is similar to
explaining the difference between live and recorded music. =A0It is
difficult to explain, but it's not difficult to tell which is which.
Even the best sound reproduction systems I've heard aren=3D92t the same a=
s
live. =A0My memory of hearing live is all I have. =A0And I agree that the
environment of the live also influences my memory. =A0If I compare each,
digital and analog sources, against my memory of live... that answer
would be my preferred medium.

I've done the blind test (unofficial), but all that's doing is helping
prove if there is a difference. =A0The difference between analog and
digital? =A0No, we shouldn=3D92t stray away from the true goal, the sound=
of
Live. =A0[I=3D92m leaving the environment out of this, ok] =A0This is the=
part
that leaves science behind... =A0Which "feels" closest to live? =A0Or,
which reminds me most of live. =A0That's all. =A0I don't know if digital
discs can potentially sound better than record albums or not. =A0So far
neither sounds like live - really. =A0It's like a ripple sandwiched
between two panes of glass, the ripple can't fully expand. =A0But which,
analog or digital, is the glass further apart? =A0I say lets remove the
glass!

I've heard Pink Floyd live....I actually like the reproductions from
my system(s) much much better. Even going all the way back my Original
Large Advents.
It's not even close. Live is, IMO, sometimes overrated .

ScottW


I'm sorry, I cannot get past the notion that listening to a musical group
through loudspeakers (even any acoustical ones) is hearing that group "live".
To me the only differences between hearing a PA system of a rock group and
listening to a recording of that group on one's own stereo system is the
quality of the loudspeakers and the fact that the concert is a "shared"
experience.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Scott" wrote in message
...

snip, irrelevant to what follows


Certain elements do the trick. We do have experience
with human voices, drum kits, acoustic guitars, painos
etc. We can judge the quality of those elements aginst
our experience with live music. Heck just listen to the
barrage of clocks going off at the begining of the track
called Time on Darkside of the Moon. Sounds pretty real.


Actually, I've heard the clocks sound very real (my
grandparents had a house full of wind-ups...I've head at
least eight of various sizes go off at once) to sounding
very unreal. Using the SACD version. And the
culprit....the preamp. Audio Research SP6B vs. Onkyo
P301. So much for big-box store electronics.

I own a weight-driven grandfather clock with chime movement, so I know
exactly what one sounds like. I can move it in my listening room and listen
to it chime, if I want the true live experience.

Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like it is entirely possible with the CD
version, mid-fi electronics and speakers that are well-configured for the
room.

The DSOTM recording was miced incredibly close, so any claims that
close-micing bodes poorly for fidelity is brought into question by the high
end audiophile comments on this thread.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 05:31:05 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 14, 5:57=A0pm, ScottW wrote:
On Feb 14, 3:54=3DA0am, Kele wrote:





Wow, this is a heck of a subject. =3DA0I have done my own experiment
between a Gold CD against a Japanese vinyl pressing of Dark Side of
the Moon. =3DA0Does that count? =3DA0I think so. =3DA0I know which my f=
avorite
rendition is. =3DA0I suppose to explain the difference is similar to
explaining the difference between live and recorded music. =3DA0It is
difficult to explain, but it's not difficult to tell which is which.
Even the best sound reproduction systems I've heard aren=3D3D92t the sa=
me a=3D
s
live. =3DA0My memory of hearing live is all I have. =3DA0And I agree th=
at the
environment of the live also influences my memory. =3DA0If I compare ea=
ch,
digital and analog sources, against my memory of live... that answer
would be my preferred medium.

I've done the blind test (unofficial), but all that's doing is helping
prove if there is a difference. =3DA0The difference between analog and
digital? =3DA0No, we shouldn=3D3D92t stray away from the true goal, the=
sound=3D
=A0of
Live. =3DA0[I=3D3D92m leaving the environment out of this, ok] =3DA0Thi=
s is the=3D
=A0part
that leaves science behind... =3DA0Which "feels" closest to live? =3DA0=
Or,
which reminds me most of live. =3DA0That's all. =3DA0I don't know if di=
gital
discs can potentially sound better than record albums or not. =3DA0So f=
ar
neither sounds like live - really. =3DA0It's like a ripple sandwiched
between two panes of glass, the ripple can't fully expand. =3DA0But whi=
ch,
analog or digital, is the glass further apart? =3DA0I say lets remove t=
he
glass!

=A0I've heard Pink Floyd live....I actually like the reproductions from
my system(s) much much better. Even going all the way back my Original
Large Advents.
It's not even close. =A0 Live is, IMO, sometimes overrated .


When we are talking rock concerts no one I know goes for the great
sound. they go to *see* the performers and the show. That never was
the sort of "live" music being talked about as a reference or goal in
audio. I've seen Pink Floyd live when they did The Wall back in 1980.
It was a spectacular show.
I still very much enjoy seeing my favorite acts in rock live just to
see them. The last one I went to was Rocco DeLuca and Daniel Lanois
with his band Black Dub. It was a sensational show.


I guess I can understand that. At least you don't pretend to be hearing "live
music".

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 05:31:34 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Scott" wrote in message
...

snip, irrelevant to what follows


Certain elements do the trick. We do have experience
with human voices, drum kits, acoustic guitars, painos
etc. We can judge the quality of those elements aginst
our experience with live music. Heck just listen to the
barrage of clocks going off at the begining of the track
called Time on Darkside of the Moon. Sounds pretty real.


Actually, I've heard the clocks sound very real (my
grandparents had a house full of wind-ups...I've head at
least eight of various sizes go off at once) to sounding
very unreal. Using the SACD version. And the
culprit....the preamp. Audio Research SP6B vs. Onkyo
P301. So much for big-box store electronics.

I own a weight-driven grandfather clock with chime movement, so I know
exactly what one sounds like. I can move it in my listening room and listen
to it chime, if I want the true live experience.

Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like it is entirely possible with the CD
version, mid-fi electronics and speakers that are well-configured for the
room.

The DSOTM recording was miced incredibly close, so any claims that
close-micing bodes poorly for fidelity is brought into question by the high
end audiophile comments on this thread.



Well, close miking is one of those "horses for courses" questions. In some
music it works, in some it doesn't. For rock, I would suspect that it's de
riguer. For small, intimate jazz ensembles, it also works. For classical
string quartets and symphony orchestras, solo acoustic guitar, solo piano,
etc. it does not work and anybody who uses it in situations where it does
not work is incompetent (and there is a lot of that around. If I had a dollar
for every solo guitar recording I've heard where the guitar is 7 feet wide, I
be a richer man now). For some music you mike the musicians, for other music
you mike the space the musicians occupy. The skill is in knowing which
technique to use in which instance.

Anybody who thinks that a dozen violins, each close-miked and mixed together
in a mixer, sounds ANYTHING like a real string section is crazy. String sound
in an orchestra is designed to mix in the air, naturally, you can't do it
electronically and if you try, you will fail and what you will get is 12
separate violins. Also, close miking robs any recording of any semblance of
a natural soundstage. Grossly multi-miked/multi-channel orchestral recordings
(such as those done in the 1970s) where each instrument is pan-potted into
place, sounds like the orchestra is lined-up across the stage in a straight
line. Such a recording has no depth and no height to the image and doesn't
even sound like an orchestra.

There is a story told about British composer Ralph Vaughn-Williams. Decca had
just recorded one of his 9 symphonies (I forget which) and he was listening
to the playback. Suddenly he jumps out of his seat and yells "Stop the
playback!" "What's wrong" asks the record's producer. "I hear the tuba."
replies the great man. "Oh, is that all. Yes, it comes through nicely. We
gave your tuba it's own microphone because it wasn't coming through on the
recording ."

"That's nice." Retorts Vaughn-Williams. "The tuba part is there so that the
horns can hear the bass line while they play. It plays softly because It's
NOT SUPPOSED to be heard by the audience!"

So much for multi-miking.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 15, 5:31=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message







"Scott" wrote in message
...

snip, irrelevant to what follows

Certain elements do the trick. We do have experience
with human voices, drum kits, acoustic guitars, painos
etc. We can judge the quality of those elements aginst
our experience with live music. Heck just listen to the
barrage of clocks going off at the begining of the track
called Time on Darkside of the Moon. Sounds pretty real.

Actually, I've heard the clocks sound very real (my
grandparents had a house full of wind-ups...I've head at
least eight of various sizes go off at once) to sounding
very unreal. =A0Using the SACD version. =A0And the
culprit....the preamp. =A0 Audio Research SP6B vs. Onkyo
P301. =A0So much for big-box store electronics.

I own a weight-driven grandfather clock with chime movement, so I know
exactly what one sounds like. I can move it in my listening room and list=
en
to it chime, if I want the true live experience.

Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like it is entirely possible with the CD
version, mid-fi electronics and speakers that are well-configured for the
room.

The DSOTM recording was miced incredibly close, so any claims that
close-micing bodes poorly for fidelity is brought into question by the hi=
gh
end audiophile comments on this thread.- Hide quoted text -

Do you have any pictures or first hand accounts of the mic positions
for the recording of the clocks on DSOTM?
Close micing does bode poorly if one has any interest in ambient sound
and reverb. Something that is critical for classical and other
acoustic music.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 05:30:55 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Stephen McElroy" wrote in
message
In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:56:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Serious development of the vinyl LP pretty well petered
out in the middle-late 1960s. There have been no new
technical developments that were generally accepted
since then.



I think that you'd be surprised at just how incorrect
that assessment is. DMM is one innovation that has been
added since the '60s as well as things like digital
lathe control, better sounding acceleration limiters for
the cutter stylus, better "lacquer" disc materials (less
noise) and generally less 'colored' electronics all
through the system.

And there's nothing wrong with incremental improvements.

The proof is in the pudding. LP test records made using the best modern
procedures and equipment measure no quieter than classics from the 1960s and
1970s such as those by CBS Laboratories.

Yet by your own admission you sat that you've never heard any of these modern
re-masterings from companies such as Classics Records. So how would you know
what improvements have been wrought?

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 15, 5:30=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in message



On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:56:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Serious development of the vinyl LP pretty well petered
out in the middle-late 1960s. =A0There have been no new
technical developments that were generally accepted
since then.
I think that you'd be surprised at just how incorrect
that assessment is. DMM is one innovation that has been
added since the '60s

DMM fails the test of general acceptance.

Since when is 'general accpetance" any sort of test of the state of
the art? May as well say CD having a wider dynamic range fails the
test of "general acceptance" due to the general use of compression.

Plenty of recordings are being
made by traditional metal plating, to this day. =A0Classic Records for ex=
ample
if you can believe their PR.

I think what you mean is there are still people cutting with laquer.
And it is true that a lot of cutting engineers think laquer is still
the superior medium for cutting records.



=A0as well as things like digital lathe control,

Again failing the test of general acceptance. =A0Many experienced cutters
prefer to control the lathe manually to this day.

Forget the failed llogic of this "general acceptance" argument and
name one cutting engineer doing this manually these days. I'm not even
going to limit this hoice to top flight cutting engineers. none of
them are doing this manually. Just name one anywhere these days.



better "lacquer" disc materials (less noise)

Questionable benefit.

How so?



My measurements show that modern 180 gram pressings are no quieter than w=
ell
made LPs from the 60s and 70s.

But you are using fatally flawed equipment.


and generally less 'colored' electronics all through the system.

Not really an advancement of the vinyl LP, but an advancement of the gene=
ral
audio art.

No it would be an advancement in LP production because it would lead
to better sounding LPs. Period.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 05:30:47 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:56:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Serious development of the vinyl LP pretty well petered
out in the middle-late 1960s. There have been no new
technical developments that were generally accepted
since then.

I think that you'd be surprised at just how incorrect
that assessment is. DMM is one innovation that has been
added since the '60s

DMM fails the test of general acceptance. Plenty of recordings are being
made by traditional metal plating, to this day. Classic Records for example
if you can believe their PR.

Many current releases are DMM mastered and many aren't. Those that are
benefit from it with quieter surfaces. Also records are premium products
these days with some titles costing as much as $60. They all use
super-high-grade virgin vinyl which was generally not used in vinyl's heyday
- especially for non-classical releases. Even where virgin vinyl was used, it
wasn't of the quality used today.

as well as things like digital lathe control,

Again failing the test of general acceptance. Many experienced cutters
prefer to control the lathe manually to this day.

And many don't. There is no "test of general acceptance". And even if there
were, I doubt that you have a poll of all the mastering engineers in the
business today to be able to tell us what the "general acceptance" actually
is. IOW, you are basing these conclusions on your own prejudices.

better sounding acceleration limiters for the cutter stylus,

Ditto.

Ditto to you as well.

better "lacquer" disc materials (less noise)

Questionable benefit.

To who? You? Given your prejudicial attitude toward vinyl, I don't doubt that
everything associated with LPs is of "questionable value" to you.

My measurements show that modern 180 gram pressings are no quieter than well
made LPs from the 60s and 70s.

Your measurements? Where would you find a large enough cross section of
un-played pressings from the 60s and 70's with which to make such a
comparison?

and generally less 'colored' electronics all through the system.

Not really an advancement of the vinyl LP, but an advancement of the general
audio art.

It would still provide a better sounding LP

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 05:29:07 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 06:48:45 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

I feel the same way. Like I said, I don't dismiss any
source of music (except iTunes store stuff. Everything
I've ever downloaded from them sounds execrable).

Given that iTunes seems to have a reasonable
cross-section of music available, and a delivery system
that passes technical scrutiny and works for millions,
this seems to be an incredible claim.

I can't help that. I listen with MY ears, you listen with
yours, and as has been demonstrated here more than once,
we don't hear the same things. I hear MP3 artifacts, you
seem not to.

One difference between you and I is that I would only say that I've heard
MP3 artifacts would be based on a DBT.

But I have heard them in a DBT.

I hear an improvement in high-resolution
digital formats, you seem not to.

One difference between you and I is that I would only say that I've heard
differences based on the use of hi rez formats if based on a DBT.

But I have heard them in a DBT. However, It's only 24 bit vs 16 bit that
seems to make any significant audio difference. The difference between
24/88.2, 24/96 and 24/176.4, or 24/192 is statistically blind chance.

I don't hear many of
the "gross distortions" that you say makes it unpleasant
for you to listen to vinyl.

I think you may hear them, but you might not perceive them.

They certainly don't get in the way of my enjoyment of records when there is
enjoyment there to be heard, if that's what you mean.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 05:28:52 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 06:48:29 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message


I don't agree that the *inherent*
colorations of vinyl are so gross that one can easily
identify them by ear alone

But, you won't take reasonable steps to demonstrate that
assertion.

and I also disagree that the
colorations are so severe that no LP can ever truly
sound great.

Given the current market penetration of the LP,
essentially a moot point. Virtually nobody ever listens
to LPs any more. Very few people even have turntables.

OK, let's see your facts and figures Arny. What
percentage of audio enthusiasts do have turntables in the
world and do listen to vinyl?

Based on the 40 or so people in my audio club, nobody listens to vinyl any
more, even the few people like me who still have a turntable.

You see, your constant assertion that "virtually nobody"
listens to LPs any more", doesn't seem to Jibe with
reality.

OK, let's see your facts and figures. What percentage of audio enthusiasts
do have turntables in the world and do listen to vinyl?



You are the one that asserts that nobody listens to vinyl any more. My
assertion is based on the large number of record decks, arms, cartridges and
phono preamps available in the marketplace today and the fact that new ones
are coming out all the time. If nobody listens to vinyl any more, there would
be no market for these devices, yet there obviously is. People can't stay in
business if nobody is buying their products. That's basic business economics.


However I did talk to Sumiko (who imports Pro-Ject tables and several
cartridge lines) this AM, and their marketing guy told me that Sumiko sold
almost a half a million turntable units in the USA and Canada alone in 2010.
Worldwide, he said that estimates are that vinyl is a 1.2 billion dollar
business. A niche, yes, but a big enough pie that many companies can get a
healthy slice of it. And it means that the number of people who listen to
vinyl is hardly "nobody" and that those "nobodies" are (currently, anyway)
growing in number.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


You are the one that asserts that nobody listens to vinyl
any more. My assertion is based on the large number of
record decks, arms, cartridges and phono preamps
available in the marketplace today and the fact that new
ones are coming out all the time.

Availability does not necessarily equal sales. Without actual sales figures
your assertions have no meaning. Product announcements may be for products
that are vapor.

If nobody listens to
vinyl any more, there would be no market for these
devices, yet there obviously is.

The market size is at this time unknown for the reasons stated above.

People can't stay in
business if nobody is buying their products. That's basic
business economics.

Furthermore, were you to provide actual sales figures, we'd have to divide
that by another unknown, the size of the total audiophile market.


However I did talk to Sumiko (who imports Pro-Ject tables
and several cartridge lines) this AM, and their marketing
guy told me that Sumiko sold almost a half a million
turntable units in the USA and Canada alone in 2010.
Worldwide, he said that estimates are that vinyl is a 1.2
billion dollar business.

A salesman bragging does not make a reliable statistics.

According to CEDIA total 2010 home audio component sales were $3.78 billion.
Vinyl = 1/3 of all home audio component sales? I don't think so.

http://www.twice.com/article/463519-...rnaround.ph p

A niche, yes, but a big enough
pie that many companies can get a healthy slice of it.
And it means that the number of people who listen to
vinyl is hardly "nobody" and that those "nobodies" are
(currently, anyway) growing in number.

No reliable evidence about vinyl to be seen here yet, I fear.

[David E. Bath]

In article ,
Audio Empire writes:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:21:22 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

Nor does it happen in theory. The recording of digital music is just
copying bits.
There is nothing passed from a source to a recording except the bits.
There may be some "noise" in the system along the way but as long as
that noise doesn't change the value of a bit...it's irrelevant and
won't get passed along to the next stage. There is no cumulative
effect and it's very common to be able create bit identical
recreations of massive data files....digital music is no different.

So you're saying that there is no circumstance under which background noise
can get so high that it makes detection of the digital data difficult? Tell
that to people who deal in digital communications.

I was a fiber optic engineer for over 20 years and in the digital RF
field now. The noise issue is handled in the exact same manner as in
CDs and DVDs - error correction. So unless the signal level is so very
weak that the error correction cannot correct all errors, which in the
case of digital communications is extremely weak, these is no loss if
data.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

[KH]

On 2/15/2011 6:31 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 17:57:38 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in ):


I've heard Pink Floyd live....I actually like the reproductions from
my system(s) much much better. Even going all the way back my Original
Large Advents.
It's not even close. Live is, IMO, sometimes overrated .

ScottW


I'm sorry, I cannot get past the notion that listening to a musical group
through loudspeakers (even any acoustical ones) is hearing that group "live".
To me the only differences between hearing a PA system of a rock group and
listening to a recording of that group on one's own stereo system is the
quality of the loudspeakers and the fact that the concert is a "shared"
experience.

Well, there's more overlap than you seem to think, or you have a very
narrow definition of rock/pop. I don't believe any of the orchestras
accompanying groups such as Procol Harum or Renaissance, in their
orchestral shows, being amplified. And the "unplugged" MTV performance
of 10,000 Maniacs was IMO clearly their best work. The "Rule", no, but
there's a lot of hybrid stuff out there where maybe only vocals are
amplified (new age stuff like Nightnoise, Loreena McKennitt, for e.g.,
or folk for example), where the "pure" acoustic performances involved
are live by any reasonable definition.

Perhaps you should change your description to "acoustic" music. Because
it's hard to dispute that musicians playing instruments right there in
front of you is not "live".

But, clearly there's a broad gray line between what constitutes a
'concert' versus a 'performance event' where the music merely
accompanies the visual spectacle. Usually, when the folks on stage are
dressed in Halloween costumes, it's the latter :-) 'Course, that's just
my opinion.

Keith

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 17:03:52 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


You are the one that asserts that nobody listens to vinyl
any more. My assertion is based on the large number of
record decks, arms, cartridges and phono preamps
available in the marketplace today and the fact that new
ones are coming out all the time.

Availability does not necessarily equal sales. Without actual sales figures
your assertions have no meaning. Product announcements may be for products
that are vapor.

If nobody listens to
vinyl any more, there would be no market for these
devices, yet there obviously is.

The market size is at this time unknown for the reasons stated above.

People can't stay in
business if nobody is buying their products. That's basic
business economics.

Furthermore, were you to provide actual sales figures, we'd have to divide
that by another unknown, the size of the total audiophile market.


However I did talk to Sumiko (who imports Pro-Ject tables
and several cartridge lines) this AM, and their marketing
guy told me that Sumiko sold almost a half a million
turntable units in the USA and Canada alone in 2010.
Worldwide, he said that estimates are that vinyl is a 1.2
billion dollar business.

A salesman bragging does not make a reliable statistics.

According to CEDIA total 2010 home audio component sales were $3.78 billion.
Vinyl = 1/3 of all home audio component sales? I don't think so.


http://www.twice.com/article/463519-
CEA_Component_Audio_Leads_Home_Audio_Turna
round.php

A niche, yes, but a big enough
pie that many companies can get a healthy slice of it.
And it means that the number of people who listen to
vinyl is hardly "nobody" and that those "nobodies" are
(currently, anyway) growing in number.

No reliable evidence about vinyl to be seen here yet, I fear.


And as I figured, You would not accept any proof of any kind because it goes
against the your preconceived notion about the truth. The fact that these
components exists in the marketplace would be enough proof for any reasonable
person that the market is healthy (for the economic reasons that I have
already mentioned), but it doesn't fit with your agenda, so therefore you
dismiss it. It seems that you will dismiss any evidence that shows you wrong.
Fine. I know when I'm up against a brick wall, and you are that wall.
Just as long as the other people who post here understand that your opinions
on this subject are extremely suspect and lack credibility, then it's job
done.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Feb 15, 5:31=A0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Actually, I've heard the clocks sound very real (my
grandparents had a house full of wind-ups...I've head at
least eight of various sizes go off at once) to sounding
very unreal. =A0Using the SACD version. =A0And the
culprit....the preamp. =A0 Audio Research SP6B vs. Onkyo
P301. =A0So much for big-box store electronics.

I own a weight-driven grandfather clock with chime
movement, so I know exactly what one sounds like. I can
move it in my listening room and list= en to it chime,
if I want the true live experience.

Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like it is entirely
possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics and
speakers that are well-configured for the room.

The DSOTM recording was miced incredibly close, so any
claims that close-micing bodes poorly for fidelity is
brought into question by the hi= gh end audiophile
comments on this thread.- Hide quoted text -

Do you have any pictures or first hand accounts of the
mic positions for the recording of the clocks on DSOTM?

No experienced recording engineer would need such a thing to reach the
conclusion that I've provided.

If you've miced different instruments in different rooms different ways, a
recording paints a fairly detailed sonic picture of how the recording was
miced. If you've worked the room, then mic locations can be estimated fairly
well.

What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or studios,
which are generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead. It is common
to mic close and add the sonic perspective electronically during the mix.
Done right, this can fool most listeners.

Scientifically speaking, the impulse response from a source location to a
given lisetening location in the room can be now calculated well enough from
architectural plans so that the sonic qualities of a proposed room can be
auditioned fairly sucessfully before it is built.

http://www.amazon.com/Auralization-F.../dp/3540488294

http://ambpnetwork.wordpress.com/int...logical-sites/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/jn0u168k518136q2/

Close micing does bode poorly if one has any interest in
ambient sound and reverb. Something that is critical for
classical and other acoustic music.

One of the well-known principles of micing live events is that you have put
the mics far closer to the instruments, than a listener would be for the
desired sonic perspective.

For my band and choir festival recordings, the music directors have told me
that they want a sonic perspective that is similar to that where the judges
sit. They typically sit about 12-16 rows back. I generally put my
conincident pair near the lip of the stage, IOW in front of row 1.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 05:30:55 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Stephen McElroy" wrote in
message
In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:56:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Serious development of the vinyl LP pretty well
petered out in the middle-late 1960s. There have
been no new technical developments that were
generally accepted since then.

I think that you'd be surprised at just how incorrect
that assessment is. DMM is one innovation that has been
added since the '60s as well as things like digital
lathe control, better sounding acceleration limiters
for the cutter stylus, better "lacquer" disc materials
(less noise) and generally less 'colored' electronics
all through the system.

And there's nothing wrong with incremental improvements.

The proof is in the pudding. LP test records made using
the best modern procedures and equipment measure no
quieter than classics from the 1960s and 1970s such as
those by CBS Laboratories.

Yet by your own admission you sat that you've never heard
any of these modern re-masterings from companies such as
Classics Records.

I have admitted no such thing. I've heard modern re-masterings. Nothing
wrong with them, given the obvious limitations of the medium(s) that they
are based on.

So how would you know what improvements have been wrought?

The comparisons that I mentioned above are based on SOTA legacy recordings
and modern recordings that are alleged to be made to the highest modern
standards. That they are test records and therefore easier to evaluate
technically does not limit their performance in any way.

If you think about it, the very reason for existence of a test record
demands that it be made to the highest contemporary standards. While a test
record from a general-interest magazine such as Popular Science might be a
little suspect, those made by CBS Labs or in modern times Hi Fi News, should
be beyond reproach. I've got a good selection of them including duplicates
in some cases.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Feb 15, 5:30=A0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in
message



On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:56:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Serious development of the vinyl LP pretty well petered
out in the middle-late 1960s. =A0There have been no new
technical developments that were generally accepted
since then.
I think that you'd be surprised at just how incorrect
that assessment is. DMM is one innovation that has been
added since the '60s

DMM fails the test of general acceptance.

Since when is 'general acceptance" any sort of test of
the state of the art?

If you want to quibble with my choice of words, then enjoy!

Experience shows that the general acceptance or non-acceptance of an alleged
technology after decades of experience is the world's most relevant
evaluation of that technology.

May as well say CD having a wider
dynamic range fails the test of "general acceptance" due
to the general use of compression.

You're conflating mastering for sitautions where dynamic range is
detrimental to listening enjoyment in say mobile or other noisy
environments, with the limiations of a medium. We've discussed this to
death, so I won't be distracted by this essentially OT comment.

Plenty of recordings are being
made by traditional metal plating, to this day.
=A0Classic Records for ex= ample if you can believe
their PR.

I think what you mean is there are still people cutting
with laquer. And it is true that a lot of cutting
engineers think laquer is still the superior medium for
cutting records.

Hence my statement that DMM which is cutting metal and not laquer, has
failed the test of general acceptance. Wikipeida says that DMM was
introduced in 1974, so the technology is now over 35 years old. The
"decades of experience" criteria has been met.


=A0as well as things like digital lathe control,

Again failing the test of general acceptance. =A0Many
experienced cutters prefer to control the lathe manually
to this day.

Forget the failed llogic of this "general acceptance"
argument and name one cutting engineer doing this
manually these days. I'm not even going to limit this
hoice to top flight cutting engineers. none of them are
doing this manually. Just name one anywhere these days.

http://www.co-bw.com/Recording_Mastering_Vinyl.htm

"FIG. 1: The Neumann AM-32 lathe at Infrasonic Sound. The large dial on the
control panel at the right can be used to manually regulate the number of
lines etched into the master lacquer."

So what are you telling me Scott? That a robot puts its mechanical hand on
that large dial and thus the cutting process is entirely computer
controlled? ;-)


better "lacquer" disc materials (less noise)

Questionable benefit.

How so?

I underscored this point shortly in the post you are responding to.

The proof of any alleged technical advance is better performance in the end
product, as delivered, or lowered cost, or better consistency, etc.

Where is reliable evidence of improved performance from modern LPs as
compared to SOTA products from the golden age of the LP which was about 40
years ago?

If carefully-crafted products like the modern HFN test record are matched
by SOTA product from CBS labs in the 60s and 70s, then we have solid
evidence that no actual technical advances improving final quality have been
made. We have further proof in the absence of refereed technical papers
about verifiable technical advances from the last several decades. LP
cutting and production has "stabilized technology" written all over it.

For example, I found references to the use of the Neumann AM-32 cutting
lathe by modern LP mastering experts such as the one proudly mentioned
above, for the production of a recording that was released in 1983. That
was 28 years ago.

My measurements show that modern 180 gram pressings are
no quieter than w= ell made LPs from the 60s and 70s.

But you are using fatally flawed equipment.

You have thus far shown zero reliable evidence to back that up, Scott.
You're just being unecessarily insulting. :-(

But fine. Nothing I did can't be duplicated by a dedicated vinylphile such
as yourself, Scott.

Please provide needle drops from the relevant recordings that support your
claims. If Michael Fremer can provide me with needle drops, why can't you?
I obtained my CBS Labs test records from eBay. I'm sure that your resources
for finding legacy recordings exceed mine.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 05:30:47 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:56:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Serious development of the vinyl LP pretty well petered
out in the middle-late 1960s. There have been no new
technical developments that were generally accepted
since then.

I think that you'd be surprised at just how incorrect
that assessment is. DMM is one innovation that has been
added since the '60s

DMM fails the test of general acceptance. Plenty of
recordings are being made by traditional metal plating,
to this day. Classic Records for example if you can
believe their PR.

Many current releases are DMM mastered and many aren't.
Those that are benefit from it with quieter surfaces.
Also records are premium products these days with some
titles costing as much as $60.

So what? Much of the cost of items such as LPs come from production
volumes.

They all use
super-high-grade virgin vinyl which was generally not
used in vinyl's heyday - especially for non-classical
releases.

So what? That's not a technological advance, its just quality control.

Even where virgin vinyl was used, it wasn't of
the quality used today.

Prove that with information from a reliable source. PVC has been around
since before WW2 and was a stable technology, even in the 60s and 70s.

as well as things like digital lathe control,

Again failing the test of general acceptance. Many
experienced cutters prefer to control the lathe manually
to this day.

And many don't.


You've made my point. Thank you.

There is no "test of general acceptance".


You're denying the way that we all know that the world works.

And even if there were, I doubt that you have a poll of
all the mastering engineers in the business today to be
able to tell us what the "general acceptance" actually
is. IOW, you are basing these conclusions on your own
prejudices.

The advantage of automated cutting would be reduction of operator skill and
more reliable results. Even in the 60s mastering engineers could manually
preview an entire recording before hand and work out a script of adjustments
that would equal what a computer could do because it was based on human
wisdom and perfect foreknowlege.

better sounding acceleration limiters for the cutter
stylus,

Ditto.

Ditto to you as well.

IKWYABWAI.

better "lacquer" disc materials (less noise)

Questionable benefit.

To who? You? Given your prejudicial attitude toward
vinyl, I don't doubt that everything associated with LPs
is of "questionable value" to you.

Show me the beef, which in this case is superior technical performance.


My measurements show that modern 180 gram pressings are
no quieter than well made LPs from the 60s and 70s.

Your measurements? Where would you find a large enough
cross section of un-played pressings from the 60s and
70's with which to make such a comparison?

I bought a goodly number of test records off of eBay a few years back. Some
were obviously virgin or close to it. They were amazingly plentiful and
economical to obtain. I don't need a cross-section to make my point. All I
needed to find was a few very good ones. I'm not commenting on the general
run of LPs, but the respective SOTA, then and now.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


And as I figured, You would not accept any proof of any
kind because it goes against the your preconceived notion
about the truth.

We're not talking about "any proof" we're talking about no proof from you.

Letsee, I provide a well-documente quote from a widely respected industry
source, and you provide an anecdote from an unnamed sales rep.

Is that really the best that you can do?

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 16, 5:36=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Feb 15, 5:30=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in
message



On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:56:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Serious development of the vinyl LP pretty well petered
out in the middle-late 1960s. =3DA0There have been no new
technical developments that were generally accepted
since then.
I think that you'd be surprised at just how incorrect
that assessment is. DMM is one innovation that has been
added since the '60s
DMM fails the test of general acceptance.
Since when is 'general acceptance" any sort of test of
the state of the art?

If you want to quibble with my choice of words, then enjoy!

It's not the words arny it's the very idea behind them that is
absurd.


Experience shows that the general acceptance or non-acceptance of an alle=
ged
technology after decades of experience is the world's most relevant
evaluation of that technology.

Experience shows no such thing. Quite the opposite. History shows that
state of the art often is a lonesome place where others often never
follow for many reasons. By your logic things like the heat shields on
the space shuttle are not state of the art because they are not widely
used.



May as well say CD having a wider
dynamic range fails the test of "general acceptance" due
to the general use of compression.

You're conflating mastering for sitautions where dynamic range is
detrimental to listening enjoyment in say mobile or other noisy
environments, with the limiations of a medium. =A0We've discussed this to
death, so I won't be distracted by this essentially OT comment.

I'm not conflating anything just showing how your argument fails when
applied to other things.



Plenty of recordings are being
made by traditional metal plating, to this day.
=3DA0Classic Records for ex=3D ample if you can believe
their PR.
I think what you mean is there are still people cutting
with laquer. And it is true that a lot of cutting
engineers think laquer is still the superior medium for
cutting records.

Hence my statement that DMM which is cutting metal and not laquer, has
failed the test of general acceptance. =A0Wikipeida says that DMM was
introduced in 1974, so the technology is now over 35 years old. =A0The
"decades of experience" criteria has been met.

It is a weak argument borne out of a lack of information. If one wants
to learn more on the subject they would be better served by talking to
mastering engineers whose opinions on the two media are based in hands
on experience not on some bizarre self serving measure dubbed "general
accpetance." If one cares to look they will find arguments that
actually are logical and based in fact and experience.



=3DA0as well as things like digital lathe control,
Again failing the test of general acceptance. =3DA0Many
experienced cutters prefer to control the lathe manually
to this day.
Forget the =A0failed llogic of this "general acceptance"
argument and name one cutting engineer doing this
manually these days. I'm not even going to limit this
hoice to top flight cutting engineers. none of them are
doing this manually. Just name one anywhere these days.

http://www.co-bw.com/Recording_Mastering_Vinyl.htm

"FIG. 1: The Neumann AM-32 lathe at Infrasonic Sound. The large dial on t=
he
control panel at the right can be used to manually regulate the number of
lines etched into the master lacquer."


LOL reallY Arny? This was the best you could come up with? "Can be?"
You know what comes with "can be" do you not Arny? I'll give a hint,
but doesn't have to be.



So what are you telling me Scott? That a robot puts its mechanical hand o=
n
that large dial and thus the cutting process is entirely computer
controlled? ;-)

A no Arny but I will tell you that an option is an option. and that is
an option on that cutting lathe. An_Option

better "lacquer" disc materials (less noise)
Questionable benefit.
How so?

I underscored this point shortly in the post you are responding to.

The proof of any alleged technical advance is better performance in the e=
nd
product, as delivered, or lowered cost, or better consistency, etc.

Which is what we get with better laquers.



Where is reliable evidence of improved performance from modern LPs as
compared to SOTA products from the golden age of the LP which was about 4=
0
years ago?

It's in the records themselves Arny.

My measurements show that modern 180 gram pressings are
no quieter than w=3D ell made LPs from the 60s and 70s.
But you are using fatally flawed equipment.

You have thus far shown zero reliable evidence to back that up, Scott.
You're just being unecessarily insulting. :-(

But you have told us what you have in the way of a turntable/arm and
cartridge. It is substandard and hardly state of the art. That is a
simple observation, nothing more nothing less. It is inadequate to
make any meaningful measurements to judge the state of the art in
vinyl production.


Please provide needle drops from the relevant recordings that support you=
r
claims.

When you agree to hear them in proctored double blind tests

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:22:41 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 2/15/2011 6:31 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 17:57:38 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in ):


I've heard Pink Floyd live....I actually like the reproductions from
my system(s) much much better. Even going all the way back my Original
Large Advents.
It's not even close. Live is, IMO, sometimes overrated .

ScottW


I'm sorry, I cannot get past the notion that listening to a musical group
through loudspeakers (even any acoustical ones) is hearing that group
"live".
To me the only differences between hearing a PA system of a rock group and
listening to a recording of that group on one's own stereo system is the
quality of the loudspeakers and the fact that the concert is a "shared"
experience.

Well, there's more overlap than you seem to think, or you have a very
narrow definition of rock/pop. I don't believe any of the orchestras
accompanying groups such as Procol Harum or Renaissance, in their
orchestral shows, being amplified. And the "unplugged" MTV performance
of 10,000 Maniacs was IMO clearly their best work. The "Rule", no, but
there's a lot of hybrid stuff out there where maybe only vocals are
amplified (new age stuff like Nightnoise, Loreena McKennitt, for e.g.,
or folk for example), where the "pure" acoustic performances involved
are live by any reasonable definition.

Since I don't have any knowledge about "orchestras accompanying groups", I
obviously wasn't talking about that kind of concert. I was talking about the
type I've seen depicted that show rock groups on stage with fireworks, and
lots of microphones and PA speakers, I was in Rome a number of years ago at
the Roman Forum one Sunday afternoon. Paul McCartney was giving a concert at
the Colosseum and there were huge scaffolds with speakers on them lining the
street for more than half a mile. Even though I wasn't at the concert (I was
touring the Forum and the Palatine) I could hear the entire concert - it was
uncomfortably loud - even that far away. They must have a million Watts of
amplifier power. Nobody heard that concert un-amplified.

Perhaps you should change your description to "acoustic" music. Because
it's hard to dispute that musicians playing instruments right there in
front of you is not "live".

But what the audience hears is NOT the actual instruments playing, it's a
facsimile of the performance picked up by microphones, electronically
amplified and EQ'd, and heard via loudspeakers.

Have you ever walked down the street and passed an open doorway to a night
spot and heard a small band playing inside? Without even entering the
establishment, or even seeing inside, just hearing the music wafting through
the open door, something tells you "That's live music playing in there!"
Nothing can reproduce that sound. Were it the best stereo system in the world
in that club, you wouldn't be fooled into thinking it was real, live music
playing and The finest PA equipment isn't even THAT good!

But, clearly there's a broad gray line between what constitutes a
'concert' versus a 'performance event' where the music merely
accompanies the visual spectacle. Usually, when the folks on stage are
dressed in Halloween costumes, it's the latter :-) 'Course, that's just
my opinion.

Well, these bands are certainly a "performance event" and the musicians are
certainly playing their instruments "live", it's just that the audience isn't
hearing the direct, live sound of those instruments, but rather, as I said
earlier, a technically augmented facsimile thereof.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:22:16 -0800, David E. Bath wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire writes:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:21:22 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

Nor does it happen in theory. The recording of digital music is just
copying bits.
There is nothing passed from a source to a recording except the bits.
There may be some "noise" in the system along the way but as long as
that noise doesn't change the value of a bit...it's irrelevant and
won't get passed along to the next stage. There is no cumulative
effect and it's very common to be able create bit identical
recreations of massive data files....digital music is no different.

So you're saying that there is no circumstance under which background noise
can get so high that it makes detection of the digital data difficult? Tell
that to people who deal in digital communications.

I was a fiber optic engineer for over 20 years and in the digital RF
field now. The noise issue is handled in the exact same manner as in
CDs and DVDs - error correction. So unless the signal level is so very
weak that the error correction cannot correct all errors, which in the
case of digital communications is extremely weak, these is no loss if
data.



"So unless the signal level is so very weak that the error correction cannot
correct all errors..."

My only point. Thank you Mr. Bath.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:36:52 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message

On Feb 15, 5:30=A0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in
message



On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:56:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Serious development of the vinyl LP pretty well petered
out in the middle-late 1960s. =A0There have been no new
technical developments that were generally accepted
since then.
I think that you'd be surprised at just how incorrect
that assessment is. DMM is one innovation that has been
added since the '60s

DMM fails the test of general acceptance.

Since when is 'general acceptance" any sort of test of
the state of the art?

If you want to quibble with my choice of words, then enjoy!

Experience shows that the general acceptance or non-acceptance of an alleged
technology after decades of experience is the world's most relevant
evaluation of that technology.

May as well say CD having a wider
dynamic range fails the test of "general acceptance" due
to the general use of compression.

You're conflating mastering for sitautions where dynamic range is
detrimental to listening enjoyment in say mobile or other noisy
environments, with the limiations of a medium. We've discussed this to
death, so I won't be distracted by this essentially OT comment.

Plenty of recordings are being
made by traditional metal plating, to this day.
=A0Classic Records for ex= ample if you can believe
their PR.

I think what you mean is there are still people cutting
with laquer. And it is true that a lot of cutting
engineers think laquer is still the superior medium for
cutting records.

Hence my statement that DMM which is cutting metal and not laquer, has
failed the test of general acceptance. Wikipeida says that DMM was
introduced in 1974, so the technology is now over 35 years old. The
"decades of experience" criteria has been met.


=A0as well as things like digital lathe control,

Again failing the test of general acceptance. =A0Many
experienced cutters prefer to control the lathe manually
to this day.

Forget the failed llogic of this "general acceptance"
argument and name one cutting engineer doing this
manually these days. I'm not even going to limit this
hoice to top flight cutting engineers. none of them are
doing this manually. Just name one anywhere these days.

http://www.co-bw.com/Recording_Mastering_Vinyl.htm

"FIG. 1: The Neumann AM-32 lathe at Infrasonic Sound. The large dial on the
control panel at the right can be used to manually regulate the number of
lines etched into the master lacquer."

So what are you telling me Scott? That a robot puts its mechanical hand on
that large dial and thus the cutting process is entirely computer
controlled? ;-)

HMM. Just because it's there doesn't mean that anybody uses it . I know
people with late model cars that have automatic transmissions in them. Across
the gate on the shifter, from PRNDL, is a smaller gate marked + and - that
allows to the driver to change gears manually by pushing that stick or, often
by pressing buttons on the back of the steering wheel. Most people NEVER use
that feature. They just leave the thing in the automatic mode. Automatic
variable pitch has been used to master vinyl records since the 1950's
(Mercury Records called it "Margin Control" and advertised it loudly on the
covers of their "Living Presence" album covers).


better "lacquer" disc materials (less noise)

Questionable benefit.

How so?

I underscored this point shortly in the post you are responding to.

The proof of any alleged technical advance is better performance in the end
product, as delivered, or lowered cost, or better consistency, etc.

Where is reliable evidence of improved performance from modern LPs as
compared to SOTA products from the golden age of the LP which was about 40
years ago?

If carefully-crafted products like the modern HFN test record are matched
by SOTA product from CBS labs in the 60s and 70s, then we have solid
evidence that no actual technical advances improving final quality have been
made. We have further proof in the absence of refereed technical papers
about verifiable technical advances from the last several decades. LP
cutting and production has "stabilized technology" written all over it.

I wouldn't use the HFN test record as the last word in modern vinyl
production were I you. It's adequate for it's purpose, but no more.

For example, I found references to the use of the Neumann AM-32 cutting
lathe by modern LP mastering experts such as the one proudly mentioned
above, for the production of a recording that was released in 1983. That
was 28 years ago.

That doesn't mean anything. Just because the actual lathe is old, doesn't
mean that the cutting heads, lacquer material, and ancillary electronics
aren't state-of-the-art. Lathes don't really wear out (although parts of them
may wear, they can be replaced - even if the mastering studio has to have
them custom made. Lathes and cutting decks are very expensive and I happen to
know that some cutting labs are still using Scully lathes more than 40 years
old - because they still do the job. Of course, the Ortofon heads are new,
the electronics are new, etc. These old workhorses are kind of like the audio
equivalent of a B-52 bomber's airframe and for much the same reason. They
both represented a mature technology when they were built and a modern
replacement would be, basically just the same.

My measurements show that modern 180 gram pressings are
no quieter than w= ell made LPs from the 60s and 70s.

But you are using fatally flawed equipment.

You have thus far shown zero reliable evidence to back that up, Scott.
You're just being unecessarily insulting. :-(

Actually, you have mentioned here what your turntable playback systems
consist of, so it is very possible that Scott finds that equipment flawed.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 07:10:43 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 16, 5:36=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Feb 15, 5:30=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in
message



On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:56:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Serious development of the vinyl LP pretty well petered
out in the middle-late 1960s. =3DA0There have been no new
technical developments that were generally accepted
since then.
I think that you'd be surprised at just how incorrect
that assessment is. DMM is one innovation that has been
added since the '60s
DMM fails the test of general acceptance.
Since when is 'general acceptance" any sort of test of
the state of the art?

If you want to quibble with my choice of words, then enjoy!

It's not the words arny it's the very idea behind them that is
absurd.


Experience shows that the general acceptance or non-acceptance of an alle=
ged
technology after decades of experience is the world's most relevant
evaluation of that technology.

Experience shows no such thing. Quite the opposite. History shows that
state of the art often is a lonesome place where others often never
follow for many reasons. By your logic things like the heat shields on
the space shuttle are not state of the art because they are not widely
used.

In Arny's defense, here (not that Arny NEEDS any help in that department.
He's more than capable of defending his own opinions - and often is the only
person who CAN 8^) I have to disagree with your analogy. Heat shields for
spacecraft ARE widely used - on spacecraft. The only reason that they aren't
used in other applications is because they aren't NEEDED in other
applications. Nothing, other than spacecraft, that gets that hot, need heat
shields that effective AND that lightweight. Record cutting lathes aren't
widely used (or used at all, for that matter) outside of the phonograph
mastering industry either, for the same reason. I suspect that Arny was
saying that these technologies weren't widely accepted even in the phonograph
record mastering industry and he is correct. It is used, and records cut with
it are superior, but it is obviously more expensive than standard lacquer
mastering and I suspect that it's probably because today's lacquer blanks
offer similar performance without the expense. It's all about materials
technology.

May as well say CD having a wider
dynamic range fails the test of "general acceptance" due
to the general use of compression.

You're conflating mastering for sitautions where dynamic range is
detrimental to listening enjoyment in say mobile or other noisy
environments, with the limiations of a medium. =A0We've discussed this to
death, so I won't be distracted by this essentially OT comment.

I'm not conflating anything just showing how your argument fails when
applied to other things.



Plenty of recordings are being
made by traditional metal plating, to this day.
=3DA0Classic Records for ex=3D ample if you can believe
their PR.
I think what you mean is there are still people cutting
with laquer. And it is true that a lot of cutting
engineers think laquer is still the superior medium for
cutting records.

Hence my statement that DMM which is cutting metal and not laquer, has
failed the test of general acceptance. =A0Wikipeida says that DMM was
introduced in 1974, so the technology is now over 35 years old. =A0The
"decades of experience" criteria has been met.

It is a weak argument borne out of a lack of information. If one wants
to learn more on the subject they would be better served by talking to
mastering engineers whose opinions on the two media are based in hands
on experience not on some bizarre self serving measure dubbed "general
accpetance." If one cares to look they will find arguments that
actually are logical and based in fact and experience.

Well, the fact that the only DMM mastering facilities in The USA belong to
Church of Scientology - for mastering ONLY the speeches of L. Ron Hunbbard
and other church-related materials, shows that the technology is thin on the
ground here. There are a number of DMM facilities in Europe, but I'm not sure
how much actual DMM work they do.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 05:37:56 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 05:30:47 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:56:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Serious development of the vinyl LP pretty well petered
out in the middle-late 1960s. There have been no new
technical developments that were generally accepted
since then.

I think that you'd be surprised at just how incorrect
that assessment is. DMM is one innovation that has been
added since the '60s

DMM fails the test of general acceptance. Plenty of
recordings are being made by traditional metal plating,
to this day. Classic Records for example if you can
believe their PR.

Many current releases are DMM mastered and many aren't.
Those that are benefit from it with quieter surfaces.
Also records are premium products these days with some
titles costing as much as $60.

So what? Much of the cost of items such as LPs come from production
volumes.

They all use
super-high-grade virgin vinyl which was generally not
used in vinyl's heyday - especially for non-classical
releases.

So what? That's not a technological advance, its just quality control.

It's a materials technological advance. The vinyl mix used today in these
audiophile pressings is much different and much improved over what was used
in records before the CD. And yes, It's quality control too. Since volumes
are smaller, the pressing plants can afford to do things that weren't
practical in a high-volume environment. Things like waiting for the records
to cool sufficiently before removing them from the presses, using enough
vinyl to avoid underflow, more thorough cleaning of the mold-release from the
records before packaging, etc.

Even where virgin vinyl was used, it wasn't of
the quality used today.

Prove that with information from a reliable source. PVC has been around
since before WW2 and was a stable technology, even in the 60s and 70s.

Records aren't made from pure PVC (you don't know that? Wow!). It's a mix,
with additives such as plasticizers and stabilizers and anti-static compounds
among others. Today's vinyl mixes are made with different versions of those
additives than were the vinyls of yore. You can LOOK at a modern record and
tell that.

I can't find anything on the web about this, but there have been a couple of
articles about modern record production in Hi-Fi News and Record Review in
the last year or so.



as well as things like digital lathe control,

Again failing the test of general acceptance. Many
experienced cutters prefer to control the lathe manually
to this day.

And many don't.


You've made my point. Thank you.

There is no "test of general acceptance".


You're denying the way that we all know that the world works.

And even if there were, I doubt that you have a poll of
all the mastering engineers in the business today to be
able to tell us what the "general acceptance" actually
is. IOW, you are basing these conclusions on your own
prejudices.

The advantage of automated cutting would be reduction of operator skill and
more reliable results. Even in the 60s mastering engineers could manually
preview an entire recording before hand and work out a script of adjustments
that would equal what a computer could do because it was based on human
wisdom and perfect foreknowlege.

better sounding acceleration limiters for the cutter
stylus,

Ditto.

Ditto to you as well.

IKWYABWAI.

better "lacquer" disc materials (less noise)

Questionable benefit.

To who? You? Given your prejudicial attitude toward
vinyl, I don't doubt that everything associated with LPs
is of "questionable value" to you.

Show me the beef, which in this case is superior technical performance.


My measurements show that modern 180 gram pressings are
no quieter than well made LPs from the 60s and 70s.

Your measurements? Where would you find a large enough
cross section of un-played pressings from the 60s and
70's with which to make such a comparison?

I bought a goodly number of test records off of eBay a few years back. Some
were obviously virgin or close to it. They were amazingly plentiful and
economical to obtain. I don't need a cross-section to make my point. All I
needed to find was a few very good ones. I'm not commenting on the general
run of LPs, but the respective SOTA, then and now.

Test Records? That's your criteria for SOTA vinyl production, then and now?
'Nuff said!

[David E. Bath]

In article ,
Audio Empire writes:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:22:16 -0800, David E. Bath wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire writes:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:21:22 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

Nor does it happen in theory. The recording of digital music is just
copying bits.
There is nothing passed from a source to a recording except the bits.
There may be some "noise" in the system along the way but as long as
that noise doesn't change the value of a bit...it's irrelevant and
won't get passed along to the next stage. There is no cumulative
effect and it's very common to be able create bit identical
recreations of massive data files....digital music is no different.

So you're saying that there is no circumstance under which background noise
can get so high that it makes detection of the digital data difficult? Tell
that to people who deal in digital communications.

I was a fiber optic engineer for over 20 years and in the digital RF
field now. The noise issue is handled in the exact same manner as in
CDs and DVDs - error correction. So unless the signal level is so very
weak that the error correction cannot correct all errors, which in the
case of digital communications is extremely weak, these is no loss if
data.



"So unless the signal level is so very weak that the error correction cannot
correct all errors..."

My only point. Thank you Mr. Bath.

But you missed my point when I used "extremely" vs. your "very".
Errors are always fully corrected unless the signal is subsumed by the
noise, a condition that nvers happens except in RF applications when
the signal is either blocked or the distance between the source and
the destination is far beyond the design parameters. In the case of
CDs and DVDs it won't happen unless the player/reader is broken, or
the disc is severely damaged.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:14:35 -0800, David E. Bath wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire writes:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:22:16 -0800, David E. Bath wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire writes:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:21:22 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

Nor does it happen in theory. The recording of digital music is just
copying bits.
There is nothing passed from a source to a recording except the bits.
There may be some "noise" in the system along the way but as long as
that noise doesn't change the value of a bit...it's irrelevant and
won't get passed along to the next stage. There is no cumulative
effect and it's very common to be able create bit identical
recreations of massive data files....digital music is no different.

So you're saying that there is no circumstance under which background
noise
can get so high that it makes detection of the digital data difficult?
Tell
that to people who deal in digital communications.

I was a fiber optic engineer for over 20 years and in the digital RF
field now. The noise issue is handled in the exact same manner as in
CDs and DVDs - error correction. So unless the signal level is so very
weak that the error correction cannot correct all errors, which in the
case of digital communications is extremely weak, these is no loss if
data.



"So unless the signal level is so very weak that the error correction
cannot
correct all errors..."

My only point. Thank you Mr. Bath.

But you missed my point when I used "extremely" vs. your "very".
Errors are always fully corrected unless the signal is subsumed by the
noise, a condition that nvers happens except in RF applications when
the signal is either blocked or the distance between the source and
the destination is far beyond the design parameters. In the case of
CDs and DVDs it won't happen unless the player/reader is broken, or
the disc is severely damaged.



First of all I don't recall using the word "very" in the part of my post that
you quoted. Secondly, my point was that digital can be theoretically serially
copied forever, or until some situation arises whereby noise so swamps the
data that it's unrecoverable which I also said almost never happens. So what
are we arguing about, the word "almost"? Give it up!

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 16, 5:20=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Feb 15, 5:31=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

Actually, I've heard the clocks sound very real (my
grandparents had a house full of wind-ups...I've head at
least eight of various sizes go off at once) to sounding
very unreal. =3DA0Using the SACD version. =3DA0And the
culprit....the preamp. =3DA0 Audio Research SP6B vs. Onkyo
P301. =3DA0So much for big-box store electronics.

I own a weight-driven grandfather clock with chime
movement, so I know exactly what one sounds like. I can
move it in my listening room and list=3D en to it chime,
if I want the true live experience.

Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like it is entirely
possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics and
speakers that are well-configured for the room.
The DSOTM recording was miced incredibly close, so any
claims that close-micing bodes poorly for fidelity is
brought into question by the hi=3D gh end audiophile
comments on this thread.-
Do you have any pictures or first hand accounts of the
mic positions for the recording of the clocks on DSOTM?

No experienced recording engineer would need such a thing to reach the
conclusion that I've provided.

Hmmm. That may very well be true. But the fact is *you* reached
completely eroneous conclusions. Perhaps you should steer clear of
Dark Side of the Moon as a reference.



If you've miced different instruments in different rooms different ways, =
a
recording paints a fairly detailed sonic picture of how the recording was
miced. If you've worked the room, then mic locations can be estimated fai=
rly
well.

What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or studios,
which are generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead. =A0It is co=
mmon
to mic close and add the sonic perspective electronically during the mix.
Done right, this can fool most listeners.

And so based on the false assumption that the clocks were recorded in
an acoustically dead studio room with your experienced ears as a
recording engineer you concluded that the clocks were recorded in a
dead studio room and were close miced. Yikes. Arny, the album was
recorded at Abby Road studios. The recording spaces are hardly dead
there. Kind of funny that we have this interesting article from one
Jon Atkinson on this recording.
http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/
" since I recorded an album at Abbey Road Studio at the same time that
the Floyd were there making DSotM, I always thought the album did an
excellent job of preserving the characteristic sound of the studio
with which I had become so familiar. Yet when I first listened to the
CD layer of the reissue, it didn't sound like Abbey Road at all. The
sonic subtleties that identify the recording venue and its unique
reverb chamber had been eliminated or smoothed over. They were there
on the SACD, so some investigation was called for."
And yet you conclusions direactly above based on your expertise as a
recordist was "DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, which are
generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead." ooops......


Oh and by the way....The clocks weren't recorded in the studio. They
were recorded in various clock shops individually. Do you know of any
clock shops that are acoustically dead? Again let's look at your
assertions as quoted from above. "Getting the DSOTM clock to sound
like it is entirely possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics
and speakers that are well-configured for the room." "What is known
for sure is that DSOTM was created in a studio or studios, which are
generally (with a few exceptions) acousticaly dead." " No experienced
recording engineer would need such a thing (a photo of the mic
configuration from the actual recording session) to reach the
conclusion that I've provided."

Maybe the CD you have used as a reference is the one with the one
being examined by Jon Atkinson with the screwed up CD layer? that
might explain how one could listen to the recording and draw such
eroneous conclusions about the recording venues given your assertions
about the listening skills of "experienced recording engineers" such
as yourself. But we don't know which version of DSOTM you listen to. I
did ask after you posted that terribly inadequate list of variaious
masterings. You never answered.

mastering does matter. doing your homework does help in chosing the
better masterings.

DSOTM has not been a very good reference for you so far on this
thread.

[David E. Bath]

In article ,
Audio Empire writes:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:14:35 -0800, David E. Bath wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire writes:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:22:16 -0800, David E. Bath wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire writes:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:21:22 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

Nor does it happen in theory. The recording of digital music is just
copying bits.
There is nothing passed from a source to a recording except the bits.
There may be some "noise" in the system along the way but as long as
that noise doesn't change the value of a bit...it's irrelevant and
won't get passed along to the next stage. There is no cumulative
effect and it's very common to be able create bit identical
recreations of massive data files....digital music is no different.

So you're saying that there is no circumstance under which background
noise
can get so high that it makes detection of the digital data difficult?
Tell
that to people who deal in digital communications.

I was a fiber optic engineer for over 20 years and in the digital RF
field now. The noise issue is handled in the exact same manner as in
CDs and DVDs - error correction. So unless the signal level is so very
weak that the error correction cannot correct all errors, which in the
case of digital communications is extremely weak, these is no loss if
data.



"So unless the signal level is so very weak that the error correction
cannot
correct all errors..."

My only point. Thank you Mr. Bath.

But you missed my point when I used "extremely" vs. your "very".
Errors are always fully corrected unless the signal is subsumed by the
noise, a condition that nvers happens except in RF applications when
the signal is either blocked or the distance between the source and
the destination is far beyond the design parameters. In the case of
CDs and DVDs it won't happen unless the player/reader is broken, or
the disc is severely damaged.



First of all I don't recall using the word "very" in the part of my post that
you quoted. Secondly, my point was that digital can be theoretically serially
copied forever, or until some situation arises whereby noise so swamps the
data that it's unrecoverable which I also said almost never happens. So what
are we arguing about, the word "almost"? Give it up!

True, you did not use "very", I did, but I requalified with
"extremely" but you chose to ignore that requalification to suit your
purpose in trying to use my statement to "prove" yours. Well I was
refuting your statement not agreeing with it.

The copying of digtial data to and from CDs and DVDs will always be
completely error free unless a defective device or defective disc is
used. Period.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Feb 16, 5:20=A0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Feb 15, 5:31=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

Actually, I've heard the clocks sound very real (my
grandparents had a house full of wind-ups...I've head
at least eight of various sizes go off at once) to
sounding very unreal. =3DA0Using the SACD version.
=3DA0And the culprit....the preamp. =3DA0 Audio
Research SP6B vs. Onkyo P301. =3DA0So much for
big-box store electronics.

I own a weight-driven grandfather clock with chime
movement, so I know exactly what one sounds like. I can
move it in my listening room and list=3D en to it
chime, if I want the true live experience.

Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like it is entirely
possible with the CD version, mid-fi electronics and
speakers that are well-configured for the room.
The DSOTM recording was miced incredibly close, so any
claims that close-micing bodes poorly for fidelity is
brought into question by the hi=3D gh end audiophile
comments on this thread.-

Do you have any pictures or first hand accounts of the
mic positions for the recording of the clocks on DSOTM?

No experienced recording engineer would need such a
thing to reach the conclusion that I've provided.

Hmmm. That may very well be true. But the fact is *you*
reached completely eroneous conclusions.

Only in your opinion. Now, you're overreaching your position and pretending
to be a cosmic authority.

Perhaps you should steer clear of Dark Side of the Moon as a
reference.

Perhaps you should remember that you don't rule the universe. Proof by
assertion is no proof at all. If you've got evidence, then offer it. If you
have something to say but OSAF , I'm sure we'd be all glad to hear it from
you.

If you've miced different instruments in different rooms
different ways, = a recording paints a fairly detailed
sonic picture of how the recording was miced. If you've
worked the room, then mic locations can be estimated
fai= rly well.

What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created in a
studio or studios, which are generally (with a few
exceptions) acousticaly dead. =A0It is co= mmon to mic
close and add the sonic perspective electronically
during the mix. Done right, this can fool most
listeners.

And so based on the false assumption that the clocks were
recorded in an acoustically dead studio room with your
experienced ears as a recording engineer you concluded
that the clocks were recorded in a dead studio room and
were close miced.

No such thing!

Yikes. Arny, the album was recorded at
Abby Road studios. The recording spaces are hardly dead there.

Scott, only a person who has never been in a real world recording studio and
has no clue about how recording is done in studios could make these claims.

Recording studios the size of Abbey Road are composed of multiple highly
dissimilar rooms.

The spaces in a real-world recording studio vary all over the map, and they
can be modified at will for a given tracking session using portable sound
proofing panels or ad hoc sound absorbing materials such as shipping
blankets.

For example, consider http://www.abbeyroad.com/studios This describes the
three (3) main studios at Abbey Road which clearly vary in size and general
acoustical properties.

Studio 1 can hold a 110 piece orchestra and a 100 voice choir. It strongly
differs from a regular concert hall because there's no seating space for all
that sound to go into. There are no dozens of rows of padded seats and no
people sitting in them. Now look closely at how the microphones are
deployed. First off, there are dozens of them. At least half the musicians
seem to have their own microphone. This corresponds to the much-vilified (by
RAHE) close micing. One purpose of close micing is to vastly reduce the
influence of the acoustics of the room.

Studio two is not a big room. Interstingly enough we can see in the
background right a cubby hole that is filled with a dozen or more portable
acoustic absorbers. They are not deployed right now, but this is not a
picture of a real-world recording session. Its capacity is stated as being
55, which is less than a quarter of the size of studio one. Take a piano,
surround it with sound absorbers and the room is very far from being
reverberent.

Studio three's description says it all: "The recording space was designed to
have a natural and flexible acoustic, with multiple isolation booths." Hmm,
what do they do with the isolation booths? I'll bet they record in them! ;-)

Scott, in contrast to your apparent claim there isn't just one studio at
Abbey Road. There are three major studios whose size and basic layout and
construction varies considerably, and at least one very small one.
Furthermore there is considerable evidence that the acoustics of these rooms
is modified to suit for each recording session and also for different
instruments in the same recording session. We have a clear record that there
are many isolation booths which are typically very dead little rooms.

Also, there are inherent variations in the acoustics of a given room based
on how many musicans are working at any particular time. Move 210 musicans
into a room the size of Studio One or 55 into Studio Two, and its acoustics
change dramatically from the same room when it is nearly empty. Both
configurations can make sense depending on what outcome is desired.

Note that the page for the "Penthouse" mentions the following: "The
Penthouse also has a small isolation booth designed to record single
instruments..."

Almost every studio of substance has portable isolation booths and portable
sound absorbing panels. Without detailed documentation of each recording
session you have no idea what actually happened.

Of course Scott in your apparent state of ignorance, inexperience and with
an overwhelming desire for a rush to judgement, you show zero awareness of
any of the practical exingencies of working in a real world recording
studio.

Kind of funny that we have this interesting
article from one Jon Atkinson on this recording.
http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/ " since I recorded
an album at Abbey Road Studio at the same time that the
Floyd were there making DSotM, I always thought the album
did an excellent job of preserving the characteristic
sound of the studio with which I had become so familiar.
Yet when I first listened to the CD layer of the reissue,
it didn't sound like Abbey Road at all. The sonic
subtleties that identify the recording venue and its
unique reverb chamber had been eliminated or smoothed
over. They were there on the SACD, so some investigation
was called for."

Scott you just skewered yourself. If all of the spaces at Abbey Road were so
reverberent, why did they need to add artifical reverb from a reverb chamber
to some of the recordings?

And yet you conclusions direactly above based on your
expertise as a recordist was "DSOTM was created in a
studio or studios, which are generally (with a few
exceptions) acousticaly dead." ooops......

No oops. Real world experience.

Oh and by the way....The clocks weren't recorded in the
studio. They were recorded in various clock shops
individually. Do you know of any clock shops that are
acoustically dead?

Any store or workshop can be quite acoustically dead when the machines and
the displays break up the spaces and add diffusion and absorbtion.

Compare and contrast a car dealership with a fabric store. One is usually
highly reverberent with tile floors and a lot of glass, while the other one
is usually very dead for pretty obvious reasons - all those bolts of fabric
add a lot of absorbtion and some diffusion.

You've never noticed this when you visit stores and workshops, Scott? Your
ears must be turned off when you go out into the real world.

Again let's look at your assertions as
quoted from above. "Getting the DSOTM clock to sound like
it is entirely possible with the CD version, mid-fi
electronics and speakers that are well-configured for the
room." "What is known for sure is that DSOTM was created
in a studio or studios, which are generally (with a few
exceptions) acousticaly dead." " No experienced recording
engineer would need such a thing (a photo of the mic
configuration from the actual recording session) to reach
the conclusion that I've provided."

I'll stick by my statements, Scott. You've just treated us to an exposition
of your lack of awareness of what you hear when you visit the same places we
all go to every day. You seem to have just conflated a large complex like
Abbey Road into just one room, and then claimed that its acoustics are
always the same when we have photographic evidence and experiential evidence
that the acoustics of those rooms can vary all over the map.

I thought you worked in the motion picture business, Scott. Haven't you
noticed that making motion pictures involves recording sound as well as
moving pictures and stills? Ever take a look at how they do that? How many
recording spaces are at the studios you work for? How many absorbtive
panels? How many isolation booths? How many gobos?

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:26:23 -0800, David E. Bath wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire writes:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:14:35 -0800, David E. Bath wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire writes:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:22:16 -0800, David E. Bath wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire writes:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:21:22 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

Nor does it happen in theory. The recording of digital music is just
copying bits.
There is nothing passed from a source to a recording except the bits.
There may be some "noise" in the system along the way but as long as
that noise doesn't change the value of a bit...it's irrelevant and
won't get passed along to the next stage. There is no cumulative
effect and it's very common to be able create bit identical
recreations of massive data files....digital music is no different.

So you're saying that there is no circumstance under which background
noise
can get so high that it makes detection of the digital data difficult?
Tell
that to people who deal in digital communications.

I was a fiber optic engineer for over 20 years and in the digital RF
field now. The noise issue is handled in the exact same manner as in
CDs and DVDs - error correction. So unless the signal level is so very
weak that the error correction cannot correct all errors, which in the
case of digital communications is extremely weak, these is no loss if
data.



"So unless the signal level is so very weak that the error correction
cannot
correct all errors..."

My only point. Thank you Mr. Bath.

But you missed my point when I used "extremely" vs. your "very".
Errors are always fully corrected unless the signal is subsumed by the
noise, a condition that nvers happens except in RF applications when
the signal is either blocked or the distance between the source and
the destination is far beyond the design parameters. In the case of
CDs and DVDs it won't happen unless the player/reader is broken, or
the disc is severely damaged.



First of all I don't recall using the word "very" in the part of my post
that
you quoted. Secondly, my point was that digital can be theoretically
serially
copied forever, or until some situation arises whereby noise so swamps the
data that it's unrecoverable which I also said almost never happens. So
what
are we arguing about, the word "almost"? Give it up!

True, you did not use "very", I did, but I requalified with
"extremely" but you chose to ignore that requalification to suit your
purpose in trying to use my statement to "prove" yours. Well I was
refuting your statement not agreeing with it.

The copying of digtial data to and from CDs and DVDs will always be
completely error free unless a defective device or defective disc is
used. Period.



You're still nit-picking and flogging a deceased equine. I have no more to
say on the subject, and I'm going stop now before I say what I REALLY think
and get myself kicked off this forum.

[KH]

On 2/16/2011 1:06 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:22:41 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):
snip

Since I don't have any knowledge about "orchestras accompanying groups", I
obviously wasn't talking about that kind of concert.

That was kind of the point. You seem to want to lump everything but
classical or jazz into "non-live" music. That just isn't the case.

I was talking about the
type I've seen depicted that show rock groups on stage with fireworks, and
lots of microphones and PA speakers, I was in Rome a number of years ago at
the Roman Forum one Sunday afternoon. Paul McCartney was giving a concert at
the Colosseum and there were huge scaffolds with speakers on them lining the
street for more than half a mile. Even though I wasn't at the concert (I was
touring the Forum and the Palatine) I could hear the entire concert - it was
uncomfortably loud - even that far away. They must have a million Watts of
amplifier power. Nobody heard that concert un-amplified.

Well, the first problem here is why would you would listen to McCartney ;-)

But point taken. Fireworks and the like (as with the Halloween like
affectations) don't usually accompany acoustic concerts IME.


Perhaps you should change your description to "acoustic" music. Because
it's hard to dispute that musicians playing instruments right there in
front of you is not "live".

But what the audience hears is NOT the actual instruments playing, it's a
facsimile of the performance picked up by microphones, electronically
amplified and EQ'd, and heard via loudspeakers.

Have you ever walked down the street and passed an open doorway to a night
spot and heard a small band playing inside? Without even entering the
establishment, or even seeing inside, just hearing the music wafting through
the open door, something tells you "That's live music playing in there!"

Well, yes I have. Most of the time, those small bands have been playing
amplified music.


Nothing can reproduce that sound. Were it the best stereo system in the world
in that club, you wouldn't be fooled into thinking it was real, live music
playing and The finest PA equipment isn't even THAT good!

Of course not. But that holds true for any type of music, acoustic,
amplified, or otherwise. Say's far more about the limits of the
illusion created by stereo in a home setting than it does about acoustic
versus amplified music IMO.


But, clearly there's a broad gray line between what constitutes a
'concert' versus a 'performance event' where the music merely
accompanies the visual spectacle. Usually, when the folks on stage are
dressed in Halloween costumes, it's the latter :-) 'Course, that's just
my opinion.

Well, these bands are certainly a "performance event" and the musicians are
certainly playing their instruments "live", it's just that the audience isn't
hearing the direct, live sound of those instruments, but rather, as I said
earlier, a technically augmented facsimile thereof.

So you're saying that if you walked by that cafe, without looking in,
and heard a band playing using electric guitars, for example, you
personally wouldn't be able to tell if it was live or playing through a
PA system?

Keith