[Rockinghorse Winner[_6_]]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
bob wrote:

On Jan 28, 10:15=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

On Fremer. I'll admit that his one-note-samba is a bit tiresome, but on t=
he
other hand, he or someone like him is needed to keep their fingers on the
pulse of all things vinyl because most reviewers and audio journalists do=
n't
want to. I say read his stuff for the information therein, and take his
"vinyl is IT" philosophy with a grain of salt. =A0

But he doesn't know anything about vinyl, except for the pricetags on
the gear. Everything he writes derives from that. How could you regard
someone who insists that vinyl has higher resolution than CD as even
marginally informative? He doesn't appear to even know what wow &
flutter is--and he certainly doesn't care how bad it is, as long as
the price is high enough.

Look, I would love to see some effort to evaluate analog gear in a
semi-objective manner. The ravings of a dimwitted nutjob are no
substitute.

bob

The reviewers on Stereophile are the most dreary old farts imaginable. I can
barely read them, they are so boring. I mean, what makes them think that
their readers would be even marginally interested in the minute description
of a wine tasting with an obsequious manufacturer, or any aspect of their
personal lives for that matter?

Yet they go on and on in their columns about wives, girlfriends, mothers in
law, their vacations, hobbies - I mean, WHO CARES? You have to skim through
the column to get to an actual review or anything of substance. Do these
guys get paid by the word or what?

*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.jamendo.com |/
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


On Jan 30, 7:20=A0pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Scott" wrote in message



Here is a preview of the content of the DVD with some
quotes from various knowledgable people who have also
seen the DVD,
http://www.needledoctor.com/Michael-...ble-Set-Up-DVD

Needle Doctor = dealer

Link = advertisement.

Come on Scott, is it really true that you can't tell the
difference between an advertisment and an independent
evaluation?

Is it really your belief that dealers can not make
independent evaluations?

Excluded middle argument noted.

The possibility of bias cannot be discounted, and the possibility of more
bias than a truely independent authority surely cannot be eliminated.

Did you read the review?

First I found a neutral density filter in order to cut down the glare from
all of the glowing words. ;-)

One often finds a better balanced mix of reviews on Amazon's web site.

Maybe
you missed this quote "It's awesome" =96 Bob Weston
(recording engineer, record producer, bass player in
Steve Albini's band Shellac)"

[Rockinghorse Winner[_6_]]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Scott" wrote in message


On Jan 28, 11:13 am, bob wrote:

On Jan 28, 10:15=A0am, Audio Empire
wrote:

On Fremer. I'll admit that his one-note-samba is a bit
tiresome, but on t=
he
other hand, he or someone like him is needed to keep
their fingers on the pulse of all things vinyl because
most reviewers and audio journalists do=
n't
want to. I say read his stuff for the information
therein, and take his "vinyl is IT" philosophy with a
grain of salt. =A0

But he doesn't know anything about vinyl, except for the
pricetags on the gear.

Really? Honestly this is kinda irresponsible posting.
Michael Fremer
produced an instructional DVD on turntable set up.
http://www.musicdirect.com/product/79961

Since this is not a public source, we have no idea about the contents of the
DVD.

Is it your position that since Fremer "doesn't know
anything about
viny" that this DVD is loaded with nothing but
misinformation and
would lead to thosewho purchase this DVD and use it to
incorrectly set up their turntables?

Given all of the other faulty information that can be traced to Fremer, the
contents of the DVD need to be checked out by a non-fanboy.

If he doesn't know anything he could hardly make
such a DVD without it being pure misinformation.

Excluded middle argument. I don't think that anybody seriously means that
Fremer knows absolutely and totally nothing. "doesn't know anything about
vinyl" relates to the fact that some or much of the information he promotes
about vinyl is completely and totally wrong.

Have you ever visited his website?

Yes, it barely has one month of material.

Have you ever read any of his record reviews?

He seems to affect hyperbole.

Which is linearly related to the price of the gear in question.

*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.jamendo.com |/
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

Scott, it's quite clear that you use loudspeaker
reproduction as your absolute standard. I seriously
doubt that you listen to as much live musi= c as I do-
for example during the weeks that I'm recording
festivals, I lis= ten to up 24 hours or more live music
in a single week. Furthermore, when I listen to the
recordings that I make, I am listening to recordings
where = I had the opportunity to listen to the very same
live performance that is o= n the recording. I serious
doubt that you =A0have this level of familiarity= with
live music and the live performances that are on the
recordings that you listen to.-

I listen to live music almost on a weekly basis. My most
frequent haunting ground would be Disney Hall which is
claimed by many experts to be the finest concert hall in
the world acoustically. I have the privilidge of
listening to world class musicians there and in many
other venues around the world. I know what world class
live acoustic music sounds like.

So how many times have you heard the actual live performance that you have
the recording for?

I have also listened to a wide variety of music on my
i-touch using my Grado SR 80s.

The day my SR 80s broke and I threw them away was one of the better days of
my life. I don't know why people rave about them so much.

I have listened to a
number of alleged contenders for best ear bud using well
mastered rips of excellent music.

You are unlikely to have listened to the IEMs that I use.

There is no mistaking one for the other. They are miles
apart.

Yeah, speaker sound contaminated by room acoustics can be a strong detriment
to good listening.

My system with my best sounding LPs actually does come
remarkably close to the same quality of sound I have the
pleasure of hearing in Disney Hall and some of the other
great concert halls of the world. But my standard is what
I have heard in those halls not my speakers. I have
asserted this as my standard on any number of these
threads. There is no reason for you to speculate.

The recordings that you listen to are probably not the ones that were
recorded. That means that there is automatically a big gap that you are
apparently bridging with hopes and dreams, unless you want to assert that
all live music sounds the same.

[Arny Krueger]

"David" wrote in message


I know you have a couple of turntables but have you
actually bought a vinyl LP recently and compared it to
the same CD?

It's been a while since I did this, so I'm not sure how my LP collection and
my CD collection match up.

I have bought the CD of most of the LPs
I've bought recently as they are so cheap in comparison
and usable in the car etc.
Invariably the LP will have a much better production with
a much wider dynamic range.

Send me some CDs with rips of the LPs and the corresponding CD tracks.
Everytime other people do this for me, the dynamic range issues related to
the LPs are pretty clear.

Go out and buy a recently released LP, you might be
surprised.

I do have a pretty good LP playback system and I did buy some newly minted
LPs, 180 gram vinyl and all just a few years back. No joy!

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


Back in the late 1950's when stereo first hit the market,
the major labels such as RCA Victor, Columbia, Mercury,
British Decca, and EMI/HMV made stereo records aimed at
people who are likely to have component audio systems.
They did this knowing full well that most of the records
sold would be sold to people listening on cheap
radio/phono consoles, and so-called "portable" players.

In those days gain riding which is basically just manual dynamics
compression was often done. The recording engineer would track the
orchestra with sheet music and turn the gain down just in advance of loud
passages.

The fact that only a relatively few record buyers had
good equipment didn't keep the majors from aiming their
product at that market, yet I never heard anyone with
lesser equipment complain that these early stereo LPs
were "too good".

The best recorded dynamics that could be done in the late 1950s does not
compare with the best that can be done today. Ca. 1950s analog tape cannot
be compared to modern 16 bit digital.

With this in mind, I really don't
understand why record companies would think that putting
out sub-par product would somehow advance sales, and
would love to hear some justification for it.

It's not sub-par if its what most people want.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Jan 30, 6:57=A0pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Jan 30, 7:22 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Rockinghorse Winner"
wrote in

I think the difference is definitely in production.
Some CD's I own, like Buena Vista Social Club, are
just spectacular.
It seems when the producers want to make a
great sounding CD, they can.

That says it all. No LP can truely be great sounding
except in the imaginations of those very few people who
look on a medium that is hobbled by relatively massive
amounts of audible noise and distoriton as being
beneficial.

You know I offered to put this claim to the test under
blind conditions and you declined to be subjected to
such a test.

I don't recall any such thing, but I'm not saying that
it never happens. = Why not repeat the offer

I did repeat the offer

If that vague paragraph was it, then its flaw is obvious - it seems to
require that I go to Los Angeles at m y own expense.

Tell you what Scott, you send me a CD with rips of LPs and well-made DDD CDs
and I will tell you which are which.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


I have every intention of including quit passages. Silent
leads however are of no importance. I would insist that
all samples be samples in which there is a recording
being played back.

Depends on what you call quiet passages. I want samples where the music
ends and you can hear the echoes die off into and under the room tone. The
background noise on most LPs makes the room tone hard to hear clearly.
Score!

[Greg Wormald]

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:
SNIPS
Some people here have made very interesting suggestions on this, including
Arny's theory that it's a business decision. It might well be. If so, I'd
love to see the logic behind it.
SNIPS
I really don't understand why record companies
would think that putting out sub-par product would somehow advance sales, and
would love to hear some justification for it.

I suspect that the answer to this is actually very simple:

Since most music media purchasers first hear the music on some sort of
radio/mixed music format, (I am *assuming* this) the music that sounds
the loudest sounds the best. So, compress, increase mid-bass, and
bingo--perceived loudness increases. Result--increased media sales.

These sorts of decisions would be made by 'money' people and 'business'
people, not 'music' people. For the media targeted at a niche group,
i.e. "high-end", the decisions would be made differently.

Greg

[Arny Krueger]

"Rockinghorse Winner"
wrote in message

Yet they go on and on in their columns about wives,
girlfriends, mothers in law, their vacations, hobbies - I
mean, WHO CARES? You have to skim through the column to
get to an actual review or anything of substance. Do
these guys get paid by the word or what?

IME reviews by contractors are paid for by the word.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:32:09 -0800, Greg Wormald wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:
SNIPS
Some people here have made very interesting suggestions on this, including
Arny's theory that it's a business decision. It might well be. If so, I'd
love to see the logic behind it.
SNIPS
I really don't understand why record companies
would think that putting out sub-par product would somehow advance sales,
and
would love to hear some justification for it.

I suspect that the answer to this is actually very simple:

Since most music media purchasers first hear the music on some sort of
radio/mixed music format, (I am *assuming* this) the music that sounds
the loudest sounds the best. So, compress, increase mid-bass, and
bingo--perceived loudness increases. Result--increased media sales.

But has this not ALWAYS been the case? Like I've been saying, early stereo
LPs were likewise mostly played on cheap "brown-goods" console
radio-phonographs and portable record players with cheap record changers in
them (or worse). Yet the record companies made these early LPs the best that
they could, and I don't recall owners of cheap players complaining about the
quality of these records being "too good". IOW, if producing this crap is
aimed at the lowest common denominator, as has been suggested (an I don't
disagree with that hypothesis), then I say that this is wrongheaded
marketing.

These sorts of decisions would be made by 'money' people and 'business'
people, not 'music' people. For the media targeted at a niche group,
i.e. "high-end", the decisions would be made differently.

That, I'll grant you!

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 13:59:31 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"David" wrote in message


I know you have a couple of turntables but have you
actually bought a vinyl LP recently and compared it to
the same CD?

It's been a while since I did this, so I'm not sure how my LP collection and
my CD collection match up.

I have bought the CD of most of the LPs
I've bought recently as they are so cheap in comparison
and usable in the car etc.
Invariably the LP will have a much better production with
a much wider dynamic range.

Send me some CDs with rips of the LPs and the corresponding CD tracks.
Everytime other people do this for me, the dynamic range issues related to
the LPs are pretty clear.

And dynamic range issues are the only important consideration with recorded
music?

Go out and buy a recently released LP, you might be
surprised.

I do have a pretty good LP playback system and I did buy some newly minted
LPs, 180 gram vinyl and all just a few years back. No joy!

Too bad for you.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jan 31, 3:29=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Jan 30, 6:57=3DA0pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Jan 30, 7:22 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Rockinghorse Winner"
wrote in

I think the difference is definitely in production.
Some CD's I own, like Buena Vista Social Club, are
just spectacular.
It seems when the producers want to make a
great sounding CD, they can.

That says it all. No LP can truely be great sounding
except in the imaginations of those very few people who
look on a medium that is hobbled by relatively massive
amounts of audible noise and distoriton as being
beneficial.

You know I offered to put this claim to the test under
blind conditions and you declined to be subjected to
such a test.

I don't recall any such thing, but I'm not saying that
it never happens. =3D Why not repeat the offer

I did repeat the offer

If that vague paragraph was it, then its flaw is obvious - it seems to
require that I go to Los Angeles at m y own expense.

No Arny, I am sure there are places near your home that will suffice.
It would not require you to travel any great distances.



Tell you what Scott, you send me a CD with rips of LPs and well-made DDD =
CDs
and I will tell you which are which.

Not by ear you wont. The challenge is that you do it by ear.

- Show quoted text -

[Dave Cook]

On Jan 31, 10:27=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

Assuming the LP is quiet enough, this could be done. I have a recently
re-mastered British Decca pressing of De Falla's 'Three-Cornered Hat' bal=
let
with Ansermet and Le Orchestre de la Suisse-Romande - a very famous recor=
ding
known for it's great sound (the London CD release a number of years ago,
sounds terrible by comparison). This pressing is so quiet that I suspect =
that

These Ansermet recordings have had numerous issues on CD. Why not
compare against the 24/96 "Legends" remaster from 2000, or the
Universal Japan issue, or the XRCD issue rather than an older London
CD? There's also an issue in the Originals series, but I doubt that's
a new remastering, I think Universal just merged the old Legends line
with the Originals line.

http://www.hmv.co.jp/en/search/index...ansermet+falla

In any case, you're really just comparing the different remasterings.
That this recently remastered Lp of yours sounds so good does seem to
rule out deterioration of the master tape as an excuse.

Perhaps the techniques used in creating the cutting master
(compression?) adds some vibrancy to the sound.

There's one sure way to reproduce the quality of the Lp on CD: record
the output from your preamp with a good ADC.

Dave Cook

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jan 31, 3:30=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



I have every intention of including quit passages. Silent
leads however are of no importance. I would insist that
all samples be samples in which there is a recording
being played back.

Depends on what you call quiet passages. =A0I want samples where the musi=
c
ends and you can hear the echoes die off into and under the room tone. Th=
e
background noise on most LPs makes the room tone hard to hear clearly.
Score!

I had every intention of including that as well Arny. So this means
you want to take the challenge? You haven't scored anything yet.

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 10:15=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

I'm suspecting
that a lot of this audiophile interest =A0in high-resolution downloads
ma=
y be
the result of dissatisfaction with the quality of commercial CDs. If so,
=
then
that interest may be misplaced. IOW, these dissatisfied listeners
(includ=
ing
me) may be blaming CD for something of which it is NOT guilty; I.E.
being=
a
low-resolution medium when in reality, it's the production practices of
t=
he
record companies that are causing folks to long for higher resolution
recordings, not the inherent CAPABILITIES of the medium.

And what a shame it is that the high-end community has spent the
better part of three decades wailing about the inadequacies of CD as a
medium, rather than about the quality of the recordings.

bob

Well, the whole interesting question to me is: why isn't the compression (or
lack thereof) part of the delivery vehicle, rather than the medium itself.
In other words, if car audio requires compression for audibility, then why
hasn't that been a standard part of car electronics for the last twenty
years.....why did the music companies take on that burden, rather than
preparing the best sounding music they could and letting it be "adjusted"
(or not) according to the listening circumstances. Certainly blanket
compression has always been relatively simple to achieve (look at the "night
mode" that has been built into almost all tvs/dvd and blueray players, etc
for the last decade.

Seems to me that with a little foresight and cooperation this mess could
have been avoided. And still could be.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Jan 31, 1:59=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







Scott, it's quite clear that you use loudspeaker
reproduction as your absolute standard. I seriously
doubt that you listen to as much live musi=3D c as I do-
for example during the weeks that I'm recording
festivals, I lis=3D ten to up 24 hours or more live music
in a single week. Furthermore, when I listen to the
recordings that I make, I am listening to recordings
where =3D I had the opportunity to listen to the very same
live performance that is o=3D n the recording. I serious
doubt that you =3DA0have this level of familiarity=3D with
live music and the live performances that are on the
recordings that you listen to.-
I listen to live music almost on a weekly basis. My most
frequent haunting ground would be Disney Hall which is
claimed by many experts to be the finest concert hall in
the world acoustically. I have the privilidge of
listening to world class musicians there and in many
other venues around the world. I know what world class
live acoustic music sounds like.

So how many times have you heard the actual live performance that you hav=
e
the recording for?

What does that have to do with my point of reference being world class
live acoustic music played in one of if not the finest concert halls
in the world? You misrepresented my standard of excellence and I
corrected you.


I have also listened to a wide variety of music on my
i-touch using my Grado SR 80s.

The day my SR 80s broke and I threw them away was one of the better days =
of
my life. I don't know why people rave about them so much.

Because they are one of the better headphones on the market that can
be driven by an Ipod.



I have listened to a
number of alleged contenders for best ear bud using well
mastered rips of excellent music.

You are unlikely to have listened to the IEMs that I use.

Now how would you know the likelyhood of that Arny?



There is no mistaking one for the other. They are miles
apart.

Yeah, speaker sound contaminated by room acoustics can be a strong detrim=
ent
to good listening.

Yes it can. That is why it is a good idea to use plenty of room
treatment. but once you've done that (something I did) then you can
get a pretty extraordinary illusion of live acoustic music played in a
real soundspace (something i get with a good many of my best sounding
LPs). Something you can't get with your Sansa clip, your earbuds and
your recordings.


My system with my best sounding LPs =A0actually does come
remarkably close to the same quality of sound I have the
pleasure of hearing in Disney Hall and some of the other
great concert halls of the world. But my standard is what
I have heard in those halls not my speakers. I have
asserted this as my standard on any number of these
threads. There is no reason for you to speculate.

The recordings that you listen to are probably not the ones that were
recorded.

Um I'm pretty sure the recordings I listen to were recorded.


That means that there is automatically a big gap that you are
apparently bridging with hopes and dreams, unless you want to assert that
all live music sounds the same.

Talk about the exluded middle argument. LOL.
No Arny I don't think all live music sounds the same. But I didn't say
my playback and the live music I listen to sound the same. So you are
burning a straw man here.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:31:32 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

On Jan 31, 12:47=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:31:04 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):

In the real world, gived proper recoring, your $$$$$ equipment stands n=
o
chance against simple (but good) IEMs. Unless you plug some good
headphones / IEMs into your system.

Simply, try artificial head recording, for once

OK, but how many true binaural recordings do you own? How about not many =
to
none? =A0This is a very special case. Of course a recording can be optimi=
zed
for headphone listening, but talk about your niche markets! The vast majo=
rity
of modern recordings are made with speaker listening in mind. Perhaps wit=
h
the young migrating almost exclusively to iPod listening, pop record
producers ought to start thinking about recording with that kind of liste=
ning
in mind - in other words binaurally record all pop albums to sound their =
best
on earbuds! 8^)

and the circle is complete. It isn't the format, it's not the
system, it's not the technology....it's now what is most commonly
available.....except that's crap.

Now I understand why the realm of audio enthusiasts is shrinking more
every day.

ScottW

You do realize that I was being sarcastic, do you not?

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:31:04 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):

In the real world, gived proper recoring, your $$$$$ equipment stands no
chance against simple (but good) IEMs. Unless you plug some good
headphones / IEMs into your system.

Simply, try artificial head recording, for once

OK, but how many true binaural recordings do you own? How about not many to
none? This is a very special case.

Yes thats true. And I wrote about that explictly (about things being
virtually nonavailable). But Scott was speaking in absolute terms. And
in absolute terms binaural recording is one of the few available ways
(and imho the only one avaliable in home/personal use type of setup) to
create really convincing illusion of "being there". It could be then
played traditionally via headphones / IEMs / earbuds or untarditionally
via ambiphonic setup (didn't try the last one, but ambiphonics have some
niche following).

Of course a recording can be optimized
for headphone listening, but talk about your niche markets! The vast majority
of modern recordings are made with speaker listening in mind. Perhaps with
the young migrating almost exclusively to iPod listening, pop record
producers ought to start thinking about recording with that kind of listening
in mind - in other words binaurally record all pop albums to sound their best
on earbuds! 8^)

The problem is, as I observed, that many of them have just one earbud in
their ear. Probably to be able to talk to one another while listening.
But, maybe, for those who want to really listen to the music this might
be an option.

rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[David[_22_]]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
As I just said to Bob in another post. Back when stereo was new, the major
labels produced the best product they could given the technology (which.
apparently, wasn't so bad, as many of these early stereo records are still
highly sought after, commanding big prices). They produced their product
to
high standards, knowing full well that the vast majority of their sales
would
be to people with mediocre playback equipment and worse. I don't remember,
in
those days, any listener using a cheap console radio-phonograph or a
so-called portable record player complaining that these records were "too
good". So, I'd really like to hear the reasoning behind any business
decision
that produces CDs compromised to make them somehow "better" for casual or
mobile listening.

In the old days albums were played in full and the volume adjusted to suit.
Nowadays lots of people play random tracks. The record company doesn't want
their recording to be quieter than the others, they want it to stand out
regardless of quality. Also in a noisy enviroment very quiet passages can't
be heard so what's the point of a wide dynamic range?
I'm affraid the days when people actually sit down at home and listen to a
record are a thing of the past for the vast majority of digital format
listeners. The vast majority of vinyl listeners on the other hand do
precisely that and would be a very good reason for engineers to vary the
production between the formats.

D

[Greg Wormald]

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:32:09 -0800, Greg Wormald wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:
SNIPS
Some people here have made very interesting suggestions on this, including
Arny's theory that it's a business decision. It might well be. If so, I'd
love to see the logic behind it.
SNIPS
I really don't understand why record companies
would think that putting out sub-par product would somehow advance sales,
and
would love to hear some justification for it.

I suspect that the answer to this is actually very simple:

Since most music media purchasers first hear the music on some sort of
radio/mixed music format, (I am *assuming* this) the music that sounds
the loudest sounds the best. So, compress, increase mid-bass, and
bingo--perceived loudness increases. Result--increased media sales.

But has this not ALWAYS been the case? Like I've been saying, early stereo
LPs were likewise mostly played on cheap "brown-goods" console
radio-phonographs and portable record players with cheap record changers in
them (or worse). Yet the record companies made these early LPs the best that
they could, and I don't recall owners of cheap players complaining about the
quality of these records being "too good". IOW, if producing this crap is
aimed at the lowest common denominator, as has been suggested (an I don't
disagree with that hypothesis), then I say that this is wrongheaded
marketing.

When I first started to listen to music, the amount of music available
was much less than today, and the sophistication of radio was such that
you would often have to 'ride' the volume control manually, rather than
having it done by computer.

We also listened to the music--sat and listened, or danced and
listened--we didn't use it as a portable soundtrack for life with the
music competing with traffic and other environmental sounds. Transistor
radios were brand new and 'portability' meant a hand cranked record
player, and there was *NO* high fidelity outside of the living room, and
stereo was brand new.

*EVERYBODY* went to live music. There was live music being played in the
city parks, at school dances most weekends, and we listened to the radio
or to the hi-fi as an poor alternative. While we might have heard a song
on the radio and used that as a decision to purchase, we knew that
nothing on the radio sounded like "live" music. A high-end sound system
was expensive and rare, live music was cheap.

Recorded music was only just becoming a business, most went into it
because they loved music. They didn't do it to become rich, or to make
videos.

All these sorts of things meant that making recorded sound closer to
live music was the major goal, and the committed players in this field
worked to that end.

There are still some of these types in the field, but unfortunately
music is now a big business and money, rather than music, rules. You'll
even hear music referred to as 'product' or 'software', and none of it
(or very little) sells without a hit video.

The human sensorium means that visual overwhelms auditory, and usually
very easily, so when the focus is on the visual, the quality of the
sound (and of the music) is easily lost.

Greg

[Andrew Haley]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:32:09 -0800, Greg Wormald wrote

Since most music media purchasers first hear the music on some sort
of radio/mixed music format, (I am *assuming* this) the music that
sounds the loudest sounds the best. So, compress, increase
mid-bass, and bingo--perceived loudness increases. Result--
increased media sales.

But has this not ALWAYS been the case? Like I've been saying, early
stereo LPs were likewise mostly played on cheap "brown-goods"
console radio-phonographs and portable record players with cheap
record changers in them (or worse). Yet the record companies made
these early LPs the best that they could, and I don't recall owners
of cheap players complaining about the quality of these records
being "too good".

But today we have (or rather, the studios have) multi-band look-ahead
digital compressors. This is kit that they didn't have in the past.
Would they have used it if they had? You betcha!

Andrew.

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:32:09 -0800, Greg Wormald wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:
SNIPS
Some people here have made very interesting suggestions on this, including
Arny's theory that it's a business decision. It might well be. If so, I'd
love to see the logic behind it.
SNIPS
I really don't understand why record companies
would think that putting out sub-par product would somehow advance sales,
and
would love to hear some justification for it.
I suspect that the answer to this is actually very simple:

Since most music media purchasers first hear the music on some sort of
radio/mixed music format, (I am *assuming* this) the music that sounds
the loudest sounds the best. So, compress, increase mid-bass, and
bingo--perceived loudness increases. Result--increased media sales.

But has this not ALWAYS been the case? Like I've been saying, early stereo
LPs were likewise mostly played on cheap "brown-goods" console
radio-phonographs and portable record players with cheap record changers in
them (or worse). Yet the record companies made these early LPs the best that
they could, and I don't recall owners of cheap players complaining about the
quality of these records being "too good". IOW, if producing this crap is
aimed at the lowest common denominator, as has been suggested (an I don't
disagree with that hypothesis), then I say that this is wrongheaded
marketing.

Well, even those "brown-goods" stuff would not be used in a car, or
while in public transport or even walking, shopping, etc. That LP had to
be played on some (even bad) device standing still somewhere. That means
that listening in that times less frequently occured in noisy
environments. Thus the common denominator was different.


These sorts of decisions would be made by 'money' people and 'business'
people, not 'music' people. For the media targeted at a niche group,
i.e. "high-end", the decisions would be made differently.

That, I'll grant you!


rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Arny Krueger]

"Andrew Haley" wrote in
message

But today we have (or rather, the studios have)
multi-band look-ahead digital compressors. This is kit
that they didn't have in the past. Would they have used
it if they had? You betcha!


Good point. What they did have is broadband and multiband analog compressors
and limiters, and they used them.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Jan 31, 1:59=A0pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







Scott, it's quite clear that you use loudspeaker
reproduction as your absolute standard. I seriously
doubt that you listen to as much live musi=3D c as I
do- for example during the weeks that I'm recording
festivals, I lis=3D ten to up 24 hours or more live
music in a single week. Furthermore, when I listen to
the recordings that I make, I am listening to
recordings where =3D I had the opportunity to listen
to the very same live performance that is o=3D n the
recording. I serious doubt that you =3DA0have this
level of familiarity=3D with live music and the live
performances that are on the recordings that you
listen to.-
I listen to live music almost on a weekly basis. My most
frequent haunting ground would be Disney Hall which is
claimed by many experts to be the finest concert hall in
the world acoustically. I have the privilidge of
listening to world class musicians there and in many
other venues around the world. I know what world class
live acoustic music sounds like.

So how many times have you heard the actual live
performance that you hav= e the recording for?

What does that have to do with my point of reference
being world class live acoustic music played in one of if
not the finest concert halls in the world? You
misrepresented my standard of excellence and I corrected
you.


I have also listened to a wide variety of music on my
i-touch using my Grado SR 80s.

The day my SR 80s broke and I threw them away was one of
the better days = of my life. I don't know why people
rave about them so much.

Because they are one of the better headphones on the
market that can be driven by an Ipod.

Not at all. Ipods can drive most commonly available headphones, unless one
is looking for ear-splitting volumes.

I have listened to a
number of alleged contenders for best ear bud using well
mastered rips of excellent music.

You are unlikely to have listened to the IEMs that I use.

Now how would you know the likelyhood of that Arny?

I've never told you exactly which ones they were, and there are a lot of
alternatives to choose from. If you are guessing randomly, you are likely to
miss.


There is no mistaking one for the other. They are miles
apart.

Yeah, speaker sound contaminated by room acoustics can
be a strong detrimnt to good listening.

Yes it can. That is why it is a good idea to use plenty
of room treatment. but once you've done that (something I
did) then you can get a pretty extraordinary illusion of
live acoustic music played in a real soundspace
(something i get with a good many of my best sounding
LPs). Something you can't get with your Sansa clip, your
earbuds and your recordings.

Later on you admit that your reference for the sound of the actual sound of
the recordings you listen to was made in is at best speculative.


My system with my best sounding LPs =A0actually does
come remarkably close to the same quality of sound I
have the pleasure of hearing in Disney Hall and some of
the other great concert halls of the world. But my
standard is what I have heard in those halls not my
speakers. I have asserted this as my standard on any
number of these threads. There is no reason for you to
speculate.

The recordings that you listen to are probably not the
ones that were recorded.

snip irrelvant comment

That means that there is automatically a big gap that
you are apparently bridging with hopes and dreams, unless you
want to assert that all live music sounds the same.

Talk about the exluded middle argument. LOL.

No Arny I don't think all live music sounds the same. But
I didn't say my playback and the live music I listen to
sound the same. So you are burning a straw man here.


You've admitted that your reference for the sound of the actual sound of the
recordings you listen to was made in is at best speculative.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 06:39:29 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Andrew Haley" wrote in
message

But today we have (or rather, the studios have)
multi-band look-ahead digital compressors. This is kit
that they didn't have in the past. Would they have used
it if they had? You betcha!


Good point. What they did have is broadband and multiband analog compressors
and limiters, and they used them.



Depends on what era you're talking about. Late sixties? Oh, yeah. Late 50's
-early sixties? No. Only some cutting head electronics (Ortofon) even had
acceleration and excursion limiters on the cutting heads in the late 50's
-early sixties (Westrex did not).

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 05:39:06 -0800, Greg Wormald wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:32:09 -0800, Greg Wormald wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:
SNIPS
Some people here have made very interesting suggestions on this,
including
Arny's theory that it's a business decision. It might well be. If so, I'd
love to see the logic behind it.
SNIPS
I really don't understand why record companies
would think that putting out sub-par product would somehow advance sales,
and
would love to hear some justification for it.

I suspect that the answer to this is actually very simple:

Since most music media purchasers first hear the music on some sort of
radio/mixed music format, (I am *assuming* this) the music that sounds
the loudest sounds the best. So, compress, increase mid-bass, and
bingo--perceived loudness increases. Result--increased media sales.

But has this not ALWAYS been the case? Like I've been saying, early stereo
LPs were likewise mostly played on cheap "brown-goods" console
radio-phonographs and portable record players with cheap record changers in
them (or worse). Yet the record companies made these early LPs the best
that
they could, and I don't recall owners of cheap players complaining about
the
quality of these records being "too good". IOW, if producing this crap is
aimed at the lowest common denominator, as has been suggested (an I don't
disagree with that hypothesis), then I say that this is wrongheaded
marketing.

When I first started to listen to music, the amount of music available
was much less than today, and the sophistication of radio was such that
you would often have to 'ride' the volume control manually, rather than
having it done by computer.

Actually, that's better. Gain riding is less destructive, sonically, than
automatic compression and hard limiting. Nothing beats real intelligence
behind an experienced hand.

We also listened to the music--sat and listened, or danced and
listened--we didn't use it as a portable soundtrack for life with the
music competing with traffic and other environmental sounds. Transistor
radios were brand new and 'portability' meant a hand cranked record
player, and there was *NO* high fidelity outside of the living room, and
stereo was brand new.

Yes. And?

*EVERYBODY* went to live music. There was live music being played in the
city parks, at school dances most weekends, and we listened to the radio
or to the hi-fi as an poor alternative. While we might have heard a song
on the radio and used that as a decision to purchase, we knew that
nothing on the radio sounded like "live" music. A high-end sound system
was expensive and rare, live music was cheap.

I dunno. Early FM, before stereo and when FM stations were few and far
between and therefore weren't compressed or limited, was pretty much the best
one could get next to actually being there. I clearly recall listening to
live concerts of the National Symphony, from my bedroom hi-fi (Eico tuner,
Knight-kit amp, home-made bass reflex speakers). Those concerts sounded
better than any records or even any pre-recorded reel-to-reel tapes.

Recorded music was only just becoming a business, most went into it
because they loved music. They didn't do it to become rich, or to make
videos.

The recorded music business started in the 1890's. I don't understand what
you are getting at.

All these sorts of things meant that making recorded sound closer to
live music was the major goal, and the committed players in this field
worked to that end.

That's very true.

There are still some of these types in the field, but unfortunately
music is now a big business and money, rather than music, rules. You'll
even hear music referred to as 'product' or 'software', and none of it
(or very little) sells without a hit video.

OK, you're talking about "pop" music. Can't say. I have no interest in pop
and really don't care what that segment of the market does.

The human sensorium means that visual overwhelms auditory, and usually
very easily, so when the focus is on the visual, the quality of the
sound (and of the music) is easily lost.

I suspect that's true. But I'd rather listen to a live concert over the radio
than watch one on TV, but maybe that's just me.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 05:39:23 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:32:09 -0800, Greg Wormald wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:
SNIPS
Some people here have made very interesting suggestions on this,
including
Arny's theory that it's a business decision. It might well be. If so, I'd
love to see the logic behind it.
SNIPS
I really don't understand why record companies
would think that putting out sub-par product would somehow advance sales,
and
would love to hear some justification for it.
I suspect that the answer to this is actually very simple:

Since most music media purchasers first hear the music on some sort of
radio/mixed music format, (I am *assuming* this) the music that sounds
the loudest sounds the best. So, compress, increase mid-bass, and
bingo--perceived loudness increases. Result--increased media sales.

But has this not ALWAYS been the case? Like I've been saying, early stereo
LPs were likewise mostly played on cheap "brown-goods" console
radio-phonographs and portable record players with cheap record changers in
them (or worse). Yet the record companies made these early LPs the best
that
they could, and I don't recall owners of cheap players complaining about
the
quality of these records being "too good". IOW, if producing this crap is
aimed at the lowest common denominator, as has been suggested (an I don't
disagree with that hypothesis), then I say that this is wrongheaded
marketing.

Well, even those "brown-goods" stuff would not be used in a car, or
while in public transport or even walking, shopping, etc. That LP had to
be played on some (even bad) device standing still somewhere. That means
that listening in that times less frequently occured in noisy
environments. Thus the common denominator was different.

I don't think that matters. People did listen to their car radios,

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 05:38:51 -0800, David wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
As I just said to Bob in another post. Back when stereo was new, the major
labels produced the best product they could given the technology (which.
apparently, wasn't so bad, as many of these early stereo records are still
highly sought after, commanding big prices). They produced their product
to
high standards, knowing full well that the vast majority of their sales
would
be to people with mediocre playback equipment and worse. I don't remember,
in
those days, any listener using a cheap console radio-phonograph or a
so-called portable record player complaining that these records were "too
good". So, I'd really like to hear the reasoning behind any business
decision
that produces CDs compromised to make them somehow "better" for casual or
mobile listening.

In the old days albums were played in full and the volume adjusted to suit.
Nowadays lots of people play random tracks.

I don't think that's necessarily true. People listen to complete works now,
as then. The idea of "random tracks" didn't come along until later. Remember,
in those days, "pop" music wasn't "album oriented", it was singles oriented
IOW, 45 RPM, 7" singles. Back in the late 50's, most rock musicians never
cut albums, and when they did, they were mono (even the Beatles early album
work was mono). Of course, there were exceptions like Sinatra, but that's not
the kind of pop we're talking about.

The record company doesn't want
their recording to be quieter than the others, they want it to stand out
regardless of quality. Also in a noisy enviroment very quiet passages can't
be heard so what's the point of a wide dynamic range?

True, but this doesn't make the practice of compressing a release to death
any less wrongheaded. The CORRECT answer to this dilemma would be for all car
stereos to have a built-in DSP-based variable compressor. The listener could
turn a knob for more, less, or no compression. That's where that kind of
signal processing SHOULD be applied.


I'm affraid the days when people actually sit down at home and listen to a
record are a thing of the past for the vast majority of digital format
listeners.

Agreed, but what a shame that we music lovers who DO sit down and listen to
music for pleasure have to suffer because the hoi polloi doesn't. It's like
having good restaurants disappear from the scene because most people eat at
MacDonalds.


The vast majority of vinyl listeners on the other hand do
precisely that and would be a very good reason for engineers to vary the
production between the formats.


HMMM. You might have a point there!

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 05:36:20 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"bob" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 10:15=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

I'm suspecting
that a lot of this audiophile interest =A0in high-resolution downloads
ma=
y be
the result of dissatisfaction with the quality of commercial CDs. If so,
=
then
that interest may be misplaced. IOW, these dissatisfied listeners
(includ=
ing
me) may be blaming CD for something of which it is NOT guilty; I.E.
being=
a
low-resolution medium when in reality, it's the production practices of
t=
he
record companies that are causing folks to long for higher resolution
recordings, not the inherent CAPABILITIES of the medium.

And what a shame it is that the high-end community has spent the
better part of three decades wailing about the inadequacies of CD as a
medium, rather than about the quality of the recordings.

bob

Well, the whole interesting question to me is: why isn't the compression (or
lack thereof) part of the delivery vehicle, rather than the medium itself.

EXACTLY! I have often said that (at least) all car stereos should have a
built-in DSP-based compressor. The listener could then dial-in the amount of
compression desired, or none at all.


In other words, if car audio requires compression for audibility, then why
hasn't that been a standard part of car electronics for the last twenty
years.....why did the music companies take on that burden, rather than
preparing the best sounding music they could and letting it be "adjusted"
(or not) according to the listening circumstances. Certainly blanket
compression has always been relatively simple to achieve (look at the "night
mode" that has been built into almost all tvs/dvd and blueray players, etc
for the last decade.

Seems to me that with a little foresight and cooperation this mess could
have been avoided. And still could be.

Agreed 100%!

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 05:35:48 -0800, Dave Cook wrote
(in article ):

On Jan 31, 10:27=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

Assuming the LP is quiet enough, this could be done. I have a recently
re-mastered British Decca pressing of De Falla's 'Three-Cornered Hat' bal=
let
with Ansermet and Le Orchestre de la Suisse-Romande - a very famous recor=
ding
known for it's great sound (the London CD release a number of years ago,
sounds terrible by comparison). This pressing is so quiet that I suspect =
that

These Ansermet recordings have had numerous issues on CD. Why not
compare against the 24/96 "Legends" remaster from 2000, or the
Universal Japan issue, or the XRCD issue rather than an older London
CD? There's also an issue in the Originals series, but I doubt that's
a new remastering, I think Universal just merged the old Legends line
with the Originals line.

http://www.hmv.co.jp/en/search/index...ansermet+falla

Sure, but all of this is outside the confines of my point. I'm just saying
that the modern pressing of the DeFalla that I have is quiet enough for the
surface noise NOT to give it away in a vinyl/CD shootout. Nothing more.

In any case, you're really just comparing the different remasterings.
That this recently remastered Lp of yours sounds so good does seem to
rule out deterioration of the master tape as an excuse.

Perhaps the techniques used in creating the cutting master
(compression?) adds some vibrancy to the sound.

I'm sure some compression was used, but it's not noticeable. Remember, the
master is analog - without any noise reduction, It probably doesn't have much
more dynamic range than the LP.

There's one sure way to reproduce the quality of the Lp on CD: record
the output from your preamp with a good ADC.

Been there, done that. It works fine. It's even better when the LP is
transferred to 24/96 or higher.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 1, 6:39=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Jan 31, 1:59=3DA0pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



Scott, it's quite clear that you use loudspeaker
reproduction as your absolute standard. I seriously
doubt that you listen to as much live musi=3D3D c as I
do- for example during the weeks that I'm recording
festivals, I lis=3D3D ten to up 24 hours or more live
music in a single week. Furthermore, when I listen to
the recordings that I make, I am listening to
recordings where =3D3D I had the opportunity to listen
to the very same live performance that is o=3D3D n the
recording. I serious doubt that you =3D3DA0have this
level of familiarity=3D3D with live music and the live
performances that are on the recordings that you
listen to.-
I listen to live music almost on a weekly basis. My most
frequent haunting ground would be Disney Hall which is
claimed by many experts to be the finest concert hall in
the world acoustically. I have the privilidge of
listening to world class musicians there and in many
other venues around the world. I know what world class
live acoustic music sounds like.

So how many times have you heard the actual live
performance that you hav=3D e the recording for?

What does that have to do with my point of reference
being world class live acoustic music played in one of if
not the finest concert halls in the world? You
misrepresented my standard of excellence and I corrected
you.

I have also listened to a wide variety of music on my
i-touch using my Grado SR 80s.
The day my SR 80s broke and I threw them away was one of
the better days =3D of my life. I don't know why people
rave about them so much.
Because they are one of the better headphones on the
market that can be driven by an Ipod.

Not at all. =A0Ipods can drive most commonly available headphones, unless=
one
is looking for ear-splitting volumes.

Who said anything about "commonly available" headphones? What
headphones that are clearly better than the Grado SR 80s can an Ipod
drive to it's maximum spl?



I have listened to a
number of alleged contenders for best ear bud using well
mastered rips of excellent music.

You are unlikely to have listened to the IEMs that I use.

Now how would you know the likelyhood of that Arny?

I've never told you exactly which ones they were, and there are a lot of
alternatives to choose from. If you are guessing randomly, you are likely=
to
miss.

Yes there are a lot of alternatives in the A.L. line. But when I was
auditioning earbuds I was not bothering with the lesser models. So if
you have one of the lesser models you may very well be right. I may
not have listened to them. And for good reason.



There is no mistaking one for the other. They are miles
apart.

Yeah, speaker sound contaminated by room acoustics can
be a strong detrimnt to good listening.
Yes it can. That is why it is a good idea to use plenty
of room treatment. but once you've done that (something I
did) then you can get a pretty extraordinary illusion of
live acoustic music played in a real soundspace
(something i get with a good many of my best sounding
LPs). Something you can't get with your Sansa clip, your
earbuds and your recordings.

Later on you admit that your reference for the sound of the actual sound =
of
the recordings you listen to was made in is at best speculative.

No Arny it is not speculative. It is perceptual based on experience.
When I listen to my playback and it shares many of the aural qualities
commonly found in live music played in excellent concert halls I am
not speculating about anything. It is my perception. When I listen to
music on earbuds and It sounds nothing like live music played back in
a real soundspace I am not speculating either. i am simply describing
on obvious difference between what one commonly hears with live
acoustic music and what one hears with the earbuds.



My system with my best sounding LPs =3DA0actually does
come remarkably close to the same quality of sound I
have the pleasure of hearing in Disney Hall and some of
the other great concert halls of the world. But my
standard is what I have heard in those halls not my
speakers. I have asserted this as my standard on any
number of these threads. There is no reason for you to
speculate.

The recordings that you listen to are probably not the
ones that were recorded.

snip irrelvant comment

The recordings I listen to were indeed recorded.



That means that there is automatically a big gap that
you are =A0apparently bridging with hopes and dreams, unless you
want to assert that all live music sounds the same.
Talk about the exluded middle argument. LOL.
No Arny I don't think all live music sounds the same. But
I didn't say my playback and the live music I listen to
sound the same. So you are burning a straw man here.

You've admitted that your reference for the sound of the actual sound of =
the
recordings you listen to was made in is at best speculative

That is your interpretation of what I am saying. It is not something i
have 'admitted." It seems like it is some sort of attempt to
disqualify my experience with live music as my standard of excellence
and my experience that my playback with vinyl LPs come far closer to
creating an illusion of live music played back in an excellent concert
hall than your Sansa clip with your earbuds and your recordings. But
the argument is highly flawed. It ignores the fact that despite clear
specific differences between the sounds of live acoustic music played
in different concert halls (not to mention the difference one hears
just in different seats) that there is a great deal of common
characteristics in the sound of live acoustic music. Your agument
seems to ignore the substantial gap between that common ground and the
sound one gets from earbuds. I don't need to be a personal witness to
the recordings I have on vinyl to tell that they sound much more like
the real thing in general than anything you have sounds like the real
thing on your earbuds. My experience with live music in general
informs me more than well enough. OTOH I can see how constant exposure
to poorly played live music in an inferior acoustic space could
eventually lead one to eroneous conclusions about the quality of
playback if one believes that the poorly played live acoustic music
heard in such a poor envirement is any kind of standard of excellence.
Live acoustic music doesn't set the standard because it is live. It
sets the standard becuase at it's best it simply offers the most
beautiful aesthetic experience. But when it is substantially
substandard it is not a good point of reference.

[bob]

On Feb 1, 1:44=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

EXACTLY! I have often said that (at least) all car stereos should have a
built-in DSP-based compressor. The listener could then dial-in the amount=
of
compression desired, or none at all. =A0

My car's (factory-installed) stereo has such a compressor, and it
seems to work pretty well. But I don't think this is the answer to the
problem. For one thing, I suspect that 99% of people who have such a
feature don't even know it. And I don't think what motivates the
record industry to massively compress recordings is, "Gee, let's help
out people who want to listen to music in their car." They aren't
altruists.

What most likely motivates them is the desire to get people to hit the
"Buy" button on Pandora/Rhapsody/iTunes. If louder, compressed music
results in more sales to the masses, then louder, compressed music is
what the masses are going to get. End of discussion.

The real answer, it seems to me, is a 2-tiered or maybe a 3-tiered
music market:

1) Compressed (in both senses) MP3s for the mass market
2) Full-range, well-mastered FLAC for the audiophile market
3) A multichannel medium (currently SACD, but presumably going non-
physical at some point)

What's unfortunate, in my view, is that the audiophile niche is
currently being satisfied largely by an inferior, antiquated
technology--vinyl. And that's largely because for the last 25 years
they've been told by the moronic audiophile press that there's
something wrong with CD as a technology, rather than with the way it's
been misused by the music industry.

bob

[Rockinghorse Winner[_6_]]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


I mean the reasons WHY CDs are made to a lower standard
than they should be is not all that obvious.

It is the human condition. Some people do mediocre work, and some people
march to a different drummer when they work. Just because you don't like a
recording doesn't mean that it is substandard to everybody.

Audiophiles want every recording to have full dynamic range (the "music
first" market), but there is a big market for "music and..." which relates
to mobile and other casual listening.

The people who make and sell recordings are most concerned about getting
their investments back, hopefully with some profit. I'm under the impression
that most attempts to bring recordings to market simply lose money.

There is also music that has artistic and cultural interest, but can't get a
first rate technical job for one reason or the other, such as many live
performances.

Lets face it. Have you ever demonstrated your high end system to a person
used to mass market gear? I have. The reaction is not always what you'd
expect? 'Pump the bass!' 'This isn't as loud as my cousin's car stereo.' You
know.

The average Joe has been so anesthetized by mediocre sound reproduction that
to him, the high distortion, ringing treble, booming bass are what
constitutes music to him, and any attempt to equalize the bass, increase the
dynamic range, whatever, seems to him a diminution not an improvement.

CD's are made for this class of listener, IMO, and they get what they
expect. IOW, the customer is always right.

*R* *H*
--
Powered by Linux |/ 2.6.32.26-175 Fedora 12
"No spyware. No viruses. No nags." |/ 2.6.31.12-0.2 OpenSUSE 11.2
http://www.jamendo.com |/
"Preach the gospel always; when necessary use words." St. Francis

[David[_22_]]

"bob" wrote in message
...

What's unfortunate, in my view, is that the audiophile niche is
currently being satisfied largely by an inferior, antiquated
technology--vinyl. And that's largely because for the last 25 years
they've been told by the moronic audiophile press that there's
something wrong with CD as a technology, rather than with the way it's
been misused by the music industry.

bob

No it's not largely because for the last 25 years they've been told by the
moronic audiophile press that there's something wrong with CD as a
technology, rather than with the way it's been misused by the music
industry. It's because of the way it's been misused by the music industry.
The vast majority either don't read the audio press or take it with a pinch
of salt.
I for one, have found the inferior, antiquated technology--vinyl, to be
superior in the vast majority of recordings. This has nothing to do with
what the press say. It's because it's better produced.
The fact it's down to the production and not the format is admittedly news
to me (thank you Mr Empire), but it's something that I wholeheartedly agree
with and explains a lot about my findings.

D

[bob]

On Feb 2, 8:28=A0am, "David" wrote:
"bob" wrote in message

...



What's unfortunate, in my view, is that the audiophile niche is
currently being satisfied largely by an inferior, antiquated
technology--vinyl. And that's largely because for the last 25 years
they've been told by the moronic audiophile press that there's
something wrong with CD as a technology, rather than with the way it's
been misused by the music industry.

bob

No it's not largely because for the last 25 years they've been told by th=
e
moronic audiophile press that there's something wrong with CD as a
technology, rather than with the way it's been misused by the music
industry. =A0It's because of the way it's been misused by the music indus=
try.
The vast majority either don't read the audio press or take it with a pin=
ch
of salt.

Perhaps I can make my point clearer with a question: If digital is
technically superior to analog as a medium, why does the audiophile
market prefer analog to "audiophile digital"? I posted the relative
numbers of "audiophile" recordings in both formats earlier. Analog has
something like a 12-to-1 advantage over audiophile CD. Presumably the
companies making these recordings are responding to consumer demand.
So why are audiophile consumers demanding vinyl rather than better
digital? I think at least some of the blame here has to rest with the
audiophile press.

Now, I agree with you that most people buying new vinyl today do not
read Stereophile, so we can't lay this entire problem at the feet of
one moron in particular, no matter how much his self-evident stupidity
makes him a convenient punching bag. But magazines like Stereophile
tend to be influential beyond their circulations, for a variety of
reasons.

But, to clarify further, I disagree fundamentally with the argument
that audiophiles prefer vinyl because it is mastered better. I believe
that audiophiles prefer vinyl because they prefer the euphonic
distortions inherent in that medium. (And that's fine. You should
listen to what you like to listen to.) That's probably the real answer
to the question I posed above: Audiophiles demand vinyl rather than
better digital because they confuse euphonic distortion with sound
quality.

I for one, have found the inferior, antiquated technology--vinyl, to be
superior in the vast majority of recordings. =A0This has nothing to do wi=
th
what the press say. =A0It's because it's better produced.
The fact it's down to the production and not the format is admittedly new=
s
to me (thank you Mr Empire), but it's something that I wholeheartedly agr=
ee
with and explains a lot about my findings.

And why is this news to you? Could it be that you've been reading the
wrong magazines?

bob

[C. Leeds]

On 2/1/2011 5:28 PM, nabob wrote:
...the audiophile niche is
currently being satisfied largely by an inferior, antiquated
technology--vinyl.

Don't be silly. Audiophiles also buy CDs and music in other formats.


And that's largely because for the last 25 years
they've been told by the moronic audiophile press that there's
something wrong with CD as a technology...

That's silly, too. For one thing, many audiophiles don't bother to read
the audiophile press. Of those that do, many are thinking people who
make decisions for themselves. Many own expensive CD players and DACs.
Many don't bother with LPs at all.

[Dave Cook]

On Feb 2, 4:38=A0pm, bob wrote:

Perhaps I can make my point clearer with a question: If digital is
technically superior to analog as a medium, why does the audiophile
market prefer analog to "audiophile digital"? I posted the relative
numbers of "audiophile" recordings in both formats earlier. Analog has
something like a 12-to-1 advantage over audiophile CD. Presumably the
companies making these recordings are responding to consumer demand.
So why are audiophile consumers demanding vinyl rather than better
digital? I think at least some of the blame here has to rest with the
audiophile press.

This has come up several times in the thread, and it's been bugging
me. You can't make any such conclusion based on the relative numbers
of silver discs vs. black discs that a Music Direct or Acoustic Sounds
sells. They're not trying to compete with Amazon, so they are only
going to offer a subset of silver discs they think will appeal to
their customers. Of course they are offering more Lps, because their
customers can get CDs anywhere, so they differentiate themselves by
offering a better selection and knowledgeable customer service to
their vinyl customers. By the way, many of those current Lp pressings
are of questionable quality IMO.

Also, if you hang out at Audiogon or Audio Asylum I think you'll find
more all digital or mostly digital 'philes than there are mostly
analog or all analog 'philes. The superiority of analog is mostly
just given lipservice. Even at Stereophile, some of the staff are
digital guys.

Dave Cook

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"bob" wrote in message
...
On Jan 25, 10:15=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

I'm suspecting
that a lot of this audiophile interest =A0in high-resolution
downloads ma=
y be
the result of dissatisfaction with the quality of commercial CDs.
If so, =
then
that interest may be misplaced. IOW, these dissatisfied listeners
(includ=
ing
me) may be blaming CD for something of which it is NOT guilty; I.E.
being=
a
low-resolution medium when in reality, it's the production
practices of t=
he
record companies that are causing folks to long for higher resolution
recordings, not the inherent CAPABILITIES of the medium.
And what a shame it is that the high-end community has spent the
better part of three decades wailing about the inadequacies of CD as a
medium, rather than about the quality of the recordings.

bob

Well, the whole interesting question to me is: why isn't the
compression (or lack thereof) part of the delivery vehicle, rather than
the medium itself. In other words, if car audio requires compression for
audibility, then why hasn't that been a standard part of car electronics
for the last twenty years.....why did the music companies take on that
burden, rather than preparing the best sounding music they could and
letting it be "adjusted" (or not) according to the listening
circumstances. Certainly blanket compression has always been relatively
simple to achieve (look at the "night mode" that has been built into
almost all tvs/dvd and blueray players, etc for the last decade.

Well, moderate compression could be done that (automatic) way, but
heavier compression will tend to have significant artifacts. Strong
compression requires varius tricks, like making parts of music around
it's level peaks slightly softer to emphasise peaks and make compression
more acceptable (or do even more compression at the same
(un)acceptability level). Strong compression ofthen include some
equalization riding together with gain changes, as well as different
gain at different freq bands.

Night mode typically is a combination of moderate compression and
equalization (for differences of ear freq sensitivity at variuos sound
levels as well as making sound a bit harder to propagate outside the room).


Seems to me that with a little foresight and cooperation this mess
could have been avoided. And still could be.



There is/was technical possibility of other solution -- simply include
compression track/stream along music data track/stream. Compression
stream does not require much data (many times less than actual audio
stream). Then music player would have a knob to regulate amount of
compression applied (from nothing to full amount prescribed). That track
would include both gain and equalization changes.


rgds
\SK
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[bob]

On Feb 2, 10:46=A0pm, Dave Cook wrote:

This has come up several times in the thread, and it's been bugging
me. =A0You can't make any such conclusion based on the relative numbers
of silver discs vs. black discs that a Music Direct or Acoustic Sounds
sells. =A0They're not trying to compete with Amazon, so they are only
going to offer a subset of silver discs they think will appeal to
their customers.

And who are their customers? Their customers are audiophiles. That's
who they market to. Which is why they only market "silver disks"
produced for the audiophile market--XRCDs and such. My question is, if
digital is the technical superior medium, why are there so many more
LPs than (for lack of a better term) audiophile CDs on offer? The
economics explanation is, because that's what the audiophile market
wants. So why is audiophile demand for vinyl an order of magnitude
larger than audiophile demand for audiophile CDs? Are audiophiles just
stupid?

=A0Of course they are offering more Lps, because their
customers can get CDs anywhere, so they differentiate themselves by
offering a better selection and knowledgeable customer service to
their vinyl customers.

Amazon probably offers a whole lot more vinyl records than either of
them do, so this argument fails to make sense.

=A0By the way, many of those current Lp pressings
are of questionable quality IMO.

But there's still that extra-special euphonic distortion. Maybe that's
what really matters, even to audiophiles.

Also, if you hang out at Audiogon or Audio Asylum I think you'll find
more all digital or mostly digital 'philes than there are mostly
analog or all analog 'philes.

I'll have to take your word for it, as I don't venture into those
precincts very often. But of course there are very few vinyl-only
consumers out there. They'd be giving up too much, even if most of it
is poorly mastered (again, assuming that's really what matters). But
I'm not discussing the relative markets for vinyl vs. CD. I'm
discussing the relative markets for vinyl vs. audiophile CD. Remember,
my basic argument here is that audiophiles would be better served if
all those LPs were audiophile CDs instead. And I'm trying to offer
some explanations for why that isn't the case.

bob