CD History

[rickcr42]

and www.digido.com/bob-katz/back-to-analog.html

obviously the potential is there but for some reason not often realised in an actual consumer product (discounting special edition after market remasters to show off/prove the format obviosly)

[rickcr42]

www.digido.com/bob-katz/index.php

www.tcelectronic.com/Default.asp?Id=12367#Mastering

[merton]

May 10, 2008 15:04:49 GMT insomniac said:

I am a member of the Yahoo LS3/5a group. Back in 2004 I posted the following 'April Fool' piece which looked at how we might 'play' CDs on our turntables. I thought it a very good idea actually. It's a long read but take a look. Here's the text....

Derek, did the April fool joke fool many people?

Just reading your post reminded me of a machine that does the opposite...
Play your vinyl on a CD player:



ELP Laser Turntable

The performance of the Laser Turntable means "No Needle, No Wear ™." The LT features an absolutely contact-free optical pickup system. Play a record thousands of times with no damage to the record. Get the same sparkling sound on the thousandth play as on the first play.

The Laser Turntable allows you to...
# Play your Vinyl Records without damaging them.
# Discover great new analog sound in your Vinyl Records.
# Play damaged Records with better results than a needle.
# Have the convenience, control, and safety of playing Vinyl Records just like a modern CD player (the record is contained inside the machine, and with a remote control you can click to play any track while the LT tells you the elapsed & remaining times).

www.elpj.com/about/index.html

is that for real?

[Deleted]

Merton
I presume this is a genuine photo, as there really is (was?) a Laser TT.
SandyK

[insomniac]

Yes it's real.



some reviews:

www.soundstage.com/vinyl/vinyl200509.htm

www.stereotimes.com/turn030300.shtml

www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0404/aachapter55.htm

[rickcr42]

From the Soundstage review


_______________________________________________________

Sound

"Noise is a constant issue with the LT-2XRC, even if your LPs are squeaky clean." "The noise issue aside, what struck me about the LT-2XRC's sound was its smooth yet detailed character. It presented music with a velvety touch, yet without sounding syrupy." However, the LT-2XRC also presented the music with "an homogenized character" -- "I couldn’t help but feel that something was missing."

_______________________________________________________

Feels that something is "missing ?"

Why would that be any surprise when the analog is now being run through a digital "potato masher" that eliminates EVERYTHING above the frequency of the brick wall filter ?

We don't HEAR sub bass but we can sense it presence 9or lack of) just as we can't actually HEAR anything above 20kHz,and even that is a stretch for many,yet we again can SENSE their presence and because we can means nature intended us to have that ability and if so for a reason so when you go away from a "natural" event,and analog is being a linear approximation of a sound event,to "man made" it is no surprise to some that just like with instant potatos they may look the same,may in fact taste damn close and there is zero doubt the one is far easier to make but in the end most prefer a plate full of REAL mashed potatos to mix with their veggies

digital is what it is flaws and all,analog the same with both having their own strengths and weaknesses but to take the one and take away any of the strengths while improving NONE of the weaknesses in the name of reducing/eliminating disc wear is just retarded.

Disc wear comes with the territory and the truth is not even close to as big of a problem as those who would dissuade you from analog say (and using skewed methods,prove) and even if it were I'll take it if what i hear on some of my 20 year old or more LPs is the result.

besides.Who here buys a car with the thought they will NEVER EVER have to replace the tires at some point in the lifetime of that vehicle ?


Of course not.when the tires wear or maybe even go flat what do we do ? buy new tires so what is there to prevent folks who wear out an LP (must be rare but i imagine it COULD happen ;D ) from just buying a NEW copy ?

hell,the master hasn't changed or deteriorated so any disc pressed from the same die will be as any other so what possible impediment would there be from replacing the old with the new and especially so in an age where buying electronics "buy it cheap,it breaks,no problem,buy another" and that with even some very high ticket items ?

Bottom line is.those against analog will usually find a reason to justify their choice then find OTHERS with the same opinion to back up the "why" and have reams of articles to back up their side while those who enjoy the sound of analog don't need ANYONE to tell them what they like or why because they are more apt to listen then make up their own minds if it sounds good or not rather than be the type who need to SEE why something sounds good with the "seeing" being technical articles that agree with their point of view and which unless I have missed something,and that is entirely possible at my age,never once yet got anyone dancing or uncontrollably tapping their feet in time with the music or hell singing along which BTW-just HOW DOES one hum a bar or two of "the reason why digital is a better medium for music is........"

[insomniac]

May 20, 2008 22:31:42 GMT rickcr42 said:

From the Soundstage review


_______________________________________________________

Sound

"Noise is a constant issue with the LT-2XRC, even if your LPs are squeaky clean." "The noise issue aside, what struck me about the LT-2XRC's sound was its smooth yet detailed character. It presented music with a velvety touch, yet without sounding syrupy." However, the LT-2XRC also presented the music with "an homogenized character" -- "I couldn’t help but feel that something was missing."

_______________________________________________________

Feels that something is "missing ?"

Why would that be any surprise when the analog is now being run through a digital "potato masher" that eliminates EVERYTHING above the frequency of the brick wall filter ?

I only wish I could hear above 20,000 Hz ;D

From the Audio Turntable, Ltd. response to Soundstage review

"Thirdly, the matter of the sound or lack there of! There is nothing missing with the Laser Turntable; rather there is something missing with the cartridge, and that which is missing is what audiophiles have not knowingly grown to like. This explains the music’s micro-nuances heard with the Laser Turntable, which would never be depicted with the stylus. Think about what the stylus is not reading from the record that the laser does! On one hand, the stylus involves mass and inertia of the cantilever and magnet or coil. On the other hand, light photons have no mass, which signifies that the Laser Turntable has an almost infinite transient response. Indeed, a moving magnet is like driving a 4000-pound sedan on a mountain road; and a moving coil is like driving a 2000-pound sports car on the same road. The Laser Turntable is rather like a sport bike with tires that never slip, but even faster! Tubes are popular because they are asymmetrical in their harmonic response; however, the asymmetry emphasizes the even-order harmonics, which the human ear finds very pleasant. Hence tubes are more "musical," nevertheless not more accurate. All record systems have harmonics, because there are resonances in both electrical and mechanical players. The laser is absolutely unique in that light has no resonance. Thus, the harmonics are always right and uncolored. Styli can make poor recordings sound good due to the harmonic distortion, hence the exaggerated "trailing harmonics" you heard. The Laser Turntable is the equivalent of solid-state for records, and styli are the equivalent of tubes in that they "smooth over the noise, and color the sound with their own resonance." This may cause some music to have more "harmonic texture, or definition" and "better transient attack, bloom and decay." With a conventional turntable there are many factors that could affect the sound by the time it gets to one’s ears. The opposite is true with the Laser Turntable. It processes every record in the same manner, efficiently and with accuracy every time, consequently producing the "homogenized character" and "velvety presentation" you noted. There is no question that the Laser Turntable brings you to a purer form of music than any other media, without coloration, or additional content. Several master-tape A-to-B comparisons have demonstrated this fact. The Laser Turntable without any doubt sounds closest to the original tape. We invite you to come visit us at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest, where we will be happy to demonstrate this to you."

We don't HEAR sub bass but we can sense it presence 9or lack of) just as we can't actually HEAR anything above 20kHz,and even that is a stretch for many,yet we again can SENSE their presence and because we can means nature intended us to have that ability and if so for a reason so when you go away from a "natural" event,and analog is being a linear approximation of a sound event,to "man made" it is no surprise to some that just like with instant potatos they may look the same,may in fact taste damn close and there is zero doubt the one is far easier to make but in the end most prefer a plate full of REAL mashed potatos to mix with their veggies

I agree about feeling sub bass rather than hearing it.....so do my neighbors...

digital is what it is flaws and all,analog the same with both having their own strengths and weaknesses but to take the one and take away any of the strengths while improving NONE of the weaknesses in the name of reducing/eliminating disc wear is just retarded.

Disc wear comes with the territory and the truth is not even close to as big of a problem as those who would dissuade you from analog say (and using skewed methods,prove) and even if it were I'll take it if what i hear on some of my 20 year old or more LPs is the result.

besides.Who here buys a car with the thought they will NEVER EVER have to replace the tires at some point in the lifetime of that vehicle ?


Of course not.when the tires wear or maybe even go flat what do we do ? buy new tires so what is there to prevent folks who wear out an LP (must be rare but i imagine it COULD happen ;D ) from just buying a NEW copy ?

hell,the master hasn't changed or deteriorated so any disc pressed from the same die will be as any other so what possible impediment would there be from replacing the old with the new and especially so in an age where buying electronics "buy it cheap,it breaks,no problem,buy another" and that with even some very high ticket items ?

Just how easy is it to replace a favorite worn vinyl these days?
Maybe disc wear is nothing but a minor inconvienience compared to stylus wear.....especially when your using a 27 grand system...like the reviewer in this case.


Again, from the Audio Turntable, Ltd. response to Soundstage review:

"Finally, the reference system! In your review, the Laser Turntable is compared to only one reference system, the "SME 30 Model turntable/SME Series IV.Vi tonearm/Dynavector XV-1s cartridge setup, which costs roughly $27,000." As expected, the latter sounds better. We would never claim to oust the sound from a setup that is twice the price; however, weigh it against systems of similar value, and the Laser Turntable beats them all every time. We also would never expect old analog hounds to replace their conventional turntable setup with a Laser Turntable, though simply to add the Laser Turntable to their existing arrangement, while giving them the best of both worlds."

Bottom line is.those against analog will usually find a reason to justify their choice then find OTHERS with the same opinion to back up the "why" and have reams of articles to back up their side while those who enjoy the sound of analog don't need ANYONE to tell them what they like or why because they are more apt to listen then make up their own minds if it sounds good or not rather than be the type who need to SEE why something sounds good with the "seeing" being technical articles that agree with their point of view and which unless I have missed something,and that is entirely possible at my age,never once yet got anyone dancing or uncontrollably tapping their feet in time with the music or hell singing along which BTW-just HOW DOES one hum a bar or two of "the reason why digital is a better medium for music is........"

When we're talking about kit costing this sort of money, sometimes the only option is to "SEE" and enquire about "OTHERS" findings. You may never get to, or even want to, listen to it yourself....
BTW I'm not a vinyl hater (been there done that)....OK maybe I am just a bit

[rickcr42]

I only wish I could hear above 20,000 Hz ;D

point being even if we CAN'T hear it we can sense it and this has been proven scientifically in tests having nothing at all to do with music the studies being more in the field of human response to aural stimuli where it was found certain sounds even if unheard can change mood or give positional cues though totally inaudible and maybe why some are so sensitised to "digitalis".

From the Audio Turntable, Ltd. response to Soundstage review

"Thirdly, the matter of the sound or lack there of! There is nothing missing with the Laser Turntable; rather there is something missing with the cartridge, and that which is missing is what audiophiles have not knowingly grown to like. This explains the music’s micro-nuances heard with the Laser Turntable, which would never be depicted with the stylus. Think about what the stylus is not reading from the record that the laser does! On one hand, the stylus involves mass and inertia of the cantilever and magnet or coil. On the other hand, light photons have no mass, which signifies that the Laser Turntable has an almost infinite transient response. Indeed, a moving magnet is like driving a 4000-pound sedan on a mountain road; and a moving coil is like driving a 2000-pound sports car on the same road. The Laser Turntable is rather like a sport bike with tires that never slip, but even faster! Tubes are popular because they are asymmetrical in their harmonic response; however, the asymmetry emphasizes the even-order harmonics, which the human ear finds very pleasant. Hence tubes are more "musical," nevertheless not more accurate. All record systems have harmonics, because there are resonances in both electrical and mechanical players. The laser is absolutely unique in that light has no resonance. Thus, the harmonics are always right and uncolored. Styli can make poor recordings sound good due to the harmonic distortion, hence the exaggerated "trailing harmonics" you heard. The Laser Turntable is the equivalent of solid-state for records, and styli are the equivalent of tubes in that they "smooth over the noise, and color the sound with their own resonance." This may cause some music to have more "harmonic texture, or definition" and "better transient attack, bloom and decay." With a conventional turntable there are many factors that could affect the sound by the time it gets to one’s ears. The opposite is true with the Laser Turntable. It processes every record in the same manner, efficiently and with accuracy every time, consequently producing the "homogenized character" and "velvety presentation" you noted. There is no question that the Laser Turntable brings you to a purer form of music than any other media, without coloration, or additional content. Several master-tape A-to-B comparisons have demonstrated this fact. The Laser Turntable without any doubt sounds closest to the original tape. We invite you to come visit us at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest, where we will be happy to demonstrate this to you."

I totally do not agree with the findings.i have heard analog tape at slow speed,analog vinyl and good digital and my opinion is if i want to hear the music either of the two analog systems will get me closer with the tape being scary close,vinyl approximating the tape expereience and digital more about listening to the electronics rather than the music and why every top end CD player 9including the new hi-res formats) tout their superiority by staing THEIRS is closer to vinly leaving me smiling every time because if the goal is to emulate the vinyl sound then why go to such great lengths to eliminate the very thing you are trying to achieve ?



I agree about feeling sub bass rather than hearing it.....so do my neighbors...[/img]

I can't do bass anymore because for the first time since i was a small child i actually have someone living under me and that alone eliminates any floor mounted speakers and with sub-bass needing to have a boundry (or two ) OR if a type that does not multiple cabinets to have enough power/bottom end frequencies to keep up with my main cabinets (that had to be stand mounted to get THEM off the floor which meant losing what bass I had ) I am pretty much FUBARed until I move back into a house.Apartment living is not for me and never has been unless I want to be a bad neighbor

Just how easy is it to replace a favorite worn vinyl these days?[/quote

Easy as hell actually.Between the internet,the "recortd' stores still in operation and folks selling off their collections having "moved on" from vinyl PLUS the large selection of audiophile pressings and/or re-issues not a problem at all though i have to say it is rare i need to even with some very old discs.

Maybe disc wear is nothing but a minor inconvienience compared to stylus wear.....especially when your using a 27 grand system...like the reviewer in this case.

1-again the problem is WAY overstated to make a point as is usual just like the "pops and clicks" crap that you will rearely actually hear any of in any system that uses vinyl playback as first choice

2-27 grand is also meaningless as it has been proven time and time again spending loot is NO gurantee of superior sonics and n fact in an age where gear cosmetics and "show off" systems are seemingly the most important factor in high end audio even more iffy on the sonic front.I have in fact seen many examples of a $10 amp chip being the HEART of a very expensive and very pretty amps

Again, from the Audio Turntable, Ltd. response to Soundstage review:

"Finally, the reference system! In your review, the Laser Turntable is compared to only one reference system, the "SME 30 Model turntable/SME Series IV.Vi tonearm/Dynavector XV-1s cartridge setup, which costs roughly $27,000." As expected, the latter sounds better. We would never claim to oust the sound from a setup that is twice the price; however, weigh it against systems of similar value, and the Laser Turntable beats them all every time. We also would never expect old analog hounds to replace their conventional turntable setup with a Laser Turntable, though simply to add the Laser Turntable to their existing arrangement, while giving them the best of both worlds."

It is no secret that what are considered the sabsolute best sounding systems on the planet feature vinyl as the playback medium.It is also no mystery where those who grew up with digital and only faintly if at all remeber vinyl from dad's "all in wonder" console stereo with TV,AM/FM,Multi-Disc Turntable,built- In stereo speakers that boomed and with the top covered with either "mammas favorite things" or a rogues gallery of family pics to the embarrassment of most teens of the day who were dumb enough to have freinds over so to them having faint memories of ewhat were no more than "home based boom boxes" and who once they were old enough to purchase their own music had only digital formats to choose from grew used to what for them was the "comfort zone" it being all they really ever knew.

Add this to the fact that digital just happens to play well on comprimised systems,the very systems most youngsters can afford (and why many think the MP3 sounds JUST AS GOOD as a CD-the irony kills me dude ) and the convenience of the medium PLUS the ability to rip a copy and zip it off to Tasmania or download pirated versions of and it surprises me not.

Where most get into trouble for the first time is when they attempt to "step up" from average consumer grade equipment.it is the "mid level hi-fi" that gets most in trouble because NOW the weaknesses become apparently clear even though not recognised as such and so these poor fools usually are set on a path that leads to READING about gear,buying and trying,discarding,READING MORE,buy again,discard,etc. until they reach a place where the gear and the format actually sound GOOD together (is not a whole lot different than trying to match an amp to a speaker system ).This is usually a long road and for some never ends.......

When we're talking about kit costing this sort of money, sometimes the only option is to "SEE" and enquire about "OTHERS" findings. You may never get to, or even want to, listen to it yourself....
BTW I'm not a vinyl hater (been there done that)....OK maybe I am just a bit

again,throwing loot at audio is NO gurantee of good sonics unless you have a plan and follow it.system sysnergy is paramount and a cheap system that is well matched will blow the balls of of one that cost a lot but is not no matter how pretty it is and again,if analog is so bad why are so many digital adherents trying to re-capture the sound by purchasing very expensive digital gear with its strongest selling point being "sound like analog" ?

[rowuk]

So, other than the presumtion that the "brick wall" filter at 20KHz+ has audible effects and that at one time 16bit recording maybe only had 10 bits of "useful" range, we still do not have any reason why analog is better - other than opinions.

My concern is that while there may be significant advantages to one technology over another, audible superiority is much bigger than SQ under "optimal" conditions. The care of vinyl and proper monitoring of stylus condition all represent "inconveniences" that cause analog to be "typically" less superior than affordably well executed digital. It is just plain fact that the majority of vinyl collections have serious audible flaws due to wear (ever check out what a stylus does to a groove if the cartridge is left at "factory" settings?).

Digital is in fact a blessing for the masses that make no claims to hear the grass grow. I have about 400 LPs (about half are not available on CD) that I am recording to digital media (96Khz/24bit). The consistency of reproduction (yes my record deck and cartridge do sound differently at 50 or 90 degrees Fahrenheit) and ease of access are just too tempting. The sonic "differences" are too small between original and copy to worry about. The music is too glorious to risk losing! I have maybe 100 LPs that could be labeled "Audiophile". MAYBE under ideal circumstances (AB listening for differences, spending a day tweaking my record deck, my brain, my ears......), an audiophile advantage with those recordings could be discovered, but that is not the reason that I listen to music. No criticism for those interested in analog masturbation, I just have found other sources of getting a smile on my face. I have heard enough convincing digital to confirm its MUSICAL viability. There is enough happening on stage that really profits from the low noise floor and superior editing possibilities. I would venture to say that the musicians have not gotten more or less "musical", so the music played is of consistent high quality. The "average" acoustic recording today is superior in terms of reproduction of instrument tone color and reproduction of geometry. Whether or not some audiophile LP has more depth or width is of little significance unless we are sure that the recording space is accurately "imaged". I have been on the playing side of the microphone since the early 70's and find the technology to be beneficial to the creative process because the process is more "out of the way" - no multiple takes because of "gain riding" or other analog compensation.

Don't take this out of context, I love my LPs (especially the ones that I played on), but refuse to damn a damn good technology that works in most cases for my ears.

The reason that the marketing people claim that digital is looking for analog virtues is because that is the LIE that the audiophiles want to hear. A better argument would be the truth: why put up with noise, distortion and other analog artifacts - other than you have already learned how to ignore them! Instead of the lie that analog hiss, flutter, distortion are insignificant, just learn the new lie: jitter, bit rate and a cap at 20+Khz are not as bad as many would have us believe! Would you be surprised that many reference microphones used in the analog era had a NASTY resonance between 20KHz and 25 KHz?

[Deleted]

Rowuk
I find it interesting that with a compatible SACD, the CD section usually sounds very good
indeed, and far better than normal CDs. I presume it is the original mastering for SACD that is the main reason.
Alex

[rickcr42]

So, other than the presumtion that the "brick wall" filter at 20KHz+ has audible effects ...

No preseumption but proven fact.Not only are there volumes of content on the subject but in this there is for once no disagreement

and that at one time 16bit recording maybe only had 10 bits of "useful" range, we still do not have any reason why analog is better - other than opinions.

not only "at one time" with 16 bit recordings (which many are) but due to the extreme compression used in many (most ?) modern recordings no better.You CAN NOT hit digital "odb" or you have a disaster so there are usually a few bits of headroom at the top or a limiter is used or both and with the bottom low level signals being brought up in level the actual dynamic range of commercial recordings does not even approach the theoretical being not a lot better than a good FM radio broadcast

My concern is that while there may be significant advantages to one technology over another, audible superiority is much bigger than SQ under "optimal" conditions. The care of vinyl and proper monitoring of stylus condition all represent "inconveniences" that cause analog to be "typically" less superior than affordably well executed digital. It is just plain fact that the majority of vinyl collections have serious audible flaws due to wear (ever check out what a stylus does to a groove if the cartridge is left at "factory" settings?).

"audible superiority" over "sound quality" gets back to my original point that analog is listening to the music and digital the equipment and for me that is putting the cart AFTER the horse.The music should be the goal not a technical workout for the gear or why bother with any recordings other than "test" discs meant to show off and/or stress a system ?

As for serious "audible" flaws,again not in my experience and again more of a "technical treatise" than anything that means squat in day to day music listening.Simple basic care of the soiftware and a properly set up system,and that means a PROPER tracking force which usually means at the HIGH end of the range which translates into LESS record wear because it actually tracks the disc rather than ride the crest and bounce inand out on heavily modulated passages-the real disc killer....

Hell I have some ancient 78s that play just fine,mostly old jazz and blues.They needed a good cleaning but otherwise ? No problemo other than being in mono AND not to the RIAA standard EQ so i needed to whip up a multi-EQ phono stage plus my main table being only able to do 33 1/3 and 45 RPM meaning i needed to do another rig but even then,enjoyable for the music

Digital is in fact a blessing for the masses that make no claims to hear the grass grow

Exactly my earlier point and in my mind I ask 'why is this a good thing ?".Why is less acceptable even if it costs more ? Why would a self proclaimed (by being and posting here) "audiophile" say that then when "the masses" state they hear no significantly audible difference between downloadable lossy compression formats and a CD the same crew that touts "sampled" digital over analog crack wise as if they somehow are BETTER than them ?

and if history stays pretty much on track in the future where we have come from in the past it IS the masses who determine what we ALL settle for so while in my era we were never actually asked if we wanted to forego analog entirely,have a choice or just shoot to digital what makes anyone beleive the next move DOWN in actual fidelity,the "downloads only" music sales with those mostly being compressed AND having fidelity killing copy protection will be a choice ?

Yes,some selections may be available in uncompressed formats at a premium price from "auiphile recording" outlets like Linn but all ?

not even close.All about making a profit (no packaging,no wharehousing,no HUMAN SELLERS thus no stores meaning no shipping costs but hey ! It will be conveneint (but not cheap.you will pay the same or more for less ;D )

the rest ? I could go on all day but you pretty much make my points and it is more "archiving" and "conveneince" than it is about the actual sound (your words pretty much).

My attitude is if i can't take a disc from its cover,place it on the turntable,cue up the tonearm/cartridge,listen,flip the disc over,repeat then place the disc back in the protective cover I am one lazy bastard and would likely be the type to leave CDs laying out all over the house as well......a thing that usually leads to a skipping CD and a trip to the store for a replacement so other than having to cue up the selection manually not a whole lot of differnce in human interfacing other than flipping sides ;D

[rowuk]

I guess I must be deaf (but in good company). I have heard so many convincing digital productions. I hear the qualities of the instrument as I just experienced it on stage (in a symphony, jazz band or solo setting). I hear a reasonable replica of the sonic space of the event that I just performed in. The MUSIC (at least as I understand it) breathes. Every time I put on a record, or visit an audiophile friend, I get drawn into the music and then get distracted by the "analog" artifacts: clicks, pops, hiss, non-linear frequency response at high recording levels for "many" records.

As far as getting an accurate representation of ANY sonic event, we are just talking ourselves into a subjective reality - unless we have the documented intention of the recording engineer. There is no "standard" for recording and playback of a sonic event or even capturing the original geometry. Recording engineers learn to space the instruments across the entire stereo panorama. The commercial renditions have imaging that is not possible in ANY real listening environment - not even from the conductors position (I do conduct from time to time and do not get pinpoint imaging even when only a couple of meters from the instruments.

Nope, analog is not required to reproduce music. The errors in analog frequency response are as distracting as any digital artifact from a comparably priced analog system. Maybe some audiophiles are more sensitive to digital distortions. I have more problems when the instruments do not have the correct timbre or size. Analog has a tendency to sound "bigger" and that could simply be due to the resonant nature of the phono cartridge, airborn signals exciting the record surface or tone arm.

As far as brick wall filters go, we have exactly that in reel to reel tape too. The head FR COMPLETELY stops when the wavelength becomes the size of the head gap, which is directly related to the efficiency of the head. The smaller the gap, the broader the FR but the more we have to "amplify" the signal that we get!!!

My comment about the masses in context needs no further explanation - they weren't listening to the grass grow with their record changers either.

I say embrace the technology. If you spend ANY time at live concerts, you will learn to hear the virtues of the digital domain too - not just the sonic signature of the media. If we want to put this stuff into relation, we only need to start paying attention to analog flaws. They become as obnoxious as anything digital.

[Deleted]

Analog has a tendency to sound "bigger" and that could simply be due to the resonant nature of the phono cartridge, airborn signals exciting the record surface or tone arm...............
If we want to put this stuff into relation, we only need to start paying attention to analog flaws. They become as obnoxious as anything digital.

Robin
The 2 camps are too far apart ideologically, to ever agree on these issues. But as for statements like "vinyl is God's gift to audio" - W.A.L.O.C. !!!

Why not just enjoy what the best of both has to offer ?

Alex










"What A Load Of Crap"

[insomniac]

At least some kind folk are trying to make it easier for those vinyl lovers who wish to make the transition to digital cleanliness...

The iZotope Vinyl plugin..

"The ultimate lo-fi weapon, iZotope Vinyl uses 64-bit processing and advanced filtering, modeling and resampling to create authentic "vinyl" simulation, as if the audio was a record being played on a record player."

You have complete control over the following parameters:

Mechanical Noise - The amount of turntable motor rumble and noise
Electrical Noise - Internally generated electrical noise, such as 60 Hz grounding hum
Wear - Control how worn out the record is, from brand new to played a few thousand times
Dust - The amount of dust on the record
Scratch - The number and depth of scratches on the record
Warp - The amount of warping and the warp shape for the record - from no warp to the edges totally melted and warped
Record Player Year - The year of the record player - from current linear tracking turntables to 1930 phonographs
Stereo/Mono - Switch between stereo and mono output
Input and Output Gain - Set the gain in and out of the effect with visual level meter feedback


This plugin is free from: www.izotope.com/products/audio/vinyl/

[Deleted]

Hey ! It's not to be taken seriously!








(With achknowledgement to SY -DIYAudio Moderator)

[insomniac]

[rowuk]

Jun 13, 2008 22:53:36 GMT @sandyk said:

Analog has a tendency to sound "bigger" and that could simply be due to the resonant nature of the phono cartridge, airborn signals exciting the record surface or tone arm...............
If we want to put this stuff into relation, we only need to start paying attention to analog flaws. They become as obnoxious as anything digital.

Robin
The 2 camps are too far apart ideologically, to ever agree on these issues. But as for statements like "vinyl is God's gift to audio" - W.A.L.O.C. !!!

Why not just enjoy what the best of both has to offer ?

Alex


"What A Load Of Crap"

Alex
I have no problem with analog and enjoy my vinyl collection as much as I enjoy the CDs. Neither venue is perfect and for my listening habits, the SQ is based more on the timbre of the instruments than a fictive sound stage that has no mathematical/geometrical model. If the space that I hear is plausible, I do not get hung up on a little "deeper" or "wider". I also do not get hung up on absolute dynamics because even a large living room (that I do not have) is still MUCH smaller than a concert hall and that means that there is a perspective distortion as well as additional early reflections from the wall and ceiling that are not present at the real event. The digital noise floor is low enough that it does not bother me thanks to Ricks transformer isolation advice.

It takes a lot of computing power to do a great job digitally and that power has been available for the last couple of years. I am very happy that I can enjoy even the miserable audio cassettes (without Dolby) that I recorded in the mid 70's. I don't even want to think what the audio critics would have to say about that.

My order of importance:
do the instruments sound like real ones?
is the spacial information appropriate (this requires a good frequency response especially below 40 Hz)?
is the recording relatively free of resonant effects?

Then comes:
are my speakers positioned so that the resonant room effects are balanced against getting a believable ensemble geometry
are my headphones well enough matched to my head to get a reasonably flat frequency response
am I listening at volumes that insure that the long term pleasure is guaranteed (not too loud too long!)

Then comes:
is there anything reasonable that I can do to improve the playback, to make the medium less apparent

Then comes:
argue about it at rockgrotto

Rick, I luv ya. You have a wealth of knowledge and seem to have a BS filter in everything you post. I like that absence of BS, your entertaining style and your ability to be the devils advocate! I am also sure that you do not need a barf bag when listening to older CDs.............

[dotnet]

Jun 13, 2008 22:24:27 GMT rowuk said:

Nope, analog is not required to reproduce music.

I suppose you mean analog storage and distribution media, because everything else is still very much analog, in the CD age.

The errors in analog frequency response are as distracting as any digital artifact from a comparably priced analog system. Maybe some audiophiles are more sensitive to digital distortions. I have more problems when the instruments do not have the correct timbre or size. Analog has a tendency to sound "bigger" and that could simply be due to the resonant nature of the phono cartridge, airborn signals exciting the record surface or tone arm.

I believe coloration is a distortion our ears can adjust to very quickly, as long as it is relatively subtle. Our own hearing system's frequency response changes during the course of the day, and in response to environmental and psychological factors. Also, colorations introduced by LP pick-ups, tone arms etc are usually outweighed by colorations caused by (even very good) speakers.

As a medium for storing and replaying music LPs are not viable anymore. They just have too many weaknesses, in particular wear, fragility and handling. Hence, there had to be a next great thing the market could be swung towards. It is unfortunate that this next great thing ended up being the audio CD. While it solved the wear and handling issues, and half solved the fragility issue (CDs are a bit more robust than LPs, but not much), on the SQ front they replaced one set of problems with another.

In my opinion, the biggest show stoppers for CD sound quality are the way the digital medium is read out in real time in an analog process by devices that mostly lack the ability to make use of built-in error correction features, and the limited 16-bit world length that means low numerical resolution and translates into quantisation artifacts during D/A conversion.

One reason for those shortcomings was probably the state of the art in hardware at the time CDs were introduced. The transport-DAC combos in all CD players had to fly by the seat of their pants and try to interpret the (analog) signal obtained from the laser pickup as a bit sequence by measuring the (analog) length of time between rising and falling slopes of that signal. This would have been a solvable problem if both the signal from the laser pick-up and the DAC had the same idea of time. However, the signal stream's timing is intrinsically linked to the very analog process of regulating the rotational speed of the disc which, to make it even harder, isn't constant but has to be changed all the time as the pickup moved from the outer to the inner parts of the CD.

Add to this the fact that hardly any CD player had the data processing power to apply all the corrections in real-time that are theoretically possible thanks to checksums and redundancy on the disk - the music can't stop while the player is trying to recover from an uncorrectable bit error in a block of data by reading that block over and over again (like a CDROM drive would).

Today. most people acknowledge that the only proper way of playing CDs is ripping them on a computer, taking all the time it takes to get a bit-correct copy, and playing them back from a memory buffer that is read out to the clock provided by the DAC. Most computers operate this way when playing digitised music. One must not fall in to the trap of applying data reduction in order to save some storage space, though, or to the adjust the volume digitally. The 16-bit signal is low-res as it is, and any computational operations performed on low-precision numbers can only yield as low or lower precision.

Now, with the limitations of audio CDs well understood, where's the next great thing? The time is surely ripe, and putting enough computing power into a home audio device is no issue anymore. There are SACD and DVD-Audio, both doing away with the shaky analog read-out process and treating the disk not as a track of bits but as data storage, just like a computer would read a CDROM. They also provide for much better resolution (beyond 16-bit) and even allow higher sampling rates, so frequencies higher than 22kHz can be reproduced.

Why haven't they put the CD to rest, at least to the extent that the CD put the LP to rest? Because the reason the CD was the next great thing back then had little to do with sound quality, and a lot to do with convenience. Like it or not, it isn't audiophiles that dictate a mass market format, it's the great unwashed masses (so to speak). And they choose convenience over quality any day. Instead of embracing the far better sounding SACD and DVD-A, the market fell in love with not only low-resolution but also data reduced digital file formats. For one reason alone: convenience. The audiophiles are left scrambling for high-res recordings in a market place dominated by poor quality, and they would obviously not touch data reduction with a ten-foot pole. Hence, the vast majority of recordings published these days isn't for them, and they have to spend time and effort tracking down good quality material and encoding it losslessly on their own time if they want to partake in the conversion of information technology and entertainment.

Oh dear, I didn't want this to turn into a rant. I guess what I'm trying to say is, LPs and CDs are both crap, future digital music SQ could be as good as we want it to be but a proper audiophile mass-market distribution format isn't going to appear, since the market doesn't demand it. If you think I'm too pessimistic on this I can only hope you're right...

Cheers
Steffen.

[Deleted]

Just a totally non-technical perspective (as I have next to zero technical knowledge)

On this thread and many others it's obvious to all that everyone has a different perspective on all things audio.

When it comes to formats there are more issues than SQ for their use.

Speaking for myself;
LP is my top SQ source, the main reason may solely be that I have given most attention to it with various tweaks etc.

CD is the most convenient, although I have a reasonable player, it has had no attention to improving it's sound except a decent cable, overdue as I probably listen to CD the most.

MiniDisc, my prefered portable format, better SQ than MP3, even though I only use optical or analogue lines for recording. May only be habit, I have used MD since it was launched.

Compact cassette, still my favourite for the car, no cables hanging out and it doesn't matter if the player trashes your copy, just make another. Plus your recordings inherit the same sound balance as your original.

MP3, in my case M4a, just for sheer quantity of music on a single disc and forming a compact library on HD for copying down to same in any order/selection you want. Endless background music or just handy 'cos it's on the computer your working at.

Just out of curiosity I would love hear the laser Lp player.

[Deleted]

Steffen
We may not agree about the choice of types of devices in solid state amplifiers, but I find very little to disagree with in your well expressed post. That doesn't mean that both our views are necessarily definitive, however.
I just hope that more people like Linn Records come to the party with downloads of format of the user's choice ! 24/96 can sound superb when sourced directly from the original master. e.g. "Claire Martin-Some Like It Hot "
It's a shame that they don't have a bigger stable of well known artists. Not too bad for a little Scottish recording company, though.

SandyK

[PinkFloyd]

Jun 14, 2008 12:26:24 GMT rowuk said:

Rick, I luv ya. You have a wealth of knowledge and seem to have a BS filter in everything you post. I like that absence of BS, your entertaining style and your ability to be the devils advocate! I am also sure that you do not need a barf bag when listening to older CDs.............

Couldn't have put it better myself

[rickcr42]

I suppose you mean analog storage and distribution media, because everything else is still very much analog, in the CD age.

well "sound" is a vibration so all music is no more than a well structured/harmonically pleasing assembledge of vibrations with the instrument/voice itself creating,the microphone head membrane capturing which the next stage,the amplifying/electronics stage converting into a voltage that can now be manipulatedin time/intensity/bandwidth where this voltage is recorded to a permanant medium for reproduction and sale where again this voltage is transferred from the recording medium where it is again amplified to a usable level and maybe again changed (tone controls,filters,etc) then amplified again to a signal able to drive the final transducers,the loudspeakers which are again a "vibrational" device that converts the voltage back into a sound wave that we can "hear" when it excites the bones in our ears and if low enough in frequency and powerful enough will vibrate not only our entire body but any item withing its power range that does not have either enough mass to resist the power or is so isolated it is invisible to the vibration.

Damn lot of steps and it is amazing we do as well as we do considering how many oppurtunities there are to totally destroy the essence of the original vibration.

An analog chain never changes the essence of the original other than in the intensity (levels),the frequency (filters,tonal correction) and possibly by accident time due to phase shift anomolies (which has the effect of confusing the image or the "direction" of the sound) but even when it is pre-equalized for noise reduction or to fit the signal on the medium of choice (RIAA Phono,NAB Tape,etc.) it is no more than BOOSTING or CUTTING the signal already there and so adds or deletes nothing unless you consider the noise floor "adding" something and that in the strict sense may be true but the reality is the average listening space has more "ambient" noise than any recording and if that is not detrimental to the experience and if we can filter IT out then any low level background hiss can also be toally ignored unless you DON'T WANT TO

What IS aggravating and CAN NOT be ignored ?

Digital dropouts,timing errors caused by piss poor anti-aliasing filters that cause a total destruction of any recreation of space or time,the "Feel" of the performance local even if it IS 100% studio recorded and a false space,loss of resolution and life at the low signal level end where the information retreival is so bad dither noise needs to be added IN to fill in the spaces between bits in an attempt to make the sound less monotonic or "one note" in nature but even then does nothing for making the signal FEEL like it is just a softer part of the performance.no.

So the "on paper" dynamic range is a fallacy because

1-the low notes really are not "whole"
2-the loud notes can not EVER go over "Digital odB" so are either severly peak compressed or are recorded at -6dB for safety


and finally,I stated analog neither adds (except noise but never false notes) or takes away from ANY part of the signal except for in intensity but the note remains the same while digital is a "sample" and as such records PARTS of the original and not the ENTIRETY of the original and that no matter how many bits are used until they are SO many you have what in essence ?

analog is what

[dotnet]

Jun 17, 2008 0:53:58 GMT rickcr42 said:

An analog chain never changes the essence of the original other than in the intensity (levels),the frequency (filters,tonal correction) and possibly by accident time due to phase shift anomolies

Or not so accidental - any RC, LC or RLC filter in the signal path will shift the phase as a function of the frequency. This is an example where digital filters are superior - one can easily bend the frequency response without touching the phase at all - provided there is enough numerical precision available to perform the mathematical operations on the signal without causing artifacts.

What IS aggravating and CAN NOT be ignored ?

Digital dropouts,timing errors caused by piss poor anti-aliasing filters that cause a total destruction of any recreation of space or time,the "Feel" of the performance local even if it IS 100% studio recorded and a false space,loss of resolution and life at the low signal level end where the information retreival is so bad dither noise needs to be added IN to fill in the spaces between bits in an attempt to make the sound less monotonic or "one note" in nature but even then does nothing for making the signal FEEL like it is just a softer part of the performance.no.

Agreed. One of the biggest problems in digital signal processing is dealing with very small values. The only cure is using more bits per word, 16-bit is far too coarse.

and finally,I stated analog neither adds (except noise but never false notes) or takes away from ANY part of the signal except for in intensity but the note remains the same while digital is a "sample" and as such records PARTS of the original and not the ENTIRETY of the original and that no matter how many bits are used until they are SO many you have what in essence ?

Well, since all wave forms are merely overlays of harmonic oscillations (sine waves) all one has to do is sample fast enough to be able to re-create the highest frequency sine wave contained in the signal, i.e. at twice that frequency. Being able to reproduce the signal based on those samples has been mathematically proven, however that proof assumes arbitrary numerical precision in the samples. Since we're dealing with values rounded to fit inside 16 bits there will be a certain amount of error during the re-creation of the wave form (the quantisation error).

Hence, the theory of operation promises perfect results, however a perfect implementation would require an infinite (or at least very large) number of bits dedicated to each sample. Not to mention the ability to sample with that sort of precision.

Cheers
Steffen.

[rickcr42]

Or not so accidental - any RC, LC or RLC filter in the signal path will shift the phase as a function of the frequency. This is an example where digital filters are superior - one can easily bend the frequency response without touching the phase at all - provided there is enough numerical precision available to perform the mathematical operations on the signal without causing artifacts.

point being analog can/may change the signal but it neither adds to or subtracts from the signal unlike digital which by nature of it being a sample must subtract something

Agreed. One of the biggest problems in digital signal processing is dealing with very small values. The only cure is using more bits per word, 16-bit is far too coarse.

even 24 or 32 bits are not enough at the bottom of the scale.I can't remeber exact amounts presently but it is damn shabby down there with 16 bits getting you like 8 actual

Well, since all wave forms are merely overlays of harmonic oscillations (sine waves) all one has to do is sample fast enough to be able to re-create the highest frequency sine wave contained in the signal, i.e. at twice that frequency. Being able to reproduce the signal based on those samples has been mathematically proven, however that proof assumes arbitrary numerical precision in the samples. Since we're dealing with values rounded to fit inside 16 bits there will be a certain amount of error during the re-creation of the wave form (the quantisation error).

again you miss the point even though you yourself have used the "magic word" in the above :

SAMPLE

Kinda like going to a store where they want you to buy the "new" product so they set up a very lovely woman with a sunny personality at a booth where she will serve 'samples" of the item for free and no matter how good it tastes no one ever leaves a sample booth claiming to be full it not being a complete meal but just a snack,a taste,a little bit of the whole

Hence, the theory of operation promises perfect results, however a perfect implementation would require an infinite (or at least very large) number of bits dedicated to each sample. Not to mention the ability to sample with that sort of precision.

Cheers
Steffen

we should be so lucky.Fact is by the time you actually reach theoretical perfection you are right back to an analog model so if the case why then go through all the additional steps unless for "data manipulation" which,again in theory,shold be a whole lot more noise free than any analog counterparts on the basis of ALL electronics adding at least some noise so if a data stream noise would not be an issue but...............

again I ask in all seriousness,is a vanishingly small amount of noise really that anoying to any actual humans ?

and if so,more than the sterile nature of the digital formats that in the sampling of forget to sample the "essence" of the performance ?

I also hear the arguments that it is all the gross errors and gross distortions that those like myself actually like and why we prefer analog playback because it is "romantisized' rather than accurate,if the case then why even after some attempt to capture the same "feel' by tacking on lush sounding (not accurate but intentionally colored) tube based analog stages does it still lack in comparisom and worse,now having the worst attributes of both worlds ?

Lot more going on here than the ad copy or tech departments will have you know or there would not be a shift back to 15 IPS tapes and LP Vinyl at the extreme high end of audio where the price of admission is more than most pay for a home.

I use digital daily,i archive everything just to have another "copy' but so did i in the pre-digital times when it was my way to immediately make a cassette copy of any new LP for the car and when that went wonky (heat,beer spilled on the bitch,etc) i would just make another copy and it is THAT driving digital !

the ability to,unlike with analog recordings where each generation is degraded,make EXACT 1:1 copies of the original with that copy having the ability to be saved,recorded as many times as you want,sent via the internaet ANYWHERE you want or in return receive copies from others and even if you do not have the right or even if it is illegal the door is open and it is too late to close it.

teeny tiny players,all electronic storage mediums,nothing to store,nothing to even buy if you are dishonest.......no album art,nothing you can READ while listening,nothing of value to pass on.............

[rickcr42]

Or not so accidental - any RC, LC or RLC filter in the signal path will shift the phase as a function of the frequency. This is an example where digital filters are superior - one can easily bend the frequency response without touching the phase at all - provided there is enough numerical precision available to perform the mathematical operations on the signal without causing artifacts.

point being analog can/may change the signal but it neither adds to or subtracts from the signal unlike digital which by nature of it being a sample must subtract something

Agreed. One of the biggest problems in digital signal processing is dealing with very small values. The only cure is using more bits per word, 16-bit is far too coarse.

even 24 or 32 bits are not enough at the bottom of the scale.I can't remeber exact amounts presently but it is damn shabby down there with 16 bits getting you like 8 actual

Well, since all wave forms are merely overlays of harmonic oscillations (sine waves) all one has to do is sample fast enough to be able to re-create the highest frequency sine wave contained in the signal, i.e. at twice that frequency. Being able to reproduce the signal based on those samples has been mathematically proven, however that proof assumes arbitrary numerical precision in the samples. Since we're dealing with values rounded to fit inside 16 bits there will be a certain amount of error during the re-creation of the wave form (the quantisation error).

again you miss the point even though you yourself have used the "magic word" in the above :

SAMPLE

Kinda like going to a store where they want you to buy the "new" product so they set up a very lovely woman with a sunny personality at a booth where she will serve 'samples" of the item for free and no matter how good it tastes no one ever leaves a sample booth claiming to be full it not being a complete meal but just a snack,a taste,a little bit of the whole

Hence, the theory of operation promises perfect results, however a perfect implementation would require an infinite (or at least very large) number of bits dedicated to each sample. Not to mention the ability to sample with that sort of precision.

Cheers
Steffen

we should be so lucky.Fact is by the time you actually reach theoretical perfection you are right back to an analog model so if the case why then go through all the additional steps unless for "data manipulation" which,again in theory,shold be a whole lot more noise free than any analog counterparts on the basis of ALL electronics adding at least some noise so if a data stream noise would not be an issue but...............

again I ask in all seriousness,is a vanishingly small amount of noise really that anoying to any actual humans ?

and if so,more than the sterile nature of the digital formats that in the sampling of forget to sample the "essence" of the performance ?

I also hear the arguments that it is all the gross errors and gross distortions that those like myself actually like and why we prefer analog playback because it is "romantisized' rather than accurate,if the case then why even after some attempt to capture the same "feel' by tacking on lush sounding (not accurate but intentionally colored) tube based analog stages does it still lack in comparisom and worse,now having the worst attributes of both worlds ?

Lot more going on here than the ad copy or tech departments will have you know or there would not be a shift back to 15 IPS tapes and LP Vinyl at the extreme high end of audio where the price of admission is more than most pay for a home.

I use digital daily,i archive everything just to have another "copy' but so did i in the pre-digital times when it was my way to immediately make a cassette copy of any new LP for the car and when that went wonky (heat,beer spilled on the bitch,etc) i would just make another copy and it is THAT driving digital !

the ability to,unlike with analog recordings where each generation is degraded,make EXACT 1:1 copies of the original with that copy having the ability to be saved,recorded as many times as you want,sent via the internaet ANYWHERE you want or in return receive copies from others and even if you do not have the right or even if it is illegal the door is open and it is too late to close it.

teeny tiny players,all electronic storage mediums,nothing to store,nothing to even buy if you are dishonest.......no album art,nothing you can READ while listening,nothing of value to pass on.............