Re: Belts are the accepted norm


<nyob123@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xnklf.150$nm.66@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Jenn" <jennconducts@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:jennconducts-4D6294.18331905122005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> In article <1LRkf.42$Z61.12@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> <nyob123@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> "Jenn" <jennconducts@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:jennconducts-091336.18275804122005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> > In article <_sNkf.9336$N45.7996@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>> > <nyob123@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> "Jenn" <jennconducts@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> >> news:jennconducts-46CC3C.14400604122005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >> > In article <bqIkf.13646$aA2.7705@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>> >> > <nyob123@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> "Jenn" <jennconducts@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> >> >> news:jennconducts-33EF9C.22122803122005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >> >> > In article
>>> >> >> > <sDukf.8839$N45.478@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>> >> >> > <nyob123@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> "Jenn" <jennconducts@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> >> >> >> news:jennconducts-E63944.16555803122005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >> >> >> ..
>>> >> >> >> > In article <GvidnbLF1JB_nA_enZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>> >> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> "Jenn" <jennconducts@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> >> >> >> >> news:jennconducts-7BFFDA.10465403122005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >> >> >> >> om
>>> >> >> >> >> > In article <BPGdnQPd0q9gewzeRVn-jg@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>> >> >> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> >> >> "Jenn" <jennconducts@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> >> >> >> >> >> news:jennconducts-1190C3.00052503122005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >> >> >> >> >> y.c
>>> >> >> >> >> >> om
>>> >> >> >> >> >>> In article
>>> >> >> >> >> >>> <S_akf.9059$wf.8576@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>> >> >> >> >> >>> <nyob123@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> "Jenn" <jennconducts@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> news:jennconducts-9C3BCA.20433802122005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> igy
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> .co
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> m..
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> .
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>> In article <MvKdnTwixsXpYg3eRVn-rA@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> "Bret Ludwig" <bretldwig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> news:1133557651.742870.236500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> nyob123@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> All that to play inherently inferior software.
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> Inferior to what? A 15 ips half inch half track
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> Ampex or Studer master tape? 35mm mag film? Nagra-D
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> digital? SACD? DVD-A? CD? Cassette? Broadcast cart?
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>> All of the above.
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>> Arny, you really believe that LPs sound worse than
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>> cassette?
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> When's the last time you heard clicks and pops on a
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>> cassette?
>>> >> >> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >> >> >>> Clicks and pops are your main criteria?
>>> >> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> >> Tics and pops are the main reason why LPs sound so
>>> >> >> >> >> >> unrealistic. A good denoised transcription of a LP can
>>> >> >> >> >> >> pass for a mediocre CD. Of course the same is true for a
>>> >> >> >> >> >> cassette.
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > Except for instrumental and vocal timbres.
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> Agreed that cassettes and denoised LPs are not as capable of
>>> >> >> >> >> rendering instrumental and vocal timbres as CDs.
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > Except that they are often better than CDs at this.
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> According to what objective criteria?
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > According to the same criteria that you go buy re: the sound of
>>> >> >> > CDs:
>>> >> >> > my
>>> >> >> > opinion.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> So you don't understand the word objective?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Of course I do. Do you know of objective criteria that state that
>>> >> > CDs
>>> >> > sound better than LP in regards to vocal and instrumental timbres?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> The only time any LP soubds better is when there is no CD
>>> >> >> >> version.
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> > Most music fans would consider that to be more important
>>> >> >> >> >> > than clicks
>>> >> >> >> >> > and pops.
>>> >> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> >> And where might I find audited survey results supporting
>>> >> >> >> >> this claim?
>>> >> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >> > At the same place where you might find audited survey results
>>> >> >> >> > supporting
>>> >> >> >> > the claim that most people believe that the sun will rise
>>> >> >> >> > tomorrow
>>> >> >> >> > morning.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> IOW nowhere.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Correct. Yet I'm fairly safe betting on the sun raising.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I'm fairly safe in saying the majority of the music buying public
>>> >> >> prefer
>>> >> >> CD
>>> >> >> to LP.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I would agree.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> I'm very safe in saying that CD sound is much more accurate than
>>> >> >> possible
>>> >> >> in
>>> >> >> any other format.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Perhaps, but they often sound less like actual music.
>>> >>
>>> >> In general, that would be false.
>>> >> What might make it true occaisonally depends on several things, such
>>> >> as
>>> >> who
>>> >> did the mastering of the CD, did it come from an old analog master,
>>> >> how
>>> >> was
>>> >> the recording mic'ed, with what micorphones, and so on. All things
>>> >> being
>>> >> equal, a CD is a more accurate medium, so it will capture moire
>>> >> accurately
>>> >> what was recorded.
>>> >>
>>> >> A bit of information I foud today explains some of the differences in
>>> >> the
>>> >> mastering process for the 2 mediums. You can find it here:
>>> >> http://www.sound-o-mat.com/faq.shtml#medium
>>> >>
>>> >> An excerpt:
>>> >>
>>> >> There are vast differences between CD and vinyl records as audio
>>> >> mediums.
>>> >> Vinyl is hardly "true analog" as Steve Albini and other CD detractors
>>> >> have
>>> >> argued, and cannot reproduce sound better than CDs.
>>> >>
>>> >> There are two main reasons for this: firstly, the analog audio signal
>>> >> recorded to vinyl is not done in a linear (direct) fashion, but is
>>> >> instead
>>> >> transformed by a process commonly known as the "RIAA Equalization
>>> >> Curve",
>>> >> and secondly, because of this transformation, and the physical nature
>>> >> of
>>> >> vinyl and the way a groove and needle interact, it is not capable of
>>> >> ever
>>> >> producing an exact reproduction of the sound. No matter what the
>>> >> audiophiles
>>> >> claim.
>>> >>
>>> >> Here's why the sound is transformed: to keep the grooves from
>>> >> becoming
>>> >> too
>>> >> big (to allow for as much recording time on each side as possible,
>>> >> and to
>>> >> avoid grooves so large that the needle might jump out of them) or too
>>> >> small
>>> >> (where the needle would be too big to fit within the groove and would
>>> >> tend
>>> >> to skip out.) The higher frequencies also create a problem during the
>>> >> cutting of the master (or "dub" plate) because the vibrations are so
>>> >> quick
>>> >> that it can create too much heat in the lathe used to etch the record
>>> >> master
>>> >> and can destroy expensive cutting needles.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> This bit I thought would if nothing else, drive some people nuts.
>>> >> It's
>>> >> from
>>> >> a discussion thread posted on HydrogenAudio:
>>> >>
>>> >> Post #1
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ABC/HR developer, ff123.net admin
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Group: Developer (Donating)
>>> >> Posts: 1319
>>> >> Joined: 23-September 01
>>> >> Member No.: 12
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> This is from a message I just posted to uk.rec.audio and
>>> >> rec.audio.opinion:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:53:58 GMT, Moi
>>> >> <zis_guy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >This one is from Peter Kater's "Gateway" ca. 1988
>>> >> (Gaia/Polygram
>>> >> >Records). This one may in fact exist on CD, so somebody may be
>>> >> able
>>> >> >to check perceived speed stability and etc. against the CD.
>>> >> The
>>> >> song
>>> >> >is from side 1, track 2 titled "Talk Back."
>>> >> >
>>> >> >This one was also most likely recorded to digital before
>>> >> pressing
>>> >> the
>>> >> >LP, and I'm not responsible for any possible digital ugliness
>>> >> you
>>> >> may
>>> >> >hear ;-).
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Wish I could post longer samples, but space and downloading
>>> >> time
>>> >> >constraints prevent it. As again, this one is about 3.5MB in
>>> >> size,
>>> >> >and requires the LPAC decoder, available here:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >http://www.nue.tu-berlin.de/wer/liebchen/lpac.html
>>> >> >
>>> >> >The sample itself can be downloaded here:
>>> >>
>>> >> http://ff123.net/export/pksample.pac
>>> >>
>>> >> I changed the link to point to my server to remove the
>>> >> bandwidth
>>> >> load
>>> >> from Moi's site.
>>> >>
>>> >> Moi described his setup in an earlier message:
>>> >> TD-160/M97xE/Technics
>>> >> SU-C01.
>>> >>
>>> >> I purchased the 1988 CD version of this album (< $10 used) and
>>> >> ripped
>>> >> the same section as Moi's sample.
>>> >>
>>> >> http://ff123.net/export/pksamplecd.pac
>>> >>
>>> >> I time aligned it as best I could. The sample is about 34
>>> >> seconds
>>> >> long. The vinyl version takes about 60 msec longer to complete
>>> >> than
>>> >> the CD version, so the speed accuracy of the turntable is about
>>> >> 0.2%
>>> >> on the slow side if the CD can be considered the reference.
>>> >>
>>> >> I applied -0.43 dB to the left channel of the CD version, and
>>> >> +0.26
>>> >> dB
>>> >> to the right channel. The volume was compared with the vinyl
>>> >> version
>>> >> via average RMS. WavGain (which uses David Robinson's
>>> >> replaygain
>>> >> algorithm) gives about the same answer as average RMS.
>>> >>
>>> >> I applied a linear fadeout to about the last 4 seconds of the
>>> >> sample
>>> >> to approximate what Moi had done with his sample.
>>> >>
>>> >> I won't say what I hear just yet. If you think the difference
>>> >> is
>>> >> sufficiently subtle to warrant the use of a double-blind tool,
>>> >> visit
>>> >> one of the following sites:
>>> >>
>>> >> http://pcabx.com/
>>> >> http://ff123.net/abchr/abchr.html
>>> >> http://www.kikeg.arrakis.es/winabx/winabx.zip
>>> >>
>>> >> ff123
>>> >>
>>> >> Edit: Oops, I think I posted this to the wrong forum
>>> >>
>>> >> This post has been edited by ff123: Apr 1 2003, 12:41 AM
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> An finally this bit from one of the most knowledgable people on earth
>>> >> about
>>> >> thigs digital from RAHE: jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>>> >> Dec 22 1997, 12:00 am show options
>>> >>
>>> >> Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
>>> >> From: j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (jj, curmudgeon and tiring
>>> >> philalethist) - Find messages by this author
>>> >> Date: 1997/12/22
>>> >> Subject: Re: LP vs. CD - a unscientific "blind test"
>>> >> Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message |
>>> >> Show
>>> >> original | Report Abuse
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> In article <67h7ev$...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>> >> Thorsten \"EZEE\" Loesch
>>> >> <Torsten.Loe...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> >As someone else commented on the recording used, I shall only
>>> >> >address the 96db Dynamic Range that has been repeatedly quoted
>>> >> >at me (and others) in this Metathread (LP vs. CD).
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> The correct number, that has been measured and clearly found to
>>> >> exist on recordings?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> >First, the 96db is misleading. CD is not realy 16 Bit but a
>>> >> signed
>>> >> (+/-)
>>> >> >15-Bit System. That means we have 15 Bit for "negative" Values
>>> >> and
>>> >> >15-Bit for "postive" Values. That immediatly takes 6db out of
>>> >> that
>>> >> >96db Spec.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Oh, joy, this again.
>>> >>
>>> >> Each bit is worth 6 dB snr. Including the sign bit. This is
>>> >> easily
>>> >> provable by simply using a good 16 bit DAC, of which I have
>>> >> several
>>> >> around, and finding out that it can reproduce a sine-wave SNR
>>> >> in
>>> >> excess of 90dB, very close to 96 dB, give or take.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> If your claim, that denies all of information theory, was true,
>>> >> this couldn't happen, ergo you are DEAD WRONG.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> >These are the ABSOLUTE limits of the CD Format. Below this
>>> >> >(-90.3db) or above this (0db) there is no way to record any
>>> >> >Information.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Again, this is utterly false and without any truth whatsoever.
>>> >> The CD has exactly the same ability as any other device with
>>> >> a noise floor to record perceptable signals below the noise
>>> >> floor.
>>> >> In the case of CD, since the noise floor can be made to be
>>> >> very weighted to high frequencies, it can go quite a bit below
>>> >> the noise floor, say, for a 1kHz tone audibility. About
>>> >> 25 or so dB (I forget the exact number, I calculated it once,
>>> >> check the archives) below the noise floor, to be precise.
>>> >>
>>> >> With noise shaping, this can be INCREASED. The only way to
>>> >> decrease it would be to use bad noise shaping.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> >So there you go, as long as the Red-Book CD rules, the
>>> >> >Peak dynamic range represented can only be 90db.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> You are demonstrably and absolutely wrong. Your mathematics
>>> >> is wrong, your claims are false, and your examination of
>>> >> noise floor is also completely mistaken.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> >So by now our 90db (peak) have shrunken to 70db
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Simply false. You're begging the question of the reference
>>> >> level
>>> >> on LP, plain and simple.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> >But can we use the full 70db? No. Usually a "footroom"
>>> >> >of 10-20db (minimal) is recommended in order to avoid
>>> >> >excessive distortion.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> This is utterly false, since you can easily put a perceptable
>>> >> signal below the noise floor of CD, you surely don't have to
>>> >> put one 20dB ABOVE it.
>>> >>
>>> >> Perhaps you should learn what dithering and noise-shaping
>>> >> are, sir.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> >Now we are left with 50-60db true
>>> >> >dynamic range, which is not all that different from LP.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Still wrong. The CD still has the same 96dB dynamic range, and
>>> >> it
>>> >> can be measured, and is, and it can be used, and is. The
>>> >> practice
>>> >> on
>>> >> current recordings, by itself, meaning "all you have to do is
>>> >> measure" shows that your claim is abjectly, absolutely,
>>> >> completely,
>>> >> and ridiculously false.
>>> >>
>>> >> This claim of 50dB is some of the worst kind of utterly false
>>> >> misinformation and misleading propaganda.t.
>>> >> --
>>> >> Copyright alice!jj 1997, all rights reserved, except
>>> >> transmission
>>> >> by
>>> >> USENET
>>> >> and like facilities granted. This notice must be included.
>>> >> Any
>>> >> use
>>> >> by a
>>> >> provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by
>>> >> this
>>> >> article
>>> >> and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically
>>> >> prohibited.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> You may feel free to like whatever you chose to like, but the fact
>>> >> are
>>> >> pretty clear as to which is themore accurate medium. There is no
>>> >> question
>>> >> that the CD is the vastly superior medium for accuratel capturing the
>>> >> sound
>>> >> of music.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> begin 666 spacer.gif
>>> >> K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``````````"'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
>>> >> `
>>> >> end
>>> >>
>>> >> begin 666 dot_clear.gif
>>> >> K1TE&.#EA`0`!`( ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P``
>>> >> `
>>> >> end
>>> >
>>> > And yet, LPs so often sound better.
>>>
>>> To a few people perhaps.
>>>
>>> At this moment, I'm playing the
>>> > first CD that I've played in about 2 weeks. What I've heard everyday
>>> > in
>>> > that time are LPs and live music. The CD sounds so veiled in
>>> > comparison; like all of the violins have mutes on and were recorded
>>> > from
>>> > a far distance. It's a Naxos CD, produced by their "A" team that is
>>> > getting great reviews in the press. I'll try another one in a moment.
>>> > I hope that the sound is better.
>>>
>>> If you don't like the sound of CD you don't like what was recorded,
>>> since it
>>> is an exact copy of the master. LP is simply an inferior medium, less
>>> exact, less fidelity. less dynamic range, more noise and in many cases
>>> compromised due to it's limitations that require different mixdowns in
>>> order
>>> to hear everything that was recorded. What you think is better is
>>> simply
>>> less of what was recorded coupled with added noise plus the tics and
>>> pops.
>>>
>>> I don't expect to change your prefernce, I'm simply pointing out that it
>>> is
>>> NOT objectively better in any technical sense, it is in fact orders of
>>> magnitude worse.
>>
>> I'm not speaking in any "technical sense", nor do I pretend to. I'm
>> speaking only about the sound of the music.
>
> I understand that, since it would be pointless and LP would lose.
>
> The thing I don't get is how reasonably smart people can believe that more
> noise, distortion, and other forms of inaccuracies can sound more real,
> since it obvioulsy is not.

There are other attributes that outweigh those deficits, in
the eye of the beholders.


.