Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  Orpheus said:
The normal distinction is between an acoustic instrument and an electric instrument. It may not be logical to call them "acoustic", after all, every instrument is acoustic, however it is a well recognised distinction amongst musicians.

Here is a definition;

"Acoustic music comprises music that solely or primarily uses instruments which produce sound through entirely acoustic means, as opposed to electric or electronic means. The retronym "acoustic music" appeared after the advent of electric instruments, such as the electric guitar, electric violin, electric organ and synthesizer.[1]

Performers of acoustic music often increase the volume of their output using electronic amplifiers. However, these amplification devices remain separate from the amplified instrument and reproduce its natural sound accurately. Often a microphone is placed in front of an acoustic instrument which is then wired up to an amplifier."

My distinction is really between instruments which produce sound by mechanical means and electric means.

A musical instrument doesn't have to be played by a human.

Orpheus. I am curious to know if your observation of the differences between vinyl and digital recordings also applies to electronic or synthesized music.

Posted (edited)
  LHC said:
This is exactly the point, many listeners enjoy the 'errors' introduced by this manner of music reproduction. To some they hear additional degrees of realism to instruments. The psychoacoustic reason for this could be discussed in a logical manner, but there is no denying it is a common phenomena.

Why do you insists on using the term "much better" when the outcome does not sound better to so many people? You could argue it is a more precise process I suppose.

Actually I would love to see this "screamingly close to identical" comparison that you have proposed. Could you please provide a link to some actual measurements from recording studios?

Read the thread linked in post 1491 by whatmore... now... please discuss the phsychoacoustic reason in a logical manner, or accept that you are not providing any novel input to this thread.

Edited by GFuNK
Posted
  Orpheus said:
The normal distinction is between an acoustic instrument and an electric instrument. It may not be logical to call them "acoustic", after all, every instrument is acoustic, however it is a well recognised distinction amongst musicians.

Here is a definition;

"Acoustic music comprises music that solely or primarily uses instruments which produce sound through entirely acoustic means, as opposed to electric or electronic means. The retronym "acoustic music" appeared after the advent of electric instruments, such as the electric guitar, electric violin, electric organ and synthesizer.[1]

Performers of acoustic music often increase the volume of their output using electronic amplifiers. However, these amplification devices remain separate from the amplified instrument and reproduce its natural sound accurately. Often a microphone is placed in front of an acoustic instrument which is then wired up to an amplifier."

My distinction is really between instruments which produce sound by mechanical means and electric means.

A musical instrument doesn't have to be played by a human.

OK thanks. I see now that what you meant by "acoustic instrument" was an acoustic musical instrument. I reject classifying a cartridge in that group, because a musical instrument does have to be played by a human.

e.g. a cat can scamper over a set of drums and the drum output is not music. However, if a musician grabs the cat's tail and smashes it onto the drums, now that is the voice of god, and the musician gets to experience pleasure on many levels as a side benefit.

It is through purpose that the object becomes a musical instrument.

Posted (edited)
  Arg said:
OK thanks. I see now that what you meant by "acoustic instrument" was an acoustic musical instrument. I reject classifying a cartridge in that group, because a musical instrument does have to be played by a human.

e.g. a cat can scamper over a set of drums and the drum output is not music. However, if a musician grabs the cat's tail and smashes it onto the drums, now that is the voice of god, and the musician gets to experience pleasure on many levels as a side benefit.

It is through purpose that the object becomes a musical instrument.

Arg, I agree with you here. Orpheus is wrong. see you are not always the only one that is picked on :)

A cartridge is a transducer. It converts mechanical vibrational energy from a stylus riding in a spiral record groove into an electrical signal that is subsequently amplified.

IMO, This is what is part of the magic about vinyl and how it generally sounds better than CD's. The music on the LP is in analog and the cartridge is infinite sampling when converting the spiral record groove into an electrical signal.

Any digital to analog conversion is done in the mastering studio where it belongs - the rest is analog.

CD's are not. the Digital to analog conversion is done at you home and it does not do it that well if you take listening and how it sounds into account. Why is there so much difference in the sound of digital to analog convertors if digital was perfect ?

Vinyl still rules :)

Edited by turntable
Posted (edited)
  LHC said:
This is exactly the point, many listeners enjoy the 'errors' introduced by this manner of music reproduction. To some they hear additional degrees of realism to instruments. The psychoacoustic reason for this could be discussed in a logical manner, but there is no denying it is a common phenomena.
Hi LHC, I put that point forth about 50 pages ago, but some people didn't like it.
  Quote
Why do you insists on using the term "much better" when the outcome does not sound better to so many people? You could argue it is a more precise process I suppose.
That's right. The master tape is the reference point for the playback system.

The original music being played in the venue is the reference for the recording system, its deployment and application. That's the recording system's job, not the playback system. (However, note that there would be precious few recordings, even classical, where "The original music being played in the venue" actually exists as a coherent, single-time, single-listening-point entity). Recordings are generally patched together. So what is the reference point for most recordings?

  Quote
Actually I would love to see this "screamingly close to identical" comparison that you have proposed. Could you please provide a link to some actual measurements from recording studios?

You would have to find one where they have filtered the input signal LP at Fs/2. Unlikely.

More instructive than looking at waveforms would be a simple ear test, where you play the input signal at a sensible listening level, than play the input/output difference signal without changing the volume level. With digital you are going to hear buckley's. With vinyl, well, for starters you are going to hear the entire musical signal at about minus 20-30dB, channel reversed. Gulp! I mean, seriously.....

Edited by Arg
spelling

Posted

A cartridge is perhaps equivalent to a pickup in an electric guitar, it's an electromechanical element that is but one component of many that determines the sound. Like an electric guitar, change the strings the body etc and the sound changes too.

Posted
  Arg said:

The original music being played in the venue is the reference for the recording system, its deployment and application. That's the recording system's job, not the playback system. (However, note that there would be precious few recordings, even classical, where "The original music being played in the venue" actually exists as a coherent, single-time, single-listening-point entity). Recordings are generally patched together. So what is the reference point for most recordings?

Yes,so with the exception of maybe a single take of a live performance recorded with a stereo microphone (not many of these recordings these days) then accurate with regard to what? The original unedited multi-track multi-session recording? The mixed and edited master copy? If it's the latter then in many cases as you've pointed out the digital master is different from the analog vinyl master. If the master destined for the vinyl pressing is mastered for the strengths and limitations of vinyl then we aren't necessarily comparing apples with apples.

Posted (edited)
  turntable said:
Arg, I agree with you here. Orpheus is wrong. see you are not always the only one that is picked on :)
Whew! Although you can hardly call it picking on Orpheus when you direct the post to me...
  Quote
A cartridge is a transducer. It converts mechanical vibrational energy from a stylus riding in a spiral record groove into an electrical signal that is subsequently amplified.

IMO, This is what is part of the magic about vinyl and how it generally sounds better than CD's.

And better than analogue master tape, by this logic.
  Quote
The music on the LP is in analog and the cartridge is infinite sampling when converting the spiral record groove into an electrical signal.
Infinite sampling, high distortion, high crosstalk...
  Quote
Any digital to analog conversion is done in the mastering studio where it belongs - the rest is analog.

CD's are not. the Digital to analog conversion is done at you home and it does not do it that well if you take listening and how it sounds into account. Why is there so much difference in the sound of digital to analog convertors if digital was perfect ?

Vinyl still rules :)

I see where you are going with this. Sure, it's a good idea to get critical processing done in the studio. I'm on board!

How's this for an idea? On the basis that far more audible unpleasantnness is added by home-based vinyl playback than home-based digital playback, and on the basis that you have a preference for vinyl sound, let's get the studio to digitise a vinyl playback process in the studio for vinylphiles, and send to the home listener a 24/96 file of the record being played in the studio.

How is this better than playing the record at home, you may ask?

1. You don't have to own a megabuck vinyl rig at home. The megabuck rig is in the studio and all audiophiles get to hear its magnificence for zero personal infrastructure investment.

2. The studio can use its mega rig to play the original lacquer cutting off the cutting lathe. As pure and pristine as vinyl gets. Spotless. Immaculate. No metal pressings, no vinyl transfers from metal, no late-run inferior pressings, no differences between RIAA in-out filters, and no high cost of buying individual vinyl discs. What's not to like?

So my conclusion is, if you want the best vinylized audio sound quality, move the whole vinyl process into the studio.:(:) :)

Edited by Arg
spelling
Posted

Arg that would be an absolutely fantastic idea if digital sounded good. For all it's vaunted 'accuracy' though it just doesn't sound like real music although I'd be interested in that idea if the bitrate was high enough.

Posted
  Arg said:
...The original music being played in the venue is the reference for the recording system, its deployment and application. That's the recording system's job, not the playback system. (However, note that there would be precious few recordings, even classical, where "The original music being played in the venue" actually exists as a coherent, single-time, single-listening-point entity). Recordings are generally patched together. So what is the reference point for most recordings?.....
  proftournesol said:
Yes,so with the exception of maybe a single take of a live performance recorded with a stereo microphone (not many of these recordings these days) then accurate with regard to what? The original unedited multi-track multi-session recording? The mixed and edited master copy? If it's the latter then in many cases as you've pointed out the digital master is different from the analog vinyl master. If the master destined for the vinyl pressing is mastered for the strengths and limitations of vinyl then we aren't necessarily comparing apples with apples.

As far as playback is concerned, the reference point for vinyl and digital playback is the (analogue or digital) master tape/file prepared for ....digital. One proviso: it has to be high-end digital mastering, not the dynamically compressed crap mastering that basically ruined the reputation of CD so badly and unfairly. A less demanding, secondary reference point for vinyl only would be the master prepared for vinyl, which has basically been modified so vinyl can cope, e.g. mono bass, softened treble, and mild dynamic compression.

Posted

Yes, that's my personal preference, but it concerns me greatly that so many others prefer it as well. Why are so many people seduced by such flawed distorted technology? Just saying that 'people prefer euphonic distortion' is an enormous simplification and has no evidence to back it up. Let's reverse Arg's proposal and build a CD player that adds lots of crosstalk, mono bass, softened treble, and mild dynamic compression and loads of euphonic distortion. Surely that would be snapped up by every analog preferring audiophile in the world. Why aren't such machines on sale as this is a significant proportion of the audiophile market? Why hasn't such a device appeared in the 30 years since CDs appeared?

Posted
  proftournesol said:
Arg that would be an absolutely fantastic idea if digital sounded good. For all it's vaunted 'accuracy' though it just doesn't sound like real music although I'd be interested in that idea if the bitrate was high enough.

Bearing in mind, what you are not liking so much is the master tape sound (analogue or digital). It is not a 'digital sound'.

Posted (edited)
  proftournesol said:
Yes, that's my personal preference, but it concerns me greatly that so many others prefer it as well. Why are so many people seduced by such flawed distorted technology? Just saying that 'people prefer euphonic distortion' is an enormous simplification and has no evidence to back it up. Let's reverse Arg's proposal and build a CD player that adds lots of crosstalk, mono bass, softened treble, and mild dynamic compression and loads of euphonic distortion. Surely that would be snapped up by every analog preferring audiophile in the world. Why aren't such machines on sale as this is a significant proportion of the audiophile market? Why hasn't such a device appeared in the 30 years since CDs appeared?

Because the reality is about bias, it is not about sound waves.

Sorry, that was too short and obtuse. Lack of controlled listening, is the more complete answer.

Edited by Arg
Added second paragraph
Posted (edited)
  Arg said:
Because the reality is about bias, it is not about sound waves.

so why hasn't a manufacturer pandered to the bias of many and 'cleaned up' with what would obviously be mistaken as a superior CD player or DAC by the vinyl loving buyer. Where are the $100,000 'superior' CD players with the vinyl sound given that the vinyl sound recipe is so easy to quantify? Where's the 'vinyl sound' plug-in for my Mac mini software programmes? There are several so-called vinyl plug-ins actually but all they are able to do is add spurious crackles and extreme wow and flutter and sound nothing like any turntable in reasonable repair. Surely just look at what would seem to be an easy marketing opportunity for any half competent digital equipment designer, yet how many players are there on the market? It defies belief that the sole reasons for this are that designers/marketers don't want to pander to illogical bias or that nobody has thought of it until now.

Edited by proftournesol

Posted

16/44.1 digital on CD: an innocent and attractive girl who was labelled a ***** by thousands of grown men around the world, all because her mother dressed her in slutty clothes.

Posted
  proftournesol said:
so why hasn't a manufacturer pandered to the bias of many and 'cleaned up' with what would obviously be mistaken as a superior CD player or DAC by the vinyl loving buyer. Where are the $100,000 'superior' CD players with the vinyl sound given that the vinyl sound recipe is so easy to quantify? Where's the 'vinyl sound' plug-in for my Mac mini software programmes? There are several so-called vinyl plug-ins actually but all they are able to do is add spurious crackles and extreme wow and flutter and sound nothing like any turntable in reasonable repair. Surely just look at what would seem to be an easy marketing opportunity for any half competent digital equipment designer, yet how many players are there on the market? It defies belief that the sole reasons for this are that designers/marketers don't want to pander to illogical bias or that nobody has thought of it until now.

Because it won't make any difference if you don't do controlled listening tests to evaluate audio components. Vinyl lovers will pick vinyl over a CD that produces identical sound waves if they are conducting casual (uncontrolled) listening tests.

Posted (edited)
  Arg said:
Because it won't make any difference if you don't do controlled listening tests to evaluate audio components. Vinyl lovers will pick vinyl over a CD that produces identical sound waves if they are conducting casual (uncontrolled) listening tests.

How so? Surely if it sounds like a Continuum for less money and the discs cost half the price of vinyl discs. I'm sure that the manufacturing costs would be lower too as there's no need for fancy expensive Dueland caps and all that nonsense. Just a fancy heavy case, a turntable type of look, a few spurious tweaky opportunities for the vinyl tweaker but the real action is the distortion and compression filter circuit. It seems a marketing no-brainer if it were possible.

If the sound were identical surely at very least most vinyl lovers would also own this CD player as well, after all very few vinyl users ignore digital as we also love music.

Edited by proftournesol
Posted (edited)

Isn't this just like the Bob Carver challenge? Any competent digital manufacturer should be able to build CD player that sounded identical to a Continuum with a Strain Gauge cartridge for a fraction of the price. In fact it would be simple enough to add many extra buttons on the front so that you could digitally add the appropriate combination of faults to identically match the sound of a variety of arms and cartridges given that digital is so accurate. If digital is an accurate copy of the master tape then it should be just as simple for any half competent digital player to accurately copy any combination of turntable arm and cart.

Edited by proftournesol

Posted

How do you market the placebo effect prof ?

My honest answer is people believe what they want to believe.

Truth is secondary to personal opinion.

Posted

There's no placebo effect in this idea. In any case Drizt you of all people know how many of us keep many manufacturers in business buying nothing more than 'placebo' tweaks!

We know from this thread that:

- digital reproduction is as accurate as master tape

- vinyl has clearly documented and understood flaws. They are characteristic and universal to a degree in every vinyl source.

Therefore it would be possible through a process of carefully controlled listening and measurement, to exactly reproduce any possible combination of vinyl playback equipment that could be studied. I'm not just winding you up, I'm seriously wondering why this hasn't been done? We all know how gullible a large section of the audiophile market is. We know that many people base their purchases on casual listening and emotional factors. We know very clearly what preferences large sections of the audiophile market has. None of these statements are controversial. It should be a no-brainer to have had this product on the market in the 1980s. Where is it?

Posted

It is simple and obvious prof. The product does not exist because people dont want to believe it. If they dont want to believe it they wont buy it.

I believe what you propose is easy to do. But if no one will buy it why would anyone produce it?

Look at.the reactions to the digital record synthesiser. Turntable for one went into coniptions.

Vinyl lovers are a minority. That minority wants to believe in the superiority of vinyl and they openly reject anything to the contrary.

Posted (edited)
  Arg said:
Whew! Although you can hardly call it picking on Orpheus when you direct the post to me...

:

Arg, I only pop in and out, and I agreed with you - I know Orpheus reads every word associated with your posts, so he will have read this.:) But as your moniker suggests - you are always in for an argument, so its all good bash.gif

Hey, Drizt, I am now waiting for you to call me mean and unfair and ask for a retractioniwstupidl.gif

  Arg said:
As far as playback is concerned, the reference point for vinyl and digital playback is the (analogue or digital) master tape/file prepared for ....digital. One proviso: it has to be high-end digital mastering, not the dynamically compressed crap mastering that basically ruined the reputation of CD so badly and unfairly. A less demanding, secondary reference point for vinyl only would be the master prepared for vinyl, which has basically been modified so vinyl can cope, e.g. mono bass, softened treble, and mild dynamic compression.

So Arg,

basically what you are saying is that all engineers that do digital mastering are technically brilliant, yet are deaf as the end result is

  Quote
Originally Posted by Arg -

Dynamically compressed crap mastering that basically ruined the reputation of CD so badly

.

Engineers that master for vinyl are technically sloppy, yet have great hearing as the end result of vinyl is better sounding than

  Quote
Originally Posted by Arg -

the dynamically compressed crap mastering that basically ruined the reputation of CD so badly

At least you admit that CD's are crap :):party

Edited by turntable
Posted
  proftournesol said:
...Therefore it would be possible through a process of carefully controlled listening and measurement, to exactly reproduce any possible combination of vinyl playback equipment that could be studied. I'm not just winding you up, I'm seriously wondering why this hasn't been done? ....

Why bother with the equipment? Just do what I said about putting all the vinylizing in the studio and sell it on 24/96.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...
To Top