|
|
Independent View Of LP versus CD
|
Author's profile:
David Satz. B. Mus. degree, 1973, New England Conservatory (Boston);
teaching assistant to Rudolf Kolisch. Played in orchestras and chamber music
groups; recorded zillions of concerts and recitals. Moved to New York in
1981. Recording engineer, mainly remastering Red Seal LP recordings for CD,
at RCA Studios; Grammy award for "Best Historical Album", 1995. Programmer
and instructor of Windows programming (C, C++, C#). Translator (German to
English) and editorial nit-picker of technical and sales literature for
Schoeps GmbH.
|
I'm not sure if this is an independent view - seems to me the author has
a number of vested interests.
|
Comment:
"
"
"
"
|
I'd go along with that to a point - LP-CD provides a mighty fine
rendition. LP-CD sounds particularly marked in compilations, and really
makes the case for LP IMO. I do find that the CD copy gives a flatter
sound stage.
"
|
|
|
|
Um - listening to the results is a good idea?! Well, obviously :-)
|
Did I hear that in a high end audio salon back in the day? It is clearly a
claim based on assertion, not theoretical or experimental results.
|
|
Another approach might be to show that an elliptical stylus significantly
changes the forces on the arm in such a way that the arm either bent, or its
pivots wore out faster, or some such. Again, I don't see a lot of hope for
that even though I seem to recall that elliptical styli did require
|
??
Do you ever eat that cheese - you know, the blue mouldy one you pay extra
for....
|
different amounts of anti-skate. There is probably some difference in the
forces applied to the arm, but would they be enough to bend it? I don't
think so!
|
|
I don't know why the type of stylus would change how I handled the tone arm.
|
|
I was spinning vinyl back in the days when the first elliptical styli came
out. Lots of us upgraded existing cartridges to use them, even though our
existing conicals were in good shape.
|
I agree with Arny on this. Ellipticals were a godsend and greatly improved
tracking, improved high-frequency sound, and reduced surface noise. There
was a mass migration and upgrade as a result.
When finelines came along, they carried this further but the improvment was
incremental, not massive.
|
|
"
|
|
|
A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from what he understands
from working there, the type of media used to deliver the master to the CD
plant could make some difference. If the media was digital, then the CD's
pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media was analog, that
meant that what the plant got was going to be an "AAD" CD with the
additional possibility that the CD plant's analog to digital conversion
might not be as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing studio.
|
In fact many CD plants would not touch an analog tape these days. Any who do
would probably perform as good a job as the tape allows for. The only
difference being the quality of the tape machine.
|
SPARS Code
|
When was the last time anyone delivered analog media to a CD pressing
plant? Was this something done in the early 80s?
I always took 'AAD' to mean that the CD was mastered digitally --
redundant, really, since by definition all CDs involve digital
mastering.
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
|
Once the CD's were cut, they'd sample a few and play them in both a "low
|
I believe this was actually the early 90's, but he did say by then delivery
of analog audio to them was becoming less and less common. Still, he still
tends to avoid buying AAD CD's based on what he saw going on at the plant
since you can't tell from the AAD code who did the mastering from the analog
|
I always purchased CDs based on the quality of the music. The SPARS code was
irrelevant to me, but I always took comfort that if it said AAD, it meant
that the master tape ensured adequate dithering for the CD. :-)
|
tapes.
|
end" and a "high end" CD player. The high end CD player would actually
report error detection/correction information and a certain amount of errors
were allowed in the final product, but I think they only allowed errors
which were able to be corrected by the CD player.
|
Interesting, but not entirely *news*, Jeff - this is why a few of us (with a
higher *anxiety threshold* than some here) don't trouble too much about what
processes (D or A) went into making various LPs and CDs and just get on with
getting the best out of them as an *end product* on our own kit....
|
Note that Nick is picking at words to avoid dealing with the important
issues that were raised.
Nick has effectively conceeded the points raised to Richard, but lacks the
candor to come out and say it.
|
No-one has ever claimed any of that - it's only in the heads of the twisty
people who are *terrified* by vinyl....
|
Hmm, Keith's post is 100% name-calling and a claim that others are paranoid.
Interesting how quickly he brings a reasoned discussion down that his level.
|
|
|
|
Sometimes getting the most of of them as an end product is facilitated by
knowing about processes went into making various LPs and CDs.
|
(That said, I believe I can see why some of the 'pre digital/ss' stuff
commands the high prices it does from *discerning* collectors...)
|
|
That sounds similar to what I've heard from people who worked at CD plants.
The idea of people in CD plants mastering CD intended for wide-scale
distribution is a bit scary.
|
|
Unfortunately they even ADD C1 errors these days and call it copy
protection!
|
|
"
|
"
|
|
|
Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has managed two
maxims from anecdote. This is a problem because it still doesn't explain
|
No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.
|
Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire LP music recording.
|
It's a reasonable assumption that the *audible part* of any LP is fully
captured by a decent CD transcription of it.
|
|
Not all of the recording, just all of the audible parts, and with a very
considerable safety magin.
But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It can be verified with
both listening tests and measurements.
|
Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording captures in entirety any variance
|
Not all of the sources, just all of the audible parts, and with a
considerable margin.
But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It can be verified with
both listening tests and measurements. The measurements need to be
coordinated with what is known about human perception of sound. This has
been done.
|
And your point is what?
No opinion on the actual question?
|
|
That's fine - I didn't know that. Reading lots of waffle about
supertweeters you can't hear, and subwoofers you shouldn't hear, makes
the notion of 'audible' a problem for dunces like me :-)
|
|
in sources.
|
What variances in *this* souce -- would you suggest fail to be
captured?
|
These assumptions aren't facts.
|
What data would demonstrate that they are or are not, to you?
How would you falsify Mr. Satz' claims?
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason
|
|
Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used. Properly stated they are
findings of science that have been verified by just about anybody who has
bothered to take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or even
collect their own data. There are no known adverse findings that are
anywhere as near unbiased.
|
Okeydokey. I'm probably expecting too much, but do you have a reference
to a (preferably peer reviewed) source to substantiate this?
|
I said that it's perfectly possible to put together a good sounding
setup for playing vinyl LPs for $250 to $300.
|
OK so far, (depending on your definition of good sounding of course)
assuming you can actually find a Dual 1228 for that price. Just add a new
belt, and possibly replace motor, spindle and arm bearings :-) (assuming you
can actually get them) Good S/H Duals are pretty thin on the ground around
these parts though unfortunately.
Tell us what NEW $300 turntable/arm/cartridge you consider good sounding
with minimal record wear? I guess we should all trade our expensive TT's in
on the cheapest Pro-ject, which is the only thing I know that even comes
close to your price. Having heard one, I won't be trading mine any time
soon!
You also said :
|
|
Which is what I objected to.
Current denial that you even said it, and lack of supporting evidence on
your part is noted.
Your misunderstanding about cartridge alignment is also noted.
|
See ya
Steve
|
|
Here's an example of some people who tried to collect their own data:
The digital delay device being tested used the identical same data format as
audio CDs and was of professional grade. It acted like a CD recorder and CD
player back-to-back. Similar tests have been rerun from time to time in more
modern contexts with identical results.
|
OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a list of
(incomplete) variables and population. searching the web gets me to:
with an odd statement about methodology. What exactly is the ontological
and epistemological basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have
to be absolutely clear on these points to accept what you say. The
|
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique
used many times before and I'm not playing.
|
Well, it's your ball :-)
|
Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your question to me in plain
English? I'm afraid that when I read it the jargon and context passed me
by. :-)
|
Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or patronising -
|
No such motives or hidden intents. I asked for the reasons given. I didn't
know what you were asking, or why.
|
Fair enough - sorry if my opening was a little offhand.
|
|
you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind to me on more
than one occasion. But here we go:
Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to be explained
('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists, how do you propose to set
about knowing this reality (your epistemology)? Given what exists and
the approach you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the
logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity methodology)? Your method I
know, roughly, thank you.
|
Are you asking about something specific (see below)? Or are you asking Arny
to explain the general basis of the scientific method and the design and
use of experimental protocols and/or the analysis of experimental results?
|
None of the above. He's simply obfuscating.
|
|
Arny has reached certain conclusions from a test. That test relied on a
certain method. And that method - whether he or anyone else like it or
not - arose from a particular methodology. In very plain terms I was
asking for the reasoning behind the method.
|
If you are asking for his personal view, then it would be for him to
explain. However whatever his view, it may not alter the actual methods or
|
He doesn't want to, and that's fine by me.
However whatever his view, it may not alter the actual methods or
|
results he and others refer to. If you are asking for a more general
|
I can only assume that he doesn't have a view.
If you are asking for a more general
|
explanation of something anyone might give, then perhaps someone else can
help. None of this was/is clear to me, hence my question.
|
No, nothing general - just why he would choose a method for a test. I
wasn't asking for general answers - it's by belief that there is no
'correct' methodology.
|
|
The context was several 'facts' Arny laid out earlier in this thread.
|
Again, as in my previous posting re 'context' - I don't know what 'facts'
you are referring to here. If your point is specific, can you please
explain?
|
The specific point, and where this thread started, was an assertion that
CD-standard recording captures the whole LP audio recording for all
practical purposes. I had certain issues with the source of that
assertion which went unanswered; no matter. Arny then associated that
assertion with certain facts:
1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire LP music recording.
2 - CD-standard recording captures in entirety any variance in sources.
I felt these were assumptions, and Arny then led me to a test carried
out which I think he feels was a good example of data collection in this
context:
I cuoldn't see any explanation of method, variables, respondents. A
bunch of people - probably highly skilled in their field - concluding
that they couldn't reliably hear any difference given two modes of
playback. I would add an important part of context - the thread is about
*audible* difference.
Digging a little deeper, there's a reference on the ABX site to
something called "Virtual Reality Methodology". I wondered what that
methodology was all about. Arny wouldn't tell me.
And that, as they say, is that.
|
|
|
|
|
What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!??
|
Yeah, a collection of overplayed warhorses is boring.
|
I believe the US version had a few tracks by The Osmonds on it....
|
Say no more.
There really is such a thing as too much information, you know! ;-)
|
|
|
|
What are you talking about? It's clear you don't know.
|
:-)
(That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-)
|
|
|
bibliography is rather narrow and doesn't (of course) guide the reader
towards references. What made the inventor choose that method? It didn't
just come out of the air!
|
|
|
|
|
|
*why* some people prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl. It's just
|
That wasn't the point.
|
Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no attempt is made
|
The cause is pretty easy to figure out. Preference is based on stimulus and
perception. Perception is based on the body's sensory reaction to stimulus
and how the brain processes those reactions. If you trace through the steps,
you find the most variations in how different people's brains work.
|
Is this your opinion or another robust fact?
|
|
|
The reason why can be easily understood if you are well-informed about
sensation and perception.
|
I think you're steering towards a rational/'nature'/positivist
explanation. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but you do understand
there are different ways of thinking about things?!
|
It seems to me that when a bunch of audiophiles and recording engineers
listen to high quality live and recorded analog sources and find that they
|
Again, you're confusing methodology with method.
|
|
I have no 'expert' knowledge of testing protocols in this context. I
would have thought any lay person would point to:
Environmental variables - light, heat, seating, audience.
Sample - did you test their hearing acuity? It strikes me, and here I
|
But, you haven't answered the question.
|
lapse into stereotype, that the people involved were possibly middle
aged men? Who by training listen for and expect particular things? Whose
hearing is possibly past its best?!
|
Again, you've really said nothing, just cast a few unfounded aspersions.
Since you won't answer any of my questions...
|
|
What do you want to know about our test protocols that you can't easily find
out from the sources that have been cited?
|
|
can't tell the difference between a short piece of wire and relatively
complex digital encoding and decoding in the signal path, a lot of heavy
philosophical thinking can be bypassed.
|
Of course - but it's obvious to anyone looking at those tests that it's
a pretty narrow respondent sample. To turn it round and say "Well, they
are the most qualified to comment" is IMO elitist claptrap.
|
|
|
|
to explain cause. If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.
|
|
another attampt at closure of the point: 'They can not, they must not'.
|
Completely missed the point.
|
I don't think so. Perhaps I could have rephrased to: "It's another
attempt by Arny to achieve closure ...". Why else would you have posted?
|
Error correction. Education.
|
Is that some sort of crossword clue?
|
|
|
|
Onwards and sideways ;-)
|
"
|
|