|
|
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
Read the whole article at http://www.aloha-audio.com/library/FindingCG.html
excerpt - "try and find a transistor circuit that can deliver 50V rms at less than 1% distortion with no feedback!" === Andy Evans === Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com Audio, music and health pages and interesting links. |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
Excerpt - Lynn Olsen
This brief discussion of amplifiers is intended to point out how traditional measurements result in unwise decisions for amplifier design. The lower harmonics are nearly inaudible compared to the upper harmonics, yet they dominate almost any THD measurement! The meter is steering the designer, the reviewer, the dealer, and the consumer away from good sound. It’s the classic tale of a drunk looking for his car keys under the street-light, even though he suspects he lost them in a completely different place. "The light is better here!" say the mainstream engineers, mass-marketers, and magazine reviewers — but the key to good sound sure isn’t where the audio industry has been looking. If it were, why do stereo LP’s made 40 years ago, amplified with 65-year-old direct-heated triodes, sound so much better than today’s digital sound played through 0.001% THD mass-fi rack stereos? The differences between mass-fi and true high fidelity are as plain as day to an (open-minded) listener. We are in the odd position of discovering that as speakers get better and better, the true merits of vacuum-tube circuits become more and more evident. After all, even J. Gordon Holt gave the Crown DC-300 transistor amplifier a Class "A" rating in 1971. At the time, the modestly-priced Dyna Stereo 70 received a lower rating - yet with modern speakers, the DC-300 is unlistenable, and the Dyna just keeps sounding better. The entry-level EL84 amps of the early Sixties (Scott 299, Eico, and Dyna SCA-35) sound remarkably natural and realistic with today’s more efficient, and much more transparent, speakers. There is no reason to believe speakers will stop getting better, since all kinds of new innovations in materials science are on the horizon, and there are major advances in computer modelling techniques every year. Synthetic diamond cones, anyone? It’s time to debunk the myth of "euphonic distortion" once and for all and discover the genuine and subtle sources of amplifier distortion that people are actually hearing. Once we find measurements that can actually help, rather than hinder, it'll be easier to build electronics that are friendly to the listener === Andy Evans === Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com Audio, music and health pages and interesting links. |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
In article , Andy Evans
wrote: Read the whole article at http://www.aloha-audio.com/library/FindingCG.html If I get a chance I'll have a look. :-) excerpt - "try and find a transistor circuit that can deliver 50V rms at less than 1% distortion with no feedback!" If they mean "into a loudspeaker load with an impedance between 4 and 8 Ohms" when considering domestic audio power amps, then I suspect you could match this with: "try to find a *valve* circuit that can deliver 50V rms at less than 1% distortion and no feedback.!" Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
In article , Andy Evans
wrote: Excerpt - Lynn Olsen This brief discussion of amplifiers is intended to point out how traditional measurements result in unwise decisions for amplifier design. This may be the case for both transistor and valve based amplifiers. Depends upon the care with which measurements are made, how well they are interpreted, and how relevant they may be to actual use with music. The lower harmonics are nearly inaudible compared to the upper harmonics, The above statement makes various unspecified assumptions about the kind of musical signal patterns being used, the other equipment, and the hearing of the individual listener. Also about the actual levels of distortion, etc, etc. yet they dominate almost any THD measurement! The meter is steering the designer, the reviewer, the dealer, and the consumer away from good sound. That may be the case if the measurement fails to be appropriate and the person reading the resulting values does not assess their relevance. However if the distortion *is* low even with musical signals, then this should not be a factor unless someone *likes* distortion. :-) It's the classic tale of a drunk looking for his car keys under the street-light, even though he suspects he lost them in a completely different place. "The light is better here!" say the mainstream engineers, mass-marketers, and magazine reviewers - but the key to good sound sure isn't where the audio industry has been looking. I am not personally surprised if someone says that many reviews in magazines are of doubtful value. However I'd tend to apply this to many 'reviews' which go no measured results at all, just as I would to those which do, but fail to ensure they are relevant. If it were, why do stereo LP's made 40 years ago, amplified with 65-year-old direct-heated triodes, sound so much better than today's digital sound played through 0.001% THD mass-fi rack stereos? Good question. :-) I'm not sure everyone here would offer the same answer, though. One possibility is that people may sometimes actually prefer a sound which is distorted or altered in some ways, whereas other may not like such changes. Another possibility is that such 'mass-fi' might use lousy speakers, etc. No doubt there are other possibilities... :-) The differences between mass-fi and true high fidelity are as plain as day to an (open-minded) listener. Maybe I am not as open-minded as I thought. My experience is that this varys from case to case and I would be reluctant to make such a general statement as if it were invariably correct. We are in the odd position of discovering that as speakers get better and better, the true merits of vacuum-tube circuits become more and more evident. Not sure who "we" are here... :-) FWIW I use electrostatic speakers, but prefer a transistor amp. So far as I am concerned this does not 'prove' anything much beyond being what I prefer. ;- After all, even J. Gordon Holt gave the Crown DC-300 transistor amplifier a Class "A" rating in 1971. At the time, the modestly-priced Dyna Stereo 70 received a lower rating - yet with modern speakers, the DC-300 is unlistenable, and the Dyna just keeps sounding better. The entry-level EL84 amps of the early Sixties (Scott 299, Eico, and Dyna SCA-35) sound remarkably natural and realistic with today's more efficient, and much more transparent, speakers. The above seems to assume I am American or have lived there. Since this is not so for me, and I have no real personal experience of the amps quoted I can't comment. It's time to debunk the myth of "euphonic distortion" once and for all This may require evidence, though, as opposed to simple assertion. ;- and discover the genuine and subtle sources of amplifier distortion that people are actually hearing. Indeed. Once we find measurements that can actually help, rather than hinder, it'll be easier to build electronics that are friendly to the listener Hard to argue against that as a generalisation. May well lead to better units of all types. TBH I'm not quite sure why the above is meant to be a serious argument for valve amps being 'better' than transistor ones. Seems to simply be saying that any measurements need to be relevant and correctly understood. Beyond that, it just seems to be some personal assertions. Have I missed something? FWIW I have no argument with, for example, proposals that simple THD is of limited value in many cases. Just did a webpage on that. :-) Indeed, it throws a nice light on 'valve' topologies and gives an argument that could be said to be in their favour... :-) Also curious that this posting and a previous one seem to focus on one form of 'distortion' and ignore other factors - e.g. the relatively high output impedance of many valve amps compared with typical transistor ones. Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
"Andy Evans" wrote in message
Excerpt - Lynn Olsen This brief discussion of amplifiers is intended to point out how traditional measurements result in unwise decisions for amplifier design. The lower harmonics are nearly inaudible compared to the upper harmonics, yet they dominate almost any THD measurement! The meter is steering the designer, the reviewer, the dealer, and the consumer away from good sound. Again, so far, so good. It's the classic tale of a drunk looking for his car keys under the street-light, even though he suspects he lost them in a completely different place. "The light is better here!" say the mainstream engineers, mass-marketers, and magazine reviewers - but the key to good sound sure isn't where the audio industry has been looking. If it were, why do stereo LP's made 40 years ago, amplified with 65-year-old direct-heated triodes, sound so much better than today's digital sound played through 0.001% THD mass-fi rack stereos? The differences between mass-fi and true high fidelity are as plain as day to an (open-minded) listener. Absolute bunkum. We are in the odd position of discovering that as speakers get better and better, the true merits of vacuum-tube circuits become more and more evident. After all, even J. Gordon Holt gave the Crown DC-300 transistor amplifier a Class "A" rating in 1971. At the time, the modestly-priced Dyna Stereo 70 received a lower rating - yet with modern speakers, the DC-300 is unlistenable, and the Dyna just keeps sounding better. The entry-level EL84 amps of the early Sixties (Scott 299, Eico, and Dyna SCA-35) sound remarkably natural and realistic with today's more efficient, and much more transparent, speakers. Absolute bunkum. There is no reason to believe speakers will stop getting better, since all kinds of new innovations in materials science are on the horizon, and there are major advances in computer modelling techniques every year. Synthetic diamond cones, anyone? True, although there's no evidence that diamond cones would provide audible advantages. It's time to debunk the myth of "euphonic distortion" once and for all and discover the genuine and subtle sources of amplifier distortion that people are actually hearing. Via DBTs we know that most "amplifier distortion" exists only in people's heads. Once we find measurements that can actually help, rather than hinder, it'll be easier to build electronics that are friendly to the listener Electronics aren't the problem - speakers and microphones are. We don't even know what an ideal speaker and microphone should do, let alone make one. |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
|
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
"Julian Fowler" wrote in message ... On 22 Jul 2003 13:05:13 GMT, ohawker (Andy Evans) wrote: snip snip * the LPs of 40 years ago were made on using technology that can only be considered crude by today's standards, and they were made to be played using equipment that, in most cases, would be put to shame by a contemporary no-name mini system (I still recall my father's delight at having his Decca record player retrofitted w/ a stereo cartridge, one channel of which went through the original amp and (built-in) speaker, the other to a matching box w/ a second amp and speaker). If 40 year old recordings sound poor on modern equipment, maybe that's because the latter does all too good a job of revealing the inadequacies of the former. Julian -- Julian Fowler julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk My 'reference' recordings are an old Louis Armstrong LP (50s I think) and an original of Let it Bleed (66?). The quality (as well as the music let's not forget!) is superb. Much of the late beatles stuff is pretty hq IMHO (cd and LP). I bought a few remastered Hendrix cds a couple of years ago and the quality compared to the record is diabolical - compressed and flat. They must have got something right 40 years ago after all, at least to my mind. Don't know about all the valve stuff I'm afraid. Don't understand the technical bits and never had the opportunity to listen. But if nothing else it's made me think that there might be something in it after all given the 'passion' here ;-) Rob |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
* the LPs of 40 years ago were made on using technology that can only be considered crude by today's standards, and they were made to be played using equipment that, in most cases, would be put to shame by a contemporary no-name mini system (I still recall my father's delight at having his Decca record player retrofitted w/ a stereo cartridge, one channel of which went through the original amp and (built-in) speaker, the other to a matching box w/ a second amp and speaker). If 40 year old recordings sound poor on modern equipment, maybe that's because the latter does all too good a job of revealing the inadequacies of the former. Amen, brother. |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
|
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
*All* amps use feedback, but some don't use *global* feedback, leading to a common claim about 'zero feedback' valve amps. Been thinking about this, where is the feedback in a triode, with a NiCad between its cathode and ground ? I use this in my phono stage, and I can't for the life of me, see any feedback. -- Nick |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
In message , Nick Gorham
writes Stewart Pinkerton wrote: *All* amps use feedback, but some don't use *global* feedback, leading to a common claim about 'zero feedback' valve amps. Been thinking about this, where is the feedback in a triode, with a NiCad between its cathode and ground ? I use this in my phono stage, and I can't for the life of me, see any feedback. -- Nick The low internal impedance in a triode is because of the internal feedback between the anode and the grid. Although the feedback mechanism is obvious at high frequencies (Miller effect) the varying voltage on the anode couples to the grid as an NFB mechanism even at LF. Thinking of directly heated triodes, I see the pair of DA100s that I'm selling on Ebay are up to 186 pounds. -- Chris Morriss |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
A certain Andy Evans, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
If it were, why do stereo LP’s made 40 years ago, amplified with 65-year-old direct-heated triodes, sound so much better than today’s digital sound played through 0.001% THD mass-fi rack stereos? At one fell swoop, the author totally destroys his own credibility. -- "Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
A certain RJH, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
My 'reference' recordings are an old Louis Armstrong LP (50s I think) and an original of Let it Bleed (66?). The quality (as well as the music let's not forget!) is superb. Much of the late beatles stuff is pretty hq IMHO (cd and LP). I bought a few remastered Hendrix cds a couple of years ago and the quality compared to the record is diabolical - compressed and flat. They must have got something right 40 years ago after all, at least to my mind. No they didn't, because the cutting master tapes used to produce LPs were all compressed and heavily EQ'd versions of the original recorded masters. Unfortunately a lot of CDs use those original cutting master tapes, and they reveal this compression well. This is not the fault of CD, it is caused by poor quality source material. Some of the vinyl enthusiasts on this group will tell you that vinyl sounds just fine even after it has been digitally recorded. This suggests several things, (1) CD/digital can record source material sufficiently well to be almost completely transparent; (2) to repeat (1) in a different way - the act of recording the vinyl onto CD doesn't remove the so-called "warmth"; and (3) the "warmth" that people refer to is a characteristic of vinyl, caused mostly by distortion, compression and other imperfections. -- "Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
Been thinking about this, where is the feedback in a triode, with a
NiCad between its cathode and ground ? That's what I was wondering. === Andy Evans === Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com Audio, music and health pages and interesting links. |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote: A certain RJH, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes : My 'reference' recordings are an old Louis Armstrong LP (50s I think) and an original of Let it Bleed (66?). The quality (as well as the music let's not forget!) is superb. Much of the late beatles stuff is pretty hq IMHO (cd and LP). I bought a few remastered Hendrix cds a couple of years ago and the quality compared to the record is diabolical - compressed and flat. They must have got something right 40 years ago after all, at least to my mind. No they didn't, because the cutting master tapes used to produce LPs were all compressed and heavily EQ'd versions of the original recorded masters... Are you still going on about lp production masters? First of all, not all lp masters are compressed and/or heavily eq'd. Second, some eq is meant to be complementary to the natural frequency response of the medium. In other words, an lp master that *isn't* eq'd might be considered 'broken', as would be an lp master without the RIAA curve. You are also comparing the apples of the original lp issue (the good sounding one) with the oranges of the cd issue (flat, compressed). Stephen |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 20:36:09 +0100, Nick Gorham
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: *All* amps use feedback, but some don't use *global* feedback, leading to a common claim about 'zero feedback' valve amps. Been thinking about this, where is the feedback in a triode, with a NiCad between its cathode and ground ? I use this in my phono stage, and I can't for the life of me, see any feedback. It's in the total impedance to ground, including the internal resistances of the NiCad and the triode cathode, also the internal feedback from anode to grid. That's why the pentode was developed, to reduce this internal feedback and thereby increase gain. To be fair, this is certainly about as low a feedback value as you can get from a triode, with the NiCad bias! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
"MiNe 109" wrote in message
In article , Chesney Christ wrote: A certain RJH, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes : My 'reference' recordings are an old Louis Armstrong LP (50s I think) and an original of Let it Bleed (66?). The quality (as well as the music let's not forget!) is superb. Much of the late beatles stuff is pretty hq IMHO (cd and LP). I bought a few remastered Hendrix cds a couple of years ago and the quality compared to the record is diabolical - compressed and flat. They must have got something right 40 years ago after all, at least to my mind. No they didn't, because the cutting master tapes used to produce LPs were all compressed and heavily EQ'd versions of the original recorded masters... Are you still going on about lp production masters? First of all, not all lp masters are compressed and/or heavily eq'd. The compression is a variable, the equalization is pretty much a given. Second, some eq is meant to be complementary to the natural frequency response of the medium. In other words, an lp master that *isn't* eq'd might be considered 'broken', as would be an lp master without the RIAA curve. The problem with this wild-add theory is that the natural frequency response of the LP medium varies tremendously from playback system to playback system. You are also comparing the apples of the original lp issue (the good sounding one) with the oranges of the cd issue (flat, compressed). Since no reliable independent standard has been cited for "good sounding", you're talking out the back of your neck. |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
A certain MiNe 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
No they didn't, because the cutting master tapes used to produce LPs were all compressed and heavily EQ'd versions of the original recorded masters... Are you still going on about lp production masters? First of all, not all lp masters are compressed and/or heavily eq'd. Pick an LP at random in a music shop, it probably is. A tiny fraction of LPs manufactured in the early-mid 80s are less so. I'll wager at least 90% of LPs out there are heavily doctored. Second, some eq is meant to be complementary to the natural frequency response of the medium. Complete and total hogwash! The final recorded work as the artist intends is on the final master tape (that is why it is called the "master"), and all mixing and EQing to extract the correct sound will have been done during the production of that master. From that point forth, mass production is singularly concerned with reproducing that master tape as closely as possible. It is possible to further alter it as required for the target audience, and this is often done for pop music, but it is incorrect to say that this is "necessary" and it is bunkum to talk about it being "complimentary" to anything. Digital's natural frequency response, when properly aligned and set up, is ruler flat so no EQ is necessary. It will reproduce the recorded work *exactly* if it is required to do so, as is frequently the case with classical recordings and on any music intended to be listened to by serious musophiles. EQ and compression *are* necessary on vinyl, as the various imperfections of the medium would ghost much of the sound, and for practical reasons due to the inherently mechanical nature of the cutting and playback processes. If you told the engineer this silly "complimentary" theory of yours, he'd laugh in your face. Engineers used as little EQ and compression as they could get away with. Unfortunately that was still a lot. In other words, an lp master that *isn't* eq'd might be considered 'broken', It certainly would be broken - without extensive EQ and compression the resulting LP would be unplayable, and the cutting lathe could be seriously damaged (notwithstanding technological developments in the 80s which enhanced this situation - albeit too late). These are PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS, and are absolutely nothing to do with making the music more enjoyable. They are necessary for the music to be playable in the first place. It's that simple. as would be an lp master without the RIAA curve. Another nasty idiosyncrasy, completely unnecessary with the advent of digital. You are also comparing the apples of the original lp issue (the good sounding one) with the oranges of the cd issue (flat, compressed). As we all know, the process of playing back vinyl is what adds all the warmth (read : distortion). The CD will be a fairly authentic reproduction of the LP cutting master - ie flat and crap. That's what is going onto your vinyl, baby. To get the best out of the CD you need to go back to the master tape and do a direct cut, straight over to the digital. Then you'll be in a position to hear all the bits that they had to remove from the LP. -- "Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
Chris Morriss wrote:
In message , Nick Gorham writes Stewart Pinkerton wrote: *All* amps use feedback, but some don't use *global* feedback, leading to a common claim about 'zero feedback' valve amps. Been thinking about this, where is the feedback in a triode, with a NiCad between its cathode and ground ? I use this in my phono stage, and I can't for the life of me, see any feedback. -- Nick The low internal impedance in a triode is because of the internal feedback between the anode and the grid. Although the feedback mechanism is obvious at high frequencies (Miller effect) the varying voltage on the anode couples to the grid as an NFB mechanism even at LF. Yes I can see that, didn't think of it a feedback, but you are right. Don't quite see how that leads to Miller, but thats probably my lack of understanding. Should be able to fix that given time :-) -- Nick |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
In article ,
Andy Evans wrote: excerpt - "try and find a transistor circuit that can deliver 50V rms at less than 1% distortion with no feedback!" Into what load? The only thing domestically that needs 50v rms is a loudspeaker... -- *I will always cherish the initial misconceptions I had about you Dave Plowman London SW 12 RIP Acorn |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote: as would be an lp master without the RIAA curve. Don't think it would be a good idea to use the RIAA curve on a tape... -- *There's no place like www.home.com * Dave Plowman London SW 12 RIP Acorn |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote: A certain MiNe 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes : No they didn't, because the cutting master tapes used to produce LPs were all compressed and heavily EQ'd versions of the original recorded masters... Are you still going on about lp production masters? First of all, not all lp masters are compressed and/or heavily eq'd. Pick an LP at random in a music shop, it probably is. A tiny fraction of LPs manufactured in the early-mid 80s are less so. I'll wager at least 90% of LPs out there are heavily doctored. Sounds comparable to the percentage of cds that are heavily doctored. The only difference is a non-destructible mastering stage instead of a lp production mastertape. Second, some eq is meant to be complementary to the natural frequency response of the medium. Complete and total hogwash! The final recorded work as the artist intends is on the final master tape (that is why it is called the "master"), and all mixing and EQing to extract the correct sound will have been done during the production of that master. You're arguing by definition. I do not accept your definition. End of argument. From that point forth, mass production is singularly concerned with reproducing that master tape as closely as possible. No, it isn't. It's all about extracting coins from pockets or have you forgotten about cassette tapes? DAB? If Flexi-discs made the most money, that's all we'd see in the shops. It is possible to further alter it as required for the target audience, and this is often done for pop music, but it is incorrect to say that this is "necessary" and it is bunkum to talk about it being "complimentary" to anything. I'll bet you refused to use your cassette Dolby switch. Digital's natural frequency response, when properly aligned and set up, is ruler flat so no EQ is necessary. It will reproduce the recorded work *exactly* if it is required to do so, as is frequently the case with classical recordings and on any music intended to be listened to by serious musophiles. EQ and compression *are* necessary on vinyl, as the various imperfections of the medium would ghost much of the sound, and for practical reasons due to the inherently mechanical nature of the cutting and playback processes. That's what makes mastering an art. Surprising how good the result can be. If you told the engineer this silly "complimentary" theory of yours, he'd laugh in your face. Engineers used as little EQ and compression as they could get away with. Unfortunately that was still a lot. You mean a mastering engineer would never increase the treble knowing of vinyl's attenuation? I think he would laugh in your face it you said he wouldn't. It doesn't matter if the amount of eq is a little or a lot, it should be the exact right amount for the purpose. And it's "complement". In other words, an lp master that *isn't* eq'd might be considered 'broken', It certainly would be broken - without extensive EQ and compression the resulting LP would be unplayable, and the cutting lathe could be seriously damaged (notwithstanding technological developments in the 80s which enhanced this situation - albeit too late). These are PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS, and are absolutely nothing to do with making the music more enjoyable. They are necessary for the music to be playable in the first place. It's that simple. Omelettes, eggs. as would be an lp master without the RIAA curve. Another nasty idiosyncrasy, completely unnecessary with the advent of digital. But sonically transparent. How about the "nasty idiosyncrasies" of digital, all those nasty high frequency artifacts that have to be filtered out? You are also comparing the apples of the original lp issue (the good sounding one) with the oranges of the cd issue (flat, compressed). As we all know, the process of playing back vinyl is what adds all the warmth (read : distortion). The CD will be a fairly authentic reproduction of the LP cutting master - ie flat and crap. That's what is going onto your vinyl, baby. That's what I want: the cutting master is meant to get the most out of the lp. Without the compensations of vinyl, of course it will sound strange. However, this is a record company problem, not a fault of the medium. To get the best out of the CD you need to go back to the master tape and do a direct cut, straight over to the digital. Then you'll be in a position to hear all the bits that they had to remove from the LP. Removed from the lp? Better lock the doors before they take any more away... Stephen |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote in message In article , Chesney Christ wrote: A certain RJH, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes : My 'reference' recordings are an old Louis Armstrong LP (50s I think) and an original of Let it Bleed (66?). The quality (as well as the music let's not forget!) is superb. Much of the late beatles stuff is pretty hq IMHO (cd and LP). I bought a few remastered Hendrix cds a couple of years ago and the quality compared to the record is diabolical - compressed and flat. They must have got something right 40 years ago after all, at least to my mind. No they didn't, because the cutting master tapes used to produce LPs were all compressed and heavily EQ'd versions of the original recorded masters... Are you still going on about lp production masters? First of all, not all lp masters are compressed and/or heavily eq'd. The compression is a variable, the equalization is pretty much a given. Second, some eq is meant to be complementary to the natural frequency response of the medium. In other words, an lp master that *isn't* eq'd might be considered 'broken', as would be an lp master without the RIAA curve. The problem with this wild-add theory is that the natural frequency response of the LP medium varies tremendously from playback system to playback system. You are also comparing the apples of the original lp issue (the good sounding one) with the oranges of the cd issue (flat, compressed). Since no reliable independent standard has been cited for "good sounding", you're talking out the back of your neck. What an odd thing to say. The standard for "good sounding" is the opinion of RJH. Too bad about the American Hendrix pressings or I'd have an opinion, too. Stephen |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Julian Fowler" wrote in message * the LPs of 40 years ago were made on using technology that can only be considered crude by today's standards, and they were made to be played using equipment that, in most cases, would be put to shame by a contemporary no-name mini system (I still recall my father's delight at having his Decca record player retrofitted w/ a stereo cartridge, one channel of which went through the original amp and (built-in) speaker, the other to a matching box w/ a second amp and speaker). If 40 year old recordings sound poor on modern equipment, maybe that's because the latter does all too good a job of revealing the inadequacies of the former. Amen, brother. Rubbish. I have a 25 year old deck going through a Roksan Kandy Mk3 amp and Quad 11L speakers. On certain recording its sounds better to me than my CD player. Of course, certain CD recording sound better to me than the vinyl. MrBitsy. |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:29:42 +0100, "MrBitsy"
wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Julian Fowler" wrote in message * the LPs of 40 years ago were made on using technology that can only be considered crude by today's standards, and they were made to be played using equipment that, in most cases, would be put to shame by a contemporary no-name mini system (I still recall my father's delight at having his Decca record player retrofitted w/ a stereo cartridge, one channel of which went through the original amp and (built-in) speaker, the other to a matching box w/ a second amp and speaker). If 40 year old recordings sound poor on modern equipment, maybe that's because the latter does all too good a job of revealing the inadequacies of the former. (I should have added to my original note that modern reproduction equipment can also reveal how appallingly some recordings have been mastered for CD!) Amen, brother. Rubbish. What specifically is "rubbish"? I have a 25 year old deck going through a Roksan Kandy Mk3 amp and Quad 11L speakers. On certain recording its sounds better to me than my CD player. Of course, certain CD recording sound better to me than the vinyl. I think that we're actually agreeing he firstly that there's no point in generalizing, secondly that recordings from the pre-digital era may well sound better on analogue equipment. After all, n original 7" of Martha Reeves and the Vandellas "Dancin' In The Streets" sounds better on a mid-60s Dansette cranked to the limit :-) Julian -- Julian Fowler julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Chris Morriss wrote: The low internal impedance in a triode is because of the internal feedback between the anode and the grid. Although the feedback mechanism is obvious at high frequencies (Miller effect) the varying voltage on the anode couples to the grid as an NFB mechanism even at LF. Thinking of directly heated triodes, I see the pair of DA100s that I'm selling on Ebay are up to 186 pounds. Hmmm. Perhaps I should have sold the PX4's and PX25's I had on ebay! :-) Slainte, Jim Maybe. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tegory=14 973 -- Nick |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
"MrBitsy" wrote
Rubbish. I have a 25 year old deck going through a Roksan Kandy Mk3 amp and Quad 11L speakers. On certain recording its sounds better to me than my CD player. Of course, certain CD recording sound better to me than the vinyl. For the record Ray, your '25 year old deck' was *twice* the price of a Linn Sondek at the time...... ;-) |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
In message , Nick Gorham
writes Chris Morriss wrote: In message , Nick Gorham writes Stewart Pinkerton wrote: *All* amps use feedback, but some don't use *global* feedback, leading to a common claim about 'zero feedback' valve amps. Been thinking about this, where is the feedback in a triode, with a NiCad between its cathode and ground ? I use this in my phono stage, and I can't for the life of me, see any feedback. -- Nick The low internal impedance in a triode is because of the internal feedback between the anode and the grid. Although the feedback mechanism is obvious at high frequencies (Miller effect) the varying voltage on the anode couples to the grid as an NFB mechanism even at LF. Yes I can see that, didn't think of it a feedback, but you are right. Don't quite see how that leads to Miller, but thats probably my lack of understanding. Should be able to fix that given time :-) The A-G capacitance, together with the source impedance of the signal feeding the grid create a Miller (or Blumlein) integrator. -- Chris Morriss |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
A certain MiNe 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
Pick an LP at random in a music shop, it probably is. A tiny fraction of LPs manufactured in the early-mid 80s are less so. I'll wager at least 90% of LPs out there are heavily doctored. Sounds comparable to the percentage of cds that are heavily doctored. Anything that's non-pop music will be pretty much a duplicate of the master tape. Most of the CDs I have (not pop) have been mastered directly from the actual master. Why do further doctoring on an already completed work ? In an imaginary world, if LP also had ruler-flat characteristics and no unusual mechanical traits then no post-mastering stage would be necessary there either. The only difference is a non-destructible mastering stage instead of a lp production mastertape. "non destructible mastering stage" what on earth are you talking about ? When preparing for digital distribution, the entire post-mastering stage is dropped as it is unnecessary (excepting pop music of course). Non destructible editing is a feature of a digital audio workstation, but it's absolutely nothing to do with mastering. You have your terminology badly mixed up. Complete and total hogwash! The final recorded work as the artist intends is on the final master tape (that is why it is called the "master"), and all mixing and EQing to extract the correct sound will have been done during the production of that master. You're arguing by definition. I do not accept your definition. End of argument. It's not my definition, it's the one used by recording engineers. Feel free not to accept what the rest of the profession does, but unfortunately you are not at liberty to make up your own definitions for things, at least not if you want to be understood by the sane world. From that point forth, mass production is singularly concerned with reproducing that master tape as closely as possible. No, it isn't. It's all about extracting coins from pockets Indeed it is, and it has been shown. People will pay for a remastered CD that has been freshly cut from the original master, with no weird doctoring or other side effects at all. EQ and compression *are* necessary on vinyl, as the various imperfections of the medium would ghost much of the sound, and for practical reasons due to the inherently mechanical nature of the cutting and playback processes. That's what makes mastering an art. Agreed. Surprising how good the result can be. And it's a damn shame hearing what gets done to a master tape in order to squeeze it uncomfortably onto an LP. If you told the engineer this silly "complimentary" theory of yours, he'd laugh in your face. Engineers used as little EQ and compression as they could get away with. Unfortunately that was still a lot. You mean a mastering engineer would never increase the treble knowing of vinyl's attenuation? I am talking about CD. as would be an lp master without the RIAA curve. Another nasty idiosyncrasy, completely unnecessary with the advent of digital. But sonically transparent. It's not sonically transparent - no attenuation/amplication process is. Once you cut a bit out of a sound, you can't magically amplify it back again. It's lost. How about the "nasty idiosyncrasies" of digital, all those nasty high frequency artifacts that have to be filtered out? Tell me about these "high frequency artifacts" and what process is used to filter them during mastering. As we all know, the process of playing back vinyl is what adds all the warmth (read : distortion). The CD will be a fairly authentic reproduction of the LP cutting master - ie flat and crap. That's what is going onto your vinyl, baby. That's what I want: the cutting master is meant to get the most out of the lp. Saying that producing a cutting master is about getting the most out of (or "compliments") an LP is like saying that wearing a corset compliments a fat person's physique. On face value this is correct, but it is misleading. A corset would not be necessary if the fat person simply lost weight, and he'd feel a lot better at the same time. Likewise, the LP cutting master is necessary because of the practical problems associated with the medium. It is meant to cut down the music so that it can be *put* on LP, as this would otherwise be impossible. It is not a question of "getting the most out of" the LP. It is a question of getting something listenable out of the LP, whilst trying to preserve as much of the original sound as possible (60% is about the best, on a good day). That is the only compromise which comes into the equation, and almost all musicians and engineers will tell you that it is a terrible one and they're glad to be shot of it. Without the compensations of vinyl, of course it will sound strange. Do you think all those EQd and compressed bits of sound magically spring out of the vinyl somehow ? -- "Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote: A certain MiNe 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes : Pick an LP at random in a music shop, it probably is. A tiny fraction of LPs manufactured in the early-mid 80s are less so. I'll wager at least 90% of LPs out there are heavily doctored. Sounds comparable to the percentage of cds that are heavily doctored. Anything that's non-pop music will be pretty much a duplicate of the master tape. Most of the CDs I have (not pop) have been mastered directly from the actual master. Why do further doctoring on an already completed work ? Think of the lp as the "completed work" and you might catch on. In an imaginary world, if LP also had ruler-flat characteristics and no unusual mechanical traits then no post-mastering stage would be necessary there either. Since an additional stage is necessary, it's simply part of the lp making process. The only difference is a non-destructible mastering stage instead of a lp production mastertape. "non destructible mastering stage" what on earth are you talking about ? When preparing for digital distribution, the entire post-mastering stage is dropped as it is unnecessary (excepting pop music of course). Non destructible editing is a feature of a digital audio workstation, but it's absolutely nothing to do with mastering. You have your terminology badly mixed up. What do you think they make digital masters with? All kinds of weird stuff happens in mastering, digital or otherwise. There's no guarantee that anything is an exact copy of anything at the consumer level. What do you think a remix is? They have them in classical, too. Complete and total hogwash! The final recorded work as the artist intends is on the final master tape (that is why it is called the "master"), and all mixing and EQing to extract the correct sound will have been done during the production of that master. You're arguing by definition. I do not accept your definition. End of argument. It's not my definition, it's the one used by recording engineers. Feel free not to accept what the rest of the profession does, but unfortunately you are not at liberty to make up your own definitions for things, at least not if you want to be understood by the sane world. I didn't realize you were a recording engineer. You have a unique viewpoint compared to the ones I've worked with. However, you are making up your definition and arguing from it. There's no truly "final" master tape. One can remix; one can remaster. The artist's intent has nothing to do with the definition. Believe me, a producer won't hesitate to reject a "master" if he thinks he can afford to improve upon it at any stage short of the production run, and sometimes even after. From that point forth, mass production is singularly concerned with reproducing that master tape as closely as possible. No, it isn't. It's all about extracting coins from pockets Indeed it is, and it has been shown. People will pay for a remastered CD that has been freshly cut from the original master, with no weird doctoring or other side effects at all. Just as they will spend for high quality lps. EQ and compression *are* necessary on vinyl, as the various imperfections of the medium would ghost much of the sound, and for practical reasons due to the inherently mechanical nature of the cutting and playback processes. That's what makes mastering an art. Agreed. Surprising how good the result can be. And it's a damn shame hearing what gets done to a master tape in order to squeeze it uncomfortably onto an LP. Turntable owners are happy to have lps to play. If you told the engineer this silly "complimentary" theory of yours, he'd laugh in your face. Engineers used as little EQ and compression as they could get away with. Unfortunately that was still a lot. You mean a mastering engineer would never increase the treble knowing of vinyl's attenuation? I am talking about CD. Cds don't need complementary eq. Maybe pre-emphasis now and then. as would be an lp master without the RIAA curve. Another nasty idiosyncrasy, completely unnecessary with the advent of digital. But sonically transparent. It's not sonically transparent - no attenuation/amplication process is. Once you cut a bit out of a sound, you can't magically amplify it back again. It's lost. Well, yes, you can, within limits. How about the "nasty idiosyncrasies" of digital, all those nasty high frequency artifacts that have to be filtered out? Tell me about these "high frequency artifacts" and what process is used to filter them during mastering. Not during mastering. In the player/DAC. As we all know, the process of playing back vinyl is what adds all the warmth (read : distortion). The CD will be a fairly authentic reproduction of the LP cutting master - ie flat and crap. That's what is going onto your vinyl, baby. That's what I want: the cutting master is meant to get the most out of the lp. Saying that producing a cutting master is about getting the most out of (or "compliments") an LP is like saying that wearing a corset compliments a fat person's physique. On face value this is correct, but it is misleading. A corset would not be necessary if the fat person simply lost weight, and he'd feel a lot better at the same time. The word is still "complement". No matter what ridiculous inapt analogy you come up with, lp mastering is generally intended to make good sounding records. Likewise, the LP cutting master is necessary because of the practical problems associated with the medium. It is meant to cut down the music so that it can be *put* on LP, as this would otherwise be impossible. It is not a question of "getting the most out of" the LP. It is a question of getting something listenable out of the LP, whilst trying to preserve as much of the original sound as possible (60% is about the best, on a good day). That is the only compromise which comes into the equation, and almost all musicians and engineers will tell you that it is a terrible one and they're glad to be shot of it. Sure, because it requires skill. So much easier to ride the mouse at the DAW. Without the compensations of vinyl, of course it will sound strange. Do you think all those EQd and compressed bits of sound magically spring out of the vinyl somehow ? I use an amplified stylus. |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: You have vinyl ears. This is a physical and psychological malady where worship of an obsolete media results in listener behavior that is hard to distinguish from deafness. Lps can sound great. Cds can sound great. I have adequate means to play each and collections that will take a lifetime to get through. How is that like deafness? Stephen |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
"MiNe 109" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: You have vinyl ears. This is a physical and psychological malady where worship of an obsolete media results in listener behavior that is hard to distinguish from deafness. Lps can sound great. Cds can sound great. I have adequate means to play each and collections that will take a lifetime to get through. How is that like deafness? Easy to explain except you deleted all your own incriminating words, and I don't feel like cleaning up your mess. |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
"MiNe 109" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: You have vinyl ears. This is a physical and psychological malady where worship of an obsolete media results in listener behavior that is hard to distinguish from deafness. Lps can sound great. Cds can sound great. I have adequate means to play each and collections that will take a lifetime to get through. How is that like deafness? Easy to explain except you deleted all your own incriminating words, and I don't feel like cleaning up your mess. There's a classic Arny dodge. Just responding to a classic Stephen dodge. |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote: The lp master is also just another step and it can add to the final work, either by artistic choice (eq, sound treatments, etc) or literally, using "inserts" or even live overdubs. Don't know where you get the idea that an lp master can include overdubs. It's purpose was simply to make the master tape capable of being cut to an lp with the minimum of alteration. Plenty of studio engineers understood the limitations of the lp format, but the talent or production team frequently didn't, so the studio master was made to their requirements regardless if it could be transferred to lp or not. Head in the sand was alive and well even then. -- *Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.* Dave Plowman London SW 12 RIP Acorn |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote: In article , MiNe 109 wrote: The lp master is also just another step and it can add to the final work, either by artistic choice (eq, sound treatments, etc) or literally, using "inserts" or even live overdubs. Don't know where you get the idea that an lp master can include overdubs. You can even overdub when creating the cutting master. It's purpose was simply to make the master tape capable of being cut to an lp with the minimum of alteration. Unless you really, really wanted more handclaps or a nose flute or something. Plenty of studio engineers understood the limitations of the lp format, but the talent or production team frequently didn't, so the studio master was made to their requirements regardless if it could be transferred to lp or not. Head in the sand was alive and well even then. Interesting, but pointless: I read a profile of profile of Tony Levin in which the writer blamed him for blowing up his stereo with 10 hz tones on the lp. Stephen |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote: In article , MiNe 109 wrote: The lp master is also just another step and it can add to the final work, either by artistic choice (eq, sound treatments, etc) or literally, using "inserts" or even live overdubs. Don't know where you get the idea that an lp master can include overdubs. You can even overdub when creating the cutting master. It's purpose was simply to make the master tape capable of being cut to an lp with the minimum of alteration. Unless you really, really wanted more handclaps or a nose flute or something. Plenty of studio engineers understood the limitations of the lp format, but the talent or production team frequently didn't, so the studio master was made to their requirements regardless if it could be transferred to lp or not. Head in the sand was alive and well even then. Interesting, but pointless: I read a profile of in which the writer blamed Tony Levin for blowing up his stereo with 10 hz tones on lp. Stephen |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote: It's purpose was simply to make the master tape capable of being cut to an lp with the minimum of alteration. Unless you really, really wanted more handclaps or a nose flute or something. Then it ceases, by definition, to be a master tape. -- *Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm * Dave Plowman London SW 12 RIP Acorn |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
A certain MiNe 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
Don't know where you get the idea that an lp master can include overdubs. You can even overdub when creating the cutting master. Why would you do that ? -- "Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com |
Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
A certain MiNe 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
I can't help you with your master tape fetish. Master tapes are just another step in the delivery process. They are the final step. If it isn't the final step, then it's not a master tape. The lp master is also just another step and it can add to the final work, either by artistic choice (eq, sound treatments, etc) But the artists seldom had anything to do with the cutting master. or literally, using "inserts" or even live overdubs. That's mad, as any future work cut from the master tape would not include such overdubs. It can't be common for such changes to be made. "non destructible mastering stage" what on earth are you talking about ? When preparing for digital distribution, the entire post-mastering stage is dropped as it is unnecessary (excepting pop music of course). Non destructible editing is a feature of a digital audio workstation, but it's absolutely nothing to do with mastering. You have your terminology badly mixed up. What do you think they make digital masters with? You can make them with any digital recording device. Good. Now explain the leap from "stage" (my word) to "editing" (your word). I'll do that if you explain why you brought up "non-destructible" which is an editing technique, not a stage in the mastering process. You can use destructive editing if you want. What I meant was that in today's ProTools world, there's less and less special about the master, compared to the pageantry and drama of a mixing session on a pre-automation mixer, with multiple tracks or even tapes or live performance, or compared to the mystery and black art of lp production. The master is the final finished work. This doesn't change if you use Pro Tools. Pro Tools simply makes it easier to go back and alter the master from the source material again. But that's not a unique feature. In theory you can do that without Pro Tools. All kinds of weird stuff happens in mastering, digital or otherwise. Yes, so ? So why the big deal about eq'ing lp masters? Because it ****s the sound up. I won't get pedantic over whether or not I said or implied "exact copy". The important point is that the CD will carry pretty much all of the sound recorded on the master tape. It is another matter if the producers decides to alter the sound from the master tape on the way, that is his choice. Like the choice to make an lp. That choice is dictated by the market, not by artistry. You'll note that these days it's a choice seldom made. I rarely hear of artists who publicly complain about their music not being released on LP. I've commented on other threads that I regard a revisit of the multitrack tapes, even by the same mastering engineer, as a separate work of art. Even if you try to be the same as you were before, it'll never sound that way. You've just created a new master. Which is the sacred one? That is a matter of personal opinion. The relevant thing is that they are different. It's not my definition, it's the one used by recording engineers. Feel free not to accept what the rest of the profession does, but unfortunately you are not at liberty to make up your own definitions for things, at least not if you want to be understood by the sane world. I didn't realize you were a recording engineer. I am not a doctor either, but I know when I have a cold. So you're not a recording engineer? It seems I'm a lot closer to the industry than you are. I'm not a recording engineer, no. Are you ? They are, but people seldom have the opportunity to listen to the final master tape (a properly remastered CD provides the best way to get close to that experience). Direct to disc. Extremely rare. It's not sonically transparent - no attenuation/amplication process is. Once you cut a bit out of a sound, you can't magically amplify it back again. It's lost. Well, yes, you can, within limits. No you can't. Dolby. Used a lot for recordings. Dolby doesn't magically amplify things back again. You always lose a certain amount of the sound. Once you attenuate it below the noise floor, it's gone. That's why a lot of amplifiers (expensive or otherwise) don't sound that great at low volumes. You make a good case for the gentle natural compression of vinyl. You can compress yourself at home if you want without interfering with the recording. That also requires skill. I have heard extremely badly mastered CDs, I have no doubt you have too. We are really a very long way away from the plug and play world, and true artistry still shines through head and shoulders above everyone else. Lps would actually help some things, if only because the hyper-compressed digital clipping heard too often in pop music would make for poor tracking, Incompetence on the part of some mastering engineers doesn't mean that alternative media are better. -- "Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk