amazing miracle device
 

Paul wrote:
"Eiron" wrote in message
snip
So you don't understand CIRC.


Correct. That may be why I have not mentioned it!!!
I am talking about CRC - Cyclic Redundancy Check.
CRC is employed on data files. It is a check sum if you like. It ensures
that data retrieved from CDs or harddisks is 100% accurate. If a sector read
produces an incorrect CRC then it is read again. Multiple attempts will be
made before the source is considered unreadable. This is *not* employed on
audio CDs - the data is simply streamed - good or bad.
Try the 'hole' experiment and it should become clear to you. You may also
like to try it on a data CD to illustrate the point - ruined disc.

I know the theory. A 2.3mm gap in a track will be reconstructed exactly
using CIRC (Cross-interleaved Reed Solomon) decoding.
That means bit perfect, whether data or audio.
Any bigger gaps in an audio CD may be interpolated so you don't hear the gap.

So I drilled a 1mm hole in a data CD. It reads perfectly with no sound of
reseeking, no error messages, no problems.


Look, if you enjoy the product that vinyl delivers then fine. How many times
do I have to say it? My 'problem' is that I will only be satisfied when I
get the highest fidelity that technology will allow. It would be great and I
would be 100% in your camp if vinyl and a mechanical retrieval system
achieved that. It doesn't, it can't and it never could. That should be
obvious to all. However, if vinyl gives you what you are looking for then
brilliant. Honestly, fill your boots! I would not try and turn you from it.
However, please don't tell me that it will give me what I am looking for. I
want High Fidelity which cannot be attained through mechanical means.

There's no need to put me in a camp. I don't listen to technology. I listen to music
and use the turntable for my pre-1985 albums where I have no CD of the album.
Is that good enough for you?
Now how about your search for the ultimate in hi-fidelity?
Give us all a laugh and tell us about your amp and speakers!


--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

amazing miracle device
 

In article , Paul
writes

I do wonder if you've heard either at its best. I have a Revox reel to
reel with a Dolby SR unit around it which gives results as near as dammit
to 16 bit PCM. FM radio can also be pretty good - although these days the
dreaded optimod type devices often ruin it.

Ok, I will take your word for it being very good. No I'm not taking the
mick - Revox have made some bloody good kit. In fact I would love one for
little jobs in my home studio - but not for Hi-Fi. I don't even use tape for
acoustic instruments - I go straight to harddisk. By your own admission it
only comes close to 16 bit PCM. It therefore falls short of what can be
obtained and misses the mark for me. If you have read my earlier posts you
may understand why this has no place in my agenda.

Paul




Paul mail me off group please!..
--
Tony Sayer

amazing miracle device
 

Erm... Well, I think the point Eiron was making was that the audio CD
format does, indeed, include various forms of redundancy which is then
checked and used to correct errors. The main layer of this is CIRC. This
is
rather more complex than plain CRC, but one of its functions is equivalent
to CRC.

I have no problem with that - always willing to learn.

I am talking about CRC - Cyclic Redundancy Check. CRC is employed on
data files. It is a check sum if you like. It ensures that data
retrieved from CDs or harddisks is 100% accurate.

Erm... no error detection and correction system can do that. With all real
systems there is a finite chance of an undetected error or errors.

My poor English! I didn't mean errors can be corrected - If you can't read a
data disc without error it's game over.
It's purpose is to 'know' when read data is bad. If it were possible to
correct then it would have been done.


If a sector read produces an incorrect CRC then it is read again.
Multiple attempts will be made before the source is considered
unreadable.

The same approach can be employed when replaying or reading audio CDs.
This is a function of the playing system, not the disc format.

This is *not* employed on audio CDs - the data is simply streamed - good
or bad.

I am not certain which of two meanings you have in mind above when you
use the phrase "employed on audio CDs".

If you are referring to the format in which data is represented on the
audio disc:

It is not correct to say that the information recorded onto audio CDs is
"simply streamed". Audio CD employes quite a complex and powerful set of
systems for redundancy and error detection and correction. If you don't
understand CIRC then you may not know the details of this, but it is
present. Indeed, this is why you can drill a 'small hole' in the
information layer, yet then be able to read the audio information with no
actual errors or loss to the audio data.

No actual errors or data loss????? Clearly there are errors and data loss.
I assume you are suggesting that the loss can be 'rebuilt' to be 100% as the
original? I feel if this were indeed possible the computer industry would be
using it. What may be possible is interpolation. This may be acceptable for
audio but disaster for computer data.
In the case of audio, we are still left with corrupt, inaccurate
information. Clearly then, this is of no help in the search for High
Fidelity.
It is interesting to read the CRC from an audio CD. Play a track and note
the CRC value. Play the same track again and see if the CRC is consistent. I
use Audiograbber to do this little test.


But if you are referring to the method used by the player to read that
information pattern from the disc:

Note that some audio players use the same method as you describe for data
discs. They read at high speed, and re-read if they detect an error they
decide they can't correct without more reliable information.

The original Philips documents specified that a hole up to 2.5 mm in
diameter in the information layer of an audio CD would result in no actual
audio data loss or errors - provided that the disc was otherwise fine. If
you go above 2.5, and up to a maximum of 7.5 mm then some data will be
'lost' and the reader will have to interpolate. But that isn't nominally
required for Red Book discs for a hole of less than 2.5 mm track-length.
For a small hole, therefore, the audio data recovered should be the same
as if no hole were present.

However Philips/Sony didn't have drilled holes in mind when they
arranged this. :-) In part, they wanted to cater for poorly made
discs, partly for specs of jam placed on the disc by the user, and
partly for brief losses of tracking or focussing whilst the player
reads a disc.

Hence even though most domestic audio players read the disc at x1
rate with no 're-tries', they still do not have to actually
read every single channel bit from the disc. They can accidentally
'miss' bursts of discs *and the result following error detection
and correction will generally be the intended audio data with no
errors.* This is the purpose of the systems Philips/Sony built
into the Red Book specs.

'generally be the intended audio'? Not good.

FWIW I had thought that data discs would be similar in this respect. The
point being that the data is redundantly interleaved along quite a length
of 'track' - thus catering for 'bursts' of data loss at the information
layer level. However I've not seen specs for this for a Data disc, so
can't comment on the details. But in both cases the channel bit stream
isn't simply the 'streamed' audio/computer data.

Again, if there was any way of reconstituting lost or corrupt data then the
computer industry would be using it.
While there is a lot of data interleaved on a harddisk (timing data for the
motor etc) I do not know if this is true for CD.
However, I don't think there is duplication of 'real' data on CD.


Note that one of the problems for computer data discs is that the user
generally wants to read data from them at far higher rates than are
required for audio CD replay. This requires high disc speed, and hence
much shorter response times for the track and focus servos in the
reader. This in turn means that reading the disc reliably becomes
harder than at a slow speed. And this may be one reason why for
computer data use, re-tries are useful.

Computers have the luxury that, within reason, it doesn't matter how many
re-tries are made to retrieve data accurately. Computer data must be
correct. Interpolation in this context would be catastrophic. Our ears, on
the other hand, will not accept a pause in the music while multiple retries
are performed. I would imagine that a not inconsiderable buffer would be
required to allow for re-tries.




No need to do this. We know it is not a clone or anywhere close. It
has been butchered by the RIAA filter in an attempt to make up for
the inability of a mechanical system.

The RIAA filter is reversible, as is done in any phono preamp, and is
therefore not butchery. What is your point?

If it isn't broken, why fix it? My point, hopefully, is crystal.

Afraid not - at least to me.

Ok.


FWIW The use of pre-emphasis and de-emphasis is quite common in
communcations engineering. It does not signify that a system is 'broken'.
Just that pre-whitening according to the noise and maximum levels as a
function of frequency can optimise the available dynamic range, and hence
the available level of precision. FWIW some audio CDs also employ
pre-emphasis as this is part of the Red Book spec. This does not mean the
resulting CDs are 'broken'.

As Keith G would probably be happy to confirm, I am not personally that
much of an enthusiast for Vinyl LP. In practice I prefer CDs for various
practical reasons. So the above is not intended to 'defend vinyl', just
to clarify the situation wrt CD.


Phew! To clarify my position. I want The Highest Fidelity that technology
will allow. I have never claimed perfection for any method of sound
storage/retrieval/presentation. My quest would be over and I could sleep
peacefully if I had.
As far as retrieval goes, I do know which gets me closest though.

Paul

amazing miracle device
 

There's no need to put me in a camp. I don't listen to technology. I
listen to music
and use the turntable for my pre-1985 albums where I have no CD of the
album.
Is that good enough for you?
Now how about your search for the ultimate in hi-fidelity?
Give us all a laugh and tell us about your amp and speakers!


Please read my other posts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have no desire or reason to wish to place you, or indeed anybody else, in
any 'camp'.
I don't listen to technology either. What on Earth would be the point in
that? (Rhetorical.)
I listen to music too!
I also have a turntable for the exact same reason you do!
Here we go. Now it enters the 'my cock is bigger than yours' phase.
Alarm bell Degeneration begins.
As I made clear at the start, I am not willing to play that game.
I'm out of here.
Thank you to those that taught me something - I honestly do appreciate it.

Paul

amazing miracle device
 

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:12:55 +0100, "Paul" wrote:


There's no need to put me in a camp. I don't listen to technology. I
listen to music
and use the turntable for my pre-1985 albums where I have no CD of the
album.
Is that good enough for you?
Now how about your search for the ultimate in hi-fidelity?
Give us all a laugh and tell us about your amp and speakers!


Please read my other posts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have no desire or reason to wish to place you, or indeed anybody else, in
any 'camp'.
I don't listen to technology either. What on Earth would be the point in
that? (Rhetorical.)
I listen to music too!
I also have a turntable for the exact same reason you do!
Here we go. Now it enters the 'my cock is bigger than yours' phase.
Alarm bell Degeneration begins.
As I made clear at the start, I am not willing to play that game.
I'm out of here.
Thank you to those that taught me something - I honestly do appreciate it.

Paul


Paul, I know your news reader will do it, so do you think you could
reconfigure it so at attributes quotes? It is impossible to tell whom
you are replying to right now.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

amazing miracle device
 

"Paul" wrote in message
...

There's no need to put me in a camp. I don't listen to technology. I
listen to music
and use the turntable for my pre-1985 albums where I have no CD of the
album.
Is that good enough for you?
Now how about your search for the ultimate in hi-fidelity?
Give us all a laugh and tell us about your amp and speakers!


Please read my other posts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have no desire or reason to wish to place you, or indeed anybody else,
in any 'camp'.
I don't listen to technology either. What on Earth would be the point in
that? (Rhetorical.)
I listen to music too!
I also have a turntable for the exact same reason you do!
Here we go. Now it enters the 'my cock is bigger than yours' phase.
Alarm bell Degeneration begins.
As I made clear at the start, I am not willing to play that game.
I'm out of here.
Thank you to those that taught me something - I honestly do appreciate it.

Paul



Oops, missed a bit out (again).
If you must know, mine is a Rhode Island Red - Beat that :)
Now I really am gone.

Paul

amazing miracle device
 

Oops, missed a bit out (again).
If you must know, mine is a Rhode Island Red - Beat that :)
Now I really am gone.

Paul

amazing miracle device
 

Paul wrote:

Oops, missed a bit out (again).
If you must know, mine is a Rhode Island Red - Beat that :)
Now I really am gone.

We know you have a cock and pullet but you really should try drilling a 2mm hole
in a data cd to disabuse yourself of your fallacies.

--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

amazing miracle device
 

"Paul" wrote in message
...

Is *what* me?

Are you making the mistake of thinking I *don't* have about 500 CDs,
15,000 MP3s and 500 DVD-Videos here?

(Not to mention DAB and FV radio, two 'media computers' with DL DVDRW
drives, a selection of digital PVRs, STBs, CDPs, DVDPs and a couple of
Digital Projectors....???)

You'll be joining the ranks of those here (OK, one clown actually....)
calling me a 'Flat Earther' next.....!!


Keith, I have no idea what you have.


Yes you do, I've just told you (see above) - the point I'm making is that
although I greatly prefer vinyl for *serious* listeng, I have a *rake* of
digital gear here for music/computing/AV purposes....



Trust me, I have no intention of calling you anything - I don't indulge in
such nonsense. In fact, should this discussion(?) degenerate to that level
(as many seem to do) I'm out of here!


So you (oops) keep saying!


My 'problem' (obsession?) is that I want a system that will get me as
close as possible to the original sound.


Nobody here would have a problem with that....

amazing miracle device
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote


snip


As Keith G would probably be happy to confirm, I am not personally that
much of an enthusiast for Vinyl LP. In practice I prefer CDs for various
practical reasons. So the above is not intended to 'defend vinyl', just
to clarify the situation wrt CD.


Woah!

I'm sorry to say I'm probably not the most avid reader of your sometimes
long, *technical* posts Jimbo, but I found this one interesting and was
rewarded with a bit a mench at the end for my efforts!! :-)

Yes, I'm happy to confirm that you do *not* appear to be the most
enthusiastic vinyl user here, from the odd remark you have posted on the
topic!! ;-)

amazing miracle device
 

"Paul" wrote in message
...
You need to loosen up, matey - get one of these:

http://www.thanko.jp/ibluetube/

and try and get a little *fun* out of the hobby....


Well, if nothing else Keith, you've given me a good laugh :) Thanks for
that.
What the hell is that? Second thoughts, don't tell me. There is an ipod
thingy in there somewhere - yuk.
Are they having a laugh?


Dunno, but the people who are buying them are probably having a ball......


I have absolutely no interest in Hi-Fi as a hobby.



You're in the wrong group then - this an 'audio' group (ie Ipods accepted)
for *hobbyists* (ie recreational, not 'pro').

Try rec.audio.high-end.....

amazing miracle device
 

Paul wrote:
I can't see how its a bodge, its a filter, that is designed to be
matched with a inverse on replay. Remember there is a similar (though for
different reasons) filter employed in the recording and replay of CD's,
again, without that filter the CD experence would be equally appalling
(maybe worst without the initial filter before the AD, and even with a DDD
disk, somewhere there will be a AD step unless you are listening to just a
digital synth).

If it gets you less upset don't think of it as a filter, think of it as a
converter from a position detection to a velocity detection system and the
reverse at playback.

--
Nick

Hold on a mo. We are drifting aware from my original purpose.
My interest is with High Fidelity and how best it can be achieved with
available technology.

snip

Am I missing something? A simple 'no' would suffice if you believe it to be sound.
On the other hand, if you consider it to be flawed then a please tell me
where I am going wrong.

Paul


Recreating what was recorded is a pretty tall order - not least because
you don't know what it sounded like.

IMO all this fiddling about with filter fixation and pure technology is
an endless and expensive pursuit. I'd be thinking about speakers and room.

Then I'd think about a turntable :-)

Rob

amazing miracle device
 

In article ,
Paul wrote:
I listen to music too!
I also have a turntable for the exact same reason you do!

And I'd say this applies to many here - of a certain age.

--
*Men are from Earth, women are from Earth. Deal with it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

amazing miracle device
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Try rec.audio.high-end.....

I'd imagine that really would attract the loonies.

--
*On the other hand, you have different fingers*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

amazing miracle device
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Paul" wrote in message
...

I do wonder if you've heard either at its best. I have a Revox reel to
reel with a Dolby SR unit around it which gives results as near as
dammit
to 16 bit PCM. FM radio can also be pretty good - although these days
the
dreaded optimod type devices often ruin it.

Ok, I will take your word for it being very good. No I'm not taking the
mick - Revox have made some bloody good kit. In fact I would love one for
little jobs in my home studio - but not for Hi-Fi. I don't even use tape
for acoustic instruments - I go straight to harddisk. By your own
admission it only comes close to 16 bit PCM. It therefore falls short of
what can be obtained and misses the mark for me. If you have read my
earlier posts you may understand why this has no place in my agenda.



You need to loosen up, matey - get one of these:

http://www.thanko.jp/ibluetube/

and try and get a little *fun* out of the hobby....




Hi Paul.

Are you a recording professional? You mention a home studio,
so presumably the answer to my question is "No".

Have you ever attended a CD mastering session, and wondered
why the analogue quarter inch recorder is so prominently placed?
These days only a tiny percentage of material is mastered from
analogue tape - not enough to justify such a costly machine.

Many many clients ask for an "analogue pass" I leave it to you to
work out why.

The mastering facility at which I work frequently has a stereo
Studer A80/II with Dolby SR and Lexicon D/A and A/D
converters built in, and is in use on a daily basis for the purpose
I mention above.

Please make contact again when you return to Planet Earth

Regards
Iain

amazing miracle device
 

In article , Paul

wrote:


If you are referring to the format in which data is represented on the
audio disc:

It is not correct to say that the information recorded onto audio CDs
is "simply streamed". Audio CD employes quite a complex and powerful
set of systems for redundancy and error detection and correction. If
you don't understand CIRC then you may not know the details of this,
but it is present. Indeed, this is why you can drill a 'small hole' in
the information layer, yet then be able to read the audio information
with no actual errors or loss to the audio data.

No actual errors or data loss????? Clearly there are errors and data
loss. I assume you are suggesting that the loss can be 'rebuilt' to be
100% as the original?

You may be confusing two distinct issues.

1) Random and unrepeatable errors - e.g. due to noise in the reading system
- always lead to a non-zero chance of there being some errors at the
channel bit level which are either undetected by the correction processes,
or can't be corrected.

2) Systematic errors - e.g. a hole in the information layer - do *not*
always have a non-zero chance of producing undetected or uncorrectable
errors. They either will, or will not, depending on the specific details of
the systematic error.

Thus if a a hole has lost data which means that the original information
cannot be recovered correctly, then no amount of re-tries will help. The
data is lost. But if the hole has *not* lost data in this way, then the
hole does not prevent a single read from recovering the orginal
information.

Type (1) can lead to data loss regardless of if any type (2) problem is
present or not.


I feel if this were indeed possible the computer industry would be using
it. What may be possible is interpolation. This may be acceptable for
audio but disaster for computer data.

Accordng to the Red Book standards you can expect interpolation for burst
errors (e.g. holes) which extend over more than 2.5 mm of the information
layer. But for shorter burst errors, no interpolation is needed to correct
for the hole.

Interpolation may be needed to deal with random errors. However if you look
at the Red Book standards this should be very rare. Here 'rare' can be
quantified as follows:

For the sake of example, assume a channel bit error rate (BER) of 0.0001.

This means that interpolations will tend to arise only at the rate of 1
sample value per 10 CDs. In practice it is likely that these will pass
unnoticd when they occur.

It means that undetected errors (a 'click') will occur at a rate Philips
described as 'negligable'. This may seem vague, but the reason was that it
is a rate of 1 sample per many hundreds of thousands of CDs. Even a channel
bit BER of 0.001 only produces a 'click' for one sample per 750 CDs.

The snag, of course, is that not all CDs are well produced. :-)


In the case of audio, we are still left with corrupt, inaccurate
information. Clearly then, this is of no help in the search for High
Fidelity. It is interesting to read the CRC from an audio CD. Play a
track and note the CRC value. Play the same track again and see if the
CRC is consistent. I use Audiograbber to do this little test.

Well, I have in the past done the test of playing a CD, and recording the
output via SPDIF using a CD audio recorder. I did this a few times for a
few different tracks. Then loaded the copies onto my computer. They were
all bit-for-bit identical to each other, and the original.

I have also read the same track repeatedly onto the computer. Same results.

There will be occasions when this does not occur. No real system can
totally exclude the chance that random non-systematic errors will corrupt
the result. But in reality this seems rare. In practice, you may find that
faint clicks and pops caused by next door's fridge are a worse problem.



Hence even though most domestic audio players read the disc at x1 rate
with no 're-tries', they still do not have to actually read every
single channel bit from the disc. They can accidentally 'miss' bursts
of discs *and the result following error detection and correction will
generally be the intended audio data with no errors.* This is the
purpose of the systems Philips/Sony built into the Red Book specs.

'generally be the intended audio'? Not good.

Depends on your definition of "not good". Is not a rate of audible errors
of well below one sample per 1000 CDs not good enough? If so, then I am
afraid that no system anyone is using would suffice for your purposes.

Engineering isn't about making systems 'perfect'. That is left to
theologians. I don't know if they have made any better audio systems than
engineers, though... :-)

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

amazing miracle device
 

Hi Paul.

Are you a recording professional? You mention a home studio,
so presumably the answer to my question is "No".

Have you ever attended a CD mastering session, and wondered
why the analogue quarter inch recorder is so prominently placed?
These days only a tiny percentage of material is mastered from
analogue tape - not enough to justify such a costly machine.

Many many clients ask for an "analogue pass" I leave it to you to
work out why.

The mastering facility at which I work frequently has a stereo
Studer A80/II with Dolby SR and Lexicon D/A and A/D
converters built in, and is in use on a daily basis for the purpose
I mention above.

Please make contact again when you return to Planet Earth

Regards
Iain

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Ian,
Ok, I'm out of retirement as your post takes the thread in another direction
and hopefully I may benefit from your experience!
However, your final infantile remark was unnecessary - can we keep any
correspondence both adult and civil please?

History:
You are correct, I am not a professional. However, if memory serves, I made
my first 'serious' home recording in 1974.
Do I know it all? Of course not (does anybody?) but with 30+ recording
years behind me (albeit as an amateur) I must know at least a little about
it! :) Certainly I know what I like regardless of whether others,
professional or not, agreed.

Once captured, the audio data remains in the digital domain. I'm sure you
know as well as I (probably more so) just what can be achieved (and at no
sonic cost), and with such ease, when working in the digital domain. Perhaps
not so good for those who dislike digital but for me - manna from heaven! I
rarely use analogue at all now. I use Fishman pickups (mostly) for my
acoustic guitars. I do have mikes available if required but I honestly can't
remember the last time they were used. Heresy maybe but I never use a mike
for the electric guitars either as DI does it for me and I can tailor to
suit once it's in. I don't have the best kit I'm sure but fortunately noise
levels etc etc are more than acceptable to me so I'm happy.

No, I've never been fortunate enough to get inside a pro studio and I simply
could not afford the expense of one of the excellent courses available. As
for the analogue tape being there, well, you would need to ask that question
of the people who elect to use it but I have heard many say they prefer the
sound of analogue so I would guess that's why. On the other hand there are
many who prefer digital as I do. Clearly, many of your clients are of the
same mind. As my recording are largely for my enjoyment only it seems
sensible to me to do without one. Any unnecessary box in the line must be
detrimental wouldn't you agree? Without in anyway being funny, can I leave
it to you to work out why many of your clients *don't* ask for an "analogue
pass"?

It would seem not unreasonable to suppose your customers know what they
prefer and want. Would you wish to tell them otherwise if you didn't agree?
I know what I like prefer and want so I guess I'm not any different (with
the exception that they may well have the additional requirement of selling
the product!).

As an aside, have a listen to any of Dave Grusin's excellent recordings on
LP. Then have a listen to the CD - WOW!!!!
You may or may not agree. All it proves is that we are not all the same
(thank God)!
I'd love to look over the studio he uses :)

Regards,
Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

amazing miracle device
 

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 19:46:12 +0100, "Paul" wrote:


snip

Why are you only using 16 bit PCM? Surely your sound card can manage
24/96 - that is pretty much the standard these days.


I thought we were talking about a comparison with CD.
For my studio I use an M-Audio 2496 Pro audio card (no sound generating
capability). I'm very pleased with it.
No doubt I could do better but funds wont allow and I don't feel a need to
change. It does a fine job though and I would recommend it to anyone
involved with home recording etc.
PC sound cards are inadequate but then, to be fair, they are not designed
for it.


Not designed for what?

And as for PC sound cards being inadequate, you are very, very far
from the truth. Many PC sound cards these days offer unbelievable
levels of audio performance, which aren't effectively bettered by even
the best stand-alone boxes. The big differences between pro and am
gear are in facilities and numbers of simultaneous record/replay
channels.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

amazing miracle device
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
The mastering facility at which I work frequently has a stereo
Studer A80/II with Dolby SR and Lexicon D/A and A/D
converters built in, and is in use on a daily basis for the purpose
I mention above.

Why such an old machine, Ian? The Studer A812 is the finest 1/4" I've ever
used. Far more stable transport than the A80, and better performance in
general.

--
*There's no place like www.home.com *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

amazing miracle device
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Absolutely not. *Mastering* to both CD and LP invariably involves changing
the master.

Sorry Dave, but that is incorrect. Do you have practical experience in
either disc cutting or CD mastering?

Iain

amazing miracle device
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Try rec.audio.high-end.....

I'd imagine that really would attract the loonies.

Surprisingly it doesn't. It's a moderated group so only postings that
satisfy the moderators' rules get through. Although somewhat bland at
times, it does avoid the rants and foul language we occasionally! see on
this ng.

S.

amazing miracle device
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Absolutely not. *Mastering* to both CD and LP invariably involves
changing the master.

Sorry Dave, but that is incorrect.

No it's not. After all, you've taken great pride in giving an example, to
prove a point of yours.

Do you have practical experience in either disc cutting or CD mastering?

Yes.

I'm not saying *every* master can't be transferred direct, but the vast
majority aren't. Otherwise there would be no need for a separate mastering
session.

--
*Gargling is a good way to see if your throat leaks.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

amazing miracle device
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Paul" wrote in message
...
You need to loosen up, matey - get one of these:

http://www.thanko.jp/ibluetube/

and try and get a little *fun* out of the hobby....


Well, if nothing else Keith, you've given me a good laugh :) Thanks for
that.
What the hell is that? Second thoughts, don't tell me. There is an ipod
thingy in there somewhere - yuk.
Are they having a laugh?


Dunno, but the people who are buying them are probably having a ball......


I have absolutely no interest in Hi-Fi as a hobby.



You're in the wrong group then - this an 'audio' group (ie Ipods accepted)
for *hobbyists* (ie recreational, not 'pro').

Keith, As a hobbyist then you must surely need one of these
devices...............
http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Me...n=PROD&Product
_Code=NOB_C37_C&Category_Code=VOLUME&Product_Count =2

Just think of the improvements to be had with your SET's, Horns & Vinyl gear
when you add one of these little beauties to the mix. :)

amazing miracle device
 

"Mike Coatham" wrote in message
...

Keith, As a hobbyist then you must surely need one of these
devices...............
http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Me...n=PROD&Product
_Code=NOB_C37_C&Category_Code=VOLUME&Product_Count =2

Just think of the improvements to be had with your SET's, Horns & Vinyl
gear
when you add one of these little beauties to the mix. :)

They are only US$485 each, they couldn't be THAT good!!!!

amazing miracle device
 

In article ,
Serge Auckland wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Try rec.audio.high-end.....

I'd imagine that really would attract the loonies.

Surprisingly it doesn't. It's a moderated group so only postings that
satisfy the moderators' rules get through. Although somewhat bland at
times, it does avoid the rants and foul language we occasionally! see on
this ng.

Ah - right. However I already read too many newsgroups. ;-)

--
*Indian Driver - Smoke signals only*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

amazing miracle device
 

"Mike Coatham" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Paul" wrote in message
...
You need to loosen up, matey - get one of these:

http://www.thanko.jp/ibluetube/

and try and get a little *fun* out of the hobby....


Well, if nothing else Keith, you've given me a good laugh :) Thanks for
that.
What the hell is that? Second thoughts, don't tell me. There is an ipod
thingy in there somewhere - yuk.
Are they having a laugh?


Dunno, but the people who are buying them are probably having a
ball......


I have absolutely no interest in Hi-Fi as a hobby.



You're in the wrong group then - this an 'audio' group (ie Ipods
accepted)
for *hobbyists* (ie recreational, not 'pro').

Keith, As a hobbyist then you must surely need one of these
devices...............
http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Me...n=PROD&Product
_Code=NOB_C37_C&Category_Code=VOLUME&Product_Count =2

Just think of the improvements to be had with your SET's, Horns & Vinyl
gear
when you add one of these little beauties to the mix. :)


???

If I'm seeing right, that's 500 bucks for a *wooden knob*....!!!???

Get TF outta here.....

amazing miracle device
 

Keith G wrote:
"Mike Coatham" wrote in message
...

Keith, As a hobbyist then you must surely need one of these
devices...............
http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Me...n=PROD&Product
_Code=NOB_C37_C&Category_Code=VOLUME&Product_Cou nt=2

Just think of the improvements to be had with your SET's, Horns & Vinyl
gear
when you add one of these little beauties to the mix. :)

If I'm seeing right, that's 500 bucks for a *wooden knob*....!!!???

Get TF outta here.....

This is a better bargain Two lumps of wood for $400:
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina28.htm

--
Eiron

No good deed ever goes unpunished.

amazing miracle device
 

Hi Rob,


Recreating what was recorded is a pretty tall order - not least because
you don't know what it sounded like.

--------------------------------------------
I agree, it is a tall order. We can't do it. I, for one, believe it will be
done - one day.
I do know what it sounds like. I'm creating it (and, more importantly, I can
recreate it). That is the whole point of the 'experiment'.
That, in my opinion, is why it is valid and worthwhile. Nobody, as yet, has
told me why it is not.
--------------------------------------------

IMO all this fiddling about with filter fixation and pure technology is an
endless and expensive pursuit. I'd be thinking about speakers and room.

--------------------------------------------
I agree totally with your first sentence. My references to RIAA were simply
to highlight one of a number of failings with the mechanical method of sound
storage and retrieval. Physics is 100% behind me with regards the mechanical
problems. Everybody conveniently sidesteps that and I can only assume that
they realise it would be foolish to take on Physics or argue that it doesn't
apply in this case. This, of course, has nothing to do with a listeners
preference. It does, however, have everything to do with quality/accuracy of
sound and thus High Fidelity.

I do not agree with your second sentence. GIGO. How do you evaluate speakers
(or amp) if you have an inadequate front end?
Yes I know CDs are also flawed but they are the better of the bunch.
--------------------------------------------


Then I'd think about a turntable :-)

Rob

--------------------------------------------
Your choice of front end is clearly yours to make. That's fine. I recall
years ago the Hi-Fi press relentlessly hammered home the importance of the
front end over all other considerations. With obvious good reason I would
say. Yep, GIGO. Without a good front end I would have nothing of worth to
build on. At the very least I would not doing my system, the sound or my
ears justice. (However, I do accept that you may be more than satisfied with
the results. I would also defend the right of all to choose whatever suits
them best.) In the same way, we had it hammered home how bad DD turntables
were. Belt drive ruled. Now it appears that either they were wrong or users
have found a magic dust that they can sprinkle on the deck and cure all
ills. I wonder how long it will be before it goes full circle.
In any event, enjoy your music.

Paul
--------------------------------------------

amazing miracle device
 

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:
"Mike Coatham" wrote in message
...

Keith, As a hobbyist then you must surely need one of these
devices...............
http://www.referenceaudiomods.com/Me...n=PROD&Product
_Code=NOB_C37_C&Category_Code=VOLUME&Product_Co unt=2

Just think of the improvements to be had with your SET's, Horns & Vinyl
gear
when you add one of these little beauties to the mix. :)

If I'm seeing right, that's 500 bucks for a *wooden knob*....!!!???

Get TF outta here.....

This is a better bargain Two lumps of wood for $400:
http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina28.htm



Incredible. The number of times this bloody ng's 'reading my mind'!!

OK first off, if they are fully loaded and ready to go then that's not such
a bad deal, considering the 'empty' wooden horns from Visaton are about 500
Euros apiece IIRC...??

http://www.visaton.com/en/1/13/361.html


**blog mode on - those offended stop reading now**

I have grabbed the opportunity (in todays Arctic conditions) for a speaker
shoot-out to *finalise* my choice of speakers and clear a bit of space.
Results so far:

The Tannoys are out - fine speakers, but no real competition.

The Lowthers are in (and *will* win) but possibly need the sub I mentioned
earlier for some stuff - organ disks going on next..

The Pinkies are possibly/probably in for Radio and TV use..

The Infidelios are out (too much bass for me in my little room) and I've
been thinking they could probably use....

....wait for it.....

....a supertweeter!! :-)


The difficulty with comparing too many sets of speakers at the same time is
that the 'bleed into each other' soundwise and one pair highlights the
shortcomings (and strengths) of the other until some sort of compromise
seems to be the best way forward. (Each pair taken in isolation is fine and
one could easily become used to them!)

Upshot is there's a pair of Tannoy 609s *on stands* that can be had for a
wunnah by anyone who rings my doorbell (the stands alone made 77 quid +
considerable postage on eBay a while back) or they'll go back on eBay.

There's also possibly (believe it or not, after all the work) a pair of
InFidelios:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/infi...infidelios.htm

...with brand new Visaton B200 drivers going for anyone who wants them for a
reasonable cost+ (collect only, naturally), unless I mummify them and stuff
'em back in the garage for now!

(They are not going to replace the Jerichos, it appears.....)

amazing miracle device
 

Keith G wrote:



Incredible. The number of times this bloody ng's 'reading my mind'!!

OK first off, if they are fully loaded and ready to go then that's not such
a bad deal, considering the 'empty' wooden horns from Visaton are about 500
Euros apiece IIRC...??


Except they are not tweeters, but someing else entirly.

To quote:

" The Ultras actually function by employing an "ideal" (coherent)
single-frequency source to improve the transmission characteristics of
the signal-conducting materials. The working frequency of the Ultras is
above 1 Gigahertz (GHz). The fundamental change to the conducting
materials produced by the Ultras allows the audio signal to be
transmitted more efficiently, with less noise and distortion. The Ultras
may have a similar influence on the medium (air) for acoustic waves
generated by the primary speakers, allowing the acoustic waves to travel
with greater efficiency and precision. Since the Ultra Tweeters operate
on the entire audio band, the improvement to the sound is not
frequency-selective, but across the audio frequency spectrum."

So there you go.

--
Nick

amazing miracle device
 

It still makes for an interesting discussion, however, as many appeared to
have forgotten just how 'vinyl' actually works.
----------------------------------------------------

The problem is nobody here will discuss it! I do not believe they are (all)
stupid so I can only assume that they are in denial else why would they
attempt to defend the indefensible? However, I must admit that there was no
defence offered to the Physics issue. I wonder why! Would it lessen the
shock if CDs were made from clear vinyl do you think?

----------------------------------------------------

To e-mail, change noise into sound.

----------------------------------------------------

I guess you don't get many e-mails from this group. :)

Paul

amazing miracle device
 

In article ,
Paul wrote:
It still makes for an interesting discussion, however, as many
appeared to have forgotten just how 'vinyl' actually works.
----------------------------------------------------

The problem is nobody here will discuss it! I do not believe they are
(all) stupid so I can only assume that they are in denial else why
would they attempt to defend the indefensible? However, I must admit
that there was no defence offered to the Physics issue. I wonder why!
Would it lessen the shock if CDs were made from clear vinyl do you
think?

I really don't know why apparently intelligent people give all sorts of
non sequitur answers to my questions about why they actually think vinyl
is ever better. To say the odd example sounds better than a badly mastered
CD from the same source is simply neither here nor there.

Iain, of course, has an axe to grind since he makes a living out of
supplying/using old technology for those who want it, and good luck to
him, but why the others like a recorded medium that alters and degrades
the original master when better alternatives exist I'll never know.

Just as a matter of opinion, I've always preferred the distortions that
analogue tape adds to a signal than that of records. Perhaps I'm unduly
sensitive to second harmonic distortion.

A good test for vinyl is male speech. I've never heard any even remotely
natural from one. Yet equipment to record and reproduce convincing speech
from say behind a acoustically transparent screen existed some 50 years
ago...

--
*I don't have a license to kill, but I do have a learner's permit.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

amazing miracle device
 

In article , Paul

wrote:
It still makes for an interesting discussion, however, as many
appeared to have forgotten just how 'vinyl' actually works.
----------------------------------------------------

The problem is nobody here will discuss it! I do not believe they are
(all) stupid so I can only assume that they are in denial else why
would they attempt to defend the indefensible? However, I must admit
that there was no defence offered to the Physics issue. I wonder why!

I can't speak for others, but if you are referring to your statements
regarding RIAA correction and 'physics' I didn't comment in detail as it
seemed unnecessary. However I can make the following comments if they will
help you... :-)

The basic 'physics' that led to the RIAA equalisation (and various other
equalisation curves for analog discs that became obsolete once RIAA became
established) was:

1) That by definition, the signal level from a disc is proportional to the
transverse *velocity* of the stylus.

2) That (1) then means that surface roughness produces a background noise
level which rises with frequency.

3) That the accellerations (and hence forces) required also rise with
frequency for a given stylus velocity.

4) That the amplitude of modulation increases when we *reduce* the signal
frequency for a given stylus velocity.

The RIAA curve pre-whitens the recorded signal so as to get the typical
signal spectrum to be a closer match to the mechanical noise spectrum. This
is common engineering practice when the noise in the channel does not have
a uniform power spectral density. Reason being that it tends to optimise
the available dynamic range.

The curve also has the effect of reducing the required velocities and hence
amplitudes at low frequencies. This avoids the problem of the groove
transverse modulation becoming too large and either leading to mistracking,
or having a record which can only play for a short period. It also helps to
keep down the geometric distortions at LF.

The drawback is that the result is also to enhance any LF noise from
'rumble', and lowers the peak HF levels which can be used before
mistracking.

Personally I would not have said any of the above means the system is
'broken'. Just that as with any real engineered system, it has
imperfections and limitations that stem from its design. Any analog system
has equivalent limitations. But digital systems also have limitations.
Simply the price of any real system being able to exist in our universe.
:-)

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

amazing miracle device
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Paul wrote:
It still makes for an interesting discussion, however, as many
appeared to have forgotten just how 'vinyl' actually works.
----------------------------------------------------

The problem is nobody here will discuss it! I do not believe they are
(all) stupid so I can only assume that they are in denial else why
would they attempt to defend the indefensible? However, I must admit
that there was no defence offered to the Physics issue. I wonder why!
Would it lessen the shock if CDs were made from clear vinyl do you
think?

I really don't know why apparently intelligent people give all sorts of
non sequitur answers to my questions about why they actually think vinyl
is ever better. To say the odd example sounds better than a badly mastered
CD from the same source is simply neither here nor there.


I suspect it could be to do with five things: the 'distortion', the
processing involved in converting analogue to digital and then back to
analogue, the CD standard cannot capture all the sound, sub-LP standard
transfer to CD, and a fifth - I'd bundle perception, the aural
experience (lack of understanding/appreciation), marketing, association
and a number of other intangibles that don't spring to mind.

'Why' is important to some, but for many the notion that it just sounds
preferable is sufficient.

Iain, of course, has an axe to grind since he makes a living out of
supplying/using old technology for those who want it, and good luck to
him, but why the others like a recorded medium that alters and degrades
the original master when better alternatives exist I'll never know.

Just as a matter of opinion, I've always preferred the distortions that
analogue tape adds to a signal than that of records. Perhaps I'm unduly
sensitive to second harmonic distortion.

A good test for vinyl is male speech. I've never heard any even remotely
natural from one. Yet equipment to record and reproduce convincing speech
from say behind a acoustically transparent screen existed some 50 years
ago...


Can't say I've noticed any particular vinyl limitation in this regard.

Rob

amazing miracle device
 

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 09:04:36 +0100, Rob
wrote:

The problem is nobody here will discuss it! I do not believe they are
(all) stupid so I can only assume that they are in denial else why
would they attempt to defend the indefensible? However, I must admit
that there was no defence offered to the Physics issue. I wonder why!
Would it lessen the shock if CDs were made from clear vinyl do you
think?

I really don't know why apparently intelligent people give all sorts of
non sequitur answers to my questions about why they actually think vinyl
is ever better. To say the odd example sounds better than a badly mastered
CD from the same source is simply neither here nor there.


I suspect it could be to do with five things: the 'distortion', the
processing involved in converting analogue to digital and then back to
analogue, the CD standard cannot capture all the sound, sub-LP standard
transfer to CD, and a fifth - I'd bundle perception, the aural
experience (lack of understanding/appreciation), marketing, association
and a number of other intangibles that don't spring to mind.

Interesting list, but could you expand and explain?

1. The distortion. What distortion are you referring to here?

2. A/D and D/A processing. What aspects of this processing do you have
in mind?

3. CD unable to capture all the sound. What do you believe it doesn't
capture?

4. Sub-LP standard transfer to CD. What would be the reason for the
transfer to be sub-LP standard?

5. Aural experience. Do you mean the psychological effect of CD vs.
vinyl perception, irrespective of the actual sound?

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

amazing miracle device
 

I really don't know why apparently intelligent people give all sorts of
non sequitur answers to my questions about why they actually think vinyl
is ever better. To say the odd example sounds better than a badly mastered
CD from the same source is simply neither here nor there.


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Even the non sequitur answers have dried up! I suspect that is because, when
confronted with irrefutable evidence, they can at least see the futility of
such responses.
I suspect that their preference is based on how their ears and brain
*perceives* the sonic information. Nothing wrong with that as I hope I've
made clear elsewhere. What I find amazing is the total unwillingness to
acknowledge fact and admit that their preference is not, and has nothing to
do with, High Fidelity. In itself, who cares whether they admit it or not.
What I do object to however, is their eagerness to tell less well informed
enquirers that it is Hi-Fi, or at least that it is the better of the bunch,
when they (at least the more intelligent) know that it is demonstrably not
the case. Why would anyone want to do that? Once confronted with fact they
retreat, brush it under the carpet, and wait for the dust to settle. As soon
as the coast is clear, they lay in ambush awaiting the arrival of the next
gullible novice and the cycle is repeated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Iain, of course, has an axe to grind since he makes a living out of
supplying/using old technology for those who want it, and good luck to
him, but why the others like a recorded medium that alters and degrades
the original master when better alternatives exist I'll never know.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
(If you are reading this Iain, apologies for misspelling your name earlier.)
Well I guess from a business point of view it makes perfect sense and, like
you, I would say good luck to him.
I can only imagine that this too comes down to perception taking preference
over accuracy and purity - High Fidelity!
If that is what is asked for then give it to them by the shed load. That is
only right and proper. It would also be right and proper to resist the
temptation to make unfounded claims for it. That would be deception plain
and simple.
-------------------------------------------------------------------


Just as a matter of opinion, I've always preferred the distortions that
analogue tape adds to a signal than that of records. Perhaps I'm unduly
sensitive to second harmonic distortion.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
That is how it should be. No outrageous claims. You know what you prefer and
you go for it regardless of the failings and, refreshingly, with a
willingness to acknowledge them.

Paul.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

amazing miracle device
 

In article ,
Rob wrote:
I suspect it could be to do with five things: the 'distortion', the
processing involved in converting analogue to digital and then back to
analogue, the CD standard cannot capture all the sound,

In what way? The algorithm used is designed to cover the audio band to a
higher standard than any previous analogue playback system, and to be
transparent to the ear.

sub-LP standard transfer to CD, and a fifth - I'd bundle perception,
the aural experience (lack of understanding/appreciation), marketing,
association and a number of other intangibles that don't spring to mind.

I think it dates back to when manufacturers with an axe to grind - like
say making turntables - decided to rubbish the principle. Which was taken
up with great gusto by the Hi-Fi press - after all it fills the pages. And
of course many believe what they read. (look at the sales of fancy cables
where no one has ever been able to hear the difference in scientifically
conducted tests) Then passed into folklore.

--
*Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

amazing miracle device
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,

Paul wrote:
I did??? I've read the op and my reply and cannot find 'vinyl' anywhere.
Perhaps my night was later than I thought! I don't hate that word (I
have some) but it is simply not Hi-Fi. I know it and I believe you know
it too.

There is a dedicated vinyl group uk.rec.audio.vinyl set up by some of
those here. But it's virtually moribund apart from a few spams and ads.
There's no point in trying to take the Gospel to the converted. And it
seems the converted don't want to talk about it.

Speaks to the intellectual powers of the faithful vinyl bigots.

amazing miracle device
 

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:49:58 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:


In article ,
Paul wrote:
Ok. Then I guess I will have to talk about it. :)
To me, the 'vinyl' issue is simple.
We could perform a little experiment.
Here we go...
Take a sound source that can be replicated. Let's use a digital synth
together with a sequencer.

[snip]

There's an easier way.

Take your 'favourite' CD. Copy it to CD. If you do this properly there
will be no difference.

Agreed.

Now copy it to LP. Expensive yes, but I've done it. *Anyone* will hear the
difference between the original CD and LP copy.

This proves that LP isn't a clone of any master - and that's before the
mastering boys have got at it. And can't possibly enhance the original -
regardless of what the disciples say. It is adding distortion - in the
main.

A better test would be to use a higher quality recording and master it
to both LP and CD and compare.

That's been done - same results.

IOW take a technically higher quality master recording, say a 24/96 or
24/192 made under the best possible conditions.

Then re-record that master recording as a CD.

Here, listen to the comparison for yourself if you have a 24/96 capable
audio interface:

http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/

Then compare the CD to the origional master.

The results are that you can't hear the difference between the two.

amazing miracle device
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Absolutely not. *Mastering* to both CD and LP invariably involves
changing
the master.

Absolutely true.

Sorry Dave, but that is incorrect. Do you have practical experience in
either disc cutting or CD mastering?

Sure and as usual Iaan, you're just plain wrong.

This is pretty amazing Iain, because you no doubt have seen a lot of both CD
mastering and LP mastering done, live and up front and personal. You've had
the opportunity to discuss the matter with skilled practitioners of both
arts. And, you reached the wrong conclusion.