amazing miracle device
 

"Eiron" wrote in message
...


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

Agreed. If you take a high quality RIAA pre-emphasis network and follow it
with a high-quality RIAA de-emphasis network, you end up with a good
facsimile of the original signal, only significantly attenuated. Amplify it
with a good amplfier, and you're pretty much back where you started.

The worst part of the LP process is playback. It's pretty easy to cut much
better grooves than any practical phono cartridge can play back with any
degree of accuracy at all.

amazing miracle device
 

"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.

Tape doesn't even come close to 16 bit PCM. It's a big miss, even 15 ips
half-track. If you're talking cassette, its a miss by several miles. Note
even the same postal zone.

amazing miracle device
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 19:46:12 +0100, "Paul" wrote:

I thought we were talking about a comparison with CD.
For my studio I use an M-Audio 2496 Pro audio card

Probably a M-Audio Audiophile 2496, which is really a consumer card. The
tip-offs to the intent of the AP 2496 lies in the RCA connectors. Not a bad
product and a definate cut above SoundBlasters. The sequel AP24192 is a far
more sophisticated device.

(no sound generating capability).

Most professionals and even advanced amateurs don't rely on the relatively
crude MIDI synth capabilities of even the more sophisticated sound cards.
They do the synthesis using software products like Gigasampler.

I'm very pleased with it.

No doubt. While not the ultimate in sophistication and not even at true CD
quality, its a working tool that is capable of sonically transparent
reprodcution.

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.

The AP2496 is a good starter card that can keep on giving enjoyment for a
long time.

PC sound cards are inadequate but then, to be fair, they are not designed
for it.

The realm of PC sound cards is so diverse that it is impossible to reaonably
characterize its performance level as being just one thing.

Not designed for what?

Good question.

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 best PC sound cards are so sophisiticated that they tax the ability of
modern test equipment to measure their technical properties. The better ones
can be used as parts of very effective and sensitive testing rigs.

The big differences between pro and am
gear are in facilities and numbers of simultaneous record/replay
channels.

....and the nature of the interfaces for electrical signals. In my book a
profesional grade audio interfece has I/O ports that are truely electrically
balanced and capable of operating at professional signal levels.

amazing miracle device
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

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

Hope floats.

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.

It's clearly a working demonstration of audio antiques. Ditto for the
marketing-driven poseurs who think they need it.

amazing miracle device
 

"Rob" wrote in message
...

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,

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.

Agreed. Mastering seems to be one of the least understood aspects of the
production of recordings. Even some people who pretend to be expert in the
field like Iain don't really seem to get it.

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,

It turns out that the better ADC and DAC chips around, which are available
for moderate prices, are among the most highly perfected of all audio
components. I can take some of the most highly regarded studio equipment on
the market today and accurately measure its distortion with a quality audio
interface that just about any audiophile can afford.

the CD standard cannot capture all the sound,

It has been known and routinely proven for over 20 years that the CD format
is sonically transparent. IOW it can capture all the sound that can be heard
by humans.

sub-LP standard transfer to CD,

In fact the very process of transferring LPs to CDs is generally agreed to
be inherently substandard, and to be avoided at any reasonble cost. The best
way to make a CD of a recording that was previously available on LP is to
obtain the master tape that was used to make the cutting master that the LP
was made from.

and a fifth - I'd bundle perception, the aural experience (lack of
understanding/appreciation),

It is true that most LP bigots have no idea what the origional performances
that are recorded on the LPs that they prize actually sounded like at the
time they were recorded. Contrary to common LP bigot dogma, all violins
don't sound the same and there is no way to know whether a recording is a
good reproduction of a given performance without direct reference to that
performance.

marketing, association and a number of other intangibles that don't spring
to mind.

The so-called advantages of the LP format are mostly illusions that rest in
the so-called minds of a tiny remnant of one-time audiophiles.

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

It is true that there are a lot of people who will do just about anything to
be *right*, correctness be blithered!

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.

I suspect that if Iain has managed his life well, he makes a lot more of his
living from investments than by hyping outdated technology.

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.

In the day of just analog, listening to master tapes and good copies of them
provided a lot of relief from the sonic trash that is inherent in the
production of LPs.

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.

Your ears must be shot or you live in an enviroment that lacks proper sonic
references.

amazing miracle device
 

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... :-)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well no, my comments primarily revolved around (no pun intended) the laws of
physics and their (proven) impact on the mass associated with a mechanical
method of sound retrieval.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
:-)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you are correct when you say it isn't 'broken'. After all, assuming
no other problems, is should perform exactly as physics predicts.
Unfortunately, *that* is the problem. Physics does predict that said
performance will always be inadequate for the job that the mechanical method
is trying to achieve (assuming that it is trying to achieve High Fidelity).
Clearly, the level achieved is satisfactory for many. It isn't for me,
especially as other methods are demonstrably better.
I would disagree with you when you state '...imperfections and limitations
that stem from design'. I would guess that any half reasonable design would,
through necessity, have been conceived only after careful consideration of
known principles and material properties. With that in mind, I would imagine
that many mechanical systems do in fact operate within the specifications
the designer intended. I suspect the designer of such a device, being aware
of the principles etc and the impact that they would have on his
masterpiece, would not hang a label stating 'High Fidelity' on it. That
would be left to the marketing boys who undoubtedly would!! In my opinion,
the problem is one of methodology rather than design.
I have never said, or implied, that other systems don't have limitation
(although I'm not sure I can agree that they are equivalent). If I had said
that (and believed it) perhaps my quest for High Fidelity would be at and
end. That is where I need help :)

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

amazing miracle device
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Rob" wrote in message
...

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,

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.

Agreed. Mastering seems to be one of the least understood aspects of the
production of recordings. Even some people who pretend to be expert in the
field like Iain don't really seem to get it.

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,

It turns out that the better ADC and DAC chips around, which are available
for moderate prices, are among the most highly perfected of all audio
components. I can take some of the most highly regarded studio equipment
on the market today and accurately measure its distortion with a quality
audio interface that just about any audiophile can afford.

the CD standard cannot capture all the sound,

It has been known and routinely proven for over 20 years that the CD
format is sonically transparent. IOW it can capture all the sound that can
be heard by humans.

sub-LP standard transfer to CD,

In fact the very process of transferring LPs to CDs is generally agreed to
be inherently substandard, and to be avoided at any reasonble cost. The
best way to make a CD of a recording that was previously available on LP
is to obtain the master tape that was used to make the cutting master that
the LP was made from.

and a fifth - I'd bundle perception, the aural experience (lack of
understanding/appreciation),

It is true that most LP bigots have no idea what the origional
performances that are recorded on the LPs that they prize actually sounded
like at the time they were recorded. Contrary to common LP bigot dogma,
all violins don't sound the same and there is no way to know whether a
recording is a good reproduction of a given performance without direct
reference to that performance.

marketing, association and a number of other intangibles that don't
spring to mind.

The so-called advantages of the LP format are mostly illusions that rest
in the so-called minds of a tiny remnant of one-time audiophiles.

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

It is true that there are a lot of people who will do just about anything
to be *right*, correctness be blithered!

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.

I suspect that if Iain has managed his life well, he makes a lot more of
his living from investments than by hyping outdated technology.

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.

In the day of just analog, listening to master tapes and good copies of
them provided a lot of relief from the sonic trash that is inherent in the
production of LPs.

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.

Your ears must be shot or you live in an enviroment that lacks proper
sonic references.



Why TF do you even bother with all this crap Arny?

For all your OSAFs, putting words into people's mouths, dubious 'technical'
information, strawmen arguments and ludicrous tub-thumping, you haven't, to
my knowledge, put *one single person* off vinyl - just about *everybody* I
know with a 'hifi system' uses and *still* enjoys it!

(Perhaps, if you contacted the UK TV broadcasting companies, you could get
them to stop showing pix of records and turntables on a damn near *daily*
basis and give yourself a better chances of eradicating vinyl from the
planet.....???)

What was it - 'protecting the newbies from the dangers of vinyl'...??

:-))

amazing miracle device
 

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Tape doesn't even come close to 16 bit PCM. It's a big miss, even 15 ips
half-track. If you're talking cassette, its a miss by several miles.
Note even the same postal zone.

Sure there are differences, but in practice 1/4 half track stereo at 15ips
with Dolby SR ain't half bad. ;-)

--
*The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up *

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

amazing miracle device
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Tape doesn't even come close to 16 bit PCM. It's a big miss, even 15 ips
half-track. If you're talking cassette, its a miss by several miles.
Note even the same postal zone.

Sure there are differences, but in practice 1/4 half track stereo at 15ips
with Dolby SR ain't half bad. ;-)



'Not in the same postal zone'...? 'Ain't half bad'...?

Come on ladies, get yourselves sorted out or you'll lose what little bit of
credibility you do have left with the noobies/lurkers....

amazing miracle device
 

In article , Paul

wrote:


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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps you are correct when you say it isn't 'broken'. After all,
assuming no other problems, is should perform exactly as physics
predicts. Unfortunately, *that* is the problem. Physics does predict
that said performance will always be inadequate for the job that the
mechanical method is trying to achieve (assuming that it is trying to
achieve High Fidelity).

Yes and no. :-)

I would put the 'problem' slightly differently, It is that any 'analog'
system which has no accompanying error detection and correction mechanisms
tends to end up with a level of performance which strongly depends on how
well each specific instance was designed and made.

Thus there are some LPs and LP playing systems which can deliver better
results than others simply as a result of being made and used with
particular care and skill.

On this basis the advantage of 'digital' systems is that their ability to
carry information is not so linearily dependent on avoiding small
imperfections. One example has already been mentioned. That an otherwise
well made CD can have a 1mm hole in it, yet reproduce the same waveforms as
if the hole hadn'y been made. Whereas I doubt many people would have the
courage to even try playing an LP with a 1mm hole drilled into the playing
area of the disc. :-)

In principle, we could have made 'better' analog systems. e.g. used a
higher playing rotation rate, etc. But this would sacrifice playing time
for other factors. i.e. a trade-off of the kind familiar to engineers.

My experience is that I have some LPs that actually sound very good. These
are the ones that were well made, and have remained undamaged, and where
the recording didn't 'push the limits' of the system. But with CDs the
situation I experience is that I rarely encounter quality problems due to
the physical CD. Any problems tend to be because the orginal recording made
onto the CD was deficient in some way. So, for example, if I hear
background noise or distortion when playing a CD I tend to suspect that
this was what was placed onto it, and isn't due to a physical imperfection
of the CD itself. Whereas if I hear background noise on an LP I suspect
that EMI had decided it was cheaper to pop the LP out of the press before
the surface had properly formed. :-)


Clearly, the level achieved is satisfactory for many. It isn't for me,
especially as other methods are demonstrably better. I would disagree
with you when you state '...imperfections and limitations that stem from
design'. I would guess that any half reasonable design would, through
necessity, have been conceived only after careful consideration of known
principles and material properties.

Indeed, but the primary purpose of most music carriers isn't actually
'superb fidelity'. It is to make units that sell in large enough numbers
for the owners of the record companies to be able to buy large cigars. :-)

The engineers involved would have pointed out that, say, 33 rpm would mean
more of a problem with inner groove distortion and HF limits than 45 rpm.
But the decision was made that 33 rpm for an LP gave a longer playing time
than 45 rpm, all else being equal. Hence engineers design to the specs they
are given, and the results reflect that.


With that in mind, I would imagine that many mechanical systems do in
fact operate within the specifications the designer intended. I suspect
the designer of such a device, being aware of the principles etc and the
impact that they would have on his masterpiece, would not hang a label
stating 'High Fidelity' on it. That would be left to the marketing boys
who undoubtedly would!! In my opinion, the problem is one of methodology
rather than design.

Indeed.

I have never said, or implied, that other systems don't have limitation
(although I'm not sure I can agree that they are equivalent). If I had
said that (and believed it) perhaps my quest for High Fidelity would be
at and end. That is where I need help :)

FWIW My personal concerns for some years have been mainly with areas like
the design and use of speakers. Compared with the problems in that area, I
have no real worries about CD-A that are on a similar scale. Nice that
DVD-V's of concerts tend to have 48 ks/sec LPCM, 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
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
For all your OSAFs, putting words into people's mouths, dubious
'technical' information, strawmen arguments and ludicrous tub-thumping,
you haven't, to my knowledge, put *one single person* off vinyl - just
about *everybody* I know with a 'hifi system' uses and *still* enjoys
it!

Crikey. You must move in extremely restricted circles. Or perhaps just
choose your friends because they agree with you?

I'm trying to think when last I saw a turntable in someone's house. Apart
from mine, of course. Non of my music loving friends still have one in use
- although several have attics full of vinyl.

--


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

amazing miracle device
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
For all your OSAFs, putting words into people's mouths, dubious
'technical' information, strawmen arguments and ludicrous tub-thumping,
you haven't, to my knowledge, put *one single person* off vinyl - just
about *everybody* I know with a 'hifi system' uses and *still* enjoys
it!

Crikey. You must move in extremely restricted circles. Or perhaps just
choose your friends because they agree with you?

I'm trying to think when last I saw a turntable in someone's house. Apart
from mine, of course. Non of my music loving friends still have one in use
- although several have attics full of vinyl.



Full?

You'd better advise them to get a structural engineer to check the
loadings - all sounds a bit dicky to me...???

amazing miracle device
 

Don Pearce wrote:
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?


Nope :-). It's a simple list of suppositions, grounded in bits and
pieces I've picked up here and there, that I've yet to be persuaded are
irrelevant to this argument. i can expand a little:

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

Inverted commas distortion: dynamic harmonics.

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


The supposition that a conversion process is taking place, and anomalies
in reproduction can take place because of that process.

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

I don't believe one way or the other - it's just the supposition that
analogue reproduction has a wider frequency range (compared to CD), and
therefore all the sound is not necessarily there.

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


Poor production - the people that managed the CD production made a hash
of it, perhaps to produce what they thought to be a more marketable
sound (more bass and treble, say). The people that managed the LP
production made a better job of it

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


Yes, that's a possibility - some people might be susceptible to the
knowledge that it's vinyl, cassette, radio, cd or whatever.

Finally, and snipped, is the possibility (the strongest of all) that
people just prefer the music from vinyl. 'Why' would be nice, but the
answer is unlikely to involve a slide rule, and is unlikely to trouble
the technically inclined.

If any of these factors have no bearing on the notion that vinyl can
sound better than CD, i'm sure you'll tell me :-)

Rob

amazing miracle device
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Why TF do you even bother with all this crap Arny?

Because people even bother with all the false crap that I just rebutted.

For all your OSAFs, putting words into people's mouths, dubious
'technical' information, strawmen arguments and ludicrous tub-thumping,
you haven't, to my knowledge, put *one single person* off vinyl - just
about *everybody* I know with a 'hifi system' uses and *still* enjoys it!

As if that was my intent. FWIW I am among the very few people I know who has
a vinyl playback system. I don't know about everthing that is going on in
the UK, but finding active, in-use vinyl playback equipment outside of dance
halls is pretty hard to do in the US.

(Perhaps, if you contacted the UK TV broadcasting companies, you could get
them to stop showing pix of records and turntables on a damn near *daily*
basis and give yourself a better chances of eradicating vinyl from the
planet.....???)

It happens occasionally in the states. There are usually credits to the
vinyl equipment suppliers in among the other credits.

What was it - 'protecting the newbies from the dangers of vinyl'...??

No, just rebutting the usual BS from the ignorant and misguided who actually
think that the vinyl format has any unique inherent SQ advantages.

amazing miracle device
 

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
writes
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Tape doesn't even come close to 16 bit PCM. It's a big miss, even 15 ips
half-track. If you're talking cassette, its a miss by several miles.
Note even the same postal zone.

Sure there are differences, but in practice 1/4 half track stereo at 15ips
with Dolby SR ain't half bad. ;-)


No its not at all, and in practice its well up to the job but the
problem is that what it records then has to be distributed;!...

--
Tony Sayer

amazing miracle device
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Why TF do you even bother with all this crap Arny?

Because people even bother with all the false crap that I just rebutted.

For all your OSAFs, putting words into people's mouths, dubious
'technical' information, strawmen arguments and ludicrous tub-thumping,
you haven't, to my knowledge, put *one single person* off vinyl - just
about *everybody* I know with a 'hifi system' uses and *still* enjoys it!

As if that was my intent.


The words 'protecting the newbies from the dangers of vinyl' (below) were
*yours* a year or two ago....


FWIW I am among the very few people I know who has
a vinyl playback system.


I suppose some of your best friends are Jewish also?


I don't know about everthing that is going on in
the UK, but finding active, in-use vinyl playback equipment outside of
dance halls is pretty hard to do in the US.


Last night there was a record player in Brad Pitt's place (Se7en on DVD),
earlier tonight I noticed Keany Reeves giving Charlize Theron (?) a boxed
set of records - no idea what the film was (I wasn't watching the telly),
but I gather it was her birthday or summat?

Vinyl features in movies (even very recent ones) as a matter of course it
appears - I find it hard to believe you don't know anyone in the real world
who uses it...



(Perhaps, if you contacted the UK TV broadcasting companies, you could
get them to stop showing pix of records and turntables on a damn near
*daily* basis and give yourself a better chances of eradicating vinyl
from the planet.....???)

It happens occasionally in the states. There are usually credits to the
vinyl equipment suppliers in among the other credits.

What was it - 'protecting the newbies from the dangers of vinyl'...??

No, just rebutting the usual BS from the ignorant and misguided who
actually think that the vinyl format has any unique inherent SQ
advantages.


Wouldn't know and don't care - I play it only for the *sound*....

Consider this - 50s Jazz and 60s Rock on anything *other* than vinyl....??

(Ludicrous prospect, isn't it! ;-)

amazing miracle device
 

I would put the 'problem' slightly differently, It is that any 'analog'
system which has no accompanying error detection and correction
mechanisms...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A TT/Arm/Cart doesn't have any error detection or correction mechanisms does
it? (I am deliberately excluding 'bias' here as, correct me if I'm wrong :),
I don't think you are referring to this and besides, this is another can of
worms that I have no desire to open.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...tends to end up with a level of performance which strongly depends on
how
well each specific instance was designed and made.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree in so far as some will be better designed and manufactured and thus
will presumably do a better job than the poorly designed 'Friday afternoon
special'!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thus there are some LPs and LP playing systems which can deliver better
results than others simply as a result of being made and used with
particular care and skill.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree here too, but the best mechanical design coupled with the greatest
care in manufacture will still obey, and be restricted/hampered by, the laws
of physics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On this basis the advantage of 'digital' systems is that their ability to
carry information is not so linearily dependent on avoiding small
imperfections. One example has already been mentioned. That an otherwise
well made CD can have a 1mm hole in it, yet reproduce the same waveforms
as
if the hole hadn'y been made. Whereas I doubt many people would have the
courage to even try playing an LP with a 1mm hole drilled into the playing
area of the disc. :-)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't put money on it!!! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In principle, we could have made 'better' analog systems. e.g. used a
higher playing rotation rate, etc. But this would sacrifice playing time
for other factors. i.e. a trade-off of the kind familiar to engineers.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, higher rotational speeds would improve (but not alleviate) things in
some areas (the inertia problem for one) but, as you quite rightly state,
worsen them in others (increased noise, heat, wear for example).
It would seriously have to whiz around before Newtonian laws of motion gave
out (and Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity kicked in)!
Even I think that would be taking things a little to far! :) if for no other
reason than an LP would only play for a billionth of a nano second or so
(wild guess). I accept that those who have severe restrictions on available
listening time may wish to disagree :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My experience is that I have some LPs that actually sound very good. These
are the ones that were well made, and have remained undamaged, and where
the recording didn't 'push the limits' of the system. But with CDs the
situation I experience is that I rarely encounter quality problems due to
the physical CD. Any problems tend to be because the orginal recording
made
onto the CD was deficient in some way. So, for example, if I hear
background noise or distortion when playing a CD I tend to suspect that
this was what was placed onto it, and isn't due to a physical imperfection
of the CD itself. Whereas if I hear background noise on an LP I suspect
that EMI had decided it was cheaper to pop the LP out of the press before
the surface had properly formed. :-)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I too have some LPs that I consider to be very good indeed. Joan
Armatrading's efforts for example will be familiar to many I am sure. Dave
Grusin's offerings are, in my opinion, truly outstanding (although I believe
he does, or at least did, favour digital). Those not familiar with his work
may care to give it a try. Many will not agree with me but those that do may
well find the need to take another look at the use of a digital source in
the studio. Of course, I find the CD versions to be even better!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Clearly, the level achieved is satisfactory for many. It isn't for me,
especially as other methods are demonstrably better. I would disagree
with you when you state '...imperfections and limitations that stem from
design'. I would guess that any half reasonable design would, through
necessity, have been conceived only after careful consideration of known
principles and material properties.


Indeed, but the primary purpose of most music carriers isn't actually
'superb fidelity'. It is to make units that sell in large enough numbers
for the owners of the record companies to be able to buy large cigars.
:-)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, but, given the overwhelming evidence, would you not agree that a
better, more capable product will be had with CD? The owners who embrace CD
would also get through more cigars I'll wager. However, within my humble
home studio setup I can afford (not financially unfortunately) to take the
time and expend as much effort and care as possible to get the best results
I can with the resources available to me. This is precisely why I will only
use digital.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


FWIW My personal concerns for some years have been mainly with areas like
the design and use of speakers. Compared with the problems in that area, I
have no real worries about CD-A that are on a similar scale. Nice that
DVD-V's of concerts tend to have 48 ks/sec LPCM, though.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear that all components in the chain are immensely important if
fidelity, rather than a 'type' of sound, is the goal. However, if the
source (at the creation, mastering or retrieval phase) is poor then GIGO!
There can be no recovery. Unless high quality garbage is the goal, there is
little point in striving for improvements in other areas of the system.

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

amazing miracle device
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Vinyl features in movies (even very recent ones) as a matter of course
it appears - I find it hard to believe you don't know anyone in the
real world who uses it...

The movies reflect real life? Hang on while I nip into a telephone box...

--
*No word in the English language rhymes with month, orange, silver,purple

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

amazing miracle device
 

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

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.

Dave. Please stop this irritating spate of dissemination of
false information. I do not make a living in the way you
describe above. The great majority of the project in which
I am involved are 24bit digital. If a client asks for analogue
multitrack (as is sometimes the case in jazz or R+R concerts)
then ours is one of the few crews that can supply this and
have the expertise required for its use. Monitoring is also
something in which many clients like to have a say. A good
selection of professional monitors and amplifiers is available,
plus valve power amps if required.


As a man who seems so keen on accuracy in reproduced sound,
you seem remarkably lax with the written word:-)

Cheers
Iain

amazing miracle device
 

No, just rebutting the usual BS from the ignorant and misguided who
actually think that the vinyl format has any unique inherent SQ
advantages.


Wouldn't know and don't care...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you had an interest in fidelity you would want to know and you would
care!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

...I play it only for the *sound*....

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingo!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consider this - 50s Jazz and 60s Rock on anything *other* than vinyl....??


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I correct in thinking that 40s and 60s Jazz, 50s and 70s Rock etc is ok
on CD et al?
What was the change in those two decades (and only to those two genres I
presume) that made the difference?
Out of curiosity, do you know why 'they' found the need to revert or change
again?
Can you explain why those genres of music created in other decades fair less
well on vinyl?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Ludicrous prospect, isn't it! ;-)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I must say that it is not the prospect that I find ludicrous :)
You certainly do have the gift for making people laugh (well me at any rate)
but, in all seriousness, I for one would like your explanation.
I am always willing to learn from an authoritative source such as yourself
:)

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

amazing miracle device
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
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.

Dave. Please stop this irritating spate of dissemination of
false information. I do not make a living in the way you
describe above. The great majority of the project in which
I am involved are 24bit digital. If a client asks for analogue
multitrack (as is sometimes the case in jazz or R+R concerts)
then ours is one of the few crews that can supply this and
have the expertise required for its use. Monitoring is also
something in which many clients like to have a say. A good
selection of professional monitors and amplifiers is available,
plus valve power amps if required.

So you supply all this old analogue equipment for free? I didn't say you
used it exclusively. Nor was it in any way a criticism - if a client wants
something and is willing to pay I see nothing wrong in supplying it.


As a man who seems so keen on accuracy in reproduced sound,
you seem remarkably lax with the written word:-)

I was trying to give a 'get out' to a pro who continually makes ambiguous
statements about how vinyl sounds better by quoting non sequitur examples.

I'm also still waiting for your explanation of the 'strengths' of vinyl
which you mentioned earlier.

--
*I have plenty of talent and vision. I just don't care.

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

amazing miracle device
 

On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 09:02:21 +0300, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

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.

Dave. Please stop this irritating spate of dissemination of
false information. I do not make a living in the way you
describe above. The great majority of the project in which
I am involved are 24bit digital. If a client asks for analogue
multitrack (as is sometimes the case in jazz or R+R concerts)
then ours is one of the few crews that can supply this and
have the expertise required for its use. Monitoring is also
something in which many clients like to have a say. A good
selection of professional monitors and amplifiers is available,
plus valve power amps if required.

So your USP is being able to supply/use old technology for those who
want it. Fine. Why advertise it in one statement then deny it in
another?

amazing miracle device
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
.. .

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

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.

Dave. Please stop this irritating spate of dissemination of
false information. I do not make a living in the way you
describe above. The great majority of the project in which
I am involved are 24bit digital. If a client asks for analogue
multitrack (as is sometimes the case in jazz or R+R concerts)
then ours is one of the few crews that can supply this and
have the expertise required for its use. Monitoring is also
something in which many clients like to have a say. A good
selection of professional monitors and amplifiers is available,
plus valve power amps if required.


As a man who seems so keen on accuracy in reproduced sound,
you seem remarkably lax with the written word:-)



Hey Iain - you picked up a 'So you' *and* a 'So your' with the one post!!

Way to go!! :-)

(Btw, be thankful that it's only his words that Plowie wants to put in your
mouth...... ;-)

Or is it.....

:-0

amazing miracle device
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
Vinyl features in movies (even very recent ones) as a matter of course
it appears - I find it hard to believe you don't know anyone in the
real world who uses it...

The movies reflect real life? Hang on while I nip into a telephone box...



Couldn't make that the Titanic, could you...???



--
*No word in the English language rhymes with month, orange, silver,purple

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

amazing miracle device
 

"Paul" wrote in message
...

No, just rebutting the usual BS from the ignorant and misguided who
actually think that the vinyl format has any unique inherent SQ
advantages.


Wouldn't know and don't care...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you had an interest in fidelity you would want to know and you would
care!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

...I play it only for the *sound*....

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingo!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consider this - 50s Jazz and 60s Rock on anything *other* than
vinyl....??


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I correct in thinking that 40s and 60s Jazz, 50s and 70s Rock etc is ok
on CD et al?
What was the change in those two decades (and only to those two genres I
presume) that made the difference?
Out of curiosity, do you know why 'they' found the need to revert or
change again?
Can you explain why those genres of music created in other decades fair
less well on vinyl?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Ludicrous prospect, isn't it! ;-)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I must say that it is not the prospect that I find ludicrous :)
You certainly do have the gift for making people laugh (well me at any
rate) but, in all seriousness, I for one would like your explanation.
I am always willing to learn from an authoritative source such as yourself
:)

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




Hey!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity Man (aka I'm 'Gone' :-))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lose
------------------------------------------------------------------------
the
------------------------------------------------------------------------
****ing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
stoopid
------------------------------------------------------------------------
lines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
if
------------------------------------------------------------------------
you
------------------------------------------------------------------------
want
------------------------------------------------------------------------
to
------------------------------------------------------------------------
talk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
to
------------------------------------------------------------------------
me!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Otherwise
------------------------------------------------------------------------
you're
------------------------------------------------------------------------
headed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
for
------------------------------------------------------------------------
the
------------------------------------------------------------------------
****ter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
under
------------------------------------------------------------------------
the
------------------------------------------------------------------------
'General ****: Not Worth The Bother'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
clause...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK?

amazing miracle device
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Paul" wrote in message
...

No, just rebutting the usual BS from the ignorant and misguided who
actually think that the vinyl format has any unique inherent SQ
advantages.


Wouldn't know and don't care...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you had an interest in fidelity you would want to know and you would
care!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

...I play it only for the *sound*....

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingo!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consider this - 50s Jazz and 60s Rock on anything *other* than
vinyl....??


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I correct in thinking that 40s and 60s Jazz, 50s and 70s Rock etc is
ok
on CD et al?
What was the change in those two decades (and only to those two genres I
presume) that made the difference?
Out of curiosity, do you know why 'they' found the need to revert or
change again?
Can you explain why those genres of music created in other decades fair
less well on vinyl?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Ludicrous prospect, isn't it! ;-)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I must say that it is not the prospect that I find ludicrous :)
You certainly do have the gift for making people laugh (well me at any
rate) but, in all seriousness, I for one would like your explanation.
I am always willing to learn from an authoritative source such as
yourself
:)

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




Hey!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity Man (aka I'm 'Gone' :-))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lose
------------------------------------------------------------------------
the
------------------------------------------------------------------------
****ing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
stoopid
------------------------------------------------------------------------
lines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
if
------------------------------------------------------------------------
you
------------------------------------------------------------------------
want
------------------------------------------------------------------------
to
------------------------------------------------------------------------
talk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
to
------------------------------------------------------------------------
me!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Otherwise
------------------------------------------------------------------------
you're
------------------------------------------------------------------------
headed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
for
------------------------------------------------------------------------
the
------------------------------------------------------------------------
****ter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
under
------------------------------------------------------------------------
the
------------------------------------------------------------------------
'General ****: Not Worth The Bother'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
clause...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK?





Way to go Keith!!! :) :) Rather fractious aren't you :)
'Fidelity Man' - I rather like that! :) Who could possibly stay away when
you're on stage?
So that's the explanation is it! Can't say I understand it though. :)
Joking apart, you are either a 'village idiot' or, for reason or reasons
best know to yourself, wish to masquerade as one.
Have you nothing constructive or pertinent to say? Do you have an
explanation?
Certainly you're response would indicate that you don't. All the hallmarks
of a beaten man I'd say. Inevitable really - did you honestly believe you
could make such crass statements and hope to get away with it? Now tell me,
aren't you feeling just a little foolish right now?
Redemption is just a keyboard away - type something relevant and meaningful.

Look Keith, no lines - I won't take no response for an answer :)

Paul

amazing miracle device
 

Sockpuppet "Paul" dropped his cock for a moment and
wrote:


Look Keith, no lines - I won't take no response for an answer :)


OK sonny, stand by and I'll get back to you later. I got a few chores to do
right now.....

Make that *might* get back to you later - I'm not sure you've typed anything
yet worth reading, let alone replying to....

Meanwhile go check your *Fidelity* or better yet, perhaps you could list the
kit you use, while you are waiting - to give me some idea of how much of a
yappy little **** you are..???

amazing miracle device
 

Jim, Interesting stuff. Thank you.

My impression is that the main reasons most people have taken to MP3 is
that it can be 'cheap and easy' with little regard for the actual sound
quality. The selling point of players tends to be how many 'tracks' they
can hold with no comment on the sound quality.


I guess so but I would add that I also attribute MP3 popularity, in the
main, to piracy. It is perhaps not surprising what people are willing to
accept when they don't have to pay for it!


I agree. However I also think that the reality is that for other items in
the chain, e,g, amplifiers, the level of any imperfections is generally
simply less sigificant than it becomes with speakers and the listening
room
acoustic. I say this as someone who used to design amplifiers for a
living.

I couldn't argue with that but reason does tell me that the first and most
important area for examination must be the source (capture and retrieval).
I find it interesting that, at the other end of the system, we again have
immense scope for 'messing up' earlier good work - another mechanical
device.
While I haven't seen them mentioned in this group (perhaps a dirty word?),
what is your view on headphones?

Paul

amazing miracle device
 

Sockpuppet "Paul" dropped his cock for a moment and
wrote:


Yawn :) Not quite what I had hoped for but pretty much what I had expected.

OK sonny, stand by and I'll get back to you later. I got a few chores to
do right now.....


I guess one of your chores is dig a deeper hole? Absolutely no rush Keith :)
(although see below.)

Make that *might* get back to you later - I'm not sure you've typed
anything yet worth reading, let alone replying to....


Not sure? Need more time?
Let me remove a little embarrassment (and your shovel). Can I ask that you
don't bother? I cannot see any evidence in *any* of your posts that you have
anything constructive or pertinent to say. (I welcome constructive criticism
too you know.) You have not once addressed anything I've written - correct?
I doubt that will change so it would be nothing more than a waste of my
time.

...perhaps you could list the kit you use, ...

Nope. I am not about to allow you refuge there oh master of the smoke
screen! :) Besides, I've given you a get out above - which I hope you will
take.
If you have indeed read any of my posts (and understood even just a little)
you should be aware that I *am* critical of my own system(s) - all systems!
I have no need of your input.

Over and out?

Paul.

amazing miracle device
 

In article , Paul

wrote:


I agree. However I also think that the reality is that for other items
in the chain, e,g, amplifiers, the level of any imperfections is
generally simply less sigificant than it becomes with speakers and the
listening room acoustic. I say this as someone who used to design
amplifiers for a living.

I couldn't argue with that but reason does tell me that the first and
most important area for examination must be the source (capture and
retrieval).

I'd agree. However the only real control over that which most of us get is
to choose with the care the LP/CD/broadcasts we listen to. It is one of the
reasons I am a long-term 'fan' of BBC Radio 3 as their broadcasting people
often do a wonderful job of capturing the sound of a live performance.


I find it interesting that, at the other end of the system,
we again have immense scope for 'messing up' earlier good work -
another mechanical device. While I haven't seen them mentioned in this
group (perhaps a dirty word?), what is your view on headphones?

Personally, I use them for 'editing' type purposes. But I tend to find them
uncomfortable for serious listening, and prefer good speakers, carefully
placed in the room. However they can deliver excellent results. Again,
however this depends on the source material as well as the tastes of the
end-user.

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
 

"Paul" grabbed his cock again and typed with one hand:


Yawn :) Not quite what I had hoped for but pretty much what I had
expected.


Yes, with your abrasive and abusive manner, I'm not surprised you expect
that sort of thing - you must be pretty used to it...



Make that *might* get back to you later - I'm not sure you've typed
anything yet worth reading, let alone replying to....


Not sure? Need more time?


Nope...



...perhaps you could list the kit you use, ...

Nope.


Now, why am I *so* not surprised?

Another *all mouth and no trousers* blow-in with enough yap to silence the
Tokyo Stock Exchange (and not much else)....

Most (not all) of my stuff is he

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/


Some of us ain't too scared to show what we got *whatever* clowns like you
might think of it....



If you have indeed read any of my posts


No, I haven't really - a glimpse of the earliest ones was enough...


Over and out?


Blew in, blew up, blew out and blew over....

amazing miracle device
 

In article ,
Paul wrote:
Sockpuppet "Paul" dropped his cock for a moment
and wrote:


Yawn :) Not quite what I had hoped for but pretty much what I had
expected.

Mr G seems to have a fascination with the male member at the moment.
Perhaps that fits in with his horn fetish.

--
*The only difference between a rut and a grave is the depth.

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

amazing miracle device
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Paul wrote:
Sockpuppet "Paul" dropped his cock for a moment
and wrote:


Yawn :) Not quite what I had hoped for but pretty much what I had
expected.

Mr G seems to have a fascination with the male member at the moment.
Perhaps that fits in with his horn fetish.



One thing's a *given* in here - mention the word 'cock' and Plowie comes
a'runnin'...!!

:-))

amazing miracle device
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Paul wrote:
Sockpuppet "Paul" dropped his cock for a
moment and wrote:


Yawn :) Not quite what I had hoped for but pretty much what I had
expected.

Mr G seems to have a fascination with the male member at the moment.
Perhaps that fits in with his horn fetish.



One thing's a *given* in here - mention the word 'cock' and Plowie comes
a'runnin'...!!

That'll be why you mention it so often?

--
*How much deeper would the oceans be without sponges? *

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

amazing miracle device
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Paul wrote:
Sockpuppet "Paul" dropped his cock for a
moment and wrote:


Yawn :) Not quite what I had hoped for but pretty much what I had
expected.

Mr G seems to have a fascination with the male member at the moment.
Perhaps that fits in with his horn fetish.



One thing's a *given* in here - mention the word 'cock' and Plowie comes
a'runnin'...!!

That'll be why you mention it so often?


Guess I gotcha again, Plowie!! :-)

(Too easy.....!! :-))


Wanna try *penis* now...???

:-)

amazing miracle device
 

Paul wrote:

I couldn't argue with that but reason does tell me that the first and
most important area for examination must be the source (capture and
retrieval). I find it interesting that, at the other end of the
system, we again have immense scope for 'messing up' earlier good
work - another mechanical device.
While I haven't seen them mentioned in this group (perhaps a dirty
word?), what is your view on headphones?

For a moment, there, I thought you were going to say microphones. In a
universe of perfect fidelity, but where the living rooms are too small to
house a live orchestra, where does the aforementioned mechanical device, the
acoustic properties of which are bound by the laws of physics, fit in?

If microphones don't produce perfect fidelity, and if there is no
alternative means of converting sound into some sort of recording medium,
doesn't that mean that 'high fidelity' is actually concerned with 'listening
to microphones'?


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
You're unique - just like everybody else.

amazing miracle device
 

I'd agree. However the only real control over that which most of us get is
to choose with the care the LP/CD/broadcasts we listen to. It is one of
the
reasons I am a long-term 'fan' of BBC Radio 3 as their broadcasting people
often do a wonderful job of capturing the sound of a live performance.


True, we are invariably at the mercy of the recording/broadcasting
engineers.
Their efforts will be deemed satisfactory to some and less so to others. Win
some - lose some.
However, as I believe you will agree, our 'job' should be to faithfully
reproduce
the product as closely as we possibly can, be it good or bad.

I am reminded of a friend, many years ago, being upset over a CD he had
bought.
Having listened, I could clearly hear clicks and pops! If nothing else, it
had novelty value!
In this particular case I would imagine that the original masters had been
lost or destroyed.
Rather a shame that a better quality LP was not found but grateful, non the
less, that they did it.
I am in two minds whether any attempt should have been made to
electronically 'clean' it up.
Still, more importantly, the music had been preserved and made available for
the enjoyment of all.


I find it interesting that, at the other end of the system,
we again have immense scope for 'messing up' earlier good work -
another mechanical device. While I haven't seen them mentioned in this
group (perhaps a dirty word?), what is your view on headphones?

Personally, I use them for 'editing' type purposes. But I tend to find
them
uncomfortable for serious listening, and prefer good speakers, carefully
placed in the room. However they can deliver excellent results. Again,
however this depends on the source material as well as the tastes of the
end-user.


I am only on my second set in 30 years. The first, while very good, were
heavy and had a tendency
to fall off! Not a substitute for good speakers perhaps but certainly have
their place.
Ah, 'editing'. I recall the experience of creating my first CD. I recorded
the content as best I could,
balanced tracks, applied necessary EQ etc and mixed down to the final
master. A final listen to
make sure all was well and a few minutes later I had a CD in my hands and a
grin on my face!
Dropping it into my system, I sat back to enjoy the fruits of my labours.
Bang - bubble burst!
I now know the importance of using a descent pair of studio monitors! :)
I doubt whether all pro studios use the same monitors (and obviously not the
same ears)... best not to think about it!

Paul.

amazing miracle device
 

In article ,
Paul wrote:
I doubt whether all pro studios use the same monitors (and obviously not
the same ears)... best not to think about it!

The speakers are often custom built for each individual control room.

So called nearfield monitors are often the same in different studios,
though.

--
*How's my driving? Call 999*

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

amazing miracle device
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

So called nearfield monitors are often the same in different studios,
though.

What is it that makes them 'nearfield'? Do they lose something if they're
used at normal living room distances? IOW, would they be okay as mid/top for
domestic use if the bass was filled by something else?


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

amazing miracle device
 

For a moment, there, I thought you were going to say microphones. In a
universe of perfect fidelity, but where the living rooms are too small to
house a live orchestra, where does the aforementioned mechanical device,
the
acoustic properties of which are bound by the laws of physics, fit in?

To my mind, it 'fits' simply because it's the best that can be done (at
present) with regard
air borne sources. Clearly, not relevant to non air borne sources.
Regardless of source, as the final item in the chain is also mechanical, we
will always suffer the impact on the product that physics predicts.
(Until, of course, we are able (and willing) to plug our brains directly
into the system!)
The source signal, regardless of how it is captured, is the source signal
that we have to work with.
Undoubtedly it is tainted by many things (as well as the engineers
preference).
This thing of concern to me is how I can best reproduce the program content
of the master.
Whatever its 'quality', that is the reference by which we determine fidelity
within our systems is it not?
How well a system can faithfully reproduce the signal *presented to it* is
how I determine High Fidelity.

If microphones don't produce perfect fidelity, and if there is no
alternative means of converting sound into some sort of recording medium,
doesn't that mean that 'high fidelity' is actually concerned with
'listening
to microphones'?


No not at all. Hopefully clarified above.
In short: maintaining the fidelity of the master.

Paul