"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"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'...??

:-))

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.

"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....

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