"David" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Your body language when you demo your system probably cues them to
provide gracious responses.

)
Are you saying that you think that any digital (CD) source is superior to
any vinyl source?

What do you mean by "source"?

Recordings are not all created equal, for reasons that have been discussed
here ad-nauseum many modern CDs sound crap. But yes, "any digital (CD)
source is superior to any vinyl source" under the following conditions: both
playing discs derived from the same original recording with minimal messing
about in the mastering, both feeding the same amp, speakers and listening
environment.

Put simply vinyl adds more (much more) noise and distortion to a recording
than CDs do. So the CD will always sound better unless some "mastering
engineer" has added distortion to the CD (and, sadly, they do), or the amp,
speakers or listening environment are significantly different, or, of
course, you *like* noise and distortion added to your recordings!

David.

In article , David Looser
wrote:
"David" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Your body language when you demo your system probably cues them to
provide gracious responses.

)
Are you saying that you think that any digital (CD) source is superior
to any vinyl source?

What do you mean by "source"?

Recordings are not all created equal, for reasons that have been
discussed here ad-nauseum many modern CDs sound crap. But yes, "any
digital (CD) source is superior to any vinyl source" under the
following conditions: both playing discs derived from the same original
recording with minimal messing about in the mastering, both feeding the
same amp, speakers and listening environment.

That does make some unspoken assumptions. e.g. that the processes were all
carried out carefully with well-performing equipment, etc.

Put simply vinyl adds more (much more) noise and distortion to a
recording than CDs do. So the CD will always sound better unless some
"mastering engineer" has added distortion to the CD (and, sadly, they
do), or the amp, speakers or listening environment are significantly
different, or, of course, you *like* noise and distortion added to your
recordings!

Again that does make unspoken assumptions about the meaning of "better". If
someone *likes* the alterations applied or imposed for one form of output
distribution system (e.g. LP) rather than another (e.g. CD) then they will
find that "better".

I assume your unspoken assumption is along the lines of a case like the
following.

Assume the recording is made with an excellent analogue mixing desk, etc,
and the output carefully mixed down to analogue stereo. If you then make a
careful "digital CD recording" of that stereo output from the mixing desk,
and also an "LP" you may well find that the CD can sound closer to what
you'd get if you'd amplified the output of the mixing desk and listened to
it via the same speakers, listening room, etc. So I guess your "better"
means something like that. However various people make up their own
personal definition of "better" so may disagree with you because they don't
use the words like "better" and "distortion" in the same way. No common
language then leads to confusion and pointless argument. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"David" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Your body language when you demo your system probably
cues them to provide gracious responses.

o)

Are you saying that you think that any digital (CD)
source is superior to any vinyl source?

Of course not. It is possible to screw anything good up, even digital audio.

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , David Looser
wrote:
"David" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Your body language when you demo your system probably cues them to
provide gracious responses.

)
Are you saying that you think that any digital (CD) source is superior
to any vinyl source?

What do you mean by "source"?

Recordings are not all created equal, for reasons that have been
discussed here ad-nauseum many modern CDs sound crap. But yes, "any
digital (CD) source is superior to any vinyl source" under the
following conditions: both playing discs derived from the same original
recording with minimal messing about in the mastering, both feeding the
same amp, speakers and listening environment.

That does make some unspoken assumptions. e.g. that the processes were all
carried out carefully with well-performing equipment, etc.

Indeed I am making those assumptions, I would have thought that they are
reasonable and understood assumptions.

Put simply vinyl adds more (much more) noise and distortion to a
recording than CDs do. So the CD will always sound better unless some
"mastering engineer" has added distortion to the CD (and, sadly, they
do), or the amp, speakers or listening environment are significantly
different, or, of course, you *like* noise and distortion added to your
recordings!

Again that does make unspoken assumptions about the meaning of "better".
If
someone *likes* the alterations applied or imposed for one form of output
distribution system (e.g. LP) rather than another (e.g. CD) then they will
find that "better".

Agreed, hence my comment "or, of course, you *like* noise and distortion
added to your recordings!"


I assume your unspoken assumption is along the lines of a case like the
following.

Assume the recording is made with an excellent analogue mixing desk, etc,
and the output carefully mixed down to analogue stereo.

Or, indeed, made with an excellent digital mixing desk.

If you then make a
careful "digital CD recording" of that stereo output from the mixing desk,
and also an "LP" you may well find that the CD can sound closer to what
you'd get if you'd amplified the output of the mixing desk and listened to
it via the same speakers, listening room, etc. So I guess your "better"
means something like that.

Yup, and in the case of a recording of a live performance, closer to the
live sound.

However various people make up their own
personal definition of "better" so may disagree with you because they
don't
use the words like "better" and "distortion" in the same way. No common
language then leads to confusion and pointless argument. :-)

True enough, but whilst "better" is a purely subjective concept,
"distortion" in the context of audio does have a fairly well understood set
of meanings.

David.

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Yer, 'tis - a nalto. This one in fact:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Selmer.jpg

Swim wanted to max out the sax thing for once and for all and went for
this rather pricey but nice Selmer. Cab't fault the tone, it sounds
beautiful and Moira says it plays like a dream - big step up from the
worthy but somewhat agricultural eBayArbiter she started out on.


I am glad that you also just 'appened to turn the strap
in the pic to show the Paris logo:-)

All Selmers are not born equal.


The logo on the strap was purely accidental I promise you!

Of course, of course:-)


You are right that Selmers vary in what they offer at a wide range of
price breaks - Moira went for a 'Reference 54' (I think it is) at the low
end of the professional range which can go up to many thousands of pounds.

Morning Keith.

There was a story circulating that Selmer Paris are trying to get
exclusive use of the Selmer name, as the French saxophones are
so much better (the French say) than those made in the USA. The
connection dates back to the days when Alexander Selmer who
had left France to play in an orchestra in NY, opened a small
shop to sell instruments, clarinets and saxophones made by his
brother Henri Selmer in Paris. The US market was huge, and
so it made good sense to manufacture there also. It has recently
been suggested that Semer US go back to using the name Conn
a company which they took over years ago.

Most of the Chinese saxophones are blatant Selmer copies at
less than 1/10th of the price. It will be interesting so see if the
Chinese product last as well as the vintage American and French
saxes still in use today. It well may be that in a few years from
now the pads will be leaking like sieves and needle springs
pinging off in all directions. The chap I sit next to in the big
band plays a fabulous-sounding tenor made in 1917.

Iain

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 10:28:49 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Yer, 'tis - a nalto. This one in fact:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Selmer.jpg

Swim wanted to max out the sax thing for once and for all and went for
this rather pricey but nice Selmer. Cab't fault the tone, it sounds
beautiful and Moira says it plays like a dream - big step up from the
worthy but somewhat agricultural eBayArbiter she started out on.


I am glad that you also just 'appened to turn the strap
in the pic to show the Paris logo:-)

All Selmers are not born equal.


The logo on the strap was purely accidental I promise you!

Of course, of course:-)


You are right that Selmers vary in what they offer at a wide range of
price breaks - Moira went for a 'Reference 54' (I think it is) at the low
end of the professional range which can go up to many thousands of pounds.

Morning Keith.

There was a story circulating that Selmer Paris are trying to get
exclusive use of the Selmer name, as the French saxophones are
so much better (the French say) than those made in the USA. The
connection dates back to the days when Alexander Selmer who
had left France to play in an orchestra in NY, opened a small
shop to sell instruments, clarinets and saxophones made by his
brother Henri Selmer in Paris. The US market was huge, and
so it made good sense to manufacture there also. It has recently
been suggested that Semer US go back to using the name Conn
a company which they took over years ago.

Most of the Chinese saxophones are blatant Selmer copies at
less than 1/10th of the price. It will be interesting so see if the
Chinese product last as well as the vintage American and French
saxes still in use today. It well may be that in a few years from
now the pads will be leaking like sieves and needle springs
pinging off in all directions. The chap I sit next to in the big
band plays a fabulous-sounding tenor made in 1917.

Iain


I used to do rapporteur work for ETSI (the European radio telecomms
standards body). One of my colleagues there was an old Swiss chap who
sat on the woodwind bench for the Suisse Romande. He was a fanatic
about all things wind - and also an engineer of some note. He insisted
that no woodwind instrument straight from the manufacturer was
playable. His big gripe was the way the pads make contact with the
holes. I guess he had a point when he said that they never lifted off
dead straight, but one side came away first, resulting in a slight
"chiff" that shouldn't be there. He said you had to dismantle every
valve and replace all of the cork pads, having ground the hole lips
flat. Then with the valve back in place, gently close it and reflow
the solder holding it to the key. Only then would the valve work
properly. He reckoned that even a cheap instrument could be made to
sound good this way.

He was a loony, though.

d

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 11:30:53 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 10:39:02 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

Yer, 'tis - a nalto. This one in fact:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/Selmer.jpg

Swim wanted to max out the sax thing for once and for all and went for
this
rather pricey but nice Selmer. Cab't fault the tone, it sounds beautiful
and
Moira says it plays like a dream - big step up from the worthy but
somewhat
agricultural eBayArbiter she started out on.


Someone's been busy with the Brasso. Must be an evening's work getting
that to shine. But yes, it is easy to hear the quality in the tone.

Neither Brasso nor Duraglit (used in vast amounts by brass
and silver bands) is required on modern lacquered saxophones,
just an occasional flick with a duster to remove dust and
finger prints. Modern lacquers are also more resistant to
scratches and rubbing wear to the finish seen on so many
vintages saxes, and known as affectionately as "jazz"

Just as audiophiles discuss the differences in connecting cables,
reed players discuss the differences in the sounds of the various
finishes available for saxophones - just one of the many variables
that can give each player his/her individual tone. However,
unlike perhaps the cable debate the differences are clearly audible.
For example my black lacquered Custom Z tenor has a darker
sound than the gold lacquer version which in itself is slightly less
bright than the bare brass version.

http://www.mosabackabigband.com/Pics...stomZBlack.gif

Copper is the choice for of many classical players who, like
Keith's good lady, also tend to go for French made saxophones.

http://www.mosabackabigband.com/Pics/CopperAlto.jpg

Iain



It's quite difficult to see how the exterior finish could affect the
sound which is produced not by the metal, but by the air column. Of
course the metal interacts strongly, but all the same...

The thicker denser black lacquer is said to dampen the body
of the instrument considerably more than is the case with a
copper or non lacquered brass instrument.

Could there
be a little of the idea that the appearance affects the player's mood,
which in turn affects the style and performance here?

It's probably more than that. I play a black tenor in
the big band but a lacquered brass saxophone, with
the same reed and mouthpiece in the classical ensemble,
as the sound of this, they tell me, blends better with the
other brass and copper saxes.

But the finish is only one of a large number of variables.
Reed thickness, make, and composition (synthetic vs cane reeds)
and the contruction of the mouthpiece particularly the lay, depth
of chamber and tip opening all contribute greatly. So many different
instantly-reconisable sounds can be obtained from the saxophone.
It may be that, with the exception of the guitar, no greater
variation is possible on any other instrument. No-one could
confuse the sound of Johhny Hodges with Earl Bostic
both Beuscher alto players, even when playing the same title.

http://www.mosabackabigband.com/Music/JHEB.mp3

Keith. Note. Bostic has a very distinctive delay/reverb, used
for many later R+B saxophone players. There is a difference
between reverb on the delay and delay on the reverb. Try it:-)

Do you have any clips that illustrate the tone difference, perhaps?

I will see what I can find.
Or I could perhaps make such a clip

For a valid comparison the clips would have to
be played by the same player in the same location on
the same mic, using the same reed and mouthpiece
with just the instrument changed.


Iain

Very well designed and subtle reverb can make things sound better as we are
used to hearing normal acoustics in rooms. The dry sound tends to make one
listen for mechanical noises from instruments and other things. However some
very naff sounding reverbs can be used that sound like they are just one
single short term echo effect rather than the 'room' effect which is
needed.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Something I have been wondering about is adding reverb to recordings.

This:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/shown...octurne%20.wav

is a recent effort of Swimbo on the alto that I rather like but without
any reverb applied. Would anyone consider reverb to be necessary in this
instance? I do rather get the impression that some people consider a
little reverb to be essential on just about everything..??

On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 10:49:09 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

It's quite difficult to see how the exterior finish could affect the
sound which is produced not by the metal, but by the air column. Of
course the metal interacts strongly, but all the same...

The thicker denser black lacquer is said to dampen the body
of the instrument considerably more than is the case with a
copper or non lacquered brass instrument.


It really is that much thicker or denser then? I can see that would
make a difference.

Could there
be a little of the idea that the appearance affects the player's mood,
which in turn affects the style and performance here?

It's probably more than that. I play a black tenor in
the big band but a lacquered brass saxophone, with
the same reed and mouthpiece in the classical ensemble,
as the sound of this, they tell me, blends better with the
other brass and copper saxes.

Nothing to do with them thinking you look a bit too flash then? ;-)

But the finish is only one of a large number of variables.
Reed thickness, make, and composition (synthetic vs cane reeds)
and the contruction of the mouthpiece particularly the lay, depth
of chamber and tip opening all contribute greatly. So many different
instantly-reconisable sounds can be obtained from the saxophone.
It may be that, with the exception of the guitar, no greater
variation is possible on any other instrument. No-one could
confuse the sound of Johhny Hodges with Earl Bostic
both Beuscher alto players, even when playing the same title.

http://www.mosabackabigband.com/Music/JHEB.mp3

Bostic is the second one, yes? Very distinctive - was the whole part
played with rapid flutter-tongue? It sounded like it.
That difference was far greater than two instruments could make it,
though. 99% technique, I would say.

d

"Iain Churches" wrote in



But the finish is only one of a large number of variables.
Reed thickness, make, and composition (synthetic vs cane reeds)
and the contruction of the mouthpiece particularly the lay, depth
of chamber and tip opening all contribute greatly. So many different
instantly-reconisable sounds can be obtained from the saxophone.
It may be that, with the exception of the guitar, no greater
variation is possible on any other instrument. No-one could
confuse the sound of Johhny Hodges with Earl Bostic
both Beuscher alto players, even when playing the same title.

http://www.mosabackabigband.com/Music/JHEB.mp3

Keith. Note. Bostic has a very distinctive delay/reverb, used
for many later R+B saxophone players. There is a difference
between reverb on the delay and delay on the reverb. Try it:-)



There's too great a difference in style for me to be able to get any subtle
differences in the instruments.




Do you have any clips that illustrate the tone difference, perhaps?

I will see what I can find.
Or I could perhaps make such a clip

For a valid comparison the clips would have to
be played by the same player in the same location on
the same mic, using the same reed and mouthpiece
with just the instrument changed.


Yes.