On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 14:00:24 +0100, Old Fart at Play
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 20:45:48 +0100, Jim H
wrote:

That's not to say analogue is ideal, there's a trade off between analogue
accuracy and digital precision.


What's that supposed to mean? What's the difference beteween
'accuracy' and 'precision'?


Look at anyone's digital wris****ch.
Precision means that it will show you the time to the second.
Accuracy means that it is about a minute fast.

My 'analogue' quartz watch shows the time to the nearest second, and I
ensire that it's never more than 2 seconds away from exact local time.

Look at my Patek Philippe.
Accuracy means that it is spot on.
Precision means that you can't read the time to within a minute or so.

Your Patek Philippe will only be 'spot on' if it has stopped - when it
will be 'spot on' twice a day..................

Your pathetic definition of 'precision' simply means that it's one of
the models without a second hand.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Given that my own preferences are for vinyl and that I think all
'digital'
music is crap compared with it, I am, nevertheless, interested to know
why
exactly is it that SACDs (stereo) sound so much better than the
equivalent
CDs?

I'm curious to know at what point music becomes "crap" if it is
digitized. You have a preference for vinyl but many of the classical LPs
that I have are "original digital recordings" - are they then "crap"?

Personally I find all the recording analogue and digital formats that
I've heard are "crap" in comparison with real live music.

Anyone who says they don't is lying (if only to themselves) - sticks
out
like a chapel hatpeg....
Are you related to DABSWTFM by any chance?



--
RobH
The future's dim, the future's mono.

"RobH" wrote in
message ...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Given that my own preferences are for vinyl and that I think all
'digital'
music is crap compared with it, I am, nevertheless, interested to know
why
exactly is it that SACDs (stereo) sound so much better than the
equivalent
CDs?

I'm curious to know at what point music becomes "crap" if it is
digitized. You have a preference for vinyl but many of the classical LPs
that I have are "original digital recordings" - are they then "crap"?


Not necessarily, I have a dozen or more 'digitally' produced Warner Bros Ry
Cooder LPs which sound excellent but I also have a Vox/Pioneer 'Digital
Recording' LP ( Mahler 1 - H10002V) which proudly lists:

Tech Spec:
PCM -1600 Digital Recording system
Sampling Rate: 44,056
Encoding: 16 Bit linear
Frequency Response: +0, -0.5dB; 4 Hz to 20 Hz
Microphones (2) B & K 4133/2619, Levinson ML-8 Pre-amps
All distortions less than .05%
Mixing Electronics: Levinson LNP-2
Monitor System: Levinson HQD
Producer and Balance Engineer: Brian Culverhouse
Production Advisor: George H de Mendelssohn-Bartholdy
Digital Recording: Digital Recording Systems Co., Inc.
Digital Editing: Sony DEC-1000 (prototype)


Impressive huh? - Tells you everything except what fillings they had in the
sangies, doesn't it? Trouble is I have a number of other (bog-ordinaire)
recordings that sound better. It's very well played, a bit spitchy but,
worst of all is lacking in 'life' and 'ambience' and a bit 'dull' compared
with some of the others. If I can possibly get the time, I will make some
comparisons (as I will with many other pieces of music I have on a number of
different discs) with a view to posting the results on the new vinyl group
some time.



Personally I find all the recording analogue and digital formats that
I've heard are "crap" in comparison with real live music.


I never compare the two. When I play a record I'm playing a bloody record,
not trying to recreate some sad-arsed past 'live event'. (If my records
sounded as disappointing as some of the 'live music' I've heard in my time,
I'd ditch 'em!)



Anyone who says they don't is lying (if only to themselves) - sticks
out
like a chapel hatpeg....
Are you related to DABSWTFM by any chance?


Who he?

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
"RobH"
wrote in
message ...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...
Given that my own preferences are for vinyl and that I think all
'digital'
music is crap compared with it, I am, nevertheless, interested to
know
why
exactly is it that SACDs (stereo) sound so much better than the
equivalent
CDs?

I'm curious to know at what point music becomes "crap" if it is
digitized. You have a preference for vinyl but many of the classical
LPs
that I have are "original digital recordings" - are they then
"crap"?


Not necessarily, I have a dozen or more 'digitally' produced Warner
Bros Ry
Cooder LPs which sound excellent but I also have a Vox/Pioneer
'Digital
Recording' LP ( Mahler 1 - H10002V) which proudly lists:

Tech Spec:
PCM -1600 Digital Recording system
Sampling Rate: 44,056
Encoding: 16 Bit linear
Frequency Response: +0, -0.5dB; 4 Hz to 20 Hz
Microphones (2) B & K 4133/2619, Levinson ML-8 Pre-amps
All distortions less than .05%
Mixing Electronics: Levinson LNP-2
Monitor System: Levinson HQD
Producer and Balance Engineer: Brian Culverhouse
Production Advisor: George H de Mendelssohn-Bartholdy
Digital Recording: Digital Recording Systems Co., Inc.
Digital Editing: Sony DEC-1000 (prototype)

Err, I thought you said that ALL digital music is crap compared to
vinyl.

Is digital music okay if it is subsequently recorded onto vinyl ?


Impressive huh? - Tells you everything except what fillings they had
in the
sangies, doesn't it?


Trouble is I have a number of other (bog-ordinaire)
recordings that sound better. It's very well played, a bit spitchy
but,
worst of all is lacking in 'life' and 'ambience' and a bit 'dull'
compared
with some of the others. If I can possibly get the time, I will make
some
comparisons (as I will with many other pieces of music I have on a
number of
different discs) with a view to posting the results on the new vinyl
group
some time.



Personally I find all the recording analogue and digital formats
that
I've heard are "crap" in comparison with real live music.

I never compare the two. When I play a record I'm playing a bloody
record,
not trying to recreate some sad-arsed past 'live event'. (If my
records
sounded as disappointing as some of the 'live music' I've heard in my
time,
I'd ditch 'em!)

My mistake. I thought that recordings were supposed to be an attempt to
recreate some sort of musical event.

What do you find disappointing about "live music"? The acoustics? The
performance? The volume?

The first time I went to an orchestral concert I felt the constant urge
to turn up the volume.
Silly me.



Anyone who says they don't is lying (if only to themselves) -
sticks
out
like a chapel hatpeg....
Are you related to DABSWTFM by any chance?

Who he?
Sorry, I forgot I wasn't posting to alt.radio.digital.



--
RobH
The future's dim, the future's mono.

"RobH" wrote


I never compare the two. When I play a record I'm playing a bloody
record,
not trying to recreate some sad-arsed past 'live event'. (If my
records
sounded as disappointing as some of the 'live music' I've heard in my
time,
I'd ditch 'em!)

My mistake. I thought that recordings were supposed to be an attempt to
recreate some sort of musical event.


Bladerunner......?



What do you find disappointing about "live music"? The acoustics? The
performance? The volume?


Missing a 'some of' I think, but I will just say not all live gigs are
'perfect' (for a variety of reasons) just because they are 'live'.....



The first time I went to an orchestral concert I felt the constant urge
to turn up the volume.
Silly me.


Er, no - I've had the same urge myself at some of the more unusual venues
like Ely Cathedral (where they are far more interested in getting it down
for the BBC......)

"Keith G" wrote in message
.. .
"RobH"
wrote


I never compare the two. When I play a record I'm playing a bloody
record,
not trying to recreate some sad-arsed past 'live event'. (If my
records
sounded as disappointing as some of the 'live music' I've heard in
my
time,
I'd ditch 'em!)

My mistake. I thought that recordings were supposed to be an attempt
to
recreate some sort of musical event.


Bladerunner......?

Sorry? Not being a fanboy I don't understand the reference.

You have a point about not comparing the two (record and live) 'cos it
is a bit invalid comparing "studio" albums with anything live although
it probably is valid for recordings of "acoustic" music.




What do you find disappointing about "live music"? The acoustics?
The
performance? The volume?


Missing a 'some of' I think, but I will just say not all live gigs are
'perfect' (for a variety of reasons) just because they are 'live'.....
"missing a 'some of'" ... what you mean?
And the variety of reasons are?

"Live gigs" as you put are a bit of a different experience it terms of
sound quality but then that may depend on the type of music featured in
the performance.


The first time I went to an orchestral concert I felt the constant
urge
to turn up the volume.
Silly me.

Er, no - I've had the same urge myself at some of the more unusual
venues
like Ely Cathedral (where they are far more interested in getting it
down
for the BBC......)
Did they tell you that if you have to cough do it during the loud parts
of the music?

You went a snip to far and cut out:-

Err, I thought you said that ALL digital music is crap compared to
vinyl.

Is digital music okay if it is subsequently recorded onto vinyl ?



--
RobH
The future's dim, the future's mono.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 23:16:42 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

Tech Spec:
PCM -1600 Digital Recording system
Sampling Rate: 44,056

Why the very strange sample rate?

Encoding: 16 Bit linear

More importantly, how many bits were used during digital domain
processing?

Frequency Response: +0, -0.5dB; 4 Hz to 20 Hz
Microphones (2) B & K 4133/2619, Levinson ML-8 Pre-amps
All distortions less than .05%

Including the microphones?

Mixing Electronics: Levinson LNP-2
Monitor System: Levinson HQD
Producer and Balance Engineer: Brian Culverhouse
Production Advisor: George H de Mendelssohn-Bartholdy

Any relation to the composer of the well known violin concerto in E
minor?

Digital Recording: Digital Recording Systems Co., Inc.
Digital Editing: Sony DEC-1000 (prototype)


BTW: I recently obtained a DVD-Audio player. My one DVD-Audio disc
sounds very nice, but no better than a good CD. (It's the Bach St.
Matthew Passion conducted by Harnoncourt and was recorded specifically
for DVD-Audio rather than being a remix of a 70s pop record.)

As an experiment I tried adding two rear speakers but found that this
made only a marginal difference for classical music.


--
Chris Isbell
Southampton
UK

Production Advisor: George H de Mendelssohn-Bartholdy

Any relation to the composer of the well known violin concerto in E
minor?

Yes. But a distant one.

George H. de Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, the man who founded Vox, pointed
out that the hyphen in his name indicated he was a collateral, rather
than direct, descendant of the famous composer Felix Mendelssohn
Bartholdy. In the recording circles he was known simply as George
Mendelssohn, and, as many of his competitors readily acknowledged,
"the most remarkable talent-finder in the industry." Because he ran
Vox Productions as virtually a one-man operation for more than three
decades, and yet made it into something he knew would survive him, the
story of the company's first half-century is largely his story.

Read more at:
http://www.voxcd.com/vox_founder.html

In article , Chris Isbell
wrote:


BTW: I recently obtained a DVD-Audio player. My one DVD-Audio disc
sounds very nice, but no better than a good CD. (It's the Bach St.
Matthew Passion conducted by Harnoncourt and was recorded specifically
for DVD-Audio rather than being a remix of a 70s pop record.)

As an experiment I tried adding two rear speakers but found that this
made only a marginal difference for classical music.

I was very pleasantly suprised by just how good some DVD videos of
classical items are. I was tempted at one point to wonder if this is due to
the 48kHz sampling rate as opposed to 44kHz for CD. (I am only using the
stereo PCM sound for the DVDs.) However there are so many differences
between my CD and DVD systems [1] that it is essentially impossible for me
to form any conclusion about this at present.

Whatever the reasons, I am enjoying DVDs of concerts and operas far more
than I had expected before buying a DVD player. :-)

I have been tempted to buy one of the 50 UKP cheap DVD players with a
digital output and try it with the 'real hi fi', feeding the DAC I use, but
haven't got around to it as yet...

Slainte,

Jim


[1] In different rooms for a start! ;-

--
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

A certain Jim Lesurf, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
As an experiment I tried adding two rear speakers but found that this
made only a marginal difference for classical music.

I was very pleasantly suprised by just how good some DVD videos of
classical items are. I was tempted at one point to wonder if this is due to
the 48kHz sampling rate as opposed to 44kHz for CD.

This is a pretty negligible difference. They're probably just well
produced.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com