Great article on "Analogue Warmth"

[spiritofmusic]

lol

if you have lived then you should know that
a. the toothpaste thing is marketing nonsense
b. on the woman front try learning to cook..try taking responsibilty for your own emtional welfare..oh and if a woman is properly turned on(not her job lol) iv found this point about being good between the sheets mute.
ask your self what do you do for them
c. audio choice is hard because we are all hidiously self indulgent to a quite unnatural degre.
d. indepth thought is a product of luxury where what could happen has replaced what must. again its self indulgent.

blizzard deals in absolutes on this forum not because he lacks lifes finer nauance imo but because it can be a useful tool.

all good fun as you point out but a kernal of truth remains

passive agressive hobnob anyone

Spaz, I was only having a bit of fun. This thread is disappearing up it's own jacksie as fast as you can say "analog and tubes measure worse than digital and SS".
Toothpaste, I always buy the one on special offer. Women, I'm glad to say I've made a balanced choice (checking out objective measurements and subjective experience), I run a self employed business so in-depth thought a pre-requisite for success.

Absolutes in life are great where they are relevant - making sure you look both ways when crossing the road etc.
Blizz feels they are all the way thru audio, and he may be right in many cases. But until that magic box arrives on my doorstep, already programmed in w/multiple tube signatures and competing amp signatures, this is very much a pissing in the wind exercise.
To provoke further exasperation from the skeptics by saying tube fanatics, and owners of competing amps, will help him w/his signatures' programming, is taking these flights of fantasy to where the air is so thin you can't breathe anymore.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Well, here we disagree, Ron.

After having studied it, with the help of the knowledgeable technical input of some members here, I have concluded that digital theory is correct. In theory digital does allow for a perfect reconstitution of the analog waveform even with limited sampling, and it is only the practical implementation that is at issue. And the dCS Vivaldi stack, with a no-holds-barred effort towards practical implementation as well as currently possible, shows that the potential of even Redbook CD is immense (and I am sure that even the Vivaldi has not yet reached the peak of digital).

And yes, the playback on the dCS Vivaldi sounds incredibly organic.

This.

No amount of technology can perfectly extrapolate and synthesize and recreate the interstitial musical information lost in the digital sampling of an analog waveform (unless, I suppose, the sampling rate is infinite).

This often stated fallacy represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how digital audio works. Though I may be missing something as I have no idea what interstitial means in this context.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think this proves that, once again, much disagreement here originates in the differing philosophies of high-end audio.

I believe there are three primary alternative objectives of high-end audio:

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape, and

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile.

I subscribe to the first philosophy. I want my audio system to recreate as realistically and as believably as possible the sound of an original musical event. See http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?19261-Introduction-and-Listening-Biases

I believe that you, Blizzard, out of the three choices, would subscribe to philosophy 2) (reproduce exactly what is on the master tape).

Since I subscribe to philosophy 1), I am saying that the LP can be better than the mic feed (with "better," as defined by philosophy 1), as better able to recreate the sound of an original musical event).

Given that the sound of an original event is not captured on the recording in the first place, I can't disagree with this completely subjective view of "high end." You can believe anything gets you closer to some "original event." As long as we don't pretend "high end" is also high fidelity, we can move on.

Tim

 

[Groucho]

Since I subscribe to philosophy 1), I am saying that the LP can be better than the mic feed (with "better," as defined by philosophy 1), as better able to recreate the sound of an original musical event).

It is refreshing to actually read this - too many audiophiles dodge around the issue without actually stating it clearly.

My observation would be that this philosophy doesn't preclude the possibility that vinyl 'improves the sound' by better matching between source and the equipment further down the chain. For example, if a speaker is a two-way bass reflex whose lower mid-range would fall apart if the speaker was subjected to deep bass, then vinyl's inherent lack of deep bass will prevent this, and the lack of top end will to some extent balance the lack of bottom end. Dropping a CD player into the same system instead of the vinyl would reveal the speaker's weaknesses more strongly. Is 'the answer' to buy more and more expensive vinyl players, or buy better speakers and experience the full audio spectrum? I know which possibility I would investigate.

 

[Purite Audio]

LP better than the mic feed!
There is nothing wrong with admitting you prefer a bit of distortion, far better than attempting to wrap up your preferences in meaningless 'reviewer speak'.
Keith.

 

[Groucho]

LP better than the mic feed!

It is not much different from those who swear that FM tuners sound good. In the UK the feed to the transmitters is via 14 bit PCM lossily compressed to 10 bits using companding, and a 32 kHz sample rate. It was introduced long before the advent of CD. No one noticed! To this day, people still swear that FM sounds better than CD.

e.g.

A good FM tuner and good reception can easily equal CD if not best it.

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/fm-tuner-vs-cd-sound-quality

 

[Ron Resnick]

Well there needs to be some guys supporting the tube gear manufacturers. If not, where would the coloration profiles come from in the future? We need artists to make the templates

Very true!

 

[TBone]

For example, if a speaker is a two-way bass reflex whose lower mid-range would fall apart if the speaker was subjected to deep bass, then vinyl's inherent lack of deep bass will prevent this. Dropping a CD player into the same system instead of the vinyl would reveal the speaker's weaknesses more strongly.

Nah, with highly refined top-end vinyl, the exact opposite occurs ... vinyls added "inherited" infrasonic energy is far more likely to tax the speaker.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Well, here we disagree, Ron. . . .

That's ok, Al.

When I visit you and Peter A. next year I am open to trying to understand how, in theory, digital perfectly reconstitutes the analog waveform even with limited sampling,

 

[Purite Audio]

That's ok, Al.

When I visit you and Peter A. next year I am open to trying to understand how, in theory, digital perfectly reconstitutes the analog waveform even with limited sampling,

Chris Montgomery's videos are extremely informative.

? 23:53​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM
2 Mar 2013 - Uploaded by Image-Line
D/A and A/D | Digital Show and Tell (Monty Montgomery @ xiph.org) ... ADigital Media Primer ...​

​

 

[Groucho]

Nah, with highly refined top-end vinyl, the exact opposite occurs ... vinyls added "inherited" infrasonic energy is far more likely to tax the speaker.

It's all a question of relative levels. The vinyl will have been mastered to remove excessive bottom end. The phono input stage may also incorporate rumble roll off. There's no reason why a CD shouldn't have infrasonic all the way down - and I'm not just talking about infrasonic. Just the stuff that's below the bass reflex's resonance.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Fun all round then
I also am self employed.. Still to chose a job or indeed to do anything outside your basic survival is a luxury afforded to us by the times we live in.

I took your template to carry on your fun but through the prism of truth and in the mean time defend some one under fire. I think you will find we are all very wrong on so many levles I enjoy your posts m8.

I was laughing all the while I was reading and replying. .. Prob the only one lol

Well Spaz, I think we may be more of the same disposition on such things.
You'll see from an earlier post, I explicitly said no invective was aimed at Blizz from me, I'm sure in the real world we'd have a good old fashioned argument over a few beers, and agree to disagree. Online, the tenor always come across as borderline poisonous. I'm as guilty as anyone.
A big issue I'm having with threads is that they start off w/a fascinating premise, this one more than most. A few pages in, lots of illuminating stuff being proffered. Then suddenly things get heated, or a detour into a blind alley, and then the vitriol starts, derailing the initial good intentions.
Tbh, I'm not sure what anyone gains anymore, except more entrenched attitudes, and a bad case of angst that is only made worse returning to the thread (now just where are those antacid pills?).

Can we possibly get back on track, or does this one become another car crash thread?

 

[TBone]

It's all a question of relative levels.

such is life ...

The vinyl will have been mastered to remove excessive bottom end. The phono input stage may also incorporate rumble roll off. There's no reason why a CD shouldn't have infrasonic all the way down - and I'm not just talking about infrasonic. Just the stuff that's below the bass reflex's resonance.

Well, I'd like to see, consistently, CD vs LP plots (w/same mix) in which the LP lower bass region has been effected in comparison. I know they exist, however ... I can safely demonstrate that the vast majority of time, the major low freq. difference between my CD vs LP plots (again, same mix) is the infrasonic region; in which tonearm resonance (a variable) dictates the amount of infrasonic energy transmitted ... as compared to cd which offers farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr less infrasonic energy by comparison.

 

[Groucho]

such is life ...



Well, I'd like to see, consistently, CD vs LP plots (w/same mix) in which the LP lower bass region has been effected in comparison. I know they exist, however ... I can safely demonstrate that the vast majority of time, the major low freq. difference between my CD vs LP plots (again, same mix) is the infrasonic region; in which tonearm resonance (a variable) dictates the amount of infrasonic energy transmitted ... as compared to cd which offers farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr less infrasonic energy by comparison.

I don't dispute what you say: a vinyl playback system will add some infrasonic that wasn't in the original recording. As I said, I am not just considering true infrasonic content, but everything down at the bottom end. Vinyl will also add other things and take some away. The recording could have been made specifically with vinyl in mind, in which case it will have been 'tamed' before a digital version is ever made. Typical jazz and cocktail lounge music won't contain much deep bass anyway, or not in the same way as symphonic orchestral music, so plots of such recordings will not show great differences. No mystery here. No magic.

Also, "the vast majority of the time" means nothing in audio. If it's only one in a hundred 'notes' affected it's still a problem. As microstrip tried to do it on another thread the other day, low 'probabilities' don't invalidate an argument.

 

[Argonaut]

Add in to that the thinly disguised 'Commercial Agenda' gambit and it's all Vogon Poetry

 

[spiritofmusic]

lol

You have just described with startling accuracy the merrit of our race.. Or to be precise the lack of it
What few seem to realise is they are talking about different things in a sea of unknowns in which it is them selfs that are the limiting factor.

Spaz, another pithy comment that really resonates w/me.
I have been considering reducing my visits and contributions to WBF, but I have to say yr ability to get right down to it in one sentence when I rely on ten, makes staying active here, and keeping sane w/guys like you still worth the effort.
The same can be said re my thoughts twds my compatriots Ron, Audiophile Bill, Barry58, Harlequin. You're all keeping me sane when I find a lot of threads descend on that Mobius Loop and never re emerge.

 

[TBone]

I don't dispute what you say: a vinyl playback system will add some infrasonic that wasn't in the original recording. As I said, I am not just considering true infrasonic content, but everything down at the bottom end. Vinyl will also add other things and take some away.

Vinyl reproduction is a moving target, hence much "mystery" ... it's performance is variable by nature based on so many physical dependencies. Therefore, blanket statements, such as LPs have "inherited" less bass compared to CD, can easily be proven wrong based on actual long term experience.

The recording could have been made specifically with vinyl in mind, in which case it will have been 'tamed' before a digital version is ever made. Typical jazz and cocktail lounge music won't contain much deep bass anyway, or not in the same way as symphonic orchestral music, so plots of such recordings will not show great differences. No mystery here. No magic.

Well, I'd still like to see the comparison plots; so until that time, my premise is based on my own experience regarding CD vs Vinyl... in which case ... Bass capability is not SIMPLY limited to either musical genre, lands & pits or dragging some rock thru a wiggling valley.

 

[Detlof]

Spaz, another pithy comment that really resonates w/me.
I have been considering reducing my visits and contributions to WBF, but I have to say yr ability to get right down to it in one sentence when I rely on ten, makes staying active here, and keeping sane w/guys like you still worth the effort.
The same can be said re my thoughts twds my compatriots Ron, Audiophile Bill, Barry58, Harlequin. You're all keeping me sane when I find a lot of threads descend on that Mobius Loop and never re emerge.

Ha! How I love that one from you. Spaz is simply pure joy and then even more himself, when his spelling becomes hard to decipher.

 

[Groucho]

Vinyl reproduction is a moving target, hence much "mystery" ... it's performance is variable by nature based on so many physical dependencies. Therefore, blanket statements, such as LPs have "inherited" less bass compared to CD, can easily be proven wrong based on actual long term experience.

Well, I'd still like to see the comparison plots; so until that time, my premise is based on my own experience regarding CD vs Vinyl... in which case ... Bass capability is not SIMPLY limited to either musical genre, lands & pits or dragging some rock thru a wiggling valley.

I simply take it from the horse's mouth (so to speak)

A low cut filter is used at 40Hz to control and maintain the bass frequency information of the audio. This keeps the grooves from slamming into one another and helps fit your audio into the space provided by the lacquer disc. A high cut filter is placed around 16Khz to help control high frequency information in the audio. The vinyl medium does not “like” a lot of high frequency information. Instruments such as hi-hats, cymbals and tambourines often cause distortion if all high end is allowed to pass through to the cutting lathe. Vocals that contain a lot of “SSSS” sounds (sibilance) will also cause a distorted sound on your master recording if not properly treated.

http://gottagrooverecords.com/vinyl-mastering/

That was the first one that came up in a google search. Next one down in the list

There is a lot of poking and prodding that is often done to get the stereo signal to fit into place, because the LP has less information on it than the original master tape does. Often, you’ll see mastering engineers roll off a lot of the very low bass and add a false bass peak around 200 Hz or so, just to compensate for the mechanical limitations of the equipment.

http://www.recordingmag.com/resources/resourceDetail/114.html

etc. etc.

 

[microstrip]

That's ok, Al.

When I visit you and Peter A. next year I am open to trying to understand how, in theory, digital perfectly reconstitutes the analog waveform even with limited sampling,

Digital perfectly reconstitutes the analog waveform if the analog waveform has limited bandwidth and limited dynamics - exactly the case of audio signals. What we can debate is the sound quality of the practical implementations.