On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:32:24 GMT, dhaynie@jersey.net (Dave Haynie) wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 22:02:44 GMT, d_ruether@hotmail.com (Neuman - Ruether)
>wrote:
>>On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:46:08 -0500, "John S. Dyson"
>>
[....]
>>> Some of the 'mellow' sound
>>>from LPs is clearly from numerous distortion, noise and transient response
>>>'problems' that are perceived as a certain 'sound' or 'ambience'.
>>I think you are right. With the recent single-ended
>>low-feedback low-power tube-amp craze (and the efficient
>>horn speakers to go with them...), audiomania does seem to
>>be about "euphonious distortions", rather than accuracy of
>>reproduction...;-)
>I think it's been that way for quite some time.
I regard "recent" as including the last 10-15 years...;-)
>After all, studio
>folks have pretty much mastered (sic) the accuracy thing, at least to
>the extent of any meaningful playback at home -- given that's the gear
>used to master the thing you're listening to.
I'm always surprised to find such great differences in
mix quality - a friend is a fairly well known singer/player
who owns his own studio. Listening to his excellent mixes,
and comparing them with those of the well-known label
(known for good mixes...) he recorded with, it is almost
like "night and day". Without obvious differences/errors,
the mixes of the record company (for CD) sounded less lively
and "real", with too much processing used (reverb and
compression, mostly) - the results were not bad, and fit the
general sound of the company's CDs, but the results were
inferior to the musician's own mixes. Which is by way of
saying that the mix result is as much a matter of the
mixer's skill and taste as of technical issues - so it
is hard to say that the average mix represents any sort
of ideal for accurate playback of the sounds recorded...
>Now, sure, real audio people have things to argue about -- lietening
>fatigue with a particular monitor, very small colorations of one piece
>of gear vs. another, dithering algorithms, clock jitter, etc. (well,
>the digital domain did open up a whole new set of concerns). But
>nowhere in there is a path that leads to 10ft speaker cables selling
>for $8,000+.
I agree with the last, but anyone listening to, say, five
different "good" speaker systems, even if ideally set up
(1/2 the "sound" of speakers...;-), will quickly note that
each has a different sound, and a set of characteristics
(not all good...) that color all that passes through it...
No one has produced the truly neutral, accurate transducer
and listening environment yet, alas, and most are rather poor still...
>The audiophile crowd has always been on the lunatic fringe.
No question about that - though it has gotten progressively
worse in the last 20-25 years or so, perhaps "peaking" "recently"...;-)
>>>I suspect that all of us would like 96K sample rates instead of 44 or 48, but
>>>I agree that vinyl noise, clicks, pops, the incredibly bad transient response,
>>>and the limited bass capabilities of normal vinyl don't seem like advatages :-).
>I agree. And my small collection of DTS CDs, played through my amp's
>superior D/As, really does sound better than plain old CD. Of course,
>a purest will step and complain about compression artifacts -- which
>is of course why DVD-Audio will ultimately be the winner in next-gen
>digital audio.
>>Perhaps you have not heard vinyl played on good gear...;-)
>Good gear can't replace what isn't there.
Even given severe limitations,
the recorded result can be quite satisfying. I have heard
78s, and even cylinders (!) that provided satisfying
renditions of the music recorded, regardless of the
obvious technical deficiencies. Bad playback gear can make
adequate-but-defective recordings sound worse - cartridges
with high end resonances, tweeters that have rough response
and resonances contribute to the perception of higher levels
of surface noise on analogue disks, for instance. And most
reproduction systems are incapable of reproducing cleanly
(if at all) the bottom *two octaves*(!) of reproducible
sound, and this limitation colors the sound of what is
heard. Oddly, inferior source material sounds better on
wide-range, smooth, low-resonance systems than the best
source material reproduced on systems with the usual
myriad of shortcomings... (ideally, the best of both
are combined, of course, but this is rare).
>When you master an LP, you
>cut and compress the hell ouf the low-end. This isn't optional, this
>is physically necessary to deliver your 22-or-so minutes per side,
>simply because allowing much bass in the tracks would make the tracks
>wider, thus the track to track spacing further and the playing time
>less.
As I pointed out, I do have a collection of LPs with good
low bass - and, yes, the recording time has been compromised
on some of these to provide it (the track width is VERY wide
visually! ;-).
>>When various resonances (in turntable/cartridge/arm -
>>speaker-drivers/enclosures) are minimized, the vinyl sounds
>>remarkably good, with quiet surfaces and a few light "ticks"
>>per disk side (and no "pops"), and with scary transients.
>A very good turntable with pristine vinyl can certainly sound good,
>especially if it's music that doesn't require a gread deal of low-end
>reproduction. At least for a little while, until that disc starts to
>wear. And sure, for a price, you can have a laser pickup today and
>experience that same sound reproduction without the mechanical issues
>(no tracking angle error, no inner grove distortion, no stereo channel
>crosstalk, no antiskating compensation, no accoustic feedback, no
>cartridge hum, etc). See http://www.elpj.com/qa.html. And that does
>nothing, of course, about the distortions inherent in RIAA expansion
>on playback.
If you look at the distribution of amplitude requirements
with frequency with most music, even with fairly strong
bass content, the result is usually surprising, and this permits
the RIAA curve to work (especially with variable track
width), and for speakers to perform, even with the
increasing excursions needed with decreasing frequency to
maintain a "flat" response. Again, old technology, but
the RIAA EQ was not as serious a limitation as it would
appear... (and I have the recordings to prove it ;-).
As for record "wear", I have always been surprised by this,
too...;-) I have in my collection pairs of LPs purchased
at the same time. Even after MANY playings with one, and
almost none with the other, the sound and noise is very
nearly the same when these are compared. With adequate care
and playback gear, wear is not really the issue often
claimed. (If it were, think of how unplayable 78s and
cylinder recordings would be after only a couple of plays,
given the relatively poor materials and VERY high playback
surface pressures used - yet these often remain playable
for many decades of use...)
>And of course, when you think about how all of these distortions kick
>on 99.9999% of all turntables ever made, it does put the listening
>experience in prespective. That's not to say it's bad -- most of us
>grew up on LPs, and we've adjusted to some of these distortions as a
>matter of course. With CDs, you learn a different (and smaller, but
>still real) set of limitations that your mind compensates for, over
>time.
Yes.
>>>(Re: bass, of course, it is possible to cut uncompressed or un-rolled-off
>>>bass onto vinyl, but not every turntable/tonearm/pick-up can deal with it.)
Also true...
>>Yes - I used to design and build large subwoofers, so I have
>>a collection of 33s that have some amazing low bass on them.
>Ok, sure, 50 years ago you could even adjust the expansion on playback
>-- my Dad had a home-made tube-amp that offered that, but that was
>before the RIAA compression standard, far as I know. This was also
>mono gear, with a great table-sized speaker cabinet and all.
>But if you want bass, a DTS disc goes subsonic, so does my subwoofer.
>Eventually, I'd like to put in under-the-floor subwoofers, but even at
>this, conventional LPs aren't touching that.
Then you have not heard some LPs that do...;-)
>> Unfortunately, though, it was (and is...)
>>fairly standard practice for the low bass to be rolled off
>>during mixing - I guess the manufacturers figure it will
>>cause more problems with some poor gear than it is worth,
>>since few people can reproduce it, so....
>Mixing wasn't even the issue. As mentioned above, the bass on LPs was
>routines massacred on mastering (that's the last post-production stage
>-- you'll take a mix and hand if off to a mastering engineer, who will
>tweak it differently for your target media: CD, cassette, LP, MPEG
>Layer 3, etc). It's here that they really trash the bass, simply
>because a conventional LP can't fit it. Certainly a custom shot-play
>disc could -- it's a limit of the physical space on the disc, not
>usually your playback gear.
Yes - I was loosely referring to the whole mastering process
as "mixing" - an error...;-) And, yes, the low bass is
generally removed, as I pointed out - but not in ***ALL***
LP recordings, as I also pointed out...;-) And, yes, the
playback gear used by 99.99% of people cannot reproduce
cleanly (or, generally, at all) most of the low bass range,
regardless of the speaker-makers' claims. Good 40-cycle
reproduction is unusual, let alone good 30, 20, or lower
frequencies. "Bass" for most people is still a bump around
150 cycles, and "low bass" is a bump around 75...;-) It
is difficult, and requires considerable space and design
effort, to reproduce tones below about 40 cycles cleanly
and nearly level in amplitude with the midrange. When
the range includes the subsonic, things get
interesting...;-)
>>Ah, and to keep all this slightly OT, the still is a
>>frame-grab from a VX1000 with a fisheye WA converter
>>on it...;-)
>I'm not a big fan of the screw-in lens adaptors. I recall when a few
>of the now compact "compact 35mm rangefinders" (I collect these,
>indicently) offered these as an option, and they rarely worked well,
>Of course, that was in the days before optical CAD.
The requirements for good performance for lens converters
for still photography (especialy on film) are quite different
from those for video. Almost no converter produces
good results with stills, yet several converters intended
for still cameras work so well on some video cameras that
the image quality is virtually the same with them on or off.
Converters dedicated to specific video lenses can be even
better.
>I have two
>wide-angles for my camcoder, simply because there are times when it's
>better to get the shot, somehow, than not at all.
Try some more - good ones are very good! ;-)
>So, applying this to my Canon Pro90, I bought a Raynox wide angle
>conversion lens. I looked at the Canon version, but 0,66X is
>reasonable, 0.8X not so. This lesn isn't actually too bad, as long as
>you don't zoom much, if any.
This is a common limitation, but not always...
I guess, overall above, it is about realizing there are
"exceptions to the general rules" - and these are
what some of us seek out, since exceptionally good
performance is then possible to have, even within a
limiting technology...;-) I guess that is why I bother
to compare camcorders, even when the Mini-DV medium has
severe overall limitations, and all the camcorders are
capable of decent performance, given the global limitations.
Still, some perform better than others, and the differences
are worth persuing, for me. See:
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm
and even: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html