Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Timing

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 5:58:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Current audio systems do not reproduce the entire wavefront that
creates the listener's experience in the concert hall. At best, they
measure a few channels and reproduce those, inexactly, through a few
speakers.

Yet the playback experience can be enjoyable and thrilling. Obviously
something of the original sonic event is preserved. Something of the
original time-evolving spectrum of sonic energy is reproduced.

Ignoring for now the question of reproducing a wavefront, let's look at
just how the signal in one channel is handled. It can be quite
distorted and yet still recognizable. What aspects of a signal must be
preserved for it to be recognizable? What aspects must be preserved
for it to sound good, and to sound very much like the original signal?

Engineers have addressed this question in many ways, for example
designing compression algorithms. Some details of the original signal
can be thrown away without losing much, perceptually.

MP3's sound sorta like the orignal files. I'm interested in addressing
the question "what makes an accurate signal" at a higher level of
quality than that.

For example, I've always preferred analog sources to digital, finding
the former more lifelike. Does an analog recorder preserve some aspect
of the signal better than a digital recorder? I know that many of you
will say categorically not. Fine. Let's look anyway at one aspect of
the signal.

Intuitively, a musical signal is made of many "events"...for example
attacks of notes. Intuitively I hear even sustained notes as made of
events...little shifts of timbre, and so on. This idea is confirmed
when we look at an audio signal and see periodic spikes, and also
confirmed by the success of "granular synthesis" (a technique for
synthesizing sustained sounds by summing many individual wavelets).

Perhaps an important dimension of accurate sound reproduction is the
accurate reproduction of the *relative timing* of these events. To
clarify, perhaps we could conceive of each event as being recognized by
the neural machinery and triggering a neuron to fire. And something
about the pattern of this firing, the timing contained therein, is
important to defining the sound quality.

How does a particular recording/playback process affect the timing of
transients? Recording processes are sometimes characterized in terms
of frequency response. Digital has a very flat response in the region
audible to the ear, meaning it doesn't introduce much distortion.
However, it does introduce some distortion. And if we were somehow
able to examine the relative firing times of neurons in response to a
recorded/played-back signal, how much would a digital playback process
distort those times? How much would an analog process distort those
times?

This is not a question about jitter. Certainly jitter is one
distortion mechanism in digital (and analog) playback, but this more
about how even a linear playback system will distort transients because
it is band-limited. Changing the shape of the transient will likely
have a small effect on neural timing. Both digital and analog
recording processes distort the shape of the transient, but perhaps one
of them does so in a way that better preserves the relative timing of
neural events.

My *suspicion* is that analog in fact does better preserve the timing
of neural events. However, I would need to know more about
neuroscience and non-linear systems to have a good answer to this, but
perhaps someone reading is interested.

Best,
Mike

More about : timing

December 22, 2004 4:02:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:
> Current audio systems do not reproduce the entire wavefront that
> creates the listener's experience in the concert hall. At best, they
> measure a few channels and reproduce those, inexactly, through a few
> speakers.
>
> Yet the playback experience can be enjoyable and thrilling. Obviously
> something of the original sonic event is preserved. Something of the
> original time-evolving spectrum of sonic energy is reproduced.
>
> Ignoring for now the question of reproducing a wavefront, let's look at
> just how the signal in one channel is handled. It can be quite
> distorted and yet still recognizable. What aspects of a signal must be
> preserved for it to be recognizable? What aspects must be preserved
> for it to sound good, and to sound very much like the original signal?
>
> Engineers have addressed this question in many ways, for example
> designing compression algorithms. Some details of the original signal
> can be thrown away without losing much, perceptually.
>
> MP3's sound sorta like the orignal files. I'm interested in addressing
> the question "what makes an accurate signal" at a higher level of
> quality than that.
>
> For example, I've always preferred analog sources to digital, finding
> the former more lifelike. Does an analog recorder preserve some aspect
> of the signal better than a digital recorder? I know that many of you
> will say categorically not. Fine. Let's look anyway at one aspect of
> the signal.
>
> Intuitively, a musical signal is made of many "events"...for example
> attacks of notes. Intuitively I hear even sustained notes as made of
> events...little shifts of timbre, and so on. This idea is confirmed
> when we look at an audio signal and see periodic spikes, and also
> confirmed by the success of "granular synthesis" (a technique for
> synthesizing sustained sounds by summing many individual wavelets).
>
> Perhaps an important dimension of accurate sound reproduction is the
> accurate reproduction of the *relative timing* of these events. To
> clarify, perhaps we could conceive of each event as being recognized by
> the neural machinery and triggering a neuron to fire. And something
> about the pattern of this firing, the timing contained therein, is
> important to defining the sound quality.
>
> How does a particular recording/playback process affect the timing of
> transients? Recording processes are sometimes characterized in terms
> of frequency response. Digital has a very flat response in the region
> audible to the ear, meaning it doesn't introduce much distortion.
> However, it does introduce some distortion. And if we were somehow
> able to examine the relative firing times of neurons in response to a
> recorded/played-back signal, how much would a digital playback process
> distort those times? How much would an analog process distort those
> times?
>
> This is not a question about jitter. Certainly jitter is one
> distortion mechanism in digital (and analog) playback, but this more
> about how even a linear playback system will distort transients because
> it is band-limited. Changing the shape of the transient will likely
> have a small effect on neural timing. Both digital and analog
> recording processes distort the shape of the transient, but perhaps one
> of them does so in a way that better preserves the relative timing of
> neural events.
>
> My *suspicion* is that analog in fact does better preserve the timing
> of neural events. However, I would need to know more about
> neuroscience and non-linear systems to have a good answer to this, but
> perhaps someone reading is interested.
>
> Best,
> Mike

There were experiments done where the output of a vinyl rig is captured
and digitized using the CD standard. Then the listeners tried to tell
the analog playback from the digitized verison. The difference was
indistingusihable by the most vigorous vinyl supporters. Do a search on
the Lipshitz article to read more about this.

Many of us have digitally recorded vinyl LP's with great success,
achieving results that are virtually identical to the original. That
should tell you a lot about how good digital recording is.

You prefer analog (vinyl) because the distortions associated with vinyl
equipment are euphonic to you. It's really quite simple.

Read up on the sampling theorem to learn how accurate digital recording
can be.
December 22, 2004 4:04:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:
> Current audio systems do not reproduce the entire wavefront that
> creates the listener's experience in the concert hall. At best, they
> measure a few channels and reproduce those, inexactly, through a few
> speakers.
>
> Yet the playback experience can be enjoyable and thrilling. Obviously
> something of the original sonic event is preserved. Something of the
> original time-evolving spectrum of sonic energy is reproduced.
>
> Ignoring for now the question of reproducing a wavefront, let's look
> at just how the signal in one channel is handled. It can be quite
> distorted and yet still recognizable. What aspects of a signal must
> be preserved for it to be recognizable? What aspects must be
> preserved for it to sound good, and to sound very much like the
> original signal?
>
> Engineers have addressed this question in many ways, for example
> designing compression algorithms. Some details of the original signal
> can be thrown away without losing much, perceptually.
>
> MP3's sound sorta like the orignal files. I'm interested in
> addressing the question "what makes an accurate signal" at a higher
> level of quality than that.
>
> For example, I've always preferred analog sources to digital, finding
> the former more lifelike. Does an analog recorder preserve some
> aspect of the signal better than a digital recorder? I know that
> many of you will say categorically not. Fine. Let's look anyway at
> one aspect of the signal.
>
> Intuitively, a musical signal is made of many "events"...for example
> attacks of notes. Intuitively I hear even sustained notes as made of
> events...little shifts of timbre, and so on. This idea is confirmed
> when we look at an audio signal and see periodic spikes, and also
> confirmed by the success of "granular synthesis" (a technique for
> synthesizing sustained sounds by summing many individual wavelets).
>
> Perhaps an important dimension of accurate sound reproduction is the
> accurate reproduction of the *relative timing* of these events. To
> clarify, perhaps we could conceive of each event as being recognized
> by the neural machinery and triggering a neuron to fire. And
> something about the pattern of this firing, the timing contained
> therein, is important to defining the sound quality.
>
> How does a particular recording/playback process affect the timing of
> transients? Recording processes are sometimes characterized in terms
> of frequency response. Digital has a very flat response in the region
> audible to the ear, meaning it doesn't introduce much distortion.
> However, it does introduce some distortion. And if we were somehow
> able to examine the relative firing times of neurons in response to a
> recorded/played-back signal, how much would a digital playback process
> distort those times? How much would an analog process distort those
> times?
>
> This is not a question about jitter. Certainly jitter is one
> distortion mechanism in digital (and analog) playback, but this more
> about how even a linear playback system will distort transients
> because it is band-limited. Changing the shape of the transient will
> likely have a small effect on neural timing. Both digital and analog
> recording processes distort the shape of the transient, but perhaps
> one of them does so in a way that better preserves the relative
> timing of neural events.
>
> My *suspicion* is that analog in fact does better preserve the timing
> of neural events. However, I would need to know more about
> neuroscience and non-linear systems to have a good answer to this, but
> perhaps someone reading is interested.
>

These are your speculations. I deny your whole idea.
You can test it yourself. Use your turntable and play one of your favourite
tunes. At the same time record from the tape out receptacle with your
soundcard. Keep the level low, like -12dB so there is some headroom. Then
burn s CD from the wave-file.
Now you can set up a comparison. I do this with a small mixer, but you can
switch also on your (pre)amp, if you fade out before switching and then
adjust the volume knob, so both sources have exactly the same volume. Start
the CD first and pause it at a significant point, so you can synchronize the
two sources.
Try to listen carefully if there is any difference.
Do this with a friend without you knowing which is which.

--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy
Related resources
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 4:08:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

First the differences have to be audible.

Nonetheless, it is generally the case that if a device has a well
behaved frequency response curve, then it probably doesn't distort
transients very much. Of course you can concoct devices which disobey
this rule (such as echo chambers and goofy filters), but I don't think
they are typically part of a basic audio recorder.

There is a widespread misconception that something is lost in between
the data points measured by a digital recorder. This is not the case.
If the input signal is bandwidth-limited by reasonable analog means,
then the digital data accurately preserves *all* of the temporal
content. (Other experts on this forum can probably state this more
precisely).

Chances are, digital does a better job of preserving timing because the
phase response can be quite flat. Hope this helps.

Michael Mossey wrote:

> My *suspicion* is that analog in fact does better preserve the timing
> of neural events. However, I would need to know more about
> neuroscience and non-linear systems to have a good answer to this,
but
> perhaps someone reading is interested.
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 4:09:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Both digital and analog
recording processes distort the shape of the transient, but perhaps one
of them does so in a way that better preserves the relative timing of
neural events.

My *suspicion* is that analog in fact does better preserve the timing of
neural events. However, I would need to know more about neuroscience and
non-linear systems to have a good answer to this, but"

There is a simple test, record an analog source unto a digital one and
using listening alone see if they can be distinguished. We can save
time, it was done and they can not.
December 22, 2004 7:31:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Chung wrote:

> There were experiments done where the output of a vinyl rig is captured
> and digitized using the CD standard. Then the listeners tried to tell
> the analog playback from the digitized verison. The difference was
> indistingusihable by the most vigorous vinyl supporters. Do a search on
> the Lipshitz article to read more about this.
>
> Many of us have digitally recorded vinyl LP's with great success,
> achieving results that are virtually identical to the original. That
> should tell you a lot about how good digital recording is.
>
> You prefer analog (vinyl) because the distortions associated with vinyl
> equipment are euphonic to you. It's really quite simple.
>
> Read up on the sampling theorem to learn how accurate digital recording
> can be.


When recording an LP digitally you can really "see" the kind of analog
grundge that is present. I use Audacity on Linux, and from the moment
the tonearm is placed on the "silent" lead in groove the meters start
jumping around like the 4th of July. I'm guessing that this stuff is
present throughout the recording, but just masked by the louder program
signal.


I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the
analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise
floor (along with the wider frequency response).


In any event, to me the CD's sound essentially the same as the records
when I monitor using headphones.


michael
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 10:03:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

michael wrote:

> I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the
> analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise
> floor (along with the wider frequency response).

The HF response of many, if not most, recordings is hotter
than neutral. Some degree of HF distortion is also not
infrequent. With digital, it is possible to reproduce this
all accurately. It can be annoying to those with good ears.

That is not to say that those who love vinyl may not also be
responding to other factors, just to agree that better
reproduction is not always pleasant to hear.

Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA
Anonymous
December 23, 2004 10:09:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>Date: 12/21/2004 8:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cqatal0eh4@news2.newsguy.com>
>
>Chung wrote:
>
> > There were experiments done where the output of a vinyl rig is captured
>> and digitized using the CD standard. Then the listeners tried to tell
>> the analog playback from the digitized verison. The difference was
>> indistingusihable by the most vigorous vinyl supporters. Do a search on
>> the Lipshitz article to read more about this.
>>
>> Many of us have digitally recorded vinyl LP's with great success,
>> achieving results that are virtually identical to the original. That
>> should tell you a lot about how good digital recording is.
>>
>> You prefer analog (vinyl) because the distortions associated with vinyl
>> equipment are euphonic to you. It's really quite simple.
>>
>> Read up on the sampling theorem to learn how accurate digital recording
>> can be.
>
>
>When recording an LP digitally you can really "see" the kind of analog
>grundge that is present. I use Audacity on Linux, and from the moment
>the tonearm is placed on the "silent" lead in groove the meters start
>jumping around like the 4th of July. I'm guessing that this stuff is
>present throughout the recording, but just masked by the louder program
>signal.

Kind of a broad claim based on limited experience don't you think?

>
>
>I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the
>analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise
>floor (along with the wider frequency response).

That striles me as a rather absurd claim given that most said vinyl enthusiasts
at least claim that live music is their reference. What is the noise floor of
the real thing?

>
>
>In any event, to me the CD's sound essentially the same as the records
>when I monitor using headphones.
>
>
>michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 1:09:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 23 Dec 2004 19:03:57 GMT, Mike Prager <hifi@ec.rr.com> wrote:

>michael wrote:
>
>> I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the
>> analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise
>> floor (along with the wider frequency response).
>
>The HF response of many, if not most, recordings is hotter
>than neutral. Some degree of HF distortion is also not
>infrequent. With digital, it is possible to reproduce this
>all accurately. It can be annoying to those with good ears.
>
>That is not to say that those who love vinyl may not also be
>responding to other factors, just to agree that better
>reproduction is not always pleasant to hear.
>
>Mike Prager
>North Carolina, USA

Hear hear! Go to a normal classical concert with a symphony orchestra,
and you hear a pleasant, balanced sound. Listen to the same on a
normal record - CD or vinyl - and all of a sudden the highs have a
sort of exaggerated fizzing quality. This is very unpleasant, but can
usually be fixed quite easily if you are prepared to take the trouble
of running the recording through a DAW to re-equalise.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
December 24, 2004 7:41:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

S888Wheel wrote:

>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net

>>When recording an LP digitally you can really "see" the kind of analog
>>grundge that is present. I use Audacity on Linux, and from the moment
>>the tonearm is placed on the "silent" lead in groove the meters start
>>jumping around like the 4th of July. I'm guessing that this stuff is
>>present throughout the recording, but just masked by the louder program
>>signal.
>
>
> Kind of a broad claim based on limited experience don't you think?

You tell me, then. I'm guessing that the "silent grooves" of a record
are the baseline and represent the actual noise floor of the
record/diamond interface. Would not this "baseline" (if indeed it is
such) be present throughout the recording but masked during louder
passages? In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog
signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering
non-musical program noise.

>>I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the
>>analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise
>>floor (along with the wider frequency response).
>
>
> That striles me as a rather absurd claim given that most said vinyl enthusiasts
> at least claim that live music is their reference.

Well...that's what they claim in any case. When one listens to a live
performance there are all kinds of noise artifacts present which may not
be heard on a recording. But we are speaking and writing of two
different things. First, I was speaking of inherent vinyl noise which
is NOT present in any live venue. Second, in a "live" recording ambient
acoustical noise is (or should be) recorded along with the program.

I am a Wagner fan. Let's look at two different recordings: first, the
Boulez Bayreuth Ring (Phillips) and, second, the Levine Met Ring
(DGG-the CD version and not the DVD live recording). The first was an
all digital (except Gotterdammerung) 'rehearsal' recording and exhibits
all one would expect from a live performance except audience artifacts
(since no audience was present). That is, stage noises from the cast
jumping around on the floor, and sets moving, etc. This is caught on
the digital tape quite clearly and can be heard apart from any
additional vinyl artifacts. The Levine set, on the other hand, being a
studio recording arises from an imperceptible noise floor and one hears
nothing but the musical notes (and singing).

When making a CD copy of both I can attest to the vinyl noise of the
former (which I have records of), but the latter is a CD version and my
subsequent copies have no additional noise (simply copying digit for
digit).

On the other hand, the Levine set has an eerie, almost unnatural aural
feeling about it due to "digital silence". It is true that we do not
experience, in life, sound emanating from a zero noise floor. That is
what I meant when I suggested that maybe digital is "too good" for the
analog crowd. Not that digital cannot capture a "live music reference"
to use your words, but that, at times and from the studio, what is
presented IS artificial due to a lack of background noise. Maybe analog
front ends supply enough background grundge to allow us to
psychologically better integrate what we are hearing vis-a-vis our
normal experience.

Now, in the analog world we also experience studio recordings, but they
always have some tape hiss along with the heretofore mentioned vinyl
background crud. Listening to them is nothing like listening to a CD.
Often the vinyl background crud is high enough to mask the master analog
tape hiss (assuming no Dolby or dbx was used in which case tape hiss may
not be a factor).

As an aside, I am reminded of, many many years ago and when digital was
quite young, purchasing a CD copy of a Yes album. Upon listening to the
CD I found that on a particular tune one side of the stereo track
abruptly drops out. Tape hiss (clearly audible on the CD) from this
"silent" channel was quite startling. I checked my Lp version but
because of surface noise I could not hear any tape hiss. This was my
first indication that digital really does capture everything.

michael
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 7:08:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote:
> On 23 Dec 2004 19:03:57 GMT, Mike Prager <hifi@ec.rr.com> wrote:

> >michael wrote:
> >
> >> I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the
> >> analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise
> >> floor (along with the wider frequency response).
> >
> >The HF response of many, if not most, recordings is hotter
> >than neutral. Some degree of HF distortion is also not
> >infrequent. With digital, it is possible to reproduce this
> >all accurately. It can be annoying to those with good ears.
> >
> >That is not to say that those who love vinyl may not also be
> >responding to other factors, just to agree that better
> >reproduction is not always pleasant to hear.
> >
> >Mike Prager
> >North Carolina, USA

> Hear hear! Go to a normal classical concert with a symphony orchestra,
> and you hear a pleasant, balanced sound. Listen to the same on a
> normal record - CD or vinyl - and all of a sudden the highs have a
> sort of exaggerated fizzing quality. This is very unpleasant, but can
> usually be fixed quite easily if you are prepared to take the trouble
> of running the recording through a DAW to re-equalise.

And you're sure this is due to the recording, and not the vastly
different room acoustics?

--

-S
If you're a nut and knock on enough doors, eventually someone will open one,
look at you and say, Messiah, we have waited for your arrival.
Anonymous
December 24, 2004 7:12:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

michael <pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> S888Wheel wrote:

> >>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net

> >>When recording an LP digitally you can really "see" the kind of analog
> >>grundge that is present. I use Audacity on Linux, and from the moment
> >>the tonearm is placed on the "silent" lead in groove the meters start
> >>jumping around like the 4th of July. I'm guessing that this stuff is
> >>present throughout the recording, but just masked by the louder program
> >>signal.
> >
> >
> > Kind of a broad claim based on limited experience don't you think?

> You tell me, then. I'm guessing that the "silent grooves" of a record
> are the baseline and represent the actual noise floor of the
> record/diamond interface. Would not this "baseline" (if indeed it is
> such) be present throughout the recording but masked during louder
> passages? In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog
> signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering
> non-musical program noise.

There's no question that even the quietest vinyl will show visible
'grunge' in a wavform or spectral view, during the supposed silences
before and after tracks...in contrast to digital silence. This is just
one of several ways of demonstrating technically that digital
beats vinyl in the S/N department hands down.

> >>I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the
> >>analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise
> >>floor (along with the wider frequency response).
> >
> >
> > That striles me as a rather absurd claim given that most said vinyl enthusiasts
> > at least claim that live music is their reference.

> Well...that's what they claim in any case. When one listens to a live
> performance there are all kinds of noise artifacts present which may not
> be heard on a recording. But we are speaking and writing of two
> different things. First, I was speaking of inherent vinyl noise which
> is NOT present in any live venue. Second, in a "live" recording ambient
> acoustical noise is (or should be) recorded along with the program.

It used to be common for CDs to have the disclaimer like, '
the higher resolution of digital transfer may reveal imperfections
in the source' .

> On the other hand, the Levine set has an eerie, almost unnatural aural
> feeling about it due to "digital silence". It is true that we do not
> experience, in life, sound emanating from a zero noise floor. That is
> what I meant when I suggested that maybe digital is "too good" for the
> analog crowd. Not that digital cannot capture a "live music reference"
> to use your words, but that, at times and from the studio, what is
> presented IS artificial due to a lack of background noise. Maybe analog
> front ends supply enough background grundge to allow us to
> psychologically better integrate what we are hearing vis-a-vis our
> normal experience.

Along the same lines, it has often been suggested that what vinylphiles
prefer about the LP medium is what it *adds* to the recording --
midrange phasiness and other so-called 'euphonic' distortion.

> As an aside, I am reminded of, many many years ago and when digital was
> quite young, purchasing a CD copy of a Yes album. Upon listening to the
> CD I found that on a particular tune one side of the stereo track
> abruptly drops out. Tape hiss (clearly audible on the CD) from this
> "silent" channel was quite startling. I checked my Lp version but
> because of surface noise I could not hear any tape hiss. This was my
> first indication that digital really does capture everything.

ah...Perpetual Change. ;>

--

-S
If you're a nut and knock on enough doors, eventually someone will open one,
look at you and say, Messiah, we have waited for your arrival.
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 6:35:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 24 Dec 2004 16:08:34 GMT, Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:

>Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote:
>> On 23 Dec 2004 19:03:57 GMT, Mike Prager <hifi@ec.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> >michael wrote:
>> >
>> >> I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the
>> >> analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise
>> >> floor (along with the wider frequency response).
>> >
>> >The HF response of many, if not most, recordings is hotter
>> >than neutral. Some degree of HF distortion is also not
>> >infrequent. With digital, it is possible to reproduce this
>> >all accurately. It can be annoying to those with good ears.
>> >
>> >That is not to say that those who love vinyl may not also be
>> >responding to other factors, just to agree that better
>> >reproduction is not always pleasant to hear.
>> >
>> >Mike Prager
>> >North Carolina, USA
>
>> Hear hear! Go to a normal classical concert with a symphony orchestra,
>> and you hear a pleasant, balanced sound. Listen to the same on a
>> normal record - CD or vinyl - and all of a sudden the highs have a
>> sort of exaggerated fizzing quality. This is very unpleasant, but can
>> usually be fixed quite easily if you are prepared to take the trouble
>> of running the recording through a DAW to re-equalise.
>
>And you're sure this is due to the recording, and not the vastly
>different room acoustics?

It still happens with headphones - so room acoustics don't come into
it.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Anonymous
December 25, 2004 6:38:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>Date: 12/23/2004 8:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cqg6ll01113@news1.newsguy.com>
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>
>>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>
>>>When recording an LP digitally you can really "see" the kind of analog
>>>grundge that is present. I use Audacity on Linux, and from the moment
>>>the tonearm is placed on the "silent" lead in groove the meters start
>>>jumping around like the 4th of July. I'm guessing that this stuff is
>>>present throughout the recording, but just masked by the louder program
>>>signal.
>>
>>
>> Kind of a broad claim based on limited experience don't you think?
>
>You tell me, then. I'm guessing that the "silent grooves" of a record
>are the baseline and represent the actual noise floor of the
>record/diamond interface.

Again it is a bit broad. I am sure the TT system, the cutting lathe and the
quality of the pressing all come into play. You cannot take any old record and
plop it on any old record player and assume that this is any kind of standard
for the medium.

Would not this "baseline" (if indeed it is
>such)

If indeed.

be present throughout the recording but masked during louder
>passages?

Yes, I'm not sure that your personal experience is a universal base line
though.

In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog
>signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering
>non-musical program noise.

I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers, only the
universitality of it.

>
>>>I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the
>>>analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise
>>>floor (along with the wider frequency response).
>>
>>
>> That striles me as a rather absurd claim given that most said vinyl
>enthusiasts
>> at least claim that live music is their reference.
>
>Well...that's what they claim in any case.

It certainly is what I claim. It is the truth in my case. I cannot speak for
all others.

When one listens to a live
>performance there are all kinds of noise artifacts present which may not
>be heard on a recording.

Really? That would sem to me to be a defective recording then. What else is
missing I wonder?

But we are speaking and writing of two
>different things. First, I was speaking of inherent vinyl noise which
>is NOT present in any live venue. Second, in a "live" recording ambient
>acoustical noise is (or should be) recorded along with the program.

You were speaking of what people are acustomed to. If people who generally
prefer vinyl are acustomed to live music as a reference then your argument that
they are not used to the lower noise floor of digital holds no water. The
higher noise floor of vinyl clearly is not present in the cited reference, live
music.

>
>I am a Wagner fan. Let's look at two different recordings: first, the
>Boulez Bayreuth Ring (Phillips) and, second, the Levine Met Ring
>(DGG-the CD version and not the DVD live recording). The first was an
>all digital (except Gotterdammerung) 'rehearsal' recording and exhibits
>all one would expect from a live performance except audience artifacts
>(since no audience was present). That is, stage noises from the cast
>jumping around on the floor, and sets moving, etc. This is caught on
>the digital tape quite clearly and can be heard apart from any
>additional vinyl artifacts. The Levine set, on the other hand, being a
>studio recording arises from an imperceptible noise floor and one hears
>nothing but the musical notes (and singing).
>
>When making a CD copy of both I can attest to the vinyl noise of the
>former (which I have records of), but the latter is a CD version and my
>subsequent copies have no additional noise (simply copying digit for
>digit).

We still don't know how good your records/TT playback system are so we cannot
take it as representative of SOTA. Your findings are valid for your transfers.
they are not neccessarliy representative of the thresholds of the medium
itself.

>
>On the other hand, the Levine set has an eerie, almost unnatural aural
>feeling about it due to "digital silence".

What do you consider "digital silence" to be? How is it eerie or unnatural?

It is true that we do not
>experience, in life, sound emanating from a zero noise floor. That is
>what I meant when I suggested that maybe digital is "too good" for the
>analog crowd.

If it is capturing the ambient sound of the venue then it shouldn't be eerie or
unnatural sounding. It should not present any problem for the "analog crowd" if
live music is their reference (it is mine).

Not that digital cannot capture a "live music reference"
>to use your words, but that, at times and from the studio, what is
>presented IS artificial due to a lack of background noise. Maybe analog
>front ends supply enough background grundge to allow us to
>psychologically better integrate what we are hearing vis-a-vis our
>normal experience.

Normal experience being experience with live music?

>
>Now, in the analog world we also experience studio recordings, but they
>always have some tape hiss along with the heretofore mentioned vinyl
>background crud. Listening to them is nothing like listening to a CD.

Depends on the recording, mastering, pressing and playback equipment.

>Often the vinyl background crud is high enough to mask the master analog
>tape hiss (assuming no Dolby or dbx was used in which case tape hiss may
>not be a factor).
>
>As an aside, I am reminded of, many many years ago and when digital was
>quite young, purchasing a CD copy of a Yes album. Upon listening to the
>CD I found that on a particular tune one side of the stereo track
>abruptly drops out. Tape hiss (clearly audible on the CD) from this
>"silent" channel was quite startling. I checked my Lp version but
>because of surface noise I could not hear any tape hiss. This was my
>first indication that digital really does capture everything.

I happen to be a major Yes fan. I will happily recomend specific pressings of
any Yes album that sonically clobber any and all fo the available CD versions
of any given title.
Anonymous
December 26, 2004 7:57:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote:
> On 24 Dec 2004 16:08:34 GMT, Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:

> >Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote:
> >> On 23 Dec 2004 19:03:57 GMT, Mike Prager <hifi@ec.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >michael wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the
> >> >> analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise
> >> >> floor (along with the wider frequency response).
> >> >
> >> >The HF response of many, if not most, recordings is hotter
> >> >than neutral. Some degree of HF distortion is also not
> >> >infrequent. With digital, it is possible to reproduce this
> >> >all accurately. It can be annoying to those with good ears.
> >> >
> >> >That is not to say that those who love vinyl may not also be
> >> >responding to other factors, just to agree that better
> >> >reproduction is not always pleasant to hear.
> >> >
> >> >Mike Prager
> >> >North Carolina, USA
> >
> >> Hear hear! Go to a normal classical concert with a symphony orchestra,
> >> and you hear a pleasant, balanced sound. Listen to the same on a
> >> normal record - CD or vinyl - and all of a sudden the highs have a
> >> sort of exaggerated fizzing quality. This is very unpleasant, but can
> >> usually be fixed quite easily if you are prepared to take the trouble
> >> of running the recording through a DAW to re-equalise.
> >
> >And you're sure this is due to the recording, and not the vastly
> >different room acoustics?

> It still happens with headphones - so room acoustics don't come into
> it.

Headphone listening doesn't model listening in a concert hall either.

The limitations of two-channel reproduction of a live event have been
known since the development of audio for movies and later, for home.

Yet you seem to be talking about a frequency anomaly. If all recordings
--LP and CD -- merely require re-equalization to 'fix' them, it seems
surpassingly odd that no recording engineer or producer has noticed taht
so far, in the 50+ years since the first LPs.

--

-S
If you're a nut and knock on enough doors, eventually someone will open one,
look at you and say, Messiah, we have waited for your arrival.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 6:49:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 26 Dec 2004 16:57:12 GMT, Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:

>Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote:
>> On 24 Dec 2004 16:08:34 GMT, Steven Sullivan <ssully@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> >Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com> wrote:
>> >> On 23 Dec 2004 19:03:57 GMT, Mike Prager <hifi@ec.rr.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >michael wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I've always thought that maybe digital recording was "too good" for the
>> >> >> analog crowd. That they just couldn't ever get used to the low noise
>> >> >> floor (along with the wider frequency response).
>> >> >
>> >> >The HF response of many, if not most, recordings is hotter
>> >> >than neutral. Some degree of HF distortion is also not
>> >> >infrequent. With digital, it is possible to reproduce this
>> >> >all accurately. It can be annoying to those with good ears.
>> >> >
>> >> >That is not to say that those who love vinyl may not also be
>> >> >responding to other factors, just to agree that better
>> >> >reproduction is not always pleasant to hear.
>> >> >
>> >> >Mike Prager
>> >> >North Carolina, USA
>> >
>> >> Hear hear! Go to a normal classical concert with a symphony orchestra,
>> >> and you hear a pleasant, balanced sound. Listen to the same on a
>> >> normal record - CD or vinyl - and all of a sudden the highs have a
>> >> sort of exaggerated fizzing quality. This is very unpleasant, but can
>> >> usually be fixed quite easily if you are prepared to take the trouble
>> >> of running the recording through a DAW to re-equalise.
>> >
>> >And you're sure this is due to the recording, and not the vastly
>> >different room acoustics?
>
>> It still happens with headphones - so room acoustics don't come into
>> it.
>
>Headphone listening doesn't model listening in a concert hall either.
>
>The limitations of two-channel reproduction of a live event have been
>known since the development of audio for movies and later, for home.
>
>Yet you seem to be talking about a frequency anomaly. If all recordings
>--LP and CD -- merely require re-equalization to 'fix' them, it seems
>surpassingly odd that no recording engineer or producer has noticed taht
>so far, in the 50+ years since the first LPs.

Who says they haven't noticed? I suspect that even the most assiduous
of engineers will fall prey to the producer leaning over his shoulder
saying - it sound a bit dull, can you give it some sparkle?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
December 27, 2004 6:52:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

S888Wheel wrote:

>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net

>
> Yes, I'm not sure that your personal experience is a universal base line
> though.
>
> In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog
>>signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering
>>non-musical program noise.
>
>
> I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers, only the
> universitality of it.

I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back
and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to
recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there
exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown
graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it
appears that you are arguing the validity of this?

My suggestion: take a turntable, any turntable, and get yourself some
analog to digital software. Use any album you like. If you want to
replicate my results then I'll tell you that I use Audacity on Linux;
I'm sure there are many other similar applications out there you may
use--even Windows applications. :-)

Next, place the stylus in the lead in or the lead out groove, or any
silent passage you like. Finally, watch the vu meters bob up and down
with peaks around the -40dB value when there is supposed to be
"quietness". It helps to have a good set of headphones for monitoring.
I use Sennheisers. Once you have done this several hundred times, or
even just once or twice, then post about the "universality" of the
experiment.

I have 2 turntables (I kind of collect Lps) and both exhibit this
behavior when hooked up to the computer. For the record (since you
asked and with no pun intended), during digital transfer I use a Thorens
160 with a V-15xMR. Other cartridges I currently have are a Denon 103;
an Ortofon super OM-20; A Stanton 881 S; an Epoch L8Z S; and an AT 440
ML. I have used most of these to copy personal CDs also, and each
exhibits the same properties. I settled on the Shure since, IMO, it
sounds very musical, it tracks as well if not better than the others,
and the nifty little damping brush gathers lint off even "clean" Lps.

michael
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 6:31:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>Date: 12/27/2004 7:52 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cqpb4502qpq@news3.newsguy.com>
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>
>>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>
>>
>> Yes, I'm not sure that your personal experience is a universal base line
>> though.
>>
>> In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog
>>>signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering
>>>non-musical program noise.
>>
>>
>> I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers, only
>the
>> universitality of it.
>
>I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back
>and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to
>recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there
>exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown
>graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it
>appears that you are arguing the validity of this?

No I am arguing against the implied global implications. Heck one can find any
number of CDs that have "grundge" in the signal. It doesn't say anything about
the medium just something about that CD. I have never said your tests weren't
valid for *your* records on *your* equipment.

>
>My suggestion: take a turntable, any turntable, and get yourself some
>analog to digital software. Use any album you like.

My suggestion is that you take a turntable but not any turntable. A world class
turntable and then take an album, not any album but a top of the line RTI
pressing or a 180 gram pressing from Simply Vinyl or a pressing from King Super
Analog and do your tests over again.

If you want to
>replicate my results then I'll tell you that I use Audacity on Linux;
>I'm sure there are many other similar applications out there you may
>use--even Windows applications. :-)

If you want to know what the limitations of the medium are and not just the
limitations of your stuff I suggest you use a Rockport TT or Forsell that is
properly isolated or even a fully decked out Walker Procenium Gold. There are
others in this league as well. Hey, there is nothing wrong with finding out the
noise floor of your stuff. It's just not likely going to have anything to do
with the actual limitations of the medium.

>
>Next, place the stylus in the lead in or the lead out groove, or any
>silent passage you like. Finally, watch the vu meters bob up and down
>with peaks around the -40dB value when there is supposed to be
>"quietness". It helps to have a good set of headphones for monitoring.
> I use Sennheisers. Once you have done this several hundred times, or
>even just once or twice, then post about the "universality" of the
>experiment.
>
>I have 2 turntables (I kind of collect Lps) and both exhibit this
>behavior when hooked up to the computer.
For the record (since you
>asked and with no pun intended), during digital transfer I use a Thorens
>160 with a V-15xMR. Other cartridges I currently have are a Denon 103;
>an Ortofon super OM-20; A Stanton 881 S; an Epoch L8Z S; and an AT 440
>ML.

All reasonable equipment but hardly representative of SOTA.

I have used most of these to copy personal CDs also, and each
>exhibits the same properties. I settled on the Shure since, IMO, it
>sounds very musical, it tracks as well if not better than the others,
>and the nifty little damping brush gathers lint off even "clean" Lps.
>
>michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
December 28, 2004 6:33:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

michael <pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> S888Wheel wrote:

> >>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net

> >
> > Yes, I'm not sure that your personal experience is a universal base line
> > though.
> >
> > In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog
> >>signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering
> >>non-musical program noise.
> >
> >
> > I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers, only the
> > universitality of it.

> I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back
> and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to
> recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there
> exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown
> graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it
> appears that you are arguing the validity of this?

> My suggestion: take a turntable, any turntable, and get yourself some
> analog to digital software. Use any album you like. If you want to
> replicate my results then I'll tell you that I use Audacity on Linux;
> I'm sure there are many other similar applications out there you may
> use--even Windows applications. :-)

> Next, place the stylus in the lead in or the lead out groove, or any
> silent passage you like. Finally, watch the vu meters bob up and down
> with peaks around the -40dB value when there is supposed to be
> "quietness". It helps to have a good set of headphones for monitoring.
> I use Sennheisers. Once you have done this several hundred times, or
> even just once or twice, then post about the "universality" of the
> experiment.

Yep, the behavior you see is not unusual; you're seeing the surface noise
of vinyl, which even for the *best*, *cleanest* LP is noisier than
digital silence. It *is* a universal phenomenon.

Vinylphiles IME are loath to admit any deficiencies of their favorite
medium, but to deny the universal existence of surface noise in vinyl,
is to be, well, in denial. Digital capture and display of vinyl
transfers simply makes it visible. It can be 'heard through' and thus
ignored, but it's always there.

--

-S
If you're a nut and knock on enough doors, eventually someone will open one,
look at you and say, Messiah, we have waited for your arrival.
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 7:12:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>From: Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com
>Date: 12/28/2004 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cqrubt02ts5@news3.newsguy.com>
>
>michael <pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> S888Wheel wrote:
>
>> >>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>
>> >
>> > Yes, I'm not sure that your personal experience is a universal base line
>> > though.
>> >
>> > In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog
>> >>signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering
>> >>non-musical program noise.
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers, only
>the
>> > universitality of it.
>
>> I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back
>> and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to
>> recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there
>> exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown
>> graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it
>> appears that you are arguing the validity of this?
>
>> My suggestion: take a turntable, any turntable, and get yourself some
>> analog to digital software. Use any album you like. If you want to
>> replicate my results then I'll tell you that I use Audacity on Linux;
>> I'm sure there are many other similar applications out there you may
>> use--even Windows applications. :-)
>
>> Next, place the stylus in the lead in or the lead out groove, or any
>> silent passage you like. Finally, watch the vu meters bob up and down
>> with peaks around the -40dB value when there is supposed to be
>> "quietness". It helps to have a good set of headphones for monitoring.
>> I use Sennheisers. Once you have done this several hundred times, or
>> even just once or twice, then post about the "universality" of the
>> experiment.
>
>Yep, the behavior you see is not unusual; you're seeing the surface noise
>of vinyl, which even for the *best*, *cleanest* LP is noisier than
>digital silence. It *is* a universal phenomenon.
>
>Vinylphiles IME are loath to admit any deficiencies of their favorite
>medium, but to deny the universal existence of surface noise in vinyl,
>is to be, well, in denial.

Please cite one example of anyone denying the existance of surface noise.

Digital capture and display of vinyl
>transfers simply makes it visible. It can be 'heard through' and thus
>ignored, but it's always there.

It is not the same for all records and all TT rigs. That was my point.
>
>--
>
>-S
>If you're a nut and knock on enough doors, eventually someone will open one,
>look at you and say, Messiah, we have waited for your arrival.
>
>
>
>
>
>
December 29, 2004 7:14:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

S888Wheel wrote:

>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net

>>I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back
>>and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to
>>recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there
>>exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown
>>graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it
>>appears that you are arguing the validity of this?

> No I am arguing against the implied global implications. Heck one can find any
> number of CDs that have "grundge" in the signal. It doesn't say anything about
> the medium just something about that CD.

NO, NO, NO! Don't mix up two different ideas. Maybe I am at fault for
not explaining this clearly. I am talking about inherent vinyl noise.
This has nothing to do with any "grundge" recorded on a CD as part of
the program material, nor does it have anything to do with badly
recorded CDs that might sound harsh, or are otherwise flawed. Vinyl
noise is an artifact present on EVERY Lp played with a stylus. Some Lps
are worse than others, but its origin is in the stylus-groove interface
and manifests regardless of whatever program signal is present. There
is no comparable digital artifact because, with properly applied digital
techniques, the noise floor drops to essentially zero.

> If you want to know what the limitations of the medium are and not just the
> limitations of your stuff I suggest you use a Rockport TT or Forsell that is
> properly isolated or even a fully decked out Walker Procenium Gold.

I don't care what turntable/arm/cartridge one uses. Lp surface noise
will be audible, especially when monitoring using headphones. Obviously
some systems may contribute additional mechanism related noise that
others may not, but this, again, is not what I'm speaking and writing about.

michael
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 7:10:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cqrubt02ts5@news3.newsguy.com...
> michael <pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> S888Wheel wrote:
>
>> >>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>
>> >
>> > Yes, I'm not sure that your personal experience is a universal base
>> > line
>> > though.
>> >
>> > In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog
>> >>signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering
>> >>non-musical program noise.
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers,
>> > only the
>> > universitality of it.
>
>> I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back
>> and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to
>> recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there
>> exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown
>> graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it
>> appears that you are arguing the validity of this?
>
>> My suggestion: take a turntable, any turntable, and get yourself some
>> analog to digital software. Use any album you like. If you want to
>> replicate my results then I'll tell you that I use Audacity on Linux;
>> I'm sure there are many other similar applications out there you may
>> use--even Windows applications. :-)
>
>> Next, place the stylus in the lead in or the lead out groove, or any
>> silent passage you like. Finally, watch the vu meters bob up and down
>> with peaks around the -40dB value when there is supposed to be
>> "quietness". It helps to have a good set of headphones for monitoring.
>> I use Sennheisers. Once you have done this several hundred times, or
>> even just once or twice, then post about the "universality" of the
>> experiment.
>
> Yep, the behavior you see is not unusual; you're seeing the surface noise
> of vinyl, which even for the *best*, *cleanest* LP is noisier than
> digital silence. It *is* a universal phenomenon.
>
> Vinylphiles IME are loath to admit any deficiencies of their favorite
> medium, but to deny the universal existence of surface noise in vinyl,
> is to be, well, in denial. Digital capture and display of vinyl
> transfers simply makes it visible. It can be 'heard through' and thus
> ignored, but it's always there.
>
Since a cantilever/tonearm must ride up and down stereo grooves regardless
of the equipment or the LP in question, that very ride contributes to grunge
and noise which must be at least hundreds of times greater than digital
silence. Take a peek at "digital silence" on a scope and compare what you
see to LP "silence".
December 30, 2004 7:12:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

S888Wheel wrote:
>>From: Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com
>>Date: 12/28/2004 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cqrubt02ts5@news3.newsguy.com>
>>
>>michael <pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>>> >>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>>
>>> >
>>> > Yes, I'm not sure that your personal experience is a universal base line
>>> > though.
>>> >
>>> > In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog
>>> >>signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering
>>> >>non-musical program noise.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers, only
>>the
>>> > universitality of it.
>>
>>> I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back
>>> and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to
>>> recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there
>>> exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown
>>> graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it
>>> appears that you are arguing the validity of this?
>>
>>> My suggestion: take a turntable, any turntable, and get yourself some
>>> analog to digital software. Use any album you like. If you want to
>>> replicate my results then I'll tell you that I use Audacity on Linux;
>>> I'm sure there are many other similar applications out there you may
>>> use--even Windows applications. :-)
>>
>>> Next, place the stylus in the lead in or the lead out groove, or any
>>> silent passage you like. Finally, watch the vu meters bob up and down
>>> with peaks around the -40dB value when there is supposed to be
>>> "quietness". It helps to have a good set of headphones for monitoring.
>>> I use Sennheisers. Once you have done this several hundred times, or
>>> even just once or twice, then post about the "universality" of the
>>> experiment.
>>
>>Yep, the behavior you see is not unusual; you're seeing the surface noise
>>of vinyl, which even for the *best*, *cleanest* LP is noisier than
>>digital silence. It *is* a universal phenomenon.
>>
>>Vinylphiles IME are loath to admit any deficiencies of their favorite
>>medium, but to deny the universal existence of surface noise in vinyl,
>>is to be, well, in denial.
>
> Please cite one example of anyone denying the existance of surface noise.

Well, here is what you said: "Kind of a broad claim based on limited
experience don't you think?". That was in response to michael's
statement that there is noticeable noise observed from LP systems. Seems
to me that you were at least questioning the universal existance of
surface noise...

Can you cite any example where the vinyl noise cannot be heard?

>
> Digital capture and display of vinyl
>>transfers simply makes it visible. It can be 'heard through' and thus
>>ignored, but it's always there.
>
> It is not the same for all records and all TT rigs. That was my point.
>>

It is the same in that the noise is always there. It can always be
heard, no matter how expensive a rig you have, or how clean and pristine
the vinyl is.
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 7:17:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 29 Dec 2004 16:12:30 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:

>>From: Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com
>>Date: 12/28/2004 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cqrubt02ts5@news3.newsguy.com>
>>
>>michael <pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> S888Wheel wrote:

>>> > I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers, only the
>>> > universitality of it.

>>Yep, the behavior you see is not unusual; you're seeing the surface noise
>>of vinyl, which even for the *best*, *cleanest* LP is noisier than
>>digital silence. It *is* a universal phenomenon.
>>
>>Vinylphiles IME are loath to admit any deficiencies of their favorite
>>medium, but to deny the universal existence of surface noise in vinyl,
>>is to be, well, in denial.
>
>Please cite one example of anyone denying the existance of surface noise.

How about "I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your*
transfers, only the universitality of it."

You seem determined to insist that surface noise somehow magically
lowers on top-class vinyl rigs. Hint - it doesn't.

> Digital capture and display of vinyl
>>transfers simply makes it visible. It can be 'heard through' and thus
>>ignored, but it's always there.
>
>It is not the same for all records and all TT rigs. That was my point.

But it is *never* lower than 60-65dB below peak level on other than
direct-cut LPs, which is the *real* point.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 7:17:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 29 Dec 2004 16:14:58 GMT, michael <pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>S888Wheel wrote:
>
>>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>
>>>I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back
>>>and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to
>>>recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there
>>>exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown
>>>graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it
>>>appears that you are arguing the validity of this?
>
>> No I am arguing against the implied global implications. Heck one can find any
>> number of CDs that have "grundge" in the signal. It doesn't say anything about
>> the medium just something about that CD.
>
>NO, NO, NO! Don't mix up two different ideas. Maybe I am at fault for
>not explaining this clearly. I am talking about inherent vinyl noise.
>This has nothing to do with any "grundge" recorded on a CD as part of
>the program material, nor does it have anything to do with badly
>recorded CDs that might sound harsh, or are otherwise flawed. Vinyl
>noise is an artifact present on EVERY Lp played with a stylus. Some Lps
>are worse than others, but its origin is in the stylus-groove interface
>and manifests regardless of whatever program signal is present. There
>is no comparable digital artifact because, with properly applied digital
>techniques, the noise floor drops to essentially zero.

Well, -93dB anyway, and since there exists not one single music master
tape with more than 80-85dB dynamic range, we can reasonably call it
'zero' for the playback medium. Also essentially zero distortion, and
ruler-flat FR from less than 10Hz to more than 20Hz, with less than
-80dB crosstalk at all frequencies. Compare and contrast with
vimyl..................

>> If you want to know what the limitations of the medium are and not just the
>> limitations of your stuff I suggest you use a Rockport TT or Forsell that is
>> properly isolated or even a fully decked out Walker Procenium Gold.
>
>I don't care what turntable/arm/cartridge one uses. Lp surface noise
>will be audible, especially when monitoring using headphones. Obviously
>some systems may contribute additional mechanism related noise that
>others may not, but this, again, is not what I'm speaking and writing about.

Scott is of course just trotting out the tired old 'you've never heard
a decent vinyl rig' strawman. Well, I own a pretty decent vinyl rig,
and I have listened at length to what many would call the ultimate
vinyl rig - a Rockport Sirius III fitted with Clearaudio Insider
cartridge, set up personally by Andy Payor. Since it was playing
*vinyl*, it still suffered from surface noise, treble splash and inner
groove distortion, all perfectly audible.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 7:20:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 12/29/04 11:14 AM, in article cqul6202pti@news3.newsguy.com, "michael"
<pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> S888Wheel wrote:
>
>>> From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>
>>> I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back
>>> and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to
>>> recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there
>>> exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown
>>> graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it
>>> appears that you are arguing the validity of this?
>
>> No I am arguing against the implied global implications. Heck one can find
>> any
>> number of CDs that have "grundge" in the signal. It doesn't say anything
>> about
>> the medium just something about that CD.
>
> NO, NO, NO! Don't mix up two different ideas. Maybe I am at fault for
> not explaining this clearly. I am talking about inherent vinyl noise.
> This has nothing to do with any "grundge" recorded on a CD as part of
> the program material, nor does it have anything to do with badly
> recorded CDs that might sound harsh, or are otherwise flawed. Vinyl
> noise is an artifact present on EVERY Lp played with a stylus. Some Lps
> are worse than others, but its origin is in the stylus-groove interface
> and manifests regardless of whatever program signal is present. There
> is no comparable digital artifact because, with properly applied digital
> techniques, the noise floor drops to essentially zero.

Yup the quantization noise of CD is 96dB down, and the native noise floor of
the CD player is likely higher than that. The source material if from
analog is likely to be no better than 70dB, and if recorded digitally with
standard equipment is likely 24 bit/96kHz, making the acoustics and ambient
noise of the recording environment much bigger factors to the "pristine"
sound - which is what one ideally like.

Records have a lot of surface noise - and some records are better than
others, and some stylii are better at rejecting it than others - but the
most amazing thing is that some people hear right through the stuff, while
others are driven out of the room by it. It is amazing how the brain can
"ignore" this type of noise. Since it is a function of the brain
("software/hardware" if you will) it really depends on the person, and you
may be able to measure it, though it may not matter to the people who like
the medium, because after a short period of time, they aren't hearing it
anymore - and the things the LP does right (and it does a few things right)
is being listened to.

Sure, this is additive distortion, but it is, for many, an easily ignored
additive phenomenon.

>> If you want to know what the limitations of the medium are and not just the
>> limitations of your stuff I suggest you use a Rockport TT or Forsell that is
>> properly isolated or even a fully decked out Walker Procenium Gold.
>
> I don't care what turntable/arm/cartridge one uses. Lp surface noise
> will be audible, especially when monitoring using headphones. Obviously
> some systems may contribute additional mechanism related noise that
> others may not, but this, again, is not what I'm speaking and writing about.

Sure - but it may not be perceptible without concentration after a brief
period of time listening by a large number of people.
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 7:21:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 12/29/04 11:12 AM, in article cqul1e02por@news3.newsguy.com, "S888Wheel"
<s888wheel@aol.com> wrote:

>> Vinylphiles IME are loath to admit any deficiencies of their favorite
>> medium, but to deny the universal existence of surface noise in vinyl,
>> is to be, well, in denial.
>
> Please cite one example of anyone denying the existance of surface noise.

Actually, the surface noise may be perceptible by a machine, but the brain,
in many cases, is capable of "ignoring" it.

Experiment to do:
If you turn on a air fan (one that is not too loud, though any volume will
work to a greater or lesser degree) and have a conversation that it
engrossing - then have someone sneak in and turn off the fan, the people in
the conversation will be most aware of the noise by its absence. With some
concentration, you can again hear the fan at any time - but the point is
that the brain tries to edit it out as soon as you don't want to hear it.
This may be similar to how some people perceive surface noise on records.
ON a good recording that is engrossing, the imperfections of the medium are
ignored.

This is no way is trying to be an apologist for LP's - I am happy with CD's
and no longer own a turntable - but it is sometimes more helpful to ask the
question
"Why would this easily measurable phenomena be acceptable and imperceptible
by some?"

Rather than the usual "Why are these people wrong or crazy?"
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 7:08:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 12/30/04 11:17 AM, in article cr19nb0bco@news3.newsguy.com, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

> treble splash

What is "treble splash?"
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 7:09:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 12/30/04 11:17 AM, in article cr19m60bc9@news3.newsguy.com, "Stewart
Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:

>> It is not the same for all records and all TT rigs. That was my point.
>
> But it is *never* lower than 60-65dB below peak level on other than
> direct-cut LPs, which is the *real* point.

Since I think I recall that you said that the human ear has difficulty
discerning distortion 40dB down - this would place it near the threshhold of
human hearing, especially if played at sane volumes?
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 7:09:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 12/30/04 11:12 AM, in article cr19ck0b5e@news3.newsguy.com, "Chung"
<chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

> Can you cite any example where the vinyl noise cannot be heard?

If you define "heard" as perceived - the brain tends to edit out background
noise which this would qualify. Kind of like being able to hear a friends'
words in a crowded party (within limits).

The noise is there - and if you want to hear it, you will. If you are
listening to the music, most people won't hear this background noise very
much at all, though some would be driven out of the room from it.

I think the reason there is no consensus amongst people who discuss the high
end, is because it is a question of perception. The reason that some people
love vinyl is that they are listening to the music, not the noise - their
brain is editing out the noise effectively and the software between the ears
is obliging to do this. Some people can do this really well, some can't.
The same way that some can perceive a sound stereo image and some cannot.
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 7:15:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>From: Chung chunglau@covad.net
>Date: 12/30/2004 8:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cr19ck0b5e@news3.newsguy.com>
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>From: Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com
>>>Date: 12/28/2004 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <cqrubt02ts5@news3.newsguy.com>
>>>
>>>michael <pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>>
>>>> >>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > Yes, I'm not sure that your personal experience is a universal base
>line
>>>> > though.
>>>> >
>>>> > In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog
>>>> >>signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering
>>>> >>non-musical program noise.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers,
>only
>>>the
>>>> > universitality of it.
>>>
>>>> I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back
>>>> and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to
>>>> recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there
>>>> exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown
>>>> graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it
>>>> appears that you are arguing the validity of this?
>>>
>>>> My suggestion: take a turntable, any turntable, and get yourself some
>>>> analog to digital software. Use any album you like. If you want to
>>>> replicate my results then I'll tell you that I use Audacity on Linux;
>>>> I'm sure there are many other similar applications out there you may
>>>> use--even Windows applications. :-)
>>>
>>>> Next, place the stylus in the lead in or the lead out groove, or any
>>>> silent passage you like. Finally, watch the vu meters bob up and down
>>>> with peaks around the -40dB value when there is supposed to be
>>>> "quietness". It helps to have a good set of headphones for monitoring.
>>>> I use Sennheisers. Once you have done this several hundred times, or
>>>> even just once or twice, then post about the "universality" of the
>>>> experiment.
>>>
>>>Yep, the behavior you see is not unusual; you're seeing the surface noise
>>>of vinyl, which even for the *best*, *cleanest* LP is noisier than
>>>digital silence. It *is* a universal phenomenon.
>>>
>>>Vinylphiles IME are loath to admit any deficiencies of their favorite
>>>medium, but to deny the universal existence of surface noise in vinyl,
>>>is to be, well, in denial.
>>
>> Please cite one example of anyone denying the existance of surface noise.
>
>Well, here is what you said: "Kind of a broad claim based on limited
>experience don't you think?". That was in response to michael's
>statement that there is noticeable noise observed from LP systems. Seems
>to me that you were at least questioning the universal existance of
>surface noise...

Then you are mistaken. I was questioning the notion that his experience was
indicative of the best the medium has to offer in performance. His statement
wasn't that there was just noticable noise but it gave very specific
meansurments of how much but that was based on his records on his rig. I was
simply pointing out that this limited experience is not neccessarily evidence
of the limitations of the medium but just his records on his rig.

>
>Can you cite any example where the vinyl noise cannot be heard?

Do you live in the L.A area? I'll demonstrate it for you.

>
>>
>> Digital capture and display of vinyl
>>>transfers simply makes it visible. It can be 'heard through' and thus
>>>ignored, but it's always there.
>>
>> It is not the same for all records and all TT rigs. That was my point.
>>>
>
>It is the same in that the noise is always there.

It isn't the same in nature and level for all rigs and all records though.

It can always be
>heard, no matter how expensive a rig you have, or how clean and pristine
>the vinyl is.

I disagree. It is not always noticable.
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 7:21:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>Date: 12/29/2004 8:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cqul6202pti@news3.newsguy.com>
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>
>>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>
>>>I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back
>>>and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to
>>>recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there
>>>exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown
>>>graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it
>>>appears that you are arguing the validity of this?
>
>> No I am arguing against the implied global implications. Heck one can find
>any
>> number of CDs that have "grundge" in the signal. It doesn't say anything
>about
>> the medium just something about that CD.
>
>NO, NO, NO! Don't mix up two different ideas. Maybe I am at fault for
>not explaining this clearly. I am talking about inherent vinyl noise.

No you are talking about the vinyl noise in *your* records on *your* rig. You
seem to be assuming that *that* noise is indicative of the inherent noise floor
of the medium. I think you are likely wrong about that. I bet the medium is
capable of better.

>This has nothing to do with any "grundge" recorded on a CD as part of
>the program material, nor does it have anything to do with badly
>recorded CDs that might sound harsh, or are otherwise flawed.

Sure it does, Unless you are using the quitest records available you are
measuring more than just the inherent noise floor of vinyl. Same goes for your
rig.

Vinyl
>noise is an artifact present on EVERY Lp played with a stylus.

Agreed.

Some Lps
>are worse than others, but its origin is in the stylus-groove interface
>and manifests regardless of whatever program signal is present.

That is my point. You cannot make any universal claims about the severity of it
based on such limited experience. Your tests are not evidence of the limits of
the medium just your stuff.

There
>is no comparable digital artifact because, with properly applied digital
>techniques, the noise floor drops to essentially zero.
>
>> If you want to know what the limitations of the medium are and not just the
>> limitations of your stuff I suggest you use a Rockport TT or Forsell that
>is
>> properly isolated or even a fully decked out Walker Procenium Gold.
>
>I don't care what turntable/arm/cartridge one uses. Lp surface noise
>will be audible, especially when monitoring using headphones.

I think you are wrong about that. You *might* be able to here it cranked up
with no music playing but no way will you here the surface noise at normal
levels with any kind of music playing if you are using SOTA equipment with SOTA
records.

Obviously
>some systems may contribute additional mechanism related noise that
>others may not, but this, again, is not what I'm speaking and writing about.

Actually it is when you are talking about your stuff because that additional
noise from your stuff is present in your tests.
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 10:42:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"B&D" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:cr19ut0bj0@news3.newsguy.com...

> This is no way is trying to be an apologist for LP's - I am happy with
> CD's
> and no longer own a turntable - but it is sometimes more helpful to ask
> the
> question
> "Why......

Simple, you want to hear something that's on a LP and unavailable on CD, or
you like to tinker with tonearm geometry, switch cartridges, etc. for the
sheer fun of it.
January 1, 2005 8:23:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

S888Wheel wrote:
>>From: Chung chunglau@covad.net
>>Date: 12/30/2004 8:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cr19ck0b5e@news3.newsguy.com>
>>
>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>From: Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com
>>>>Date: 12/28/2004 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <cqrubt02ts5@news3.newsguy.com>
>>>>
>>>>michael <pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>> S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Yes, I'm not sure that your personal experience is a universal base
>>line
>>>>> > though.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog
>>>>> >>signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly considering
>>>>> >>non-musical program noise.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your* transfers,
>>only
>>>>the
>>>>> > universitality of it.
>>>>
>>>>> I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back
>>>>> and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to
>>>>> recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there
>>>>> exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown
>>>>> graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it
>>>>> appears that you are arguing the validity of this?
>>>>
>>>>> My suggestion: take a turntable, any turntable, and get yourself some
>>>>> analog to digital software. Use any album you like. If you want to
>>>>> replicate my results then I'll tell you that I use Audacity on Linux;
>>>>> I'm sure there are many other similar applications out there you may
>>>>> use--even Windows applications. :-)
>>>>
>>>>> Next, place the stylus in the lead in or the lead out groove, or any
>>>>> silent passage you like. Finally, watch the vu meters bob up and down
>>>>> with peaks around the -40dB value when there is supposed to be
>>>>> "quietness". It helps to have a good set of headphones for monitoring.
>>>>> I use Sennheisers. Once you have done this several hundred times, or
>>>>> even just once or twice, then post about the "universality" of the
>>>>> experiment.
>>>>
>>>>Yep, the behavior you see is not unusual; you're seeing the surface noise
>>>>of vinyl, which even for the *best*, *cleanest* LP is noisier than
>>>>digital silence. It *is* a universal phenomenon.
>>>>
>>>>Vinylphiles IME are loath to admit any deficiencies of their favorite
>>>>medium, but to deny the universal existence of surface noise in vinyl,
>>>>is to be, well, in denial.
>>>
>>> Please cite one example of anyone denying the existance of surface noise.
>>
>>Well, here is what you said: "Kind of a broad claim based on limited
>>experience don't you think?". That was in response to michael's
>>statement that there is noticeable noise observed from LP systems. Seems
>>to me that you were at least questioning the universal existance of
>>surface noise...
>
> Then you are mistaken. I was questioning the notion that his experience was
> indicative of the best the medium has to offer in performance. His statement
> wasn't that there was just noticable noise but it gave very specific
> meansurments of how much but that was based on his records on his rig. I was
> simply pointing out that this limited experience is not neccessarily evidence
> of the limitations of the medium but just his records on his rig.

Michael's experience was that the LP noise is very noticeable on a
digital readout as soon as the needle contacts the "lead-in" groove.
That is universally true. You seem to be saying that on some
recordings/set-ups the LP noise is not noticeable this way. That's quite
an extraordinary claim, given that the surface noise is 20 dB or more
higher than the sensitivity of today's 16-bit or higher A-D converters.

>
>>
>>Can you cite any example where the vinyl noise cannot be heard?
>
> Do you live in the L.A area? I'll demonstrate it for you.

Given the easily measureable noise floor of vinyl, you need to listen
more carefully...

>
>>
>>>
>>> Digital capture and display of vinyl
>>>>transfers simply makes it visible. It can be 'heard through' and thus
>>>>ignored, but it's always there.
>>>
>>> It is not the same for all records and all TT rigs. That was my point.
>>>>
>>
>>It is the same in that the noise is always there.
>
> It isn't the same in nature and level for all rigs and all records though.
>
> It can always be
>>heard, no matter how expensive a rig you have, or how clean and pristine
>>the vinyl is.
>
> I disagree. It is not always noticable.
>

You perhaps will be the only one with this belief.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 8:25:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 31 Dec 2004 16:21:15 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:

>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>>Date: 12/29/2004 8:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cqul6202pti@news3.newsguy.com>
>>
>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>>>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net

>>NO, NO, NO! Don't mix up two different ideas. Maybe I am at fault for
>>not explaining this clearly. I am talking about inherent vinyl noise.
>
>No you are talking about the vinyl noise in *your* records on *your* rig. You
>seem to be assuming that *that* noise is indicative of the inherent noise floor
>of the medium. I think you are likely wrong about that. I bet the medium is
>capable of better.

I bet it's not capable of anything significantly better.

>>This has nothing to do with any "grundge" recorded on a CD as part of
>>the program material, nor does it have anything to do with badly
>>recorded CDs that might sound harsh, or are otherwise flawed.
>
>Sure it does, Unless you are using the quitest records available you are
>measuring more than just the inherent noise floor of vinyl. Same goes for your
>rig.

The inherent noise of vinyl is the inherent surface noise on any
record you happen to have - so long as it's been properly cleaned. To
suggest that only say 1960s JVC vinyl can be used, is risible.

> Vinyl
>>noise is an artifact present on EVERY Lp played with a stylus.
>
>Agreed.
>
>Some Lps
>>are worse than others, but its origin is in the stylus-groove interface
>>and manifests regardless of whatever program signal is present.
>
>That is my point. You cannot make any universal claims about the severity of it
>based on such limited experience. Your tests are not evidence of the limits of
>the medium just your stuff.

However, the benchmark doesn't vary by more than a few dB from say a
Planar 3 to a Rockport Sirius III. No vinyl ever made had *inherent*
surface noise more than 55-60dB below the 1cm/sec reference level.

> There
>>is no comparable digital artifact because, with properly applied digital
>>techniques, the noise floor drops to essentially zero.
>>
>>> If you want to know what the limitations of the medium are and not just the
>>> limitations of your stuff I suggest you use a Rockport TT or Forsell that is
>>> properly isolated or even a fully decked out Walker Procenium Gold.

Yup, I've heard the Rockport Sirius, set up by Andy Payor himself - it
exhibited perfectly audible surface noise, as you'd expect, since it
was playing *vinyl*.

>>I don't care what turntable/arm/cartridge one uses. Lp surface noise
>>will be audible, especially when monitoring using headphones.
>
>I think you are wrong about that. You *might* be able to here it cranked up
>with no music playing but no way will you here the surface noise at normal
>levels with any kind of music playing if you are using SOTA equipment with SOTA
>records.

Utter nonsense, surface noise is *always* audible in the quiet
passages of music, regardless of the quality of the equipment - it's
an *inherent* problem of vinyl.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 7:52:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:cr6m9v0gjh@news3.newsguy.com...
> S888Wheel wrote:
> >>From: Chung chunglau@covad.net
> >>Date: 12/30/2004 8:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >>Message-id: <cr19ck0b5e@news3.newsguy.com>
> >>
> >>S888Wheel wrote:
> >>>>From: Steven Sullivan ssully@panix.com
> >>>>Date: 12/28/2004 7:33 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >>>>Message-id: <cqrubt02ts5@news3.newsguy.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>michael <pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>>>> S888Wheel wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> >>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
> >>>>
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Yes, I'm not sure that your personal experience is a universal
base
> >>line
> >>>>> > though.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > In any case, from home transfers it is clear that the analog
> >>>>> >>signal differs greatly from a digital source when strictly
considering
> >>>>> >>non-musical program noise.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > I'm not questioning what you found to be true with *your*
transfers,
> >>only
> >>>>the
> >>>>> > universitality of it.
> >>>>
> >>>>> I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go
back
> >>>>> and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to
> >>>>> recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there
> >>>>> exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown
> >>>>> graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it
> >>>>> appears that you are arguing the validity of this?
> >>>>
> >>>>> My suggestion: take a turntable, any turntable, and get yourself
some
> >>>>> analog to digital software. Use any album you like. If you want to
> >>>>> replicate my results then I'll tell you that I use Audacity on
Linux;
> >>>>> I'm sure there are many other similar applications out there you may
> >>>>> use--even Windows applications. :-)
> >>>>
> >>>>> Next, place the stylus in the lead in or the lead out groove, or any
> >>>>> silent passage you like. Finally, watch the vu meters bob up and
down
> >>>>> with peaks around the -40dB value when there is supposed to be
> >>>>> "quietness". It helps to have a good set of headphones for
monitoring.
> >>>>> I use Sennheisers. Once you have done this several hundred times,
or
> >>>>> even just once or twice, then post about the "universality" of the
> >>>>> experiment.
> >>>>
> >>>>Yep, the behavior you see is not unusual; you're seeing the surface
noise
> >>>>of vinyl, which even for the *best*, *cleanest* LP is noisier than
> >>>>digital silence. It *is* a universal phenomenon.
> >>>>
> >>>>Vinylphiles IME are loath to admit any deficiencies of their favorite
> >>>>medium, but to deny the universal existence of surface noise in vinyl,
> >>>>is to be, well, in denial.
> >>>
> >>> Please cite one example of anyone denying the existance of surface
noise.
> >>
> >>Well, here is what you said: "Kind of a broad claim based on limited
> >>experience don't you think?". That was in response to michael's
> >>statement that there is noticeable noise observed from LP systems. Seems
> >>to me that you were at least questioning the universal existance of
> >>surface noise...
> >
> > Then you are mistaken. I was questioning the notion that his experience
was
> > indicative of the best the medium has to offer in performance. His
statement
> > wasn't that there was just noticable noise but it gave very specific
> > meansurments of how much but that was based on his records on his rig. I
was
> > simply pointing out that this limited experience is not neccessarily
evidence
> > of the limitations of the medium but just his records on his rig.
>
> Michael's experience was that the LP noise is very noticeable on a
> digital readout as soon as the needle contacts the "lead-in" groove.
> That is universally true. You seem to be saying that on some
> recordings/set-ups the LP noise is not noticeable this way. That's quite
> an extraordinary claim, given that the surface noise is 20 dB or more
> higher than the sensitivity of today's 16-bit or higher A-D converters.

That's not an extraordinary claim at all as anybody with a really good vinyl
rig and properly installed line-contact stylus can tell you. The noise
simply becomes virtually inaudible at any normal listening level during
normal playback and even between tracks, no matter what the meters show (and
I can see it plain enough on my Marantz CD Recorder).


>
> >
> >>
> >>Can you cite any example where the vinyl noise cannot be heard?
> >
> > Do you live in the L.A area? I'll demonstrate it for you.
>
> Given the easily measureable noise floor of vinyl, you need to listen
> more carefully...
>

No, Chung, you need to listen to a few really good top-end vinyl systems
before you start in based on "theory".

> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Digital capture and display of vinyl
> >>>>transfers simply makes it visible. It can be 'heard through' and thus
> >>>>ignored, but it's always there.
> >>>
> >>> It is not the same for all records and all TT rigs. That was my point.
> >>>>
> >>
> >>It is the same in that the noise is always there.
> >
> > It isn't the same in nature and level for all rigs and all records
though.
> >
> > It can always be
> >>heard, no matter how expensive a rig you have, or how clean and pristine
> >>the vinyl is.
> >
> > I disagree. It is not always noticable.
> >
>
> You perhaps will be the only one with this belief.

Nope, count me in...and virtually every audiophile who continues to enjoy
vinyl.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 7:55:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>Date: 1/1/2005 9:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cr6mds0gnm@news3.newsguy.com>
>
>On 31 Dec 2004 16:21:15 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>
>>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>>>Date: 12/29/2004 8:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <cqul6202pti@news3.newsguy.com>
>>>
>>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>
>>>>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>
>>>NO, NO, NO! Don't mix up two different ideas. Maybe I am at fault for
>>>not explaining this clearly. I am talking about inherent vinyl noise.
>>
>>No you are talking about the vinyl noise in *your* records on *your* rig.
>You
>>seem to be assuming that *that* noise is indicative of the inherent noise
>floor
>>of the medium. I think you are likely wrong about that. I bet the medium is
>>capable of better.
>
>I bet it's not capable of anything significantly better.

I bet it is.


>
>>>This has nothing to do with any "grundge" recorded on a CD as part of
>>>the program material, nor does it have anything to do with badly
>>>recorded CDs that might sound harsh, or are otherwise flawed.
>>
>>Sure it does, Unless you are using the quitest records available you are
>>measuring more than just the inherent noise floor of vinyl. Same goes for
>your
>>rig.
>
>The inherent noise of vinyl is the inherent surface noise on any
>record you happen to have - so long as it's been properly cleaned.

And it varies from record to record substantially. So unless Michael is using
the quitest records available he is not reporting the limits of the medium but
the limits of *his* records.


To
>suggest that only say 1960s JVC vinyl can be used, is risible.

I never suggested any such thing. To suggest that any old record represents the
limits of the medium is plainly false though.


>
>> Vinyl
>>>noise is an artifact present on EVERY Lp played with a stylus.
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>Some Lps
>>>are worse than others, but its origin is in the stylus-groove interface
>>>and manifests regardless of whatever program signal is present.
>>
>>That is my point. You cannot make any universal claims about the severity of
>it
>>based on such limited experience. Your tests are not evidence of the limits
>of
>>the medium just your stuff.
>
>However, the benchmark doesn't vary by more than a few dB from say a
>Planar 3 to a Rockport Sirius III.

Really? How do you know this? Besides we ought to talk about the difference
between Michael's rig and something like the Rockport.

No vinyl ever made had *inherent*
>surface noise more than 55-60dB below the 1cm/sec reference level.

Please cite your evidence and then lets talk about how that relates to
Michael's measurements.


>
>> There
>>>is no comparable digital artifact because, with properly applied digital
>>>techniques, the noise floor drops to essentially zero.
>>>
>>>> If you want to know what the limitations of the medium are and not just
>the
>>>> limitations of your stuff I suggest you use a Rockport TT or Forsell that
>is
>>>> properly isolated or even a fully decked out Walker Procenium Gold.
>
>Yup, I've heard the Rockport Sirius, set up by Andy Payor himself - it
>exhibited perfectly audible surface noise, as you'd expect, since it
>was playing *vinyl*.

So says you. I have alsow heard substantial surface noise on SOTA rigs with
noisy records. What records were you listening to and did you actually measure
the surface noise? If not you are just offering anecdotal evidence. You know,
the kind of evidence that leads people to claim substantial differences in
cable sound.


>
>>>I don't care what turntable/arm/cartridge one uses. Lp surface noise
>>>will be audible, especially when monitoring using headphones.
>>
>>I think you are wrong about that. You *might* be able to here it cranked up
>>with no music playing but no way will you here the surface noise at normal
>>levels with any kind of music playing if you are using SOTA equipment with
>SOTA
>>records.
>
>Utter nonsense, surface noise is *always* audible in the quiet
>passages of music, regardless of the quality of the equipment - it's
>an *inherent* problem of vinyl.

My experience would be that you are simply wrong. Maybe you ought to clean your
records or adjust your TT. If you are hearing surface noise while music is
playing there is something substandard in the mix.
January 2, 2005 9:41:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry Lavo wrote:

>>
>> Michael's experience was that the LP noise is very noticeable on a
>> digital readout as soon as the needle contacts the "lead-in" groove.
>> That is universally true. You seem to be saying that on some
>> recordings/set-ups the LP noise is not noticeable this way. That's quite
>> an extraordinary claim, given that the surface noise is 20 dB or more
>> higher than the sensitivity of today's 16-bit or higher A-D converters.
>
> That's not an extraordinary claim at all as anybody with a really good vinyl
> rig and properly installed line-contact stylus can tell you. The noise
> simply becomes virtually inaudible at any normal listening level during
> normal playback and even between tracks, no matter what the meters show (and
> I can see it plain enough on my Marantz CD Recorder).


Thanks for agreeing that the noise is noticeable on the meter, even on
your presumably SOTA vinyl rig. Mr. Wheel seems to think that not all
vinyl setups have noise that show up like what Michael saw. That was the
extraordinary claim.

>
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>Can you cite any example where the vinyl noise cannot be heard?
>> >
>> > Do you live in the L.A area? I'll demonstrate it for you.
>>
>> Given the easily measureable noise floor of vinyl, you need to listen
>> more carefully...
>>
>
> No, Chung, you need to listen to a few really good top-end vinyl systems
> before you start in based on "theory".
>

Boy, there again is that rather contemptuous assumption that anyone who
understands the inferioe noise floor of vinyl has not lisrtened to
top-end vinyl...

And it is not just theory. It's theory, measurements and listening.

>> >
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Digital capture and display of vinyl
>> >>>>transfers simply makes it visible. It can be 'heard through' and thus
>> >>>>ignored, but it's always there.
>> >>>
>> >>> It is not the same for all records and all TT rigs. That was my point.
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> >>It is the same in that the noise is always there.
>> >
>> > It isn't the same in nature and level for all rigs and all records
> though.
>> >
>> > It can always be
>> >>heard, no matter how expensive a rig you have, or how clean and pristine
>> >>the vinyl is.
>> >
>> > I disagree. It is not always noticable.
>> >
>>
>> You perhaps will be the only one with this belief.
>
> Nope, count me in...and virtually every audiophile who continues to enjoy
> vinyl.

I enjoy certain vinyl records (and I have been listening to them for
almost 40 years), and I always notice the noise. But of course whether
one is bothered by that noise or not is a separate issue.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 9:42:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

S888Wheel wrote:

>>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>>Date: 1/1/2005 9:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cr6mds0gnm@news3.newsguy.com>
>>
>>On 31 Dec 2004 16:21:15 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>>>>Date: 12/29/2004 8:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <cqul6202pti@news3.newsguy.com>
>>>>
>>>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>NO, NO, NO! Don't mix up two different ideas. Maybe I am at fault for
>>>>not explaining this clearly. I am talking about inherent vinyl noise.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>No you are talking about the vinyl noise in *your* records on *your* rig.
>>>
>>>
>>You
>>
>>
>>>seem to be assuming that *that* noise is indicative of the inherent noise
>>>
>>>
>>floor
>>
>>
>>>of the medium. I think you are likely wrong about that. I bet the medium is
>>>capable of better.
>>>
>>>
>>I bet it's not capable of anything significantly better.
>>
>>
>
>I bet it is.
>
>
Evidence of this please, as you so forcefully request later...

>>>>This has nothing to do with any "grundge" recorded on a CD as part of
>>>>the program material, nor does it have anything to do with badly
>>>>recorded CDs that might sound harsh, or are otherwise flawed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Sure it does, Unless you are using the quitest records available you are
>>>measuring more than just the inherent noise floor of vinyl. Same goes for
>>>
>>>
>>your
>>
>>
>>>rig.
>>>
>>>
>>The inherent noise of vinyl is the inherent surface noise on any
>>record you happen to have - so long as it's been properly cleaned.
>>
>>
>
>And it varies from record to record substantially. So unless Michael is using
>the quitest records available he is not reporting the limits of the medium but
>the limits of *his* records.
>
>
> To
>
>
>>suggest that only say 1960s JVC vinyl can be used, is risible.
>>
>>
>
>I never suggested any such thing. To suggest that any old record represents the
>limits of the medium is plainly false though.
>
>
>
>
>>> Vinyl
>>>
>>>
>>>>noise is an artifact present on EVERY Lp played with a stylus.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Agreed.
>>>
>>>Some Lps
>>>
>>>
>>>>are worse than others, but its origin is in the stylus-groove interface
>>>>and manifests regardless of whatever program signal is present.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>That is my point. You cannot make any universal claims about the severity of
>>>
>>>
>>it
>>
>>
>>>based on such limited experience. Your tests are not evidence of the limits
>>>
>>>
>>of
>>
>>
>>>the medium just your stuff.
>>>
>>>
>>However, the benchmark doesn't vary by more than a few dB from say a
>>Planar 3 to a Rockport Sirius III.
>>
>>
>
>Really? How do you know this? Besides we ought to talk about the difference
>between Michael's rig and something like the Rockport.
>
> No vinyl ever made had *inherent*
>
>
>>surface noise more than 55-60dB below the 1cm/sec reference level.
>>
>>
>
>Please cite your evidence and then lets talk about how that relates to
>Michael's measurements.
>
>
Why cite references... you're simply sniping at personal experience,
then you turn around and make
unsubstantiated claims to the contrary... what a useless monolog

>>Yup, I've heard the Rockport Sirius, set up by Andy Payor himself - it
>>exhibited perfectly audible surface noise, as you'd expect, since it
>>was playing *vinyl*.
>>
>>
>
>So says you. I have alsow heard substantial surface noise on SOTA rigs with
>noisy records. What records were you listening to and did you actually measure
>the surface noise? If not you are just offering anecdotal evidence. You know,
>the kind of evidence that leads people to claim substantial differences in
>cable sound
>
and just about anyone else living in the real world believing in more
than fairy tales. Vinyl noise exists,
is audible, adds a gauze over the sound, and can be easily measured with
rudimentary tools. Whether or
not you choose to ignore it, pretend it doesn't exist, or don't
understand the difference between the signal
and the noise is your business, and no one is attempting to state
otherwise. But to claim that vinyl noise is
inaudible is quite simply wrong.

>>>records.
>>>
>>>
>>Utter nonsense, surface noise is *always* audible in the quiet
>>passages of music, regardless of the quality of the equipment - it's
>>an *inherent* problem of vinyl.
>>
>>
>
>My experience would be that you are simply wrong. Maybe you ought to clean your
>records or adjust your TT. If you are hearing surface noise while music is
>playing there is something substandard in the mix.
>
>
Great.. that's your experience... my experience over forty plus years is
to the contrary... and apparently most
of the rest of the world thinks the same, else where are all of the
record stores selling new vinyl? Maybe you
ought to get a decent digital rig and experience true fidelity without
noise . You'll thank yourself for removing
the blinders and waking up to smell the roses.

John L
Auplater
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 10:31:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 2 Jan 2005 16:52:27 GMT, "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:

>"Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
>news:cr6m9v0gjh@news3.newsguy.com...

>> Michael's experience was that the LP noise is very noticeable on a
>> digital readout as soon as the needle contacts the "lead-in" groove.
>> That is universally true. You seem to be saying that on some
>> recordings/set-ups the LP noise is not noticeable this way. That's quite
>> an extraordinary claim, given that the surface noise is 20 dB or more
>> higher than the sensitivity of today's 16-bit or higher A-D converters.
>
>That's not an extraordinary claim at all as anybody with a really good vinyl
>rig and properly installed line-contact stylus can tell you. The noise
>simply becomes virtually inaudible at any normal listening level during
>normal playback and even between tracks, no matter what the meters show (and
>I can see it plain enough on my Marantz CD Recorder).

No, it's audible any time the music is quiet, as anyone in possession
of a high-quality vinyl rig, but *not* in possession of a pro-vinyl
agenda, will confirm.

>> >>Can you cite any example where the vinyl noise cannot be heard?
>> >
>> > Do you live in the L.A area? I'll demonstrate it for you.
>>
>> Given the easily measureable noise floor of vinyl, you need to listen
>> more carefully...
>>
>No, Chung, you need to listen to a few really good top-end vinyl systems
>before you start in based on "theory".

Tired old strawman argument, and absolute rubbish.

>> > It can always be
>> >>heard, no matter how expensive a rig you have, or how clean and pristine
>> >>the vinyl is.
>> >
>> > I disagree. It is not always noticable.
>> >
>> You perhaps will be the only one with this belief.

>Nope, count me in...and virtually every audiophile who continues to enjoy
>vinyl.

Nope, I enjoy vinyl, otherwise I wouldn't have a decent vinyl rig, but
I do not choose to blind myself to its *inherent* flaws. I pity those
who find it necessary to stick their heads so firmly in the sand -
this ruins treble reproduction! :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 11:01:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 2 Jan 2005 16:55:55 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:

>>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>>Date: 1/1/2005 9:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cr6mds0gnm@news3.newsguy.com>
>>
>>On 31 Dec 2004 16:21:15 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>>
>>>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>>>>Date: 12/29/2004 8:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <cqul6202pti@news3.newsguy.com>
>>>>
>>>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>>
>>>>NO, NO, NO! Don't mix up two different ideas. Maybe I am at fault for
>>>>not explaining this clearly. I am talking about inherent vinyl noise.
>>>
>>>No you are talking about the vinyl noise in *your* records on *your* rig.
>>You
>>>seem to be assuming that *that* noise is indicative of the inherent noise
>>floor
>>>of the medium. I think you are likely wrong about that. I bet the medium is
>>>capable of better.
>>
>>I bet it's not capable of anything significantly better.
>
>I bet it is.

Name your wager - I bet $10,000 that a SOTA rig is not more than 6dB
better in this regard than any basic 'entry level hi-fi' vinyl rig.
Say for instance something that you would sneer at - a Rega Planar 3
(or equivalent) with a Shure V-15 cartridge.

This is easily established with *any* vinyl of your choice.

>>>>This has nothing to do with any "grundge" recorded on a CD as part of
>>>>the program material, nor does it have anything to do with badly
>>>>recorded CDs that might sound harsh, or are otherwise flawed.
>>>
>>>Sure it does, Unless you are using the quitest records available you are
>>>measuring more than just the inherent noise floor of vinyl. Same goes for
>>your
>>>rig.
>>
>>The inherent noise of vinyl is the inherent surface noise on any
>>record you happen to have - so long as it's been properly cleaned.
>
>And it varies from record to record substantially. So unless Michael is using
>the quitest records available he is not reporting the limits of the medium but
>the limits of *his* records.

Oh, so now you're saying it's the *record* that matters?

> To suggest that only say 1960s JVC vinyl can be used, is risible.
>
>I never suggested any such thing. To suggest that any old record represents the
>limits of the medium is plainly false though.

Funny, I thought that was *exactly* what you were suggesting above.
Please get back to me when you have a *consistent* argument to offer.

>>However, the benchmark doesn't vary by more than a few dB from say a
>>Planar 3 to a Rockport Sirius III.
>
>Really? How do you know this? Besides we ought to talk about the difference
>between Michael's rig and something like the Rockport.

I'm an engineer, and I've listened to the Sirius.

> No vinyl ever made had *inherent*
>>surface noise more than 55-60dB below the 1cm/sec reference level.
>
>Please cite your evidence and then lets talk about how that relates to
>Michael's measurements.

Measure any vinyl you have on any rig you can find, then get back to
me. I won't be holding my breath.

>>> There
>>>>is no comparable digital artifact because, with properly applied digital
>>>>techniques, the noise floor drops to essentially zero.
>>>>
>>>>> If you want to know what the limitations of the medium are and not just
>>the
>>>>> limitations of your stuff I suggest you use a Rockport TT or Forsell that
>>is
>>>>> properly isolated or even a fully decked out Walker Procenium Gold.
>>
>>Yup, I've heard the Rockport Sirius, set up by Andy Payor himself - it
>>exhibited perfectly audible surface noise, as you'd expect, since it
>>was playing *vinyl*.
>
>So says you. I have alsow heard substantial surface noise on SOTA rigs with
>noisy records. What records were you listening to and did you actually measure
>the surface noise?

No measurement necessary, it was clearly audible on records chosen by
Andy to demonstrate the Sirius. Besides, why are you *now* demanding
measurements? Wasn't your point that it's not *audible* on a good rig?

> If not you are just offering anecdotal evidence. You know,
>the kind of evidence that leads people to claim substantial differences in
>cable sound.

Sure, so I'd be happy if *you* could supply any solid evidence in
rebuttal to what is basically common knowledge, and in accordance with
known measurements of surace noise.

>>>>I don't care what turntable/arm/cartridge one uses. Lp surface noise
>>>>will be audible, especially when monitoring using headphones.
>>>
>>>I think you are wrong about that. You *might* be able to here it cranked up
>>>with no music playing but no way will you here the surface noise at normal
>>>levels with any kind of music playing if you are using SOTA equipment with
>>SOTA
>>>records.
>>
>>Utter nonsense, surface noise is *always* audible in the quiet
>>passages of music, regardless of the quality of the equipment - it's
>>an *inherent* problem of vinyl.
>
>My experience would be that you are simply wrong. Maybe you ought to clean your
>records or adjust your TT. If you are hearing surface noise while music is
>playing there is something substandard in the mix.

No, it's an *inherent* flaw in the medium. Maybe you ought to clean or
adjust your prejudices...................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 3:19:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>Date: 1/2/2005 12:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cr9jvk0h82@news3.newsguy.com>
>
>On 2 Jan 2005 16:55:55 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>
>>>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>>>Date: 1/1/2005 9:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <cr6mds0gnm@news3.newsguy.com>
>>>
>>>On 31 Dec 2004 16:21:15 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>>>>>Date: 12/29/2004 8:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>Message-id: <cqul6202pti@news3.newsguy.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>>>
>>>>>NO, NO, NO! Don't mix up two different ideas. Maybe I am at fault for
>>>>>not explaining this clearly. I am talking about inherent vinyl noise.
>>>>
>>>>No you are talking about the vinyl noise in *your* records on *your* rig.
>>>You
>>>>seem to be assuming that *that* noise is indicative of the inherent noise
>>>floor
>>>>of the medium. I think you are likely wrong about that. I bet the medium
>is
>>>>capable of better.
>>>
>>>I bet it's not capable of anything significantly better.
>>
>>I bet it is.
>
>Name your wager -

This old ridiculous routine? Get in line. I'm still waiting for Tom Nousaine to
make good on his offer to bet 1,001 dollars that my isolation devices make no
audible difference. I don't take such offers seriously.

I bet $10,000 that a SOTA rig is not more than 6dB
>better in this regard than any basic 'entry level hi-fi' vinyl rig.

That's laughable. You are now saying that 6db is not significant.


>Say for instance something that you would sneer at - a Rega Planar 3
>(or equivalent) with a Shure V-15 cartridge.

Why introduce something that wasn't even being discussed? Why don't we stick to
the argument on hand? How about we take Michael's rig and Michael's records and
compare them to something SOTA with SOTA pressings?


>
>This is easily established with *any* vinyl of your choice.

I doubt it is so easily established. But the whole thing is a joke if you are
going to take the position that 6db difference is insignificant. But please
feel free to make a proposal as to how we would do this comparison and then
tell us how you would draw the line on what is and is not a *significant*
difference. I would only insist on the following, SOTA pressings on SOTA vinyl
playback be compared to Michael's rig and Michael's records that he used for
his post. And that the measurements be made by a neutral party that has
varifaible expertise in making such measurements.


>
>>>>>This has nothing to do with any "grundge" recorded on a CD as part of
>>>>>the program material, nor does it have anything to do with badly
>>>>>recorded CDs that might sound harsh, or are otherwise flawed.
>>>>
>>>>Sure it does, Unless you are using the quitest records available you are
>>>>measuring more than just the inherent noise floor of vinyl. Same goes for
>>>your
>>>>rig.
>>>
>>>The inherent noise of vinyl is the inherent surface noise on any
>>>record you happen to have - so long as it's been properly cleaned.
>>
>>And it varies from record to record substantially. So unless Michael is
>using
>>the quitest records available he is not reporting the limits of the medium
>but
>>the limits of *his* records.
>
>Oh, so now you're saying it's the *record* that matters?

I have been saying it all along. Please pay better attention.


>
>> To suggest that only say 1960s JVC vinyl can be used, is risible.
>>
>>I never suggested any such thing. To suggest that any old record represents
>the
>>limits of the medium is plainly false though.
>
>Funny, I thought that was *exactly* what you were suggesting above.

Nope. I was expressly talking about the limits of the medium itself. There is
no question that poor pressings are noisier but poor pressings do not represent
the limits of the medium.


>Please get back to me when you have a *consistent* argument to offer.

Please get back to me when you reread my posts and see that there is no such
lack of consistency.


>
>>>However, the benchmark doesn't vary by more than a few dB from say a
>>>Planar 3 to a Rockport Sirius III.
>>
>>Really? How do you know this? Besides we ought to talk about the difference
>>between Michael's rig and something like the Rockport.
>
>I'm an engineer, and I've listened to the Sirius.

IOW you are offering an opinion as a fact. You have no hard data to support
your assertion.


>
>> No vinyl ever made had *inherent*
>>>surface noise more than 55-60dB below the 1cm/sec reference level.
>>
>>Please cite your evidence and then lets talk about how that relates to
>>Michael's measurements.
>
>Measure any vinyl you have on any rig you can find, then get back to
>me. I won't be holding my breath.

I see you have no citations to offer. I won't be holding my breath either.


>
>>>> There
>>>>>is no comparable digital artifact because, with properly applied digital
>>>>>techniques, the noise floor drops to essentially zero.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to know what the limitations of the medium are and not just
>>>the
>>>>>> limitations of your stuff I suggest you use a Rockport TT or Forsell
>that
>>>is
>>>>>> properly isolated or even a fully decked out Walker Procenium Gold.
>>>
>>>Yup, I've heard the Rockport Sirius, set up by Andy Payor himself - it
>>>exhibited perfectly audible surface noise, as you'd expect, since it
>>>was playing *vinyl*.
>>
>>So says you. I have alsow heard substantial surface noise on SOTA rigs with
>>noisy records. What records were you listening to and did you actually
>measure
>>the surface noise?
>
>No measurement necessary,

Actually you are wrong. Without the measurement all we have is the your biased
anecdote of a sighted listening experience.

it was clearly audible on records chosen by
>Andy to demonstrate the Sirius.

Just like audible differences between cables are clearly audible under sighted
conditions.

Besides, why are you *now* demanding
>measurements?

The question is why are you now settling for anecdotes as a basis for
assertions of fact about audibility?

Wasn't your point that it's not *audible* on a good rig?

No, my point was that Michael's measurements of Micheal's records on Micheal's
rig were not representative of a universal threshold for the medium itself but
just representative of performance of his rig with his records. Please read my
posts more carefully so I do not have to waste time repeating myself.


>
>> If not you are just offering anecdotal evidence. You know,
>>the kind of evidence that leads people to claim substantial differences in
>>cable sound.
>
>Sure, so I'd be happy if *you* could supply any solid evidence in
>rebuttal to what is basically common knowledge, and in accordance with
>known measurements of surace noise.

I'd be happy if you could offer any solid evidence to support your assertions.


>
>>>>>I don't care what turntable/arm/cartridge one uses. Lp surface noise
>>>>>will be audible, especially when monitoring using headphones.
>>>>
>>>>I think you are wrong about that. You *might* be able to here it cranked
>up
>>>>with no music playing but no way will you here the surface noise at normal
>>>>levels with any kind of music playing if you are using SOTA equipment with
>>>SOTA
>>>>records.
>>>
>>>Utter nonsense, surface noise is *always* audible in the quiet
>>>passages of music, regardless of the quality of the equipment - it's
>>>an *inherent* problem of vinyl.
>>
>>My experience would be that you are simply wrong. Maybe you ought to clean
>your
>>records or adjust your TT. If you are hearing surface noise while music is
>>playing there is something substandard in the mix.
>
>No, it's an *inherent* flaw in the medium. Maybe you ought to clean or
>adjust your prejudices...................

So says the guy who bases his assertions on his own sighted listening
experiences. I guess you aren't worried about your biases. I have no sympathy
for such double standards.
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 3:34:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Let us assume (for the moment) that with a state of the art
TT/arm/cartridge combo that surface noise IS inaudible on some special
records. Do most audiophiles have a total collection of these records?
If they are truly listening to music, it would seem that many of their
records are run-of-the mill pressings. This would mean that vinyl noise
WOULD be present most of the time except when the special records were
being played.


---MIKE---
January 3, 2005 7:11:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

>>"Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
>>news:cr6m9v0gjh@news3.newsguy.com...

>>That's not an extraordinary claim at all as anybody with a really good vinyl
>>rig and properly installed line-contact stylus can tell you. The noise
>>simply becomes virtually inaudible at any normal listening level during
>>normal playback and even between tracks, no matter what the meters show (and
>>I can see it plain enough on my Marantz CD Recorder).
>
>
> No, it's audible any time the music is quiet, as anyone in possession
> of a high-quality vinyl rig, but *not* in possession of a pro-vinyl
> agenda, will confirm.


First, I'd like to comment on the notion that, at normal listening
levels, vinyl noise is inaudible. I think that in a home environment
with the usual ambient noise this may be true most of the time.
Especially if one is not really paying attention. On the other hand,
using headphones noise is quite pronounced during low level passages and
in between cuts regardless of whether one is critically listening.


The fact that in a normal home environment this gross noise is masked
really makes me wonder about the critical abilities of those that claim
to hear sonic differences from devices such as interconnects, or
amplifiers whose level of distortion is infinitely smaller than what we
are talking about here. I expect that some of those who argue about how
imperceptible vinyl noise is are the first ones to hear differences
among items which, under controlled conditions, make no contribution to
the sound at all. In fine, components that, if they have any measurable
distortion at all, the measured distortion is so low as to be meaningless.


In any case, there is obviously a big difference among records regarding
quality and quantity of noise. With the V-15xMR cartridge tracking at
one gram (plus another half for the damper) I measured the following:


A brand new, only played once copy of "John Coltrane Live at the Village
Vanguard, Again"; 180 gram Virgin Vinyl "Audiophile Remastered" Impulse
disc: silent grooves peaked at -33 dB below 0 (where the loudest
passage on the disc registered -2dB below 0. During the quiet "Intro to
My Favorite Things" passage, surface noise was audible both on
headphones and listening to my Boston Acoustic PC speakers (about 2 feet
away).


An almost new "played a couple of times" copy of "Sound of Joy" by Sun
Ra and the Arkestra on Delmark--a standard LP with no pretensions of
being audiophile grade. Here, the silent tracks peaked at -18 dB below
0. On this record surface noise was even more obvious.


Are my measurements trivial? I think not, but anyone can say anything,
so please don't take my word for it. Indeed, for those of you arguing
that these artifacts are less than important, or somehow only valid for
my specific set up I'd like you to provide your own measurements for the
newsgroup. I for one would certainly be interested in reading about how
a "modern" rig measures up when compared to a 30 year old Thorens TD 160
(although it does have a new belt, an aftermarket felt mat, and one of
those fancy pseudo high-end weights* that sit on the top of the record :-)).


*it's only pseudo high-end since it came from Audio Technica Signet and
only cost about $10.00 new. I've seen real high-end weights that cost
10 to 20 times more, but before I spend that kind of dough I first need
to save up to get a set of those magic wooden thingys to place under the
turntable. You know, the ones with the funny name and that are supposed
to improve the sonic pace and the timing, whatever that means.


michael
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:17:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 3 Jan 2005 00:19:48 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:

>>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>>Date: 1/2/2005 12:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cr9jvk0h82@news3.newsguy.com>
>>
>>On 2 Jan 2005 16:55:55 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>>
>>>>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>>>>Date: 1/1/2005 9:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <cr6mds0gnm@news3.newsguy.com>
>>>>
>>>>On 31 Dec 2004 16:21:15 GMT, s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>>>>>>Date: 12/29/2004 8:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>>Message-id: <cqul6202pti@news3.newsguy.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>>>>
>>>>>>NO, NO, NO! Don't mix up two different ideas. Maybe I am at fault for
>>>>>>not explaining this clearly. I am talking about inherent vinyl noise.
>>>>>
>>>>>No you are talking about the vinyl noise in *your* records on *your* rig.
>>>>You
>>>>>seem to be assuming that *that* noise is indicative of the inherent noise
>>>>floor
>>>>>of the medium. I think you are likely wrong about that. I bet the medium
>>is
>>>>>capable of better.
>>>>
>>>>I bet it's not capable of anything significantly better.
>>>
>>>I bet it is.
>>
>>Name your wager -
>
>This old ridiculous routine? Get in line. I'm still waiting for Tom Nousaine to
>make good on his offer to bet 1,001 dollars that my isolation devices make no
>audible difference. I don't take such offers seriously.
>
> I bet $10,000 that a SOTA rig is not more than 6dB
>>better in this regard than any basic 'entry level hi-fi' vinyl rig.
>
>That's laughable. You are now saying that 6db is not significant.

From 60 to 66dB is not significant, when you consider that *all* CDs
have 93dB available dynamic range. Are you once again trying to
chgange the rulkes as you go along? Are you admitting that a basic
vinyl rig has a noise floor *less* than 6dB worse than a SOTA rig? If
so, then your argument collapses in hysterical laughter!

>>Say for instance something that you would sneer at - a Rega Planar 3
>>(or equivalent) with a Shure V-15 cartridge.
>
>Why introduce something that wasn't even being discussed? Why don't we stick to
>the argument on hand? How about we take Michael's rig and Michael's records and
>compare them to something SOTA with SOTA pressings?

How about we use the same records on both rigs, so that wer are
comparing apples with apples?

>>This is easily established with *any* vinyl of your choice.
>
>I doubt it is so easily established.

Sure it is - that's what meters and 'scopes *do*.

>But the whole thing is a joke if you are
>going to take the position that 6db difference is insignificant.

Actually, it's a joke if you think that a 6dB difference in total
noise floor from 'mid-fi' to SOTA *is* significant.

> But please
>feel free to make a proposal as to how we would do this comparison and then
>tell us how you would draw the line on what is and is not a *significant*
>difference. I would only insist on the following, SOTA pressings on SOTA vinyl
>playback be compared to Michael's rig and Michael's records that he used for
>his post. And that the measurements be made by a neutral party that has
>varifaible expertise in making such measurements.

You are not then comparing only the equipment. You keep insisting that
the difference is the SOTA replay rig, but now you want to include the
records as well? Could that be because you already *know* that surface
noise is dependent on the *vinyl*, not on the replay equipment? In
other words, you're just plain *wrong*, but refuse to admit it?

>>>>>>This has nothing to do with any "grundge" recorded on a CD as part of
>>>>>>the program material, nor does it have anything to do with badly
>>>>>>recorded CDs that might sound harsh, or are otherwise flawed.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sure it does, Unless you are using the quitest records available you are
>>>>>measuring more than just the inherent noise floor of vinyl. Same goes for
>>>>your
>>>>>rig.
>>>>
>>>>The inherent noise of vinyl is the inherent surface noise on any
>>>>record you happen to have - so long as it's been properly cleaned.
>>>
>>>And it varies from record to record substantially. So unless Michael is using
>>>the quitest records available he is not reporting the limits of the medium but
>>>the limits of *his* records.
>>
>>Oh, so now you're saying it's the *record* that matters?
>
>I have been saying it all along. Please pay better attention.

No, you have been complaining that Michael is not using SOTA
equiopment, and hence is not qualified to comment on surface noise.
You are now backpedalling at light speed.................

>>> To suggest that only say 1960s JVC vinyl can be used, is risible.
>>>
>>>I never suggested any such thing. To suggest that any old record represents the
>>>limits of the medium is plainly false though.

Sure, but that's all we have, for any given musical performance not
available on CD. To suggest that *any* vinyl has surface noise less
than 60dB below 1cm/sec is just risible.

>>Funny, I thought that was *exactly* what you were suggesting above.
>
>Nope. I was expressly talking about the limits of the medium itself. There is
>no question that poor pressings are noisier but poor pressings do not represent
>the limits of the medium.

The medium does however have readily measured limits - never more than
60dB below 1cm/sec. Don't believe me? Get out your measuring gear.


>>Please get back to me when you have a *consistent* argument to offer.
>
>Please get back to me when you reread my posts and see that there is no such
>lack of consistency.

Sure there is. Youy started out with the usual sneer that Michael's
gear was the problem, now you're backpedalling furiously with no data
to back you up.

>>>>However, the benchmark doesn't vary by more than a few dB from say a
>>>>Planar 3 to a Rockport Sirius III.
>>>
>>>Really? How do you know this? Besides we ought to talk about the difference
>>>between Michael's rig and something like the Rockport.
>>
>>I'm an engineer, and I've listened to the Sirius.
>
>IOW you are offering an opinion as a fact. You have no hard data to support
>your assertion.

Sure I do, I've built numerous phono preamps, and I've looked at their
noise floors, and noted how much that jumps when they're playing
vinyl. BTW, I have noticed less than 6dB difference between top-class
vinyl such as Sheffield direct-cuts and heavyweight JVC, and the
rattiest of '70s recycled rubbish. While the 'good stuff' is more
consistent, so lacks the cyclic 'swooshing' of poor-quality vinyl, the
basic noise level is not greatly different IME. Of course, *dirty* and
*damaged* vinyl from car boot sales is a different matter, but I trust
that you're not going to attempt to use *that* as a reference.

>>> No vinyl ever made had *inherent*
>>>>surface noise more than 55-60dB below the 1cm/sec reference level.
>>>
>>>Please cite your evidence and then lets talk about how that relates to
>>>Michael's measurements.
>>
>>Measure any vinyl you have on any rig you can find, then get back to
>>me. I won't be holding my breath.
>
>I see you have no citations to offer. I won't be holding my breath either.

So, you admit that you have no evidence, and are simply offering an
unsubstantiated opinion?

>>>>> There
>>>>>>is no comparable digital artifact because, with properly applied digital
>>>>>>techniques, the noise floor drops to essentially zero.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to know what the limitations of the medium are and not just the
>>>>>>> limitations of your stuff I suggest you use a Rockport TT or Forsell that is
>>>>>>> properly isolated or even a fully decked out Walker Procenium Gold.

I note that you are now backpedalling rapidly from this position,
depite your denials above. Do you not even *read* your own posts
before contradicting yourself?

>>>>Yup, I've heard the Rockport Sirius, set up by Andy Payor himself - it
>>>>exhibited perfectly audible surface noise, as you'd expect, since it
>>>>was playing *vinyl*.
>>>
>>>So says you. I have alsow heard substantial surface noise on SOTA rigs with
>>>noisy records. What records were you listening to and did you actually measure
>>>the surface noise?
>>
>>No measurement necessary,
>
>Actually you are wrong. Without the measurement all we have is the your biased
>anecdote of a sighted listening experience.

Nice try, but blind listening is only necessary for *subtle*
differences, not for noting the existence of vinyl surface noise!

> it was clearly audible on records chosen by
>>Andy to demonstrate the Sirius.
>
>Just like audible differences between cables are clearly audible under sighted
>conditions.

Competely different principle, since surface noise is *always* readily
audible, despite your attempts to ignore it. Cable differences don't
actually exist, but *anyone* can tell the difference between the
surface noise of an LP and the noise floor of the equivalent CD, every
time, 100%.

> Besides, why are you *now* demanding
>>measurements?
>
>The question is why are you now settling for anecdotes as a basis for
>assertions of fact about audibility?

Seems to be what you do all the time. I note that you demand different
standards from your opponents, but I'm happy to make some measurements
any time you like.

> Wasn't your point that it's not *audible* on a good rig?
>
>No, my point was that Michael's measurements of Micheal's records on Micheal's
>rig were not representative of a universal threshold for the medium itself but
>just representative of performance of his rig with his records. Please read my
>posts more carefully so I do not have to waste time repeating myself.

Actually, you don't repeat yourself so much as contradict yourself.
Hopwever, since you now seem to feel that 6dB is a 'significant'
difference, can we agree that subtracting 6dB from Michael's figures
will equate to your 'SOTA' surface noise? And is hence easily audible?

>>> If not you are just offering anecdotal evidence. You know,
>>>the kind of evidence that leads people to claim substantial differences in
>>>cable sound.
>>
>>Sure, so I'd be happy if *you* could supply any solid evidence in
>>rebuttal to what is basically common knowledge, and in accordance with
>>known measurements of surace noise.
>
>I'd be happy if you could offer any solid evidence to support your assertions.

See above. What I am stating is common knowledge, proveable by anyone
with suitable measuring gear. What *you* are claiming is mere
hand-waving, with no support whatever. *You* are the one making the
extraordinary claims, so *you* need to come up with some solid
evidence to rebut the eminently reasonable figuures already provided
by Michael.

>>>>>>I don't care what turntable/arm/cartridge one uses. Lp surface noise
>>>>>>will be audible, especially when monitoring using headphones.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think you are wrong about that. You *might* be able to here it cranked up
>>>>>with no music playing but no way will you here the surface noise at normal
>>>>>levels with any kind of music playing if you are using SOTA equipment with
>>>>SOTA records.
>>>>
>>>>Utter nonsense, surface noise is *always* audible in the quiet
>>>>passages of music, regardless of the quality of the equipment - it's
>>>>an *inherent* problem of vinyl.
>>>
>>>My experience would be that you are simply wrong. Maybe you ought to clean your
>>>records or adjust your TT. If you are hearing surface noise while music is
>>>playing there is something substandard in the mix.
>>
>>No, it's an *inherent* flaw in the medium. Maybe you ought to clean or
>>adjust your prejudices...................
>
>So says the guy who bases his assertions on his own sighted listening
>experiences. I guess you aren't worried about your biases. I have no sympathy
>for such double standards.

I base my statements about surface noise both on listening *and* on
measurements, and Michael's figures aren't unreasonable, so where is
*your* evidence in rebuttal?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:25:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 3 Jan 2005 00:34:06 GMT, twinmountain@webtv.net (---MIKE---) wrote:

>Let us assume (for the moment) that with a state of the art
>TT/arm/cartridge combo that surface noise IS inaudible on some special
>records.

Actually, it's not, but your following point is of course *the* point
- most good *music* is not to be found on 'audiophile' pressings.

>Do most audiophiles have a total collection of these records?
>If they are truly listening to music, it would seem that many of their
>records are run-of-the mill pressings. This would mean that vinyl noise
>WOULD be present most of the time except when the special records were
>being played.

It's present anyway, even on my top-class and pristine MFSL and
Sheffield pressings. Even the best vinyl is still just vinyl.

Now, I'll grant you that I can't hear surface noise on heavy metal
LPs, but there's a good reason for that! :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
January 3, 2005 7:27:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

---MIKE--- wrote:

> Let us assume (for the moment) that with a state of the art
> TT/arm/cartridge combo that surface noise IS inaudible on some special
> records. Do most audiophiles have a total collection of these records?
> If they are truly listening to music, it would seem that many of their
> records are run-of-the mill pressings. This would mean that vinyl noise
> WOULD be present most of the time except when the special records were
> being played.


For those of you who are interested to see what I am talking about (and,
maybe, would like to experiment for yourselves) I have provided a visual
you can look at. Feel free to compare your results to mine.


http://bellsouthpwp2.net/p/m/pm279/snapshot3.png


The top window shows the amplitude of the signal. As you can see, prior
to the first set of large peaks the line is flat. This is the portion
of the test where the stylus is not yet on the record. The large peaks
shown at 1.5 indicate first stylus contact on the groove. This
generated enough energy to clip the signal in the right channel, as can
be seen from both the graph and the VU meter's red "peak save"
indicator. The left channel's "peak save" at the time of the stylus
contact is -17dB.


The bottom window was taken during the lead in track, where no signal
was recorded. The dark red area records peak value, while the lighter
red shows the average value.


The record is the 180 gram "Audiophile Master" virgin vinyl disc of
"John Coltrane at the Village Vangaurd, Again" on Impulse. The
cartridge is the Shure V-15xMR.


michael
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 12:25:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Just did this experiment.

Took a copy of Khachaturian's Gayne Ballet Suite out of its jacket. This is
a "$2.00 special" classic Everest recording from the late '50's. As such it
is a bit bass-shy, and slightly "tinny" in sound, as was the wont when
stereo cutters were new. I've played this disk once since purchasing...from
the wear and tear on the cover it was hardly kept in virgin condition by its
previous owner. The record had not been "Lasted" by me as I usually do
eventually with records whose sound and performance I like and wish to
preserve.

Put it on the phono and listened to about 2/3rd's of side one. One
noticeable noise..a two-groove-repeated "pop" about an inch in...other than
that I could not hear noise..even between tracks. So I turned on my Marantz
professional CD recorder, which is calibrated to the
phono/preamp/headamp/cartridge so that most LP's hit "0" peak without
further adjustment. Sure enough, the peaks were just lighting the "0" db
indicator. Got to the next between tracks silent groove...the noise level
dropped to the -50 db level, with one slight flicker of the "-40" db level.
The noise was virtually inaudible, even standing beside one of the speakers.
This is pretty typical of what I experience with my records with my setup.
I must say that a great deal of it has to do with a properly set up line
contact stylus...I can put the record on my second turntable with an .02 x
...07" elliptical Shure stylus and get much more audible noise.

The experience above is why S888Wheel keeps saying you must take both the
quality of the setup and the quality of the records themselves into account
when deciding whether vinyl noise is present in bothersome amounts. For
him, me, and many others, it simply isn't. And I suggest that to those for
whom it is, that a good record cleaning, and a top-quality cartridge with
line-contact stylus properly adjusted for VTA will doubtless improve things
dramatically.


"michael" <pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:cqul6202pti@news3.newsguy.com...
> S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>
> >>I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back
> >>and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to
> >>recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there
> >>exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown
> >>graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it
> >>appears that you are arguing the validity of this?
>
> > No I am arguing against the implied global implications. Heck one can
find any
> > number of CDs that have "grundge" in the signal. It doesn't say anything
about
> > the medium just something about that CD.
>
> NO, NO, NO! Don't mix up two different ideas. Maybe I am at fault for
> not explaining this clearly. I am talking about inherent vinyl noise.
> This has nothing to do with any "grundge" recorded on a CD as part of
> the program material, nor does it have anything to do with badly
> recorded CDs that might sound harsh, or are otherwise flawed. Vinyl
> noise is an artifact present on EVERY Lp played with a stylus. Some Lps
> are worse than others, but its origin is in the stylus-groove interface
> and manifests regardless of whatever program signal is present. There
> is no comparable digital artifact because, with properly applied digital
> techniques, the noise floor drops to essentially zero.
>
> > If you want to know what the limitations of the medium are and not just
the
> > limitations of your stuff I suggest you use a Rockport TT or Forsell
that is
> > properly isolated or even a fully decked out Walker Procenium Gold.
>
> I don't care what turntable/arm/cartridge one uses. Lp surface noise
> will be audible, especially when monitoring using headphones. Obviously
> some systems may contribute additional mechanism related noise that
> others may not, but this, again, is not what I'm speaking and writing
about.
>
> michael
Anonymous
January 4, 2005 12:27:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>From: Stewart Pinkerton patent3@dircon.co.uk
>Date: 12/30/2004 8:17 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cr19nb0bco@news3.newsguy.com>
>
>On 29 Dec 2004 16:14:58 GMT, michael <pm279@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>>>>From: michael pm279@bellsouth.net
>>
>>>>I snipped out most of the thread becuase anyone interested can go back
>>>>and read. This back and forth is getting unmanagable. Anyhow, to
>>>>recap: I claimed that when recording from a turntable to a CD there
>>>>exists alot of analog grundge that is heard and is also shown
>>>>graphically by VU meters. This stuff is non-musical noise. Now it
>>>>appears that you are arguing the validity of this?
>>
>>> No I am arguing against the implied global implications. Heck one can find
>any
>>> number of CDs that have "grundge" in the signal. It doesn't say anything
>about
>>> the medium just something about that CD.
>>
>>NO, NO, NO! Don't mix up two different ideas. Maybe I am at fault for
>>not explaining this clearly. I am talking about inherent vinyl noise.
>>This has nothing to do with any "grundge" recorded on a CD as part of
>>the program material, nor does it have anything to do with badly
>>recorded CDs that might sound harsh, or are otherwise flawed. Vinyl
>>noise is an artifact present on EVERY Lp played with a stylus. Some Lps
>>are worse than others, but its origin is in the stylus-groove interface
>>and manifests regardless of whatever program signal is present. There
>>is no comparable digital artifact because, with properly applied digital
>>techniques, the noise floor drops to essentially zero.
>
>Well, -93dB anyway, and since there exists not one single music master
>tape with more than 80-85dB dynamic range, we can reasonably call it
>'zero' for the playback medium. Also essentially zero distortion, and
>ruler-flat FR from less than 10Hz to more than 20Hz, with less than
>-80dB crosstalk at all frequencies. Compare and contrast with
>vimyl..................
>
>>> If you want to know what the limitations of the medium are and not just
>the
>>> limitations of your stuff I suggest you use a Rockport TT or Forsell that
>is
>>> properly isolated or even a fully decked out Walker Procenium Gold.
>>
>>I don't care what turntable/arm/cartridge one uses. Lp surface noise
>>will be audible, especially when monitoring using headphones. Obviously
>>some systems may contribute additional mechanism related noise that
>>others may not, but this, again, is not what I'm speaking and writing about.
>
>Scott is of course just trotting out the tired old 'you've never heard
>a decent vinyl rig' strawman.

No, I am simply pointing out the *fact* that measurements on any old turntable
with any old record is not neccessarily representative of the limits of the
medium.You seem to want to take issue with this fact. It is a fact regardless
of all the irrelevant and misconstrued interpretations you try to extract from
my posts. But feel free to cite where I said someone has not "heard" a "decent"
vinyl rig if you wish to stand by this assertion.
I said no such thing nor did I imply any such thing. I fail to seee how anyone
can extract such a notion from anything I have said on this thread.

Well, I own a pretty decent vinyl rig,
>and I have listened at length to what many would call the ultimate
>vinyl rig - a Rockport Sirius III fitted with Clearaudio Insider
>cartridge, set up personally by Andy Payor. Since it was playing
>*vinyl*, it still suffered from surface noise, treble splash and inner
>groove distortion, all perfectly audible.


A lovely anecdote with all the value one can attach to any other garden variety
audiophile anecdote.
January 4, 2005 4:48:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry Lavo wrote:
> Just did this experiment.
>
> Took a copy of Khachaturian's Gayne Ballet Suite out of its jacket. This is
> a "$2.00 special" classic Everest recording from the late '50's. As such it
> is a bit bass-shy, and slightly "tinny" in sound, as was the wont when
> stereo cutters were new. I've played this disk once since purchasing...from
> the wear and tear on the cover it was hardly kept in virgin condition by its
> previous owner. The record had not been "Lasted" by me as I usually do
> eventually with records whose sound and performance I like and wish to
> preserve.
>
> Put it on the phono and listened to about 2/3rd's of side one. One
> noticeable noise..a two-groove-repeated "pop" about an inch in...other than
> that I could not hear noise..even between tracks. So I turned on my Marantz
> professional CD recorder, which is calibrated to the
> phono/preamp/headamp/cartridge so that most LP's hit "0" peak without
> further adjustment. Sure enough, the peaks were just lighting the "0" db
> indicator. Got to the next between tracks silent groove...the noise level
> dropped to the -50 db level, with one slight flicker of the "-40" db level.
> The noise was virtually inaudible, even standing beside one of the speakers.
> This is pretty typical of what I experience with my records with my setup.
> I must say that a great deal of it has to do with a properly set up line
> contact stylus...I can put the record on my second turntable with an .02 x
> ..07" elliptical Shure stylus and get much more audible noise.

I wouldn't call noise that is -50dB from peak "virtually inaudible".
More likely, you are accustomed to that level of noise from vinyl. Note
that the modern CD has better than 90dB signal-to-noise ratio.

>
> The experience above is why S888Wheel keeps saying you must take both the
> quality of the setup and the quality of the records themselves into account
> when deciding whether vinyl noise is present in bothersome amounts. For
> him, me, and many others, it simply isn't. And I suggest that to those for
> whom it is, that a good record cleaning, and a top-quality cartridge with
> line-contact stylus properly adjusted for VTA will doubtless improve things
> dramatically.

For sure, there is less noise from clean vinyl, and no one is arguing
against that. But still, the conclusion that noise cannot be heard,
given your -50dB measurement, seems to indicate a certain
less-than-golden-eared capability from a high-end audiophile...

Whether that noise is bothersome clearly depends on the listener.
Michael was simply pointing out that the noise *is* there.
!