LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  March 2014

ARSCLIST March 2014

Subject:

Re: Fwd: [ARSCLIST] "Why Vinyl Is the Only Worthwhile Way to Own Music"

From:

Ted Kendall <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Tue, 25 Mar 2014 21:07:34 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (217 lines)

Hello Tom

I think the rush to more top petered out naturally after a few years, at 
least in most quarters, but there is still a faction to whom "impact", 
as measured by pinned VUs and bathtub curves, is the prime good. If 
their influence is in fact diminishing, this can only be a good thing. 
As to EQ for corrective purposes, I couldn't agree more - it is still 
one of the prime functions of a mastering engineer, to my mind, that he 
can recognise when such correction is need /and leave well alone when it 
isn't./ If only it were more widely realised that light and shade is the 
essence of impact, be it Mahler or James Brown, there would be many 
happier pairs of ears in the world at large...

Ted



On 25/03/2014 15:53, Tom Fine wrote:
> Hi Ted:
>
> I agree there were terrible problems with some CDs. I always figured 
> the guys who made those CD master had no top end hearing, or terrible 
> monitoring environments, and there was no low-pass right at the 
> cutting chain like in LP days.
>
> Also, people need to remember that the master tape is no some Holy 
> Grail - NOT TO BE EQUALIZED. That's just dumb (almost as dumb as not 
> putting bypassable Baxandall-style bass and trebles controls on the 
> most expensive "high end" amplifiers). In many cases back in the day, 
> a master tape is harshly equalized or dull, and the magic of the 
> original LP was the mastering engineer making it sing upon playback, 
> after the RIAA curve. I do think some of the mastering guys still do 
> this with CDs, but there were egregious examples early on of 
> inadequate care and attention (and there are still mastering guys with 
> poor aesthetics, at least to my ears, vis-a-vis equalization and 
> dynamics).
>
> On a good note, all the debate about "loudness wars" seems to have 
> gotten far enough that almost nobody is going in and slamming the 
> dynamics on a jazz reissue anymore. If we could teach them to watch 
> the dynamics on soul/R&B and early rock reissues, too, that would be 
> great.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Kendall" 
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 10:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Fwd: [ARSCLIST] "Why Vinyl Is the Only 
> Worthwhile Way to Own Music"
>
>
>> Half the trouble with early CD transfers was that mastering engineers 
>> no longer had to be careful about how much top they wound in. Too 
>> much top on an LP cut would, of course trigger acceleration limiting 
>> or blow the cutter . Human nature being what it is, several issues 
>> had ridiculous degrees of top lift - hair-parting stuff, in some cases.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 25/03/2014 14:12, John Haley wrote:
>>> Can't get anything right this AM.  I meant several thousand Hz, not 
>>> kHz.  I
>>> wish we could just convert all of this to note names--life would be 
>>> much
>>> simpler!   If we could talk about "My stereo gets up to quadruple 
>>> High C
>>> and yours only to the G below that," it would all be a lot more 
>>> meaningful
>>> to most people.  Discussion of frequency in Hz can definitely lead 
>>> to a lot
>>> of techo-babble, but there we are.
>>>
>>> Best, John
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:07 AM, John Haley <[log in to unmask]> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry.  Need more coffee here.   That cloud of quantization noise 
>>>> is not
>>>> above 96 kHz, because that is where a recording sampled at 192 cuts 
>>>> off.  I
>>>> meant between 48 kHz (where a recording sampled at 96 kHz cuts off) 
>>>> and 96
>>>> kHz.
>>>>
>>>> You have to keep in mind that these large numbers way up there are 
>>>> really
>>>> small differences in pitch, as the numbers double per octave.  Several
>>>> thousand kHz of frequency way up there is a very small pitch 
>>>> spread, where
>>>> in the lower end of the spectrum, several Hz is a large pitch spread.
>>>>
>>>> Best, John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:59 AM, John Haley <[log in to unmask]> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I am just reporting what you see in a .WAV file (in spectral 
>>>>> view), since
>>>>> you can't directly hear it.  Noise does not look at all like music 
>>>>> most of
>>>>> the time.  What you see extending up above 22 kHz in the spectral 
>>>>> view of a
>>>>> hi-def .WAV file is the extension of certain tones that have a lot 
>>>>> of upper
>>>>> frequency content right up into the stratosphere.  I looks just 
>>>>> like music
>>>>> looks, not random noise.  Could it be "ringing" set off by that note?
>>>>>   Perhaps.  But I would expect that kind of corruption of 
>>>>> particular notes
>>>>> to have some kind of audible effect in the range I can hear, or to be
>>>>> visible as in increase in energy at upper levels, which would not 
>>>>> happen
>>>>> with musical overtones (not what you see).  All I can say I how it 
>>>>> looks.
>>>>>   Many LPs do appear to have content up there above 22 kHz, and good
>>>>> cartridges can capture that.  What happens in the rest of an audio 
>>>>> system
>>>>> chain is up for grabs.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since I started doing restoration work at 96/24, I have noticed some
>>>>> things.  I can also do it at 192 sampling rate, but when you do 
>>>>> that you
>>>>> get a .WAV file having a very visible layer of quantization noise 
>>>>> (an upper
>>>>> thick cloud of noise blanketing the top of the "picture") above 96 
>>>>> kHz.
>>>>>   It's not audible, but why put the equipment and the media thru 
>>>>> all the
>>>>> trouble to produce/reproduce that, when (because it is noise) it 
>>>>> cannot
>>>>> possibly add anything to the musical signal?  At 96/24, all of 
>>>>> this noise
>>>>> is eliminated, and the audio signal at 96/24 is audibly 
>>>>> indistinguishable,
>>>>> to me, from the same signal recorded at 192.  At that point, whatever
>>>>> benefit might be gained by using 192 has become insignificant in 
>>>>> the real
>>>>> world--i.e., not audible, and as Tom points out, possibly damaging to
>>>>> equipment.  But that is not true at all for the comparison between 
>>>>> 44/16
>>>>> and 96/24, which is very much audible.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think a lot of early CD's had stinky upper frequency sound 
>>>>> because of
>>>>> phasing errors caused by the way upper frequencies above 22 kHz were
>>>>> filtered out, causing "side effects" in the audible signal.  Not to
>>>>> mention, human beings were doing the audio work, and not everyone 
>>>>> really
>>>>> knows what they are doing, or cares, then and now.  I don't think 
>>>>> any of
>>>>> the bad rap that early CD's got were the fault of the medium 
>>>>> itself.  But I
>>>>> agree that many of the earliest CD releases do not sound right, 
>>>>> having a
>>>>> "hard," unnatural treble.  I think that situation improved 
>>>>> drastically as
>>>>> time wore on, and generally a CD issue would sound better than a 
>>>>> prior LP
>>>>> issue, because (1) we got rid of the groove noise, and (2) the 
>>>>> CD's were
>>>>> often the result of a return to the master tape.  But these days, 
>>>>> I don't
>>>>> assume anything.  I listen to a lot of CD transfers that do not 
>>>>> sound as
>>>>> good as the materials they were created from.  That's the human 
>>>>> factor at
>>>>> work again, not to mention variations in equipment used, as 
>>>>> pointed out by
>>>>> others.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Mark Durenberger 
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> One refers to Rupert Neve's thoughts on why coherent super-audible
>>>>>> response is useful if not necessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone else on the list may know where his paper was 
>>>>>> delivered...I have
>>>>>> the audio of his remarks for anyone interested.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark Durenberger, CPBE
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Gray, Mike
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 8:03 AM
>>>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Fwd: [ARSCLIST] "Why Vinyl Is the Only
>>>>>> Worthwhile Way to Own Music"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seconding Tom's comments - what exactly *is* that energy above 
>>>>>> 20kHz?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager