From: jj@alice.att.com (jj, sick and tired of all this nonsense)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: CD vs. LP again (was Re: Preamp and Amp)
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:00:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.24672
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj, sick and tired of all this nonsense)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals

In article <1190790@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com> kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain) writes:
>In rec.audio, lstowell@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) writes:
>>    o Build a commercial rumble generator and add a bit of rumble for realism.
>I can't hear rumble from my turntable.  Yours yes, not mine.
Then you're the obvious candidate for having some spatial enhancement
from sub-threshold rumble. Rumble is primarily in the antiphase
component (L-R) of the signal, because it's primarily vertical
in nature, given the physical nature of turntables.  This means
that what it represents is literally air sloshing back and forth
in the room.  Now, air DOES do this in a room, at low frequencies,
and the bigger the room, the lower the frequency.  It's been shown
more than one or two times that adding such "rumble" can very
nicely add to the "spaciousness" of the sound.  You're welcome
to LIKE it, just remember that it is distortion, albiet
desirable distortion.

>>    o Build a wow and flutter generator and add a bit for even more  realism
>I can't hear noticeable wow and flutter.  Yours yes.
How do you know?  You seem determined to attack Stowell's turntable,
rather than listen to the (so far, at least) well known and understood
technical points he's making.  Wow and flutter can sound very
artificial. Bear in mind that wow and flutter are also (yes, really)
a very important part of what distinguishes a real violin, flute,
reed instrument, what-have-you from the electronic equivelent, i.e.
instead of spectral lines, you have spectral "bumps" around where the
line would be.  A good example is pianos, that get their nice
"attack"sound from detuning of the two (or three) strings at a given
frequency, said detuning being locked together into unison a cycle
or so after the hammer strike by mechanical means, and making the
"strike" more "brilliant".  A wee bit of flutter will have a
'warming' effect.  Wow, in genral, is present in all LP's because
of the difficulty in locating the LP center hole, but it's something
easily gotten used to and ignored. (for most. ark, for instance, 
can't STAND it, it really offends his sense of pitch. that's
one reason he likes CD's)

>>    o Add a white noise generator to simulate the constant background noise.
>At -70 dB, it's below the sound of the heater.  I don't hear hiss, anyway.
>I tune it out.  You probably listen for it instead of enjoying the music.
You "tune it out", but it's still there, physically affecting your
cochlea and inner hair cells, and changing the mechanical features
of your cochlea by its effects on the outer hair cells, and also
pushing near-audible signals on the LP into audibility.  Yet another
well-known phenominon. No matter how you ignore it (and I agree
that you do) it DOES have a physical effect that you can't
be rid of.

>>    o Blend the high frequencies together to emulate the loss of
>>      separation at high frequencies
>So what's this supposed to do?  I get more stereo delineation and depth
>from these records than my CD you cherish and defend.  What causes that?
The L-R enhancement from this blending.  Bear in mind that crosstalk
can in both in-phase and out-of-phase. In may cartridges, including
audiophile cartridges, it's out-of-phase, and it introduces more
"spread" to the soundfield on non-stationary signals as a result.
The various beam resonances in the stylus make this go from in-phase
to out-of-phase at various frequencies, something that has been
shown (look at some old Shure papers in the AES journal a while
ago, I forget when) to have effects on the size of the soundfield.

>My speakers don't go below 30 Hz.  My records have better bass than the
>Bitwise Musik Zero CD I have.  Stronger, but maybe a little less taut.
>A better table will make the bass even better.
And a CD will make it real, as opposed to artifically peaked
and then cut (as one goes down in frequency) so that the
LP can be cut at all.

>Like you.  You just still put out all the old dumb arguments.  Earth to
>Lon, earth to Lon, it's now the 90's.     
Lon, it seems, has made at least a few valid technical points.
This is hardly the mark of the flat-earther. Your dismissal
of his points, showing no understanding when you dismiss them,
is more suggestive of the followers of farmer Ned Lud.

>>   There are also LP bigots who confuse euphonius distortions with
>>   accuracy.    
>Maybe, but there's more CD bigots who confuse cartoon quality sound with 
>accuracy.  Guys who think all Telarc recordings have real depth, balance and
>personality.
Interesting, I never had a record show personality to me.

Kurt, you seem to be incapable of accepting the well-established
fact that there are euphonic distortions. It's no judgement on
your preferences, after all, arguing personal preference is pointless.

Such distortions have been shown since the days of the rotating
wax roll recording.   They do not judge the person who likes
them, they just ARE.  If you like them, fine, but when you
start to argue about "digital looses the music" and so on,
you're going beyond preference to making factual statements.


>Minimalist techniques are used even in your beloved cartoon music.
>When are the CD dweebs going to stop with their stupid "mine's better 
>than yours and you're a mystic" straw man arguments.
I see no straw men in Lon's article.  He's pointed out
a number of issues (that are tied together more than he indicated,
hence my deletion of some of them) and attempted to adddress them,
albiet in a somewhat annoyed fashion (He, like me, is undoubtedly
a bit sick of the Luddite chorus in this newsgroup.).

That's not a "straw man" argument. He has not put words 
in your mouth, he's offered suggestions, ideas, and reasons
why you might like your LP's better. That's not a straw-man
arguemnt.

>I have heard good CDs and bad CDs and I can tell you even new CDs are being
>made with outdated recorders because these still sound bad.
That is most undoubtedly an entirely true statement.

>...he ends up liking LPs better he will get nothing
>but derision from some pseudo-expert that his $200 CD is vastly superior and
>he won't try to understand the position of the more experienced audiophile
Ok, first, what makes me a 'psuedo-expert, and second, when do I tell
you that you're wrong about what you like?  I'm not giving you
any derision about your choice of LP, I'm deriding your inaccurate
technical and phisiological statements.

>Hey, who cares anyhow?
You must, you keep coming back and singing your Luddite chorus.

When you stick to preference, i.e. "I like LP better", I've
no problem.

When you attack someone for suggesting some of the reasons that
might be true, you're no longer discussing preference.
-- 
Copyright alice!jj 1993, all rights reserved, except transmission by USENET and like facilities granted. Said permission is granted only for complete copies that include this notice. Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.
---------
Member HASA - Athiest Scum Division
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" - AuH2O for President
Newsgroups: rec.audio