FW: Lush 192 vs the vinyl vamps


Subject: FW: Lush 192 vs the vinyl vamps
From: Richard Nance (rnance@dmu.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Oct 21 2004 - 19:53:06 EDT


 ah!... but that is exactly what was being discussed earlier this week.
The engineer (I wasn't at this session) was talking about the incredible
warmth and lush sound of a room full of strings recorded with the 32?or
24/192. He said after hearing it like that, going back to 24/96 or 24/48
was too obvious. It didn't seem to make a difference when he only
recorded one violin though. What I didn't find out was how many tracks
the string section was recorded with. Multi-track and mixing being one
of the reasons that 192 had to come about in the first place.

So the question isn't whether vinyl or not, it's really then analog or
not?

I'll start making the micro-grooved ceramic composite analog disc if
somebody'll fund it. Just think... after the fall of civilisation the
descendents of Alex the parrot will unearth them in about 300,000 years
and be able to play them with a sewing needle and a tin can, or a carbon
fibre can, or probably an old plastic coke bottle.

rick

-----Original Message-----
From: Eldad Tsabary

so what else?

Those of us who love vinyl over digital usually refer to the warmth of
the analog sound, its realness, and 192Khz 32bit does not really get
this same effect, despite the huge gap in specs.

So what is it then? What's left to be better in vinyl than digital?
Obviously many people believe something... just what it is I am not
really sure.

Eldad

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-cec-conference@concordia.ca
[mailto:owner-cec-conference@concordia.ca] On Behalf Of Rick Nance
Sent: October 21, 2004 6:30 PM
To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
Subject: Re: Vinyl quality vs. digital sound (whoops!)

I'll get my eyes checked along with my ears though. I figure I'll
evetually be able to tell the diff between 100 and 100,000 Hz!
!!
oh well...

But also,

In Digi's HD 24/192KHz recording, I ASSUME it's using the same analog
outputs as the section that is outputting the 16/44.1.

You can hear the difference in the two. ARE they using different analog?

op amps, right?

Rick

Rick Nance wrote:

> yeah, well generally I don't worry about things above 15KHz, but
>
> The problem with high-end audiophile recordings and playback, as far
as
> I can tell, is price.
> I've heard analog playback that I still swear is better than the same
> publication on CD.
>
> Elvis, the Sun Years(?)
> half-speed master disc vs 16/44.1
>
> The confound in the little experiment was price.
>
> Goldman turntable $15,000 US, Thrush tonearm another grand. vs CD
player
>
> It mattered. It was obvious. no placebo effect margin for error.
> ==============================
> Also, I've been probably reading too much on the auditory and now the
> cochlea list but just to remind; the ear isn't analog, and it doesn't
> make fourier transforms. It probably doesn't do "spectral analysis".
It
> measures differences.
> =============================
>
> From another list in its entirety here:
> http://iesk.et.uni-magdeburg.de/~blumsche/M20.html
> (Comment by Eckard Blumschein: M20 contains just a very interesting
> question by Zatorre and two pertaining reflections of mine. As soon as

> the promised summary is available, I will add it to the archive.)
> ================
> The interesting data follows, but the rest of the letter(s) aren't a
loss.
>
> "As a corollary, audition includes features which are not
appropriately
> or even not at all reflected within the traditional signal analysis.
> Already the fundamental properties of each neuron provide an
explanation
> for that. Nonetheless, beware of ascribing auditory perception to
single
> neurons. The tradeoff between bandwidth and temporal resolution holds
> for the mechanics of cochlea with exceptions of foveae in bats. The
> smallest perceptible phase difference detectable by humans, 2,
> corresponds with a temporal disparity of 4 microseconds at 100 Hz.
Bats
> were reported to even perceive much shorter disparities. The relation
of
> uncertainty would limit temporal resolution at that frequency to 10
> milliseconds. With different words, hearing outperforms the
spectrogram
> in that case by more then two orders..."
> ===========================================
>
>
>
>
> John Nowak wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 21, 2004, at 5:15 PM, Rick Nance wrote:
>>
>>> It's not an issue if you believe that 20KHz is a number that
matters.
>>> There is some evidence that differences up to 100KHz are detectable.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is also "evidence" that we never landed on the moon and that
>> Stalin was truly a man of the people. I say rubbish!
>>
>> Hesitantly.
>>
>> - John



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:04 EST