Re: Lush 192 vs the vinyl vamps

Subject: Re: Lush 192 vs the vinyl vamps
From: Cliff Caruthers (
Date: Thu Oct 21 2004 - 20:28:06 EDT

It's interesting to note that these kind of arguments repeat themselves
with each technological advance. In the 20's some argued that electric
recording (i.e. with microphones) was brittle and shrill, while
acoustic recordings (with horn attached directly to the recording
needle) had more warmth and sounded more natural.

I think part of this argument has to do with the format the original
recording was intended for. A good recording from the 30's on a 78
played back on a quality console of the period sounds fantastic --
wouldn't change a thing. The same recording mastered to a cd will
sound horrid by comparison.... Recordings are period pieces by

Another limitation of lp's -- the width of the stereo field. The phase
relationships in the pressing can't be too extreme or the needle will
literally be ejected from the groove...


On Oct 21, 2004, at 4:53 PM, Richard Nance wrote:

> 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:
> [] On Behalf Of Rick Nance
> Sent: October 21, 2004 6:30 PM
> To:
> 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:
>> (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