> > I've never been a fan of measurements. I find them totally irrelevant
> > actually. You know, it's quite
> > simple to produce for instance an amplifier that measures virtually
> > perfectly but sounds totally awful.
>
> Well, that pretty much puts an end to the debate then. You're being
> totally subjective, which means that what sounds good to you sounds good
> to you, but doesn't necessarily sound good to others.
Jumping in here a bit...that's the problem with music and sound...it
will always be subjective. Sure, one can easily apply measurement
tools to "prove" accuracy but, in the end, personal preferences,
listening environments and equipment quality will be the determining
factor. I'm not a fan of measurements either. They may be a good
starting point for selecting equipment but there will always be a need to
use one's ears make a final decision. This is the way music is created,
mixed, produced and mastered - by ear, and not by specifications.
> To be fair, I and everyone else also have these subjective opinions. But a
> real judgement on the relative merits of CD versus vinyl, or more
> generally analog versus digital, can only be made using measuring
> equipment, which doesn't have opinions of its own.
Measuring equipment can only measure objective accuracy. It can not
measure things subjective things like "warmth", "air," "smoothness" and
other factors that shape the listening experience.
> I still think that CDs produce the better sound. More generally, I think
> that CD technology has brought a vast improvement in sound quality over
> vinyl to the general (ie, non-audiophile but still caring) population.
I would somewhat agree. But CD digital audio does have many imperfections
in its current format. 16 bits is simply not enough. If by some miracle
we could hear Kraftwerk's more recent (i.e., digital) music in its original
24 or 32 bit format, the difference would be quite apparent on any decent
sound system - with good convertors I might add! :-)
> > Personally I'm only interested in what I hear, not if I have a harmonic
> > distorsion of 0.012% or not :)
>
> Same here, until someone starts saying vinyl is better than CD, or analog
> is better than digital. Then scientific comparisons must be made.
I would argue that neither one is better than the other in *all* aspects.
Neither format is perfect in any way.
> You know, I've never heard this jitter thing. I've played regular audio
> CDs as well as different types of CDRs on different players, and I've
> never heard anything that could be described as jitter. What does it sound
> like?
Rather than attempt to answer this here, I'll point to a great article on
jitter by mastering engineer Bob Katz:
http://www.digido.com/jitteressay.html
I was personally referred to this page a while back by another mastering
engineer who does work for Warner Brothers when I myself had questions
about problems I was perceiving in working with digital audio. This essay
answered many of my questions. Of course, not all people have this level
of hearing sensitivity, but obviously some do.
> That said, MP3 is by far the most convenient format yet. I've encoded my
> entire CD collection and bought a portable player so I can take my music
> to work and school with me. Music makes life worth living!
I'm in complete agreement here, too. MP3 of course is not perfect, but it
is quite convenient and good enough for casual listening. I've already
tried MP4 and it sounds even better. I'm just waiting for it to catch on.
> If I could, I'd plug the speaker wires directly into my brain to avoid
> having the sound pass through imperfect speakers and air molecules.
> Let's make the music electronic all the way from instrument to audience!
> :)
Actually, that could never be done. Humans can't make any sense from
the meaning of a stream of 1's and 0's without some kind of analog
conversion.
> > [...] And again, that is on a standard turntable with a total
> > system cost probably under $2000.
>
> Well, maybe one day I'll be able to afford one of these rare beasts and
> see for myself. That's still years off though.
Again, that $2000 (probably more like $1700) was the cost of the total system
(multi-disk player, cassette, etc.). The price of the turntable, amp and
speakers was no more than $800 - $1000. Not super cheap, but far from the
price of an expensive audiophile system (that will come later!) but I
could still hear the differences in the vinyl and CD version of The Mix.
The vinyl version, imperfections or not, sounded more "alive" for lack
of a better word.
> > [...]And of course, mistakes in the performance
> > have nothing to do with the recording medium! :-)
>
> What I meant was, using electronic instruments to produce the music, and
> keeping the music in electronic form (preferably digital) at every stage
> of the process involved in getting it onto a CD. That means studio, no
> crowd, no microphones if possible, no environmental noise other than
> electrical transients which should be eliminated anyway, and mistakes
> edited out in the computer.
OK. Now I understand what you meant.
> > Without the original studio final mixes, there would be no way of
> > making this type of comparison accurately. Especially when one takes into
> > account that each medium will have been mastered slightly differently.
>
> Use an artificial reference sound designed for testing purposes then.
Again, a scientific test using pink noise and a sine wave can only prove
accuracy and is not very close to a real world listening experience. Not
to mention the fact that you or I can never "listen" to music in the way
that a scientific test would be done due to differences in acoustical
environments (including headphones, shape of the ear, etc.). Having said
all that, the music process these days is made up of a combination of analog
and digital whether it be a digital compressor or an analog compressor.
The choices of which to use is based upon a unit's *sound* and NOT
simply which component is the most scientifically accurate.
> I agree that the ADC and DAC are important, but I still find it hard to
> believe that a crystal oscillator would emit pulses with enough
> irregularity that it would be audible to humans.
I may seem hard to believe, but it is true. There is a difference in
a side by side comparison. An appropriate analogy might be like the
the way a person with less than perfect eyesight might perceive things before
and after lasik surgery. No problem may have been perceived for many years
but all of a sudden with perfect 20/20 vision, the experience is completely
different. Really, not all digital is the same as we have been led to
believe.
> > Again, the kind of timing "clock" referred to in digital audio has a completely
> > different purpose. A bad digital clock can adversly affect the quality of the
> > signal. Its not be easily noticeable on its own, but when comparing with a
> > convertor that has a *high* quality clock, the difference in remarkable.
>
> Well, this is another place where some impartial measuring equipment would
> help settle the issue.
These types of tests have already been done. And since we're talking about
comparing digital to digital, the testing would be quite easy! A scientific
measurement would indeed prove the affects of a bad clock in a digital
convertor - or the affects of any process applied to a digital signal for
that matter. Bit resolution, word clock, dithering, jitter and sampling
rates are major issues in the digital audio field. And the limitations of
16 bit audio is the primary reason we now have 24 and 32 bit audio formats
with tools that run at 48, 64 and 128 bit internal precision. The bad part
is that to get all that back into a 16 bit CD, much digital information
is lost. Weather it's perceivable or not will depend on the listener,
the listening environment and the genre of music in question.
I really do enjoy listening to The Mix on vinyl more than CD. But I
would truly love to have a 24-bit DVD audio version of the same album. It
would put the 16 bit CD release to shame. DVD audio versions of the
other releases would be a great improvement as well.
Kindest regards,
John
Efofex - Sound of Electronics
http://www.efofex.net/
fyi : the followin' can originally be found @
http://www.solstice.dsl.pipex.com/debate.htm !!! ;-)
~*~
The Audio Debate: Vinyl or Compact Disc?
Compact discs are definitely the format of the masses nowadays, but are they the
best media for music? Both formats have their advantages and disadvantages.
The aim of any music recording and playback system is to reproduce the musical
performance as near as possible to the original. Human hearing at its best has a
frequency range from around 15Hz to 22kHz, although as you get older you lose
some of the higher frequencies. However musical instruments, both traditional
and electronic, are capable of producing a much wider frequency range. Whilst
this may seem rather pointless, in fact it is very important when you consider
harmonics. We can hear harmonics of sounds that we can't hear, so these
inaudible sounds must also be recorded and reproduced so that we hear the
harmonics.
Vinyl Records:
Advantages:
Full frequency range reproduction due to analogue recording
Records retain quality if stored correctly
If partially damaged the rest of the disc is still playable
Lovely LP sleeves - great art work
Disadvantages:
Easy to damage playing surface if mis-handled or damaged stylus
Prone to interference from dust on playing surface
Prone to damage from heat (warping) due to size
Requires good vinyl for best results - not all manufacturers do their best
Requires good quality turntable for best results
Compact Discs:
Advantages:
Cheap to produce and package
Ease of use (programmable track selection)
Portability
Disadvantages:
Artificially expensive to buy - so the manufacturers and retailers can make
bigger profits
Technically incapable of producing a full frequency range recording due to the
artificially fixed 20Hz to 22kHz reproduction so losing some harmonics
Still in infancy of production - prone to faults (disintegration of recorded
data over time due to faulty manufacture process), chemical reaction with
substances (eg storage cases, sticky labels, pens) can damage data, one small
scratch can render the whole disc unplayable
Personal experiences:
If, like me, you have been buying records since you went to school, then I'm
sure you'll understand the excitement of going into a record shop and finding
that new LP sleeve, with great art work. Spending your hard earned pocket money
and going home to play it. There you'd get the record out of the inner sleeve,
which quite often contained more art work and the lyrics to the songs. The smell
of the new vinyl... mmm. Then listening to side 1, before turning over to side
2. What an experience. Over the years upgrading the Hi-Fi system to get even
more out of the vinyl. Then in the early 1980's along came the announcement that
a superior sound system had been produced and the new discs were indestructible
and lasted forever (a claim that was soon retracted). So suckers that we all are
we rushed out and bought new CD players and expensive Compact Discs. Yes they
sounded different - no scratch or dust crackle on the sound, but didn't sound
just right. Anyway believed them that this is better and bought some new
releases on CD and thought they were OK. Still not too sure, decided to buy a
better CD player (at twice the price I'd paid for my turntable). Still sounds
"OK". After a couple of years bought a second hand LP copy of one of my
favourite CDs - wow what had I been missing? The rest is history - traded in
those CDs that I could get an LP copy of. Still always buy the new LPs now
unless not available, then wait for a sale before buying a CD unless the music's
something special.
Problems I've had with CDs: One of the first CDs I bought was "Big Generator" by
Yes. This disc lasted about 6 months before it was unplayable. Gaps (silences)
appeared in the music! Obviously at this time the shops/manufacturers were keen
to push the medium and happily replaced it for another even without a receipt!
Also be careful when handling your CDs. You'll probably get away with scratching
the playing side of the disc, but whatever you do don't scratch the label side!
The actual data on the CD is just under the label, and one disc I've got with a
scratch on the label no longer plays! Warning check the packaging - one CD had
been on my shelf for nearly a year when I decided to play it again. To my
surprise the disc had become crazed from the outer edge towards the middle,
looking a bit like a frozen pond. Half the tracks are unplayable. Panic set in
and I started going through other CDs, another one in the same type of packaging
(digipak) was starting to show the same problem. I've never had an LP
deteriorate on a shelf. Oh yes, and don't whatever you do stick anything on the
label or write on it as this too can attack the data just under the label.
Conclusion:
Do you play music while relaxing, doing the housework, etc. OR do you listen to
music? I think this is the key to choosing the format for your music purchases.
If you listen to the music then you want the best medium capable of reproducing
the music as close as possible to the original. If your just want to hear music
then the easiest to use is probably better for you. For the reproduction of
music, the best media is the Vinyl record. For ease of use the Compact Disc
wins. It's a bit like choosing whether to go to a restaurant or a fast food
outlet. Both have their uses, but one is always going to be better than the
other at quality. Of course if the owners close all the restaurants they expect
us to go for the fast food, well they're wrong!
*~\^/~*
From: Electram <electram(a)terra.com.br>
> The Rolling Stones - Let it Bleed
> Beatles - Revolver
> Pink Floyd - Saucerful of Secrets and Wish You Were Here
> David Bowie - Scary Monsters and Heroes
> Kraftwerk - The Man Machine
well ... i really do think that the first 4 bands or artists are pretty much
OVERRATED ( plus elvis , of course !!! ;-) & i can only agree to "the
man-machine" by kw !!! *BWG* ;-)))
to the topic of hdcd encoded cds i can only add that it was ALWAYS a reduction
to encode cds in 16-bit format , but - sony - the inventors of the first cds
thought that it was a good idea ... jus' like the pretty crappy vhs format for
videotapes by their inventors jvc !!! *sigh* :-o
btw : we were also spoiled with 74 or 80 min. cds for way too long , as it's NOT
a problem to have 90 min. cds , but the industry simply doesn't wanted it that
way ... for obvious reasons !!! :-/
however ... many greetinx ,
oh jay ;-)
~*~
jvr network program - july 2002 :
http://mitglied.lycos.de/cybernetx/program.html ( incl. live stream via
internet )
studio webcam - live : http://stream.ok-bremen.de/studio.html
radio show & playlist archive :
http://friends.schallreflektor.com/ohjay/alien_disco
for more info , send your request(s) to : oh_jay(a)kraftwerk.nu ;-)
*~\^/~*
Is this the brother of Florian Scjeider?
http://www.helge-schneider.de/
Dirk
kraftwerk(a)mailman.xmission.com schrieb am 18.07.02 20:52:59:
> He's no fake, he's just an opera singer who happens to be named Florian
> Schneider :)
> It's not the most uncommon name in the world I guess, hehe..
>
> Cheers,
> Peo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Kraftwerk mailing list
> Kraftwerk(a)mailman.xmission.com
> http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kraftwerk
______________________________________________________________________________
Seien Sie dabei und sichern Sie sich 500 WEB.Cent, 100% Leistung
und 100% Vorteil. https://digitaledienste.web.de/Club/?mc=021110
Wow, at least this guy has more hair ;) , really is a Florian Schneider's
fake ? or
2 persons with the same name ?
Marcelo Figueroa, Cordoba - Argentina
-----Mensaje original-----
De: Erik Jälevik [mailto:erik.jalevik@ntlworld.com]
Enviado el: Jueves, 18 de Julio de 2002 14:31
Para: kraftwerk(a)mailman.xmission.com
Asunto: Re: [Kraftwerk] Fake Florian Schneider
Haha! Brilliant, that made me laugh.
Anyone familiar with this fake Florian's work? :)
Erik
----- Original Message -----
From: "Electram" <electram(a)terra.com.br>
To: <kraftwerk(a)mailman.xmission.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 5:55 PM
Subject: [Kraftwerk] Fake Florian Schneider
> Florian Schneider won't like this...
> http://www.florian-schneider.com/
>
> Marcelo Duarte
> Technopop Site
> Brasil
>
>
Well, the europeans fans have one more option to see Kraftwerk this
year (Holland, 23 september). If any member buy the ticket, please
send the scan to us (and the poster are welcome too, of course).
See more informations about the new show at:
http://kraftwerk.technopop.com.br/news.php
Marcelo Duarte
Dante de Conti
http://kraftwerk.technopop.com.br
Brasil
>>> If I could, I'd plug the speaker wires directly into my brain to avoid
>>> having the sound pass through imperfect speakers and air molecules.
>>> Let's make the music electronic all the way from instrument to audience!
>>> :)
>Actually, that could never be done. Humans can't make any sense from
>the meaning of a stream of 1's and 0's without some kind of analogue
>conversion.
I say again (see my previous email) I think that it could eventually be
done... i.e "hearing" music without going through speakers and air! How that
conversion takes place (analogue / digital) I have no idea.
Look up cochlea implants ... then think of the future... :o)))
BTW this "bionic" type technology is also being performed with "eyes".. so
one will be able to "see" without having any "light" ;o))) (I believe that
Stevie Wonder is currently acting as guinea pig for this technology)
Keep Werking
John
www.keepwerking.co.uk
>>Dude, vocals and instruments depend on air for sound! :-)
Actually that's not exactly true... we call "sound" the things we "hear"
yes?.. well, how do we hear?.. You'd say we use our ears to pick up the
waves in the air that then gets translated into "sound" by our brains...
well the ear can be by-passed!!
There is currently a device (a cochlea implant) which helps deaf people to
hear... this is tested by passing an electrical current through some wires..
the patient "hears" a noise...
Therefore in years to come it would be possible to have music "heard" direct
from a keyboard or other electronic instruments.
Well.. that's my opinion anyway!
Keep Werking
John
www.keepwerking.co.uk
This link does not work. Can you please check again the url?
Best regards
Dirk Matten
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht (HTML) wurde als Anlage beigefügt.-----
Von: kraftwerk(a)mailman.xmission.com
Gesendet: 18.07.02 11:37:38
An: "Dirk Matten" <elektropolis(a)web.de>
Betreff: Re: [Kraftwerk] KW in Belgium too????
______________________________________________________________________________
FreeMail in der Premiumversion! Mit mehr Speicher, mehr Leistung, mehr
Erlebnis und mehr Pramie. Jetzt unter http://club.web.de/?mc=021105
