What stereo(s) do you listen to? What do you want? - Page 9

Since you seem to be inoculated against reason, let me put it in very simple terms:

100 kHz sampling at say 16 bits/sample, dithered has:

1. 93 dB of SNR that is flat from 0 to 50 kHz. The noise floor is constant with frequency.

2. Flat frequency response from 0 to 50 kHz.

3. Is linear, ie. has no distortion.

An LP that carries a 50 kHz signal:

1. Has a noise floor that varies with frequency. On most days, the noise floor changes with each playback as well. The SNR is also significantly lower than 93 dB.

2. Has an uneven frequency response whose shape is affected by the various mechanical parts of the arm, cartridge, and perhaps table.

3. Is significantly non-linear. LP's non-linearity is well-documented, and not really disputable. See for example the various quad encoding schemes introduced in the 70s and what they had to do to work around LP's various problems to use LP's suprasonic response.

Now match up points 1 through 3, and notice that LP deviates significantly from 100 kHz PCM sampling. LP carrying a 50 kHz signal does not even begin to approach 100 kHz PCM sampling.

Again, I have to repeat that it's fine that you like LP, but I don't understand why you persist in trying to ascribe things to it that aren't even remotely true to justify your preferences.

--Andre

It's just a label applied to a third party system for the Lexus. Not that it matters anyway as Mark Levinson is severely overrated for home audio, like Kiton, except maybe to the 2nd power.

--Andre

"It is customary to believe that the CD is superior to the LP in terms of bandwidth, but this is not the case. The CD is limited to 22,000 cycles, whereas the LP is able to reproduce frequencies up to 50,000 cycles, which in the PCM world equals a sampling rate at 100 kHz." --Bob Ludwig Is it possible that Bob Ludwig is simply saying-- 1.) That an LP can record a 50khz tone (he doesn't say how well it accomplishes that) 2.) one would need digital equipment with at least 100khz digital sampling to record a 50khz tone. BTW I seem to remember (anecdotally) Stan Ricker told me that the newest MFSL cutting system was capable of writing sounds on LP's up to 100khz.

So my memory fails me. The cutting system Ricker was talking about actaually goes higher than 100khz!

"It is worth noting that independent studies have confirmed that the GAIN 2 Ultra Analogâ„¢ system can unveil sonic information all the way up to 122kHz!"

(from the mofi site)

OK, back to the original topic. Dang, I want a system in my house that can capture quite a lot like the GAIN 2 system

Of course, it's completely irrelevant whether a sound format can record anything about 20 khz, as it's inaudible to all but a small portion of the population. LPs require equalization. I don't think there's any doubt about that. You guys may be discussing something else, but it's unclear.

No? Yet that elevated cable site filled with voodoo physics offers a "good explanation" for how it works?

Are you sure? Why do so many audiophiles and respected sound engineers insist upon recording sounds above 20khz?

Don't know - maybe they want their dogs to hear full-dog-range music???

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ChrisDAmbrose.shtml

Nice --- I'm glad you can express yourself before you put your foot in your mouth again. To set some facts straight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Levinson

"Although Mark Levinson products were primarily targeting the stereo or home theater market, nowadays Mark Levinson branded products can also be found in cars. These are developed and produced by Harman Automotive, the car audio department of Harman International, and while typically not sharing any components with Mark Levinson home products, are designed in collaboration with Mark Levinson sound engineers." (emphasis mine)

http://www.marklevinson.com/press/pr...asp?pressID=12

"To achieve the high standards assumed for a Mark Levinson sound system, Madrigal engineers again worked closely with Lexus and Harman® OEM."

The system is built and designed by Harman. They have far more resources than just ML that have worked on many car audio systems. But it still doesn't change the fact that ML is overrated.


Lies? The first 3 points of my PCM discussion is straight textbook stuff that any sophomore-level linear systems class offers.

The 3 points of LP are easily verifiable in any study of published measurements of LP systems in audiophile magazines, though that hasn't been done for very many years. If you also consider the physics of the LP playback and cutting, many of these facts are obvious. This isn't rocket science, but as long as high-end audio is filled with people with your attitude, it's never going anywhere.


Didn't we discuss this already? Yes, CD cannot hold 50 kHz bandwidth, and I don't dispute that. The point is that Bob Ludwig's claim of LP's 50 kHz bandwidth being equivalent to 100 kHz PCM sampling is wrong.


Have you considered the possibility that your own ignorance of basic engineering principles is holding you back or leading you down the wrong paths? Many of the explanations you believe in do not jive with what is known about the real world.

There are other explanations which come from theory supported by over 100 years of "practical, applied knowledge" that could better explain what's happening. Again, I am open to discussing these things, but you seem to lack the intellectual curiousity to even ask me about them even though I've left the door open several times already.


Any audio magazine measurement of an LP system trivially shows that this is the case. The noise alone is more non-linear than a PCM channel. I've also referred you to the quad sound efforts which you could expend a tiny bit of effort to go research.

And BTW, though it pains an idiot like me with no f'ing clue about audio to correct someone such as your esteemed practiced self, flutter's primarily a tape, not an LP, phonemenon.

And BTW, wow in an LP is literally a million times worse than wow in a CD (AKA jitter), so if LP wow is not non-linear, CD must be perfect!


Yes it does fully describe it --- guess who discovered the principles behind electronic recording and guess who built it? But that's not what's important here.

If something can't even reproduce simple things correctly, it has no hope of reproducing something far more complex. Good standard measurements are a necessary, but not sufficient, standard for good-sounding equipment.

--Andre