or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › What stereo(s) do you listen to? What do you want?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

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

post #121 of 2370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
You did not debunk anything. You simply disagreed with Bob Ludwig's view. My money is on him since it reflects what I have heard in the studio.

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
post #122 of 2370
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQgeek View Post
I'd certainly like a GREAT aftermarket stereo in my car, but spending Mark Levinson money is kinda overkill given the use, no?

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
post #123 of 2370
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Yew View Post
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

Yet again Andre, you show you have no f'ing clue about audio. The ML system is an actual Levinson design and uses Levinson parts. The only thing they borrowed was the CD transport which high end companies do anyway.

You are really an idiot when it comes to audio.
post #124 of 2370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
As Bob Ludwig, perhaps our greatest mastering engineer, explains an LP can hold a 50khz tone. CD cannot do that. That 50khz tone is equivalent to a 100khz sampling rate. Source: http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_bob_ludwig/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Yew View Post
We've covered this before: Bob Ludwig's claim is false, because LP does not have linear response to 50 kHz. It has significant noise and distortion. A PCM channel with 100 kHz sampling has uniformly low noise floor to Nyquist (ie. 50 kHz in this case) and no distortion. There is no way an LP can even begin to match that performance. --Andre
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
You are talking now about hirez PCM but the discussion is LP versus 44.1khz CD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Yew View Post
I know. I was debunking your claim that 50 kHz on an LP is equivalent to 100 kHz digital sampling. --Andre
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
You did not debunk anything. You simply disagreed with Bob Ludwig's view. My money is on him since it reflects what I have heard in the studio.
"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.
post #125 of 2370
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Yew View Post
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

This is full of lies but I will note several issues:

1. We have been talking about LP versus 44.1khz sampling. Again you choose to make a comparison with 100khz sampling rate which regular "redbook" CD does not have. The LP simply has more resolution than a CD player does. Everyone I have ever met in professional recording intuitively understands this. Only an electrical engineer like you with no studio recording experience thinks otherwise. You electrical engineers need to realize that a. science does not explain everything and b. practical, applied knowledge is equally or more important than book theory.

2. You offer no proof of LP's non-linearity metrics. Where is your evidence? There is very little wow and flutter on a modern turntable as well.

3. All the so-called proof here is simply measurements. You simply cannot capture what happens in a complex audio experience by measurements alone. Science does not fully describe an audio waveform.
post #126 of 2370
Thread Starter 
tl,

A good analog system can capture quite a lot like the GAIN 2 system:

http://www.mofi.com/productcart/pc/v...t.asp?idpage=9
post #127 of 2370
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)
post #128 of 2370
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlmusic View Post
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)

Yes, and I read it is as recording tones up to 122khz which would equate to a 244Khz sampling rate in digital equivalence. There would be some limitations in recording some of that on an LP.
post #129 of 2370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
tl,

A good analog system can capture quite a lot like the GAIN 2 system:

http://www.mofi.com/productcart/pc/v...t.asp?idpage=9

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
post #130 of 2370
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlmusic View Post
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

Agreed. The new Mofi discs, either CD, SACD or LP all same fantastic as well. I'm looking forward to their redo of Odelay by Beck.
post #131 of 2370
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlmusic View Post
"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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
2. You offer no proof of LP's non-linearity metrics. Where is your evidence? There is very little wow and flutter on a modern turntable as well.
LPs require equalization. I don't think there's any doubt about that. You guys may be discussing something else, but it's unclear.
post #132 of 2370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
Science does not fully describe an audio waveform.

No? Yet that elevated cable site filled with voodoo physics offers a "good explanation" for how it works?
post #133 of 2370
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvibes View Post
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.
Are you sure? Why do so many audiophiles and respected sound engineers insist upon recording sounds above 20khz?
post #134 of 2370
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlmusic View Post
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
post #135 of 2370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
Yet again Andre, you show you have no f'ing clue about audio. The ML system is an actual Levinson design and uses Levinson parts. The only thing they borrowed was the CD transport which high end companies do anyway.

You are really an idiot when it comes to audio.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artisan Fan View Post
This is full of lies but I will note several issues:

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.

Quote:
1. We have been talking about LP versus 44.1khz sampling.

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.

Quote:
You electrical engineers need to realize that a. science does not explain everything and b. practical, applied knowledge is equally or more important than book theory.

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.

Quote:
2. You offer no proof of LP's non-linearity metrics. Where is your evidence? There is very little wow and flutter on a modern turntable as well.

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!

Quote:
3. All the so-called proof here is simply measurements. You simply cannot capture what happens in a complex audio experience by measurements alone. Science does not fully describe an audio waveform.

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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › What stereo(s) do you listen to? What do you want?