- Kraftwerk - mailman.xmission.com

Re: (hd)cds vs. vinyl ... or digital vs. analog
by jtalbert 21 Jul '02

21 Jul '02

> Now I'm starting to get a better picture of the problem. From what you're > saying, the real issue is not the recording media alone, but matching an > individual pair of ears to the audio engineer's performance on the > recording instruments. Somewhat. The whole audio production and consumption process is a complex one from the moment a musician plays or sings a note until the final sound emanates from a sound system chosen by a single listener. All through the chain, many people use their perception of sound to shape the result. In the end, the listener perceives the final result in his or her own way - a result that can be further skewed by the type of playback hardware, listening environment, mood, etc. > That explains why some people spend $80,000 on a high-end stereo system > and are still unsatisfied with the sound. High quality is not necessarily > the best for a particular person. It's just more likely to be good. That's exactly correct. As shocking as it may seem, some people consider music nothing more than background noise (gasp) and might forever be happy listening to 24 hour talk shows on a $5 radio! On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who can't live without good music and perfect sound who also happen to have the funding to pursue audio excellence at any expense. The rest of us fall somewhere in between these two extremes. And in actuality, none of these viewpoints is more valid than the other. > > I wouldn't say that it's psychological. Its just that everyone has > > different hearing capabilities as well as different listening environments. > > For instance, if a person has ultra sensitive hearing in the mid frequency > > range, that person may be more likely to chose a system that has the side > > effect of "cutting" the mid-range. A system that accurately reproduces > > midrange may actually hurt this person's ears or be perceived as boxy. > > Isn't that what graphic equalizers are for, though? Sure, an EQ can rectify this, but not everyone knows what one is or even how to use it properly (some people only understand treble and bass). Then again, there are others (some purists, some not) that consider the usage of EQ as sacrilege! And so, because of the weaknesses of our human perception, we sometimes purchase the components that "seem" to sound the best to our personal perceptions rather than buy additional units like an EQ to make up what "seems" to be a deficiency of some other component. > > Not quite so. For the perceiver, perception IS reality an thus not so > > irrelevant. > > I see. You're very good at explaining these things. Thanks! You're quite welcome. > > Again, this is a process of mastering (final sweetening > > of the mix prior to duplication and release). Its really hard > > to explain. But if a recording did not have it, digital or analog, the > > music may sound flat. > > The things they don't tell you. Incredible, isn't it? And amazingly, there's even much more than we've discussed - some are even considered closely guarded secrets of the industry! > Now I'm wondering what really goes into my McDonald's hamburgers. :) Some things are best never to be questioned! :-D > > Try just going into a store that sells high end gear and test some > > of this stuff out we're talking about. You will hear the difference. > > You may not be able to justify the costs, but at least you'll know. > > I'm not good at bluffing the salesbeasts, and they always pounce on you in > those places. Yes. This is true. I suppose the key is to go there when customer outnumber the salepeople. That may lower your chances of getting pounced upon. :-P > > You've said nothing that has offended me. I think you have been > > very friendly and I've heave greatly enjoyed the debate. > > Thanks. You're a pleasure to converse with. I thank you. > > A ha! That would be considered having a master then! > > I guess that settles that then. :) Whew! :-) > > Yes. There is much more processing of audio than you may have > > realized prior to the time it lands on a CD or vinyl. And depending > > on the final format (CD or vinyl), the process can be different. > > Now I understand why people compare different releases of the same > material even on CD. Indeed so. Its been fun, Soleil! Kindest regards, John Efofex - Sound of Electronics http://www.efofex.net/

2 1

( OT ) Re: what's "better" ??? can u define it ???
by Oh Jay 21 Jul '02

21 Jul '02

From: Soleil Lapierre <lapierrs(a)cuug.ab.ca> > Please be careful with your attributions, OJ. > I'm not the one who wrote that. INDEED_!!! >:-O i'm sorry , as i've realized this jus' after i've already send out my message to the list that it was originally written by "mr. efofex" ( ;-) & only quoted again in one of your replies !!! :-o anyway ... it would be nice , if "mr. efofex" could edit his replies a lil' more clearly & indicate to whom he's actually replyin' & also leave a space between his reply & the quoted text above his reply then !!! [ ... ] > Just gotta have the last word, eh? :) well ... i could accuse u of the same then !!! *BWG* ;-))) > You're a fine one to talk about bias after all that flamage surrounding > the list switchover. HUH_??? >:-O fyi : the list switchover was simply necessary , as the ol' majordomo list had some major malfunctions & some messages never appeared on it , as we all hopefully remember !? so what the heck are u talkin' about in this case , mr. lapierre ??? *jus'_curious* how can u say that i'm biased in that case ... anyway ??? *puzzled_look* > IYHO only. In the first place, my opinions were not deliberately > inflammatory. It was quite a while later that I finally remembered that > mailing lists tend to have more sensitive people than I'm used to, and > apologized. In the second place, my intent was not to annoy people but to > express my annoyance with what I saw as an unreasonably biased viewpoint. well ... what u see as "an unreasonably biased viewpoint" is A_PERFECTLY_REASONABLE_&_UNBIASED_VIEWPOINT ... not only imho ... as the discussion here has proven very effectively , but U_ALONE still seem to be way too stubborn to admit that u were simply WRONG with what u've assumed & have presented NO_REAL_ARGUMENTS_AT_ALL here & therefore only stoop down to a level of communication , where u can INSULT others , like me , with your pretty narrow-minded & - imho !!! - totally biased point of view , sorry !!! :-/ > For future reference, here is the actual definition of "troll": > > http://tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/troll.html that's what U are : A_TROLL in this definition ... @ least for me !!! PERIOD_!!! > Send me some money and I will. to buy a new stylus really ISN'T that expensive , mate !!! *G+* ;-) > Also don't forget some extra for a turntable, amp and speakers > since I obviously must not have any decent instances of those either. > Oh, and replacement records for my worn-out ones too. > Based on what others have said, $3,000.00 should do for a start. ha ... with the above UTTER_NONSENSE , u've jus' proven AGAIN , what kind of SILLY_TROLL u are then !!! *sigh* :-o ... & if u actually thought that it was somehow "funny" , then u've simply forgotten the smiley behind it !!! :-/ > No, but I have from CDs. *LOL* ;-))) do u actually know , what A_REAL_BASSLINE is then ??? *BWG* ;-))) i highly doubt so , as u obviously have only heard what u call A_BASS from such inferior 16 bit encoded standard cds , which is simply RIDICULOUS_!!! :-/ > Bass is kind of irrelevant to your points about signal reproduction > though, since low frequencies are much easier to record. if this is indeed true ( which it simply ISN'T , of course !!! ) , then please tell me WHY vinyl can reproduce such low frequencies MUCH_BETTER than ANY inferior cd EVER could , eh ??? *slyest_grin_u_can_imagine* ;-))) now ... U'RE_TRAPPED , mate !!! *hehehe* ;-))) so the conclusion of it simply is that as vinyl can reproduce such frequencies much better than a cd can , cds are inferior as their frequency range is simply SMALLER than the one of a vinyl ( i. e. analog ) record !!! *slyest_grin_again* ;-))) case closed !!! u're dismissed ... finally !!! > More undefined terms. are u man or machine then , mr. lapierre ??? *XLG* ;-))) > Anyway, I found this thread to be fun and informative. yeah ... mostly thanx to "mr. efofex" & peo , as they were the ones , who've added some really interestin' & also TRUE_ARGUMENTS to this discussion , which U_DIDN'T_!!! *sigh* :-o > I learned a few things to be sure, and I hope others did too. well ... what i've learned - especially from the debate with u !!! - is that it's rather pointless & fruitless to reply to such a biased & stubborn troll like u are !!! :-/ > I still think CDs generally sound better though. u are free to think / believe & also express this wherever u want , BUT ... you're NOT free to claim that u're right with what u assume , as u simply AREN'T right with it ... & are also NOT willin' to learn or to be convinced by some really good arguments , like they were presented here by "mr. efofex" or peo ... only for instance !!! *sigh* :-o p. s. : as i've written in one of my previous messages here , jus' ask ANY sound engineer about this matter & he'll tell u WHY analog ( vinyl ) is indeed still "better" than digital ( cd ) !!! *sly_grin* ;-) sorry , but my limited knowledge of the english language is sadly not enough to convince u of THE_PLAIN_FACTS_!!! *sigh* :-o case closed now ... @ least for me !!! 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 ;-) *~\^/~*

2 1

[OT] new song if interested.....
by The Claycomb's 21 Jul '02

21 Jul '02

If any one is interested I have a new song up.. right now it's up at Ampcast...... probably 10 more days until MP3.com....... Any who, "SoniQue Mystery" is a Q dominated song..... in fact all synth sounds are the Q and some percussion sounds are from the Q.... I did use MW 1 to back up one sound...... all other synth sounds are the Q!!! :D I programmed (((on the Q))) a sound like the snare effect/sound from "The Robots" and even used the Q's vocoder to make it sound even more authentic...... It's added along with several different snares...... Christian Claycomb UniQue Werkx http://www.ampcast.com/uniquewerkx http://www.mp3.com/christianac http://www.soundclick.com/bands/uniquewerkx_music.htm http://stage.vitaminic.co.uk/unique_werkx/

1 0

Komputer
by Oystein Moe 21 Jul '02

21 Jul '02

Now, Kraftwelt I know nothing about, or rather; what I know didn't encourage me to delve further into them. Bah, humbug. But when the Sun god has the impertinence to utter: >Komputer is the opposite. They sound a lot like Kraftwerk, but with >slightly cheesier modern techno sounds, and they have refused to >acknowledge that they're influenced by Kraftwerk. A couple of their >earlier songs are direct KW ripoffs - notably "Oh, Synthesizer" which >is >just a permutation of Kraftwerk's "Neon Lights". I beg to differ. I've interviewed them (late '98, they toured and played Oslo, unlike most bands), and they talked quite a bit about their obsession with Kraftwerk. Yes, and other bands, like the ones they mention on Mute's site, But if you're uncertain about where they "come from", take a look at their name, f'chrissake. Not Computer Magic Orchestra. Not Computelex. K-omputer. Gettit? Rewriting Kraftwerk's songs, as indeed they have done, is a more mature, more dignified and more musicianly tribute to Kraftwerk than merely doing their songs. (Which, as most will agree, has been done immaculately by, yes, Kraftwerk). The World of Tomorrow is Highly Recommended. If you recognize a riff here and a chord change there, know that they want you to. So there. Oystein _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com

4 3

Re: (hd)cds vs. vinyl ... or digital vs. analog
by jtalbert 20 Jul '02

20 Jul '02

> Good point, but those are all quantifiable attributes. The vinylists > keep appealing to attributes they can't even define, let along quantify. > Things like "clarity" and "warmth" and "air". Yes, my friend, those attributes are indeed difficult to define. It's always hard to describe subject things. But these are true attributes of audio. And it has taken many audio engineers many years to learn their craft because there are no books that describe what these attributes really are and how to get them. Its learned by word of mouth and thousands of hours in from of a pair of speakers. > By objective standards I was referring to measurement of the accuracy of > sound reproduction - ie, the difference between what the musicians played > and what the home audience heard. Not at all easy to measure, but still > possible. Yes. It is easy to measure. But again, were talking about two imperfect audio formats - analog and digital. There are different benefits and drawbacks to each. And everyone's ear will perceive these nuances differently regardless of what which format a measuring device says is best. Its an age old problem. > Yes indeedy. I'm quite happy using my portable MP3 player to take my > music to work or school. It helps keep the work flowing to have a beat to > listen to. I'm sure we all dance in our office chairs from time to time. > :) Whew. I could never get away with dancing in my office chair! :-) But I do take music with me everyone I go. > > Inside the head or not, this is how we listen to music. > > Oh, I'm not disputing that. I hear those things too. I'm disputing whether > it's measurable or psychological. If it's psychological, then it's > irrelevant to choosing a system because it's not actually a property of > the music the system produces. I wouldn't say that it's psychological. Its just that everyone has different hearing capabilities as well as different listening environments. For instance, if a person has ultra sensitive hearing in the mid frequency range, that person may be more likely to chose a system that has the side effect of "cutting" the mid-range. A system that accurately reproduces midrange may actually hurt this person's ears or be perceived as boxy. There just is no standard that can please everyone. I *thought* I once hear you say (forgive me if it wasn't you), that you liked bass in your music. Well, there are people who find heavy bass to be "boomy." Its an endless subjective chain. Welcome to the world of sound. :) > If it's measurable, then it becomes part of > an impersonal test to determine the system's quality of sound > reproduction. And if it's both, which it probably is, it makes no > difference because the psychological part is irrelevant and the real part > can be measured. Not quite so. For the perceiver, perception IS reality an thus not so irrelevant. > > [URL may wrap] > > http://www.audiomedia.com/archive/features/uk-0799/uk-0799-warmth/uk-0799-w… > > Good article, but it doesn't mean much to me. He seems to be > saying that it's partly psychological - an attachment to the sound > you grew up with - and partly harmonic distortion, which is measurable. Yes. Its partly lots of things. Again, its hard to describe and measure because its different things for different people. For most of us on this list, Kraftwerk is great music, but I can believe there are those out there that would differ. Why, because they perceive what is good different than others. > Tape - ugh. I was a diehard cassette tape fan for years. It sounded > not quite as good as vinyl, but was more durable and vastly more > convenient. I resisted this newfangled CD thing for a long time. > Friends told me I'd be converted and would have a huge CD collection > in no time. And... they were right. It sounded soooooo much better > than all previous formats that it blew all my objections away. Now > tape sounds like telephone to me - very narrowband. In the pro audio world, tape does not refer to cassette tape. Tape refers to very expensive multi-track tape recorded and played on expensive machines which run at speeds far higher than the consumer cassette format. And since you mentioned tape - analog tape has one quality that digital cannot reproduce. That is, when one saturates analog tape, (turns up the input volume very loud), the resulting distortion is something that can be very musical. However, if digital audio is saturated, a harsh, unlistenable distortion occurs. As a result, digital audio must be artificially limited or reduced in volume on the way in. One out of place transient can ruin an otherwise good recording. > Now I occupy myself with resisting DVD technology on principle. I've > experienced it, and found it good, but those MPAA crooks need to be > under 6 feet (of dirt) before I'll give them any money. :) I don't want to resist the technology, but I do completely agree with you on the MPAA! ;-) > I don't quite understand. If it has to do with power within a certain > frequency range, then why not measure those levels during the performance > and again during playback and compare the measurements? But sometimes air has to be added to the recording to make it sound more professional. It doesn't always occur naturally in the recording processes. Again, this is a process of mastering (final sweetening of the mix prior to duplication and release). Its really hard to explain. But if a recording did not have it, digital or analog, the music may sound flat. > This will necessarily be a test left until my (hopefully early and > wealthy ;) retirement. I just hope my ears haven't degenerated too much by > then. Try just going into a store that sells high end gear and test some of this stuff out we're talking about. You will hear the difference. You may not be able to justify the costs, but at least you'll know. > Good speakers need to come even before that. A friend introduced me to the > Sony MDR-D33 eggshell earphones, and I was blown away by the difference > they made. Fortunately they had fallen to a reasonable price by virtue of > having been discontinued, and I managed to snag one of the last pairs in > the city. :) See! The components in an audio system really do matter. You may not have realized what you were missing before getting the new headphones. And in reality, it can get better form there. You really do get what you pay for. If you knew all the corners companies cut in order to mass produce "consumer" grade products, you'd be amazed. We've all been burned by that in one way or another. > True, true. Sound is important to me too, but as a student > I can't afford to spend progressively larger amounts on > progressively smaller improvements in sound quality. I can completely understand this. > I tend to pounce on people who go around asserting things that I consider > untrue or misleading, that's all. Consider it debate practice - win or > lose, it's a learning experience. Apologies if I've punctured any > thin skins. You've said nothing that has offended me. I think you have been very friendly and I've heave greatly enjoyed the debate. > But if the transmitting device is a CD, which I assumed from context, then > you simply change the motor speed or skip a rotation if the buffer fill > level becomes a problem. Suffice it to say that digital audio is really not as simple as it may seem. In the interest of not putting everyone (including myself) to sleep, its probably best not to delve into the specifics. > In the more general situation, then instead of a master clock you need > an asychronous protocol. When the FIFO gets too full, it tells the data > producer to pause briefly. A ha! That would be considered having a master then! > To avoid jitter, data transfer only needs > to be perfectly synchronous during A/D and D/A conversion. Exactly. Hence the need for a master clock. We're not talking about copying digital WAV files (which is a simple process). We're talking about real-time conversion. When one is converting audio in real-time (either from analog to digital or the reverse) things become much more complex. > > http://www.apple.com/mpeg4/ > > Whew! I'm relieved to see that it's actually from the MPEG. I was afraid > for a moment there that it was some proprietary Microsoft format. Yikes! I shudder at the thought! > So then the recording and mastering system is essentially being used as a > musical instrument itself - a complementary one that adjusts the output of > the other instruments. This I did not know. No wonder people are left > trying to find playback equipment that matches the recordings. Yes. There is much more processing of audio than you may have realized prior to the time it lands on a CD or vinyl. And depending on the final format (CD or vinyl), the process can be different. > > available. For 32 bit and higher, you'd need the raw audio files and > > in some cases, the matching software to play them with. > > Also some kind of super-expensive sound card, I'm sure! Well, there are sound cards that are mid priced (under $1000) that are 24 or 32 bit and have reasonably good convertors. But the really good stuff is far more expensive. In general, the more expensive, the better the convertors and the better the quality of the digital output. If you want to experience great digital audio, unfortunately, that is the only way. Consumer electronics always fall short because of the compromises in the components. Kindest regards, John Efofex - Sound of Electronics http://www.efofex.net/

2 1

( OT ) my ( hopefully !!! ) final message concernin' the analog vs. digital debate ...
by Oh Jay 20 Jul '02

20 Jul '02

sorry y' all , but i simply couldn't bite my tongue , as long as this troll called soleil is annoyin' us on this list with his totally biased nonsense replies any longer !!! *grumble* :-/ From: Soleil Lapierre <lapierrs(a)cuug.ab.ca> > I am not a troll. Trolls are those who start new threads with deliberately > inflamatory remarks intended only to irritate people and/or draw > attention. That's entirely different from posting your opinion on an > existing topic. At least learn the definitions of your insults before > using them. sorry , but imho , u PERFECTLY fit the above definition of a troll ... albeit it wasn't u , who's started the topic , but it was U alone , who's started to CONSTANTLY_ANNOY people like me here with your "deliberately inflammatory remarks" then !!! :-/ that's why i'm NOT goin' to answer your message ( or ANY future messages from u concernin' this topic here or in private !!! ) any further , as it's jus' a pure waste of time to convince such a totally stubborn & biased person like u that he's WRONG with almost ev'rythin' that he's posted in this case here !!! *sigh* :-o btw : i highly suggest that u buy yourself a new stylus & play your vinyl records again then , as your ol' one seems to be too dirty or already completely damaged !!! *slyest_grin* ;-))) MAYBE that'll convince u that vinyl is "better" than cd ... finally !!! *hopeful_look* p. s. : have u EVER actually felt THE_BASS that comes from a good vinyl recordin' ??? *jus'_curious* ;-) however ... where analog has "soul" , digital is "cold" !!! *utmost_convinced_look* over & out !!! oh jay *~\^/~*

2 1

( OT ) Re: what's "better" ??? can u define it ???
by Oh Jay 20 Jul '02

20 Jul '02

From: Soleil Lapierre <lapierrs(a)cuug.ab.ca> > Is one car better simply because its engine has more accurate timing? > Or is "better" determined by the one with the better gas mileage or > softest leather interior? It always depends on who you ask! :-) well ... in formula 1 racin' it's VERY_OBVIOUS that ferrari has currently the best car & also that michael schumacher is currently the best driver ... & that's why he'll DEFINITELY be the world champion also this year ... maybe even tomorrow in france !!! *slyest_grin* ;-))) 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 ;-) *~\^/~*

2 1

Technopop Site
by Electram 20 Jul '02

20 Jul '02

Hello to all, Technopop Site has news. There is new images in the following pages: - 3 images at 70 Years page, - 16 images at 80 Years page, - 9 images at 90 Years page. Do a visit and enjoy! Marcelo Duarte Dante de Conti http://kraftwerk.technopop.com.br Brasil

1 0

Re: Efofex (was: hdcd (World Without Wars))
by jtalbert 20 Jul '02

20 Jul '02

> Just visited the site, and heard the sounds.. Great stuff! Thank, Peo! I quite appreciate your comments. > Some songs remind me a lot of Kraftwelt (listen to "Slinky - Edit" in the > mp3 archive for instance), > while others are original little pieces. Quite fascinating music - makes me > want to hear more of it! Kraftwelt has really been no influence at all (although they are an interesting band). "Slinky" has heavy influences in Josef Zawinul of Weather Report fame and mid-70's Kraftwerk (as well as some other influences). I will publicly admit that Kraftwerk have been a great inspiration to me. To be frank, it was the first time I heard The Robots on Detroit radio (thanks, Mojo!), that my entire view on music was redefined. I can honestly say that both Man Machine and Computer World albums had a dramatic impact on me -especially Numbers. I must have played that song "non-stop" seven days a week back then! For most, it was the drum line - for me, it was the intense and complex layering of the electronic and processed voices and the chaotic percussive "snap effect" panning that grabbed me. > jtalbert, is the "Proof" CD very out of print, e.g. you have no copies left > at all? I'd like one.. :) Sorry, but the Efofex debut CD "Proof" sold out a few years ago. The 2000 release, "Stress" (which contains the Independent Music Award nominated track "The Forms" and "Slinky") is still available as this was a financially sponsored project resulting in more copies pressed. At least two other releases (plus the "World Without Wars" single) are in the queue but are temporarily held up due to scheduling constraints. If you (or anyone else) would like further information, please drop an email to me directly: jtalbert(a)efofex.net > Keep up the good work! Thanks for the encouragement, Peo. :) Kindest regards, John Efofex - Sound of Electronics http://www.efofex.net/

1 0

Re: (hd)cds vs. vinyl ... or digital vs. analog
by jtalbert 20 Jul '02

20 Jul '02

> Using objective standards is > the ONLY way to conclusively say that one is better than the other. Ah, but herein lies the flaw... There are no "objective" standards for which piece of audio equipment is "better." The standards can only show which is more accurate in a particular aspect (total harmonic distortion would be one, for instance). But all properties taken into account requires a subjective analysis. That's the reason for the debate! Is one car better simply because its engine has more accurate timing? Or is "better" determined by the one with the better gas mileage or softest leather interior? It always depends on who you ask! :-) Interestingly, just last evening, I read a series of letters in Mix magazine (a professional recording magazine) from readers who were arguing over opinions presented in a previous issue by several industry recording engineers who were against the Digidesign Pro Tools Digital Audio system. Not surprisingly, some readers feel it is great while others feel it is too "clinical" sounding. Both sides were passionate in their viewpoints. So clearly, simple measurements of accuracy (Pro Tools is now 192 KHz, 24 bit) will never prove which is best to some given population. > It's like arguing about which of two deist religions are right - it's > never going to accomplish anything because neither side can prove their > god exists. Exactly! Which is why I don't think digital or vinyl (analog) is better in all cases. The easiest response is: It depends! I think some music sounds better on vinyl and some better on CD. It is helpful to remember that since the mastering process is different for each, one may sound better or worse for this reason alone. The Mix, for me sounds better on vinyl (maybe because it was a high quality German pressing). I'm not sure on Expo 2000 comparisons as that track was VERY heavily produced which may have robbed the track from some of its presence. But its all subjective, so all that matters is that the listener is satisfied with his choice of medium. Heck, to some people's ears, MP3 is indistinguishable from CD quality while many would argue that point. > If indeed it is impossibly to construct a "warmth" detector, then "warmth" > is something that exists only inside your head, and therefore is not > actually contained in the music. Inside the head or not, this is how we listen to music. There's no way around this. But going a bit further, "warmth" and lack thereof is probably something that you have experienced yourself without realizing it. For instance, I think most people would agree there is a certain "difference" in Kraftwerk's early recordings (pre - 1983) and 1986's Electric Cafe, 1991's The Mix and Expo 2000? One might say that there is more warmth in the earlier recordings. Interestingly, those were all done on analog instruments. EC was recorded with digital equipment on analog tape - already somewhat "colder" than say Tour De France (all analog). While The Mix and Expo 2000 was all digital. Completely different sound, and much more clinical than the classic recordings. Which is better? I won't even start that discussion! But perhaps you get my idea. > In my experience, "warmth" and "smoothness" in audiophile code language > mean "lacks high frequencies", and "air" means either "stereo seperation" > or "echoes". Machines can be devised to detect those conditions. Actually, these aren't audiophile terms, they are used in the industry by audio professional in every area of the field. You can find a very good article on "warmth" here: [URL may wrap] http://www.audiomedia.com/archive/features/uk-0799/uk-0799-warmth/uk-0799-w… But it does not mean "lacking in highs." The original Computer Love had warmth but it was not lacking in highs. "Air" denotes a certain level of frequency content in the 12k - 15k area. Air can give a recording a sense of clarity and presence with the side effect of helping the listener to perceive the spatiality around individual instruments in the mix. In singing, it might be the aspiration in pronunciation of certain syllables. And no, a machine can't detect "air" because there is no pre-determined boost value in the "air" frequency range that would have the same objective effect for all recordings. It is the job of the mastering engineer to use his ears (not measuring instruments) to find it and adjust it to make the recording sound best. Although a machine can in fact measure certain distortions (sometimes related to warmth), it cannot measure what amount is right to give a sound that property. > Oh, certainly. As I've said before, CD audio as it is now sucks. Exactly! Which is why some (I stress the term "some") people prefer vinyl over CDs in certain instances. Although I'm not out to change anyone's mind in the vinyl vs. CD debate, I will state it is likely (though not guaranteed) that you will hear a difference when listening to good vinyl on better components. Likewise, you are likely even to hear a difference with the *same* CD when experienced on a high quality system with exceptional D/A converters. There really is a difference. And its that difference that drives audiophiles. Sound is their passion. Everyone has a passion that not everyone else will understand. For instance, I don't collect old cars and spend ten times their worth restoring them - but some people do and I can still enjoy the fruits of their efforts without wanting to do it myself. > Yes. Today I finally realized this important property of the debate: Vinyl > supporters say that *some* vinyl systems (ie, good records, expensive > equipment) sound better than most CDs, whereas I say that *most* CDs sound > better than most vinyl, regardless of equipment. >From my viewpoint, it really depends. As I mentioned, I'm not a diehard for either. I have preferences in both mediums - depending on the album and artist. > I prefer the bulk solution because it's *generally* better. Vinyl can be > considered a better format for a niche market, just as I could build > myself a super high-quality digital recorder and make my own high-quality > CD format if I cared to. Yes, you could create your own format. But you'd have to control the recording and mastering process as well to get the best quality. Even with higher bit resolutions, until some engineers stop squashing the dynamics of digital audio with brick wall limiters to make it as "loud" as possible, digital audio can still sound flat. > > http://www.digido.com/jitteressay.html > > Excellent article. This one sentence explains it all: > > "A typical D to A converter derives its system clock (the clock that > controls the sample and hold circuit) from the incoming digital signal." > > That sucks. That's a cheap-ass solution. Actually, it has to be that way. When two digital devices are connected, they MUST be synced and only ONE can be the master. If both run at even the slightest different speed, you get artifacts in the audio stream. The alternate methods are to either have the most accurate clock as the master or have a more expensive dedicated, highly accurate master word clock that drives all digital devices. > They should be buffering the data > in a FIFO and using a crystal oscillator to deal it out to the DAC. Digital audio is a continuous stream. What if the transmitting device runs every so slightly faster? Then eventually you get a buffer overflow and you drop bits. If the transmitter runs slower, you have underflow resulting in gaps in the audio. There must be a master clock. > As he > mentioned later, transients in the power supply voltage can affect crystal > oscillators too, which I didn't realize, but there are solutions for that > too. The basic idea of the article (and other articles on the digido.com site) is that digital audio is a strange beast. There are benefits as well as drawbacks and quality equipment and techniques are important in dealing with it. And believe it or not, *sometimes* that means adding something analog to the processing chain. > Eh? I haven't heard of MP4. Whose work is it? These pages may answer a few questions: http://www.apple.com/mpeg4/ http://www.psytel-research.co.yu/showcase.htm Currently Apple's latest beta version of Quicktime Pro will generate and play back MP4 files. It is available for both PC and Mac's. I was referred to Apple by Dolby Laboratories when I inquired about the AAC format. > > The choices of which to use is based upon a unit's *sound* and NOT > > simply which component is the most scientifically accurate. > > I would argue that the unit that most accurately reproduces the sound that > was recorded should by definition be the best, most realistic-sounding > one. Well in truth, in the production process, recording gear is chosen by its sound or character and not always for its accuracy. This is true for both instruments and processing modules. Many recordings are purposefully run through analog and tube pre amps, compressors, equalizers and microphones PURELY because of the character each imparts to the sound. They are far from accurate, but add a certain quality that artists and producers insist upon. > > 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. > > *Nice*. I want to get me some of those! DVD Audio is already 24 bit 96 kHz and multi-channel. But the format is still young and needs to catch on to the masses before more titles become available. For 32 bit and higher, you'd need the raw audio files and in some cases, the matching software to play them with. In Kraftwerk's case, you'd have to do lots of convincing begging to get hold of those, I'm quite sure! :-) Take care. Kindest regards, John Efofex - Sound of Electronics http://www.efofex.net/

3 2