Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
 

In article , Bob Latham
wrote:
In article , NY
wrote:

Has anyone ever done a Turing Test to see if people can distinguish
between live reproduction (microphone, amplifier, speakers) and
digital recording (microphone, amplifier, CD, CD player, amplifier,
speakers), to see if those people who say that they prefer vinyl over
CD are really saying that they prefer the restricted dynamic range and
frequency response required for vinyl - ie that live sound and CD
recorded sound are "too faithful" compared with vinyl recording.

Now I would not describe myself as a vinyl advocate by any means but I
can honestly say that I would never have consider either dynamic range
or frequency response as being obvious weak areas. On paper yes, I'm
sure they are less than CD but when listening neither, is noticeable at
all to me.

In practice for *well made* LPs and CDs I'd generally agree. Of late I've
been making digital file copies of some old LPs and some deliver excellent
sound. The problem is that many others don't because they were simply made
(usually by EMI) slopply. So some of the best LPs I have are by people like
Decca.

That said, EMI also made some pretty poor CDs at times.

My main concern with LP used to be finding one without manufacturing flaws.
Not with what a well-made one was like. Then the concern was to avoid any
damage when storing or playing.

If EMI had bothered to consistenly make classical LPs carefully I'd not
have been so keen on Audio CD.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
 

"Bob Latham" wrote in message
...
In article ,
NY wrote:

Has anyone ever done a Turing Test to see if people can distinguish
between live reproduction (microphone, amplifier, speakers) and digital
recording (microphone, amplifier, CD, CD player, amplifier, speakers),
to see if those people who say that they prefer vinyl over CD are
really saying that they prefer the restricted dynamic range and
frequency response required for vinyl - ie that live sound and CD
recorded sound are "too faithful" compared with vinyl recording.

Now I would not describe myself as a vinyl advocate by any means but I can
honestly say that I would never have consider either dynamic range or
frequency response as being obvious weak areas. On paper yes, I'm sure
they are less than CD but when listening neither, is noticeable at all to
me.

Now had you said usability, practicality, signal to noise ratio and/or
playing time then yes vinyl would be seriously on the back foot.

Agreed with all of those: usability (eg lack of in-car or Walkman record
players!) is a big problem, but even for a static record player, the amount
of noise (scratches, dust, crackle) on even a new record was horrendous -
and it got worse with every playing. Dynamic range is limited in that there
is a higher noise floor at one end and a limit to how large the deviations
of the grooves could get.

I can think of no advantage that a record has over a CD, apart from the fact
that a record is larger so there's more area on the sleeve for a photo and
liner notes!

But I've heard it said that some people prefer records over CDs because CDs
are too "clean" and "clinical", and I'm interested to know whether anyone
has ever tested whether it's the insertion of the analogue-to-digital, CD
recording and digital-to-analogue process that such people object to, or
whether it's the lack of the processing that's needed to put audio onto a
record. Hence the "control" test of comparing CD against live reproduction,
with neither CD nor LP stages. If the same criticisms are levelled at live
reproduction as CD then it's not the CD process that's the cause of people's
complaints.

Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
 

In article ,
Peter Duncanson wrote:
I use a Logitech PC speaker system for "general" listening.

When there is serious listening to be done I fire up a pair of Quad II
amps.

Sounds like the output transformer laminations are rather loose.

--
*If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , charles
wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

You don't need anything like as large and obtrusive as ESLs to give
satisfactory audio quality. The LS 3/5a proved that some 40 years
ago.

Indeed, there are a pair within feet of this desk.

Mine are the Spendor version. :-)

I have Rogers, Chartwell and home made versions. ;-)

I like the LS3/5As. They do produce good results. But I still prefer the
ESLs.

Quite. But most simply wouldn't put up with such enormous speakers in this
context.

--
*Why isn't there a special name for the back of your knee?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
 

In article , NY
wrote:


But I've heard it said that some people prefer records over CDs because
CDs are too "clean" and "clinical", and I'm interested to know whether
anyone has ever tested whether it's the insertion of the
analogue-to-digital, CD recording and digital-to-analogue process that
such people object to, or whether it's the lack of the processing
that's needed to put audio onto a record. Hence the "control" test of
comparing CD against live reproduction, with neither CD nor LP stages.
If the same criticisms are levelled at live reproduction as CD then
it's not the CD process that's the cause of people's complaints.

One of the problems with this area is that people can fail to distinguish
between how well the different 'carriers' *can* work *if well made*, and
differences between the imperfections introduced by sloppy implimentations.

This is understandable when people have to take commercial releases 'as
manufactured'. But it clouds the topic as people blame the container for
the contained.

Interesting example in the letters column of the new Hi Fi News where Keith
Howard shows a probability histogram of the samples on an EMI CD. This
shows regular gaps. Some sample values never appear at all. His deduction
is that EMI were using a 13-bit ADC at the time. sigh I have a number of
EMI CDs where the strings have a 'sandpaper' effect, which makes me wonder
how they were produced. Certainly the recent CD/SACD hybrids they did of
old material sound a lot better *on the CD layer* than the early CD
transfers they released.

FWIW we've seen similar odd-histrogram results due to someone scaling the
volume with no dither or noise shaping. The result is defects that may be
audible and occur on a 'digital' carrier due to 'digital' processes. But
aren't a reflection of what a properly made CD would do. Yet unless the
listener does a statistical and forensic analysis, all they can tell is
that the sound isn't good.

Ditto for discs which are 'improved' by the application of HDCD,
essentially distorting them when played as CD. Some of these disks don't
even have HDCD codes, so play distorted on an HDCD player! The people
making them are using HDCD as an 'effect' to make it LOUDER. I've lost
count of the ways the clever clogs at music companies have found to foul up
their products which the ordinary user won't know about... apart from the
resulting sound quality. So the poor damn CD system itself gets the blame.

Whereas some of the manufacturing faults of LP were obvious. LPs which are
clearly pressed off-center, with scratches producing rifle-shots, and/or
with ripples big enough to make a shape like a Pringle crisp. Bit of a clue
that the LP in question wasn't made well.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
 

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:13:10 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

I like the LS3/5As. They do produce good results. But I still prefer the
ESLs.

Quite. But most simply wouldn't put up with such enormous speakers in this
context.

Discerning people with the correct priorities realise that you buy
loudspeakers to listen to, not to look at.

Rod.

Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
 

In article , Roderick Stewart
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:13:10 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

I like the LS3/5As. They do produce good results. But I still prefer
the ESLs.

Quite. But most simply wouldn't put up with such enormous speakers in
this context.

Discerning people with the correct priorities realise that you buy
loudspeakers to listen to, not to look at.

years ago, I was Laskys in Tottenham Court Road and I was a pproached by
someone doing a survey on loudspeakers. There was a selection in various
diffeent finishes. "Which one do you like best?" I picked one with a shiny
metallic cabinet. "Whic one would you?" I picked one in a teak finish.
"Why wouldn't you buy the one you liked best?" Because my wife wouldn't
let it in the house.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
 

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:07:05 +0100, "NY" wrote:

When I first got a VCR that was capable of decoding NICAM sound, I compared
off-air analogue FM sound and NICAM through the same amplifier and speakers,
and was surprised at the difference. Even more noticeable was the difference
between the linear and hi-fi soundtrack on a VHS recording - that was quite
staggering!

NICAM, at effectively 14 bits and no statistical data reduction was
probably the best sound quality that has ever been used on terrestrial
broadcasts in the UK. I built the Maplin kit receiver, which had
switches to select FM or NICAM and internal pots to match the volume
levels between the two, and found that the most noticeable difference
was the background mush on FM. I'd never noticed it before, never
having been able to compare it with an otherwise identical source that
didn't have it, but once I heard how bad it really was I wondered how
it had been tolerated for so long.

I'm amazed the VHS "hi-fi" sound system worked at all, as it used an
FM track on the spinning video heads, but for some reason didn't
produce any buzz due to head switching. Sometimes a quite enormous
horizontal dislocation of the video signal could be seen, so the audio
signal must have been subjected to the same dislocation with a chunk
of it either missing or repeated every 50th of a second, but there was
no audible effect. Some VHS machines had provision to record sound
only from an external source, because they actually made better sound
recordings than those little Compact Cassette things.

Rod.

Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
 

In article , Roderick
Stewart
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:13:10 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

I like the LS3/5As. They do produce good results. But I still prefer
the ESLs.

Quite. But most simply wouldn't put up with such enormous speakers in
this context.

Discerning people with the correct priorities realise that you buy
loudspeakers to listen to, not to look at.

One of the reasons my better half likes the Quad ESLs is that they hide the
wires and mess behind them. :-)

She also likes the sound.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Soundbars - what, you want sound with your TV?
 

In article , Roderick
Stewart
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:07:05 +0100, "NY" wrote:

When I first got a VCR that was capable of decoding NICAM sound, I
compared off-air analogue FM sound and NICAM through the same
amplifier and speakers, and was surprised at the difference. Even more
noticeable was the difference between the linear and hi-fi soundtrack
on a VHS recording - that was quite staggering!

NICAM, at effectively 14 bits and no statistical data reduction was
probably the best sound quality that has ever been used on terrestrial
broadcasts in the UK.

I suspect it is also the reason many audio fanatics prefer 'analogue' FM
radio. Just as they love 'analogue' LPs cut from digital sources. 8-]

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html