On Wed 11/10/2023 17:08, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> *CD* will IMO always be better than vinyl, provided it's been made from
>> the same master tapes (or whatever) and not had compression or other
>> processing.
>
> That is the main factor behind the CD v. Analogue sound argument. The
> equipment necessary to produce and market analogue recordings was only
> found in established recording studios and only experienced recording
> engineers were employed to use it. To get analogue recordings to sound
> good, the recording engineer needed a wide range of skills acquired over
> a long period of apprenticeship.
>
> When CDs came in, a new skill set was needed in addition to the existing
> skills of a recording engineer. Many people who had digital skills but
> lacked the artistic skills, and some of the technical ones, joined the
> industry. The major companies were under great pressure to remaster
> their repertoire digitally, so they couldn't afford to be fussy about
> who they employed to get the job done. This was the point where the
> public began to realise that some re-issues didn't sound as good as the
> originals.
>
> The technology became cheaper and more available as consumer items, so
> soon every cloth-eared numbskull who could work a keyboard became a
> 'recording engineer'. All sorts of special effects and exotic
> processing became available in software - and having been purchased,
> they had to be used on every possible occasion. Those keyboard
> operators who couldn't originate recordings took existing recordings and
> messed them up under the guise of re-mastering (and nowadays
> 'sampling'). Instead of correcting faults in the analogue chain, the
> recordings were digitised and then processed in software to disguise the
> faults (and create a whole lot of different faults).
>
> The industry fell apart and record companies couild no longer afford to
> employ top-quality engineers, so the majority of the public now believes
> that the over-compressed rubbish churned out by 99% of the music
> industry is how recordings should sound.
>
> CDs can sound wonderful and some of the earliest ones did - but very
> few of the later commercial ones do.
>
>
If you want to hear good recording go look at Linn Records and
particularly their SuperAudio 7 sampler. IIRC you can download tracks in
mp3, flac, or ogg. One track there - Holding On - is quite staggeringly
good. I have it on 192K mp3 for playing in the car (CD? Wassat?) but
even playing it on VLC from flac using a small Class D amp and a pair of
Denton XP's can near take you to tears. (Well it does me anyway! - and I
mean for GOOD quality, not the other end!)

In message <1qig31a.m5idh8ofd52kN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> at
Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:08:10, Liz Tuddenham
<liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> writes
>J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>[...]
>> *CD* will IMO always be better than vinyl, provided it's been made from
>> the same master tapes (or whatever) and not had compression or other
>> processing.
[]
>The industry fell apart and record companies couild no longer afford to
>employ top-quality engineers, so the majority of the public now believes
>that the over-compressed rubbish churned out by 99% of the music
>industry is how recordings should sound.
>
>CDs can sound wonderful and some of the earliest ones did - but very
>few of the later commercial ones do.
>
That's why I referred to "the same masters" and "not compression or
other processing". I still submit that CD is better, if only on dynamic
range basis - but the mastering requires skills, some of which are
analogue.
>
Certainly, the "loudness war" - really getting going in the '80s and
'90s, when psychological knowledge developed (as well as certain
technology), though it certainly had been _around_ since at least the
'50s, well before digital - has ruined (a lot of - not all) recording in
the last few decades. (Probably even including vinyl re-releases.)

And yes, one can _prefer_ vinyl; that's not saying it's _better_. (On
distortion and dynamic range alone, is certainly isn't - to degrees in
both cases that surely exceed any more subtle aspects.) And yes, there
are going to be aspects of its distortion that are more pleasing to the
ear - much like "valve sound", where (a) class A was used more so
crossover distortion was less common and (b) they didn't "hard clip" so
much so if overdriven anyway, it was less obvious.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Everyone learns from science. It all depends how you use the knowledge. - "Gil
Grissom" (CSI).

In message <ug6il4$1tss0$1@dont-email.me> at Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:31:35,
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
[]
>I would have thought that high->low impedance would always cause distortion.

Yes, but driving line inputs from headphone outputs is more low->high,
which is usually more forgiving.
>
>I suppose that ceramic pickups use their mechanics to provide
>de-emphasis as they are usually connected to flat inputs.

Yes; since they (ceramics) generally _were_ used in lower cost
equipment, and their natural characteristic _approximates_ what is
required, I don't _think_ I've ever heard of one being used with
circuitry that genuinely give proper RIAA flatness. (Liz - have you?)
>
>I heard that you can connect a ceramic pickup to one intended for hi-fi
>magnetic by connecting a suitable value resistor in parallel. I don't
>know whether this would work.
>
In series, I think. They have high output impedances - higher than the
input impedance of most solid-state circuitry in the '60s and '70s. More
suited to valve kit.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Everyone learns from science. It all depends how you use the knowledge. - "Gil
Grissom" (CSI).

On Wed 11/10/2023 20:05, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <1qig31a.m5idh8ofd52kN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> at
> Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:08:10, Liz Tuddenham
> <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> writes
>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>> *CD* will IMO always be better than vinyl, provided it's been made from
>>> the same master tapes (or whatever) and not had compression or other
>>> processing.
> []
>> The industry fell apart and record companies couild no longer afford to
>> employ top-quality engineers, so the majority of the public now believes
>> that the over-compressed rubbish churned out by 99% of the music
>> industry is how recordings should sound.
>>
>> CDs can sound wonderful and some of the earliest ones did -  but very
>> few of the later commercial ones do.
>>
> That's why I referred to "the same masters" and "not compression or
> other processing". I still submit that CD is better, if only on dynamic
> range basis - but the mastering requires skills, some of which are
> analogue.
>>
> Certainly, the "loudness war" - really getting going in the '80s and
> '90s, when psychological knowledge developed (as well as certain
> technology), though it certainly had been _around_ since at least the
> '50s, well before digital - has ruined (a lot of - not all) recording in
> the last few decades. (Probably even including vinyl re-releases.)
>
> And yes, one can _prefer_ vinyl; that's not saying it's _better_. (On
> distortion and dynamic range alone, is certainly isn't - to degrees in
> both cases that surely exceed any more subtle aspects.) And yes, there
> are going to be aspects of its distortion that are more pleasing to the
> ear - much like "valve sound", where (a) class A was used more so
> crossover distortion was less common and (b) they didn't "hard clip" so
> much so if overdriven anyway, it was less obvious.

IIRC correctly the main reason that a valve amp sounded 'better' is that
it tended to produce most distortion at second harmonic of which the
human ear is very tolerant. 5-10% distortion is barely noticed, but,
say, 0.5% third harmonic will quickly want you to give up!

In article <1qig31a.m5idh8ofd52kN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

>This was the point where the public began to realise that some
> re-issues didn't sound as good as the originals.

Very true. I have several that CDs fall into that category. One in
particular is the 80s CD release of Fleetwood Mac's Rumours album.
Sounded great on Vinyl in the 70s but the 80s CD was flat and
lifeless with no dynamics at all. It was dead.

In 2013 they released a 3 disc set (Rumours 2013). Honestly, that had
all the dynamics of the vinyl version but and it's a big but, it was
recorded far too loud and clipped continuously.

The vinyl still sounds the best even now, unfortunately. Perhaps
there is another version out there I don't know about.

> so the majority of the public now believes that the over-compressed
> rubbish churned out by 99% of the music industry is how recordings
> should sound.

I agree. But to be honest I've lost faith on this. The majority of
the public like to have speakers against walls and even in corners.
Most speakers, *not all* become very boomy and muddy when used like
that and stereo images are very poor. Amazingly, much of the public
like it like that. I've got people to try pulling the speakers away
from the wall, put them on dining room chairs as temporary stands. It
cleaned up the sound no end but few prefer it, they like the mud and
coloration and poor image. There's no bass they moan when actually
there is, it can now play tunes in the bass instead of only playing
one resonant bass note.

> CDs can sound wonderful and some of the earliest ones did - but
> very few of the later commercial ones do.

Unfortunately that's also true which is why I get most of my new
music from specialist companies that get it right.

Bob.

Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:

[...]
> IIRC correctly the main reason that a valve amp sounded 'better' is that
> it tended to produce most distortion at second harmonic of which the
> human ear is very tolerant. 5-10% distortion is barely noticed, but,
> say, 0.5% third harmonic will quickly want you to give up!

Third harmonic sounds much more excruciating than second, but the
intermodulation that accompanies any type of harmonic distortion is
horrible. It produces a muddy background.of complex tones unrelated to
the music. It's one of those things that listeners with older systems
became used to, but there is a startling increase in clarity when it is
removed.

I had this "second harmonic is more musical" argument put to me by a
triode pre-amp enthusiast, so I loaned him my intermodulation meter. He
measured all sorts of things with it, but he never told me the outcome
of his pre-amp measurements.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> In message <ug6il4$1tss0$1@dont-email.me> at Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:31:35,
> Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
> []
> >I would have thought that high->low impedance would always cause distortion.
>
> Yes, but driving line inputs from headphone outputs is more low->high,
> which is usually more forgiving.
> >
> >I suppose that ceramic pickups use their mechanics to provide
> >de-emphasis as they are usually connected to flat inputs.
>
> Yes; since they (ceramics) generally _were_ used in lower cost
> equipment, and their natural characteristic _approximates_ what is
> required, I don't _think_ I've ever heard of one being used with
> circuitry that genuinely give proper RIAA flatness. (Liz - have you?)

Not exactly. There was a neat little one-transistor (BC109) pre-amp
design in Wireless World some time in the late 1960s that made a
passable job of correcting the deficiencies of ceramic cartridges. I
built one and was pleasantly surprised at the results it gave, but I had
no way of measuring it.

> >I heard that you can connect a ceramic pickup to one intended for hi-fi
> >magnetic by connecting a suitable value resistor in parallel. I don't
> >know whether this would work.
> >
> In series, I think. They have high output impedances - higher than the
> input impedance of most solid-state circuitry in the '60s and '70s. More
> suited to valve kit.

I think the parallel resistor was to load it so as to give a 6dB/octave
bass attenuation that got rid of the built-in equalisation, then feed it
at low level into an RIAA equalisation stage (which was intended for a
moving iron cartridge) and re-equalise it more correctly.

The series resistor was used in the Mullard valve pre-amp to give a high
impedance which allowed the cartridge to do its own equalisation. In
the 'ceramic cartridge' position of the selector switch, the RIAA
network was switched out of the feedback loop. The input stage of that
pre-amp was a virtual-earth configuration around an EF86 so, without the
series input resistor, the feedback current would have presented a low
impedance to the cartridge. They sort-of explain it in the manual. but
not very clearly.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

In article <1qiggmp.wu7av0r45nggN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> [...]
> > IIRC correctly the main reason that a valve amp sounded 'better' is that
> > it tended to produce most distortion at second harmonic of which the
> > human ear is very tolerant. 5-10% distortion is barely noticed, but,
> > say, 0.5% third harmonic will quickly want you to give up!

> Third harmonic sounds much more excruciating than second, but the
> intermodulation that accompanies any type of harmonic distortion is
> horrible. It produces a muddy background.of complex tones unrelated to
> the music. It's one of those things that listeners with older systems
> became used to, but there is a startling increase in clarity when it is
> removed.

was that what was called "musicality"?

> I had this "second harmonic is more musical" argument put to me by a
> triode pre-amp enthusiast, so I loaned him my intermodulation meter. He
> measured all sorts of things with it, but he never told me the outcome
> of his pre-amp measurements.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 11/10/2023 13:35, Scott wrote:
> Is this not the vinyl vs CD argument? It seems that some people's
> hearing (or imagination?) makes them believe that a digital sound is not
> as good (just as some people believe colour film is better that
> digital)? Certainly, my hearing does not allow me to make such an
> assessment.

Nothing to do with that, I was referring to the multipath that you get
often with a telescopic antenna.

Also amused by people going on about analogue VHF FM when the
distribution is all digital!

Woody wrote:

> IIRC correctly

it's like Personal PIN Numbers all over again!

In message <koonvfFers8U1@mid.individual.net> at Thu, 12 Oct 2023
00:04:16, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes
>Woody wrote:
>
>> IIRC correctly
>
>it's like Personal PIN Numbers all over again!

Come on over to APIHNA - PNS syndrome was one of our favourites!

(alt.posessive.its.has.no.apostrophe - we cover more than just the
nominal, all aspects of language, but in a light-hearted way: like
alt.usage.english/alt.english.usage without the flame wars.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A sleekzorp without a tornpee is like a quop without a fertsneet (sort of).

charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> In article <1qiggmp.wu7av0r45nggN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > > IIRC correctly the main reason that a valve amp sounded 'better' is that
> > > it tended to produce most distortion at second harmonic of which the
> > > human ear is very tolerant. 5-10% distortion is barely noticed, but,
> > > say, 0.5% third harmonic will quickly want you to give up!
>
> > Third harmonic sounds much more excruciating than second, but the
> > intermodulation that accompanies any type of harmonic distortion is
> > horrible. It produces a muddy background.of complex tones unrelated to
> > the music. It's one of those things that listeners with older systems
> > became used to, but there is a startling increase in clarity when it is
> > removed.
>
>
> was that what was called "musicality"?

I don't know, I never bothered to read the marketing hype.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Liz Tuddenham wrote:

> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
> > In message <ug6il4$1tss0$1@dont-email.me> at Wed, 11 Oct 2023
> > 17:31:35, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
> > []
> > > I would have thought that high->low impedance would always cause
> > > distortion.
> >
> > Yes, but driving line inputs from headphone outputs is more
> > low->high, which is usually more forgiving.
> > >
> > > I suppose that ceramic pickups use their mechanics to provide
> > > de-emphasis as they are usually connected to flat inputs.
> >
> > Yes; since they (ceramics) generally were used in lower cost
> > equipment, and their natural characteristic approximates what is
> > required, I don't think I've ever heard of one being used with
> > circuitry that genuinely give proper RIAA flatness. (Liz - have
> > you?)
>
> Not exactly. There was a neat little one-transistor (BC109) pre-amp
> design in Wireless World some time in the late 1960s that made a
> passable job of correcting the deficiencies of ceramic cartridges. I
> built one and was pleasantly surprised at the results it gave, but I
> had no way of measuring it.
>
>
> > > I heard that you can connect a ceramic pickup to one intended for
> > > hi-fi magnetic by connecting a suitable value resistor in
> > > parallel. I don't know whether this would work.
> > >
> > In series, I think. They have high output impedances - higher than
> > the input impedance of most solid-state circuitry in the '60s and
> > '70s. More suited to valve kit.
>
> I think the parallel resistor was to load it so as to give a
> 6dB/octave bass attenuation that got rid of the built-in
> equalisation, then feed it at low level into an RIAA equalisation
> stage (which was intended for a moving iron cartridge) and
> re-equalise it more correctly.
>
> The series resistor was used in the Mullard valve pre-amp to give a
> high impedance which allowed the cartridge to do its own
> equalisation. In the 'ceramic cartridge' position of the selector
> switch, the RIAA network was switched out of the feedback loop. The
> input stage of that pre-amp was a virtual-earth configuration around
> an EF86 so, without the series input resistor, the feedback current
> would have presented a low impedance to the cartridge. They sort-of
> explain it in the manual. but not very clearly.

I built a FET preamp for my Deram cartridge,

--

On 11/10/2023 20:05, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> Certainly, the "loudness war" - really getting going in the '80s and
> '90s, when psychological knowledge developed (as well as certain
> technology), though it certainly had been _around_ since at least the
> '50s, well before digital - has ruined (a lot of - not all) recording in
> the last few decades. (Probably even including vinyl re-releases.)
>
I reckon the first skirmish in the loudness war was Phil Spector's Wall
of Sound in the 1960s. His stuff certainly stood out as louder when I
played it in the disco.

> And yes, one can _prefer_ vinyl; that's not saying it's _better_. (On
> distortion and dynamic range alone, is certainly isn't - to degrees in
> both cases that surely exceed any more subtle aspects.) And yes, there
> are going to be aspects of its distortion that are more pleasing to the
> ear - much like "valve sound", where (a) class A was used more so
> crossover distortion was less common and (b) they didn't "hard clip" so
> much so if overdriven anyway, it was less obvious.

Valve amps had more in reserve than early solid state amps, and could
exceed their RMS continuous power by a significant margin for long
enough to let a piano's peaks come through clean. Transistor power
supplies were too low voltage to do the same trick.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 11/10/2023 21:30, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> IIRC correctly the main reason that a valve amp sounded 'better' is that
>> it tended to produce most distortion at second harmonic of which the
>> human ear is very tolerant. 5-10% distortion is barely noticed, but,
>> say, 0.5% third harmonic will quickly want you to give up!
>
> Third harmonic sounds much more excruciating than second, but the
> intermodulation that accompanies any type of harmonic distortion is
> horrible. It produces a muddy background.of complex tones unrelated to
> the music. It's one of those things that listeners with older systems
> became used to, but there is a startling increase in clarity when it is
> removed.
>
> I had this "second harmonic is more musical" argument put to me by a
> triode pre-amp enthusiast, so I loaned him my intermodulation meter. He
> measured all sorts of things with it, but he never told me the outcome
> of his pre-amp measurements.
>
The way I heard it was that with the valve amps, the first harmonic in
the distortion that was not musically related to the fundamental was
above most people's hearing range, while with transistors in class B,
the first unrelated harmonic was well within the audible range.

In effect, valve distortion showed up as an extra note in the chord, and
so "fitted in". Transistor distortion clashed, so your ear noticed it a
lot more.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 11/10/2023 10:17, Woody wrote:
> Accepted DAB with or without the +) will not sound as good as FM, but
> surely it is inevitable that in due course FM will be ceased and
> replaced with DAB+ or an even more advanced system. What will FM
> listeners do then. Yes, FTTP could be a good alternative but then you
> would need a good quality data radio - and there a few of them as well!

And of course some call Medium Wave / Long Wave a 'warmer' sound i.e. no
higher frequencies.

John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 11/10/2023 21:30, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> > Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >> IIRC correctly the main reason that a valve amp sounded 'better' is that
> >> it tended to produce most distortion at second harmonic of which the
> >> human ear is very tolerant. 5-10% distortion is barely noticed, but,
> >> say, 0.5% third harmonic will quickly want you to give up!
> >
> > Third harmonic sounds much more excruciating than second, but the
> > intermodulation that accompanies any type of harmonic distortion is
> > horrible. It produces a muddy background.of complex tones unrelated to
> > the music. It's one of those things that listeners with older systems
> > became used to, but there is a startling increase in clarity when it is
> > removed.
> >
> > I had this "second harmonic is more musical" argument put to me by a
> > triode pre-amp enthusiast, so I loaned him my intermodulation meter. He
> > measured all sorts of things with it, but he never told me the outcome
> > of his pre-amp measurements.
> >
> The way I heard it was that with the valve amps, the first harmonic in
> the distortion that was not musically related to the fundamental was
> above most people's hearing range, while with transistors in class B,
> the first unrelated harmonic was well within the audible range.
>
> In effect, valve distortion showed up as an extra note in the chord, and
> so "fitted in". Transistor distortion clashed, so your ear noticed it a
> lot more.

There are several effects which get muddled up:

Even harmonics appear as the octaves of the fundamental frequency and so
they sound as though they could have been part of the music. Odd
harmonics do not fall on the musical scale, so they stand out by
clashing with the music. On single tones, the intermodulation
distortion which accompanies this distortion will not be noticeable -
but with complex music it generates sum and difference tones between the
fundamentals and between the harmonics caused by the distortion. This
results in a mushy background which varies with the pitch and amplitude
of the music.

Without feedback, single ended stages give predominantly even harmonic
distortion because of the shape of the transfer curve, whereas, in a
properly balanced push-pull stage, the even harmonics cancel and you are
left with the odd harmonics, which are usually lower in level.
Designers of push-pull amplifiers are then tempted to drive the devices
harder until the distortion figures read the same as previous
amplifiers, so the effect is that now the third harmonic appears at the
same level as the second did previously. Thus a 3-Watt single-ended
amplifier will not sound as bad as a 3-Watt push-pull amplifier if they
are both rated to give 5% distortion at full output.

Triodes have internal feedback because part of the voltage gradient
between anode and cathode appears in the space between grid and cathode
where the electrons emitted from the cathode are gradient-controlled.
Claims that triode amplifiers work without feedback are nonsense because
the feedback is already built-in and is not as linear as external
feedback with resistors would be. A cascode connection, where the
cathode-follower action of the upper valve prevents voltage change on
the anode of the lower valve is one way of overcoming this internal
feedback because the anode-to-cathode voltage gradient of the lower
valve doesn't change with the signal. Tetrodes and pentodes achieve the
same effect with a screen between the anode and the other electrodes

Tetrodes, pentodes and transistors have virtually no internal feedback,
so the non-linearity (and production variability) of their transfer
characteristics have to be corrected by external feedback.

The phase shifts occurring in the output transformer of a valve
amplifier make the feedback become positive outside the audio range. If
there is a lot of gain and a lot of feedback at these frequencies, the
overall loop becomes unstable and oscillates. This means that valve
amplifiers are restricted in the amount of feedback they can use,
whereas transistor amplifiers with no signal transformers can use much
more feedback (and tend to rely on it for linearisation). With heavy
feedback, the linearity of the transfer characteristic is improved, but
when the output 'hits the stops' the kink is much sharper and the
harmonics this generates are much greater and extend to higher
frequencies. This is why, in general, valve amplifier overload
gracefully but transistor amplifiers overload disgracefully.

Feedback cannot overcome slew-rate-limiting, which was the cause of the
so-called 'Transient Intermodulation Distortion' of some early
transistor designs. Class-B stages with inadequate power supplies,
signal-dependent rectification artefacts and unintended feedback through
power connections can all give rise to audible effects but these are
caused by faults in the design, not by whether the amplifier uses valves
or transistors.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

In message <kopupnFlji5U1@mid.individual.net> at Thu, 12 Oct 2023
11:06:46, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> writes
>On 11/10/2023 20:05, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
>> Certainly, the "loudness war" - really getting going in the '80s and
>> '90s, when psychological knowledge developed (as well as certain
>> technology), though it certainly had been _around_ since at least the
>> '50s, well before digital - has ruined (a lot of - not all) recording in
>> the last few decades. (Probably even including vinyl re-releases.)
>>
>I reckon the first skirmish in the loudness war was Phil Spector's Wall
>of Sound in the 1960s. His stuff certainly stood out as louder when I
>played it in the disco.

I _think_ he achieved his effect by ensuring that most of the audio
spectrum was used, rather than any compression: compression (for studio
use) was in its infancy then, apart for on some US AM radio stations.
>
>> And yes, one can _prefer_ vinyl; that's not saying it's _better_. (On
>> distortion and dynamic range alone, is certainly isn't - to degrees in
>> both cases that surely exceed any more subtle aspects.) And yes, there
>> are going to be aspects of its distortion that are more pleasing to the
>> ear - much like "valve sound", where (a) class A was used more so
>> crossover distortion was less common and (b) they didn't "hard clip" so
>> much so if overdriven anyway, it was less obvious.
>
>Valve amps had more in reserve than early solid state amps, and could
>exceed their RMS continuous power by a significant margin for long
>enough to let a piano's peaks come through clean. Transistor power
>supplies were too low voltage to do the same trick.

Peak-to-mean power rating - oversimplifying, but basically the size of
the smoothing capacitor in the power supply section! - was yet another
factor. Voltage as such wasn't the governing factor. As Liz has
explained, valve circuits tended to use less feedback, meaning when
driven out of their (more or less) linear range, the distortion was less
extreme: they were less linear in the safe region (but with harmonics
that tended to be not very objectionable), but if overdriven, didn't
"hard clip" as obviously.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

We're not poor, we just don't have any money.
- Brenda Blethyn's mother quoted in RT 2021/8/28-9/3

On 12/10/2023 17:57, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <kopupnFlji5U1@mid.individual.net> at Thu, 12 Oct 2023
> 11:06:46, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> writes
>> On 11/10/2023 20:05, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>
>>> Certainly, the "loudness war" - really getting going in the '80s and
>>> '90s, when psychological knowledge developed (as well as certain
>>> technology), though it certainly had been _around_ since at least the
>>> '50s, well before digital - has ruined (a lot of - not all) recording in
>>> the last few decades. (Probably even including vinyl re-releases.)
>>>
>> I reckon the first skirmish in the loudness war was Phil Spector's
>> Wall of Sound in the 1960s. His stuff certainly stood out as louder
>> when I played it in the disco.
>
> I _think_ he achieved his effect by ensuring that most of the audio
> spectrum was used, rather than any compression: compression (for studio
> use) was in its infancy then, apart for on some US AM radio stations.

You are correct, but irrespective of the method used, the aim was to
appear to be louder than anyone else.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message <koqnu1Fq0o8U1@mid.individual.net> at Thu, 12 Oct 2023
18:15:44, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> writes
>On 12/10/2023 17:57, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <kopupnFlji5U1@mid.individual.net> at Thu, 12 Oct 2023
>> 11:06:46, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> writes
[]
>>> I reckon the first skirmish in the loudness war was Phil Spector's
>>> Wall of Sound in the 1960s. His stuff certainly stood out as louder
>>> when I played it in the disco.
>>
>> I _think_ he achieved his effect by ensuring that most of the audio
>> spectrum was used, rather than any compression: compression (for studio
>> use) was in its infancy then, apart for on some US AM radio stations.
>
>You are correct, but irrespective of the method used, the aim was to
>appear to be louder than anyone else.
>
True, but I think he achieved it in a way that all sides - engineers and
general listeners - certainly found acceptable, and many found novel. As
compared to compression, which engineers certainly weren't impressed
with, and many general listeners weren't either when it was pointed out
to them.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

it is easy to make up a lie, but it can take much more time and effort to
convincingly refute it. - Patrick Cockburn, i, 2016-9-24

On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:39:20 UTC+1, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> *CD* will IMO always be better than vinyl, provided it's been made from
> the same master tapes (or whatever) and not had compression or other
> processing. (OK, _some_ people claim they can hear an improvement if 24
> bits are used. I found even NICAM was good.)

Agreed. I love CDs, they are magnificent. I am always suspicious of people who
claim that to truly replicate the experience of vinyl you need 24 bit 96 kHz lossless
rips... It's people getting excited by numbers, nothing more. I have absolutely no
doubt that there are people out there who CAN tell the difference between a 16 bit
and 24 bit digital file (with all else being equal), but they will be a vanishingly small
number of people, and probably all under 25.

A few months back I did some tinkering with audacity to see what they effect of
various upper frequency limits had on a few pieces of music I know well. Turns out
there is precious little audio in those upper frequncy bands, say over 16 kHz, and if
it was there or not really didn't provide any extra enjoyment to me. 16 bit is
perfectly fine!

There is a YouTube channel who uploads plays of various vinyl records played with
various expensive cartidges, players, etc. Some of the quality is truly dreadful,
honestly makes a mockery of the expense of the equipment used.

I'm not against vinyl, btw; horses for courses, innit?!

> (Anything shot on the larger formats -
> 70mm, IMAX, etc. - is probably _still_ better than can _practically_ be
> achieved.) Ditto _large_-format old stills - big glass plates etc. -
> though digital is catching up. (IMO, it's already too big for general
> use.) In _some_ circumstances, film _can_ also arguably have a greater
> dynamic range - though, ironically, to actually _see_ the shadow or peak
> detail in it, it's a lot easier to use a digital scan!

I saw Oppenheimer in 70 mm IMAX (proper IMAX, not the little one) and the image
was gorgeous. But: The flicker was still apparent in some places, the projection
had dust and dirt in it (not much, but noteable when it was there), and the screen,
being humongous, was actually too big for comfort. Felt like I was way too close.
Also the sound was ear-splittingly loud and because the auditorium was relatively
shallow it did sound like there was some distortion from inadequate sound
damping. I'd like to think if they turned it down a little bit it would have been fine.

The moving images from the big digital sensor movie cameras are unbeatable,
IMO. But I do wonder if exposing digital movies to analogue film for long-term
storage might be a good idea? Certainly what I worry about with my digital photo's
when I do occasionally worry about that :)

</tangent>

In message <1611197e-edc7-4158-af30-11aa33db8d30n@googlegroups.com> at
Fri, 13 Oct 2023 05:55:37, David Paste <pastedavid@gmail.com> writes
>On Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 14:39:20 UTC+1, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
>> *CD* will IMO always be better than vinyl, provided it's been made from
>> the same master tapes (or whatever) and not had compression or other
>> processing. (OK, _some_ people claim they can hear an improvement if 24
>> bits are used. I found even NICAM was good.)
>
>Agreed. I love CDs, they are magnificent. I am always suspicious of people who
>claim that to truly replicate the experience of vinyl you need 24 bit
>96 kHz lossless

(I hadn't heard that particular wrinkle!)
[]
>A few months back I did some tinkering with audacity to see what they effect of
>various upper frequency limits had on a few pieces of music I know
>well. Turns out
>there is precious little audio in those upper frequncy bands, say over
>16 kHz, and if
>it was there or not really didn't provide any extra enjoyment to me. 16 bit is
>perfectly fine!

Certainly most of what's on YouTube has a very sharp cutoff at (or very
close to) 16 kHz anyway: when discussing why recently (I think here),
someone said that's the default setting for some common piece of capture
software. It's actually surprising how much material has nothing over
10-12 kHz, let alone 16 - and some under 6!

Beware though - when did you last do a simple swept-sine test of where
your hearing rolls off? I was quite surprised how low mine was last time
I tried. So now, I definitely use the spectrogram (in GoldWave - I
bought it before Audacity came out, and got used to it; I believe
Audacity does much the same) before limiting a file. (Sure, the file
won't sound any different to me, but might to anyone I give it to.)

Another thing to beware of: for anything with a significant amount of
surface noise (especially 78s) or tape hiss, applying low pass can make
it _seem_ to sound duller. It's only if you apply high-pass instead to
_see_ if there's actually anything there that you see. (Obviously there
_is_ the noise; it's only if it pulses with the wanted material that
it's valid content. [And even then, it _can_ even if it's just surface
noise or hiss, as the programme material can modulate it. But usually if
I can see sufficient variation, I leave the upper bit in.])
[]
>I'm not against vinyl, btw; horses for courses, innit?!
>
I feel there should be a paraphrase of Groucho's comment about women,
but can't think of it ... (-:
[]
>I saw Oppenheimer in 70 mm IMAX (proper IMAX, not the little one) and the image
>was gorgeous. But: The flicker was still apparent in some places, the

Interesting. I've never (AFAIK) seen a 70mm - either cross-film or IMAX.
I presume it still uses 25 FPS (with double-shuttering in the projector,
as I think is normal), since upping that would make the film usage even
more expensive.

>projection
>had dust and dirt in it (not much, but noteable when it was there), and
>the screen,
>being humongous, was actually too big for comfort. Felt like I was way
>too close.
>Also the sound was ear-splittingly loud and because the auditorium was
>relatively
>shallow it did sound like there was some distortion from inadequate sound
>damping. I'd like to think if they turned it down a little bit it would
>have been fine.

Maybe would have been better with more people - was it half empty?
>
>The moving images from the big digital sensor movie cameras are unbeatable,
>IMO. But I do wonder if exposing digital movies to analogue film for long-term
>storage might be a good idea? Certainly what I worry about with my
>digital photo's
>when I do occasionally worry about that :)

Ah, the old paper prints at the NFI ... I think digital even for
archiving (of digital material, at least) is better, but someone does
have to copy it occasionally, so the error-correcting can make a fresh
copy. (Not to mention format obsolescence.)
>
></tangent>
(-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

How do you govern a country that seems to have decided that facts are the work
of the devil? - Andy Hamilton on HIGNFY, 2010

On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 11:06:46 +0100, John Williamson
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On 11/10/2023 20:05, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
>> Certainly, the "loudness war" - really getting going in the '80s and
>> '90s, when psychological knowledge developed (as well as certain
>> technology), though it certainly had been _around_ since at least the
>> '50s, well before digital - has ruined (a lot of - not all) recording in
>> the last few decades. (Probably even including vinyl re-releases.)
>>
>I reckon the first skirmish in the loudness war was Phil Spector's Wall
>of Sound in the 1960s. His stuff certainly stood out as louder when I
>played it in the disco.

Was it not the role of the DJ to act as sound engineer and balance the
levels :-)

On 13/10/2023 15:17, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <1611197e-edc7-4158-af30-11aa33db8d30n@googlegroups.com> at
> Fri, 13 Oct 2023 05:55:37, David Paste <pastedavid@gmail.com> writes
>> Agreed. I love CDs, they are magnificent. I am always suspicious of
>> people who
>> claim that to truly replicate the experience of vinyl you need 24 bit
>> 96 kHz lossless
>
> (I hadn't heard that particular wrinkle!)
> []
<Grin>It's the only way to get the full quality of the surface noise and
the stylus and cartridge distortions.

I use it when restoring the sound on all analogue recordings, as it
gives the programs more information to work with, which gives better
results.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Friday, 13 October 2023 at 15:21:52 UTC+1, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> Certainly most of what's on YouTube has a very sharp cutoff at (or very
> close to) 16 kHz anyway: when discussing why recently (I think here),
> someone said that's the default setting for some common piece of capture
> software. It's actually surprising how much material has nothing over
> 10-12 kHz, let alone 16 - and some under 6!

Yeah, it's part of the MPEG standard to do that apparently. Any further detail I
cannot give. I feel that yes, we may have discussed this before! I tend to download
the .webm files from YouTube as they do not have this roll-off applied. Either way,
they usually sound good.

> Beware though - when did you last do a simple swept-sine test of where
> your hearing rolls off? I was quite surprised how low mine was last time
> I tried.

It was at the same time, a few months back. I was surprised by how high mine is,
up to about 17 kHz. BUT! I was just using single tone samples of whether or not I
could hear them, so absolutley unsophisticated. I could hear 20 kHz played
through the desktop speakers either side of my PC monitor if it was played loud
enough, but it was quite unpleasant, and I have no idea if it was actually 20 kHz or
some sort of distortion artefact.

> So now, I definitely use the spectrogram (in GoldWave - I
> bought it before Audacity came out, and got used to it; I believe
> Audacity does much the same) before limiting a file. (Sure, the file
> won't sound any different to me, but might to anyone I give it to.)

I don't bother limiting any files, why do you do it? (just curious)

> Maybe would have been better with more people - was it half empty?

It was, yes, but the bottom rows of seats because they are basically impossible to
watch a full IMAX film from that angle. But I have been in the same auditorium two
other times: one for another (digital) film which was packed and the sound was
equally as bad; and one which was a demo film of the capabilities of IMAX which
was practically empty but the sound was good! However that one made me feel
quite sick during the rollercoaster scenes!

> Ah, the old paper prints at the NFI ...

I don't know anything about them!

> I think digital even for
> archiving (of digital material, at least) is better, but someone does
> have to copy it occasionally, so the error-correcting can make a fresh
> copy. (Not to mention format obsolescence.)

Yeah, it seems a bit like plate spinning at times!