Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
RE: PDL says you dont need to study !
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3431
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
 RE: PDL says you dont need to study ! (in reply to aeolus)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: aeolus
quote:
The present quality of good digital recording far exceeds that of the best LPs
By what measure? In the old days of High Fidelity Magazine they had an engineer who tested equipment scientifically and he would conclude his assessment by saying from the reading he got on his equipment the unit should sound good or words to that effect.
How do you judge quality in music reproduction?
By listening to it.
In the first couple of years after the introduction of the CD, all the players I listened to sounded bad. The usual "scientific" measurements didn't reveal the reason. Then someone stumbled across a major cause of the trouble. The digital clock recovered by the players suffered from "jitter". There were minute variations in its frequency--the rate at which digital samples were clocked into the digital-to-analog converter. Crucially, these timing variations were correlated to the amplitude of the sound. This resulted in a highly audible form of distortion that no one had thought to measure previously. Once this was corrected--in some players--things started to sound better. Now clock jitter is routinely listed among the specs of good CD players. In my system the digital-to-analog converter clocks the CD transport. This is the other way around from most inexpensive players. It costs more to implement.
I cited Nyquist's theorem to refute the cliche that "chopping the music up into samples" somehow ruins it. It doesn't. Poor implementation of digital technology can ruin things, just as a poorly adjusted cutting lathe or bad gain riding can ruin an LP.
Furthermore, I might like the sound of your LP player better than the sound of your CD player. But I'm pretty sure I will like the sound of my CD player, on a good CD, better than I will like your LP player. I started listening to LPs when they first came out, and I still do, often with great pleasure.
"Scientific" measurements--at least the ones quoted in hi-fi magazines--fail quite audibly to predict the sound of a system. Anyone who plays an instrument or listens to live music can tell you that recorded music never sounds like the real thing. The best systems are just less distracting. Given the necessarily subjective evaluation of hi-fi gear, opinions will vary.
When I decided to spend some money on a high end system I listened to a variety of players over a period of a couple of years, using CDs I was familiar with and a pair of Stax electrostatic headphones, the cleanest transducers I have heard. One thing struck me forcefully. There are lots of very expensive CD players, costing thousands of dollars, that sound really, really terrible.
I finally found three CD players that I liked, and one that was pretty good. The pretty good one was a Sony that cost about $500. The three that I liked were a good deal more expensive. The high price was not due to some super-exotic technology. It was due to the small production runs, relative to the cost of design and development. The technology was conventional, just intelligently employed.
Word length-16 bits, 24 bits, ad infinitum-is another widely misunderstood parameter. How many bits you need depends upon the signal-to-noise ratio of the system. Properly dithered 16-bit sampling covers a dynamic range of 96 dB. Quoted values for the dynamic range of human hearing fall in the area of 100-114 dB. But to hear the faintest sounds the human has to be in an isolated anechoic chamber. The noise level of the average household is high enough to cut out the lower end of human perception. And the dynamic range of the great bulk of music is far less than 100 dB.
Some of the best sounding recorded reproduction I have heard doesn't use 24 bits or more. It uses only one bit. Each sample is either 1 or O. That's it, 1 or 0. But the sample rate is really high. Look up Sony's Direct-Stream-Digital system, used on SACDs.
Sorry for the OT. I can't get very interested in the flamenco vs. classical "debate". When I was a kid trumpet player I played in the Washington Summer Symphony, some jazz groups, and I had my own dance band. I caught flack from three different directions.
Get over it.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 12 2013 15:07:36
 |
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3431
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: PDL says you dont need to study ! (in reply to aeolus)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: aeolus
From the small sampling here it's 3 to 1 vinyl over cd.
As I said, I evaluate by listening. If you prefer to proceed by taking votes among strangers, that is certainly your prerogative.
I am most often outvoted in political elections here in Texas, so I'm used to it. I'm pretty sure my next door neighbors on one side vote just about the exact opposite of the way I do. But they are wonderfully nice people. You couldn't ask for better neighbors. I just don't discuss politics or religion with them.
But the flamenco vs. classical "debate" seems to be going against you on this forum. I think you would find more political support elsewhere.
On some classical forum I read a review of Grisha's performance and class at the GFA in Austin in 2010. It was, shall we say, unenthusiastic. Not overtly negative, just damning with faint praise. I didn't hear that performance. But when I did hear Grisha in person, I really liked it a lot.
Opinions will vary. I don't really mind if people are reasonably polite and stick to the truth when they cite "facts". The classical reviewer of Grisha's performance was careful to let the reader know that flamenco was definitely not his bag. He was impressed by Grisha's technique.
I was impressed by his technique too, but I was impressed much more by the fire and emotion of his music making.
Among classical concerts here in Austin in the last few months I especially enjoyed Jason Vieaux, Solo Duo, and just this past Saturday, Les Frères Méduses. I went home very happy from each concert. But no happier than I did from Grisha's .
So it goes.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Nov. 13 2013 1:12:32
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.1328125 secs.
|
Printable Version
hadn't thought of that.... any idea how Spanish comics show someone snoozing? 
