Memory

[Alan Whit]

Herbert von Karajan was used by Sony to publicise the advantages of CD over vinyl. Did the Beethoven 9th suggestion originate from them?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

At the launch of the CD. Not a prototype.

It was a joint Philips/Sony thing.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Most would be very happy with the performance 1st generation high speed

1/4" tape gives at its best. It became more of a problem when multi-tracking became the norm, as each generation adds noise, etc.

[Fredxxx]

Maybe, but the 74 minute/16 bit has always been seen as chosen through Sony's influence.

Can you indicate otherwise with cited documentation?

[Dave Liquorice]

compared

Yeah but you are so young you've probably never seen or heard what good systems fed with good signals are like or haven't had the artifacts of the systems failings pointed out.

The population as a whole seem to think that Freeview DTTV is fine. I find it almost unwatchable with all the artifacts the from lossy compression that is applied to bring the 1 *Giga* bps plus out of the back of a camera to around 2 *Mega* bps on Freeview. DSAT is better but still has some problems but no where near as distracting. Both DTV and DSAT, even in HD, are kicked into a cocked hat by Blu-Ray on a decent "Full-HD" screen.

[News]

In message , Brian Gaff writes

Good man, Brian. I have a stock of old, bent Meccano which is perfect for creating all sorts of little brackets and similar uses.

[NY]

My dad had a large cabinet of Meccano - lots of drawers with little compartments for each type of gear, plate, metal strip etc. I used to love making models (eg a back-axle differential) with it, but when I grew up and left home, Dad lent the Meccano to a work colleague for his son to play with. After a year or so he asked for it back. The colleague had thought that it was a gift and had eventually disposed of it (he hadn't even sold it) when his son got tired of it. Relations between dad and his colleague were a bit strained for ever afterwards :-(

[Tim Watts]

625 line on an *average* set wasn't that great either - no artifacts, but I found the slight fuzziness annoying when I had DTV and Analogue side by side.

Pity the same standards are not applied to licensing a station now as were applied even when Channel 4 was created though - we have 60+ channels of useless shit when instead the bandwidth could have gone to making about 10 channels *really good* DTV quality.

Any why in god's name did they shove radio on the same muxes?

It's all going to become moot anyway as most of the population move towards streaming media over the Internet. I never watch Freeview now - Netflix and iPlayer and Youtube[1].

[1] There is a surprising amount of original content - mostly "shorts", but also some other interesting stuff.

[NY]

My threshold for detecting artefacts in audio is around 128 kbps for MP3: I can distinguish that from anything higher, but I can't hear any difference between (for example) 192 and 320 kbps.

The difference between analogue (especially vinyl) and digital (CD) is VERY noticeable: vinyl suffers very badly from disc noise, even on a brand new record from an expensive record label (ie not made on the cheap), whereas CD sounds perfect. And dust and scratches are very hard to avoid.

As an aside, I've always wondered about people who say they prefer vinyl to CD. Do they prefer the imperfections and signal processing that vinyl introduces, I wonder? Do they find a live performance (mic, amplifier, speakers) as bad as a CD, or do they find that the digitisation modifies the signal - can they distinguish live electronic (all analogue) from CD?

I hadn't realised that the output from a camera is as high as 1 Gbps. That really is a LOT of compression to get it down to 1-2 Mbps.

I mainly watch TV (DTV) on my PC screen, sometimes in a window that only occupies part of the screen, but then I am only a foot or so from the screen. Mostly I'm not aware of compression artefacts of DTTV but there are occasions on a very detailed picture when the camera pans and all detail is lost or replaced with large blocks for a moment. But then I've seen some DVDs where that happens.

Having said that, I am very conscious of the PAL artefacts (coloured fringes around vertical edges, especially captions, and a fine dot pattern) on any old programmes (eg repeats of 1970s or 80s programmes, or old news footage).

HD on DSat is a great disappointment. I remember watching the Opening and Closing Ceremonies of the Olympics just after we got Sky and being very aware of the compression artefacts.

The biggest problem with digital TV is that it doesn't handle overexposure very gracefully. Drama is usually well graded and the picture is perfect, but a lot of documentaries, especially fly-on-the-wall types, suffer from horrendous featureless orange skin tones or other bleached colour. Tube cameras had their faults (lag, smear) but somehow they managed to make overexposure less objectionable.

[NY]

Agreed. There are far too many dross channels (shopping, holidays, docusoaps) which should be made to reduce their bitrates to allow room for the mainstream channels. Even when additional multiplexes have been introduced, they have been to provide more channels (eg HD versions of SD channels) rather than to give existing channels more bandwidth.

The quality of radio over Freeview is a lot better than on DAB. It is much easier to schedule a recording of radio on Freeview than to work out how to scehdule a recording from DAB radio.

I mostly watch on Freeview (well, I record and watch later, so I can edit out adverts) because the picture quality and the ability to be able to go instantly to any part of the recording are much better with my own off-air recording than with iPlayer or the ITV, CH4 or CH5 equivalents - and there's no time limit within which you've got to watch a programme before it is removed from the server.

[Chris J Dixon]

I recall being a bit concerned about the sibilance I was experiencing playing a particular folk LP (yes, that long ago). When I next saw the artist, live and without any amplification, it was quite clear that the recording was accurate :-)

As a long time fan of live music, usually in the folk field, I have long felt that there is a problem. I have been to a number of events where the sound at the venue has been pretty appalling, but the radio recording has been excellent. One was Albion Band at Fleetwood a good while ago; I stuck my head inside the control van during the set, and it sounded great, inside the great domed hall it was just a mush.

There has to be something really ironic about having to go home to be able to listen to a live event properly.

I once (and only once) went to see Equation at Leicester Phoenix. I sat next to the sound desk, and didn't hear a single word of lyric all night. I could only assume this was intentional.

Seth Lakeman, at Loughborough festival a few years ago, was deafening, (but incomprehensible) though the rest of the evening's performers were fine. I really like his CDs, but would never want to see him live again.

Chris

[Norman Wells]

If the 'mainstream channels' wnated to broadcast higher bitrates, they could surely do their bit to free up room by removing their largely redundant and unnecessary +1 channels, which seem to me to be just a way of channel-squatting as insurance against the unlikely event that they find anything worthwhile to broadcast. Would they really be missed if they were closed down?

[tony sayer]

Many years ago I was invited to a few audio tests involving amplifiers and speakers at the home of a Dr Derek Scotland the designer of the old Audiolab range before they sold out.

He had a pair of Quad ELS 63 electrostatic speakers these driven by his

200 watt Monoblock amps.

He was playing some excellent music and I didn't at first notice where the source was as that was in the room next door it all being so that you couldn't see what amps were actually being used etc..

I was staggered to find that what I'd been listening to was off Vinyl disc!!

He did say that he didn't expect me to have heard it like that before as the discs were pressed by a specialist company in Japan or Germany and used much higher grade Vinyl than anyone would normally use.

Course it didn't get round the end of side distortion and other artefacts that disc can and does introduce but I was really taken as to how good it could be !...

Ask that of such as the shellac collective when you see them playing at places like bestival;)...

I once suggested that it would be simpler to put all their stuff on USB sticks..

Dare you to suggest that to them, almost got lynched to shouts of blasphemer!! and heretic!!;!...

Thats depended on how well that was recorded and whether or not there was a good comb filter in the receiver. I have seen studio originated PAL pix and they were excellent...

Prolly done on cheaper hand held cameras by less than experienced persons..

We've got a SONY Bravia and I'm quite picky of faults but by and large it makes a very good job of processing the signals but can't put right such as the bad audio in programmes like Jamaica Inn recently;!..

There does seem still quite a variation on the actual pix produced by DTV televisions..

Never forgot what my old English teacher once said never be put off bu the cover and binding of a book, content is the key thing...

[tony sayer]

Wonder why they do that?.

I have noticed over time that a lot of people who are DJ's and do live sound seem to be a bit hard of hearing;!(...

[RJH]

snip

Agreed on the whole.

Apart from between tracks and quiet sections, it is largely inaudible to me. And when I can hear it it doesn't bother me. But that is a preference - I know that's an artefact of the medium. In a sense it's supposed to be there, and my brain 9sort of!) filters it.

I don't think there's a single reason. Young folk, I suspect, like the physical medium that's completely lost on mp3, and IMO largely absent on CD. They like the tactile aspect, too. I don't think sound quality as such figures to much of an extent - IME they don't have playback systems capable of significant differentiation.

For me, often I prefer the sound, but that's partly to do with the quality of 'transcribed' (not sure of the proper word) recording, rather than the capacity of the medium. But sound quality can be excellent - and often is, at least on my system. I also tend to listen to a whole record, rather than skit about with the audio streamer thing I have.

Other reasons - largely sentimental, plus those ascribed to the youngsters, above.

Overall, though, I don't take the vinyl vs CD thing too seriously. I like and use them both, and each have strengths and weaknesses.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

It makes no difference. The maximum playing time was dictated by the mastering machine of the day.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Ignoring any surface noise etc, vinyl adds its own distortion. Which many just happen to like.

If you carefully copy vinyl to CD I defy anyone to tell the difference in a properly conducted blind test.

Do it the other way round - more difficult - and most can tell the difference.

Which proves vinyl is distorting the original.

[NY]

I can understand the preference for a physical, tangible copy of the recording, though that's something which applies equally to records and CD (and not to downloads).

I'm talking about audiophiles who prefer the *sound* of vinyl over CD. Now they are perfectly entitled to, but I'm intrigued to work out what it is that they prefer - they say that sound of CDs is cold and clinical, and too perfect. Fine. But they make it sound as if the CD process *introduces* something that the unrecorded electronic sound doesn't have.

Does anyone who whether anyone has carried out any trials of a live performance (of whatever genre), reproduced to the test subjects:

1. by microphone, amplifier and loudspeaker
2. an identical sound mix by microphone, amplifier, CD mastering, CD playback, amplifier, loudspeaker

to see whether they prefer one over the other. If they can't reliably distinguish then all they are saying is that they prefer the imperfections and modifications necessary to record on vinyl.

[tony sayer]

Only for the Russ Andrews supplied one Dolby line up for everyone else;)..

Thats why they like tape, it can compress those very transients a bit;)..

Now quite some years ago there was a recording engineer around called Angus McKenzie who was excellent at his job, but sadly became blind at a young age and like those who are missing one sense they seem to develop the others more than most..

Anyways was at an audio exhibition for pro engineers and equipment suppliers and on his stand he was demo'ing some of the recordings he had done and one of them was of a small classical quartet. The audio was actually off a Nak cassette machine and also off a Studer A80 or 800 odd can't quite remember now but listening on Stax electrostatic phones you could switch between them.

The Studer had Dolby SR fitted the Nak was IIRC using Dolby C but he had set it all up very carefully as was his way of doing things. The difference?, barely noticeable you had to really try to find any in fact it was stunning to think that small cassette could almost compete with

15 IPS 1/4 tape..

Wonder if the one you experienced was duff in someway as I had one for a while and as long as you like you say tweaked it all up as it should be it was very good...

;!)...

I should hope not;!...

[tony sayer]

As long as its a good one usually the Intel ones are, some aren't...