[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:38:48 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 2/15/2010 9:05 AM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:43:48 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):

snip

I'll feel equally sorry for myself when CDs die and downloaded digital
(and predominantly lower bitrate MP3's were I hazard a guess) formats
become the only readily accessible format for recorded music.

But the techno-freaks who post here will tell you that MP3s are
indistinguishable from your beloved CDs because they are "newer technology"
and newer technology simply MUST be better than old, and uncompressed
digital
music is OLD technology and is therefore inferior.

I don't believe I've seen that claim posted here. New technology
*tends* to be better, but sometimes the "better" is related to being
cheaper/easier/more reliable to produce.

It's sarcasm. Not meant to be taken literally.

And as CD displaced LP, so
must MP3 supplant CD - or something like that 8^)

I don't say "must", but it sure seems likely. But similar to my
aversion to the idea of a Kindle-type product, I have issues with the
download distribution and control models irrespective of the sound
quality. I like having CD's that I can physically own and do with as I
please (without having to download, then burn them myself) and books
that I can actually hold in my hands with real turnable pages. And
neither Amazon nor Google can E-snatch my CD's from their cases, or my
books from their shelves

I use Kindle on my iPod Touch to read books. Since I bought it, about a year
ago I have read almost 40 books on my Touch. I like it a lot. I do feel a
little bad that I can't pass a Kindle book on to my buds when I've finished
with it, but that's their problem, not mine 8^)

[Harry Lavo]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:04:18 -0800, MIKE--- wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:

Bruno Walter's stereo recordings with
the NY Philharmonic of Beethoven's
symphonies

????? I don't think Bruno Walter made any STEREO recordings of Beethoven
symphonies with the NY Philharmonic.
He re-recorded these symphonies in California with the Columbia
symphony.


---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')


You're right. Mea Culpa. I was thinking of the Mahler cycle with the NYP.
The
Beethoven was with the Columbia Symphony Orchestra.


New York or LA, these are my favorite recordings of the Beethoven
Symphonies.....I bought a gift set years ago for a girl friend, and they
have gone out of print (as a set). I made CD-R's, but also have at least
half of them on vinyl. It is funny that modern music reviewers almost never
make reference to these....

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 16:38:02 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

Scott wrote:
=20
Not true. Steve Hoffman ,amd Kevin Gray did just that and did detect
differences.
=20
=20
Is that the same Steve Hoffman, perchance, that's featured
in this piece of audio voodoo?
=20
http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm
=20
=20
Whoops! Credibility gap detected. These ****aki sticks do NOTHING. I had =
a=20
pair in my system (no, I didn't buy them) and noticed no change in anythi=
ng=20
whatsoever (except perhaps a greater chance of stumbling over something i=
n=20
the dark). They are the audio equivalent of snake oil, and not very good=
=20
snake oil at that. How could they do anything, they're just sticks of woo=
d=20
and metal! One only has to read the mumbo-jumbo white paper at the above =
URL=20
to see that :

The SHAKTI Electromagnetic Stabilizer is a patented Electromagnetic=20
Interference (EMI) absorption and dissipation apparatus.=A0 EMI is a ge=
neral=20
term used to describe the negative interaction of radiated fields with =
the=20
transfer function of electromagnetic components.=A0SHAKTI is a three st=
age=20
passive device that requires no direct electrical connection to the sig=
nal=20
path because all interaction takes place through radiated field mutual=20
coupling.=A0The three broad spectrum traps (Microwave, RF and=20
Electric/Magnetic), contained within its portable chassis, absorb and=20
dissipate these parasitic oscillations through inductive coupling.=A0Re=
ducing=20
these fields results in a more accurate signal transfer of the informat=
ion=20
the host device carries.=A0Specific applications in use at present time=
are all=20

types of audio/video components and automotive engine computer processo=
rs=20
(ECUs) and ignition coils.

I've seen some obfuscating BS verbiage before, but this is worse (better,=
as=20
in more "fun" to read, perhaps?) than even this:

http://www.cardas.com/content.php?ar...D7&pagestr i=
ng=3DGolden
+Section+Stereo+Magic

[Arny Krueger]

"cjt" wrote in message


I think one big difference between LPs and CDs is that
CDs have considerably more usable dynamic range (due to
LP noise levels).

CDs also have far less distortion, both linear and nonlinear. But, that's
the media, not the end product. Because the CD format is so accurate, it
does a better job of reproducing the junky sound of stinky trash, just as it
does a better job of reproducting the clean sound of pure music.

That SHOULD allow a much more realistic experience.

The key word being allow. They don't stand in the way. But what comes
through is up to the people who send whatever they send.

Unfortunately, recording engineers throw much of the
value away by over-use of compression, in order to
deliver more "punch" for radio audiences.

This was less of a positive value in the days when vinyl was all we had.
Furthermore, there are things you can do to music that will make music "cut
through", that can be done with a CD but can't be done with a LP.

While compression was used (of necessity) in creating
LPs, my impression is that it was less pronounced than in
modern CD recordings.

Two reasons - one was the basic limits of the LP format that couldn't take
loud hot music, and the other was the fact that we've developed so much more
sophisticated signal processing since then.

I thus contend that CDs have more potential for realistic
delivery, but that LPs, for all their faults, in some
instances deliver more compelling experiences.

If you want to deliver bad sound, I know of no better delivery format than
the CD.
If you want to deliver good sound, I know of no better delivery format than
the CD.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:20:46 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"cjt" wrote in message


I think one big difference between LPs and CDs is that
CDs have considerably more usable dynamic range (due to
LP noise levels).

CDs also have far less distortion, both linear and nonlinear. But, that's
the media, not the end product. Because the CD format is so accurate, it
does a better job of reproducing the junky sound of stinky trash, just as it
does a better job of reproducting the clean sound of pure music.

That SHOULD allow a much more realistic experience.

The key word being allow. They don't stand in the way. But what comes
through is up to the people who send whatever they send.

Unfortunately, recording engineers throw much of the
value away by over-use of compression, in order to
deliver more "punch" for radio audiences.

This was less of a positive value in the days when vinyl was all we had.
Furthermore, there are things you can do to music that will make music "cut
through", that can be done with a CD but can't be done with a LP.

While compression was used (of necessity) in creating
LPs, my impression is that it was less pronounced than in
modern CD recordings.

Two reasons - one was the basic limits of the LP format that couldn't take
loud hot music, and the other was the fact that we've developed so much more
sophisticated signal processing since then.

I think that you may have misunderstood what he said. He was saying that
while some compression was required with LP, it's not required today, but
that today's compression on CD is for EFFECT, and is a lot more INTRUSIVE
than was the compression used on LPs. At least that's the way I interpret
his comments.

I thus contend that CDs have more potential for realistic
delivery, but that LPs, for all their faults, in some
instances deliver more compelling experiences.

If you want to deliver bad sound, I know of no better delivery format than
the CD.
If you want to deliver good sound, I know of no better delivery format than
the CD.


IOW, the medium is very accurate. No argument there. CD (and it's other
digital relatives like DVD-A and SACD) can produce squeaky clean and pristine
examples of any audio signal that is fed to them, good or bad.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On Feb 16, 10:40=A0am, Scott wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:38=3DA0pm, Dick Pierce wrote:
Scott wrote:

Not true. =3DA0Steve Hoffman ,amd Kevin Gray did just that and did de=
tect
differences.

Is that the same Steve Hoffman, perchance, that's featured
in this piece of audio voodoo?

http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm

Yes. do you think that some how renders his level matched blind
comparisons worthless?

Well, if he actually is associated with nonsense like that web page, I
would require something more than just a third hand report such as
contained in your post. Did he perhaps manage to get this result
published in a reputable peer reviewed scientific journal? If not,
call me when he does.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:20:28 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:04:18 -0800, MIKE--- wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:

Bruno Walter's stereo recordings with
the NY Philharmonic of Beethoven's
symphonies

????? I don't think Bruno Walter made any STEREO recordings of Beethoven
symphonies with the NY Philharmonic.
He re-recorded these symphonies in California with the Columbia
symphony.


---MIKE---
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire
(44=B0 15' N - Elevation 1580')


You're right. Mea Culpa. I was thinking of the Mahler cycle with the NYP.
The
Beethoven was with the Columbia Symphony Orchestra.


New York or LA, these are my favorite recordings of the Beethoven
Symphonies.....I bought a gift set years ago for a girl friend, and they
have gone out of print (as a set). I made CD-R's, but also have at least
half of them on vinyl. It is funny that modern music reviewers almost never
make reference to these....

Yes, in my opinion, they are the definitive Beethoven symphony performances
and this is my point. Somebody said they felt sorry for me that I can't get
real enjoyment out of modern recordings available only on CD. Well, when the
best performances of Beethoven were these from the late 50's and early '60's,
the best Mahler was from the late 50's (Walter, again) the best Mozart was
from Beecham and the LSO from the mid-fifties, the best Vaughan Williams from
Bolt and the LSO from the '60's and the best Richard Strauss was from Reiner
and the Chicago from the '50's, there's little cause for commiseration. On
the contrary, I am privileged to have these great performances and to have so
many LPs that pass, what the late, great J. Gordon Holt used to call, the
"goosebump test".

Back to the Walter. I too have pondered that these performances are rarely
mentioned by music reviewers. I don't have an answer, but they used to. The
last time I saw any of these performances praised was by Edward Tatnal Canby
in Audio Magazine in the 1980's. I have two CDs of Bruno Walter's Beethoven
symphony performances. One is an SACD from Sony/Columbia of the 6th, and the
second is a Japanese market Sony imported by CBS of the 7th and 8th. But I
have the boxed set on LP of all of them.

My second favorite Beethoven symphony recordings are Von Karajan's late 50's
recordings with the Berlin SO on DGG. These sound great (like most DGGs of
the period) as they were all recorded using a single MS mike. Another great
DGG recording from the era is Von Karajan/Sviatoslav Richter's Tchiakovsky's
First Piano Concerto. Still one of the best sounding piano-and-orchestra
recordings I've ever encountered.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 16, 5:06=A0pm, Dick Pierce wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:38=3DA0pm, Dick Pierce wrote:
Not true. =3DA0Steve Hoffman ,amd Kevin Gray did just that and did det=
ect
differences.

Is that the same Steve Hoffman, perchance, that's featured
in this piece of audio voodoo?

http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm

Yes. do you think that some how renders his level matched blind
comparisons worthless?

In the absence of anything other than your say-so, yes,
it does.

That is a non-sequitor. My success or failure to produce anything is
independent of the question asked about whether or not Steve Hoffman's
level matched blind comparisons are worthless. If one wants to make
credibility an issue I suggest one be more careful not to make such
basic mistakes in their logic.



Since you failed to produce anything other than a simple
statement with no substantiation whatsoever,


I didn't "fail" to produce anything. One can not fail to do something
one did not attempt to do. If you wanted a reference all you had to do
was ask.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...ghlight=3Dwha=
t+sounds+more+like+the+master+tape


and I was at
least able to produce an independent reference of him endorsing
some wooden carving making some extraordinary claiims, I'd
say, in the absence of ANY documentation whatsoever, yes,
it renders your claims worthless. And it is YOUR claim until

you show otherwise.

That is yet another logical fallacy. Circumstantial ad hominem. Again
if one wants to make credibility an issue one ought to not shoot their
own credibility in the foot with a string of logical fallacies.

[Andrew Haley]

Scott writes:
On Feb 16, 5:06=A0pm, Dick Pierce wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:38=3DA0pm, Dick Pierce wrote:
Not true. =3DA0Steve Hoffman ,amd Kevin Gray did just that and did det=
ect
differences.

Is that the same Steve Hoffman, perchance, that's featured
in this piece of audio voodoo?

http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm

Yes. do you think that some how renders his level matched blind
comparisons worthless?

In the absence of anything other than your say-so, yes,
it does.

That is a non-sequitor. My success or failure to produce anything is
independent of the question asked about whether or not Steve Hoffman's
level matched blind comparisons are worthless. If one wants to make
credibility an issue I suggest one be more careful not to make such
basic mistakes in their logic.

Since you failed to produce anything other than a simple
statement with no substantiation whatsoever,


I didn't "fail" to produce anything. One can not fail to do something
one did not attempt to do. If you wanted a reference all you had to do
was ask.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...ghlight=3Dwha=
t+sounds+more+like+the+master+tape

Fixed URL:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...d.php?t=133328

That doesn't seem to be a blind test all: there seems to be no mention
of blinding, nor of any controls, nor the number of trials. Why did
you think it was blind? Is there another description of the test
elsewhere?

Andrew.

[KH]

On 2/17/2010 12:29 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Scott writes:
snip

I didn't "fail" to produce anything. One can not fail to do something
one did not attempt to do. If you wanted a reference all you had to do
was ask.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...ghlight=3Dwha=
t+sounds+more+like+the+master+tape

Fixed URL:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...d.php?t=133328

That doesn't seem to be a blind test all: there seems to be no mention
of blinding, nor of any controls, nor the number of trials. Why did
you think it was blind? Is there another description of the test
elsewhere?

Andrew.


Even more than that, Hoffman confirms a few things in that thread that
seems to make the claimed comparison completely inappropriate in the
context of this thread, for example;

1. The test was made using the direct cut "acetate", not vinyl, which
Hoffman himself states, in the same thread; "Please note that an actual
record for sale would have gone through the manufacturing process and
the lacquer would have been processed to a MASTER, MOTHER, STAMPER and
VINYL with increased surface noise, etc. but the sound of the music
remains intact for the most part." Interesting caveat, that, "for the
most part". IOW, he recognizes that the acetate and the vinyl will not
sound the same, yet he did not compare the *Vinyl*.

2. More importantly, in the exchange below Hoffman explicitly confirms
that the digital recording and Acetate he compared to the master tape
were *Mastered differently*:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Lascell View Post
Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were saying that the same
exact steps/settings were taken to master for each (except for
digital conversion). I realize now that you meant you are shooting
for the same sound in all formats. Of course that makes sense.

Hoffman:
Glad you understand what I was trying to say. I am never sure it's
coming out exactly like I mean it to.. Especially when typing in the
back seat of a Taxi..

In other words, Hoffman attempted to differentially "tweak" the
mastering of an acetate and a digital recording to sound like the master
tape, and found that his *mastering tweaks* on the acetate sounded
closer to the Master Tape than his *different mastering tweaks* on the
digital recording did. Gee.

How is this test of any value, irrespective of presence/absence of test
controls, in any evaluation except that of Hoffmans' ability to *master*
digital? By his own statements, he was not comparing two direct
transfers, but rather his "tweaks" thereof.

Keith Hughes

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:40:44 -0800, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 2/17/2010 12:29 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Scott writes:
snip

I didn't "fail" to produce anything. One can not fail to do something
one did not attempt to do. If you wanted a reference all you had to do
was ask.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...ighlight=3Dwha
=
t+sounds+more+like+the+master+tape

Fixed URL:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...d.php?t=133328

That doesn't seem to be a blind test all: there seems to be no mention
of blinding, nor of any controls, nor the number of trials. Why did
you think it was blind? Is there another description of the test
elsewhere?

Andrew.


Even more than that, Hoffman confirms a few things in that thread that
seems to make the claimed comparison completely inappropriate in the
context of this thread, for example;

1. The test was made using the direct cut "acetate", not vinyl, which
Hoffman himself states, in the same thread; "Please note that an actual
record for sale would have gone through the manufacturing process and
the lacquer would have been processed to a MASTER, MOTHER, STAMPER and
VINYL with increased surface noise, etc. but the sound of the music
remains intact for the most part." Interesting caveat, that, "for the
most part". IOW, he recognizes that the acetate and the vinyl will not
sound the same, yet he did not compare the *Vinyl*.


Having worked in disc mastering for a while (the company I worked for made
records for schools and other organizations, not for commercial release) I
can say with some confidence that although the actual pressings will be
somewhat noisier than the acetate master, they won't be much noisier. The
result will be the acetate's noise floor plus the vinyl's noise floor. The
mother and stamper, being metal platings don't add any significant noise,
being exact copies of the acetate master (assuming they were "done"
correctly). The end result, of course will be determined by the manufacturing
process. I.E. those variables that we all used to fight when buying records,
underfill, warp, off-center records as well as records pressed at a
temperature that was either too low or too high, and of course, the grade of
raw polyvinyl chloride used by the record company and whether or not the
vinyl mix contains any re-grind.

2. More importantly, in the exchange below Hoffman explicitly confirms
that the digital recording and Acetate he compared to the master tape
were *Mastered differently*:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Lascell View Post
Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were saying that the same
exact steps/settings were taken to master for each (except for
digital conversion). I realize now that you meant you are shooting
for the same sound in all formats. Of course that makes sense.

Hoffman:
Glad you understand what I was trying to say. I am never sure it's
coming out exactly like I mean it to.. Especially when typing in the
back seat of a Taxi..

In other words, Hoffman attempted to differentially "tweak" the
mastering of an acetate and a digital recording to sound like the master
tape, and found that his *mastering tweaks* on the acetate sounded
closer to the Master Tape than his *different mastering tweaks* on the
digital recording did. Gee.

That's pretty normal procedure. Record mastering is a an analog process and
is not as straight forward as digital mastering. There are things that must
be done to the signal in order to successfully cut a record, that don't need
to be done when mastering digitally.

How is this test of any value, irrespective of presence/absence of test
controls, in any evaluation except that of Hoffmans' ability to *master*
digital? By his own statements, he was not comparing two direct
transfers, but rather his "tweaks" thereof.

It doesn't seem to me that the process Mr. Hoffman describes is anything like
what we are talking about. Unless I've missed something here, we were
discussing whether it is possible to transfer the signal from a vinyl record
onto a CD and "preserve" the LP sound, and to what degree that LP sound is
preserved by the A/D and D/A process. I said that I cannot tell the
difference. The CD made from a record and the record itself sound so close as
to be virtually indistinguishable, one from the other. This is as it should
be since CD is VERY accurate to the signal fed to it.

[KH]

On 2/17/2010 2:55 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:40:44 -0800, KH wrote
(in ):

On 2/17/2010 12:29 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Scott writes:
snip

How is this test of any value, irrespective of presence/absence of test
controls, in any evaluation except that of Hoffmans' ability to *master*
digital? By his own statements, he was not comparing two direct
transfers, but rather his "tweaks" thereof.

It doesn't seem to me that the process Mr. Hoffman describes is anything like
what we are talking about.

Yes, that was my point exactly.

Unless I've missed something here, we were
discussing whether it is possible to transfer the signal from a vinyl record
onto a CD and "preserve" the LP sound, and to what degree that LP sound is
preserved by the A/D and D/A process. I said that I cannot tell the
difference. The CD made from a record and the record itself sound so close as
to be virtually indistinguishable, one from the other. This is as it should
be since CD is VERY accurate to the signal fed to it.

Exactly. However, this 'test' was provided as 'evidence' that there
have been documented tests showing there *is* a discernable difference
between CD copies of LP's. I don't see it as remotely relevant.

Keith Hughes

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Feb 16, 5:06=A0pm, Dick Pierce
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:38=3DA0pm, Dick Pierce
wrote:
Not true. =3DA0Steve Hoffman ,amd Kevin Gray did just
that and did det= ect differences.

Is that the same Steve Hoffman, perchance, that's
featured in this piece of audio voodoo?

http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm

Yes. do you think that some how renders his level
matched blind comparisons worthless?

In the absence of anything other than your say-so, yes,
it does.

That is a non-sequitor. My success or failure to produce
anything is independent of the question asked about
whether or not Steve Hoffman's level matched blind
comparisons are worthless. If one wants to make
credibility an issue I suggest one be more careful not to
make such basic mistakes in their logic.

Scott if we presume that you are competent to answer reasonable questions
about a topic that you brought up, then what we have established is that a
competent person who has asserted that these tests actually took place is
unable to provide any confirming documentation about them at all. This
suggests that no such documentation exists. If the alleged tests are
impossible for a resonable person to provide any additional supporting
documentation about, then the credibility of the alleged tests is definately
in question.

Since you failed to produce anything other than a simple
statement with no substantiation whatsoever,

I didn't "fail" to produce anything. One can not fail to
do something one did not attempt to do.

That would be false. If a person refuses to attempt to perform a reasonable
action then they have indeed failed to do it.

If you wanted a
reference all you had to do was ask.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...ghlight=3Dwha=
t+sounds+more+like+the+master+tape

Broken link. The error message suggests that no such post exists.

Searching using the indicated text returns way too many posts and threads to
take time to read.

[Andrew Barss[_2_]]

Audio Empire wrote:
: On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:30:41 -0800, KH wrote
: (in article ):

: On 2/12/2010 12:57 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
: On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:25:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
: (in ):
:
: "Robert wrote in message
:
: snip
:
: The CD format is an sonically accurate medium. Do things right and the good
: results accurately show up at the output terminals of the player. Do things
: wrong, and the bad results show up in the same place.
:
: I disagree. Strongly. The CD format is a WAVEFORM-ACCURATE format.
:
: I believe that is exactly what he was saying.

: No. he said that it was sonically accurate. Digital doesn't record sound, it
: records ones-and-zeros.

True, but misleading. Analog media don't record sound in your sense here
either. A binary digital track on a hard drive is physically represented
as a series of magnetic patterns on a solid platter, period. The same is
true of an analog track on a tape -- it's a series of magnetic patterns
on a flexible piece of plastic. An analog signal on a vinyl
record is a series of grooves and ridges and bumps and indentations carved
into plastic, period.

None of these, in the strictest sense, is sound. (You could read any of
those representations -- analog or digital -- with some other piece of
equipment and get a visual pattern, for example.)

The ones and zeroes are a *representation* of the *analog representations*
recorded on tape by a *representation* of sound waves as patterns of
electrons in a wire connected to a mic. There's actual sound only
pre-microphone in recording, and post-speaker in playback. Any
reproduction medium is going to map that sound onto one or more very
different physical representations, which are the back-converted in
playback.

The isue is whether those mappings -- sound to a physical representation,
or one physical representtion to another -- preserves the information
necessary to reconstruct the sound during playback.

-- Andy Barss

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 17, 11:29=A0am, Andrew Haley wrote:
Scott writes:

=A0 On Feb 16, 5:06=3DA0pm, Dick Pierce wrote:
=A0 Scott wrote:
=A0 On Feb 15, 4:38=3D3DA0pm, Dick Pierce wr=
ote:
=A0 Not true. =3D3DA0Steve Hoffman ,amd Kevin Gray did just that an=
d did det=3D
=A0 ect
=A0 differences.
=A0
=A0 Is that the same Steve Hoffman, perchance, that's featured
=A0 in this piece of audio voodoo?
=A0
=A0 http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm
=A0
=A0 Yes. do you think that some how renders his level matched blind
=A0 comparisons worthless?
=A0
=A0 In the absence of anything other than your say-so, yes,
=A0 it does.
=A0
=A0 That is a non-sequitor. My success or failure to produce anything is
=A0 independent of the question asked about whether or not Steve Hoffman=
's
=A0 level matched blind comparisons are worthless. If one wants to make
=A0 credibility an issue I suggest one be more careful not to make such
=A0 basic mistakes in their logic.
=A0
=A0 Since you failed to produce anything other than a simple
=A0 statement with no substantiation whatsoever,
=A0
=A0
=A0 I didn't "fail" to produce anything. One can not fail to do somethin=
g
=A0 one did not attempt to do. If you wanted a reference all you had to =
do
=A0 was ask.
=A0http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...33328&highlig=
ht...
=A0 t+sounds+more+like+the+master+tape

Fixed URL:http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...php?t=3D133328

That doesn't seem to be a blind test all: there seems to be no mention
of blinding, nor of any controls, nor the number of trials. =A0Why did
you think it was blind? =A0Is there another description of the test
elsewhere?

Andrew.

Hmmm you are right. weird. But see post #94 "These were Blind as I
mentioned in my first post. Kevin did the knobs and then I did..." It
does mention level matching and time syncing. So those controls were
in place. It also basically says that all three media were very very
close to transparent just that they both heard particular differences
with the CD and the SACD masters but found the laquer to be
transparent, indistinguishable from the master tape. Not sure how many
trials one needs to do if they can't identify a difference. If there
is a difference it has to be subtle if they couldn't identify a
difference. It's a pretty unique test actually. Not many people do
this sort of test at a SOTA mastering facility with a master tape as
the reference. And if one were really really interested in
varification one could actually do it. RTI is still there and they
still have the same cutting lathe and mastering facitities. If one
really wanted to replicate this test they could. The one variable
would be the new A/D converter they now use for mastering CDs. But
that wouldn't stop anyone from testing the claim of transparency of
the cutting lathe and playback at RTI.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 17, 12:40=A0pm, KH wrote:
On 2/17/2010 12:29 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: Scott writes:

snip





=A0 =A0I didn't "fail" to produce anything. One can not fail to do so=
mething
=A0 =A0one did not attempt to do. If you wanted a reference all you h=
ad to do
=A0 =A0was ask.
=A0 =A0http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=3D3D133328&=
highlight...
=A0 =A0t+sounds+more+like+the+master+tape

Fixed URL:
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...php?t=3D133328

That doesn't seem to be a blind test all: there seems to be no mention
of blinding, nor of any controls, nor the number of trials. =A0Why did
you think it was blind? =A0Is there another description of the test
elsewhere?

Andrew.

Even more than that, Hoffman confirms a few things in that thread that
seems to make the claimed comparison completely inappropriate in the
context of this thread, for example;

1. =A0The test was made using the direct cut "acetate", not vinyl, which
Hoffman himself states, in the same thread; "Please note that an actual
record for sale would have gone through the manufacturing process and
the lacquer would have been processed to a MASTER, MOTHER, STAMPER and
VINYL with increased surface noise, etc. but the sound of the music
remains intact for the most part." =A0Interesting caveat, that, "for the
most part". =A0IOW, he recognizes that the acetate and the vinyl will not
sound the same, yet he did not compare the *Vinyl*.

2. =A0More importantly, in the exchange below Hoffman explicitly confirms
that the digital recording and Acetate he compared to the master tape
were *Mastered differently*:

=A0Quote:
=A0Originally Posted by Ian Lascell View Post
=A0Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were saying that the sam=
e
=A0exact steps/settings were taken to master for each (except for
=A0digital conversion). I realize now that you meant you are shooting
=A0for the same sound in all formats. Of course that makes sense.

Hoffman:
=A0Glad you understand what I was trying to say. I am never sure it's
=A0coming out exactly like I mean it to.. Especially when typing in the
=A0back seat of a Taxi..

In other words, Hoffman attempted to differentially "tweak" the
mastering of an acetate and a digital recording to sound like the master
tape, and found that his *mastering tweaks* on the acetate sounded
closer to the Master Tape than his *different mastering tweaks* on the
digital recording did. Gee.


Keith that is a gross misrepresentation of what was actually said and
done. context is everything. The above was in reference to How Steve
Hoffman masters LPs CDs and SACDs in general not how he did this
spefici test. Here is the actual description of the actual test.

"We had the master tape of the Riverside stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/
WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to do this little comparison.
Since the actual master needs a bunch of "mastering" to make it sound
the best, I set the title track up as if it was going to be mastered
(which in a sense it was, being cut on to an acetate record).

We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to
the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.

Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels.
Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I
listened. (We took turns switching and listening). "

Clearly the settings were the same for the master tape and the three
samples."while dumping to the digital computer at the same time with
the same moves." Pretty clear no?

Now lets look at the context of your quote.

Steve Hoffman

"The end result sounds as close as possible when I master for CD or
LP. What ever tricks I need to get there when mastering in digital,
well, it seems to work....

Compare a DCC Gold CD I did with a DCC LP of the same title. Pretty
close sonically as they should be. So even though I had to use
different tricks to get them to match, the end result is the same;
they sound the way I want them to sound, no matter what format."

Clearly he is not talking about the specific test but how he masters
commerical CDs in general and gives a specific example of a title that
clearly was not Waltz for Deby.


How is this test of any value, irrespective of presence/absence of test
controls, in any evaluation except that of Hoffmans' ability to *master*
digital? =A0By his own statements, he was not comparing two direct
transfers, but rather his "tweaks" thereof.

I'm sure anyone can figure out the answers to those questions in light
of the facts that are now present.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Feb 17, 11:29 am, Andrew Haley
wrote:
Scott writes:

On Feb 16, 5:06=A0pm, Dick Pierce
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:38=3DA0pm, Dick Pierce
wrote:
Not true. =3DA0Steve Hoffman ,amd Kevin Gray did
just that and did det= ect differences.

Is that the same Steve Hoffman, perchance, that's
featured in this piece of audio voodoo?

http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm

Yes. do you think that some how renders his level
matched blind comparisons worthless?

In the absence of anything other than your say-so, yes,
it does.

That is a non-sequitor. My success or failure to
produce anything is independent of the question asked
about whether or not Steve Hoffman's level matched
blind comparisons are worthless. If one wants to make
credibility an issue I suggest one be more careful not
to make such basic mistakes in their logic.

Since you failed to produce anything other than a
simple statement with no substantiation whatsoever,


I didn't "fail" to produce anything. One can not fail
to do something one did not attempt to do. If you
wanted a reference all you had to do was ask.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...3328&highlight...
t+sounds+more+like+the+master+tape

Fixed
URL:http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...d.php?t=133328

I notice the lack of an apology by the OP for all the time that was wasted
by people who tried to follow up on his post. It took about a working day
for Hoffman's site to let me register there, and then it turned out that the
OP had obviously not checked his work and sent us all on a wild goose chase.
I probably didn't need to register, and share personal information to do so.

That doesn't seem to be a blind test all: there seems to
be no mention of blinding, nor of any controls, nor the
number of trials. Why did you think it was blind? Is
there another description of the test elsewhere?

Hmmm you are right. weird. But see post #94 "These were
Blind as I mentioned in my first post.

The first post (Post #1) says nothing about actual blinding:

"Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels.
Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I
listened. (We took turns switching and listening)."

I would suggest that these casual experimenters may think of any
experimental controls, whether they involve actual bias controls or not,
"Blinding".

Furthermore, the accuracy of the level matching the time synching is not
given. Level matching could have been off by 3 dB and still be called "level
matching" as it was stated here. Time synching needs to be within a few
milliseconds. Maintaining that sort of precision can be a full-time job in
addition to the listening and switching. Doing this kind of test with only
2 people generally requires the use of a proper switchbox, and none was
identified.

The above is so far from being a properly-documented test that the
discussion of this as a reliable, credible test needs to stop right about
here.

The alleged results tax any informed person's credulity and implicitly
dispute the results many, many other listening tests including those that
*have* been properly documented, professionally reviewed, etc.

Comparing this casual evaluation to a JAES paper is like comparing a illegal
midnight street race to a NHRA sanctioned time trial at a championship
event. IMO, only true believers in audio magic and/or worshipers of a
personality cult could have their disbelief so tautly suspended as to be
distracted by this silly sort of thing.

Next!

[KH]

On 2/18/2010 7:10 AM, Scott wrote:
On Feb 17, 12:40=A0pm, wrote:
On 2/17/2010 12:29 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: Scott writes:

snip


Keith that is a gross misrepresentation of what was actually said and
done. context is everything. The above was in reference to How Steve
Hoffman masters LPs CDs and SACDs in general not how he did this
spefici test. Here is the actual description of the actual test.

Sorry Scott, from my reading, it is *you* are grossly misrepresenting
what was actually said, and misinterpreting the thread in an attempt to
bolster your argument. For example, from Post #45:

Hi Steve,

You mentioned ***in your original post*** emphasis added that you
already use your "tricks" when mastering to digital. I'm not asking
what your tricks are, but wouldn't they mean you are mastering
differently than you do for analog? If it's not possible to answer
this question without giving away too much info, I understand. Just
wondering what I'm not getting.

To which Hoffman replied, in Post #46:

The end result sounds as close as possible when I master for CD or
LP. What ever tricks I need to get there when mastering in digital,
well, it seems to work....

Compare a DCC Gold CD I did with a DCC LP of the same title. Pretty
close sonically as they should be. So even though I had to use
different tricks to get them to match, the end result is the same;
they sound the way I want them to sound, no matter what format.

And in Post #47, the OP replies (which I quoted previously):

Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were saying that the same
exact steps/settings were taken to master for each (except for
digital conversion). I realize now that you meant you are shooting
for the same sound in all formats. Of course that makes sense.

Now lets look at the context of your quote.

Yes, let's...

Steve Hoffman

"The end result sounds as close as possible when I master for CD or
LP. What ever tricks I need to get there when mastering in digital,
well, it seems to work....

Compare a DCC Gold CD I did with a DCC LP of the same title. Pretty
close sonically as they should be. So even though I had to use
different tricks to get them to match, the end result is the same;
they sound the way I want them to sound, no matter what format."

Clearly he is not talking about the specific test but how he masters
commerical CDs in general and gives a specific example of a title that
clearly was not Waltz for Deby.

No, *clearly* the OP was referring to the original TEST, otherwise the
"in your original post" reference makes no sense. I've provided the
full context above, in sequence. You may choose to interpret that as
Mr. Hoffman having misunderstood the reference, but clearly the OP was
referring to the original post, i.e. the "Test".

How is this test of any value, irrespective of presence/absence of test
controls, in any evaluation except that of Hoffmans' ability to *master*
digital? =A0By his own statements, he was not comparing two direct
transfers, but rather his "tweaks" thereof.

I'm sure anyone can figure out the answers to those questions in light
of the facts that are now present.

Yes, at this point they certainly may.

Keith Hughes

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 18, 8:37=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message






The first post (Post #1) says nothing about actual blinding:


True. So what?



"Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels.
Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I
listened. (We took turns switching and listening)."

I would suggest that these casual experimenters may think of any
experimental controls, whether they involve actual bias controls or not,
"Blinding".


You also "suggested" that the thread and the test never existed. So
that does put some perspective on your powers of speculation.



Furthermore, the accuracy of the level matching the time synching is not
given. Level matching could have been off by 3 dB and still be called "l=
evel
matching" as it was stated here.


So the alleged "lack" of level matching and time syncing was the
problem that lead to Steve Hoffman's and Kevin Gray's *inability* to
distinguish the laquer playback from the master tape? OK.........

Time synching needs to be within a few
milliseconds. Maintaining that sort of precision can be a full-time job =
in
addition to the listening and switching. Doing this kind of test with o=
nly
2 people generally requires the use of a proper switchbox, and none was
identified.

The above is so far from being a properly-documented test that the
discussion of this as a reliable, credible test needs to stop right abou=
t
here.

Except for the fact that anyone with the inclination and motivation
can actually varify the test because it is repeatable. Steve Hoffman
and Kevin Gray are at AcousTech on a regular basis cutting LPs. They
have visitors all the time. If *anyone* really wanted to varify the
results of this comparison they could do so. So the lack of
documentation is pretty irrelevant. The capacity to repeat the test
for the sake of varification exists.



The alleged results tax any informed person's credulity and implicitly
dispute the results many, many other listening tests including those t=
hat. *have* been properly documented, professionally reviewed, etc.


It is not exactly a logical argument that the results are invalid
because you don't like them as much as other results. This kind of
cherry picking is really quite anti-scientific.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 18, 8:40=A0pm, KH wrote:
On 2/18/2010 7:10 AM, Scott wrote:

On Feb 17, 12:40=3DA0pm, =A0wrote:
On 2/17/2010 12:29 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: =A0Scott writes:

snip

Keith that is a gross misrepresentation of what was actually said and
done. context is everything. The above was in reference to How Steve
Hoffman masters LPs CDs and SACDs in general not how he did this
spefici test. Here is the actual description of the actual test.

Sorry Scott, from my reading, it is *you* are grossly misrepresenting
what was actually said, and misinterpreting the thread in an attempt to
bolster your argument. =A0For example, from Post #45:

=A0Hi Steve,

=A0 You mentioned ***in your original post*** emphasis added that you
=A0 already use your "tricks" when mastering to digital. I'm not asking
=A0 what your tricks are, but wouldn't they mean you are mastering
=A0 differently than you do for analog? If it's not possible to answer
=A0 this question without giving away too much info, I understand. Just
=A0 wondering what I'm not getting.

To which Hoffman replied, in Post #46:

=A0 The end result sounds as close as possible when I master for CD or
=A0 LP. What ever tricks I need to get there when mastering in digital,
=A0 well, it seems to work....

=A0 Compare a DCC Gold CD I did with a DCC LP of the same title. Pretty
=A0 close sonically as they should be. So even though I had to use
=A0 different tricks to get them to match, the end result is the same;
=A0 they sound the way I want them to sound, no matter what format.

And in Post #47, the OP replies (which I quoted previously):

=A0 Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were saying that the sam=
e
=A0 exact steps/settings were taken to master for each (except for
=A0 digital conversion). I realize now that you meant you are shooting
=A0 for the same sound in all formats. Of course that makes sense.

Now lets look at the context of your quote.

Yes, let's...



Steve Hoffman

"The end result sounds as close as possible when I master for CD or
LP. What ever tricks I need to get there when mastering in digital,
well, it seems to work....

Compare a DCC Gold CD I did with a DCC LP of the same title. Pretty
close sonically as they should be. So even though I had to use
different tricks to get them to match, the end result is the same;
they sound the way I want them to sound, no matter what format."

Clearly he is not talking about the specific test but how he masters
commerical CDs in general and gives a specific example of a title that
clearly was not Waltz for Deby.

No, *clearly* the OP was referring to the original TEST, otherwise the
"in your original post" reference makes no sense. =A0I've provided the
full context above, in sequence. =A0You may choose to interpret that as
Mr. Hoffman having misunderstood the reference, but clearly the OP was
referring to the original post, i.e. the "Test".

How is this test of any value, irrespective of presence/absence of tes=
t
controls, in any evaluation except that of Hoffmans' ability to *maste=
r*
digital? =3DA0By his own statements, he was not comparing two direct
transfers, but rather his "tweaks" thereof.

I'm sure anyone can figure out the answers to those questions in light
of the facts that are now present.

Yes, at this point they certainly may.

Keith Hughes

Keith what is unclear about ""We had the master tape of the Riverside
stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/ WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to
do this little comparison. Since the actual master needs a bunch of
"mastering" to make it sound the best, I set the title track up as if
it was going to be mastered (which in a sense it was, being cut on to
an acetate record).

We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to
the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.

Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels.
Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I
listened. (We took turns switching and listening). ?"

Clearly the settings were the same for the master tape and the three
samples."while dumping to the digital computer at the same time with
the same moves." Did you miss this in my post? You sure didn't address
it. You seemed to miss it before. Is it clear now?

When Steve asks the OP to compare DCC titles on LP and CD he is clealy
talking about something that has nothing to do with this particular
comparison. Waltz for Deby was released by Analog Productions not DCC.
It does not matter what the OP was refering to. What matters is what
Steve Hoffman is refering to when he talks about the specific test and
says ""We had the master tape of the Riverside stereo LP Bill Evans
Trio/ WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to do this little
comparison. Since the actual master needs a bunch of "mastering" to
make it sound the best, I set the title track up as if it was going to
be mastered (which in a sense it was, being cut on to an acetate
record).

We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to
the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.

Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels.
Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I
listened. (We took turns switching and listening). "

That is a clear singular description of the test.

When Steve talks about How he masters LPs and CDs in general he said
"The end result sounds as close as possible when I master for CD or
LP. What ever tricks I need to get there when mastering in digital,
well, it seems to work....

Compare a DCC Gold CD I did with a DCC LP of the same title. Pretty
close sonically as they should be. So even though I had to use
different tricks to get them to match, the end result is the same;
they sound the way I want them to sound, no matter what format."

It should be pretty obvious that he is not talking about the specific
test that he describes so clearly. There was no LP or CD involved in
that test much less any titles he had mastered years before for the
DCC label. Whether or not the OP and Steve were clear on what the
other person was saying is utterly irrlevant. What Steve Hoffman said
about *his test* and *how he masters LPs and CDs in general* should be
crystal clear at this point. The comparison involed *exactly* the same
feed to the cutting lathe and the computer. This was a pure level
matched time synced comparison of the masters in all three formats
that were fed exactly the same signal and compared directly to that
signal done under single blind conditions.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


On Feb 18, 8:37=A0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "Scott" wrote in message



The first post (Post #1) says nothing about actual
blinding:

True. So what?

If there was anything about actual blinding in the thread or elsewhere, then
you would have pointed it out by now, Scott. Since you haven't, there is
good reason to believe that there were no controls related to personal bias.
Since personal bias needs to be controled and can invalidate any
observations made in an evaluation like this, we have yet another indication
that the OP you referenced has little or no merit.

"Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first
matching levels. Simultaneous playback of all three
commenced and as Kevin switched, I listened. (We took
turns switching and listening)."

I would suggest that these casual experimenters may
think of any experimental controls, whether they
involve actual bias controls or not, "Blinding".

You also "suggested" that the thread and the test never
existed.

Nice job of avoiding responsibility for providing first no reference, and
then a broken reference.

So that does put some perspective on your powers
of speculation.

The perspective is that I'm dealing with a very slippery situation. Facts
are first withheld, then obfuscated, and finally misinterpreted and twisted.


Furthermore, the accuracy of the level matching the
time synching is not given. Level matching could have
been off by 3 dB and still be called "l= evel matching"
as it was stated here.

So the alleged "lack" of level matching and time syncing
was the problem that lead to Steve Hoffman's and Kevin
Gray's *inability* to distinguish the laquer playback
from the master tape? OK.........

No, the lack of *any* necessary experimental controls mean that we're
dealing with just another anecdote with no global meaning or relevance.




doiing this kind of test with o= nly 2
people generally requires the use of a proper
switchbox, and none was identified.

The above is so far from being a properly-documented
test that the discussion of this as a reliable,
credible test needs to stop right abou t here.

Except for the fact that anyone with the inclination and
motivation can actually varify the test because it is
repeatable.

No the test is not repeatable because of the lack of experiemental controls.
The test is so badly conditioned that it is arguably improper to call it a
test because a test implies a comparison with a stable, relevant, repeatable
standard. I see none, and I've been looking high and low for it!


Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray are at AcousTech
on a regular basis cutting LPs.

Cutting LPs is a worthwhile task, but does not necessarily suggest or prove
the existence or application of competence in conducting listening tests, as
this anecdote shows.

Interestingly enough, ABX was developed by people with recent experience
with tracking, mixing, mastering and cutting LPs. So, experience with
cutting LPs does not preclude a person from doing proper listening tests,
but it also does not cause people to do proper listening tests.

They have visitors all the time.

Apparently none of these visitors influenced them to do proper listening
tests.

If *anyone* really wanted to varify the results
of this comparison they could do so.

There were arguably no tests to verify due to the abject lack of relevant
experimental controls. There are anecdotes about casual evaluations, and
apparently nothing else.

The alleged results tax any informed person's credulity
and implicitly dispute the results many, many other
listening tests including those that. *have* been properly documented,
professionally
reviewed, etc.

It is not exactly a logical argument that the results
are invalid because you don't like them

There is no evidence about whether I like these tests or not.

In fact there were no tests, just anecdotes about casual evaluations that
were performed by people who seem to be poorly informed about doing proper
listening tests.

There *is* evidence that any reasonable person who understands what a good
listening test involves will have grave concerns about Steve Hoffman and
Kevin Gray alleged listening tests at AcousTech. For openers, they weren't
tests due to the lack of a relevant standard of performance. They weren't
tests because there was no reliable determination of conformance or
non-conformance to the non-existent standard. That is failure to conform
with the definition of a test, which is to reliably determine conformance or
non-conformance to a reliable standard.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 20, 8:56=A0am, ScottW wrote:
On Feb 20, 7:12=3DA0am, Scott wrote:

""We had the master tape of the Riverside
stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/ WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to
do this little comparison. Since the actual master needs a bunch of
"mastering" to make it sound the best, I set the title track up as if
it was going to be mastered (which in a sense it was, being cut on to
an acetate record).

We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to
the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.

Could you clarify some things for me?

Where in this process is the application of RIAA eq? =A0Is it already in
the "actual master" or added with the "mastering moves" or applied by
the cutter itself?

It is built into the cutting amp. Not built into the mastering moves.



If the digital recording has the "same moves" and RIAA eq application
then
is the digital playback being fed back through the same preamp and
RIAA reverse eq that the acetate playback is being done?


The signal feeding the cutting amp was also being dumped to the
computer no RIAA EQ had been applied to that signal except *in* the
cutting amp. =A0


How are they
getting the digital playback levels down to cart output levels for the
preamp?

It's a line level feed coming off the console to the computer and the
cutting amp.


This "comparison" sounds like it could have a few variables that
aren't normally in typical CD mastering.

Nope.



The other discussion also indicates that mastering techniges for CD
and vinyl are different to achieve best results for each format. =A0No
surprise.
But in this case the digital recording is provided only vinyl
mastering techniques and as such it falls short. =A0I'm not sure what
this proves.


The settings were set for cutting the laquer but the signal that feeds
the cutting amp is a line level signal. Not sure why that same line
level signal would cause a problem when fed to the computer? It was a
test of the transaprency of the three transcriptions when compared to
the original signal. Not sure how the fact that the settings were
optimized for cutting an LP would make any difference.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 20, 8:56=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Feb 18, 8:37=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "Scott" wrote in message

=A0The first post (Post #1) says nothing about actual
blinding:
True. So what?

If there was anything about actual blinding in the thread or elsewhere, t=
hen
you would have pointed it out by now, Scott.

No. One citation is good enough. how many times do you have to be told
something to get it? For me once did the trick. The thread is over
fifty pages long if I remember correctly/ the last thing I was going
to do is go through every post and tally the number of times Steve
Hoffman indicated the tests were blind. Once is enough.

Since you haven't, there is
good reason to believe that there were no controls related to personal bi=
as.

Seriously? because I didn't choose to tally all the references to
blind controls on a fifty plus page thread there is good reason to
believe the test which was done independenty of and prior to the
existance of that thread didn't have any controls? do I really need to
explain to you how illogical that is?




=A0"Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first
=A0matching levels. Simultaneous playback of all three
=A0commenced and as Kevin switched, I listened. (We took
turns switching and listening)."
=A0I would suggest that these casual experimenters may
=A0think of any experimental controls, whether they
=A0involve actual bias controls or not, "Blinding".
You also "suggested" that the thread and the test never
existed.

Nice job of avoiding responsibility for providing first no reference, and
then a broken reference.

The search engine works just fine at Steve Hoffman's forum. I see no
excuse for anyone having any trouble finding it. You presented your
failure to find it as evidence that it did not exist. Again, this
provides us with some furhter perspective on the logic you have been
using in your arguments.



So that does put some perspective on your powers
of speculation.

The perspective is that I'm dealing with a very slippery situation. Facts
are first withheld, then obfuscated, and finally misinterpreted and twist=
ed.

No. The facts were and still are present on the Steve Hoffman forum.
All this posturing is much ado about nothing.



=A0Furthermore, the accuracy of the level matching the
=A0time synching is not given. Level matching could have
=A0been off by 3 dB and still be called "l=3D evel matching"
as it was stated here.
So the alleged "lack" of level matching and time syncing
was the problem that lead to Steve Hoffman's and Kevin
Gray's *inability* to distinguish the laquer playback
from the master tape? OK.........

No, the lack of *any* necessary experimental controls mean that we're
dealing with just another anecdote with no global meaning or relevance.

Once again you are speculating despite what was actually asserted by
the guy who was actually there. Your choice to deny the existance of
controls that were plainly described says more about your biases than
the actual comparisons IMO.



doiing this kind of test with o=3D nly 2
=A0people generally requires the use of a proper
switchbox, and none was identified.
=A0The above is so far from being a properly-documented
=A0test that the discussion of this as a reliable,
=A0credible test needs to stop right abou t here.
Except for the fact that anyone with the inclination and
motivation can actually varify the test because it is
repeatable.

No the test is not repeatable because of the lack of experiemental contro=
ls.

The test absolutely is repeatable despite your wild assertions about
the lack of controls which were explicitly stated by Steve Hoffman.
*If* Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray failed to propperly level match or
time sync the comparisons then they would have detected a difference
with the laquer as well as the two digital playbacks. Your posturing
about a lack of controls simply does not hold up when one considers
the real world consequences when those controls are not in place. On
top of that, had the controls not been in place as you wish us to
believe despite the clear claims by Steve Hoffman that they were in
place, the test would still be repeatable. All one would have to do is
repeat the test as described with the equipment and the facility that
are still there.




The test is so badly conditioned that it is arguably improper to call it =
a
test because a test implies a comparison with a stable, relevant, repeata=
ble
standard. I see none, and I've been looking high and low for it!


The fact is the facility is still there with all the same mastering
equipment so the test is easily repeated should anyone care to do so.
If the positive results were the result of mismatches in time sync or
level mismatches then one could repeat the test with the same
equipment and varify the time sync and level matches. But the argument
that this was the cause of the perceived differences doesn't hold
water in light of their failure to detect a difference with the
laquer.


Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray are at AcousTech
on a regular basis cutting LPs.

Cutting LPs is a worthwhile task, but does not necessarily suggest or pro=
ve
the existence or application of competence in conducting listening tests,=
as
this anecdote shows.

The anecdote shows no such thing. Again the results are varifiable
since the facility and the equipment used are all still there.



They have visitors all the time.

Apparently none of these visitors influenced them to do proper listening
tests.

Well gosh Arny, why don't you pay them a visit and set them straight?
If it is so easy to hear a difference between a laquer cut and played
back at AcousTech when compared to the master tape I'm sure you would
have no problem making such an identification under blind conditions
that meet the standards you claim are missing.



If *anyone* really wanted to varify the results
of this comparison they could do so.

There were arguably no tests to verify due to the abject lack of relevant
experimental controls. There are anecdotes about casual evaluations, and
apparently nothing else.

Once again you are making a completely illogical argument. Even an
anecdote can be tested if circumstance allows. Clearly there was a
test and clearly the test can be repeated if one had the inclination
to do so. In this case circumstance does allow for it.



=A0The alleged results tax any informed person's credulity
=A0and implicitly dispute the results many, many =A0other
listening tests including those =A0that. *have* been properly document=
ed,
professionally
reviewed, etc.
=A0It is not exactly a logical argument that the results
are invalid because you don't like them

There is no evidence about whether I like these tests or not.

I think you have provided plenty of evidence about your feelings on
the matter.



In fact there were no tests, just anecdotes about casual evaluations that
were performed by people who seem to be poorly informed about doing prope=
r
listening tests.

Thanks for providing more evidence about your *feelings* about the
tests conducted by Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray.



There *is* evidence that any reasonable person who understands what a goo=
d
listening test involves will have grave concerns about Steve Hoffman and
Kevin Gray alleged listening tests at AcousTech. For openers, they weren'=
t
tests due to the lack of a relevant standard of performance. They weren't
tests because there was no reliable determination of conformance or
non-conformance to the non-existent standard. =A0That is failure to confo=
rm
with the definition of a test, which is to reliably determine conformance=
or
non-conformance to a reliable standard.

tests don't cease to exist because of semantic arguments. You weren't
there so you have no legitimate claim as to how well they were
conducted. Your arguments are based on speculation and denial of facts
as claimed by the guy who was actually there. Steve Hoffman clearly
states the tests were done blind, level matched and time synced. Your
response to that is that since you don't personally intimately know
that is true then it must not be true. The core problem with your
position is one can make take the same stand and make the same denials
about any test if one is willing to. Flat out denial and incredulty is
not a legitimate argument. If you claim the tests were not level
matched then show us how you know that. If you claim that the tests
were not time synced then show us how you know that. But then you have
to reconcile that these level mismatches and lack of time syncing
failed to produce the same positive identification of a difference
with the laquer. Denying that the tests were tests because you
personally don't have intimate knowledge of how they were conducted
and therefore have chosen to make assumptions that they were done
poorly has so many logical fallacies that I don't really care to cite
them all.

[ Moderator's note: if you two can't convince each other,
perhaps it is time to stop arguing about it and ignore
each other for a while. -- dsr ]

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 08:56:48 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 20, 7:12=A0am, Scott wrote:

""We had the master tape of the Riverside
stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/ WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to
do this little comparison. Since the actual master needs a bunch of
"mastering" to make it sound the best, I set the title track up as if
it was going to be mastered (which in a sense it was, being cut on to
an acetate record).

We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to
the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.

Could you clarify some things for me?

Where in this process is the application of RIAA eq? Is it already in
the "actual master" or added with the "mastering moves" or applied by
the cutter itself?

Usually, it's applied by the cutting electronics. IOW, The cutting master is
usually "flat" (except for any post capture EQ that may have been done by the
mastering engineer to tailor the master for LP, which is NOT the same thing
as applying the RIAA pre-emphasis)

If the digital recording has the "same moves" and RIAA eq application
then
is the digital playback being fed back through the same preamp and
RIAA reverse eq that the acetate playback is being done? How are they
getting the digital playback levels down to cart output levels for the
preamp?
This "comparison" sounds like it could have a few variables that
aren't normally in typical CD mastering.

The RIAA curve is applied solely to the lacquer being cut. It is a fixed
curve, there is no need for it to be applied to the cutting master tape.
Since all records require it, It's just built-in to the cutting head
electronics.

The other discussion also indicates that mastering techniges for CD
and vinyl are different to achieve best results for each format. No
surprise.
But in this case the digital recording is provided only vinyl
mastering techniques and as such it falls short. I'm not sure what
this proves.

I'm not sure what he meant by that either. Why would he dump the master tape
to the computer (ostensibly to digitize it) from the same EQ'd master that he
cut the lacquer from? He says elsewhere that he "masters" the LP and digital
releases differently (which makes sense).

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 20, 6:11=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 08:56:48 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ):





On Feb 20, 7:12=3DA0am, Scott wrote:

""We had the master tape of the Riverside
stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/ WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to
do this little comparison. Since the actual master needs a bunch of
"mastering" to make it sound the best, I set the title track up as if
it was going to be mastered (which in a sense it was, being cut on to
an acetate record).

We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to
the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.

Could you clarify some things for me?

Where in this process is the application of RIAA eq? =A0Is it already i=
n
the "actual master" or added with the "mastering moves" or applied by
the cutter itself?

Usually, it's applied by the cutting electronics. IOW, The cutting master=
is
usually "flat" (except for any post capture EQ that may have been done by=
the
mastering engineer to tailor the master for LP, which is NOT the same thi=
ng
as applying the RIAA pre-emphasis)

If the digital recording has the "same moves" and RIAA eq application
then
is the digital playback being fed back through the same preamp and
RIAA reverse eq that the acetate playback is being done? =A0How are the=
y
getting the digital playback levels down to cart output levels for the
preamp?
This "comparison" sounds like it could have a few variables that
aren't normally in typical CD mastering.

The RIAA curve is applied solely to the lacquer being cut. It is a fixed
curve, there is no need for it to be applied to the cutting master tape.
Since all records require it, It's just built-in to the cutting head
electronics. =A0

The other discussion also indicates that mastering techniges for CD
and vinyl are different to achieve best results for each format. =A0No
surprise.
But in this case the digital recording is provided only vinyl
mastering techniques and as such it falls short. =A0I'm not sure what
this proves.

I'm not sure what he meant by that either. Why would he dump the master t=
ape
to the computer (ostensibly to digitize it) from the same EQ'd master tha=
t he
cut the lacquer from? He says elsewhere that he "masters" the LP and digi=
tal
releases differently (which makes sense).- Hide quoted text -


Because he was only mastering Waltz for Deby for the LP. He dumped
*that* signal from the cosole onto the computer *that one time* for
the sake of the test and nothing else. He never explicitely mastered a
CD or SACD of Waltz for Deby. It was a one time thing he did just for
that test.

[Steven Sullivan]

Scott wrote:
On Feb 16, 5:06=A0pm, Dick Pierce wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:38=3DA0pm, Dick Pierce wrote:
Not true. =3DA0Steve Hoffman ,amd Kevin Gray did just that and did det=
ect
differences.

Is that the same Steve Hoffman, perchance, that's featured
in this piece of audio voodoo?

http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm

Yes. do you think that some how renders his level matched blind
comparisons worthless?

In the absence of anything other than your say-so, yes,
it does.

That is a non-sequitor. My success or failure to produce anything is
independent of the question asked about whether or not Steve Hoffman's
level matched blind comparisons are worthless. If one wants to make
credibility an issue I suggest one be more careful not to make such
basic mistakes in their logic.


Steve Hoffman has only the faintest idea what a blind test is, which
doesn't stop him from advising his minions that blinds tests
are of little use or meaning to an 'audiophile'.

IIRC he was claiming some years back that ripping audio from CD
reduced its bass. He can't be taken seriously as an
authority on digital audio. His endorsement of patent nonsense
like the Hallograph and his 'Healing Disc' CD is just
more evidence.




--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[C. Leeds]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Steve Hoffman has only the faintest idea what a blind test is, which
doesn't stop him from advising his minions that blinds tests
are of little use or meaning to an 'audiophile'.

In practice, blind testing is of little use to the typical audiophile. A
proper blind test is not a trivial matter to conduct correctly; done
improperly, the test is useless. The time spent conducting a test is
time taken away from the raison d'entre for being an audiophile, which
is to enjoy music. And, because it's a hobby and not a professional
pursuit, it isn't necessary for an audiophile to "prove" anything to
anyone, other than himself. Most of us recognize sound that we like, and
sound that we don't like, and that suffices.

Of course, some people relish conducting equipment tests, and enjoy the
rigor of managing a blind test. That's fine, of course. But, to suggest
that typical audiophiles must also practice blind testing is just silly.

I've participated in a few blind audio tests. I found them interesting,
but tedious - even when I was just a participant - and not especially
useful to me. But, I don't design or market audio equipment, or I'd
likely feel differently.

For some, only a blind test answers their questions about the sound of
audio equipment. For others, simple extended listening suffices. Yes, I
know that the two methods are not mutually exclusive. But when listening
is sufficient, rigorous testing is unnecessary for the typical listener.

I don't conduct blind testing of other consumer products that I
purchase, either.

[Arny Krueger]

"C. Leeds" wrote in message

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Steve Hoffman has only the faintest idea what a blind
test is, which doesn't stop him from advising his
minions that blinds tests
are of little use or meaning to an 'audiophile'.

In practice, blind testing is of little use to the
typical audiophile.

Simply not true as a general rule.


A proper blind test is not a trivial
matter to conduct correctly;

That depends what is being tested.

done improperly, the test is useless.

That applies to sighted evaluations.

It would be very biased of you to not warn people about doing sighted
evaluations and then make a big fuss over DBT, even if your warning (which
is overly-general) were true.


The time spent conducting a test is time taken
away from the raison d'entre for being an audiophile,
which is to enjoy music.

That applies to sighted evaluations, and again it shows prejudice and bias
to not warn people about this problem.

And, because it's a hobby and
not a professional pursuit, it isn't necessary for an
audiophile to "prove" anything to anyone, other than
himself.

That is not true. Very many audiophiles are interested in proof of claims.
They think that certain claims have been proved to them by their own
experiences, their friends experiences, and by sales people. They believe
stories posted on the web and in magazines. Again, I don't see you applying
your alleg4ed warnings to these circumstances, just to DBTs. Do you think
that is a fair thing to do?

Most of us recognize sound that we like, and
sound that we don't like, and that suffices.

That does not tell the whole story. What we like and dislike is not cast in
stone, and it is not always related to reliable evidence provided by our
senses.

For example, normal humans are very susceptible to prejudice and bias. Their
biases color their perceptions. People can be mislead to believe that turth
is untruth, and untruth is truth. This misleading can be caused by an
incorrect interpretation of things they see and hear.

Of course, some people relish conducting equipment tests,

If what I read on the web and in magazines is any indicator, very many
people do equipment comparisons, for whatever reason.

and enjoy the rigor of managing a blind test.

I find that very few people are actually aware of what it takes to do a
meaningful equipment comparison. Besides bias controls, they are also
unaware of the need for relatively simple things like level matching.


That's
fine, of course. But, to suggest that typical audiophiles
must also practice blind testing is just silly.

To me it is deceptive to blind tests, when some of the same problems relate
to sighted tests.

I've participated in a few blind audio tests. I found
them interesting, but tedious - even when I was just a
participant - and not especially useful to me.

Sounds to me like you favor evaluating equipment without adequate controls.
This is not unusual. It is something that most high end publications
advocate. By doing listening evaluations without proper controls, you may be
emulating well-known audio authorities who you admire.

But, I don't design or market audio equipment, or I'd likely
feel differently.

How would you feel if you knew that you based a purchase decision on a
grotesquely flawed listening evaluation?

For some, only a blind test answers their questions about
the sound of audio equipment.

Are you saying that doing a listening test blind makes its outcome false or
disadvantageous for some audiophiles?

For others, simple extended listening suffices.

Letsee, how many times have I had to correct people with the misapprehension
that DBTs can't involve long term listening? Perhaps even you once or more
often in the past?

Yes, I know that the two methods are
not mutually exclusive.

Then why bring up an issue that you know is false?

But when listening is sufficient,
rigorous testing is unnecessary for the typical listener.

Interesting choice of words. Rigorous makes it sound like every DBT is
stressful and perhaps even tortorous.

I don't conduct blind testing of other consumer products
that I purchase, either.

Most of the consumer products that I purchase are either generic, or have
obvious differences related to them. And yes, I can ABX the difference
between Pepsi and Coke.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:56:41 -0800, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Steve Hoffman has only the faintest idea what a blind test is, which
doesn't stop him from advising his minions that blinds tests
are of little use or meaning to an 'audiophile'.

In practice, blind testing is of little use to the typical audiophile. A
proper blind test is not a trivial matter to conduct correctly; done
improperly, the test is useless. The time spent conducting a test is
time taken away from the raison d'entre for being an audiophile, which
is to enjoy music. And, because it's a hobby and not a professional
pursuit, it isn't necessary for an audiophile to "prove" anything to
anyone, other than himself. Most of us recognize sound that we like, and
sound that we don't like, and that suffices.

Problem is, people write reviews and make pronouncements based upon these
nebulous feelings about the sound of things. Worse, some lass than scrupulous
or even well meaning but misguided individuals make and sell products of
dubious worth to audiophiles who have no way of ascertaining whether or not
they've been duped. In these cases, only double-blind tests can tell whether
the "differences" heard between components are, in reality, the result of
expectational/sighted bias (if you just spent $4000 for a pair of 1-meter
interconnect cables, believe me, they are going to sound MUCH better than the
cables that they replace - even if they are, in actuality, identical in
sound), or, if those differences are real.

Of course, some people relish conducting equipment tests, and enjoy the
rigor of managing a blind test. That's fine, of course. But, to suggest
that typical audiophiles must also practice blind testing is just silly.

No one is suggesting any such thing. But, others have conducted such tests,
and the results have been published and are, in many cases, available on the
internet. One should avail themselves of these test results where possible.

I've participated in a few blind audio tests. I found them interesting,
but tedious - even when I was just a participant - and not especially
useful to me. But, I don't design or market audio equipment, or I'd
likely feel differently.

Understand that double-blind tests are useful mostly for showing that there
is a difference between the sound of two similar items, but not so useful for
determining which of the two is "better".

For some, only a blind test answers their questions about the sound of
audio equipment. For others, simple extended listening suffices. Yes, I
know that the two methods are not mutually exclusive. But when listening
is sufficient, rigorous testing is unnecessary for the typical listener.

Like I said, DB or ABX tests are really for finding differences, not for
determining which is better.

I don't conduct blind testing of other consumer products that I
purchase, either.

For most products, all one needs to know about a product can be gleaned from
a spec sheet or a simple demonstration. When one buys a car, for instance,
one narrows the candidates down from reading sales brochures, spec sheets and
magazines tests, then goes and drives them and picks the one that suits the
best. Audio is not like that for many. It is an intensely personal thing with
lots of variables most of which result in extremely subtle differences
between products (and often, no differences at all). This allows for lots of
uncertainty between brands, models and even whole classes of equipment
(myrtlewood blocks on top of your amplifier, anyone?).

[bob]

On Feb 25, 3:02=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

Understand that double-blind tests are useful mostly for showing that the=
re
is a difference between the sound of two similar items, but not so useful=
for
determining which of the two is "better".

A test designed to measure difference would not be good at measuring
other things. But blind comparisons are *very* useful for determining
whether your preference is based on the sound alone, or whether it is
influenced by other factors.

snip

For most products, all one needs to know about a product can be gleaned f=
rom
a spec sheet or a simple demonstration. When one buys a car, for instance=
,
one narrows the candidates down from reading sales brochures, spec sheets=
and
magazines tests, then goes and drives them =A0and picks the one that suit=
s the
best. Audio is not like that for many. It is an intensely personal thing =
with
lots of variables most of which result in extremely subtle differences
between products (and often, no differences at all). This allows for lots=
of
uncertainty between brands, models and even whole classes of equipment
(myrtlewood blocks on top of your amplifier, anyone?).

I dunno. Seems to me that cars differ a lot more than amps do. The key
difference would be that we judge a car holistically, weighing
numerous factors affecting performance, comfort and looks=97there are
three different senses involved there.

Whereas with audio gear, we are primarily concerned with a single
sense. If you want to judge a piece of audio gear based solely on what
it sounds like, then you have to test it in a way that excludes other
factors.

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 24, 7:12=A0am, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Steve Hoffman has only the faintest idea what a blind test is, which
doesn't stop him from advising his minions that blinds tests
are of little use or meaning to an 'audiophile'.

IIRC he was claiming some =A0years back that ripping audio from CD
reduced its bass. =A0He can't be taken seriously as an
authority on digital audio. His endorsement of patent nonsense
like the Hallograph and his 'Healing Disc' CD is just
more evidence.



Pure ad hominem. Classic logical fallacy.
I'm guessing you didn't like the results of his level matched, time
synced blind comparisons either?

[bob]

On Feb 25, 9:56=A0am, "C. Leeds" wrote:

I don't conduct blind testing of other consumer products that I
purchase, either.

Maybe not, but you depend HEAVILY on the objective testing=97blind, when
necessary=97done by others. If you were as concerned about the quality
of the audio products you buy as you are about other consumer
products, you'd want to know what blind tests could tell you, even if
you couldn't conduct them yourself.

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:11:18 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 25, 3:02=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

Understand that double-blind tests are useful mostly for showing that the=
re
is a difference between the sound of two similar items, but not so useful=
for
determining which of the two is "better".

A test designed to measure difference would not be good at measuring
other things. But blind comparisons are *very* useful for determining
whether your preference is based on the sound alone, or whether it is
influenced by other factors.

snip

For most products, all one needs to know about a product can be gleaned f=
rom
a spec sheet or a simple demonstration. When one buys a car, for instance=
,
one narrows the candidates down from reading sales brochures, spec sheets=
and
magazines tests, then goes and drives them =A0and picks the one that suit=
s the
best. Audio is not like that for many. It is an intensely personal thing =
with
lots of variables most of which result in extremely subtle differences
between products (and often, no differences at all). This allows for lots=
of
uncertainty between brands, models and even whole classes of equipment
(myrtlewood blocks on top of your amplifier, anyone?).

I dunno. Seems to me that cars differ a lot more than amps do.

Absolutely. But car preferences can be gleaned very quickly, and people
generally know what they like in a car. For instance a man who likes what a
Ferrari does and how it does it, is unlikely to be satisfied with a Porsche
and would probably never even contemplate one. They are THAT different.

The key
difference would be that we judge a car holistically, weighing
numerous factors affecting performance, comfort and looks=97there are
three different senses involved there.

Yep.

Whereas with audio gear, we are primarily concerned with a single
sense. If you want to judge a piece of audio gear based solely on what
it sounds like, then you have to test it in a way that excludes other
factors.

Sure, and that's difficult because we are multi-sensed beings, it is hard to
separate yourself from the what a component looks like, how it feels to the
touch, how well (or poorly) the controls seem to work, not to mention the
aesthetic values of a piece of gear. That's why so much emphasis is put on
the "bling" factor in speaker cables and interconnects. A speaker cable
that's as thick as a man's forearm, for instance, and covered with braided
nylon fabric with hefty gold interconnects and "pants" over the ends where
the individual conductors emerge from the overall jacket just looks cool. A
Classe or Boulder amplifier just looks prettier with their thick, machined
aluminum front panels than does a Crown monitoring amplifier designed for
rack mounting in a studio or at a concert hall. This isn't lost on hi-end
manufacturers either. The fact that the Crown, at a fraction of the cost,
might actually be a better performing amp usually doesn't even enter into the
equation.

No, looks, feel, price and even weight have as much to do with our perception
of audio gear as does its performance. I remember once having been sent a
huge Philips video center (with surround processing) and a matching separate
6-channel power amp. I was surprised at how heavy they were. While in my
"care", I had an opportunity to open the cabinet up only to find that the
textured, sand-colored, side rails on the cabinets were cast from solid iron!
They made up fully 2/3 of the weight of the switching unit and about half the
weight of the power amp!

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" wrote in message
...
On Feb 25, 3:02=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

Understand that double-blind tests are useful mostly for showing that
the=
re
is a difference between the sound of two similar items, but not so
useful=
for
determining which of the two is "better".

A test designed to measure difference would not be good at measuring
other things. But blind comparisons are *very* useful for determining
whether your preference is based on the sound alone, or whether it is
influenced by other factors.

snip

For most products, all one needs to know about a product can be gleaned
f=
rom
a spec sheet or a simple demonstration. When one buys a car, for
instance=
,
one narrows the candidates down from reading sales brochures, spec
sheets=
and
magazines tests, then goes and drives them =A0and picks the one that
suit=
s the
best. Audio is not like that for many. It is an intensely personal thing
=
with
lots of variables most of which result in extremely subtle differences
between products (and often, no differences at all). This allows for
lots=
of
uncertainty between brands, models and even whole classes of equipment
(myrtlewood blocks on top of your amplifier, anyone?).

I dunno. Seems to me that cars differ a lot more than amps do. The key
difference would be that we judge a car holistically, weighing
numerous factors affecting performance, comfort and looks=97there are
three different senses involved there.

Whereas with audio gear, we are primarily concerned with a single
sense. If you want to judge a piece of audio gear based solely on what
it sounds like, then you have to test it in a way that excludes other
factors.

Raises an interesting point. Wonder how many people could tell the
difference in a Chevy Malibu vs a BMW 330i, if they were blindfolded, had
earplugs, and were riding as a passenger? So do we start berating anybody
who drives a BMW as being "autophools"?

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Raises an interesting point. Wonder how many people
could tell the difference in a Chevy Malibu vs a BMW
330i, if they were blindfolded, had earplugs, and were
riding as a passenger?

Most people would notice the Malibu spinning wildly about them and the BMW
just going around the curves when they attempted to run a slalom or
cornering circle at speed. ;-)

Harry, I know that many New Yorkers don't drive as much as those of us who
live in the hinterlands and drive all the time, but the performance
differences between cars as different as these two are pretty significant.
I can think of a dozen places in Manhattan where the real performance
differences between these two cars can be demonstrated quite clearly.

So do we start berating anybody who drives a BMW as being "autophools"?

As soon as the differences between BMWs and Malibus become small enough to
be as hard to find as the differences between good amplifiers or music
players. Hint: The BMW dealerships in Detroit do a great business because
they sell great cars (but generally have lousy sound systems).

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message

On Feb 25, 9:56 am, "C. Leeds"
wrote:

I don't conduct blind testing of other consumer products
that I purchase, either.

Maybe not, but you depend HEAVILY on the objective
testing—blind, when necessary—done by others.

In fact much of the published technical literature about blind testing comes
out of the food industry.

If you were
as concerned about the quality of the audio products you
buy as you are about other consumer products, you'd want
to know what blind tests could tell you, even if you
couldn't conduct them yourself.

And here is the point - food and beverages are generally a consistent,
stable, palatable, economical product as is evidenced by the fact that so
many branded products are being overtaken by generic products. Blind testing
no doubt is one reason for this. The winner? The consumer.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 25, 1:11=A0pm, bob wrote:


A test designed to measure difference would not be good at measuring
other things. But blind comparisons are *very* useful for determining
whether your preference is based on the sound alone, or whether it is
influenced by other factors.


You don't need a DBT to determine this. Your preferences *are*
influenced by bias. That is true no matter how many DBTs you do or
read about. Unless of course you actually don't know what you are
listening to. It is pretty rare that any audiophile can go through
life without knowing what is in their system.

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message

On Feb 25, 3:02=A0pm, Audio Empire
wrote:

Understand that double-blind tests are useful mostly for
showing that the= re is a difference between the sound
of two similar items, but not so useful= for determining
which of the two is "better".

A test designed to measure difference would not be good
at measuring other things.

Case in point is the venerable ABX test.

Professionals know that ABX is the best known so far for detecting small
differences, but the ABC/hr test is far better for ranking sound quality.

But blind comparisons are
*very* useful for determining whether your preference is
based on the sound alone, or whether it is influenced by
other factors.

Bias controls and other experimental controls that most high end
manfacturers and reviewers shun are always required for a good, relevant,
reliable results.

The real problem with bias controls is that they don't give high end
hypemasters the results that they have bet their farms on.

[Robert Peirce]

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:
Raises an interesting point. Wonder how many people could tell the
difference in a Chevy Malibu vs a BMW 330i, if they were blindfolded, had
earplugs, and were riding as a passenger? So do we start berating anybody
who drives a BMW as being "autophools"?

Depends on what you use it for. A BMW 330i is probably a much better
track car than a Chevy Mailbu, but it may not be as good for bringing a
lot of groceries home from the store.

I have an MB CLK 350. It turns out to have one wheel drive in snow.
That wheel is the one with no traction. It gets stuck even with snow
tires. My wife's car is all wheel drive. It has all-season tires. A
few weeks ago I got the MB stuck in the driveway and pushed it out with
my wife's car.

Over the Valentine's day weekend we drove from Baltimore to Pittsburgh
through 6" or so of snow in Western Maryland. Trucks were getting stuck
on the hills. Traffic was barely moving in places. We had no problem.
The MB would have been worthless, although it is a lot of fun on the
track.

So, yes, you can tell the difference, but not necessarily which is
better.

[ Let's get back to audio, please. -- dsr ]

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 25, 12:02=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:56:41 -0800, C. Leeds wrote
(in article ):

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Steve Hoffman has only the faintest idea what a blind test is, which
doesn't stop him from advising his minions that blinds tests
are of little use or meaning to an 'audiophile'.

In practice, blind testing is of little use to the typical audiophile. =
A
proper blind test is not a trivial matter to conduct correctly; done
improperly, the test is useless. The time spent conducting a test is
time taken away from the raison d'entre for being an audiophile, which
is to enjoy music. And, because it's a hobby and not a professional
pursuit, it isn't necessary for an audiophile to "prove" anything to
anyone, other than himself. Most of us recognize sound that we like, an=
d
sound that we don't like, and that suffices.

Problem is, people write reviews and make pronouncements based upon these
nebulous feelings about the sound of things.

Why is that a problem? That is the nature of subjective review be it
audio, food, movies or anything. *It is subjective.* The readers ought
to know that. If they don't the problem isn't the reviews....

Worse, some lass than scrupulous
or even well meaning but misguided individuals make and sell products of
dubious worth to audiophiles who have no way of ascertaining whether or n=
ot
they've been duped.

"Worth" like so many other things is actually subjective. If an
audiophile thinks something was worth his or her money it's hard to
argue. The point is to have fun no? If someone is having fun hard to
argue value.

In these cases, only double-blind tests can tell whether
the "differences" heard between components are, in reality, the result of
expectational/sighted bias (if you just spent $4000 for a pair of 1-meter
interconnect cables, believe me, they are going to sound MUCH better than=
the
cables that they replace - even if they are, in actuality, identical in
sound), or, if those differences are real. =A0

Of course, some people relish conducting equipment tests, and enjoy the
rigor of managing a blind test. That's fine, of course. But, to suggest
that typical audiophiles must also practice blind testing is just silly=
..

No one is suggesting any such thing. But, others have conducted such test=
s,
and the results have been published and are, in many cases, available on =
the
internet. One should avail themselves of these test results where possibl=
e.

Many tests have been "published" the problem is most of them are
anecdotal and some who advocate blind testing as needed for "proof"
have been caught cherry picking from the anecdotes. One can see clear
as day hopw easily one particular anecdote was attacked due to the
undesirable results.




I've participated in a few blind audio tests. I found them interesting,
but tedious - even when I was just a participant - and not especially
useful to me. But, I don't design or market audio equipment, or I'd
likely feel differently.

Understand that double-blind tests are useful mostly for showing that the=
re
is a difference between the sound of two similar items, but not so useful=
for
determining which of the two is "better".

No. DBTs are useful for removing bias effects. That can be applied to
any test where bias effects are in play. There is nothing unique in
audio about telling differences between two aleged similar items. Fact
is bias is in play and has an affect on preferences even when gross
differences in sound are present. That some audiophiles would limit
their use of bias controls to try to prove a point they already
beleive about differences seems futile. If you think about it.
removing bias from the audition process is far more important when
there are audible differences than when there are not audible
differences. Think about it.


For some, only a blind test answers their questions about the sound of
audio equipment. For others, simple extended listening suffices. Yes, I
know that the two methods are not mutually exclusive. But when listenin=
g
is sufficient, rigorous testing is unnecessary for the typical listener=
..

Like I said, DB or ABX tests are really for finding differences, not for
determining which is better.

That is simply not true. DBTs are really for removing bias effects.
Bias effects are in play always when we are talking about subjective
evaluations of perceptions.


I don't conduct blind testing of other consumer products that I
purchase, either.

For most products, all one needs to know about a product can be gleaned f=
rom
a spec sheet or a simple demonstration.

That will not eliminate bias effects at all.