[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen wrote:
David Looser wrote:

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...

David Looser wrote:

Surely the screen image of the audio editor package is good enough.

But you don't get to see that until *after* you've made the
recording!!!

Bad choice of software then.

You have *predictive* software? Just like the lifts in "Hitch-Hiker"
it knows what's going to happen *before* it happens? I'm amazed, does
this software also predict the numbers for next weeks lottery?

You DO realize that you are quabling about the possibility of inter-sample
overs in DA conversion of a file that is recorded at 96 kHz sample rate with
2 full bits of headroom above the audio signal to make room for the clicks.
Those large clicks are later removed. The file is eventually as previously
suggested by me normalized to -2.5 dB ref. full scale.

You don't need to record at 96 to capture the clicks sufficiently for them to be located later
by software. 44.1 is quite sufficient.

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


Are you sure Audition shows you when you're generating
intersample overs?

Yes.

In fact I just pulled CE 2.1 up on this computer I'm
typing one and made a few instesample overs by hand,
just to be zillion-times sure.

How? And what did it show?

A line going up to FS and disappearing for a while, and then a line starting
at FS and going down. Something like it for -FS.

Audition Help includes this warning

"If you're planning to put normalized audio on CD, you
might want to normalize the waveforms
to no more than 96% as some audio compact disc players
have problems accurately reproducing bits that have been
processed to 100% (maximum) amplitude."

I've been saying as much on RAP for years.

And when I've normalize a music track to 0dBFS, I've
never seen the Audition peak meter go
into the +0 zone. So I assumed that its peak meter does
not model reconstructed output.

It indicates it, when it exists.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

However, a great amount of wisdom has forced itself into
my life when I did subject recording certain choices to
DBTs.

DBT's are good at large differences.

...and any difference that is audible.

It is also an
excellent point to make that a difference by definition
is not a major difference if it doesn't show up in a DBT.

If it doesn't show up in a DBT then it is not audible.

It is also extremely worthwhile to remember the
differences in tonality and imaging caused by moving a
main pair 2 inches ....

Which I interpret as showing the futility of obsessing over small
differences.

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

If you record the output of the grammophone/cart/pre, you are
capturing whatever the grammaphone is 'hearing' from the
loudspeakers.

That would be an incompetent thing to do, it is indeed one of the
many errors I too have made, but it is is not new knowledge.

? How do *you* digitize an LP, if not from the analog output?

Or are you just saying that when you do, you make sure there is not
acoustic feedback from nearby loudspeakers to the turntable?

Indeed. It is that coloration that some of the vinyl enthusiasts miss. Other
just enjoy the larger actually produced dynamic range on vinyl.

-S

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

If you record the output of the grammophone/cart/pre, you are
capturing whatever the grammaphone is 'hearing' from the
loudspeakers.

That would be an incompetent thing to do, it is indeed one of the
many errors I too have made, but it is is not new knowledge.

? How do *you* digitize an LP, if not from the analog output?

Or are you just saying that when you do, you make sure there is not
acoustic feedback from nearby loudspeakers to the turntable?

Indeed. It is that coloration that some of the vinyl enthusiasts miss. Other
just enjoy the larger actually produced dynamic range on vinyl.

Vinyl does not 'actually produce' a larger dynamic range, unless the CD's dynamic range has
been intentionally reduced.


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Indeed. It is that coloration that some of the vinyl enthusiasts
miss. Other just enjoy the larger actually produced dynamic range on
vinyl.

Vinyl does not 'actually produce' a larger dynamic range, unless the
CD's dynamic range has been intentionally reduced.

Dataset of actual dynamic range on selected vinyl records and cd's has been
made available, but didn't pass the requirements for an AES paper, probably
because it was too long and because I tried to cover too much ground in one
paper with too many illustrations.

A subset was in these and nearby newsgroups as I recall things and the
lot was on my website until I felt it referred to without any
source-reference
pointing at it being provided by the author of another paper.

Anyway ... The producers produced the larger dynamic range when they
produced the records. A lot of vinyl sounds better than a lot of digital
because it is plain better sound engineering. Digital ought to sound best,
but THE LOUDNESS RACE HAS RUINED IT.

The simple issue is that the number of multiband-compressors pr. incompetent
operator has gone up drastically.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 04:56:25 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote:

Vinyl does not 'actually produce' a larger dynamic range, unless the
CD's dynamic range has been intentionally reduced.

Dataset of actual dynamic range on selected vinyl records and cd's has been
made available, but didn't pass the requirements for an AES paper, probably
because it was too long and because I tried to cover too much ground in one
paper with too many illustrations.

A subset was in these and nearby newsgroups as I recall things and the
lot was on my website until I felt it referred to without any
source-reference
pointing at it being provided by the author of another paper.

Anyway ... The producers produced the larger dynamic range when they
produced the records. A lot of vinyl sounds better than a lot of digital
because it is plain better sound engineering. Digital ought to sound best,
but THE LOUDNESS RACE HAS RUINED IT.

This has been a common topic in rec.audio.pro for several years.
It's a common observation that later CD versions of many vinyl-
era albums have been manipulated in ways that are both unnecessary
for the transfer to the larger 16 bit space, and also damaging
to musical dynamics.

It fersure ain't right, and it's stupid, but that's never stopped
things from happening.

OTOH, many excellent translations, for examples JVC's beautiful
CCR "K2" CD's are easily much better than my original Fantasy
vinyl, and Capitol's The Band CD's from 2000 are breathtaking
compared to my conversions from best available (pretty durned
good, and early) vinyl.


My personal, current take on the situation is that vinyl (in an
idealized condition, fresh outta my Keith Monks washer, and with
really good transfer machinery and electronics, will fit into
a 44.1/16bit format imperceptably. Ideally....

Any errors, from noise, from contamination, yada, yada, only
exaggerate both the bandwidth and the possible magnitude of
transcription errors and move us out of the "ideal" range.


Outside the "ideal" range a larger bandwidth and dynamic range
is necessary to prevent distortions within the transfer process,
incorrectable by downstream voodoo.

Impulse noise in a non-ideal vinyl playback can very easily eat
up 20db of transfer dynamic range. Dirty surfaces can eat up
some more at the other end.

In this vinyl-phobic newsgroup, a certain rigidity of purpose
will be necessary. God Speed.

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:51:30 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen wrote:
geoff wrote:

Why 96/16 rather than 44k1/24 ? I don't follow that logic.

Because the treble sounds cleaner with better inter-transient
silence, and that really matters with decayed audio, it gets less
splatty.

Do tell. Your proof of this is....?

I stated an opinion. I do not waste time proving recording choices, I make
them based on what sounds best.

Figured as much.

So you don't do much recording, do you?

Chris Hornbeck

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:42:11 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

If it doesn't show up in a DBT then it is not audible.

Proof, please.

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

If you record the output of the grammophone/cart/pre,
you are capturing whatever the grammaphone is
'hearing' from the loudspeakers.

That would be an incompetent thing to do, it is indeed
one of the many errors I too have made, but it is is
not new knowledge.

? How do *you* digitize an LP, if not from the analog
output?

Or are you just saying that when you do, you make sure
there is not acoustic feedback from nearby loudspeakers
to the turntable?

Indeed. It is that coloration that some of the vinyl
enthusiasts miss. Other just enjoy the larger actually
produced dynamic range on vinyl.

Vinyl does not 'actually produce' a larger dynamic range,
unless the CD's dynamic range has been intentionally
reduced.

Agreed. However the natural dynamic range of many musical performances is
within the dynamic range of either. One of the properties of the human ear
can lead to the mistaken perception that vinyl has a wider dynamic range -
vinyl's nonlinear distortion rises rapidly beyond a certain modest level,
and distorted music tends to sound louder than undistorted music. Of course,
the nonlinear distortion in digital is identically zero at any point below
clipping.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Indeed. It is that coloration that some of the vinyl
enthusiasts miss. Other just enjoy the larger actually
produced dynamic range on vinyl.

Vinyl does not 'actually produce' a larger dynamic
range, unless the CD's dynamic range has been
intentionally reduced.

Dataset of actual dynamic range on selected vinyl records
and cd's has been made available, but didn't pass the
requirements for an AES paper, probably because it was
too long and because I tried to cover too much ground in
one paper with too many illustrations.

A subset was in these and nearby newsgroups as I recall
things and the lot was on my website until I felt it referred to without
any source-reference
pointing at it being provided by the author of another
paper.

Anyway ... The producers produced the larger dynamic
range when they produced the records. A lot of vinyl
sounds better than a lot of digital because it is plain
better sound engineering. Digital ought to sound best,
but THE LOUDNESS RACE HAS RUINED IT.

The loudness race is a matter of art and business, not science or
technological limits. Therefore it has no place in a technical discussion of
the performance of media formats. Any recordings that are altered for
business or artistic reason must be immediately excluded.

There are so many extant recordings that unless statistically significant
samples are chosen, reasonable conclusions can't be reached.

Vinyl advocates are well-known for their apparently unintentional
cherry-picking of samples.

Besides, commercial recordings are not laboratory tools for evaluating
recording formats.

It would be reasonable to have an all-star team of vinyl cutting experts do
their best posssible job of cutting a mutually-agreed-upon test file on
carefully-selected and hand-tuned vinyl cutting equipment.

We should compare that to a CD burned by a modestly-skilled middle school
student on a 19.95 CD ROM drive.

It's easy to predict that the middle-school student will confound the
vinyl-cutting experts after the unbiased evaluations of the performance of
the two disks is finished.

The simple issue is that the number of
multiband-compressors pr. incompetent operator has gone
up drastically.

That is about art and business, not science and technology.

The better a recording medium is, the more susceptible it is to abuse
because it is simply more responsive to the needs and preferences of the
person doing the production work.

[Eiron]

Arny Krueger wrote:

and distorted music tends to sound louder than undistorted music.

Which is why electrostatic speakers are louder than they sound.
Quad erat demonstrandum. :-)

--
Eiron.

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Indeed. It is that coloration that some of the vinyl enthusiasts
miss. Other just enjoy the larger actually produced dynamic range on
vinyl.

Vinyl does not 'actually produce' a larger dynamic range, unless the
CD's dynamic range has been intentionally reduced.

Correct. CD's tend to be mastered for less dynamic range than what was used
on vinyl. In my opinion that is the single most important cause of the cd's
being experienced as having inferior sound quality by listeners who compare
with actual concerts.

-S


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[David Looser]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech David Looser wrote:

I would be astonished if anyone could tell the difference between an
original 24-bit digitisation and a 16-bit one when digitising vinyl.

You must not visit 'audiophile' forums much. Such claims are routine
-- as is the claim that neither digitization will sound as good as the
vinyl. They';re never backed up with anything like hard evidence, of
course
but they're not at all uncommon. So if you ever feel like being thus
astonished,
or perhaps depressed, visit audioasylum.com or stevehoffman.tv


I try not to. I can only take so much of people obsessing over the
improvement in sound quality they get by replacing the mains leads with
silver-plated wire, or changing the make of GZ32 rectifier used, or some
other minor (but usually expensive) alteration.

IMO if a difference doesn't show up in a DBT it doesn't exist, whatever the
audiophiles may claim. But if you've just bought an expensive new gizmo of
course it's going to sound better *to you*.

I'm no longer astonished at the claims made in such forums, but it would be
straightforward to mount a DBT of CD transfers from vinyl made using 16 and
24 bit ADCs (everything else identical of course, including ADC
architecture). If the DBT showed a clear preference for the 24-bit version I
would be astonished, and withdraw my comments.

David.

[[email protected]]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:42:11 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

If it doesn't show up in a DBT then it is not audible.

Proof, please.

There is no absoute proof. It is probabalistic.

[Randy Yates]

writes:

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:42:11 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

If it doesn't show up in a DBT then it is not audible.

Proof, please.

There is no absoute proof. It is probabalistic.

Perhaps a better place to start would be, "Define 'audible'."
--
% Randy Yates % "She has an IQ of 1001, she has a jumpsuit
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % on, and she's also a telephone."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

wrote:

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:42:11 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

If it doesn't show up in a DBT then it is not audible.

Proof, please.

There is no absoute proof. It is probabalistic.

Always read the small print that goes with the actual test result. Generally
a DBT is used to predict rather than to prove. They have been extremely
useful in many contexts by defining what needs to be addressed first.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[[email protected]]

Randy Yates wrote:
writes:

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:42:11 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

If it doesn't show up in a DBT then it is not audible.

Proof, please.

There is no absoute proof. It is probabalistic.

Perhaps a better place to start would be, "Define 'audible'."

At the most basic level:

The lowest partial loudness that results in a signal at the auditory nerve.
The blind test methods correlate very well with that and it validates the
test.

Beyond that, masking and other effects come into play and things become a
lot more complicated, but those effects always raise the basic threshold.
Not all patterns have been mapped out yet, and likely never will be
completely, but at this time, many have been. Hence, the increasing quality
of lossy compressed formats.

[Arny Krueger]

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in
message
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:42:11 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

If it doesn't show up in a DBT then it is not audible.

Proof, please.

Audio is generally thought to exclusively relate to sound that can be
reliably perceived by humans hearing it. Audio is not about seeing, or
touching, or tasting or remembering or anything but hearing sound. Audio is
exclusively about humans hearing sound in the here and now. All a product
needs to do to be an audio product is to be reasonably directly related to
humans hearing sound.

DBT is a method for exclusively evaluating sound that is reliably perceived
by humans. DBT is the most reasonably exclusive adn effective method that is
known at this time for doing so.

If you can reliably perceive a certain sound, or an audible difference
between products, in a DBT then the necessary exclusivity implied by
audibility is established. And if you can't, then the necessary exclusivity
is not established.

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

If you can reliably perceive a certain sound, or an audible difference
between products, in a DBT then the necessary exclusivity implied by
audibility is established. And if you can't, then the necessary
exclusivity is not established.

Arny, it is not proof that nobody ever will be able to hear the difference,
it is a prediction about the percentage of listeners that will be able ot
hear the difference.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Silk]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:14:24 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

In article , Arny Krueger

One of the finest MM cartridges ever made still costs less than $100.

Which is please?...

AT95E or even a Linn rebadged one in the form of the K9 if you really
must pay more ;-)

[Eiron]

Silk wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:14:24 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

In article , Arny Krueger

One of the finest MM cartridges ever made still costs less than $100.
Which is please?...

AT95E or even a Linn rebadged one in the form of the K9 if you really
must pay more ;-)

How does that compare to Arny's favourite, the Shure M97xE?

--
Eiron.

[Silk]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 13:38:43 +0000, Eiron wrote:

Silk wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:14:24 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

In article , Arny
Krueger

One of the finest MM cartridges ever made still costs less than $100.
Which is please?...

AT95E or even a Linn rebadged one in the form of the K9 if you really
must pay more ;-)

How does that compare to Arny's favourite, the Shure M97xE?

I've no idea. I just know, having owned and used many, that the AT95 and
clones sound very good for the price. I particularly liked the Linn K9
(named because of its uncanny resemblance to Dr Who's robot dog) because
it came in a very tasteful grey and had a nice Linn logo on the front;-)

[Steven Sullivan]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:51:30 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen wrote:
geoff wrote:

Why 96/16 rather than 44k1/24 ? I don't follow that logic.

Because the treble sounds cleaner with better inter-transient
silence, and that really matters with decayed audio, it gets less
splatty.

Do tell. Your proof of this is....?

I stated an opinion. I do not waste time proving recording choices, I make
them based on what sounds best.

Figured as much.

So you don't do much recording, do you?

No, but my standards of proof are set by science. Do much of that? If you
do , you'll understand that claims should be independently verifiable. IF
what you guys hear is real, it should be readily verified in a controlled
listening test, no?




___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

If you record the output of the grammophone/cart/pre,
you are capturing whatever the grammaphone is
'hearing' from the loudspeakers.

That would be an incompetent thing to do, it is indeed
one of the many errors I too have made, but it is is
not new knowledge.

? How do *you* digitize an LP, if not from the analog
output?

Or are you just saying that when you do, you make sure
there is not acoustic feedback from nearby loudspeakers
to the turntable?

Indeed. It is that coloration that some of the vinyl
enthusiasts miss. Other just enjoy the larger actually
produced dynamic range on vinyl.

Vinyl does not 'actually produce' a larger dynamic range,
unless the CD's dynamic range has been intentionally
reduced.

Agreed. However the natural dynamic range of many musical performances is
within the dynamic range of either. One of the properties of the human ear
can lead to the mistaken perception that vinyl has a wider dynamic range -
vinyl's nonlinear distortion rises rapidly beyond a certain modest level,
and distorted music tends to sound louder than undistorted music. Of course,
the nonlinear distortion in digital is identically zero at any point below
clipping.

A euphonic illusion of wider dynamic range is not the same as 'actual'
dynamic range, of course. And as a format, CD offers a wider actual
dynamic range than LP.

Offering, and providing in practice, are two different things, and if
mixers and mastering engineers *choose* to limit the dynamic range on CD,
that's not a deficit of the format.

I trust everyone here understands that at this late date.



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Indeed. It is that coloration that some of the vinyl enthusiasts
miss. Other just enjoy the larger actually produced dynamic range on
vinyl.

Vinyl does not 'actually produce' a larger dynamic range, unless the
CD's dynamic range has been intentionally reduced.

Correct. CD's tend to be mastered for less dynamic range than what was used
on vinyl.

True for pop and rock, less so for jazz, much less so for classical.

Classical music recording has always set the standard for 'high fidelity'
sound. And there, the benefits of CD are still most apparent.



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech David Looser wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech David Looser wrote:

I would be astonished if anyone could tell the difference between an
original 24-bit digitisation and a 16-bit one when digitising vinyl.

You must not visit 'audiophile' forums much. Such claims are routine
-- as is the claim that neither digitization will sound as good as the
vinyl. They';re never backed up with anything like hard evidence, of
course
but they're not at all uncommon. So if you ever feel like being thus
astonished,
or perhaps depressed, visit audioasylum.com or stevehoffman.tv


I try not to. I can only take so much of people obsessing over the
improvement in sound quality they get by replacing the mains leads with
silver-plated wire, or changing the make of GZ32 rectifier used, or some
other minor (but usually expensive) alteration.

IMO if a difference doesn't show up in a DBT it doesn't exist, whatever the
audiophiles may claim. But if you've just bought an expensive new gizmo of
course it's going to sound better *to you*.


IF an audiophile makes a claim of a certain difference, and then cannot
pass a DBT, then I consider it unlikely that he actually heard one.

As DBTs are scientific measures, with results analysed in terms of
probability, they never 'prove' in the vernacular sense, that no
difference could possibly exist. Science doesn't require that level of
'proof' anyway, to draw a reasonable conclusion. But 'audiophile' tend to
misconstrue this to mean that it's still likely that someone else could
hear a difference. IN fact, we don't know whether it's *likely*. We just
know that it is not ruled out. There is a huge difference there, one that
audiophiles gloss over when they criticize DBTs (and science
generally)--which they do with mind-numbing regularity on such forums.


I'm no longer astonished at the claims made in such forums, but it would be
straightforward to mount a DBT of CD transfers from vinyl made using 16 and
24 bit ADCs (everything else identical of course, including ADC
architecture). If the DBT showed a clear preference for the 24-bit version I
would be astonished, and withdraw my comments.

IIRC Bob Katz , a highly tech-savvy mastering engineer, has done REdbook
vs hi-rez rate comparisons with subjects in the engineering community, and
found that any differences were down to filters, not the rates themselves.
More recently, E. Brad Meyer and David Moran in JAES published results of
a long term, multi-subject, multi-gear blind comparison of SACD vs SACD
downconverted to Redbook rates, and found that even 'golden ear' listeners
cannot tell the difference, unless playback levels are very high.



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

Randy Yates wrote:
writes:

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:42:11 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

If it doesn't show up in a DBT then it is not audible.

Proof, please.

There is no absoute proof. It is probabalistic.

Perhaps a better place to start would be, "Define 'audible'."

Or to ask, why would something 'audible' be impossible to hear in a DBT?


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Larsen wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

If you can reliably perceive a certain sound, or an audible difference
between products, in a DBT then the necessary exclusivity implied by
audibility is established. And if you can't, then the necessary
exclusivity is not established.

Arny, it is not proof that nobody ever will be able to hear the difference,
it is a prediction about the percentage of listeners that will be able ot
hear the difference.

So, all the 'believers' have to do, is find someone -- one person will do
-- who can reliably pass a DBT for the claimed audible difference.




___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Arny Krueger]

"Eiron" wrote in message

Silk wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:14:24 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

In article
, Arny
Krueger

One of the finest MM cartridges ever made still costs
less than $100. Which is please?...

AT95E or even a Linn rebadged one in the form of the K9
if you really must pay more ;-)

How does that compare to Arny's favourite, the Shure
M97xE?

For the record, the M97xE is not my favorite, the V15-VxMR was.

[Steven Sullivan]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:51:30 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen wrote:
geoff wrote:

Why 96/16 rather than 44k1/24 ? I don't follow that logic.

Because the treble sounds cleaner with better inter-transient
silence, and that really matters with decayed audio, it gets less
splatty.

Do tell. Your proof of this is....?

I stated an opinion. I do not waste time proving recording choices, I make
them based on what sounds best.

Figured as much.

So you don't do much recording, do you?

Btw, while I don't do much live recording, I have done a considerable number
vinyl transfers.

I don't find that 96 kHz gives any improvement whatever in 'inter transient
silence' or audio decays, or splattiness. And yes, I have done blind comparisons
of such transfers of mine, at different sample rates and bit depths.



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:18:29 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

Figured as much.

So you don't do much recording, do you?

No, but my standards of proof are set by science. Do much of that?

I try to. And I believe that my standards of proof are set
pretty high. We will probably differ very little here, but
ya never can tell what any particular person will consider
"science" and another consider "religion".

Once a shouting match begins, rationality goes out the window.

If you
do , you'll understand that claims should be independently verifiable. IF
what you guys hear is real, it should be readily verified in a controlled
listening test, no?

I make no personal claims here. Personally, I can currently
make A/D/A transfers from vinyl that I can't distinguish from
the original, in Redbook format.

But I don't extrapolate from that that someone else's monitoring
or ears cannot be better that mine. That's the sin of Hubris,
a not so modern affliction.

Thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:07:57 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in
message
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:42:11 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

If it doesn't show up in a DBT then it is not audible.

Proof, please.

Audio is generally thought to exclusively relate to sound that can be
reliably perceived by humans hearing it. Audio is not about seeing, or
touching, or tasting or remembering or anything but hearing sound. Audio is
exclusively about humans hearing sound in the here and now. All a product
needs to do to be an audio product is to be reasonably directly related to
humans hearing sound.

DBT is a method for exclusively evaluating sound that is reliably perceived
by humans. DBT is the most reasonably exclusive adn effective method that is
known at this time for doing so.

If you can reliably perceive a certain sound, or an audible difference
between products, in a DBT then the necessary exclusivity implied by
audibility is established. And if you can't, then the necessary exclusivity
is not established.

Beautifully put, and saved because it cannot be improved upon.
Perfect and true, but incomplete.

We've done this all before, so you know how my response will go.
It would be interesting to read your equally well put description
of the contrapositive position. Discussion of false positives
and false negatives, yada, yada.

Not holding my breath, mind ya, but it would be a very informative
read.

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

If you can reliably perceive a certain sound, or an audible
difference between products, in a DBT then the necessary exclusivity
implied by audibility is established. And if you can't, then the
necessary exclusivity is not established.

Beautifully put, and saved because it cannot be improved upon.
Perfect and true, but incomplete.

It is not true, what is true is that the group of testpersons could not hear
a difference, you can only make probability predictions based on such data,
a very high probability may be reachable but not absolute knowledge. Always
read the fine print that goes with the test .....

Chris Hornbeck


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

If you can reliably perceive a certain sound, or an
audible difference between products, in a DBT then the
necessary exclusivity implied by audibility is
established. And if you can't, then the necessary
exclusivity is not established.

Arny, it is not proof that nobody ever will be able to
hear the difference, it is a prediction about the
percentage of listeners that will be able ot hear the
difference.

That nobody will ever hear a given difference is a negative hypothesis, and
therefore likely to be a fool's journey. However, we have a great many
situations where it is exceedingly unlikely that anybody will ever be able
to hear a difference.

[Arny Krueger]

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in
message
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 07:07:57 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote
in
message
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:42:11 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

If it doesn't show up in a DBT then it is not audible.

Proof, please.

Audio is generally thought to exclusively relate to
sound that can be reliably perceived by humans hearing
it. Audio is not about seeing, or touching, or tasting
or remembering or anything but hearing sound. Audio is
exclusively about humans hearing sound in the here and
now. All a product needs to do to be an audio product is
to be reasonably directly related to humans hearing
sound.

DBT is a method for exclusively evaluating sound that is
reliably perceived by humans. DBT is the most reasonably
exclusive adn effective method that is known at this
time for doing so.

If you can reliably perceive a certain sound, or an
audible difference between products, in a DBT then the
necessary exclusivity implied by audibility is
established. And if you can't, then the necessary
exclusivity is not established.

Beautifully put, and saved because it cannot be improved
upon. Perfect and true, but incomplete.

We've done this all before, so you know how my response
will go.
It would be interesting to read your equally well put
description
of the contrapositive position. Discussion of false
positives
and false negatives, yada, yada.

Well first off, this is science, so any result we come up with is
provisional.

Good engineering practice suggests that we set up a reasonable worst test
case (the one that affirms using every reasonable caution), and test that as
sensitively as is reasonably possible.

Engineering is full of judgement calls. Everything important in life
involves a negotiation.

I think that if something concerns you, you should think about it for a
reasonable amount of time, consult others with similar concerns, etc. It is
better to think about something and reach a conclusion, as opposed to not
thinking about it. The conclusion may be wrong, but at least there was some
logical thought process.

One the last things in audio to go wrong was so-called high resolution audio
for distribution to consumers. Serious money was put into DVD-A and SACD,
and they both failed to gather moementum in the mainstream marketplace. In
contrast, there was a concurrent effort called high definition video, and
there seems to be a great number of indications that this will become the
next mainstream technology.

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:51:30 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen
wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen
wrote:
geoff wrote:

Why 96/16 rather than 44k1/24 ? I don't follow
that logic.

Because the treble sounds cleaner with better
inter-transient silence, and that really matters
with decayed audio, it gets less splatty.

Do tell. Your proof of this is....?

I stated an opinion. I do not waste time proving
recording choices, I make them based on what sounds
best.

Figured as much.

So you don't do much recording, do you?

No, but my standards of proof are set by science. Do much
of that? If you do , you'll understand that claims
should be independently verifiable. IF what you guys
hear is real, it should be readily verified in a
controlled listening test, no?

Note that two recent AES papers have come out relating to so-called high
resolution audio. In both cases it looks to me like the experimenters made a
heck of a try, but both sets of test results showed essentially random
guessing. You know, something like 50% or less of the listener choices
favored so-called high definition audio as compared to CD-format audio.

[Randy Yates]

"Arny Krueger" writes:
[...]
One the last things in audio to go wrong was so-called high resolution audio
for distribution to consumers. Serious money was put into DVD-A and SACD,
and they both failed to gather moementum in the mainstream marketplace. In
contrast, there was a concurrent effort called high definition video, and
there seems to be a great number of indications that this will become the
next mainstream technology.

I think this is as much an indication that the business model is flawed as
anything else.

The business model that ties a hoard of income to royalties for the
basic technology is always going to encourage format wars.

It Would Be Nice(TM) if there was some sort of world consortium for
these types of hugely important technology developments that would
prohibit ALL technology-based royalties for basic functionality. That
way the format would be decided (hopefully) on technical merit or
common economic considerations and companies would make their money
selling equipment and media instead.
--
% Randy Yates % "She's sweet on Wagner-I think she'd die for Beethoven.
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % She love the way Puccini lays down a tune, and
%%% 919-577-9882 % Verdi's always creepin' from her room."
%%%% % "Rockaria", *A New World Record*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Randy Yates]

Chris Hornbeck writes:
[...]
It would be interesting to read your equally well put description
of the contrapositive position.

Which logical statement are you requesting the contrapositive
of?

If something is audible, then it can be heard in a double-blind test.
^
v
If something can't be heard in a double-blind test, then it isn't audible.


If something can be heard in a double-blind test, then it is audible.
^
v
If something isn't audible, then it can't be heard in a double-blind test.
--
% Randy Yates % "She has an IQ of 1001, she has a jumpsuit
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % on, and she's also a telephone."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:01:46 -0500, Randy Yates
wrote:

Chris Hornbeck writes:
[...]
It would be interesting to read your equally well put description
of the contrapositive position.

Which logical statement are you requesting the contrapositive
of?

If something is audible, then it can be heard in a double-blind test.
^
v
If something can't be heard in a double-blind test, then it isn't audible.

That one. (I'm sorry that this was unclear. Arny and I have
danced this dance before, and can shortcut a lot. I greatly
admire his work, but function as a gadfly in some areas of
mutual interest.)


If something can be heard in a double-blind test, then it is audible.
^
v
If something isn't audible, then it can't be heard in a double-blind test.

Thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck