| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Audio over DVD video?
"chung" wrote in message
news:Lrt4c.18835$i76.386034@attbi_s03... Harry Lavo wrote: " The need for *un-natural* high-orders of filtration. As on SACD? Nope, SACD gets a gradual filter, just like upsampled CD and DVD-A. Oversampling CD players use a gradual analog reconstruction filter. They have been around for about 2 decades. More like a bit over one decade in abundance. Partly why later CD players sounded better than early ones. And even so, they still were pretty sharp filters. The problem isn't in the ultrasonics. It's in the effects (or lack thereof) in the audible range created by the need for high-order filters starting below 22khz. Now that's really interesting. The vinyl system has significantly more ripples in the passband and particularly in the upper midrange due to (a) RIAA equalization errors, (b) cartridge (in conjunction with load capacitance) response errors, (c)various mechanical resonances, (d) tracking performance that varies as a function of signal frequency, etc. There is also the bass signal summing to mono, reduced left-right separation at high frequencies, an effective S/N of about 70dB at best, and various wonderful effects. In fact, it's hard to find two vinyl systems that measure within a dB of each other. How come these errors, which are easily an order of magnitude higher than errors caused by the filters in CD players, never stop vinylphiles from loving that format? Yet, any relatively insignificant errors in CD players cause "fatigue", make the music sound like "crap" and unlistenable? Simply because the problems with digital were much more noxious soundings than any of the analog problems, other than inner-groove tracing distorion. And BTW, I can show you many cartridges with near-perfect 1000k square wave response..and many even with damn fine 10k response. So all your postulates above apply only to inferior equipment, to the degree that they become obnoxiously audible. Why can't you understand that the "ear" and the "brain" are the ultimate things that must be satisfied, not a technical theory. Compare that to your digital signal. What does the high-end of the CD standard mean? You mean players that cost a lot of money and have no better performance? I'm with you there. I mean high-frequency response aberrations that are audible, in practice. I mean the difference in listening to jazz cymbals recorded and played back as straight CD, versus the same played back with upsampling and mild filtration. One sounds like crap; the other sounds like music. You are comparing DA implementations here, not 16 bit PCM versus anything else. Bad DA is not the format's fault. A standard that in most practical implementations cannot reproduce music correctly even in the subjective sense is a flawed standard. Great. By that definition, the LP is a severely flawed standard, based on the magnitudes of the errors. That didn't seem to stop you from saying it's "ahead of SACD/DVD-A". In sound, Chung, in sound. As I and others have pointed out to you here at least three times in this very thread...but which you like to ignore and instead focus on specsmanship. The 16bit/44.1khz Redbook standard is/was a flawed standard. Even the engineers who created it came to understand that 20bit/66khz would be required to reach the limits of human hearing. So why all the defensiveness? You seem to not understand the issue, which is not whether the CD is the best standard. For reasons mostly associated with ease of mastering, having more bits and wider bandwidth make the hi-rez formats better. But the CD format has errors that are close to, if not below, human hearing thresholds. In comparison, vinyl is grossly inadequate. Why the defensiveness when we state to you that the vinyl system is the inferior delivery format? Why attack CD in order to make vinyl look good? The issue is that you way over-exaggerated the inadequacies of the CD format, and simply glanced over the much bigger problems of vinyl. That's what we are objecting to. I understand the issues much more clearly than you think. But I don't substitute specs for subjective listening quality. Which is why I say what I say. And why many others agree. And secondarily with CD's tendency to have less depth and a 'flatter' bass and lower midrange dimensionality. SACD solves these problems wonderfully. So does DVD-A. Both assuming equipment that allows the advantage to come through, of course. Maybe you need a better CD player?  No, these are a function of bit depth, and you *should* be able to hear them. There is no flat bass because there is 'only' 16 bit available. Flat bass is caused at other places in the chain. One of the clearly audible advantages of SACD and DVD-A heard through decent equipment on a good, hi-rez system is much more apparent depth and dimensionality to instruments and the human voice. It's the usual party line: if you can't hear the differences, your system must not be decent enough. By the way, how do you explain why vinyl, with its much lower effective number of bits, had so much "depth" and "dimenion"? This has been discussed ad infinitum on this and other forums, and I am simply not going to open that bag of worms here. This is particularly apparent in the bass, and is generally ascribed to the greater bit depth and lowered noise floor in the upper bass and midrange where human hearing is most acute. |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
"Nousaine" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Nousaine" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote: ...many snips to specific content ..... .....as before....... That's because there is no better "sounding" medium although IMO dolby digital-V, DVD-A and SACD offer improved spatial performance but require multichannel speaker systems. Indeed good 2-channel to multichannel converters like the Lexicon Logic 7 formats are a big step forward all by themselves. Your opinion, Tom, not a proven fact. Or even an opinion heard by most who have heard the high-res formats. Actually few 2-channel or high-rez have actually used the Lexicon system. In a similar fashion your arguments haven't been shown to be fact either. And "support" from folks many of who believe in all sorts of strange phenomena that hasn't been shown to factual either doesn't add credence to your personal opinion nor give it greater weight than mine. I was taking issue with your statement that "there is no better 'sounding' medium, not with your Lexicon statement. Sorry I wasn't more clear. I haven't heard the Lexicon, but I have been enamored of surround sound since 1970 when I add Hafler matrixing and rear speakers to my then-stereo system. So I'm not inclined to dispute your statement to begin with, and since I haven't heard the Lexicon I'm hardly in a position to even if I wanted to. Ironically, you fail to appreciate the fact that I am arguing that good vinyl, played on a fine turntable system and a SACD of the same performance should sound similar. I know, because mine does and so does the system of another friend. Chung argues his SACD's sound much better than his vinyl. Since I *know* that vinyl can sound about as good as SACD, their must be something wrong with his vinyl system. He never talks about it; just disparages vinyl. There were a lot of crappy sounding vinyl systems in existance; he may have one of them which would certain color his view. But to paraphrase him, it says nothing about the medium. I'd reverse that argument as say that if your vinyl and SACD sound the same then it's quite likely there's something wrong with your SACD implementation. It is possible that a much more expensive SACD player than my C222ES would sound more transparent. But I also know the old Counterpoint SA2 headamp that I used to use with the same Turntable/arm/cartridge also was more transparent. However, I am not talking about transparency per se, but about dynamics, audible frequency response flateness, depth of soundfield (well, I guess I am talking in part about transparency) and overall ease of reproduction. You would have trouble picking the two media apart in my system, and it is by an objective standards a very fine system. Trounced in convenience, frequency extension, and maintenance. Not necessary (I and many others would argue not-at-all) in sound quality. I would disagree; CD trounced Lp in sound quality from the beginning. Again, you are welcome to your opinion. It is certainly not universally shared among audiophiles. Nor is yours; I don't see the point. The point is, like Chung, you keep trying to change the issue from *how it sounds* to other criteria such as "specs" and "convenience". I am talking "sound". That is the final arbiter. Yeah, you could minimize the inevitable damage to vinyl. If kept clean, not played repeatedly with no break between plays, and eventually treated with last, they sound better than when they escaped their sleeves the first time (thanks to "Last"). Last, BTW, does a wonderful job of removing traces of mid-range or high-frequency "distortion" that seem to exist on many fresh-pressed records. (And before you jump me, I am not talking of inner groove distortion). Well that's what we all love...a medium that cannot repeat good music right away without damage. And requires routine maintenance. That's kind of like saying that synthetic oil is not as good as regular because although it's more slippery and doesn't wear out with use it's worse because it reduces the personal involvement of the car owner. Who has ever argued that CD was not more convenient than vinyl. Nobody on this forum that I can recall. How do you spell strawman? I was arguing performance not convenience. I'm surprised you can't see the difference. To me this argument has a strong element of "listening to vinyl, like changing your own old-tech oil instead of increasing your engine life with long-interval synthetic, is better because it requires more owner attention." IMO the vinyl-love affair says more about the ritual of playing than about the delivered performance. Well you are wrong, as even a short time on the vinyl forum would prove. I've heard maybe two people in five years have anything positive to say about the maintenance vinyl requires. People like it *despite* the hard work. Some do get pleasure from larger jackets, as I sometimes do. But that is *not* a reason for the preference. Frankly, as much as Gabe is revered here, I have yet to hear *ANY* other studio engineer or mastering engineer who claims that a final CD sounds exactly like the master tape. Then you've not spoken with John Eargle or James Gibeau have you? No but I read a lot of audio press and for many years belonged to the AES and do not recall anybody, including Eargle, making this statement. I've heard John make that statement in conversation with my own ears. Okay, an antecdote. That's fine. Why do *you* believe he never published it anywhere, given that he has been interviewed extensively and written several scholarly articles? I mean high-frequency response aberrations that are audible, in practice. I mean the difference in listening to jazz cymbals recorded and played back as straight CD, versus the same played back with upsampling and mild filtration. One sounds like crap; the other sounds like music. Not if it's "jazz." Jazz ain't music; it's mostly a bunch of guys who all know only one song trying to find a space when no one else is playing to sneak it in. :-) Just my opinion, of course. But the most musically inclined enthusiasts I know are jazz fans and they tend to be primarily involved with the "music" and it's presentation in a fashion like you'd hear it in a club....with people talking and with their backs to the performance while drinking lots of alcoholic beverage. Well, if you don't like jazz then you are probably not the person to make critical judgements about what sounds right or wrong in the reproduction of jazz cymbals, are you? The last time I remember I have yet to find a percussionist who shopped for 'jazz' cymbals. Just like I haven't been able to find a "country" violin or a classical fiddle. I was talking about performance style, as I suspect you know. Jazz drummers have generally a much more versatile and subtle array of cymbal playing styles than do rock drummers...and cymbals as we are discussing have little place in classical music. I'm talking the "shhhh" of cymbal brushwork. I'm talking the absolutely lovely decay of a lightly hit cymbal....the fading sound that cd just doesn't get right and analog and sacd and dvd-a do. I didn't say anything about not liking jazz I just don't ascribe it the same reverance that hard-core fans like to give it. But in any case I don't see how "liking" a given musical format has anything to do with giving a description of the accuracy of its acoustical reproduction. While we are on the subject of liking jazz or not, in your last post you said (and I paraphrase) true jazz fans drink, talk, and sit with their backs to the music in a club. I didn't respond but its been bothering me. I spend a fair amount of time in jazz clubs in Boston, Northampton, and New York City. True jazz fans generally listen closely and play close attention to the playing, usually turning their chairs. Casual audience are generally the ones behaving badly and making the noise, in my experience. Perhaps we move in different jazz circles. Indeed an emotional attachment to a given program can impede perceptual accuracy. Indeed, Pete Rose fans never seem to appreciate that he made more diving catches of routine fly balls than anyone else in the history of the game. ???? One might ask; well doesn't he use open-reel because it's the best sounding medium? Well the system was built in the 70s using 2 Viking open reel recorders (4 channels with 1 of them used for program selection ) so that he could 'orchestrate' playback from dubbed recordings without having to change media or playback equipment. This was all truly done for the "love of the music" and not for that love masquerading as nostalgic equipment/media fixation. You know, I've belonged to jazz clubs, and I go to live performances (jazz and otherwise) and I keep a nice boombox in the kitchen and a secondary (hardly state of the art) system in my bedroom, and I like and listen to a lot of music...on those systems, and in whatever house the jazz club met in. That does not disqualify me from knowing what sounds more real or less real, or what a really fine system can do for musical enjoyment, all else being equal. Your point? Back to you; that's my point exactly I don't have to be a jazz fan to appreciate the acoustical accuracy of reproduction either. I've heard planty of jazz; I have live recordings of same where I sat immediately adjacent to an ORTF pair recording the event. And all the rest. None of that disqualifies me in making a critical judgement of acoustical playback realism (a better word than accuracy) either. Nor does a "love" of the musical type hyper-qualify me either. Sound is sound, no matter what the source; and I tire when advocates complain when I won't acknowledge 'sound' that doesn't exist and then blame my taste and preference in program and my playback equipment. |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... snip And BTW, I can show you many cartridges with near-perfect 1000k square wave response..and many even with damn fine 10k response. oops. That's 1000hz, of course. snip |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message news:Lrt4c.18835$i76.386034@attbi_s03... Harry Lavo wrote: " The need for *un-natural* high-orders of filtration. As on SACD? Nope, SACD gets a gradual filter, just like upsampled CD and DVD-A. Oversampling CD players use a gradual analog reconstruction filter. They have been around for about 2 decades. More like a bit over one decade in abundance. Partly why later CD players sounded better than early ones. And even so, they still were pretty sharp filters. Do you know that the first CD players by Philips/Magnavox use 4X oversampling because they only have 14-bit DAC's? That was circa 1984 or so. The first Yamaha players use 2X oversampling also. The problem isn't in the ultrasonics. It's in the effects (or lack thereof) in the audible range created by the need for high-order filters starting below 22khz. Now that's really interesting. The vinyl system has significantly more ripples in the passband and particularly in the upper midrange due to (a) RIAA equalization errors, (b) cartridge (in conjunction with load capacitance) response errors, (c)various mechanical resonances, (d) tracking performance that varies as a function of signal frequency, etc. There is also the bass signal summing to mono, reduced left-right separation at high frequencies, an effective S/N of about 70dB at best, and various wonderful effects. In fact, it's hard to find two vinyl systems that measure within a dB of each other. How come these errors, which are easily an order of magnitude higher than errors caused by the filters in CD players, never stop vinylphiles from loving that format? Yet, any relatively insignificant errors in CD players cause "fatigue", make the music sound like "crap" and unlistenable? Simply because the problems with digital were much more noxious soundings than any of the analog problems, other than inner-groove tracing distorion. You keep saying that, but you can't back it up with any measurements... You can try the brickwall lowpass filter test on the PCABX site and see if you can detect it. Wait, that would be comparative...never mind .And BTW, I can show you many cartridges with near-perfect 1000k square wave response. Yes, show me a cartridge with near perfect 1000k square wave! and many even with damn fine 10k response. I'm not sure if you understand what you are saying. To capture a square wave you need good response up to at least the 5th if not the 7th harmonic. Vinyl is extremely poor reproducing 30KHz, 50KHz and 70KHz! Note that you can't tell the difference between a 10KHz square wave and a 10 KHz sinewave if the fundamentals are at the same level, so reproduction of 10KHz square waves is a huge non-sequitur. So all your postulates above apply only to inferior equipment, to the degree that they become obnoxiously audible. Why can't you understand that the "ear" and the "brain" are the ultimate things that must be satisfied, not a technical theory. Exactly, and I think that your brain tells you that vinyl sounds better, because you are used to it. It has nothing to do with accuracy; you just prefer vinyl. Try not to make shaky technical arguments to justify your preference. Compare that to your digital signal. What does the high-end of the CD standard mean? You mean players that cost a lot of money and have no better performance? I'm with you there. I mean high-frequency response aberrations that are audible, in practice. I mean the difference in listening to jazz cymbals recorded and played back as straight CD, versus the same played back with upsampling and mild filtration. One sounds like crap; the other sounds like music. You are comparing DA implementations here, not 16 bit PCM versus anything else. Bad DA is not the format's fault. A standard that in most practical implementations cannot reproduce music correctly even in the subjective sense is a flawed standard. Great. By that definition, the LP is a severely flawed standard, based on the magnitudes of the errors. That didn't seem to stop you from saying it's "ahead of SACD/DVD-A". In sound, Chung, in sound. As I and others have pointed out to you here at least three times in this very thread...but which you like to ignore and instead focus on specsmanship. Focus on which one is better as a delivery medium, not which one you prefer (for all the various reasons), and you see the light... The 16bit/44.1khz Redbook standard is/was a flawed standard. Even the engineers who created it came to understand that 20bit/66khz would be required to reach the limits of human hearing. So why all the defensiveness? You seem to not understand the issue, which is not whether the CD is the best standard. For reasons mostly associated with ease of mastering, having more bits and wider bandwidth make the hi-rez formats better. But the CD format has errors that are close to, if not below, human hearing thresholds. In comparison, vinyl is grossly inadequate. Why the defensiveness when we state to you that the vinyl system is the inferior delivery format? Why attack CD in order to make vinyl look good? The issue is that you way over-exaggerated the inadequacies of the CD format, and simply glanced over the much bigger problems of vinyl. That's what we are objecting to. I understand the issues much more clearly than you think. I doubt it. Please explain the level of distortion coming from digital filters, or analog reconstruction filters. Please compare those to errors to vinyl. While you're at it, explain to us why upsampling can souind so much better. But I don't substitute specs for subjective listening quality. Which is why I say what I say. And why many others agree. If you simply say you like vinyl, and not try to denigrate CD in the process using quasi-technical arguments, you would have been fine... And secondarily with CD's tendency to have less depth and a 'flatter' bass and lower midrange dimensionality. SACD solves these problems wonderfully. So does DVD-A. Both assuming equipment that allows the advantage to come through, of course. Maybe you need a better CD player? No, these are a function of bit depth, and you *should* be able to hear them. There is no flat bass because there is 'only' 16 bit available. Flat bass is caused at other places in the chain. One of the clearly audible advantages of SACD and DVD-A heard through decent equipment on a good, hi-rez system is much more apparent depth and dimensionality to instruments and the human voice. It's the usual party line: if you can't hear the differences, your system must not be decent enough. By the way, how do you explain why vinyl, with its much lower effective number of bits, had so much "depth" and "dimenion"? This has been discussed ad infinitum on this and other forums, and I am simply not going to open that bag of worms here. But apparently you love to repeat it... This is particularly apparent in the bass, and is generally ascribed to the greater bit depth and lowered noise floor in the upper bass and midrange where human hearing is most acute. |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
Exactly, and I think that your brain tells you that vinyl sounds better,
because you are used to it. It has nothing to do with accuracy; you just prefer vinyl. Try not to make shaky technical arguments to justify your preference. This is a common assertion that IMO has no support. I can say personally my preference has nothing to do with familiarity. and as for accuracy? Who knows which is more accurate for any given recording? A lot can happen on the way to playback for a recording on either medium. Focus on which one is better as a delivery medium, not which one you prefer (for all the various reasons), and you see the light... Why? Are you proposing that one should ignore their ears for the specs? Bad idea if enjoyment of the music is the final goal. |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
Harry Lavo wrote:
In sound, Chung, in sound. As I and others have pointed out to you here at least three times in this very thread...but which you like to ignore and instead focus on specsmanship. Oh, did I tell you that to my ears, well-recorded CD's sound so much better than well-recorded vinyl? And all of my friends agree, too! |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:xSN4c.8363$_w.246376@attbi_s53... Exactly, and I think that your brain tells you that vinyl sounds better, because you are used to it. It has nothing to do with accuracy; you just prefer vinyl. Try not to make shaky technical arguments to justify your preference. This is a common assertion that IMO has no support. I can say personally my preference has nothing to do with familiarity. and as for accuracy? Who knows which is more accurate for any given recording? A lot can happen on the way to playback for a recording on either medium. Focus on which one is better as a delivery medium, not which one you prefer (for all the various reasons), and you see the light... Why? Are you proposing that one should ignore their ears for the specs? Bad idea if enjoyment of the music is the final goal. That has been the jist of this whole thread. I talk about sound; Chung replies that I am wrong because the specs of his preferred medium are better. I talk about sound; he talks about convenience. I talk about sound, he talks about specs again. As if this a Frisbee throwing contest, and we are only talking about whose throw is the longest. We are an audio newsgroup; this is a hobby where the ears (and brain) of necessity *have* to be the final judge. Music and our understanding/reaction to it cannot by definition be reduced to "objective". It is by its very nature *only* a subjective phenomenon. So *anything* that affects it in the reproduction of sound has the potential to create a subjective effect, perhaps through pattern matching even below the threshold levels of audible "boundaries" when measured in simple two-dimensions. Let me relate a little story that I have been reluctant to tell here before because it is anecdotal and I have mentioned the gentleman's name here once. Furthermore, the incident was not a scientific test...I doubt it was volume matched other than by ear, although it was an engineer running the test. The short-lived head of CBS labs lived across the street with me. One of the arguments we used to get into was over whether accurate high-frequency phase was important..I argued it was. He took the same position as most of the engineers here; it doesn't matter..the brain can't distinguish a 10k square wave from a 10k saw-tooth. As taught in engineering school, I guess. I had an Acoustech amp at the time...flat from 2hz to 200khz. The gentleman had an AR amplifier...rolled at both ends of the spectrum. He told me I could not tell the difference...it had already been proven. I gave him my amp. He rigged the system, hidden behind a tapestry-draped piano (speakers mounted on the wall above). I was called into the room. He asked. I named it. Correct. Repeated this about five times. Over AR4x's, no less (which I never cared for). Got it each time, no matter which was in the system. Afterwards, in further discussion, he allowed as perhaps the wide bandwidth of my amp reflected "other factors" that I was hearing rather than phase relationships. Perhaps he was right. Perhaps I was right. The point is, he was as sure going in of his point of view as Chung is here. But at least in this one instance, it appeared he might have been wrong. He was a little more humble in our discussions after that. All I can say to my objectivist friends here is: be a little more humble. Science is wonderful; very few people here are anti-science. What we subjectivists react badly to is scientific knowledge raised to the level of dogma in an attempt to disown that fact that the end result of all this science and engineering can only be judged subjectively, by a wonderful mechanism called the brain, that has yet to yield up all it's mysteries. Until it has, be open to the possibility of surprises, of phenomena that seem not to fit standard theory, or previous knowledge. There may be existing explanations, but there may also be the opportunity for new knowledge. To bring this back to the immediate topic: a) My guess is that many vinyl preferrers take no issue with the fact that phase effects and second harmonics may help explain why vinyl often seems to have more presence. And my further guess is that most view this as an enhancement, not a deficiency. b) My guess also is that virtually all vinyl preferrers will reject the theory that vinyl is less transparent than 16 bit cd reproduction. It simply does not square with the subjective experience. |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
Exactly, and I think that your brain tells you that vinyl sounds better,
because you are used to it. It has nothing to do with accuracy; you just prefer vinyl. Try not to make shaky technical arguments to justify your preference. This is a common assertion that IMO has no support. Is any of Mr. Lavo's arguments (vinyl has more depth, CD been unlistenable in the first decade, the higher order of the "filtrating" is why CD's cause fatigue, etc.) technically accurate? "Vinyl has more depth and CD been unlistenable in the first decade" are not technical claims. They are subjective claims so one cannot comment on their technical accuracy. My first CD player was one of those 14 bit Yamaha jobs you mentioned earlier. It was a bit better than my Yamaha rack system turntable with the original P mount cartridge. I liked it at the time. It was hardly unlistenable by my standards at that time. When i got a 75 dollar Ortofon P mount cartridge it was a bit better than the CD player. Then I got a new 16 bit CD player. It was better than the Yamaha rack system turntable with the new Ortofon cartridge. Then I got a SOTA Star turntable with an Alphason HR 100 arm and a Koetsu Black goldline cartridge. That pretty much killed the CD player. Of course back then I wasn't really thinking about the mastering process. But the hardware was making a difference every time with the same CDs and LP counterparts. I found CDs to be generally fatiguing in comparison to my SOTA/Alphason/Koetsu combo. I cannot say that Mr. Lavo's comments on filtering are a technically accurate explination. I can say personally my preference has nothing to do with familiarity. and as for accuracy? Who knows which is more accurate for any given recording? Yes, who cares what anyone prefers. I do. I care about what I prefer. But if we compare which delivery format is better, accuracy has to be a major factor. Better meaning what? To me better means preferable in the context it will be used. So far I have found LPs to be better than CDs in most cases. A lot can happen on the way to playback for a recording on either medium. That's why we keep saying that mastering is very important, and may very well explain why people feel that SACD's sound better than CD. It may very well. Focus on which one is better as a delivery medium, not which one you prefer (for all the various reasons), and you see the light... Why? Are you proposing that one should ignore their ears for the specs? Bad idea if enjoyment of the music is the final goal. You misunderstood the context of that statement. I was restating the point that vinyl, as a delivery format, is not ahead for all the technical reasons given. Of course you are free to enjoy whatever you like. I think it is for sonic reasons. I am not trying to offer a technical explination for those sonic reasons but the sonic reasons do exist. On audiophile recordings produced by audiophile labels that offer some of the best sounding releases on both formats I have prefered the LPs to the CDs every time. I don't think *that* has anything to do with the mastering. I think it is the medium. |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
Harry Lavo wrote:
Let me relate a little story that I have been reluctant to tell here before because it is anecdotal and I have mentioned the gentleman's name here once. Furthermore, the incident was not a scientific test...I doubt it was volume matched other than by ear, although it was an engineer running the test. If it wasn't matched in level then the 'test' was fundamentally flawed. Since you don't even know this for sure, your comments are worthless except to yourself. Furthermore, it isn't current knowledge that 'phase doesn't matter.' All I can say to my objectivist friends here is: be a little more humble. Science is wonderful; very few people here are anti-science. What we subjectivists react badly to is scientific knowledge raised to the level of dogma in an attempt to disown that fact that the end result of all this science and engineering can only be judged subjectively, by a wonderful mechanism called the brain, that has yet to yield up all it's mysteries. Until it has, be open to the possibility of surprises, of phenomena that seem not to fit standard theory, or previous knowledge. There may be existing explanations, but there may also be the opportunity for new knowledge. It works both ways, sir. Your out of hand rejection of the partial loudness model, apparently without even studying it, seems just a bit arrogant and lacking in humility. To bring this back to the immediate topic: a) My guess is that many vinyl preferrers take no issue with the fact that phase effects and second harmonics may help explain why vinyl often seems to have more presence. And my further guess is that most view this as an enhancement, not a deficiency. It CAN be an enhancement in some instances by adding a lot of things that aren't in the original, but those additions can be a rough and crude substitute for the drawbacks inherent in any reproduction system that don't have anything to do with the storage medium. It also subtracts a lot of information that was in the original. Much more than CD, SACD and DVD. IMO, some vinyl reproductions can sound subjectively better than the original acoustic performance in cases of lousy original acoustics, instruments, etc. Crudely. The future does not lie in crude approximations though, sorry. It ISN'T accurate in terms of signal processing. Period. |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
|
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
On 13 Mar 2004 19:27:53 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
Simply because the problems with digital were much more noxious soundings than any of the analog problems, other than inner-groove tracing distorion. Your personal opinion is noted. And BTW, I can show you many cartridges with near-perfect 1000k square wave response..and many even with damn fine 10k response. No you can't, that is absolute nonsense. There is no vinyl on earth which has anything close to a 10kHz square wave cut onto it, hence it's simply *impossible* for your statement to be true. So all your postulates above apply only to inferior equipment, to the degree that they become obnoxiously audible. Why can't you understand that the "ear" and the "brain" are the ultimate things that must be satisfied, not a technical theory. Yup, and those would be the same ears and brain which listen to the live performance, so technical accuracy *is* important for high fidelity reproduction of that live performance. Compare that to your digital signal. It's a near-perfect analogue of the original microphone signal. What's your point? A standard that in most practical implementations cannot reproduce music correctly even in the subjective sense is a flawed standard. Great. By that definition, the LP is a severely flawed standard, based on the magnitudes of the errors. That didn't seem to stop you from saying it's "ahead of SACD/DVD-A". In sound, Chung, in sound. As I and others have pointed out to you here at least three times in this very thread...but which you like to ignore and instead focus on specsmanship. Um, aren't you the one who is equating your preference for SACD with its superior bit depth? Pot, kettle, black........ One of the clearly audible advantages of SACD and DVD-A heard through decent equipment on a good, hi-rez system is much more apparent depth and dimensionality to instruments and the human voice. It's the usual party line: if you can't hear the differences, your system must not be decent enough. By the way, how do you explain why vinyl, with its much lower effective number of bits, had so much "depth" and "dimenion"? This has been discussed ad infinitum on this and other forums, and I am simply not going to open that bag of worms here. Of course you're not Harry, because you don't have a leg to stand on. You may *prefer* SACD all you like, but to say that it is closer to vinyl than it is to CD, is unsupportable by reality. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
S888Wheel wrote:
Exactly, and I think that your brain tells you that vinyl sounds better, because you are used to it. It has nothing to do with accuracy; you just prefer vinyl. Try not to make shaky technical arguments to justify your preference. This is a common assertion that IMO has no support. Is any of Mr. Lavo's arguments (vinyl has more depth, CD been unlistenable in the first decade, the higher order of the "filtrating" is why CD's cause fatigue, etc.) technically accurate? "Vinyl has more depth and CD been unlistenable in the first decade" are not technical claims. They are subjective claims so one cannot comment on their technical accuracy. In case you have not noticed, Mr. Lavo was staing that as an absolute fact. And it is a technical fact that vinyl does not have more depth in terms of signal to noise ration. He in fact used the term bit-depth. My first CD player was one of those 14 bit Yamaha jobs you mentioned earlier. It was a bit better than my Yamaha rack system turntable with the original P mount cartridge. I liked it at the time. It was hardly unlistenable by my standards at that time. I think Me, Lavo is the only person I know who claimed that the CD was unlistenable from 1983 through 1993. Those are the claims that we take issues with. When i got a 75 dollar Ortofon P mount cartridge it was a bit better than the CD player. Of course, you know that there are many anecdotes there are exactly opposite yours. Like "My $300 CD player totally trounced by $3,000 vinyl rig"? Then I got a new 16 bit CD player. It was better than the Yamaha rack system turntable with the new Ortofon cartridge. Then I got a SOTA Star turntable with an Alphason HR 100 arm and a Koetsu Black goldline cartridge. That pretty much killed the CD player. Of course back then I wasn't really thinking about the mastering process. But the hardware was making a difference every time with the same CDs and LP counterparts. I found CDs to be generally fatiguing in comparison to my SOTA/Alphason/Koetsu combo. I cannot say that Mr. Lavo's comments on filtering are a technically accurate explination. They were simply without technical merits, that's what we're saying. I can say personally my preference has nothing to do with familiarity. and as for accuracy? Who knows which is more accurate for any given recording? Yes, who cares what anyone prefers. I do. I care about what I prefer. But no one else really cares that much about it, and that's my point. But if we compare which delivery format is better, accuracy has to be a major factor. Better meaning what? To me better means preferable in the context it will be used. So far I have found LPs to be better than CDs in most cases. As a delievry format, better meaning able to preserve the input signal. In other words, higher fidelity to the input signal. At this point, I would like to reiterate what Siegfried Linkwitz said that is really the foundation of high fidelity: "Minimal alteration of the original should be the goal of sound reproduction since anything else is a falsification. For many pieces of recorded material it may not matter, because the performance is so highly processed and the listener shares no common sonic reference. Also, a listener may be so used to amplified music that the characteristic sound of certain types of loudspeakers becomes the reference. However, ultimately only a system with minimal distortion can hope to achieve the reproduction of an original and, in particular, of a familiar live sonic event such as a choral performance, a solo male voice, or a car driving by. My motto is: True to the Original". Seen in this light, LP is the inferior format, compared to the newer digital ones. snip I think it is for sonic reasons. I am not trying to offer a technical explination for those sonic reasons but the sonic reasons do exist. On audiophile recordings produced by audiophile labels that offer some of the best sounding releases on both formats I have prefered the LPs to the CDs every time. I don't think *that* has anything to do with the mastering. I think it is the medium. Of course, you know that many of us have the opposite view, so what you said is simply another statement of the vinylphile's position. DO you think that you can record the output of a SACD/CD/DVD-A player and produce an LP that sounds the same? What does that tell you which medium is the better one for reproduction of the original? |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
Oh, did I tell you that to my ears, well-recorded CD's sound so much
better than well-recorded vinyl? And all of my friends agree, too! On what turntable/arm/ cartridge system? It does make a difference. |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
Harry Lavo wrote:
"S888Wheel" wrote in message news:xSN4c.8363$_w.246376@attbi_s53... Exactly, and I think that your brain tells you that vinyl sounds better, because you are used to it. It has nothing to do with accuracy; you just prefer vinyl. Try not to make shaky technical arguments to justify your preference. This is a common assertion that IMO has no support. I can say personally my preference has nothing to do with familiarity. and as for accuracy? Who knows which is more accurate for any given recording? A lot can happen on the way to playback for a recording on either medium. Focus on which one is better as a delivery medium, not which one you prefer (for all the various reasons), and you see the light... Why? Are you proposing that one should ignore their ears for the specs? Bad idea if enjoyment of the music is the final goal. That has been the jist of this whole thread. I talk about sound; Chung replies that I am wrong because the specs of his preferred medium are better. I talk about sound; he talks about convenience. I talk about sound, he talks about specs again. I think you clearly misunderstood something. It is a given that you and other vinylphiles believe that LP's aound better than SACD/DVCD-A/CD. That's not the point of the debate. Although it should be just as obvious to you that there are many people who believe that CD's sound better. So to argue which format sounds better to a given listener is a rather meaningless task. So many other variables go into the subjective perception: bias, mastering, etc., and we already said that you can't really argue preferences. The point that I have been challenging you on is your insistence that the CD is an inferior format based on half truths and opinions elevated to facts. You were the one who kept bringing up half specs (high orders of filtration, etc.). And none of those you were able to defend. snip All I can say to my objectivist friends here is: be a little more humble. Science is wonderful; very few people here are anti-science. What we subjectivists react badly to is scientific knowledge raised to the level of dogma in an attempt to disown that fact that the end result of all this science and engineering can only be judged subjectively, by a wonderful mechanism called the brain, that has yet to yield up all it's mysteries. Until it has, be open to the possibility of surprises, of phenomena that seem not to fit standard theory, or previous knowledge. There may be existing explanations, but there may also be the opportunity for new knowledge. I hope you realize that most of the "objectivists" in this newsgroup are very familiar with the LP technology. We understand its limitations, and any technical comparisions of LP vs the newer digital formats always result in the LP losing by huge margins. So to defend vinyl, by citing the errors of the CD, is really grasping at straws. What the subjectivists like yourself should try to understand is that there are many reasons that vinyl may sound better to you, a lot of those may not be explained by technical measurements. So don't try to defend it on technical merits by degrading the digital formats. Instead, come to the realization that the formats can coexist, that there still are *some* recordings in LP that could sound better, to both sides, than the digital counterparts. But as a delivery format, one that has to be able to preserve fidelity, the LP is decades behind. Also, please do not make the mistake that anyone who does not agree that LP sounds better simply have poor equipment. The vinyl technology has inherent errors that are an order of magnitude or more bigger than digital, even if you assume perfect playback equipment. To bring this back to the immediate topic: a) My guess is that many vinyl preferrers take no issue with the fact that phase effects and second harmonics may help explain why vinyl often seems to have more presence. And my further guess is that most view this as an enhancement, not a deficiency. Well, you have not asnwered this. The fact that SACD/DVD-A/CD can capture the output of a phono preamp extremely accurately should tell you which one is the better medium, no? In other words, if it's those errors that vinylphiles like, then we could intentionally put those back into SACD/DVD-A/CD. Of course, that would be a stupid thing to do, IMO. There are also things about the LP that are dear to the hearts of vinylphiles (the ritual of playing the LP, or the exclusivity of owning expensive vinyl rigs, for instance) that cannot be reproduced by digital formats. By the way, I have listened to many, many vinyl set-ups, and almost every one of them sounds noticeably different. And you and Mr. Wheel are saying the same thing. What does it tell you about that technology? How do you know that your system does not sound really bad to Mr. Wheel's ears? And of course you know that at least one of the two systems is inaccurate. b) My guess also is that virtually all vinyl preferrers will reject the theory that vinyl is less transparent than 16 bit cd reproduction. It simply does not square with the subjective experience. That's like saying that all those who go to church believe there is a god .It simply does not square with the subjective experience. Our subjective experience is that the CD's sound much better, with very few exceptions. How does that square with your theory? |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
|
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
|
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 3/15/2004 9:33 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: hNl5c.15171$J05.125632@attbi_s01 On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 23:35:57 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: Oh, did I tell you that to my ears, well-recorded CD's sound so much better than well-recorded vinyl? And all of my friends agree, too! On what turntable/arm/ cartridge system? It does make a difference. A *very* tired old argument, No it is a valid issue. If one is making comparisons on poor LP playback equipment one is not making a valid comparison of the two media. and refuted by those regulars who *do* maintain decent quality vinyl rigs, for those performances that simply aren't available on CD. Refuted? No! Disagreed with yes. Your preferences are not a source of any universal refutal. By the way, you are the only regular that i know of who actually has a true highend turntable and prefers CDs. One tesimonial is just one testimonial. I would also suggest you look into getting a tonearm worthy of your table. Just a suggestion. The limitation is in the *medium*, not in the playback gear. If the playback gear is SOTA. Otherwise one is listening to the shortcommings of the rig that are not inherent in the medium. Hence an unfair demonstration of the medium. |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
S888Wheel wrote:
Of course, you know that there are many anecdotes there are exactly opposite yours. Like "My $300 CD player totally trounced by $3,000 vinyl rig"? I'm not sure there are quite so many if we are looking at such claims proportionally. I have a suggestion. Register at the Steve Hoffman forum then start a poll (they have special threads for polls) ask how many people who own or have listened to turntable rigs that are priced at 3,000 or higher if they think those rigs sonically outperform CD playback at the 300 dollar level. The forum membership is pretty well divided between CD enthusiasts and vinyl enthusiasts. In fact you will see more threads about quality CDs than you will about vinyl. The results might be interesting. That would be like what I said befo Ask a group of churchgoers whether they believe there is a god. Or ask in the Audio Asylum Cable forum whether there is such a phenomenon as cable break-in. The real world is NOT "pretty well divided" between CD enthusiasts and vinyl enthusiasts; I hate to break that news to you. Then I got a new 16 bit CD player. It was better than the Yamaha rack system turntable with the new Ortofon cartridge. Then I got a SOTA Star turntable with an Alphason HR 100 arm and a Koetsu Black goldline cartridge. That pretty much killed the CD player. Of course back then I wasn't really thinking about the mastering process. But the hardware was making a difference every time with the same CDs and LP counterparts. I found CDs to be generally fatiguing in comparison to my SOTA/Alphason/Koetsu combo. I cannot say that Mr. Lavo's comments on filtering are a technically accurate explination. They were simply without technical merits, that's what we're saying. Fine. Subjective opinions do not need to be suplimented by accurate technical explinations to be valid. Not if they are stated as opinions with no technical explanations given. Mr. Lavo was, however, trying to degrade CD using technical arguments. Anytime a technical argument is brought up, it can be judged as accurate or not accurate. For example, if someone say vinyl beats CD because vinyl has infinite resolution, then that is a challengeable claim. And that opinion is wrong. If they say that they like the vinyl sound more, then that is an opinion without a technical claim, and no one argues with that. I can say personally my preference has nothing to do with familiarity. and as for accuracy? Who knows which is more accurate for any given recording? Yes, who cares what anyone prefers. I do. I care about what I prefer. But no one else really cares that much about it, and that's my point. Doesn't seem like much of a point. Also not terribly valid. I am often asked for my opinion on such things because some people out there respect that opinion. Well, your point (that my point does not seem much of a point) is not much of a point to me .But if we compare which delivery format is better, accuracy has to be a major factor. Better meaning what? To me better means preferable in the context it will be used. So far I have found LPs to be better than CDs in most cases. As a delievry format, better meaning able to preserve the input signal. In other words, higher fidelity to the input signal. At this point, I would like to reiterate what Siegfried Linkwitz said that is really the foundation of high fidelity: Some say it is some say it isn't. In the end it isn't an issue to me. The sum of the parts is the issue to me. If in the sum of the parts of recording and playback add up to an impression of greater realism with vinyl then vinyl is better in my opinion. Audio is a "team sport." You are welcome to your opinion that vinyl is better for you. As a delivery medium, accuracy is important, but clearly you don't value accuracy to the original signal. Given that, there is really no point in pursuing this subject with you, since there really is no common basis for a discussion. snip What does that tell you which medium is the better one for reproduction of the original? Not much. In that case, high fidelity means something different for you. Good luck! |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
|
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung The real world? The real world as I suspect you are defining it seems to have embraced Bose as the state of the art in speakers. Sorry, I'm not interested in what casual uninformed people believe. Ignorance is bliss. There's a real world that's distinct from the Bose-buying populace AND audiophile culture. It's the world that's the focus of science. Many 'audiophiles' who imagine themselves 'informed', are blissfully ignorant of that world: the science behind objective measurements and perceptual testing, things that bear directly on evaluation of the *sound* of things, The audio press for the most part helps keep them in that blissful state, by simply ignoring the science while piling on dubious 'information' about audio components month after month. The belief systems of dubiously-informed audiophiles are mainly relevant as 'information' to other dubiously-informed people. To me they're sociological phenomena; I don't go to such 'audiophiles' for information on how things might really sound. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 3/15/2004 3:44 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Bdr5c.18391$J05.133114@attbi_s01 S888Wheel wrote: From: chung The real world? The real world as I suspect you are defining it seems to have embraced Bose as the state of the art in speakers. Sorry, I'm not interested in what casual uninformed people believe. Ignorance is bliss. There's a real world that's distinct from the Bose-buying populace AND audiophile culture. It's the world that's the focus of science. Many 'audiophiles' who imagine themselves 'informed', are blissfully ignorant of that world: the science behind objective measurements and perceptual testing, things that bear directly on evaluation of the *sound* of things, The audio press for the most part helps keep them in that blissful state, by simply ignoring the science while piling on dubious 'information' about audio components month after month. I think it has been well established that the scientific community has not taken much interest at all in audio. The belief systems of dubiously-informed audiophiles are mainly relevant as 'information' to other dubiously-informed people. To me they're sociological phenomena; I don't go to such 'audiophiles' for information on how things might really sound. That is your choice. But if that keeps you from trying out highend turntables you may very well be letting your prejudices get the better of your listening pleasure. |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
S888Wheel wrote:
I am afraid you have misunderstood the philosophy of my approach to audio. I do very much value accuracy to the original signal if we are talking about the original acoustic event. Once that signal hits the mics all that matters is that the final playback be as close as possible to the original "signal." I think you're using the word "signal" in a confusing way. You seem to mean the original sound that is reaching the mics. But when the technically-minded refer to good consumer audio being true to the "original signal," they mean the master tape. But in fact it won't be all that close. For digital, that depends fundamentally on two things: the mics, and the mastering. Everything else can be well-nigh transparent, up to the speaker terminals. So one must pick thier colorations overall. But the only hardware that's adding any serious coloration is the mic (which the consumer has no control over). Now you might argue that the goal of audiophiles is to overcome *that* coloration, but given that every recording uses a different mic, that's a fruitless task. What this suggests is that compensating coloration should be consumer-variable. (IOW, an equalizer.) *If* a coloration from one component compensates for the coloration of another component in the entire chain in so much that it sounds more like the original acoustic "signal" then I feel those colorations in tandum are better than the one coloration alone. First, in most cases the consumer has no idea what the "original acoustic signal" sounded like. Second, any changes to that "signal" are going to vary widely from recording to recording, so attempts to use non-adjustable audiophile hardware to "compensate" for them are futile. This doesn't even touch on the issue that some colorations may be larger in magnitude than others and yet less offensive perceptually. My own philosophy is that the audiophile is not really chasing after "the original signal." He is chasing after "the illusion of live sound." The peculiar sonic charactertistics of vinyl, whatever its technical weaknesses, contribute to that illusion for many audiophiles. And there's nothing wrong with that--as long as, like Chung says, they don't use that to concoct some technically off-the-wall theory to justify what is a simple, unassailable preference. bob __________________________________________________ _______________ Find things fast with the new MSN Toolbar – includes FREE pop-up blocking! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/ |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
On 15 Mar 2004 23:41:26 GMT, (Mkuller) wrote:
chung wrote: You are welcome to your opinion that vinyl is better for you. As a delivery medium, accuracy is important, but clearly you don't value accuracy to the original signal. Whew, you finally got it. Most audiophiles don't care about "accuracy to the original signal" as much as you and the other engineers do. Audiophiles care if it sounds more like real live music - that is the 'accuracy' we are looking for. This is silly. Are you saying that you are in favor of colored and inaccurate equipment based on the conviction that it will exactly compensate for the complementary faults in the signal? That's the only way you can get the musical accuracy you want with inaccurate equipment. And if it doesn't 'sound' more like live music, who cares how well it measures. That's nearly meaningless to me as an audiophile. Of course but the only way to get there is with better equipment. Kal |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 3/15/2004 10:50 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: CVm5c.17175$_w.345218@attbi_s53 S888Wheel wrote: Of course, you know that there are many anecdotes there are exactly opposite yours. Like "My $300 CD player totally trounced by $3,000 vinyl rig"? I'm not sure there are quite so many if we are looking at such claims proportionally. I have a suggestion. Register at the Steve Hoffman forum then start a poll (they have special threads for polls) ask how many people who own or have listened to turntable rigs that are priced at 3,000 or higher if they think those rigs sonically outperform CD playback at the 300 dollar level. The forum membership is pretty well divided between CD enthusiasts and vinyl enthusiasts. In fact you will see more threads about quality CDs than you will about vinyl. The results might be interesting. That would be like what I said befo Ask a group of churchgoers whether they believe there is a god. Or ask in the Audio Asylum Cable forum whether there is such a phenomenon as cable break-in. Did you not get the part where i specifically told you that the LP enthusiasts are at least equaled in number if not out numbered by CD enthusiasts?You are simply making a false presumption about the members of that forum. Too bad. No, you just did not carefully read what I wrote. A large % of the people who frequent a forum such as Hoffman are vinylphiles. That percentage may be 50, like you seem to say by "well-divided", but that is nowhere near the % of vinylphiles in the real world, by any measure. A survey in that forum would have a bias that does not reflect the real world view. No matter how much you value a forum like that one. Now back to the issue of a $300 beating a $3000 vinyl rig convincingly. Simply listen to solo piano recordings. For instance, Lang Lang's Rach3 on which he also played the Scriabin Etudes. Listen to the stability of the piano as the sound decays into silence in those etudes. Compare that to the ever-present wow-and-flutter on vinyl. Or listen to how quiet the background is. Or how clean the trebles sound in well-mastered CD's. Or how low the bass goes (and maintaining separation). Your $3K vinyl simply is incapable of reproducing high signal-to-noise ratios or the steady tone of pianos, like a $300 could. These are subjective tests, and the measurements back those up. The real world is NOT "pretty well divided" between CD enthusiasts and vinyl enthusiasts; I hate to break that news to you. The real world? The real world as I suspect you are defining it seems to have embraced Bose as the state of the art in speakers. Sorry, I'm not interested in what casual uninformed people believe. Ignorance is bliss. I am happy that you are happy .Most consumers of electronics are blissfully ignorant of the existance of highend turntables all together. I was suggesting a poll amoung people who actually have at least some experience with highend turntables. Why would you favor an uninformed poll of opinions over an informed poll? I bet you wouldn't feel the same way if astrology were the topic. Those knowledgeable know that the CD/SACD/DVD-A can reproduce music with an accuracy that the vinyl, due to its inherent short-comings, cannot. Those who love vinyl love certain LP recordings, or the euphonic properties of vinyl. The digital formats can reproduce the outputs of a phono-preamp accurately, and therefore it is the better delivery medium. In other words, if we like, we can put in all those euphonic sound qualities of vinyl on digital medium. It's that simple. Then I got a new 16 bit CD player. It was better than the Yamaha rack system turntable with the new Ortofon cartridge. Then I got a SOTA Star turntable with an Alphason HR 100 arm and a Koetsu Black goldline cartridge. That pretty much killed the CD player. Of course back then I wasn't really thinking about the mastering process. But the hardware was making a difference every time with the same CDs and LP counterparts. I found CDs to be generally fatiguing in comparison to my SOTA/Alphason/Koetsu combo. I cannot say that Mr. Lavo's comments on filtering are a technically accurate explination. They were simply without technical merits, that's what we're saying. Fine. Subjective opinions do not need to be suplimented by accurate technical explinations to be valid. Not if they are stated as opinions with no technical explanations given. Well, we agree on some things. Mr. Lavo was, however, trying to degrade CD using technical arguments. I suspect that was a mistake on his part. It doesn't make his subjective impressions any less valid though. Anytime a technical argument is brought up, it can be judged as accurate or not accurate. Certainly. I would suggest not seeking confirmation one way or another from me though. For example, if someone say vinyl beats CD because vinyl has infinite resolution, then that is a challengeable claim. And that opinion is wrong. If they say that they like the vinyl sound more, then that is an opinion without a technical claim, and no one argues with that. OK. No problem. the technical claim can and should be challenged. The subjective impression is still valid however. We never said Mr. Lavo was wrong to love vinyl! I can say personally my preference has nothing to do with familiarity. and as for accuracy? Who knows which is more accurate for any given recording? Yes, who cares what anyone prefers. I do. I care about what I prefer. But no one else really cares that much about it, and that's my point. Doesn't seem like much of a point. Also not terribly valid. I am often asked for my opinion on such things because some people out there respect that opinion. Well, your point (that my point does not seem much of a point) is not much of a point to me .Then perhaps we can drop that particular line of this thread. But if we compare which delivery format is better, accuracy has to be a major factor. Better meaning what? To me better means preferable in the context it will be used. So far I have found LPs to be better than CDs in most cases. As a delievry format, better meaning able to preserve the input signal. In other words, higher fidelity to the input signal. At this point, I would like to reiterate what Siegfried Linkwitz said that is really the foundation of high fidelity: Some say it is some say it isn't. In the end it isn't an issue to me. The sum of the parts is the issue to me. If in the sum of the parts of recording and playback add up to an impression of greater realism with vinyl then vinyl is better in my opinion. Audio is a "team sport." You are welcome to your opinion that vinyl is better for you. As a delivery medium, accuracy is important, but clearly you don't value accuracy to the original signal. I am afraid you have misunderstood the philosophy of my approach to audio. I do very much value accuracy to the original signal if we are talking about the original acoustic event. Please re-read what Siegfried Linkwitz said. He already addressed your issues. Given that, there is really no point in pursuing this subject with you, since there really is no common basis for a discussion. It is unfortunate that you would choose to end the discussion based on your misrepresentation of my beliefs. Do what you want though. It's simply a waste of bandwidth. |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
Mkuller wrote:
chung wrote: You are welcome to your opinion that vinyl is better for you. As a delivery medium, accuracy is important, but clearly you don't value accuracy to the original signal. Whew, you finally got it. Most audiophiles don't care about "accuracy to the original signal" as much as you and the other engineers do. I agree that you and certain subjectivists do not care about "accuracy to the original signal". However, in deciding which delivery format is superior, accuracy has to be a major factor. And I don't think my view is only shared by other engineers. When someone designs an amp, a speaker, an RIAA network, or a CD player, the most important measurements are tied to accuracy, i.e. how accurately does the output deviate from ideal. Anytime a designer decides to intentionally introduce inaccuracy, you have a product that cannot be called a high-fidelity product. Accuracy is really the basis of audio design. Audiophiles care if it sounds more like real live music - that is the 'accuracy' we are looking for. That kind of accuracy is not definable, since each one of us has a different idea of what real live music sounds like. What sounds accurate to you may very well sound terribly inaccurate to me. Most of us have never been to a recording studio and listen to the live feed, so I don't see how you could have any memory of what the recording should sound like, in order to establish a reference. And if it doesn't 'sound' more like live music, who cares how well it measures. That's nearly meaningless to me as an audiophile. Accuracy by definition means true to the original. Keep that in mind. If the original signal that the mastering engineer decides to put down on the medium is indeed "like live music", that an accurate system will reproduce that sound. Given that, there is really no point in pursuing this subject with you, since there really is no common basis for a discussion. Thank you for finally recognizing this. Yeah, there is really no accounting for taste. Regards, Mike |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
|
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:24:10 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 3/15/2004 9:33 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: hNl5c.15171$J05.125632@attbi_s01 On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 23:35:57 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: Oh, did I tell you that to my ears, well-recorded CD's sound so much better than well-recorded vinyl? And all of my friends agree, too! On what turntable/arm/ cartridge system? It does make a difference. A *very* tired old argument, No it is a valid issue. If one is making comparisons on poor LP playback equipment one is not making a valid comparison of the two media. It is *not* a valid issue when the poster states that anyone who prefers CD *must* not have heard a decent vinyl rig. It's simply a strawman used by vinylphiles who have no other argument to offer. and refuted by those regulars who *do* maintain decent quality vinyl rigs, for those performances that simply aren't available on CD. Refuted? No! Disagreed with yes. No, refuted. The standard strawman is that those who prefer CD *must* not have heard a high quality vinyl rig. This is *refuted* by those of us who have good facilities for both media. As it happens, I've also listened to the Rockport Sirius / Clearaudio Insider rig in company with Andy Payor, who had just set it up. It doesn't get any more 'high end' than that! Your preferences are not a source of any universal refutal. By the way, you are the only regular that i know of who actually has a true highend turntable and prefers CDs. One tesimonial is just one testimonial. Quite so. I have no problem with those who prefer vinyl, I just wish they wouldn't keep trotting out this tired old strawman which simply reeks of high-end snobbery and has no basis in truth. I have no problem with those who prefer Zenith El Primero mechanical watches, but at least they don't try to pretend that the Zenith is a better timekeeper than a $5 Casio. I've never heard anyone say "if you've never owned a Breguet Tourbillon, then you just aren't qualified to comment". I would also suggest you look into getting a tonearm worthy of your table. Just a suggestion. See above. I know what improvement van be made by using the very best equipment - and it won't make up for having to play the same vinyl! The limitation is in the *medium*, not in the playback gear. If the playback gear is SOTA. Otherwise one is listening to the shortcommings of the rig that are not inherent in the medium. Hence an unfair demonstration of the medium. A Rega Planar 2 is more than adequate to demonstrate the limitations of the medium. Everything else is simply tuning up the VW Golf of vinyl in an attempt to match the Porsche 911 of CD. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:exm5c.17100$po.206393@attbi_s52... From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 3/15/2004 9:33 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: hNl5c.15171$J05.125632@attbi_s01 On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 23:35:57 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: Oh, did I tell you that to my ears, well-recorded CD's sound so much better than well-recorded vinyl? And all of my friends agree, too! On what turntable/arm/ cartridge system? It does make a difference. A *very* tired old argument, No it is a valid issue. If one is making comparisons on poor LP playback equipment one is not making a valid comparison of the two media. When it gets to where the vinyl playback equipment costs more than the recording lathe and cutterhead that made the disc in the first place, we've gone completely overboard! Norm Strong |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
From: "normanstrong"
Date: 3/16/2004 10:58 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "S888Wheel" wrote in message news:exm5c.17100$po.206393@attbi_s52... From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 3/15/2004 9:33 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: hNl5c.15171$J05.125632@attbi_s01 On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 23:35:57 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: Oh, did I tell you that to my ears, well-recorded CD's sound so much better than well-recorded vinyl? And all of my friends agree, too! On what turntable/arm/ cartridge system? It does make a difference. A *very* tired old argument, No it is a valid issue. If one is making comparisons on poor LP playback equipment one is not making a valid comparison of the two media. When it gets to where the vinyl playback equipment costs more than the recording lathe and cutterhead that made the disc in the first place, we've gone completely overboard! Norm Strong Not if one can afford it and it makes for better sound. |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
|
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
From: Stewart Pinkerton
Date: 3/16/2004 10:02 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: KiH5c.22949$_w.490086@attbi_s53 On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:24:10 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 3/15/2004 9:33 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: hNl5c.15171$J05.125632@attbi_s01 On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 23:35:57 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote: Oh, did I tell you that to my ears, well-recorded CD's sound so much better than well-recorded vinyl? And all of my friends agree, too! On what turntable/arm/ cartridge system? It does make a difference. A *very* tired old argument, No it is a valid issue. If one is making comparisons on poor LP playback equipment one is not making a valid comparison of the two media. It is *not* a valid issue when the poster states that anyone who prefers CD *must* not have heard a decent vinyl rig. It's simply a strawman used by vinylphiles who have no other argument to offer. Since I never said that it seems that it would be a be a valid point by your own standards. and refuted by those regulars who *do* maintain decent quality vinyl rigs, for those performances that simply aren't available on CD. Refuted? No! Disagreed with yes. No, refuted. The standard strawman is that those who prefer CD *must* not have heard a high quality vinyl rig. This is *refuted* by those of us who have good facilities for both media. Since I made no such claim your argument is a strawman. Nothing more. You have stated your opinion but you have refuted nothing. As it happens, I've also listened to the Rockport Sirius / Clearaudio Insider rig in company with Andy Payor, who had just set it up. It doesn't get any more 'high end' than that! I have heard that very same set up as well. I like mine better. but it is very good. So your perceptual impression is different than mine. How do you know yours isn't being influenced by your biases? At least i know that when I discovered my preference for highend LP playback it was in spite of my pro CD biases. Your preferences are not a source of any universal refutal. By the way, you are the only regular that i know of who actually has a true highend turntable and prefers CDs. One tesimonial is just one testimonial. Quite so. I have no problem with those who prefer vinyl, I just wish they wouldn't keep trotting out this tired old strawman which simply reeks of high-end snobbery and has no basis in truth. Fair enough but perhaps you should pay more attention to what i have actually said and not what you think I have said. I have no problem with those who prefer Zenith El Primero mechanical watches, but at least they don't try to pretend that the Zenith is a better timekeeper than a $5 Casio. Now that is a strawman. Timekeeping is not an aesthetic experience. It is not a relevant analogy. I've never heard anyone say "if you've never owned a Breguet Tourbillon, then you just aren't qualified to comment". Probably because it isn't relevant. I would also suggest you look into getting a tonearm worthy of your table. Just a suggestion. See above. I know what improvement van be made by using the very best equipment - and it won't make up for having to play the same vinyl! The point is you can improve what you have. It was just a suggestion. The limitation is in the *medium*, not in the playback gear. If the playback gear is SOTA. Otherwise one is listening to the shortcommings of the rig that are not inherent in the medium. Hence an unfair demonstration of the medium. A Rega Planar 2 is more than adequate to demonstrate the limitations of the medium. Everything else is simply tuning up the VW Golf of vinyl in an attempt to match the Porsche 911 of CD. -- I disagree completely |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 3/15/2004 10:50 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: CVm5c.17175$_w.345218@attbi_s53 S888Wheel wrote: Of course, you know that there are many anecdotes there are exactly opposite yours. Like "My $300 CD player totally trounced by $3,000 vinyl rig"? I'm not sure there are quite so many if we are looking at such claims proportionally. I have a suggestion. Register at the Steve Hoffman forum then start a poll (they have special threads for polls) ask how many people who own or have listened to turntable rigs that are priced at 3,000 or higher if they think those rigs sonically outperform CD playback at the 300 dollar level. The forum membership is pretty well divided between CD enthusiasts and vinyl enthusiasts. In fact you will see more threads about quality CDs than you will about vinyl. The results might be interesting. That would be like what I said befo Ask a group of churchgoers whether they believe there is a god. Or ask in the Audio Asylum Cable forum whether there is such a phenomenon as cable break-in. Did you not get the part where i specifically told you that the LP enthusiasts are at least equaled in number if not out numbered by CD enthusiasts?You are simply making a false presumption about the members of that forum. Too bad. No, you just did not carefully read what I wrote. A large % of the people who frequent a forum such as Hoffman are vinylphiles. That percentage may be 50, like you seem to say by "well-divided", but that is nowhere near the % of vinylphiles in the real world, by any measure. A survey in that forum would have a bias that does not reflect the real world view. No matter how much you value a forum like that one. I read it carefully enough. You said the same thing you are saying here. You are dismissing the group because of your presumptions about the forum membership bias. their bias is an interest in better sound for the sake of music. Wait a minute, isn't Hoffman the guy who promoted this gadget: http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm Just based on that, I would not participate on his forum. Didn't Steven Sullivan got banned from his forum once for voicing his scientific opinions? Hmmm, that sounds like another audio asylum... No, I would say that those who frequent that forum have a strong subjectivist bend, are pro-vinyl, and I don't believe they are reflective of the real-world audio enthusiasts at all! i think they are a much better informed group than the public at large. No, not true, based on the fact that Hoffman could promote that gadget there. Again, I don't think you would favor the opinion of the public at large if the topic were astology. You call upon the masses when you think they agree with you. i make no presumption about the forum members at Steve Hoffman's website. The *majority* of them are CD enthusiasts. If you like, go ahead and do your survey. I think the results are biased, but you are welcome to it, and yeaj, it could be fun. Now back to the issue of a $300 beating a $3000 vinyl rig convincingly. Simply listen to solo piano recordings. I have done so quite extensively. For instance, Lang Lang's Rach3 on which he also played the Scriabin Etudes. Listen to the stability of the piano as the sound decays into silence in those etudes. Compare that to the ever-present wow-and-flutter on vinyl. I have. the wow and flutter on my system are inaudible if the record is up to snuff. Of course, one of the problems of LP as a delivery format is that there are so many LP's that are not up to snuff, due to the difficulty of manufacturing perfectly centered discs, etc. I have yet to hear a CD capture the complexity of that same decay as does the LP and excellent recordings. Score 1 for the LP in that regard. If you are the one keeping score, we know the final tally already .But this is really deja au all over again. Almost exactly one year ago, you were an active participant in this thread comparing LP vs CD: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...3&as_miny=1995 The thread is "Dynamic rang of LP's", and it's 350+ posts long. For the sake of saving bandwidth, I would refer everyone to that thread. |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 01:52:54 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:
From: Stewart Pinkerton Date: 3/16/2004 10:02 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: KiH5c.22949$_w.490086@attbi_s53 I have no problem with those who prefer Zenith El Primero mechanical watches, but at least they don't try to pretend that the Zenith is a better timekeeper than a $5 Casio. Now that is a strawman. Timekeeping is not an aesthetic experience. It is not a relevant analogy. Clearly, you have never met an horologist! :-) I've never heard anyone say "if you've never owned a Breguet Tourbillon, then you just aren't qualified to comment". Probably because it isn't relevant. Certainly it is. CD is *vastly* more competent than LP by any technical measure, so any expressed preference for vinyl is amatter of subjective aeshetic preference. This is identical to the preference of many people for the fine precision engineering required to make a top-quality mechanical watch, as opposed to the more accurate but less satisfying quartz watch. Now do you see the analogy? BTW, a Breguet Tourbillon costs even more than a Sirius III, so many 'high enders' would therefore consider it to be better by default than a cheaper watch, even though the reality is that Zenith movements are the best that money can buy, and the Tourbillon wris****ch, like vinyl, is a very complex solution to a non-existant problem............ -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
|
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
chung wrote:
Wait a minute, isn't Hoffman the guy who promoted this gadget: http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm Indeed..and he gets mighty testy if you express skepticism about it. Just based on that, I would not participate on his forum. Didn't Steven Sullivan got banned from his forum once for voicing his scientific opinions? Hmmm, that sounds like another audio asylum... It pretty much is; you can read for yourself on the Audio Hardware forum there and see, wihtout joining. Hoffman himself says he dabbled with DBTs a long time ago, and?decided he didn't need it. Which leads to this sort of thing: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...cfc3& t=30116 Here's their DBT policy http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...cfc3& t=11234 Btw, down further in the thread, I'm the one who advised the moderator (offstage) to direct readers to RAHE, not RAO, if they want to learn about controlled comparisons. I'm also the 'krabapple' being referred to, and likely the one who prompted the thread in the first place. I'm not 'banned' per se but I am prevented from posting, until I agree to 1) never mention objective comparison methods unless I'm discussing results of blind tests I or others have done, and 2) never publicly question a statement or decision made by any of the board's moderators. No, I would say that those who frequent that forum have a strong subjectivist bend, are pro-vinyl, and I don't believe they are reflective of the real-world audio enthusiasts at all! There's probably a poll on there somewhere regarding that question, but as I',m no longer allowed to run searches, I can't point you to it. Maybe Scott (S888Wheel) can. i think they are a much better informed group than the public at large. No, not true, based on the fact that Hoffman could promote that gadget there. Like most audiophile forums, it's populated by lots of peopel who take dubious audiophile lore as 'fact', mainly because they surround themselves with others of the same mindset. I have yet to hear a CD capture the complexity of that same decay as does the LP and excellent recordings. Score 1 for the LP in that regard. If you are the one keeping score, we know the final tally already .All he has to do is copy that LP to CD, and he'd finally hear that 'decay' he thinks CD can't do. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
From: chung
Date: 3/17/2004 8:46 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: chung Date: 3/15/2004 10:50 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: CVm5c.17175$_w.345218@attbi_s53 S888Wheel wrote: Of course, you know that there are many anecdotes there are exactly opposite yours. Like "My $300 CD player totally trounced by $3,000 vinyl rig"? I'm not sure there are quite so many if we are looking at such claims proportionally. I have a suggestion. Register at the Steve Hoffman forum then start a poll (they have special threads for polls) ask how many people who own or have listened to turntable rigs that are priced at 3,000 or higher if they think those rigs sonically outperform CD playback at the 300 dollar level. The forum membership is pretty well divided between CD enthusiasts and vinyl enthusiasts. In fact you will see more threads about quality CDs than you will about vinyl. The results might be interesting. That would be like what I said befo Ask a group of churchgoers whether they believe there is a god. Or ask in the Audio Asylum Cable forum whether there is such a phenomenon as cable break-in. Did you not get the part where i specifically told you that the LP enthusiasts are at least equaled in number if not out numbered by CD enthusiasts?You are simply making a false presumption about the members of that forum. Too bad. No, you just did not carefully read what I wrote. A large % of the people who frequent a forum such as Hoffman are vinylphiles. That percentage may be 50, like you seem to say by "well-divided", but that is nowhere near the % of vinylphiles in the real world, by any measure. A survey in that forum would have a bias that does not reflect the real world view. No matter how much you value a forum like that one. I read it carefully enough. You said the same thing you are saying here. You are dismissing the group because of your presumptions about the forum membership bias. their bias is an interest in better sound for the sake of music. Wait a minute, isn't Hoffman the guy who promoted this gadget: http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm Yes an acoustic room treatment. You sure it doesn't make a difference? He auditioned it once at a show and liked what he heard. So what? Just based on that, I would not participate on his forum. Based on an endorsment of a room treatment? Wow! Didn't Steven Sullivan got banned from his forum once for voicing his scientific opinions? Hmmm, that sounds like another audio asylum... No he got suspended for not following the rules. No, I would say that those who frequent that forum have a strong subjectivist bend, are pro-vinyl, and I don't believe they are reflective of the real-world audio enthusiasts at all! You would be letting your biases get the best of you. Ironic coming from one who seems to endorse the idea of controling biases. i think they are a much better informed group than the public at large. No, not true, based on the fact that Hoffman could promote that gadget there. OSAF. I am surprised to see you think Steve Hoffman's endorsement of a room treatment is grounds to dismiss the opinions of the entire forum over there. Should others do the same to this forum based on any one opinion of any one regular on any one subject? It looks to me like you were just looking for an excuse. Ever listen to Steve Hoffman's work? Again, I don't think you would favor the opinion of the public at large if the topic were astology. You call upon the masses when you think they agree with you. i make no presumption about the forum members at Steve Hoffman's website. The *majority* of them are CD enthusiasts. If you like, go ahead and do your survey. I think the results are biased, but you are welcome to it, and yeaj, it could be fun. There is no mob mentality over there that I can see. I think the results might be interesting over there because it is the one forum that I think comes the closest to being unbiased overall. I think the results would not be a s easy to predict there as they would here or in the Vinyl Asylum on Audio Asylum. Perhaps you think your like minded friends here on RAHE are the ones who are truly unbiased? Now back to the issue of a $300 beating a $3000 vinyl rig convincingly. Simply listen to solo piano recordings. I have done so quite extensively. For instance, Lang Lang's Rach3 on which he also played the Scriabin Etudes. Listen to the stability of the piano as the sound decays into silence in those etudes. Compare that to the ever-present wow-and-flutter on vinyl. I have. the wow and flutter on my system are inaudible if the record is up to snuff. Of course, one of the problems of LP as a delivery format is that there are so many LP's that are not up to snuff, due to the difficulty of manufacturing perfectly centered discs, etc. There are a lot of CDs that are not up to snuf either. It goes both ways on that issue. I will say though, the LP is definitely more prone to manufacturing defects and to damage. I have yet to hear a CD capture the complexity of that same decay as does the LP and excellent recordings. Score 1 for the LP in that regard. If you are the one keeping score, we know the final tally already .I keep my own score yes. The results were in for me quite a while ago. I do however look for better mastered CDs as well as LPs. But this is really deja au all over again. Almost exactly one year ago, you were an active participant in this thread comparing LP vs CD: Not much has changed since then. |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
S888Wheel wrote:
Wait a minute, isn't Hoffman the guy who promoted this gadget: http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm Yes an acoustic room treatment. You sure it doesn't make a difference? And you still have to ask? He auditioned it once at a show and liked what he heard. So what? Just based on that, I would not participate on his forum. Based on an endorsment of a room treatment? Wow! Didn't Steven Sullivan got banned from his forum once for voicing his scientific opinions? Hmmm, that sounds like another audio asylum... No he got suspended for not following the rules. Those rules, as Steven explained in a follow-up post, I would find it impossible to adhere to. Hence I would not participate in such a forum. In fact, Mr. Sullivan appears to me to be a perfectly reasonable gentleman with a well-thought-posting style. It's definitely that forum's loss not to have him. I am much more blunt than Mr. Sullivan, and I doubt very much if I could last there, even if I wish to join. Now how much weight should I give to a forum whose rules I don't respect? No, I would say that those who frequent that forum have a strong subjectivist bend, are pro-vinyl, and I don't believe they are reflective of the real-world audio enthusiasts at all! You would be letting your biases get the best of you. Ironic coming from one who seems to endorse the idea of controling biases. It's not that I am biased. It's the fact that those who participate in such a forum tend to be subjectivist, not interested in objective bias-controlled methods, and much more skewed towards favoring vinyl than the audio enthusisasts who don't frequent those forums. When you do a survey there, you are doing a survey using that special set of subjects, and therefore your results are biased. i think they are a much better informed group than the public at large. No, not true, based on the fact that Hoffman could promote that gadget there. OSAF. I am surprised to see you think Steve Hoffman's endorsement of a room treatment is grounds to dismiss the opinions of the entire forum over there. Should others do the same to this forum based on any one opinion of any one regular on any one subject? It looks to me like you were just looking for an excuse. No excuse, you are welcome to do your survey there. Ever listen to Steve Hoffman's work? No, never felt the urge to. Have you listened to some great CD/SACD/DVD-A lately? Let us know if you need some recommendations. Again, I don't think you would favor the opinion of the public at large if the topic were astology. You call upon the masses when you think they agree with you. i make no presumption about the forum members at Steve Hoffman's website. The *majority* of them are CD enthusiasts. If you like, go ahead and do your survey. I think the results are biased, but you are welcome to it, and yeaj, it could be fun. There is no mob mentality over there that I can see. I think the results might be interesting over there because it is the one forum that I think comes the closest to being unbiased overall. I think the results would not be a s easy to predict there as they would here or in the Vinyl Asylum on Audio Asylum. Perhaps you think your like minded friends here on RAHE are the ones who are truly unbiased? The RAHE is a very small sampling of audio enthusiasts. I do not think that the results here are really reflective of the mass of enthuisasts in the world. Therefore, a survey done on this newsgroup also has limited appeal to me. Now back to the issue of a $300 beating a $3000 vinyl rig convincingly. Simply listen to solo piano recordings. I have done so quite extensively. For instance, Lang Lang's Rach3 on which he also played the Scriabin Etudes. Listen to the stability of the piano as the sound decays into silence in those etudes. Compare that to the ever-present wow-and-flutter on vinyl. I have. the wow and flutter on my system are inaudible if the record is up to snuff. Of course, one of the problems of LP as a delivery format is that there are so many LP's that are not up to snuff, due to the difficulty of manufacturing perfectly centered discs, etc. There are a lot of CDs that are not up to snuf either. It goes both ways on that issue. CD's that are not manufactured up to snuff? Please give examples. And compare against vinyl. I will say though, the LP is definitely more prone to manufacturing defects and to damage. I have yet to hear a CD capture the complexity of that same decay as does the LP and excellent recordings. Score 1 for the LP in that regard. If you are the one keeping score, we know the final tally already .I keep my own score yes. The results were in for me quite a while ago. I do however look for better mastered CDs as well as LPs. But this is really deja au all over again. Almost exactly one year ago, you were an active participant in this thread comparing LP vs CD: Not much has changed since then. Here is a practical suggestion. Get that $100 Panasonic DVD-A player that Mr. Lavo raved about. That Remastering/Upsampling may be exactly what you need to appreciate the digital formats! If not, you are out at most $100, and it's a nice DVD player. |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
Audio over DVD video?
S888Wheel wrote:
There is no mob mentality over there that I can see. I think the results might be interesting over there because it is the one forum that I think comes the closest to being unbiased overall. I presumse you mean about LP vs CD, because otherwise your claim is not supported by the evidence. SH.tv is *heavily* biased on some topics. There are a lot of CDs that are not up to snuf either. It goes both ways on that issue. I will say though, the LP is definitely more prone to manufacturing defects and to damage. LP also has more inherent, audible, and to some, euphonic departures from accuracy, than CD. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Looking for an "expert" in car video and audio... | Audio Opinions | |||
| I am looking for an "expert" in car video and audio to hire.... | General | |||
| FS: 400 Closeouts!! Video Game, Computer, Mobile A/V, Personal A/V | Car Audio | |||
| Comments about Blind Testing | High End Audio | |||
| science vs. pseudo-science | High End Audio | |||
Linear Mode
