Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#601
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Letsee how many times do we have to explain this to Jenn? I'm in a generous mood today - I'll cast my pearls in front of the the swine one more time! ;-) (1) The CD format is capable of sonically perfect reproduction of any known audio signal. Below 20kHz. (2) However, there are no known audio signals that perfectly represent live music. Gotcha. (3) Even though the CD format reproduces *any* audio signal audibly I'm asking for enlightenment in all sincerity without an ulterior motive. I know less than little about electronic technology. I'm told that cd is perfect at reproducing the digital master. Digital copies are generally completely perfect. Is the digital master better at capturing the live sound than the analogue master? Yes. Evidence etc. please. *any* relevant unbiased objective or subjective measure. For example, analog masters are generally 15 ips magnetic tape. A first generation copy of 15 ips magnetic tape can be detected in an ABX test. The copy can be reliably distingushed from the source for even just one generation of copying. http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tapg.htm The essence of creating a master is copying some analog or digital source onto the mastering media, whether analog tape or digital media. An analog source can be digitized and converted back to an analog signal that copies the source, and the source will be indistinguishable from the copy. IOW a good ADC driving a good DAC will produce a signal that is audibly indistinguishable from the ADC's input signal. The copy and the source can't be distinguished from each other. This can extend over a goodly number of generations: http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm A digital source can be copied exactly, so the copy and the source are indistinguishable. Arny, I truly appreciate your prompt answer and I do not intend to carp. But I do not think that we're talking about the same thing. My fault no doubt- not explaining myself adequately. I do not doubt that you can get near perfect digital COPIES from any manufactured source. (If you don't understand what I mean by "manufactured" I'm sorry- can not think of a better synonym right now. Just try to be with me- believe me discussion is more interesting and helpful that way) For instance I can burn near-perfect ( to my ears) copies of music disks on my computer. That's digital enough for me. I need no convincing. What I want to know is : is there any evidence that LIVE music is captured better by digital than analogue master? Once again: D'Agostino and Meitner do not (or did not) think so. And they are both producing DIGITAL components. (very,very high end digital components) So they have no axe to grind.. And again: the golden age of LP. were the sixties- some of it ( now don't change what I say SOME) still unsurpassed.. Ludovic Mirabel I've been nice long enough. Now for a bit of carping RAO style. Somewhere you said that you listened to Meitner's stuff and found it unexciting. (or words to that effect). Isn't it an article of faith that all the competently designed amps. sound the same. Did you ABX Meitner- or did you, lord forbid- judge it SIGHTED? Horrors. |
#602
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Letsee how many times do we have to explain this to Jenn? I'm in a generous mood today - I'll cast my pearls in front of the the swine one more time! ;-) (1) The CD format is capable of sonically perfect reproduction of any known audio signal. Below 20kHz. greater than 20 KHz isn't really audio for human listeners. (2) However, there are no known audio signals that perfectly represent live music. Gotcha. Got *everybdy*. (3) Even though the CD format reproduces *any* audio signal audibly perfectly, there are no known perfect audio signals representing live music available to reproduce. Below 20kHz, greater than 20 KHz isn't really audio for human listeners. and barring technical quibles about filters, jitter, etc. Only small boys worry about those issues these days. (4) Therefore the CD format like every other format including direct feeds from the finest microphones, cannot perfectly reproduce any example of live music. Okay. Huzzah! Jenn is as usual resorting to debating trade tactics in order to score points. She's faulting a superior format for not being able to do the impossible. My question for you is similar to hers: given the imperfections of recording, mastering and the cd medium, what cds would you say do a good job of preserving the massed string sound of an orchestra? Answering that question properly would require that I review several 100 hours of recordings. If I agreed to answer it, it would be about a six months from now before I would know the answer. Why? |
#603
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
wrote in message
ups.com Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com MINe 109 wrote: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Letsee how many times do we have to explain this to Jenn? I'm in a generous mood today - I'll cast my pearls in front of the the swine one more time! ;-) (1) The CD format is capable of sonically perfect reproduction of any known audio signal. Below 20kHz. (2) However, there are no known audio signals that perfectly represent live music. Gotcha. (3) Even though the CD format reproduces *any* audio signal audibly I'm asking for enlightenment in all sincerity without an ulterior motive. I know less than little about electronic technology. I'm told that cd is perfect at reproducing the digital master. Digital copies are generally completely perfect. Is the digital master better at capturing the live sound than the analogue master? Yes. Evidence etc. please. *any* relevant unbiased objective or subjective measure. For example, analog masters are generally 15 ips magnetic tape. A first generation copy of 15 ips magnetic tape can be detected in an ABX test. The copy can be reliably distingushed from the source for even just one generation of copying. http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_tapg.htm The essence of creating a master is copying some analog or digital source onto the mastering media, whether analog tape or digital media. An analog source can be digitized and converted back to an analog signal that copies the source, and the source will be indistinguishable from the copy. IOW a good ADC driving a good DAC will produce a signal that is audibly indistinguishable from the ADC's input signal. The copy and the source can't be distinguished from each other. This can extend over a goodly number of generations: http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm A digital source can be copied exactly, so the copy and the source are indistinguishable. Arny, I truly appreciate your prompt answer and I do not intend to carp. But I do not think that we're talking about the same thing. My fault no doubt- not explaining myself adequately. I do not doubt that you can get near perfect digital COPIES from any manufactured source. Or at home using recordable digital media. (If you don't understand what I mean by "manufactured" I'm sorry- can not think of a better synonym right now. Just try to be with me- believe me discussion is more interesting and helpful that way) For instance I can burn near-perfect ( to my ears) copies of music disks on my computer. That's digital enough for me. I need no convincing. In general, these copies are not near-perfect in terms of digital data. As a rule if made with resonable care, they are functionally perfect. What I want to know is : is there any evidence that LIVE music is captured better by digital than analogue master? Yes. Once again: D'Agostino and Meitner do not (or did not) think so. This is a very self-serving belief for them to hold onto. AFAIK its not based on bias-controlled listening tests, and its unlikely that they, like say John Curl or John Atkinson will ever in their lives do a proper listening test to confirm their beliefs. And they are both producing DIGITAL components. (very,very high end digital components) So they have no axe to grind.. They do have an axe to grind. They assert that their equipment is as good if not better than any other equipment of similar kind that exists, but that even so their equipment could sound better. That allows them to shortly come out with "improved" products while maintaining the appearance of credibility in the market place. This particular logical trick is at or near the core of the most of the high end audio industry. That's one of the problems with admitting that a particular piece of gear is sonically transparent - its sound quality cannot be improved for fun and profit. |
#604
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message ups.com What I want to know is : is there any evidence that LIVE music is captured better by digital than analogue master? Yes. I don't disagree. See my earlier post on the Mozart recording I produced. Once again: D'Agostino and Meitner do not (or did not) think so. This is a very self-serving belief for them to hold onto. AFAIK its not based on bias-controlled listening tests, and its unlikely that they, like say John Curl or John Atkinson will ever in their lives do a proper listening test to confirm their beliefs. A Freudian (or should I say "Nousaineian") slip of Mr. Krueger's pen :-) One does't do test to "confirm" one's beliefs, one does them to find out whether a phenomenon is audible. And as Mr. Krueger knows (because I listed them for him at the HE2005 debate) I have taken part in many such tests, including ABX testing of absolute polarity, something that prior to the test I did not believe audible. Scoring 10 correct out of 10 trials using the ABX box was evidence that my belief was wrong. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#605
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
"John Atkinson" wrote in message ups.com... Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message ups.com What I want to know is : is there any evidence that LIVE music is captured better by digital than analogue master? Yes. I don't disagree. See my earlier post on the Mozart recording I produced. Once again: D'Agostino and Meitner do not (or did not) think so. This is a very self-serving belief for them to hold onto. AFAIK its not based on bias-controlled listening tests, and its unlikely that they, like say John Curl or John Atkinson will ever in their lives do a proper listening test to confirm their beliefs. A Freudian (or should I say "Nousaineian") slip of Mr. Krueger's pen :-) One does't do test to "confirm" one's beliefs, one does them to find out whether a phenomenon is audible. And if one's belief is that there is no difference, the test is useless, because it is not designed to remove that particular listener bias. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
#606
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
Clyde Slick said: A Freudian (or should I say "Nousaineian") slip of Mr. Krueger's pen :-) One does't do test to "confirm" one's beliefs, one does them to find out whether a phenomenon is audible. And if one's belief is that there is no difference, the test is useless, because it is not designed to remove that particular listener bias. Krooger's "belief" is like the "belief" of christian fundies about "God".... They "know" that "God is always with us". I think they use "know" instead of "believe" because they have an irrational amount of baggage attached to what we know is just a belief. |
#607
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message ups.com Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message ups.com Once again: D'Agostino and Meitner do not (or did not) think so. This is a very self-serving belief for them to hold onto. AFAIK its not based on bias-controlled listening tests, and its unlikely that they, like say John Curl or John Atkinson will ever in their lives do a proper listening test to confirm their beliefs. A Freudian (or should I say "Nousaineian") slip of Mr. Krueger's pen :-) One does't do test to "confirm" one's beliefs, one does them to find out whether a phenomenon is audible. Usual Atkinsonian hair-splitting noted. And as Mr. Krueger knows (because I listed them for him at the HE2005 debate) I have taken part in many such tests, including ABX testing of absolute polarity, something that prior to the test I did not believe audible. Scoring 10 correct out of 10 trials using the ABX box was evidence that my belief was wrong. A single trivial test does not disprove the observable rule that John Atkinson does not in general do DBTs. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#608
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message oups.com asked of Arny Krueger: MINe 109 asked of Arny Krueger: given the imperfections of recording, mastering and the cd medium, what cds would you say do a good job of preserving the massed string sound of an orchestra? I'm asking for enlightenment in all sincerity without an ulterior motive. I know less than little about electronic technology. I'm told that cd is perfect at reproducing the digital master. Is the digital master better at capturing the live sound than the analogue master? I did such a comparison when I produced the Mozart recording reported on at http://www.stereophile.com/musicrecordings/804k622/. We were recording the clarinet and orchestra using a DSD recorder (for SACD release), analog tape at 15ips with Dolby-A noise reduction, and with a 16-bit/44.1k PCM recorder to make CD-Rs for me to take with me after the sessions. In comparisons with the mike feed, the DSD to me was identical. Both the PCM and analog were different from the live feed, but listeners preferred the analog tape, particularly in the sound of strings. The SACD we released has versions of the concerto mastered from DSD and from analog tape transcribed both to DSD and 16-bit PCM, as well as a CD layer transcribed from DSD and analog. It should answer some questions. We have very few left in stock, but I will happily send Jenn one to audition. Two words: sighted evaluation. One word: invalid |
#609
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
Arny Krueger wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message ups.com its unlikely that they, like say John Curl or John Atkinson will ever in their lives do a proper listening test to confirm their beliefs. A Freudian (or should I say "Nousaineian") slip of Mr. Krueger's pen :-) One does't do test to "confirm" one's beliefs, one does them to find out whether a phenomenon is audible. Usual...hair-splitting noted. I snipped your usual name-calling, Mr. Krueger. And no, this is not hair-splitting. Scientific method demands an agnostic attitude on the part of the experimenter when he both designs and performs the test. Otherwise the _tester's_ bias affects the results. Both Tom Nousaine's and Howard Ferstler's published blind tests have suffered from this problem. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#610
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
"Jenn" wrote in message ... : In article , : Steven Sullivan wrote: : : Jenn wrote: : Sure. The ability to perfectly replicate the sound of an actual : instrument requires perfect frequency matching, perfect timbre, super : attention to detail (the ability to hear the bow on the string, for : example), perfect dynamic nuance, and perfect spacial cues. That's just : a start. : : But alas there's no evidence that modern recording can't capture all of those : completely, except for spatial cues. : : I see what you mean. But I'm confident that in any reasonable test, I : could tell the actual violin playing from any recording 100% of the : time, and I think that more than just spatial cues must come into play. I'd be interested to know what you'd think of the "best possible" reproduction, something like a live feed from a pair of AKG CK62 capsules, amplified and played through a Stax headphone set - how close a call that is ? Maybe if you come around some studio in the near fu.. ? Rudy |
#611
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
"John Atkinson" wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message ups.com its unlikely that they, like say John Curl or John Atkinson will ever in their lives do a proper listening test to confirm their beliefs. A Freudian (or should I say "Nousaineian") slip of Mr. Krueger's pen :-) One does't do test to "confirm" one's beliefs, one does them to find out whether a phenomenon is audible. Usual...hair-splitting noted. I snipped your usual name-calling, Mr. Krueger. And no, this is not hair-splitting. Scientific method demands an agnostic attitude on the part of the experimenter when he both designs and performs the test. Otherwise the _tester's_ bias affects the results. This is nonsense. Humans always have tester's bias. The important thing is for the scientist to design a methodology that neutralizes this bias during the experiment. Arny's tests accomplish this. If your hypothesis was correct no science would ever be validly performed. Bob |
#612
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
Bwian whined: I snipped your usual name-calling, Mr. Krueger. And no, this is not hair-splitting. Scientific method demands an agnostic attitude on the part of the experimenter when he both designs and performs the test. Otherwise the _tester's_ bias affects the results. This Arny no science Bwian, it's well known that Australians have the highest per-capita ice cream consumption rate in the civilized world. What kind of "entrepreneur" could tank an ice cream parlor in Australia? |
#613
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... Clyde Slick said: A Freudian (or should I say "Nousaineian") slip of Mr. Krueger's pen :-) One does't do test to "confirm" one's beliefs, one does them to find out whether a phenomenon is audible. And if one's belief is that there is no difference, the test is useless, because it is not designed to remove that particular listener bias. Krooger's "belief" is like the "belief" of christian fundies about "God".... They "know" that "God is always with us". I think they use "know" instead of "believe" because they have an irrational amount of baggage attached to what we know is just a belief. Fundamentalist Christian beliefs ceratinly aren't knowledge, we know that the Old Testament version of Creationsism did not happen. Nor does Intelligent Design derive from science, it is just another belief, a pathetic backpedaling from Creationism. It is more pathetic than Creationsism, and only demeans the who profess it, by pointing out their hypocricy and lack of Christian Faith. If one is going to be a Fundamentalist Bible thumping Chrisitian, "at least" they should stick with the program. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
#614
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "John Atkinson" wrote in message ups.com And as Mr. Krueger knows (because I listed them for him at the HE2005 debate) I have taken part in many such tests, including ABX testing of absolute polarity, something that prior to the test I did not believe audible. Scoring 10 correct out of 10 trials using the ABX box was evidence that my belief was wrong. A single trivial test does not disprove the observable rule that John Atkinson does not in general do DBTs. you don't do them in general either. http://tinyurl.com/prf7m http://tinyurl.com/rxm3c You should be doing one every morning. you should be doing -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
#615
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
Arny Krueger wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com asked of Arny Krueger: MINe 109 asked of Arny Krueger: given the imperfections of recording, mastering and the cd medium, what cds would you say do a good job of preserving the massed string sound of an orchestra? I'm asking for enlightenment in all sincerity without an ulterior motive. I know less than little about electronic technology. I'm told that cd is perfect at reproducing the digital master. Is the digital master better at capturing the live sound than the analogue master? I did such a comparison when I produced the Mozart recording reported on at http://www.stereophile.com/musicrecordings/804k622/. We were recording the clarinet and orchestra using a DSD recorder (for SACD release), analog tape at 15ips with Dolby-A noise reduction, and with a 16-bit/44.1k PCM recorder to make CD-Rs for me to take with me after the sessions. In comparisons with the mike feed, the DSD to me was identical. Both the PCM and analog were different from the live feed, but listeners preferred the analog tape, particularly in the sound of strings. The SACD we released has versions of the concerto mastered from DSD and from analog tape transcribed both to DSD and 16-bit PCM, as well as a CD layer transcribed from DSD and analog. It should answer some questions. We have very few left in stock, but I will happily send Jenn one to audition. Two words: sighted evaluation. One word: invalid Unless of course it is A Krueger evaluaating Meitner at the exhibition. Ludovic M. |
#616
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
Steven Sullivan wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message ps.com In audio the pursuit of excellence is represented not by the RAO noisemakers but by the truly outstanding and original designers like D'Agostino and Meitner who both stated that they are striving to equal the analogue level in their digital designs (see the "Stereophile" interviews with them in 2004) I heard equipment that was attributed to Meitner at HE2005. The good news is that it was SS and digital and not vinyl or tubes, but there was nothing exceptionally good-sounding about it. Bottom line, Sackman is being blinded by the hype. Mr. Sullivan contributes: Then of course there's guys liek Dan Lavry who are at least the equal of Meitner and D'Agostino as makers of gear, but who haven't quaffed the analog kool-aid . Interesting. The real audio designers hold contrasting opinions. But here I'm told that the issue has bee settled once for all- digital rules . Life is hard on RAO. Whom to believe? Meitner or Lavry (whoever he is)? Sullivan or Krueger?. Ludovic Mirabel -- -S "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788) |
#617
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... : "Jenn" wrote in message : : : But Arny, you said that it's easy for CDs to present : perfect frequency matching, perfect timbres, perfectly : super attention to detail, perfect dynamic nuance, and : perfect spacial cues. : : Given your monumental ignorance of what recording is all about Jenn, you've : forgotten about the most important thing: : : A prefect audio signal to record that perfectly represents the sound of live : music. : : There tain't no such thing, nowhere in the known universe. : correct. no such thing as a prefect audio signal LOUHLi2k6 library of universe, head librarian 2006 |
#618
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
"Robert Morein" wrote in message .. . "John Atkinson" wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message ups.com its unlikely that they, like say John Curl or John Atkinson will ever in their lives do a proper listening test to confirm their beliefs. A Freudian (or should I say "Nousaineian") slip of Mr. Krueger's pen :-) One does't do test to "confirm" one's beliefs, one does them to find out whether a phenomenon is audible. Usual...hair-splitting noted. I snipped your usual name-calling, Mr. Krueger. And no, this is not hair-splitting. Scientific method demands an agnostic attitude on the part of the experimenter when he both designs and performs the test. Otherwise the _tester's_ bias affects the results. This is nonsense. Humans always have tester's bias. The important thing is for the scientist to design a methodology that neutralizes this bias during the experiment. Arny's tests accomplish this. If your hypothesis was correct no science would ever be validly performed. Bob -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
#619
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
In article ,
"Ruud Broens" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... : In article , : Steven Sullivan wrote: : : Jenn wrote: : Sure. The ability to perfectly replicate the sound of an actual : instrument requires perfect frequency matching, perfect timbre, super : attention to detail (the ability to hear the bow on the string, for : example), perfect dynamic nuance, and perfect spacial cues. That's : just : a start. : : But alas there's no evidence that modern recording can't capture all of : those : completely, except for spatial cues. : : I see what you mean. But I'm confident that in any reasonable test, I : could tell the actual violin playing from any recording 100% of the : time, and I think that more than just spatial cues must come into play. I'd be interested to know what you'd think of the "best possible" reproduction, something like a live feed from a pair of AKG CK62 capsules, amplified and played through a Stax headphone set - how close a call that is ? Maybe if you come around some studio in the near fu.. ? Rudy Thanks for the polite question. I can't imagine not being able to tell the difference between anything coming out of a speaker and an actual instrument. |
#620
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
In article .com,
"John Atkinson" wrote: asked of Arny Krueger: MINe 109 asked of Arny Krueger: given the imperfections of recording, mastering and the cd medium, what cds would you say do a good job of preserving the massed string sound of an orchestra? I'm asking for enlightenment in all sincerity without an ulterior motive. I know less than little about electronic technology. I'm told that cd is perfect at reproducing the digital master. Is the digital master better at capturing the live sound than the analogue master? I did such a comparison when I produced the Mozart recording reported on at http://www.stereophile.com/musicrecordings/804k622/. We were recording the clarinet and orchestra using a DSD recorder (for SACD release), analog tape at 15ips with Dolby-A noise reduction, and with a 16-bit/44.1k PCM recorder to make CD-Rs for me to take with me after the sessions. In comparisons with the mike feed, the DSD to me was identical. Both the PCM and analog were different from the live feed, but listeners preferred the analog tape, particularly in the sound of strings. The SACD we released has versions of the concerto mastered from DSD and from analog tape transcribed both to DSD and 16-bit PCM, as well as a CD layer transcribed from DSD and analog. It should answer some questions. We have very few left in stock, but I will happily send Jenn one to audition. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile John, I'd love to hear this, and I thank you for your generous offer. I'll email you my address. And please do let me know the cost. |
#621
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com asked of Arny Krueger: MINe 109 asked of Arny Krueger: given the imperfections of recording, mastering and the cd medium, what cds would you say do a good job of preserving the massed string sound of an orchestra? I'm asking for enlightenment in all sincerity without an ulterior motive. I know less than little about electronic technology. I'm told that cd is perfect at reproducing the digital master. Is the digital master better at capturing the live sound than the analogue master? I did such a comparison when I produced the Mozart recording reported on at http://www.stereophile.com/musicrecordings/804k622/. We were recording the clarinet and orchestra using a DSD recorder (for SACD release), analog tape at 15ips with Dolby-A noise reduction, and with a 16-bit/44.1k PCM recorder to make CD-Rs for me to take with me after the sessions. In comparisons with the mike feed, the DSD to me was identical. Both the PCM and analog were different from the live feed, but listeners preferred the analog tape, particularly in the sound of strings. The SACD we released has versions of the concerto mastered from DSD and from analog tape transcribed both to DSD and 16-bit PCM, as well as a CD layer transcribed from DSD and analog. It should answer some questions. We have very few left in stock, but I will happily send Jenn one to audition. Two words: sighted evaluation. Why? One word: invalid True, as I would be pulling for the pure digital to have the best sound. |
#622
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
I'd be interested to know what you'd think of the "best possible" reproduction, something like a live feed from a pair of AKG CK62 capsules, amplified and played through a Stax headphone set - how close a call that is ? If you want to do something like this, you have to do it *right* or you will have misleading results. There's only about one way to do this right, and that is to mount the mics on a real or artificial head, preferably one that duplicates the head of the listener. The reason for this relates to HRTFs. If you do this *right* the mics don't have to be exotic or expensive. Panasonic's low-cost omni electrets can provide very convincing results if the SPLs are reasonably high. OTOH Rudy if you fail to recognize that this is about binaural listening, which you have done above, you will never get really convincing results. Once you do this experiment right and deal with listener bias, you might be amazed at how humble the electronics link between the mics and the earphones can be for convincing results. If the link is digital, it doesn't even have to be all that wonderful - even MD can do. |
#623
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message ups.com Scientific method demands an agnostic attitude on the part of the experimenter when he both designs and performs the test. This is a very strange statement coming from a person who has made a career out of organizing biased tests. Otherwise the _tester's_ bias affects the results. Is this supposed to be some kind of a news flash? LOL! If only you could hear and properly perceive your own voice, John! Both Tom Nousaine's and Howard Ferstler's published blind tests have suffered from this problem. Just about every evaluation published in Stereophile, including a few that were mislabled "blind" have suffered from this problem. *Doctor* Atkinson, cure thyself! You would need to start redoing your life no later than that lame anecdote you started the HE2005 debate out with. |
#624
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. : "Ruud Broens" wrote in message : : : : I'd be interested to know what you'd think of the "best : possible" reproduction, something like a live feed from a : pair of AKG CK62 capsules, amplified and played through a : Stax headphone set - how close a call : that is ? : : If you want to do something like this, you have to do it *right* or you will : have misleading results. : : There's only about one way to do this right, and that is to mount the mics : on a real or artificial head, preferably one that duplicates the head of the : listener. The reason for this relates to HRTFs. : err, dunno about the real head :0) the capsules i mentioned are ruler flat to 30 KHz, perfect omni - why start with anything less ? : If you do this *right* the mics don't have to be exotic or expensive. : Panasonic's low-cost omni electrets can provide very convincing results if : the SPLs are reasonably high. : : OTOH Rudy if you fail to recognize that this is about binaural listening, : which you have done above, you will never get really convincing results. : err, dunno about that you better draw me a logic scheme for that.. let's stick with an artificial head, agreed Rudy : Once you do this experiment right and deal with listener bias, you might be : amazed at how humble the electronics link between the mics and the earphones : can be for convincing results. If the link is digital, it doesn't even have : to be all that wonderful - even MD can do. : : : |
#625
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... : ? There's no reason for there to be *audible* artifacts from a good : digital recording or transfer. This doesn't mean some bad recordings haven't been : made! : : -- : -SSS : "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788) good example of Science - Sullivan Style - : sweeping generalisations and narrow bandpass of knowledge now could we have some quantification for that 'science veneer', to finish it off, mr Sullivan ? garbage collector routine running.. R. |
#626
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
John Atkinson wrote:
asked of Arny Krueger: MINe 109 asked of Arny Krueger: given the imperfections of recording, mastering and the cd medium, what cds would you say do a good job of preserving the massed string sound of an orchestra? I'm asking for enlightenment in all sincerity without an ulterior motive. I know less than little about electronic technology. I'm told that cd is perfect at reproducing the digital master. Is the digital master better at capturing the live sound than the analogue master? I did such a comparison when I produced the Mozart recording reported on at http://www.stereophile.com/musicrecordings/804k622/. We were recording the clarinet and orchestra using a DSD recorder (for SACD release), analog tape at 15ips with Dolby-A noise reduction, and with a 16-bit/44.1k PCM recorder to make CD-Rs for me to take with me after the sessions. In comparisons with the mike feed, the DSD to me was identical. Both the PCM and analog were different from the live feed, but listeners preferred the analog tape, particularly in the sound of strings. sigh blind or sighted? And what were the statistics like? C'mon, having elsewhere on this thread opined on what good science *should be*, you *must* know how much this matters. -- -S "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788) |
#627
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
Ruud Broens wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... : ? There's no reason for there to be *audible* artifacts from a good : digital recording or transfer. This doesn't mean some bad recordings haven't been : made! : : -- : -SSS : "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788) good example of Science - Sullivan Style - : sweeping generalisations and narrow bandpass of knowledge now could we have some quantification for that 'science veneer', to finish it off, mr Sullivan ? garbage collector routine running.. R. I didn't know you were a *garbologist*, Ruud. My claim wasn't sweeping -- it was qualified with the words 'audible' and 'good'. If you wish to learn the technical details of what would constitute 'good' digital transfer -- one that would not be expected to produce audible artifacts -- I suggest you read Nika Aldrich's book, 'Digital Audio Explained for the Audio Engineer'. It treats the topic thoroughly, starting from the basics of acoustics and the physiology of hearing, up through the development of DSD. -- -S "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788) |
#628
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... : Ruud Broens wrote: : : "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message : ... : : : ? There's no reason for there to be *audible* artifacts from a good : : digital recording or transfer. This doesn't mean some bad recordings haven't : been : : made! : : : : -- : : -SSS : : "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788) : : good example of Science - Sullivan Style - : : sweeping generalisations and narrow bandpass of knowledge : now could we have some quantification for that 'science veneer', : to finish it off, mr Sullivan ? : : garbage collector routine : running.. : R. : : I didn't know you were a *garbologist*, Ruud. : : My claim wasn't sweeping -- it was qualified with the words : 'audible' and 'good'. If you wish to learn the technical details : of what would constitute 'good' digital transfer -- one that would : not be expected to produce audible artifacts -- I suggest you : read Nika Aldrich's book, 'Digital Audio Explained for the Audio : Engineer'. It treats the topic thoroughly, starting from : the basics of acoustics and the physiology of hearing, up through : the development of DSD. : : I order to expect, one has to know. for instance, i'd suspect you not to expect your blood composition to be influenced by sunspot activity tiz so, though or, say, the _type of nervecell_ terminating determining the structural processing hardware that is developed in a brain region (if we could emulate that, miraculous advances in artificial hearing and vision await As mentioned before, until a true multidisciplinary approach is taken, all the 'blameless, good, etc' claims are suspect. Rudy |
#629
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
The Limits of the LP
Ruud Broens wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... : Ruud Broens wrote: : : "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message : ... : : : ? There's no reason for there to be *audible* artifacts from a good : : digital recording or transfer. This doesn't mean some bad recordings haven't : been : : made! : : : : -- : : -SSS : : "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788) : : good example of Science - Sullivan Style - : : sweeping generalisations and narrow bandpass of knowledge : now could we have some quantification for that 'science veneer', : to finish it off, mr Sullivan ? : : garbage collector routine : running.. : R. : : I didn't know you were a *garbologist*, Ruud. : : My claim wasn't sweeping -- it was qualified with the words : 'audible' and 'good'. If you wish to learn the technical details : of what would constitute 'good' digital transfer -- one that would : not be expected to produce audible artifacts -- I suggest you : read Nika Aldrich's book, 'Digital Audio Explained for the Audio : Engineer'. It treats the topic thoroughly, starting from : the basics of acoustics and the physiology of hearing, up through : the development of DSD. : : I order to expect, one has to know. Well, there's 'knowing' things that are true, and 'knowing' things that aren't. for instance, i'd suspect you not to expect your blood composition to be influenced by sunspot activity tiz so, though And you 'know' this , how? or, say, the _type of nervecell_ terminating determining the structural processing hardware that is developed in a brain region (if we could emulate that, miraculous advances in artificial hearing and vision await I've done some work in neuroscience myself, so I think I can *expect* neuronal architecture to be affected by the neuronal milieu. As mentioned before, until a true multidisciplinary approach is taken, all the 'blameless, good, etc' claims are suspect. Which disciplines besides psychoacoustics, acoustics, and engineering do you propose be included to support claims of audible difference? -- -S "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Natural Limits to high frequencies? | Pro Audio | |||
Interesting article | Audio Opinions | |||
USB Audio limits? | Pro Audio | |||
Richman's ethical lapses | Audio Opinions | |||
Steve Winwood on Austin City Limits, did anyone | Pro Audio |