[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

I don't recall anyone saying anything about a vinyl
transcription sounding better than a master. I do
remember myself and a couple of others saying that in
some specific instances, certain LPs sound better than
the CDs made from the same original analog master, but
since few (if any) of us have actually heard the master
tapes in question, we're not likely to be in any position
know that the vinyl transcription sounds better than the
master (something that I doubt, in any case).

The archives show that this claim has been made by James Boyk realted to one
of his own recordings.

Strangly enough, this could be true - if the LP mastering process corrected
audible imbalances in his master. There's no reason, in fact it is more
likely that the same would happen during CD happening, however there's no
guarantee that this would happen.

[[email protected]]

Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:12:33 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

wrote:
On Nov 24, 7:44�am, wrote:

snip a bunch

I don't recall anyone saying anything about a vinyl transcription sounding
better than a master.

Actually, Scott wrote on 11/20/2008:

"...I am also quite confident that with the right rig, for example my
rig, under blind conditions listeners would, in many instances, actually
percieve my rig playing back vinyl as the more life like playback and
the master tape as less life like playback. That is what is called a
euphonic distortion."

I do remember myself and a couple of others saying that
in some specific instances, certain LPs sound better than the CDs made from
the same original analog master, but since few (if any) of us have actually
heard the master tapes in question, we're not likely to be in any position
know that the vinyl transcription sounds better than the master (something
that I doubt, in any case).

I would agree with you on that. Scott would likely argue, however, that
the terms "more lifelike" and "sounds better" are neither analogous nor
consonant, having argued vehemently that "more lifelike" and "sounds
right" are unrelated terms.

Keith Hughes

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:31:34 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 26, 9:07�am, Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:12:33 -0800, wrote
(in article ):





wrote:
On Nov 24, 7:44 am, wrote:
snip

That is especially significant when
talking about playback in which the goals maybe very specific. By the
way, what was this alleged "clear mistatement?"
Following your assertion/observation that, to paraphrase, some vinyl
transcriptions sound "more lifelike" than the actual master, Arny
replied:

"We have people who say that a given recording, not even its master tape
or digital master sound right to them until it is re-recorded on vinyl."

To which you replied:

"Where do we have these people? Certainly we don't have them
participating in this thread."

You, however, *are* one of these people who believe such, based on your
own words, your tortured interpretation of "sounds right"
notwithstanding.

No I am not. Sorry but you are really twisting things to try to make
them fit. I don't make any claims about anything sounding "right" or
wrong so I can't possibly fit Arny's description.

No, you are claiming that if anything sounds right, then all else sounds
wrong. �A position that is at odds with common usage of the term. �And
you are using tortured logic to try and defend that.

You may wish to
equate the fact that some times LPs sound more life like to me than
other sources that are likely to be more accurate to the original
master recording with the idea that I "need" the signal transcribed on
vinyl to sound "right." but they aint the same thing no matter how you
or Arny try to twist it.

The twisting is on your end I'm afraid, and the fallacy is yours. �That
is, that "sounds right" is exclusionary, and can only apply to one
instance of any particular specie. �A fallacy required, BTW, if you are
to exclude yourself from Arny's argument.

So far all you have
done is argue over a trivial point about the meaning of the word
right. A word I did not use myself in any of my assertions.
The point, Scott, is that you were using an artificially narrowed
interpretation of "sounds right" as the basis for your argument.

It's a failed point Keith because I did not use that term. Arny did
and IMO he misused it.

Sorry, but when begin describing "sounds right" in terms of a logical
fallacy, it is indeed the *subject* of your discussion, and is therefore
in implicit usage on your part.

snip

The *true* dichotomy is implicit in *your* argument that any master
recording would have to be transcribed onto vinyl to be "more
lifelike".
That is hardly a dichotomy, false or otherwise, and I never did say or
imply that master recordings "have to be transcribed onto vinyl to be
more life like. I have simply obsrved that it happens quite often.
Sorry, doesn't wash.

If any recording sounds "more lifelike" on the
vinyl transcription than on the master from which that transcription was
made - as is your contention, then at least for *that* recording, there
are only three possibilities; A) it has to transcribed onto vinyl to be
"more lifelike"; B) it has to transcribed onto some other medium to be
"more lifelike"; or C) the term "more lifelike" is without meaning in
this context.

Well that is a false trichotomy. A. suffers from a non sequitor. it
does not follow that because in some cases added distsortion makes
some recordings sound more life like that that same distortion has to
be added to all recordings to make them all more life like.

Clearly you ignored "...then at least for *that* recording...", a very
specific qualification. �But then that's necessary to make your argument
work.

I don't recall anyone saying anything about a vinyl transcription sounding
better than a master. I do remember myself and a couple of others saying
that
in some specific instances, certain LPs sound better than the CDs made from
the same original analog master, but since few (if any) of us have actually
heard the master tapes in question, we're not likely to be in any position
know that the vinyl transcription sounds better than the master (something
that I doubt, in any case).- Hide quoted text -


In all fairness I will take credit for actually saying as much. And
though I have never actually compared masters to their LP counterpart
I have based my assertions on two things. 1. The assumption that at
least some of the CDs I have compared to LP versions and found lesser
in quality have a mastering pedigree that is well documented would
reasonably suggest the CD would be sonically very close if not
identical to the master tape. 2, Claims by various mastering and
recording engineers of this very phenomenon. These folks actually do
use master tapes for comparisons.

I understand what you are saying, however, I wouldn't go so far as to make
that leap of faith (doesn't mean that you can't or shouldn't, though).
Returning once again to my comments vis-as-vis the Classic Records 45RPM
remastering of Stravinsky's Firebird, I do have the CD and a copy of the
Philips-pressed LP. Neither sound anywhere NEAR as good as the Classic
records re-issue. I have played all three for people and had them say that it
was hard to believe that all three recordings came from the same master tape
of the same performance. They sound THAT different. Needless to say,
something is different about all three incarnations of this master tape, but
not having heard the master, I certainly cannot say that the CD, as
lackluster and insipid as it is is what the actual master tape sounds like,
and that the Classic LP is better than the master. I will say that the
Philips LP and the CD sound more alike than does the Classic LP and the CD.
Why? I couldn't hazard a guess.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 27, 1:40�am, wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:12 am, wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 24, 7:44 am, wrote:


You misunderstand. It's the capability to *start* with the undistorted
signal that is the point. From there, it can be left alone, or modified
as needed to overcome other effects such as speaker/room interactions.

1. An undistorted signal? No such thing with any recording of live
music.

AHEM...I thought you said you were through with semantic quibbling...

You think the distortions that precede the master tape are a matter of
semantics? I disagree. They are a real issue that we, as audiophiles,
have to live with and deal with.


That is one of the reasons I cited as to why the master tape is
not a meaningful reference.
All master tapes suffer from the inherent
distortions of stereo recording, the distortions of the equipment used
to make them and the limitations of the choices made by the recording
engineer. To hold this set of compramises that lies squarely in the
middle of the recording and playback system as any kind of reference
is to fail to see the forest for the trees.

OK, let's try one last time. �The master tape *IS* the recording is it
not? Do you dispute that? If so, then exactly what is "the recording"?

It is a recording. Who said "the recording?" Not sure what you are
trying to say or what point you are trying to make. I was speaking of
the entire chain when I said "the recording and playback system." That
is an entire chain. The master tape is one link in that chain. The
goal IMO of that chain is the illusion of a recreation of the original
acoustic event from a designated listening position. The master tape
is a record of an intermediate signal in the chain that as a whole is
designed to try to create that illusion of the original acoustic event
from a particular perspective. So the distortions suffered by the
chain that precede the master tape are quite significant along with
the inherent limitations of the system as a whole. Given the goals of
the system and the nature of the system it is quite illogical to make
an intermediate stage with no intrinsic sound on it's own a reference.


Whatever failures, limitations, distortions, additions/deletions that
occur in the recording process (to make the master) are irrelevant to
the point of this discussion.

No they are not. Again this is a classic case of seeing the trees and
missing the forrest.

�They are there for BOTH CD and LP, and
are not subject to our control.

That is actually irrlevant to the discussion and not entirely true.
That is why one should have both media and pay attention to
differences in mastering. That actually does give us some control. In
practice it is arguably the some of the most significant control we
have. Yet your audio philosophy seems to ignore it in favor of
reletively trivial differences between the two media.

�However, starting at the process point
from which we *do* have control, we have (within the context of this
discussion, and assuming SOTA transcriptions) one of the following paths:

Master -- Bit perfect CD -- Playback chain

OR

Master -- LP with added distortion -- Playback chain

To begin with your paths are simply an inaccurate description of our
real world choices as audiophiles. Assuming SOTA transcriptions? What
does that have to do with reality? I'm not really interested in the
abstract arguments about audio. I am a pragmatic audiophile. Let's
deal with reality or agree that we have different concerns, mine the
realities of audio and yours the abstract arrguments of audio.
You are completely leaving out the mastering process to make your
argument which in most cases is the single most significant part of
the chain when it comes to choices we as audiophiles can make. How is
that in any way an argument that means anything to audiophiles who are
just trying to get the best sound they can from their favorite
recordings?


Starting with CD, you start without distortion of the master, which is
NOT the case with LP. �AND, let's not forget that YOU cannot even
control the extent or spectrum of distortion added in the LP process,
since it occurs upstream of your process entry point. �And the
distortion is irrespective of, and independent from, any limitations of
the master recording. �Case closed.

Maybe for you. You are putting the cart before the horse. You are
ignoring the need for the whole system approach. What I find painfully
missing from all of your explinations of your audio philosophies is
any reference to actually just sitting down and listening to the final
product from each path and judging the sound rather than the path by
which the sound is achieved.


2. This does not change the fact that once you chose to alter that
signal you are introducing distortion.

With equalization, that is certainly true. �Which ignores the base of
the argument. �I start with a true representation of the master
recording, and adjust, if it is necessary, to compensate for local (i.e.
within the playback chain / venue that *I* do control) affects. �With
LP, I start with a distorted representation of the master, and do not
have the option of *not* adjusting if I want to hear how the actual
master sounded.

I am not ignoring the base of your argument. "The master tape is the
reference." You are ignoring my arguments as to why this is a poor
choice of references. Ultimately the choice of reference is a purely
subjective one. So, subjectively speaking why do you chose a reference
that is subject to the inherent limitations of stereo recording and
playback, distorted by the euqipment that preceded it, skewed by the
choices made by the recording engineer and has no intrinisc sound of
it's own due to being nothing more than a record of an electrical
signal? What aesthetic subjective reason do you have for chosing that
as a reference for audio?


Maybe you should read this interesting paper that was originally
posted by Steve Sullivan.

I have, however it is not responsive to the argument. �In fact, it
highlights the basic problem. �The vinyl replay process is a blunt force
'equalization' of a signal that comes pre-packed with distortions that
vary from recording to recording.


It seems to me that your interpretation is in direct conflict with
the author"s who seems to have done a fair amount of research on the
subject.

http://classicproaudio.com/franci.htm
"Several years ago I was involved in my first recording which
appeared
on vinyl and CD. It gave me a unique opportunity to compare analogue
and digital reproduction because I also had a copy of the original
master tape. Unhesitatingly, I should say, the CD was 'nearer' the
master, but vinyl produced a 'better' stereo image - in fact, better
than the master tape! A conundrum indeed.

After much deliberation and armchair theorizing I set about doing
some
experiments. Late nights with an oscilloscope eventually uncovered
that electrical and mechanical crosstalk within the cartridge and
pre-
amp were causing a stereo image manipulation which was similar to
that
brought about by the Blumlein 'Shuffler' circuit and Edeko's
loudspeakers - all the important narrowing of the stereo image at
high
frequencies. It supported what I and so many hi-fi fans knew to be
the
case, that vinyl really does sound better than CD - especially in
LP's
presentation of a realistic soundstage."

[[email protected]]

On Nov 27, 1:40�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message
I don't recall anyone saying anything about a vinyl
transcription sounding better than a master. I do
remember myself and a couple of others saying that in
some specific instances, certain LPs sound better than
the CDs made from the same original analog master, but
since few (if any) of us have actually heard the master
tapes in question, we're not likely to be in any position
know that the vinyl transcription sounds better than the
master (something that I doubt, in any case).

The archives show that this claim has been made by James Boyk realted to one
of his own recordings.

I don't believe Boyk has ever made this claim at all. Here are a few
things he did actually say here on this forum.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...744f43e e1414

"The whole recording chain ending in the Lp more faithfully captures
the original sound than the whole recording chain ending in the CD.
The ambience is better represented, the tone color of that particular
piano, the harmonic decay of sustained notes. The musical dynamics
are *much* better represented. To me as the performer, the difference
is musically significant. "

"Oh, the best (direct-to-disk) Lp clearly does a better job of
reproducing musical dynamics than any CD-format digital I've heard.
And the best analog tape does a better job than CD also, in my
experience. I think it would be a fairly unusual professional
recording engineer who would disagree with these statements,
actually. I think there's a lot of agreement about the virtues of
analog master recording. But whether there is or not, such are my
views."

"Yes, I would say that the Lp "more faithfully captures the material
on the master tape," and that the tape + Lp *system* more faithfully
captures the actual original sound of that piano, that pianist (me),
that room...that event!"

"I'm saying that when a master
lacquer is heard Against the Live Microphone Feed Coming Over the
Control-Room Speakers, it can be very very close. I've heard it be so
close that professional recording engineers visiting the session
turned their heads and stared at each other. To be sure, the final Lp
isn't so good as the lacquer, but it hasn't lost all that much,
either. "

While he does express some very strong opinions about the virtues of
LPs over CDs and his opinions are based on comparisons that use a mic
feed as a reference he does not ever express the opinion that the LP
made from an analog tape ever sounded more life like than the original
analog tape. His views seem to run contrary to your characterizations
of the inherent coloration of vinyl as a medium.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


1. An undistorted signal? No such thing with any
recording of live music.

Excluded middle argument. Obvious claim that since any recording has some
distortion no matter how vanishingly small, addition of unlimited amounts of
distortion is at worst innocuous.

All master tapes suffer from the inherent
distortions of stereo recording, the distortions of the
equipment used to make them and the limitations of the
choices made by the recording engineer.

So what? Does the presence of *any* distortion make the addition of *any*
amount of distortion innocuous or even desirable?

To hold this set
of compromises that lies squarely in the middle of the
recording and playback system as any kind of reference is
to fail to see the forest for the trees.

Comparing a forest and a single tree suggests that quantification is
actually relevant. Can you quantify the distortion present in a master
recording and the distortion in the same recording after recording and
playback by means of vinyl?


2. This does not change the fact that once you chose to
alter that signal you are introducing distortion.

False claim. Once distortion is adequately identified, it can be compensated
for, sometimes exactly, sometimes just mitigated signficantly. But the
essence of a distortion corrector is the addition of distortion. Now this
distortion is designed to compensate for undesirable distortion so it helps,
but because the statement above is so blatantly general, that statement is
now falsified.

Where CD can be a bit-perfect copy of the master, vinyl
cannot. The difference lies in having an
accurate-to-the-master signal that can then be
adjusted to offset speaker/room effects, or having a
fixed distorted (to whatever degree) version of the
original master.

I see you use distortions to counter other distortions.

This has been accepted engineering practice for at least 100 years.

But you are quite certain that no such thing is
possible with LP playback. I am not so certain.

One better known attempts to compensate for some inherent distortions in
vinyl was known as "Dynagroove". What is the audiophile lore about
Dynagroove?

I believe it is. I'm not sure how any added sound to the
playback that was not present at the recording venue can
be described as anything but distortion.

Well, it could be noise. The difference between noise and distortion is that
distortion is correlated with the signal, and noise need not be correlated
with the signal. There are some intermediate cases such as modulation noise.

?And yes, since *you* have explicitly stated that LPs add
distortion, you should, perforce be certain that such a
thing is not possible with LP.

Maybe you should read this interesting paper that was
originally posted by Steve Sullivan.
http://classicproaudio.com/franci.htm



"Several years ago I was involved in my first recording
which appeared on vinyl and CD. It gave me a unique
opportunity to compare analogue and digital reproduction
because I also had a copy of the original master tape.
Unhesitatingly, I should say, the CD was 'nearer' the
master, but vinyl produced a 'better' stereo image - in
fact, better than the master tape! A conundrum indeed.

Speaks to the vagueness of the word "better".

We've been here before, and very recently. Words like "better" can be
quantified by skilled engineers, but obviously the author lacks that kind of
skill or he would have done so, since it would be very appropriate.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 27, 8:16�am, Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:31:34 -0800, wrote
(in article ):





On Nov 26, 9:07 am, Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:12:33 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

wrote:
On Nov 24, 7:44 am, wrote:
snip

That is especially significant when
talking about playback in which the goals maybe very specific. By the
way, what was this alleged "clear mistatement?"
Following your assertion/observation that, to paraphrase, some vinyl
transcriptions sound "more lifelike" than the actual master, Arny
replied:

"We have people who say that a given recording, not even its master tape
or digital master sound right to them until it is re-recorded on vinyl."

To which you replied:

"Where do we have these people? Certainly we don't have them
participating in this thread."

You, however, *are* one of these people who believe such, based on your
own words, your tortured interpretation of "sounds right"
notwithstanding.

No I am not. Sorry but you are really twisting things to try to make
them fit. I don't make any claims about anything sounding "right" or
wrong so I can't possibly fit Arny's description.

No, you are claiming that if anything sounds right, then all else sounds
wrong. A position that is at odds with common usage of the term. And
you are using tortured logic to try and defend that.

You may wish to
equate the fact that some times LPs sound more life like to me than
other sources that are likely to be more accurate to the original
master recording with the idea that I "need" the signal transcribed on
vinyl to sound "right." but they aint the same thing no matter how you
or Arny try to twist it.

The twisting is on your end I'm afraid, and the fallacy is yours. That
is, that "sounds right" is exclusionary, and can only apply to one
instance of any particular specie. A fallacy required, BTW, if you are
to exclude yourself from Arny's argument.

So far all you have
done is argue over a trivial point about the meaning of the word
right. A word I did not use myself in any of my assertions.
The point, Scott, is that you were using an artificially narrowed
interpretation of "sounds right" as the basis for your argument.

It's a failed point Keith because I did not use that term. Arny did
and IMO he misused it.

Sorry, but when begin describing "sounds right" in terms of a logical
fallacy, it is indeed the *subject* of your discussion, and is therefore
in implicit usage on your part.

snip

The *true* dichotomy is implicit in *your* argument that any master
recording would have to be transcribed onto vinyl to be "more
lifelike".
That is hardly a dichotomy, false or otherwise, and I never did say or
imply that master recordings "have to be transcribed onto vinyl to be
more life like. I have simply obsrved that it happens quite often.
Sorry, doesn't wash.

If any recording sounds "more lifelike" on the
vinyl transcription than on the master from which that transcription was
made - as is your contention, then at least for *that* recording, there
are only three possibilities; A) it has to transcribed onto vinyl to be
"more lifelike"; B) it has to transcribed onto some other medium to be
"more lifelike"; or C) the term "more lifelike" is without meaning in
this context.

Well that is a false trichotomy. A. suffers from a non sequitor. it
does not follow that because in some cases added distsortion makes
some recordings sound more life like that that same distortion has to
be added to all recordings to make them all more life like.

Clearly you ignored "...then at least for *that* recording...", a very
specific qualification. But then that's necessary to make your argument
work.

I don't recall anyone saying anything about a vinyl transcription sounding
better than a master. I do remember myself and a couple of others saying
that
in some specific instances, certain LPs sound better than the CDs made from
the same original analog master, but since few (if any) of us have actually
heard the master tapes in question, we're not likely to be in any position
know that the vinyl transcription sounds better than the master (something
that I doubt, in any case).- Hide quoted text -

In all fairness I will take credit for actually saying as much. And
though I have never actually compared masters to their LP counterpart
I have based my assertions on two things. 1. The assumption that at
least some of the CDs I have compared to LP versions and found lesser
in quality have a mastering pedigree that is well documented would
reasonably suggest the CD would be sonically very close if not
identical to the master tape. 2, Claims by various mastering and
recording engineers of this very phenomenon. These folks actually do
use master tapes for comparisons.

I understand what you are saying, however, I wouldn't go so far as to make
that leap of faith (doesn't mean that you can't or shouldn't, though).
Returning once again to my comments vis-as-vis the Classic Records 45RPM
remastering of Stravinsky's Firebird, I do have the CD and a copy of the
Philips-pressed LP. Neither sound anywhere NEAR as good as the Classic
records re-issue. I have played all three for people and had them say that it
was hard to believe that all three recordings came from the same master tape
of the same performance. They sound THAT different. Needless to say,
something is different about all three incarnations of this master tape, but
not having heard the master, I certainly cannot say that the CD, as
lackluster and insipid as it is is what the actual master tape sounds like,
and that the Classic LP is better than the master. I will say that the
Philips LP and the CD sound more alike than does the Classic LP and the CD.
Why? I couldn't hazard a guess

In the case of the Firebird we have a pretty good account of how the
CD was mastered. I see no errors in Dennis Drake's methodologies given
his goal to most accurately represent the signal coming off the tape
deck. Sometimes it is hard to pin down mastering engineers about their
tweaks. Steve Hoffman is very explicit about the subject. "If he told
us what he did he would have to kill us." IOW trade secrets abound in
mastering. We know that Bernie Grundman did not use any sort of
compression on the Classics LPs but we don't know what else he did or
didn't do to tweak the sound.

Interestingly enough...or not, I have had the opportunity to compare
both Steve Hoffman/Kevin Gray's mastering of John Coltrain, Blue Train
on Analog Productions label with Bernie Grundman's mastering on the
Classics label. I was involved in a test by Classics of their new
vinyl formulation and this was the title used for that test. Both are
on 45 rpm LP. Both masterings were from the original two track session
tapes. I prefered the Hoffman/Gray version. They were pretty easy to
distinguish. Michael Hobson, the president of Classics was of the
opinion that Bernie's mastering was truer to the original master
tapes. I suspect he might be right. But I'll take the more life like
version over the more accurate version to the master tapes every time.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Nov 27, 1:40?am, wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:12 am, wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 24, 7:44 am, wrote:


You misunderstand. It's the capability to *start* with
the undistorted signal that is the point. From there,
it can be left alone, or modified as needed to
overcome other effects such as speaker/room
interactions.

1. An undistorted signal? No such thing with any
recording of live music.

AHEM...I thought you said you were through with semantic
quibbling...

You think the distortions that precede the master tape
are a matter of semantics? I disagree. They are a real
issue that we, as audiophiles, have to live with and deal
with.

It's all about quantification. The nonlinear distortion in the recording
chain up to the point where a LP might be cut is trivial compared to the bad
things that happen when the music goes through the vinyl meat grinder.

After much deliberation and armchair theorizing I set
about doing some
experiments. Late nights with an oscilloscope eventually
uncovered that electrical and mechanical crosstalk within
the cartridge and pre- amp were causing a stereo image manipulation which
was
similar to that brought about by the Blumlein 'Shuffler' circuit and
Edeko's loudspeakers - all the important narrowing of the
stereo image at high frequencies.

If you want to narrow the image at high frequencies, it can be done far more
effectively, and with far less distortion by purely electronic means.

However, there's no technical consensus that artificially narrowing the
image at high frequencies is even a good idea.

Nobody designs the usual loss of high frequency separation into phono
cartridges. They are just another form of distortion that is inherent in the
process.

Furthermore, it is completely illogical to believe that there is a "one-size
fixt all" distortion of this kind that should be indiscriminately applied to
every recording.

It supported what I and so many hi-fi fans knew to be the
case, that vinyl really does sound better than CD -

Hey, if music with added audible noise and distortion of a characteristic
and randomly-chosen kind is what floats your boat, then enjoy!

especially in LP's presentation of a realistic soundstage."

I see considerable evidence of a well-known technical problem that someone
is attempting to make us all pay the big bucks to obtain for ourselves.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
om
On Nov 27, 1:40?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message
I don't recall anyone saying anything about a vinyl
transcription sounding better than a master. I do
remember myself and a couple of others saying that in
some specific instances, certain LPs sound better than
the CDs made from the same original analog master, but
since few (if any) of us have actually heard the master
tapes in question, we're not likely to be in any
position know that the vinyl transcription sounds
better than the master (something that I doubt, in any
case).

The archives show that this claim has been made by James
Boyk related to one of his own recordings.

I don't believe Boyk has ever made this claim at all.

.....and then you document it! Good job!

Here are a few things he did actually say here on this
forum.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...744f43e e1414

"The whole recording chain ending in the LP more
faithfully captures the original sound than the whole
recording chain ending in the CD. The ambience is better
represented, the tone color of that particular piano, the
harmonic decay of sustained notes. The musical dynamics
are *much* better represented. To me as the performer,
the difference is musically significant. "

Obviously, someone is trying to sell their preferences for added audible
noise and distortion in the form of LP recordings.

Since it is well-known that the CD format is sonically transparent, Boyk is
in essence claiming that his LPs sound better than the master tapes that
were used to make them.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 28, 6:09�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



1. An undistorted signal? No such thing with any
recording of live music.
All master tapes suffer from the inherent
distortions of stereo recording, the distortions of the
equipment used to make them and the limitations of the
choices made by the recording engineer.

So what?

Given that the point of audio recording and playback is to create an
illusion of an original acoustic event from a single perspective these
limitations are major factors. I would think that would be so obvious
as to not need any explination.

�Does the presence of *any* distortion make the addition of *any*
amount of distortion innocuous or even desirable?


If it improves the illusion of live music, yes. If it degrades the
illusion, no. If it sounds better it is better.



To hold this set
of compromises that lies squarely in the middle of the
recording and playback system as any kind of reference is
to fail to see the forest for the trees.

Comparing a forest and a single tree suggests that quantification is
actually relevant. Can you quantify the distortion present in a master
recording and the distortion in the same recording after recording and
playback by means of vinyl?

The validity of my perceptions or anyone else's does not depend on
one's ability to measure and quantify distortions and corolate them
with perceptions. Anyone who understands the very basis of audio as a
hobby understands that it starts with perceptions. Any measurement and
corolation with perceptions then may follow. It would appear that you
are trying to discredit perceptions based on a lack of quantisization
on my part. That would be absurd. It would the equivalent of demanding
a chemical analysis from anyone claiming they enjoyed a paticular meal
in order for them to have actually enjoyed that meal. The perception
does not rely on any measurements to be valid much less actually
exist. In fact prior knowledge of any measurements could be a source
of bias.



2. This does not change the fact that once you chose to
alter that signal you are introducing distortion.

False claim. Once distortion is adequately identified, it can be compensated
for, sometimes exactly, sometimes just mitigated signficantly.

That is just the use of one distortion to counter the audible effects
of other distortions. Earlier in this post you asked the question
"Does the presence of *any* distortion make the addition of *any*
amount of distortion innocuous or even desirable?" Looks like you
answered your own question. In some cases yes.


But the
essence of a distortion corrector is the addition of distortion. Now this
distortion is designed to compensate for undesirable distortion so it helps,
but because the statement above is so blatantly general, that statement is
now falsified.

That is an argument that suffers from the logical fallacy of
"Inconsistency Applying criteria or rules to one belief, claim,
argument, or position but not to others." and "Special pleading, or ad-
hoc reasoning This is a subtle fallacy which is often difficult to
recognize. In essence, it is the arbitrary introduction of new
elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear
valid." and it completely ignores the evidence to the contrary. The
fact is the inherent limitations of stereo recording and playback are
very well documented. A paper was presented by no other than Steve
Sullivan that offered a well researched hypothesis that very much
asserted it that indeed the inherent distortions of vinyl playback did
actually compensate for an inherent limitation of stereo recording and
playback.
That paper states the following: " Blumlein was well aware of Duplex
spatial-hearing theory and gives a good pr�cis in his patent
application (1933). He therefore expected that the high-frequency
inter-aural intensity cues and low-frequency inter-aural delay cues
would be formed differently."

"Several years ago I was involved in my first recording which appeared
on vinyl and CD. It gave me a unique opportunity to compare analogue
and digital reproduction because I also had a copy of the original
master tape. Unhesitatingly, I should say, the CD was 'nearer' the
master, but vinyl produced a 'better' stereo image - in fact, better
than the master tape! A conundrum indeed.

After much deliberation and armchair theorizing I set about doing some
experiments. Late nights with an oscilloscope eventually uncovered
that electrical and mechanical crosstalk within the cartridge and pre-
amp were causing a stereo image manipulation which was similar to that
brought about by the Blumlein 'Shuffler' circuit and Edeko's
loudspeakers - all the important narrowing of the stereo image at high
frequencies. It supported what I and so many hi-fi fans knew to be the
case, that vinyl really does sound better than CD - especially in LP's
presentation of a realistic soundstage."
http://classicproaudio.com/franci.htm

Do you have any research that contradicts Richard Brices extensive
investigation and findings?
http://classicproaudio.com/franci_revisited.htm



Where CD can be a bit-perfect copy of the master, vinyl
cannot. The difference lies in having an
accurate-to-the-master signal that can then be
adjusted to offset speaker/room effects, or having a
fixed distorted (to whatever degree) version of the
original master.
I see you use distortions to counter other distortions.

This has been accepted engineering practice for at least 100 years.

Why then do you reject it in the case of vinyl playback? You have now
been presented with a paper that documents how vinyl playback
compensates for an inherent distortion is the system of stereo
recording and playback. An inherent distrotion identified by Blumlein
himself.



But you are quite certain that no such thing is
possible with LP playback. I am not so certain.
I believe it is. I'm not sure how any added sound to the
playback that was not present at the recording venue can
be described as anything but distortion.

Well, it could be noise.
The difference between noise and distortion is that
distortion is correlated with the signal, and noise need not be correlated
with the signal. There are some intermediate cases such as modulation noise.

But it isn't. Room reflections are directly corolated to the signal
feeding the speakers. Besides, you have argued that noise is a
problem. So room noise would fall under that umbrella.



?And yes, since *you* have explicitly stated that LPs add
distortion, you should, perforce be certain that such a
thing is not possible with LP.
Maybe you should read this interesting paper that was
originally posted by Steve Sullivan.
http://classicproaudio.com/franci.htm
"Several years ago I was involved in my first recording
which appeared on vinyl and CD. It gave me a unique
opportunity to compare analogue and digital reproduction
because I also had a copy of the original master tape.
Unhesitatingly, I should say, the CD was 'nearer' the
master, but vinyl produced a 'better' stereo image - in
fact, better than the master tape! A conundrum indeed.

Speaks to the vagueness of the word "better".

This guy was the recording engineer. If he says the imaging was better
it stands to reason that he is basing that judgement on his direct
experience with original event. I would think anyone who has listened
extensively to stereo playback and live music would understand what
better means when it comes to stereo imaging. It is hardly vague.


We've been here before, and very recently. Words like "better" can be
quantified by skilled engineers, but obviously the author lacks that kind of
skill or he would have done so, since it would be very appropriate.

That is nothing but an ad hominem attack on Richard Brice. A classic
logical fallacy and a rather nasty one at that. What specifically do
you actually know of Mr. Brice's "skills?" More importantly do you
have any actual logical arguments based on actual empirical evidence
that in any way disproves the findings of his research?

[[email protected]]

On Nov 27, 1:41�am, wrote:
Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:12:33 -0800, wrote
(in article ):


�Scott would likely argue, however, that
the terms "more lifelike" and "sounds better" are neither analogous nor
consonant, having argued vehemently that "more lifelike" and "sounds
right" are unrelated terms.


"More life like" does "sounds better" if one's goal is more life like
sound. It's really very simple. Some people apparently feel the need
for some sort of assurance of accuracy even if it means using an
arbitrary point of reference just because it is easily quantifiable
regardless of the aesthetic qualities of the results. To each his own.
For me more life like sound is almost always better sound. Better is
always in the eyes of the beholder. It is a purely subjective term.
Someone has to make some sort of purely subjective decision as to what
the ideal is before there can be any discussion about what is better.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
On Nov 27, 1:40�am, wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:12 am, wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 24, 7:44 am, wrote:

You misunderstand. It's the capability to *start* with the undistorted
signal that is the point. From there, it can be left alone, or modified
as needed to overcome other effects such as speaker/room interactions.
1. An undistorted signal? No such thing with any recording of live
music.
AHEM...I thought you said you were through with semantic quibbling...

You think the distortions that precede the master tape are a matter of
semantics? I disagree. They are a real issue that we, as audiophiles,
have to live with and deal with.

The semantic quibble is your pretense that *you*, the audiophile, have
any input into the process. There could be a giant dust bunny sitting
on a viola string causing distortion of that instrument during
recording. What are *YOU* going to do about that? Maybe the mic is
bad, maybe lots of things are wrong causing distortion - YOU cannot do
anything about that. What YOU get is the recording when it is finished.
That is why anything upstream of the master is irrelevant, it will be
made outside of your control, outside of your input, and outside of your
ability to remediate. The ONLY things you can control begin after the
master is created.


That is one of the reasons I cited as to why the master tape is
not a meaningful reference.
All master tapes suffer from the inherent
distortions of stereo recording, the distortions of the equipment used
to make them and the limitations of the choices made by the recording
engineer. To hold this set of compramises that lies squarely in the
middle of the recording and playback system as any kind of reference
is to fail to see the forest for the trees.
OK, let's try one last time. �The master tape *IS* the recording is it
not? Do you dispute that? If so, then exactly what is "the recording"?

It is a recording. Who said "the recording?" Not sure what you are
trying to say or what point you are trying to make.

"The" recording is whatever *specific* recording we may be considering.
The specificity of term is a response to your penchant for extrapolating
statements past the actual boundaries of discussion (i.e. planting the
seeds for strawmen).

I was speaking of
the entire chain when I said "the recording and playback system." That
is an entire chain. The master tape is one link in that chain. The
goal IMO of that chain is the illusion of a recreation of the original
acoustic event from a designated listening position. The master tape
is a record of an intermediate signal in the chain that as a whole is
designed to try to create that illusion of the original acoustic event
from a particular perspective. So the distortions suffered by the
chain that precede the master tape are quite significant along with
the inherent limitations of the system as a whole. Given the goals of
the system and the nature of the system it is quite illogical to make
an intermediate stage with no intrinsic sound on it's own a reference.

As an end user, you get a recording to work with. That's it. You can
choose the medium (and the accompanying distortion(s))to which that
recording is transcribed. That is your entry point into the process,
and anything that happens upstream of that entry point is irrelevant.
YOU are not involved upstream.


Whatever failures, limitations, distortions, additions/deletions that
occur in the recording process (to make the master) are irrelevant to
the point of this discussion.

No they are not. Again this is a classic case of seeing the trees and
missing the forrest.

No, this is a classic case of strawman erection on your part. The
"Point" of this discussion (i.e. this part of the main thread) has been
about LP/CD distortion, and preference for any resulting euphony,
especially in preference to the master. The master is basically the
point at which the LP/CD distinction *occurs*. Events that precede, and
apply equally to, that distinction are logically irrelevant.

If you choose to believe that euphonic distortions in the LP
transcription process "improve" the *actual* recording, that is your
prerogative. If you state that the LP is an accurate transcription of
that recording, you are incorrect.


�They are there for BOTH CD and LP, and
are not subject to our control.

That is actually irrlevant to the discussion and not entirely true.

Really? Which part of the recording process do *YOU* the
consumer/audiophile have control over?

That is why one should have both media and pay attention to
differences in mastering. That actually does give us some control. In
practice it is arguably the some of the most significant control we
have. Yet your audio philosophy seems to ignore it in favor of
reletively trivial differences between the two media.

Well, first off, its clear you do not appreciate the distinction between
"choice" and "control". A distinction quite necessary to apprehend the
discussion at hand. That you can "choose" different masterings, when
such exist, confers exactly ZERO control over said process. In fact,
this statement validates my point precisely. That your "most
significant control" is choosing *which* mastering you buy, clearly
means you have no significant input upstream of that recording.

Secondly, of course, the differences between CD and LP are anything but
"trivial". How else could there exist the consistent subjective
differences between them that you have so often extolled? Much less the
easily measured differences.


�However, starting at the process point
from which we *do* have control, we have (within the context of this
discussion, and assuming SOTA transcriptions) one of the following paths:

Master -- Bit perfect CD -- Playback chain

OR

Master -- LP with added distortion -- Playback chain

To begin with your paths are simply an inaccurate description of our
real world choices as audiophiles. Assuming SOTA transcriptions?

You normally buy bad masterings and continue listening to them? Bad
pressings? No? Then this is simply another strawman.

What
does that have to do with reality? I'm not really interested in the
abstract arguments about audio. I am a pragmatic audiophile. Let's
deal with reality or agree that we have different concerns, mine the
realities of audio and yours the abstract arrguments of audio.

Sorry, you don't get to decide what my concerns are. You can choose to
denigrate what you perceive my concerns to be, if that's the extent of
your argument. Don't expect it be very convincing however.

You are completely leaving out the mastering process to make your
argument which in most cases is the single most significant part of
the chain when it comes to choices we as audiophiles can make. How is
that in any way an argument that means anything to audiophiles who are
just trying to get the best sound they can from their favorite
recordings?

OK, let's parse this paragraph. It's pretty illustrative of the
confusion you're trying to generate. First you state "...You are
completely leaving out the mastering process..." extolling the
importance of a process over which you and I have no control, then say
"...audiophiles who are just trying to get the best sound they can from
their favorite ***recordings***?" You, as an audiophile, can do
*nothing* about the first case (i.e. the mastering), therefore the
mastering has nothing to do with how you "try to get the best sound" out
of *a* recording. You can choose which mastering you like best, and
from that point, you can do whatever you like to "try to get the best
sound" out of it.


Starting with CD, you start without distortion of the master, which is
NOT the case with LP. �AND, let's not forget that YOU cannot even
control the extent or spectrum of distortion added in the LP process,
since it occurs upstream of your process entry point. �And the
distortion is irrespective of, and independent from, any limitations of
the master recording. �Case closed.

Maybe for you. You are putting the cart before the horse. You are
ignoring the need for the whole system approach. What I find painfully
missing from all of your explinations of your audio philosophies is
any reference to actually just sitting down and listening to the final
product from each path and judging the sound rather than the path by
which the sound is achieved.

What I find painfully missing from you is attentiveness to obvious text.
What part of "...I have many hundreds of LPs that I have replaced with
CD versions. Except for some truly awful transfers in the early days of
CD, the CDs give *me* the better sound. And in the cases of those awful
CD's, remastered versions I've purchased have all sounded better than
the LP version...?" did you overlook? That post was all of 4 days ago,
in this thread. I auditioned and purchased my first pair of B&W
speakers in 1986. During that audition, I listened to several CD's -
the first I'd been able to sit down and listen to - and was overwhelmed
by how much clearer and more lifelike the sound was. I've never looked
back, and never encountered any basis on which to change my mind.

And I am not ignoring the need for a system approach. You are
deliberately conflating two separate and non-interacting systems (from a
user control perspective). I.e., the recording/mastering/pressing
system, and your purchasing/playback system. The first system affects
the inputs (products available for entry) into the second system. The
second system has NO inputs into the first system (save through
marketing feedback which not responsive to current discussion).


2. This does not change the fact that once you chose to alter that
signal you are introducing distortion.
With equalization, that is certainly true. �Which ignores the base of
the argument. �I start with a true representation of the master
recording, and adjust, if it is necessary, to compensate for local (i.e.
within the playback chain / venue that *I* do control) affects. �With
LP, I start with a distorted representation of the master, and do not
have the option of *not* adjusting if I want to hear how the actual
master sounded.

I am not ignoring the base of your argument. "The master tape is the
reference." You are ignoring my arguments as to why this is a poor
choice of references.

I'm not ignoring them. I'm pointing out why they are based on
fallacies, i.e. that you have any input into that part of the process,
and that any process deficiencies upstream of the transcription process
are relevant in contrasting different transcription media (assuming the
media all possess sufficient bandwidth to accommodate the master signal)
when such deficiencies are identical for both transcriptions.

Basically, take away the master recording and what do you have for an
*objective* reference? If you were not there for the performance, you
do not even have a subjective reference. The best you can do is use an
internal "preference" for what you think the performance should sound like.

Ultimately the choice of reference is a purely
subjective one.

Not on my side of the looking glass...

So, subjectively speaking why do you chose a reference
that is subject to the inherent limitations of stereo recording and
playback, distorted by the euqipment that preceded it, skewed by the
choices made by the recording engineer and has no intrinisc sound of
it's own due to being nothing more than a record of an electrical
signal?

Because that is the recording that is available. To you, me, to
everyone who does not record their own music. This is the *only*
reference on which one *can* judge an accurate transcription onto
subsequent media. You propound a method which you agree adds distortion
(LP) as more faithful to an objectively undefinable "reference". You
compound (in LP) all the failings you delineate above with *additional*
distortion that you also have no control over. CD lacks this last
distortion, irrespective of anything preceding the master recording, and
is thus a more accurate representation of the actual data acquired
during the actual performance.

What aesthetic subjective reason do you have for chosing that
as a reference for audio?

Why on earth would I need a "reference" for an aesthetic judgement? And
why would I want to use an even more distorted imitation in an aesthetic
evaluation/appreciation of the original?

Keith Hughes

[[email protected]]

On Nov 28, 8:42�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message







On Nov 27, 1:40?am, wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:12 am, wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 24, 7:44 am, wrote:

You misunderstand. It's the capability to *start* with
the undistorted signal that is the point. From there,
it can be left alone, or modified as needed to
overcome other effects such as speaker/room
interactions.

1. An undistorted signal? No such thing with any
recording of live music.

AHEM...I thought you said you were through with semantic
quibbling...

You think the distortions that precede the master tape
are a matter of semantics? I disagree. They are a real
issue that we, as audiophiles, have to live with and deal
with.

It's all about quantification.

No it's all about aural perception. You are putting the cart before
the horse. Unless you are more interested in bench test results than
aesthetic values. I am not. To each his own.



After much deliberation and armchair theorizing I set
about doing some
experiments. Late nights with an oscilloscope eventually
uncovered that electrical and mechanical crosstalk within
the cartridge and pre- amp were causing a stereo image manipulation which
was
similar to that brought about by the Blumlein 'Shuffler' circuit and
Edeko's loudspeakers - all the important narrowing of the
stereo image at high frequencies.

If you want to narrow the image at high frequencies, it can be done far more
effectively, and with far less distortion by purely electronic means.

How? How can I take a signal off of my CD player and process it so it
mimics the improvements wrought by my vinyl playback system?



Furthermore, it is completely illogical to believe that there is a "one-size
fixt all" distortion of this kind that should be indiscriminately applied to
every recording.

1. No one is saying that such distortion works equally well for all
recordings.
2. It is logical when one considers that at it seems to be addressing
a universal inherent limitation of stereo recording and playback.
3. Given the fact that different vinyl playback equipment has
distinctive unique sonic signatures it stands to reason that this is
not actually a 'one size fits all" solution.


It supported what I and so many hi-fi fans knew to be the
case, that vinyl really does sound better than CD -

Hey, if music with added audible noise and distortion of a characteristic
and randomly-chosen kind is what floats your boat, then enjoy!

That was a quote from Richard Brice. He was the one who actually
engineered the recordings and had first hand experience with the
original acoustic event.


especially in LP's presentation of a realistic soundstage."

I see considerable evidence of a well-known technical problem that someone
is attempting to make us all pay the big bucks to obtain for ourselves

I see you making another ad hominem attack which is both a logical
fallacy and a rather nasty thing to do to people who have done nothing
to you.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 28, 9:16�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

om





On Nov 27, 1:40?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message
I don't recall anyone saying anything about a vinyl
transcription sounding better than a master. I do
remember myself and a couple of others saying that in
some specific instances, certain LPs sound better than
the CDs made from the same original analog master, but
since few (if any) of us have actually heard the master
tapes in question, we're not likely to be in any
position know that the vinyl transcription sounds
better than the master (something that I doubt, in any
case).

The archives show that this claim has been made by James
Boyk related to one of his own recordings.

I don't believe Boyk has ever made this claim at all.

....and then you document it! �Good job!

Here are a few things he did actually say here on this
forum.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...e_thread/threa...
"The whole recording chain ending in the LP more
faithfully captures the original sound than the whole
recording chain ending in the CD. The ambience is better
represented, the tone color of that particular piano, the
harmonic decay of sustained notes. The musical dynamics
are *much* better represented. To me as the performer,
the difference is musically significant. "

Obviously, someone is trying to sell their preferences for added audible
noise and distortion in the form of LP recordings.

Pure Ad Hominem.


Since it is well-known that the CD format is sonically transparent, Boyk is
in essence claiming that his LPs sound better �than the master tapes that
were used to make them.- Hide quoted text -


Boyk's claims are clear and speak for themsleves. His claims are
predicated on his observations that the CDs of his recordings at that
time were not transparent transcriptions of the signal which fed the A/
D converter. Your complete misrepresntation of his conclusions speaks
for itself as well. It is one thing to disagree with his claims it is
another to misrepresent them. You have clearly done the latter. There
is no reasonable interpretation of James Boyk's claims that would lead
to the conclusion you present. One has to deliberately take his claims
out of context to do so.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
On Nov 27, 1:41�am, wrote:
Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:12:33 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

�Scott would likely argue, however, that
the terms "more lifelike" and "sounds better" are neither analogous nor
consonant, having argued vehemently that "more lifelike" and "sounds
right" are unrelated terms.


"More life like" does "sounds better" if one's goal is more life like
sound. It's really very simple. Some people apparently feel the need
for some sort of assurance of accuracy even if it means using an
arbitrary point of reference just because it is easily quantifiable
regardless of the aesthetic qualities of the results.

It really is very simple. Some people apparently feel the need to
ignore accuracy, in favor of constructing some undefinable edifice which
provides an "aesthetic subjective reason" (your words) for their
preferences.

To each his own. For me more life like sound is almost always better sound.

And this highlights the hubris that you, although clearly not uniquely,
bring to this discussion. The false dichotomy, perpetually espoused, or
intimated, that anyone who wants "accurate" sound wants *only* accuracy,
while you, of course, want "good" (in its manifold definitions) sound.
We all, here, want "better sound", and to dismiss those who disagree
with you as to the best approach to take as having no regard for "...the
aesthetic qualities of the results" is shear crassness indeed.

Better is
always in the eyes of the beholder. It is a purely subjective term.
Someone has to make some sort of purely subjective decision as to what
the ideal is before there can be any discussion about what is better.

Well that's one way to look at the world I guess. Another is to find an
ideal that can be quantified, and thus can be accurately discussed
within a *common* framework of understanding.

Keith Hughes

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
On Nov 27, 1:41???am, wrote:
Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:12:33 -0800, wrote
(in article ):


???Scott would likely argue, however, that
the terms "more lifelike" and "sounds better" are neither analogous nor
consonant, having argued vehemently that "more lifelike" and "sounds
right" are unrelated terms.


"More life like" does "sounds better" if one's goal is more life like
sound. It's really very simple.

Actully, it's a rather complex situation, because without a constant,
blind reference to a real, live performance, many preferences (and thus
biases) come into play when a person decides whether something sounds
'lifelike .

See the paper on the problems with hedonic listening tests that Arny
linked to, for a list of them. There is also the issue of audio memory,
which is not particularly good at details over the long haul.

So whatever it is, it is certainly not 'really very simple'. You may have
a *simplistic* view of the issues involved, but that's a different
word and a different thing.



--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[[email protected]]

On Nov 29, 8:45�am, wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 27, 1:40 am, wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:12 am, wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 24, 7:44 am, wrote:

You misunderstand. It's the capability to *start* with the undistorted
signal that is the point. From there, it can be left alone, or modified
as needed to overcome other effects such as speaker/room interactions.
1. An undistorted signal? No such thing with any recording of live
music.
AHEM...I thought you said you were through with semantic quibbling...

You think the distortions that precede the master tape are a matter of
semantics? I disagree. They are a real issue that we, as audiophiles,
have to live with and deal with.

The semantic quibble is your pretense that *you*, the audiophile, have
any input into the process.

We do have input. It's our money. The existance of audio depends on
our choices. Ultimately we are the arbitrators of quality. we also
have the opportunity to engage the people responsible for recording
and mastering, learn from them so we can make better educated choices
and lean on the music producers to give us better product. That has
actually worked. One need look no further than the amazing reissues
coming from the likes of Classics,Analog Productions, Pure Pleasure,
Speaker's Corner etc. to see that we audiophiles have actually had
substantial input. Without that input I suspect there would be nothing
but no noised compressed crap on CD for us to listen to.

�There could be a giant dust bunny sitting
on a viola string causing distortion of that instrument during
recording. �What are *YOU* going to do about that? �Maybe the mic is
bad, maybe lots of things are wrong causing distortion - YOU cannot do
anything about that. �What YOU get is the recording when it is finished.

Hey lets talk about real world examples. A classic one is the Miles
Davis Kind of Blue recording. One side was recorded off speed and that
is what we have lived with for years. But Classics remastered it at
the correct speed. so in essence what I did about it was give my
business to people with the skills and determination to actually fix
prior problems. Of course if one puts the philosophy that the master
tape is the reference before their aesthetic values one could never
actually have these sorts of corrections. I am not willing to fall on
my philosophical sword at the expense of my aesthetic values.


That is why anything upstream of the master is irrelevant, it will be
made outside of your control, outside of your input, and outside of your
ability to remediate. �The ONLY things you can control begin after the
master is created.

You are very much mistaken. It is relevant and it is possible for we
the consumer to affect it. That has been plainly demonstrated.





That is one of the reasons I cited as to why the master tape is
not a meaningful reference.
All master tapes suffer from the inherent
distortions of stereo recording, the distortions of the equipment used
to make them and the limitations of the choices made by the recording
engineer. To hold this set of compramises that lies squarely in the
middle of the recording and playback system as any kind of reference
is to fail to see the forest for the trees.
OK, let's try one last time. The master tape *IS* the recording is it
not? Do you dispute that? If so, then exactly what is "the recording"?

It is a recording. Who said "the recording?" Not sure what you are
trying to say or what point you are trying to make.
I was speaking of
the entire chain when I said "the recording and playback system." That
is an entire chain. The master tape is one link in that chain. The
goal IMO of that chain is the illusion of a recreation of the original
acoustic event from a designated listening position. The master tape
is a record of an intermediate signal in the chain that as a whole is
designed to try to create that illusion of the original acoustic event
from a particular perspective. So the distortions suffered by the
chain that precede the master tape are quite significant along with
the inherent limitations of the system as a whole. Given the goals of
the system and the nature of the system it is quite illogical to make
an intermediate stage with no intrinsic sound on it's own a reference.

As an end user, you get a recording to work with. �That's it. You can
choose the medium (and the accompanying distortion(s))to which that
recording is transcribed. �That is your entry point into the process,
and anything that happens upstream of that entry point is irrelevant.
YOU are not involved upstream.

No. I don't get "a recording" I get a mastering or in most cases I get
severalk masterings to chose from, some on CD some on LP all with
different sonic characteristics. You continue to deny this basic and
important fact. I also have the ability to chose an LP rig that has a
sonic signature that shows recordings in a more favorable light.





Whatever failures, limitations, distortions, additions/deletions that
occur in the recording process (to make the master) are irrelevant to
the point of this discussion.

No they are not. Again this is a classic case of seeing the trees and
missing the forrest.

No, this is a classic case of strawman erection on your part. �The
"Point" of this discussion (i.e. this part of the main thread) has been
about LP/CD distortion, and preference for any resulting euphony,
especially in preference to the master. �The master is basically the
point at which the LP/CD distinction *occurs*. �Events that precede, and
apply equally to, that distinction are logically irrelevant.

You are trying to turn the discussion into an irrelevant abstract
discussion that does not relate to the realities we face as
audiophiles. Again you want to talk about a tree and I am only
interested in the forrest. One can't ignore the nature of real world
recordings when discussing the merits of the various media that play
them. One also can't ignore the real world choices we actually have
when it comes to the mastering of real world recordings. this
discussion is starting to remind me of a bit in the Monty Python movie
the Life of Brian "OK besides the law and order and the aquaducts and
the sanitation what have the Romans ever done for us?"



If you choose to believe that euphonic distortions in the LP
transcription process "improve" the *actual* recording, that is your
prerogative. �If you state that the LP is an accurate transcription of
that recording, you are incorrect.

In many cases in the real world the LP actually is far more accurate
to the master tape than any CD version. Again it seems you want to
limit this discussion to the abstract and ignore the realities of what
product is actually out there for us to chose from.





They are there for BOTH CD and LP, and
are not subject to our control.

That is actually irrlevant to the discussion and not entirely true.

Really? �Which part of the recording process do *YOU* the
consumer/audiophile have control over?

I have control over which mastering I buy.



That is why one should have both media and pay attention to
differences in mastering. That actually does give us some control. In
practice it is arguably the some of the most significant control we
have. Yet your audio philosophy seems to ignore it in favor of
reletively trivial differences between the two media.

Well, first off, its clear you do not appreciate the distinction between
"choice" and "control".

Indeed I don't. Exercising choice is a form of exercising control.

�A distinction quite necessary to apprehend the
discussion at hand. �That you can "choose" different masterings, when
such exist, confers exactly ZERO control over said process.

It would seem you don't understand the economics of the market place.
Those very choices by myself and like minded audiophiles have directly
lead to the actual existance of literally hundreds of the masterings I
own. I would assert that my choices has exerted a great deal of
control over the process. If you don't agree feel free to ask the guys
who are actually making these reissues that I find so favorable. Just
email the folks at Classics, Analog Poductions, Pure Pleasure etc. I
am quite sure they will tell you that it is audiophiles like myself
that drive the market and allow for the production of literally
humdreds of LPs and CDs with superior mastering.



In fact,
this statement validates my point precisely. �That your "most
significant control" is choosing *which* mastering you buy, clearly
means you have no significant input upstream of that recording.

You seem to fail to understand that ultimately the mastering does
affect what was upstream in the recording. I clear example is my
ability to hear Kind of Blue at the correct speed.



Secondly, of course, the differences between CD and LP are anything but
"trivial". �How else could there exist the consistent subjective
differences between them that you have so often extolled? �Much less the
easily measured differences.


They are pretty trivial actually and most of the time people are
hearing differences in the mastering and problems from inferior
equipment in the vinyl side of things.





However, starting at the process point
from which we *do* have control, we have (within the context of this
discussion, and assuming SOTA transcriptions) one of the following paths:

Master -- Bit perfect CD -- Playback chain

OR

Master -- LP with added distortion -- Playback chain

To begin with your paths are simply an inaccurate description of our
real world choices as audiophiles. Assuming SOTA transcriptions?

You normally buy bad masterings and continue listening to them? Bad
pressings? �No?

No. If given a choice I buy better masterings.


What
does that have to do with reality? I'm not really interested in the
abstract arguments about audio. I am a pragmatic audiophile. Let's
deal with reality or agree that we have different concerns, mine the
realities of audio and yours the abstract arrguments of audio.

Sorry, you don't get to decide what my concerns are.

I certainly get to offer an opinion about them.

�You can choose to
denigrate what you perceive my concerns to be, if that's the extent of
your argument. �Don't expect it be very convincing however.

If others wish to chime in and offer an opinion about whose arguments
are better, yours or mine they are free to do so. I don't think you
qualify as an objective observer on that question.



You are completely leaving out the mastering process to make your
argument which in most cases is the single most significant part of
the chain when it comes to choices we as audiophiles can make. How is
that in any way an argument that means anything to audiophiles who are
just trying to get the best sound they can from their favorite
recordings?

OK, let's parse this paragraph. It's pretty illustrative of the
confusion you're trying to generate.

Ad hominem. Both a logical fallacy and a bit rude.�Ironic that you
would chastise me for offering an opinion about your concerns and then
turn around and misrepresent my intentions.

First you state "...You are
completely leaving out the mastering process..." extolling the
importance of a process over which you and I have no control,

Faulty premise. We as consumers do have substantial control in a niche
market. One need look no further than the Steve Hoffman forums where
one can see first hand the exchanges between the consumers and
producers of audiphile reissues.

then say
"...audiophiles who are just trying to get the best sound they can from
their favorite ***recordings***?" �You, as an audiophile, can do
*nothing* about the first case (i.e. the mastering), therefore the
mastering has nothing to do with how you "try to get the best sound" out
of *a* recording.

That is again a faulty premise. I can both chose amongst existing
masterings and exert influence to create better masterings.


�You can choose which mastering you like best, and
from that point, you can do whatever you like to "try to get the best
sound" out of it.


That is actually right. but if I were to let the philosophical
ideaology that asserts vinyl is a flawed medium and should therefore
be avoided drive my actions as an aduiophile I would no longer have
the same choices amongst the many different masterings out there in
the real world. So that choice would be in direct conflict with " just
trying to get the best sound one can from their favorite
***recordings" It would seem that such a choice would put one's
ideaology above one's actual aesthetic values. The original goal of
fidelity is premised on the inherent superior aesthetic values of live
acoustic music. This narrow minded ideological belief that vinyl is a
flawed medium that needs to be avoided and any euphonic colorations
from any vinyl rig are inherently inferior because it is not accurate
to the master tape appears to ultimately be self-defeating.



Starting with CD, you start without distortion of the master, which is
NOT the case with LP. AND, let's not forget that YOU cannot even
control the extent or spectrum of distortion added in the LP process,
since it occurs upstream of your process entry point. And the
distortion is irrespective of, and independent from, any limitations of
the master recording. Case closed.

Maybe for you. You are putting the cart before the horse. You are
ignoring the need for the whole system approach. What I find painfully
missing from all of your explinations of your audio philosophies is
any reference to actually just sitting down and listening to the final
product from each path and judging the sound rather than the path by
which the sound is achieved.

What I find painfully missing from you is attentiveness to obvious text.

More ad Hominem. It appears you have run out of any logical arguments
supported by meaningful evidence.


� What part of "...I have many hundreds of LPs that I have replaced with
CD versions. �Except for some truly awful transfers in the early days of
CD, the CDs give *me* the better sound. �And in the cases of those awful
CD's, remastered versions I've purchased have all sounded better than
the LP version...?" did you overlook?

No. But I did see the obvious anti vinyl bias in such a broad sweeping
claim. Perhaps if you had done the comparisons with bias controls in
place I might have taken your assertion more seriously.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


No. But I did see the obvious anti vinyl bias in such a
broad sweeping claim. Perhaps if you had done the
comparisons with bias controls in place I might have
taken your assertion more seriously.

Single blind tests = essentially no adequate bias controls.

If it were possible to have a LP playback for an appreciable amount of time
with zero characteristic tics and pops, then bias controlled tests
comparing the LP to more modern forms of recording could make some sense. As
things stand, any listener who would be so inclined would simply wait for
the first audible tic or pop, and vote his biases.

Still waiting for a CD transcribed with a side of a LP, no tic and pop
removal, and with no tics or pops...

[[email protected]]

On Nov 29, 8:09�pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 27, 1:41???am, wrote:
Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:12:33 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

???Scott would likely argue, however, that
the terms "more lifelike" and "sounds better" are neither analogous nor
consonant, having argued vehemently that "more lifelike" and "sounds
right" are unrelated terms.

"More life like" does "sounds better" if one's goal is more life like
sound. It's really very simple. �

Actully, it's a rather complex situation, because without a constant,
blind reference to a real, live performance, many preferences (and thus
biases) come into play when a person decides whether something sounds
'lifelike .

That is a fair point. Interestingly enough the few people I know who
actually have done blind comparisons between a live mic feed, digital
recording, analog tape and a direct cut laquer are James Boyk, Doud
Sax and Kavi Alexander.
Here are some of James Boyk's comments on some of those experiences.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...006e0ea d8b9c

"On CD vs Lp, I can't resist--unwisely I know--mentioning that a
master disk for an Lp can be cut of such quality that you can't pick
it from the master tape; or can pick it only with great difficulty. I
have personally heard such disks. From that point, it's a matter of
how closely the finished Lp's hew to the master; and they can be very
close indeed."

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...744f43e e1414

"The whole recording chain ending in the Lp more faithfully captures
the original sound than the whole recording chain ending in the CD.
The ambience is better represented, the tone color of that particular
piano, the harmonic decay of sustained notes. The musical dynamics
are *much* better represented. To me as the performer, the difference
is musically significant."

"Oh, the best (direct-to-disk) Lp clearly does a better job of
reproducing musical dynamics than any CD-format digital I've heard.
And the best analog tape does a better job than CD also, in my
experience. I think it would be a fairly unusual professional
recording engineer who would disagree with these statements,
actually. I think there's a lot of agreement about the virtues of
analog master recording. But whether there is or not, such are my
views."


See the paper on the problems with hedonic listening tests that Arny
linked to, for a list of them. �There is also the issue of audio memory,
which is not particularly good at details over the long haul.

It's not particularly bad when it comes to mere recognition.
Recognizing the sound of live instruments for the sound of live
instruments is not terribly challenging IME. Is there any evidence out
there that suggests I am mistaken and overstating the acuity of aural
recognition? For instance I can recognize the unique sound of an old
freinds voice often without hearing that voice for many years. That
sort of aural memory seems to be rather acute among we humans. Do you
think otherwise?


So whatever it is, it is certainly not 'really very simple'. �You may have
a *simplistic* view of the issues involved, but that's a different
word and a different thing.

What I said was "More life like" does "sounds better" if one's goal is
more life like
sound." When I said that was simple I was trying to state that it is
a simple concept. I still believe it is a simple concept.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Nov 28, 9:16?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Since it is well-known that the CD format is sonically
transparent, Boyk is in essence claiming that his LPs
sound better ?than the master tapes that were used to
make them.- Hide quoted text -

Boyk's claims are clear and speak for themsleves.

Yes, Boyk's pro LP bias and his anti-science views about things like wires
and cables are a matter of the public record.

His claims are predicated on his observations that the CDs of
his recordings at that time were not transparent
transcriptions of the signal which fed the A/ D
converter.

I see no evidence of any adequate bias controlled tests done by Boyk to
confirm any such claim.

Can you cite it?

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Nov 27, 1:41�am, wrote:
Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:12:33 -0800,
wrote (in article ):


�Scott would likely argue, however, that
the terms "more lifelike" and "sounds better" are
neither analogous nor consonant, having argued
vehemently that "more lifelike" and "sounds right" are
unrelated terms.

"More life like" does "sounds better" if one's goal is
more life like sound.

However, it is very clear that audiophiles in general have no fixed local
reference for determining that a given reproduced sound is more or less
"life like". IME experience they may have been educated to rely on local,
highly indirect references such as the sound of their favorite loudspeakers
at their favorite local high end audio store.

Certainly, when people habitually state that the best available recorded
sound needs to have randomly-selected, audible noise and distortion added to
it in order for it to sound maximally life-like, something is desperately
awry.


It's really very simple. Some
people apparently feel the need for some sort of
assurance of accuracy even if it means using an arbitrary
point of reference just because it is easily quantifiable
regardless of the aesthetic qualities of the results.

So you can't see that using an "arbitrary point of reference just because it
is easily quantifiable" is horribly wrong?

To each his own.

Indeed.

For me more life like sound is almost always better sound.

Except it can't be because of your oft-stated preference for the best
available recorded sound with added randomly-selected, audible noise and
distortion, to sound maximally life-like

Better is always in the eyes of the beholder.

However, technological progress is based on the idea that the eyes of the
beholders tend to converge in a certain locality.

Indeed we see this to be true for music lovers. The vast and overwhelming
majority of music lovers ignore and even sometimes eschew that addition of
the vinyl LP's characteristic and universal inherent collections of noises
and distortions.

It is a purely subjective term.

But again subjectivity seems to converge. Certain concert halls such as
Orchestra Hall in Detroit as well as other legendary concert halls
world-wide are generally preferred, while others receive expensive
modifications and some are *enhanced* by means of the wrecking ball.

Someone has to
make some sort of purely subjective decision as to what
the ideal is before there can be any discussion about
what is better.

The good news is that almost everybody made that decision vis-a-vis vinyl
versus digital about 30 years ago. Just a tiny and regrettably noisy
minority spend much time promoting it.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 30, 8:32�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



No. But I did see the obvious anti vinyl bias in such a
broad sweeping claim. Perhaps if you had done the
comparisons with bias controls in place I might have
taken your assertion more seriously.

Single blind tests = essentially no adequate bias controls.

That simply is not true. This is just another case of faulty logic.
"The Moving Goalpost A method of denial arbitrarily moving the
criteria for "proof" or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence
currently exists."
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp
Please cite one peer reviewed paper on pychoacoustics that asserts
single blind blind tests are inadequate for hobbyists personal use.


If it were possible to have a LP playback for an appreciable amount of time
with zero characteristic tics and pops, then �bias controlled tests
comparing the LP to more modern forms of recording could make some sense. As
things stand, any listener who would be so inclined would simply wait for
the first audible tic or pop, and vote his biases.

That would be a flawed test. It doesn't take much enginuity to get
around such simple problems.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 30, 8:42�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



On Nov 28, 9:16?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
Since it is well-known that the CD format is sonically
transparent, Boyk is in essence claiming that his LPs
sound better ?than the master tapes that were used to
make them.- Hide quoted text -
Boyk's claims are clear and speak for themsleves.

Yes, Boyk's pro LP bias and his anti-science views about things like wires
and cables are a matter of the public record.

Classic use of faulty logic. Pure ad hominem.


His �claims are predicated on his observations that the CDs of
his recordings at that time were not transparent
transcriptions of the signal which fed the A/ D
converter.

I see no evidence of any adequate bias controlled tests done by Boyk to
confirm any such claim.

More faulty logic. You once again present your personal, limited,
highly biased beliefs as some sort of actual objective universal
reference. It does not matter what you chose to see or how you chose
to interpret it.


Can you cite it?

Yes.It was documented in an interview of James Boyk in The Absolute
Sound. But you can always email Kavi Alexander, James Boyk and/or Doug
Sax to get a first hand account. I am sure you will have no trouble
tracking down the original article or the email addresses of the
participants in those blind comparisons.

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
On Nov 29, 8:09?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 27, 1:41???am, wrote:
Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:12:33 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

???Scott would likely argue, however, that
the terms "more lifelike" and "sounds better" are neither analogous nor
consonant, having argued vehemently that "more lifelike" and "sounds
right" are unrelated terms.

"More life like" does "sounds better" if one's goal is more life like
sound. It's really very simple. ?

Actully, it's a rather complex situation, because without a constant,
blind reference to a real, live performance, many preferences (and thus
biases) come into play when a person decides whether something sounds
'lifelike .

That is a fair point. Interestingly enough the few people I know who
actually have done blind comparisons between a live mic feed, digital
recording, analog tape and a direct cut laquer are James Boyk, Doud
Sax and Kavi Alexander.
Here are some of James Boyk's comments on some of those experiences.

I don't consider Boyk a credible source on these matters, and haven't for years.
In one of your pullquotes, for example, he seems to assert that 'euphonic colorations'
do not exist. One may refer to the far more credible posts of jj, Dick Pierce, et al,
in those threads.

See the paper on the problems with hedonic listening tests that Arny
linked to, for a list of them. ?There is also the issue of audio memory,
which is not particularly good at details over the long haul.

It's not particularly bad when it comes to mere recognition.
Recognizing the sound of live instruments for the sound of live
instruments is not terribly challenging IME. Is there any evidence out
there that suggests I am mistaken and overstating the acuity of aural
recognition? For instance I can recognize the unique sound of an old
freinds voice often without hearing that voice for many years. That
sort of aural memory seems to be rather acute among we humans. Do you
think otherwise?

One error is that you are equaing the sound of an individual human voice -- a soiund we
are evolutionarily quite well attuned to -- with the sound of some
generic 'live' performance.

But yes, typically vast amounts of 'spatial' information are lost
in a two-channel recording. So typically one could expect
to at least hear them as *different*, whihc is not a quality
judgement. That is true of LP, CD, or any other two-channel medium.

--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[[email protected]]

wrote:
On Nov 29, 8:45�am, wrote:

snip

The semantic quibble is your pretense that *you*, the audiophile, have
any input into the process.

We do have input. It's our money.

You are confusing marketing input with "process" input. Yes, if no one
buys "Mastering A", then possibly "Mastering B" will be created. You
still have NO input into any decisions made regarding the choices made
to create "Mastering B". Again, you cannot affect the mastering choices
made, you can only affect your choice of masters to buy. And that
choice is significantly diluted, effectually, by the fact that you
typically have to purchase the recording before you get to evaluate it.

snip

That is why anything upstream of the master is irrelevant, it will be
made outside of your control, outside of your input, and outside of your
ability to remediate. �The ONLY things you can control begin after the
master is created.

You are very much mistaken. It is relevant and it is possible for we
the consumer to affect it. That has been plainly demonstrated.

That is your opinion, clearly. That does not, however, make your belief
accurate. Of course consumers can have an effect, in a very gross
indirect way (which is why I stated that it as not relevant in this
context), but you have demonstrated absolutely NO mechanism whereby YOU
the consumer get to make mastering (i.e. the physical process, not the
purchasing decision) decisions.

snip

As an end user, you get a recording to work with. �That's it. You can
choose the medium (and the accompanying distortion(s))to which that
recording is transcribed. �That is your entry point into the process,
and anything that happens upstream of that entry point is irrelevant.
YOU are not involved upstream.

No. I don't get "a recording" I get a mastering or in most cases I get
severalk masterings to chose from, some on CD some on LP all with
different sonic characteristics. You continue to deny this basic and
important fact.

Fact? You claim an LP or CD is *not* a recording? That is not a fact,
that is pure nonsense. Data transcription or translation onto a storage
medium is a recording. Look it up.

I also have the ability to chose an LP rig that has a
sonic signature that shows recordings in a more favorable light.

And? That has been the discussion after all. The problem is, with LP,
you don't have option of NOT adding a sonic signature, euphonic or not.


Whatever failures, limitations, distortions, additions/deletions that
occur in the recording process (to make the master) are irrelevant to
the point of this discussion.
No they are not. Again this is a classic case of seeing the trees and
missing the forrest.
No, this is a classic case of strawman erection on your part. �The
"Point" of this discussion (i.e. this part of the main thread) has been
about LP/CD distortion, and preference for any resulting euphony,
especially in preference to the master. �The master is basically the
point at which the LP/CD distinction *occurs*. �Events that precede, and
apply equally to, that distinction are logically irrelevant.

You are trying to turn the discussion into an irrelevant abstract
discussion that does not relate to the realities we face as
audiophiles. Again you want to talk about a tree and I am only
interested in the forrest.

You can repeat this simple fallacy as much as you like, it is still a
strawman. Repetition does not create reality.

One can't ignore the nature of real world
recordings when discussing the merits of the various media that play
them. One also can't ignore the real world choices we actually have
when it comes to the mastering of real world recordings.

Are you saying I've done so? When?

this
discussion is starting to remind me of a bit in the Monty Python movie
the Life of Brian "OK besides the law and order and the aquaducts and
the sanitation what have the Romans ever done for us?"

Now that is a total non-sequitur. I'm not ignoring real world choices.
I'm discussion one very real, very large, real world choice, and that
is between LP and CD as a source.

If you choose to believe that euphonic distortions in the LP
transcription process "improve" the *actual* recording, that is your
prerogative. �If you state that the LP is an accurate transcription of
that recording, you are incorrect.

In many cases in the real world the LP actually is far more accurate
to the master tape than any CD version. Again it seems you want to
limit this discussion to the abstract and ignore the realities of what
product is actually out there for us to chose from.

OK. You have repeatedly admitted that LP ADDS distortion, yes? CDs
have been shown capable of bit-perfect reproduction of digital masters,
yes? So exactly how is it possible for LP to more accurate to the
master tape than *any* CD?


They are there for BOTH CD and LP, and
are not subject to our control.
That is actually irrlevant to the discussion and not entirely true.
Really? �Which part of the recording process do *YOU* the
consumer/audiophile have control over?

I have control over which mastering I buy.

Non-responsive to the question - but you knew that right?

snip

Well, first off, its clear you do not appreciate the distinction between
"choice" and "control".

Indeed I don't.

Well, a rare point of agreement.

Exercising choice is a form of exercising control.

Purely sophistry in this context, as previously discussed. No matter
what you buy, you have no control over the methods used to create the
product.

�A distinction quite necessary to apprehend the
discussion at hand. �That you can "choose" different masterings, when
such exist, confers exactly ZERO control over said process.

It would seem you don't understand the economics of the market place.
Those very choices by myself and like minded audiophiles have directly
lead to the actual existance of literally hundreds of the masterings I
own. I would assert that my choices has exerted a great deal of
control over the process. If you don't agree feel free to ask the guys
who are actually making these reissues that I find so favorable. Just
email the folks at Classics, Analog Poductions, Pure Pleasure etc. I
am quite sure they will tell you that it is audiophiles like myself
that drive the market and allow for the production of literally
humdreds of LPs and CDs with superior mastering.

And you give them technical input into the mastering process right?
They call you for advice on the mixes and masters, right? You get an LP
that doesn't sound "life like" enough and you call them and they
remaster it right?

In fact,
this statement validates my point precisely. �That your "most
significant control" is choosing *which* mastering you buy, clearly
means you have no significant input upstream of that recording.

You seem to fail to understand that ultimately the mastering does
affect what was upstream in the recording. I clear example is my
ability to hear Kind of Blue at the correct speed.

Fixing a clear, gross, error in recording during mastering is NOT an
example of where YOU have any control over the mastering process. That
a screwed up recording was "what we have lived with for years" is a
clear demonstration that you have no control over the process. You seem
to fail to understand that while yes, having a perceived market for a
remastered version supplied the impetus for a new product, YOU still had
zero input into what that product would be, and thus the recording you
get, on your medium of choice, is where your "control" over the process
begins.

Secondly, of course, the differences between CD and LP are anything but
"trivial". �How else could there exist the consistent subjective
differences between them that you have so often extolled? �Much less the
easily measured differences.


They are pretty trivial actually and most of the time people are
hearing differences in the mastering and problems from inferior
equipment in the vinyl side of things.

OSAF. They are not trivial IME, and I've heard many examples of many
vinyl rigs over the years. And no one is arguing that vinyl can,
indeed, sound very good, especially given the crudity of the actual process.

And, one might ask, of what value is the significant investment you've
made in your *rig* if the difference in sound between LP on your rig and
CD are trivial?

snip

To begin with your paths are simply an inaccurate description of our
real world choices as audiophiles. Assuming SOTA transcriptions?
You normally buy bad masterings and continue listening to them? Bad
pressings? �No?

No. If given a choice I buy better masterings.

Then your statement is either fallacious or facetious. Not sure which.


What
does that have to do with reality? I'm not really interested in the
abstract arguments about audio. I am a pragmatic audiophile. Let's
deal with reality or agree that we have different concerns, mine the
realities of audio and yours the abstract arrguments of audio.
Sorry, you don't get to decide what my concerns are.

I certainly get to offer an opinion about them.

You have to understand them first, and you've demonstrated little
facility for that so far.

snip

�You can choose which mastering you like best, and
from that point, you can do whatever you like to "try to get the best
sound" out of it.


That is actually right. but if I were to let the philosophical
ideaology that asserts vinyl is a flawed medium and should therefore
be avoided drive my actions as an aduiophile I would no longer have
the same choices amongst the many different masterings out there in
the real world. So that choice would be in direct conflict with " just
trying to get the best sound one can from their favorite
***recordings" It would seem that such a choice would put one's
ideaology above one's actual aesthetic values.

*Only* if ones actual aesthetic values do not cause them to eschew vinyl
for its many non-mastering related flaws (e.g. surface noise, distortion
- as you admit - etc.). You seem adamant in a desire to perceive that
those who prefer CD do so *in spite of* aesthetic aspects, instead of
the truth (for many of us at least) that it is because of aesthetics.

The original goal of
fidelity is premised on the inherent superior aesthetic values of live
acoustic music. This narrow minded ideological belief that vinyl is a
flawed medium that needs to be avoided and any euphonic colorations
from any vinyl rig are inherently inferior because it is not accurate
to the master tape appears to ultimately be self-defeating.

Yes, having abandoned thousands of vinyl albums and decades of LP
listening, and spending thousands of dollars to replace said LPs with
CDs was all a result of a "narrow minded ideological belief that vinyl
is a flawed medium". Do you even realize how ludicrous this sounds?

snip

What I find painfully missing from you is attentiveness to obvious text.

More ad Hominem. It appears you have run out of any logical arguments
supported by meaningful evidence.

Perhaps you should address the argument (below) before making such
claims. You ignored the text provided in previous posts that clearly
rebutted your assertion, and then claim an ad hominem attack when I
point that out. And, parsing the response here to isolate the above
line as though it stands alone. Rich. Might I also point out that the
text "What I find painfully missing from you..." came from you in the
same discussion. Now you find the language terse?


� What part of "...I have many hundreds of LPs that I have replaced with
CD versions. �Except for some truly awful transfers in the early days of
CD, the CDs give *me* the better sound. �And in the cases of those awful
CD's, remastered versions I've purchased have all sounded better than
the LP version...?" did you overlook?

No. But I did see the obvious anti vinyl bias in such a broad sweeping
claim. Perhaps if you had done the comparisons with bias controls in
place I might have taken your assertion more seriously.

You confuse bias with preference. Please provide the details of my
comparisons then, and explain how my bias controls were inadequate. Oh,
that's right, you're just making an unfounded accusation for which you
have zero evidence - or can you point to *any* place where I've discusse
bias controls or lack thereof in my LP/CD observations? And, as you are
so fond of saying, I made no assertions, I relayed my subjective
observations. And I limited them, conspicuously I might add, to "*me*".

Keith Hughes

[[email protected]]

On Nov 30, 12:57�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



On Nov 27, 1:41 am, wrote:
Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:12:33 -0800,
wrote (in article ):

Scott would likely argue, however, that
the terms "more lifelike" and "sounds better" are
neither analogous nor consonant, having argued
vehemently that "more lifelike" and "sounds right" are
unrelated terms.
"More life like" does "sounds better" if one's goal is
more life like sound.

However, it is very clear that audiophiles in general have no fixed local
reference for determining that a given reproduced sound is more or less
"life like".

I can't speak for audiophiles in general and I'm not sure there would
be any relevance if I could. There are many audiophiles with very
diverse beliefs and experiences. So much so that IMO any reference to
audiophiles in general is pretty close to meaningless. I can speak for
myself though. I listen to a lot of live music on a regular basis.

�IME experience they may have been educated to rely on local,
highly indirect references such as the sound of their favorite loudspeakers
at their favorite local high end audio store.

Maybe you are hanging out with the wrong audiophiles.



Certainly, when people habitually state that the best available recorded
sound needs to have randomly-selected, audible noise and distortion added to
it in order for it to sound maximally life-like, something is desperately
awry.

Who has ever made such a statement? Quotes please?




It's really very simple. �Some
people apparently feel the need for some sort of
assurance of accuracy even if it means using an arbitrary
point of reference just because it is easily quantifiable
regardless of the aesthetic qualities of the results.

So you can't see that using an "arbitrary point of reference just because it
is easily quantifiable" is horribly wrong?

IMO it is. You should be asking yourself and the others that are
advocating such a reference that question. Heck I'll ask you. Can't
*you* see that using an arbitrary point of reference (master tape)
just because it is easily quantifiable" is horribly wrong?



To each his own.

Indeed.

For me more life like sound is almost always better sound.

Except it can't be because of your oft-stated preference for the �best
available recorded sound with added randomly-selected, audible noise and
distortion, to sound maximally life-like

That is yet another use of faulty logic.
Tautology A tautology is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning,
which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. The structure
of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the premise and
conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not immediately
apparent as such.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp


Better is always in the eyes of the beholder.

However, technological progress is based on the idea that the eyes of the
beholders tend to converge in a certain locality.

No it is also based on goals and the achievement of those goals. Goals
are ultimately based on what human beings desire. Those things are
subjective and diverse in nature. One of the most significant
convergences in audio in the last 15 years has been the resulting
excessive compression of commecial recordings on CD and MP3. That is
not my idea of technilogical progress. You may feel differently.





Indeed we see this to be true for music lovers. The vast and overwhelming
majority of music lovers ignore and even sometimes eschew that addition of
the vinyl LP's characteristic and universal inherent collections of noises
and distortions.

They also seem to be embrassing CDs and MP3s that are compressed to
death iwth their patronage. You may find the buying habbits of the
masses as some sort of meaningful guide to better sound. I do not.



It is a purely subjective term.

But again subjectivity seems to converge. Certain concert halls such as
Orchestra Hall in Detroit as well as other legendary concert halls
world-wide are generally preferred, while others receive expensive
modifications and some are *enhanced* by means of the wrecking ball.

And yet the vast majority of concert goers are listening to concerts
over bad PAs in large stadiums and sports venues. This so called
convergence has been the rule for many years now. I guess I am not one
to be a confomist.



Someone has to
make some sort of purely subjective decision as to what
the ideal is before there can be any discussion about
what is better.

The good news is that almost everybody made that decision vis-a-vis vinyl
versus digital about 30 years ago. Just a tiny and regrettably noisy
minority spend much time promoting it.

The same folks who are now embrassing excessive compression in their
CDs and MP3s. If you wish to count yourself among these people I won't
try to stop you.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Nov 30, 8:32?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



No. But I did see the obvious anti vinyl bias in such a
broad sweeping claim. Perhaps if you had done the
comparisons with bias controls in place I might have
taken your assertion more seriously.

Single blind tests = essentially no adequate bias
controls.

That simply is not true.

Nobody has taken single blind tests seriously since Clever Hans *talked*
back in the early 1800s.

This is just another case of faulty logic.

No, its not. If single blind tests are so good, why are DBTs practically
required when human life and health is at stake?

If it were possible to have a LP playback for an
appreciable amount of time with zero characteristic tics
and pops, then ?bias controlled tests comparing the LP
to more modern forms of recording could make some sense.
As things stand, any listener who would be so inclined
would simply wait for the first audible tic or pop, and
vote his biases.

That would be a flawed test. It doesn't take much
ingenuity to get around such simple problems.

Prove it to me. Looking forward to that unprocessed, unedited side of a LP
transcribed to a CD.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 30, 1:16�pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 29, 8:09?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 27, 1:41???am, wrote:
Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:12:33 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

???Scott would likely argue, however, that
the terms "more lifelike" and "sounds better" are neither analogous nor
consonant, having argued vehemently that "more lifelike" and "sounds
right" are unrelated terms.

"More life like" does "sounds better" if one's goal is more life like
sound. It's really very simple. ?

Actully, it's a rather complex situation, because without a constant,
blind reference to a real, live performance, many preferences (and thus
biases) come into play when a person decides whether something sounds
'lifelike .
That is a fair point. Interestingly enough the few people I know who
actually have done blind comparisons between a live mic feed, digital
recording, analog tape and a direct cut laquer are James Boyk, Doud
Sax and Kavi Alexander.
Here are some of James Boyk's comments on some of those experiences.

I don't consider Boyk a credible source on these matters, and haven't for years.

So what? Are you the arbitrator of credibility?


In one of your pullquotes, for example, he seems to assert that 'euphonic colorations'
do not exist. One may refer to the far more credible posts of jj, Dick Pierce, et al,
in those threads.

Do JJ or Dick Pierce have more experience than Boyk in making direct
comparisons of actual live muisic or mic feeds to the various sources
in question? Are they proven better listeners? By what objective
criteria are they more credible when it comes to the assesment of
sound quality of the various media in direct comparison to a live
source? It is easy to start making ad Hominem attacks on various
peoples' credibility but it is a basic logical fallacy. You may not
like James Boyk's findings but to question his "credibility" on this
subject you have to find objective fault with his experience,
methodologies or reasoning.



See the paper on the problems with hedonic listening tests that Arny
linked to, for a list of them. ?There is also the issue of audio memory,
which is not particularly good at details over the long haul.
It's not particularly bad when it comes to mere recognition.
Recognizing the sound of live instruments for the sound of live
instruments is not terribly challenging IME. Is there any evidence out
there that suggests I am mistaken and overstating the acuity of aural
recognition? For instance I can recognize the unique sound of an old
freinds voice often without hearing that voice for many years. That
sort of aural memory seems to be rather acute among we humans. Do you
think otherwise?

One error is that you are equaing the sound of an individual human voice -- a soiund we
are evolutionarily quite well attuned to -- with the sound of some
generic 'live' performance.

I wasn't equating anything, Just citing one of many examples of long
term recognition. I can think of other examples that involved musical
instruments. But I will ask a more specific question. Do you believe
it is difficult for listeners to recognize the distinct sound of live
instruments v. the sound of instruments recorded and played back based
on long term aural memory of the sound of live instruments?

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Nov 30, 12:57�pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



On Nov 27, 1:41 am, wrote:
Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:12:33 -0800,
wrote (in article
):

Scott would likely argue, however, that
the terms "more lifelike" and "sounds better" are
neither analogous nor consonant, having argued
vehemently that "more lifelike" and "sounds right" are
unrelated terms.
"More life like" does "sounds better" if one's goal is
more life like sound.

However, it is very clear that audiophiles in general
have no fixed local reference for determining that a
given reproduced sound is more or less "life like".

I can't speak for audiophiles in general and I'm not sure
there would be any relevance if I could. There are many
audiophiles with very diverse beliefs and experiences. So
much so that IMO any reference to audiophiles in general
is pretty close to meaningless. I can speak for myself
though. I listen to a lot of live music on a regular
basis.

�IME experience they may have been educated to rely on local,
highly indirect references such as the sound of their
favorite loudspeakers at their favorite local high end
audio store.

Maybe you are hanging out with the wrong audiophiles.

Show me something better!

Certainly, when people habitually state that the best
available recorded sound needs to have
randomly-selected, audible noise and distortion added to
it in order for it to sound maximally life-like,
something is desperately awry.

Who has ever made such a statement? Quotes please?

Your choice of promoters of the vinyl format, posting on Usenet and HTML
conferences. Any issue of your favorite high end ragazine.

It's really very simple. �Some
people apparently feel the need for some sort of
assurance of accuracy even if it means using an
arbitrary point of reference just because it is easily
quantifiable regardless of the aesthetic qualities of
the results.

So you can't see that using an "arbitrary point of
reference just because it is easily quantifiable" is
horribly wrong?

IMO it is. You should be asking yourself and the others
that are advocating such a reference that question. Heck
I'll ask you. Can't *you* see that using an arbitrary
point of reference (master tape) just because it is
easily quantifiable" is horribly wrong?

My choices of reference are far from being arbitrary.

For me more life like sound is almost always better
sound.

Except it can't be because of your oft-stated preference
for the �best available recorded sound with added
randomly-selected, audible noise and distortion, to
sound maximally life-like

That is yet another use of faulty logic.

So you say.

Tautology A tautology is an argument that utilizes
circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is
also its own premise. The structure of such arguments is
A=B therefore A=B, although the premise and conclusion
might be formulated differently so it is not immediately
apparent as such.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp

That's not an answer, its just a irrelevant truism. It's a smoke screen put
up by someone who has no relevant reliable facts to back up his exceptional,
anti-scientific claims.

Better is always in the eyes of the beholder.

However, technological progress is based on the idea
that the eyes of the beholders tend to converge in a
certain locality.

No it is also based on goals and the achievement of those
goals.

The logical error is the idea that ascribing one property to something
necessarily involves invalidates all other properties that it might have.

IOW, sure, its based on goals and achievment of those goals, but this begs
the question whether or not the goal is well-defined. So far all we hear
from those who praise vinyl over digital is relatively rare personal
perceptions that may well be illusions.

Goals are ultimately based on what human beings
desire. Those things are subjective and diverse in
nature. One of the most significant convergences in audio
in the last 15 years has been the resulting excessive
compression of commecial recordings on CD and MP3. That
is not my idea of technilogical progress. You may feel
differently.

It's not a matter of feeling, it is a matter of observing and reaching
logical conclusions. The CD almost totally destroyed the market for LPs
because in the eyes of almost everybody (not just many, not just a lot, but
about 99% of all music lovers) it did a better job of delivering music to
people who loved it.

The sound of the CD was generally better, it was more convenient, more
reliable, and ultimately it became cheaper and simply more usable. The
numbers and facts are there and they are incontrivertable, except in the
eyes of a tiny minority who behave like know-nothings. They only read
documents that support their viewpoint, they only hear what they want to
hear. They can't be bothered with studying established accepted technology,
they dismiss all technical measures of audible performance, and they dismiss
the preferences of about 99% of all music lovers.



Indeed we see this to be true for music lovers. The vast
and overwhelming majority of music lovers ignore and
even sometimes eschew that addition of the vinyl LP's
characteristic and universal inherent collections of
noises and distortions.

They also seem to be embrassing CDs and MP3s that are
compressed to death iwth their patronage.

You have again confused the message with the medium. The CD medium can do 2
channel stereo with sonic perfection, low cost and high levels of
reliability and convenience. People have the choice to use it that way, or
not. It's a free country and a free market.

It is a purely subjective term.

But again subjectivity seems to converge. Certain
concert halls such as Orchestra Hall in Detroit as well
as other legendary concert halls world-wide are
generally preferred, while others receive expensive
modifications and some are *enhanced* by means of the
wrecking ball.

And yet the vast majority of concert goers are listening
to concerts over bad PAs in large stadiums and sports
venues.


That is a choice they get to make. I take it that you would prefer that we
sanction those activities.

This so called convergence has been the rule for
many years now. I guess I am not one to be a confomist.

You are a conformist, just you conform to a different set of standards.
Everything you say echoes what the high end ragazines have been saying for
decades.

Someone has to
make some sort of purely subjective decision as to what
the ideal is before there can be any discussion about
what is better.

The good news is that almost everybody made that
decision vis-a-vis vinyl versus digital about 30 years
ago. Just a tiny and regrettably noisy minority spend
much time promoting it.

The same folks who are now embrassing excessive
compression in their CDs and MP3s.

Plenty of music that has been recorded with the goals of accuracy and
natural dynamics is still available as a new product. In fact that new CD
that I cited last week has the highest dynamic range I've ever found on any
commercial recording, anyplace.

If you wish to count
yourself among these people I won't try to stop you.

That's an ad hominem argument, isn't it?

;-)

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

Do JJ or Dick Pierce have more experience than Boyk in
making direct comparisons of actual live muisic or mic
feeds to the various sources in question?

Good question, and the answer is not obvious.

One thing that is well-known, and that is in contrast to Boyk, both JJ and
Mr. Pierce are technically competent in audio and electronics.

Are they proven better listeners?

This question seems to be a demonstration of inability to ask a relevant
question. Boyk is a musican, while JJ and Mr. Pierce are both primarily
technicans. Musicans and technicans generally listen differently. There's a
well-known difference between hearing sound quality and hearing music.

Perhaps this book will help you out:

http://www.amazon.com/Music-Brain-Ec.../dp/038078209X

By what objective criteria are they
more credible when it comes to the assesment of sound
quality of the various media in direct comparison to a
live source?

Musicans are notorious for failing to be able to hear small differences in
sound quality, despite the fact that many are superior and reliable
perceivers of musical quality. The two talents are nearly mutually
exclusive.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 30, 4:25�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



On Nov 30, 8:32?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



No. But I did see the obvious anti vinyl bias in such a
broad sweeping claim. Perhaps if you had done the
comparisons with bias controls in place I might have
taken your assertion more seriously.
Single blind tests = essentially no adequate bias
controls.
That simply is not true.

Nobody has taken single blind tests seriously since Clever Hans *talked*
back in the early 1800s.

You snipped an important part of my post. So I will restate it.



That simply is not true. This is just another case of faulty logic.
"The Moving Goalpost A method of denial arbitrarily moving the
criteria for "proof" or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence
currently exists."
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp
Please cite one peer reviewed paper on pychoacoustics that asserts
single blind blind tests are inadequate for hobbyists personal use.

Your failure to cite any peer review paper on psychoacoustics that
assert single blind tests are inadequate for hobbyists' personal use
puts your assertions in perspective. assertions without support.


This is just another case of faulty logic.

No, its not. If single blind tests are so good, why are DBTs practically
required when human life �and health is at stake?

Huh? Are you asserting that they are doing DBTs in emergency wards and
intensive care units? I think not. But I would expect a much higher
standards of testing when lives are at stake. I am quite satisfied
with the sighted tests done by doctors and nurses in the ER. I think
they do a heroic job.



If it were possible to have a LP playback for an
appreciable amount of time with zero characteristic tics
and pops, then ?bias controlled tests comparing the LP
to more modern forms of recording could make some sense.
As things stand, any listener who would be so inclined
would simply wait for the first audible tic or pop, and
vote his biases.
That would be a flawed test. It doesn't take much
ingenuity to get around such simple problems.

Prove it to me. Looking forward to that unprocessed, unedited side of a LP
transcribed to a CD.

Sorry Arny but I am not interested in trying to persuade *you* of
anything. I believe you are too committed to the old subjectiveist/
objectivist feud.

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
On Nov 30, 8:42?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



On Nov 28, 9:16?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
Since it is well-known that the CD format is sonically
transparent, Boyk is in essence claiming that his LPs
sound better ?than the master tapes that were used to
make them.- Hide quoted text -
Boyk's claims are clear and speak for themsleves.

Yes, Boyk's pro LP bias and his anti-science views about things like wires
and cables are a matter of the public record.

Classic use of faulty logic. Pure ad hominem.

Boyk's work and claims have been discussed ad nauseam on Usenet audio forums, as you well
know,since you posted links to some of the discussion.

If to some, LPs sound better than master tapes, it *has* to be due to some form
of euphonic coloration....as others who share that perception have recognized.

http://classicproaudio.com/franci.htm

"Several years ago I was involved in my first recording which appeared on vinyl and CD. It
gave me a unique opportunity to compare analogue and digital reproduction because I also had a
copy of the original master tape. Unhesitatingly, I should say, the CD was 'nearer' the
master, but vinyl produced a 'better' stereo image - in fact, better than the master tape! A
conundrum indeed.

After much deliberation and armchair theorizing I set about doing some experiments. Late
nights with an oscilloscope eventually uncovered that electrical and mechanical crosstalk
within the cartridge and pre-amp were causing a stereo image manipulation which was similar to
that brought about by the Blumlein 'Shuffler' circuit and Edeko's loudspeakers - all the
important narrowing of the stereo image at high frequencies. It supported what I and so many
hi-fi fans knew to be the case, that vinyl really does sound better than CD - especially in
LP's presentation of a realistic soundstage."


(This testimony is, of course, also subject to criticism for apparent lack of bias controls)



--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Nov 30, 4:25�pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



On Nov 30, 8:32?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



No. But I did see the obvious anti vinyl bias in such
a broad sweeping claim. Perhaps if you had done the
comparisons with bias controls in place I might have
taken your assertion more seriously.
Single blind tests = essentially no adequate bias
controls.
That simply is not true.

Nobody has taken single blind tests seriously since
Clever Hans *talked* back in the early 1800s.

You snipped an important part of my post. So I will
restate it.

It is just an irrelevant truism.

Your failure to cite any peer review paper on
psychoacoustics that assert single blind tests are
inadequate for hobbyists' personal use puts your
assertions in perspective. assertions without support.

Here we have a false argument based on adding on irrelevant qualifications
until the conditions are practically impossible to meet. According to this
argument, general criticisms of single blind tests are irrelevant because
they don't specifically apply to hobbiest personal use, or tests involving
pink elephants, or whatever.

This is just another case of faulty logic.

No, its not. If single blind tests are so good, why are
DBTs practically required when human life �and health
is at stake?

Huh? Are you asserting that they are doing DBTs in
emergency wards and intensive care units?

Here we have yet another false argument based on irrelevant conditions. It
is apparently not sufficient that medications and other treatment options
are validated, often in accordance with the law, based on DBTs. Now,
according to the false argument presented above, DBTs aren't valid unless
they are used by emergency room doctors to make on-the-spot treatment
choices.

Prove it to me. Looking forward to that unprocessed,
unedited side of a LP transcribed to a CD.

Sorry Arny but I am not interested in trying to persuade
*you* of anything.

Then show that you actually believe in this to the point where you stop
arguing that the LP is generally superior to the CD.

I believe you are too committed to the old subjectiveist/ objectivist
feud.

In fact this has nothing to do with your failure to back your claims up by
doing something that tens of thousands of home audiophiles do every day.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 30, 1:21�pm, wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 29, 8:45 am, wrote:

snip

The semantic quibble is your pretense that *you*, the audiophile, have
any input into the process.

We do have input. It's our money.

You are confusing marketing input with "process" input.

I think you are denying the clear connection between the two. It was
the market input of audiophiles like myself that directly led to the
processes used on many of the current audiophile releases. Again if
you doubt this fact it is easy to varify. a simple email to Chad
Kassem of Analog Productions or Michael Hobson of classics will do the
trick. Ask them if you don't believe me.

�Yes, if no one
buys "Mastering A", then possibly "Mastering B" will be created. �You
still have NO input into any decisions made regarding the choices made
to create "Mastering B".

That is simply not true. Our choices as consumers do affect choices
made by the producers. In the case of the audiophile market our
feedback also affects choices by producers.

Again, you cannot affect the mastering choices
made, you can only affect your choice of masters to buy.

Again we can affect such choices to a degree by simply supporting the
work of mastering engineers whose work we prefer. the effect is those
mastering engineers get more jobs and we get more product mastered the
way we like it mastered.

�And that
choice is significantly diluted, effectually, by the fact that you
typically have to purchase the recording before you get to evaluate it.

Of course our influence is diluted. at the same time in the real world
of audiophilia that influence has been pretty profound. Like minded
audiophiles have created a market for these audiophile reissues that
are in most cases IME the best out there. These titles now exist in
huge quantities. 20-25 years ago when Record Companies started
reissuing their back catalogs on CD with near zero quality control it
was this same vocal group that expressed their dislike for that
garbage. The general public was largely accepting that garbage as
state of the art sound. They accepted the argument that much of the
bad sound they were hearing was just a case of a more accurate
transcription of a bad recording. so yeah, I do believe that we have
very much created a rich marketplace filled with amazing remasters for
ourselves that would not exist if nobody spoke up about crap sounding
CDs. A market that would not exist if everyone just accepted any and
all CDs as perfect transcriptions of the master tape and believed
that is how it should be.

snip

That is why anything upstream of the master is irrelevant, it will be
made outside of your control, outside of your input, and outside of your
ability to remediate. The ONLY things you can control begin after the
master is created.

You are very much mistaken. It is relevant and it is possible for we
the consumer to affect it. That has been plainly demonstrated.

That is your opinion, clearly. �That does not, however, make your belief
accurate.

But it is accurate and you can check if you are actually interested in
the accuracy of that claim with the actual producers of audiophile
recordings and reissues. You can reach Chas Kassem by email at
Acoustic Sounds http://store.acousticsounds.com/supp...?support=email
and Michael Hobson by email at Classics
�
If you are simply more interested in just arguing about differences
between CDs and vinyl without any connection to the realities of what
is actually out there on vinyl and CD count me out. I've talked to
these folks. I know what they have to say about it in reality.



Of course consumers can have an effect, in a very gross
indirect way (which is why I stated that it as not relevant in this
context), but you have demonstrated absolutely NO mechanism whereby YOU
the consumer get to make mastering (i.e. the physical process, not the
purchasing decision) decisions.

I influence the mastering decisions I actually want made by supporting
the work of the mastering engineers whose work I like best. It could
be a coincidence but those guys are now getting a great deal of the
work. That makes me very happy.



snip

As an end user, you get a recording to work with. That's it. You can
choose the medium (and the accompanying distortion(s))to which that
recording is transcribed. That is your entry point into the process,
and anything that happens upstream of that entry point is irrelevant.
YOU are not involved upstream.

No. I don't get "a recording" I get a mastering or in most cases I get
severalk masterings to chose from, some on CD some on LP all with
different sonic characteristics. You continue to deny this basic and
important fact.

snip semantical argument

I also have the ability to chose an LP rig that has a
sonic signature that shows recordings in a more favorable light.

And?

And enjoy it? And what?�

That has been the discussion after all. �The problem is, with LP,
you don't have option of NOT adding a sonic signature, euphonic or not.


You are just trying to misrerpresent the debate over CD v. LP in a way
that assumes one has to abandon one for the other. If a CD sounds
better for a particular title than any LP for whatever reasons then
listen to the CD. That's what I do. It is a purely pragmatic approach.









Whatever failures, limitations, distortions, additions/deletions that
occur in the recording process (to make the master) are irrelevant to
the point of this discussion.
No they are not. Again this is a classic case of seeing the trees and
missing the forrest.
No, this is a classic case of strawman erection on your part. The
"Point" of this discussion (i.e. this part of the main thread) has been
about LP/CD distortion, and preference for any resulting euphony,
especially in preference to the master. The master is basically the
point at which the LP/CD distinction *occurs*. Events that precede, and
apply equally to, that distinction are logically irrelevant.

You are trying to turn the discussion into an irrelevant abstract
discussion that does not relate to the realities we face as
audiophiles. Again you want to talk about a tree and I am only
interested in the forrest.

You can repeat this simple fallacy as much as you like, it is still a
strawman. �Repetition does not create reality.

Do you have an actual logical argument to make here? This is just ad
hominem and unsupported assertion.



One can't ignore the nature of real world
recordings when discussing the merits of the various media that play
them. One also can't ignore the real world choices we actually have
when it comes to the mastering of real world recordings.

Are you saying I've done so? �When?

Yes, On this thread.



this
discussion is starting to remind me of a bit in the Monty Python movie
the Life of Brian "OK besides the law and order and the aquaducts and
the sanitation what have the Romans ever done for us?"

Now that is a total non-sequitur. �I'm not ignoring real world choices.
� I'm discussion one very real, very large, real world choice, and that
is between LP and CD as a source.

Yes that is my point. You are trying to promote a false dichotomy
between LP and CD as a source. You are arguing your case from an
abstract position that ignores the real world choices we have amongst
the different masterings available on CD and LP. Those masterings
clearly have a much greater inpact than the inherent sonic signatures
of either media. You are trying to defend your ideological choice to
shoot yourself in the foot and abandon vinyl as a medium by asserting
all audiophiles have to make one final all or nothing choice between
the two media. Your arguments are completely destroyed by the simple
fact that I and the vast majority of other vinyl enthusiasts have CD
players and listen to CDs. We allow ourselves the choice of the best
masterings available on both media. When the best choice happens to be
on LP that is simply an observation. You may wish to argue away those
observations but that is not how things work. It would appear that you
have chosen to cut yourself off from the opportunity to make those
decisions based on some idealogical anti vinyl position. Your foot
your gun. You can argue all you want. I have had far too many real
world experiences with LPs sonically out performing CDs and visa versa
for me to abandon my pragmatic approach for the sake of some
idealogical argument.


If you choose to believe that euphonic distortions in the LP
transcription process "improve" the *actual* recording, that is your
prerogative. If you state that the LP is an accurate transcription of
that recording, you are incorrect.

In many cases in the real world the LP actually is far more accurate
to the master tape than any CD version. Again it seems you want to
limit this discussion to the abstract and ignore the realities of what
product is actually out there for us to chose from.

OK. �You have repeatedly admitted that LP ADDS distortion, yes? �CDs
have been shown capable of bit-perfect reproduction of digital masters,
yes? �So exactly how is it possible for LP to more accurate to the
master tape than *any* CD?

Such a question speaks loudly of your choice to argue this point from
the abstract and ignore the real world choices of audiophiles. I'll
ask you a simple question about real world choices between LPs and CDs
of the same title. Which do you think is more accurate to the master
tape with Red Hot Chilli Peppers Stadium Arcadium, the LP or the CD?
Now before you answer here is some real world information on the real
world LP and CD in question.
http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f9/ama...-vinyl-184499/
I think it should be pretty self evident the many ways in which an LP
can be far more accurate to the master tape than the CD of the same
title.




They are there for BOTH CD and LP, and
are not subject to our control.
That is actually irrlevant to the discussion and not entirely true.
Really? Which part of the recording process do *YOU* the
consumer/audiophile have control over?

I have control over which mastering I buy.

Non-responsive to the question - but you knew that right?

It was quite responsive. I'm sorry that you don't see the connection.


snip

Well, first off, its clear you do not appreciate the distinction between
"choice" and "control".

Indeed I don't.

Well, a rare point of agreement.

Exercising choice is a form of exercising control.

Purely sophistry in this context, as previously discussed.

Ad hominem. at least an attempt. I am curious though how one would
rationally argue that sopistry is wrong minded in the evaluation of
any aesthetic experience. Do you think one has some sort of obligation
to tailor their aesthetic values to suit some standard set of
aesthetic values? If so, who is the arbitrator of those alleged
standard aesthetic values?


�No matter
what you buy, you have no control over the methods used to create the
product.

Not true. Consumer choices ultimately do affect methods used.



A distinction quite necessary to apprehend the
discussion at hand. That you can "choose" different masterings, when
such exist, confers exactly ZERO control over said process.

It would seem you don't understand the economics of the market place.
Those very choices by myself and like minded audiophiles have directly
lead to the actual existance of literally hundreds of the masterings I
own. I would assert that my choices has exerted a great deal of
control over the process. If you don't agree feel free to ask the guys
who are actually making these reissues that I find so favorable. Just
email the folks at Classics, Analog Poductions, Pure Pleasure etc. I
am quite sure they will tell you that it is audiophiles like myself
that drive the market and allow for the production of literally
humdreds of LPs and CDs with superior mastering.

And you give them technical input into the mastering process right?
They call you for advice on the mixes and masters, right? �You get an LP
that doesn't sound "life like" enough and you call them and they
remaster it right?

This is a classic case of faulty logic.
"Special pleading, or ad-hoc reasoning This is a subtle fallacy which
is often difficult to recognize. In essence, it is the arbitrary
introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so
that they appear valid."
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp
I would no more tell a great mastering engineer how to do his job than
I would tell a great chef how to cook a meal. I am not claiming to
have direct control of the mastering process. I wouldn't want that if
I could have it. I would rather have people with real talent and
experience doing it for me. That is where I do have some control. I
can pick my restaurants and I can buy product mastered by my favorite
mastering engineers. You seem to think that influence is non existant
or inconsequencial. I disagree and I would assert that this
disagreement can easily be settled by the actual producers of
audiophile reissues. You can talk to them. I gave you the contact
inofrmation. I already have talked to them many times.



In fact,
this statement validates my point precisely. That your "most
significant control" is choosing *which* mastering you buy, clearly
means you have no significant input upstream of that recording.

You seem to fail to understand that ultimately the mastering does
affect what was upstream in the recording. I clear example is my
ability to hear Kind of Blue at the correct speed.

Fixing a clear, gross, error in recording during mastering is NOT an
example of where YOU have any control over the mastering process.

Actually it is. Well, not me personally, but me and the group of like
minded audiophiles (myself included) who pay attention to mastering do
influence the process to the point of creating porduct. Classics would
not exist were it not for our patronage. Therefore that particular
reissue would have never come into being. So our influence very much
manifested that fix.

�That
a screwed up recording was "what we have lived with for years" is a
clear demonstration that you have no control over the process.

No *that* is a clear demonstration of what was happening before like
minded audiophiles (myself included) created a market for audiophile
reissues.�Once that market gained momentum the flood gates were opened
up for this kind of thing. This is he direct result of the interaction
of audiophiles and producers or audiophile product.

You seem
to fail to understand that while yes, having a perceived market for a
remastered version supplied the impetus for a new product, YOU still had
zero input into what that product would be, and thus the recording you
get, on your medium of choice, is where your "control" over the process
begins.

We as a group have had tremendous influence. I as an individual have
shared in some of that influence. That is clearly more than zero. You
are arguing a point that is extreme to the point of absurdity. You
seem to be trying to create a false dichotomy. Control is not an all
or nothing proposition. There are vast areas of gray in between those
two extremes.





Secondly, of course, the differences between CD and LP are anything but
"trivial". How else could there exist the consistent subjective
differences between them that you have so often extolled? Much less the
easily measured differences.

They are pretty trivial actually and most of the time people are
hearing differences in the mastering and problems from inferior
equipment in the vinyl side of things.

OSAF. �They are not trivial IME, and I've heard many examples of many
vinyl rigs over the years. �And no one is arguing that vinyl can,
indeed, sound very good, especially given the crudity of the actual process.

Here are somethings siad by folks who actually have done blind
comparisons between laquers and the master tapes or even better the
direct mic feed.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...006e0ea d8b9c
"On CD vs Lp, I can't resist--unwisely I know--mentioning that a
master disk for an Lp can be cut of such quality that you can't pick
it from the master tape; or can pick it only with great difficulty. I
have personally heard such disks. From that point, it's a matter of
how closely the finished Lp's hew to the master; and they can be very
close indeed. " James Boyk

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


"First, let me say that I love records, compact discs and SACDs; I
have a bunch of all three formats. Nothing that I discovered below
changed that one bit.

I did these comparisons a few years ago. Since I spilled the beans to
an interviewer on mic last year I continually get quoted and misquoted
about this subject. I'll try to set the "record" straight in this
thread. Please note I'm typing on a whacked out computer not my own
with a tiny monitor and no spell check.... There could be a (gasp)
typo or two...

A few years ago, mainly out of curiosity (and nothing else) I got the
chance at AcousTech Mastering to compare an actual master tape to the
playback of a record lacquer and digital playback. Also did the same
test using DSD (SACD) playback as well later on in the day. The
results were interesting. The below is just my opinion. Note that we
cut the record at 45 because the lathe was set for that speed. A
similar test we did using the 33 1/3 speed yielded the same result.

FIRST COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with
DIGITAL PACIFIC MICROSONICS CAPTURE.

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

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

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

The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the same. We couldn't tell one
from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the
tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The
acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the
SAE arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in
so many pictures posted here of AcousTech).

The flat digital playback of my mastering sounded different. NOT BAD,
just different. The decay on the piano was different, the plucks of
Scott's bass were different, the reverb trail was noticeably truncated
due to a loss of resolution. Non unpleasant, just not like the actual
master tape. This is slightly frustrating to me because it confirmed
the fact that when mastering in digital one has to compensate for the
change (which I do with my usual "tricks"). The record however, gave
back exactly what we put in to it. Exactly. This reinforced my opinion
that AcousTech Mastering has the best cutting chain in the world.

Please note that an actual record for sale would have gone through the
manufacturing process and the lacquer would have been processed to a
MASTER, MOTHER, STAMPER and VINYL with increased surface noise, etc.
but the sound of the music remains intact for the most part. A
remarkable thing since records have been basically made the same way
for over 100 years.


SECOND COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with DSD
MASTER (SACD MASTER).

So, using the same master tape of WALTZ FOR DEBBY, we compared the
before mentioned acetate that we cut on the AcousTech lathe
(manufactured in 1967 and modded by Kevin Gray) with a DSD playback of
the same tape with the same mastering and levels.

Result? The DSD/SACD version sounded even MORE different than the
compact disc digital playback compared to the analog master. More not-
like the sound of the actual master tape. The resolution was fine and
we could hear the notes decay, etc. just like analog but the TONALITY
was a bit off. It was not telling the truth when compared to the
master tape or the acetate record.

THIRD COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE RECORD with OPEN REEL TAPE
COPY AT 15 ips:

We made a dub of the tune WALTZ FOR DEBBY to an Ampex ATR-100 at 15
ips non-Dolby, +3 level and played it back with the actual master tape
and the acetate record. Both of us thought the open reel tape copy
sounded inferior to the acetate record when compared to the master
tape; weaker transients, a more "blurred" sound that would never be
noticeable unless played back with the actual master tape to compare
it to.

So, what does this mean to you? Probably nothing. What did it mean to
me? I found it interesting. The CD playback had more accurate tonality
than the DSD/SACD playback. The DSD playback had more front to back
resolution than the CD playback. The tape copy sounded slightly
lackluster. The acetate record playback beat them all in terms of
resolution, tonal accuracy and everything else when compared directly
with the analog master in playback. This is not wonderful news in a
certain sense; vinyl playback is sometimes a pain in the butt and
knowing that CD's are not capturing everything in perfect resolution
drives me bonkers.

Regarding the lowly phonograph record:

Remember, a record groove is a true "analog" of a sound wave; not a
SAMPLE but the real deal. Even the electrically recorded 78's I have
from the 1920's have a wonderful sound with a lifelike convincing
midband (which is where the "heart" of the music lies). Read what
Kevin Gray wrote in this essay:

http://www.recordtech.com/prodsounds.htm

http://www.recordtech.com/faq.htm

Of course records have their problems (could be noisy, warped, bad
cutting, etc.) as well but for the most part they will be a damn
miraculous representation of the actual master recording for not much
money.

Your comments are welcome.

Please remember, the above is just my OPINION but I found it
interesting. I love my compact discs but I realize they are not the
last word in resolution; they are damn fine though and when listening
for pleasure I play CDs and records, with CDs getting the most play.
My Sony and Living Stereo SACDs are never far away from me either. If
you disagree with me, that's cool. It's all fun, or should be.

Sorry again for some awkward English in this; my proofing time was
limited (but not compressed)." Steve Hoffman

It is quite clear that these three very experienced, very skilled
listeners found the colorations of these laquers to be trivial at
best. Now you may fancy yourself a more skilled listener than either
James Boyk, Steve Hoffman or Kevin Gray but that would be at best just
your biased subjective opinion. Or you may think your system is more
revealing than the ones they used. I'd want to see some evidence of
that though. Any which way what we have here is much more than just
some casual opinion. It is the observation of three very skilled very
experienced listeners of comparisons between the playback of laquers
directly to the master tape or the direct mic feed. They also offer
pretty explicit opinions on the differences between the laquers and
the final product. Not much.





And, one might ask, of what value is the significant investment you've
made in your *rig* if the difference in sound between LP on your rig and
CD are trivial?



I have already explained that. My rig has a sonic signature that
proved to be quite favorable under blind conditions in direct
comparisons over a rig that is likely to be among the least colored in
the world. Those differences were not so trivial.



To begin with your paths are simply an inaccurate description of our
real world choices as audiophiles. Assuming SOTA transcriptions?
You normally buy bad masterings and continue listening to them? Bad
pressings? No?

No. �If given a choice I buy better masterings.

Then your statement is either fallacious or facetious. �Not sure which.

Only if one accepts all of your hypothetical premises which bear no
resemblence to the real world. I simply don't accept those
hypothetical premises because I would rather focus on real world
choices as an audiophile.





What
does that have to do with reality? I'm not really interested in the
abstract arguments about audio. I am a pragmatic audiophile. Let's
deal with reality or agree that we have different concerns, mine the
realities of audio and yours the abstract arrguments of audio.
Sorry, you don't get to decide what my concerns are.

I certainly get to offer an opinion about them.

You have to understand them first, and you've demonstrated little
facility for that so far.

Pure Ad Hominem.

snip



You can choose which mastering you like best, and
from that point, you can do whatever you like to "try to get the best
sound" out of it.

That is actually right. but if I were to let the philosophical
ideaology that asserts vinyl is a flawed medium and should therefore
be avoided drive my actions as an aduiophile I would no longer have
the same choices amongst the many different masterings out



No response. And this is the jist of things.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

You can
reach Chas Kassem by email at
Acoustic Sounds
http://store.acousticsounds.com/supp...?support=email
and Michael Hobson by email at Classics
�
If you are simply more interested in just arguing about
differences between CDs and vinyl without any connection
to the realities of what
is actually out there on vinyl and CD count me out. I've
talked to
these folks. I know what they have to say about it in
reality.

if these people are as helpful as you claim, then perhaps you can have them
help you your claim that the LP format has none of the problems that we say
it does, by providing an unprocessed, unedited transcription of a LP side
that as you have repeatedly claimed, lacks all of the audible problems we've
been talking about.

Since it is your reputation that is at stake here, of course it is up to you
to provide the recording, not us.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Nov 28, 8:42�am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message







On Nov 27, 1:40?am, wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:12 am, wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 24, 7:44 am, wrote:

You misunderstand. It's the capability to *start*
with the undistorted signal that is the point. From
there, it can be left alone, or modified as needed to
overcome other effects such as speaker/room
interactions.

1. An undistorted signal? No such thing with any
recording of live music.

AHEM...I thought you said you were through with
semantic quibbling...

You think the distortions that precede the master tape
are a matter of semantics? I disagree. They are a real
issue that we, as audiophiles, have to live with and
deal
with.

It's all about quantification.

No it's all about aural perception. You are putting the
cart before the horse. Unless you are more interested in
bench test results than aesthetic values. I am not. To
each his own.

The above shows a lack of understanding of the word perception, which I have
observed before.

Perceptions may be either veridical or illusory. Illusory perceptions need
not be connected with actual, genuine, or reliable objects or events.
Therefore, saying that something is all about aural perception ignores the
critical fact that the aural perception can easily be illusory, which is to
say that it has no basis in reality outside the brain of the one perceiving.

After much deliberation and armchair theorizing I set
about doing some
experiments. Late nights with an oscilloscope eventually
uncovered that electrical and mechanical crosstalk
within
the cartridge and pre- amp were causing a stereo image
manipulation which was
similar to that brought about by the Blumlein
'Shuffler' circuit and Edeko's loudspeakers - all the
important narrowing of the
stereo image at high frequencies.

If you want to narrow the image at high frequencies, it
can be done far more effectively, and with far less
distortion by purely electronic means.

How? How can I take a signal off of my CD player and
process it so it mimics the improvements wrought by my
vinyl playback system?

A reasonable first step would be to ascertain tha the so-called improvements
aren't actually illusions.

In fact there few if any sucessful recordists who are using LP playback
systems as signal improvers. Can you document a well-known recordist or
mastering engineer who proudly and routinely cuts recordings to LPs and then
plays them back as part of their production of SACDs or DVD-As?

Furthermore, it is completely illogical to believe that
there is a "one-size fixt all" distortion of this kind
that should be indiscriminately applied to every
recording.

1. No one is saying that such distortion works equally
well for all recordings.

Since we don't know if the so-called improvements are illusions or
veridical, we don't know what "works well" means in your lexicon.

2. It is logical when one considers that at it seems to
be addressing a universal inherent limitation of stereo
recording and playback.

Again, cutting recordings to LPs and then playing them back is not a
generally-accepted part of their production of SACDs or DVD-As, or even CDs.

This seems to be an exceptional claim which needs to be proven by a more
rigorous method than unusupported assertion without any evidence but some LP
enthusiast's say-so.

3. Given the fact that different vinyl playback equipment
has distinctive unique sonic signatures it stands to
reason that this is not actually a 'one size fits all"
solution.

Then there is no evidence that any LP playback system but yours has this
benefit?

It supported what I and so many hi-fi fans knew to be
the
case, that vinyl really does sound better than CD -

Hey, if music with added audible noise and distortion of
a characteristic and randomly-chosen kind is what floats
your boat, then enjoy!

That was a quote from Richard Brice. He was the one who
actually engineered the recordings and had first hand
experience with the original acoustic event.

Proof by means of name-dropping?

Is that listed as being a good thing or a bad thing in the skeptic's
literature that you keep quoting? Is it listed at all, or is it something
that you invented for yourself?

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
On Nov 30, 8:32?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



No. But I did see the obvious anti vinyl bias in such a
broad sweeping claim. Perhaps if you had done the
comparisons with bias controls in place I might have
taken your assertion more seriously.

Single blind tests = essentially no adequate bias controls.

That simply is not true. This is just another case of faulty logic.
"The Moving Goalpost A method of denial arbitrarily moving the
criteria for "proof" or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence
currently exists."
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp
Please cite one peer reviewed paper on pychoacoustics that asserts
single blind blind tests are inadequate for hobbyists personal use.

What peer reviewed paper would even care about 'hobbyists' personal use'?
Talk about moving the goalpost!

The flaw of a single blind test is that the the 'proctor' or 'experimenter'
could willfully or inadvertantly cue the subject as to the identity of the sample.

SBT is not the standard for perceptual tests of difference, DBT is.

--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[Steven Sullivan]

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message

On Nov 30, 8:32?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



No. But I did see the obvious anti vinyl bias in such a
broad sweeping claim. Perhaps if you had done the
comparisons with bias controls in place I might have
taken your assertion more seriously.

Single blind tests = essentially no adequate bias
controls.

That simply is not true.

Nobody has taken single blind tests seriously since Clever Hans *talked*
back in the early 1800s.

They have their limited uses -- there are experiments where the
experimenters cannot eithically 'blind' themselves, e.g. sham surgery.
But for experimetnal psychology, DBT is the way to go.

--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
On Nov 30, 1:16???pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 29, 8:09?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 27, 1:41???am, wrote:
Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:12:33 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

???Scott would likely argue, however, that
the terms "more lifelike" and "sounds better" are neither analogous nor
consonant, having argued vehemently that "more lifelike" and "sounds
right" are unrelated terms.

"More life like" does "sounds better" if one's goal is more life like
sound. It's really very simple. ?

Actully, it's a rather complex situation, because without a constant,
blind reference to a real, live performance, many preferences (and thus
biases) come into play when a person decides whether something sounds
'lifelike .
That is a fair point. Interestingly enough the few people I know who
actually have done blind comparisons between a live mic feed, digital
recording, analog tape and a direct cut laquer are James Boyk, Doud
Sax and Kavi Alexander.
Here are some of James Boyk's comments on some of those experiences.

I don't consider Boyk a credible source on these matters, and haven't for years.

So what? Are you the arbitrator of credibility?

Yes, I am...to me.

In one of your pullquotes, for example, he seems to assert that 'euphonic colorations'
do not exist. One may refer to the far more credible posts of jj, Dick Pierce, et al,
in those threads.

Do JJ or Dick Pierce have more experience than Boyk in making direct
comparisons of actual live muisic or mic feeds to the various sources
in question?

I don't know, perhaps you could ask them? What I do know is they have better
knowledge of the science involved and the scientific method than he does,
and so when they challenge Boyk, I listen.

Are they proven better listeners?

Boyk hasn't proven that he is a 'better listener' (than whom?).

By what objective
criteria are they more credible when it comes to the assesment of
sound quality of the various media in direct comparison to a live
source?

By what objective criteria is Boyk automatically credible? Has he
got a publication record on the matter that goes beyond internet
'white papers'? Has he subjected his claims to independent review?
Is his grasp of the science and engineering behind audio and audio
perception as sure as jj's or Pierce's?

The answer is 'no' to all of those.

It is easy to start making ad Hominem attacks on various
peoples' credibility but it is a basic logical fallacy. You may not
like James Boyk's findings but to question his "credibility" on this
subject you have to find objective fault with his experience,
methodologies or reasoning.

It's all been done in the past, sir, as you well know, and a considerable
part of it here on RAHE. I'm not going to
cooperate with you in attempting re-direct this thread towards a
debate of the work of James Boyk, of whom you are a longtime fan.

See the paper on the problems with hedonic listening tests that Arny
linked to, for a list of them. ?There is also the issue of audio memory,
which is not particularly good at details over the long haul.
It's not particularly bad when it comes to mere recognition.
Recognizing the sound of live instruments for the sound of live
instruments is not terribly challenging IME. Is there any evidence out
there that suggests I am mistaken and overstating the acuity of aural
recognition? For instance I can recognize the unique sound of an old
freinds voice often without hearing that voice for many years. That
sort of aural memory seems to be rather acute among we humans. Do you
think otherwise?

One error is that you are equaing the sound of an individual human voice -- a soiund we
are evolutionarily quite well attuned to -- with the sound of some
generic 'live' performance.

I wasn't equating anything, Just citing one of many examples of long
term recognition. I can think of other examples that involved musical
instruments. But I will ask a more specific question. Do you believe
it is difficult for listeners to recognize the distinct sound of live
instruments v. the sound of instruments recorded and played back based
on long term aural memory of the sound of live instruments?

I already responded, but y ou snipped it -- it is not typically difficult
to tell that the two are *different*. This is because of the limitations of
two-channel recording and playback. As we live in a three-dimensional sound
field, soudn that hass been passed through a less-dimensional bottleneck
will tend to sound 'distorted' or 'less real' in some way.

This is not evidence of 'long term memory' in the sense you are wishing
it to be. Even someone who somehow has never heard live music, might well
tell the difference between the two presentations.

--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Musicans are notorious for failing to be able to hear small differences in
sound quality, despite the fact that many are superior and reliable
perceivers of musical quality. The two talents are nearly mutually
exclusive.

Really? Please supply evidence.