Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Musicians 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.


read
http://www.Amazon.com/Music-Brain-Ec.../dp/038078209X
and put two and two together.


  #242   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] khughes@nospam.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

wrote:
On Nov 30, 1:21�pm, wrote:

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.


No response? That is beyond disingenuous. I replied, and you snipped:

"*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."

I.e., those for whom the vinyl artifacts outweigh any mastering
differences. However, if this is your idea of "argument", to excise
responses and then claim they do not exist, then clearly we've reached a
point where discussion is not possible. So, we reach yet another point
of agreement: "And this is the gist of things".

Keith Hughes

  #243   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] S888Wheel@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

On Dec 1, 11:20�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
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.


Then you should easily be able to prove it. Please do so.



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.


Given that we are talking about blind tests done by an audiophile for
the sake of his hobby it clearly is completely relevant. The standards
of rigor do vary by the purpose and use of the test.


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.


You stated those conditions. In this case you asserted that DBTs are
required when human life and health are at stake. Clearly human life
and health are at stake in hospitals and emergency wards. Clearly they
are not doing DBTs. So it would seem your assertion is simply wrong.
not that it would have mattered because it was also irrelevant.


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.


Why? If these were private emails that would be a logical request.
Given that it is a public forum....



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.


Actually it has a lot to do with it. You have failed to give me any
good reason to make any CD copies from my vinyl. Something that would
require me to buy or borrow some equipment. OTOH if you are interested
in doing some bias controlled listening tests to demonstrate your
ability to identify these alleged gross inherent distortions of vinyl
by ear alone I would be very interested in participating by making
some CD copies.

  #244   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] S888Wheel@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

On Dec 1, 3:01�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
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.


Pure ad hominem.



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.


That may be true of your perceptions of vinyl since you have not done
any bias controlled listening evaluations. but I have so the odds are
far less that my aural perceptions are imagined.





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.


How do you know they were not done under blind conditions?


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?


I can't name any recording engineers that do any of their own
mastering these days. OTOH I can name many mastering engineers that do
tweak the signal when mastering CDs in an attempt to get the same
apparent benefits from simply cutting them on LP.



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.


But I have made it clear that I have done bias controlled comparisons.
I am not the only one either. I realize you don't like the results of
my bias controlled tests but the quality of my bias controlled tests
are not determined by your personal feelings about them.


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.


That proves nothing.




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?


My experiences are not unique.



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?


No. Richard Brice was the author of the paper I quoted. It would have
been wrong for me not to give the author credit for his work.



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


Proof by name dropping? That would appear to be your invention. I
won't take credit for your work.

  #245   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] S888Wheel@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

On Dec 1, 3:02�pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
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.


For experiemental psychology peer reviewed publication is maditory for
initial acceptance of any data or conclusions among scientists and
academics. Is this the level of rigor you are suggesting should be
applied to audiophilia? The same as experimental psychology?



  #246   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] S888Wheel@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

On Dec 1, 2:31�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
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.


I think they are in the business of selling their product not
transcribing it and giving it away. I don't think they take RAHE all
that seriously. It's not their problem, I already offered to borrow a
CD burner and do it myself in exchange for copies of those JAES papers
you keep alluding to provided you prove that you can do a bias
controlled evaluation of that transcription.



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


My "reputation" is at stake here? Seems a bit mellow dramatic. Do you
think "reputations" on Usenet are something to worry about? If so, I
think maybe you sould worry more about your own reputation. You still
haven't explained those alleged comparisons between "lots" of Ray
Charles LPs back in the mid 80s with CDs that had not come into
existance at that time. Thats the sort of thing that could really
damage one's credibility. Perhaps we would all be better served if we
avoid making this so personal and just stick to audio as a subject.

  #247   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Steven Sullivan Steven Sullivan is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,268
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

wrote:
On Dec 1, 3:02?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
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.


For experiemental psychology peer reviewed publication is maditory for
initial acceptance of any data or conclusions among scientists and
academics. Is this the level of rigor you are suggesting should be
applied to audiophilia? The same as experimental psychology?


If the standards of proof of 'audiophile' claims are to be lower, then
let's acknowledge that the chance of its claims being false, are thereby higher.



--
-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

  #248   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] S888Wheel@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

On Dec 2, 12:45�pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 1, 3:02?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
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.

For experiemental psychology peer reviewed publication is maditory for
initial acceptance of any data or conclusions among scientists and
academics. Is this the level of rigor you are suggesting should be
applied to audiophilia? The same as experimental psychology?


If the standards of proof of 'audiophile' claims are to be lower, then
let's acknowledge that the chance of its claims being false, are thereby higher.


That is obviously true but it does not answer the question. Where do
you wish to set the bar? Do you wish to set the bar for audiophiles at
the same level as that of conventional science? Do you wish to demand
the same level of rigor and the same standards of acceptance of
evidence to audiophiles and their assertions about sound quality as is
used in conventional science? I would like to avoid the problem of
moving goal posts when there are any discussions of "proof" and
"validity."

  #249   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
[email protected] S888Wheel@aol.com is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 204
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

[Moderator's note: This thread has been cancelled since it has become i
quite circular. -- deb ]

On Dec 1, 3:04�pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
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.


Now that would be a case of solipism would it not?


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.


Better knowledge of science to the best of my understanding does not
make one a better listener. I have only cited Boyks observations as a
listener who, unlike the rest of us, has made direct comparisons
between live mic feeds and the various media being discussed. the only
thing that matters there are his listening skills.


Are they proven better listeners?


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


I would disagree. I think the quality of his recordings are proof of
his listening skills.


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?


His demonstrated skills as a recording engineer. Or do you believe a
highly skilled recording engineer does not need listening skills?

�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?


Does any of that actually affect or measure listening skills?


The answer is 'no' to all of those.


The relevance is none to all of those as well.


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.


No ity has not been done. there has been no objective proof that james
Boyk is anything but a highly skilled listener. I find it most
unfortunate that some would make ad Hominem a regular part of their
debate tactics. It is both a flawed argument and just plain ugly.

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*.


Sorry about any snipping. I assure you it was accidental this time.
But it would appear that we agree on this point. Long term aural
memory is pretty sufficient for recognizing the sound of live acoustic
instruments.

�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.


What do you believe I am wishing here? I have already stated my point
and it would appear that you aree with me. It seems you are burning a
strawman by arguing with your presumptions about my wishes.

  #250   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
Sonnova Sonnova is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,337
Default Audiophilia in the 21st Century

On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:19:44 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Musicians 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.


read
http://www.Amazon.com/Music-Brain-Ec.../dp/038078209X
and put two and two together.



I've known lots of musicians and most of them have nothing special in the way
of playback equipment and many have none at all other than the types of
radios found stock in cars or sitting on the kitchen table. I know a famous
conductor who used to request cassette copies of my master symphony tapes for
study. He listened to them on a Panasonic battery-powered cassette player
through the unit's own 4" speaker, in mono.

Reason? It looks as if musicians listen for different things in music than
music lovers or audiophiles do. It also looks as if whatever it is that they
are listening for doesn't require a decent stereo system to hear, either.
That's my experience, anyway.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Klipschorns in the 21st Century? Karl Uppiano Tech 149 December 26th 06 08:15 PM
21st Century E-Business Money Making Formula NeoTycoon Vacuum Tubes 0 January 18th 05 09:08 PM
21st Century E-Business Money Making Formula NeoOne Audio Opinions 0 January 10th 05 07:28 AM
21st Century E-Commerce Money Making Formula NeoOne Audio Opinions 0 January 4th 05 01:39 AM
21st Century E-Commerce Money Making Formula NeoOne Pro Audio 0 January 4th 05 01:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:06 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"