[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 11, 10:32=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Feb 11, 7:46=3DA0am, bob wrote:
On Feb 11, 9:46=3D3DA0am, Scott wrote:

On Feb 10, 4:08=3D3D3DA0pm, bob
wrote:

The problem is that we have no agreed-upon objective
standard for "superior sounding."

You don't need an objective standard. what I am seeking
is a bias controlled test. If you or Arny or anyone
else consistantly point out the samples that you feel
are audibly degraded by vinyl colorations and
consistantly grade them as low in sound quality then
the point is proven.

But all we have to do in that case is identify which are
the vinyl samples. That's trivially easy to do.
That is what you say. It is my opinion that it will be
pretty close to impossible.

The challenge is up to you, Scott. Provide us a CD with a mixture of
well-mastered tracks that come from CDs and LPs. Your choice. =A0Of cours=
e you
don't have to tell us which are which. We believe that we can sort the
tracks based on LP artifacts that will be clear to us. =A0We'll tell you =
which
tracks we think are which, and you can match that up with the information
about their provenance, that only you know for sure.


I will do that if you are willing to do the test with a moderator of
my choice present to insure that the test is done by ear alone. Agree
to that and we have ourselves a challenge.

[bob]

On Feb 11, 5:39=A0pm, Scott wrote:

Um Bob, =A0You do understand that stereophonics and imaging of any sort
is an aural illusion no?
The standard is world class live music in a world class concert hall.
*But* the playback is only an attempt at an aural illusion of this
standard. Follow?

Well, of course it's an illusion. But "world class live music in a
world class concert hall" isn't a standard. Which hall? Which
musicians? Which instruments? Heck, which *seat*? When you say, "the
standard is world class live music in a world class concert hall,"
what the rest of us should interpret that to mean is, "What Scott
Wheeler *thinks* world class live music in a world class concert hall
sounds like." *That's* the illusion, Scott. And despite your
overwhelming confidence in your listening perspicacity, there is no
reason for anyone even remotely familiar with psychology to believe
that your opinion of what live music sounds like is based solely on
what you hear in concert halls. If it is, then your brain is doing
something very different from what normal human brains do.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Feb 11, 10:32 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Feb 11, 7:46=A0am, bob wrote:
On Feb 11, 9:46=3DA0am, Scott
wrote:

On Feb 10, 4:08=3D3DA0pm, bob
wrote:

The problem is that we have no agreed-upon objective
standard for "superior sounding."

You don't need an objective standard. what I am
seeking is a bias controlled test. If you or Arny or
anyone else consistantly point out the samples that
you feel are audibly degraded by vinyl colorations and
consistantly grade them as low in sound quality then
the point is proven.

But all we have to do in that case is identify which
are the vinyl samples. That's trivially easy to do.
That is what you say. It is my opinion that it will be
pretty close to impossible.

The challenge is up to you, Scott. Provide us a CD with
a mixture of well-mastered tracks that come from CDs and
LPs. Your choice. Of course you don't have to tell us
which are which. We believe that we can sort the tracks
based on LP artifacts that will be clear to us. We'll
tell you which tracks we think are which, and you can
match that up with the information about their
provenance, that only you know for sure.


I will do that if you are willing to do the test with a
moderator of my choice present to insure that the test is
done by ear alone. Agree to that and we have ourselves a
challenge.

If you don't trust me that much, we have nothing to talk about. Period.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 12, 5:46=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Feb 11, 10:32 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Feb 11, 7:46=3DA0am, bob wrote:
On Feb 11, 9:46=3D3DA0am, Scott
wrote:

On Feb 10, 4:08=3D3D3DA0pm, bob
wrote:

The problem is that we have no agreed-upon objective
standard for "superior sounding."

You don't need an objective standard. what I am
seeking is a bias controlled test. If you or Arny or
anyone else consistantly point out the samples that
you feel are audibly degraded by vinyl colorations and
consistantly grade them as low in sound quality then
the point is proven.

But all we have to do in that case is identify which
are the vinyl samples. That's trivially easy to do.
That is what you say. It is my opinion that it will be
pretty close to impossible.

The challenge is up to you, Scott. Provide us a CD with
a mixture of well-mastered tracks that come from CDs and
LPs. Your choice. Of course you don't have to tell us
which are which. We believe that we can sort the tracks
based on LP artifacts that will be clear to us. We'll
tell you which tracks we think are which, and you can
match that up with the information about their
provenance, that only you know for sure.

I will do that if you are willing to do the test with a
moderator of my choice present to insure that the test is
done by ear alone. Agree to that and we have ourselves a
challenge.

If you don't trust me that much, we have nothing to talk about. Period.

OK so now your excuse for not taking a test that is proctored is
because I'm not a trusting person. Despite the trivial ease that is
claimed for such a test, proctoring is a deal breaker because I
personally am not trusting enough. The opportunity to shut me up on
the subject and prove me wrong on all counts passed up because I'm not
trusting. Hmmmm. If I were so confident in my ability that I thought
such a test were to be trivially easy I'd want the test to be
proctored. Given just how easy it would be to use means other than by
ear to analyse the files and determine their source I'd want everyone
to know without a doubt I did the test by ear only. But that is me.

Well Arny, Any time you make your typical claims about the sound of
vinyl I will be here to remind you and everyone else of this challenge
and your unwillingness to prove your assertions under blind conditions
by ear alone. Clearly you have agreed on the methodologies. Your only
excuse now is that I insist the test be proctored. Others reading this
thread can draw their own conclusions.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 12, 11:34=A0am, ScottW wrote:
On Feb 11, 4:50=3DA0pm, Scott wrote:





On Feb 11, 10:32=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Scott" wrote in message



On Feb 11, 7:46=3D3DA0am, bob wrote:
On Feb 11, 9:46=3D3D3DA0am, Scott wrote:

On Feb 10, 4:08=3D3D3D3DA0pm, bob
wrote:

The problem is that we have no agreed-upon objective
standard for "superior sounding."

You don't need an objective standard. what I am seeking
is a bias controlled test. If you or Arny or anyone
else consistantly point out the samples that you feel
are audibly degraded by vinyl colorations and
consistantly grade them as low in sound quality then
the point is proven.

But all we have to do in that case is identify which are
the vinyl samples. That's trivially easy to do.
That is what you say. It is my opinion that it will be
pretty close to impossible.

The challenge is up to you, Scott. Provide us a CD with a mixture of
well-mastered tracks that come from CDs and LPs. Your choice. =3DA0Of=
cou=3D
rse you
don't have to tell us which are which. We believe that we can sort th=
e
tracks based on LP artifacts that will be clear to us. =3DA0We'll tel=
l yo=3D
u which
tracks we think are which, and you can match that up with the informa=
ti=3D
on
about their provenance, that only you know for sure.

I will do that if you are willing to do the test with a moderator of
my choice present to insure that the test is done by ear alone.

Who's going to moderate the creation of the digital files?

Why would they need moderating? It would be easy enough to varify the
sources? but if you would like to moderate that i would be happy to
have you do so.


Just curious....trust is a two-way street.

Understood but what is the ocncern? The assertion being tested is that
vinyl adds audible colorations that are so severe that they can be
discerned by ear alone. It seesm that even Arny is satisfied that the
basic outline of the test is good enough that he has agreed to take
the test so long as it is not proctored. How could I unfairly rig the
test?


I also wonder what provisions in this test allow for training and what
tracks you have on CD and vinyl that are supposedly equivalent
masters?

Who said anything about the tracks supposedly being the equivalent of
the masters? the assertion being tested is that the colorations of
vinyl are so severe that they are easily discernable by ear and that
they prevent any LP from being truly great sounding. It is my position
that not only will the testees fail to identify tracks sourced from
LPs out of a pool of samples sourced from both LPs and Cds but that
the testees will rate some samples sourced from LPs as excellent
sounding. Of course the testees can just rate all the samples as poor
sounding but then they will have to face rating top quality all
digital recordings as poor as well to do that. I'm sure doing so would
kill all credibility.


Classic Records has some things available on vinyl and CD, are they
from common masters? =A0I don't know.


Yes they do. but that is of no importance in testing the claims I am
aiming to test.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 12, 1:39=A0pm, ScottW wrote:

=A0and this argument has me a bit confused.
On the one hand vinyl has supposed (and I assume) audible euphonic
distortions that make it superior to CD for the creation of the
acoustic illusion
and on the other side is vinyl has audible distortion.

I can see where this would seem confusing. I'm not saying the euphonic
colorations are inaudible. I am saying they are not identifiable as
audible distortion without a reference. Others are saying nay to the
very idea of euphonic colorations in vinyl playback and that there are
readily identifiable colorations that prevent any LP from sounding
truly great.



There does not appear to be an argument that vinyl is audibly
different,
just wether those differences are preferable or not.

It runs much deeper than that. There is the question of whether or not
vinyl is inherently so colored by distortions that those audible
colorations are identifiable by ear alone without any reference to
compare it with.



Then again...if vinyl is not audibly different than vinyl and Arny
should fail in his
test....then it's not clear how the argument of preference for vinyl
can be
sustained on the basis of euphonic distortion.

There are two parts to the test. the second part of the test askes the
testee to rate the sound quality of each sample. If some of the
samples that are sourced from vinyl are rated as excellent or great it
is evidence against the assertion that no LP can truly sound great due
to the effects of the inherent colorations of the medium.



Superior mastering for select works...ok. Euphonic distortion...not so
much.

Either way this test will test the assertions I am challenging. Those
being that the inherent colorations of vinyl are so severe that they
prevent any LP from truly sound great and that the colorations are so
severe that they can be identified by ear alone. Superior mastering
will hardly matter in testing those assertions.



well...if they are of superior masters than the CD, what does that
prove?

It doesn't matter. Even if the LPs are better mastered if the
assertions about the inherent colorations of vinyl are true the test
should reveal them to be true.




=A0IMO, vinyl can sound "excellent" and with select samples of sound of
sufficient

Probably why I'm not asking you to take the challenge.


volume and content to mask the obvious audible noise floors of vinyl
may well be indistinguishable by ear.

I plan to include very quite passages and passages with the trail off
of sustained notes. that should address that concern.


Likewise, I'm sure many of us have CDs of sufficiently poor quality
that we have a preferance for vinyl.
I've got 2 vinyl versions of Kate's Hounds of Love (Speakers Corner,
which I still thank you for)
and the new Audio Fidelity version which is so different I can't quite
get used to it.

But without a control of masters for equality, then no matter the
sample you choose, I am assured it is far to small to extrapolate to
the world of recorded music to be of any significance.

If I fail to supply any samplessourced from vinyl that can't be
readily identified as sourced from vinyl and/or fail to get a grade of
excellent or great (depending on what frading scale we use) Then the
evidence certainly suggests I am wrong and the nay sayers are right.
Mastering is irrelevant to that test. if the testees fail to identify
the vinyl sourced samples as such and give some of those samples the
highest grade it supports my position. Mastering has no bearing since
it can not change the inherent colorations of the medium.






=A0I expect we've all got plenty of badly mastered CDs to allow you to
make a point.

That wouldn't make my point though. samples of porrly mastered CDs
will not affect the results in testing whether or not the LP sourced
samples were so colored that none of them are rated as great or
excellent nor would it prevent one from identifying the LP sourced
samples as such if they really are as colored as claimed.


=A0Tell you what, you include tracks of MoFis Vinyl of Modern Cool
(which I haven't heard) and the CD and
then I'll be impressed.


I don't have that. I don't even know what it is. I was going to use
nothing but acoustic music. Mostly if not exclusively classical. I was
going to use the very best sounding LPs and CDs I have as sources from
both analog and digital recordings. I don't think using crap sounding
digital sources helps support my position. If I did that and the
testee simply chose to say all the samples sounded like crap. Well, I
wouldn't have a leg to stand on in rebutting that claim. If I include
the best digital recordings from the best CDs that easy out is
eliminated. If the testee calls all the samples bad at that point then
the testee shoots his credibility in the foot. If it were to come to
that I would ask that the testee supply his own sample of what he
considers to be a great sounding sample so all interested parties can
compare for themsleves after the results are revealed.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 12, 4:29=A0am, bob wrote:
On Feb 11, 5:39=3DA0pm, Scott wrote:



Um Bob, =3DA0You do understand that stereophonics and imaging of any so=
rt
is an aural illusion no?
The standard is world class live music in a world class concert hall.
*But* the playback is only an attempt at an aural illusion of this
standard. Follow?

Well, of course it's an illusion. But "world class live music in a
world class concert hall" isn't a standard. Which hall? Which
musicians? Which instruments? Heck, which *seat*? When you say, "the
standard is world class live music in a world class concert hall,"
what the rest of us should interpret that to mean is, "What Scott
Wheeler *thinks* world class live music in a world class concert hall
sounds like." *That's* the illusion, Scott. And despite your
overwhelming confidence in your listening perspicacity, there is no
reason for anyone even remotely familiar with psychology to believe
that your opinion of what live music sounds like is based solely on
what you hear in concert halls. If it is, then your brain is doing
something very different from what normal human brains do.

My standards are irrelevant Bob. If you chose to take the test the
first order of business is determining by ear which samples were
sourced from vinyl and which were not. My standard of excellence is
irrelevant to that test. The next task is for you to rate the
excellence of each sample. That would be determined by *your*
standards of excellence not mine. Again my standards are irrelevant.
Arny's excuse for not participating has been reduced to me not
trusting him. He is happy to take the test (which indicates that he is
satisfied with the methodologies) so long as it is not proctored. That
is a deal breaker for me. Since there are easy ways of determining the
source of the samples other than by ear I insist the test be
proctored. Are you going to use the excuse that you don't like my
standards of excellence as a reason not to take such a test even
though my standards have no relevance in your ability to hear and
identify the audible distortions of vinyl playback as such by ear
alone?

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 08:46:27 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 12, 5:46=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message







On Feb 11, 10:32 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Feb 11, 7:46=3DA0am, bob wrote:
On Feb 11, 9:46=3D3DA0am, Scott
wrote:

On Feb 10, 4:08=3D3D3DA0pm, bob
wrote:

The problem is that we have no agreed-upon objective
standard for "superior sounding."

You don't need an objective standard. what I am
seeking is a bias controlled test. If you or Arny or
anyone else consistantly point out the samples that
you feel are audibly degraded by vinyl colorations and
consistantly grade them as low in sound quality then
the point is proven.

But all we have to do in that case is identify which
are the vinyl samples. That's trivially easy to do.
That is what you say. It is my opinion that it will be
pretty close to impossible.

The challenge is up to you, Scott. Provide us a CD with
a mixture of well-mastered tracks that come from CDs and
LPs. Your choice. Of course you don't have to tell us
which are which. We believe that we can sort the tracks
based on LP artifacts that will be clear to us. We'll
tell you which tracks we think are which, and you can
match that up with the information about their
provenance, that only you know for sure.

I will do that if you are willing to do the test with a
moderator of my choice present to insure that the test is
done by ear alone. Agree to that and we have ourselves a
challenge.

If you don't trust me that much, we have nothing to talk about. Period.

OK so now your excuse for not taking a test that is proctored is
because I'm not a trusting person. Despite the trivial ease that is
claimed for such a test, proctoring is a deal breaker because I
personally am not trusting enough. The opportunity to shut me up on
the subject and prove me wrong on all counts passed up because I'm not
trusting. Hmmmm. If I were so confident in my ability that I thought
such a test were to be trivially easy I'd want the test to be
proctored. Given just how easy it would be to use means other than by
ear to analyse the files and determine their source I'd want everyone
to know without a doubt I did the test by ear only. But that is me.

Well Arny, Any time you make your typical claims about the sound of
vinyl I will be here to remind you and everyone else of this challenge
and your unwillingness to prove your assertions under blind conditions
by ear alone. Clearly you have agreed on the methodologies. Your only
excuse now is that I insist the test be proctored. Others reading this
thread can draw their own conclusions.


Scott-

Are you trying to assert that no one can tell the difference between one of
your records and a CD? I don't see how that's possible. I have thousands of
LPs. Some sound excellent some don't, but there are none, not even the
single-sided 45's from Classic records that have surfaces quiet and clean
enough that I can't tell that I'm listening to vinyl. There's always a tick
or a pop, even on the best of them, that one simply does not get with digital
media. And these ticks and pops aren't even necessarily "hard" faults in the
record surface either. They can be "soft" faults like static discharge, but
will produce a tell-tale tick nonetheless. At any rate, it only takes one to
give the game away. Add to that vinyl rush, detritus in the grooves etc. and
it's almost impossible to get away with passing off a vinyl record as
anything but what it is. The fact that I realize the shortcomings of vinyl,
OTOH, doesn't mean that I don't still find pleasure in listening to it in
spite of those shortcomings, I do. I am just able to listen "around" most of
vinyl's faults because my interest is the MUSIC and the sound of that music
on those records.

However there are things about records that I cannot take: Wow and flutter,
especially the wow caused by warped or eccentric records I simply cannot
tolerate in any amounts. If it's at all audible, I cannot listen to the
record. I also can't listen to very noisy records. The occasional tick and
pop I view like I would a cough or a rattling program at a concert. Annoying
but, ultimately, part of the experience. I don't let them bother me. Since I
keep my records spotlessly clean and take good care of them, I have few that
I can't listen to. I have records that I bought as a kid more than a
half-century ago (like the boxed soundtrack to "Ben-Hur") that are just as
pristine today as they were the day I bought them.

[KH]

On 2/12/2011 9:46 AM, Scott wrote:
On Feb 12, 5:46=A0am, "Arny wrote:
On Feb 11, 10:32 am, "Arny
wrote:
wrote in message
snip

If you don't trust me that much, we have nothing to talk about. Period.

OK so now your excuse for not taking a test that is proctored is
because I'm not a trusting person.

More likely because you imply Arny is dishonest, and he requires *your*
intervention in proctoring such a test to ensure he doesn't cheat.
Touting, loudly, such mistrust seldom engenders cooperation in anyone.

Despite the trivial ease that is
claimed for such a test, proctoring is a deal breaker because I
personally am not trusting enough. The opportunity to shut me up on
the subject and prove me wrong on all counts passed up because I'm not
trusting.

A false premise. You presume that 'shutting you up' is a commodity of
such value that others should be willing to spend their time and
resources to execute tests of your choosing, in locations of your
choosing, in order to acquire that commodity.

Hmmmm. If I were so confident in my ability that I thought
such a test were to be trivially easy I'd want the test to be
proctored. Given just how easy it would be to use means other than by
ear to analyse the files and determine their source I'd want everyone
to know without a doubt I did the test by ear only. But that is me.

Ok, so for every aspect in which our audio philosophies and preferences
diverge, you'll be willing to participate a proctored test of my
choosing right? Because you're so invested in changing my mind right?

Well Arny, Any time you make your typical claims about the sound of
vinyl I will be here to remind you and everyone else of this challenge
and your unwillingness to prove your assertions under blind conditions
by ear alone. Clearly you have agreed on the methodologies. Your only
excuse now is that I insist the test be proctored. Others reading this
thread can draw their own conclusions.

I would posit that the simplest conclusion - the one I draw - is that
Arny is far less invested in *your* opinion than are you, and is
unwilling to invest any significant amount of effort to disabuse you of it.

Franky, I have no doubt that with sufficient resources, one could find
numerous excerpts from LP tracks - specific, limited segments of
particularly high grade pressings, with spectral content and dynamic
ranges that help mask LP distortions - that would be difficult if not
impossible to identify as LP derived without a comparable digital
reference. But, so what?

This is merely the flip side of the argument made by AudioEmpire,
namely, you can cherry pick parts and pieces of LP tracks that, for the
reasons mentioned, may not be unambiguously identifiable as LP derived,
BUT, that is *Not* indicative of LP quality writ large. Just as CD's
are seldom as good as they should be, or can be, LP, in microcosm, can
be almost perceptually free of distortion. As a practical matter, IME
LP's virtually never achieve this.

Keith

[bob]

On Feb 12, 4:39=A0pm, ScottW wrote:

=A0and this argument has me a bit confused.
On the one hand vinyl has supposed (and I assume) audible euphonic
distortions that make it superior to CD for the creation of the
acoustic illusion

But Scott's claim has to be that this is not so. The only way he can
fool Arny is if it is the case that vinyl reproduction has no
characteristic distortion artifacts that are above the threshold of
audibility--at least not on his system.

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 12, 4:59=A0pm, bob wrote:
On Feb 12, 4:39=A0pm, ScottW wrote:

=A0and this argument has me a bit confused.
On the one hand vinyl has supposed (and I assume) audible euphonic
distortions that make it superior to CD for the creation of the
acoustic illusion

But Scott's claim has to be that this is not so. The only way he can
fool Arny is if it is the case that vinyl reproduction has no
characteristic distortion artifacts that are above the threshold of
audibility--at least not on his system.

Not true. It's one thing to identify an audible coloration with a
reference and another to do so without a reference. For instance if I
were to send you a sample of piece of music and I did some gentle but
audible EQ would you be able to identify that EQ had been done without
a flat copy to compare? That is audible distortion but not
identifiable by ear alone sans reference. Heck in many cases I would
be able to give you the original and you wouldn't be able to pick the
original from the EQed copy. How could you?

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 16:59:36 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 12, 4:39=A0pm, ScottW wrote:

=A0and this argument has me a bit confused.
On the one hand vinyl has supposed (and I assume) audible euphonic
distortions that make it superior to CD for the creation of the
acoustic illusion

But Scott's claim has to be that this is not so. The only way he can
fool Arny is if it is the case that vinyl reproduction has no
characteristic distortion artifacts that are above the threshold of
audibility--at least not on his system.

bob

I say that's NOT possible. To me the LP artifacts that are audible on
playback (such as a a few ticks and pops and maybe a bit of vinyl rush in
quiet passages) have nothing to do with the sound because I can listen around
them, but that doesn't mean that I (or anybody else) doesn't know that
they're there!

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


Not true. It's one thing to identify an audible
coloration with a reference and another to do so without
a reference.

But this is about far more than audible colorations. It's about the large
amounts of grunge and garbage that everybody in the industry who has studied
the matter objectively knows is part and parcel of the LP format.

For instance if I were to send you a sample
of piece of music and I did some gentle but audible EQ
would you be able to identify that EQ had been done
without a flat copy to compare?

But this is also about FM distortion, IM and THD and added noise,
particularly at the ends of the spectrum. Its about a medium that can handle
only a fraction of the dynamic range at 12 KHz as it can at 1 Khz. Note
that the CD format is inherently free of *any* kind of linear or nonlinear
distortion and has the same dynamic range at all frequencies from subsonic
to ultrasonic.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


OK so now your excuse for not taking a test that is
proctored is because I'm not a trusting person.

No excuse. Fact!

Despite the trivial ease that is claimed for such a test,
proctoring is a deal breaker because I personally am not
trusting enough.

Scott, you've turned this into a circus.

I can't even try to accomplish this listening test in the privacy of my own
home.

I can't do it when I want to.

I can't take as long as I want.

Those have always been hallmarks of the listening tests that I've been
involved with. The only departures from that have been for the convenience
of the participants and with their agreement.

The opportunity to shut me up on the
subject and prove me wrong on all counts passed up
because I'm not trusting.

There's your big mistake Scott - you have grotesquely misjudged my goal. I
could care less whether I shut you up, because in the first place that is
impossible, and in the second place it has no value to me. I've never been
about shutting people up, ever. I'm very much into free expression of
opinons.

[Scott[_6_]]

[Moderator's note: Unless one of you concedes, this subthread has
become EXTREMELY repetitive and is over. -- deb]

On Feb 13, 6:21=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



OK so now your excuse for not taking a test that is
proctored is because I'm not a trusting person.

No excuse. Fact!

Fact or not. it is an excuse.


Despite the trivial ease that is claimed for such a test,
proctoring is a deal breaker because I personally am not
trusting enough.

Scott, you've turned this into a circus.

A new excuse?



I can't even try to accomplish this listening test in the privacy of my o=
wn
home.

A new made up excuse. I already said you could actually do just that.


I can't do it when I want to.

yet another made up excuse. never said you couldn't do it when you
want to.



I can't take as long as I want.

yet another made up excuse. never said you couldn't take as long as
you want either.



Those have always been hallmarks of the listening tests that I've been
involved with.

And I never said they could not be "hallmarks" of this one. Are you
wiling to stipulate that you have never been involved in a proctored
blind listening test? That is clearly the only deal breaker. Is that
an outrageous condition? Is it unscientific? Is it unfair? Does a
proctor cloud your ability to listen analytically?

The only departures from that have been for the convenience
of the participants and with their agreement.

Every convinience you have asked for I have conceded. All that I have
asked that you refuse is that the test be proctored. This is nothing
new to these sorts of challenges. And there is a very legitimate
reason for me to make that a condition. Folks reading this thread can
draw their own conclusions. You can show as much outrage as you wish.
OTOH you can agree to a proctor and set whatever conditions you want
for time and place and any other convinience and prove your assertions
to be valid.



=A0The opportunity to shut me up on the
subject and prove me wrong on all counts passed up
because I'm not trusting.

There's your big mistake Scott - you have grotesquely misjudged my goal.


Yeah, no doubt. The goal posts shift. No surprise there.

I
could care less whether I shut you up, because in the first place that is
impossible, and in the second place it has no value to me. =A0I've never =
been
about shutting people up, ever. I'm very much into free expression of
opinons.

Just not into supporting them with valid evidence. That is the
opportunity you have here. Bottom line is the results aren't valid
without a proctor.

[bob]

On Feb 13, 2:01=A0pm, ScottW wrote:
On Feb 12, 4:48=3DA0pm, Scott wrote:

I can see where this would seem confusing. I'm not saying the euphonic
colorations are inaudible. I am saying they are not identifiable as
audible distortion without a reference. Others are saying nay to the
very idea of euphonic colorations in vinyl playback and that there are
readily identifiable colorations that prevent any LP from sounding
truly great.

=A0I don't agree with that at all as I have some LPs that I think are
fabulous.
I also think that that I could select some passages that mask most of
the obvious
deficiencies in vinyl and be very difficult to identify as vinyl but
that wouldn't prove that differences don't exist.

And it would surely be equally possible to select some passages in
which the vinyl artifacts are bleedingly obvious. So what have we
shown? That vinylphobes can occasionally be fooled by a small,
carefully chosen set of sound samples? Big deal.

The rest of the test is simple subjective preference and mostly
taylored to address one man's opinion.

Ya think?

snip

=A0My own perception of greatness varies from day to day .

This is a problem with all preference tests. There is no reason to
believe that our preferences--or our subjective judgments of sound
quality--are stable over time. Another reason why the second half of
Scott's test makes no sense, except as an attempt to embarrass
someone.

bob

volume and content to mask the obvious audible noise floors of vinyl
may well be indistinguishable by ear.

I plan to include very quite passages and passages with the trail off
of sustained notes. that should address that concern.

=A0I think in those cases Arny (or I) will be able to easily ID the
vinyl.
=A0The noise floor is audible with sufficient volume.
=A0It's not at my normal listening levels and therefore not an issue to
me for listening, but it is easily detectable if I wanted to.



=3D3DA0Tell you what, you include tracks of MoFis Vinyl of Modern Coo=
l
(which I haven't heard) and the CD and
then I'll be impressed.

I don't have that. I don't even know what it is. I was going to use
nothing but acoustic music.

=A0Particia Barbers Modern Cool. One of my favorite test CDs.
All her stuff is pretty well recorded.

Mostly if not exclusively classical. I was
going to use the very best sounding LPs and CDs I have as sources from
both analog and digital recordings. I don't think using crap sounding
digital sources helps support my position. If I did that and the
testee simply chose to say all the samples sounded like crap. Well, I
wouldn't have a leg to stand on in rebutting that claim. If I include
the best digital recordings from the best CDs that easy out is
eliminated. If the testee calls all the samples bad at that point then
the testee shoots his credibility in the foot. If it were to come to
that I would ask that the testee supply his own sample of what he
considers to be a great sounding sample so all interested parties can
compare for themsleves after the results are revealed.

If the test ever comes to be, could you make available the files for
download?
I'd like to lend my ears. =A0thanks.

ScottW

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 13, 11:01=A0am, ScottW wrote:
On Feb 12, 4:48=3DA0pm, Scott wrote:





On Feb 12, 1:39=3D3DA0pm, ScottW wrote:

=3D3DA0and this argument has me a bit confused.
On the one hand vinyl has supposed (and I assume) audible euphonic
distortions that make it superior to CD for the creation of the
acoustic illusion
and on the other side is vinyl has audible distortion.

I can see where this would seem confusing. I'm not saying the euphonic
colorations are inaudible. I am saying they are not identifiable as
audible distortion without a reference. Others are saying nay to the
very idea of euphonic colorations in vinyl playback and that there are
readily identifiable colorations that prevent any LP from sounding
truly great.

=A0I don't agree with that at all as I have some LPs that I think are
fabulous.

yet another reason the challenge isn't aimed at you.


I also think that that I could select some passages that mask most of
the obvious

With the records I have in mind I am of the opinion that I will not
have to be particulary selective.


deficiencies in vinyl and be very difficult to identify as vinyl but
that wouldn't prove that differences don't exist.

That was never my stated postion though. I agree the differences
exist. I don't agree that the *inherent* colroations of vinyl are so
gross that one can easily identify them by ear alone and I also
disagree that the colorations are so severe that no LP can ever truly
sound great. But it looks like you already agree with me on both
counts.


The rest of the test is simple subjective preference and mostly
taylored to address one man's opinion.

I am of the opinion that there is some universality and certainly much
common ground in the world of subjective aesthetic evaluation.




There does not appear to be an argument that vinyl is audibly
different,
just wether those differences are preferable or not.

It runs much deeper than that. There is the question of whether or not
vinyl is inherently so colored by distortions that those audible
colorations are identifiable by ear alone without any reference to
compare it with.

=A0Again, I think that depends greatly upon the passage selected.

If the *inherent* colorations are so great it would be clear on any
and all passages. So again we are much closer to agreement here as
well.





Then again...if vinyl is not audibly different than vinyl and Arny
should fail in his
test....then it's not clear how the argument of preference for vinyl
can be
sustained on the basis of euphonic distortion.

There are two parts to the test. the second part of the test askes the
testee to rate the sound quality of each sample. If some of the
samples that are sourced from vinyl are rated as excellent or great it
is evidence against the assertion that no LP can truly sound great due
to the effects of the inherent colorations of the medium.

=A0My own perception of greatness varies from day to day .

How much does it vary? One day you listen to a recording and think it
is world class and offers an extraordinary illusion fo live music
played in a real space, next day it sounds like crap?





volume and content to mask the obvious audible noise floors of vinyl
may well be indistinguishable by ear.

I plan to include very quite passages and passages with the trail off
of sustained notes. that should address that concern.

=A0I think in those cases Arny (or I) will be able to easily ID the
vinyl.
=A0The noise floor is audible with sufficient volume.

Ah you mean he will turn up the volume to make the identification. I
gotta ask how much of a coloration is it if one has to crank the
volume way past normal listening levels to hear the noise? Even then,
I think the results may surprise a lot of folks here.


=A0It's not at my normal listening levels and therefore not an issue to
me for listening, but it is easily detectable if I wanted to.

If one has to go beyond normal listening levels just to discern it
then we can't really be talking about some gross deal breaking
coloration now can we?



=3D3DA0Tell you what, you include tracks of MoFis Vinyl of Modern Coo=
l
(which I haven't heard) and the CD and
then I'll be impressed.

I don't have that. I don't even know what it is. I was going to use
nothing but acoustic music.

=A0Particia Barbers Modern Cool. One of my favorite test CDs.
All her stuff is pretty well recorded.

thanks for the tip



Mostly if not exclusively classical. I was
going to use the very best sounding LPs and CDs I have as sources from
both analog and digital recordings. I don't think using crap sounding
digital sources helps support my position. If I did that and the
testee simply chose to say all the samples sounded like crap. Well, I
wouldn't have a leg to stand on in rebutting that claim. If I include
the best digital recordings from the best CDs that easy out is
eliminated. If the testee calls all the samples bad at that point then
the testee shoots his credibility in the foot. If it were to come to
that I would ask that the testee supply his own sample of what he
considers to be a great sounding sample so all interested parties can
compare for themsleves after the results are revealed.

If the test ever comes to be, could you make available the files for
download?
I'd like to lend my ears. =A0thanks.

I will send you a copy on disc. But I really don't think it will come
to pass.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 10:06:06 -0800, ScottW wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 13, 5:40=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 16:59:36 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 12, 4:39=3DA0pm, ScottW wrote:

=3DA0and this argument has me a bit confused.
On the one hand vinyl has supposed (and I assume) audible euphonic
distortions that make it superior to CD for the creation of the
acoustic illusion

But Scott's claim has to be that this is not so. The only way he can
fool Arny is if it is the case that vinyl reproduction has no
characteristic distortion artifacts that are above the threshold of
audibility--at least not on his system.

bob

I say that's NOT possible. To me the LP artifacts that are audible on
playback (such as a a few ticks and pops and maybe a bit of vinyl rush in
quiet passages) have nothing to do with the sound because I can listen ar=
ound
them, but that doesn't mean that I (or anybody else) doesn't know that
they're there!

I agree. Scott has a superb analog rig, but I've yet to find a piece
of flawless vinyl.
Classics Records Dido's Life for Rent was the quietest vinyl I've
owned when it was new. Almost tic free on a whole side. I call that
just lucky.
I like to use it for a similar demo and people say it sounds as clear
as a CD.
I'm leaning toward some vinyl is superior simply because of the
mastering jobs.
That may be old records or some remasters.
Personally, I wish all the works I've purchased for their remastered
versions had those versions available on CD.

ScottW

I feel the same way. Like I said, I don't dismiss any source of music (except
iTunes store stuff. Everything I've ever downloaded from them sounds
execrable). LP has a sound, sure, but it can be a very pleasant sound. CDs
can be darn neigh perfect, or they can be very unpleasant. I've downloaded
High-Res music from H-DTracks only to find it unlistenable, and other tracks
I've downloaded have been great sounding. Good music and good sound is where
you find it.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 13, 2:41=A0pm, bob wrote:
On Feb 13, 2:01=3DA0pm, ScottW wrote:

On Feb 12, 4:48=3D3DA0pm, Scott wrote:
I can see where this would seem confusing. I'm not saying the euphoni=
c
colorations are inaudible. I am saying they are not identifiable as
audible distortion without a reference. Others are saying nay to the
very idea of euphonic colorations in vinyl playback and that there ar=
e
readily identifiable colorations that prevent any LP from sounding
truly great.

=3DA0I don't agree with that at all as I have some LPs that I think are
fabulous.
I also think that that I could select some passages that mask most of
the obvious
deficiencies in vinyl and be very difficult to identify as vinyl but
that wouldn't prove that differences don't exist.

And it would surely be equally possible to select some passages in
which the vinyl artifacts are bleedingly obvious.

Not the inherent ones.

So what have we
shown? That vinylphobes can occasionally be fooled by a small,
carefully chosen set of sound samples? Big deal.

How could anyone ever be fooled by any passages if the inherent
colorations are so easily identifiable by ear alone?


This is a problem with all preference tests. There is no reason to
believe that our preferences--or our subjective judgments of sound
quality--are stable over time. Another reason why the second half of
Scott's test makes no sense, except as an attempt to embarrass
someone.


And yet there is a substantial body of real scientific evidence that
runs contrary to this assertion. If you get the chance talk to Sean
Olive about it.

Only one way the second half of the test becomes embarrassing. If
done honestly the second half should actually be quite revealing and
interesting not embarrassing. Heaven forbid any of us should check our
preferences under blind conditions. that would be terrible.

[Kele]

Wow, this is a heck of a subject. I have done my own experiment
between a Gold CD against a Japanese vinyl pressing of Dark Side of
the Moon. Does that count? I think so. I know which my favorite
rendition is. I suppose to explain the difference is similar to
explaining the difference between live and recorded music. It is
difficult to explain, but it's not difficult to tell which is which.
Even the best sound reproduction systems I've heard aren=92t the same as
live. My memory of hearing live is all I have. And I agree that the
environment of the live also influences my memory. If I compare each,
digital and analog sources, against my memory of live... that answer
would be my preferred medium.

I've done the blind test (unofficial), but all that's doing is helping
prove if there is a difference. The difference between analog and
digital? No, we shouldn=92t stray away from the true goal, the sound of
Live. [I=92m leaving the environment out of this, ok] This is the part
that leaves science behind... Which "feels" closest to live? Or,
which reminds me most of live. That's all. I don't know if digital
discs can potentially sound better than record albums or not. So far
neither sounds like live - really. It's like a ripple sandwiched
between two panes of glass, the ripple can't fully expand. But which,
analog or digital, is the glass further apart? I say lets remove the
glass!

Both digital and analog have their strong and weak points. Is this
topic trying to uncover the weaknesses (against live)? We know vinyl
grooves can=92t be cut to save all the sound, and we know that
converting to digital involves rounding to the nearest whole. Either
way, the information is not all there and that=92s why it sounds flatter
than live. I=92m guessing analog is the least processed, and digital is
capable of holding more information. How then can the best of both be
combined? Saying it to myself like this, I would say digital has the
potential to be better than analog (vinyl) if only the processing can
be truly out of the way. Cannot a laser light track a continuous
groove (sound wave)? If the signal didn=92t have to be converted to
mathematics, there can be greater chance to approach live.

For now, vinyl reminds me more of live, but I think vinyl has reached
its max capability. What if it weren=92t made of vinyl? What if the
recorded medium was made of a substance that could support all the
information and the reader could collect all the information (without
physical touch). No ones & zeros, just ripples. Then we could more
clearly hear what=92s not right about the pick-up devices. Like vinyl,
I fear digital will also plateau short of the mark.

Kele

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


I don't agree that the *inherent*
colorations of vinyl are so gross that one can easily
identify them by ear alone

But, you won't take reasonable steps to demonstrate that assertion.

and I also disagree that the
colorations are so severe that no LP can ever truly sound great.

Given the current market penetration of the LP, essentially a moot point.
Virtually nobody ever listens to LPs any more. Very few people even have
turntables.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


I feel the same way. Like I said, I don't dismiss any
source of music (except iTunes store stuff. Everything
I've ever downloaded from them sounds execrable).

Given that iTunes seems to have a reasonable cross-section of music
available, and a delivery system that passes technical scrutiny and works
for millions, this seems to be an incredible claim.

LP has a sound, sure, but it can be a very pleasant sound.

As I've just posted elsewhere, essentially a moot point given how few people
actually play LPs any more.

CDs can be darn neigh perfect, or they can be very unpleasant.

Such are the slings and arrows of being a sonically perfect medium. It's the
messenger, not the message.

I've downloaded High-Res music from H-DTracks only to find it
unlistenable, and other tracks I've
downloaded have been great sounding.

That seems to be reasonable. It's also the messenger, not the message.

Good music and good sound is where you find it.

That's the basis that most of us work on.

[Dick Pierce[_2_]]

On 2/14/2011 6:54 AM, Kele wrote:
we know that converting to digital involves
rounding to the nearest whole.

And if that's indeed what we "knew", we would
indeed be wrong. While it seems intuitively
correct, it is simply not the case.

Any number of sources have been available for
long before the advent of the CD demonstrating how
this "rounding to the nearest whole" notion is
incorrect. Indeed check Blesser's article in the
late 1970's as to how any properly implemented
digital system can capture information substantially
below the "nearest whole." And he was hardly the
first to describe a process which was, at that
point, a well-understood principle in any number of
disciplines. Definitive articles on the principle
date back at least to the mid-1960's.


Cannot a laser light track a continuous groove (sound wave)?

Ask Finial how their turntable is going. Oh, wait, they're
out of business, never having sold a one.

If the signal didn't have to be converted to mathematics,
there can be greater chance to approach live.

Again, all due respect, while this might seem an
intuitive, comfortable view of how it works, it is
naive and simply is not the case.

And, using your analogy nonetheless, how is, for
example, an analog computer any less "mathematical"
than a digital computer?

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 03:54:11 -0800, Kele wrote
(in article ):

Wow, this is a heck of a subject. I have done my own experiment
between a Gold CD against a Japanese vinyl pressing of Dark Side of
the Moon. Does that count? I think so. I know which my favorite
rendition is. I suppose to explain the difference is similar to
explaining the difference between live and recorded music. It is
difficult to explain, but it's not difficult to tell which is which.
Even the best sound reproduction systems I've heard aren=92t the same as
live. My memory of hearing live is all I have. And I agree that the
environment of the live also influences my memory. If I compare each,
digital and analog sources, against my memory of live... that answer
would be my preferred medium.

OK, this question might SEEM to be an attempt to denigrate rock music as a
reference, but it really isn't. It's an attempt by me to understand how this
kind of music can be used for serious audio evaluations.

I don't listen to rock and never have. Of course, I've heard it all through
high-school and college as everybody else listened to it so I heard it
whether I wanted to or not. But you talk about live vs recorded here, and I
wonder when you have ever heard Pink Floyd "Live"? Now before you list the
number of Pink Floyd concerts that you might have attended, let me define
"live music" as I understand and define the term.

The term "live music" infers (1) real musicians, (2) playing un-amplified
music (3) in real time (IOW, if you go to a symphony orchestra concert, you
have a good chance of hearing the orchestra with NO amplification. That's
"live music"). And while the average rock concert certainly meets criteria
numbers one and three, it misses out on the critical number two. All
hard-rock concerts are artificial. You are not listening to the actual
instruments, you are listening to a public address system. Not only that, but
every rock live sound engineer that I've ever read about says that they mix
and EQ the performance to sound as much like their band's recordings as
possible because that's what the fans want to hear - familiar music that
sounds familiar to them. Solid-body electric guitars, make no sound (to speak
of) without an amplifier. Neither do any other electronic instruments such as
synthesizers and Fender Rhodes pianos. So, in effect, there is no way to hear
most rock "unamplified."

So the question remains: how do you discern the sound of "live" rock from
recorded, when it's never really live in the first place, and when the
concerts are engineered to mimic the group's recordings?

I've done the blind test (unofficial), but all that's doing is helping
prove if there is a difference. The difference between analog and
digital? No, we shouldn=92t stray away from the true goal, the sound of
Live. [I=92m leaving the environment out of this, ok] This is the part
that leaves science behind... Which "feels" closest to live? Or,
which reminds me most of live. That's all. I don't know if digital
discs can potentially sound better than record albums or not. So far
neither sounds like live - really. It's like a ripple sandwiched
between two panes of glass, the ripple can't fully expand. But which,
analog or digital, is the glass further apart? I say lets remove the
glass!

This is, basically, the crux of the debate. Those to whom the sound of vinyl
is anathema say that vinyl is so fatally flawed as to be unlistenable. They
cite all kinds of different types of distortion inherent in the medium. Funny
thing is, people who listen to vinyl and enjoy it, don't notice these
anomalies. Only vinyl's detractors claim to find the act of listening ruined
by these various distortions. Can vinyl feel closest to live? Sometimes, yes,
other times digital is the closest approach to the original sound.

Both digital and analog have their strong and weak points. Is this
topic trying to uncover the weaknesses (against live)? We know vinyl
grooves can=92t be cut to save all the sound, and we know that
converting to digital involves rounding to the nearest whole. Either
way, the information is not all there and that=92s why it sounds flatter
than live. I=92m guessing analog is the least processed, and digital is
capable of holding more information. How then can the best of both be
combined? Saying it to myself like this, I would say digital has the
potential to be better than analog (vinyl) if only the processing can
be truly out of the way. Cannot a laser light track a continuous
groove (sound wave)? If the signal didn=92t have to be converted to
mathematics, there can be greater chance to approach live.

Aside from the fact that your description of the digital process shows a
basic lack of understanding about how the digital quantification process
actually works ("...rounding off to the nearest whole"), this thread started
as an examination of how record companies so purposely dilute and restrict
the sound that they put on CD, that often, the end result is no better than
vinyl and that in some cases, the vinyl is much easier and much more
"lifelike" to listen to.

For now, vinyl reminds me more of live, but I think vinyl has reached
its max capability.

The point is that vinyl shouldn't remind you more of live as digital is much
more accurate. Many recording engineers (including yours truly, here) have
noted that a high-resolution digital recording can be indistinguishable from
the microphone feed from which the recording was made. You really can't ask
any more of a recording medium than that.

What if it weren=92t made of vinyl? What if the
recorded medium was made of a substance that could support all the
information and the reader could collect all the information (without
physical touch). No ones & zeros, just ripples. Then we could more
clearly hear what=92s not right about the pick-up devices. Like vinyl,
I fear digital will also plateau short of the mark.

That's been tried. Analog (ripples) recorders, even very high resolution
analog recorders (there was an analog optical recorder in the early eighties)
suffer from problems that make digital better. For instance, an analog
recording is always going to suffer generational losses when copied (a copy
will always be at least 3 dB noisier and have increased distortion over the
generation from which it is copied). Digital, can, OTOH, theoretically, be
copied, serially, an infinite number of times with no generation loss. In
reality, of course, the added noise with each generation is THERE, it's just
that the noise is analog and the system is looking for ones and zeros. BUT,
eventually, it is conceivable that the background noise can get so high that
the digital intelligence cannot be read through the noise. Of course, when
that happens, you don't really get an increase in noise in the digital
signal, in the digital recording, you get read errors and enough of those
will cause the file to not play at all, and that is the practical limit of
serial copies of a digital file (although, that would indicate a very high
number of generations away from the oriiginal recording, and realistically
speaking, would never happen.

Kele

[Andrew Haley]

Audio Empire wrote:

The term "live music" infers (1) real musicians, (2) playing
un-amplified music (3) in real time (IOW, if you go to a symphony
orchestra concert, you have a good chance of hearing the orchestra
with NO amplification. That's "live music"). And while the average
rock concert certainly meets criteria numbers one and three, it
misses out on the critical number two. All hard-rock concerts are
artificial.

You're saying, then, that the body of a string instrument is not
artificial, and neither is the sound board of a piano, or the bell of
a trumpet, or an organ pipe. But somehow, a guitar amplifier is.
This is a wholly arbitrary definition; it makes no sense. There's
nothing special about purely acoustic amplifying devices. Many (all?)
electric guitarists will tell you that their Marshall (or whatever
they use) is an essential part of the instrument.

Digital, can, OTOH, theoretically, be copied, serially, an infinite
number of times with no generation loss. In reality, of course, the
added noise with each generation is THERE, it's just that the noise
is analog and the system is looking for ones and zeros. BUT,
eventually, it is conceivable that the background noise can get so
high that the digital intelligence cannot be read through the
noise. Of course, when that happens, you don't really get an
increase in noise in the digital signal, in the digital recording,
you get read errors and enough of those will cause the file to not
play at all, and that is the practical limit of serial copies of a
digital file (although, that would indicate a very high number of
generations away from the oriiginal recording, and realistically
speaking, would never happen.

That's not true: noise does not build up between generations of
digital copies. It's quite likely that a second-generation copy has
less analog noise than the original.

Andrew.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 14, 6:49=A0am, Dick Pierce wrote:

Ask Finial how their turntable is going. Oh, wait, they're
out of business, never having sold a one.

Maybe it would be better to ask the company that bought them out and
still is in business after what? 20 years? They *have* sold laser
turntables. I've actually heard one.
http://www.elpj.com/

ooooooops

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 14, 7:14=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 03:54:11 -0800, Kele wrote
(in article ):

Wow, this is a heck of a subject. =A0I have done my own experiment
between a Gold CD against a Japanese vinyl pressing of Dark Side of
the Moon. =A0Does that count? =A0I think so. =A0I know which my favorit=
e
rendition is. =A0I suppose to explain the difference is similar to
explaining the difference between live and recorded music. =A0It is
difficult to explain, but it's not difficult to tell which is which.
Even the best sound reproduction systems I've heard aren=3D92t the same=
as
live. =A0My memory of hearing live is all I have. =A0And I agree that t=
he
environment of the live also influences my memory. =A0If I compare each=
,
digital and analog sources, against my memory of live... that answer
would be my preferred medium.

OK, this question might SEEM to be an attempt to denigrate rock music as =
a
reference, but it really isn't. It's an attempt by me to understand how t=
his
kind of music can be used for serious audio evaluations.

I don't listen to rock and never have. Of course, I've heard it all throu=
gh
high-school and college as everybody else listened to it so I heard it
whether I wanted to or not. But you talk about live vs recorded here, and=
I
wonder when you have ever heard Pink Floyd "Live"? Now before you list th=
e
number of Pink Floyd concerts that you might have attended, let me define
"live music" as I understand and define the term.

The term "live music" infers (1) real musicians, (2) playing un-amplified
music (3) in real time (IOW, if you go to a symphony orchestra concert, y=
ou
have a good chance of hearing the orchestra with NO amplification. That's
"live music"). And while the average rock concert certainly meets criteri=
a
numbers one and three, it misses out on the critical number two.

Point 1. Darkside of the Moon isn't a live album. 2. many of the
elements in tht album and many many other rock albums are "acoustic."
3. not much recorded classical these days is Live and real time. Most
of it is edited to hell and back.

All
hard-rock concerts are artificial. You are not listening to the actual
instruments, you are listening to a public address system. Not only that,=
but
every rock live sound engineer that I've ever read about says that they m=
ix
and EQ the performance to sound as much like their band's recordings as
possible because that's what the fans want to hear - familiar music that
sounds familiar to them. Solid-body electric guitars, make no sound (to s=
peak
of) without an amplifier. Neither do any other electronic instruments suc=
h as
synthesizers and Fender Rhodes pianos. So, in effect, there is no way to =
hear
most rock "unamplified."

So the question remains: how do you discern the sound of "live" rock from
recorded, when it's never really live in the first place, and when the
concerts are engineered to mimic the group's recordings?

Certain elements do the trick. We do have experience with human
voices, drum kits, acoustic guitars, painos etc. We can judge the
quality of those elements aginst our experience with live music. Heck
just listen to the barrage of clocks going off at the begining of the
track called Time on Darkside of the Moon. Sounds pretty real.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 14, 6:48=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



I don't agree that the *inherent*
colorations of vinyl are so gross that one can easily
identify them by ear alone

But, you won't take reasonable steps to demonstrate that assertion.

I have demonstrated it on many occassions. You just weren' there and
apparently you won't take my word for it (ironic since my lack of
trust was one of your excuses)
I am very willing to take reasonable steps to demonstrate my assertion
*to you*. But you refuse to participate in a proctored DBT. We have
proof of that clearly for the record in this thread. Is it your
position that it is unreasonable to have a DBT proctored? Imagine all
the DBTs done in scientifcic researched nullified by the discovery
that proctoring such tests is actually an unreasonable thing to do.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Feb 14, 6:49=A0am, Dick Pierce
wrote:

Ask Finial how their turntable is going. Oh, wait,
they're out of business, never having sold a one.

Maybe it would be better to ask the company that bought
them out and still is in business after what? 20 years?
They *have* sold laser turntables. I've actually heard
one.
http://www.elpj.com/

ooooooops

I've seen and heard the ELP product, and I know what its usage entails. The
inhrent failings of the process are well known. It wasn't the total solution
that it intuitively seems to be.

BTW Scott, how is your ELP turntable working out for you? ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Kele" wrote in message


Even the best sound reproduction systems I've heard
aren't the same as live.

Agreed.

My memory of hearing live is all I have.

As a live recordist, I very often have the opportunity to experience the
live performance, the feed from the microphone, and a digitized version of
the microphone feed with as little delay as is humanly possible. I get to do
this with a large number of varying musical groups, and in a reasonable
selection of venues.

And I agree that the environment of the live
also influences my memory. If I compare each, digital
and analog sources, against my memory of live... that
answer would be my preferred medium.

The feed from the microphone and the 16/44 digitized version of it are
indistinguishable when time, frequency response, and amplitude are
reasonably close. With a good digital system, only matching amplitudes need
be observed because the rest matches up automatically.

The difference between analog and digital?

There need not be any. 30 years ago this transparent performance in and out
of the digital domain cost serious money. No more.

No, we shouldn't stray away from the true goal, the sound of
Live. [leaving the environment out of this, ok]

If we can't find the sound of live at the outputs of the microphones, it
would seem like finding it further on down the chain would be an elusive
goal.

This is the part that leaves science behind...

Not necesarily.

Which "feels" closest to live?

This would be emotion and/or perception which are now part of the study of
science.

Or, which reminds me most of live.

Also in the domain of science, just not electronics science.

That's all. I don't know if digital discs can
potentially sound better than record albums or not.

From a technical standpoint the answer seems clear.

So far neither sounds like live - really. It's like a
ripple sandwiched between two panes of glass, the ripple
can't fully expand. But which, analog or digital, is the
glass further apart? I say lets remove the glass!

Digital clearly lets the glass separate the furthest, and not really intrude
on the reproduction process. Getting back to the problem of live sound at
the microphone terminals, we see that the *glass* is in the analog domain.

Both digital and analog have their strong and weak points.

Arguably, the worst thing about digital is that right now all audio has to
start and end in the analog domain. The damage is all done in the analog
domain.

Is this topic trying to uncover the weaknesses
(against live)? We know vinyl grooves can=92t be cut to
save all the sound,

We know no such thing. We know for sure that vinyl grooves absolutely and
positively **cannot** be cut to save all of the analog signal that comes out
of the microphone.

and we know that converting to digital involves rounding to the nearest
whole.

The size of the nearest whole can be reduced to be as small as we wish.
Furthermore, the noise in and distortion that is inherent in the analog
domain is effectively larger than that rounding error.

Either way, the information is not all there and that=92s why it
sounds flatter than live.

The signal coming out of the microphone is best preservd by digitizing it as
early in the process as is practical. It is best preserved by leaving it
digital as far down the chain as is practical. We must remember that the
liveness of sound waves of the live performance were far more hihgly amaged
while they were in the analog domain.

I'm guessing analog is the
least processed, and digital is capable of holding more
information.

You guess wrong if you think that electrical signals receive less damage in
the analog domain.

How then can the best of both be combined?


First step is to do less in the analog domain. The second and more difficult
step is to further reduce the damage that is done in the analog, more
specifically the acoustical domain.

Saying it to myself like this, I would say digital has
the potential to be better than analog (vinyl) if only
the processing can be truly out of the way.

That was done over 30 years ago.

Cannot a
laser light track a continuous groove (sound wave)? If
the signal didn' have to be converted to mathematics,
there can be greater chance to approach live.

Wrong. It is easy to show that converting analog signals to and from the
digital domain can be done a number of times, back-to-back, without audible
degradation.


For now, vinyl reminds me more of live, but I think vinyl
has reached its max capability.

Serious development of the vinyl LP pretty well petered out in the
middle-late 1960s. There have been no new technical developments that were
generally accepted since then.

[Arny Krueger]

"Andrew Haley" wrote in
message

Audio Empire wrote:

The term "live music" infers (1) real musicians,

What would an effective unreal musican be like?

A robot? ;-)

(2) playing un-amplified music (3) in real time (IOW, if you
go to a symphony orchestra concert, you have a good
chance of hearing the orchestra with NO amplification.
That's "live music"). And while the average rock concert
certainly meets criteria numbers one and three, it
misses out on the critical number two. All hard-rock
concerts are artificial.

You're saying, then, that the body of a string instrument
is not artificial, and neither is the sound board of a
piano, or the bell of a trumpet, or an organ pipe.

Other than the organ pipe, these are all mechanical amplifiers. AFAIK organ
pipes don't amplify, simply make big sound by being big.

But somehow, a guitar amplifier is.

Which begs the question of why we allow amplifiers to be components of hi fi
systems if they are inherently so unnatural.

This is a wholly arbitrary definition; it makes no sense.

The sense it makes lies in the history of the development of musical
instruments, not in the artificial distinction that you correctly question.

There's nothing special about purely acoustic amplifying devices.

In fact they have a lot of nasty inherent limitations, such as the law of
conservation of energy.

Many (all?) electric guitarists will tell you that their
Marshall (or whatever they use) is an essential part of
the instrument.

I look at musical instrument amplifiers as a replacement for or a
continuation of the base musical instrument. Ironically, most of the live
sound gigs I do lack musical instrument amplifiers. We use things that are
closer to hi fi amplifiers and speakers, and encapsulate the simulation of
the sounding board in purpose-built electronics.

Digital, can, OTOH, theoretically, be copied, serially,
an infinite number of times with no generation loss. In
reality, of course, the added noise with each generation
is THERE, it's just that the noise is analog and the
system is looking for ones and zeros. BUT, eventually,
it is conceivable that the background noise can get so
high that the digital intelligence cannot be read
through the noise.

This description seems to miss the point that we zero out the analog media
noise in every new digital generation. The generational noise is corrected
while it is still easily correctable so that it never builds hp.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 14, 9:49=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Feb 14, 6:49=3DA0am, Dick Pierce
wrote:

Ask Finial how their turntable is going. Oh, wait,
they're out of business, never having sold a one.
Maybe it would be better to ask the company that bought
them out and still is in business after what? 20 years?
They *have* sold laser turntables. I've actually heard
one.
http://www.elpj.com/
ooooooops

I've seen and heard the ELP product, and I know what its usage entails. T=
he
inhrent failings of the process are well known. It wasn't the total solut=
ion
that it intuitively seems to be.

The one I heard seemed to work fine. Not my first choice in sound
quality but I'm not sure what the inherent failings were.


BTW Scott, how is your ELP turntable working out for you? =A0 ;-)

I don't own one Arny. I heard one played at one of the many hifi shows
way back.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:56:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Serious development of the vinyl LP pretty well petered out in the
middle-late 1960s. There have been no new technical developments that were
generally accepted since then.



I think that you'd be surprised at just how incorrect that assessment is. DMM
is one innovation that has been added since the '60s as well as things like
digital lathe control, better sounding acceleration limiters for the cutter
stylus, better "lacquer" disc materials (less noise) and generally less
'colored' electronics all through the system.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 06:48:29 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message


I don't agree that the *inherent*
colorations of vinyl are so gross that one can easily
identify them by ear alone

But, you won't take reasonable steps to demonstrate that assertion.

and I also disagree that the
colorations are so severe that no LP can ever truly sound great.

Given the current market penetration of the LP, essentially a moot point.
Virtually nobody ever listens to LPs any more. Very few people even have
turntables.




OK, let's see your facts and figures Arny. What percentage of audio
enthusiasts do have turntables in the world and do listen to vinyl?

You see, your constant assertion that "virtually nobody" listens to LPs any
more", doesn't seem to Jibe with reality. Granted, the cheap, Japanese direct
drive turntable market has essentially disappeared (except for the "Nu-Mark"
DJ tables), but there are more manufacturers of good belt-drive turntables
(and even some "high-end" direct-drive models like the new DD 'table from
Denon, the $2500 DP-A100) on the market today than there were during what is
generally referred to as vinyl's heyday and more are coming out every day. A
quick perusal of Jerry Raskin's "Needle Doctor" site will certainly confirm
that, and he doesn't carry even 1/10th of what's available)There must be a
pretty healthy market for these tables or there wouldn't be so many new ones
to choose from. There are also more cartridges available at all price points
than ever, there are more tone arms than ever, and there are more phono
preamps than ever. Many preamps and receivers have re-included MM and MC
phono stages in their pre-amps and integrated amps after having deleted them
for more than a decade. Obviously SOMEBODY in high-end audio marketing thinks
that Arny Kruger's assessment of the vinyl market is simply wrong! Sure it's
a niche market, but even someone as myopic as you seem to be would have to
admit - after even a very cursory examination, that the market is nowhere
nearly small as you seem to think it is, nor is it moribund like you want to
believe.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 06:48:45 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


I feel the same way. Like I said, I don't dismiss any
source of music (except iTunes store stuff. Everything
I've ever downloaded from them sounds execrable).

Given that iTunes seems to have a reasonable cross-section of music
available, and a delivery system that passes technical scrutiny and works
for millions, this seems to be an incredible claim.

I can't help that. I listen with MY ears, you listen with yours, and as has
been demonstrated here more than once, we don't hear the same things. I hear
MP3 artifacts, you seem not to. I hear an improvement in high-resolution
digital formats, you seem not to. I don't hear many of the "gross
distortions" that you say makes it unpleasant for you to listen to vinyl.
About the only thing we agree on - sound wise if that wire doesn't have any
sound.

Another thing too. I don't download the type of music that the vast majority
of iTunes customers downloads. Maybe the rock generations don't care (or more
likely, don't notice) how awful iTunes Store downloads sound, but the type of
music that I have downloaded is, essentially, unlistenable that way. I will
admit that I haven't downloaded anything for a couple of years (who would
want to pay for another round of that terrible experience?) and they might
have cleaned-up their act, but if so, somebody else is going have to prove it
to me!

LP has a sound, sure, but it can be a very pleasant sound.

As I've just posted elsewhere, essentially a moot point given how few people
actually play LPs any more.

And as I have posted elsewhere, that's a very myopic and fact-free view of
the market.

CDs can be darn neigh perfect, or they can be very unpleasant.

Such are the slings and arrows of being a sonically perfect medium. It's the
messenger, not the message.

I didn't say that it wasn't due to poor production. In fact, if you've been
paying attention to this thread, you'll notice that it's been my position
since the beginning.

I've downloaded High-Res music from H-DTracks only to find it
unlistenable, and other tracks I've
downloaded have been great sounding.

That seems to be reasonable. It's also the messenger, not the message.

Good music and good sound is where you find it.

That's the basis that most of us work on.

Not really. You seem to go out of your way to eschew vinyl, and I suspect
that you're not alone. Or it that just hyperbolic rhetoric on your part?

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 06:49:06 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

On 2/14/2011 6:54 AM, Kele wrote:
we know that converting to digital involves
rounding to the nearest whole.

And if that's indeed what we "knew", we would
indeed be wrong. While it seems intuitively
correct, it is simply not the case.

Any number of sources have been available for
long before the advent of the CD demonstrating how
this "rounding to the nearest whole" notion is
incorrect. Indeed check Blesser's article in the
late 1970's as to how any properly implemented
digital system can capture information substantially
below the "nearest whole." And he was hardly the
first to describe a process which was, at that
point, a well-understood principle in any number of
disciplines. Definitive articles on the principle
date back at least to the mid-1960's.


Cannot a laser light track a continuous groove (sound wave)?

Ask Finial how their turntable is going. Oh, wait, they're
out of business, never having sold a one.

I had several prototypes sent to me. It NEVER worked right. The thing
wouldn't stay in alignment and wouldn't track for long. the tracking
mechanism was analog (like the early laserdisc players) and wouldn't stay in
the groove. When it worked, it seemed miraculous, but, alas...

Teldec and Philips both did research in high-resolution analog "disc
recorder" systems in the 1970's but that research never really went anywhere
because it still had all the problems of analog tape: Distortion and noise
build-up generationally, wow and flutter, and easily damaged surfaces. The
Philips system used a laser (and in fact, part of their system ended-up being
used as the sound delivery system for the LasedDisc format). The Teldec
system (IIRC) used a focused RF field to "spot" soften the plastic media of
the disc and a piezo-driven stylus to inscribe the wide-band FM audio
carrier. It went nowhere, but I understand that Teldec did master a couple of
albums using the system. Again, it had all the problems associated with
analog sound and outlined above. Basically analog is a dead-end as far as
either audio or video capture, archiving and playback systems are concerned.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 08:43:53 -0800, Scott wrote
(in article ):

Point 1. Darkside of the Moon isn't a live album.

I don't recall supposing that it was.

2. many of the
elements in tht album and many many other rock albums are "acoustic."

Yes, of course, the vocals, the drum kit, any brass instruments used, are all
acoustic. But the guitars aren't and neither is the bass (usually a guitar
itself, these days, I suspect)


3. not much recorded classical these days is Live and real time. Most
of it is edited to hell and back.

The fact that classical and acoustic jazz are edited in no way changes the
fact that what is CAPTURED by the recording process is the sound of those
instruments as they played in real time and in a real space, just as you
would hear them on stage. There is no PA system between thos einstruments and
the recording microphone. When I go to the symphony, I hear the music altered
only by the acoustics of the space in which they are playing (and I am
listening) THAT is live music.

So the question remains: how do you discern the sound of "live" rock from
recorded, when it's never really live in the first place, and when the
concerts are engineered to mimic the group's recordings?

Certain elements do the trick. We do have experience with human
voices, drum kits, acoustic guitars, painos etc. We can judge the
quality of those elements aginst our experience with live music. Heck
just listen to the barrage of clocks going off at the begining of the
track called Time on Darkside of the Moon. Sounds pretty real.

OK, I guess that answers the question. It still all seems so very artificial
to me.

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:42:58 -0800, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andrew Haley" wrote in
message
You're saying, then, that the body of a string instrument
is not artificial, and neither is the sound board of a
piano, or the bell of a trumpet, or an organ pipe.

Other than the organ pipe, these are all mechanical amplifiers.

Well, strictly speaking, NONE of them are
mechanical amplifiers. The provide no power gain
whatsoever: at best they are acoustical impedance
matching devices. Take a piano for instance: ALL
of the acoustic power it puts out derives from
the mechanical power of the performer's fingers.
In fact, very little of the mechanical power
input frm the fingers ever gets translated into
acoustic power. WHat the soundboard does it changes
ratio from extremely small to less extremely small.

Correct. This one of Arny's favorite debating ploys: "Obfuscation by counting
angels".

AFAIK organ pipes don't amplify, simply make big
sound by being big.

Neither does a piano or guitar or violin soundboard,
the bell of a trumpet or trombone, or anything else.

None of these devices or contrivances "amplify" anything.

As you say later on, there's this here conservation of
energy law the all have to deal with.


Yup and confusing what acoustic instruments do naturally, with what a PA
system does electronically, is not an apt analogy. It will confuse some
people who post here, though.

[Stephen McElroy]

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:56:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Serious development of the vinyl LP pretty well petered out in the
middle-late 1960s. There have been no new technical developments that were
generally accepted since then.



I think that you'd be surprised at just how incorrect that assessment is. DMM
is one innovation that has been added since the '60s as well as things like
digital lathe control, better sounding acceleration limiters for the cutter
stylus, better "lacquer" disc materials (less noise) and generally less
'colored' electronics all through the system.

And there's nothing wrong with incremental improvements.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andrew Haley" wrote
in message
You're saying, then, that the body of a string
instrument is not artificial, and neither is the sound
board of a piano, or the bell of a trumpet, or an organ
pipe.

Other than the organ pipe, these are all mechanical
amplifiers.

Well, strictly speaking, NONE of them are
mechanical amplifiers.

Yup, my mistake.

As you say, they increase sound levels by matching mechanical impedances.
Same reason why horn-loaded speakers are generally more efficient than
direct radiators.