"normanstrong" wrote in message
newsQvGb.655372$Fm2.578905@attbi_s04...
I'm referring to a player I can (and have) borrow to use in my own
system. I've listened to DSOTM - which is a superb re-master, even
in
2-channel, Ray Brown Trio Soular Energy, Isaac Hayes Hot Buttered
Soul, Billy Joel An Innocent Man, Bruno Walter Beethoven 6,
Charlotte
Church, Ormandy Carmina Burana, Szell Peer
Gynt/l'Arlesienne/Pictures
at an Exhibition, Michael Jackson Thriller, and Santana Abraxas.

In all cases, the SACD did not sound the same as the CD, due to
remastering, and sometimes the SACD was 'better', sometimes not.
Certainly, there was no *consistency* in the differences, such as
would indicate what one might expect from the technical
differences,
such as a more natural percussion on the jazz and rock tracks.


Decent list, but no DSD mastered disk among them, so you are not
getting the
best SACD has to offer.

Were you comparing to separate redbook cd's? To a hybrid layer?
What
titles did you find cd superior to SACD on, and how would you
describe the
difference?

As I've mentioned in this group before (at least a couple of times)
it's much easier to demonstrate the inferiority of CDDA rather than
the SUperiority of SACD, if indeed that is the case. One does this by
recording the output of the SACD recording, and showing that it cannot
be re-recorded in CDDA without audible degradation. i.e. you can't
slip such a copy by an SACD enthusiast without him noticing.

Even better would be comparing the SACD recording to the signal from
the analog tape from which it's made. If the SACD output can be
reliably identified--and preferred--then we have something interesting
to pursue!

Thanks, Norm. Over on Audio Asylum, Michael Bishop chimed in on a
discussion and indicated he had done just that several times....compared the
final SACD product to the original source, level matched and blind nobody
could tell the difference.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 06:56:28 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:26:46 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 22 Dec 2003 22:07:23 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

"Having access" is not the same as listening in your own system, is
it
Stewart? And what disks have you listened to? Come on, share a
little!

I'm referring to a player I can (and have) borrow to use in my own
system. I've listened to DSOTM - which is a superb re-master, even
in
2-channel, Ray Brown Trio Soular Energy, Isaac Hayes Hot Buttered
Soul, Billy Joel An Innocent Man, Bruno Walter Beethoven 6,
Charlotte
Church, Ormandy Carmina Burana, Szell Peer
Gynt/l'Arlesienne/Pictures
at an Exhibition, Michael Jackson Thriller, and Santana Abraxas.

In all cases, the SACD did not sound the same as the CD, due to
remastering, and sometimes the SACD was 'better', sometimes not.
Certainly, there was no *consistency* in the differences, such as
would indicate what one might expect from the technical differences,
such as a more natural percussion on the jazz and rock tracks.

Decent list, but no DSD mastered disk among them, so you are not
getting
the
best SACD has to offer.

Yeah fine, Harry, you'll always move the goalposts, just as with the
DBT threads. Did you miss my comment that there's no such thing as a
true DSD recording?


Not moving the goalposts. Just common sense if you are going to
criticize
legitimately.

And you know perfectly well there are DSD recordings. The first year or
so
the workstations were pure one-bit DSD and most recording to this day
utilizes no signal processing but records "straight in". Again, you are
substituting semantics to obscure the basic truth.

Were you comparing to separate redbook cd's? To a hybrid layer? What
titles did you find cd superior to SACD on, and how would you describe
the
difference?

Both to separate CDs and the hybrid layer, where available. I'm not
going to get into a detailed breakdown, it would be pointless with
you.


In other words, you've got something to hide.

No Harry, it's a given in any 'debate' with you that you'll jump
around all over the place to score points, regardless of the basic
truths of the matter. I am only interested in sound quality, and to my
ears, SACD simply doesn't offer *any* advantage over straight CD -
aside from the multichannel ability. Of course, we have the even
better DVD-A for multichannel, so no problem with real progress. DSD
has already been shown to be a technical dead end for recording, and I
doubt that SACD will last that much longer.


Well, even the folks on the DVD-A forums are not saying that anymore. They
are just happy that universal players may keep them in the game, rather than
DVD-A's becoming extinct. SACD is winning the commercial war at this point.
Have you not noticed that now Sony has converted all its plants to hybrid
and there is adequate capacity. They have started to advertise. They rean
a special hybrid sampler and several full page ads in Rolling Stone
recently. And they already outsell DVD-A 3:1.

Could it be that you haven't
done many (any?) careful comparisons. Could it be that you have avoided
DBT
but are still offering assertions as "truth".

Nope, I *always* do DBTs where differences are subtle. While this
isn't particularly easy with CD/SACD, I do my best to 'bias-proof' the
comparisons. I am *not* going to get into a pathetic 'bar by bar'
argument with you, when I know that you have done no such blind
comparison.


Well, why not share what your "best" is. I know I have been able to set up
a DVD-A vs SACD test of two recordings, essentially level matched. It was
sighted, but it was careful. However, since I had two different machines I
could not eliminate the machine from the equation, so I don't know if the
inferior DVD-A sound I heard was machine or recording. I asked on Audio
Asylum those with universals to give their impressions of the sound
differences of DVD-A and SACD, and they generally (not universally) were
reported similar to my own: DVD-A is seen as having more "edge definition",
more "punch", and shallower soundstage. Some liked this; they generally
were people with more experience with cd's as music source rather than live
music. Others like myself that hear a lot of live music prefer SACD.
However, virtually everybody could describe a difference between the two,
even on the same machine. These were generally Marantz 8300's or Denon
2900's or 5900's.

Most of us on this and other
forums are perfectly willing to discuss specific recordings and our
impressions of them and comparisons to them.

Sure you are - and they are pointless lip-flapping.


You have just disqualified yourself from any serious discussion.

And we offer these "opinions"
as just that, observations, impressions, opinions. Nobody is "locked
in".
In that way we can share impressions: in that way consensus or arguments
can
ensue; and in that way one can judge for themselves how universal or
"nicne"
a set of impressions are and if there are differences, whether or not
there
are variables that might explain them.

Personally, I'd stack 'Red Book' JVC XRCDs against any of those for
sheer sound quality.

A lot of people have done that .... and with one exception among
several
dozen...they prefer SACD. Again, hang around Audio Asylum Hi-Rez for
awhile...and if you want to challenge them, challenge them.

I've done my own listening comparisons, and I'm well aware of the
technical drawbacks of SACD, so I'm not interested in the weird and
wonderful opinions of the inmates of the Audio Asylum.

In other words, those intelligent listeners on other forums (and there
are a
lot of them, including some very technically savvy ones) with much more
experience with SACD who have reached other points of view are simply not
worth listening to?

Not if they haven't done *blind* comparisons, no.

How do you spell "threatened"?

As above...............

.....????


If you opened yourself
up a little, you might be surprised that there *are* others who share
your
view....they just happen to be in a distinct minority.

You seem to have this impression that I care. Without the results of
*blind* comparisons, these opinions, whether agreeing or disagreeeing,
are of no value to me.


But you won't bother to describe your "blind" comparison of SACD vs. CD, so
all we have from *you* is antcedotes.

They know and enjoy SACD as a superior music reproduction
system.

That's a belief system, not a reality.

It seems to be a belief system then that spontaneously strikes 9 out
of 10
who have heard SACD.

The MacDonalds argument never works, and the jury is certainly out
among audio industry professionals.............

That isn't a McDonald's argument. It is rather a Zagot guide....by
people
who've actually eaten at the restaurants in question.

Industry professionals can't agree on SACD, so the sighted opinions of
a vocal few amateurs are hardly of interest to anyone who wants some
*real* information on the subject.


The group can decide for itself whether this is wisdom or arrogance talking.

They may be puzzled and not understand why, but they generally
shut
up and enjoy.

That would be because they *believe* that it sounds 'better', which
is
fine. If only others would shut up when they have nothing to offer
but
mere assertion.......................

I see. I see. They believe it sounds better but they refuse to talk
about
it because they can't explain it to their engineering brethren like
yourself. Is that what you are saying?

Nope, I'm saying that they've never done comparisons under controlled
conditions.

Hasn't kept them from buying machines and SACDs and enjoying them, and
for
the most part preferring them over ordinary CD.

And your point is? Aside from RF noise, SACD is certainly not *worse*
than CD, so why wouldn't they enjoy them? Of course, without proof of
*difference*, any expressed preference is simply label snobbery.


Why must you continually put down any and all whom you don't see as meeting
*your* standards? Particularly when you opinions such as the above have
little or no basis in fact.

I say good for them...they trust their ears over dogma.

No Harry, neither you nor any of your pals actually *trust* their
ears, only their eyes...................

Ho hum. Ho hum. Same old record, intended to substitute for "where's
the
proof:" via DBT. Where's you *proof* that SACD is no better than CD?

My blind comparisons suggest that mastering is *vastly* more variable
than any differences which you could track down to extended bandwidth.
The extended resolution at low frequencies is of course irrelevant,
since 16 bits is already much more than is on any master tape. Note
that most '24 bit' PCM converters are actually 1-bit devices, so they
are in effect just the same as DSD. Note also that the best are
low-bit hybrids, just like DSD-Wide, and for the same reasons.


Your "blind comparisons" that you deign not to share with us? I see, your
word is sacred?

Note that a
senior Philips engineer has now also joined in 'blowing the
whistle'
on the fatal flaws of SACD, now that it's all out in the open and
company loyalty is no longer an issue.

"Fatal flaw" because it requires SACD-wide to do signal processing?

There's no such thing - you mean DSD-Wide, which is after all just
another form of PCM, and much more difficult to work with than the
allaround superior 24/192 PCM.

Yes, DSD-wide, sorry. And they use it because it (the whole DSD/SACD
sytem
sounds better).

No, they use it because DSD doesn't work, and company pride wouldn't
allow them to junk it in favour of the allaround superior 24/192 PCM.

Except that there is no consensus at all in support of your view.

Nor in support of yours..................


Nah nah, nah nah, nah nah!

There
are at least as many recording engineers who prefer SACD as prefer 24/192
based on an informal sampling at AES.

Quite so - as I said already. Nothing like the '9 out of 10' that you
were claiming for your Audio Asylum pals.


I report the information I have as I have it. I don't try to make it fit
preconceived notions.

As previously noted, straight DSD is *never* used nowadays, and
DSD-Wide simply has no rational place when 24/192 is available.

DSD-wide is still preferred over the alternatives by most of those with
access to the technology. They think it sounds better. You don't believe
me, go right ahead and ask them.

You already said that it's a 50/50 split in the AES - try to keep your
story straight, at least in the same post..............


I said it is preferred by those with access to the technology. I said it is
50-50 among engineers in general, many of only have pcm to work with. I
expect the percentage will increase as more and more studios add dsd
workstations.

And I have asked them - they are as divided as you earlier suggested.


Good, at least we agree on that.

A "fatal flaw" that doesn't
affect the end result is not all that "fatal", now is it?

No, but it *does* affect the end result, which is of course why even
Sony does *not* use DSD for recording.

Bull****. Virtually all their classical recording done in the last
three
years has been DSD.

No, they use DSD-Wide, which is *not* true DSD. They simply refuse to
lose face by switching to the superior (and much simpler) 24/192 PCM.

This is totally irrelevant to the sound of the final product.

Not if the final product is a 24/192 DVD-A, it's not! With that
excellent standard, you truly can have an *exact* copy of the original
studio master, which you can't with SACD.


Not what Michael Bishop claims (see my comments elsewhere). He claims SACD
makes an exact copy. And I heard the same from a few others at AES.

Harry, until you listen under DBT conditions, these are mere
assertions with *no* evidential base whatever. Take them to the
Asylum, by all means....................

They are assertions and opinions and have never been offered as proof.
You
are the one making technical claims *aginst* my opinions and assertions.
I
have offered support and disclosed the basis for my assertions and
opinions.

No, you've just claimed that others share your opinions. This has no
value if those opinions are based only on sighted listening.


And your has no more value if you won't reveal your supposed more rigorous
tests. But mine is based on a large sampling of folk...yours seems based on
your own preconceived notions.

Here goes the old "give me proof via DBT" or you are not allowed to
present
your opinion in opposition to mine gambit. Moderators....???

I'm not presenting an opinion - I'm giving you facts about DSD, facts
about SACD, and the inconclusive results of my blind comparisons. Just
what reliable and repeatable information are you offering in return?


Your facts are cherry picked and largely irrelevant to the sound issue. And
for that issue, you claim "facts" based on assertion that you tested
rigorously but refuse to yield up the test for scrutiny. And you seem to be
one of the few who say they can hear "no difference". Most people can hear
a difference and debate the qualities of that difference.

Merry Christmas, one and all!

Glad to end on a note we agree upon!

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On 24 Dec 2003 16:16:56 GMT, (Ben Hoadley)
wrote:

Stewart wrote (regarding SACD vs CD)

Try listening when you don't *know* which standard is playing. More
importantly, try finding a disc where the CD and SACD are identically
mastered..........................

try listening on a truly acurate (not flattering) playback system

That's a matter of personal preference, but I do consider my
Krell/Apogee system to be pretty accurate (it certainly doesn't
flatter bad recordings!), and the SACD/CD comparison is the same both
on Chord/NS800 and ATC SCM 70, which are other systems I listen to
fairly regularly. The ATC in particular is a highly accurate unit
which takes no prisoners at all!

Hmmm...Krell is certainly not complimentary and apogees are quite
acurate when working properly. ATC, while vastly overrated accuracy
wise, are good in the top end (where it matters in this case). So I
guess it's just you

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:wSvGb.643251$HS4.4651133@attbi_s01...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

snip, not relevant to below

Except that there is no consensus at all in support of your view. There
are at least as many recording engineers who prefer SACD as prefer 24/192
based on an informal sampling at AES. Many work now with 24/192 because
that is what they have but are looking forward to getting their SADIE and
GENELEC workstations.


Sorry, late night at work. I meant GENEX workstations. GENELEC makes pro
monitors.

snip, irrelevant to above

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:27:39 GMT, (Ben
Hoadley) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On 24 Dec 2003 16:16:56 GMT, (Ben Hoadley)
wrote:

Stewart wrote (regarding SACD vs CD)

Try listening when you don't *know* which standard is playing. More
importantly, try finding a disc where the CD and SACD are identically
mastered..........................

try listening on a truly acurate (not flattering) playback system

That's a matter of personal preference, but I do consider my
Krell/Apogee system to be pretty accurate (it certainly doesn't
flatter bad recordings!), and the SACD/CD comparison is the same both
on Chord/NS800 and ATC SCM 70, which are other systems I listen to
fairly regularly. The ATC in particular is a highly accurate unit
which takes no prisoners at all!

Hmmm...Krell is certainly not complimentary and apogees are quite
acurate when working properly. ATC, while vastly overrated accuracy
wise, are good in the top end (where it matters in this case). So I
guess it's just you

Could be, but Michael Bishop is claiming that SACD is sonically
transparent to the original master, there's not much serious doubt
that 24/192 PCM is sonically transparent, and many of us feel that
properly mastered CD (e.g. JVC XRCDs) is sonically transparent, so it
intrigues me to consider just where people are getting their opinions
that SACD is somehow 'clearly superior' to the other two standards.

As noted, it's the topend that matters. so lessee now:

Large capsule studio microphones rolloff around 18kHz
Adult human hearing cuts off around 16-20kHz
CD cuts off at 22 kHz with a smooth and even noise floor
DVD-V 24/96 cuts off at 47kHz with a smooth and even noise floor
DVD-A 24/192 cuts off at 95kHz with a smooth and even noise floor
SACD cuts off at 60-100kHz with a steeply rising noise floor

There doesn't seem to be any good reason to exceed CD, now does there?

AS for dynamic range, no has shown any knowledge of the existence of a
musical master tape with a dynamic range exceeding 80dB, so we can
certainly say that properly dithered 14 bits is more than adequate in
terms of resolution. Hence, it seems that we don't really need the
'hi-res' formats for any *sonic* reasons, and that if we felt that the
fast-sampling formats would make analogue filtering easier, and might
improve transient response in the audio band, thehn SACD is clraly at
a significant disadvantage due to its rising noise floor. Now since
'pure' DSD was shown to be fatally flawed, and is no longer used by
Sony for master recordings, just what is all this noise about SACD?

At its very best, SACD can't exceed the performance of even 24/96 PCM,
while the very high RF noise is a problem for many amplifiers - so
much so that most current SACD players filter the output above 20 kHz
(so what's the point of SACD at all?). All that's left is Sony's wish
to sell their entire back catalogue to another generation of suckers,
and even that seems to be collapsing in the face of the mass market
acceptance of MP3, a *vastly* lower te3chnical standard. I fear that
the 'hi res' formats only hope of survival is not among the tiny band
of audiophiles, but in the multichannel market, where it does inded
have the potential to take a massive step forward in musical realism,
while being in a format which will be marketable to the 'Home
Theaytur' masses.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:32:49 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:wSvGb.643251$HS4.4651133@attbi_s01...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

snip, not relevant to below

Except that there is no consensus at all in support of your view. There
are at least as many recording engineers who prefer SACD as prefer 24/192
based on an informal sampling at AES. Many work now with 24/192 because
that is what they have but are looking forward to getting their SADIE and
GENELEC workstations.


Sorry, late night at work. I meant GENEX workstations. GENELEC makes pro
monitors.

Harry, you are still talking nonsense. Pros may 'look forward' to
truly universal workstations, but that's for purely commercial
reasons. To say that SACD (which is limited to the original DSD spec)
can ever approach the performance of 24/192 PCM is absolute nonsense.
They have similar bandwidth, but PCM has an absolutely flat noise
floor (and hence is true 24-bit resolution over its entire bandwidth),
and SACD has ever-decreasing resolution with rising frequency,
dropping to only a couple of bits over 50kHz!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 26 Dec 2003 07:28:38 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"normanstrong" wrote in message
newsQvGb.655372$Fm2.578905@attbi_s04...
I'm referring to a player I can (and have) borrow to use in my own
system. I've listened to DSOTM - which is a superb re-master, even
in
2-channel, Ray Brown Trio Soular Energy, Isaac Hayes Hot Buttered
Soul, Billy Joel An Innocent Man, Bruno Walter Beethoven 6,
Charlotte
Church, Ormandy Carmina Burana, Szell Peer
Gynt/l'Arlesienne/Pictures
at an Exhibition, Michael Jackson Thriller, and Santana Abraxas.

In all cases, the SACD did not sound the same as the CD, due to
remastering, and sometimes the SACD was 'better', sometimes not.
Certainly, there was no *consistency* in the differences, such as
would indicate what one might expect from the technical
differences,
such as a more natural percussion on the jazz and rock tracks.


Decent list, but no DSD mastered disk among them, so you are not
getting the
best SACD has to offer.

Were you comparing to separate redbook cd's? To a hybrid layer?
What
titles did you find cd superior to SACD on, and how would you
describe the
difference?

As I've mentioned in this group before (at least a couple of times)
it's much easier to demonstrate the inferiority of CDDA rather than
the SUperiority of SACD, if indeed that is the case. One does this by
recording the output of the SACD recording, and showing that it cannot
be re-recorded in CDDA without audible degradation. i.e. you can't
slip such a copy by an SACD enthusiast without him noticing.

Even better would be comparing the SACD recording to the signal from
the analog tape from which it's made. If the SACD output can be
reliably identified--and preferred--then we have something interesting
to pursue!

Thanks, Norm. Over on Audio Asylum, Michael Bishop chimed in on a
discussion and indicated he had done just that several times....compared the
final SACD product to the original source, level matched and blind nobody
could tell the difference.

As one might expect. Now, did he do the same with the CD layer? If
not, why not? I note that he claims in that post that SACD is superior
to CD, but in another post he says:

"Back in post-production later, I'm almost always directly responsible
for the final mastering to SACD and CD of the finished product. I know
where the weak links are, having heard my work through many types of
audiophile and consumer systems. Given the limitations of various
players, preamps, amplifiers and speakers out there, we are about as
close to getting what I hear in-session out to the consumer as is
presently possible. The biggest obstacles, IMO, are the speakers.
There's a long way to go there..."

I find that to be a more honest description of the situation.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message
...

Large snip

Yeah fine, Harry, you'll always move the goalposts, just as with the
DBT threads. Did you miss my comment that there's no such thing as a
true DSD recording?

Large snip 2
Harry, until you listen under DBT conditions, these are mere
assertions with *no* evidential base whatever. Take them to the
Asylum, by all means....................
And on the same date in another posting:
"Largely true, but once again you fail to answer the point. Where
the mastering is identical, *no one* has yet shown an ability to tell
SACD from CD under controlled conditions. Given the poor technical
performance of SACD, that's actually pretty good......... -- "
Earlier ( "Some serious cable measurements..." Dec 3rd.) Harry
Lavo , wrote:
"And as Mike and I and Wheel and others have pointed out, a valid
control test has never been done by those who believe the "null
results" mean there truly are no discernable differences.
Pinkerton:
"Sure it has - but you, Mike and *Ludo* (my stars L.M.)
continually move the goalposts, so that you can *always* claim that
blind tests are somehow invalid.
It's interesting that none of you has *ever* shown a single shred of
evidence in support of your own beliefs".
--
I've been trying to avoid reentering this stale argument. I
refrained even when Stevie Pinkerton, the laird of Stirling
(Scotland), chose to issue his challenge to "Ludo" He preceded it by
this covert introduction of the "blind test" challenge. (Nov 28, same
thread):

The last I heard ( I may have missed some more recent "discuss"
rulings through circumstances beyond my control) the introduction of
"blind test" challenges to other threads is banned. If it is all a
matter of clever, clever Aesopian wording then this should be further
clarified so that we know why, when and what is banned.
In the meantime: I understand "controlled conditions", "Double
blind test" and other such cryptonims when used by S. Pinkerton et al.
mean: "ABX test". Or do they mean everything *except* ABX?
For the last three years I said the same and erected the same
"goalposts". Namely: The DBT/ABX listening tests have no validity for
anyone except the individuals performing them *at the time of
performance*.
The majority of panelists were unable to hear 1,75 db difference
between cables in Greenhill ABX cable test. But a few could. Similar
majority could not hear 2% distortion in Maters, Clark test. But a few
could. Similar majority performed abysmally when challenged to hear
the difference between a full-range loudspeaker and an electrostat
with drooping bass response in S.Olive's DBT loudspeaker test. (BTW I
guessed correctly from internal evidence which ELS speaker it was
being tested but this was personal correspondence with S. Olive which
he wanted confidential). 40% of supertrained S. Olive's professionals
failed to hear introduced distortion in other S. Olive's tests. But
60% heard it.
My conclusion from MY goalposts as they were and still are is.:
The DBT/ABX test is both useless and *misleading* for an average,
untrained audiophile. He hears *less* with ABX/DBT than with other
single blind or sighted techniques. His "negative" results may become
positive with another testing pattern and/or more experience and
exposure unless, happy with his negative "success", he stops
experimenting to improve his discrimination.
One representative debater Mr. Nousaine ( "The value of DBT" 3rd
Dec) said that the individual "positive" results do not count being
due to "random variation". A perfect way to have it both ways: They
can't hear it- it proves there is nothing to hear there. They can: it
is random variation stupid! No further investigation- like repeating
the test- is necessary. We got the result we wanted. Namely-
according to Mr. Nousaine- there is no "amplifier sound".
Till we need to score a debating point: then we point out that
Krueger and Clark once, in 1980s reported a positive amp test.
Suddenly "amplifier sound" is resurrected. Talk about "moving
goalposts"! It is this kind of statistics that makes people say nasty
things like: "There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics"
Or we insist on a minimum .5db (others want .1db) matching
between the left and right side for a cable test (see Mr. Pinkerton's
cable challenge) But when it suits us we state (Mr. Nousaine same
posting): "Actually with musical programs 2-dB and 5-10% distortion
lay right at the threshold of audibility".
Mr. Nousaine, Mr. Pinkerton: I have tired, elderly ears but I
hear a difference of 1db. with no difficulty. And so do you and so
does everyone else. Why else would I and they adjust the centre image
between the speakers- I have 0,5 db. stepped volume controls on my
preamp. I have also "test cds" with distortion levels. No problem with
2%. On musical program! How about you?
Harry is absolutely right. Your test was never validated for
use by ordinary, unselected audiophile riff-raff or for that matter by
anyone else. *Validation* means using randomised, matched subjects and
randomised, matched controls. Pick components that everyone agrees
sound different: eg. good full-range cone speakers vs full range
dipoles (hybrid if necessary). Or top moving magnet cartridges vs.
moving coils. Let single- blind matched (gender, age, musical
experience, training etc.) controls compete against double blind
ABXers and show the superiority/validity of ABX. That how it is done
in the medical drug testing for FDA approval. Till you have something
like that stop challenging people to "prove" something or other by a
"test" you fancy.
Merry Xmas Ludovic Mirabel

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 26 Dec 2003 07:28:38 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"normanstrong" wrote in message
newsQvGb.655372$Fm2.578905@attbi_s04...
I'm referring to a player I can (and have) borrow to use in my own
system. I've listened to DSOTM - which is a superb re-master, even
in
2-channel, Ray Brown Trio Soular Energy, Isaac Hayes Hot Buttered
Soul, Billy Joel An Innocent Man, Bruno Walter Beethoven 6,
Charlotte
Church, Ormandy Carmina Burana, Szell Peer
Gynt/l'Arlesienne/Pictures
at an Exhibition, Michael Jackson Thriller, and Santana Abraxas.

In all cases, the SACD did not sound the same as the CD, due to
remastering, and sometimes the SACD was 'better', sometimes not.
Certainly, there was no *consistency* in the differences, such as
would indicate what one might expect from the technical
differences,
such as a more natural percussion on the jazz and rock tracks.


Decent list, but no DSD mastered disk among them, so you are not
getting the
best SACD has to offer.

Were you comparing to separate redbook cd's? To a hybrid layer?
What
titles did you find cd superior to SACD on, and how would you
describe the
difference?

As I've mentioned in this group before (at least a couple of times)
it's much easier to demonstrate the inferiority of CDDA rather than
the SUperiority of SACD, if indeed that is the case. One does this by
recording the output of the SACD recording, and showing that it cannot
be re-recorded in CDDA without audible degradation. i.e. you can't
slip such a copy by an SACD enthusiast without him noticing.

Even better would be comparing the SACD recording to the signal from
the analog tape from which it's made. If the SACD output can be
reliably identified--and preferred--then we have something interesting
to pursue!

Thanks, Norm. Over on Audio Asylum, Michael Bishop chimed in on a
discussion and indicated he had done just that several times....compared
the
final SACD product to the original source, level matched and blind nobody
could tell the difference.

As one might expect. Now, did he do the same with the CD layer? If
not, why not? I note that he claims in that post that SACD is superior
to CD, but in another post he says:

"Back in post-production later, I'm almost always directly responsible
for the final mastering to SACD and CD of the finished product. I know
where the weak links are, having heard my work through many types of
audiophile and consumer systems. Given the limitations of various
players, preamps, amplifiers and speakers out there, we are about as
close to getting what I hear in-session out to the consumer as is
presently possible. The biggest obstacles, IMO, are the speakers.
There's a long way to go there..."

I find that to be a more honest description of the situation.


But what you obscure with your comment is that he is *only* releasing Hybrid
SACDs and has been since shortly after SACD became a viable commercial
technology. He clearly feels SACD is superior to CD and has said so. And
this is based on careful comparisons in studio. What he is saying above is
that he thinks his SACDs get as close to what he hears in the studio as is
currently possible through the best high-end systems. As you note however
briefly, in another post he claims that under dbt conditions he and his
recording staff could not reliably tell finished SACD product from the
original studio recordings (straight DSD with no processing). He does not
say this of CD because he is on record as saying SACD is superior to CD, so
why should he. He is testing a "state-of-the-art" distribution and playback
system against the source. Which is what is most important to us
audiophiles.

Could be, but Michael Bishop is claiming that SACD is sonically
transparent to the original master, there's not much serious doubt
that 24/192 PCM is sonically transparent, and many of us feel that
properly mastered CD (e.g. JVC XRCDs) is sonically transparent, so it
intrigues me to consider just where people are getting their opinions
that SACD is somehow 'clearly superior' to the other two standards.

As noted, it's the topend that matters. so lessee now:

Large capsule studio microphones rolloff around 18kHz
Adult human hearing cuts off around 16-20kHz
CD cuts off at 22 kHz with a smooth and even noise floor
DVD-V 24/96 cuts off at 47kHz with a smooth and even noise floor
DVD-A 24/192 cuts off at 95kHz with a smooth and even noise floor
SACD cuts off at 60-100kHz with a steeply rising noise floor

There doesn't seem to be any good reason to exceed CD, now does there?

Its hard to prove that we should have distotion/noise free audio up to
75khz. but i think if we achieve this then reprodution we no longer be
limited by the medium. The diference is more of a character of the
sound 44.1/16 has a particular character thats says "i'm digital". In
my opinion anyone can hear frequencies well above 20khz and they can
be perceived though hifi equipment that has a poor resonce above
20khz!
Also I believe that the quantising noise produced by cds is
perceivable even though its above 40khz even up to 80khz. They are
supposed to be filtered out but thet come through. I think maybe that
is why 192/24 sounds more relaxing than cd. As I said its hard to
prove. Try putting on the two and compare for yourself which is more
relaxing to listen to.
I'm not in the camp that says sacd is better. I justthink that cd is
inadequate and should be replaced by something. If DVDA could have a
second layer for normal cd format (as it was initially supposed to
have) there would be no need for sacd at all!
I did have it demonstrated to me once. you get a analog tone
generator. set a sine wave to 15khz then switch it to triangle wave.
you gan clearly hear the change even though the first harmonic
difference is at 30khz. I don't know if this is a good demonstration
though since its more the distortion within the signal that is the
problem with cd

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 07:07:44 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

The last I heard ( I may have missed some more recent "discuss"
rulings through circumstances beyond my control) the introduction of
"blind test" challenges to other threads is banned. If it is all a
matter of clever, clever Aesopian wording then this should be further
clarified so that we know why, when and what is banned.

What's the problem Ludovic? Why are you so afraid to *trust* your
ears? Why do you keep telling others that they should 'trust their
ears', but you yourself are never prepared to do listening
comnparisons when you don't *know* what's connected?

In the meantime: I understand "controlled conditions", "Double
blind test" and other such cryptonims when used by S. Pinkerton et al.
mean: "ABX test". Or do they mean everything *except* ABX?

No, they mean DBT, of which ABX is merely one (very useful) type.

For the last three years I said the same and erected the same
"goalposts". Namely: The DBT/ABX listening tests have no validity for
anyone except the individuals performing them *at the time of
performance*.

Which does compare quite well with sighted tests, which are of no
value to anyone, ever....................

One representative debater Mr. Nousaine ( "The value of DBT" 3rd
Dec) said that the individual "positive" results do not count being
due to "random variation". A perfect way to have it both ways: They
can't hear it- it proves there is nothing to hear there. They can: it
is random variation stupid! No further investigation- like repeating
the test- is necessary. We got the result we wanted. Namely-
according to Mr. Nousaine- there is no "amplifier sound".

As you are well aware, but as ever are conveniently ignoring - Tom and
I do not agree on this point, although I'm happy to admit that he has
a larger test database than I.

Or we insist on a minimum .5db (others want .1db) matching
between the left and right side for a cable test (see Mr. Pinkerton's
cable challenge) But when it suits us we state (Mr. Nousaine same
posting): "Actually with musical programs 2-dB and 5-10% distortion
lay right at the threshold of audibility".

These statements are not mutually exclusive, since pink noise is
allowable for the cable challenge.

Mr. Nousaine, Mr. Pinkerton: I have tired, elderly ears but I
hear a difference of 1db. with no difficulty. And so do you and so
does everyone else.

Excellent! Can I take it that you'd have no problem passing the 'cable
challenge'? Care to put your money where your mouth is?

Why else would I and they adjust the centre image
between the speakers- I have 0,5 db. stepped volume controls on my
preamp. I have also "test cds" with distortion levels. No problem with
2%. On musical program! How about you?

Depends on the distortion, I struggle with 1-2% second harmonic, which
gradually becomes detectable as a 'warming' of the sound, rather than
as distortion. Hence the popularity of those horrible SET amps.

When Revel, B&W, KEF etc etc etc stop using ABX as a standard tool in
product development, I may consider that your argument has some
validity. Well no, actually I won't, because sighted listening will
remain as fatally flawed as ever.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Ben Hoadley" wrote in message
...

[snip]
I did have it demonstrated to me once. you get a analog tone
generator. set a sine wave to 15khz then switch it to triangle wave.
you gan clearly hear the change even though the first harmonic
difference is at 30khz. I don't know if this is a good demonstration
though since its more the distortion within the signal that is the
problem with cd
This can be a misleading demonstration. Switching between sine and triangle
(or sine and square) is only valid if the fundamental tone is *exactly* the
same in all cases. Setting equal RMS values using a meter, or equal peak
values using an oscilloscope will both give erroneous results.

Can you explain what you mean by "distortion within the signal"? What
problem does CD audio (done right) have with distortion?

On 27 Dec 2003 16:30:58 GMT, (Ben Hoadley)
wrote:


Could be, but Michael Bishop is claiming that SACD is sonically
transparent to the original master, there's not much serious doubt
that 24/192 PCM is sonically transparent, and many of us feel that
properly mastered CD (e.g. JVC XRCDs) is sonically transparent, so it
intrigues me to consider just where people are getting their opinions
that SACD is somehow 'clearly superior' to the other two standards.

As noted, it's the topend that matters. so lessee now:

Large capsule studio microphones rolloff around 18kHz
Adult human hearing cuts off around 16-20kHz
CD cuts off at 22 kHz with a smooth and even noise floor
DVD-V 24/96 cuts off at 47kHz with a smooth and even noise floor
DVD-A 24/192 cuts off at 95kHz with a smooth and even noise floor
SACD cuts off at 60-100kHz with a steeply rising noise floor

There doesn't seem to be any good reason to exceed CD, now does there?

Its hard to prove that we should have distotion/noise free audio up to
75khz. but i think if we achieve this then reprodution we no longer be
limited by the medium. The diference is more of a character of the
sound 44.1/16 has a particular character thats says "i'm digital". In
my opinion anyone can hear frequencies well above 20khz and they can
be perceived though hifi equipment that has a poor resonce above
20khz!

Your opinion is noted, but unfortunately it disagrees with more thn a
century of neurophysiological research, which indicates thet 16-20kHz
is the upper limit for adult humans. The only extant 'research' that
suggests otherwise (at first glance) was carried out under sponsorship
of Pioneer to support their 'Legato Link' filtering, and has been
widely discredited.

Also I believe that the quantising noise produced by cds is
perceivable even though its above 40khz even up to 80khz.

Well, that's just plain *wrong* with any properly dithered recording,
where no such quantisation artifacts can be detected.

They are
supposed to be filtered out but thet come through.

No, they're not 'filtered out', they're *eliminated* by dither.

I think maybe that
is why 192/24 sounds more relaxing than cd.

That is only a claim, not a statement of fact.

As I said its hard to
prove. Try putting on the two and compare for yourself which is more
relaxing to listen to.

I find good recordings on either medium very relaxing, and bad
recordings, well, bad....

I'm not in the camp that says sacd is better. I justthink that cd is
inadequate and should be replaced by something.

Perhaps we can agree that multichannel 24/96 is definitely worth
doing.

If DVDA could have a
second layer for normal cd format (as it was initially supposed to
have) there would be no need for sacd at all!

I would argue that there's no need for that technically discredited
format anyway! :-)

I did have it demonstrated to me once. you get a analog tone
generator. set a sine wave to 15khz then switch it to triangle wave.
you gan clearly hear the change even though the first harmonic
difference is at 30khz. I don't know if this is a good demonstration

It's not, because if you set the levels to be the same *either* by rms
or peak value, then the level of the fundamental tone of the triangle
wave will be considerably smaller than that of the triangle wave, and
the triangle wave will sound 'sharper'.

though since its more the distortion within the signal that is the
problem with cd

There *is* no distortion in the signal with CD. Where do you get the
idea that there is?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:15:39 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

Well, why not share what your "best" is.

There *was* no 'best', that's the whole point.

I know I have been able to set up
a DVD-A vs SACD test of two recordings, essentially level matched. It was
sighted, but it was careful.

No Harry, it was *not* careful, since it incorporated the single most
fatal flaw in any sonic comparison.

You seem to have this impression that I care. Without the results of
*blind* comparisons, these opinions, whether agreeing or disagreeeing,
are of no value to me.

But you won't bother to describe your "blind" comparison of SACD vs. CD, so
all we have from *you* is antcedotes.

There would be no point, since you would just pick away at the detail
until you felt you had scored some kind of point. We've been here
before Harry, and until you start doing *blind* comparisons, your
opinions are of no value to any independent observer.

Not if the final product is a 24/192 DVD-A, it's not! With that
excellent standard, you truly can have an *exact* copy of the original
studio master, which you can't with SACD.

Not what Michael Bishop claims (see my comments elsewhere). He claims SACD
makes an exact copy. And I heard the same from a few others at AES.

No Harry, you are as ever twisting his words to suit your argument. He
said that he couldn't *hear* any difference, and I wouldn't take issue
with that. It is not however an *exact* copy, as is possible with
24/192, and if he'd compared a properly mastered CD to the SACD, I'm
betting that this would also *sound* the same.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message ...
"Ben Hoadley" wrote in message
...

[snip]
I did have it demonstrated to me once. you get a analog tone
generator. set a sine wave to 15khz then switch it to triangle wave.
you gan clearly hear the change even though the first harmonic
difference is at 30khz. I don't know if this is a good demonstration
though since its more the distortion within the signal that is the
problem with cd
This can be a misleading demonstration. Switching between sine and triangle
(or sine and square) is only valid if the fundamental tone is *exactly* the
same in all cases. Setting equal RMS values using a meter, or equal peak
values using an oscilloscope will both give erroneous results.

even if there is slight variation in frequency and amplitude you can
still hear that it is no longer a sine wave and now a triangle wave. A
triangular wave has a very different tone to a sine. Nevertheless, if
you could do it so that they are exactly the same I guarantee you
would hear the difference, even on equipment that supposedly doesn't
have good responce above 20k
Can you explain what you mean by "distortion within the signal"? What
problem does CD audio (done right) have with distortion?

The ultrasonic quantising noise or "switching transients" are not
harmoically related to the signal. the fequencies that these reside in
are perceivable (don't ask me how, i'm not that smart). If they are
moved beyond 100 khz they are no longer percievable. On really good da
converters it sounds somewhat better but higher fs sounds better
easier. This is shown now by people who are saying their $150 sacd
sounds better than their $2000 cd.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 09:15:39 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

Well, why not share what your "best" is.

There *was* no 'best', that's the whole point.

I know I have been able to set up
a DVD-A vs SACD test of two recordings, essentially level matched. It
was
sighted, but it was careful.

No Harry, it was *not* careful, since it incorporated the single most
fatal flaw in any sonic comparison.


And I had no preconceptions whatever. I just wanted to judge for myself
whether there was a difference and if so what it was. And I have shared
that observation here.

You seem to have this impression that I care. Without the results of
*blind* comparisons, these opinions, whether agreeing or disagreeeing,
are of no value to me.

But you won't bother to describe your "blind" comparison of SACD vs. CD,
so
all we have from *you* is antcedotes.

There would be no point, since you would just pick away at the detail
until you felt you had scored some kind of point.

We've been here
before Harry, and until you start doing *blind* comparisons, your
opinions are of no value to any independent observer.


Again a call for "proof" Stewart which is out of line. No amount of asserted
censorship on your part will prevent me from sharing my observations.
Others can judge for themselves. Seems like more than you are willing to
do. Something to hide, Stewart?

Not if the final product is a 24/192 DVD-A, it's not! With that
excellent standard, you truly can have an *exact* copy of the original
studio master, which you can't with SACD.

Not what Michael Bishop claims (see my comments elsewhere). He claims
SACD
makes an exact copy. And I heard the same from a few others at AES.

No Harry, you are as ever twisting his words to suit your argument. He
said that he couldn't *hear* any difference, and I wouldn't take issue
with that. It is not however an *exact* copy, as is possible with
24/192, and if he'd compared a properly mastered CD to the SACD, I'm
betting that this would also *sound* the same.

Playing the semantics game again, Stewart, eh?

Michael Bishop I am sure would not agree with you. And he is in a much
better position to judge.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 27 Dec 2003 16:30:58 GMT, (Ben Hoadley)
wrote:


Could be, but Michael Bishop is claiming that SACD is sonically
transparent to the original master, there's not much serious doubt
that 24/192 PCM is sonically transparent, and many of us feel that
properly mastered CD (e.g. JVC XRCDs) is sonically transparent, so it
intrigues me to consider just where people are getting their opinions
that SACD is somehow 'clearly superior' to the other two standards.

As noted, it's the topend that matters. so lessee now:

Large capsule studio microphones rolloff around 18kHz
Adult human hearing cuts off around 16-20kHz
CD cuts off at 22 kHz with a smooth and even noise floor
DVD-V 24/96 cuts off at 47kHz with a smooth and even noise floor
DVD-A 24/192 cuts off at 95kHz with a smooth and even noise floor
SACD cuts off at 60-100kHz with a steeply rising noise floor

There doesn't seem to be any good reason to exceed CD, now does there?

Its hard to prove that we should have distotion/noise free audio up to
75khz. but i think if we achieve this then reprodution we no longer be
limited by the medium. The diference is more of a character of the
sound 44.1/16 has a particular character thats says "i'm digital". In
my opinion anyone can hear frequencies well above 20khz and they can
be perceived though hifi equipment that has a poor resonce above
20khz!

Your opinion is noted, but unfortunately it disagrees with more thn a
century of neurophysiological research, which indicates thet 16-20kHz
is the upper limit for adult humans. The only extant 'research' that
suggests otherwise (at first glance) was carried out under sponsorship
of Pioneer to support their 'Legato Link' filtering, and has been
widely discredited.


I didn't know you were old enough to have Senior Moments, Stewart.
Somehow you missed a year's discussion of Oohashi's research here, which
hasn't been discredited despite suggestions by you and others that it should
be.

A bit selective, don't you think?

Also I believe that the quantising noise produced by cds is
perceivable even though its above 40khz even up to 80khz.

Well, that's just plain *wrong* with any properly dithered recording,
where no such quantisation artifacts can be detected.


They are
supposed to be filtered out but thet come through.

No, they're not 'filtered out', they're *eliminated* by dither.

I think maybe that
is why 192/24 sounds more relaxing than cd.

That is only a claim, not a statement of fact.


But it is a claim widely perceived by those with experienced with 192/24
sound.

As I said its hard to
prove. Try putting on the two and compare for yourself which is more
relaxing to listen to.

I find good recordings on either medium very relaxing, and bad
recordings, well, bad....


Yes, Stuart. And what 192/24 equipment do you have? And what CD/DVD-A
comparisons have you made? Fact or assertion, Stewart.

I'm not in the camp that says sacd is better. I justthink that cd is
inadequate and should be replaced by something.

Perhaps we can agree that multichannel 24/96 is definitely worth
doing.


Why if it doesn't sound better, Stewart?

If DVDA could have a
second layer for normal cd format (as it was initially supposed to
have) there would be no need for sacd at all!

I would argue that there's no need for that technically discredited
format anyway! :-)


A few hundred thousand or more audiophiles happen to disagree with you.

snip, not relevant to main discussion above

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 27 Dec 2003 16:30:58 GMT, (Ben Hoadley)
wrote:

snip, not relevant

I think maybe that
is why 192/24 sounds more relaxing than cd.

That is only a claim, not a statement of fact.

As I said its hard to
prove. Try putting on the two and compare for yourself which is more
relaxing to listen to.

I find good recordings on either medium very relaxing, and bad
recordings, well, bad....


Well, Stewart, we've established that your SACD comparisons were done on
borrowed equipment and only a few disks, none of them state of the art. On
that basis you decided SACD had no advantage over CD, but you won't share
details of how you made the comparisons. That hasn't stopped you from
vociferously make the claim repeated times, however.

Now you say you find no difference between CD and DVD-A in terms of "how
relaxing" the sound is. You of course are being "cute" since you know he
is talking about the quality of the reproduction, not whether or not it is a
good or bad recording. He is assuming a good recording. So you slide into
more semantic games.

Still, I wonder. Your system website shows no DVD-V or DVD-A player in the
system, only an older DVD-V player in your separate TV system. Would you
like to share with us what equipment you have used to evaluate DVD-A sound,
what DVD-A's you listened to and found relaxing, which you listened to and
found "non-relaxing", and how it was set up to reach your conclusion? Or is
it offered as an opinion or observation, only?

And just as an observation...for either SACD or DVD-A vs CD, if one is to do
a true double-blind test, one needs two identical players (to do quick
switching) feeding a "switch" or preamp of some kind, two identical disks,
cued to exactly the same track, level matched on output, hidden sight and
sound from the respondent (players make different noises when accessing diff
erent media layers).

And when trying to compare SACD to DVD-A, one must have two identical
universal players.

Then one must find disks that share the same end mix and mastering between
the variables under test.

It is such a daunting task that I am afraid most of us are going to be doing
sighted, less than optimal testing to reach our conclusions. In my case
comparing DVD-A and SACD, I have found and bought two disks that meet the
mix/mastering requirements as well as can be done. And I have a few CD's
that appear to have SACDs directly derived from the master tapes so my very
first SACD purchases were made with those comparisons in mind. But I had to
switch layers to compare, so I knew what was playing. That's as close as I
have been able to come in my testing. And that is why I am asking Stewart
to reveal his testing and sources, since it is so difficult to do. And yet
he continues to make assertions here as if he somehow knew "the truth". I
suspect they are only observations, and perhaps based on testing not even so
well done as my own.

snip, not relevant

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message ...
"Ben Hoadley" wrote in message
...

[snip]
I did have it demonstrated to me once. you get a analog tone
generator. set a sine wave to 15khz then switch it to triangle wave.
you gan clearly hear the change even though the first harmonic
difference is at 30khz. I don't know if this is a good demonstration
though since its more the distortion within the signal that is the
problem with cd
This can be a misleading demonstration. Switching between sine and triangle
(or sine and square) is only valid if the fundamental tone is *exactly* the
same in all cases. Setting equal RMS values using a meter, or equal peak
values using an oscilloscope will both give erroneous results.

I Agree with that! The levels of the fundamentals must be matched
within a few tenths of a decibel.

This reminds me about a discussion I had with a collegue some years
ago, regarding the perceptual difference between gaussian distributed
white noise and rectangular distributed white noise. The quick test
(just flipping between two audio files containing the two) indicated
that there was an audible difference. After that I sat down and
carefully matched the RMS amplitudes of the two and clipped them
together in a single audio file. The transition point between the two
waveforms was very visible in the editor. When I played the file back
there wasn't the slightest change in the sound as the cursor passed
this point.

"Ben Hoadley" wrote in message
news:B2HHb.680914$Tr4.1702217@attbi_s03...
"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
...
"Ben Hoadley" wrote in message
...

[snip]
I did have it demonstrated to me once. you get a analog tone
generator. set a sine wave to 15khz then switch it to triangle wave.
you gan clearly hear the change even though the first harmonic
difference is at 30khz. I don't know if this is a good demonstration
though since its more the distortion within the signal that is the
problem with cd
This can be a misleading demonstration. Switching between sine and
triangle
(or sine and square) is only valid if the fundamental tone is *exactly*
the
same in all cases. Setting equal RMS values using a meter, or equal peak
values using an oscilloscope will both give erroneous results.

even if there is slight variation in frequency and amplitude you can
still hear that it is no longer a sine wave and now a triangle wave. A
triangular wave has a very different tone to a sine. Nevertheless, if
you could do it so that they are exactly the same I guarantee you
would hear the difference, even on equipment that supposedly doesn't
have good responce above 20k

I was writing an article about digital audio some 20 years ago, in which I
was defending the choice of the 44.1 kHz sample rate. My main premise was
that no one can hear the difference between a sine wave, square wave or
triangle wave when the non-fundamental harmonics are beyond human audibility
(about 10 kHz for triangle, or 6.7 kHz for square). Just to keep myself
honest, I tried the test myself. I was very surprised to find I Icould/I
hear the difference! This had me very concerned, because if this premise was
wrong, the entire basis for the CD audio spec was wrong, and I should not be
defending it!

For my preliminary tests, I had used an oscilloscope to set the peak levels
the same for all three waveforms, on the assumtion that it would be "close
enough", and that I probably wouldn't detect the level difference. Here's
the problem: With the peak levels set the same, The even harmonics of a
triangle wave add to the total peak waveform, so the fundamental will be too
low by a factor of 8/pi^2 (about -1.8dB) compared to a pure sine wave. For a
square wave, the odd harmonics subtract from the peak waveform, so the
fundamental will be too high by a factor of 4/pi (about +2.1dB) compared to
the pure sine wave. After I adjusted the peak levels to compensate, all
three tones sounded identical. I was working with an unfiltered signal
generator that was accurate out to about 100 kHz. I could have matched the
fundamental amplitudes simply by Ifiltering out/I the higher harmonics,
which would have given me three identical sine waves! So we come full
circle... Ain't physics elegant?

Can you explain what you mean by "distortion within the signal"? What
problem does CD audio (done right) have with distortion?

The ultrasonic quantising noise or "switching transients" are not
harmoically related to the signal. the fequencies that these reside in
are perceivable (don't ask me how, i'm not that smart). If they are
moved beyond 100 khz they are no longer percievable. On really good da
converters it sounds somewhat better but higher fs sounds better
easier. This is shown now by people who are saying their $150 sacd
sounds better than their $2000 cd.

That's why I said "CD audio (done right)". There's no question a poor
implementation of Iany format/I will sound poorly. Today, it's quite
possible the same ICs are used for playback on CD, DVD-A and SACD,
especially on machines that can play all three formats. In many cases, the
processing will be nearly identical, since the only thing that changes is
the sample rate and the source material. On such a machine, if you hear
differences between SACD, DVD-A and CD, you need to ask yourself if you're
hearing differences between the formats, or if the source material was
equally well produced, or if your machine Ican't handle the close
tolerances required by the CD audio format/I. About my only reservation
about the CD audio format Iis/I the close tolerances that are required
to "get it right". Fortunately, digital filters and dithering (implemented
in the ICs that are available from many vendors) are extremely well refined
in today's mature implementations of the technology.

"Ben Hoadley" wrote in message
news:B2HHb.680914$Tr4.1702217@attbi_s03...
"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
...
"Ben Hoadley" wrote in message
...

[snip]
I did have it demonstrated to me once. you get a analog tone
generator. set a sine wave to 15khz then switch it to triangle wave.
you gan clearly hear the change even though the first harmonic
difference is at 30khz. I don't know if this is a good demonstration
though since its more the distortion within the signal that is the
problem with cd
This can be a misleading demonstration. Switching between sine and
triangle
(or sine and square) is only valid if the fundamental tone is *exactly*
the
same in all cases. Setting equal RMS values using a meter, or equal peak
values using an oscilloscope will both give erroneous results.

even if there is slight variation in frequency and amplitude you can
still hear that it is no longer a sine wave and now a triangle wave. A
triangular wave has a very different tone to a sine. Nevertheless, if
you could do it so that they are exactly the same I guarantee you
would hear the difference, even on equipment that supposedly doesn't
have good responce above 20k

I was writing an article about digital audio some 20 years ago, in which I
was defending the choice of the 44.1 kHz sample rate. My main premise was
that no one can hear the difference between a sine wave, square wave or
triangle wave when the non-fundamental harmonics are beyond human audibility
(about 10 kHz for triangle, or 6.7 kHz for square). Just to keep myself
honest, I tried the test myself. I was very surprised to find I Icould/I
hear the difference! This had me very concerned, because if this premise was
wrong, the entire basis for the CD audio spec was wrong, and I should not be
defending it!

For my preliminary tests, I had used an oscilloscope to set the peak levels
the same for all three waveforms, on the assumtion that it would be "close
enough", and that I probably wouldn't detect the level difference. Here's
the problem: With the peak levels set the same, The even harmonics of a
triangle wave add to the total peak waveform, so the fundamental will be too
low by a factor of 8/pi^2 (about -1.8dB) compared to a pure sine wave. For a
square wave, the odd harmonics subtract from the peak waveform, so the
fundamental will be too high by a factor of 4/pi (about +2.1dB) compared to
the pure sine wave. After I adjusted the peak levels to compensate, all
three tones sounded identical. I was working with an unfiltered signal
generator that was accurate out to about 100 kHz. I could have matched the
fundamental amplitudes simply by Ifiltering out/I the higher harmonics,
which would have given me three identical sine waves! So we come full
circle... Ain't physics elegant?

Can you explain what you mean by "distortion within the signal"? What
problem does CD audio (done right) have with distortion?

The ultrasonic quantising noise or "switching transients" are not
harmoically related to the signal. the fequencies that these reside in
are perceivable (don't ask me how, i'm not that smart). If they are
moved beyond 100 khz they are no longer percievable. On really good da
converters it sounds somewhat better but higher fs sounds better
easier. This is shown now by people who are saying their $150 sacd
sounds better than their $2000 cd.

That's why I said "CD audio (done right)". There's no question a poor
implementation of Iany format/I will sound poorly. Today, it's quite
possible the same ICs are used for playback on CD, DVD-A and SACD,
especially on machines that can play all three formats. In many cases, the
processing will be nearly identical, since the only thing that changes is
the sample rate and the source material. On such a machine, if you hear
differences between SACD, DVD-A and CD, you need to ask yourself if you're
hearing differences between the formats, or if the source material was
equally well produced, or if your machine Ican't handle the close
tolerances required by the CD audio format/I. About my only reservation
about the CD audio format Iis/I the close tolerances that are required
to "get it right". Fortunately, digital filters and dithering (implemented
in the ICs that are available from many vendors) are extremely well refined
in today's mature implementations of the technology.

"Ben Hoadley" wrote in message
news:B2HHb.680914$Tr4.1702217@attbi_s03...
I did have it demonstrated to me once. you get a analog
tone
generator. set a sine wave to 15khz then switch it to
triangle wave.
you gan clearly hear the change even though the first
harmonic
difference is at 30khz. I don't know if this is a good
demonstration
though since its more the distortion within the signal that
is the
problem with cd
This can be a misleading demonstration. Switching between
sine and triangle
(or sine and square) is only valid if the fundamental tone is
*exactly* the
same in all cases. Setting equal RMS values using a meter, or
equal peak
values using an oscilloscope will both give erroneous
results.

even if there is slight variation in frequency and amplitude
you can
still hear that it is no longer a sine wave and now a triangle
wave. A
triangular wave has a very different tone to a sine.
Nevertheless, if
you could do it so that they are exactly the same I guarantee
you
would hear the difference, even on equipment that supposedly
doesn't
have good responce above 20k

No you can't. You will loose that bet.

Sure they sound different at low frequency with harmonics of the
triangle present. At 15 kHz they will sound identical. At 8 kHz
they will sound identical. Since a triangle wave only has odd
harmonics and the third harmonic has 1/10 the amplitude of the
fundamental I bet for the vast majority of people they'd sound
identical even at 5 kHz.

Take an arbitrary function generator where you can program two
seperate waveforms into memory - one triangle, one sinusoidal.
Adjust amplitude so that the fundamental on both is within 0.1dB
or so. Randomly switch between the two. If you can identify one
or the other at any frequency above 8 kHz I'll give you my car.

On 28 Dec 2003 21:53:59 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

Not if the final product is a 24/192 DVD-A, it's not! With that
excellent standard, you truly can have an *exact* copy of the original
studio master, which you can't with SACD.

Not what Michael Bishop claims (see my comments elsewhere). He claims SACD
makes an exact copy. And I heard the same from a few others at AES.

No Harry, you are as ever twisting his words to suit your argument. He
said that he couldn't *hear* any difference, and I wouldn't take issue
with that. It is not however an *exact* copy, as is possible with
24/192, and if he'd compared a properly mastered CD to the SACD, I'm
betting that this would also *sound* the same.

Playing the semantics game again, Stewart, eh?

No Harry, playing the accurate quoting 'game'. A 24/192 DVD-A is an
*exact* copy of the 24/192 mixdown master, a SACD is *not* an exact
copy of the DSD-Wide master, refgardless of whether you can *hear* any
difference.

Michael Bishop I am sure would not agree with you. And he is in a much
better position to judge.

Michael Bishop certainly would agree with me, because he does indeed
know what he is doing.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 03:55:06 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 27 Dec 2003 16:30:58 GMT, (Ben Hoadley)
wrote:

snip, not relevant

I think maybe that
is why 192/24 sounds more relaxing than cd.

That is only a claim, not a statement of fact.

As I said its hard to
prove. Try putting on the two and compare for yourself which is more
relaxing to listen to.

I find good recordings on either medium very relaxing, and bad
recordings, well, bad....


Well, Stewart, we've established that your SACD comparisons were done on
borrowed equipment and only a few disks, none of them state of the art. On
that basis you decided SACD had no advantage over CD, but you won't share
details of how you made the comparisons. That hasn't stopped you from
vociferously make the claim repeated times, however.

Now you say you find no difference between CD and DVD-A in terms of "how
relaxing" the sound is. You of course are being "cute" since you know he
is talking about the quality of the reproduction, not whether or not it is a
good or bad recording. He is assuming a good recording. So you slide into
more semantic games.

No game Harry, simply an observation that *well done* CD, such as the
JVC XRCDs, needs no apologies for sound quality, and IME the 'hi res'
formats simply do not offer *any* sonic advantage beyond this
standard. I am of course not denying that there is a raft of bad CDs
on the market, but this by itself is not a reason to jump to 24/192,
since the same lousy recording engineers will still screw up the
sound, no matter how good the *potential* of the system.

Still, I wonder. Your system website shows no DVD-V or DVD-A player in the
system, only an older DVD-V player in your separate TV system. Would you
like to share with us what equipment you have used to evaluate DVD-A sound,
what DVD-A's you listened to and found relaxing, which you listened to and
found "non-relaxing", and how it was set up to reach your conclusion? Or is
it offered as an opinion or observation, only?

Harry, that was asked and answered several posts ago, as you well
know. I also listen to ther people's excellent systems, as they listen
to mine. It's the hobby thing, don't y'know? :-)

And just as an observation...for either SACD or DVD-A vs CD, if one is to do
a true double-blind test, one needs two identical players (to do quick
switching) feeding a "switch" or preamp of some kind, two identical disks,
cued to exactly the same track, level matched on output, hidden sight and
sound from the respondent (players make different noises when accessing diff
erent media layers).

That's what makes it such a pain! And actually, you don't need
identical players, you need a good SACD player and a good CD player.
You do of course need to match levels, but that's fairly trivial.

And when trying to compare SACD to DVD-A, one must have two identical
universal players.

No, since you would then argue that you don't get the very best out of
either medium with a 'universal' player.

Then one must find disks that share the same end mix and mastering between
the variables under test.

Now *that* is a harder task, although Bishop claims that it holds for
many Telarc discs.

It is such a daunting task that I am afraid most of us are going to be doing
sighted, less than optimal testing to reach our conclusions.

Fine, in which case they'll remain of little real value.

In my case
comparing DVD-A and SACD, I have found and bought two disks that meet the
mix/mastering requirements as well as can be done. And I have a few CD's
that appear to have SACDs directly derived from the master tapes so my very
first SACD purchases were made with those comparisons in mind. But I had to
switch layers to compare, so I knew what was playing. That's as close as I
have been able to come in my testing. And that is why I am asking Stewart
to reveal his testing and sources, since it is so difficult to do. And yet
he continues to make assertions here as if he somehow knew "the truth". I
suspect they are only observations, and perhaps based on testing not even so
well done as my own.

They're based on blind listening, and meet the criteria you quote
above, although it's difficult to be *sure* that mastering is
identical. I don't really see why you're getting so het up about it,
as my conclusions are inconclusive. You OTOH seem to be finding that
SACDs sound great - because you *know* when you're listening to one.
Which of us is making more of an attempt to come to an unbiased
conclusion?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 29 Dec 2003 06:42:38 GMT, "Rusty Boudreaux"
wrote:

Sure they sound different at low frequency with harmonics of the
triangle present. At 15 kHz they will sound identical. At 8 kHz
they will sound identical. Since a triangle wave only has odd
harmonics and the third harmonic has 1/10 the amplitude of the
fundamental I bet for the vast majority of people they'd sound
identical even at 5 kHz.

Sorry Rusty, that's for square waves, triangle waves have only *even*
harmonics, so that 5kHz wave will have a 10k component which you
certainly will hear.

Take an arbitrary function generator where you can program two
seperate waveforms into memory - one triangle, one sinusoidal.
Adjust amplitude so that the fundamental on both is within 0.1dB
or so. Randomly switch between the two. If you can identify one
or the other at any frequency above 8 kHz I'll give you my car.

You might want to reconsider that offer, as I certainly can hear TV
line frequency, which is about where the first harmonic content of
your 8k triangle wave resides!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 03:49:01 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 27 Dec 2003 16:30:58 GMT, (Ben Hoadley)
wrote:


Could be, but Michael Bishop is claiming that SACD is sonically
transparent to the original master, there's not much serious doubt
that 24/192 PCM is sonically transparent, and many of us feel that
properly mastered CD (e.g. JVC XRCDs) is sonically transparent, so it
intrigues me to consider just where people are getting their opinions
that SACD is somehow 'clearly superior' to the other two standards.

As noted, it's the topend that matters. so lessee now:

Large capsule studio microphones rolloff around 18kHz
Adult human hearing cuts off around 16-20kHz
CD cuts off at 22 kHz with a smooth and even noise floor
DVD-V 24/96 cuts off at 47kHz with a smooth and even noise floor
DVD-A 24/192 cuts off at 95kHz with a smooth and even noise floor
SACD cuts off at 60-100kHz with a steeply rising noise floor

There doesn't seem to be any good reason to exceed CD, now does there?

Its hard to prove that we should have distotion/noise free audio up to
75khz. but i think if we achieve this then reprodution we no longer be
limited by the medium. The diference is more of a character of the
sound 44.1/16 has a particular character thats says "i'm digital". In
my opinion anyone can hear frequencies well above 20khz and they can
be perceived though hifi equipment that has a poor resonce above
20khz!

Your opinion is noted, but unfortunately it disagrees with more thn a
century of neurophysiological research, which indicates thet 16-20kHz
is the upper limit for adult humans. The only extant 'research' that
suggests otherwise (at first glance) was carried out under sponsorship
of Pioneer to support their 'Legato Link' filtering, and has been
widely discredited.


I didn't know you were old enough to have Senior Moments, Stewart.
Somehow you missed a year's discussion of Oohashi's research here, which
hasn't been discredited despite suggestions by you and others that it should
be.

A bit selective, don't you think?

Sorry, perhaps I should have specified that Oohashi's work has been
widely discredited by those who actually know about psychoacoustics,
but is blindly accepted by those like yourself who have a need to
believe in such stuff.

Also I believe that the quantising noise produced by cds is
perceivable even though its above 40khz even up to 80khz.

Well, that's just plain *wrong* with any properly dithered recording,
where no such quantisation artifacts can be detected.

They are
supposed to be filtered out but thet come through.

No, they're not 'filtered out', they're *eliminated* by dither.

I think maybe that
is why 192/24 sounds more relaxing than cd.

That is only a claim, not a statement of fact.

But it is a claim widely perceived by those with experienced with 192/24
sound.

Sure, but still fiercely argued by others who have found no
differences in single-variable *blind* comparisons. I believe you will
actually find some such comparisons on Arny Kruegers PCABX website, if
you really do want to *trust* your ears, for a change.

As I said its hard to
prove. Try putting on the two and compare for yourself which is more
relaxing to listen to.

I find good recordings on either medium very relaxing, and bad
recordings, well, bad....

Yes, Stuart. And what 192/24 equipment do you have? And what CD/DVD-A
comparisons have you made? Fact or assertion, Stewart.

I personally have no 24/192 equipment - because I don't hear any need
for it. I do however have friends who *do* have such equipment, and no
doubt I will have it too, when I buy a new DVD player.

I'm not in the camp that says sacd is better. I justthink that cd is
inadequate and should be replaced by something.

Perhaps we can agree that multichannel 24/96 is definitely worth
doing.

Why if it doesn't sound better, Stewart?

Because multichannel certainly does sound better, if it's well done,
and you get 24/96 by default with that standard.

If DVDA could have a
second layer for normal cd format (as it was initially supposed to
have) there would be no need for sacd at all!

I would argue that there's no need for that technically discredited
format anyway! :-)

A few hundred thousand or more audiophiles happen to disagree with you.

Tens of thousands of audiophiles are dumb enough to buy expensive
cables which don't sound any different from zipcord, and thousands of
them are dumb enough to use truly horrible SET amps, so the MacDonalds
argument falls flat on its face yet again.................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:kTPHb.505104$275.1419346@attbi_s53...
For my preliminary tests, I had used an oscilloscope to set the
peak levels
the same for all three waveforms, on the assumtion that it
would be "close
enough", and that I probably wouldn't detect the level
difference. Here's
the problem: With the peak levels set the same, The even
harmonics of a
triangle wave add to the total peak waveform, so the
fundamental will be too
low by a factor of 8/pi^2 (about -1.8dB) compared to a pure
sine wave. For a
square wave, the odd harmonics subtract from the peak waveform,
so the
fundamental will be too high by a factor of 4/pi (about +2.1dB)
compared to
the pure sine wave. After I adjusted the peak levels to
compensate, all
three tones sounded identical. I was working with an unfiltered
signal
generator that was accurate out to about 100 kHz. I could have
matched the
fundamental amplitudes simply by Ifiltering out/I the
higher harmonics,
which would have given me three identical sine waves! So we
come full
circle... Ain't physics elegant?

Physics is nice but any competent EE will tell you neither
triangle nor square has even harmonics. Perhaps you meant a ramp
waveform which does have even (and odd) harmonics.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:uANHb.160825$8y1.482079@attbi_s52...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 27 Dec 2003 16:30:58 GMT, (Ben Hoadley)
wrote:

snip, not relevant

I think maybe that
is why 192/24 sounds more relaxing than cd.

That is only a claim, not a statement of fact.

As I said its hard to
prove. Try putting on the two and compare for yourself which is more
relaxing to listen to.

I find good recordings on either medium very relaxing, and bad
recordings, well, bad....


Well, Stewart, we've established that your SACD comparisons were done on
borrowed equipment and only a few disks, none of them state of the art. On
that basis you decided SACD had no advantage over CD, but you won't share
details of how you made the comparisons. That hasn't stopped you from
vociferously make the claim repeated times, however.

Now you say you find no difference between CD and DVD-A in terms of "how
relaxing" the sound is. You of course are being "cute" since you know he
is talking about the quality of the reproduction, not whether or not it is a
good or bad recording. He is assuming a good recording. So you slide into
more semantic games.

Still, I wonder. Your system website shows no DVD-V or DVD-A player in the
system, only an older DVD-V player in your separate TV system. Would you
like to share with us what equipment you have used to evaluate DVD-A sound,
what DVD-A's you listened to and found relaxing, which you listened to and
found "non-relaxing", and how it was set up to reach your conclusion? Or is
it offered as an opinion or observation, only?

And just as an observation...for either SACD or DVD-A vs CD, if one is to do
a true double-blind test, one needs two identical players (to do quick
switching) feeding a "switch" or preamp of some kind, two identical disks,
cued to exactly the same track, level matched on output, hidden sight and
sound from the respondent (players make different noises when accessing diff
erent media layers).

And when trying to compare SACD to DVD-A, one must have two identical
universal players.

Then one must find disks that share the same end mix and mastering between
the variables under test.

It is such a daunting task that I am afraid most of us are going to be doing
sighted, less than optimal testing to reach our conclusions. In my case
comparing DVD-A and SACD, I have found and bought two disks that meet the
mix/mastering requirements as well as can be done. And I have a few CD's
that appear to have SACDs directly derived from the master tapes so my very
first SACD purchases were made with those comparisons in mind. But I had to
switch layers to compare, so I knew what was playing. That's as close as I
have been able to come in my testing. And that is why I am asking Stewart
to reveal his testing and sources, since it is so difficult to do. And yet
he continues to make assertions here as if he somehow knew "the truth". I
suspect they are only observations, and perhaps based on testing not even so
well done as my own.

snip, not relevant

Stewart, this argument is gettin aggressive. I appreciate and respect
your opinion. However I disagree. Its not just my opinion that says cd
format is stressful to listen to over long periods (even when done to
an optimum quality). I have heard (2nd hand) of a japanese study that
concluded that music reproduced from cds causes a chemical release in
the brain that is associated with stress, it also found that vinyl
caused relaxation and happiness (i'm repeating from memory so thats
just the vibe). If someone has access to this study I would like to
read it first hand.
Also many other people share my observations of cd audio including the
venerable George Massenberg.
A well done CD is plesurable to listn to but when the lowres artifacts
are absent its such a relief!

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message ...
"Ben Hoadley" wrote in message
news:B2HHb.680914$Tr4.1702217@attbi_s03...
I did have it demonstrated to me once. you get a analog
tone
generator. set a sine wave to 15khz then switch it to
triangle wave.
you gan clearly hear the change even though the first
harmonic
difference is at 30khz. I don't know if this is a good
demonstration
though since its more the distortion within the signal that
is the
problem with cd
This can be a misleading demonstration. Switching between
sine and triangle
(or sine and square) is only valid if the fundamental tone is
*exactly* the
same in all cases. Setting equal RMS values using a meter, or
equal peak
values using an oscilloscope will both give erroneous
results.

even if there is slight variation in frequency and amplitude
you can
still hear that it is no longer a sine wave and now a triangle
wave. A
triangular wave has a very different tone to a sine.
Nevertheless, if
you could do it so that they are exactly the same I guarantee
you
would hear the difference, even on equipment that supposedly
doesn't
have good responce above 20k

No you can't. You will loose that bet.

Sure they sound different at low frequency with harmonics of the
triangle present. At 15 kHz they will sound identical. At 8 kHz
they will sound identical. Since a triangle wave only has odd
harmonics and the third harmonic has 1/10 the amplitude of the
fundamental I bet for the vast majority of people they'd sound
identical even at 5 kHz.

Take an arbitrary function generator where you can program two
seperate waveforms into memory - one triangle, one sinusoidal.
Adjust amplitude so that the fundamental on both is within 0.1dB
or so. Randomly switch between the two. If you can identify one
or the other at any frequency above 8 kHz I'll give you my car.

Cool! what sort of car? does it have a beverage holder? triangle has
even hamonic content only as far as I know but hey whatever you say

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 03:49:01 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

....snips....

I would argue that there's no need for that technically discredited
format anyway! :-)

A few hundred thousand or more audiophiles happen to disagree with you.

Tens of thousands of audiophiles are dumb enough to buy expensive
cables which don't sound any different from zipcord, and thousands of
them are dumb enough to use truly horrible SET amps, so the MacDonalds
argument falls flat on its face yet again.................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

I love these statements of market magnitude with no back-up data or reference.
A few "hundred thousand" is probably the total of all SACD titles actually
sold, let alone a verified number of anybody holding any opinion.

As for the cable market I'd guess that the total number of high-end cables are
bought by a few die-hards that feel a need to 'upgrade.'

Of course, my guesses are just that as were the "guesses" stated as some kind
of given fact in this post.

"Ben Hoadley" wrote in message
news:Zh0Ib.230297$_M.1012667@attbi_s54...
Take an arbitrary function generator where you can program
two
seperate waveforms into memory - one triangle, one
sinusoidal.
Adjust amplitude so that the fundamental on both is within
0.1dB
or so. Randomly switch between the two. If you can identify
one
or the other at any frequency above 8 kHz I'll give you my
car.

Cool! what sort of car? does it have a beverage holder?
triangle has
even hamonic content only as far as I know but hey whatever you
say

Triangle is an odd function. Even coefficients are zero.
Therefore only odd harmonics.

Do a web search and you will find many math and EE web sites that
concur.

I think my car is safe unless you can hear a 24kHz harmonic at
1/10 the amplitude of the fundamental.

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
See his text below:

You chose to ignore the factual evidence regarding 1) the lack
of minimally acceptable scientific validation of your "test' as a fit
tool *for comparing audio components* 2) the evidence that whenever a
panel of more than five listeners is involved the majority verdict is
*invariably* negative. It is "They all sound the same" whatever
comparable components are being tested by ABX. Elementary logic tells
that a "test" with invariably null results either tests invariably
identical components or is not a "test".
You prefer to go into irrelevancies ("straw men", "red
herrings"- pick your own metaphor to suit) that I'm deferring to a
P.S.
I'll repeat briefly what you chose to amputate. Validation at
least since 1958 when it was defined by the Med. Research Ccil of U.K.
means Randomised,(unselected and representative) Controlled (with a
control panel), Double-blind Testing. A fuller description and a
proposal for implementation is in my truncated posting. Your DBT for
component comparison was never so validated (and you know what?-never
will be)
Secondly while the majorities couldn't distinguish components
from each other minorities did. No experimentation was done to refine
their results.
In my personal experience DBT/ABX is useless- just as it was to
those subjects of Greenhill test who couldn't hear 1.75 db difference
between cables (that they would not miss and tolerate if it were a
difference between their right and left speaker cable at home), or 2%
distortion in Master's test or difference between 3 unlike
loudspeakers as in S.Olive's loudspeaker comparison for Revel (yes,
Revel that employs him!). But a few did inspite of the test. The
majority who found 1,75 db difference or 2% distortion difficult to
hear were certainly not helped by ABX, the supposed test for "subtle
differences" (didn't you claim just that on several occasions?)
Anyone credulous trying your test will not know if it it was
not the test that stopped him from hearing the differences that he
thought he had heard sighted.
Sighted testing is full of bias. Just like any other sensory
experience: tasting wine, reading a novel, listening to a piece of
music, violins , pianos what not. You want certainties- work in a
physics lab. or study mathematics.
Ludovic Mirabel
P.S. "Sighted testing is of no value to anyone...". Disagree:
sighted testing by Pinkerton or Nousaine of high-end equipment is of
much greater interest to me than a DBT by a car audio, rock
enthusiast. (Not that I don't care for rock in its place).
"Frightened of blind comparisons.." No Mr. Pinkerton I use my
variant that you don't like but I claim no validity for it and I do
not run around challenging people to undergo it.
"Manufacturers use ABX..." Till I see their results written up,
with all due respect, I will not take your word for how and for what
purpose and with what results. The only one to write it up is Revel
(S. Olive and F. Toole). Well it just turns out S. Olive did NOT use
ABX for his loudspeaker comparison. And, Mr. Pinkerton, you can't
chastise the "snake-oil merchants" on one hand and ask for blind faith
in them when it suits you.
"Cable challenge" blinded? Yes with my choice of blind test
(left-right with random changes, my choice of music, my choice of
cables, electronically comparable of course)

The last I heard ( I may have missed some more recent "discuss"
rulings through circumstances beyond my control) the introduction of
"blind test" challenges to other threads is banned. If it is all a
matter of clever, clever Aesopian wording then this should be further
clarified so that we know why, when and what is banned.

What's the problem Ludovic? Why are you so afraid to *trust* your
ears? Why do you keep telling others that they should 'trust their
ears', but you yourself are never prepared to do listening
comnparisons when you don't *know* what's connected?

In the meantime: I understand "controlled conditions", "Double
blind test" and other such cryptonims when used by S. Pinkerton et al.
mean: "ABX test". Or do they mean everything *except* ABX?

No, they mean DBT, of which ABX is merely one (very useful) type.

For the last three years I said the same and erected the same
"goalposts". Namely: The DBT/ABX listening tests have no validity for
anyone except the individuals performing them *at the time of
performance*.

Which does compare quite well with sighted tests, which are of no
value to anyone, ever....................

One representative debater Mr. Nousaine ( "The value of DBT" 3rd
Dec) said that the individual "positive" results do not count being
due to "random variation". A perfect way to have it both ways: They
can't hear it- it proves there is nothing to hear there. They can: it
is random variation stupid! No further investigation- like repeating
the test- is necessary. We got the result we wanted. Namely-
according to Mr. Nousaine- there is no "amplifier sound".

As you are well aware, but as ever are conveniently ignoring - Tom and
I do not agree on this point, although I'm happy to admit that he has
a larger test database than I.

Or we insist on a minimum .5db (others want .1db) matching
between the left and right side for a cable test (see Mr. Pinkerton's
cable challenge) But when it suits us we state (Mr. Nousaine same
posting): "Actually with musical programs 2-dB and 5-10% distortion
lay right at the threshold of audibility".

These statements are not mutually exclusive, since pink noise is
allowable for the cable challenge.

Mr. Nousaine, Mr. Pinkerton: I have tired, elderly ears but I
hear a difference of 1db. with no difficulty. And so do you and so
does everyone else.

Excellent! Can I take it that you'd have no problem passing the 'cable
challenge'? Care to put your money where your mouth is?

Why else would I and they adjust the centre image
between the speakers- I have 0,5 db. stepped volume controls on my
preamp. I have also "test cds" with distortion levels. No problem with
2%. On musical program! How about you?

Depends on the distortion, I struggle with 1-2% second harmonic, which
gradually becomes detectable as a 'warming' of the sound, rather than
as distortion. Hence the popularity of those horrible SET amps.

When Revel, B&W, KEF etc etc etc stop using ABX as a standard tool in
product development, I may consider that your argument has some
validity. Well no, actually I won't, because sighted listening will
remain as fatally flawed as ever.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 29 Dec 2003 06:42:38 GMT, "Rusty Boudreaux"
wrote:

Sure they sound different at low frequency with harmonics of the
triangle present. At 15 kHz they will sound identical. At 8 kHz
they will sound identical. Since a triangle wave only has odd
harmonics and the third harmonic has 1/10 the amplitude of the
fundamental I bet for the vast majority of people they'd sound
identical even at 5 kHz.

Sorry Rusty, that's for square waves, triangle waves have only *even*
harmonics, so that 5kHz wave will have a 10k component which you
certainly will hear.


Sorry Stewart, triangular waves are symmetrical, and have only odd
harmonics.

On 29 Dec 2003 16:26:41 GMT, "Rusty Boudreaux"
wrote:

Physics is nice but any competent EE will tell you neither
triangle nor square has even harmonics. Perhaps you meant a ramp
waveform which does have even (and odd) harmonics.

Quite right! Ooooooops........... :-(
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
Sorry Rusty, that's for square waves, triangle waves have only
*even*
harmonics, so that 5kHz wave will have a 10k component which
you
certainly will hear.

Stewart, are you REALLY, REALLY sure? Mr. Fourier would disagree
since all even coefficients are zero.

A quick web search pulled up a zillion pages of EE lecture notes,
math websites, etc. All state the same thing:
"Like a square wave, the triangle wave contains only
odd harmonics. However, the higher harmonics roll
off much faster than in a square wave, and so its
sound is smoother than a square wave and is
nearer to that of a sine wave . "

Take an arbitrary function generator where you can program two
seperate waveforms into memory - one triangle, one sinusoidal.
Adjust amplitude so that the fundamental on both is within
0.1dB
or so. Randomly switch between the two. If you can identify
one
or the other at any frequency above 8 kHz I'll give you my
car.

You might want to reconsider that offer, as I certainly can
hear TV
line frequency, which is about where the first harmonic content
of
your 8k triangle wave resides!

NTSC = 15.6 kHz
PAL = 15.7 kHz
8kHz triangle 3rd harmonic = 24 kHz and 1/10 amplitude of
fundamental.

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...
"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
news:kTPHb.505104$275.1419346@attbi_s53...
For my preliminary tests, I had used an oscilloscope to set the
peak levels
the same for all three waveforms, on the assumtion that it
would be "close
enough", and that I probably wouldn't detect the level
difference. Here's
the problem: With the peak levels set the same, The even
harmonics of a
triangle wave add to the total peak waveform, so the
fundamental will be too
low by a factor of 8/pi^2 (about -1.8dB) compared to a pure
sine wave. For a
square wave, the odd harmonics subtract from the peak waveform,
so the
fundamental will be too high by a factor of 4/pi (about +2.1dB)
compared to
the pure sine wave. After I adjusted the peak levels to
compensate, all
three tones sounded identical. I was working with an unfiltered
signal
generator that was accurate out to about 100 kHz. I could have
matched the
fundamental amplitudes simply by Ifiltering out/I the
higher harmonics,
which would have given me three identical sine waves! So we
come full
circle... Ain't physics elegant?

Physics is nice but any competent EE will tell you neither
triangle nor square has even harmonics. Perhaps you meant a ramp
waveform which does have even (and odd) harmonics.

My mistake. Triangle and square waves both have only odd harmonics.
triangle wave: http://circuitscan.homestead.com/fil...g/sigtri01.htm
square wave: http://circuitscan.homestead.com/fil...ig/sigsq01.htm

FWIW, I think the most interesting recent test on the audibility of
ultrasonics is David Griesinger's informal tests found he

http://world.std.com/~griesngr/intermod.ppt

The experimental method seems sound, and Griesinger provides a
reference to what sounds like a credible paper for ultrasonic
perception which has experimental and solid theoretical reasons for
the audibility of ultrasonics. What may be surprising to some is the
mechanism by which they become audible. I won't give the ending away
:-).

There are lots of other interesting stuff on his website, including
many things on surround sound.

--Andre

Ben Hoadley wrote:

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message ...
"Ben Hoadley" wrote in message
news:B2HHb.680914$Tr4.1702217@attbi_s03...
I did have it demonstrated to me once. you get a analog
tone
generator. set a sine wave to 15khz then switch it to
triangle wave.
you gan clearly hear the change even though the first
harmonic
difference is at 30khz. I don't know if this is a good
demonstration
though since its more the distortion within the signal that
is the
problem with cd
This can be a misleading demonstration. Switching between
sine and triangle
(or sine and square) is only valid if the fundamental tone is
*exactly* the
same in all cases. Setting equal RMS values using a meter, or
equal peak
values using an oscilloscope will both give erroneous
results.

even if there is slight variation in frequency and amplitude
you can
still hear that it is no longer a sine wave and now a triangle
wave. A
triangular wave has a very different tone to a sine.
Nevertheless, if
you could do it so that they are exactly the same I guarantee
you
would hear the difference, even on equipment that supposedly
doesn't
have good responce above 20k

No you can't. You will loose that bet.

Sure they sound different at low frequency with harmonics of the
triangle present. At 15 kHz they will sound identical. At 8 kHz
they will sound identical. Since a triangle wave only has odd
harmonics and the third harmonic has 1/10 the amplitude of the
fundamental I bet for the vast majority of people they'd sound
identical even at 5 kHz.

Take an arbitrary function generator where you can program two
seperate waveforms into memory - one triangle, one sinusoidal.
Adjust amplitude so that the fundamental on both is within 0.1dB
or so. Randomly switch between the two. If you can identify one
or the other at any frequency above 8 kHz I'll give you my car.

Cool! what sort of car? does it have a beverage holder? triangle has
even hamonic content only as far as I know but hey whatever you say


Triangular waves have only odd harmonics.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 03:55:06 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 27 Dec 2003 16:30:58 GMT, (Ben Hoadley)
wrote:

snip, not relevant

I think maybe that
is why 192/24 sounds more relaxing than cd.

That is only a claim, not a statement of fact.

As I said its hard to
prove. Try putting on the two and compare for yourself which is more
relaxing to listen to.

I find good recordings on either medium very relaxing, and bad
recordings, well, bad....


Well, Stewart, we've established that your SACD comparisons were done on
borrowed equipment and only a few disks, none of them state of the art.
On
that basis you decided SACD had no advantage over CD, but you won't share
details of how you made the comparisons. That hasn't stopped you from
vociferously make the claim repeated times, however.

Now you say you find no difference between CD and DVD-A in terms of "how
relaxing" the sound is. You of course are being "cute" since you know
he
is talking about the quality of the reproduction, not whether or not it
is a
good or bad recording. He is assuming a good recording. So you slide
into
more semantic games.

No game Harry, simply an observation that *well done* CD, such as the
JVC XRCDs, needs no apologies for sound quality, and IME the 'hi res'
formats simply do not offer *any* sonic advantage beyond this
standard. I am of course not denying that there is a raft of bad CDs
on the market, but this by itself is not a reason to jump to 24/192,
since the same lousy recording engineers will still screw up the
sound, no matter how good the *potential* of the system.


Again, you are ducking the issue. He is claiming that 192/24 is a more
relaxing medium, comparing reproduction on identical dvd-a and cd
recordings. You keep trying to change the issue to "quality of the
recording" while implying he is wrong. based on the equipment, I doubt you
have been in a position to really judge what he is saying. So why don't you
just say you have no experience yea or nay to make this judgement. IMO, it
is because you "believe", technically, that we should hear no difference.

Still, I wonder. Your system website shows no DVD-V or DVD-A player in
the
system, only an older DVD-V player in your separate TV system. Would you
like to share with us what equipment you have used to evaluate DVD-A
sound,
what DVD-A's you listened to and found relaxing, which you listened to
and
found "non-relaxing", and how it was set up to reach your conclusion? Or
is
it offered as an opinion or observation, only?

Harry, that was asked and answered several posts ago, as you well
know. I also listen to ther people's excellent systems, as they listen
to mine. It's the hobby thing, don't y'know? :-)


You answered that about SACD. The entire sequence above is about DVD-A.
Don't tell me you didn't notice.

And just as an observation...for either SACD or DVD-A vs CD, if one is to
do
a true double-blind test, one needs two identical players (to do quick
switching) feeding a "switch" or preamp of some kind, two identical
disks,
cued to exactly the same track, level matched on output, hidden sight and
sound from the respondent (players make different noises when accessing
diff
erent media layers).

That's what makes it such a pain! And actually, you don't need
identical players, you need a good SACD player and a good CD player.
You do of course need to match levels, but that's fairly trivial.


Sorry Stewart. Two different players are an intervening variable. If you
want rigour, you must have rigor.

And when trying to compare SACD to DVD-A, one must have two identical
universal players.

No, since you would then argue that you don't get the very best out of
either medium with a 'universal' player.


I don't argue that since a) I've never heard one, and b) the review
consensus is that the better ones (eg Denon 2900, Marantz 8300 and on up)
treat the sound equally as best the reviewers can judge. I would guess
there is more difference between the analog output stages and power supply
of players than there is in how they handle the dvd-a and sacd signals when
it comes to sound quality.

Again, see my comment above about rigor.

Then one must find disks that share the same end mix and mastering
between
the variables under test.

Now *that* is a harder task, although Bishop claims that it holds for
many Telarc discs.


Yep, and it is on this basis that he prefers SACD and feels it is the medium
that can match the original signal.

It is such a daunting task that I am afraid most of us are going to be
doing
sighted, less than optimal testing to reach our conclusions.

Fine, in which case they'll remain of little real value.


Until you reveal your tests, equipment, media used, and results disk by disk
they have every bit as much validity as yours.

In my case
comparing DVD-A and SACD, I have found and bought two disks that meet the
mix/mastering requirements as well as can be done. And I have a few CD's
that appear to have SACDs directly derived from the master tapes so my
very
first SACD purchases were made with those comparisons in mind. But I had
to
switch layers to compare, so I knew what was playing. That's as close as
I
have been able to come in my testing. And that is why I am asking
Stewart
to reveal his testing and sources, since it is so difficult to do. And
yet
he continues to make assertions here as if he somehow knew "the truth".
I
suspect they are only observations, and perhaps based on testing not even
so
well done as my own.

They're based on blind listening, and meet the criteria you quote
above, although it's difficult to be *sure* that mastering is
identical. I don't really see why you're getting so het up about it,
as my conclusions are inconclusive. You OTOH seem to be finding that
SACDs sound great - because you *know* when you're listening to one.
Which of us is making more of an attempt to come to an unbiased
conclusion?

Funny Stewart, you didn't list two different SACD players when you responded
to my earlier question. So how did you mask sound, get quick switching, or
do any of the other things required to get a truly blind test. You yourself
indicated your tests weren't all that rigorous. Now you imply that they
were. And how did you determine *which* disks had an identical mix between
CD and SACD layer, since you are one of the most vociferous to say the CD
layers are doctored and you used mostly SONY disks for the comparison (which
is the company you continually assert does this).

Andre Yew wrote:
FWIW, I think the most interesting recent test on the audibility of
ultrasonics is David Griesinger's informal tests found he

http://world.std.com/~griesngr/intermod.ppt

The experimental method seems sound, and Griesinger provides a
reference to what sounds like a credible paper for ultrasonic
perception which has experimental and solid theoretical reasons for
the audibility of ultrasonics. What may be surprising to some is the
mechanism by which they become audible. I won't give the ending away
:-).

There are lots of other interesting stuff on his website, including
many things on surround sound.



SPOILER





























I wasn't clear about his conclusion, so perhaps this question is
mis-posed. But, if the distortion he perceives
during high-level reproduction of choral music is physiological in origin,
why doesn't he perceive it when listening to live choral music as well?


--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director