"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Show me a listener who can reliably detect the absence of content above 20
KHz with regular music and I'll be more concerned than I am.


They are the ones who prefer LP to cd.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..


My take on newer members of the Vinyl uber alles gang is that they've been
through some kind of traumatic stress where some other vinyl bigot(s) like
we've got many of around here, really put them under duress about
listening to CDs.


Count me in. I'm also a filet mignon bigot, a Sattui bigot, a Maserati
bigot,
a Little Feat bigot, Ernst Ansermet bigot, and a Peter Green bigot.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"vlad" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message


My point is
(again) that the sound of violins on CD is unlike ANY
violin that actually exists.

My point is that while CD recordings aren't perfect, they are far more
perfect reproducers of the signals that come out of microphones and
reocrding consoles than LPs.

If you don't like the sound of the violins on some CD recording, blame
the
guys who made the recording. They had an entirely adequate medium at
their
disposal and they blew it.

you don't like the sound of the violins on some LP recording its
completely
fair to blame the medium given that unlike the CD format, it is and
always
has been incapable of being sonically transparent.

I'd like to make two observations here after reading this group and
RAHE.

Point One:

There is a thing as 'generic violin sound' (GVS) that is used for
recognizing not particular violin but to distinguish it from say,
trombone, piano, cello, etc.

Anyone can get GVS from LP, there is no doubt about it. I also claim
that GVS from CD is also unmistakable. I remember somebody like Jenn
claiming that you cannot recognize GVS from CD but I can be wrong about
it.

Now, is GVS-LP different from GVS-CD? I would guess they are. What is
better or close to GVS-real-life? I don't know, but my personal
opinion after long expose to USSR-Melodia LP's, Western made LP's,
20+ years of CD's is that CD does this job better.

That is all about generic violin sound.

Point Two:

There are tons of badly mastered/printed LP's.
There are also tons of badly mastered/printed CD's.

However, I never observed or heard defects in any LP attributed to the
media itself.

At the same time any blemish in produced CD (that can be very well
screw up of mastering engineer) is immediately attributed to
'digitalness' of the media.

I rest my case.


I think it needs another workout. Better
not rest it just yet.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction
of
acoustic music.


That's too bad for you, given how much easier it is to find works on
CD
than
LP these days.
But in any case, you do realize that this is all you'll ever be able
to
say,
right? IT's the
answer you always end up giving, no matter how much about digital to
analog
is explained to
you. It's no sort of *rejoinder*, it's simply a statement of
preference
that
says as much, or
more, about YOU as it does about the formats. If you think LPs sound
better
than their CD
counterparts, but still want to hear 'LP sound' on CD, I suggest you
carefully record your LPs
to CD. That way the euphonic distortions you're enjoying so much,a
nd
which
are missing on
well-made digital recordings, will be rendered in an exremely
faithful,
yet
far more
convenient and damage-proof, format.

I hope you sneered as you wrote that. I don't remember you being such a
bully-boy. Maybe there's something about Jenn that encourages your
brutal propensities.

*You* hope I sneered, but *I'm* the brutal one? Amazing. It's like you
guys
don't
even read what you write sometimes.

As for Jenn, she's been posting her 'it doesn't matter what you say, I
HEAR
IT' non-argument
for months on rahe.

OK, you win. I now "know" that CDs sound better, so I'll just ignore
what my ears tell me, since that's a "non-argument".

You keep saying that LP versions of violin recording sound better to you,
that's a prefernce, but the simple fact is that a CD recording of violins is
an exact copy of what the violin sounded like when recorde to a master tape.

I'm sure that my
ears will now agree that CDs sound better, since I have been told that
they do. My enjoyment of hi-fi in my home will no doubt now increase.

As you have been told, the simplest way to prove that CD is accurate is to
record any LP or LP's to CD and then compare them. What you get is the
exact sound that you fed to the CD recorder, an exact duplicate of what was
on the LP. So the same holds true for a commerical recording of music on
CD, it is what was on the master tape. That you like it or not is another
issue, but the CD is the more accurate recording, so if you want to know
what the violin is supposed to sound like on any given recording, you get
the CD version, since it is not possible for an LP to be as accurate.

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:f5nKf.13356$2c4.3927@dukeread11...

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

As for 'overtones' beyond 20 kHz -- 1) what evidence have you that you
can *hear* them 2) what evidence have you LP would reproduce them
*accurately* and without
significant distortion and 3) what
makes you think they'd remain that way after one or two passes of a
stylus?

Don't you remember CD-4 technology? You guys need to accept that
frequencies upto 50 kHz can be imprinted on and extracted from vinyl.
My Signet cart with Shibata stylus is has a spec'd FR to 55 kHz.

Now I'm not saying that this any bearing on the harmonic content of vinyl
recordings...but you do need to get your technology information straight.
High frequency response is one area where vinyl can technically exceed
CD... and not by just a little.

ScottW

Did you not read this from the link I posted?

Next limitation: treble. You can put as much treble on a DAT or CD as you
want. Unfortunately this is not true on a record (or analog tape for that
matter). Although 25kHz response is possible, excessive transients are a
problem. There are several reasons for this. It was decided with the advent
of the first electrical transcription phonograph record, to reduce bass and
boost treble in the cutting of the master record. This reduces bass wiggles
and makes treble louder. And we aren't talking about a little bit of cut and
boost here, we're talking about a 40 dB change from bottom to top! Without
the bass cut, you'd only have about 5 minutes on your LP side. Without the
treble boost, you would hear mostly surface noise. You don't have to worry
about this drastic cut and boost sounding funny, because the phono
preamplifier in your amplifier or receiver has an inverse curve which boosts
the bass and reduces the treble by the same amounts used in cutting, so the
whole process comes out linear. This was standardized worldwide in 1953 and
is called the RIAA record and reproduce curves.

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Sander deWaal wrote:
Jenn said:


And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction of
acoustic music.


An interesting experiment would then be to record a good sounding LP
onto CD and report back whether you hear differences, or that you like
what you hear, or not.

I'd be very interested in the opinion of a professional musician such
as yourself on this.

I'd be more interested to hear the results of the comparison done sighted,
then blind. It ain't gonna happen, though.

Why not?


Because I doubt you have the resources or diligence to set up and perform a
properly-controlled blind test between an LP and a CD. Certainly it can be
done, but it's not as easy as comparing two sound files. Assuming a competent
'flat' digital transfer of the LP is performed, the test itself will involve
careful level-matching of outputs from LP and CD sources (for each channel),
randomization of presentation order, thorough double-blinding during the test,
and making sure no new pops, clicks, or other surface noises are introduced to
the LP after it is copied to CD, and no audible cues are given as to the
nature of the source in the circuit (e.g, you can't let the listener hear
the needle drop or hit the run-out). Then you'll want to do ~25 trials to get a
decent statistical handle on the data. Of course you'll also have to use the
same turntable/stylus setup to do the test as you did for the transfer,
so you've also got to be careful not to change its setup.


Assuming you get the setup ready, here's a page with advice for
performing the test as an ABX, including a link to a table of binomial
probabilities for testing the significance of the results:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=16295




--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction of
acoustic music.


That's too bad for you, given how much easier it is to find works on CD than
LP these days.

I agree.

But in any case, you do realize that this is all you'll ever be able to say,
right? IT's the
answer you always end up giving, no matter how much about digital to analog
is explained to
you.

What does "how much about digital to analog is explained to (me)" have
to do with it? I should change my opinion about what my ears tell me
based on some kind of "information" that is offered?


Yes. For example if you are at long last led to appreciate that what your
ears tell you, is subject to error. Once you agree to that proposition -- an utterly
uncontroversial one , except in certain dank quarters of audiophilia --
*of course* as a reasonable person, you must admit the possibility of
changing your opinion about what you (thought) you heard.


Or, instead, if you are 'led' to hear some aspect of the sound that you
simply hadn't noticed before, that could easily change your opinion of
it -- assuming the 'aspect' is real, of course. I'm thinking of
something concrete and measureable like noise reduction artifacts or
treble boost, rather than flooby 'impressions' like 'it has the breath
of life'.



It's no sort of *rejoinder*, it's simply a statement of preference that
says as much, or
more, about YOU as it does about the formats.

I've not stated anything else.

If you think LPs sound better
than their CD
counterparts, but still want to hear 'LP sound' on CD, I suggest you
carefully record your LPs
to CD. That way the euphonic distortions you're enjoying so much,a nd which
are missing on
well-made digital recordings, will be rendered in an exremely faithful, yet
far more
convenient and damage-proof, format.

We'll see how the sound is when I get around to trying that, in a couple
of weeks.

--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction of
acoustic music.

That's nothing to do with which IS more accurate.

I didn't say that it did.

No LP can reproduce
anything better than a CD. Unless it's click and pops.

And to my ears, timbres of instruments.


The *only* feasible means by which it could do that, would be if
the euphonic distortions of LP systems fortuitously 'compensated'
for the distortions incurred during the recording process,
most likely due to microphones and their setup, or for the
abberrations induced by the acoustics of the listener room
and speaker/listener positions.

And even then, *all* of those euphonic distortions could be
captured by simply transferring the LP itself to CD. That
classical music engineers do *not* routinely do this except
when no other master is available, should say something about the
universality of your preference.


--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

wrote in message
ink.net...

You keep saying that LP versions of violin recording sound better to you,
that's a prefernce, but the simple fact is that a CD recording of violins
is an exact copy of what the violin sounded like when recorde to a master
tape.

Hogwash... quit claiming exact... no recording process or conversion
or transmission results in an exact copy of anything.
Once in the digital domain you might be able to make an argument
of exact duplication but you simply cannot make that claim during
conversion. Very good, inaudible from... perhaps.
But not exact.

You keep making absurd claims and it doesn't add credibility to your
argument.

ScottW

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction of
acoustic music.


That's too bad for you, given how much easier it is to find works on CD
than
LP these days.
But in any case, you do realize that this is all you'll ever be able to
say,
right? IT's the
answer you always end up giving, no matter how much about digital to
analog
is explained to
you. It's no sort of *rejoinder*, it's simply a statement of preference
that
says as much, or
more, about YOU as it does about the formats. If you think LPs sound
better
than their CD
counterparts, but still want to hear 'LP sound' on CD, I suggest you
carefully record your LPs
to CD. That way the euphonic distortions you're enjoying so much,a nd
which
are missing on
well-made digital recordings, will be rendered in an exremely faithful,
yet
far more
convenient and damage-proof, format.

I hope you sneered as you wrote that. I don't remember you being such a
bully-boy. Maybe there's something about Jenn that encourages your
brutal propensities.

*You* hope I sneered, but *I'm* the brutal one? Amazing. It's like you guys
don't
even read what you write sometimes.

As for Jenn, she's been posting her 'it doesn't matter what you say, I HEAR
IT' non-argument
for months on rahe.

OK, you win. I now "know" that CDs sound better, so I'll just ignore
what my ears tell me, since that's a "non-argument". I'm sure that my
ears will now agree that CDs sound better, since I have been told that
they do. My enjoyment of hi-fi in my home will no doubt now increase.

How about you just stop claiming 'LP sounds better than CD'?
Because that *isn't* what you're hearing. What you're hearing are
LP artifacts that *could* be recorded to CD, but simply *aren't*.
That's by choice of the people who make the recordings. Oddly enough, they
prefer the CD to sound like the master tape ....which,
if the job was done well, should sound as close to what the original
performance sounded like, as is technically possible. Which alas is
still rather far from 'exactly'.







--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,

No, the sound of violins is distinctive enough to provide a strong
reference for generating a personal preference, unlike, say, electric
bass guitar.


Well, I have enough basses and bass amps to hear differences and
form preferences. Certainly an SVT is a favorite, and I haven't heard
anything else quite like it. But I also like the more subtle tones of a
Showman.

As far as basses, PBasses sound a lot different than JBasses, except for my
Frankenbass, more or less a JBass concoction with a Seymour Duncan PBass
pick up at the bridge. But my favorite sounding one is an American PBass,
with through the neck stringing, which sounds better than the Jap or the 62
reissue, without.

The electric bass often loses that distinctive tone in the mixing
process, especially when the high and low ends are rolled off and the
result compressed to leave room for the other instruments.

Best heard live!

Stephen

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

From: Jenn
Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 10:48 pm
Email: Jenn

OK, you win. I now "know" that CDs sound better, so I'll just ignore
what my ears tell me, since that's a "non-argument". I'm sure that my
ears will now agree that CDs sound better, since I have been told that
they do. My enjoyment of hi-fi in my home will no doubt now increase.

I found several nice mint LPs today. A Telefunken, four philips and
four Melodia (not Angel, releases but in Russian. Did they follow RIAA
EQ?). Total investment, $12.

Cool. The Soviets generally did NOT follow the RIAA equalization curve.

Not very wise of them, if true.

The RIAA curve is there for a good reason, you know. And if you play
such Russian LPs back though a typical phono preamp, the RIAA compensation
will be applied -- no different than applying rather massive EQ.




--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,

I'm speaking of something else here. In every case, I can tell that the
CD violin sound is supposed to be a violin. (well, there is a case on a
DGG CD where if I didn't know the score, I literally wouldn't know that
the sound presented was supposed to be a trumpet; but that's an isolated
case.) What I'm getting to is that the violin sound is much more unlike
the sound of real violins on CD than it is on the best LPs. I can still
tell that it's supposed to be violin. It's a matter of degree and
subtlety.

And to *prove* that to anyone beyond yourself and those willing to take
subjective anecdotes as evidence, would be to do the same comparison
blind, where you compare the same recording on LP and CD, without any
other cues to the format except the sound. It's just that simple.

AGAIN, I've stated that I'll be doing that in a couple of weeks, when I
have more time to devote to the project.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
From: Steven Sullivan - view profile
Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 9:39 pm
Email: Steven Sullivan

As for Jenn, she's been posting her 'it doesn't matter what you say, I HEAR IT' non-argument for months on rahe.

How is that different from the 'it doesn't matter what you hear, I
MEASURE IT' non-argument?

That's not the argument. The argument is that what you hear (sighted)
*might* matter, but it's not always enough to establish that what you hear
is *real*, and not a product of your imagination.

Just curious. I thought we were talking about preference here.

If only. "I like the sound of LPs better than the sound of CDs'
makes at least one big erroneous supposition about what sounds
are *inherent* to either format.




--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

Sillybot postured:

I doubt you have the resources or diligence to set up and perform a
properly-controlled blind test between an LP and a CD.

Whether Jenn has the "resources or diligence" is of no consequence. She's
not the one yammering for "test" results in place of Normal listening.

Speaking of experience with "blind tests", tell su about yours. How many
blind audio "tests" have you participated in? What kinds and models of
equipment were "tested"? What were the results? When and where did the
"tests" take place? Who set the "tests" up and who proctored them? What
controls were instituted to remove extraneous variables? Were the results
of the "tests" published? How did you validate aBxism beforehand? Why
weren't the results of the "tests" published?

Details, Sillybot. Give us facts instead of proselytizing.

Scottie said:

You keep making absurd claims and it doesn't add credibility to your
argument.

Mickey is arguing, albeit indirectly, for euthanasia. I think he's doing
splendidly.

vlad wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction of
acoustic music.


That's too bad for you, given how much easier it is to find works on CD
than
LP these days.
But in any case, you do realize that this is all you'll ever be able to
say,
right? IT's the
answer you always end up giving, no matter how much about digital to
analog
is explained to
you. It's no sort of *rejoinder*, it's simply a statement of preference
that
says as much, or
more, about YOU as it does about the formats. If you think LPs sound
better
than their CD
counterparts, but still want to hear 'LP sound' on CD, I suggest you
carefully record your LPs
to CD. That way the euphonic distortions you're enjoying so much,a nd
which
are missing on
well-made digital recordings, will be rendered in an exremely faithful,
yet
far more
convenient and damage-proof, format.

I hope you sneered as you wrote that. I don't remember you being such a
bully-boy. Maybe there's something about Jenn that encourages your
brutal propensities.

*You* hope I sneered, but *I'm* the brutal one? Amazing. It's like you guys
don't
even read what you write sometimes.

As for Jenn, she's been posting her 'it doesn't matter what you say, I HEAR
IT' non-argument
for months on rahe.

OK, you win. I now "know" that CDs sound better, so I'll just ignore
what my ears tell me, since that's a "non-argument". I'm sure that my
ears will now agree that CDs sound better, since I have been told that
they do. My enjoyment of hi-fi in my home will no doubt now increase.


Jenn,

People are trying to explain to you one simple thing - your
preference for LP's is not a fact proving that LP's are more
accurate, superior, etc. It is just your preference. You are entitled
to any opinions and preferences that you want. If you will say "In my
humble opinion LP's are better then CD" nobody will have an
argument with you.

No, I will have an argument with that, because whatever she hears
in LPs *could* be rendered on CD. So it's a badly-formed opinion,
based on a mistaken idea of 'CD sound'. What she really prefers
is LP to *common recording practice* for CD. If CDs were routinely
struck from LP masters, then I doubt her preference for 'LP sound'
would be anything but pure bias.






--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

Sillybot reveals the depths of his irrational fears.

How about you just stop claiming 'LP sounds better than CD'?

Look who wants to stamp out opinions on rec.audio.OPINION.

Whoever mixed up the last batch of 'borg-Aid did an excellent job. You are
completely inculcated with the most pernicious antihumanism we've seen on
RAO.

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction of
acoustic music.


That's too bad for you, given how much easier it is to find works on CD
than
LP these days.

I agree.

But in any case, you do realize that this is all you'll ever be able to
say,
right? IT's the
answer you always end up giving, no matter how much about digital to
analog
is explained to
you.

What does "how much about digital to analog is explained to (me)" have
to do with it? I should change my opinion about what my ears tell me
based on some kind of "information" that is offered?


Yes. For example if you are at long last led to appreciate that what your
ears tell you, is subject to error. Once you agree to that proposition -- an
utterly
uncontroversial one , except in certain dank quarters of audiophilia --
*of course* as a reasonable person, you must admit the possibility of
changing your opinion about what you (thought) you heard.

As opposed to others, I'm quite open to changing my opinion. Are you?


Or, instead, if you are 'led' to hear some aspect of the sound that you
simply hadn't noticed before, that could easily change your opinion of
it -- assuming the 'aspect' is real, of course. I'm thinking of
something concrete and measureable like noise reduction artifacts or
treble boost, rather than flooby 'impressions' like 'it has the breath
of life'.

If what I hear is measureable or not doesn't matter to be in the least.
I hear what I hear. What is the purpose of home audio to you? For me,
it's the close as possible recreation of a performance of acoustic
music. How it measures doesn't matter. Nor does the playback
equipment. If I get it from CD, LP, or a Philco radio, I don't care.



It's no sort of *rejoinder*, it's simply a statement of preference that
says as much, or
more, about YOU as it does about the formats.

I've not stated anything else.

If you think LPs sound better
than their CD
counterparts, but still want to hear 'LP sound' on CD, I suggest you
carefully record your LPs
to CD. That way the euphonic distortions you're enjoying so much,a nd
which
are missing on
well-made digital recordings, will be rendered in an exremely faithful,
yet
far more
convenient and damage-proof, format.

We'll see how the sound is when I get around to trying that, in a couple
of weeks.

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their
reproduction of
acoustic music.


That's too bad for you, given how much easier it is to find works on
CD
than
LP these days.
But in any case, you do realize that this is all you'll ever be able
to
say,
right? IT's the
answer you always end up giving, no matter how much about digital to
analog
is explained to
you. It's no sort of *rejoinder*, it's simply a statement of
preference
that
says as much, or
more, about YOU as it does about the formats. If you think LPs sound
better
than their CD
counterparts, but still want to hear 'LP sound' on CD, I suggest you
carefully record your LPs
to CD. That way the euphonic distortions you're enjoying so much,a
nd
which
are missing on
well-made digital recordings, will be rendered in an exremely
faithful,
yet
far more
convenient and damage-proof, format.

I hope you sneered as you wrote that. I don't remember you being such
a
bully-boy. Maybe there's something about Jenn that encourages your
brutal propensities.

*You* hope I sneered, but *I'm* the brutal one? Amazing. It's like you
guys
don't
even read what you write sometimes.

As for Jenn, she's been posting her 'it doesn't matter what you say, I
HEAR
IT' non-argument
for months on rahe.

OK, you win. I now "know" that CDs sound better, so I'll just ignore
what my ears tell me, since that's a "non-argument".

You keep saying that LP versions of violin recording sound better to you,
that's a prefernce, but the simple fact is that a CD recording of violins
is an exact copy of what the violin sounded like when recorde to a master
tape.


Are you aware that with its 20khz cut off, the CD cannot perfectly reproduce
a square wave above 2000hz. What is the practical implication of this, you
say? Just this: it also cannot perfectly reproduce ANY transient above
2000hz. What is the significance of this, you say? Just this: the ear is
more sensitive to transients than to steady state for most purposes (the
brain actually increases or decreases the sensitivity depending on the type
of sound being listened for). The add to that that with the filtering used,
their is pre-echo time smear, which is a condition that simply does not
exist in the real world. These are fundamentals that are overlooked in any
assertion that CD is a perfectly transparent medium.

I'm sure that my
ears will now agree that CDs sound better, since I have been told that
they do. My enjoyment of hi-fi in my home will no doubt now increase.

As you have been told, the simplest way to prove that CD is accurate is to
record any LP or LP's to CD and then compare them. What you get is the
exact sound that you fed to the CD recorder, an exact duplicate of what
was on the LP. So the same holds true for a commerical recording of music
on CD, it is what was on the master tape. That you like it or not is
another issue, but the CD is the more accurate recording, so if you want
to know what the violin is supposed to sound like on any given recording,
you get the CD version, since it is not possible for an LP to be as
accurate.

Since CD is far from perfect, there is plenty of room for differences in
what people perceive is most accurate in musically-meaningful way. You are
simply wrong that CD is a perfectly accurate medium.

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


What I'm getting to is that the
violin sound is much more unlike the sound of real
violins on CD than it is on the best LPs. I can still
tell that it's supposed to be violin. It's a matter of
degree and subtlety.

Yup all violins sound the same,

A statement that no one has made.

or Jenn has some magical ESP power that
enables her to accurately know what a violin she's never seen or heard is
supposed to sound like.

Another statement that no one has made. My point is (again) that the
sound of violins on CD is unlike ANY violin that actually exists.

And you're quite sure that's due to its being on CD? That a violin
recording on CD will *inevitably* sound unlike ANY violin that actually
exists?




--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Sander deWaal wrote:
Jenn said:


And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction of
acoustic music.


An interesting experiment would then be to record a good sounding LP
onto CD and report back whether you hear differences, or that you like
what you hear, or not.

I'd be very interested in the opinion of a professional musician such
as yourself on this.

I'd be more interested to hear the results of the comparison done
sighted,
then blind. It ain't gonna happen, though.

Why not?


Because I doubt you have the resources or diligence to set up and perform a
properly-controlled blind test between an LP and a CD. Certainly it can be
done, but it's not as easy as comparing two sound files. Assuming a competent
'flat' digital transfer of the LP is performed, the test itself will involve
careful level-matching of outputs from LP and CD sources (for each channel),
randomization of presentation order, thorough double-blinding during the
test,
and making sure no new pops, clicks, or other surface noises are introduced
to
the LP after it is copied to CD, and no audible cues are given as to the
nature of the source in the circuit (e.g, you can't let the listener hear
the needle drop or hit the run-out). Then you'll want to do ~25 trials to
get a
decent statistical handle on the data. Of course you'll also have to use the
same turntable/stylus setup to do the test as you did for the transfer,
so you've also got to be careful not to change its setup.


Assuming you get the setup ready, here's a page with advice for
performing the test as an ABX, including a link to a table of binomial
probabilities for testing the significance of the results:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=16295

I'll do the best that I can. Have you done this?

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction
of
acoustic music.


That's too bad for you, given how much easier it is to find works on CD
than
LP these days.

I agree.

But in any case, you do realize that this is all you'll ever be able to
say,
right? IT's the
answer you always end up giving, no matter how much about digital to
analog
is explained to
you.

What does "how much about digital to analog is explained to (me)" have
to do with it? I should change my opinion about what my ears tell me
based on some kind of "information" that is offered?


Yes. For example if you are at long last led to appreciate that what your
ears tell you, is subject to error. Once you agree to that proposition --
an utterly
uncontroversial one , except in certain dank quarters of audiophilia --
*of course* as a reasonable person, you must admit the possibility of
changing your opinion about what you (thought) you heard.


Or, instead, if you are 'led' to hear some aspect of the sound that you
simply hadn't noticed before, that could easily change your opinion of
it -- assuming the 'aspect' is real, of course. I'm thinking of
something concrete and measureable like noise reduction artifacts or
treble boost, rather than flooby 'impressions' like 'it has the breath
of life'.

Maybe you should explain to NYOB quantization error so he can quit with the
"exact"
pontification.

ScottW

In article . net,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction
of
acoustic music.


That's too bad for you, given how much easier it is to find works on
CD
than
LP these days.
But in any case, you do realize that this is all you'll ever be able
to
say,
right? IT's the
answer you always end up giving, no matter how much about digital to
analog
is explained to
you. It's no sort of *rejoinder*, it's simply a statement of
preference
that
says as much, or
more, about YOU as it does about the formats. If you think LPs sound
better
than their CD
counterparts, but still want to hear 'LP sound' on CD, I suggest you
carefully record your LPs
to CD. That way the euphonic distortions you're enjoying so much,a
nd
which
are missing on
well-made digital recordings, will be rendered in an exremely
faithful,
yet
far more
convenient and damage-proof, format.

I hope you sneered as you wrote that. I don't remember you being such a
bully-boy. Maybe there's something about Jenn that encourages your
brutal propensities.

*You* hope I sneered, but *I'm* the brutal one? Amazing. It's like you
guys
don't
even read what you write sometimes.

As for Jenn, she's been posting her 'it doesn't matter what you say, I
HEAR
IT' non-argument
for months on rahe.

OK, you win. I now "know" that CDs sound better, so I'll just ignore
what my ears tell me, since that's a "non-argument".

You keep saying that LP versions of violin recording sound better to you,
that's a prefernce, but the simple fact is that a CD recording of violins is
an exact copy of what the violin sounded like when recorde to a master tape.

I'm sure that my
ears will now agree that CDs sound better, since I have been told that
they do. My enjoyment of hi-fi in my home will no doubt now increase.

As you have been told, the simplest way to prove that CD is accurate is to
record any LP or LP's to CD and then compare them. What you get is the
exact sound that you fed to the CD recorder, an exact duplicate of what was
on the LP. So the same holds true for a commerical recording of music on
CD, it is what was on the master tape. That you like it or not is another
issue, but the CD is the more accurate recording, so if you want to know
what the violin is supposed to sound like on any given recording, you get
the CD version, since it is not possible for an LP to be as accurate.

What does it matter which is more "accurate" if they all sound like
something else than a violin?

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


My point is
(again) that the sound of violins on CD is unlike ANY
violin that actually exists.

My point is that while CD recordings aren't perfect,

What? No "Perfect Sound Forever"? :-)

they are far more
perfect reproducers of the signals that come out of microphones and
reocrding consoles than LPs.

If you don't like the sound of the violins on some CD recording, blame the
guys who made the recording. They had an entirely adequate medium at their
disposal and they blew it.

In that case EVERY recording team has "blown it".

In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message


My point is
(again) that the sound of violins on CD is unlike ANY
violin that actually exists.

My point is that while CD recordings aren't perfect, they are far more
perfect reproducers of the signals that come out of microphones and
reocrding consoles than LPs.

If you don't like the sound of the violins on some CD recording, blame the
guys who made the recording. They had an entirely adequate medium at their
disposal and they blew it.

you don't like the sound of the violins on some LP recording its completely
fair to blame the medium given that unlike the CD format, it is and always
has been incapable of being sonically transparent.

I'd like to make two observations here after reading this group and
RAHE.

Point One:

There is a thing as 'generic violin sound' (GVS) that is used for
recognizing not particular violin but to distinguish it from say,
trombone, piano, cello, etc.

Anyone can get GVS from LP, there is no doubt about it. I also claim
that GVS from CD is also unmistakable. I remember somebody like Jenn
claiming that you cannot recognize GVS from CD but I can be wrong about
it.

It wasn't me.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:f5nKf.13356$2c4.3927@dukeread11
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

As for 'overtones' beyond 20 kHz -- 1) what evidence
have you that you can *hear* them 2) what evidence have
you LP would reproduce them *accurately* and without
significant distortion and 3) what
makes you think they'd remain that way after one or two
passes of a stylus?

Don't you remember CD-4 technology? You guys need to
accept that frequencies upto 50 kHz can be imprinted on
and extracted from vinyl. My Signet cart with Shibata stylus is has a
spec'd FR to
55 kHz.

You need to read the fine print in Steven's post, Scott:

1. "that you can *hear* them"

Hint: You can't.

2. "LP would reproduce them *accurately* and without
significant distortion"

Hint: "it can't"
It's not just a matter of materials, but basic geometry.

LP grooves are cut with a chisel-shaped cutter, but played with eliptical or
spherical styli. The difference between the cutting element and the tracing
element adds significant amounts of distortion above 8 KHz or so.

3. "they'd remain that way after one or two passes of a stylus"

Here I disagree with Steven. I have a number of friends who dabble in
classic audio including CD-4. They tell me that one might get upwards of
10-20 passes under ideal conditions, until the CD-4 carrier is undetectable
with the better CD-4 decoders.

Well, we could debate the words *significantly distored* versus *distorted
to undetectablility*, but I take your point.


The inverse is true to a far more significant degree. CD's have full power
bandwith above 10 KHz or so, and LPs don't. The audibility of LP-induced
noise and distortion in the 10-20 KHz is inarguable.


if I may quote the estimable JJ (who has been namechecked here recently)


"Now, to LP vs. CD. LP's have, if we are going to be very, very, very
charitable, a dynamic range of 65dB. (you will see measurements higher
than this, but they are 'A weighted' which is not germane to this
discussion) 65dB can charitably be described as 11 bits/hz, as compared to
the 16 bits/Hz of a CD. This is not all of the bad news, either, because
in addition to the noise floor, LP's have distortion. At high frequencies,
25dB is a good number for the distortion level, and that's more like 4
bits/Hz. On top of that, the two channels of the digital signal are
entirely independent, and you are doing very well to get 20dB channel
separation in an LP above 7kHz or so, on top of the various distortion
mechanisms.

LP's CAN store higher frequencies, at least briefly, but those higher
frequences (does anyone remember "quad" LP's?) tend to be fragile, to say
the very least.

The numbers I'm using for an LP degrade with each and every play. The CD
does not degrade unless you scratch it or smash it.

In short the actual information stored on an LP per unit time is less than
that stored on a CD, and is of a rather different form. Further, the
information degrades rapidly, and never offers the same performance inside
the range of human hearing that a CD does."





--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"MINe 109" wrote in message


In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


What I'm getting to is that the
violin sound is much more unlike the sound of real
violins on CD than it is on the best LPs. I can still
tell that it's supposed to be violin. It's a matter of
degree and subtlety.

Yup all violins sound the same, or Jenn has some magical
ESP power that enables her to accurately know what a
violin she's never seen or heard is supposed to sound
like.

Better than that: her "ESP" can tell what a violin
*doesn't* sound like.

If so, why is she so sold on LPs?

I've never heard a LP handle solo, ensemble and massed violins as well as
good digital.

Every single time compared double blind abx, no doubt, right Arny? Not a
hint of a priori prejudice here, right?

Ah, but Arny at least has an independent measure to back him up here...
the numerous ways in which CD is *measurably* superior to LP.

This is key.




--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Harry Lavo wrote:
"vlad" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their
reproduction of
acoustic music.


That's too bad for you, given how much easier it is to find works
on CD
than
LP these days.
But in any case, you do realize that this is all you'll ever be
able to
say,
right? IT's the
answer you always end up giving, no matter how much about digital
to
analog
is explained to
you. It's no sort of *rejoinder*, it's simply a statement of
preference
that
says as much, or
more, about YOU as it does about the formats. If you think LPs
sound
better
than their CD
counterparts, but still want to hear 'LP sound' on CD, I suggest
you
carefully record your LPs
to CD. That way the euphonic distortions you're enjoying so much,a
nd
which
are missing on
well-made digital recordings, will be rendered in an exremely
faithful,
yet
far more
convenient and damage-proof, format.

I hope you sneered as you wrote that. I don't remember you being such
a
bully-boy. Maybe there's something about Jenn that encourages your
brutal propensities.

*You* hope I sneered, but *I'm* the brutal one? Amazing. It's like
you guys
don't
even read what you write sometimes.

As for Jenn, she's been posting her 'it doesn't matter what you say, I
HEAR
IT' non-argument
for months on rahe.

OK, you win. I now "know" that CDs sound better, so I'll just ignore
what my ears tell me, since that's a "non-argument". I'm sure that my
ears will now agree that CDs sound better, since I have been told that
they do. My enjoyment of hi-fi in my home will no doubt now increase.


Jenn,

People are trying to explain to you one simple thing - your
preference for LP's is not a fact proving that LP's are more
accurate, superior, etc. It is just your preference. You are entitled
to any opinions and preferences that you want. If you will say "In my
humble opinion LP's are better then CD" nobody will have an
argument with you. You have a right for an opinion. You attempts to use
your subjective feelings as a proof of LP's superiority are pathetic.

Now if you want to claim a fact "LP's are better then CD'c in ..." then
people have a right to question your reasoning. And because you use you
'ears' as a proof you must be ready to critique of your ears. :-)

Are we still friends? :-)


Vlad -

She said "To the my ears, the best LP's .....". That's no different than
saying IMO.

Harry

If she means "in my opinion ..." then why did not she say it clear?

I did and do. Obviously, "to my ears" speaks of my opinion. How is
that not clear?

She can always reformulate it and post again.

In reality, what she is saying in her posts here and on RAHE -
"LP's are better, more accurate, lively, etc.,

Incorrect. Please don't place words into my mouth. I've said, over and
over, that SOME LPs are better than CDs, and I've NEVER said that LPs
are more "accurate".


and the proof of
this fact is that I hear it with my well trained ears." Part of the
arguing on her part goes to prove that her ears are much better then
ours of simple mortals.

This cracks me up, frankly. Because I hear live music more than most
people do, and because that live music is my standard, you accuse me or
thinking that my ears are "much better" and you ascribe to me the false
belief that I think that I am somehow "better" than you and that I think
of you as "simple mortals". In response, I ask you to read your final
paragraph below, and I ask if you who understand technical issues better
than I do know that sound of live music better than we "simple mortals".


Now, I anticipate a barrage of criticisms and insults in this group.

However, if Jenn thinks that I misrepresented her point of view (and it
very well may be the case), she can always say it loud and clear here
what her point of view is in unambiguous terms. Until then she will
have to take criticisms from other people who understand technical
issues better then her.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"vlad" wrote in message
oups.com

In reality, what she is saying in her posts here and on
RAHE - "LP's are better, more accurate, lively, etc., and
the proof of this fact is that I hear it with my well trained ears."

Right. In fact, the inability to hear what's wrong with LP reproduction is a
simple failure to hear that which is pretty obvious.

In your opinion, right Vlad?


Part of the arguing on her part goes to prove that her
ears are much better then ours of simple mortals.

Exactly.

No, not exactly.

My take on newer members of the Vinyl uber alles gang is that they've been
through some kind of traumatic stress where some other vinyl bigot(s) like
we've got many of around here, really put them under duress about listening
to CDs.

It's known that traumatic stress can make changes to the brain that show up
in medical scans. These changes can have the effect of dulling their senses
to all the things that are wrong with vinyl's sound.

Interesting, since I've made exactly the same observations since the
onset of CD production in the 80s.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in
their reproduction of acoustic music.

How do you avoid the involvement of your brain in the
listening process, Jenn?

In what way do you believe the brain should be
involved in the listening process, Arny?

That's a long story that is way over your head, Jenn.

I see.

No you don't Jenn. You perceive.

I see.

More evidence that with Jenn, there's no brain involved. ;-)

More evidence that with Arny, there are no ears involved :-)

In article ,
MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


What I'm getting to is that the
violin sound is much more unlike the sound of real
violins on CD than it is on the best LPs. I can still
tell that it's supposed to be violin. It's a matter of
degree and subtlety.

Yup all violins sound the same, or Jenn has some magical
ESP power that enables her to accurately know what a
violin she's never seen or heard is supposed to sound
like.

Better than that: her "ESP" can tell what a violin
*doesn't* sound like.

If so, why is she so sold on LPs?

Some lps preserve some aspect of the sound that cds don't. Or so-called
"euphonic distortions" play a part.

If we had a specific recording in mind we could discuss the individual
elements: hall; mics; recording medium; mastering; etc.

That might be fun!

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message


In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


What I'm getting to is that the
violin sound is much more unlike the sound of real
violins on CD than it is on the best LPs. I can still
tell that it's supposed to be violin. It's a matter
of degree and subtlety.

Yup all violins sound the same, or Jenn has some
magical ESP power that enables her to accurately know
what a violin she's never seen or heard is supposed to
sound like.

Better than that: her "ESP" can tell what a violin
*doesn't* sound like.

If so, why is she so sold on LPs?

Some lps preserve some aspect of the sound that cds
don't. Or so-called "euphonic distortions" play a part.

Wrong, totally wrong. LP's can't preserve anything well - they are like the
fuzz boxes that some people use with their guitars.

If we had a specific recording in mind we could discuss
the individual elements: hall; mics; recording medium;
mastering; etc.

All pointless because the LP format is well-known for adding audible trash.

I've never heard a LP handle solo, ensemble and massed
violins as well as good digital.

That's too bad. Perhaps you'd like to recommend a cd with
a good representation of massed violins.

I can't think any CD that fail to do a better job on massed violins than the
best LPs I've ever heard.

OMG. Compare L'Oiseau-Lyre 417234 with Chesky RC11 for example.

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

From: Jenn
Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 10:48 pm
Email: Jenn

OK, you win. I now "know" that CDs sound better, so I'll just ignore
what my ears tell me, since that's a "non-argument". I'm sure that my
ears will now agree that CDs sound better, since I have been told that
they do. My enjoyment of hi-fi in my home will no doubt now increase.

I found several nice mint LPs today. A Telefunken, four philips and
four Melodia (not Angel, releases but in Russian. Did they follow RIAA
EQ?). Total investment, $12.

Cool. The Soviets generally did NOT follow the RIAA equalization curve.

Not very wise of them, if true.

The RIAA curve is there for a good reason, you know. And if you play
such Russian LPs back though a typical phono preamp, the RIAA compensation
will be applied -- no different than applying rather massive EQ.

Of course. Yet, that's what they did.

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction
of
acoustic music.


That's too bad for you, given how much easier it is to find works on
CD
than
LP these days.
But in any case, you do realize that this is all you'll ever be able
to
say,
right? IT's the
answer you always end up giving, no matter how much about digital to
analog
is explained to
you. It's no sort of *rejoinder*, it's simply a statement of
preference
that
says as much, or
more, about YOU as it does about the formats. If you think LPs sound
better
than their CD
counterparts, but still want to hear 'LP sound' on CD, I suggest you
carefully record your LPs
to CD. That way the euphonic distortions you're enjoying so much,a
nd
which
are missing on
well-made digital recordings, will be rendered in an exremely
faithful,
yet
far more
convenient and damage-proof, format.

I hope you sneered as you wrote that. I don't remember you being such a
bully-boy. Maybe there's something about Jenn that encourages your
brutal propensities.

*You* hope I sneered, but *I'm* the brutal one? Amazing. It's like you
guys
don't
even read what you write sometimes.

As for Jenn, she's been posting her 'it doesn't matter what you say, I
HEAR
IT' non-argument
for months on rahe.

OK, you win. I now "know" that CDs sound better, so I'll just ignore
what my ears tell me, since that's a "non-argument". I'm sure that my
ears will now agree that CDs sound better, since I have been told that
they do. My enjoyment of hi-fi in my home will no doubt now increase.

How about you just stop claiming 'LP sounds better than CD'?

For about the 100th time, that's NOT what I'm stating.

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


What I'm getting to is that the
violin sound is much more unlike the sound of real
violins on CD than it is on the best LPs. I can still
tell that it's supposed to be violin. It's a matter of
degree and subtlety.

Yup all violins sound the same,

A statement that no one has made.

or Jenn has some magical ESP power that
enables her to accurately know what a violin she's never seen or heard
is
supposed to sound like.

Another statement that no one has made. My point is (again) that the
sound of violins on CD is unlike ANY violin that actually exists.

And you're quite sure that's due to its being on CD? That a violin
recording on CD will *inevitably* sound unlike ANY violin that actually
exists?

I can only go by what I hear. I've yet to hear a CD get violin sound
anywhere near the quality of the best LPs. I wish that it weren't so,
but it is.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article ,
And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction of
acoustic music.

That's nothing to do with which IS more accurate.

I didn't say that it did.

No LP can reproduce
anything better than a CD. Unless it's click and pops.

And to my ears, timbres of instruments.


The *only* feasible means by which it could do that, would be if
the euphonic distortions of LP systems fortuitously 'compensated'
for the distortions incurred during the recording process,
most likely due to microphones and their setup, or for the
abberrations induced by the acoustics of the listener room
and speaker/listener positions.

and the loudspeakers themselves, I should add, which are likely to
be far more inherently distorting than the recording microphones.


--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction
of
acoustic music.


That's too bad for you, given how much easier it is to find works on
CD
than
LP these days.

I agree.

But in any case, you do realize that this is all you'll ever be able
to
say,
right? IT's the
answer you always end up giving, no matter how much about digital to
analog
is explained to
you.

What does "how much about digital to analog is explained to (me)" have
to do with it? I should change my opinion about what my ears tell me
based on some kind of "information" that is offered?


Yes. For example if you are at long last led to appreciate that what your
ears tell you, is subject to error. Once you agree to that
proposition -- an
utterly
uncontroversial one , except in certain dank quarters of audiophilia --
*of course* as a reasonable person, you must admit the possibility of
changing your opinion about what you (thought) you heard.

As opposed to others, I'm quite open to changing my opinion. Are you?


Or, instead, if you are 'led' to hear some aspect of the sound that you
simply hadn't noticed before, that could easily change your opinion of
it -- assuming the 'aspect' is real, of course. I'm thinking of
something concrete and measureable like noise reduction artifacts or
treble boost, rather than flooby 'impressions' like 'it has the breath
of life'.

If what I hear is measureable or not doesn't matter to be in the least.
I hear what I hear. What is the purpose of home audio to you? For me,
it's the close as possible recreation of a performance of acoustic
music. How it measures doesn't matter. Nor does the playback
equipment. If I get it from CD, LP, or a Philco radio, I don't care.

Ears only approach noted. Time to move on.

ScottW

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
From: Steven Sullivan - view profile
Date: Sun, Feb 19 2006 9:39 pm
Email: Steven Sullivan

As for Jenn, she's been posting her 'it doesn't matter what you say, I
HEAR IT' non-argument for months on rahe.

How is that different from the 'it doesn't matter what you hear, I
MEASURE IT' non-argument?

That's not the argument. The argument is that what you hear (sighted)
*might* matter, but it's not always enough to establish that what you hear
is *real*, and not a product of your imagination.

Just curious. I thought we were talking about preference here.

If only. "I like the sound of LPs better than the sound of CDs'
makes at least one big erroneous supposition about what sounds
are *inherent* to either format.


You don't understand: :-):

It's a "fact" when I like it.

It's a "preference" when I'm forced to defend it.

It's an untrue claim "to be proved" when it's your preference.

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
And yet, to my ears, the best LPs surpass CDs in their reproduction of
acoustic music.


That's too bad for you, given how much easier it is to find works on CD
than
LP these days.

I agree.

But in any case, you do realize that this is all you'll ever be able to
say,
right? IT's the
answer you always end up giving, no matter how much about digital to
analog
is explained to
you.

What does "how much about digital to analog is explained to (me)" have
to do with it? I should change my opinion about what my ears tell me
based on some kind of "information" that is offered?


Yes. For example if you are at long last led to appreciate that what your
ears tell you, is subject to error. Once you agree to that proposition -- an
utterly
uncontroversial one , except in certain dank quarters of audiophilia --
*of course* as a reasonable person, you must admit the possibility of
changing your opinion about what you (thought) you heard.

As opposed to others, I'm quite open to changing my opinion. Are you?


Certainly. I've changed my opinions on some recordings many times,
for example. The recordings themselves didn't change at all, of course.
Neither do the facts about digital and vinyl.


Or, instead, if you are 'led' to hear some aspect of the sound that you
simply hadn't noticed before, that could easily change your opinion of
it -- assuming the 'aspect' is real, of course. I'm thinking of
something concrete and measureable like noise reduction artifacts or
treble boost, rather than flooby 'impressions' like 'it has the breath
of life'.

If what I hear is measureable or not doesn't matter to be in the least.

Does it 'matter' whether what you think you hear, see, feel, taste
or smell, is real or not? Clearly we poor humans aren't perfect
perceivers, so I'd think the issue might come up for you now and then.


I hear what I hear. What is the purpose of home audio to you? For me,
it's the close as possible recreation of a performance of acoustic
music. How it measures doesn't matter. Nor does the playback
equipment. If I get it from CD, LP, or a Philco radio, I don't care.

Do you care *why* you 'hear' what you 'hear'? Does the plain fact that
we are often influenced by non-audible factors in our beliefs, even our
beliefs about what we *hear*, resonate with you at all?


--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)