wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article et,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:


So, LP violins don't sound like real violins, but
they don't sound like something
else than a violin either, while CD violins always
sound like 'something else
than
a violin, even though you can always tell they are
violins.

Other than adding the word "some" to the LP side, yes,
that's pretty much it. Some LPs sound much closer to
the sound of real violins than do any CDs.


...that you've heard. You haven't heard all CDs.

Duh.


NO media sounds real enough to be fooled into thinking
that
an actual violin is playing in the room.

Probably so,

Probably? I submit that anyone who has ever been fooled
into thinking that any recording is the actual sound of
a violin (or any other instrument or voice) needs MUCH
more experience in the sound of those instruments.

You can certainly stipulate that, but you didn't make
such exceptions in your original post. I was accounting
for all possibilities.

but you are also neglecting the role of acoustics.

In what way?

The same recording played by the same system, will not
sound the same in a different room.

Of course. But what does that have to do with the
discussion?

Because the same recording of a violin could sound more
like a violin in one room and setup, than another.

Exactly.

Jenn obviously has no appreciation for how profoundly room
acoustics
affect
an audio system's SQ. This is a pretty trivial observation for
someone
with
good hearing and a good idea of what musical instruments sound like
in
general. Therefore, its logical to conclude that Jenn lacks what it
takes
to
make this observation.

LOL The effect of room acoustics is not even CLOSE to the issue.
Have
you, in ANY acoustical space with ANY system been fooled into
thinking
that there was a violin in the room with you?

Yes and not just violins, but guitars as well, but they were very good
speakers being used and a very good room.

Then I have to question your knowledge of how instruments sound.

There are many makes of guitars that sound different from each other an
the
same applies to Violins.

Of course!

I was referring to the illusion of having an
instrument playing in the room I was listening in.

As was I.

It only has worked on
solo instrumments, but I have been able a couple of times to hear solo
instruments that sounded as if they were playing in the room.

My other reply stands.

In light of what I said and you agreeing that it is so, then your reply is
idiotic.

No, it isn't. Anyone who can be fooled into thinking that an actual
acoustic instrument or voice is in the room is either hearing damaged,
doesn't know how to listen carefully, or hasn't heard te real
instruments enough. Period. Tell you what. You're fond of tests.
Find the best audio system that you can. Find the best quality quitar
or violin CDs that you can. Put that system and me in a room. If I
can't correctly tell 100 times out of 100 which is real and which is
the recording, I'll give you $100. If I'm successful, you give me
$100. Deal?

I don't play violin, but I do play guitar a bit and have many friends who d
as well, and while I wouldn't be likely to tell many brands from one
another, (except maybe Ovation)

As an aside, Ovations suck, IMO. I haven't heard the newest ones
though.

I have experienced the illusion of hearing a
recording that gave the illusion of a musician playing in 3d space, in the
same room I was in.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with knowing what the instrument sounded
like, other than to know it was a guitar or a violin, it has everything to
do with good speakers, properly set up, and a good recording.

See above. To compare a guitar recording on ANY system and an actual
guitarist in the room and to fail at identification requires, most
likely, hearing damage.

wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
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?

You should make an effort to do some more meaningful comparisons, since you
obviously are not hearing properly.

For, oh, I don't know, the 20th time maybe? I will do this comparison
soon, as time allows. Of course, I've already been told that the test
won't be done properly, so what's the point?



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.

This will very likely be a turning point.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, Sander
deWaal wrote:

"Harry Lavo" said:

During the very late '70's / early '80's a few labels
did a few recordings this way, and then a trickle of
pop has been release since done this way.


The first commercially available digital recording was
done in 1974, Maria Joao Pires' Mozart cycle on JVC.

I don't think that it was nearly that early.

Try searching google.

I did, of course. No sign of that recording:

http://www.google.com/search?client=...o+Pires+Moz a
rt+JVC+1974&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

For people with an extra $20:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=12175


IMO, not worth $20.

Thanks. I won't bother.

About that early digital, the ones I remember are the Denons (Pires,
Rampal?) RCA Soundstream historical reissues, and Telarc, of course.

Were the Denons ever released on BASF?

Stephen

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
From: vlad
Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 2:41 am
Email: "vlad"

Melodia LP's in spite of their easy availability were at the
bottom of collector's list by being least desirable. The joke was that
on the plant before putting new records in envelope they were washing
them with sand and applying sand paper to create "unique" sound.

That's interesting. I haven't listened to them yet. What was Soviet
stereo equipment like? Were decent turntables, etc. available? I don't
think I've ever seen what type of equipment that was made there. Or did
they just import stuff?

I was collecting records in pre-Gorbachev era. There were no separate
components manufactured. They were producing and selling to population
table radios with TT built in. These TTs inside were awful. Diamond
stiles were unknown. They used some stylus from awful crystals in
cartridges. They were damaging records on each play. My first system
had amp 4 wpc and two speakers mad in Russia. I paid 220 rubles for
that. Average monthly salary at a time was 120 rubles.

Audiophiles were hunting equipment made abroad in second hand stores
that sold foreign made goods. TT from Dual with arm and cartridge was
going for 1200-1500 rubles. Powerful amps for 2000-3000 rubles. Usually
brand did matter, specs were assumed to be good.

I was paying for Columbia Masterworks 30-40 rubles per LP. Jazz
records in a good condition were going for 50-60 rubles. Beatles album
in pristine condition (unopened) could fetch 100-160 rubles. For
comparison the price of the car (only one model) available to consumers
was about 7000 rubles.

The records you have were probably made for export. Internally they
were selling record in generic brown bag (the same paper) envelopes. No
liner notes, no pictures, nothing. Albums for export had their covers
with poorly printed pictures and text. Usually if these LPs were
sold to public there was a charge for the envelop about 25 copeks
(cents). The quality was pretty much the same.

I dont know if they used RIAA curve or invented something on their
own.

With all these they were publishing some very good performances. The
first time I heard €œDon Giovanny€? with W.Furtwangler and C.Sieppy
from Melodia record. I still wait to see or hear better performance of
this opera. They also published Beethoven symphonies with Bruno Walter
on Melodia. So life was not completely bad, but rather exciting because
good records were real events in collectors life. They had a nasty
habit of reducing stereo to mono, unfortunately. The official
explanation was that majority of the public with mono TTs (ï?Š) can
damage their stylus on stereo records.

vlad


Maybe this sand is actually the rare 'floobydust' talked about
here...:-)

I don't know about IRAA curve but records
manufactured for export had nice envelopes with pictures and texts but
surface noise was there.

These have nice glossy covers. They have price tags on them with the
store name written in Cyrillic. (Does 1.67 rubles seem right for an
LP?) So I'm not sure if these were for export or not...

wrote:
wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

Let's lay this one to rest, Arny. The vast majority of LP's were made
*without* every seeing a digital anything....they predated it.

Any new recordings available on LP are now done with digital tape instead of
analog tape, because of the obvious advantages.

Its not black and white, son. There are advantages and disadvantages to
both analog and digital recording. I find that whatever one chooses is
often based on one's prejudices, than anything else.

What has that to do with the fact that digital recordings are vastly more
accurate than analog recordings?

If you define "accurate" merely in terms of useable frequency response,
perhaps. Otherwise, I'm afraid you're wrong here, and clearly not
speaking from experience.

And the audiophile labels selling today wouldn't touch a digital master
with a ten foot pole.

Which is yet another example of why some people label those kinds of people
as audiophools, they reject better, more accurate recording technolgy for
reasons that don't exist, except in the mind of some idiot audiophiles

I'd warn you to be careful about applying insults and labels to people,
like "audiophools" and "idiot audiophiles". It certainly does not
convince anyone of your intelligence or wisdom, and there's nothing
more foolish on God's green earth than some ignorant fool, ranting
about how much of an ignorant fool the other is. The more educated you
are, the more you will realize how little you actually know. Try
engaging in some experience with what you rant about.

During the very late '70's / early '80's a few labels did a few recordings
this way, and then a trickle of pop has been release since done this way.
But find a warehouse full of records of all ages, and draw from random,
and my guess is you will be lucky to have two out of a hundred have
digital masters.

Still meaningless. Take an analog master and digitize it and you have a
copy that is as close as is possible to the original, and you can make
countless more exact copies of that.

:-) That's very funny, mate! If only reality were as simple as that,
recording would be a lot less complicated.... The "exact digital
copies" notion is a myth, just like the myth of "perfect sound forever"
that followed the introduction of the CD.

Then consider the fact that a digital
copy has so much more resolution that it allows one to hear things that were
hidden before becuase of the fact that each analog copy is inferiror to the
one that preceded it.

You're mistaking "detail" for "resolution". Yours is a gross
oversimplification of the entire process, which tells me, you're not a
recording engineer, and only speaking from theories you've read
somewhere. While analog copies do exhibit deterioriation artificats,
its a fact that digital copies do as well. You don't recognize it so
readily, because it doesn't come in the form of "tape hiss"

I'm surprised that this myth about digital copies being perfect is
still prevalent today in some circles, what with any average person
being able to master his own cd's on an inexpensive cd-r unit hooked to
a PC, and being able to easily test any number of copies. Among other
things, I've done extensive testing on just this type of setup. Here
are only some of the variables involved in copying or creating cd's,
that can influence the final result, which anyone can reproduce:
Different burners produce different sound qualities (including dvd
burners burning cd's), different brands produce different qualities,
different software produces different qualities (as does different
settings configured within the software), so do different conditions of
your computer system, so can different cd-r's within the same batch of
cd's. Different digital recorders and DAC units produce different
qualities of sound. Now with all of these possible variables, which is
the "perfect copy" among all these different sounding copies?! The fact
is, I have tested a variety of software and equipment in order to
achieve the goal of producing an exact digital copy of a cd. In years
of trying, I've yet to achieve that goal.

To someone who can not tell the difference between an LP and the same
pressing on CD, I'm sure that there can be no difference between one cd
copy and another. To those with more discriminating ears to whom
fidelity to the music matters greatly, its no wonder many audiophiles
prefer the sound of the original LP to CD reissues, that don't even
come close to their original counterparts when played back on decent,
properly adjusted record decks and pick-ups.

Going back to the original master tapes and making CD's from them has show
this time after time in th form of tape hiss and the ability to hear edits
or noises in the studio that made their way onto the tape unnoticed until
they were redone for CD.

Tape hiss is indeed one of the sorry artifacts of the analog medium. It
is a defect that you learn to live with, as you learn to live with the
defects in teh digital medium. Many people who understand what music
reproduction is about, prefer the defects in the analog medium, because
what is important is not the medium, but how faithful the music sounds.


I'm sorry, I don't have time to educate you, so I don't wish to pursue
this any further. If you are sincerely interested in the subject of
analog and digital recording, I suggest you delve a lot deeper into the
research than you have, and it certainly wouldn't hurt to actual get
some field experience with the various pertinent materials and conduct
experiments on your own. You might learn a lot more that way, than
repeating outdated misconceptions about digital and analog formats.

Such a lengthy post and surprisingly not one bit of information. The
same tiring old stuff: "Analog is good, digital is not so good . .
.."

Typical mumbling of a salesman pushing analog equipment in
high-end/price audio salon.

vlad

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com
wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

Let's lay this one to rest, Arny. The vast majority of
LP's were made *without* every seeing a digital
anything....they predated it.

Any new recordings available on LP are now done with
digital tape instead of analog tape, because of the
obvious advantages.

Its not black and white, son. There are advantages and
disadvantages to both analog and digital recording.

The preponderance of the disadvantages go to analog and the preponderance of
the advantages, particularly those related to potential for highest sound
quality go to digital.

I find that whatever one chooses is often based on one's
prejudices, than anything else.

Spoken like somone with negligable experiece with digital and analog
production.

What has that to do with the fact that digital
recordings are vastly more accurate than analog
recordings?

If you define "accurate" merely in terms of useable
frequency response, perhaps.

Straw man argument. In fact digital has best audible frequency response,
lowest distortion and highest dynamic range.

Otherwise, I'm afraid you're
wrong here, and clearly not speaking from experience.

Say what?

he audiophile labels selling today wouldn't touch
a digital master with a ten foot pole.

Which is yet another example of why some people label
those kinds of people as audiophools, they reject
better, more accurate recording technolgy for reasons
that don't exist, except in the mind of some idiot
audiophiles

I'd warn you to be careful about applying insults and
labels to people, like "audiophools" and "idiot
audiophiles".

Why not - most audio professionals, particularly those in audio production
refer to them that way.

It certainly does not convince anyone of
your intelligence or wisdom, and there's nothing more
foolish on God's green earth than some ignorant fool,
ranting about how much of an ignorant fool the other is.
The more educated you are, the more you will realize how
little you actually know. Try engaging in some experience
with what you rant about.

Spare us. Around here the biggest flamers are so-called audiophiles.


recordings this way, and then a trickle of
pop has been release since done this way. But find a
warehouse full of records of all ages, and draw from
random, and my guess is you will be lucky to have two
out of a hundred have digital masters.

Still meaningless. Take an analog master and digitize
it and you have a copy that is as close as is possible
to the original, and you can make countless more exact
copies of that.

:-) That's very funny, mate!

Not only funny, but true.

If only reality were as
simple as that, recording would be a lot less
complicated....

recording is a lot less complicated with digital. No contest.

The "exact digital copies" notion is a myth,

A myth that can be demonstrated quite easily.

just like the myth of "perfect sound forever" that
followed the introduction of the CD.

True as far as it goes.

Then consider the fact that a digital
copy has so much more resolution that it allows one to
hear things that were hidden before becuase of the fact
that each analog copy is inferiror to the one that
preceded it.

You're mistaking "detail" for "resolution".

There's no mistaking the two because they are one and the same. That detail
is not resolution is an audiophile or as one might say audiophool myth.

Yours is a
gross oversimplification of the entire process, which
tells me, you're not a recording engineer, and only
speaking from theories you've read somewhere.

Yours is a gross overcomplexification, which tells me that you're not an
up-to-date recording engineer.

While
analog copies do exhibit deterioriation artificats, its a
fact that digital copies do as well.

Yeah, abuse the digital copies and they start failing. However, any analog
copy is flawed from the git-go.

You don't recognize
it so readily, because it doesn't come in the form of
"tape hiss"

In the case of the digital domain there is no distortion at all. Frequency
response is perfect, and hiss and bandwidth can be improved at will by
assigning more bits.

I'm surprised that this myth about digital copies being
perfect is still prevalent today in some circles, what
with any average person being able to master his own cd's
on an inexpensive cd-r unit hooked to a PC, and being
able to easily test any number of copies. Among other
things, I've done extensive testing on just this type of
setup.

I have to, and it works as advertised.

Here are only some of the variables involved in
copying or creating cd's, that can influence the final
result, which anyone can reproduce: Different burners
produce different sound qualities (including dvd burners
burning cd's),

Actually, its flawed readers that don't do a good job of reading certain
burned discs that cause any problems with sound quality. Most of these
flawed readers are obsolete or in poor repair.

different brands produce different


Different digital recorders and DAC units
produce different qualities of sound.

Actually, all good DACs sound the same and the opening price for a good DAC
is under a buck.

Harry said:
I'd warn you to be careful about applying insults and
labels to people, like "audiophools" and "idiot
audiophiles".
Arny answered:
Why not - most audio professionals, particularly those in audio
production
refer to them that way.

This is I;m sure quite true of many of the "professionals in
production".
The contempt for the few searching for something better is realistic
and financially rtewarding in audio, Holywood, book publishing,
pop press production.
And we know what they produce..
The arts were better off with aristocratic snobs' patronage than with
the
world of thousands mediocrities pandering to millions of
semiliterates.
Ludovic Mirabel

"vlad" wrote in message
oups.com

wrote with great pomposity:

I'm sorry, I don't have time to educate you, so I don't
wish to pursue this any further. If you are sincerely
interested in the subject of analog and digital
recording, I suggest you delve a lot deeper into the
research than you have, and it certainly wouldn't hurt
to actual get some field experience with the various
pertinent materials and conduct experiments on your own.
You might learn a lot more that way, than repeating
outdated misconceptions about digital and analog
formats.

Such a lengthy post and surprisingly not one bit of
information. The same tiring old stuff: "Analog is good,
digital is not so good . . ."

The veiled message is: "Help me clear my stock room of this slow-moving
junk".

Typical mumbling of a salesman pushing analog equipment in
high-end/price audio salon.

IME the average high end audiophile actually looks up to high end salesmen
as role models. Now, that's scary! ;-)

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

"Jenn" wrote in message


I'll do what we ALL do: rely on my ears.

Jenn again demonstrates her ignorance of an obvious and generally
agreed-upon fact: The ears are nothing without the brain, and the brain is
the most powerful and complex organ in the human body.


There's a big difference between sensation and perception, but its all lost
on Jenn.

When you sit at home and listen to your stereo, do you simply listen and
enjoy or do you consider the above?


Let's face it, audiophilia's not about the experience of sitting at home
and listening. It's about the crazy stuff you claim *about* that experience,
afterwards, in reviews and public forums.

The crazier and less supportable, the better.


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

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


Hey, anything's possible.

Let's restrict our discussion to things that are likely, please?

Including people who can't tell a recorded violin from a real one.

That could be very sad for an music lover.

The very phrase
"euphonic distortion" asserts
the existence of distortion that *someone* finds
experience-enhancing.

My take is that this vinyl thing is really about state of mind. We know that
there are supposedly authoritative sources by the boatload that have been
promoting the idea that vinyl is more realisitic in some sense than digital.


Heck, I saw an AV contractor on 'This Old House' make the claim just a week or
two ago.


Jenn has convinced herself that this 'enhancement'
equates to making
the recording sound 'more real'.

Agreed - this has to be learned behavior. Some authority figure convinced
her of this. She is obviously profoundly affected by certain male authority
figures in her life.


No, I wouldn't go that far. It might have been a female. Or she may simply
have arrived at that preference by herself. It's the claims about the
media, *arising from* that preference, that are dubious.


Personally I prefer Dolby Pro Logic II, but that's me, and I'm not going
to
go on a limb saying it sounds 'more real', with all that
implies. I just enjoy the sense of
increased spaciousness and the occasional surround effect.

It's also a convenient way to get all the speakers in a multichannel system
including the center speaker and the subwoofer, to do their jobs.


Yes, I do hate a lazy speaker.




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

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

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

"Jenn" wrote in message


I'll do what we ALL do: rely on my ears.

Jenn again demonstrates her ignorance of an obvious and
generally agreed-upon fact: The ears are nothing
without the brain, and the brain is the most powerful
and complex organ in the human body.


There's a big difference between sensation and
perception, but its all lost on Jenn.

When you sit at home and listen to your stereo, do you
simply listen and enjoy or do you consider the above?


Let's face it, audiophilia's not about the experience of
sitting at home
and listening. It's about the crazy stuff you claim
*about* that experience, afterwards, in reviews and
public forums.

The crazier and less supportable, the better.

Agreed - we're having a number of really childish foisted off on us. First
the fuses, and now the piece of paper with holes and 4-legged animal
pictures.

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

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

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


I have listened 'sighted' to LPs transferred to CD, and
the pops, clicks, pitch variations, surface noise, and
different mastering
choices compared to the official CD releases, all seemed
to be faithfully transferred, at least before I fixed
what I could using digital tools.

There's a big problem with trying to compare formats
using commercial recordings. There are almost always
major differences in mastering during the production
steps.

True. But I'm talking about the LP-to-CD transfers that
I've done. The main problem there is setting up the
comparison afterwards,
since the turntable's not usually part of my system.

The easy relevant test to do is to have a ADC and DAC running
back-to-back,
set for non-inverting polarity and unity gain. In the blind test, switch
in
and out of a high quality signal path that starts with a LP.

The DAC and DAC are a valid stand-in for the CD because its all the same
digital format.

Unless the CD is the problem, of course.

You mean the CD *disc* itself now? Or the CD transport?

Don't know; I'm just asking questions. Arny says that ADC and DAC are
the same as CD, and I'm simply making the logical statement that they
are NOT the same as CD if the actual media (or as you say, the
transport) is the problem.

Well, that medium is capable of perfect data storage for apps that
are much less forgiving than audio, so I really doubt CDs are
the problem.



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

Jenn said:

The first commercially available digital recording was done in 1974,
Maria Joao Pires' Mozart cycle on JVC.

I don't think that it was nearly that early.


Ummm.....make that Denon.
Recorded in Japan by NBS people.
I must have a reference somewhere (I only have these recordings on
DAT).

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
and unity gain. In the blind test, switch in and out of
a high quality signal path that starts with a LP.

The DAC and DAC are a valid stand-in for the CD because
its all the same digital format.

Unless the CD is the problem, of course.

You mean the CD *disc* itself now? Or the CD transport?


Doesn't matter. Scott and Jenn are clutching at any straw. One of their
goals is to make the difference between LP and digital practically
untestible.

These aren't real sincere people - they are RAO debating trade veterans,
disciples of Middius.


I disagree. I believe Jenn is sincere in her beliefs.
Sincerely wrong, but sincere, nonetheless. I hope she believes
the same about me, at least.





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

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:


Well, I don't see why you keep talking about how what you HEAR (sighted)
is the only important thing 'at the end of the day', and how you can
'only go by what you hear' (sighted), if in fact you understand
why DBTs exist and are used.

Because I and the vast majority of audio consumers will not/cannot carry
out such tests to make the occasional purchasing choices that we make;
we have to make the best call based on our ears, and using only our
hearing is how we will use the product. I understand the usefulness of
DBT in R&D.

If consumers realized how fraught with error their 'best call' is --
and the science is really overwhelming on this issue -- then we wouldn't be
having these ****ing matches. And an educated consumer base would drive a
more
honest industry. But since the high end press certainly has no
inclination to educate consumers that way, and the mainstream press
is simply not that interested in the first place, we have today's
state of affairs.

Again, just because lots of people do something a certain way,
doesn't mean it's doing what they THINK it's doing. Bad reasoning,
superstition, and magical thinking are widespread.

Why not just agree that you
could be 'hearing' though bias to a degree that confounds your *ears,
and leave be?

I could be. On the other hand, bias could have nothing to do with it.
We'll see, if I can set up the test, right?


No, *you'll* see. All I'll see is your report.


It's what science tells us; it's what leads orchestral
committes to do 'blind' auditions;

Orchestras use blind auditions mostly for an entirely different reason,
which we've discussed before.

They do it *mostly* to prevent racial or sexual discrimination....which
is a form of *bias*.

No, not really. The main issue is to prevent cronyism.


....which is a form of bias. And you can't seriously deny that it's also
often done to prevent racial and sexual discrimination. These and
'cronyism' are simply different facets of the same bias towards
picking 'people we're comfortable with'.





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

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
LOL The effect of room acoustics is not even CLOSE to
the issue.

Sure it is. Room acoustics have very profound effects on reproduction, often
equal or even very much greater than the difference between a digital and an
analog recording.

This has NO relevance to the current part of the discussion. See the
paragraph above starting with "NO media..." The presence or absence of
an actual instrument in a room is FAR more "gross" than are the effects
of room acoustics.

Of course it's relevant. The perception of 'actuality' is dependent
on acoustics. This is true in concert halls as well as rooms at home.
Surely you agree that instruments don't equally sound as good in all
concert halls, at all seating positions!


Imagine someone playing a violin in an anaechoic chamber....or
an aircraft hangar....



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

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
big snip due to repetition of ground covered
Steven wrote:
No violin recordings sound like *real* violins.

Correct. Don't you agree? Can't you hear the difference between any
recording and an actual live instrument?

I haven't heard every recording ever made, much less every
live performance.

Do you really think that that is required to be able to state that NO
recording sounds absolutely like a real instrument?

It is required to state that there aren't ANY recordings on CD
that sound as good as the best of same on LP.

But generally it's impossible for recording
to capture all of the spatial cues of a live performance.

It's about more than just spatial cues, of course.

Really? Tell me what problems you are referring to.

Sure. The ability to perfectly replicate the sound of an actual
instrument requires perfect frequency matching, perfect timbre, super
attention to detail (the ability to hear the bow on the string, for
example), perfect dynamic nuance, and perfect spacial cues. That's just
a start.

But alas there's no evidence that modern recording can't capture all of those
completely, except for spatial cues.




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

In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote:

Jenn said:

The first commercially available digital recording was done in 1974,
Maria Joao Pires' Mozart cycle on JVC.

I don't think that it was nearly that early.


Ummm.....make that Denon.
Recorded in Japan by NBS people.
I must have a reference somewhere (I only have these recordings on
DAT).

Yeah, I recall that recording now. PCM and all that. I stand corrected
on my sentence above. Arny's claim that digital recordings were "very
common" in 1976, however, is bogus.

AZ Nomad wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:42:30 GMT, wrote:

Your insitence that the LP versions souind more real to you, calls into
question your hearing ability or your honesty. You seem to be unaware that
every time an analog copy is made, it is degraded from the original, which
is not so with digital. Each digital copy is an EXACT copy of the source,
so th LP version can NEVER be as clean or as accurate as the CD, even when
using the same master.

You're assuming that the master tape is perfect.

Well, Jenn is assuming it was good enough to make one of those 'best LPs'
out of too. The ones where the violin sounds more real than on CD.

The process of capturing the sound via a microphone, and digitizing
introduces artifacts which may be seem reversed when muffled through
LP recording/playback.

? There's no reason for there to be *audible* artifacts from a good
digital recording or transfer. This doesn't mean some bad recordings haven't been
made!




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

From:
Date: Wed, Feb 22 2006 6:21 pm
Email:

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?

You should make an effort to do some more meaningful comparisons, since you
obviously are not hearing properly.

Jenn, in order to 'hear properly' just like nob, you must hold that ear
trumpet TIGHTLY to the ear. Turn your hearing aid DOWN, to minimize
squealing. MUTE the TV (or at least turn it down) so that the
background noise does not interfere. Close the windows and WAIT until
the train has gone by before listening critically. And quit eating bean
burritos. The end result can potentially interfere with your low
frequency perception.

Given all of that, if you still disagree after insuring that you are
'hearing properly,' nob will still attempt to sway you from your
preference.

The poor incontinent ******* cannot help himself.

Sander deWaal wrote:
Steven Sullivan said:

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 think the "test" could be much simpler as that.
If an LP, transferred to CD, sounds as horrible to Jenn as CDs in
general, it would mean she has trouble with something (anything) in
the CD redoring/reproduction chain (which I doubt).

If, however, she finds nothing wrong with the sound of an LP, recorded
on CD, she would have proved *to herself* that the possible flaws she
hears in CD reproduction, are not due to the CD format itself.
It would then be likely that it is something in the mastering process
that bothers her (or it is just a psychological thing).

If we include 'failure to master from an LP source' as part of that
'something', I agree.

But then the question remains, if mastering from LP would give results
that are so much more 'realistic', why isn't it done routinely?
Why do classical recordists and producers and artists continue to favor
mastering chains that don't involve an LP stage?

AFAIC, such a test doesn't have to be blind.

Well, *if* she hears no difference sighted, then there's no point
in doing a blind test. But if not, there's certainly a need for
blinding the comparison, from a methodological POV.



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

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


So, LP violins don't sound like real violins, but they
don't sound like something else than a violin either,
while CD violins always sound like 'something else than a
violin, even though you can always tell they are violins.

And if you believe that, I've got a bridge across the Detroit River you
might want to buy! ;-)

It's the SET weirdness all over again.

The LP and tube bigots want us to believe that you can take a randomly
distorted signal, add more random distortions, and end up with something
that is more realistic.

Hey, anything's possible. Including people who can't tell a recorded
violin from a real one. The very phrase "euphonic distortion" asserts
the existence of distortion that *someone* finds experience-enhancing.
Jenn has convinced herself that this 'enhancement' equates to making
the recording sound 'more real'. Personally I prefer Dolby Pro Logic II,
but
that's me, and I'm not going to go on a limb saying it sounds
'more real', with all that implies. I just enjoy the sense of
increased spaciousness and the occasional surround effect.


Right. And at the same time you don't have to listen to all those annoying
little spaces between the notes. :-)


Hmm...I seem to hear individual notes and rests even with DPLII engaged.
I must have one heck of a high-resolution system.




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

wrote:

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:42:30 GMT,
wrote:

Your insitence that the LP versions souind more real to you, calls into
question your hearing ability or your honesty. You seem to be unaware
that
every time an analog copy is made, it is degraded from the original, which
is not so with digital. Each digital copy is an EXACT copy of the source,
so th LP version can NEVER be as clean or as accurate as the CD, even when
using the same master.

You're assuming that the master tape is perfect.

No, I'm just assuming that is what they use to produce the media we playback
recordings on.
Obvioiusly themaster is only as good as the people who produced it, but it
is what is used to produce LP's and CD's. If it was bad it will be bad when
transferred to CD or to LP.
If it was good it will be better in CD than on LP.

The process of capturing the sound via a microphone, and digitizing
introduces artifacts which may be seem reversed when muffled through
LP recording/playback.

Bull****.

well, there's a nonzero possibility that all the air in a room will gather
itself into one corner....I'd say that the euphonic distortion of LP
happening to 'compensate' for inherent distortion of the
*loudspeakers/room acoustics* is rather more likely than that, at least.

The idea that there are *audible* artifacts of a *good* digital recording
and playback system is rather less likely.





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

J.Major wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
J.Major wrote:

some ready possibilities:

1) different mastering of the LP vs the CD. This not only affects the
sound you'd hear if you were 'only' listening to the discs (i.e, via
headphones); further differences may be apparent when played in a real
room acoustic space, where you are hearing the room and disc togehter
as a system.
1-My room is acousticaly treated and after my sister in law listen to
both disc on the speaker I let her listen to both disc (a few songs
each)on my stax sigma and again she prefered the LP.


This doesn't address the different mastering of an LP vs a CD release.


2) your wife simply prefers the euphonic distortions inherent to vinyl
My wife hardly listen to music (She own a couple of LP from the 80). So
she does'nt know (or care) about "euphonic distortions". She even
does'nt know how to operate my audio gears (and does'nt care) so every
time she want to listen to her LP, I put them on my oracle, start it up
and go take a walk (I personnaly dislike this singer-- I am more into
Jazz and Classical Music)


She doesn't have to 'know' anything about *why* LPs sound the way they
do, to prefer their inherent 'sound'.



3) unconcious bias - e.g. she 'knew' that you or others already
thought the LP superior to CD
My sister in law knew that I have a good audio system but did'nt know
that I use a turntable (she even tought that no more turntable exist
except in museum). She used to have a turntable (the best one available
in the market according to the Radioshack salesman) No wonder she was
thinking that CD where superior if all she have to compare was a
RadioScrap disk grinder.


Again, there's little here to show that you've ruled out this source of
bias, unless you are saying you;ve never, in her presence, given any
conscious or unconscious hint that you think LPs sound better than CDs.


So I think all *three* of my possibilities still remain...possible.




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

"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:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:


So, LP violins don't sound like real violins,
but they don't sound like something
else than a violin either, while CD violins
always sound like 'something else
than
a violin, even though you can always tell they
are violins.

Other than adding the word "some" to the LP side,
yes, that's pretty much it. Some LPs sound much
closer to the sound of real violins than do any
CDs.


...that you've heard. You haven't heard all CDs.

Duh.


NO media sounds real enough to be fooled into
thinking that
an actual violin is playing in the room.

Probably so,

Probably? I submit that anyone who has ever been
fooled into thinking that any recording is the
actual sound of a violin (or any other instrument
or voice) needs MUCH more experience in the sound
of those instruments.

You can certainly stipulate that, but you didn't
make such exceptions in your original post. I was
accounting for all possibilities.

but you are also neglecting the role of acoustics.

In what way?

The same recording played by the same system, will
not sound the same in a different room.

Of course. But what does that have to do with the
discussion?

Because the same recording of a violin could sound
more like a violin in one room and setup, than
another.

Exactly.

Jenn obviously has no appreciation for how profoundly
room acoustics affect an audio system's SQ. This is
a pretty trivial observation for someone with good
hearing and a good idea of what musical instruments
sound like in general. Therefore, its logical to
conclude that Jenn lacks what it takes to make this
observation.

LOL The effect of room acoustics is not even CLOSE to
the issue.

Sure it is. Room acoustics have very profound effects
on reproduction, often equal or even very much greater
than the difference between a digital and an analog
recording.

This has NO relevance to the current part of the
discussion.

OK Jenn lets agree to disagree.

Of course this ends the discussion.

Are you stating that room acoustics have a profound
effect on whether or not a person thinks an actual
instrument is playing in the room with them?

It's far from impossible. In fact, its generally likely if not certain.

The acoustics of a room can keep someone from thinking that the instrument
is playing in the room with them by jumbling the sound of the violin so
badly that it doesn't sound like the instrument is playing *anyplace* real.
Room acoustics can jumble the sound of a violin so badly that it is hard to
even identify what instrument it is.

This situation is vastly worsened when playing a recording of an instrument
because almost all recordings of an instrument playnig include the effects
of the room the instrument was playing in when recorded.

If you
believe that one can EVER be fooled into believing that
an instrument is in the room, then yes, the discussion
will have to over because you aren't NEARLY as critical a
listener as I am.

I already said the opposite. Do try to pay attention, Jenn.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


Hey, anything's possible.

Let's restrict our discussion to things that are likely,
please?

Including people who can't tell a recorded violin from
a real one.

That could be very sad for an music lover.

The very phrase
"euphonic distortion" asserts
the existence of distortion that *someone* finds
experience-enhancing.

My take is that this vinyl thing is really about state
of mind. We know that there are supposedly authoritative
sources by the boatload that have been promoting the
idea that vinyl is more realisitic in some sense than
digital.


Heck, I saw an AV contractor on 'This Old House' make the
claim just a week or two ago.


Jenn has convinced herself that this 'enhancement'
equates to making
the recording sound 'more real'.

Agreed - this has to be learned behavior. Some authority
figure convinced her of this. She is obviously
profoundly affected by certain male authority figures in
her life.

No, I wouldn't go that far. It might have been a female.

It might, but I'm betting on a hunch that is pretty strong.

Or she may simply have arrived at that preference by
herself. It's the claims about the
media, *arising from* that preference, that are dubious.

Jenn has shown herself to be not really strong at critical thinking or
independent thought. Golden ear myths like the alleged sonic superiority of
tubes or vinyl cannot and will not survive well-informed critical thinking.

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
big snip due to repetition of ground covered
Steven wrote:
No violin recordings sound like *real* violins.

Correct. Don't you agree? Can't you hear the difference between
any
recording and an actual live instrument?

I haven't heard every recording ever made, much less every
live performance.

Do you really think that that is required to be able to state that NO
recording sounds absolutely like a real instrument?

It is required to state that there aren't ANY recordings on CD
that sound as good as the best of same on LP.

But generally it's impossible for recording
to capture all of the spatial cues of a live performance.

It's about more than just spatial cues, of course.

Really? Tell me what problems you are referring to.

Sure. The ability to perfectly replicate the sound of an actual
instrument requires perfect frequency matching, perfect timbre, super
attention to detail (the ability to hear the bow on the string, for
example), perfect dynamic nuance, and perfect spacial cues. That's just
a start.

But alas there's no evidence that modern recording can't capture all of those
completely, except for spatial cues.

I see what you mean. But I'm confident that in any reasonable test, I
could tell the actual violin playing from any recording 100% of the
time, and I think that more than just spatial cues must come into play.

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
LOL The effect of room acoustics is not even CLOSE to
the issue.

Sure it is. Room acoustics have very profound effects on reproduction,
often
equal or even very much greater than the difference between a digital and
an
analog recording.

This has NO relevance to the current part of the discussion. See the
paragraph above starting with "NO media..." The presence or absence of
an actual instrument in a room is FAR more "gross" than are the effects
of room acoustics.

Of course it's relevant. The perception of 'actuality' is dependent
on acoustics. This is true in concert halls as well as rooms at home.
Surely you agree that instruments don't equally sound as good in all
concert halls, at all seating positions!


Imagine someone playing a violin in an anaechoic chamber....or
an aircraft hangar....

Of course, but I can imagine not reasonable test where an experienced
listener can be fooled into thinking there is an instrument in the room
when there is not. It's more than just acoustics is all I'm trying to
say.

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:


Well, I don't see why you keep talking about how what you HEAR
(sighted)
is the only important thing 'at the end of the day', and how you can
'only go by what you hear' (sighted), if in fact you understand
why DBTs exist and are used.

Because I and the vast majority of audio consumers will not/cannot
carry
out such tests to make the occasional purchasing choices that we make;
we have to make the best call based on our ears, and using only our
hearing is how we will use the product. I understand the usefulness of
DBT in R&D.

If consumers realized how fraught with error their 'best call' is --
and the science is really overwhelming on this issue -- then we wouldn't
be
having these ****ing matches. And an educated consumer base would drive
a
more
honest industry. But since the high end press certainly has no
inclination to educate consumers that way, and the mainstream press
is simply not that interested in the first place, we have today's
state of affairs.

Again, just because lots of people do something a certain way,
doesn't mean it's doing what they THINK it's doing. Bad reasoning,
superstition, and magical thinking are widespread.

Why not just agree that you
could be 'hearing' though bias to a degree that confounds your *ears,
and leave be?

I could be. On the other hand, bias could have nothing to do with it.
We'll see, if I can set up the test, right?


No, *you'll* see. All I'll see is your report.


It's what science tells us; it's what leads orchestral
committes to do 'blind' auditions;

Orchestras use blind auditions mostly for an entirely different reason,
which we've discussed before.

They do it *mostly* to prevent racial or sexual discrimination....which
is a form of *bias*.

No, not really. The main issue is to prevent cronyism.


...which is a form of bias. And you can't seriously deny that it's also
often done to prevent racial and sexual discrimination. These and
'cronyism' are simply different facets of the same bias towards
picking 'people we're comfortable with'.

True. I'm just stating the actual reason that blind auditions started
in the first place. Been there :-)

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
and unity gain. In the blind test, switch in and out of
a high quality signal path that starts with a LP.

The DAC and DAC are a valid stand-in for the CD because
its all the same digital format.

Unless the CD is the problem, of course.

You mean the CD *disc* itself now? Or the CD transport?


Doesn't matter. Scott and Jenn are clutching at any straw. One of their
goals is to make the difference between LP and digital practically
untestible.

These aren't real sincere people - they are RAO debating trade veterans,
disciples of Middius.


I disagree. I believe Jenn is sincere in her beliefs.
Sincerely wrong, but sincere, nonetheless. I hope she believes
the same about me, at least.

Indeed.

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

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

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


I have listened 'sighted' to LPs transferred to CD, and
the pops, clicks, pitch variations, surface noise, and
different mastering
choices compared to the official CD releases, all seemed
to be faithfully transferred, at least before I fixed
what I could using digital tools.

There's a big problem with trying to compare formats
using commercial recordings. There are almost always
major differences in mastering during the production
steps.

True. But I'm talking about the LP-to-CD transfers that
I've done. The main problem there is setting up the
comparison afterwards,
since the turntable's not usually part of my system.

The easy relevant test to do is to have a ADC and DAC running
back-to-back,
set for non-inverting polarity and unity gain. In the blind test,
switch
in
and out of a high quality signal path that starts with a LP.

The DAC and DAC are a valid stand-in for the CD because its all the
same
digital format.

Unless the CD is the problem, of course.

You mean the CD *disc* itself now? Or the CD transport?

Don't know; I'm just asking questions. Arny says that ADC and DAC are
the same as CD, and I'm simply making the logical statement that they
are NOT the same as CD if the actual media (or as you say, the
transport) is the problem.

Well, that medium is capable of perfect data storage for apps that
are much less forgiving than audio, so I really doubt CDs are
the problem.

Good point. Again, I'm not stating that the medium is the reason; I'm
just asking about possible causes.

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


Hey, anything's possible.

Let's restrict our discussion to things that are likely, please?

Including people who can't tell a recorded violin from a real one.

That could be very sad for an music lover.

The very phrase
"euphonic distortion" asserts
the existence of distortion that *someone* finds
experience-enhancing.

My take is that this vinyl thing is really about state of mind. We know
that
there are supposedly authoritative sources by the boatload that have been
promoting the idea that vinyl is more realisitic in some sense than
digital.


Heck, I saw an AV contractor on 'This Old House' make the claim just a week
or
two ago.


Jenn has convinced herself that this 'enhancement'
equates to making
the recording sound 'more real'.

Agreed - this has to be learned behavior. Some authority figure convinced
her of this. She is obviously profoundly affected by certain male authority
figures in her life.


No, I wouldn't go that far. It might have been a female. Or she may simply
have arrived at that preference by herself.

Ya think?!

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


Hey, anything's possible.

Let's restrict our discussion to things that are likely,
please?

Including people who can't tell a recorded violin from
a real one.

That could be very sad for an music lover.

The very phrase
"euphonic distortion" asserts
the existence of distortion that *someone* finds
experience-enhancing.

My take is that this vinyl thing is really about state
of mind. We know that there are supposedly authoritative
sources by the boatload that have been promoting the
idea that vinyl is more realisitic in some sense than
digital.


Heck, I saw an AV contractor on 'This Old House' make the
claim just a week or two ago.


Jenn has convinced herself that this 'enhancement'
equates to making
the recording sound 'more real'.

Agreed - this has to be learned behavior. Some authority
figure convinced her of this. She is obviously
profoundly affected by certain male authority figures in
her life.

No, I wouldn't go that far. It might have been a female.

It might, but I'm betting on a hunch that is pretty strong.

LOL OK Arny, I'm DYING to hear your explanation of this one! Write on,
Sir.

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
LOL The effect of room acoustics is not even CLOSE to
the issue.

Sure it is. Room acoustics have very profound effects
on reproduction, often equal or even very much greater
than the difference between a digital and an analog
recording.

This has NO relevance to the current part of the
discussion. See the paragraph above starting with "NO
media..." The presence or absence of an actual
instrument in a room is FAR more "gross" than are the
effects of room acoustics.

Of course it's relevant. The perception of 'actuality'
is dependent on acoustics. This is true in concert halls
as well as rooms at home. Surely you agree that
instruments don't equally sound as good in all concert
halls, at all seating positions!

This is ammunition for my random distortions argument.

The whole production/reproduction process is fraught with incidental
sources of audible noise and distortion. The listening room is a major
source of noise and distortion.

If the production/reproduction process had no audible noise and distortion
then every recording would be indistinguishable from the live performance.
More realism means that overall, there is less noise and distortion. Less
realism means that overall there is more noise and distortion.

For reproduction by some means to be truely more realistic than some other
means of distortion, there has to be overall, less noise and distortion. A
step in the production/reproduction process can only be advantageous from
the standpoint of realism, if it reduces the total noise and distortion of
the entire process.

It is both theoretically and practically possible in some but not all cases,
for one step in the production/reproduction process to introduce forms of
distortion that cancel out audible distortion that is introduced in other
steps of the process.

The essence of Jenn's claim that a well-made LP always sounds more lifelike
than a CD is a claim that when the LP is part of the production/reproducion
chain, the overall distortion and noise is minimized.

Since the CD format well-known and easily demonstrable to be free of audible
distortion, the only way the LP can sound better is if it has distortion
that cancels out audible distortion that is introduced in other steps of the
process.

However, the nature of the distoriton and noise, particuarly which are the
predominant forms of distortion and noise can be genearlized for all audio
systems or even just all good audio systems.

If the most significant stumbling block to lifelike reproduction is
listening room acoustics than addressing listening room acoustics becomes
the top priority.

How can an arbitrarily-chosen LP and LP playback system even one chosen to
sund good in some other room like an audio dealer demo room or reviewer's
listening room do this?

It can't!


Imagine someone playing a violin in an anaechoic
chamber....or an aircraft hangar....

Exactly.

The strongest determiner of sound quality, and therefore the biggest
detriment to the percpetion of realism can often be the room.

Jenn said to Mr. ****:

It might, but I'm betting on a hunch that is pretty strong.

LOL OK Arny, I'm DYING to hear your explanation of this one! Write on, Sir.

You're actually inviting Krooger to dump some Kroologic on you? You have
nerves of steel.

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote:

Jenn said:

The first commercially available digital recording was
done in 1974, Maria Joao Pires' Mozart cycle on JVC.

I don't think that it was nearly that early.


Ummm.....make that Denon.
Recorded in Japan by NBS people.
I must have a reference somewhere (I only have these
recordings on DAT).

Yeah, I recall that recording now. PCM and all that. I
stand corrected on my sentence above. Arny's claim that
digital recordings were "very common" in 1976, however,
is bogus.

Where did I say that?

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

AZ Nomad wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:42:30 GMT,
wrote:

Your insitence that the LP versions souind more real to
you, calls into question your hearing ability or your
honesty. You seem to be unaware that every time an
analog copy is made, it is degraded from the original,
which is not so with digital. Each digital copy is an
EXACT copy of the source, so th LP version can NEVER be
as clean or as accurate as the CD, even when using the
same master.

You're assuming that the master tape is perfect.

No.

Well, Jenn is assuming it was good enough to make one of
those 'best LPs'
out of too. The ones where the violin sounds more real
than on CD.

Exactly.

The process of capturing the sound via a microphone, and
digitizing
introduces artifacts which may be seem reversed when
muffled through
LP recording/playback.

That's a real stretch of the imagination.

? There's no reason for there to be *audible* artifacts
from a good digital recording or transfer. This doesn't mean some
bad recordings haven't been made!

Not only that, while the LP process is audibly flawed, its not that good at
masking such obvious problems.

For example, some digiphobes claim that the LP process reveals to them that
there are severe problems with any digital recorder, no matter how good. In
fact the best digital recorders are sonically transparent. The digiphobes
therefore impute a great deal of sonic accuracy to the LP process.

"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article et,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:


So, LP violins don't sound like real violins, but
they don't sound like something
else than a violin either, while CD violins always
sound like 'something else
than
a violin, even though you can always tell they are
violins.

Other than adding the word "some" to the LP side, yes,
that's pretty much it. Some LPs sound much closer to
the sound of real violins than do any CDs.


...that you've heard. You haven't heard all CDs.

Duh.


NO media sounds real enough to be fooled into thinking
that
an actual violin is playing in the room.

Probably so,

Probably? I submit that anyone who has ever been fooled
into thinking that any recording is the actual sound of
a violin (or any other instrument or voice) needs MUCH
more experience in the sound of those instruments.

You can certainly stipulate that, but you didn't make
such exceptions in your original post. I was accounting
for all possibilities.

but you are also neglecting the role of acoustics.

In what way?

The same recording played by the same system, will not
sound the same in a different room.

Of course. But what does that have to do with the
discussion?

Because the same recording of a violin could sound more
like a violin in one room and setup, than another.

Exactly.

Jenn obviously has no appreciation for how profoundly room
acoustics
affect
an audio system's SQ. This is a pretty trivial observation for
someone
with
good hearing and a good idea of what musical instruments sound
like
in
general. Therefore, its logical to conclude that Jenn lacks what
it
takes
to
make this observation.

LOL The effect of room acoustics is not even CLOSE to the issue.
Have
you, in ANY acoustical space with ANY system been fooled into
thinking
that there was a violin in the room with you?

Yes and not just violins, but guitars as well, but they were very
good
speakers being used and a very good room.

Then I have to question your knowledge of how instruments sound.

There are many makes of guitars that sound different from each other
an
the
same applies to Violins.

Of course!

I was referring to the illusion of having an
instrument playing in the room I was listening in.

As was I.

It only has worked on
solo instrumments, but I have been able a couple of times to hear solo
instruments that sounded as if they were playing in the room.

My other reply stands.

In light of what I said and you agreeing that it is so, then your reply
is
idiotic.

No, it isn't. Anyone who can be fooled into thinking that an actual
acoustic instrument or voice is in the room is either hearing damaged,
doesn't know how to listen carefully, or hasn't heard te real
instruments enough. Period.

It's not that I didn't KNOW there wasn't an actual instrument in the room,
only that it sounded as if there could be. The stereo effect was good
enough that you could perceive it as 3 dimensional.

Tell you what. You're fond of tests.
Find the best audio system that you can. Find the best quality quitar
or violin CDs that you can. Put that system and me in a room. If I
can't correctly tell 100 times out of 100 which is real and which is
the recording, I'll give you $100. If I'm successful, you give me
$100. Deal?

No deal. I don't know that the circumstance could be reproduced without the
same speakers, the same room and the same state of mind.

I don't play violin, but I do play guitar a bit and have many friends who
do
as well, and while I wouldn't be likely to tell many brands from one
another, (except maybe Ovation)

As an aside, Ovations suck, IMO. I haven't heard the newest ones
though.

That's an opinion you get to have, I do know that the main reason I hear
regardig why musicans use them is because of their consistently sounding the
same. I don't care for the shallow body ones very much, but the others
aren't terrible. Still I prefer the sound of a Martin or other wooden body.

I have experienced the illusion of hearing a
recording that gave the illusion of a musician playing in 3d space, in
the
same room I was in.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with knowing what the instrument sounded
like, other than to know it was a guitar or a violin, it has everything
to
do with good speakers, properly set up, and a good recording.

See above. To compare a guitar recording on ANY system and an actual
guitarist in the room and to fail at identification requires, most
likely, hearing damage.

Or a very good system and room.

Steven Sullivan said:

AFAIC, such a test doesn't have to be blind.

Well, *if* she hears no difference sighted, then there's no point
in doing a blind test.


I was kind of anticipating this outcome :-)

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

Sander deWaal wrote:
Steven Sullivan said:

AFAIC, such a test doesn't have to be blind.

Well, *if* she hears no difference sighted, then there's no point
in doing a blind test.


I was kind of anticipating this outcome :-)


I told Arny he better get his test protocol lined up for when Jenn
claims she doesn't like the digital recording of her album.

Time sync'd, level matched, EQ'd FR (oops is that for amps only?),
and quick switching.

Get to work boys....you have a problem.

ScottW

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message


But then the question remains, if mastering from LP would
give results that are so much more 'realistic', why isn't
it done routinely?

Good question. It is done infrequently, and when it is done it is used as
EFX.

Why do classical recordists and producers and artists
continue to favor mastering chains that don't involve an
LP stage?

It's all about getting higher quality without incurring unecessary costs.

The history of commercial recording says a lot about the sonic degradation
that is inherent in LP recording and playing.

For example, editing and re-recording were almost universally avoided until
a better medium for mastering than LP was found.

The idea of re-recording something that was recorded once on an LP was and
remains practically unthinkable.

Note that even high end vinyl advocates like Sheffield didn't make their CDs
from LPs, they used tape masters.