About Us

Sonnova

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:56:52 -0800, David E. Bath wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Sonnova writes:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:14:14 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"C. Leeds" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote
in message :

...All we're hearing about from many is
their undying hatred for digital...

Actually, I'm not hearing that at all.

Really?

And Arny's remark
overlooks a simple truth about most vinylphiles: in
addition to LPs, we also listen to things like CDs and
even iPods.

I listen to LPs, but I have no illusions about LPs being the modern SOTA,
or
the best recordings possible.

The comment "even iPods" is pretty revealing by itself. The LP format has
to
look way upstairs when it casts its technical gaze on a well-exploited
iPod.

It's funny. I can listen to LP and get great sonic pleasure from it, but
MP3
makes me grit my teeth. It's just AWFUL sounding (to me). Anybody who tells
me that they'd rather listen to MP3 than LP has just told me that they
cannot
hear. No, that's not really correct. What they have told me is that they
can
tolerate different kinds of distortion than I can. I don't mind a little
surface noise, a few ticks and pops, etc. but the digital artifacts of MP3
ruin the music for me. I suspect that someone who prefers MP3 over LP,
finds
the digital artifacts acceptable and the LP noises unacceptable. I guess
that's what makes horse-races. :-)

I guess I missed anyone mentioning MP3s above. Ipods can play
losslessly compressed and uncompressed digital audio.

That's why I exclusively use the term MP3 instead of iPod when talking about
this because iPods can also play lossless which is fine.

And something that has been mentioned many times here before, I doubt
anyone on RAHE advocates that the MP3s one buys online from most sites
as anything resembling high-end.

They are almost totally unlistenable (IMHO, of course). iTunes got my money
for music exactly twice. The first time and the last time.

Harry Lavo

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:32:46 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

On Nov 15, 5:22 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Given that you eschew the personal application of
bias-controlled listening techniques Harry, how do we
know that your perceptions are due to the technology, as
compared to your biases?

With apologies in advance to the moderators:

Because, for the record, it %^&*() doesn't matter.

It is true that for some people, Solipisism is the only life's philosopy
that they can understand.

When you actually get that point, you*just* might be able
to enjoy the hobby for itself

Depends where one thinks that the audio hobby is about making one's own
perceptions the center of the universe, and forcing everybody else to
agree
with you or suffer insult.

rather than attempting to
spread anger and stupidity because you cannot enjoy it otherwise.

?????????????

Harry has his point of view.

It is solipsism.

Whether you agree with it or
not, it remains his and is valid for him.

Believe it or not, I have no problems with that.

People who cannot see the need for a larger view, a reliable view that
many
can share, do have the right to identify themselves.

I truly hope that he doesn't give a tinker's dam for your opinion(s)
as it (they) are entirely worthless outside of your tiny little world.

The tinyist world is a world that is defined by only one's own
perceptions.
Society is based on agreements, shared experiences and shared opinions.
Solipsism can never lead there. It is the tyrany of self over one's
image
of
others.

************************************8

Arny, once again you are attacking people's motives and personality
because
they do not agree with your own view of the world, so let me set the
record
straight.

* You do not know me. Those who do, know that I am not a solipsist.
Not
even close.

If you are, I certainly haven't seen any evidence of it here. The irony is
that Arny seems to be exhibiting far more the very characteristics that he
is
accusing you of exhibiting.

* What I am, in Jungian terms, is an introverted intuitive-extraverted
thinking-judgemental type (INTJ). That means I am good at dealing with
the
external world in a logical fashion (my dominant function), and I have a
capacity to "connecting the dots" in that world in an original fashion
(my
secondary function). That "connection" may be highly accurate but not
widely perceived by others, or it may be wildly wrong. To know which is
true requires a scientific test.

Reasonable.

* What drives you crazy is that I don't accept your ABX test as the
ultimate arbiter to determine whether or not differences exist in gear
that
helps reproduce music. You claim that since you and your fellow
engineers
accept it, I am out of line and that my line of reasoning is, in fact,
"wildly wrong".

Here I have to side with Arny. Logic would dictate that if, on direct
comparison, no statistically significant differences are detected, then it
stands to reason that none exist.

* I don't accept it because of what we know about music....that it is a
perception of the arrangement of sound that has meaning to us as
humans...even to the point of being hard-wired into our brains in some
respect. Yet ABX attempts to measure differences DIRECTLY and
CONSCIOUSLY
rather than indirectly, which is how you have to measure a compiicated
psychological perception.

I'm afraid that you have lost me. I used to believe as you do that only
long
term listening could reveal the often subtle nuances between electronic
components until two things occured:
1) I was shown that a disparate group of listeners (of which I was one)
could
not reliably tell a $200 power amplifier from a highly touted and
respected
$8000 amplifier of similar power. They sounded the same on sample after
sample of music.

2) I started to realize that the longer I listened with a "new" piece of
equipment in my "reference" system, (using the standard audiophile
approach
of replacing, for instance, one's everyday or "reference" amp with the amp
under test) and then listening critically, the more I imagined that the
new
amp was better, when in reality, in a controlled, double-blind test, they
were indistinguishable from one another.

Context matters, and having a test that focus
conscious thought as opposed to holistic reaction is a flawed test, since
it
presents an intervening variable which we KNOW changes perception.

Knowing that the "new" component is new and different from the one
regularly
in one's system definitely changes perceptions. Same with cables. They all
sound the same, but when ones puts an expensive set of speaker cables in
one's system, one EXPECTS them to sound different from the cables that
they
replace, and so, they do.

Interesting case in point. The latest Absolute Sound has a "review" of
some
treated plastic foam blocks cut so as to lift speaker cables off the
floor.
Now this plastic foam seems to be the conducting kind often used to ship
integrated circuits to keep them from getting damaged by static
electricity.
The company making these things has a "white paper'" full of more
technical
gibberish than this engineer has seen in a 'coon's age. According to this
techno-babble, speaker cables lying on the floor build up a static
potential
between the floor and the conductors in the cable equaling tens of
thousands
of volts. The "white paper" goes on to say that using the "Unified
Electric
Field Theory" (whatever the hell that is) this difference of potential
interacts with the audio signal going to the speakers and causes gross
intermodulation distortion! These blocks are sold by the dozen and a dozen
of
them cost $300! The reviewer went on to say that they actually worked
(although he wasn't sure that it was because of what the manufacturer said
was happening)! IOW, expecting there to be a difference, he heard one. Of
course, its absolute rubbish, but I'll almost guarantee that anybody who
buys
a set of these (or anybody else's) cable-lifts will hear a difference. The
difference doesn't exist, in fact, it can't exist, but buyers of this
product
will hear one anyway!

*********************************************88

Thank you for your observation that I have not exhibited solipsist behavior.

I don't recall you being a participant a few years ago when we discussed
this. You and Arny are right that all tests that involving comparing
equipment present an intervening variable....conscious thought which is
shown to surpress many unconscious thoughts and feelings and newly-emerged
insights that simply don't emerge nor can be willed in a conscious state.

Thats why any test which sets out to prove that *musical* differences do not
exist between two pieces of gear needs to get as far away from comparing the
gear as it is possible to get, and instead get to comparing the music. ABX
is the most egregious form of testing in NOT doing that...it not only relies
on a conscious state, but actually changes the ground rules from
"perceiving" to "jusdging" which are totally different aspects of our mental
construct.

That is why in the discussion of how we would develop a validating test, I
proposed we start with a monadic test where we are not evaluating equipment,
but rather evaluating music. And not *while* we are listening
(consciously) but after we are done listening (reflectively, when we can
dwell back on our *perceptions* during). The people doing the evaluation
are not *comparing* anything. They are not *testing* anything. They are
asked to evaluate and after the fact "rate" the music on certain scales
relating to the music quality (not the "sound" per se). With two panels
carefully matched against a target group (audiophiles, music lovers,
whatever seems most appropriate) and each panel containing at least three
hundred people, those "fleeting moments" of perception will arise acroos
enough people to register, if they exist. And if they do, then when the two
panels are compared statistically, it is possible to determine
probablistically whether differences really exist on some of the musical
attributes.

And if such differences do exist, then we would proceed to step two...an
identical test where the music was played and evaluated twice, and at the
end participants were asked if they had a preference for the two listening
sessions so far as the musical reproduction was concerned. This is a
proto-monadic test, and the sample has to be structured so that one-half
hear one sample first, and the other half the other sample first. And if a
preference was shown at this point...we would proceed to the thrid step...

The third step would be to do a blind preference test. Same as before, with
some evaluation of the musical performance...just a straight preference to
see if it gave the same statistical results as the earlier tests.. Again,
the subject would not know *what* was being tested, but simply music and a
preference for the two performances. And if this test showed a similar
preference as the earlier tests....

........we would then proceed to the Fourth and final step....a classic ABX or
ABC/hr test where folks know they are evaluating two reproduction variables.
If there were differences shown elsewhere in the chain (in the form of
statistically significant differences or preferences when rating music) and
no difference in the ABX test, that test is invalid, whether due to
intervening variable or due to small sample size. If these earlier
statistical differences did show up as a "difference" in the ABX testing
among small samples, then we would know it is valid.

Interestingly enough, the ABC/hr test is prefered by the AES for testing
music (as opposed to distortion artifacts) because it moves a small step
back from the ABX difference testing towards the third step mentioned
above...the difference test but with ratings and an overall preference.

I worked for a large packaged goods company that spent hundreds of thousands
of dollars refining its consumer testing proceedures....somthing like the
above is absolutely necessary if one is to be able to reach the simplest,
most cost effective means of testing THAT CAN PRODUCE VALID RESULTS.
Because no equivalent organization with an equivalent financial stake exists
in the audio world, that work will likely never be done....instead, the
audio fraternity has simply short circuited the entire process by deciding
that sound is just sound, and that a test that works for audiometry is
equally valid for measuring musical perceptions.

That is the fundamental basis of my mistrust and indeed disinterest in ABX
testing. Without any attempt at validation, I choose to trust my own 50
years of listening and judgement, which does involve at times blind testing
but also a lot of other ways of "getting at the music".

*************************

I said I was not going to get deeply into it....and I'm NOT going to argue
test design details. But I wanted you and others here to know that my
objections are not pie-in-the-sky, but are rooted in what my background in
testing suggests is a very unproven test vehicle.

Harry Lavo

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
David E. Bath wrote:
In article ,
Sonnova writes:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:14:14 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"C. Leeds" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote
in message :

...All we're hearing about from many is
their undying hatred for digital...

Actually, I'm not hearing that at all.

Really?

And Arny's remark
overlooks a simple truth about most vinylphiles: in
addition to LPs, we also listen to things like CDs and
even iPods.

I listen to LPs, but I have no illusions about LPs being the modern
SOTA, or
the best recordings possible.

The comment "even iPods" is pretty revealing by itself. The LP format
has to
look way upstairs when it casts its technical gaze on a
well-exploited
iPod.

It's funny. I can listen to LP and get great sonic pleasure from it,
but MP3
makes me grit my teeth. It's just AWFUL sounding (to me). Anybody who
tells
me that they'd rather listen to MP3 than LP has just told me that they
cannot
hear. No, that's not really correct. What they have told me is that
they can
tolerate different kinds of distortion than I can. I don't mind a
little
surface noise, a few ticks and pops, etc. but the digital artifacts of
MP3
ruin the music for me. I suspect that someone who prefers MP3 over LP,
finds
the digital artifacts acceptable and the LP noises unacceptable. I
guess
that's what makes horse-races. :-)

I guess I missed anyone mentioning MP3s above. Ipods can play
losslessly compressed and uncompressed digital audio.

And something that has been mentioned many times here before, I doubt
anyone on RAHE advocates that the MP3s one buys online from most sites
as anything resembling high-end.

I doubt Sonnova could tell a well-made MP3 from source, in a proper blind
test,
unless a 'killer sample' was used.

Does this mean you doubt his listening acuity, Arnold? Or are you
nominating MP3 for high-end status?

Greg Wormald

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

Everyone agrees. Even mediocre digital is better than the best LP with a few
exceptions. These exceptions have been pointed out here, but Arny, without
having heard the LPs in question, has simply dismissed the whole idea out of
hand.

Sorry, not true. I don't agree.
And that's the end of that argument.
How about we all move on and leave that poor dead horse alone?
Greg

Sonnova

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:20:17 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

When I say GOOD, it is in the context of high-end audio,
IOW it has superior sound quality in that it sounds more
like real, live music, played in a real space and has a
you-are-there palpability that the average recording
(even digital) lacks.

Superior sound quality is impossible when a great deal of audible noise and
distortion can be heard.

That's where you are both wrong and apparently, blind.

In fact there is a widespread belief that freedom
from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for superior sound. IOW
it is necessary, but not sufficient.

Depends on what you consider noise and distortion. I take good care of my
records. They have minimal surface noise and few clicks and pops. When vinyl
record sounds head and shoulders above the CD of the same performance (The CD
sounds like you're listening to the performance through several blankets and
the record sounds like you are there in the recording hall), its BETTER.

Why do you keep arguing about this? Apparently you haven't heard this
recording, have never made the comparison yourself, and therefore have only
your prejudice against vinyl to fall back on.

Sonnova

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:35:30 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 05:22:40 -0800, Rob Tweed wrote
(in article ):

On 17 Nov 2008 03:14:14 GMT, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I listen to LPs, but I have no illusions about LPs
being the modern SOTA, or
the best recordings possible.

I'm with you there, Arny!

Everyone agrees. Even mediocre digital is better than the
best LP with a few exceptions.

No, not everybody agrees with that.

These exceptions have been
pointed out here, but Arny, without having heard the LPs
in question, has simply dismissed the whole idea out of
hand.

I've given the LP a heck of a try, and like low-feedback SET amplifiers, it
has never failed to fail to satisfy.

Well, that's your loss, but it doesn't make your experience the universal
gospel you seem to think it is.

Sonnova

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:20:55 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

"No, that's not really correct. What they have told me is
that they can tolerate different kinds of distortion than
I can.

Given that absence of audible noise and distortion in media is feasible and
often implemented, there is no way that media with audible noise can be
compared to it in this way.

That's YOUR opinion.

It's not a matter of tolerating different kinds of distortion, it is a
matter of comparing a medium that is well known to be free of audible noise
and distortion to one that is well-known to have copious amounts of noise
and distortion.

I don't mind a little surface noise, a few ticks
and pops, etc.

They simply have no place in a SOTA musical storage and reproduction medium.

Again, you seem to have trouble with the concept that this is merely your
opinion. And while others might share it, it's not necessarily true for
everyone.

but the digital artifacts of MP3 ruin the music for me.

It has been proven that modern MP3 coders can be free of audible artifacts.

Sorry, I've never heard an MP3 that I could stand to listen to except maybe
in the car or as low level background music.

MP3 coding is be performed under the control of various settings that
dictate the degree of data reduction. If one reduces the data too much, then
there will be audible artifacts. However, by exercising due caution,
data-reduced recordings with no audible artifacts can be produced.
Regrettably, many commercial sources of recordings do not have these lofty
goals.

Whatever, the results are less than listenable to me. Now, lossless
compression? I have no problem with that and in fact I use it on my iPod and
my Apple TV music server. It's just fine, thank you.

Sonnova

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:35:42 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Nov 17, 7:56*pm, (David E. Bath) wrote:

And something that has been mentioned many times here before, I doubt
anyone on RAHE advocates that the MP3s one buys online from most sites
as anything resembling high-end.

Agreed, MP3s are not the best sound you can get, so don't qualify as
high-end. (Panasonic DVD players, OTOH...)

But MP3s, esp. at higher bit rates (some of which are available for
download) come very close, and probably are indistinguishable from CD
for most people—including most audiophiles—most of the time.

I'd like to see Sonnova put 256 kbps MP3s to the same honest test he
did for amplifiers.

bob

I have. I can hear the artifacts and pick out the MP3 from the uncompressed
source every time. So can anybody, once you know what to listen for.

Arny Krueger

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:56:52 -0800, David E. Bath wrote
(in article ):

And something that has been mentioned many times here
before, I doubt anyone on RAHE advocates that the MP3s
one buys online from most sites as anything resembling
high-end.

They are almost totally unlistenable (IMHO, of course).
iTunes got my money for music exactly twice. The first
time and the last time.

Let's face it, iTunes is courting the mass market, not high end music
listeners. If you were surprised that your iTunes downloads were
substandard, then you should have asked.

A number of download sites seem to be courting high end listeners. AFAIK,
they are using the lossless and high-bitrate lossy formats that it takes to
do the job.

Harry Lavo

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sonnova" wrote in message

"No, that's not really correct. What they have told me is
that they can tolerate different kinds of distortion than
I can.

Given that absence of audible noise and distortion in media is feasible
and
often implemented, there is no way that media with audible noise can be
compared to it in this way.

It's not a matter of tolerating different kinds of distortion, it is a
matter of comparing a medium that is well known to be free of audible
noise
and distortion to one that is well-known to have copious amounts of noise
and distortion.

I don't mind a little surface noise, a few ticks
and pops, etc.

They simply have no place in a SOTA musical storage and reproduction
medium.

but the digital artifacts of MP3 ruin the music for me.

It has been proven that modern MP3 coders can be free of audible
artifacts.

MP3 coding is be performed under the control of various settings that
dictate the degree of data reduction. If one reduces the data too much,
then
there will be audible artifacts. However, by exercising due caution,
data-reduced recordings with no audible artifacts can be produced.
Regrettably, many commercial sources of recordings do not have these lofty
goals.

So moderators, here and in the immediately preceding memo we have Arny
claiming that MP3's are potentially high-end ("MR3 coders can be free of
audible artifacts"). Do we nominate MP3's for high end status in the
newsgroup charter. ....or do we demote CD's from high end status in this era
of 96/24 audio and SACD audio? :-)

Arny Krueger

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:20:55 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

"No, that's not really correct. What they have told me
is that they can tolerate different kinds of distortion
than I can.

Given that absence of audible noise and distortion in
media is feasible and often implemented, there is no
way that media with audible noise can be compared to it
in this way.

That's YOUR opinion.

Well, me and just a few billion other music lovers who have happily
abandoned the LP.

It's not a matter of tolerating different kinds of
distortion, it is a matter of comparing a medium that is
well known to be free of audible noise and distortion to
one that is well-known to have copious amounts of noise
and distortion.

I don't mind a little surface noise, a few ticks
and pops, etc.

They simply have no place in a SOTA musical storage and
reproduction medium.

Again, you seem to have trouble with the concept that
this is merely your opinion.

You seem to love to ignore the actual billions of music lovers who have
either abandoned the LP or simply never felt the need to go there.

And while others might share it, it's not necessarily true for everyone.

Just about 99% of everybody.

but the digital artifacts of MP3 ruin the music for me.

It has been proven that modern MP3 coders can be free
of audible artifacts.

Sorry, I've never heard an MP3 that I could stand to
listen to except maybe in the car or as low level
background music.

OK let's talk fair comparisons. I listened to LPs almost exclusively for
about 40 years, and owned a record collection of over 1,000 volumes. You've
downloaded 2 MP3s from iTunes, and you're making global pronouncements about
them.

I've visited many audiophiles who said they had so-called Killer vinyl
systems, and carefully listened to them. I still have a vinyl system which
AFAIK has the best measured performance of any vinyl system for whom
technical measurements have been made publicly available. All that, and
somehow I'm extremely biased?

I simply say the word when I have a mouthful of it! ;-)

MP3 coding is be performed under the control of various
settings that dictate the degree of data reduction. If
one reduces the data too much, then there will be
audible artifacts. However, by exercising due caution,
data-reduced recordings with no audible artifacts can be
produced. Regrettably, many commercial sources of
recordings do not have these lofty goals.

Whatever, the results are less than listenable to me.

Where's the fair comparison?

I've been doing DBTs involving MP3s and other perceptually-coded files for
about 15 years, listened to actually thousands of different MP3s, good and
bad.

Now, lossless compression? I have no problem with that
and in fact I use it on my iPod and my Apple TV music
server. It's just fine, thank you.

I think that the facts are quite clear. You falsely accuse me of prejudice,
when you have not given the MP3 format even 0.1% of the chances and
attention that I have given the LP.

Arny Krueger

"David E. Bath" wrote in message

In article ,
Sonnova writes:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:14:14 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"C. Leeds" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote
in message :

...All we're hearing about from many is
their undying hatred for digital...

Actually, I'm not hearing that at all.

Really?

And Arny's remark
overlooks a simple truth about most vinylphiles: in
addition to LPs, we also listen to things like CDs and
even iPods.

I listen to LPs, but I have no illusions about LPs
being the modern SOTA, or the best recordings possible.

The comment "even iPods" is pretty revealing by itself.
The LP format has to look way upstairs when it casts
its technical gaze on a well-exploited iPod.

It's funny. I can listen to LP and get great sonic
pleasure from it, but MP3 makes me grit my teeth. It's
just AWFUL sounding (to me). Anybody who tells me that
they'd rather listen to MP3 than LP has just told me
that they cannot hear. No, that's not really correct.
What they have told me is that they can tolerate
different kinds of distortion than I can. I don't mind a
little surface noise, a few ticks and pops, etc. but the
digital artifacts of MP3 ruin the music for me. I
suspect that someone who prefers MP3 over LP, finds the
digital artifacts acceptable and the LP noises
unacceptable. I guess that's what makes horse-races. :-)

I guess I missed anyone mentioning MP3s above.

I didn't say it explicitly, but I guess I need to. Avoiding lossy
compression on a portable music player vastly improves the possibility of
sonic transparency. Lossy compression can be undetectable with the best
encoders and bitrates in the 192-320 kbps range.

Ipods can
play losslessly compressed and uncompressed digital audio.

Yes, they handle uncompressed AIFF and losslessly compressed files.

And something that has been mentioned many times here
before, I doubt anyone on RAHE advocates that the MP3s
one buys online from most sites as anything resembling
high-end.

Agreed. Almost everybody who is interested in downloading music is using a
high-speed link. Even DSL near the edge of its service area facilitates
downloading files coded at 128 kbps.

Arny Krueger

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

David E. Bath wrote:

And something that has been mentioned many times here
before, I doubt anyone on RAHE advocates that the MP3s
one buys online from most sites as anything resembling
high-end.

I doubt Sonnova could tell a well-made MP3 from source,
in a proper blind test,
unless a 'killer sample' was used.

Does this mean you doubt his listening acuity, Arnold?

I think that someone needs to pay attention to posting chains. I had nothing
to do with the chain of posts leading to the above.

Sonnova has said that he did a level-matched, time-synched comparison of a
256 K MP3 to the CD track that it was based on. I'd like to know what coder
is that screwed up.

Or are you nominating MP3 for high-end status?

For the record, My primary portable digital player runs at up to 24/96 PCM,
and 320 kb/s MP3.

320 K MP3s are generally indistinguishable for me, and so is 44/16 PCM.
It's a long stretch from generally indistinguishable to unlistenable.

Arny Krueger

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:37:14 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

wrote in message

On Nov 17, 10:06ï¿½am, vlad
wrote:
On Nov 17, 5:22ï¿½am, Sonnova
wrote:

LP itself has multiple well documented distortions.
Cartridge adds its own distortions. So it is something
different from what mastering engineer intended you to
hear.

If you are listening to a different system than the one
used by the mastering engineer then you are hearing
something different than what the mastering engineer
intended you to hear. And that is in a "perfect" world.

So resolved, we'll use the highly colored and distorted
LP format rather than the sonically-transparent CD
format so that those differences can be multiplied and
magnified, right?

We use what sounds the most like real music.

As long as they keep banning popcorn poppers from concert halls... ;-)

If that's CD in one case and LP in another, so be it.

Really?

In the absence of informed technical arguments favoring the LP...

Anything else is letting your prejudice rule your life.

Anti-digital prejudice is still rife in many corners.

[email protected]

On Nov 17, 3:37ï¿½pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

On Nov 17, 10:06 am, vlad
wrote:
On Nov 17, 5:22 am, Sonnova
wrote:

LP itself has multiple well documented distortions.
Cartridge adds its own distortions. So it is something
different from what mastering engineer intended you to
hear.
If you are listening to a different system than the one
used by the mastering engineer then you are hearing
something different than what the mastering engineer
intended you to hear. And that is in a "perfect" world.

So resolved, we'll use the highly colored and distorted LP format rather
than the sonically-transparent CD format so that those differences can be
multiplied and magnified, right?

I suggest the pragmatic approach. Just listen to the various
masterings of your favorite music and choose the one that sounds best
regardless of which format you happen to find it on. If you have a
better methodology for getting the best sound from one's favorite
recordings I'd like to know about it.

[email protected]

On Nov 17, 8:20ï¿½pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message

When I say GOOD, it is in the context of high-end audio,
IOW it has superior sound quality in that it sounds more
like real, live music, played in a real space and has a
you-are-there palpability that the average recording
(even digital) lacks.

Superior sound quality is impossible when a great deal of audible noise and
distortion can be heard. In fact there is a widespread belief that freedom
from ï¿½audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for superior sound. IOW
it is necessary, but not sufficient.

That is quite an interesting claim. Do you feel that you are actually
getting distortion free sound from your playback system? I don't
believe any such distortion free playback system exists.

Peter Wieck

Mpffff... some small quibbles. Small, but significant depending on how
much you permit differences in perception to over-ride differences
measured by instruments. Please note the interpolations.

On Nov 17, 6:34*pm, Sonnova wrote:

If you are, I certainly haven't seen any evidence of it here. The irony is
that Arny seems to be exhibiting far more the very characteristics that he is
accusing you of exhibiting.

Arny has described himself in other venues as a latter-day Diogenes.
Under those sorts of conditions nothing from him may be perceived as
being from an honest broker. That is about the very best thing that I
can write about him and be truthful.

Here I have to side with Arny. Logic would dictate that if, on direct
comparison, no statistically significant differences are detected, then it
stands to reason that none exist.

Ah, Reason and Logic. For the most part, important and valid bases
from which to draw conclusions and make judgements. There are a few
limits. At issue, how one describes "statistically significant".
Statistical sampling processes can be used with excellent results for
quality control and predictive purposes - as a small aside, NASA did a
study in Lunar Lander rocket ignition systems with an entirely counter-
intuitive result - but there is always that particular oddball. The
"by whom are none detected" is the wild-card here. It is quite
probable that there are individuals who can pick out differences with
some accuracy - however the conditions necessary for those predictions
may depend on variables not considered in the test - As an example, a
particular piece of music with a particular mix of frequencies and
instruments to which that individual is particularly sensitive. Maybe
under those conditions the 'differences' can be found every time. I am
emphatically *NOT* writing that this is the case - but I am writing
that stranger things have happened under the sun.

* *I don't accept it because of what we know about music....that it is a
perception of the arrangement of sound that has meaning to us as
humans...even to the point of being hard-wired into our brains in some
respect. *Yet ABX attempts to measure differences DIRECTLY and CONSCIOUSLY
rather than indirectly, which is how you have to measure a compiicated
psychological perception.

I'm afraid that you have lost me. I used to believe as you do that only long
term listening could reveal the often subtle nuances between electronic
components until two things occured:
1) I was shown that a disparate group of listeners (of which I was one) could
not reliably tell a $200 power amplifier from a highly touted and respected
$8000 amplifier of similar power. They sounded the same on sample after
sample of music.

2) I started to realize that the longer I listened with a "new" piece of
equipment in my "reference" system, (using the standard audiophile approach
of replacing, for instance, one's everyday or "reference" amp with the amp
under test) and then listening critically, the more I imagined that the new
amp was better, when in reality, in a controlled, double-blind test, they
were indistinguishable from one another.

The problem with a double-blind test is that it is necessarily very
short term. The problem with human intellectual honesty is that it is
essentially non-existent. Put the two of these things together, and it
appears to be the case, prima-fascia that only double-blind ABX
testing can possibly be valid as long-term testing requires human
intellectual honesty to be valid. However, this does not account for
very real phenomena such as Listener Fatigue that appears to happen
over the long term with some things but not others. Where it gets
really wild is that those things *WILL* vary from individual to
individual.

* Context matters, and having a test that focus
conscious thought as opposed to holistic reaction is a flawed test, since it
presents an intervening variable which we KNOW changes perception.

Knowing that the "new" component is new and different from the one regularly
in one's system definitely changes perceptions. Same with cables. They all
sound the same, but when ones puts an expensive set of speaker cables in
one's system, one EXPECTS them to sound different from the cables that they
replace, and so, they do.

Yep. See 'intellectual honesty' above. However and at the same time,
listener fatigue is a very real thing such that over time it will
typically overcome even well-seated expectations. So, a long-term test
*should* eventually overcome sighted expectations. Or, if they do not,
it is equally/more likely that there are really no differences. So, I
would posit that an 'equal-or-better' substitute may be readily
perceived as 'always better'. Whereas a 'poorer' substitute - even if
not discerned by short-term double-blind testing will eventually be
rejected due to the resulting pain.

Interesting case in point. The latest Absolute Sound has a "review" of some
treated plastic foam blocks cut so as to lift speaker cables off the floor.
Now this *plastic foam seems to be the conducting kind often used to ship
integrated circuits to keep them from getting damaged by static electricity.
The company making these things has a "white paper'" full of more technical
gibberish than this engineer has seen in a 'coon's age. *According to this
techno-babble, speaker cables lying on the floor build up a static potential
between the floor and the conductors in the cable equaling tens of thousands
of volts. The "white paper" goes on to say that using the "Unified Electric
Field Theory" (whatever the hell that is) this difference of potential
interacts with the audio signal going to the speakers and causes gross
intermodulation distortion! These blocks are sold by the dozen and a dozen of
them cost $300! * *The reviewer went on to say that they actually worked
(although he wasn't sure that it was because of what the manufacturer said
was happening)! IOW, expecting there to be a difference, he heard one. Of
course, its absolute rubbish, but I'll almost guarantee that anybody who buys
a set of these (or anybody else's) cable-lifts will hear a difference. The
difference doesn't exist, in fact, it can't exist, but buyers of this product
will hear one anyway!

Could be any number of things that have nothing to do with the
electrical nature or cost of the foam, but simply that the foam exists
in that application. Just decoupling the speaker from the structure
will often create an audible difference. Or the opposite. I remember
putting a set of spikes on a pair of tower speakers (over carpet). All
of a sudden the speakers were coupled to the floor - the sound was
remarkably different (note: I did not write "better" or "worse" as
that is not the point). Going the other way could have the same
results. So, the typical (see 'human intellectual honesty' above)
consumer *WILL DEFINITELY*hear a difference with the foam blocks. Must
be that they are electrically conductive and cost bigbux. Maybe you
should pick a better example for audio-phoolery - such as the little
catenary towers for speaker wire? *THAT* technology -if it is such -
boggles my mind.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Arny Krueger

[email protected]

On Nov 17, 4:56ï¿½pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,

ï¿½Sonnova wrote:
Everyone agrees. Even mediocre digital is better than the best LP with a few
exceptions.

I'm almost aligned with you here. ï¿½I think that on average, CDs sound
better than LPs. ï¿½I own many more CDs than LPs. ï¿½But the best sound I've
heard in my home or any other has come from a few very wonderful LPs,
especially for the musical aspects that are especially important to me. ï¿½
I've said this repeatedly, but one person has written that I am a "vinyl
bigot". ï¿½lol

My experience actually runs quite contrary. It could be that I listen
to a lot of music that neither you nor Sonoma listen to very much. IME
the majority of the time the best mastering of a given title will be
found on LP. But one has to take it on a case by case basis.

Steven Sullivan

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
David E. Bath wrote:
In article ,
Sonnova writes:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:14:14 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"C. Leeds" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote
in message :

...All we're hearing about from many is
their undying hatred for digital...

Actually, I'm not hearing that at all.

Really?

And Arny's remark
overlooks a simple truth about most vinylphiles: in
addition to LPs, we also listen to things like CDs and
even iPods.

I listen to LPs, but I have no illusions about LPs being the modern
SOTA, or
the best recordings possible.

The comment "even iPods" is pretty revealing by itself. The LP format
has to
look way upstairs when it casts its technical gaze on a
well-exploited
iPod.

It's funny. I can listen to LP and get great sonic pleasure from it,
but MP3
makes me grit my teeth. It's just AWFUL sounding (to me). Anybody who
tells
me that they'd rather listen to MP3 than LP has just told me that they
cannot
hear. No, that's not really correct. What they have told me is that
they can
tolerate different kinds of distortion than I can. I don't mind a
little
surface noise, a few ticks and pops, etc. but the digital artifacts of
MP3
ruin the music for me. I suspect that someone who prefers MP3 over LP,
finds
the digital artifacts acceptable and the LP noises unacceptable. I
guess
that's what makes horse-races. :-)

I guess I missed anyone mentioning MP3s above. Ipods can play
losslessly compressed and uncompressed digital audio.

And something that has been mentioned many times here before, I doubt
anyone on RAHE advocates that the MP3s one buys online from most sites
as anything resembling high-end.

I doubt Sonnova could tell a well-made MP3 from source, in a proper blind
test,
unless a 'killer sample' was used.

Does this mean you doubt his listening acuity, Arnold? Or are you
nominating MP3 for high-end status?

Depends on your definition of 'high end'.

If an MP3 encoding a 'high end' source is 'transparent' to a discerning listener, in
a blind test, on a 'high end' system, the only way it isn't 'high end' is in terms of...its
measurements.

So, are you and other anti-MP3 folks 'measurementalist' only when it comes to MP3s, Harry?

This assumes of course, that you've actually done the blind tests...it seems most
of the anti-MP3 brigade never even takes that first step.

--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

Arny Krueger

"Sonnova" wrote in message

I've given the LP a heck of a try, and like low-feedback
SET amplifiers, it has never failed to fail to satisfy.

Well, that's your loss, but it doesn't make your
experience the universal gospel you seem to think it is.

You can't deny that about 99% of all music lovers have abandoned the LP.

When you've listened to the equivalent of about 4,000 LPs in the form of
high-quality perceptually-coded files over a periods of about 40 years like
I did for the LP, then I think you may have the right to accuse me of
prejudice.

Jenn[_2_]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Sonnova" wrote in message

We use what sounds the most like real music. If that's CD in one case and LP in another, so be it.

Really?

In the absence of informed technical arguments favoring the LP...

Arny, you seem to be saying that one should use a medium that doesn't
sound the most like real music to a given listener. Is that really what
you mean to say?

Arny Krueger

wrote in message

On Nov 17, 8:20ï¿½pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message

When I say GOOD, it is in the context of high-end audio,
IOW it has superior sound quality in that it sounds more
like real, live music, played in a real space and has a
you-are-there palpability that the average recording
(even digital) lacks.

Superior sound quality is impossible when a great deal
of audible noise and distortion can be heard. In fact
there is a widespread belief that freedom from
ï¿½audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for
superior sound. IOW it is necessary, but not sufficient.

That is quite an interesting claim. Do you feel that you
are actually getting distortion free sound from your
playback system?

Non-responsive.

I said "a great deal of audible noise and distortion can be heard"

You say " distortion free sound from your playback system?"

Can't you see the difference?

Steven Sullivan

Peter Wieck wrote:

2) I started to realize that the longer I listened with a "new" piece of
equipment in my "reference" system, (using the standard audiophile approach
of replacing, for instance, one's everyday or "reference" amp with the amp
under test) and then listening critically, the more I imagined that the new
amp was better, when in reality, in a controlled, double-blind test, they
were indistinguishable from one another.

The problem with a double-blind test is that it is necessarily very
short term.

No, it isn't. And as this has been explained dozens, if not hundreds,
if times here, I'm going to suggest you do some more research on
DBT before making such claims.

Now, the problem with non-blind test is that it is necessarily subject to
bias.

--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

Harry Lavo

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

David E. Bath wrote:

And something that has been mentioned many times here
before, I doubt anyone on RAHE advocates that the MP3s
one buys online from most sites as anything resembling
high-end.

I doubt Sonnova could tell a well-made MP3 from source,
in a proper blind test,
unless a 'killer sample' was used.

Does this mean you doubt his listening acuity, Arnold?

I think that someone needs to pay attention to posting chains. I had
nothing
to do with the chain of posts leading to the above.

Sonnova has said that he did a level-matched, time-synched comparison of a
256 K MP3 to the CD track that it was based on. I'd like to know what
coder
is that screwed up.

Or are you nominating MP3 for high-end status?

For the record, My primary portable digital player runs at up to 24/96
PCM,
and 320 kb/s MP3.

320 K MP3s are generally indistinguishable for me, and so is 44/16 PCM.
It's a long stretch from generally indistinguishable to unlistenable.

My apologies, Arny. I've been screwing up attribution a bit lately...don't
yet know whether or not it is me or Giganews in its last gasp via Comcast
and OE, but I expect it's my fault. In this case I had just read another of
your posts that made nearly the identical claim, and I think I confused
which I was responding to.

Harry Lavo

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
David E. Bath wrote:
In article ,
Sonnova writes:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:14:14 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"C. Leeds" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote
in message :

...All we're hearing about from many is
their undying hatred for digital...

Actually, I'm not hearing that at all.

Really?

And Arny's remark
overlooks a simple truth about most vinylphiles: in
addition to LPs, we also listen to things like CDs and
even iPods.

I listen to LPs, but I have no illusions about LPs being the modern
SOTA, or
the best recordings possible.

The comment "even iPods" is pretty revealing by itself. The LP
format
has to
look way upstairs when it casts its technical gaze on a
well-exploited
iPod.

It's funny. I can listen to LP and get great sonic pleasure from it,
but MP3
makes me grit my teeth. It's just AWFUL sounding (to me). Anybody
who
tells
me that they'd rather listen to MP3 than LP has just told me that
they
cannot
hear. No, that's not really correct. What they have told me is that
they can
tolerate different kinds of distortion than I can. I don't mind a
little
surface noise, a few ticks and pops, etc. but the digital artifacts
of
MP3
ruin the music for me. I suspect that someone who prefers MP3 over
LP,
finds
the digital artifacts acceptable and the LP noises unacceptable. I
guess
that's what makes horse-races. :-)

I guess I missed anyone mentioning MP3s above. Ipods can play
losslessly compressed and uncompressed digital audio.

And something that has been mentioned many times here before, I doubt
anyone on RAHE advocates that the MP3s one buys online from most sites
as anything resembling high-end.

I doubt Sonnova could tell a well-made MP3 from source, in a proper
blind
test,
unless a 'killer sample' was used.

Does this mean you doubt his listening acuity, Arnold? Or are you
nominating MP3 for high-end status?

Depends on your definition of 'high end'.

If an MP3 encoding a 'high end' source is 'transparent' to a discerning
listener, in
a blind test, on a 'high end' system, the only way it isn't 'high end' is
in terms of...its
measurements.

So, are you and other anti-MP3 folks 'measurementalist' only when it comes
to MP3s, Harry?

This assumes of course, that you've actually done the blind tests...it
seems most
of the anti-MP3 brigade never even takes that first step.

I did a brief blind test a few years ago and then some extended sighted
listening, which I've already mentioned at some point, of 256 MP3 downloaded
via Real Audio and played back via my high-end system. It put me firmly in
Sonnova's "ear-bleeding" camp. I haven't been tempted since.

I do occasionally listen to streaming internet music stations at background
level though my HK computer speakers, but even when doing that I can only do
it for a short time before I get totally fatigued. I much prefer to listen
to radio on my secondary stereo system as an alternative.

[email protected]

On Nov 18, 8:43ï¿½pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message

On Nov 17, 8:20 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message

When I say GOOD, it is in the context of high-end audio,
IOW it has superior sound quality in that it sounds more
like real, live music, played in a real space and has a
you-are-there palpability that the average recording
(even digital) lacks.

Superior sound quality is impossible when a great deal
of audible noise and distortion can be heard. In fact
there is a widespread belief that freedom from
audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for
superior sound. IOW it is necessary, but not sufficient.

That is quite an interesting claim. Do you feel that you
are actually getting distortion free sound from your
playback system?

Non-responsive.

Responsive to what? I see no question asked there.

I said "a great deal of audible noise and distortion can be heard"

You say " distortion free sound from your playback system?"

Can't you see the difference?-

This is what you said. "there is a widespread belief that freedom from
audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for superior sound."
My question is based on thay assertion by you. Do you feel you ar
anyone else for that matter are getting "audible distortion free"
playback from their systems? After all you seem to be saying it is a
prerequisit for superior sound.

Sonnova

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:36:29 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:37:14 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

wrote in message

On Nov 17, 10:06ï¿½am, vlad
wrote:
On Nov 17, 5:22ï¿½am, Sonnova
wrote:

LP itself has multiple well documented distortions.
Cartridge adds its own distortions. So it is something
different from what mastering engineer intended you to
hear.

If you are listening to a different system than the one
used by the mastering engineer then you are hearing
something different than what the mastering engineer
intended you to hear. And that is in a "perfect" world.

So resolved, we'll use the highly colored and distorted
LP format rather than the sonically-transparent CD
format so that those differences can be multiplied and
magnified, right?

We use what sounds the most like real music.

As long as they keep banning popcorn poppers from concert halls... ;-)

If that's CD in one case and LP in another, so be it.

Really?

In the absence of informed technical arguments favoring the LP...

Anything else is letting your prejudice rule your life.

Anti-digital prejudice is still rife in many corners.

Not in this one, I record groups digitally, on pretty much a weekly basis. I
get superb results and I like what I'm hearing. But I don't close my eyes (or
ears) to other sources of good sound because the numbers say that they should
be inferior.

Sonnova

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:53:39 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 11:22:37 -0800,
wrote (in article ):

On Nov 17, 10:06ï¿½am, vlad
wrote:
On Nov 17, 5:22ï¿½am, Sonnova
wrote:

LP itself has multiple well documented distortions.
Cartridge adds its own distortions. So it is something
different from what mastering engineer intended you to
hear.

If you are listening to a different system than the one
used by the mastering engineer then you are hearing
something different than what the mastering engineer
intended you to hear.

That's also true with reel-to-reel tape, CD, SACD, DAT, a
music server, or any other source.

Here's the official box sco

LP - can't be sonically transparent

You've never heard this Classic Records Mercury "Firebird" Reissue on 45 RPM/
Single sided 200 gram virgin vinyl. If you had, you wouldn't have made this
comment. It's just one release, but it shows what CAN be done with the medium

Cassette tape - can't be sonically transparent

True. Self erasure, narrow tracks, and slow tape speed make it nigh
impossible to get great sound from a cassette, but I have heard some that
were OK especially if recorded using premium, high-output tape and Dolby
HX-pro.

7.5 ips 4-track 1/4 analog tape - more sonically transparent than the LP,
but well short of optimal

Agreed

15 ips 2-track 1/4 analog tape - almost sonically transparent

And 30ips, more so.

CD - certainly sonically transparent

To a certain point. More about this tomorrow,

SACD - certainly sonically transparent

Yep

DVD-A - certainly sonically transparent

Yep.

DVD-V - almost sonically transparent

No experience, cannot say, but it SHOULD be.

DAT - certainly sonically transparent @ 44 KHz and higher (lower sample
rates are possible but were rarely used)

Kind of.

BluRay - sonically transparent unless the bitrate of compressed files is
too low.

Don't know

music server - sonically transparent unless the bitrate of compressed files
is too low.

Depends on the source.

Arny Krueger

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Sonnova" wrote in message

We use what sounds the most like real music. If that's
CD in one case and LP in another, so be it.

Really?

In the absence of informed technical arguments favoring
the LP...

Arny, you seem to be saying that one should use a medium
that doesn't sound the most like real music to a given
listener. Is that really what you mean to say?

What I'm saying is that there's really only one logical explanation for
people who need certain very characteristic and unnatural kinds of audible
noise and distortion to be added to their recordings so that they sound real
to them, and that is a triumph of bias over reason.

Reason says that the less extraneous noise and distortion, the more natural
the sound. That a few humans have acclimatized and habituated themselves to
the addition of such unnatural sounds is strange, but not beyond belief.
After all, we see members of weird religious cults who flagellate themselves
until they bleed.

That there is a miniscule minority of people who have these kinds of biases
should not surprise anybody who is familiar with how diverse personal tastes
are. Heck, I've even learned to like ice cream served Pennsylvania-style,
with salted pretzels sticking out of it. ;-)

Arny Krueger

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

This assumes of course, that you've actually done the
blind tests...it seems most
of the anti-MP3 brigade never even takes that first step.

I did a brief blind test a few years ago and then some
extended sighted listening, which I've already mentioned
at some point, of 256 MP3 downloaded via Real Audio and
played back via my high-end system. It put me firmly in
Sonnova's "ear-bleeding" camp. I haven't been tempted
since.

I have to really shake my head at the recent examples of totally unfair and
false comments about my biases related to my opinions of the LP.

It is an undisputed fact that I am just about 62 years old, and thus had
nothing but analog sources to listen to with any regularity until 1983 and
the advent of the CD.

That makes 37 years of forced listening to the LP. My first memories of
listening to a record player go back to when I was about 5, so that still
leaves 32 years of conscious memories of listening to essentially nothing
but LPs and a few open reel tapes.

From when I was about 16 until I was 39, (23 years) I had a growing LP
collection that topped out over 1,000 discs, both domestic and import, and
far better than average equipment to play it. From when I was 21 onward, my
cartridge of choice was the current model of V-15, but I had other fine
cartrdiges on hand such as the ADC XLM. I was an early adopter of the AR
turntable owned 3 different ones when I upgraded to something else, and it
failed me. I eventually moved up to the then best-available Thorens
turntable and SME tonearm which had owned for about 15 years when I obtained
my first CD player.

I sold my analog equipment about 3 years after I started using my Sony CDP
101, on the grounds of my perceptions of tremendously improved sound
quality with digital.

Shortly after Y2K I reinvested in LP playback equipment, which I use to this
day for transcribing vinyl to CD for friends and clients. AFAIK, my LP
playback equipment has the best measured performance posted anyplace on the
internet.

I have accepted many invitations to listen to the high end vinyl playback
setups, on many occasions, and visited and auditioned dozens of high end
vinyl playback setups at HE2005.

With all that said, the very people who disparage my biases have been
admitting that the basis for their tightly-held negative opinions of MP3s is
a literal handful of ad hoc listening experiences. None seem to be able to
balance that with my vastly greater experience listening to LPs.

It should be very clear that balance, reason, honesty and fairness play no
perceptible role in the highly negative things that have been said about the
experiential basis for my opinions of the sound quality of the LP. I gave it
a heck of a chance and it failed me. I moved on, just like several billion
other music lovers.

Peter Wieck

On Nov 19, 5:39*am, Steven Sullivan wrote:

No, it isn't. And as this has been explained dozens, if not hundreds,
if times here, I'm going to suggest you do some more research on
DBT before making such claims.

Now, the problem with non-blind test is that it is necessarily subject to
bias.

How would you design a long-term DBT test in the testee's residence?
How would you protect it from curiosity?

Put another way, unless the test is based on the permanent location &
actual set-up of the equipment it is invalid on its face.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

Arny Krueger

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

On Nov 19, 5:39 am, Steven Sullivan
wrote:

No, it isn't. And as this has been explained dozens, if
not hundreds,
if times here, I'm going to suggest you do some more
research on
DBT before making such claims.

Now, the problem with non-blind test is that it is
necessarily subject to bias.

Sure everything that people do is directly or indirectly biased. However
there are various degrees of bias. For example, sighted evaluations are so
inherently biased that they rarely give reliable results unless the
difference is pretty obvious. By obvious I mean things like the inherent
degradation in the LP format, cassette, or a low-bitrate MP3.

Naive listeners almost always grossly overestimate the grossness of the
difference, so their first tests are "settling down" experiences where they
find out that they have neither cloth nor golden ears, and that SP, TAS and
the rest are mostly talking out the backs of their necks about audibility.

Tests like these are primarily for the benefit of the specific listener. If
he wants to cheat himself, well its his gun, his foot, his bullet, and his
time.

How would you design a long-term DBT test in the testee's
residence?

Drop off an ABX comparator, set up the levels, etc, train the person how to
do the test, and provide tech and emotional support as they request it.

How would you protect it from curiosity?

Meaning what?

Bottom line, you have to trust people to not be fraudulent.

I can cheat on virtually any test, given a little time and preparation.

Put another way, unless the test is based on the
permanent location & actual set-up of the equipment it is
invalid on its face.

It's a given that anybody who wants to be hypercritical can do so. Anybody
who wants something to be invalid will find it that way. If reasonable good
faith is demonstrated, the results are going to be at the very worst,
interesting and educational for the participant.

Arny Krueger

Sonnova

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 02:40:41 -0800, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
David E. Bath wrote:
In article ,
Sonnova writes:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:14:14 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"C. Leeds" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote
in message :

...All we're hearing about from many is
their undying hatred for digital...

Actually, I'm not hearing that at all.

Really?

And Arny's remark
overlooks a simple truth about most vinylphiles: in
addition to LPs, we also listen to things like CDs and
even iPods.

I listen to LPs, but I have no illusions about LPs being the modern
SOTA, or
the best recordings possible.

The comment "even iPods" is pretty revealing by itself. The LP
format
has to
look way upstairs when it casts its technical gaze on a
well-exploited
iPod.

It's funny. I can listen to LP and get great sonic pleasure from it,
but MP3
makes me grit my teeth. It's just AWFUL sounding (to me). Anybody
who
tells
me that they'd rather listen to MP3 than LP has just told me that
they
cannot
hear. No, that's not really correct. What they have told me is that
they can
tolerate different kinds of distortion than I can. I don't mind a
little
surface noise, a few ticks and pops, etc. but the digital artifacts
of
MP3
ruin the music for me. I suspect that someone who prefers MP3 over
LP,
finds
the digital artifacts acceptable and the LP noises unacceptable. I
guess
that's what makes horse-races. :-)

I guess I missed anyone mentioning MP3s above. Ipods can play
losslessly compressed and uncompressed digital audio.

And something that has been mentioned many times here before, I doubt
anyone on RAHE advocates that the MP3s one buys online from most sites
as anything resembling high-end.

I doubt Sonnova could tell a well-made MP3 from source, in a proper
blind
test,
unless a 'killer sample' was used.

Does this mean you doubt his listening acuity, Arnold? Or are you
nominating MP3 for high-end status?

Depends on your definition of 'high end'.

If an MP3 encoding a 'high end' source is 'transparent' to a discerning
listener, in
a blind test, on a 'high end' system, the only way it isn't 'high end' is
in terms of...its
measurements.

So, are you and other anti-MP3 folks 'measurementalist' only when it comes
to MP3s, Harry?

This assumes of course, that you've actually done the blind tests...it
seems most
of the anti-MP3 brigade never even takes that first step.

I did a brief blind test a few years ago and then some extended sighted
listening, which I've already mentioned at some point, of 256 MP3 downloaded
via Real Audio and played back via my high-end system. It put me firmly in
Sonnova's "ear-bleeding" camp. I haven't been tempted since.

I do occasionally listen to streaming internet music stations at background
level though my HK computer speakers, but even when doing that I can only do
it for a short time before I get totally fatigued. I much prefer to listen
to radio on my secondary stereo system as an alternative.

Its pretty much the same with me. I can listen to satellite radio in the car
or as background at home, but not critically or attentively. Though not as
bad as streaming radio or iTunes downloads, the lossy compression used by
XM/Sirius is still audible.

[email protected]

On Nov 19, 6:28ï¿½am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message

What I'm saying is that there's really only one logical explanation for
people who need certain very characteristic and unnatural kinds of audible
noise and distortion to be added to their recordings so that they sound real
to them, and that is a triumph of bias over reason.

This is a study in logical fallacies. First logical fallacy is the
reduction of many possibile explinations to just one. Next you use a
false premise that people *need* audible noise and distortion to be
added to recordings so they sound real to them. And you end with a
false dichotomy. Bias or reason. You miss the obvious possible
explination that it is a result of pure audible perception. Really
that is the only thing that should be in play, pure audible
perception. The perception of realism is not a function of "reason."
In fact any injection of "reason" into the process is actually just
another form of bias. IOW if one rejects a percieved improvement
because it seems unreasonable that an improvement should exist one is
actually giving wieght to prejudice despite what one is actually
hearing. Bias incarnate.

Reason says that the less extraneous noise and distortion, the more natural
the sound.

By that logic one should reject all forms of DSP for room correction.
After all it is nothing more than a distortion of the signal being fed
to the speakers. Clearly the reasoning is flawed at it's very base.

Arny Krueger

wrote in message

On Nov 18, 8:43?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message

On Nov 17, 8:20 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in
message

When I say GOOD, it is in the context of high-end
audio, IOW it has superior sound quality in that it
sounds more like real, live music, played in a real
space and has a you-are-there palpability that the
average recording (even digital) lacks.

Superior sound quality is impossible when a great deal
of audible noise and distortion can be heard. In fact
there is a widespread belief that freedom from
audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for
superior sound. IOW it is necessary, but not
sufficient.

That is quite an interesting claim. Do you feel that you
are actually getting distortion free sound from your
playback system?

Non-responsive.

Responsive to what? I see no question asked there.

I said "a great deal of audible noise and distortion can
be heard"

You say " distortion free sound from your playback
system?"

Can't you see the difference?-

This is what you said. "there is a widespread belief that
freedom from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite
for superior sound."

That's not the same as distortion-free sound from a playback system. Can you
see why?

My question is based on thay assertion by you. Do you
feel you ar anyone else for that matter are getting
"audible distortion free" playback from their systems?

In the case of digital media like the CD, the playback of the media is
generally distortion free. However, the speakers and the room aren't
distortion free.

After all you seem to be saying it is a prerequisit for
superior sound.

I'm saying that playback of the media that is free of audible distortion and
noise is a prerequisite for superior sound. In addition, the speakers and
room have to be relatively free of audible noise and distoriton, as well.

Since the LP format, like cassette tape, and low-bitrate MP3 has inherent
noise and distortion that is greater than high quality room+speakers, it is
automatically disqualified as a means to obtain superior sound.

Steven Sullivan

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

I did a brief blind test a few years ago and then some extended sighted
listening, which I've already mentioned at some point, of 256 MP3 downloaded
via Real Audio and played back via my high-end system. It put me firmly in
Sonnova's "ear-bleeding" camp. I haven't been tempted since.

How about making your OWN MP3s, where you can control which codec is used, and control what is
encoded, rather than judging the format on a download that you did a 'brief blind test' of a
few years ago. How many years ago? what score? what codec? what sample? -- all of these
things can have an audible impact on how transparent an MP3 is to source.

I will repeat: the fact is, that it is easy for someone to *make* MP3s today that are
likely to be indistinguishable to them in a blind test. (It would also be easy to
make MP3s that aren't.)

I do occasionally listen to streaming internet music stations at background
level though my HK computer speakers, but even when doing that I can only do
it for a short time before I get totally fatigued. I much prefer to listen
to radio on my secondary stereo system as an alternative.

Streaming internet is generally *not* a demonstration of high MP3 quality.

--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

Sonnova

Harry Lavo

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

I did a brief blind test a few years ago and then some extended sighted
listening, which I've already mentioned at some point, of 256 MP3
downloaded
via Real Audio and played back via my high-end system. It put me firmly
in
Sonnova's "ear-bleeding" camp. I haven't been tempted since.

How about making your OWN MP3s, where you can control which codec is used,
and control what is
encoded, rather than judging the format on a download that you did a
'brief blind test' of a
few years ago. How many years ago? what score? what codec? what
sample? -- all of these
things can have an audible impact on how transparent an MP3 is to source.

Because I see no advantage in it. I do not plan to convert my LP's and CD's
and SACD's and DVD's to MP3's or any other computer based audio. If MP3's
or any other lossy codec were to play a role in my life, it would be very
limited and for convencience and would come from commercial sources....so it
is simply not worth the time and effort to explore and test the medium
beyond the crude testing I've already done. I'd rather put my energy into
photography, and simply enjoy music with the technologies at hand.
One SACD surround listening session for me would beat 20 MP3 downloads any
day.

I will repeat: the fact is, that it is easy for someone to *make* MP3s
today that are
likely to be indistinguishable to them in a blind test. (It would also be
easy to
make MP3s that aren't.)

What interests me is what the general public is willing to buy, because that
is what will be available. Just as with CD's. I don't enjoy CD's as much
as LP's, SACD, and DVD-A for the most part. And I don't enjoy what I've
heard of compressed audio much at all. One makes choices as to where one
puts one's intererst and energy.

I do occasionally listen to streaming internet music stations at
background
level though my HK computer speakers, but even when doing that I can only
do
it for a short time before I get totally fatigued. I much prefer to
listen
to radio on my secondary stereo system as an alternative.

Streaming internet is generally *not* a demonstration of high MP3 quality.
...
No, but it is one of the more practical uses of it, and as a sound source it
sucks.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Klipschorns in the 21st Century?	Karl Uppiano	Tech	149	December 26th 06 07:15 PM
21st Century E-Business Money Making Formula	NeoTycoon	Vacuum Tubes	0	January 18th 05 08:08 PM
21st Century E-Business Money Making Formula	NeoOne	Audio Opinions	0	January 10th 05 06:28 AM
21st Century E-Commerce Money Making Formula	NeoOne	Audio Opinions	0	January 4th 05 12:39 AM
21st Century E-Commerce Money Making Formula	NeoOne	Pro Audio	0	January 4th 05 12:37 AM

Menu

About Us