vlad wrote:
MD wrote:




Why do most (or at least a sizable) amount of professional reviewers
prefer analog?



This is a good question.

Most of the reviews are advertisement in disguise. Stereophile is a
good example of it. It is easier to make money on expensive TT's
(Jenn's $1000 TT comes to mind) then on $200 CD player that beats
this TT on all points.

That is why reviewers are pushing analog gear. Myth about superiority
of analog helps to make money too.

That is it.

vova




That makes no sense. If one where to prostitute themselves it would
make more sense to do so for digital - more vendors. Plus they would
all have to be conspiring - all from different magazines, locations or
businesses.

Lastly - if they pushed digital would they then be doing the right thing
and not taking kick backs?
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

Steven Sullivan wrote:

vlad wrote:

MD wrote:




Why do most (or at least a sizable) amount of professional reviewers
prefer analog?



This is a good question.


Most of the reviews are advertisement in disguise. Stereophile is a
good example of it. It is easier to make money on expensive TT's
(Jenn's $1000 TT comes to mind) then on $200 CD player that beats
this TT on all points.


Also, analog gear *does* tend to sound different. So they actually have
something to write about there.

Overall, though, I believe history will judge audio journalism as a
disgrace to reason.


___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority


Your reason is based on science as we know it now. If digital is so
perfect why have there been so many advancements and improvements since
inception? Jitter became a big issue and some now push higher sampling
rates etc. I actually just acquired three more LPs for which I have the
CD. All on the Narada label. Again the LP sounds clearer. It sounds
like the high frequencies don't stop prematurely - the ring of cymbals
and triangles lasts longer and doesn't stop abruptly. With these
comparisons though the digital did sound much closer than some others I
have done.

As for a disgrace to reason. I don't believe digital can't sound better
or doesn't in a lot of cases. I think the red book application is lacking.

Lastly - it was thought by doctors and scientists that stomach ulcer's
were caused by excess acid brought on by anxiety and stress. They
believed this for decades. A short time ago scientists found a small
microbe responsible for making holes in the stomach lining. Basic
antibiotics provide a cure. No more milk or Pepto. Science is only as
good as the last thing we believe we understand. While people get it
right more often than not there are those times we get it dead wrong.
People's non-acceptance of the latest truth is what makes for real
discovery.
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

wrote:
vlad wrote:
MD wrote:



Why do most (or at least a sizable) amount of professional reviewers
prefer analog?


This is a good question.

Actually not really based on human nature and typical human behavior.
Let's look at the facts that we likely *can* agree upon:

OK, this should be fun.


Without reference to quality or preference, most *well-executed*
digital equipment differentiates only around the margins. In almost
every *measurable* way, it is all alike.

Sorry but the claim is painfully vague and selfserving. All you have to
do is say that any digital equipment that fails in this criteria is
simply not "well-exectuted." The claim becomes entirely self-serving
and fairly meaningless in real world applications.

Either in convenience
features, power, inputs, outputs and the like. Reviewing such equipment
is largely a matter of listing the specifications and discussing how
these might differ from a similar item. At that level, "professional
reviewers" would be out of business in short order.

Is that what put Stereo Review out of business? That is pretty much
what they did. Even when there were audible differences that seem to be
widely accpeted these days. I bought a 14 bit CD player based on this
type of review. i was the big loser in that transaction. I also stopped
buying Stereo Review so maybe yo are right about this but for other
reasons.

So, they have a
vested interest in keeping their business alive. Digital equipment will
get short shrift in that environment as it presents a direct threat.

I think it is a myth that digital presents any kind of threat to the
business of audio reviewing. If it were true then it would seem that
the favorite magazines of objectivists were bent on self-destruction.


Analog equipment on the other hand does differentiate, sometimes
obviously so. In performance, sound, color, any number of things both
easily measurable and not so measurable. Furthermore, those who prefer
Analog Equipment are very roughly divided into three camps being (put
very simply):

a) those who simply prefer analog sound, admit as much and make no
bones about it.
b) those who prefer analog sound and will argue its superiority over
digital sound, but generally will argue based on their own
experience(s) and preferences. Measurements give this group fits as
they do try to rationalize their beliefs.
c) those for whom analog sound is revealed-religion and admit to no
other. To this group, digital sound is anathema, a manifestation of the
Anti-Christ and all-things-evil. Measurements are not permitted within
the confines of this religion.

I think this is not an accurate acount of the beliefs of those who
prefer LPs to CDs. There is a wide range of beliefs and levels of
knowledge amoung such people and it is not so easily divided into
groups. You have completely ignored the large portion of such
audiophiles that worry less about the theoretical limitations of each
medium and worry more about the practical realities of what goes into
each and every commercial CD and LP since that has the most
signinificant impact on the sound quality.


That this also applies to the digital crowd should be obvious. Right
down to the measurements as this crowd will often let scope curves and
instrument readings overshadow what their ears tell them.

So, the preferences of Critics and Professional Reviewers is towards
their Livelihood.

One would think that their livelyhood in some small part would depend
on repeat business fom readers and one would think that that would
depend on a corralation between their reviews and the reader's
impressions especially when purchases were made. (That certainly did it
for me and Julian Hirsch) so one would think in the end their
livelyhood is in some part dependant on their honesty and impartiality.

Those professing Revealed Religion will argue until
death without giving (or taking) an inch. Critics (or at least clever
ones) play to the Revealed Religion portion for quite-obvious
reasons... they will get lots of play either way they fall on any given
aspect.

No we can't agree on this. as soon as you brand different opinions as
religion you rely on an appeal to prejudice rather than a well reasoned
argument supported by evidence. Who is to say that your beliefs in
audio are not the "religious" ones? maybe we should simply refrain from
branding people as "religious" as a tactic for challenging opposing
beliefs. it proves nothing and is purely demeaning.


And, in terms of the basis of discussion: "Accuracy of CD v. (sic) LP",
the argument is flawed in its terms, given the definition of
"Accuracy".

Hold on here. "The argument?" What specific argument are you refering
to and why are you excluding all the other arguments presented? There
are many arguments on the table about this topic.

Apples may be compared to Oranges at many levels, but not
in terms of accuracy. It is no more possible to compare CDs vs. LPs
excepting very, very, very controlled conditions that equally very
likely will simply not happen in the real world under normal business
(and recording _IS_ a business) conditions.

It is possible to compare and assess accuracy by listening if we have
access to the original source. many mastering engineers have made such
comparisons and many audiophiles seem to find their opinions relevant.
I think the RVG interview is a case in point. There are many other
cases like that. for those willing to do the research there is plenty
of information regarding the reletive "accuracy" of many different
commercial CDs and LPs that go well beyond the usual rhetoric about
digital v. analog and dives into meaningful facts about the making of
these releases. One can even go so far a to assess the *value* of
accuracy as well with a large body of information and a matching
library of CDs and LPs to use for preference comparisons.


Further: Comparing media based on failure modes is also a chimera.
Early CDs may have failed for any number of reasons, consider that
analog recordings at their same stage of development had as many or
many more flaws. The differences are that analog recordings still have
some of the same flaws as they did over 100 years ago. Digital media
have come a long way in short time. Anerobic bacteria still attack
vinyl and mylar tapes, tapes still stretch and are subject to stray
magnetic fields... you get the picture.

So, as long as we are discussing our preferences, we may permit others
to believe as they do, cite their sources and experiences and make
their choices. That would (at least to me) seem to be the foundation
purpose of this group.

We found something we agree on.

However, when discussion meanders into matters
of "Truth" which can be conditional, occasional and relative,

It can also be about uncovering straight forward facts.

and
"Accuracy" which, once parameters are established (and the inherent in
the use of the term is the establishment of mutually agreeable
parameters), cannot be so... then there will _always_ be trouble with
the attempt to mix apples and oranges. Much fluff will be noised about
and with no results.

I didn't quite follow this part.

Scott
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

bob wrote:
MD wrote:

Digital does not make an exact copy. Nor does it playback even what is
on the CD perfectly - jitter - media issues etc (Often a copy of a
problematic CD plays better than the original.

Digital makes a copy that is audibly indistinguishable from the analog.
See:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...x_testing2.htm

I see a willingness to pick and choose evidence that supports your
preheld beliefs. Nothing more nothing less. The idea that this is proof
of anything is laughable.


The original makers of CDs said the first round of players and media
were perfect. Then we discover jitter,

Oh, you do, do you? I didn't know you had research credentials. I also
didn't know that jitter was an unknown concept in 1983. Today,you can
buy a $50 DVD player with inaudible jitter.

some CDs are not sealed properly
so they develop mold and become useless. If the red book standard was
based on perfect science when it first came out why do CDs and CD
players sound so much better now?

Because science isn't perfect.

You are not making sense now. just above you are claiming that
'digital" is audibly perfect and now you are offering an explination as
to how there has been vast improvements in it. How does one vastly
improve on transparency in your veiw?

And no scientist ever claimed it was.

I'll buy that. they still haven't have they?

A
few marketing guys did, but if you listen to marketing guys, you
deserve the sound you get.

So we shouldn't listen to objectivists when they say "digital" is
perfect? OK.


Because we figured out where they
weren't perfect. Time will go on and we will find more about the
science of CD technology and the ear.

Wishful thinking isn't science.

Researching more about Cd technology and the ear isn't wishful
thinking. It's research.


What comparisons have you done and using what analog gear. If you tell
me the science or math tell you all you need to know then you are not
qualified to have an opinion here

Tell ya what. You start your own newsgroup, and be the moderator, and
you can decide who is and is not qualified to post.

Guess he struck a nerve. he certainly does have the right to disregard
your opinions based on your lack of experience. he has every right to
offer the opinion that you are not qualified to have an opinion on the
matter without the requisit experience he expects from anyone offering
such an opinion.

Meanwhile, stop
acting like you own this one.

Back at you dude.

Scott
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

MD wrote:

Your reason is based on science as we know it now. If digital is so
perfect why have there been so many advancements and improvements since
inception? Jitter became a big issue

No it didn't. A few companies tried to make it a big issue for
marketing purposes, but unless you've got a lousy external DAC it's
just about a non-issue for CD reproduction.

and some now push higher sampling
rates etc.

Again, largely for marketing reasons. I don't think anyone has yet
demonstrated that higher sampling rates can make an audible difference.

snip

Lastly - it was thought by doctors and scientists that stomach ulcer's
were caused by excess acid brought on by anxiety and stress. They
believed this for decades. A short time ago scientists found a small
microbe responsible for making holes in the stomach lining. Basic
antibiotics provide a cure. No more milk or Pepto. Science is only as
good as the last thing we believe we understand. While people get it
right more often than not there are those times we get it dead wrong.
People's non-acceptance of the latest truth is what makes for real
discovery.

Which is why some of us are always asking people like you if they have
any evidence to back up their claims. But you want to throw out science
as we know it now before you get any evidence.

bob

--"If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve."


--

"MD" wrote in message
...

Your reason is based on science as we know it now. If digital is so
perfect why have there been so many advancements and improvements since
inception? Jitter became a big issue and some now push higher sampling
rates etc. I actually just acquired three more LPs for which I have the
CD. All on the Narada label. Again the LP sounds clearer. It sounds
like the high frequencies don't stop prematurely - the ring of cymbals and
triangles lasts longer and doesn't stop abruptly.

Are you sure your phono set-up (turntable tone arm, stylus, cantilever,
etc.) isn't simply "ringing" in your listening room?
After all you do have to turn up the juice to hear the decay from the
cymbals and triangles.

Lastly - it was thought by doctors and scientists that stomach ulcer's
were caused by excess acid brought on by anxiety and stress. They
believed this for decades. A short time ago scientists found a small
microbe responsible for making holes in the stomach lining. Basic
antibiotics provide a cure. No more milk or Pepto. Science is only as
good as the last thing we believe we understand. While people get it
right more often than not there are those times we get it dead wrong.
People's non-acceptance of the latest truth is what makes for real
discovery.
--
You know you can get stomach ulcers from simply taking a lot of aspirin, so
one still needs the milk and pepto.


--

MD wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:

vlad wrote:

MD wrote:




Why do most (or at least a sizable) amount of professional reviewers
prefer analog?



This is a good question.


Most of the reviews are advertisement in disguise. Stereophile is a
good example of it. It is easier to make money on expensive TT's
(Jenn's $1000 TT comes to mind) then on $200 CD player that beats
this TT on all points.


Also, analog gear *does* tend to sound different. So they actually have
something to write about there.

Overall, though, I believe history will judge audio journalism as a
disgrace to reason.


___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority


Your reason is based on science as we know it now.

Yes, and what's yours based on? Methods we know to be flawed?

If digital is so
perfect why have there been so many advancements and improvements since
inception?

snip

From what you write it appears you have not yet read
my post of April 19th on this thread.



--

wrote:
bob wrote:

MD wrote:


Digital does not make an exact copy. Nor does it playback even what is
on the CD perfectly - jitter - media issues etc (Often a copy of a
problematic CD plays better than the original.

Digital makes a copy that is audibly indistinguishable from the analog.
See:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...x_testing2.htm


I see a willingness to pick and choose evidence that supports your
preheld beliefs. Nothing more nothing less. The idea that this is proof
of anything is laughable.


The original makers of CDs said the first round of players and media
were perfect. Then we discover jitter,

Oh, you do, do you? I didn't know you had research credentials. I also
didn't know that jitter was an unknown concept in 1983. Today,you can
buy a $50 DVD player with inaudible jitter.


some CDs are not sealed properly
so they develop mold and become useless. If the red book standard was
based on perfect science when it first came out why do CDs and CD
players sound so much better now?

Because science isn't perfect.


You are not making sense now. just above you are claiming that
'digital" is audibly perfect and now you are offering an explination as
to how there has been vast improvements in it. How does one vastly
improve on transparency in your veiw?


And no scientist ever claimed it was.


I'll buy that. they still haven't have they?


A
few marketing guys did, but if you listen to marketing guys, you
deserve the sound you get.


So we shouldn't listen to objectivists when they say "digital" is
perfect? OK.


Because we figured out where they
weren't perfect. Time will go on and we will find more about the
science of CD technology and the ear.

Wishful thinking isn't science.


Researching more about Cd technology and the ear isn't wishful
thinking. It's research.


What comparisons have you done and using what analog gear. If you tell
me the science or math tell you all you need to know then you are not
qualified to have an opinion here

Tell ya what. You start your own newsgroup, and be the moderator, and
you can decide who is and is not qualified to post.


Guess he struck a nerve. he certainly does have the right to disregard
your opinions based on your lack of experience. he has every right to
offer the opinion that you are not qualified to have an opinion on the
matter without the requisit experience he expects from anyone offering
such an opinion.


Meanwhile, stop
acting like you own this one.


Back at you dude.

Scott
My original reply to this was stopped by the moderator for being to harsh

So I'll try again. . .

First Scott - thanks for picking up on the inconsistencies of his
argument.

The reason I questioned his experience was because he failed to mention
what analog comparisons he has done and on what equipment. Additionally
he mentioned a Technics TT to make a point about the problems with analog.

I have stated this before - however - I will say it again. until this
year I believed digital to be superior. It was the purchase of a very
good cartridge (Not even an MC) that changed things. I have almost a
dozen selections where I have LP - (original or half-speed mastered) and
the CD (original or remastered). In every case (specifically when using
the half-speed mastered LP - even against a remastered CD) I like the LP
more. Why? even with the mediums flaws there is more air and the highs
seems to die off naturally not cut off. Additionally there is a
midrange forwardness in digital that seems unnatural. Now I suppose
this could be my digital gear (Denon 1520 with Audio Alchemy DAC and
Jitter box) but I hear the same thing with the Denon straight (worse)
and several hand held players (worse as well).

I don't doubt digital should sound better in theory or that with some
very good systems it does. I'm sure SACD, HDCD, DVD-A and technology
using more bits and high sampling rates sound better too. Redbook
applications fall short.

Several on this sight have challenged that with science ( the same
"science" that produced horrible sounding CDs and equipment years ago.
Strange occurance for a technically sound medium) and by telling me they
like CD sound better. For those who have done comparisons and used good
equipment I accept their opinion. However responses seem to come from
people who haven't put the effort in to doing fair comparisons. Their
opinions must be dismissed out of hand.


--

MD wrote:

My original reply to this was stopped by the moderator for being to harsh

So I'll try again. . .

First Scott - thanks for picking up on the inconsistencies of his
argument.

The reason I questioned his experience was because he failed to mention
what analog comparisons he has done and on what equipment. Additionally
he mentioned a Technics TT to make a point about the problems with analog.

No, I didn't. Maybe you should take a deep breath and read my posts
again. I mentioned a Technics TT (not my own) to make the point that
many people prefer vinyl to CD even on cheap analog gear. I was
responding to your questionable claim that people only prefer vinyl
when played on high-quality set-ups.

I have stated this before - however - I will say it again. until this
year I believed digital to be superior. It was the purchase of a very
good cartridge (Not even an MC) that changed things. I have almost a
dozen selections where I have LP - (original or half-speed mastered) and
the CD (original or remastered). In every case (specifically when using
the half-speed mastered LP - even against a remastered CD) I like the LP
more. Why?

Perhaps because your cartridge upgrade eliminated some nasties that
were spoiling the sound for you. Whereas the folks who like that
Technics may be less discerning listeners, and overlook the very same
nasties. But even that Technics conveys a distinctive (and appealing)
vinyl sound--it's not something magical that only happens when you
spend a lot of money.

In audio, distinctive sounds--what makes one component sound different
from another--are always caused by distortion of some form or another.
And since we know that we can make a digital copy of an LP that is
inditinguishable from the LP, the relevant distortion that separates LP
and CD sound must be on the analog side of the equation.

even with the mediums flaws there is more air and the highs
seems to die off naturally not cut off. Additionally there is a
midrange forwardness in digital that seems unnatural. Now I suppose
this could be my digital gear (Denon 1520 with Audio Alchemy DAC and
Jitter box) but I hear the same thing with the Denon straight (worse)
and several hand held players (worse as well).

I don't doubt digital should sound better in theory or that with some
very good systems it does. I'm sure SACD, HDCD, DVD-A and technology
using more bits and high sampling rates sound better too. Redbook
applications fall short.

Of what? Vinyl applications? You've never heard a bad LP? I've heard
lots.

Several on this sight have challenged that with science ( the same
"science" that produced horrible sounding CDs and equipment years ago.
Strange occurance for a technically sound medium) and by telling me they
like CD sound better. For those who have done comparisons and used good
equipment I accept their opinion. However responses seem to come from
people who haven't put the effort in to doing fair comparisons. Their
opinions must be dismissed out of hand.

As must those opinions at odds with demonstrable facts.

bob


--

bob wrote:
MD wrote:

Your reason is based on science as we know it now. If digital is so
perfect why have there been so many advancements and improvements since
inception? Jitter became a big issue

No it didn't. A few companies tried to make it a big issue for
marketing purposes, but unless you've got a lousy external DAC it's
just about a non-issue for CD reproduction.

do you have any evidence to back up this claim?


and some now push higher sampling
rates etc.

Again, largely for marketing reasons. I don't think anyone has yet
demonstrated that higher sampling rates can make an audible difference.

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?


snip

Lastly - it was thought by doctors and scientists that stomach ulcer's
were caused by excess acid brought on by anxiety and stress. They
believed this for decades. A short time ago scientists found a small
microbe responsible for making holes in the stomach lining. Basic
antibiotics provide a cure. No more milk or Pepto. Science is only as
good as the last thing we believe we understand. While people get it
right more often than not there are those times we get it dead wrong.
People's non-acceptance of the latest truth is what makes for real
discovery.

Which is why some of us are always asking people like you if they have
any evidence to back up their claims.

Live by the sord die by the sword. Lets see if you can back up your
claims with evidence as asked above.

But you want to throw out science
as we know it now before you get any evidence.

As *you* know it? Perhaps. Not as scientists know it. I am always happy
to look at real scientific research of claims in audio. Funny thing is
every time I ask for it no one has any.

Scott


--

Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
"MD" wrote in message
...

Your reason is based on science as we know it now. If digital is so
perfect why have there been so many advancements and improvements since
inception? Jitter became a big issue and some now push higher sampling
rates etc. I actually just acquired three more LPs for which I have the
CD. All on the Narada label. Again the LP sounds clearer. It sounds
like the high frequencies don't stop prematurely - the ring of cymbals and
triangles lasts longer and doesn't stop abruptly.

Are you sure your phono set-up (turntable tone arm, stylus, cantilever,
etc.) isn't simply "ringing" in your listening room?

Shouldn't you be asking why the natural decay of acoustic instruments
is painfully missing on so many CDs?

After all you do have to turn up the juice to hear the decay from the
cymbals and triangles.

I don't.

Scott


--

I have stated this before - however - I will say it again. until this
year I believed digital to be superior. It was the purchase of a very
good cartridge (Not even an MC) that changed things. I have almost a
dozen selections where I have LP - (original or half-speed mastered) and
the CD (original or remastered). In every case (specifically when using
the half-speed mastered LP - even against a remastered CD) I like the LP
more. Why? even with the mediums flaws there is more air and the highs
seems to die off naturally not cut off. Additionally there is a midrange
forwardness in digital that seems unnatural. Now I suppose this could be
my digital gear (Denon 1520 with Audio Alchemy DAC and Jitter box) but I
hear the same thing with the Denon straight (worse) and several hand held
players (worse as well).

No one denies that they are different. That's precisely the point. If they
were exactly alike, the choice between them would be based only on cost, and
we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Analog audio has measurable imperfections. Digital has another sort of
imperfections that are much less likely to be audible.

And since they are different, it's not surprising that you like one of them
better than the other.

But this has nothing to do with the validity of science, or anything nearly
so lofty. It's simply that you have developed a taste for the inaccuracies
introduced by a certain type of audio reproduction, and you consider these
inaccuracies to be part of the musical effect.

To each his own. Given enough time and interest, these imperfections could
be studied, modeled, and added digitally to digital recordings.



--

bob wrote:
MD wrote:


Your reason is based on science as we know it now. If digital is so
perfect why have there been so many advancements and improvements since
inception? Jitter became a big issue


No it didn't. A few companies tried to make it a big issue for
marketing purposes, but unless you've got a lousy external DAC it's
just about a non-issue for CD reproduction.


and some now push higher sampling
rates etc.


Again, largely for marketing reasons. I don't think anyone has yet
demonstrated that higher sampling rates can make an audible difference.

snip

Lastly - it was thought by doctors and scientists that stomach ulcer's
were caused by excess acid brought on by anxiety and stress. They
believed this for decades. A short time ago scientists found a small
microbe responsible for making holes in the stomach lining. Basic
antibiotics provide a cure. No more milk or Pepto. Science is only as
good as the last thing we believe we understand. While people get it
right more often than not there are those times we get it dead wrong.
People's non-acceptance of the latest truth is what makes for real
discovery.


Which is why some of us are always asking people like you if they have
any evidence to back up their claims. But you want to throw out science
as we know it now before you get any evidence.

bob

--"If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve."


--

So high sampling rates and more bits don't help? SACD, DVD-A, HDCD etc
are all nonsense? An entire industry is now putting out products which
offer no discernible benefit? All the reviewers, producers and artists
who use the medium do so for no reason? That's ridiculous. How 'bout
this - the industry put out the original red book medium with less than
perfect results but didn't care at the time because most of the people
(of which you are apparently one) couldn't tell the difference or didn't
care. Now the industry is putting out a medium for those who care.
Additionally it seems that those who care are more abundant than
originally thought. (Plus I am sure home theater drives some of it)

Have you done comparisons to analog if so what and on what analog gear?
Science, in addition to algorithms, is utilizing one's senses to
observe (mostly the eyes but the others are just as valid). Try a
little more observing of your own and tell us what you think.


--

Norman M. Schwartz wrote:

"MD" wrote in message
...

Your reason is based on science as we know it now. If digital is so
perfect why have there been so many advancements and improvements since
inception? Jitter became a big issue and some now push higher sampling
rates etc. I actually just acquired three more LPs for which I have the
CD. All on the Narada label. Again the LP sounds clearer. It sounds
like the high frequencies don't stop prematurely - the ring of cymbals and
triangles lasts longer and doesn't stop abruptly.


Are you sure your phono set-up (turntable tone arm, stylus, cantilever,
etc.) isn't simply "ringing" in your listening room?
After all you do have to turn up the juice to hear the decay from the
cymbals and triangles.


Lastly - it was thought by doctors and scientists that stomach ulcer's
were caused by excess acid brought on by anxiety and stress. They
believed this for decades. A short time ago scientists found a small
microbe responsible for making holes in the stomach lining. Basic
antibiotics provide a cure. No more milk or Pepto. Science is only as
good as the last thing we believe we understand. While people get it
right more often than not there are those times we get it dead wrong.
People's non-acceptance of the latest truth is what makes for real
discovery.
--

You know you can get stomach ulcers from simply taking a lot of aspirin, so
one still needs the milk and pepto.


--

I listen in near field and treat all first order reflections including
behind my head and ceiling - good point though

I was generalizing on ulcers. For the most common deep stomach type
they are caused by the micro organism and cured by antibiotics.


--

MD wrote:

So high sampling rates and more bits don't help? SACD, DVD-A, HDCD etc
are all nonsense? An entire industry is now putting out products which
offer no discernible benefit? All the reviewers, producers and artists
who use the medium do so for no reason? That's ridiculous.

SACD and DVD-A both offer the possibility of multichannel
sound--certainly a discernible benefit there. But just because a
company markets a "new and improved" product doesn't mean it's
necessarily a better product. That's why we need to look at independent
evaluations, which can be both measurements and (valid, reliable,
repeatable) listening tests. I know of no measureable differences
between Redbook and either hi-rez format that would be audible. Nor do
I know of any confirmed blind listening comparisons demonstrating that
higher resolution digital is audibly distinguishable from Redbook. Do
you? If not, I suggest you hold the ridicule.

How 'bout
this - the industry put out the original red book medium with less than
perfect results but didn't care at the time because most of the people
(of which you are apparently one) couldn't tell the difference or didn't
care. Now the industry is putting out a medium for those who care.
Additionally it seems that those who care are more abundant than
originally thought. (Plus I am sure home theater drives some of it)

Have you done comparisons to analog if so what and on what analog gear?

This is a laugh. As it happens, I have compared vinyl and digital forms
of the same recording. You haven't. You've compared different
recordings of the same performance. The kinds of comparisons you've
done tell you absolutely nothing about the different recording
technologies, because there are so many other variables involved.

bob


--

bob wrote:
MD wrote:

My original reply to this was stopped by the moderator for being to harsh

So I'll try again. . .

First Scott - thanks for picking up on the inconsistencies of his
argument.

The reason I questioned his experience was because he failed to mention
what analog comparisons he has done and on what equipment. Additionally
he mentioned a Technics TT to make a point about the problems with analog.

No, I didn't. Maybe you should take a deep breath and read my posts
again. I mentioned a Technics TT (not my own) to make the point that
many people prefer vinyl to CD even on cheap analog gear. I was
responding to your questionable claim that people only prefer vinyl
when played on high-quality set-ups.

I have stated this before - however - I will say it again. until this
year I believed digital to be superior. It was the purchase of a very
good cartridge (Not even an MC) that changed things. I have almost a
dozen selections where I have LP - (original or half-speed mastered) and
the CD (original or remastered). In every case (specifically when using
the half-speed mastered LP - even against a remastered CD) I like the LP
more. Why?

Perhaps because your cartridge upgrade eliminated some nasties that
were spoiling the sound for you. Whereas the folks who like that
Technics may be less discerning listeners, and overlook the very same
nasties. But even that Technics conveys a distinctive (and appealing)
vinyl sound--it's not something magical that only happens when you
spend a lot of money.

In audio, distinctive sounds--what makes one component sound different
from another--are always caused by distortion of some form or another.
And since we know that we can make a digital copy of an LP that is
inditinguishable from the LP, the relevant distortion that separates LP
and CD sound must be on the analog side of the equation.

OK then prove it. Tell us what these "distinctive sounds" are and then
show us that they are both present and audible in cheap vinyl playback
with any record as well as in SOTA vinyl playback with SOTA LPs. Show
us the scientifically valid evidence that it is these alleged
"distintive sounds" that are present in all vinyl playback but not in
CD playback and it is these"distictive sounds" that are the cause of
preferences for vinyl. Frankly I think you are just making these things
up to suit your arguments.


Scott


--

MD wrote:

--

So high sampling rates and more bits don't help?

You're misstating what has
been said. For example, NO ONE who understands digital misunderstands why
higher bit-depths than 16 can be advisable during digital
recording, mixing, and mastering. For *distribution* formats -- home
listening -- the utility of 16 bits is at best debateable.


SACD, DVD-A, HDCD etc
are all nonsense? An entire industry is now putting out products which
offer no discernible benefit?

The same industry you lambasted for touting 'perfect sound forever',
remember.

All the reviewers, producers and artists
who use the medium do so for no reason? That's ridiculous.

No, what' s *ridiculous* is to assume that audible differences are
due to formats, when there are any number of other reasons that should
be ruled out FIRST. Like simple differences in mastering.



___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority


--

bob wrote:

MD wrote:


My original reply to this was stopped by the moderator for being to harsh

So I'll try again. . .

First Scott - thanks for picking up on the inconsistencies of his
argument.

The reason I questioned his experience was because he failed to mention
what analog comparisons he has done and on what equipment. Additionally
he mentioned a Technics TT to make a point about the problems with analog.


No, I didn't. Maybe you should take a deep breath and read my posts
again. I mentioned a Technics TT (not my own) to make the point that
many people prefer vinyl to CD even on cheap analog gear. I was
responding to your questionable claim that people only prefer vinyl
when played on high-quality set-ups.


I have stated this before - however - I will say it again. until this
year I believed digital to be superior. It was the purchase of a very
good cartridge (Not even an MC) that changed things. I have almost a
dozen selections where I have LP - (original or half-speed mastered) and
the CD (original or remastered). In every case (specifically when using
the half-speed mastered LP - even against a remastered CD) I like the LP
more. Why?


Perhaps because your cartridge upgrade eliminated some nasties that
were spoiling the sound for you. Whereas the folks who like that
Technics may be less discerning listeners, and overlook the very same
nasties. But even that Technics conveys a distinctive (and appealing)
vinyl sound--it's not something magical that only happens when you
spend a lot of money.

In audio, distinctive sounds--what makes one component sound different
from another--are always caused by distortion of some form or another.
And since we know that we can make a digital copy of an LP that is
inditinguishable from the LP, the relevant distortion that separates LP
and CD sound must be on the analog side of the equation.


even with the mediums flaws there is more air and the highs
seems to die off naturally not cut off. Additionally there is a
midrange forwardness in digital that seems unnatural. Now I suppose
this could be my digital gear (Denon 1520 with Audio Alchemy DAC and
Jitter box) but I hear the same thing with the Denon straight (worse)
and several hand held players (worse as well).

I don't doubt digital should sound better in theory or that with some
very good systems it does. I'm sure SACD, HDCD, DVD-A and technology
using more bits and high sampling rates sound better too. Redbook
applications fall short.


Of what? Vinyl applications? You've never heard a bad LP? I've heard
lots.


Several on this sight have challenged that with science ( the same
"science" that produced horrible sounding CDs and equipment years ago.
Strange occurance for a technically sound medium) and by telling me they
like CD sound better. For those who have done comparisons and used good
equipment I accept their opinion. However responses seem to come from
people who haven't put the effort in to doing fair comparisons. Their
opinions must be dismissed out of hand.


As must those opinions at odds with demonstrable facts.

bob


--

Risking sounding like an audio snob - Technics doesn't or didn't make a
good turntable - even the 1200 wasn't so great. It was popular because
it withstood DJ abuse. I assume the cartridge was equally poor? There
are many brands that would work fine - just not from the usual Japanese
consumer brands (Denon's top of the line stuff wasn't bad even though it
was direct drive). The Technics doesn't communicate nearly enough for a
comparison


--

"bob" wrote in message
...
MD wrote:

So high sampling rates and more bits don't help? SACD, DVD-A, HDCD etc
are all nonsense? An entire industry is now putting out products which
offer no discernible benefit? All the reviewers, producers and artists
who use the medium do so for no reason? That's ridiculous.

SACD and DVD-A both offer the possibility of multichannel
sound--certainly a discernible benefit there. But just because a
company markets a "new and improved" product doesn't mean it's
necessarily a better product. That's why we need to look at independent
evaluations, which can be both measurements and (valid, reliable,
repeatable) listening tests. I know of no measureable differences
between Redbook and either hi-rez format that would be audible. Nor do
I know of any confirmed blind listening comparisons demonstrating that
higher resolution digital is audibly distinguishable from Redbook. Do
you? If not, I suggest you hold the ridicule.


Bob they have demonstrably lower noise floors through the bass and midrange
and have extended high frequency response without the need for sharp
filtering, and thus better transient response. It is only your surmise that
these improvements should not be audible. I have seen nor heard of any
rigorous, published test demonstrating that they are not. And in the world
of pro audio, it is pretty widely accepted that these sound better, at least
slightly.

How 'bout
this - the industry put out the original red book medium with less than
perfect results but didn't care at the time because most of the people
(of which you are apparently one) couldn't tell the difference or didn't
care. Now the industry is putting out a medium for those who care.
Additionally it seems that those who care are more abundant than
originally thought. (Plus I am sure home theater drives some of it)

Have you done comparisons to analog if so what and on what analog gear?

This is a laugh. As it happens, I have compared vinyl and digital forms
of the same recording. You haven't. You've compared different
recordings of the same performance. The kinds of comparisons you've
done tell you absolutely nothing about the different recording
technologies, because there are so many other variables involved.

Well, then, how about describing how you prepared the comparative masters,
and how the tests were conducted, and what the statistical results were. I
don't recall seeing them here...or anywhere.



--

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

So high sampling rates and more bits don't help? SACD, DVD-A, HDCD etc
are all nonsense? An entire industry is now putting out products which
offer no discernible benefit? All the reviewers, producers and artists
who use the medium do so for no reason? That's ridiculous.

SACD and DVD-A both offer the possibility of multichannel
sound--certainly a discernible benefit there. But just because a
company markets a "new and improved" product doesn't mean it's
necessarily a better product. That's why we need to look at independent
evaluations, which can be both measurements and (valid, reliable,
repeatable) listening tests. I know of no measureable differences
between Redbook and either hi-rez format that would be audible. Nor do
I know of any confirmed blind listening comparisons demonstrating that
higher resolution digital is audibly distinguishable from Redbook. Do
you? If not, I suggest you hold the ridicule.


Bob they have demonstrably lower noise floors through the bass and midrange
and have extended high frequency response without the need for sharp
filtering, and thus better transient response. It is only your surmise that
these improvements should not be audible.

No, Harry, it is not only his surmise. It is a reasonable prediction from
known thresholds of audibility and typical attributes of home listening
environments.

It's *your side* that needs to come up with the evidence that these
'improvements' are needed *AT THE CONSUMER END*. No one has done so...
not Bob Stuart of Meridian for DVD-A, not Sony/Phillips for DSD.
Not anyone at the audiophile magazines. The one shred of tentative
evidence provided by Oohashi, based on highly idiosyncratic test methods
and equipment that would not be available to the consumer,
couldn't be replicated.

This is no robust argument for the need for 'hi rez' at the CONSUMER END.


I have seen nor heard of any
rigorous, published test demonstrating that they are not. And in the world
of pro audio, it is pretty widely accepted that these sound better, at least
slightly.

The world of pro audio contains many 'engineers' who have little if any
understanding of scientific method or standards of proof...and they
perhaps understandably tend to downplay or ignore the effects of sighted
bias. Even the ones who do 'get' the technical end ,
and make claims for hi-rez (e.g. Bob Katz), don't tend to think it
matters whether *consumer* delivery media and playback are 'hi rez'.


Well, then, how about describing how you prepared the comparative masters,
and how the tests were conducted, and what the statistical results were. I
don't recall seeing them here...or anywhere.

So you assume, instead, that the results of sighted listening are more
likely to be accurate, simply becuase they have been 'replicated' by
more sighted listening? That's a fundamental error.



___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority


--

bob wrote:
MD wrote:


So high sampling rates and more bits don't help? SACD, DVD-A, HDCD etc
are all nonsense? An entire industry is now putting out products which
offer no discernible benefit? All the reviewers, producers and artists
who use the medium do so for no reason? That's ridiculous.


SACD and DVD-A both offer the possibility of multichannel
sound--certainly a discernible benefit there. But just because a
company markets a "new and improved" product doesn't mean it's
necessarily a better product. That's why we need to look at independent
evaluations, which can be both measurements and (valid, reliable,
repeatable) listening tests. I know of no measureable differences
between Redbook and either hi-rez format that would be audible. Nor do
I know of any confirmed blind listening comparisons demonstrating that
higher resolution digital is audibly distinguishable from Redbook. Do
you? If not, I suggest you hold the ridicule.


How 'bout
this - the industry put out the original red book medium with less than
perfect results but didn't care at the time because most of the people
(of which you are apparently one) couldn't tell the difference or didn't
care. Now the industry is putting out a medium for those who care.
Additionally it seems that those who care are more abundant than
originally thought. (Plus I am sure home theater drives some of it)

Have you done comparisons to analog if so what and on what analog gear?


This is a laugh. As it happens, I have compared vinyl and digital forms
of the same recording. You haven't. You've compared different
recordings of the same performance. The kinds of comparisons you've
done tell you absolutely nothing about the different recording
technologies, because there are so many other variables involved.

bob


I have read many reviews where all 3 formats have been touted to sound
better than redbook - dozens of them.

As for data - they have a higher sampling rate and are 24bit that in
itself carries a slew of measurement data - implied in the
implementation. Do you think the difference cannot be heard or isn't
better? (HDCD was not made for multi-format or surround - it was
specifically designed to improve 2 channel listening)

No I compared the same recording using the same masters - however some
were remastered - LP and CD. OK let's say you're right. I have
compared over a dozen LP's to their digital counterpart - in some cases
I have 4 versions of each. You say this tells me nothing about
different recording technologies because of too many variables. Give me
an example of the media you used that wasn't flawed - as you state.
Also - given that I used so many different versions of the same
recording and the LP won out in the majority of the cases this seems to
prove that LP's sound better even given the variables I mentioned.

Let's use Kansas Leftoveture - a very well recorded LP - especially
given it's mass produced. I have the original CD and LP as well as the
remastered CD and half-speed mastered LP. The half-speed master beats
them all - the remastered CD beats the standard LP but the standard LP
beats the original CD. (I have the same copies of Point of Know Return
and Miles Davis Kind of Blue and the results are the same)

Lastly - you have yet to state the equipment you used in the
comparisons. i assume the Technics wasn't your analog reference.


--

bob wrote:
MD wrote:
Have you done comparisons to analog if so what and on what analog gear?

This is a laugh.

No, it's a simle straight forward question that you continue to avoid.


As it happens, I have compared vinyl and digital forms
of the same recording.


And you avoid it once again. Why won't you tell us what analog gear you
used? It does matter.

You haven't.


Now that's laughable. He has actually cited his comparisons which
included Miles Davis Kind of Blue.


You've compared different
recordings of the same performance.


Please do tell us how many *recordings* were made when they performed
Kind of Blue? Sorry but at this point I have to ask if you actually
know what a recording is?

The kinds of comparisons you've
done tell you absolutely nothing about the different recording
technologies,


The kinds of comparisons he has done were not designed to tell him
anything about "different recording technologies." Theyw er meant to
compare isues of the same titles on CD and LP.


because there are so many other variables involved.

Indeed there are but "recording technologies" rarely are at issue when
comparing LPs and CDs of the same title.The variables almost always
follow the recording stage.


Scott


--

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

So high sampling rates and more bits don't help? SACD, DVD-A, HDCD
etc
are all nonsense? An entire industry is now putting out products
which
offer no discernible benefit? All the reviewers, producers and
artists
who use the medium do so for no reason? That's ridiculous.

SACD and DVD-A both offer the possibility of multichannel
sound--certainly a discernible benefit there. But just because a
company markets a "new and improved" product doesn't mean it's
necessarily a better product. That's why we need to look at independent
evaluations, which can be both measurements and (valid, reliable,
repeatable) listening tests. I know of no measureable differences
between Redbook and either hi-rez format that would be audible. Nor do
I know of any confirmed blind listening comparisons demonstrating that
higher resolution digital is audibly distinguishable from Redbook. Do
you? If not, I suggest you hold the ridicule.


Bob they have demonstrably lower noise floors through the bass and
midrange
and have extended high frequency response without the need for sharp
filtering, and thus better transient response. It is only your surmise
that
these improvements should not be audible.

No, Harry, it is not only his surmise. It is a reasonable prediction from
known thresholds of audibility and typical attributes of home listening
environments.

It's *your side* that needs to come up with the evidence that these
'improvements' are needed *AT THE CONSUMER END*. No one has done so...
not Bob Stuart of Meridian for DVD-A, not Sony/Phillips for DSD.
Not anyone at the audiophile magazines. The one shred of tentative
evidence provided by Oohashi, based on highly idiosyncratic test methods
and equipment that would not be available to the consumer,
couldn't be replicated.

This is no robust argument for the need for 'hi rez' at the CONSUMER END.


Once again, theory seems to have triumphed over either curiosity or
practical empirical evidence...eg. "listening".



I have seen nor heard of any
rigorous, published test demonstrating that they are not. And in the
world
of pro audio, it is pretty widely accepted that these sound better, at
least
slightly.

The world of pro audio contains many 'engineers' who have little if any
understanding of scientific method or standards of proof...and they
perhaps understandably tend to downplay or ignore the effects of sighted
bias. Even the ones who do 'get' the technical end ,
and make claims for hi-rez (e.g. Bob Katz), don't tend to think it
matters whether *consumer* delivery media and playback are 'hi rez'.


Well, then, how about describing how you prepared the comparative
masters,
and how the tests were conducted, and what the statistical results were.
I
don't recall seeing them here...or anywhere.

So you assume, instead, that the results of sighted listening are more
likely to be accurate, simply becuase they have been 'replicated' by
more sighted listening? That's a fundamental error.


No...the man made a claim, and I'd like to know on what "scientific" basis
he made it. No more than you would ask of me.



--

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


snip



Bob they have demonstrably lower noise floors through the bass and
midrange
and have extended high frequency response without the need for sharp
filtering, and thus better transient response. It is only your surmise
that
these improvements should not be audible.

No, Harry, it is not only his surmise. It is a reasonable prediction from
known thresholds of audibility and typical attributes of home listening
environments.

It's *your side* that needs to come up with the evidence that these
'improvements' are needed *AT THE CONSUMER END*. No one has done so...
not Bob Stuart of Meridian for DVD-A, not Sony/Phillips for DSD.
Not anyone at the audiophile magazines. The one shred of tentative
evidence provided by Oohashi, based on highly idiosyncratic test methods
and equipment that would not be available to the consumer,
couldn't be replicated.


So I or somebody is supposed to design a test to show that the measured
better performance of high-rez audio is *NEEDED* at the consumer end? What
a strange argument. On that basis, we'd still be listening to wax
cylinders.
Whatever happened to high fidelity sound, as far as your interest in the
hobby?


This is no robust argument for the need for 'hi rez' at the CONSUMER END.


Which of course ducks the point...there has been no *proof* offered by
anybody here that high-rez *doesn't* sound superior, as those of us
enthusiastic about it claim, and as the professional audio community is
willing to accept (those who spend much time, energy, and money *listening*
for a living).

Kind of a slider close to the outside corner. But a miss, nonetheless.
Nobody is swinging, Steven. Sorry. Ball four.



I have seen nor heard of any
rigorous, published test demonstrating that they are not. And in the
world
of pro audio, it is pretty widely accepted that these sound better, at
least
slightly.

The world of pro audio contains many 'engineers' who have little if any
understanding of scientific method or standards of proof...and they
perhaps understandably tend to downplay or ignore the effects of sighted
bias. Even the ones who do 'get' the technical end ,
and make claims for hi-rez (e.g. Bob Katz), don't tend to think it
matters whether *consumer* delivery media and playback are 'hi rez'.


The world of pro audio also consists of many whose technical credentials are
excellent, who know how to set up comparative tests and often use them, and
who somethow nontheless believe higher sampling rates, greater bit depth,
and dsd all produce better sound than conventional redbook.

I'll put the pro team's 1-2-3-4 men up against the RAHE objectivist team
when it comes to determining sound quality, Steven, and they'll win a lot of
games.



Well, then, how about describing how you prepared the comparative
masters,
and how the tests were conducted, and what the statistical results were.
I
don't recall seeing them here...or anywhere.

So you assume, instead, that the results of sighted listening are more
likely to be accurate, simply becuase they have been 'replicated' by
more sighted listening? That's a fundamental error.

A complete non-sequitor. That one isn't even close to the outside corner.
You've got to put the ball over the plate to get a strike, Steven.



--

MD wrote:
bob wrote:
MD wrote:


So high sampling rates and more bits don't help? SACD, DVD-A, HDCD etc
are all nonsense? An entire industry is now putting out products which
offer no discernible benefit? All the reviewers, producers and artists
who use the medium do so for no reason? That's ridiculous.


SACD and DVD-A both offer the possibility of multichannel
sound--certainly a discernible benefit there. But just because a
company markets a "new and improved" product doesn't mean it's
necessarily a better product. That's why we need to look at independent
evaluations, which can be both measurements and (valid, reliable,
repeatable) listening tests. I know of no measureable differences
between Redbook and either hi-rez format that would be audible. Nor do
I know of any confirmed blind listening comparisons demonstrating that
higher resolution digital is audibly distinguishable from Redbook. Do
you? If not, I suggest you hold the ridicule.


How 'bout
this - the industry put out the original red book medium with less than
perfect results but didn't care at the time because most of the people
(of which you are apparently one) couldn't tell the difference or didn't
care. Now the industry is putting out a medium for those who care.
Additionally it seems that those who care are more abundant than
originally thought. (Plus I am sure home theater drives some of it)

Have you done comparisons to analog if so what and on what analog gear?


This is a laugh. As it happens, I have compared vinyl and digital forms
of the same recording. You haven't. You've compared different
recordings of the same performance. The kinds of comparisons you've
done tell you absolutely nothing about the different recording
technologies, because there are so many other variables involved.

bob


I have read many reviews where all 3 formats have been touted to sound
better than redbook - dozens of them.

Yes, and never have they performed the comparison in a fair way.

As for data - they have a higher sampling rate and are 24bit that in
itself carries a slew of measurement data -


'24 bit' is not a sampling rate. It is a wordlength (bit-depth).

implied in the
implementation. Do you think the difference cannot be heard or isn't
better? (HDCD was not made for multi-format or surround - it was
specifically designed to improve 2 channel listening)

HDCD can involve dynamic range compression/expansion as well as
bit-mapping. Unless you know what has been done during mastering, you are
in no position ot claim that audible differences are due to the *bit mapping*.

No I compared the same recording using the same masters - however some
were remastered - LP and CD. OK let's say you're right. I have
compared over a dozen LP's to their digital counterpart - in some cases
I have 4 versions of each. You say this tells me nothing about
different recording technologies because of too many variables. Give me
an example of the media you used that wasn't flawed - as you state.

That's irrelevant -- the point is you are making definite claims about
the cause of audible differences without accounting for all possible reasons
for those differences.

Also - given that I used so many different versions of the same
recording and the LP won out in the majority of the cases this seems to
prove that LP's sound better even given the variables I mentioned.

In which case one *might* conclude that whatever distortions that
LP imparts, are what you like (because LP is certainly going to sound
different from source, though that need not be the case for CD).
OR you might simply be biased towards LPs. OR you preferred the mastering of
these for LP, versus for CD.

Let's use Kansas Leftoveture - a very well recorded LP -

not particularly. It's got a very dry and not terribly realistic
mid-70's prog sound. Do you imagine those instruments actually
sounded like that if played over real amps in a real room?

especially
given it's mass produced. I have the original CD and LP as well as the
remastered CD and half-speed mastered LP. The half-speed master beats
them all - the remastered CD beats the standard LP but the standard LP
beats the original CD. (I have the same copies of Point of Know Return
and Miles Davis Kind of Blue and the results are the same)

Again, see above. Your *preference* proved NOTHING about the
formats themselves.


Lastly - you have yet to state the equipment you used in the
comparisons. i assume the Technics wasn't your analog reference.

Irrelevant.

So, you don't seem to understand digital (the confusion about
bits and sample rates is a giveaway) and you don't seem to understand
about controlling variables.



___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority


--

Steven Sullivan wrote:
MD wrote:

bob wrote:

MD wrote:



So high sampling rates and more bits don't help? SACD, DVD-A, HDCD etc
are all nonsense? An entire industry is now putting out products which
offer no discernible benefit? All the reviewers, producers and artists
who use the medium do so for no reason? That's ridiculous.


SACD and DVD-A both offer the possibility of multichannel
sound--certainly a discernible benefit there. But just because a
company markets a "new and improved" product doesn't mean it's
necessarily a better product. That's why we need to look at independent
evaluations, which can be both measurements and (valid, reliable,
repeatable) listening tests. I know of no measureable differences
between Redbook and either hi-rez format that would be audible. Nor do
I know of any confirmed blind listening comparisons demonstrating that
higher resolution digital is audibly distinguishable from Redbook. Do
you? If not, I suggest you hold the ridicule.



How 'bout
this - the industry put out the original red book medium with less than
perfect results but didn't care at the time because most of the people
(of which you are apparently one) couldn't tell the difference or didn't
care. Now the industry is putting out a medium for those who care.
Additionally it seems that those who care are more abundant than
originally thought. (Plus I am sure home theater drives some of it)

Have you done comparisons to analog if so what and on what analog gear?


This is a laugh. As it happens, I have compared vinyl and digital forms
of the same recording. You haven't. You've compared different
recordings of the same performance. The kinds of comparisons you've
done tell you absolutely nothing about the different recording
technologies, because there are so many other variables involved.

bob



I have read many reviews where all 3 formats have been touted to sound
better than redbook - dozens of them.


Yes, and never have they performed the comparison in a fair way.


As for data - they have a higher sampling rate and are 24bit that in
itself carries a slew of measurement data -



'24 bit' is not a sampling rate. It is a wordlength (bit-depth).


implied in the
implementation. Do you think the difference cannot be heard or isn't
better? (HDCD was not made for multi-format or surround - it was
specifically designed to improve 2 channel listening)


HDCD can involve dynamic range compression/expansion as well as
bit-mapping. Unless you know what has been done during mastering, you are
in no position ot claim that audible differences are due to the *bit mapping*.


No I compared the same recording using the same masters - however some
were remastered - LP and CD. OK let's say you're right. I have
compared over a dozen LP's to their digital counterpart - in some cases
I have 4 versions of each. You say this tells me nothing about
different recording technologies because of too many variables. Give me
an example of the media you used that wasn't flawed - as you state.


That's irrelevant -- the point is you are making definite claims about
the cause of audible differences without accounting for all possible reasons
for those differences.


Also - given that I used so many different versions of the same
recording and the LP won out in the majority of the cases this seems to
prove that LP's sound better even given the variables I mentioned.


In which case one *might* conclude that whatever distortions that
LP imparts, are what you like (because LP is certainly going to sound
different from source, though that need not be the case for CD).
OR you might simply be biased towards LPs. OR you preferred the mastering of
these for LP, versus for CD.


Let's use Kansas Leftoveture - a very well recorded LP -


not particularly. It's got a very dry and not terribly realistic
mid-70's prog sound. Do you imagine those instruments actually
sounded like that if played over real amps in a real room?


especially
given it's mass produced. I have the original CD and LP as well as the
remastered CD and half-speed mastered LP. The half-speed master beats
them all - the remastered CD beats the standard LP but the standard LP
beats the original CD. (I have the same copies of Point of Know Return
and Miles Davis Kind of Blue and the results are the same)


Again, see above. Your *preference* proved NOTHING about the
formats themselves.



Lastly - you have yet to state the equipment you used in the
comparisons. i assume the Technics wasn't your analog reference.


Irrelevant.

So, you don't seem to understand digital (the confusion about
bits and sample rates is a giveaway) and you don't seem to understand
about controlling variables.



___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority


I didn't state that 24 bit was the sampling rate - however - I should
have written that part better

I wasn't stating why HDCD sounded better or how it does it. I was
stating that HDCD was driven to specifically address 2 channel listening
not multi format as DVD-A and SACD were. If redbook cannot be improved
on why HDCD?

The half speed master version is extremely well done. Additionally -
compared to it's genre the original Leftoveture recording, mastering etc
were very well done. Respond within the context. I never said it was a
stellar recording in general. (I can't tell if you just like being
contrary are an uninformed elitist or what you state is simply you opinion)

Stating what analog equipment has when doing a comparison and what
recording were compared is not irrelevant given the topic. The issue is
whether or not LPs sound better not which method seems to be (or is)
scientifically more accurate - or said another way - less flawed.

I do understand bits vs sample rate - I did a poor job at explaining myself

As for variables - they can't be controlled unless they exist.
Listening to analog and digital sources is the key here. Not rattling
off scientific theory or fact (at least what we "know" to be fact at
this time).

Have you done comparisons? if so of what? On what gear? If you won't
answer the question then it seems you are engaging in this thread
without participating fairly.


--

MD wrote:
I wasn't stating why HDCD sounded better or how it does it. I was
stating that HDCD was driven to specifically address 2 channel listening
not multi format as DVD-A and SACD were. If redbook cannot be improved
on why HDCD?

You seem to be of the opinion that the mere existence of a 'new improved' product
is sufficient to demonstrate that it is indeed an improvement.

Stating what analog equipment has when doing a comparison and what
recording were compared is not irrelevant given the topic. The issue is
whether or not LPs sound better not which method seems to be (or is)
scientifically more accurate - or said another way - less flawed.

Which sounds *better* is a subjective call. To some people the sound of a 78
is *better*.

I do understand bits vs sample rate - I did a poor job at explaining myself
As for variables - they can't be controlled unless they exist.
Listening to analog and digital sources is the key here. Not rattling
off scientific theory or fact (at least what we "know" to be fact at
this time).

Listening to analog and digital sources WHERE THE ONLY DIFFERNCE IS ANALOG VS DIGITAL
is the key. *That's* what controlling variables means.

Have you done comparisons? if so of what? On what gear? If you won't
answer the question then it seems you are engaging in this thread
without participating fairly.

I have compared LP to a CDR of LP. *THAT* is what you should try. Good luck setting
it up for a DBT, though.




--

Steven Sullivan wrote:
MD wrote:

I wasn't stating why HDCD sounded better or how it does it. I was
stating that HDCD was driven to specifically address 2 channel listening
not multi format as DVD-A and SACD were. If redbook cannot be improved
on why HDCD?


You seem to be of the opinion that the mere existence of a 'new improved' product
is sufficient to demonstrate that it is indeed an improvement.


Stating what analog equipment has when doing a comparison and what
recording were compared is not irrelevant given the topic. The issue is
whether or not LPs sound better not which method seems to be (or is)
scientifically more accurate - or said another way - less flawed.


Which sounds *better* is a subjective call. To some people the sound of a 78
is *better*.


I do understand bits vs sample rate - I did a poor job at explaining myself
As for variables - they can't be controlled unless they exist.
Listening to analog and digital sources is the key here. Not rattling
off scientific theory or fact (at least what we "know" to be fact at
this time).


Listening to analog and digital sources WHERE THE ONLY DIFFERNCE IS ANALOG VS DIGITAL
is the key. *That's* what controlling variables means.


Have you done comparisons? if so of what? On what gear? If you won't
answer the question then it seems you are engaging in this thread
without participating fairly.


I have compared LP to a CDR of LP. *THAT* is what you should try. Good luck setting
it up for a DBT, though.




I don't actually think new has to be better - hence my use of analog and
tubes. However - someone decided to dump a lot of money in to HDCD. I
haven't compared the 2 mediums so I actually don't know if HDCD sounds
better. Have you heard both? If so I do you think there is a
difference and if so is it "better"?


--

MD wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
MD wrote:

I wasn't stating why HDCD sounded better or how it does it. I was
stating that HDCD was driven to specifically address 2 channel listening
not multi format as DVD-A and SACD were. If redbook cannot be improved
on why HDCD?


You seem to be of the opinion that the mere existence of a 'new improved' product
is sufficient to demonstrate that it is indeed an improvement.


Stating what analog equipment has when doing a comparison and what
recording were compared is not irrelevant given the topic. The issue is
whether or not LPs sound better not which method seems to be (or is)
scientifically more accurate - or said another way - less flawed.


Which sounds *better* is a subjective call. To some people the sound of a 78
is *better*.


I do understand bits vs sample rate - I did a poor job at explaining myself
As for variables - they can't be controlled unless they exist.
Listening to analog and digital sources is the key here. Not rattling
off scientific theory or fact (at least what we "know" to be fact at
this time).


Listening to analog and digital sources WHERE THE ONLY DIFFERNCE IS ANALOG VS DIGITAL
is the key. *That's* what controlling variables means.


Have you done comparisons? if so of what? On what gear? If you won't
answer the question then it seems you are engaging in this thread
without participating fairly.


I have compared LP to a CDR of LP. *THAT* is what you should try. Good luck setting
it up for a DBT, though.




I don't actually think new has to be better - hence my use of analog and
tubes. However - someone decided to dump a lot of money in to HDCD. I
haven't compared the 2 mediums so I actually don't know if HDCD sounds
better. Have you heard both? If so I do you think there is a
difference and if so is it "better"?


Yes, I have heard CD vs. HDCD, over an HDCD-decoding player.. But I did not know if the
mastering was otherwise the same, or if the player treated both sources the same, so I *could
not* conclude that any differences I heard were due to HDCD vs. CD. (From the few where I
have looked at the waveforms, it appeared that the mastering was *quite different*, actually)

So, are ou going to simply keep repeating the irrelevant question 'Have you heard both??'
for every pair of recordings, or are you going to acknowledge the limitations on what you can
know about *why* they sound different?


--

Steven Sullivan wrote:
MD wrote:
I wasn't stating why HDCD sounded better or how it does it. I was
stating that HDCD was driven to specifically address 2 channel listening
not multi format as DVD-A and SACD were. If redbook cannot be improved
on why HDCD?

You seem to be of the opinion that the mere existence of a 'new improved' product
is sufficient to demonstrate that it is indeed an improvement.

Now that is a funny thing to say to someone who has expressed a
preference for LPs over CDs.




Stating what analog equipment has when doing a comparison and what
recording were compared is not irrelevant given the topic. The issue is
whether or not LPs sound better not which method seems to be (or is)
scientifically more accurate - or said another way - less flawed.

Which sounds *better* is a subjective call.


Wow, that is quite a revelation.


To some people the sound of a 78
is *better*.


I have heard about such people.




I do understand bits vs sample rate - I did a poor job at explaining myself
As for variables - they can't be controlled unless they exist.
Listening to analog and digital sources is the key here. Not rattling
off scientific theory or fact (at least what we "know" to be fact at
this time).

Listening to analog and digital sources WHERE THE ONLY DIFFERNCE IS ANALOG VS DIGITAL
is the key. *That's* what controlling variables means.


You are simply out of luck then because with LPs and Cds hardware is
always going to be an issue.



Have you done comparisons? if so of what? On what gear? If you won't
answer the question then it seems you are engaging in this thread
without participating fairly.

I have compared LP to a CDR of LP. *THAT* is what you should try.


Why? What does that have to do with the topic?


Good luck setting
it up for a DBT, though.



Good point. For all we know your comparison was affected by your bias
that CD is a transparent medium. I still don't see why anyone would
consider that comparison meaningful anyway. It tells you nothing about
what is on any commecial CDs. You know, the CDs consumers actually have
access to.




Scott


--

Steven Sullivan wrote:
MD wrote:

Steven Sullivan wrote:

MD wrote:


I wasn't stating why HDCD sounded better or how it does it. I was
stating that HDCD was driven to specifically address 2 channel listening
not multi format as DVD-A and SACD were. If redbook cannot be improved
on why HDCD?


You seem to be of the opinion that the mere existence of a 'new improved' product
is sufficient to demonstrate that it is indeed an improvement.



Stating what analog equipment has when doing a comparison and what
recording were compared is not irrelevant given the topic. The issue is
whether or not LPs sound better not which method seems to be (or is)
scientifically more accurate - or said another way - less flawed.


Which sounds *better* is a subjective call. To some people the sound of a 78
is *better*.



I do understand bits vs sample rate - I did a poor job at explaining myself
As for variables - they can't be controlled unless they exist.
Listening to analog and digital sources is the key here. Not rattling
off scientific theory or fact (at least what we "know" to be fact at
this time).


Listening to analog and digital sources WHERE THE ONLY DIFFERNCE IS ANALOG VS DIGITAL
is the key. *That's* what controlling variables means.



Have you done comparisons? if so of what? On what gear? If you won't
answer the question then it seems you are engaging in this thread
without participating fairly.


I have compared LP to a CDR of LP. *THAT* is what you should try. Good luck setting
it up for a DBT, though.





I don't actually think new has to be better - hence my use of analog and
tubes. However - someone decided to dump a lot of money in to HDCD. I
haven't compared the 2 mediums so I actually don't know if HDCD sounds
better. Have you heard both? If so I do you think there is a
difference and if so is it "better"?



Yes, I have heard CD vs. HDCD, over an HDCD-decoding player.. But I did not know if the
mastering was otherwise the same, or if the player treated both sources the same, so I *could
not* conclude that any differences I heard were due to HDCD vs. CD. (From the few where I
have looked at the waveforms, it appeared that the mastering was *quite different*, actually)

So, are ou going to simply keep repeating the irrelevant question 'Have you heard both??'
for every pair of recordings, or are you going to acknowledge the limitations on what you can
know about *why* they sound different?


I understand that even if someone likes analog more than the LP it could
be for reasons other than the playback end. However - if the trend
continues the playback end becomes the greater factor. You seem to be
trying to find ways to excuse the possibility that it's the playback
that makes the (or a big part of the ) difference. I now have most of
Steely Dan's LPs as well as their remastered CD. Every cut on LP sounds
better. The difference is consistent - the highs especially cymbals
sound much more realistic. They extend in time to a natural roll off.
I have now compared over 2 dozens LPs to their CD counter parts.
All of the CDs and LPs have varied from original release to remasters.
Given this I believe that playback has more to do with what I hear than
the recording/mastering process. As for CD sound it does have it's
advantages. Bass is tighter and their is less noise. For instance I
have the original RCA pressing of Harry Belefontes Carnagie Hall
release. The LP is not in the best of shape so the pops and ticks are
distracting. When I compare the music on the LP to the CD I can't hear
much of a difference so I usually listen to the CD. I choose CD because
there is so much of the music is low in volume - so the ticks are very
audible - and the dynamic range of the music is beyond LPs capabilities.


--

MD wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:


Yes, I have heard CD vs. HDCD, over an HDCD-decoding player.. But I did not know if the
mastering was otherwise the same, or if the player treated both sources the same, so I *could
not* conclude that any differences I heard were due to HDCD vs. CD. (From the few where I
have looked at the waveforms, it appeared that the mastering was *quite different*, actually)

So, are ou going to simply keep repeating the irrelevant question 'Have you heard both??'
for every pair of recordings, or are you going to acknowledge the limitations on what you can
know about *why* they sound different?


I understand that even if someone likes analog more than the LP it could
be for reasons other than the playback end. However - if the trend
continues the playback end becomes the greater factor. You seem to be
trying to find ways to excuse the possibility that it's the playback
that makes the (or a big part of the ) difference. I now have most of
Steely Dan's LPs as well as their remastered CD. Every cut on LP sounds
better. The difference is consistent - the highs especially cymbals
sound much more realistic. They extend in time to a natural roll off.


Actaully, for *LP versus CD* , I'm quite willing to acknoweldge the inherent audible
difference that arises from the LP format -- the inherent 'euphonic' forms of distortion of LP
playback simply aren't present in CD. They aren't present on the master tapes either.

But when you start folding 'HDCD vs CD' into the argument, you're comparing two versions of
digital, both of which meet or exceed widely accepted audible requirements for sampling
rate and bit depth. So there is no *inherent* reason why o.ne should sound different from the
other.

I have now compared over 2 dozens LPs to their CD counter parts.
All of the CDs and LPs have varied from original release to remasters.
Given this I believe that playback has more to do with what I hear than
the recording/mastering process.

Yes, if you prefer the added 'sound' of LP, then you will tend to prefer LPs to any or the
digital formats because the latter lack such added distortions of the original
recording...all other things being equal, which is rarely the case. In vritually every
case you are hearing not on the LP's euphonic distortion, but different mastering as well.



___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority



--

I have now compared over 2 dozens LPs to their CD counter parts.
All of the CDs and LPs have varied from original release to remasters.
Given this I believe that playback has more to do with what I hear than
the recording/mastering process.

Yes, if you prefer the added 'sound' of LP, then you will tend to prefer
LPs to any or the
digital formats because the latter lack such added distortions of the
original
recording...all other things being equal, which is rarely the case. In
vritually every
case you are hearing not on the LP's euphonic distortion, but different
mastering as well.

I have a theory that people are trying to relive the experience, common in
the 1960s or early 1970s but rare now, of being *dazzled* by the high
quality of someone's sound system. Nowadays, even cheap equipment is not
too bad, and really dazzling experiences are rare.

The dazzling experiences we had 40 years ago were strongly affected by the
limitations, as well as the virtues, of vinyl recording.


--

MC wrote:
I have now compared over 2 dozens LPs to their CD counter parts.
All of the CDs and LPs have varied from original release to remasters.
Given this I believe that playback has more to do with what I hear than
the recording/mastering process.

Yes, if you prefer the added 'sound' of LP, then you will tend to prefer
LPs to any or the
digital formats because the latter lack such added distortions of the
original
recording...all other things being equal, which is rarely the case. In
vritually every
case you are hearing not on the LP's euphonic distortion, but different
mastering as well.

I have a theory that people are trying to relive the experience, common in
the 1960s or early 1970s but rare now, of being *dazzled* by the high
quality of someone's sound system. Nowadays, even cheap equipment is not
too bad, and really dazzling experiences are rare.

The dazzling experiences we had 40 years ago were strongly affected by the
limitations, as well as the virtues, of vinyl recording.

I am not going to denigrate the pleasure of 'euphonic distortion' -- I can't, since I
commonly apply a form of it called 'Dolby Pro Logic II' to all my two-channel
sources, to provide added 'ambience', 'space', 'realism' or whatever word-that-needs-quotes
you prefer. LP's own phase-related distortion could be argued as being a distantly related,
way of generating 'ambience' 'space', etc. too.


However, I have the option of turning DPL II off, whereas LP distortion is forever ;


--

MC wrote:

I have a theory that people are trying to relive the experience, common in
the 1960s or early 1970s but rare now, of being *dazzled* by the high
quality of someone's sound system. Nowadays, even cheap equipment is not
too bad, and really dazzling experiences are rare.

The dazzling experiences we had 40 years ago were strongly affected by the
limitations, as well as the virtues, of vinyl recording.


Analog reproduction is an interesting thing. Today, I can't think of a
good reason for anyone to really be interested in vinyl--that is, anyone
just starting out, but since this is all a hobby it is understandable.

I listen to records because I have a lot of them. To me, the sonic
characteristics of records are so different from CD that to argue the
difference is pointless. At the same time, I enjoy listening to my
records since they are meaningful to me.

I have a cartridge whose design is straight from the 1960s. I also have
a newer model (the Denon 103 and Shure V-15 xMR, respectively). They
both sound different, but both are worthwhile products. On the other
hand, I have never been able to hear any difference among todays CD
players. The big problem with records is that styli wear out. The big
problem with CD is that laser tracking mechanisms also tend to wear out.
I would never own an expensive cartridge, just like I'd never buy an
expensive CD player. I am waiting for some kind of solid state data
storage--no moving parts--nothing to go wrong. Maybe it will happen
someday, and before I lose my hearing.

mp


--