| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why would someone like LP?
Hi,
I've been lurking here recently. There was a post by a self-described "newbie" on CD vs. vinyl, which actually leads to a very important point. I repeat the post he ------------- My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny because I know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables. Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds. ------------ The question is basically, why would someone want to listen to vinyl, with its obvious flaws? The quick answer: because these listeners are relating the external stimuli to a broader range of internal percepts. Traditionally, science has investigated only the external manifestations of response to stimuli, because only the external can be observed in an objective way. Internal percepts (the personal "experience of what happens") have remained off-limits to hard science. But philosophers and Zen monks have always been able to investigate internal percepts. Musicians and all creative artists are carrying out their own investigations, in a way. What is obvious to those who care to introspect is that "listening is not listening." The crucial question is, "What are you listening for?" It is also obvious to those who care to introspect that different people draw on a different set of potential concepts; that is, concepts stored in memory that can be "activated" by stimuli. New listeners to music generally relate music to potential concepts that they have already developed from non-musical experience with sound: "loud," "soft," "fast," "slow". The "beat" may seem a musical concept, but it is closely related to the heartbeat and other phenomena of nature, so that potential concept of "beat" is sitting in unconscious memory waiting to be activated even in the non-musician. On the other hand, very experienced listeners of music, and even more so musicians, have more highly developed abstractions as potential concepts. An experienced listener hears aspect of form and subtle nuances of expression: this is an entirely different set of potential concepts from the beginner. Again, it is obvious from introspection that as experience develops, the earlier potential concepts diminish in importance and are replaced by more abstract potential concepts. In other words, the surface noise of an LP corresponds to a relatively juvenile potential concept, which is immediately derived from normal, non-musical experience. The beginner will weight this concept highly, and since it is normally a non-musical experience, it will interfere quite a lot with listening. In the experienced listener, the weight of this concept has diminished greatly and is superceded by the abstract concepts of musical expression and form. In simple terms, what this boils down to is that the experienced listener "hears through" the noise into the music. This kinds of experience seems impossible to the beginner; they simply haven't developed the necessary potential concepts yet, just as a child wouldn't normally have the ability to comprehend something abstract like subtle competition in a political debate. I've noticed that the "objectivists" here are extremely naive, philosophically. They don't understand and don't even acknowledge the knowledge to be gained about perception through introspection. In fact, I predict they will respond to this post by demeaning the whole idea and claiming the superiority of "objective evidence." This misunderstands so many things, the main thing being that life is not "objective evidence versus introspection;" the two can and must be integrated. I will postpone this discussion for now, but later I can explain how the conclusions of so-called "objective" experiments collapse over the shaky foundation of introspective naivety. Helen |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helen Schmidt wrote:
Hi, I've been lurking here recently. There was a post by a self-described "newbie" on CD vs. vinyl, which actually leads to a very important point. I repeat the post he ------------- My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny because I know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables. Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds. ------------ The question is basically, why would someone want to listen to vinyl, with its obvious flaws? The quick answer: because these listeners are relating the external stimuli to a broader range of internal percepts. Traditionally, science has investigated only the external manifestations of response to stimuli, because only the external can be observed in an objective way. Internal percepts (the personal "experience of what happens") have remained off-limits to hard science. But philosophers and Zen monks have always been able to investigate internal percepts. Musicians and all creative artists are carrying out their own investigations, in a way. What is obvious to those who care to introspect is that "listening is not listening." The crucial question is, "What are you listening for?" It is also obvious to those who care to introspect that different people draw on a different set of potential concepts; that is, concepts stored in memory that can be "activated" by stimuli. New listeners to music generally relate music to potential concepts that they have already developed from non-musical experience with sound: "loud," "soft," "fast," "slow". The "beat" may seem a musical concept, but it is closely related to the heartbeat and other phenomena of nature, so that potential concept of "beat" is sitting in unconscious memory waiting to be activated even in the non-musician. On the other hand, very experienced listeners of music, and even more so musicians, have more highly developed abstractions as potential concepts. An experienced listener hears aspect of form and subtle nuances of expression: this is an entirely different set of potential concepts from the beginner. Again, it is obvious from introspection that as experience develops, the earlier potential concepts diminish in importance and are replaced by more abstract potential concepts. In other words, the surface noise of an LP corresponds to a relatively juvenile potential concept, which is immediately derived from normal, non-musical experience. The beginner will weight this concept highly, and since it is normally a non-musical experience, it will interfere quite a lot with listening. In the experienced listener, the weight of this concept has diminished greatly and is superceded by the abstract concepts of musical expression and form. In simple terms, what this boils down to is that the experienced listener "hears through" the noise into the music. This kinds of experience seems impossible to the beginner; they simply haven't developed the necessary potential concepts yet, just as a child wouldn't normally have the ability to comprehend something abstract like subtle competition in a political debate. I've noticed that the "objectivists" here are extremely naive, philosophically. They don't understand and don't even acknowledge the knowledge to be gained about perception through introspection. In fact, I predict they will respond to this post by demeaning the whole idea and claiming the superiority of "objective evidence." This misunderstands so many things, the main thing being that life is not "objective evidence versus introspection;" the two can and must be integrated. I will postpone this discussion for now, but later I can explain how the conclusions of so-called "objective" experiments collapse over the shaky foundation of introspective naivety. Helen FWIW, I've been a professional musician for over 30 years, and a professional audio engineer for nearly 28. I have indeed learned to "hear through" the clicks, pops, & other surface noise artifacts of vinyl playback in order to appreciate aspects of form and subtle nuances of musical expression. But I choose not to. Those same aspects of form and subtle nuances of musical expression are just as accurately conveyed in a good digital recording of the performance, and a well-mastered compact disc happily yields all that information without the additional surface noise that I would otherwise have to "hear through". Why bother adding an obstacle to enjoyment, even if it's an obstacle which through time & experience I've learned to ignore? |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helen Schmidt wrote:
Hi, I've been lurking here recently. There was a post by a self-described "newbie" on CD vs. vinyl, which actually leads to a very important point. I repeat the post he ------------- My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny because I know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. I don't believe that is the whole argument at all. Generally the argument is that the LPs sound more natural and less fatiguing. Is it because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables. IMO high-end Technics and Stanton tables is an oxymoron. Those tables just aint high-end. I would not say that 10k is a natural turning point but better performance does cost money. You ae not hearing anywhee near the best LP playback has to offer with those tables in the formula. Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds. If the vinyl is truly clean and o have pops and clicks that are that intrusive you are likely dealing with damaged vinyl and/or serious misracking. ------------ The question is basically, why would someone want to listen to vinyl, with its obvious flaws? Because of it's advantages. Trust me, if there were none I wouldn't bother. Back in the eighties when CDs first came out I was one of the first to jump on the band wagon. It was CDs that actually got me interested in audio. Imagine that. My first CD player, a 14 bit job from Yamaha pretty much killed my Yamaha rack system turntable with it's freebee P-mount cartridge. During my ventures into auditioning better equipment to go with this wonderful new technology I went ahead and bought a 75 dollar Ortofon P-mount catridge to replace the give away one that came with the Yamaha rack job. Well this minor upgrade made the rack job quite competetive with the CD player. I didn't like this at all. Next step was to replace that 14 bit player (a poor choice but Steeo Review said it wouldn't make a difference) with a 16 bit Yamaha player. Well CDs were once again king. In my adventures through high end audio shops I came across one vendor that swore LPs were vastly superior to CDs. I laughed I scoffed and even ridiculed the idea. But I agreed to take the pepsi challenge using my CDs, my CD player and, gasp, my old LPs and his TT on his system (one that I eventually bought more or less). I remember telling the guy there aint no way dragging a rock over a piece of plastic is going to outperform digital. No way. Well, I was served up several helpings of crow and a side of humble pie. It was a most disturbing revelation. It literlly left me numb. My belief system had been completely turned up side down. I thought sources would not be an issue in my quest for better sound. It made no sense that such a crude method of playback would be so much more realistic. The thought of the added expense made the whole thing even more disturbing. But I could not unhear what I had just heard. I didn't like that reality but I accepted it. Eventually I came to like the idea that I could actually do even better than I had with CDs. Scott Wheeler |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helen Schmidt wrote:
The question is basically, why would someone want to listen to vinyl, with its obvious flaws? The quick answer: because these listeners are relating the external stimuli to a broader range of internal percepts. A more to the point answer without writing 5 more paragraphs would be that there is music on LP that folks want to listen to that will never be re- released on any other medium. Some of them are horrible recordings in terrible condition that one puts up with just for the music and/or the performance or just sheer historical value. I can't speak for others, but that's what I do. I've noticed that the "objectivists" here are extremely naive, philosophically. They don't understand and don't even acknowledge the knowledge to be gained about perception through introspection. In fact, I predict they will respond to this post by demeaning the whole idea and claiming the superiority of "objective evidence." This misunderstands so many things, the main thing being that life is not "objective evidence versus introspection;" the two can and must be integrated. I will postpone this discussion for now, but later I can explain how the conclusions of so-called "objective" experiments collapse over the shaky foundation of introspective naivety. Actually, there's introspective naivety from both 'camps.' I know a number of folks who don't have a CD player because they are convinced of the subjective sonic superiority of LP and invest a considerable amount of money in equipment to play it. They are missing out on a lot of quality new music and performances. And I'm not referring to the Top 40. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 29 Jun 2005 14:57:44 GMT, "Helen Schmidt"
wrote: Hi, I've been lurking here recently. There was a post by a self-described "newbie" on CD vs. vinyl, which actually leads to a very important point. I repeat the post he ------------- My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny because I know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables. Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds. ------------ The question is basically, why would someone want to listen to vinyl, with its obvious flaws? The quick answer: because these listeners are relating the external stimuli to a broader range of internal percepts. Well, that's *one* quick answer, but not IMHO *the* quick answer. Traditionally, science has investigated only the external manifestations of response to stimuli, because only the external can be observed in an objective way. Internal percepts (the personal "experience of what happens") have remained off-limits to hard science. Not true. The science of psychoacoustics most certainly investigates "the personal experience of what happens". That's why we now have advanced compression algorithms such as MP3 and AAC - they were developed by the application of hard science to subjective experiences. But philosophers and Zen monks have always been able to investigate internal percepts. Musicians and all creative artists are carrying out their own investigations, in a way. And so are numerous scientists, in a well-controlled and rigourous way............. What is obvious to those who care to introspect is that "listening is not listening." The crucial question is, "What are you listening for?" It is also obvious to those who care to introspect that different people draw on a different set of potential concepts; that is, concepts stored in memory that can be "activated" by stimuli. New listeners to music generally relate music to potential concepts that they have already developed from non-musical experience with sound: "loud," "soft," "fast," "slow". The "beat" may seem a musical concept, but it is closely related to the heartbeat and other phenomena of nature, so that potential concept of "beat" is sitting in unconscious memory waiting to be activated even in the non-musician. On the other hand, very experienced listeners of music, and even more so musicians, have more highly developed abstractions as potential concepts. An experienced listener hears aspect of form and subtle nuances of expression: this is an entirely different set of potential concepts from the beginner. Again, it is obvious from introspection that as experience develops, the earlier potential concepts diminish in importance and are replaced by more abstract potential concepts. In other words, the surface noise of an LP corresponds to a relatively juvenile potential concept, which is immediately derived from normal, non-musical experience. The beginner will weight this concept highly, and since it is normally a non-musical experience, it will interfere quite a lot with listening. In the experienced listener, the weight of this concept has diminished greatly and is superceded by the abstract concepts of musical expression and form. In simple terms, what this boils down to is that the experienced listener "hears through" the noise into the music. Quite so - and the even more experienced listener discovers that with more advanced media such as CD, such 'hearing through' is not required, making for a more relaxed appreciation of the true subtleties of the performance........ Not all of us who prefer other media to vinyl are inexperienced listeners, indeed many of us heaved mighty sighs of relief when a superior medium appeared in 1982. at last, we could closely approach the sound quality of the master tape, after all these years of suffering the grating of rocks dragged through plastic canyons! This kinds of experience seems impossible to the beginner; they simply haven't developed the necessary potential concepts yet, just as a child wouldn't normally have the ability to comprehend something abstract like subtle competition in a political debate. I've noticed that the "objectivists" here are extremely naive, philosophically. Have you, indeed? :-) Have you also noticed the extreme naivety of the 'subjectivists' who refuse to acknowledge well-known problems with sighted evaluation, to quote but one example? They don't understand and don't even acknowledge the knowledge to be gained about perception through introspection. In fact, I predict they will respond to this post by demeaning the whole idea and claiming the superiority of "objective evidence." One can of course obtain plenty of objective evidence regarding the introspective experiences of test subjects. As noted above, this is how perceptual coding was developed. You seem to have a very naive view of how science works, philosophically. This misunderstands so many things, the main thing being that life is not "objective evidence versus introspection;" the two can and must be integrated. Quite so - see above. I will postpone this discussion for now, but later I can explain how the conclusions of so-called "objective" experiments collapse over the shaky foundation of introspective naivety. Yeah, riiiiight............. :-) Perhaps you should build a better foundation for your own knowledge of how some very basic audio concepts have been developed by hard sciencists using data gathered in subjective tests, before presuming that others are more naive than yourself. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helen Schmidt wrote:
Hi, snip The idea that 'audiophiles', who are defined by their gear fetishism, are always 'listening' the way you describe, in a sort of Zen trance trance of 'not listening' , rather than listening 'analytically' for how stuff *sounds*, is laughable. It suggest you aren;t at all familiar with audiophile culture. Bye. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
... It made no sense that such a crude method of playback would be so much more realistic. Technically, digital is crude compared to vinyl, because vinyl is analog which is pure. The analogy the approximation of an integral (area under a curve) by using intervals, vs. actual calculus, which simply gets it right from the start. I say "technically" because it is, or will be, possible to get the approximation so good that you can't tell the difference. Unless the iPod crowd makes it financially unfeasible to do so in the market. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helen Schmidt wrote:
Hi, I've been lurking here recently. There was a post by a self-described "newbie" on CD vs. vinyl, which actually leads to a very important point. I repeat the post he ------------- My simple question is that the analog vs digital signal comparison does make sense to me and analog technically should have much better dynamic range, then why is it when I listen to a turntable, it sounds the opposite? Especially the highs always seem cut off where as I throw in any CD and the extreme high/low range sound much fuller. It's funny because I know the whole argument is that vinyl is supposed to sound fuller. Is it because I have to listen to vinyl on some $10k turntable? I've only listened on some high-end Technics and Stanton tables. Also the fact that there's pops and clicks on vinyl from dust is extremely annoying to me even when you clean it ever 2 seconds. ------------ The question is basically, why would someone want to listen to vinyl, with its obvious flaws? I think the answer is no deeper than the fact that vinyl masks the flaws in the rest of your system, whereas digital stresses your system to the max. With a certain amount of noise overlaying the signal, plus a tendency to wipe out the highest frequencies after a few plays, the sound of the violins becomes more a matter of your sonic imagination than what is on the disc. With the mastering requirement to ease up on the amount and phase of the bass frequencies, your woofers are not strained and the other frequencies get more power available. With such low stereo separation, imaging subtleties are not a problem with vinyl. But throw in an extremely clean signal of much greater dynamic range and frequencies that your system never even knew about, and your troubles are only beginning. A good visual analogy would be High Definition television. If you show it on a little 25 inch set, you say "I don't get it." But when you project it to 15 feet wide with a good LCOS projector and surround sound and subwoofers, you "get it." Gary Eickmeier |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 30 Jun 2005 03:16:37 GMT, "jeffc" wrote:
wrote in message ... It made no sense that such a crude method of playback would be so much more realistic. Technically, digital is crude compared to vinyl, because vinyl is analog which is pure. The analogy the approximation of an integral (area under a curve) by using intervals, vs. actual calculus, which simply gets it right from the start. I say "technically" because it is, or will be, possible to get the approximation so good that you can't tell the difference. This is a common, but completely wrong, argument. There is nothing 'pure' about vinyl, as it is a very *poor* analogue of the master tape signal, whereas CD provides a very *good* analogue of that signal. That the *intervening* stages in a CD-based system use digital technology, does not affect the relative purity of the *analogue* signals which come out of the DAC and the cartridge. BTW, your analogy is also wrong, although a common misconception, as digital is *not* the equivalent of an 'area under the curve by histogram' approximation. The reconstruction filter ensures that the output is a smooth curve, following the original bandwidth-limited input signal *exactly*, not approximately. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 30 Jun 2005 03:19:19 GMT, "Helen Schmidt"
wrote: snip much speculation presented as fact The objectivist has a very simple "out" that lets him skip over these difficult questions and make an unjustified claim to "understanding" what is going on. Simply: "Vinyl has euphonic distortions." Correct, it does, and there is many decades of research material available which will tell you exactly what these euphonic distortions are. The objectivist hears some listeners describe the experience of vinyl--in my case, specific aspects of musical listening that correspond more closely to live listening-- but he collapses that all into the idea that "vinyl sounds good." Then, not understanding how or why it sounds good, he says the distortion must sound good. Utter rubbish. The reality is that these various eupohonic distortions can be separately added to an otherwise clean signal, and listeners will report a preference for the distorted sound in each case. There is no lack of understanding here. Of course, you can say that about anything you don't understand--if I claim that I like product X, and the objectivist doesn't understand why, he can always claim that I must like X becuase of its shortcomings. OTOH, if the 'objectivist' *does* in fact clearly understand why you might prefer vinyl, it's intereresting that *you* refuse to accept these well-known reasons, instead claiming that some mysterious 'higher perception' is at work. The basic test is to listen to a CD-R transcribed from vinyl on a high-quality rig. You'll find that this retains all the 'magic' of vinyl sound, thereby pretty much proving that what you prefer is indeed the *added* artifacts of vinyl, not anything which is mysteriously 'lost' by CD. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 30 Jun 2005 03:16:37 GMT, "jeffc" wrote:
Technically, digital is crude compared to vinyl, because vinyl is analog which is pure. Stewart has described why this argument is wrong in the first place. I would like to add that the absolute majority of LP:s are digital whatever recording techniques was used in the studio! There sits a digital delay line in nearly all mastering equipment on the planet, and this delay line is implemented by a digital design... The delay line is used to autmatically give way for loud passages on the master. When the LP-sleeve says "Absolute Pure Analogue", I would guess most of them are right, but only at the input of the mastering equipment. So, folks, vinyl lovers listen to digital all the time and likes it. Per. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helen Schmidt wrote:
The question is basically, why would someone want to listen to vinyl, with its obvious flaws? Hi Helen! There are a couple of reasons why I continue to listen to vinyl. The very first reason is that there's a wealth of fine recordings that are not available on CD. One of my favorite jazz recordings is titled "Supersax Plays Bird". Originally recorded in the early 1970's, it was first released on standard vinyl, later released as a half-speed master from Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs, and then there was a short CD release which has been out of print for many years and is very hard to find. Over at Amazon.com, there are 3 copies for sale at $75, $175, and $200. But vinyl copies are pretty readily available. It's an extraordinary recording if you love good jazz. I have a number of recordings on both vinyl and CD. Invariably the vinyl, even with the surface imprefections, clicks and pops, yadda yadda, has a timbre which just sounds more natural. My wife is a professional violinist and very much *NOT* an audiophile. She's something of a Luddite actually and cares not a bit for our concerns regarding audio engineering. She just listens to music, and she hears these differences quite readily. I have no way to know if these differences are artifacts of the medium or because the different recordings were mastered differently, and if so, how they were mastered differently. As an exercise, I recently digitized "Supersax Plays Bird" from my MFSL recording. I have a Xitel Inport, which is a cute little A to D converter, which feeds into a PC USB port. I can then burn a CD from it. When comparing the CD to the original vinyl, there does appear to be some added edginess. Is that an artifact of the Xitel Inport, or is it inherent to digitial? I don't know. My own vinyl rig is a Linn LP12 with a Rega RB300 arm and Rega Elys cartridge, which is most definitely not a $10,000 combination. Were I to put it up for sale at Audiogon, it would probably go for between $700 to $1000. It's a good combination, but certainly not the absolute top drawer of the audio hi-end. Russ |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Per Stromgren wrote:
On 30 Jun 2005 03:16:37 GMT, "jeffc" wrote: Technically, digital is crude compared to vinyl, because vinyl is analog which is pure. Stewart has described why this argument is wrong in the first place. I would like to add that the absolute majority of LP:s are digital whatever recording techniques was used in the studio! I doubt the absolute majority are digital. There sits a digital delay line in nearly all mastering equipment on the planet, That would be interesting to investigate. It shouldn't be that hard since thee are only a few places that still cut laquers. and this delay line is implemented by a digital design... The delay line is used to autmatically give way for loud passages on the master. When the LP-sleeve says "Absolute Pure Analogue", I would guess most of them are right, but only at the input of the mastering equipment. I think a great deal of the world's LPs were made without such a device in the chain. So, folks, vinyl lovers listen to digital all the time and likes it. But digital isn't the issue it is CDs v. LPs. Indeed I have some LPs made from digital recodings that I quite like. I like some, in fact many, better than the CD version. Go figure. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Russ Button wrote:
edited As an exercise, I recently digitized "Supersax Plays Bird" from my MFSL recording. I have a Xitel Inport, which is a cute little A to D converter, which feeds into a PC USB port. I can then burn a CD from it. When comparing the CD to the original vinyl, there does appear to be some added edginess. Is that an artifact of the Xitel Inport, or is it inherent to digitial? I don't know. My own vinyl rig is a Linn LP12 with a Rega RB300 arm and Rega Elys cartridge, which is most definitely not a $10,000 combination. Were I to put it up for sale at Audiogon, it would probably go for between $700 to $1000. It's a good combination, but certainly not the absolute top drawer of the audio hi-end. Russ Here's the flaw: you're comparing your very nice analog setup to a just barely adequete PC setup. I just looked up the Xitel and found that it's claim to faim seems to be the elimination of groung loop hums. The key to making very good Audio CDs or any digital audio is; 1. The quality of your soundcard 2. If you make MP3s, the quality of your MP3 encoder. You have to pick and choose carefully just as you did when you purchsed that Linn deck. Good soundcard manufacturers that come to mind are Echo audio, Audiophile, and Lynx. If you want to make a good quality MP3, so far I have found that the LAME mp3 encoder is an excellent choice. CD |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Utter rubbish. The reality is that these various eupohonic distortions can be separately added to an otherwise clean signal, and listeners will report a preference for the distorted sound in each case. There is no lack of understanding here. In your wording above, "the listeners report a preference," you are showing your basic model. I find that objectivists miss the fact that there are actually several models that must be understood separately as well as together. At the simplest level, audio is about making something that sounds good, just as food is about making something that tastes good. However, there's something very different about audio, compared to food. Audio is about reproducing musical percepts. There's an "original" event, and we are trying to recreate that event. In an appropriately broad focus, we will see that the original event is the stimulation of musical percepts in the listener's mind. The goal of audio then is the re-stimulation of those percepts. An experiment which sets out to discover "what listeners prefer" is simply ignoring this higher level. Experiments which are founded on improper assumptions will not help us understand anything better. Helen |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Russ Button wrote:
As an exercise, I recently digitized "Supersax Plays Bird" from my MFSL recording. I have a Xitel Inport, which is a cute little A to D converter, which feeds into a PC USB port. I can then burn a CD from it. When comparing the CD to the original vinyl, there does appear to be some added edginess. Is that an artifact of the Xitel Inport, or is it inherent to digitial? I don't know. When the overwhelming pattern is that CD's have faults such as edginess (commercially produced CD's) and vinyl is free from these faults, the obvious conclusion is that the problem is inherent to digital. Of course, since this can't be understood using our current set of measurements (of audio systems and brains), the objectivist who craves understanding must fall back on other explanations. The tricky thing is that many of these alternative explanations are valid in some situations. The explanations include: - vinyl has euphonic distortions - CD reveals the limitations of the system Of course, these can realistically describe some situations. There are distortions which, applied to music, make it sound "better." But if I'm not talking about "better," but about "truth-to-life", the objectivist answers in the same way. There are systems with limitations which higher quality source can reveal. But if those who favor analog do so consistently even in SOTA systems, the objectivist answers in the same way. As far as the explanation that "distortion sounds good" -- better turntables are in fact better mechanically--that is they produce *less* distortion. And those who favor analog find more truth-to-life in such systems. Helen |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Codifus wrote:
Russ Button wrote: edited As an exercise, I recently digitized "Supersax Plays Bird" from my MFSL recording. I have a Xitel Inport, which is a cute little A to D converter, which feeds into a PC USB port. Here's the flaw: you're comparing your very nice analog setup to a just barely adequete PC setup. I just looked up the Xitel and found that it's claim to faim seems to be the elimination of groung loop hums. 1. The quality of your soundcard The Xitel Inport is not a soundcard. It is an outboard device that takes a line level feed and puts out a digital stream that you pick up from a USB port. It comes with controlling capture software you run on the PC. One of the problems with any soundcard is that the interior of a PC is full of RFI. Being that the Inport is an outboarded device, that eliminates that concern. I don't know how good it is for A to D conversion, or what chipset it uses, etc. But it seemed like a useful tool at a reasonable price, which is why I stated that I had no idea exactly what the source was for the artifacts I was hearing. Even so, it does a pretty good job and I do find the recordings made with it to be acceptable. 2. If you make MP3s, the quality of your MP3 encoder. I'm not an MP3 kind of guy for the most part. I've never been into portable stereo, even going back to the original walkman days. I like good sound in my car and when I have a car player that will do MP3 format, I'll probably get into it then. Russ |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helen Schmidt wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Utter rubbish. The reality is that these various eupohonic distortions can be separately added to an otherwise clean signal, and listeners will report a preference for the distorted sound in each case. There is no lack of understanding here. In your wording above, "the listeners report a preference," you are showing your basic model. Well, no, he's just reporting the results of a particular bit of research. I find that objectivists miss the fact that there are actually several models that must be understood separately as well as together. You seem to know very little about what objectivists really think. Might I suggest that you take a little more time to read carefully, before you start spraying over-generalizations around? At the simplest level, audio is about making something that sounds good, just as food is about making something that tastes good. Well, that can be one goal. To call it "the simplest level" is to manufacture a very artificial (and, I suspect, a somewhat elitist) heirarchy. However, there's something very different about audio, compared to food. Audio is about reproducing musical percepts. There's an "original" event, and we are trying to recreate that event. In an appropriately broad focus, we will see that the original event is the stimulation of musical percepts in the listener's mind. The goal of audio then is the re-stimulation of those percepts. And that is another goal. One goal is not a priori better than the other. An experiment which sets out to discover "what listeners prefer" is simply ignoring this higher level. Experiments which are founded on improper assumptions will not help us understand anything better. What improper assumption? Why is it improper to ask what listeners prefer? If you're in the business of pleasing your customers it's a damn proper assumption. Now, you might argue that, in *addition* to research on listener preferences, we might like to see some research on the effectiveness of audio systems at what you call "re-stimulation of...percepts." I'm not sure how much work has actually been done on that. It would not be easy work to do, at least if you want to get beyond simply asking listeners, "Which of these sounds more realistic?" But a first question you should ponder is, Is there much of a difference between the two questions? By and large, people who argue that vinyl sounds more realistic are also the ones who report that they prefer it. If that is generally the case, the research into preferences may not be missing so much after all. bob |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 30 Jun 2005 22:09:47 GMT, "Helen Schmidt"
wrote: When the overwhelming pattern is that CD's have faults such as edginess (commercially produced CD's) and vinyl is free from these faults, the obvious conclusion is that the problem is inherent to digital. This looks to me to be a case of very bad logic. If even a minority of CD's do not display this "edginess" then it must be true that the edginess is *not* inherent in the medium. Only if 100% of CD's exhibited "edginess" would there be any justification for suspecting that the "edginess" is inherent. ONE single CD without "edginess", on the other hand, is actually proof by counterexample that the "edginess" is not inherent. Ed Seedhouse, Victoria, B.C. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helen Schmidt wrote:
When the overwhelming pattern is that CD's have faults such as edginess (commercially produced CD's) and vinyl is free from these faults, the obvious conclusion is that the problem is inherent to digital. No, the uninformed conclusion would be that the problem is inherent to digital. To conclude that the problem is inherent to digital, you'd have to go through a few more steps. First of all, you'd want to confirm, through something more robust than anecdotal impression, that there is indeed such a pattern of perception--for example, we don't even know whether those who complain of "edginess" are even referring to the same thing. And second, you'd want to do a comparison in which the only variable is the medium. Comparing commercial releases does not cut it. Of course, since this can't be understood using our current set of measurements (of audio systems and brains), Why not? What is not to understand? It's actually quite simple to test the assertion that digital is inherently "edgy." Make a good CD-R of a vinyl record, compare the two blind, and ask listeners which sounds more edgy to them. If digital really is "edgy," you'll know. the objectivist who craves understanding must fall back on other explanations. I suspect that most objectivists really don't care why people think the things they do about vinyl. Once again, you are over-generalizing--and insulting at the same time. Very nice. The tricky thing is that many of these alternative explanations are valid in some situations. The explanations include: - vinyl has euphonic distortions - CD reveals the limitations of the system This is debatable. It's also an assertion I've rarely if ever heard from an objectivist. Of course, these can realistically describe some situations. There are distortions which, applied to music, make it sound "better." But if I'm not talking about "better," but about "truth-to-life", the objectivist answers in the same way. Well, if there are known physical differences between the two, and there are consistent perceived differences between the two (and it doesn't matter which perceived differences we're talking about), it's only reasonable to believe that the perceived differences are a reaction to the physical differences. There are systems with limitations which higher quality source can reveal. But if those who favor analog do so consistently even in SOTA systems, the objectivist answers in the same way. Why not? Some of those physical differences remain. As far as the explanation that "distortion sounds good" -- better turntables are in fact better mechanically--that is they produce *less* distortion. And those who favor analog find more truth-to-life in such systems. Better turntables can reduce *some* forms of distortion, but not others. So the explanation remains sound. At bottom, there are only two* possible explanations for why some listeners esteem vinyl over CD: 1) Because of some combination of the known physical differences between the two media; or 2) Because of some unknown physical difference between the two media. Tests can confirm #1, at least in part. And while we cannot ever completely rule out the possibility that there is "something else," neither do we need to spend much time considering it until somebody comes up with at least a reasonable hypothesis about what that something might be. So rather than just putting down objectivists whom you obviously believe to be your intellectual inferiors, why don't you get to work? bob |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helen Schmidt wrote:
Russ Button wrote: As an exercise, I recently digitized "Supersax Plays Bird" from my MFSL recording. When the overwhelming pattern is that CD's have faults such as edginess (commercially produced CD's) and vinyl is free from these faults, the obvious conclusion is that the problem is inherent to digital. Remember that in my example, the vinyl is my "original" source. The CD I made is a copy of that source and was then compared to it. If the CD record/playback chain was truly perfect, then it should have sounded identical when compared to the vinyl source from which it was made. - vinyl has euphonic distortions Irrelevant in this case because those "euphonic distortions" would have been captured in the digital signal as they were part of the source signal. Russ |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
Jim wrote: "Helen Schmidt" wrote in : wrote: I remember telling the guy there aint no way dragging a rock over a piece of plastic is going to outperform digital. No way. Well, I was served up several helpings of crow and a side of humble pie. It was a most disturbing revelation. It literlly left me numb. My belief system had been completely turned up side down. I thought sources would not be an issue in my quest for better sound. It made no sense that such a crude method of playback would be so much more realistic. The thought of the added expense made the whole thing even more disturbing. But I could not unhear what I had just heard. I didn't like that reality but I accepted it. Eventually I came to like the idea that I could actually do even better than I had with CDs. Scott Wheeler Hi Scott, I agree that LP is more lifelike. One of the areas where LP is more lifelike is its ability to convey music in the changing signal. With LP, I experience more vividly the musical percepts that correspond to dynamic features of the signal (change over time). When the music is suddenly quiet, I not only hear that it is quiet, but I experience a sense that something compelling has happened. The music is tender, spiritual, dramatic.. that is, it resonates with broader parts of my experience as a human. It triggers the brain systems that respond to anything tender in the world, anything spiritual, anything dramatic. With CD, when the music gets quiet, I mostly notice that the sound got quiet, but miss these other aspects to the experience. Of course a very interesting question is "Why does vinyl sound like this to me?" The difficulty in answering this is that we have difficulty describing the brain reactions that correspond to musical percepts. And we have no ability to measure these reactions. The objectivist has a very simple "out" that lets him skip over these difficult questions and make an unjustified claim to "understanding" what is going on. Simply: "Vinyl has euphonic distortions." The objectivist hears some listeners describe the experience of vinyl--in my case, specific aspects of musical listening that correspond more closely to live listening-- but he collapses that all into the idea that "vinyl sounds good." Then, not understanding how or why it sounds good, he says the distortion must sound good. Of course, you can say that about anything you don't understand--if I claim that I like product X, and the objectivist doesn't understand why, he can always claim that I must like X becuase of its shortcomings. Helen I think, Helen, that you hear what you want to hear. You hear what fits the self image you've chosen. And this week, for whatever reason, you've chosen to be a vinyl-o-phile. Possibly you believe that it marks you as a more discerning or sophisticated listener. On the other hand, it could mark you simply as someone who delights in stirring up this hornets nest of a newsgroup. Or gee, it could just be that she's an honest person who prefers the sound of music on vinyl. Geese. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... Technically, digital is crude compared to vinyl, because vinyl is analog which is pure. The analogy the approximation of an integral (area under a curve) by using intervals, vs. actual calculus, which simply gets it right from the start. I say "technically" because it is, or will be, possible to get the approximation so good that you can't tell the difference. This is a common, but completely wrong, argument. There is nothing 'pure' about vinyl, as it is a very *poor* analogue of the master tape signal, whereas CD provides a very *good* analogue of that signal. That the *intervening* stages in a CD-based system use digital technology, does not affect the relative purity of the *analogue* signals which come out of the DAC and the cartridge. That is a common red herring. The analog signal that comesout of the DAC is a moot point because it was already digital. Digital is, by definition, an approximation. Period. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
"chung" wrote in message
... Technically, digital is crude compared to vinyl, because vinyl is analog which is pure. The analogy the approximation of an integral (area under a curve) by using intervals, vs. actual calculus, which simply gets it right from the start. I say "technically" because it is, or will be, possible to get the approximation so good that you can't tell the difference. Unless the iPod crowd makes it financially unfeasible to do so in the market. With all due respect, you simply do not understand digital audio. Or vinyl, for that matter. Your attempt to justify a preference simply exposes a severe lack of knowledge of the technical aspects of audio. I prefer digital. Try again. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well don't confuse CD as the only digital. Or all flaws on CD as the
fault of digital. Try some recordings with your computer. If you can manage it, feed the pre-amp out to your sound card with some interconnects and adapters. Record some LP's and then burn a CD-R or CD-RW. See what you think? Might be very surprised. Dennis |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... This is a common, but completely wrong, argument. There is nothing 'pure' about vinyl, as it is a very *poor* analogue of the master tape signal, whereas CD provides a very *good* analogue of that signal. I didn't say CD provided a bad analog. The "pure" should be taken in context. It is pure in the sense that it never left the analog domain. "Analog" itself also has different meanings, as you are well aware, so there is not sense in trying to use a different meaning than I used. BTW, your analogy is also wrong, although a common misconception, as digital is *not* the equivalent of an 'area under the curve by histogram' approximation. The reconstruction filter ensures that the output is a smooth curve, following the original bandwidth-limited input signal *exactly*, not approximately. "Reconstruction filter", you say? What is that needed for? Did something change from the original signal? If you can't follow that analogy, then you're simply not thinking abstractly enough. No one is saying vinyl doesn't distort the analog signal. And I have not even said the ultimate analog signal coming from the CD player is worse than the signal coming from the phono stage. I am saying digital technology has a fundamental design flaw, and that is that the signal is distorted on purpose. It's inherent in the technology. Whether the end result is more faithful to the original signal is beside the point. |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jim wrote:
I think, Helen, that you hear what you want to hear. You hear what fits the self image you've chosen. Actually, what you have done here is point out exactly the difficulty in the "objectivist" position, which is that any "subjective" observation which seems to contradict the "objective measurements" is put in the category of listener bias, imagination, euphonic distortion, etc. It's too general an idea; it can explain away anything and everything. Helen |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
... But digital isn't the issue it is CDs v. LPs. Indeed I have some LPs made from digital recodings that I quite like. I like some, in fact many, better than the CD version. Go figure. I figure you've never done a blind test. Of course, you can't really do a blind test with CD vs. LP since there is always surface noise to let you know it's an LP. - Gary Rosen |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think there are some flaws and/or ommissions in your "modelling"
model that require scrutiny: Helen Schmidt wrote: At the simplest level, audio is about making something that sounds good, just as food is about making something that tastes good. Bad analogy. That's just plain wrong. It's not just an oversimplification, but it's an extremely biased take that seems to come at the concept of what Audio *is* from left field. (I apologize if if this sounds antagonistic, but I really feel you have missed the point on a very fundamental level.) At the simplest level, audio is not about making something that sounds good; it's not even about making something that sounds bad. Audio is about capturing and reproducing something that sounds, period. Any further qualifiers cease to be "at the simplest level". Audio is about reproducing musical percepts. There's an "original" event, and we are trying to recreate that event. That's only one possibility. Audio often *is* the original event. Other times, audio is what happens in between some "original" event & some subsequent "potential" event. (Digression: if a recording -- either CD or LP -- is manufactured but never played, does it make a sound?) Many times we are not trying to recreate some original event, but rather we're trying to deliberately manipulate it to be some "other" event. And just as many times we unintentionally do so; it becomes some "other" event by pure dint of our poor attempts to recreate the "original" event. These are just some of the possibilities, all except the last perfectly valid. In an appropriately broad focus, we will see that the original event is the stimulation of musical percepts in the listener's mind. The goal of audio then is the re-stimulation of those percepts. Again, that's only one possibility. Many times in audio the goal is not the re-stimulation of some original percept, but rather the stimulation of some wholly unique percept, by virtue of audio's intrinsic "time-shifting" capability. (I.e., the fact that audio reproduction can occur at the listener's discretion.) Experiments which are founded on improper assumptions will not help us understand anything better. Likewise for newsgroup postings!  |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Russ Button wrote:
Codifus wrote: Russ Button wrote: edited As an exercise, I recently digitized "Supersax Plays Bird" from my MFSL recording. I have a Xitel Inport, which is a cute little A to D converter, which feeds into a PC USB port. Here's the flaw: you're comparing your very nice analog setup to a just barely adequete PC setup. I just looked up the Xitel and found that it's claim to faim seems to be the elimination of groung loop hums. 1. The quality of your soundcard The Xitel Inport is not a soundcard. It is an outboard device that takes a line level feed and puts out a digital stream that you pick up from a USB port. It comes with controlling capture software you run on the PC. One of the problems with any soundcard is that the interior of a PC is full of RFI. Being that the Inport is an outboarded device, that eliminates that concern. I don't know how good it is for A to D conversion, or what chipset it uses, etc. But it seemed like a useful tool at a reasonable price, which is why I stated that I had no idea exactly what the source was for the artifacts I was hearing. Even so, it does a pretty good job and I do find the recordings made with it to be acceptable. 2. If you make MP3s, the quality of your MP3 encoder. I'm not an MP3 kind of guy for the most part. I've never been into portable stereo, even going back to the original walkman days. I like good sound in my car and when I have a car player that will do MP3 format, I'll probably get into it then. Russ That's exactly my point. And the Xitel INport may not exactly be a soundcard, I guess the more accurate description would be a soundbox. But like a soundcard, it has an AD converter and it's functions are very similar to that of a soundcard, hence I bundle it with the term soundcard If someone were to try to sell you a Technics belt driven plastic turntable, you'd probably laugh at them because you apppreciate the capability of your Linn deck. It's the same thing with soundcards. Here are some links that will put you in the right direction; This is a technical review of the Xitel Inport; http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1231751,00.asp Here are some soundcards of good reputation; http://echoaudio.com/Products/PCI/ http://www.m-audio.com/index.php?do=...=pciinterfaces http://www.lynxstudio.com/products.html CD |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helen Schmidt wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Utter rubbish. The reality is that these various eupohonic distortions can be separately added to an otherwise clean signal, and listeners will report a preference for the distorted sound in each case. There is no lack of understanding here. In your wording above, "the listeners report a preference," you are showing your basic model. I find that objectivists miss the fact that there are actually several models that must be understood separately as well as together. At the simplest level, audio is about making something that sounds good, just as food is about making something that tastes good. No, at the simplest level, food is about providing the body with nutrition. However, there's something very different about audio, compared to food. Audio is about reproducing musical percepts. There's an "original" event, and we are trying to recreate that event. In an appropriately broad focus, we will see that the original event is the stimulation of musical percepts in the listener's mind. The goal of audio then is the re-stimulation of those percepts. For the vast majority of recorded music, including more classical music recordings than the listener might realize , the original 'event' never happened -- what you hear is a collection of 'events' than never occurred together in real time. -- -S "You know what love really is? It's like you've swallowed a great big secret. A warm wonderful secret that nobody else knows about." - 'Blame it on Rio' |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Actually, there's introspective naivety from both 'camps.' I know a
number of folks who don't have a CD player because they are convinced of the subjective sonic superiority of LP and invest a considerable amount of money in equipment to play it. They are missing out on a lot of quality new music and performances. Of the concert halls I visit, one sounds "digital" another more analog like (and therefore "forgiving"). Some folks won't go to one or other of the halls because they are convinced of its inferiority. They are missing out on a lot of quality performances. It's no big deal nor sin to be a "bi-audio" guy or gal; doing both digital and analog. Why all the fuss and waste of time arguing over on what has become an overblown and silly dispute with a lot of "techno" and "psycho" babble? You can be listening to the vinyl or aluminum disc or BOTH instead. A part of our hobby should well involve comparisons of both formats, but why the overheated and overblown blown disputes, with insults to boot. Just *listen* to yourselves. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 30 Jun 2005 22:09:47 GMT, "Helen Schmidt"
wrote: Russ Button wrote: As an exercise, I recently digitized "Supersax Plays Bird" from my MFSL recording. I have a Xitel Inport, which is a cute little A to D converter, which feeds into a PC USB port. I can then burn a CD from it. When comparing the CD to the original vinyl, there does appear to be some added edginess. Is that an artifact of the Xitel Inport, or is it inherent to digitial? I don't know. When the overwhelming pattern is that CD's have faults such as edginess (commercially produced CD's) and vinyl is free from these faults, the obvious conclusion is that the problem is inherent to digital. That would be *if*, not when, as relatively few current CDs exhibit this problem. It follows that it's not an *inherent* problem of CD. Of course, since this can't be understood using our current set of measurements (of audio systems and brains), the objectivist who craves understanding must fall back on other explanations. Utter rubbish. These defects can certainly be understood and measured. I have never yet heard an audible defect that did not have a readily measurable cause. The tricky thing is that many of these alternative explanations are valid in some situations. The explanations include: - vinyl has euphonic distortions - CD reveals the limitations of the system Of course, these can realistically describe some situations. There are distortions which, applied to music, make it sound "better." But if I'm not talking about "better," but about "truth-to-life", the objectivist answers in the same way. That's because the same mechanisms apply - and *opinions* regarding 'truth to life' vary greatly. There are systems with limitations which higher quality source can reveal. But if those who favor analog do so consistently even in SOTA systems, the objectivist answers in the same way. As far as the explanation that "distortion sounds good" -- better turntables are in fact better mechanically--that is they produce *less* distortion. And those who favor analog find more truth-to-life in such systems. Do they? Or do they simply look at all that magnificent engineering and assume that it *must* be 'better'? There's a pattern here, in that the 'subjectivists' seem to favour sighted listening, which leads to this kind of expectation bias. Besides, the inherent flaws of vinyl override playback equipment quality once you get above the level of say the Rega Planar 3. Even a Forsell or Rockport will exhibit audible wow if the record groove isn't *exactly* concentric with the hole, and there's no cure for inner-groove distortion, or for rolled-off and summed to mono bass. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 30 Jun 2005 22:08:51 GMT, "Helen Schmidt"
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Utter rubbish. The reality is that these various eupohonic distortions can be separately added to an otherwise clean signal, and listeners will report a preference for the distorted sound in each case. There is no lack of understanding here. In your wording above, "the listeners report a preference," you are showing your basic model. Indeed so - the reporting of subjective experiences by the listener. IIRC, that was also *your* model when you were complaining about the 'simplicity' of objective measures. I find that objectivists miss the fact that there are actually several models that must be understood separately as well as together. I find that, having lost your basic argument, you are now attempting to muddy the water. At the simplest level, audio is about making something that sounds good, just as food is about making something that tastes good. And at higher levels, it's about 'the closest approach to the original sound'. However, there's something very different about audio, compared to food. Audio is about reproducing musical percepts. There's an "original" event, and we are trying to recreate that event. Indeed so. In an appropriately broad focus, we will see that the original event is the stimulation of musical percepts in the listener's mind. Will we indeed? or is this simply *your* opinion on the matter? The goal of audio then is the re-stimulation of those percepts. An experiment which sets out to discover "what listeners prefer" is simply ignoring this higher level. No. it's examing the internalised experience of the listener, in its entirety. IIRC, this was *your* expressed preference, but you failed to make your case and are now attempting to change tack. Experiments which are founded on improper assumptions will not help us understand anything better. And wild arm-waving about 'musical percepts' will advance our knowledge of audio not one whit. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helen Schmidt wrote:
.... Actually, what you have done here is point out exactly the difficulty in the "objectivist" position, which is that any "subjective" observation which seems to contradict the "objective measurements" is put in the category of listener bias, imagination, euphonic distortion, etc. It's too general an idea; it can explain away anything and everything. But that's what always happens with observations that contradict established theories. They're dismissed. Only new and better theories can win out. What's wanted from the non-"objectivist" side is some alternative theoretical understanding. If you don't want to be explained away, explain. -- Greg Lee |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Helen Schmidt wrote:
wrote: Now, you might argue that, in *addition* to research on listener preferences, we might like to see some research on the effectiveness of audio systems at what you call "re-stimulation of...percepts." I'm not sure how much work has actually been done on that. It would not be easy work to do, at least if you want to get beyond simply asking listeners, "Which of these sounds more realistic?" Right, and without that research, any correlation of the technical parameters of audio to a certain musical experience is premature. I suggest that objectivists are very premature in claiming that a preference for analog can be "understood" as a preference for certain kinds of distortions. First of all, while I can't point you to particular research, it's my understanding that some such work has been done. Perhaps others can provide details. Second, even absent research, we can formulate hypotheses, and consider their plausibility. A hypothesis based on known forms of distortion is more plausible than one that posits some unknown form of distortion, for example. And it would certainly be more plausible than one based on a total misunderstanding of the technology. (And we see a lot of that around here--in this very thread, in fact!) But a first question you should ponder is, Is there much of a difference between the two questions? By and large, people who argue that vinyl sounds more realistic are also the ones who report that they prefer it. If that is generally the case, the research into preferences may not be missing so much after all. You are confusing the words people choose for convenience with the underlying concept. Preference is not simply preference. Well, yes it is, in the sense that it's nonspecific. Some people prefer analog because it sounds more pleasant. Some people prefer it because local patterns (e.g. timbre), sound truer-to-life. The least recognized possibility is that some people prefer it because diffuse patterns (e.g., musical form, and dynamic content) are truer-to-life. Hmmm...If you're comparing two pieces of audio equipment, and you hear differences of musical form, then something is catastrophically wrong with one of those components! Asking someone what they "prefer" doesn't begin to sort through these possiblities. No, but what I'm suggesting is that we may not really need to sort through these possibilities. See below. On the other hand, I find vinyl truer-to-life, but I will sometimes say that I "prefer" vinyl because it is convenient, and still true. I believe that when people say they prefer vinyl, they mean it. And when they say they find it more "lifelike," they mean that, too. I seriously doubt that whenever people say they "prefer" vinyl, what they really mean is *only* that they find it more lifelike. It may be used as an occasional shorthand, but it is certainly not a universal one. At the same time, I don't think they arrive at a judgment that vinyl is more lifelike without taking account of their preferences. I've even suggested that people may decide first that they prefer the sound, and then presume that the *reason* they prefer the sound is because it is more lifelike. If that's the case, then doing research on why some people find vinyl more life-like would be rather pointless. bob |
Linear Mode
