Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#241
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
"Jenn" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Musicians are notorious for failing to be able to hear small differences in sound quality, despite the fact that many are superior and reliable perceivers of musical quality. The two talents are nearly mutually exclusive. Really? Please supply evidence. read http://www.Amazon.com/Music-Brain-Ec.../dp/038078209X and put two and two together. |
#242
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
|
#243
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Dec 1, 11:20�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message On Nov 30, 4:25 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message On Nov 30, 8:32?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message No. But I did see the obvious anti vinyl bias in such a broad sweeping claim. Perhaps if you had done the comparisons with bias controls in place I might have taken your assertion more seriously. Single blind tests = essentially no adequate bias controls. That simply is not true. Nobody has taken single blind tests seriously since Clever Hans *talked* back in the early 1800s. You snipped an important part of my post. So I will restate it. It is just an irrelevant truism. Then you should easily be able to prove it. Please do so. Your failure to cite any peer review paper on psychoacoustics that assert single blind tests are inadequate for hobbyists' personal use puts your assertions in perspective. assertions without support. Here we have a false argument based on adding �on irrelevant qualifications until the conditions are practically impossible to meet. Given that we are talking about blind tests done by an audiophile for the sake of his hobby it clearly is completely relevant. The standards of rigor do vary by the purpose and use of the test. This is just another case of faulty logic. No, its not. If single blind tests are so good, why are DBTs practically required when human life and health is at stake? Huh? Are you asserting that they are doing DBTs in emergency wards and intensive care units? Here we have yet another false argument based on irrelevant conditions. You stated those conditions. In this case you asserted that DBTs are required when human life and health are at stake. Clearly human life and health are at stake in hospitals and emergency wards. Clearly they are not doing DBTs. So it would seem your assertion is simply wrong. not that it would have mattered because it was also irrelevant. Prove it to me. Looking forward to that unprocessed, unedited side of a LP transcribed to a CD. Sorry Arny but I am not interested in trying to persuade *you* of anything. Then show that you actually believe in this to the point where you stop arguing that the LP is generally superior to the CD. Why? If these were private emails that would be a logical request. Given that it is a public forum.... I believe you are too committed to the old subjectiveist/ objectivist feud. In fact this has nothing to do with your failure to back your claims up by doing something that tens of thousands of home audiophiles do every day. Actually it has a lot to do with it. You have failed to give me any good reason to make any CD copies from my vinyl. Something that would require me to buy or borrow some equipment. OTOH if you are interested in doing some bias controlled listening tests to demonstrate your ability to identify these alleged gross inherent distortions of vinyl by ear alone I would be very interested in participating by making some CD copies. |
#244
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Dec 1, 3:01�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message On Nov 28, 8:42 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message On Nov 27, 1:40?am, wrote: wrote: On Nov 26, 5:12 am, wrote: wrote: On Nov 24, 7:44 am, wrote: You misunderstand. It's the capability to *start* with the undistorted signal that is the point. From there, it can be left alone, or modified as needed to overcome other effects such as speaker/room interactions. 1. An undistorted signal? No such thing with any recording of live music. AHEM...I thought you said you were through with semantic quibbling... You think the distortions that precede the master tape are a matter of semantics? I disagree. They are a real issue that we, as audiophiles, have to live with and deal with. It's all about quantification. No it's all about aural perception. You are putting the cart before the horse. Unless you are more interested in bench test results than aesthetic values. I am not. To each his own. The above shows a lack of understanding of the word perception, which I have observed before. Pure ad hominem. Perceptions may be either veridical or illusory. Illusory perceptions need not be connected with actual, genuine, or reliable objects or events. Therefore, saying that something is all about aural perception ignores the critical fact that the aural perception can easily be illusory, which is to say that it has no basis in reality outside the brain of the one perceiving. That may be true of your perceptions of vinyl since you have not done any bias controlled listening evaluations. but I have so the odds are far less that my aural perceptions are imagined. After much deliberation and armchair theorizing I set about doing some experiments. Late nights with an oscilloscope eventually uncovered that electrical and mechanical crosstalk within the cartridge and pre- amp were causing a stereo image manipulation which was similar to that brought about by the Blumlein 'Shuffler' circuit and Edeko's loudspeakers - all the important narrowing of the stereo image at high frequencies. If you want to narrow the image at high frequencies, it can be done far more effectively, and with far less distortion by purely electronic means. How? How can I take a signal off of my CD player and process it so it mimics the improvements wrought by my vinyl playback system? A reasonable first step would be to ascertain tha the so-called improvements aren't actually illusions. How do you know they were not done under blind conditions? In fact there few if any sucessful recordists who are using LP playback systems as signal improvers. Can you document a well-known recordist or mastering engineer who proudly and routinely cuts recordings to LPs and then plays them back as part of their production of SACDs or DVD-As? I can't name any recording engineers that do any of their own mastering these days. OTOH I can name many mastering engineers that do tweak the signal when mastering CDs in an attempt to get the same apparent benefits from simply cutting them on LP. Furthermore, it is completely illogical to believe that there is a "one-size fixt all" distortion of this kind that should be indiscriminately applied to every recording. 1. No one is saying that such distortion works equally well for all recordings. Since we don't know if the so-called improvements are illusions or veridical, we don't know what "works well" means in your lexicon. But I have made it clear that I have done bias controlled comparisons. I am not the only one either. I realize you don't like the results of my bias controlled tests but the quality of my bias controlled tests are not determined by your personal feelings about them. 2. It is logical when one considers that at it seems to be addressing a universal inherent limitation of stereo recording and playback. Again, cutting recordings to LPs and then playing them back is not a generally-accepted part of their production of SACDs or DVD-As, or even CDs. That proves nothing. 3. Given the fact that different vinyl playback equipment has distinctive unique sonic signatures it stands to reason that this is not actually a 'one size fits all" solution. Then there is no evidence that any LP playback system but yours has this benefit? My experiences are not unique. It supported what I and so many hi-fi fans knew to be the case, that vinyl really does sound better than CD - Hey, if music with added audible noise and distortion of a characteristic and randomly-chosen kind is what floats your boat, then enjoy! That was a quote from Richard Brice. He was the one who actually engineered the recordings and had first hand experience with the original acoustic event. Proof by means of name-dropping? No. Richard Brice was the author of the paper I quoted. It would have been wrong for me not to give the author credit for his work. Is that listed as being a good thing or a bad thing in the skeptic's literature that you keep quoting? Is it listed at all, or is it something that you invented for yourself Proof by name dropping? That would appear to be your invention. I won't take credit for your work. |
#245
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Dec 1, 3:02�pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message On Nov 30, 8:32?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message No. But I did see the obvious anti vinyl bias in such a broad sweeping claim. Perhaps if you had done the comparisons with bias controls in place I might have taken your assertion more seriously. Single blind tests = essentially no adequate bias controls. That simply is not true. Nobody has taken single blind tests seriously since Clever Hans *talked* back in the early 1800s. They have their limited uses -- there are experiments where the experimenters cannot eithically 'blind' themselves, e.g. sham surgery. But for experimetnal psychology, DBT is the way to go. For experiemental psychology peer reviewed publication is maditory for initial acceptance of any data or conclusions among scientists and academics. Is this the level of rigor you are suggesting should be applied to audiophilia? The same as experimental psychology? |
#246
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Dec 1, 2:31�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message You can reach Chas Kassem by email at Acoustic Sounds http://store.acousticsounds.com/supp...?support=email and Michael Hobson by email at Classics If you are simply more interested in just arguing about differences between CDs and vinyl without any connection to the realities of what is actually out there on vinyl and CD count me out. I've talked to these folks. I know what they have to say about it in reality. if these people are as helpful as you claim, then perhaps you can have them help you your claim that the LP format has none of the problems that we say it does, by providing an unprocessed, unedited transcription of a LP side that as you have repeatedly claimed, lacks all of the audible problems we've been talking about. I think they are in the business of selling their product not transcribing it and giving it away. I don't think they take RAHE all that seriously. It's not their problem, I already offered to borrow a CD burner and do it myself in exchange for copies of those JAES papers you keep alluding to provided you prove that you can do a bias controlled evaluation of that transcription. Since it is your reputation that is at stake here, of course it is up to you to provide the recording, not us. My "reputation" is at stake here? Seems a bit mellow dramatic. Do you think "reputations" on Usenet are something to worry about? If so, I think maybe you sould worry more about your own reputation. You still haven't explained those alleged comparisons between "lots" of Ray Charles LPs back in the mid 80s with CDs that had not come into existance at that time. Thats the sort of thing that could really damage one's credibility. Perhaps we would all be better served if we avoid making this so personal and just stick to audio as a subject. |
#247
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
|
#248
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Dec 2, 12:45�pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: On Dec 1, 3:02?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message On Nov 30, 8:32?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message No. But I did see the obvious anti vinyl bias in such a broad sweeping claim. Perhaps if you had done the comparisons with bias controls in place I might have taken your assertion more seriously. Single blind tests = essentially no adequate bias controls. That simply is not true. Nobody has taken single blind tests seriously since Clever Hans *talked* back in the early 1800s. They have their limited uses -- there are experiments where the experimenters cannot eithically 'blind' themselves, e.g. sham surgery. But for experimetnal psychology, DBT is the way to go. For experiemental psychology peer reviewed publication is maditory for initial acceptance of any data or conclusions among scientists and academics. Is this the level of rigor you are suggesting should be applied to audiophilia? The same as experimental psychology? If the standards of proof of 'audiophile' claims are to be lower, then let's acknowledge that the chance of its claims being false, are thereby higher. That is obviously true but it does not answer the question. Where do you wish to set the bar? Do you wish to set the bar for audiophiles at the same level as that of conventional science? Do you wish to demand the same level of rigor and the same standards of acceptance of evidence to audiophiles and their assertions about sound quality as is used in conventional science? I would like to avoid the problem of moving goal posts when there are any discussions of "proof" and "validity." |
#249
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
[Moderator's note: This thread has been cancelled since it has become i
quite circular. -- deb ] On Dec 1, 3:04�pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: On Nov 30, 1:16???pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: On Nov 29, 8:09?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: On Nov 27, 1:41???am, wrote: Sonnova wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:12:33 -0800, wrote (in article ): ???Scott would likely argue, however, that the terms "more lifelike" and "sounds better" are neither analogous nor consonant, having argued vehemently that "more lifelike" and "sounds right" are unrelated terms. "More life like" does "sounds better" if one's goal is more life like sound. It's really very simple. ? Actully, it's a rather complex situation, because without a constant, blind reference to a real, live performance, many preferences (and thus biases) come into play when a person decides whether something sounds 'lifelike . That is a fair point. Interestingly enough the few people I know who actually have done blind comparisons between a live mic feed, digital recording, analog tape and a direct cut laquer are James Boyk, Doud Sax and Kavi Alexander. Here are some of James Boyk's comments on some of those experiences. I don't consider Boyk a credible source on these matters, and haven't for years. So what? Are you the arbitrator of credibility? Yes, I am...to me. Now that would be a case of solipism would it not? In one of your pullquotes, for example, he seems to assert that 'euphonic colorations' do not exist. One may refer to the far more credible posts of jj, Dick Pierce, et al, in those threads. Do JJ or Dick Pierce have more experience than Boyk in making direct comparisons of actual live muisic or mic feeds to the various sources in question? I don't know, perhaps you could ask them? �What I do know is they have better knowledge of the science involved and the scientific method than he does, and so when they challenge Boyk, I listen. Better knowledge of science to the best of my understanding does not make one a better listener. I have only cited Boyks observations as a listener who, unlike the rest of us, has made direct comparisons between live mic feeds and the various media being discussed. the only thing that matters there are his listening skills. Are they proven better listeners? Boyk hasn't proven that he is a 'better listener' (than whom?). I would disagree. I think the quality of his recordings are proof of his listening skills. By what objective criteria are they more credible when it comes to the assesment of sound quality of the various media in direct comparison to a live source? By what objective criteria is Boyk automatically credible? His demonstrated skills as a recording engineer. Or do you believe a highly skilled recording engineer does not need listening skills? �Has he got a publication record on the matter that goes beyond internet 'white papers'? �Has he subjected his claims to independent review? Is his grasp of the science and engineering behind audio and audio perception as sure as jj's or Pierce's? Does any of that actually affect or measure listening skills? The answer is 'no' to all of those. The relevance is none to all of those as well. It is easy to start making ad Hominem attacks on various peoples' credibility but it is a basic logical fallacy. You may not like James Boyk's findings but to question his "credibility" on this subject you have to find objective fault with his experience, methodologies or reasoning. It's all been done in the past, sir, as you well know, and a considerable part of it here on RAHE. No ity has not been done. there has been no objective proof that james Boyk is anything but a highly skilled listener. I find it most unfortunate that some would make ad Hominem a regular part of their debate tactics. It is both a flawed argument and just plain ugly. See the paper on the problems with hedonic listening tests that Arny linked to, for a list of them. ?There is also the issue of audio memory, which is not particularly good at details over the long haul. It's not particularly bad when it comes to mere recognition. Recognizing the sound of live instruments for the sound of live instruments is not terribly challenging IME. Is there any evidence out there that suggests I am mistaken and overstating the acuity of aural recognition? For instance I can recognize the unique sound of an old freinds voice often without hearing that voice for many years. That sort of aural memory seems to be rather acute among we humans. Do you think otherwise? One error is that you are equaing the sound of an individual human voice -- a soiund we are evolutionarily quite well attuned to -- with the sound of some generic 'live' performance. I wasn't equating anything, Just citing one of many examples of long term recognition. I can think of other examples that involved musical instruments. But I will ask a more specific question. Do you believe it is difficult for listeners to recognize the distinct sound of live instruments v. the sound of instruments recorded and played back based on long term aural memory of the sound of live instruments? I already responded, but y ou snipped it -- it is not typically difficult to tell that the two are *different*. Sorry about any snipping. I assure you it was accidental this time. But it would appear that we agree on this point. Long term aural memory is pretty sufficient for recognizing the sound of live acoustic instruments. �This is because of the limitations of two-channel recording and playback. �As we live in a three-dimensional sound field, soudn that hass been passed through a less-dimensional bottleneck will tend to sound 'distorted' or 'less real' in some way. � This is not evidence of 'long term memory' in the sense you are wishing it to be. What do you believe I am wishing here? I have already stated my point and it would appear that you aree with me. It seems you are burning a strawman by arguing with your presumptions about my wishes. |
#250
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:19:44 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: Musicians are notorious for failing to be able to hear small differences in sound quality, despite the fact that many are superior and reliable perceivers of musical quality. The two talents are nearly mutually exclusive. Really? Please supply evidence. read http://www.Amazon.com/Music-Brain-Ec.../dp/038078209X and put two and two together. I've known lots of musicians and most of them have nothing special in the way of playback equipment and many have none at all other than the types of radios found stock in cars or sitting on the kitchen table. I know a famous conductor who used to request cassette copies of my master symphony tapes for study. He listened to them on a Panasonic battery-powered cassette player through the unit's own 4" speaker, in mono. Reason? It looks as if musicians listen for different things in music than music lovers or audiophiles do. It also looks as if whatever it is that they are listening for doesn't require a decent stereo system to hear, either. That's my experience, anyway. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Klipschorns in the 21st Century? | Tech | |||
21st Century E-Business Money Making Formula | Vacuum Tubes | |||
21st Century E-Business Money Making Formula | Audio Opinions | |||
21st Century E-Commerce Money Making Formula | Audio Opinions | |||
21st Century E-Commerce Money Making Formula | Pro Audio |