Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
jeffc wrote:
"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. With all due respect you simply fo not understand digital audio. You really have exposed a severe lack of knowledge of the technical aspects of audio in that post. The fact that you said analog is "pure", strongly supggests that you prefer analog. Better? |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Lee wrote:
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. Yes, when new evidence comes in, theories that don't fit are discarded. The problem is that neither measurements nor asking questions is a very good way of determining someone's mental state; neither of them are very good evidence. But measurements at present are completely worthless at determining mental state, so to support a theory of mental state on the basis of measurements is absurd. Helen Schmidt |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
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. This paragraph speaks volumes about the poster's bias against CD. 1. There are many CD's that do not exhibit edginess at all. Edginess is most likely a result of equalization by the mastering engineers. In fact, other than some very poorly mastered CD's from the early '80's, I have heard very few "edgy" CD's. I guess I should qualify that by saying that I mostly listen to classical music these days. 2. I have heard many vinyl recordings that exhibit edginess. These were mostly from the 1970's and '80's. 3. Even if you accept that there are more edgy CD's than vinyl LP's, the conclusion that the problem is inherent to digital is seriously wrong. To arrive at that conclusion, you have to show evidence that (a) there is no vinyl LP that is edgy, (b) all digital recordings show edginess, and (c) have vinyl and digital records made from the same master where you prove that the vinyl is not edgy while the digital is. 4. There is not even a consensus about what "edgy" means. Edgy to you may be clear and transparent to others. Define "edgy" in a way that is quantifiable, then we can have a more meaningful discussion. 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. I guess it is tricky when you do not have any argument against those explanations, and you really, really, don't want to believe them . I can provide other explanations, too. Maybe you'll find them tricky also. How about: (a) There are excellent vinyl recordings of certain performances that have not been successfully remastered in digital. (b) Some people like vinyl for nostalgic reasons. (c) Some people like vinyl for the coolness factor. Vinyl is such a samll niche that it might make someone feel special to still prefer vinyl. One of my sons told me that, so it is true. (d) Some people have no luck in getting good CD's (and/or high-rez digital). (e) Some people just love going through the ritual of cleaning, adjusting, tweaking, getting up to change sides, etc. (f) Some people do not like to be startled by the huge dynamic range inherent in CD and digital. They feel more comfortable listening to recordings where there is always a certain hiss, reminding them that they are listening to a vinyl record. (g) Vinyl provides limitless opportunities in tweaking. There are many things in a vinyl system that you can change to effect a noticeable audio difference. Some people like tweaking. Some people like to always look for upgrades. Some people want to debate what is SOTA, or what is hi-end, and the vinyl systems allow them to do that. But, seriously, why do you care about why people prefer certain things? If I prefer CD's, are you going to start researching why? |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Rosen" wrote in message
... 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. No, not really. With a good record and record player, the surface noise can easily be below level of tape hiss of the master from which the 2 sources were made. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis Moore wrote:
Well don't confuse CD as the only digital. Or all flaws on CD as the fault of digital. Agreed. 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. This is exactly what I did. The edginess is there, though it is not glaring. I can think of several possible reasons for it. 1. Operator error. I may not be running the equipment properly or I might be using less than optimal settings on the capture software. 2. The A to D converter in the Xitel Inport may just be of a lower quality than A to D converters used in pro grade setups. 3. Digital at 44.1 khz may introduce audible artifacts which manifest as edginess. Russ |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
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. Aside from which, it is NOT the 'overhwhelming pattern' that CDs have 'faults such as edginess'; that is only a *common belief* of *audiophile culture* -- which is a tiny, tiny segment of the listening public. -- -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' |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Russ Button wrote:
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. In my personal experience, which accords with the scientific literature, comparisons of audio that are done 'sighted', such as yours seems to have been, are highly prone to false positive impressions of 'difference'. Have you tried to repeat the comparison with some elementary controls in place? Admittedly these will be difficult to put in place for a vinyl/CD copy comparison, since to do it right you'll have to not only level match both channels, but also time-synch the two sources, and devise some means of random switching between them. It also assumes that the LP doesn't pick up new pops and ticks before or during the test. Without these precautions any report of difference between an LP and a competently-made digital copy of same is inherently suspect. -- -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' |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Lee wrote:
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. Better still would be some experimental testing of the alternative theory. *Anyone* can theorize. ; -- -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' |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"Chung" wrote in message
... I prefer digital. Try again. With all due respect you simply fo not understand digital audio. You really have exposed a severe lack of knowledge of the technical aspects of audio in that post. The fact that you said analog is "pure", strongly supggests that you prefer analog. Better? Nope, not even close. I have a good understanding of digital audio, and the fact that you took my analogy literally suggests that you really don't understand much of anything I said. Listen the context in which the comment was made. You need to hear an analog sound. "Pure" means unaltered in terms of form. If you convert to digital, you've switched forms. A recording that is analog all the way through the recording process is "pure" analog in the sense that it's "only" analog, with no other form as part of the mix. There is no such thing as pure digital because you can't hear digital. It's gone through a conversion process (twice) while analog never has. This doesn't mean the ultimate analog sound you hear is more faithful to the original just because it's remained purely analog. In fact, often the digital recording provides a more faithful reproduction, but of course that's partly subjective - it depends on your criteria. And you have to have some criteria (priorities), since no reproduction is ever perfect. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Russ Button wrote: 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. In my personal experience, which accords with the scientific literature, comparisons of audio that are done 'sighted', such as yours seems to have been, are highly prone to false positive impressions of 'difference'. Have you tried to repeat the comparison with some elementary controls in place? For the various reasons you cited, I am unable to make the kind of comparison you suggest. Without these precautions any report of difference between an LP and a competently-made digital copy of same is inherently suspect. Your concerns are noted, but given what I have to work with, it's the best I can do. I don't like to do quick A-B comparisons. Instead I like to listen to one for a while, and then later switch to the other. I find that I seem to have different reactions to things over time in a fashion I can only describe as emotional. As I said earlier, the edginess I experienced seemed rather subtle, but there nonetheless. Russ |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
In article , jeffc
wrote: "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. As others have pointed out, you simply don't understand how digital sampling and playback works. If you are asking why a reconstruction filter is needed, that is absolute proof of your lack of knowledge. Two required parts of a digital system are a band limiting filter on the input to the ADC to eliminate frequency components above 1/2 the sampling frequency and a band limiting filter on the output of the DAC (called a reconstruction filter). If you properly implement both filters the output will be exactly the input. There are mathematical proofs which demonstrate this. Go study "Principles of Digital Audio" by Pohlman. Until then I would suggest not further exposing you ignorance by making confident statements about something you don't understand in a forum where a fair number of people actually do understand it. Marc Foster |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
On 1 Jul 2005 19:55:25 GMT, "jeffc" wrote:
"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. Purity however implies unsullied, and vinyl is seriously sullied by surface noise, by rolled-off and summed to mono bass, by inner groove distortion, by midrange phase problems, and by severe harmonic distortion. Vinyl is 'pure'? I think not.......... "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. No, analogue has a single meaning, which you appear not to undertstand. The electrical signal coming from the microphone(s) is an analogue of the original soundfield. What happens to that signal between there and the loudspeakers is another matter. If you mean vinyl, then say vinyl. BTW, as noted elsewhere, since every modern vinyl cutting facility includes a digital delay line for Varigroove purposes, *all* new music recordings are digital by definition, whether purchased on black or silver discs. 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? It's the matching item for the anti-aliasing filter at the input of the ADC, and it reconstructs the correct analogue waveform from the raw DAC output histogram which has unwanted RF components. It's needed because it's part of the complete AD/DA system. If you don't know that, then why are you commenting on the technical aspects of the system? Did something change from the original signal? Not necessarily, it's a simple bandwidth limiting component, ensuring that only signals of less than half the sampling frequency appear in the output signal. Other bandwidth limiting components include studio microphones and analogue tape recorders.......... If you can't follow that analogy, then you're simply not thinking abstractly enough. What analogy? Are you thinking at all? 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. You completely misunderstand digital technology. Within the *sole* limitation that the input signal bandwidth must be less than half the sampling frequency, digital audio is theoretically *perfect*. There simply is *no* 'fundamental flaw' such as you ignorantly suggest. The only real-world distortions are those added by the *analogue* parts of the system. That's why typical CD players exhibit less than 0.01% distortion at full output across the entire audio band, and have no artifacts whatever above the noise floor. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
On 1 Jul 2005 19:56:18 GMT, "Helen Schmidt"
wrote: 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. Actually, what you've done here is point out exactly the difficulty of the 'subjectivist' position, which is that any 'objective' observation which contradicts the 'subjective impression' is put in the category of oversimplification, lack of understanding of higher aesthetics, intellectual inferiority (that seems to be your favourite), and lots of other vague handwaving with no evidential backup. It's too general an argument, and conveniently ignores the *fact* that we really *do* understand an awful lot about audio, about human perception, and about *why* many people prefer vinyl. The rest of the self-justification regarding 'realism' is easily explained by any psychologist. But of course, you don't *want* an explanation, you just want to ignore reality and play with your vinyl toys. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
On 2 Jul 2005 02:03:47 GMT, "Helen Schmidt"
wrote: Greg Lee wrote: 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. Yes, when new evidence comes in, theories that don't fit are discarded. The problem is that neither measurements nor asking questions is a very good way of determining someone's mental state; neither of them are very good evidence. But measurements at present are completely worthless at determining mental state, so to support a theory of mental state on the basis of measurements is absurd. Good job no one here suggested any such thing. Did you not read the posts about the development of perceptual coders? The word 'perceptual' is something of a clue............. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
On 2 Jul 2005 02:06:04 GMT, "jeffc" wrote:
"Gary Rosen" wrote in message ... 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. No, not really. With a good record and record player, the surface noise can easily be below level of tape hiss of the master from which the 2 sources were made. Utter rubbish. I have many 'audiophile' LPs, and master tape noise is *always* lower than record surface noise. Indeed, the most basic knowledge of the relevant dynamic ranges of vinyl and 15 ips analogue tape would indicate how risible is your claim. OTOH, I have many rock and pop records where tape noise is certainly audible.... :-( -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
On 1 Jul 2005 19:52:23 GMT, "jeffc" wrote:
"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. Aside from the sole limitation that the bandwidth of the input signal must be less than half the sampling frequency, digital is most certainly *not* an approximation. Period. Anyone who thinks otherwise simply doesn't understand how digital audio works. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
On 1 Jul 2005 19:51:02 GMT, "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. The whole thing is much simpler than you pretend. Not everyone shares *your* preference for vinyl, or your *opinion* that vinyl is more 'lifelike', hence there is no need to search for mysterious mechanisms in support of your personal opinion. First comes the verifiable observation of an effect, *then* comes the search for a cause. 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. 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. Asking someone what they "prefer" doesn't begin to sort through these possiblities. There you go again, parading your personal *opinion* as a fact. It is most definitely *not* a fact that vinyl *is* more 'true to life', that is simply your personal opinion. Hence, there need be no mysterious mechanism underlying this more 'lifelike' impression which you have formed. Interesting that this possibility has never occurred to you. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... Russ Button wrote: 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. In my personal experience, which accords with the scientific literature, comparisons of audio that are done 'sighted', such as yours seems to have been, are highly prone to false positive impressions of 'difference'. Have you tried to repeat the comparison with some elementary controls in place? Admittedly these will be difficult to put in place for a vinyl/CD copy comparison, since to do it right you'll have to not only level match both channels, but also time-synch the two sources, and devise some means of random switching between them. It also assumes that the LP doesn't pick up new pops and ticks before or during the test. Without these precautions any report of difference between an LP and a competently-made digital copy of same is inherently suspect. Even with all those precautions in place, some WA is going to come along and say the stylus has been worn to some degree as a result of having recorded the CD. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
jeffc wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message ... I prefer digital. Try again. With all due respect you simply fo not understand digital audio. You really have exposed a severe lack of knowledge of the technical aspects of audio in that post. The fact that you said analog is "pure", strongly supggests that you prefer analog. Better? Nope, not even close. I have a good understanding of digital audio, and the fact that you took my analogy literally suggests that you really don't understand much of anything I said. Listen the context in which the comment was made. You need to hear an analog sound. "Pure" means unaltered in terms of form. If you convert to digital, you've switched forms. A recording that is analog all the way through the recording process is "pure" analog in the sense that it's "only" analog, with no other form as part of the mix. There is no such thing as pure digital because you can't hear digital. It's gone through a conversion process (twice) while analog never has. This doesn't mean the ultimate analog sound you hear is more faithful to the original just because it's remained purely analog. In fact, often the digital recording provides a more faithful reproduction, but of course that's partly subjective - it depends on your criteria. And you have to have some criteria (priorities), since no reproduction is ever perfect. In the analog domain, signals subject to noise, non-linear distortions, and frequency response alterations. There is no such thing as pure. That's why modern communications is *all* digital, because it is a much purer method of information transfer and retrieval. Like I said early, read up on the principles of digital audio, and try to get a grasp of the sampling theorem. I have not taken your analogy literally or figuratively, because it is such a poor analogy. Here is what you said: "Technically digital is crude compared to vinyl, because vinyl is analog and analog is pure". It is not an analogy at all that you are stating. You are stating a misunderstanding. Then you said "I say 'technically' because it is, or will be, possible to get the approximation so good that you can't tell the difference." This shows that you believe digital can only get as good as analog as in vinyl. This agains shows a lack of understanding, of both analog and digital. |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
On 2 Jul 2005 14:47:27 GMT, "Helen Schmidt"
wrote: wrote: Helen Schmidt wrote: 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! You are overlooking something here, something that the objectivists seem usually to overlook. Certainly if musical form stimulated only sonic percepts---loud/sound, fast/slow---then a piece of equipment would have to be catastrophically broken to change that. Oh, so now you are inventing non-sonic percepts? Please explain how these might be audible......................... But you overlook the possibility that musical form stimulates what I call holistic percepts: emotions, body sensation, and the resonance of spiritual mythology. And, relative to my listening, vinyl conveys these aspects of form better. OTOH, relative to *my* listening, CD conveys these aspects of form better than does vinyl. When you have something to offer other than your own opinion, do feel free to share it. It's very likely you don't care much about those percepts. There's nothing wrong with that; it simply makes your opinion about reproduction of sound merely your opinion, with no special weight above the opinions of others. Did it ever occur to you that the same argument applies to *your* opinion? Guess not................ 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. The funny thing is that it looks to me like many people decide first that they prefer the sound of CD, and then presume the *reason* is the measurements. The much funnier thing is that it looks to me like some people decide first that they prefer the sound of vinyl, then they presume the *reason* is that there is some mysterious 'unknown to science' mechanism which causes this preference. Strange that they completely discount all the well-known euphonic distortions which easily explain their personal preference. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Helen Schmidt wrote:
wrote: Helen Schmidt wrote: 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! You are overlooking something here, something that the objectivists seem usually to overlook. You are overlooking what I wrote, and substituting your own intellectual prejudices. Certainly if musical form stimulated only sonic percepts---loud/sound, fast/slow---then a piece of equipment would have to be catastrophically broken to change that. But you overlook the possibility that musical form stimulates what I call holistic percepts: emotions, body sensation, and the resonance of spiritual mythology. I'm not overlooking this. You're the one who implied that components could differ in their presentation of "musical form," a concept you still do not seem to have a firm grasp of. (It's not about speed and volume.) And, relative to my listening, vinyl conveys these aspects of form better. They are not aspects of form. They are reactions to form. But since, as you now admit, functioning components cannot differ in their presentation of the musical form, it is contradictory to then claim that vinyl better conveys anything related to form. For a philosopher, you're rather careless with your concepts. It's very likely you don't care much about those percepts. There's nothing wrong with that; it simply makes your opinion about reproduction of sound merely your opinion, with no special weight above the opinions of others. My opinions are indeed no better than anyone else's. But they are better informed than yours. 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. The funny thing is that it looks to me like many people decide first that they prefer the sound of CD, and then presume the *reason* is the measurements. Hardly, as we don't listen to measurements. bob |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
On 2 Jul 2005 14:32:37 GMT, "jeffc" wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message ... I prefer digital. Try again. With all due respect you simply fo not understand digital audio. You really have exposed a severe lack of knowledge of the technical aspects of audio in that post. The fact that you said analog is "pure", strongly supggests that you prefer analog. Better? Nope, not even close. I have a good understanding of digital audio, Hmmmm, the evidence so far suggest otherwise. and the fact that you took my analogy literally suggests that you really don't understand much of anything I said. Listen the context in which the comment was made. You need to hear an analog sound. "Pure" means unaltered in terms of form. Quite so, and vinyl *grossly* distorts the form of the master tape. If you convert to digital, you've switched forms. A recording that is analog all the way through the recording process is "pure" analog in the sense that it's "only" analog, with no other form as part of the mix. There is no such thing as pure digital because you can't hear digital. It's gone through a conversion process (twice) while analog never has. Utter rubbish, and indicative of your total lack of understanding of digital *and* analogue audio. Your so-called 'pure' analogue undergoes conversion from sound pressure to mechanical deviation to electrical signal at the microphone, undergoes conversion from electrical signal to magnetic domain information when recorded to tape, undergoes conversion from magnetic domain information to electrical signal when replayed, undergoes conversion from electrical signal to mechanical deviation when applied to the head of the cutting lathe, undergoes more mechanical deviation when transferred from cutting master to final pressing, undergoes conversion from mechanical deviation to electrical signal when transduced by the cartridge, undergoes conversion from electrical signal to mechanical deviation of the speaker diaphragm, and finally undergoes conversion from mechanical deviation to sound pressure at your ears. You call this 'pure'? You simply do not understand what's happening. This doesn't mean the ultimate analog sound you hear is more faithful to the original just because it's remained purely analog. In fact, often the digital recording provides a more faithful reproduction, but of course that's partly subjective - it depends on your criteria. And you have to have some criteria (priorities), since no reproduction is ever perfect. Indeed - but digital is *much* closer to perfection than your so-called 'pure' analogue can ever be. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
On 2 Jul 2005 02:03:47 GMT, "Helen Schmidt"
wrote: Greg Lee wrote: 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. Yes, when new evidence comes in, theories that don't fit are discarded. That's not what I meant. Sorry, I see that my "they" was ambiguous. I meant that the evidence is dismissed (not the theories). Whether there is evidence that LPs are higher fidelity is obviously arguable. I'm just saying that no such evidence will be taken seriously without a new theory that the evidence supports. The problem is that neither measurements nor asking questions is a very good way of determining someone's mental state; neither of them are very good evidence. But measurements at present are completely worthless at determining mental state, so to support a theory of mental state on the basis of measurements is absurd. -- Greg Lee |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Russ Button wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: the best I can do. I don't like to do quick A-B comparisons. Instead I like to listen to one for a while, and then later switch to the other. I find that I seem to have different reactions to things over time in a fashion I can only describe as emotional. As I said earlier, the edginess I experienced seemed rather subtle, but there nonetheless. The more reasonable conclusion is that it *might* be there, rather than 'it is there nonetheless'. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
On 2 Jul 2005 14:41:30 GMT, Stewart Pinkerton
wrote: On 1 Jul 2005 19:52:23 GMT, "jeffc" wrote: Digital is, by definition, an approximation. Period. Aside from the sole limitation that the bandwidth of the input signal must be less than half the sampling frequency, digital is most certainly *not* an approximation. Period. And this is not merely opinion, its has been mathematically proven. You might as well believe that the square root of two is rational as believe that digital is an "approximation". Ed Seedhouse, Victoria, B.C. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Gary Rosen wrote:
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. You figure wrong. I usually do such comparisons blind. What about you? Do you do your coparisons blind? 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. No, you can still do them blind. Just select a section where the musical signal is loud enough to mask any surface noise. Not a difficult thing to do with just about any title. Surface noise just isn't that big a problem with my TT and records that are not so badly damaged. Scott Wheeler |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005 02:06:04 GMT, "jeffc" wrote: "Gary Rosen" wrote in message ... 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. No, not really. With a good record and record player, the surface noise can easily be below level of tape hiss of the master from which the 2 sources were made. Utter rubbish. Utter rubbish to your utter rubbish. I have many 'audiophile' LPs, and master tape noise is *always* lower than record surface noise. Then you must be using damaged records. Otherwise this is complete nonsense or you have a unique selection of "audiophile" LPs or, again your LPs are just wrecked by mistracking or poor cleaning methods. Indeed, the most basic knowledge of the relevant dynamic ranges of vinyl and 15 ips analogue tape would indicate how risible is your claim. OTOH, I have many rock and pop records where tape noise is certainly audible.... :-( But you can't hear tape hiss on any of your audiophile LPs? Something is wrong there. Scott Wheeler |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 30 Jun 2005 17:45:45 GMT, wrote: 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. They are now.............. Not likely. I would bet the vast majority of records produced were were produced before that technology ws being used. 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. Indeed - which should tell you something, all by itself. That excellence becomes marginalized by convenience and economic influences. I already knew that. McDonalds remind me of that fact every time I see one. 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. IIRC, the old analogue mastering tape consoles had an extra playback head to provide the required 'read ahead' time delay needed for Varigroove operation. Um yeah. Your point? 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. No need for much figgerin' here, as the well-known euphonic artifacts of vinyl have been described ad nauseam. Really? I have yet to see any of them described and I have yet to see any studies on the matter that support this claim. I'm not saying it isn't true, maybe it is. One would not know that from the generic posturing one finds on RAHE on the matter. instead of just claiming it ad nauseam how about supporting it for a change with some real evidence? If you like those, as opposed to the neutral transparency of digital, then of course you'll prefer vinyl to CD, regardless of the master tape origins. The only time you wouldn't is when the LP has been badly mastered. This is just a load of broad stroked nonsense. I guess you figure every CD has been mastered and produced exactly the same way. Get a clue and start listening to the actual CDs and LPs for a change instead of listening to your overly broad and overly simple presumptions. Just how many CDs do you really think sound exactly like the original master tapes? Then tell us what blind comparisons you have made between original master tapes and their commercial CD releases. Scott Wheeler |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Lee wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005 02:03:47 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: Greg Lee wrote: 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. Yes, when new evidence comes in, theories that don't fit are discarded. That's not what I meant. Sorry, I see that my "they" was ambiguous. I meant that the evidence is dismissed (not the theories). Whether there is evidence that LPs are higher fidelity is obviously arguable. I'm just saying that no such evidence will be taken seriously without a new theory that the evidence supports. Evidence that doesn't fit the theory is dismissed? Then how are theories ever supplanted? In science, evidence that doesn't fit the theory stimulates a revision of the theory. Stewart et al have no evidence about subjective state of listeners, beyond simplified verbal reporting of state that compresses the percepts themselves. Helen Schmidt |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005 14:47:27 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: wrote: Helen Schmidt wrote: 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! You are overlooking something here, something that the objectivists seem usually to overlook. Certainly if musical form stimulated only sonic percepts---loud/sound, fast/slow---then a piece of equipment would have to be catastrophically broken to change that. Oh, so now you are inventing non-sonic percepts? Please explain how these might be audible......................... But you overlook the possibility that musical form stimulates what I call holistic percepts: emotions, body sensation, and the resonance of spiritual mythology. And, relative to my listening, vinyl conveys these aspects of form better. OTOH, relative to *my* listening, CD conveys these aspects of form better than does vinyl. When you have something to offer other than your own opinion, do feel free to share it. Back at you dude. It's very likely you don't care much about those percepts. There's nothing wrong with that; it simply makes your opinion about reproduction of sound merely your opinion, with no special weight above the opinions of others. Did it ever occur to you that the same argument applies to *your* opinion? Guess not................ See above. 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. The funny thing is that it looks to me like many people decide first that they prefer the sound of CD, and then presume the *reason* is the measurements. The much funnier thing is that it looks to me like some people decide first that they prefer the sound of vinyl, then they presume the *reason* is that there is some mysterious 'unknown to science' mechanism which causes this preference. Well how was it for you? Did you actually think you would prefe vinyl to CDs and then after doing careful comparisons decide othewise or did your results match your expectations? How do you know you didn't already make up your mind before you ever listened? Do you think you are immune to biases? Strange that they completely discount all the well-known euphonic distortions which easily explain their personal preference. What are those well known euphonic distortions and what studies have shown them to be euphonic? Scott Wheeler |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton 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" There are no objective measurements of subjective observations, save the most primitive types corresponding to sonic (sound-related but not music-related) percepts. Helen Schmidt |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 1 Jul 2005 19:51:02 GMT, "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. The whole thing is much simpler than you pretend. Not everyone shares *your* preference for vinyl, or your *opinion* that vinyl is more 'lifelike', hence there is no need to search for mysterious mechanisms in support of your personal opinion. It isn't just his personal opinion. It is a common opinion held by many audiophiles with extensive experience with high end Lp playback. First comes the verifiable observation of an effect, *then* comes the search for a cause. The verifiable observations have been with us since the advent of CDs. You have claimed over and over again that the effects of "euphonic distortion" that lead some to prefer Lp playback ove CD playback are "well known." Now are you saying it hasn't been studied at all? How about a straight story on this common claim for a change? 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. 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. Asking someone what they "prefer" doesn't begin to sort through these possiblities. There you go again, parading your personal *opinion* as a fact. Pot calls kettle black. It is most definitely *not* a fact that vinyl *is* more 'true to life', that is simply your personal opinion. No it isn't just his opinion. It is a common opinion amoung audiophiles that are familiar with the sound of high end vinyl playback. Unfortunately that experience is rare and unfairly dismissed by many. Hence, there need be no mysterious mechanism underlying this more 'lifelike' impression which you have formed. Who has ever said things wer mysterious besids you? Looks like you are injecting things to create a bias against audiophiles who prefer vinyl. Interesting that this possibility has never occurred to you. Interesting that you spend so much time saying the same old things but neve cite anything to support it. Scott Wheeler |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 1 Jul 2005 19:56:18 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: 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. Actually, what you've done here is point out exactly the difficulty of the 'subjectivist' position, which is that any 'objective' observation which contradicts the 'subjective impression' is put in the category of oversimplification, lack of understanding of higher aesthetics, intellectual inferiority (that seems to be your favourite), and lots of other vague handwaving with no evidential backup. Funny almost exactly the same thing an be said of the objectivist position. It's too general an argument, and conveniently ignores the *fact* that we really *do* understand an awful lot about audio, about human perception, and about *why* many people prefer vinyl. OK stop the hand waving and put up for a change. If you don't like hand waving this ought to seem like a reasonable request. The rest of the self-justification regarding 'realism' is easily explained by any psychologist. The exact same can be said for those who prefer CDs. But of course, you don't *want* an explanation, you just want to ignore reality and play with your vinyl toys. And you say subjectivists claim objectivists are guilty of "oversimplification, lack of understanding of higher aesthetics, intellectual inferiority." Quite ironic. Scott Wheeler |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Russ Button wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: I don't like to do quick A-B comparisons. Instead I like to listen to one for a while, and then later switch to the other. I find that I seem to have different reactions to things over time in a fashion I can only describe as emotional. As I said earlier, the edginess I experienced seemed rather subtle, but there nonetheless. The more reasonable conclusion is that it *might* be there, rather than 'it is there nonetheless'. Oh pick, pick, pick... I heard what I heard. You weren't there. Nobody else besides my wife was there and she heard the same thing. This is just an anecdotal story and is only worth what it is. Everything we truly know, we know from our own personal experience. Everything else is just hearsay. That aside, I'm pleased with my Xitel Inport and plan to use it quite a bit later this summer to digitize a bunch of old analog master tapes I have so I can unload my Revox A77. Russ |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 1 Jul 2005 19:55:25 GMT, "jeffc" wrote: "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. Purity however implies unsullied, and vinyl is seriously sullied by surface noise, by rolled-off and summed to mono bass, by inner groove distortion, by midrange phase problems, and by severe harmonic distortion. Vinyl is 'pure'? I think not.......... "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. No, analogue has a single meaning, which you appear not to undertstand. The electrical signal coming from the microphone(s) is an analogue of the original soundfield. Well, no it's not unless you live in a one dimesional two channel universe of course. i don't. the soundfield and the signal comming from the microphone are not analogus at all. That would be a neat trick though. What happens to that signal between there and the loudspeakers is another matter. If you mean vinyl, then say vinyl. BTW, as noted elsewhere, since every modern vinyl cutting facility includes a digital delay line for Varigroove purposes, *all* new music recordings are digital by definition, whether purchased on black or silver discs. Every? Are you sure about this? 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? It's the matching item for the anti-aliasing filter at the input of the ADC, and it reconstructs the correct analogue waveform from the raw DAC output histogram which has unwanted RF components. It's needed because it's part of the complete AD/DA system. If you don't know that, then why are you commenting on the technical aspects of the system? Did something change from the original signal? Not necessarily, it's a simple bandwidth limiting component, ensuring that only signals of less than half the sampling frequency appear in the output signal. Other bandwidth limiting components include studio microphones and analogue tape recorders.......... If you can't follow that analogy, then you're simply not thinking abstractly enough. What analogy? Are you thinking at all? Are you? 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. You completely misunderstand digital technology. Within the *sole* limitation that the input signal bandwidth must be less than half the sampling frequency, digital audio is theoretically *perfect*. Gotta love theroetical perfection. To bad practical applications don't follow simple theories in this case. There simply is *no* 'fundamental flaw' such as you ignorantly suggest. Just a lot of practical ones. I suggest you reread that wonderful AESJ paper on the making of the Mercury CDs. They found that digital can be far less than perfect no matter what theories abound. The only real-world distortions are those added by the *analogue* parts of the system. Wrong. You definitely ought to read that paper. That's why typical CD players exhibit less than 0.01% distortion at full output across the entire audio band, and have no artifacts whatever above the noise floor. Thats nice but it doesn't tell the hole story. Did you know that a stereo that isn't playing has no distortion whatsoever? think about it. Scott Wheeler |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Russ Button wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: Russ Button wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: I don't like to do quick A-B comparisons. Instead I like to listen to one for a while, and then later switch to the other. I find that I seem to have different reactions to things over time in a fashion I can only describe as emotional. As I said earlier, the edginess I experienced seemed rather subtle, but there nonetheless. The more reasonable conclusion is that it *might* be there, rather than 'it is there nonetheless'. Oh pick, pick, pick... I heard what I heard. You weren't there. Nobody else besides my wife was there and she heard the same thing. This is just an anecdotal story and is only worth what it is. Everything we truly know, we know from our own personal experience. Everything else is just hearsay. That aside, I'm pleased with my Xitel Inport and plan to use it quite a bit later this summer to digitize a bunch of old analog master tapes I have so I can unload my Revox A77. Russ If you are quite pleased with your Xitel, then I can't help but wonder if you are deliberately aiming low when it comes to digital audio. You should read this article which I posted before; http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...1231751,00.asp The fact that the Inport's specifications are sub-par to a Creative soundblaster soundcard does not say much for the Inport at all. The soundblaster series of Creative soundcards are infamous in the audiophile community. If you like the Inport, imagine what a really good soundcard would sound like! CD |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005 14:47:27 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: And, relative to my listening, vinyl conveys these aspects of form better. OTOH, relative to *my* listening, CD conveys these aspects of form better than does vinyl. Anyone's concept of truth-to-life is relative to that person's set of potential concepts and how they are weighted; in short, how they listen and what they listen for. Although the objectivists would like to claim some special weight to their opinions about the life-like-ness of audio systems, their opinions are merely their opinions, and hold no special weight above the opinions of others. It appears that a couple of times I wrote "Vinyl is better at XYZ" and forgot to put "relative to my listening;" however, this was simply an oversight. (Because I never expected that all other people in the world would share my experience, I didn't realize how I had to make this *absolutely clear* to the objectivists.) The objectivists are quick to remind anyone who starts a sentence "Vinyl is better at ..." that they are "merely stating an opinion." Funny how they never apply that to their own opinions about digital. The real argument here is not about who's opinion is right. That would be a very boring argument. Of course some people find digital to be more lifelike and some find analog to be more lifelike. That is elementary. The real argument is about the way objectivists attempt to undermine the conceptual basis of opinions they don't like, and their subtle epistemological errors in doing so. What does any of this matter, if we aren't going to change our opinions? After all, I'm not trying to convince Stewart to prefer vinyl. At the end of the day, Stewart will still like CD, Chung and Bob and Steven Sullivan will still like the things they like. So why does this matter? Personally, the reason it matters to me is the effect on new people entering the hi-fi field, and kids growing up and starting to learn about audio. They hear the adults and the more experienced people assert things about the world, and they are influenced by that. A kid might hear an explanation of why format XYZ is superior to format ABC, and he might internalize this assertion, and (and this is key) he might take this explanation to be a truth about his *subjective* experience. People are prone to taking objective statements and thinking they define in some way subjective truth. This definitely works both ways; I have the same issue with a high-end salesman who gives an explanation of why vinyl is technically superior to digital. So to be more specific about the objectivist's errors: A pervasive error is what I call the "level transfer fallacy." This is the notion that all means of characterizing, describing, or perceiving a signal at one level will transer directly to that signal at another level. A visual analogy will make clear that this is not generally true: Suppose we have a photograph which reproduces a scene. We can inspect it one of two ways: we can view it as a whole, or we can inspect it one square cm at a time through a viewfinder. It is trivial to propose distortions in the photograph which would be perceivable at one level but not the other. A grainy texture would be far more apparent in close inspection and possibly invisible at a distance. On the other hand, a distortion in perspective (such as slight barrel distortion) would be imperceptible in close inspection, but immediately obvious in a whole view. Since the objectivist is no longer concerned that looking at the low-level details misses some part of the big picture, he then declares that the lowest level is *fundamental,* absolutely the most important level to work on in the service of fidelity. This is an understandable mistake, because often in science, knowledge is built layer-on-layer. Most complex truths are built on simpler truths. In mathematics, a theorem can be proven by breaking it down and proving each component separately. So surely audio perception can be understood by breaking it into elemental components? Musical form can be understood by breaking it down into individual notes and perceiving those notes separately? No it can't. That's the error--to take the composition property of objective reality and apply it to subjective reality, where things aren't the same. Understanding musical notes *does not* move one closer to understanding musical phrases. Understanding how a microphone sounds *does not* move one closer to understanding how the details of music work together to create the musical meaning. I call this the "subjective composition fallacy"--that subjective reality can be understood by composing together many smaller subjective impressions. Stewart wrote to Jenn: I think you'll find that most of us are quite well aware of what conductors are trained to do. One thing is certain - it's *not* to distinguish, among various reproduction media, which sounds most like a live performance on any given system. Here Stewart is implying that a person such as a recording engineer works on a more fundamental level than Jenn; that his opinions about fidelity somehow count more. This is the level transfer fallacy and the subjective composition fallacy. Later, Jenn wrote: OF COURSE they are above the thresholds of human hearing, or I wouldn't be able to hear them. I'm also fairly pretty confident that you wouldn't be able to hear what I hear. Stewart replied: Now, exactly what gives you reason to think that? Stewart is so focused on the low level details he has a hard time even acknowledging the existence of the higher level. It's *obvious* that a highly trained conductor like Jenn can hear things Stewart can't. Someone operating under the level transfer fallacy thinks that a pattern merely needs to be above the threshold of hearing to be perceivable. Later, someone (I think Mark DeBellis) wrote: But there is training and there is training. There are lots of different things on which one can focus attention, and some are more musically significant than others. I'd be inclined to give a lot of weight (at least initially) to Jenn's sense of what to listen *for*. Stewart replied: I wouldn't, as she's listening for faults in the *performance*, not in the sound quality per se. I'm not saying that she isn't well trained and a good listener, just that her specific training gives her no special advantage in terms of live vs recorded sound. Again Stewart is implying her level of perception is not useful in discriminating live and recorded sound.. very telling that he uses the word "sound" and not "music," because again he is working on just the lowest level. The level transfer fallacy and the subjective composition fallacy is what leads Stewart to think that this level is more fundamental. Stewart also wrote: Indeed we do, and many of us have been listening to reproduced music very carefully for several decades. Some of us even earn our living doing just that, and designing better items. I venture to suggest that our ears are just as well trained as yours for discriminating tiny sonic differences, and pinning down their source. I was an audiophile for a long time before I took up music composition as a hobby. There's absolutely no comparison between the way that listening to audio develops your ear, and the way direct creative musical expression develops your ear. Yes! They both develop your ear! But in quite different ways. And although Stewart would like to think that his training is more fundamental to judging recorded sound, it is simply one way of perceiving music. Jenn can perceive higher-level patterns in the sound, which in my opinion, is a far more natural and relevant to listening to music.. although at the end of the day, 8OTH Stewart's and Jenn's perspectives are valid. I would like to see Jenn's perspective inform more kids and newcomers to the audio field, although of course everyone is free to develop their hearing as they like. Helen Schmidt |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
On 2 Jul 2005 16:56:33 GMT, Greg Lee wrote:
On 2 Jul 2005 02:03:47 GMT, "Helen Schmidt" wrote: Greg Lee wrote: 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. Yes, when new evidence comes in, theories that don't fit are discarded. That's not what I meant. Sorry, I see that my "they" was ambiguous. I meant that the evidence is dismissed (not the theories). Whether there is evidence that LPs are higher fidelity is obviously arguable. I'm just saying that no such evidence will be taken seriously without a new theory that the evidence supports. That's not how it works. New theories are only required when there's evidence to indicate that the old ones are inadequate. Such evidence is certainly not dismissed. OTOH, there seems to be essentially zero evidence in support of the 'subjectivist' position here. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
On 2 Jul 2005 18:56:36 GMT, "Helen Schmidt"
wrote: Stewart et al have no evidence about subjective state of listeners, beyond simplified verbal reporting of state that compresses the percepts themselves. I may not, but Al certainly does! Once again I ask, did you not read the posts regarding the development of perceptual codecs such as MP3, AAC, Dolby etc? They are based on *massive* amounts of research into the subjective state of listeners, specifically their ability to detect any difference between the original sound and the lossy compressed version. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |