Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
transducr
 
Posts: n/a
Default Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)

Gino Robair posted a link to a news story (an excerpt of which appears
below) about a scientist using MRI to further explain/understand the
results of the old-school "Pepsi Challenge" ad campaign.

i know what you're thinking: "It's about time!!! Thank god SOMEONE is
doing this fine work!"

anyway, the results are actually pretty interesting and cause me to
ponder a few things that have been propsed in the analog vs. digital
debates over the years...but first the excerpt:

"When he isn't pondering the inner workings of the mind, Read
Montague, a 43-year-old neuroscientist at Baylor College of Medicine,
has been known to contemplate the other mysteries of life: for
instance, the Pepsi Challenge. In the series of TV commercials from
the 70's and 80's that pitted Coke against Pepsi in a blind taste
test, Pepsi was usually the winner. So why, Montague asked himself not
long ago, did Coke appeal so strongly to so many people if it didn't
taste any better?

Over several months this past summer, Montague set to work looking for
a scientifically convincing answer. He assembled a group of test
subjects and, while monitoring their brain activity with an M.R.I.
machine, recreated the Pepsi Challenge. His results confirmed those of
the TV campaign: Pepsi tended to produce a stronger response than Coke
in the brain's ventral putamen, a region thought to process feelings
of reward. (Monkeys, for instance, exhibit activity in the ventral
putamen when they receive food for completing a task.) Indeed, in
people who preferred Pepsi, the ventral putamen was five times as
active when drinking Pepsi than that of Coke fans when drinking Coke.

In the real world, of course, taste is not everything. So Montague
tried to gauge the appeal of Coke's image, its ''brand influence,'' by
repeating the experiment with a small variation: this time, he
announced which of the sample tastes were Coke. The outcome was
remarkable: almost all the subjects said they preferred Coke. What's
more, the brain activity of the subjects was now different. There was
also activity in the medial prefrontal cortex, an area of the brain
that scientists say governs high-level cognitive powers. Apparently,
the subjects were meditating in a more sophisticated way on the taste
of Coke, allowing memories and other impressions of the drink -- in a
word, its brand -- to shape their preference.

Pepsi, crucially, couldn't achieve the same effect. When Montague
reversed the situation, announcing which tastes were of Pepsi, far
fewer of the subjects said they preferred Pepsi. Montague was
impressed: he had demonstrated, with a fair degree of neuroscientific
precision, the special power of Coke's brand to override our taste
buds."

maybe it's just because i'm a nerd, but it just sparked the idea of
some of the parallels of the great analog/digital debacle: some claim
one is favored because people associate it with fond memories, some
say one's just plain better than the other, even though their flavors
are distinct some people can't tell the two apart, some don't care and
just have whatever's available, some say one's a classic and the other
is the choice of a new generation...etc...

it would be very interesting to do similar tests with both recording
mediums and see what the results would be. especially with different
age groups. younger kids who've grown up on CD and MP3 vs. people who
grew up on vinyl, cassetes, reel-to-reel and so on...at AES Bob Ludwig
gave a great impromptu talk going through the history of digital tape
machines and as an aside at one point delivered an anecdote about an
artist whose record he was mastering who had been listening to the
final mixes on MP3 before mastering and when Mr. Ludwig played the
mastered record for him, he wanted to know why the high-end sounded so
"weird"...he wanted it to sound more like the MP3s he'd become
accustomed to...i guess for many people it's not really what's
"better" it's more what you're used to or have an
emotional/intellectual bias towards...
  #2   Report Post  
ignatz
 
Posts: n/a
Default Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)

Coke is analog. It's smoother, sweeter, emphasizes caramel and vanilla
extract flavors. Pepsi is digital. It's tart, emphasizes citrus and spice
flavors. Pepsi's flavor might win spontaneous taste tests with a majority
(maybe), but after living with both, I always come back to Coke.


  #3   Report Post  
Paul Bawol
 
Posts: n/a
Default Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)

I took the Pepsi Challenge and preferred the Coke. It was detailed, punchy,
and transparent. But not warm...

....Paul

--
************************************************** ********
"In the analog realm, it ain't "OVER" 'til it's over."

"transducr" wrote in message
om...
Gino Robair posted a link to a news story (an excerpt of which appears
below) about a scientist using MRI to further explain/understand the
results of the old-school "Pepsi Challenge" ad campaign.

i know what you're thinking: "It's about time!!! Thank god SOMEONE is
doing this fine work!"

anyway, the results are actually pretty interesting and cause me to
ponder a few things that have been propsed in the analog vs. digital
debates over the years...but first the excerpt:

"When he isn't pondering the inner workings of the mind, Read
Montague, a 43-year-old neuroscientist at Baylor College of Medicine,
has been known to contemplate the other mysteries of life: for
instance, the Pepsi Challenge. In the series of TV commercials from
the 70's and 80's that pitted Coke against Pepsi in a blind taste
test, Pepsi was usually the winner. So why, Montague asked himself not
long ago, did Coke appeal so strongly to so many people if it didn't
taste any better?

Over several months this past summer, Montague set to work looking for
a scientifically convincing answer. He assembled a group of test
subjects and, while monitoring their brain activity with an M.R.I.
machine, recreated the Pepsi Challenge. His results confirmed those of
the TV campaign: Pepsi tended to produce a stronger response than Coke
in the brain's ventral putamen, a region thought to process feelings
of reward. (Monkeys, for instance, exhibit activity in the ventral
putamen when they receive food for completing a task.) Indeed, in
people who preferred Pepsi, the ventral putamen was five times as
active when drinking Pepsi than that of Coke fans when drinking Coke.

In the real world, of course, taste is not everything. So Montague
tried to gauge the appeal of Coke's image, its ''brand influence,'' by
repeating the experiment with a small variation: this time, he
announced which of the sample tastes were Coke. The outcome was
remarkable: almost all the subjects said they preferred Coke. What's
more, the brain activity of the subjects was now different. There was
also activity in the medial prefrontal cortex, an area of the brain
that scientists say governs high-level cognitive powers. Apparently,
the subjects were meditating in a more sophisticated way on the taste
of Coke, allowing memories and other impressions of the drink -- in a
word, its brand -- to shape their preference.

Pepsi, crucially, couldn't achieve the same effect. When Montague
reversed the situation, announcing which tastes were of Pepsi, far
fewer of the subjects said they preferred Pepsi. Montague was
impressed: he had demonstrated, with a fair degree of neuroscientific
precision, the special power of Coke's brand to override our taste
buds."

maybe it's just because i'm a nerd, but it just sparked the idea of
some of the parallels of the great analog/digital debacle: some claim
one is favored because people associate it with fond memories, some
say one's just plain better than the other, even though their flavors
are distinct some people can't tell the two apart, some don't care and
just have whatever's available, some say one's a classic and the other
is the choice of a new generation...etc...

it would be very interesting to do similar tests with both recording
mediums and see what the results would be. especially with different
age groups. younger kids who've grown up on CD and MP3 vs. people who
grew up on vinyl, cassetes, reel-to-reel and so on...at AES Bob Ludwig
gave a great impromptu talk going through the history of digital tape
machines and as an aside at one point delivered an anecdote about an
artist whose record he was mastering who had been listening to the
final mixes on MP3 before mastering and when Mr. Ludwig played the
mastered record for him, he wanted to know why the high-end sounded so
"weird"...he wanted it to sound more like the MP3s he'd become
accustomed to...i guess for many people it's not really what's
"better" it's more what you're used to or have an
emotional/intellectual bias towards...



  #4   Report Post  
intifada
 
Posts: n/a
Default Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)

"ignatz" nobody@home wrote
Coke is analog. It's smoother, sweeter, emphasizes caramel and vanilla
extract flavors. Pepsi is digital. It's tart, emphasizes citrus and

spice
flavors. Pepsi's flavor might win spontaneous taste tests with a

majority
(maybe), but after living with both, I always come back to Coke.


AFAIC, the homogenization of flavour produced by the global dominance of
these two soft drinks manufacturers has left the world a poorer place.
Expand the taste test by looking for colas that are not produced by these
two monster corporations. Cuba's Tu Cola (with a large measure of Havana
Club) is of course de rigeur for an authentic Cuba Libre, though for some
strange reason it seems a bit difficult to lay hands on at the moment....

JC


  #5   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)

"transducr" wrote in message
om

it would be very interesting to do similar tests with both recording
mediums and see what the results would be. especially with different
age groups. younger kids who've grown up on CD and MP3 vs. people who
grew up on vinyl, cassetes, reel-to-reel and so on...at AES Bob Ludwig
gave a great impromptu talk going through the history of digital tape
machines and as an aside at one point delivered an anecdote about an
artist whose record he was mastering who had been listening to the
final mixes on MP3 before mastering and when Mr. Ludwig played the
mastered record for him, he wanted to know why the high-end sounded so
"weird"...he wanted it to sound more like the MP3s he'd become
accustomed to...i guess for many people it's not really what's
"better" it's more what you're used to or have an
emotional/intellectual bias towards...


A good digital recorder can make a recording of the output of an analog
device and play it back in such a way that the difference can't be detected.
This has been done many times, and finesses all of the issues related to
mastering and the like.

In contrast, it's generally impossible to make an analog recording of the
output of a clean wide-range digital source whose playback can't be
distinguished from the original.

You don't need a MRI or a PhD to do this. A level-matched,
time-synchronized, bias-controlled test can be set up by *any* reasonably
competent audio production person, with an assistant.

The *real* problem is getting some competent people who like to pontificate
and posture about things like this off their lazy chicken butts to actually
do something.

People who are nominally lazy, but want to try a little something can visit
www.pcabx.com .




  #6   Report Post  
transducr
 
Posts: n/a
Default Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
A good digital recorder can make a recording of the output of an analog
device and play it back in such a way that the difference can't be detected.
This has been done many times, and finesses all of the issues related to
mastering and the like.

In contrast, it's generally impossible to make an analog recording of the
output of a clean wide-range digital source whose playback can't be
distinguished from the original.

You don't need a MRI or a PhD to do this. A level-matched,
time-synchronized, bias-controlled test can be set up by *any* reasonably
competent audio production person, with an assistant.

The *real* problem is getting some competent people who like to pontificate
and posture about things like this off their lazy chicken butts to actually
do something.


well, my point wasn't really can we make them indistinguishable from
each other. my point was more to the effect of: it would be
interesting to see how people's brains reacted to all analog and all
digital recordings...furthermore, it would be of interest to see the
differences between the responses of older and younger subjects to
account for the sort of "branding" factor ecountered by the "pepsi
challenge" researcher.

i'm not really interested in finding out which is "better"...it's been
done to death. i think we all know there are things going for and
against both, strengths and weaknesses and with the technology
available to us now, both new and old, it's almost a moot point
arguing one over the other now anyway...we sort of have the best of
both worlds at our end in the chain...

i was really more curious to see if there was any particular way we
respond to hearing these different mediums...perhaps something
inherent across the board in the way we would react, regardless of our
generational ties to format. maybe it would be simply a case of liking
what we grow up with...or what we're most familiar with, etc.

i've seen rupert neve assert in print on several occasions that he
believes digital sound makes people subtly more hostile, frustrated,
negative...etc. it would be interesting to see some science being
applied to see what does go on between the two, if anything different
at all...

really, though, i just wanted make a few funny comparisons between the
pepsi vs. coke thing as applied to analog/digital and get the ball
rolling for a usenet pun and double-entendre-fest!!! (off to a good
start!)
  #7   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)

"transducr" wrote in message
om
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
A good digital recorder can make a recording of the output of an
analog device and play it back in such a way that the difference
can't be detected. This has been done many times, and finesses all
of the issues related to mastering and the like.

In contrast, it's generally impossible to make an analog recording
of the output of a clean wide-range digital source whose playback
can't be distinguished from the original.

You don't need a MRI or a PhD to do this. A level-matched,
time-synchronized, bias-controlled test can be set up by *any*
reasonably competent audio production person, with an assistant.

The *real* problem is getting some competent people who like to
pontificate and posture about things like this off their lazy
chicken butts to actually do something.


well, my point wasn't really can we make them indistinguishable from
each other. my point was more to the effect of: it would be
interesting to see how people's brains reacted to all analog and all
digital recordings...


I suspect it would take a very long time to listen to all analog and all
digital recordings. That would have to be approached if you wanted to say
something cogent.


furthermore, it would be of interest to see the
differences between the responses of older and younger subjects to
account for the sort of "branding" factor ecountered by the "pepsi
challenge" researcher.


The age thing can probably be addressed by inspection. Lots of old dudes who
were brought up on analog, like digital best. It's a digital audio world,
and has been for about 20 years. back in 1983-1993 people who are now near
retirement age jumped off the analog ship like there was no tomorrow.
Digital phobia is vary much a minority thing in *any* age group.

i'm not really interested in finding out which is "better"...it's been
done to death. i think we all know there are things going for and
against both, strengths and weaknesses and with the technology
available to us now, both new and old, it's almost a moot point
arguing one over the other now anyway...we sort of have the best of
both worlds at our end in the chain...


It's a digital world in the 21st century. When accuracy is the criteria
digital wins hands down. When people are looking for a *certain sound*
digital now does a fairly credible job of simulating the colorations of
analog, and it's only going to get better. Put a digital screen showing a
glowing 12AX7 or three on the front panel, and lots more people will be
fooled.

i was really more curious to see if there was any particular way we
respond to hearing these different mediums...perhaps something
inherent across the board in the way we would react, regardless of our
generational ties to format. maybe it would be simply a case of liking
what we grow up with...or what we're most familiar with, etc.


What can't change is that when people know for sure they're listening to
analog, they are going to have some preconceived notions. As long as people
do sloppy tests where people can know the ID of what's playing by means
other than listening, preconceptions are going to be part of the test
results. In the end you're doing a public opinion survey and the equipment
playing is just window dressing.

i've seen rupert neve assert in print on several occasions that he
believes digital sound makes people subtly more hostile, frustrated,
negative...etc. it would be interesting to see some science being
applied to see what does go on between the two, if anything different
at all...


Rupert Neve says lots of amazing things. If it helps him sleep at night or
push consoles, I guess that's a good thing for him.

really, though, i just wanted make a few funny comparisons between the
pepsi vs. coke thing as applied to analog/digital and get the ball
rolling for a usenet pun and double-entendre-fest!!! (off to a good
start!)


Oh boy, yet another analog versus digital troll thread. God help me to stay
out of posting to it any more.


  #8   Report Post  
Don Cooper
 
Posts: n/a
Default Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)

"I'm an analog man in a digital world,
Looking for an analog girl."

- Orleans



Don
  #10   Report Post  
Jay Kadis
 
Posts: n/a
Default Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)

There is a problem using MRI (or fMRI) with audio cues: you cannot use dynamic
headphones in or near an MRI machine. Having done some fMRI experiments using
audio stimuli, it is not possible currently to deliver high quality audio to a
subject in an MRI machine. It was thought that electrostatic headphones might
work, but to my knowledge no one has yet succeeded. (Heaphones are necessary
because the MRI machine itself is very loud.)

We used the plastic-tube type headphones and verified that our sine-wave test
tones were not altered by the resonances of the tubing (quite by chance).
Full-spectrum audio stimuli are still not available.

We also wanted to have rappers scanned to see if they use the speech or music
areas of their brains, but no one wants to fund such a study. Wonder why?

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x


  #11   Report Post  
Scott Dorsey
 
Posts: n/a
Default Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)

Jay Kadis wrote:
There is a problem using MRI (or fMRI) with audio cues: you cannot use dynamic
headphones in or near an MRI machine. Having done some fMRI experiments using
audio stimuli, it is not possible currently to deliver high quality audio to a
subject in an MRI machine. It was thought that electrostatic headphones might
work, but to my knowledge no one has yet succeeded. (Heaphones are necessary
because the MRI machine itself is very loud.)


Hmm... how about ceramic element headphones, like the old Astatic headphones
for crystal sets?

Electrostatic types would be a lot flatter, though, since the ceramic things
tend to have a lot of narrow resonances.

We also wanted to have rappers scanned to see if they use the speech or music
areas of their brains, but no one wants to fund such a study. Wonder why?


That would be very interesting. You want to borrow some electrostatic
phones? You'll have to remove the steel frames and make some replacement
for them, but I think they are otherwise mostly nonmagnetic.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #12   Report Post  
Jay Kadis
 
Posts: n/a
Default Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)

In article (Scott Dorsey)
writes:
Jay Kadis wrote:
There is a problem using MRI (or fMRI) with audio cues: you cannot use

dynamic
headphones in or near an MRI machine. Having done some fMRI experiments

using
audio stimuli, it is not possible currently to deliver high quality audio to

a
subject in an MRI machine. It was thought that electrostatic headphones

might
work, but to my knowledge no one has yet succeeded. (Heaphones are

necessary
because the MRI machine itself is very loud.)


Hmm... how about ceramic element headphones, like the old Astatic headphones
for crystal sets?

Electrostatic types would be a lot flatter, though, since the ceramic things
tend to have a lot of narrow resonances.


I doubt we'd be able to settle the analog/digital debate using crystal
headphones.

We also wanted to have rappers scanned to see if they use the speech or

music
areas of their brains, but no one wants to fund such a study. Wonder why?


That would be very interesting. You want to borrow some electrostatic
phones? You'll have to remove the steel frames and make some replacement
for them, but I think they are otherwise mostly nonmagnetic.
--scott


There were some other labs trying the electrostatics but they haven't managed
to get them to work. I'm not sure why. I should follow up on it, but my
involvement in the experiments has been on hold lately.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x
http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x
  #13   Report Post  
Scott Dorsey
 
Posts: n/a
Default Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)

Jay Kadis wrote:

I doubt we'd be able to settle the analog/digital debate using crystal
headphones.


I think it should be possible to make decent sounding crystal headphones,
with a little engineering. Not wonderful sounding, but at least reasonably
flat. If GenRad could make measurement grade ceramic mikes, I don't see
why not, and taking the GenRad mike assemblies and running them in reverse
might be a good first step.

That would be very interesting. You want to borrow some electrostatic
phones? You'll have to remove the steel frames and make some replacement
for them, but I think they are otherwise mostly nonmagnetic.


There were some other labs trying the electrostatics but they haven't managed
to get them to work. I'm not sure why. I should follow up on it, but my
involvement in the experiments has been on hold lately.


They won't get really really loud, if that is an issue. And most of them
do not seal.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #16   Report Post  
Rob Adelman
 
Posts: n/a
Default Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)



Jay Kadis wrote:

The 3 Tesla field in the fMRI machine means no ferro-magnetic materials can be
in the room, like iron and, of course, magnets. Even other metals can distort
the image, but the magnetic field is strong enough to yank anything magnetically
susceptible into the guts of the machine and destroy it.



Better keep this guy out of there..

http://www.universalexports.net/Movies/Graphics/11-images/jaws.jpg

  #17   Report Post  
transducr
 
Posts: n/a
Default Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"transducr" wrote in message
om
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
well, my point wasn't really can we make them indistinguishable from
each other. my point was more to the effect of: it would be
interesting to see how people's brains reacted to all analog and all
digital recordings...


I suspect it would take a very long time to listen to all analog and all
digital recordings. That would have to be approached if you wanted to say
something cogent.


come on now. the pepsi challenge wasn't about all the different sodas
that coca-cola and pepsi make...even the formulas of the two specific
beverages change within certain tolerances day-by-day, but you can
still identify them or get the idea of what the comparison is about.

although it would also be an interesting test to see how many
recordings (starting with the first that can be readily accessed) of
each format one can listen to in absolute, uninterrupted succession
before going insane. ;-p

furthermore, it would be of interest to see the
differences between the responses of older and younger subjects to
account for the sort of "branding" factor ecountered by the "pepsi
challenge" researcher.


The age thing can probably be addressed by inspection. Lots of old dudes who
were brought up on analog, like digital best. It's a digital audio world,
and has been for about 20 years. back in 1983-1993 people who are now near
retirement age jumped off the analog ship like there was no tomorrow.
Digital phobia is vary much a minority thing in *any* age group.


once again, my object of curiosity is not whether an older person who
grew up on analog recordings can *tolerate* a digital recording
without vomiting or storming out of lab where the tests are being
conducted...merely if their (people across a wide age spectrum) brains
would react differently to one or the other with a blind test and if
they'd prefer one over the other, consistently, or not...then compare
the results between age groups to account for exposure to either and
furthermore if those results (the response from their brains) become
skewed once they know one from the other.

i'm not really interested in finding out which is "better"...it's been
done to death. i think we all know there are things going for and
against both, strengths and weaknesses and with the technology
available to us now, both new and old, it's almost a moot point
arguing one over the other now anyway...we sort of have the best of
both worlds at our end in the chain...


It's a digital world in the 21st century. When accuracy is the criteria
digital wins hands down. When people are looking for a *certain sound*
digital now does a fairly credible job of simulating the colorations of
analog, and it's only going to get better. Put a digital screen showing a
glowing 12AX7 or three on the front panel, and lots more people will be
fooled.


once again, it isn't about fooling anyone, just observing natural and
then sort-of placebo brain reactions. it's not about proving which is
technologically superior to the other, just to see if anyone does
truly react differently to the different formats. it's not about
winning or one vanquishing the other, just seeing if people respond to
one differently than the other or if that's just a bunch of hype or
placebo studio voo-doo.

i was really more curious to see if there was any particular way we
respond to hearing these different mediums...perhaps something
inherent across the board in the way we would react, regardless of our
generational ties to format. maybe it would be simply a case of liking
what we grow up with...or what we're most familiar with, etc.


What can't change is that when people know for sure they're listening to
analog, they are going to have some preconceived notions.
As long as people


you may be right about a bias associated with analog, but don't forget
that a test inclusive of laymen of various ages would likely provide
bias for as well as against, not to mention many people who are just
plain intellectually ignorant of the difference.

do sloppy tests where people can know the ID of what's playing by means
other than listening, preconceptions are going to be part of the test
results. In the end you're doing a public opinion survey and the equipment
playing is just window dressing.


did you read the excerpt of the article in the original post? the
second part of the test dealt exclusively with how bias and
preconception (notably marketing bias) affected how the brain of the
subject reacted to the expereince of using the product...that was the
point. nothing sloppy about that.

i've seen rupert neve assert in print on several occasions that he
believes digital sound makes people subtly more hostile, frustrated,
negative...etc. it would be interesting to see some science being
applied to see what does go on between the two, if anything different
at all...


Rupert Neve says lots of amazing things. If it helps him sleep at night or
push consoles, I guess that's a good thing for him.


well, that's what causes my interest in the subject. frankly there
have been a great deal of fantastic, absurd, ridiculous as well as
reasonable and well-founded assertions about the compatiblity of the
two formats with us as human beings (you know what i mean)...i think
the more reaching and seemingly absurd theories have generally come
from the analog side of the argument...but who knows, maybe a test of
this type might prove there's something to them or prove once and for
all that there's essentialy no difference when it comes to how our
brains perceive the delivery medium itself...who knows. i just thought
it would be interesting.

really, though, i just wanted make a few funny comparisons between the
pepsi vs. coke thing as applied to analog/digital and get the ball
rolling for a usenet pun and double-entendre-fest!!! (off to a good
start!)


Oh boy, yet another analog versus digital troll thread. God help me to stay
out of posting to it any more.


hey man, lighten up. so far you're the only one in the thread trying
to make this about digital vs. analog as a competition between the two
to prove superiority. that was not my point and i am not trolling.
rather discussing, with a little levity, a hypothetical test that
might shed some scientific light on the all-too-hyped and almost
mystical (by now) debate in which some fairly hard-to-prove claims
have been made.

like i said before, at this point we can all use whatever turns us on.
we can record to 2-inch, we can record to pro tools, or we can record
to 2-inch then dump it into PT (or whatever analog/digital system you
prefer to use), we can press our releases on vinyl as well as or
instead of CD if we are so inclined, etc...

i'm just curious if there is any legitimate scientific basis for many
of the assertions that have flown around surrounding the debate.

i quote myself from the message you just responded to:

i'm not really interested in finding out which is "better"...it's been
done to death. i think we all know there are things going for and
against both, strengths and weaknesses and with the technology
available to us now, both new and old, it's almost a moot point
arguing one over the other now anyway...we sort of have the best of
both worlds at our end in the chain...


stick that in yer womb and birth it! ;-)
  #19   Report Post  
Chris Johnson
 
Posts: n/a
Default Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)

In article ,
(transducr) wrote:
Harvey Gerst wrote in message
. ..
(transducr) wrote:
i've seen rupert neve assert in print on several occasions that he
believes digital sound makes people subtly more hostile, frustrated,
negative...etc.


Well, I've been running all digital sound for several years now and
statements
like this really **** me off. All the people who think that digital sound
isn't
great should simply be taken out and shot. I'm really upset that the
current
gun laws don't cover this situation. Nobody should be allowed to use
analog
equipment anymore, which would at least silence that camp. 16/44.1 is more
than
good enough for everything; if it wasn't, it wouldn't be the standard,
would it?
All those "nattering nabobs" make me feel like quitting recording. Analog,
analog; that's all I hear, and I'm sick of it. I think I'll start carrying
a
baseball bat to silence anybody who isn't in the digital camp with me,
permanently. Screw analog, screw them, screw you, screw everybody.

So much for Rupert's theory.


HA! nice.

seriously though, maybe we could the NRA to fund the study?


*g*

Seriously, though, I suspect there are things that can be learned. I
think I have some clues to what's happening, but I'm no academic
scientist. I've always been strongly analog-biased in spite of the
obvious faults, and when I took Arny's bait and ABXed away on various
files from his site, I got some pretty unusual results.

There was a 'background noise' test. I flunked. I struggled to
perceive even the loudest level of background noise in the test file
(granted, I wasn't monitoring at very high volume). My brain tricked me,
refusing to hear the noise as noise. I had to AB very quickly to figure
out what was happening at all.

In the very same test sessions under the same conditions, I was able
to distinguish every last 'articulation' test, which was castanets
encoded with mp3 encoders and other lossy coding, up to what was it,
256K? 320K?

The weird part is, the alteration of the sounds on that lossy-coder
test is WAY less than that of the loud-background-noise test. Curious...

That's me, I'm the analog fan. I'd be curious to know if some digital
guys turned out to be very sensitive to stuff like flutter or noise, and
very insensitive to the sort of low-level inharmonic content generated
by lossy coding...


Chris Johnson
  #21   Report Post  
Doctor Phibes
 
Posts: n/a
Default Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)

"Paul Bawol" wrote in message ...
I took the Pepsi Challenge and preferred the Coke. It was detailed, punchy,
and transparent. But not warm...

...Paul

I took the pepsi challenge and thought pepsi was a bit tart...oops I did it again

William
  #22   Report Post  
Ralph & Diane Barone
 
Posts: n/a
Default Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)

In article m,
Chris Johnson wrote:

Shnipppp!

That's me, I'm the analog fan. I'd be curious to know if some digital
guys turned out to be very sensitive to stuff like flutter or noise, and
very insensitive to the sort of low-level inharmonic content generated
by lossy coding...


Chris Johnson


Very interesting. I heard an MP3 a few days back that had obviously been
dubbed from a not so good analog source and the flutter just about drove me
around the bend.


  #23   Report Post  
Fill X
 
Posts: n/a
Default Analog/Digital Pepsi Challenge...(long-ish)

The "pepsi challenge" speaks to the problems of many such tests. Were people
allowed to try either one first and pick at random? Was each beverage served at
the same temp.? Was there a reasonable control on whether they had let the coke
go flat? I actually have heard they srved the coke slightly warmer than the
Pepsi to skew results.


P h i l i p

______________________________

"I'm too ****ing busy and vice-versa"

- Dorothy Parker




Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
long ground back to battery kkmike Car Audio 47 March 2nd 04 10:14 PM
Mechanic blames amplifier for alternator failing?? Help>>>>>>>>>>> SHRED© Car Audio 57 December 13th 03 11:24 AM
AES Show Report (LONG!!!!) Mike Rivers Pro Audio 17 October 31st 03 03:57 PM
Short term - Long term listening lcw999 High End Audio 7 October 26th 03 01:58 AM
wrap test Mike Pro Audio 14 September 7th 03 05:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:35 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"