Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
I've been lurking RAHE for about 2 weeks now. And much to my
surprise, the side of science is well represented here. After "Audio" magazine went out of business and "Stereo Review"changed into another Home Theater big book (and Julian Hersh passed away), I have not been able to find any common sense approaches to audio on the magazine rack. I buy Sterophile or TAS ever once in a while, but I find the approach too touchy-feely: I get the impression the reviewers could be fooling themselves. I know from my own experience the folowing things: My own ears are not reliable. I could have a cold, allergies, be tired. I first discovered this when I would wake up to music on my CD player in the late 80s and the music sounded too fast. There was no pitch control on the player, and at no other time did the music sound rushed. So I realized back then that my ears are not reliable tools *everytime*. And, sometimes, I'm not really in the mood to listen to music, no matter how hard I force the issue. I get too critical and can drive myself crazy tweaking. Time to put the remote down and go for a walk. I got ahold of Laura Dearborn's "Good Sound" about 12 years ago from my local library. In the book, if my memory serves, she poo-pooed everything modern (for the late 80s): Digital, Dolby C NR, transistors and microprocessors. All bad. And EQ? Even worse. All changed the 'sound'. All got in the 'way.' Hiss and noise were 'Good', especially if said noise and hiss were from vintage tube gear, because the sound was somehow more 'pure'. Vinyl better because analog doesn't leave out anything "between the samples." She lost me when she went off on Dolby NR. I'd been fighting tape hiss for a few years by this time, and Dolby C was a godsend. Even (horrors!) undecoded in my car, the hiss level was lowerable with treble cut. On the deck at home, tapes were close to the original. Closer than I'd ever had, anyway. Double blind does work. Not that I've ran full-bore ABX tests, but I have recorded room noise on a DAT tape (I mix audio for a TV station, and yeah, TV News sound is the McDonalds fry vat of audio, but I gotta pay the bills!) from a lav mic, level matched the live and playback, and quickly scrambled the switching between the two sources by not looking at the board. After a few rapid swithces, I soon can't tell which is live mic and which is DAT. Everything is the same, the 'notes' from the air conditioner(s), the popping sound the lights make as they cool, chatter leaking from the newsroom. Only when enough time has passed and new 'notes' emerge can I tell the switch is taking place. And the level is way down, peaking at -20db or so. And the DAT is going through the Harrison a second time, twice the op-amps, twice the noise from the board (and it is there, belive me). But I can't tell. I'm not opposed to the High End. I love audio and sound and any time someone does it right, with a flair of art, they are to be celebrated. I just recently got a pair of mid-line Grados and my mind has been blown again. Such great sound from headphones! But so much in the press is just...hooey to me. So for the objectivists on this group, thanks. You guys are a breath of fresh air. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
I agree with your sentiments.
I first started in the audio hobby in the late 60's, the golden era of audio. Subscribed to Absolute Sound, Stereo Review, High Fidelity, Audio and Stereophile and simply devoured them, especially TAS. Then, along with most of America, dropped out of audio when computers came along. Came back maybe five years ago and was utterly shocked at the level of snake oil in the high end. Where did all the utter nonsense come from? And the aversion to double-blind-testing by the so-called subjectivist camp and the "reasoning" used to justify why it does not work (because it does not confirm pre-conceived notions), is just amazing in its creativity. And then I stumbled on REC.AUDIO.OPINION in the time when "Zip" was still alive and posting. Boy, was that ever a snake-pit you fell into if you ever dared post ANYTHING favorable about the concept of DBT. I kept a subscription to Stereophile for a while, but finally even the near-free subscription rates could not keep me subscribing. The stomach churning that came with checking your common sense in at page 1 of each issue for the duration was just too much. Boy, does it ever feel good to not go through that ordeal each month. -- - GRL "It's good to want things." Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist, Visual Basic programmer) "cjc" wrote in message ... I've been lurking RAHE for about 2 weeks now. And much to my surprise, the side of science is well represented here. After "Audio" magazine went out of business and "Stereo Review"changed into another Home Theater big book (and Julian Hersh passed away), I have not been able to find any common sense approaches to audio on the magazine rack. I buy Sterophile or TAS ever once in a while, but I find the approach too touchy-feely: I get the impression the reviewers could be fooling themselves. I know from my own experience the folowing things: My own ears are not reliable. I could have a cold, allergies, be tired. I first discovered this when I would wake up to music on my CD player in the late 80s and the music sounded too fast. There was no pitch control on the player, and at no other time did the music sound rushed. So I realized back then that my ears are not reliable tools *everytime*. And, sometimes, I'm not really in the mood to listen to music, no matter how hard I force the issue. I get too critical and can drive myself crazy tweaking. Time to put the remote down and go for a walk. I got ahold of Laura Dearborn's "Good Sound" about 12 years ago from my local library. In the book, if my memory serves, she poo-pooed everything modern (for the late 80s): Digital, Dolby C NR, transistors and microprocessors. All bad. And EQ? Even worse. All changed the 'sound'. All got in the 'way.' Hiss and noise were 'Good', especially if said noise and hiss were from vintage tube gear, because the sound was somehow more 'pure'. Vinyl better because analog doesn't leave out anything "between the samples." She lost me when she went off on Dolby NR. I'd been fighting tape hiss for a few years by this time, and Dolby C was a godsend. Even (horrors!) undecoded in my car, the hiss level was lowerable with treble cut. On the deck at home, tapes were close to the original. Closer than I'd ever had, anyway. Double blind does work. Not that I've ran full-bore ABX tests, but I have recorded room noise on a DAT tape (I mix audio for a TV station, and yeah, TV News sound is the McDonalds fry vat of audio, but I gotta pay the bills!) from a lav mic, level matched the live and playback, and quickly scrambled the switching between the two sources by not looking at the board. After a few rapid swithces, I soon can't tell which is live mic and which is DAT. Everything is the same, the 'notes' from the air conditioner(s), the popping sound the lights make as they cool, chatter leaking from the newsroom. Only when enough time has passed and new 'notes' emerge can I tell the switch is taking place. And the level is way down, peaking at -20db or so. And the DAT is going through the Harrison a second time, twice the op-amps, twice the noise from the board (and it is there, belive me). But I can't tell. I'm not opposed to the High End. I love audio and sound and any time someone does it right, with a flair of art, they are to be celebrated. I just recently got a pair of mid-line Grados and my mind has been blown again. Such great sound from headphones! But so much in the press is just...hooey to me. So for the objectivists on this group, thanks. You guys are a breath of fresh air. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
"cjc" wrote in message
... snip Double blind does work. Not that I've ran full-bore ABX tests, but I have recorded room noise on a DAT tape (I mix audio for a TV station, and yeah, TV News sound is the McDonalds fry vat of audio, but I gotta pay the bills!) from a lav mic, level matched the live and playback, and quickly scrambled the switching between the two sources by not looking at the board. After a few rapid swithces, I soon can't tell which is live mic and which is DAT. Everything is the same, the 'notes' from the air conditioner(s), the popping sound the lights make as they cool, chatter leaking from the newsroom. Only when enough time has passed and new 'notes' emerge can I tell the switch is taking place. And the level is way down, peaking at -20db or so. And the DAT is going through the Harrison a second time, twice the op-amps, twice the noise from the board (and it is there, belive me). But I can't tell. Doesn't the above suggest the test technique itself is a problem? Why do you conclude the "it works"? I'm not opposed to the High End. I love audio and sound and any time someone does it right, with a flair of art, they are to be celebrated. I just recently got a pair of mid-line Grados and my mind has been blown again. Such great sound from headphones! But so much in the press is just...hooey to me. So for the objectivists on this group, thanks. You guys are a breath of fresh air. I'm sure they'll appreciate that. :-) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
"cjc" wrote in message
... I'd been fighting tape hiss for a few years by this time, and Dolby C was a godsend. I had the opposite experience. I had an early Dolby C deck and used to make recordings using it. One day I discovered that the recordings sounded substantially better without it. After that I did all my cassette recordings without NR and never regretted it. Tim |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
Tim Anderson wrote:
"cjc" wrote in message ... I'd been fighting tape hiss for a few years by this time, and Dolby C was a godsend. I had the opposite experience. I had an early Dolby C deck and used to make recordings using it. One day I discovered that the recordings sounded substantially better without it. After that I did all my cassette recordings without NR and never regretted it. Tim Me too! I can't stand any type of NR, even on the computer! I'd rather live with tape hiss and the occasiional crackle on vinyl rather than subject my audio to life-sapping, soul-hollowing filtering of most sorts and NR. When I make a CD from a tape or Vinyl, I apply the absolute minimum of filtering. CD |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:hqeqc.27146$6f5.2631081@attbi_s54...
"cjc" wrote in message ... snip Double blind does work. Not that I've ran full-bore ABX tests, but I have recorded room noise on a DAT tape (I mix audio for a TV station, and yeah, TV News sound is the McDonalds fry vat of audio, but I gotta pay the bills!) from a lav mic, level matched the live and playback, and quickly scrambled the switching between the two sources by not looking at the board. After a few rapid swithces, I soon can't tell which is live mic and which is DAT. Everything is the same, the 'notes' from the air conditioner(s), the popping sound the lights make as they cool, chatter leaking from the newsroom. Only when enough time has passed and new 'notes' emerge can I tell the switch is taking place. And the level is way down, peaking at -20db or so. And the DAT is going through the Harrison a second time, twice the op-amps, twice the noise from the board (and it is there, belive me). But I can't tell. Doesn't the above suggest the test technique itself is a problem? Why do you conclude the "it works"? You are correct in that I should have said "It works to my satisfaction." Which is to say beyond any analog reel-to-reel, Beta video, cassette, VHS Hi-Fi I have worked with. Nope, never listened to a Studer running at god-knows-how-many IPS's, with or without Dolby SR. And I don't happen to own a cutting lathe . But for a listening level I consider just north of comfortable, the DAT was indistinguishable from the live mic it was recorded from. I do realize it wasn't a 'perfect' copy. Noise was there south of the DATs output, from the double-dose of op-amp poison from the line channel module. But I didn't, and generally don't, listen *loud* enough to hear it. I could have brought up the volume, along with the noise floor, and risk my sanity if not my hearing. But since the test was already slightly louder than what I consider comfortable, I consider it done. Result? The DAT is one really clean format. I'm not opposed to the High End. I love audio and sound and any time someone does it right, with a flair of art, they are to be celebrated. I just recently got a pair of mid-line Grados and my mind has been blown again. Such great sound from headphones! But so much in the press is just...hooey to me. So for the objectivists on this group, thanks. You guys are a breath of fresh air. I'm sure they'll appreciate that. :-) I hope they do. Thanks for the response. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
"four_season_photo" wrote in message
news:Pcqqc.72513$536.11770318@attbi_s03... On 17 May 2004 22:54:24 GMT (cjc) wrote: I've been lurking RAHE for about 2 weeks now. And much to my surprise, the side of science is well represented here. After "Audio" magazine went out of business and "Stereo Review"changed into another Home Theater big book (and Julian Hersh passed away), I have not been able to find any common sense approaches to audio on the magazine rack. I buy Sterophile or TAS ever once in a while, but I find the approach too touchy-feely: I get the impression the reviewers could be fooling themselves. [stuff deleted] Then maybe you will prefer John Atkinson's test reports in Stereophile, and Joseph D'Appolito's writeups in Audio Xpress. What makes these especially relevant is that you have objective results, but with commentary on what aspects may be having particular sonics effects. Julian Hirsch's test reports were never helpful to me in this regard, because he never really related his finding into sonic terms that I could use, and his conclusions were almost always blandly upbeat: I think this sort of unhelpful test report, coupled with an air of authority, dealt a big setback to objectivity in the audiophile world. As a matter of fact, it was Julian more than anybody else that spurred Harry Pearson to start The Abso!ute Sound, and for people like myself to help get the magazine off the ground. We simply knew better and couldn't stand it any longer. True A-B testing is kind of a strange beast, because aside from gross differences in speakers, it can lead a person to conclude that hifi components sound 99.9% alike, but it's sometimes those small differences which make the difference between loving, and merely liking, a component. I once did A-B tests between a McIntosh MR71 tuner and Kenwood KT-8300, and wonder of wonders, they do indeed seem nearly indistinguishable when switching back and forth. And yet, in more extended listening, I definitely preferred the Mac. Exactly why I have proposed a definitive control test to separate out comparative versus evaluative listening from blind vs. sighted. They are two different things, and in my not-so-humble opinion it is the comparative (vs. evaluative) rather than blinding (vs. sighted) that is the culprit in providing what I believe to be false nulls in many cases, when doing open ended evaluation of audio components. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
In article 6%tqc.75080$iF6.6305889@attbi_s02,
codifus wrote: Me too! I can't stand any type of NR, even on the computer! I'd rather live with tape hiss and the occasiional crackle on vinyl rather than subject my audio to life-sapping, soul-hollowing filtering of most sorts and NR. When I make a CD from a tape or Vinyl, I apply the absolute minimum of filtering. Same here. I will often go in with a low-level waveform correction tool, and patch the worst of the pops and ticks, but the occasional low-level ones I just leave alone. I'll use more extensive NR only to clean up really badly damaged LPs and 45s. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
codifus wrote"
Tim Anderson wrote: "cjc" wrote in message ... I'd been fighting tape hiss for a few years by this time, and Dolby C was a godsend. I had the opposite experience. I had an early Dolby C deck and used to make recordings using it. One day I discovered that the recordings sounded substantially better without it. After that I did all my cassette recordings without NR and never regretted it. Tim Me too! I can't stand any type of NR, even on the computer! I'd rather live with tape hiss and the occasiional crackle on vinyl rather than subject my audio to life-sapping, soul-hollowing filtering of most sorts and NR. When I make a CD from a tape or Vinyl, I apply the absolute minimum of filtering. CD My experience has been quite different. I routinely make metal cassette tapes using Dolby C for playback in an automobile head unit that also has Dolby C available. (not too many have this capability). Prior experience, particularly with music having relatively large dynamic range (e.g. classical) has shown me that compared to either using no Dolby or only Dolby B, the use of Dolby C totally eliminates tape hiss in the car environment, whereas the other 2 modes do not. I should add that I pay careful attention to recording levels and no doubt the higher headroom of metal tape, along with the use of relatively high-end tape decks on both ends (Nakamichi) helps matters. Bruce J. Richman |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
cjc wrote:
I've been lurking RAHE for about 2 weeks now. And much to my surprise, the side of science is well represented here. After "Audio" magazine went out of business and "Stereo Review"changed into another Home Theater big book (and Julian Hersh passed away), I have not been able to find any common sense approaches to audio on the magazine rack. I buy Sterophile or TAS ever once in a while, but I find the approach too touchy-feely: I get the impression the reviewers could be fooling themselves. I know from my own experience the folowing things: My own ears are not reliable. I could have a cold, allergies, be tired. I first discovered this when I would wake up to music on my CD player in the late 80s and the music sounded too fast. There was no pitch control on the player, and at no other time did the music sound rushed. So I realized back then that my ears are not reliable tools *everytime*. And, sometimes, I'm not really in the mood to listen to music, no matter how hard I force the issue. I get too critical and can drive myself crazy tweaking. Time to put the remote down and go for a walk. I got ahold of Laura Dearborn's "Good Sound" about 12 years ago from my local library. In the book, if my memory serves, she poo-pooed everything modern (for the late 80s): Digital, Dolby C NR, transistors and microprocessors. All bad. And EQ? Even worse. All changed the 'sound'. All got in the 'way.' Hiss and noise were 'Good', especially if said noise and hiss were from vintage tube gear, because the sound was somehow more 'pure'. Vinyl better because analog doesn't leave out anything "between the samples." She lost me when she went off on Dolby NR. I'd been fighting tape hiss for a few years by this time, and Dolby C was a godsend. Even (horrors!) undecoded in my car, the hiss level was lowerable with treble cut. On the deck at home, tapes were close to the original. Closer than I'd ever had, anyway. Double blind does work. Not that I've ran full-bore ABX tests, but I have recorded room noise on a DAT tape (I mix audio for a TV station, and yeah, TV News sound is the McDonalds fry vat of audio, but I gotta pay the bills!) from a lav mic, level matched the live and playback, and quickly scrambled the switching between the two sources by not looking at the board. After a few rapid swithces, I soon can't tell which is live mic and which is DAT. Everything is the same, the 'notes' from the air conditioner(s), the popping sound the lights make as they cool, chatter leaking from the newsroom. Only when enough time has passed and new 'notes' emerge can I tell the switch is taking place. And the level is way down, peaking at -20db or so. And the DAT is going through the Harrison a second time, twice the op-amps, twice the noise from the board (and it is there, belive me). But I can't tell. I'm not opposed to the High End. I love audio and sound and any time someone does it right, with a flair of art, they are to be celebrated. I just recently got a pair of mid-line Grados and my mind has been blown again. Such great sound from headphones! But so much in the press is just...hooey to me. So for the objectivists on this group, thanks. You guys are a breath of fresh air. If you think Dolby C was nirvana, you should have experienced Dolby S. Unfortunately, it came at a time when cassette was already on its way to the grave, courtesy the new digital mediums like CD, DAT,and MiniDisc. CD |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
Harry Lavo wrote:
Exactly why I have proposed a definitive control test to separate out comparative versus evaluative listening from blind vs. sighted. They are two different things, and in my not-so-humble opinion it is the comparative (vs. evaluative) rather than blinding (vs. sighted) that is the culprit in providing what I believe to be false nulls in many cases, when doing open ended evaluation of audio components. You say an experiment that has yet to be done is 'definitive?' !!! No additional comment seems to be necessary. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
Bruce J. Richman wrote:
codifus wrote" Tim Anderson wrote: "cjc" wrote in message ... I'd been fighting tape hiss for a few years by this time, and Dolby C was a godsend. I had the opposite experience. I had an early Dolby C deck and used to make recordings using it. One day I discovered that the recordings sounded substantially better without it. After that I did all my cassette recordings without NR and never regretted it. Tim Me too! I can't stand any type of NR, even on the computer! I'd rather live with tape hiss and the occasiional crackle on vinyl rather than subject my audio to life-sapping, soul-hollowing filtering of most sorts and NR. When I make a CD from a tape or Vinyl, I apply the absolute minimum of filtering. CD My experience has been quite different. I routinely make metal cassette tapes using Dolby C for playback in an automobile head unit that also has Dolby C available. (not too many have this capability). Prior experience, particularly with music having relatively large dynamic range (e.g. classical) has shown me that compared to either using no Dolby or only Dolby B, the use of Dolby C totally eliminates tape hiss in the car environment, whereas the other 2 modes do not. I should add that I pay careful attention to recording levels and no doubt the higher headroom of metal tape, along with the use of relatively high-end tape decks on both ends (Nakamichi) helps matters. Bruce J. Richman With a Nakamichi head unit and home deck, I'm sure my opinion might have been more favorable toward Dolby C on cassette as well;-) My finances usually limited my budget to JVCs and such. At the time that I was going to be able to afford my own Dragon, the digital music revolution was well uder way. Oh well. CD |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
Dolby Cassette NR is a joke. Just burn the signal to the tape and be
done with it. The only one that works fairly good is DBX and it has its problems. - Dyslexics of America Untie! keithw... "Tim Anderson" wrote in message news:ycqqc.74164$iF6.6238678@attbi_s02... "cjc" wrote in message ... I'd been fighting tape hiss for a few years by this time, and Dolby C was a godsend. I had the opposite experience. I had an early Dolby C deck and used to make recordings using it. One day I discovered that the recordings sounded substantially better without it. After that I did all my cassette recordings without NR and never regretted it. Tim |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
Keithw wrote:
Dolby Cassette NR is a joke. If the deck was calibrated properly it worked rather well, IME. -- -S. "They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason." -- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
Keithw wrote:
Dolby Cassette NR is a joke. Just burn the signal to the tape and be done with it. The only one that works fairly good is DBX and it has its problems. - Dyslexics of America Untie! keithw... "Tim Anderson" wrote in message news:ycqqc.74164$iF6.6238678@attbi_s02... "cjc" wrote in message ... I'd been fighting tape hiss for a few years by this time, and Dolby C was a godsend. I had the opposite experience. I had an early Dolby C deck and used to make recordings using it. One day I discovered that the recordings sounded substantially better without it. After that I did all my cassette recordings without NR and never regretted it. Tim DBX was even worse than Dolby. It had a fantastic noise floor, but it's artifacts were way more obvious, like the occasiional whooshing sounds and the very compressed sound of the music. CD |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 18 May 2004 23:24:21 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman) wrote: codifus wrote" Tim Anderson wrote: "cjc" wrote in message ... I'd been fighting tape hiss for a few years by this time, and Dolby C was a godsend. I had the opposite experience. I had an early Dolby C deck and used to make recordings using it. One day I discovered that the recordings sounded substantially better without it. After that I did all my cassette recordings without NR and never regretted it. Tim Me too! I can't stand any type of NR, even on the computer! I'd rather live with tape hiss and the occasiional crackle on vinyl rather than subject my audio to life-sapping, soul-hollowing filtering of most sorts and NR. When I make a CD from a tape or Vinyl, I apply the absolute minimum of filtering. Presumably then, you have no music in your collection dating from the '60s or '70s, when more than 90% of studio master tapes used Dolby SR noise reduction? Also, please note that Dolby noise reduction is *not* mere filtering. Since this portion of the post was NOT written by me, but by "codifus" (as indicated above), I have no comment to make re. this observation. My experience has been quite different. I routinely make metal cassette tapes using Dolby C for playback in an automobile head unit that also has Dolby C available. (not too many have this capability). Prior experience, particularly with music having relatively large dynamic range (e.g. classical) has shown me that compared to either using no Dolby or only Dolby B, the use of Dolby C totally eliminates tape hiss in the car environment, whereas the other 2 modes do not. I should add that I pay careful attention to recording levels and no doubt the higher headroom of metal tape, along with the use of relatively high-end tape decks on both ends (Nakamichi) helps matters. Properly applied, Dolby NR should not produce any audible artifacts, unlike the notorious 'breathing' of some compansion system. It does have implications regarding maximum recording levels at high frequencies, but that's largely a matter of what kind of music you prefer. -- As implied in my observations re. the creation of cassette tapes for use in my car in whcih Dolby C is employed, there are no audible artifacts involved. The use of Maxell Metaql C-90 cassettes allows recordings to be made at a somewhat higher level than would otherwise be the case. My LP/CD database (Paradox) has peak recording levels (determined by empirical observation) listed for each of my records and CD's. Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering Bruce J. Richman |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:uALqc.116421$Ik.9696611@attbi_s53... On 18 May 2004 23:24:21 GMT, (Bruce J. Richman) wrote: codifus wrote" Tim Anderson wrote: "cjc" wrote in message ... I'd been fighting tape hiss for a few years by this time, and Dolby C was a godsend. I had the opposite experience. I had an early Dolby C deck and used to make recordings using it. One day I discovered that the recordings sounded substantially better without it. After that I did all my cassette recordings without NR and never regretted it. Tim Me too! I can't stand any type of NR, even on the computer! I'd rather live with tape hiss and the occasiional crackle on vinyl rather than subject my audio to life-sapping, soul-hollowing filtering of most sorts and NR. When I make a CD from a tape or Vinyl, I apply the absolute minimum of filtering. Presumably then, you have no music in your collection dating from the '60s or '70s, when more than 90% of studio master tapes used Dolby SR noise reduction? Also, please note that Dolby noise reduction is *not* mere filtering. Actually Stewart is correct, except that the Dolby used was Dolby A, not Dolby S, a much later variant that I believe was backward compatible. Dolby A broke the audible spectrum into four parts, and applied dynamic compression and equalization to each based on that portion of the music it was designed to handle. Since professional tape gear was/is carefully calibrated before each major recording session, it was possible to hold to the tight tolerances to make this work. Virtually all those great sounding late '60 and '70 multitracks were recorded through 8-16 channels of "A" and then mixed down to two channel 1/4" "A" processed masters. Only later, in the eighties after digital set in did 1/2" 2 track mastering become the prevalent technique, and professional Dolby became largely redundant. I still use my "A"s to transcribe old session tapes recorded from that era. Built like a brick sh-th--se, they will last forever. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
On Wed, 19 May 2004 16:02:33 GMT, "Keithw" wrote:
Dolby Cassette NR is a joke. Just burn the signal to the tape and be done with it. The only one that works fairly good is DBX and it has its problems. Au contraire, Dolby NR works very well, and DBX has horrid 'pumping' artifacts. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Keithw wrote: Dolby Cassette NR is a joke. If the deck was calibrated properly it worked rather well, IME. =========================== That was what I found, back when cassettes were more popular. Deck calibration for level, equalization and record bias, and adjustment of the Dolby circuits themselves, if such adjustment was provided for, were critical. The use of Dolby B, and Dolby C even more, made errors in levels and equalization more audible. It was a finicky job to calibrate a three-head Dolby C cassette deck with sufficient accuracy, and an extremely tedious job to do a good job on a two-head deck. Once you had the record bias, EQ, and level sets all correct...and for acceptable audible results with Dolby C, you had to get them correct, hopefully within less than 1 dB...you could throw the whole Record/Play calibration off by changing tape brands. Or the tape manufacturer could throw it off for you by changing the formulation of the tape, even if the name remained the same. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
Gene Poon wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: Keithw wrote: Dolby Cassette NR is a joke. If the deck was calibrated properly it worked rather well, IME. =========================== That was what I found, back when cassettes were more popular. Deck calibration for level, equalization and record bias, and adjustment of the Dolby circuits themselves, if such adjustment was provided for, were critical. The use of Dolby B, and Dolby C even more, made errors in levels and equalization more audible. It was a finicky job to calibrate a three-head Dolby C cassette deck with sufficient accuracy, and an extremely tedious job to do a good job on a two-head deck. Once you had the record bias, EQ, and level sets all correct...and for acceptable audible results with Dolby C, you had to get them correct, hopefully within less than 1 dB...you could throw the whole Record/Play calibration off by changing tape brands. Or the tape manufacturer could throw it off for you by changing the formulation of the tape, even if the name remained the same. That's exactly what I mean. It was too much work to be worth it. I think, in all the times I've owned cassettes, I've calibrated for Dolby maybe 10 times total. Yet another problem with the calibraation is that once done correctly, take that tape to antoher machine, even if that same machine is same exact model as the machine it came from, if any of the settings are off, forget it. The only way to realy really enjoy a cassette with Dolby is to have a Nakamichi dragon at home, a Nakamichi dragon in the car, and a Nakamichi Dragon walkman Admittedly, all this is really the fault of the medium, the cassette. Dolby NR just happens to exxagerate its faults when not done right. CD |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "four_season_photo" wrote in message news:Pcqqc.72513$536.11770318@attbi_s03... On 17 May 2004 22:54:24 GMT (cjc) wrote: I've been lurking RAHE for about 2 weeks now. And much to my surprise, the side of science is well represented here. After "Audio" magazine went out of business and "Stereo Review"changed into another Home Theater big book (and Julian Hersh passed away), I have not been able to find any common sense approaches to audio on the magazine rack. I buy Sterophile or TAS ever once in a while, but I find the approach too touchy-feely: I get the impression the reviewers could be fooling themselves. [stuff deleted] Then maybe you will prefer John Atkinson's test reports in Stereophile, and Joseph D'Appolito's writeups in Audio Xpress. What makes these especially relevant is that you have objective results, but with commentary on what aspects may be having particular sonics effects. Julian Hirsch's test reports were never helpful to me in this regard, because he never really related his finding into sonic terms that I could use, and his conclusions were almost always blandly upbeat: I think this sort of unhelpful test report, coupled with an air of authority, dealt a big setback to objectivity in the audiophile world. As a matter of fact, it was Julian more than anybody else that spurred Harry Pearson to start The Abso!ute Sound, and for people like myself to help get the magazine off the ground. We simply knew better and couldn't stand it any longer. Couldn't stand what? That your opinions weren't borne out by the science? True A-B testing is kind of a strange beast, because aside from gross differences in speakers, it can lead a person to conclude that hifi components sound 99.9% alike, Is it impoissible that 99.9% of components DO sound alike? This is not rocket science and hasn't been for decades. but it's sometimes those small differences which make the difference between loving, and merely liking, a component. If you can't hear them in a properly conducted comparison, effectively, they don't exist. I once did A-B tests between a McIntosh MR71 tuner and Kenwood KT-8300, and wonder of wonders, they do indeed seem nearly indistinguishable when switching back and forth. And yet, in more extended listening, I definitely preferred the Mac. Were the levels matched properly? Were you always aware of which device you were listening to? Exactly why I have proposed a definitive control test to separate out comparative versus evaluative listening from blind vs. sighted. For most of the scientific communit that deals with audio, that test is here, it's an ABX comparison. They are two different things, and in my not-so-humble opinion it is the comparative (vs. evaluative) rather than blinding (vs. sighted) that is the culprit in providing what I believe to be false nulls in many cases, when doing open ended evaluation of audio components. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to support your claim. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:hqeqc.27146$6f5.2631081@attbi_s54... "cjc" wrote in message ... snip Double blind does work. Not that I've ran full-bore ABX tests, but I have recorded room noise on a DAT tape (I mix audio for a TV station, and yeah, TV News sound is the McDonalds fry vat of audio, but I gotta pay the bills!) from a lav mic, level matched the live and playback, and quickly scrambled the switching between the two sources by not looking at the board. After a few rapid swithces, I soon can't tell which is live mic and which is DAT. Everything is the same, the 'notes' from the air conditioner(s), the popping sound the lights make as they cool, chatter leaking from the newsroom. Only when enough time has passed and new 'notes' emerge can I tell the switch is taking place. And the level is way down, peaking at -20db or so. And the DAT is going through the Harrison a second time, twice the op-amps, twice the noise from the board (and it is there, belive me). But I can't tell. Doesn't the above suggest the test technique itself is a problem? No. It suggests that there is less difference than many "high end" people believe. Why do you conclude the "it works"? I conclude it works, because it has been adopted as the standard for most of the world that deals with audio. I'm not opposed to the High End. I love audio and sound and any time someone does it right, with a flair of art, they are to be celebrated. I just recently got a pair of mid-line Grados and my mind has been blown again. Such great sound from headphones! But so much in the press is just...hooey to me. So for the objectivists on this group, thanks. You guys are a breath of fresh air. I'm sure they'll appreciate that. :-) It helps to have discernible facts on your side. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
"Tim Anderson" wrote in message
news:ycqqc.74164$iF6.6238678@attbi_s02... "cjc" wrote in message ... I'd been fighting tape hiss for a few years by this time, and Dolby C was a godsend. I had the opposite experience. I had an early Dolby C deck and used to make recordings using it. One day I discovered that the recordings sounded substantially better without it. After that I did all my cassette recordings without NR and never regretted it. Tim Back in the 70's and 80's my SOP was to buy an LP and tape it on using a good quality cassette deck. Aside from rare occasions where there was very deep bass, the tape was indistinguishable from the original. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
codifus wrote in message ...
cjc wrote Dolby C was a godsend. If you think Dolby C was nirvana, you should have experienced Dolby S. Unfortunately, it came at a time when cassette was already on its way to the grave, courtesy the new digital mediums like CD, DAT,and MiniDisc. CD I did miss the boat on Dolby S. From what I read it made metal tape sound about as clean as one could want (well, lets not get crazy, there's always *cleaner* I guess). To me, that would be digital clean. But it got replaced by the MD and CD-R, kinda like the big-iron steam trains right at the cusp of diesel. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
"Bromo" wrote in message
... On 5/22/04 12:25 AM, in article , "Michael McKelvy" wrote: Doesn't the above suggest the test technique itself is a problem? No. It suggests that there is less difference than many "high end" people believe. Hrm. Not sure. As I upgraded my components the last go-around (more powerful amp, stand alone CD player) - the sound got better (more accurate and more pleasing) but the change from the first iteration was still pretty expensive, and the absolute improvement was smaller. However, it meant as much to me as the first iteration. IME the improvements most people cite are more wishfull thinking than real, with the exception of speakers. I do believe that most "high end" people know about the law of diminishing returns and its impact on their sound system - and in fact a very revealing system will render some recordings less listenable. If the sum total of the system is inaudible distortion, the only thing that can be more revealing is the speakers. I think the central item is that while the change per increment of money spent is smaller, its meaning to a "high ender" is nearly as important as the first or second increment of spending ... When I hear some people say that certain components have a "huge" impact - when in absolute measurement terms it does not (amplifier, speaker wire come to mind) - it means the minor absolute impact on the system means as much to them as the items handled earlier - such as a good turntable or CD player. I don't think you will find many people outside the marketing departments that would think that a good cable can make a lousy CD player sound better - and even a good high end dealer would not make that claim. I've never encountered a lousy CD player, at least not in terms of it's audio output. I've seen some that weren't built to last and had mechanical problems, but beyond that, it's so trivial to build a player that is flat in its response that it hardly seems worthwhile to make it so. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
On 5/22/04 11:17 PM, in article 7JUrc.98302$xw3.5806699@attbi_s04, "Michael
McKelvy" wrote: "Bromo" wrote in message ... On 5/22/04 12:25 AM, in article , "Michael McKelvy" wrote: I do believe that most "high end" people know about the law of diminishing returns and its impact on their sound system - and in fact a very revealing system will render some recordings less listenable. If the sum total of the system is inaudible distortion, the only thing that can be more revealing is the speakers. Exactly - speakers are the primary source of distortion. If you buy really good (i.e. Linear/transparent) speakers - you will find a number of your recordings do not sound good. I have found that good recordings sound excellent - and less than good - well, the system reveals all the flaws. Since my speakers tend to want a lot of current at 3-4 Ohms in the upper and mid bass, the amplifier has to have a lot of beef in order to drive them, and the speaker wire needs to have sufficient gage for the 10 feet or so they are required to run - once that was sorted out, I found out about 1/3 of my CD collection didn't sound so good - the other 2/3 were decent to exceptional. I think the central item is that while the change per increment of money spent is smaller, its meaning to a "high ender" is nearly as important as the first or second increment of spending ... When I hear some people say that certain components have a "huge" impact - when in absolute measurement terms it does not (amplifier, speaker wire come to mind) - it means the minor absolute impact on the system means as much to them as the items handled earlier - such as a good turntable or CD player. I don't think you will find many people outside the marketing departments that would think that a good cable can make a lousy CD player sound better - and even a good high end dealer would not make that claim. I've never encountered a lousy CD player, at least not in terms of it's audio output. I've seen some that weren't built to last and had mechanical problems, but beyond that, it's so trivial to build a player that is flat in its response that it hardly seems worthwhile to make it so. That was an example. But I have found differences in source components - CD, and turntables - albeit not as large as speaker differences. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
"Bromo" wrote in message
... On 5/22/04 11:17 PM, in article 7JUrc.98302$xw3.5806699@attbi_s04, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: "Bromo" wrote in message ... On 5/22/04 12:25 AM, in article , "Michael McKelvy" wrote: I do believe that most "high end" people know about the law of diminishing returns and its impact on their sound system - and in fact a very revealing system will render some recordings less listenable. If the sum total of the system is inaudible distortion, the only thing that can be more revealing is the speakers. Exactly - speakers are the primary source of distortion. If you buy really good (i.e. Linear/transparent) speakers - you will find a number of your recordings do not sound good. I have found that good recordings sound excellent - and less than good - well, the system reveals all the flaws. Since my speakers tend to want a lot of current at 3-4 Ohms in the upper and mid bass, the amplifier has to have a lot of beef in order to drive them, and the speaker wire needs to have sufficient gage for the 10 feet or so they are required to run - once that was sorted out, I found out about 1/3 of my CD collection didn't sound so good - the other 2/3 were decent to exceptional. From what I've read about speaker wire 10 feet is an inconsequential length for any wire from 22 AWG up. 50 feet and up start to make a difference. I think the central item is that while the change per increment of money spent is smaller, its meaning to a "high ender" is nearly as important as the first or second increment of spending ... When I hear some people say that certain components have a "huge" impact - when in absolute measurement terms it does not (amplifier, speaker wire come to mind) - it means the minor absolute impact on the system means as much to them as the items handled earlier - such as a good turntable or CD player. I don't think you will find many people outside the marketing departments that would think that a good cable can make a lousy CD player sound better - and even a good high end dealer would not make that claim. I've never encountered a lousy CD player, at least not in terms of it's audio output. I've seen some that weren't built to last and had mechanical problems, but beyond that, it's so trivial to build a player that is flat in its response that it hardly seems worthwhile to not make it so. That was an example. But I have found differences in source components - CD, and turntables - albeit not as large as speaker differences. For turntables the differences can be quite daunting, since nearly everything about them is flawed in comparison to a CD player. There's speed variations, tonearms, cartridges and their styli, not to mention the LP's themselves. I got my first CD player as a wedding gift and have hardly ever played an LP since. The ones I do play are things I don't have on CD. There is some loss of mysticism that came about with the dawn of the digital age. Used to be a lot more ceremony in playing and keeping an LP vs. what one does with CD's. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
Bromo wrote:
On 5/22/04 10:18 AM, in article , "cjc" wrote: I did miss the boat on Dolby S. From what I read it made metal tape sound about as clean as one could want (well, lets not get crazy, there's always *cleaner* I guess). To me, that would be digital clean. But it got replaced by the MD and CD-R, kinda like the big-iron steam trains right at the cusp of diesel. I figure as the CD players are getting really good as DVD-A/SACD, MP3, AAC, AIFF are all taking off - doesn't it seem like the best innvations and equipment ends up as they are challenged by new technologies that will eventually replace them? It is often true that the soon-to-be-replaced technology gets much better in its final days as it tries to hold on. For example, it was known for at least a decade prior to cd that radial tracking tone arms were superior to pivoted arms. While there were a few very expensive radial trackers available from time to time they never really were implemented UNTIL cd came on the scene and almost overnight even close-n-play turntables sprouted linear tracking arms. So, quite typically, the last models of obsolete technolgy are the very best ever made. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
On 5/23/04 5:31 PM, in article jL8sc.12568$af3.694469@attbi_s51, "Michael
McKelvy" wrote: From what I've read about speaker wire 10 feet is an inconsequential length for any wire from 22 AWG up. 50 feet and up start to make a difference. Might be good to pick some speakers and some amplifiers and give it a try with some measurements - hearsay is not facts. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
From: (Nousaine)
Date: 5/23/2004 3:35 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: 4H9sc.102341$xw3.6074920@attbi_s04 Bromo wrote: On 5/22/04 10:18 AM, in article , "cjc" wrote: I did miss the boat on Dolby S. From what I read it made metal tape sound about as clean as one could want (well, lets not get crazy, there's always *cleaner* I guess). To me, that would be digital clean. But it got replaced by the MD and CD-R, kinda like the big-iron steam trains right at the cusp of diesel. I figure as the CD players are getting really good as DVD-A/SACD, MP3, AAC, AIFF are all taking off - doesn't it seem like the best innvations and equipment ends up as they are challenged by new technologies that will eventually replace them? It is often true that the soon-to-be-replaced technology gets much better in its final days as it tries to hold on. For example, it was known for at least a decade prior to cd that radial tracking tone arms were superior to pivoted arms. While there were a few very expensive radial trackers available from time to time they never really were implemented UNTIL cd came on the scene and almost overnight even close-n-play turntables sprouted linear tracking arms. So, quite typically, the last models of obsolete technolgy are the very best ever made. So those were "the last models" twenty + years ago? So much for vinyl being obsolete. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
"Bromo" wrote in message
... On 5/23/04 5:31 PM, in article jL8sc.12568$af3.694469@attbi_s51, "Michael McKelvy" wrote: From what I've read about speaker wire 10 feet is an inconsequential length for any wire from 22 AWG up. 50 feet and up start to make a difference. Might be good to pick some speakers and some amplifiers and give it a try with some measurements - hearsay is not facts. While there are some exceptions, speakers with difficult loads, most speakers do not have a problem with runs of wire less than 50 feet. I'm not relying on hearsay, I'm relying on my own experience and that of other professionals. If you know of examples of speakers that present a typical load to an amp that have problems with runs less than 50 feet and within the range of say 18 AWG-12 AWG wire, please provide it. I'm always willing to learn. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
I guess I'm an objectivist
|
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The FAQ needs a major update | Car Audio | |||
The Audio Critic | High End Audio |