Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Helen Schmidt
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
jeffc
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
Russ Button
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
jeffc
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
Russ Button
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Marc Foster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Helen Schmidt
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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. 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.

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.




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.

Helen Schmidt
  #59   Report Post  
Norman M. Schwartz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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   Report Post  
Chung
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Greg Lee
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Ed Seedhouse
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Helen Schmidt
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Helen Schmidt
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Russ Button
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Codifus
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Helen Schmidt
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:37 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"