Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

The so-called 'High End' market is in itself tiny, and is
ever-shrinking, as ARC can confirm.

This is incorrect.

Like today, many years back, not everyone was running some high end=20
stereo to fulfill their music needs. Many, and I do mean many, people=20
were running cheap systems that produced terrible sound quality.=20
Granted, these systems often carried a hefty price tag for what they=20
didn't deliver. Yet, the fact remains that, because of our current=20
technology, the baseline, el cheapo system of today is much superior to=20
that of yesteryear. Instead of one paying a thousand for a baseline=20
system thirty years back, one now pays about three hundred for a=20
baseline system. With the new crop of mini systems that carry a three=20
hundred dollar price tag, one receives a much better system than what a=20
baseline system would have ran them many years back. Inflation aside,=20
the interest in audio is still alive and well, just as it was many years=20
back.

Now, onto the real meat and potatoes: high end audio. If you went back=20
thirty years, one would find many people using component stereos. For=20
the majority of these people, however, one would rarely find a truly=20
high end system. The lack of high fidelity back in those days is=20
attributed to the same "problem" we are facing currently: one doesn't=20
have the extra money to forgo a car purchase in order to secure a truly=20
high end stereo. To drive this point further, I was reading either the=20
December, January, or February Playboy, and one of their articles was=20
how to build a cheap stereo.

After reading the title, which carried some fancy blurb that would=20
appease to money conscious buyers, I thought that it would have proved=20
to be an interesting article. Yet, when I actually red the animal, I=20
soon learned that I was mistaken: according to Playboy, a reasonable=20
stereo runs around twenty thousand--I forget the exact number, but it=20
was over twenty thousand and under thirty. Now, I don't know what=20
everyone does for a living, but I certainly do not have the necessary,=20
according to Playboy, twenty thousand required to secure a stereo of the=20
high fidelity nature. The real importance of this is just as in years=20
past, not many people can truly experience the absolute highest quality=20
stereo, which is refereed to as high fidelity, or in layman's terms,=20
high end.

To make sure that my point is made obvious, I will finish restating the=20
essence of my post: years ago, during the proclaimed heyday of the high=20
fidelity market, the number of sales of high end equipment was neither=20
less or greater than it currently is. Sure, people will point out that=20
this or that former-great company is out of business and it obviously=20
proves that the market is shrinking. Yet, I would combat this by=20
pointing out how many small companies are out there selling high end=20
products. For proof of this, just look at the advertisements in=20
Stereophile, which at best, represent about a hundredth of the total=20
high end stereo companies. Similarly, one may point out the demise of=20
the mom and pop stereo stores and try to use that to define the downfall=20
of the market. Again, I would combat this by pointing out the natural=20
progression of the consumer market across all market segments: large,=20
corporate chains and the internet. With these new ways of retail, if=20
anything, the number of high fidelity stores has most likely increased.

For one last proof, if one truly believed that consumers of old cared=20
more about high fidelity than current consumers, then the obvious=20
outcomes of their buying habits would be a used market filled with high=20
end equipment from yesteryear. Sadly, though, while one may find the=20
occasional good buy on the used market, the used audio market is mostly=20
filled with junk receivers and lackluster speakers. And, mind you, the=20
used market is filled with things that have survived through the years.=20
Obviously, one would be more inclined to hold onto an expensive piece=20
of audio equipment than a low end piece. The amount of junk on the=20
current used market probably doesn=92t even account for a tenth of the=20
crap that was sold and thrown away through the years. For better or=20
worse, the current crop of stereophiles believe that older technology is=20
better and that life in regards to the consumer interaction with high=20
end audio equipment was more prevalent.

In the end, the demand for high fidelity equipment is neither smaller=20
nor greater than it was long ago. To understand that people are more=20
similar than different is one of my secrets to life.

For the record, I'm currently listening to a SACD on my solid state,=20
component hi-fi system, which in total, ran me about three thousand.


Yours truly,

Michael

"Michael Mossey" wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 30 Mar 2005 00:39:09 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
wrote:

Codifus wrote:

We can only judge the better format by really being able to
compare the
CD or vinyl to the original master recordings. If we as consumers
had
access to those, we would easily see that CD blows away vinyl.

An even better test is to listen to a live feed, then listen to its
reproduction in analog and digital. Some engineers I know in the
Los
Angeles area did that and said that the analog "blew away" the
digital.
I've done it informally by hearing James Boyk perform live in
Dabney
Concert Hall, then hearing the same piece recorded on LP and
recorded
on CD. The LP "blew away" the CD. And it does sound more accurate.

An interesting anecdote, but others will tell the opposite tale.

Precisely. Others will tell the opposite tale, because everyone has
their own way of processing information, of making conscious experience
out of the raw input of senses. In your way, digital artifacts are
negligible. In mine, they are not.

What "digital artifacts" are you referring to?

- Gary Rosen

On 31 Mar 2005 04:12:26 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 30 Mar 2005 00:39:09 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
wrote:

An even better test is to listen to a live feed, then listen to its
reproduction in analog and digital. Some engineers I know in the Los
Angeles area did that and said that the analog "blew away" the digital.
I've done it informally by hearing James Boyk perform live in Dabney
Concert Hall, then hearing the same piece recorded on LP and recorded
on CD. The LP "blew away" the CD. And it does sound more accurate.

An interesting anecdote, but others will tell the opposite tale.

Precisely. Others will tell the opposite tale, because everyone has
their own way of processing information, of making conscious experience
out of the raw input of senses. In your way, digital artifacts are
negligible. In mine, they are not.

This is not 'your way', or 'my way', you are making a very specific
claim - that digital artifacts exist. What are these 'digital
artifacts' whose existence you claim?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 31 Mar 2005 01:03:18 GMT, Michael
wrote:

wrote:
The preference for tubes is hardly based on the idea that "older is
better." There may indeed be a tiny band of people that believe this
but that hardly acounts for the majority of people that prefer tube
amplification.

What evidence do you have that the majority prefer tube amplification?
I certainly don't, and I have good ears. Tubes distort in rather
unpleasant ways.

I prefer solid state amplifiers as well.

I'd like to point out that in regards to the original comment, the
audiophiles I know will tell one that tubes only sound better in certain
conditions and they are not indeed for all types of music. Most of my
friends that have tube amps also run solid state amps for pop and rock
music. So obviously, tube amplification is not some universal,
audiophile truth.

Interesting, and somewhat weird. One might have hoped that they'd use
the less distorting solid state amps for classical music. Is this
perhaps just some simple snobbery we are discussing, whereby these
people feel that the more expensive and crankier tube amps *must*
somehow be superior for upper-class music? :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 31 Mar 2005 01:07:04 GMT, Richard Dale
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 29 Mar 2005 02:25:52 GMT, Richard Dale
wrote:

Stewart wrote:

We see many claims that vinyl has 'infinite resolution',
that it has more low-level detail, and that CD has 'stairsteps' and is
only a series of snapshots, whereas vinyl somehow retains the 'gestalt
of the performance' due to its continuous nature. These are all
objective claims, and they are all wrong.

They are only trying to account for the obvious subjective superiority of a
SOTA vinyl or tube component.

Another false claim. You must realise that the *vast* majority of
audiophiles do *not* find tube amps or SOTA vinyl to be superior to SS
and CD.

If an oscilloscope differs with my perception
of the quality of musical reproduction, then I don't care - I just want to
hear Duke Ellington or whoever in my living room in a way which involves me
most in the music.

Me too, which is why I have a CD player and a SS amp. I also have a
decent vinyl rig, because not everything is available on CD.

These problems are amusing in the same way that Einstein or Newton found
their scientific research problems 'amusing'. It doesn't mean they are
trivial problems, or that we currently understand very well at all.

Oh, I think we understand the *added* euphonic artifacts of tubes and
vinyl pretty well. The problem is getting 'high enders' to admit their
existence, even though it's easy to prove.

No we don't. In what way is it easy to prove?

It's easy to prove by adding these artifacts to an otherwise clean
recording. Indeed, mixdown and mastering engineers often do just this
to 'sweeten up' otherwise dry recordings.

Another obvious proof is to make a CD-R from vinyl. Most people can't
tell the difference, and all the 'magic realism' of vinyl is retained.
This pretty much proves which is the more transparent medium.

You have a scientific theory?

Not just me, there are lots of scientific theories concerning euphonic
artifacts, they have been studied for a century or more, and they are
very well known. That you feel the need to invent some kind of mystery
to justify your preference for these artifacts, is not my problem.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Michael Mossey wrote:


I was a student at Caltech 1987 to 1991.

Let me get this straight. You went to Caltech, and you believe that
interconnects may sound different? Don't you think that if there were
audible differences, they will be accompanied by easily meaasureable
differences? So why not make measurements, instead of long DBT's? Do you
have any theory as to why they may sound different?

Just out of curiosity, what did you major in at Caltech?

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 30 Mar 2005 00:43:15 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:

Codifus wrote:

C'mon, now, less than 30 db of separation, 80 db dynamic range if you're
lucky, etc. Vinyl is inferior, but it's analoge artifiacts make it sound
"nice"

http://www.airwindows.com/analysis/VinylNoise.html

" It would be reasonable to concede that in practice, with usual program
content, maybe 80 or 90 db of dynamic range could be expected from a vinyl
record, considered as background noise relative to peak modulation (and
overlooking rumble, which in many cases will be far worse than my high end
vinyl playback system's performance)."

This is a classic scam, clearly done by a vinyl apologist.

Who, btw, used to post here. I don;t know that he's really trying
to 'scam' so much as present an analysis he thinks is cogent but which
is actually flawed.


Note that
that this is a *narrow band* analysis, and bears no relation whatever
to the correct measure, which is full bandwidth dynamic range.

Heh.


For comparison, note the results obtained from the 16-bit TPF dither
graph, which is conventionally acknowledged as sitting 93dB below peak
level. He claims more than 130dB! Now, take that 37dB difference from
his claim of 105 dB or so for vinyl (only above 1kHz, you'll notice),
and we get back to a more realistic 68dB for vinyl, much less if you
use the full 20-20k bandwidth.

I'm just wondering if he still reads this ng.




--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

On 31 Mar 2005 04:12:05 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
wrote:

I was a student at Caltech 1987 to 1991. James Boyk introduced me to
an engineer at Sheffield Lab. A group of engineers at the Sheffield
Lab had, a few years prior, compared a live feed to its recording, in
digital, analog tape, and direct-to-disk master. The direct-to-disk
was the best reproduction of the live feed, followed by the analog tape
and digital.

If you want to know more, contact the folks at Sheffield Lab. Which,
by the way, has the best recordings I've ever heard.

And guess what, Sheffield Lab made their money by selling direct-cut
vinyl. Of course *they* will say that DD is best, but many others
disagree, including the late, great Gabe Wiener of PGM, who also made
many superb recordings. For some of the best music you'll ever hear,
also try the JVC XRCD range, which are all made from analog tape
masters.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 31 Mar 2005 04:14:57 GMT, Michael
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

The so-called 'High End' market is in itself tiny, and is
ever-shrinking, as ARC can confirm.

This is incorrect.

snip most of massive ramble with little content

With the new crop of mini systems that carry a three
hundred dollar price tag, one receives a much better system than what a
baseline system would have ran them many years back. Inflation aside,
the interest in audio is still alive and well, just as it was many years
back.

This has *nothing* to do with 'high-end' audio.

To make sure that my point is made obvious, I will finish restating the
essence of my post: years ago, during the proclaimed heyday of the high
fidelity market, the number of sales of high end equipment was neither
less or greater than it currently is.

It was greater. This is not conjecture, check out industry sales
figures.

Sure, people will point out that
this or that former-great company is out of business and it obviously
proves that the market is shrinking. Yet, I would combat this by
pointing out how many small companies are out there selling high end
products.

Less than there used to be............

Similarly, one may point out the demise of
the mom and pop stereo stores and try to use that to define the downfall
of the market. Again, I would combat this by pointing out the natural
progression of the consumer market across all market segments: large,
corporate chains and the internet. With these new ways of retail, if
anything, the number of high fidelity stores has most likely increased.

*High end* stores, however, are going out of business, and you can't
buy high end gear in supermarkets.

For one last proof, if one truly believed that consumers of old cared
more about high fidelity than current consumers, then the obvious
outcomes of their buying habits would be a used market filled with high
end equipment from yesteryear.

Not if no one is replacing their 'high end' equipment. That is the
truly obvious outcome.

In the end, the demand for high fidelity equipment is neither smaller
nor greater than it was long ago.

Utter nonsense, and all the rambling and handwaving in the world won't
change the *fact* that the 'high end' two-channel market is shrinking
rapidly, which is why the brighter companies like Krell are rushing
into the Home Theater market, which certainly is expanding.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 31 Mar 2005 01:06:12 GMT, Codifus wrote:

I've seen some threads on these newsgroups presenting technical
arguments that support the notion that SACD does indeed sound as good as
or better than vinyl, CD, and even DVD-A.

Heck, you've seen threads here presenting technical arguments
supporting the notion that vinyl is better than CD! :-)

Basically, and forgive me for
my limited technical understanding, SACD D/A converters seem to be able
handle highly dynamic transients better than CD and even DVD-A.

What on earth gives you that impression? If by transients you mean
high frequencies, SACD in fact has very *low* dynamic range at high
frequencies. It's only in the bass and midrange that it can claim
superior dynamics to CD, as it is a system which has continuously
decreasing dynamic range with increasing frequency, as opposed to the
consistent range of linear PCM, aka CD and DVD-A.

There
was also mention that DVD-A players in Europe have had their D/A
converters adjusted to have that same capability as SACD D/A converters.
DVD-A players in the US can't have the adjustment done b/c of some
potential lawsuit.

Sounds like an urban myth to me...........

I hope DVD-A wins the battle for the next generation optical digital
audio disc simply because it is better than CD at everything, something
that SACD cannot claim.

OTOH, is it *audibly* better than CD? That's a matter of debate among
industry professionals, never mind domestic audiophiles.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 30 Mar 2005 00:42:38 GMT, wrote:

The preference for tubes is hardly based on the idea that "older is
better." There may indeed be a tiny band of people that believe this
but that hardly acounts for the majority of people that prefer tube
amplification.



What evidence do you have that the majority prefer tube amplification?

He didn't say that. He said of those who prefer tube amps, the majority do
not prefer them simply because they're old technology.

I certainly don't, and I have good ears. Tubes distort in rather
unpleasant ways.

Unpleasant for you, perhaps not so for others?

Paul Chefurka

Chung wrote:
Michael Mossey wrote:

An even better test is to listen to a live feed, then listen to its
reproduction in analog and digital. Some engineers I know in the
Los
Angeles area did that and said that the analog "blew away" the
digital.
I've done it informally by hearing James Boyk perform live in
Dabney
Concert Hall, then hearing the same piece recorded on LP and
recorded
on CD. The LP "blew away" the CD. And it does sound more
accurate.

Check out this article:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...x_testing2.htm

This is one of the early ABX tests establishing the transparency of
digital audio. Also check out posts by the late Gabe Wiener, a
well-known recording engineer, on this subject, right here on rahe.

"Establishing the transperency of digital audio"? That seems like too
grand and universal conclusion from the test you mentioned. It was a
quick-switching test, and not only that, the writeup said they "quickly
did 37 trials." I can't pay good attention to anything that I do
quickly, 37 times. And that was just ONE part of a day's work. James
Boyk told me that he did something similar with a live feed as source,
and could hear the degradation of digital, but I don't have any
details.

If we get away from a reductionist viewpoint, we also realize that a
live digital feed is a different system than stored digital recordings.
So the fact that most CD's sound like degraded live feeds to me, and
my hypothesis that this occurs from artifacts in the process, is still
tenable.

Best,
Mike

michael wrote:
Michael Mossey wrote:


I'm sure what you say is true for *some* people. Some people can't
hear the difference between a digital copy of a record and the
original.

I'm embarking on a project of recording some LPs so I will have an
occasion to see for myself what I think of digital copies of them.

The copies I make sound exceedingly like the records. I can readily
distinguish the two different cartridges I use: Denon 103 and Shure
V15x.
But that is the beauty of digital-the copies are very exact. I think
a
limitation may be the quality of your sound card, but I haven't been
able
to hear any differences that would make me want to upgrade this part
of my
computer. I simply use the integrated chipset on my Intel
motherboard.
They key is keeping levels within the range of the ADC. When copying
CDs
this is not an issue, or course, since most people accomplish this
within
the digital domain.


I believe you when you say that your digital copies sound very much
like the records, but it is remarkable to me that the integrated
chipset on a motherboard accomplishes this. Why are more expensive
digital recorders necessary, then? Maybe inexpensive digital recorders
are completely transparent. I do want to test this possibility; my
basic point is that I don't think it has been tested well in any test
I've seen described.

Best,
Mike

Vinyl does not have 'infinite resolution' nor anything close to it.

In the first place, you have a hot cutting stylus working its way
through a physical medium (the lacquer) which resists its movement.

The cutting head has its own resonant frequency and magnetic distortion
products.

The mothering, plating, and stamping processes introduce noise, and
require limiting and compression.

The closer you get to the end, the less rotational velocity there is,
which induces inner-groove distortion.

The pick-up tone-arm cannot hold the stylus at the same angle at which
the record was cut.

The stylus shape of the pick-up cannot be made to match that of the
cutting stylus.

ALL records have some eccentricty, usually audible. (The only
phonograph playback system to defeat this was, I believe, the Nakamichi
Dragon.)

I owned 1200 LP's at one point. I'll never go back.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 31 Mar 2005 01:07:04 GMT, Richard Dale
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 29 Mar 2005 02:25:52 GMT, Richard Dale
wrote:

Stewart wrote:

We see many claims that vinyl has 'infinite resolution',
that it has more low-level detail, and that CD has 'stairsteps'
and is
only a series of snapshots, whereas vinyl somehow retains the
'gestalt
of the performance' due to its continuous nature. These are all
objective claims, and they are all wrong.

They are only trying to account for the obvious subjective
superiority of a
SOTA vinyl or tube component.

Another false claim. You must realise that the *vast* majority of
audiophiles do *not* find tube amps or SOTA vinyl to be superior to
SS
and CD.

If an oscilloscope differs with my perception
of the quality of musical reproduction, then I don't care - I just
want to
hear Duke Ellington or whoever in my living room in a way which
involves me
most in the music.

Me too, which is why I have a CD player and a SS amp. I also have a
decent vinyl rig, because not everything is available on CD.

These problems are amusing in the same way that Einstein or Newton
found
their scientific research problems 'amusing'. It doesn't mean they
are
trivial problems, or that we currently understand very well at
all.

Oh, I think we understand the *added* euphonic artifacts of tubes
and
vinyl pretty well. The problem is getting 'high enders' to admit
their
existence, even though it's easy to prove.

No we don't. In what way is it easy to prove?

It's easy to prove by adding these artifacts to an otherwise clean
recording. Indeed, mixdown and mastering engineers often do just this
to 'sweeten up' otherwise dry recordings.

Another obvious proof is to make a CD-R from vinyl. Most people can't
tell the difference, and all the 'magic realism' of vinyl is
retained.
This pretty much proves which is the more transparent medium.

You have a scientific theory?

Not just me, there are lots of scientific theories concerning
euphonic
artifacts, they have been studied for a century or more, and they are
very well known. That you feel the need to invent some kind of
mystery
to justify your preference for these artifacts, is not my problem.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Michael Mossey wrote:
Chung wrote:

Check out this article:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...x_testing2.htm

This is one of the early ABX tests establishing the transparency of
digital audio. Also check out posts by the late Gabe Wiener, a
well-known recording engineer, on this subject, right here on rahe.

"Establishing the transperency of digital audio"? That seems like
too
grand and universal conclusion from the test you mentioned. It was a
quick-switching test,

Which is the best kind, as any expert in psychoacoustics (i.e., NOT
James Boyk) could explain to you.

and not only that, the writeup said they "quickly
did 37 trials."

Did you miss the part where he explained that the switching was
controlled by the subject? If he'd needed more time, he could have
taken it. The reason it went so quickly is that the subject had no
trouble "hearing the difference." Of course, it turned out he wasn't
hearing any difference at all, but once he'd made up his mind that he
had, it's highly unlikely that further listening would have helped him
any.

I can't pay good attention to anything that I do
quickly, 37 times. And that was just ONE part of a day's work.
James
Boyk told me that he did something similar with a live feed as
source,
and could hear the degradation of digital, but I don't have any
details.

"James Boyk told you"???? Did he ever publish one of these little
experiments of his? Ever?

If we get away from a reductionist viewpoint, we also realize that a
live digital feed is a different system than stored digital
recordings.
So the fact that most CD's sound like degraded live feeds to me, and
my hypothesis that this occurs from artifacts in the process, is
still
tenable.

Not if you can't even tell us what these artifacts are, it isn't.

bob

Michael Mossey wrote:
Chung wrote:
Michael Mossey wrote:

An even better test is to listen to a live feed, then listen to its
reproduction in analog and digital. Some engineers I know in the
Los
Angeles area did that and said that the analog "blew away" the
digital.
I've done it informally by hearing James Boyk perform live in
Dabney
Concert Hall, then hearing the same piece recorded on LP and
recorded
on CD. The LP "blew away" the CD. And it does sound more
accurate.

Check out this article:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...x_testing2.htm

This is one of the early ABX tests establishing the transparency of
digital audio. Also check out posts by the late Gabe Wiener, a
well-known recording engineer, on this subject, right here on rahe.

"Establishing the transperency of digital audio"? That seems like too
grand and universal conclusion from the test you mentioned. It was a
quick-switching test, and not only that, the writeup said they "quickly
did 37 trials." I can't pay good attention to anything that I do
quickly, 37 times. And that was just ONE part of a day's work. James
Boyk told me that he did something similar with a live feed as source,
and could hear the degradation of digital, but I don't have any
details.


Of course, there is no requirement in that ABX test on how quikly the
trails have to be run. Simply, the testee determined that he had heard
sufficently to pick a choice. You could take longer to make that choice,
I suppose.

If we get away from a reductionist viewpoint, we also realize that a
live digital feed is a different system than stored digital recordings.

So, how is the live digital feed different than digital recordings?
Certainly the live digital feed can be recorded with no degradation
(meaning no change in information content), right? If there are digital
artifacts inherent in the digitizing process (anti-alias filtering, A/D
and D/A), those artifacts must be present in the digitized version of
the live feed that the testees heard in that ABX test, correct? Or are
you now suggesting that the digital artifacts are caused by the storage
process, and not the A/D and A/D processes?


So the fact that most CD's sound like degraded live feeds to me, and
my hypothesis that this occurs from artifacts in the process, is still
tenable.


I don't think you understand what was tested. It was not to test whether
CD's sound like degraded live feeds. The test established that the
testee could not tell the difference between a live feed and a digitized
redbook version of that live-feed.

I see how yor mind works. You decided that quick-switching could not
possibly work, and hence all test results based on quick switching must
be invalid. And of course you find it convenient to ignore the fact that
quick switching has been used to detect very subtle differences (like a
0.3 dB difference) that may not be detectible with slow/long switching.
I guess any data that contradicts your theory is simply bad data as far
as you're concerned.

On 31 Mar 2005 04:14:57 GMT, Michael
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

The so-called 'High End' market is in itself tiny, and is
ever-shrinking, as ARC can confirm.

This is incorrect.

Anyone who doubts the truth of this matter is directed to Ken
Kessler's article on the back page of this month's Hi-Fi News, just
out.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 1 Apr 2005 01:13:54 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
wrote:

Chung wrote:
Michael Mossey wrote:

An even better test is to listen to a live feed, then listen to its
reproduction in analog and digital. Some engineers I know in the
Los
Angeles area did that and said that the analog "blew away" the
digital.
I've done it informally by hearing James Boyk perform live in
Dabney
Concert Hall, then hearing the same piece recorded on LP and
recorded
on CD. The LP "blew away" the CD. And it does sound more
accurate.

Check out this article:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...x_testing2.htm

This is one of the early ABX tests establishing the transparency of
digital audio. Also check out posts by the late Gabe Wiener, a
well-known recording engineer, on this subject, right here on rahe.

"Establishing the transperency of digital audio"? That seems like too
grand and universal conclusion from the test you mentioned.

He said it was *one* of the early tests which established
transparency.

It was a
quick-switching test, and not only that, the writeup said they "quickly
did 37 trials." I can't pay good attention to anything that I do
quickly, 37 times.

As you would doubtless suggest, others may not have this
problem............

And that was just ONE part of a day's work. James
Boyk told me that he did something similar with a live feed as source,
and could hear the degradation of digital, but I don't have any
details.

If you read more of Boyk's stuff, you'll find that he says many very
strange things................ :-)

If we get away from a reductionist viewpoint, we also realize that a
live digital feed is a different system than stored digital recordings.

Why do you accuse everyone else of 'reductionism'? And in exactly what
way is a stored digital recording different from a live feed? Stop
making vague claims, and offer something tangible.

So the fact that most CD's sound like degraded live feeds to me, and
my hypothesis that this occurs from artifacts in the process, is still
tenable.

Your hypothesis is not tenable until you offer some *evidence* to
support it. You have been asked several times exactly what 'digital
artifacts' you are referencing, but you have never answered this
simple question.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 31 Mar 2005 04:12:05 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
wrote:

I was a student at Caltech 1987 to 1991. James Boyk introduced me
to
an engineer at Sheffield Lab. A group of engineers at the Sheffield
Lab had, a few years prior, compared a live feed to its recording,
in
digital, analog tape, and direct-to-disk master. The direct-to-disk
was the best reproduction of the live feed, followed by the analog
tape
and digital.

If you want to know more, contact the folks at Sheffield Lab.
Which,
by the way, has the best recordings I've ever heard.

And guess what, Sheffield Lab made their money by selling direct-cut
vinyl. Of course *they* will say that DD is best,

I think that it is convenient for you to believe that people who
disagree with you have some ulterior motive.

I'm sure you've done listening tests in which the result came back
null. Perhaps you've compared two amplifiers or inserted a digital
processor into a live feed. And very likely you reported hearing no
difference. Now, if I wanted to do the same thing you are doing, I
could say that you didn't hear a difference because you didn't want to
hear a difference. After all, it is far more comforting to live in a
world that's logical, predictable, and can be understood via
reductionism. To hear a difference would threaten this world.

Do you admit to this possibility? Are you at least willing to say, "I
could have failed to hear a difference because I was biased?"

If you refuse to admit this, then you have to allow the possibility
that Sheffield Lab engineers ranked storage media in that order because
that's honestly how they experienced the relationship to the live feed.


Any by the way, they also make the best CD's I've ever heard, in terms
of recorded sound.


but many others
disagree, including the late, great Gabe Wiener of PGM, who also made
many superb recordings.

How can they be located?

For some of the best music you'll ever hear,
also try the JVC XRCD range, which are all made from analog tape
masters.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Michael Mossey wrote:

michael wrote:

computer. I simply use the integrated chipset on my Intel
motherboard.
They key is keeping levels within the range of the ADC. When copying
CDs
this is not an issue, or course, since most people accomplish this
within
the digital domain.

I believe you when you say that your digital copies sound very much
like the records, but it is remarkable to me that the integrated
chipset on a motherboard accomplishes this. Why are more expensive
digital recorders necessary, then? Maybe inexpensive digital recorders
are completely transparent. I do want to test this possibility; my
basic point is that I don't think it has been tested well in any test
I've seen described.

The Intel site is skimpy on audiophile specs but S/N is listed at 90dB. No
FR parameters or THD figures are given, at least from my cursory check.
However, I suspect that ADC conversion is probably carried out within
tolerances that, when recording something like records, is non-critical.
As I said, I can readily detect no differences. Maybe with more critical
listening someone else could, who knows?

I found the following specs on a "high-end" PC card ($250.00 SB Audigy 4):
16/44 rate: FR within 0.36db from 40Hz to 15kHz, SN -95dB, dynamic range
94.2dB, THD 0.003% (FR not specified), crosstalk -96dB (FR not specified).
These figures are pretty good, nothing special, but the card should be able
to handle any analog source without significant compromise.

I would guess that most any PC ADC is going to be transparent as long as
record levels are not exceeded, and the basic electro-mechanical integrity
of the drive and laser unit is intact--that is, gross error rates are not
observed. More expensive recorders are necessary due to specific user
demands, and features. A PC with a soundcard is best for copying CDs. That
way, no analog steps are involved. No one is going to use such a device in
a recording studio for recording. Also, the specs on something like the
Benchmark DAC 1 are what a professional will expect, and what the buyer of
his product will expect. No "consumer" sound card will have this type of
engineering built in to it.

In any case, please post your results when you get them.

michael

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 31 Mar 2005 01:06:12 GMT, Codifus wrote:

I've seen some threads on these newsgroups presenting technical
arguments that support the notion that SACD does indeed sound as good as
or better than vinyl, CD, and even DVD-A.

Heck, you've seen threads here presenting technical arguments
supporting the notion that vinyl is better than CD! :-)

Basically, and forgive me for
my limited technical understanding, SACD D/A converters seem to be able
handle highly dynamic transients better than CD and even DVD-A.

What on earth gives you that impression? If by transients you mean
high frequencies, SACD in fact has very *low* dynamic range at high
frequencies. It's only in the bass and midrange that it can claim
superior dynamics to CD, as it is a system which has continuously
decreasing dynamic range with increasing frequency, as opposed to the
consistent range of linear PCM, aka CD and DVD-A.


It is based on the lack of pre-transient ringing compared to both CD and
DVD-A. I even refenced an article here in the past that pointed it out. It
is fact. You can argue about its audibility, but not its existence. The
"US legal issue" is Wadia's design, which was specifically done to get rid
of this artifact.

There
was also mention that DVD-A players in Europe have had their D/A
converters adjusted to have that same capability as SACD D/A converters.
DVD-A players in the US can't have the adjustment done b/c of some
potential lawsuit.

Sounds like an urban myth to me...........

See comment above.


I hope DVD-A wins the battle for the next generation optical digital
audio disc simply because it is better than CD at everything, something
that SACD cannot claim.

OTOH, is it *audibly* better than CD? That's a matter of debate among
industry professionals, never mind domestic audiophiles.

The industry is firmly committed to high res as sounding better. They just
don't know what its commercial future is. Hard to find a sound engineer
anywhere who will support your position. Hard to find any pro gear that is
not upgrading to 24/96 (in or out) or greater. Would Benchmark have built
in 24/96 downconversion if it didn't count in monitoring quality? And don't
tell me that it is only for mixing...that may hold for the inputs, but not
for the outputs. The ordinary pro audio world is moving to 24/96 surround
as a needed output, whether as straight DVD-A, or as downmixed Dolby Digital
/ DTS. With the stereo tracks maintained at this or a higher 24/192 rate.
And a substantial portion of the classical pro audio world has moved to DSD
for its superior naturalness as a mastering technology using simple micing.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 31 Mar 2005 01:06:12 GMT, Codifus wrote:


I've seen some threads on these newsgroups presenting technical
arguments that support the notion that SACD does indeed sound as good as
or better than vinyl, CD, and even DVD-A.


Heck, you've seen threads here presenting technical arguments
supporting the notion that vinyl is better than CD! :-)

True, but the arguments supporting digital audio seemed more
beleivable Or maybe I'm just blinded towards digital audio, but not
really. I have CDs of bands that I love and the CDs sound awful, and I'm
pretty sure because they were 1st gen CDs using 1st gen D/A etc.


Basically, and forgive me for
my limited technical understanding, SACD D/A converters seem to be able
handle highly dynamic transients better than CD and even DVD-A.


What on earth gives you that impression? If by transients you mean
high frequencies, SACD in fact has very *low* dynamic range at high
frequencies. It's only in the bass and midrange that it can claim
superior dynamics to CD, as it is a system which has continuously
decreasing dynamic range with increasing frequency, as opposed to the
consistent range of linear PCM, aka CD and DVD-A.
I wish I could recall the article. I have a bad enough time just keeping
up with threads I've posted in! On the other hand, you showed yet more
evidence why SACD is not better than even CD in some aspects, and that's
what I'm talking about


There
was also mention that DVD-A players in Europe have had their D/A
converters adjusted to have that same capability as SACD D/A converters.
DVD-A players in the US can't have the adjustment done b/c of some
potential lawsuit.


Sounds like an urban myth to me...........

Don't think so, but It was one these newgroups somewhere. There mention
of a meridian DAC, but my memory is extremely foggy. Anyone else know
what I'm trying to refer to?


I hope DVD-A wins the battle for the next generation optical digital
audio disc simply because it is better than CD at everything, something
that SACD cannot claim.


OTOH, is it *audibly* better than CD? That's a matter of debate among
industry professionals, never mind domestic audiophiles.

Whether or not it is audible I simply hope it wins just from a technical
standpoint. If DVD-A doesn't win, then CD should be here to stay. I'm
very happy with extremely well mastered redbook CDs like JVC's XRCD and
to some extent even HDCD, even though that format is pretty much dead.
Yeah, Microsoft bought it. It's dead

CD

"Michael Mossey" wrote in message
...
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 31 Mar 2005 04:12:05 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
wrote:

I was a student at Caltech 1987 to 1991. James Boyk introduced me
to
an engineer at Sheffield Lab. A group of engineers at the Sheffield
Lab had, a few years prior, compared a live feed to its recording,
in
digital, analog tape, and direct-to-disk master. The direct-to-disk
was the best reproduction of the live feed, followed by the analog
tape
and digital.

If you want to know more, contact the folks at Sheffield Lab.
Which,
by the way, has the best recordings I've ever heard.

And guess what, Sheffield Lab made their money by selling direct-cut
vinyl. Of course *they* will say that DD is best,

I think that it is convenient for you to believe that people who
disagree with you have some ulterior motive.

I'm sure you've done listening tests in which the result came back
null. Perhaps you've compared two amplifiers or inserted a digital
processor into a live feed. And very likely you reported hearing no
difference. Now, if I wanted to do the same thing you are doing, I
could say that you didn't hear a difference because you didn't want to
hear a difference. After all, it is far more comforting to live in a
world that's logical, predictable, and can be understood via
reductionism. To hear a difference would threaten this world.

What exactly do you mean by "reductionism"? And how is
Stewart's viewpoint (which has considerably more evidence
to support it than yours, as far as I can tell) more "reductionist"
than yours? I don't mean to start a flame war, but it seems
to me you are using this term to denigrate those who
disagree with you without addressing the evidence supporting
them.

- Gary Rosen

Michael Mossey wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 31 Mar 2005 04:12:05 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
wrote:

I was a student at Caltech 1987 to 1991. James Boyk introduced me
to
an engineer at Sheffield Lab. A group of engineers at the Sheffield
Lab had, a few years prior, compared a live feed to its recording,
in
digital, analog tape, and direct-to-disk master. The direct-to-disk
was the best reproduction of the live feed, followed by the analog
tape
and digital.

If you want to know more, contact the folks at Sheffield Lab.
Which,
by the way, has the best recordings I've ever heard.

And guess what, Sheffield Lab made their money by selling direct-cut
vinyl. Of course *they* will say that DD is best,

I think that it is convenient for you to believe that people who
disagree with you have some ulterior motive.

I'm sure you've done listening tests in which the result came back
null. Perhaps you've compared two amplifiers or inserted a digital
processor into a live feed. And very likely you reported hearing no
difference. Now, if I wanted to do the same thing you are doing, I
could say that you didn't hear a difference because you didn't want to
hear a difference. After all, it is far more comforting to live in a
world that's logical, predictable, and can be understood via
reductionism. To hear a difference would threaten this world.

Do you admit to this possibility? Are you at least willing to say, "I
could have failed to hear a difference because I was biased?"

If you refuse to admit this, then you have to allow the possibility
that Sheffield Lab engineers ranked storage media in that order because
that's honestly how they experienced the relationship to the live feed.




You missed a key point in that ABX article I referenced: the testee was
absolutely adamant that the digital artifacts (as you put in) were
obvious and vile. It is much better for those who strongly believe they
can hear differences to take these blind controlled tests, since they
have established already that they could hear the differences in open,
sighted listening comparisons.

Similarly, in Gabe Wiener's posts, he specifically was asking other
people to take the test (to tell the difference between live feed and
digitized version of it). You really should read up on these old posts,
and try to follow the arguments from both sides carefully.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Anyone who doubts the truth of this matter is directed to Ken
Kessler's article on the back page of this month's Hi-Fi News, just
out.

Hello, Stew.

And, that is your opinion of the current situation, friend. For my
reference, I would point out Audio Sound's April issue of last year, in
which they went through great detail showing the progression of consumer
spending on stereo equipment over the last thirty years. Hardware
aside, the media is also selling more and faster than ever, which has
occurred in leu of internet file sharing.

Michael

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
This has *nothing* to do with 'high-end' audio.

It most certainly does. It simply states that equal base-points do not
imply equal performance when contrasting two periods.

It was greater. This is not conjecture, check out industry sales
figures.

It was more or less the same.

Less than there used to be............

Wrong again. Currently, consumers have more options than ever.

*High end* stores, however, are going out of business, and you can't
buy high end gear in supermarkets.

When one high end store closes, ten popup on the internet.

Not if no one is replacing their 'high end' equipment. That is the
truly obvious outcome.

That is flawed, because if it were the case, most audiophiles would be
running antiques. Yet, most antique pieces are used more as commodities
or good bargains. As time changes, technology does get better. If
you're trying to argue that high end audio was better back thirty years
ago, then you'll be alone in the audiophile world. I do not know of any
antique users that would agree with you.

Utter nonsense, and all the rambling and handwaving in the world won't
change the *fact* that the 'high end' two-channel market is shrinking
rapidly, which is why the brighter companies like Krell are rushing
into the Home Theater market, which certainly is expanding.

Sure, Krell left the market, but I know of a few companies that have
since emerged: Maori, Audio Dominance, Lister Audio Systems, etc. All
of these companies make only stereo gear, and their ads are usually
found in audiophile magazines.

With that aside, your post makes no sense. For people clearly are using
high end multichannel audio gear for music, so your point is moot.
Whatever the intended purpose of the gear is, people are using it to
fulfill their required functions, and listening to stereo music is part
of that. Whether you like it or not, those multichannel receivers have
to be considered when looking at the audio world. And, as we all know,
the passion for multichannel receivers is a force to be reckoned with.

Yours truly,

Michael

Harry F Lavo wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message


The industry is firmly committed to high res as sounding better. They just
don't know what its commercial future is. Hard to find a sound engineer
anywhere who will support your position. Hard to find any pro gear that is
not upgrading to 24/96 (in or out) or greater. Would Benchmark have built
in 24/96 downconversion if it didn't count in monitoring quality? And don't
tell me that it is only for mixing...that may hold for the inputs, but not
for the outputs. The ordinary pro audio world is moving to 24/96 surround
as a needed output, whether as straight DVD-A, or as downmixed Dolby Digital
/ DTS. With the stereo tracks maintained at this or a higher 24/192 rate.
And a substantial portion of the classical pro audio world has moved to DSD
for its superior naturalness as a mastering technology using simple micing.


Given the line of reasoning you have demonstrated above, can we finally
conclude that digital audio (including the redbook CD standard) sounds
better than vinyl? After all, the industry has been firmly committed to
digital audio since, oh, the early '80's.

It's so nice to have closure...

On 2 Apr 2005 00:50:00 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 31 Mar 2005 04:12:05 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
wrote:

I was a student at Caltech 1987 to 1991. James Boyk introduced me
to
an engineer at Sheffield Lab. A group of engineers at the Sheffield
Lab had, a few years prior, compared a live feed to its recording,
in
digital, analog tape, and direct-to-disk master. The direct-to-disk
was the best reproduction of the live feed, followed by the analog
tape
and digital.

If you want to know more, contact the folks at Sheffield Lab.
Which,
by the way, has the best recordings I've ever heard.

And guess what, Sheffield Lab made their money by selling direct-cut
vinyl. Of course *they* will say that DD is best,

I think that it is convenient for you to believe that people who
disagree with you have some ulterior motive.

I'm sure you've done listening tests in which the result came back
null. Perhaps you've compared two amplifiers or inserted a digital
processor into a live feed. And very likely you reported hearing no
difference.

Indeed so. I've also done such comparisons where there *was* an
audible difference.

Now, if I wanted to do the same thing you are doing, I
could say that you didn't hear a difference because you didn't want to
hear a difference. After all, it is far more comforting to live in a
world that's logical, predictable, and can be understood via
reductionism. To hear a difference would threaten this world.

Again with the reductionism? It seems that your comforter is to accuse
everything with which you don't agree as being 'reductionist'.

Do you admit to this possibility? Are you at least willing to say, "I
could have failed to hear a difference because I was biased?"

No, that's an incredibly wrong-headed suggestion, since I was always
trying really hard to hear a difference, and often did. That's part of
my *design* process.

If you refuse to admit this, then you have to allow the possibility
that Sheffield Lab engineers ranked storage media in that order because
that's honestly how they experienced the relationship to the live feed.

That's certainly possible, although it seems highly unlikely that the
direct-cut records sounded better than the 'Treasury' tapes which
miraculously appearaed some years down the line.

Any by the way, they also make the best CD's I've ever heard, in terms
of recorded sound.

They make *some* of the best I've heard, although I'd say that the JVC
XRCD range has more strength in depth, and mostly *much* better
musical performances. The stress of 'single-take' recording for
Sheffield does not seem to have inspired the performers.........

but many others
disagree, including the late, great Gabe Wiener of PGM, who also made
many superb recordings.

How can they be located?

Sorry, I don't know where you'd source them, as I believe the company
was wound up after Gabe's death. He specialised in early religious
music. The main reason I mention him is that he was a firm believer in
the highest possible accyuracy to the original live sound, and used
minimalist microphone techniques, sometimes just a single Schoeps
KFM-6. I have the St John Passion (PGM111), and the realism of the
recording is uncanny.

He is truly a great loss the recorded music community, he was utterly
dedicated to the finest possible quality both of performance and of
recording - and he was a digital fan to his fingertips.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 2 Apr 2005 00:54:22 GMT, Codifus wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 31 Mar 2005 01:06:12 GMT, Codifus wrote:

There
was also mention that DVD-A players in Europe have had their D/A
converters adjusted to have that same capability as SACD D/A converters.
DVD-A players in the US can't have the adjustment done b/c of some
potential lawsuit.

Sounds like an urban myth to me...........

Don't think so, but It was one these newgroups somewhere. There mention
of a meridian DAC, but my memory is extremely foggy. Anyone else know
what I'm trying to refer to?

Harry Lavo seems to think that it's to do with the use of spline
filters and the like to remove the pre-echo that is a feature of
traditional 'brick-wall' D/A reconstruction filters. This does improve
transient response, but unfortunately also introduces lots of false
images mixed down by IM distortion from above the audio band. I find
that this gives an airy vagueness to many complex recordings. One
could certainly argue that this made it more vinyl-like..... :-)

Spline filters had to be removed from US-market Sony players due to
threatened legal action by Wadia, who somehow managed to patent their
own form of spline filtering. Some European-market Sony players had
switchable filters of spline, Bessel etc character, so that users
could find a sound they liked, rather than being forced into what
Wadia thought was best for them, and at a fifth of the cost......

What I always found fascinating about that episode was that the
Pioneer Legato Link filtering does essentially the same thing, but
Wadia never tackled them - maybe they didn't think Pioneer was much of
a threat in the high-end market?

I hope DVD-A wins the battle for the next generation optical digital
audio disc simply because it is better than CD at everything, something
that SACD cannot claim.

OTOH, is it *audibly* better than CD? That's a matter of debate among
industry professionals, never mind domestic audiophiles.

Whether or not it is audible I simply hope it wins just from a technical
standpoint. If DVD-A doesn't win, then CD should be here to stay.

Fair enough, but remember that DVD-V is vastly more popular, and has
24/96 capability, surely adequate for the most rabid 'hi-res' fan? :-)

I'm
very happy with extremely well mastered redbook CDs like JVC's XRCD and
to some extent even HDCD, even though that format is pretty much dead.
Yeah, Microsoft bought it. It's dead

Truly it is said that, the only time Microsoft will have a product
that does *not* suck, is if they buy out Dyson...................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 2 Apr 2005 00:52:37 GMT, "Harry F Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 31 Mar 2005 01:06:12 GMT, Codifus wrote:

I've seen some threads on these newsgroups presenting technical
arguments that support the notion that SACD does indeed sound as good as
or better than vinyl, CD, and even DVD-A.

Heck, you've seen threads here presenting technical arguments
supporting the notion that vinyl is better than CD! :-)

Basically, and forgive me for
my limited technical understanding, SACD D/A converters seem to be able
handle highly dynamic transients better than CD and even DVD-A.

What on earth gives you that impression? If by transients you mean
high frequencies, SACD in fact has very *low* dynamic range at high
frequencies. It's only in the bass and midrange that it can claim
superior dynamics to CD, as it is a system which has continuously
decreasing dynamic range with increasing frequency, as opposed to the
consistent range of linear PCM, aka CD and DVD-A.

It is based on the lack of pre-transient ringing compared to both CD and
DVD-A. I even refenced an article here in the past that pointed it out. It
is fact. You can argue about its audibility, but not its existence. The
"US legal issue" is Wadia's design, which was specifically done to get rid
of this artifact.

But by doing so, introduced a raft of false images sprayed across the
audio baseband, which I find disturbing on complex music. I've heard
Sony players with switchable filters very similar to the Wadia style,
and I always preferred the standard 'brick wall' Certainly, that is a
matter of subjective preference.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

disagree, including the late, great Gabe Wiener of PGM, who also made
many superb recordings. For some of the best music you'll ever hear,
also try the JVC XRCD range, which are all made from analog tape
masters.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

I was reading an old thread about Gabe Wiener and you mentioned his St.
John Passion recording. I found it on Amazon, and I'm interested to
hear it for the sound, but I wonder about the performance. As far as
Bach interpretation and my taste, Leonhardt is just right, I can't
stand Harnoncourt, and Klemperer can be dramatic but not really enough
genuine Baroque in him. Does this give you any reference to describe
the Milnes interpretation?

By the way, have you heard any of James Boyk's piano recordings? I
think they are fabulous, and I've attended a couple of the live
concerts that were being recorded. I would be curious to know if you
think that a guy, who in your opinion is full of nonsense on the
subject of engineering, created a piano recording that sounds lifelike
to you?

Boyk consistently states over and over that tubes and analog produce a
more accurate sound, one that captures the details of the sound he
hears at the piano, while digital generally falls down at this task.

Your explanation, no doubt, is that he loves the euphonic effects. So
do you hear these in his recordings? In fact, do the distortions of
tape, LP, and tubes specifically sound not lifelike to you?

-Mike

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 2 Apr 2005 00:50:00 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 31 Mar 2005 04:12:05 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
wrote:

I was a student at Caltech 1987 to 1991. James Boyk introduced me
to
an engineer at Sheffield Lab. A group of engineers at the Sheffield
Lab had, a few years prior, compared a live feed to its recording,
in
digital, analog tape, and direct-to-disk master. The direct-to-disk
was the best reproduction of the live feed, followed by the analog
tape
and digital.

If you want to know more, contact the folks at Sheffield Lab.
Which,
by the way, has the best recordings I've ever heard.

And guess what, Sheffield Lab made their money by selling direct-cut
vinyl. Of course *they* will say that DD is best,

I think that it is convenient for you to believe that people who
disagree with you have some ulterior motive.

I'm sure you've done listening tests in which the result came back
null. Perhaps you've compared two amplifiers or inserted a digital
processor into a live feed. And very likely you reported hearing no
difference.

Indeed so. I've also done such comparisons where there *was* an
audible difference.

Now, if I wanted to do the same thing you are doing, I
could say that you didn't hear a difference because you didn't want to
hear a difference. After all, it is far more comforting to live in a
world that's logical, predictable, and can be understood via
reductionism. To hear a difference would threaten this world.

Again with the reductionism? It seems that your comforter is to accuse
everything with which you don't agree as being 'reductionist'.

Do you admit to this possibility? Are you at least willing to say, "I
could have failed to hear a difference because I was biased?"

No, that's an incredibly wrong-headed suggestion, since I was always
trying really hard to hear a difference, and often did. That's part of
my *design* process.

If you refuse to admit this, then you have to allow the possibility
that Sheffield Lab engineers ranked storage media in that order because
that's honestly how they experienced the relationship to the live feed.

That's certainly possible, although it seems highly unlikely that the
direct-cut records sounded better than the 'Treasury' tapes which
miraculously appearaed some years down the line.

Any by the way, they also make the best CD's I've ever heard, in terms
of recorded sound.

They make *some* of the best I've heard, although I'd say that the JVC
XRCD range has more strength in depth, and mostly *much* better
musical performances. The stress of 'single-take' recording for
Sheffield does not seem to have inspired the performers.........

but many others
disagree, including the late, great Gabe Wiener of PGM, who also made
many superb recordings.

How can they be located?

Sorry, I don't know where you'd source them, as I believe the company
was wound up after Gabe's death. He specialised in early religious
music. The main reason I mention him is that he was a firm believer in
the highest possible accyuracy to the original live sound, and used
minimalist microphone techniques, sometimes just a single Schoeps
KFM-6. I have the St John Passion (PGM111), and the realism of the
recording is uncanny.

He is truly a great loss the recorded music community, he was utterly
dedicated to the finest possible quality both of performance and of
recording - and he was a digital fan to his fingertips.

As were many other early classical recording engineers, because the medium
at the recording stage offered solutions to problems that bettered
analog...but when turned into a commercial playback vehicle, all kinds of
problems crept in and the final commerical results in the early years were
pretty dismal, with a few exceptions. So vinyl continued to be the
preferred solution for many audiophiles. Also, from the standpoint of pop
recording, analog multitrack offered a "sound" and a comfortable medium that
took a long time to overcome.

"Chung" wrote in message
...
Harry F Lavo wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message


The industry is firmly committed to high res as sounding better. They
just
don't know what its commercial future is. Hard to find a sound engineer
anywhere who will support your position. Hard to find any pro gear that
is
not upgrading to 24/96 (in or out) or greater. Would Benchmark have
built
in 24/96 downconversion if it didn't count in monitoring quality? And
don't
tell me that it is only for mixing...that may hold for the inputs, but
not
for the outputs. The ordinary pro audio world is moving to 24/96
surround
as a needed output, whether as straight DVD-A, or as downmixed Dolby
Digital
/ DTS. With the stereo tracks maintained at this or a higher 24/192
rate.
And a substantial portion of the classical pro audio world has moved to
DSD
for its superior naturalness as a mastering technology using simple
micing.


Given the line of reasoning you have demonstrated above, can we finally
conclude that digital audio (including the redbook CD standard) sounds
better than vinyl? After all, the industry has been firmly committed to
digital audio since, oh, the early '80's.

It's so nice to have closure...

Only by your stretch of logic.......

You've had closure...or at least a closed mind to vinyl...for as long as
you've been here.

Measured by recreating the emotional impact and sense of "realism" of the
original performance, vinyl still has much to recommend it, given careful
selection of the components reproducing it.

On 1 Apr 2005 01:13:54 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
wrote:

If we get away from a reductionist viewpoint, we also realize that a
live digital feed is a different system than stored digital recordings.
So the fact that most CD's sound like degraded live feeds to me, and
my hypothesis that this occurs from artifacts in the process, is still
tenable.

What you're saying here is that you can tell whether a signal is a digitized
analog signal, or a digital recording of the digitized analog signal,
because the process of storing the digital signal causes a reduction in
quality.

If this is true, then you should be able to tell the difference between a CD
and a copy of that CD. Or is it your contention that all degradation
occurs the first time the digital original is recorded, and all further
copies are identical?

Or is this an April fool?

Norm Strong

"Michael Mossey" wrote in message
...

I'm sure you've done listening tests in which the result came back
null. Perhaps you've compared two amplifiers or inserted a digital
processor into a live feed. And very likely you reported hearing no
difference. Now, if I wanted to do the same thing you are doing, I
could say that you didn't hear a difference because you didn't want to
hear a difference. After all, it is far more comforting to live in a
world that's logical, predictable, and can be understood via
reductionism. To hear a difference would threaten this world.

If what you say is true, then it should be possible to find at least one
person who CAN hear the difference--and can prove it. This certainly would
be embarrassing to Stewart and others that hold his point of view--including
me. Here would be a bunch of people who claimed to hear no difference in
signals that believers conclusively proved could be heard. The shame would
be unbearable. The non-believers would be shown up as not only wrong, but
for the worst possible reason; they didn't even try. And add to this this
the money they'd have to pay the believers!

This scenario makes my blood run cold. I can't bear to think of it.

Norm Strong

On 2 Apr 2005 15:57:53 GMT, Michael
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Anyone who doubts the truth of this matter is directed to Ken
Kessler's article on the back page of this month's Hi-Fi News, just
out.

Hello, Stew.

And, that is your opinion of the current situation, friend.

The point was that it's also Ken Kessler's, and is shared by the
high-end manufacturers, which is why the brighter ones are getting
into 'home theater'.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 2 Apr 2005 00:50:00 GMT, "Michael Mossey"

wrote:



Do you admit to this possibility? Are you at least willing to say,
"I
could have failed to hear a difference because I was biased?"

No, that's an incredibly wrong-headed suggestion, since I was always
trying really hard to hear a difference, and often did. That's part
of
my *design* process.


Let me ask one question: did you know what equipment was being
compared? Say, in an ABX test, did you know what A and B were (though
obviously not X)? Perhaps when you comparing things that could easily
be different within the bounds of your beliefs, you were open to
hearing a difference; while in comparing other things, you were not.

Musicians, martial artists, meditators, pyschologists, and
practitioners of Alexander Technique and the Feldenkrais Method
commonly report that "trying really hard" interferes with performance
and awareness. I think it is plausible theory that you often didn't
hear a difference because you weren't conscious of how the test
conditions affected your brain's conscious construction of musical
experience. Is it far-fetched to suggest that you might not be aware
of how you construct a musical experience or what factors contribute to
that? These same people commonly report becoming aware, gradually over
time, of how their perceptual habits affect their conscious experience,
and they regard it as a lifetime's work.

And: can you prove to me that you were really trying to hear a
difference? Can you prove it in an objective way?

You can be sure that you were trying, but then people are sure of a lot
of things that aren't true. Notice that your ability to know what
differences you can hear is founded on your ability to know how you
construct your conscious experience and what factors affect that.
Knowing that "you were really trying" is one such factor.

I suggest that your knowledge of these things is not as certain as you
present here. As far as this "hard line" between the objectivists who
use objective evidence and the subjectivists who don't---well, you are
in the position of being unable to prove to me objectively that you
really tried to hear a difference. There isn't such a hard line.

Don't response to this post as though it were saying "I know what's
true and you don't." I don't really think that you are unable to know
yourself. I think it is more likely that you know yourself enough to
come to some valid conclusions about audio--for yourself. And that you
have a different brain than I do, one that arrives at different
conclusions about audio.

I also think that when James Boyk says that realism in audio goes in
the order "live microphone feed," "good analog tape," "good digital
tape" he is also knowing himself pretty well. Maybe he and I like the
euphonic distortions, but then why do we think a live microphone feed
is the most realistic source of all? Presents a thorny problem.

-Mike

Harry F Lavo wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message
...
Harry F Lavo wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message


The industry is firmly committed to high res as sounding better. They
just
don't know what its commercial future is. Hard to find a sound engineer
anywhere who will support your position. Hard to find any pro gear that
is
not upgrading to 24/96 (in or out) or greater. Would Benchmark have
built
in 24/96 downconversion if it didn't count in monitoring quality? And
don't
tell me that it is only for mixing...that may hold for the inputs, but
not
for the outputs. The ordinary pro audio world is moving to 24/96
surround
as a needed output, whether as straight DVD-A, or as downmixed Dolby
Digital
/ DTS. With the stereo tracks maintained at this or a higher 24/192
rate.
And a substantial portion of the classical pro audio world has moved to
DSD
for its superior naturalness as a mastering technology using simple
micing.


Given the line of reasoning you have demonstrated above, can we finally
conclude that digital audio (including the redbook CD standard) sounds
better than vinyl? After all, the industry has been firmly committed to
digital audio since, oh, the early '80's.

It's so nice to have closure...

Only by your stretch of logic.......

Somehow, your own logic, applied to vinyl vs digital, sounds rather
illogical to you, I guess...


You've had closure...or at least a closed mind to vinyl...for as long as
you've been here.

I have some vinyl recordings that are well recorded, and I have digital
recordings that are poorly recorded. What I am objecting to, if you have
noticed, are pseudo-technical claims of the imaginary short-comings of
digital so as to prove the superiority of vinyl.


Measured by recreating the emotional impact and sense of "realism" of the
original performance, vinyl still has much to recommend it, given careful
selection of the components reproducing it.

You get it all wrong. The creation of emotional impact and realism is in
the hands of the performers and the producers, and is certainly not
better done via the LP technology. It fact, LP technology is
demonstrably less accurate, by all measures of accuracy.

"Michael Mossey" wrote in message
...


Don't response to this post as though it were saying "I know what's
true and you don't." I don't really think that you are unable to know
yourself. I think it is more likely that you know yourself enough to
come to some valid conclusions about audio--for yourself. And that you
have a different brain than I do, one that arrives at different
conclusions about audio.

Aren't you basically saying, then, that *all* human perceptions are
ultimately subjective? And would that not then lead to the conclusion
that truly objective measurements only could be made by electronic
instruments that do not have feelings or biases or preconceptions?


I also think that when James Boyk says that realism in audio goes in
the order "live microphone feed," "good analog tape," "good digital
tape" he is also knowing himself pretty well. Maybe he and I like the
euphonic distortions, but then why do we think a live microphone feed
is the most realistic source of all? Presents a thorny problem.

Unless you chose the live microphone feed in a blind test, the reason
you (and Boyk) think it is most realistic may be because you already
know it is live. Not necessarily such a thorny problem :^).

- Gary Rosen

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 2 Apr 2005 15:57:53 GMT, Michael
wrote:


Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


Anyone who doubts the truth of this matter is directed to Ken
Kessler's article on the back page of this month's Hi-Fi News, just
out.

Hello, Stew.

And, that is your opinion of the current situation, friend.


The point was that it's also Ken Kessler's, and is shared by the
high-end manufacturers, which is why the brighter ones are getting
into 'home theater'.

Howdy, Stew.

As you just said, that's not the actual case. You claim that it's some
universal truth, then you rephrase that to the only bright ones.
Obviously, even you are quite unsure about your claims.

The bottom line is that while certain companies may be expanding their
horizons, they are not ditching their current stereo stuff in leu of
multichannel gear, and many new stereo-only companies are emerging.
And, according to many reports, stereo sales and media sales keep
increasing at a good pace. Again, this is in leu of internet file
sharing and the multichannel craze.

Yours truly,

Michael