| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Percpetion
jonrkc wrote:
Here's a question in return: Why should we care? Because the answers could lead to greater satisfaction for the hobbyists. I can think of another reason in addition to that good one: Because investigation could lead to general knowledge about human perception, and that can be useful even outside the audio field. And because the question is so difficult to investigate scientifically, the challenge could lead to new understanding of methods of researching difficult areas of study. And finally because research--pure research--is good for its own sake, though I realize this view is considered pretty outdated in today's market-driven world. Excellent points. I mean, it comes down to, do you want to understand this stuff better, or not? I think it also relates to one's perspective on aesthetics: how "understandable" are they? I've noticed that intellectual musicians, artists, and so on, tend to feel that aesthetics are understandable. The fact that aesthetics includes factors which vary from person to person, doesn't make aesthtics any less understandble. Let me note: I mean "understandable" in the sense of human intuition. And I mean "understandable" in the sense that aesthetics can be investigated, not the sense that they are already completely understood. I'm fascinated by attempts to connect human intuition to objective patterns in the world, like patterns in an audio signal, or brain structure. Mike |
|
#82
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
|
|
#83
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
you all do realize, gentelmen, that trying to find the perfect listening
experience, perfect recording, etc. is like trying to walk to the horizon. It is an illusion. Our audio setups, no matter how fine we may think they are, can only create an illusion. I don't think anything needs to be added, but I'm sure someone will try. Anway, it is an interesting discussion, like trying to count the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin. Sherm |
|
#85
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
wrote:
bob wrote: wrote: jonrkc wrote: Here's a question in return: Why should we care? Because the answers could lead to greater satisfaction for the hobbyists. I can think of another reason in addition to that good one: Because investigation could lead to general knowledge about human perception, and that can be useful even outside the audio field. And because the question is so difficult to investigate scientifically, the challenge could lead to new understanding of methods of researching difficult areas of study. And finally because research--pure research--is good for its own sake, though I realize this view is considered pretty outdated in today's market-driven world. Excellent points. I mean, it comes down to, do you want to understand this stuff better, or not? I think it also relates to one's perspective on aesthetics: how "understandable" are they? I've noticed that intellectual musicians, artists, and so on, tend to feel that aesthetics are understandable. The fact that aesthetics includes factors which vary from person to person, doesn't make aesthtics any less understandble. Let me note: I mean "understandable" in the sense of human intuition. And I mean "understandable" in the sense that aesthetics can be investigated, not the sense that they are already completely understood. I'm fascinated by attempts to connect human intuition to objective patterns in the world, like patterns in an audio signal, or brain structure. So in other words, this is purely an intellectual exercise Ironically, you actually made a good pun. Understanding the brain IS an intellectual exercise in the dual sense that we use are intellect to understand it, and operation of the intellect is one of the targets of study. But come now---the brain is part of the real world. with no practical value for audiophiles. Very, very odd statement. Perhaps you mean it has no *interest* for you? That's fine. Sorry I asked. I'm sure you are sorry that you asked, seeing as you meant to prove the pointlessness of the question, and ended up getting three throughful and relevant answers. Hardly. The first didn't say anything at all. The second said that it wasn't an interesting question in and of itself, and only had value for what it might tell us more generally about the brain. (And believe me, neuroscientists have much better ways of getting at that.) And yours is pretty much incomprehensible. That's why I'm sorry I asked--because the answers had nothing to say about audio. Not that this result should have been unexpected. bob |
|
#86
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
I realize I'm never going to experience the same thing in my listening
room as I experience in the concert hall, though there are plenty of times that I wish the performers made house calls so that I, one of the laziest mortals on earth, wouldn't have to make the trip to the hall and sit among increasingly inconsiderate, noisy, unappreciative semi-literates (sorry, got carried away...) to attempt to hear music. My interest at the moment, tangential but pertinent to Mike's original question at the top of the thread, is in why analog sound indisputably pleases many listeners, including critical listeners, more than digital sound. Specifically, why analog media do not produce in those listeners the sense of unease and fatigue that digital recordings provoke. I'm fully aware that many highly trained and sensitive listeners, including dozens or hundreds that frequent this usenet group, are *not* disturbed by digital reproduction. But many others are, and have been since the introduction of easily accessible digital media around 1980. And I'm not attempting to "put down" digital reproduction on the grounds of my own dysphoria; I wish I could listen happily to digital recordings as so many are able to do. Perhaps if I could spend thousands more on my digital playback apparatus, I might find myself in a happier position with CD's; but the common wisdom seems to be that it's *analog* and specifically LP's, that requires megabucks for proper appreciation. My experience is just the opposite. Why? As for the pure-research aspect that I referred to earlier, pure research may or may not amount to an just an intellectual exercise. More often than not, I believe pure research eventually pays off handsomely in practical dividends--in this case, surely, better understanding of psycho-acoustical phenomena must result in better recording methods and reproduction media, and therefore in greater pleasure for listeners, at least at the high end of the audio scale. For those content with low-quality MP3's and the like, any payoff in increased fidelity would be irrelevant. Sherman Kaplan wrote: you all do realize, gentelmen, that trying to find the perfect listening experience, perfect recording, etc. is like trying to walk to the horizon. It is an illusion. Our audio setups, no matter how fine we may think they are, can only create an illusion. I don't think anything needs to be added, but I'm sure someone will try. Anway, it is an interesting discussion, like trying to count the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin. Sherm |
|
#87
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
bob wrote:
wrote: bob wrote: wrote: jonrkc wrote: Here's a question in return: Why should we care? Because the answers could lead to greater satisfaction for the hobbyists. I can think of another reason in addition to that good one: Because investigation could lead to general knowledge about human perception, and that can be useful even outside the audio field. And because the question is so difficult to investigate scientifically, the challenge could lead to new understanding of methods of researching difficult areas of study. And finally because research--pure research--is good for its own sake, though I realize this view is considered pretty outdated in today's market-driven world. Excellent points. I mean, it comes down to, do you want to understand this stuff better, or not? I think it also relates to one's perspective on aesthetics: how "understandable" are they? I've noticed that intellectual musicians, artists, and so on, tend to feel that aesthetics are understandable. The fact that aesthetics includes factors which vary from person to person, doesn't make aesthtics any less understandble. Let me note: I mean "understandable" in the sense of human intuition. And I mean "understandable" in the sense that aesthetics can be investigated, not the sense that they are already completely understood. I'm fascinated by attempts to connect human intuition to objective patterns in the world, like patterns in an audio signal, or brain structure. So in other words, this is purely an intellectual exercise Ironically, you actually made a good pun. Understanding the brain IS an intellectual exercise in the dual sense that we use are intellect to understand it, and operation of the intellect is one of the targets of study. But come now---the brain is part of the real world. with no practical value for audiophiles. Very, very odd statement. Perhaps you mean it has no *interest* for you? That's fine. Sorry I asked. I'm sure you are sorry that you asked, seeing as you meant to prove the pointlessness of the question, and ended up getting three throughful and relevant answers. Hardly. The first didn't say anything at all. I think you are refering to my post. I will do my best to pose this question to you without being offensive. How on earth can anyone read the following part of my post... "Well, again accuracy is very much a matter of what one chooses as a reference. I see a fundamnetal problem with choosing an inaudible signal that has already been profoundly affected by a transducer as a reference for playback which is acoustic. so if we really want to mesure accuracy we have to begin and end with an acoustic event and compare that. It may be harder to do but it involves a meaningful reference" And conclude that nothing was said at all? bob, it is very difficult to take you seriously when you draw such an amazingly eroneous conclusion .. The second said that it wasn't an interesting question in and of itself, and only had value for what it might tell us more generally about the brain. (And believe me, neuroscientists have much better ways of getting at that.) And yours is pretty much incomprehensible. That's why I'm sorry I asked--because the answers had nothing to say about audio. You are simply wrong. Not that this result should have been unexpected. I think it is your interpretation which has become painfully expected. anytime the objectiist belief system is challenged that challenge is dismised rather than delt with. Scott |
|
#88
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
On 11 Feb 2006 00:07:51 GMT, "jonrkc"
wrote: I realize I'm never going to experience the same thing in my listening room as I experience in the concert hall, though there are plenty of times that I wish the performers made house calls so that I, one of the laziest mortals on earth, wouldn't have to make the trip to the hall and sit among increasingly inconsiderate, noisy, unappreciative semi-literates (sorry, got carried away...) to attempt to hear music. My interest at the moment, tangential but pertinent to Mike's original question at the top of the thread, is in why analog sound indisputably pleases many listeners, including critical listeners, more than digital sound. Specifically, why analog media do not produce in those listeners the sense of unease and fatigue that digital recordings provoke. Why aren't you interested in the fact that many other listeners find digital to be both more pleasing and more accurate? BTW, there are many reasons why vinyl and valves sound more pleasant - these are known as euphonic distortions. Doesn't make it high fidelity, of course................... I'm fully aware that many highly trained and sensitive listeners, including dozens or hundreds that frequent this usenet group, are *not* disturbed by digital reproduction. But many others are, and have been since the introduction of easily accessible digital media around 1980. Many people believe in flying saucers, but this doesn't necessarily have any basis in reality. And I'm not attempting to "put down" digital reproduction on the grounds of my own dysphoria; I wish I could listen happily to digital recordings as so many are able to do. Perhaps if I could spend thousands more on my digital playback apparatus, I might find myself in a happier position with CD's; but the common wisdom seems to be that it's *analog* and specifically LP's, that requires megabucks for proper appreciation. My experience is just the opposite. Why? Top-class vinyl reproduction requires extremely precise mechanical engineering - this is expensive. Top-class CD reproduction requires sophisticated electronics - this is not expensive. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#89
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
jonrkc wrote:
I realize I'm never going to experience the same thing in my listening room as I experience in the concert hall, though there are plenty of times that I wish the performers made house calls so that I, one of the laziest mortals on earth, wouldn't have to make the trip to the hall and sit among increasingly inconsiderate, noisy, unappreciative semi-literates (sorry, got carried away...) to attempt to hear music. If you want live music in your home, you should learn to play an instrument. It will give you more joy than any recording. My interest at the moment, tangential but pertinent to Mike's original question at the top of the thread, is in why analog sound indisputably pleases many listeners, including critical listeners, more than digital sound. Specifically, why analog media do not produce in those listeners the sense of unease and fatigue that digital recordings provoke. This isn't the mystery you imagine. ALL differences in reproduction are the result of distortion, by definition. In this case, either some distortion in digital sounds bad to people, or some distortion in vinyl sounds good to people. And since we know we can make a digital copy of an LP that is audibly identical to that LP, but cannot do the reverse, it seems clear that distortion in the vinyl medium is the explanation here. There are several forms of distortion inherent in vinyl reproduction, and it's probably a combination of things that vinylphiles like. (That, plus all the non-sonic appeal, like tweaking and nostalgia and exclusivity.) The only problem with the above explanation is that it's a real ego-crusher for vinylphiles who've convinced themselves that their highly trained ears can tell that vinyl is "more life-like." Alas, the physical world doesn't really give a hoot about your ego. I'm fully aware that many highly trained and sensitive listeners, including dozens or hundreds that frequent this usenet group, are *not* disturbed by digital reproduction. But many others are, and have been since the introduction of easily accessible digital media around 1980. And I'm not attempting to "put down" digital reproduction on the grounds of my own dysphoria; I wish I could listen happily to digital recordings as so many are able to do. Perhaps if I could spend thousands more on my digital playback apparatus, I might find myself in a happier position with CD's; but the common wisdom seems to be that it's *analog* and specifically LP's, that requires megabucks for proper appreciation. My experience is just the opposite. Why? If it's the euphonic distortions of vinyl that you like, then all the money on earth won't buy you a satisfying CD player. Invest in a good equalizer instead, and a digital signal processor, and make your own distortions. As for the pure-research aspect that I referred to earlier, pure research may or may not amount to an just an intellectual exercise. More often than not, I believe pure research eventually pays off handsomely in practical dividends Well, of course. --in this case, surely, better understanding of psycho-acoustical phenomena must result in better recording methods and reproduction media, and therefore in greater pleasure for listeners, at least at the high end of the audio scale. IME, most audiophiles are either unaware of or dismissive of the massive body of psychoacoustics research that already informs good audio design. For those content with low-quality MP3's and the like, any payoff in increased fidelity would be irrelevant. For those content with exclusive brand names and huge price tags, any payoff in increased fidelity would be irrelevant. bob |
|
#90
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
jonrkc wrote:
I realize I'm never going to experience the same thing in my listening room as I experience in the concert hall, though there are plenty of times that I wish the performers made house calls so that I, one of the laziest mortals on earth, wouldn't have to make the trip to the hall and sit among increasingly inconsiderate, noisy, unappreciative semi-literates (sorry, got carried away...) to attempt to hear music. My interest at the moment, tangential but pertinent to Mike's original question at the top of the thread, is in why analog sound indisputably pleases many listeners, including critical listeners, more than digital sound. Specifically, why analog media do not produce in those listeners the sense of unease and fatigue that digital recordings provoke. Before you go too far on this tangent, check out this article: http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...x_testing2.htm A well-known Linn vinyl supporter could not tell LP sound from a digitized version of it, using an early '80's PCM recorder. That experiment tells me that any "sense of unease and fatigue" is not due to digital recording technology, which is much more transparent than vinyl technology. Even in the early '80's. So you are left with preference for LP based on euphonic distortion, mastering differences, and non-sonic differences (which are significant). We just heard from Harry Lavo, an outspoken supporter of LP, said that a CD dubbed from an SACD using an inexpensive CD recorder sounded "superb". So even he agrees that the CD technology gives superb results, and that the differences is in the source material or mastering. But in any event, here's an answer to your question. The longer presentation of the CD, meaning you can listen to over an hour of music without taking a break, can lead to fatigue. The very high dynamic range could lead to a certain amount of unease. Now here's the question to you: Why does the majority of critical listeners prefer digital? |
|
#91
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
Chung wrote:
jonrkc wrote: I realize I'm never going to experience the same thing in my listening room as I experience in the concert hall, though there are plenty of times that I wish the performers made house calls so that I, one of the laziest mortals on earth, wouldn't have to make the trip to the hall and sit among increasingly inconsiderate, noisy, unappreciative semi-literates (sorry, got carried away...) to attempt to hear music. My interest at the moment, tangential but pertinent to Mike's original question at the top of the thread, is in why analog sound indisputably pleases many listeners, including critical listeners, more than digital sound. Specifically, why analog media do not produce in those listeners the sense of unease and fatigue that digital recordings provoke. Before you go too far on this tangent, check out this article: http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...x_testing2.htm A well-known Linn vinyl supporter could not tell LP sound from a digitized version of it, using an early '80's PCM recorder. That experiment tells me that any "sense of unease and fatigue" is not due to digital recording technology, which is much more transparent than vinyl technology. Even in the early '80's. Sorry but that is a ridiculously simplistic POV that ignores so many important factors and so many other acounts of issues with CD sound. maybe you should read the paper published in the AESJ about the pains that were taken to get the Mercury CDs to sound so good. If you read that paper there is no way you can come away with the assumption that commercial CDs are inherently transparent. I also suggest you read the material available on the Classic records web page to get some inight into the real world complexities of mastering classic recordings. So you are left with preference for LP based on euphonic distortion, If you believe this then why do you keep avoiding Mike's questions about the existance of the euphonic colorations? mastering differences, and non-sonic differences (which are significant). You mean biases right? What have you doen to control your biases whn comparing LPs and CDs? What have you done to make the most fair comparisons? We just heard from Harry Lavo, an outspoken supporter of LP, said that a CD dubbed from an SACD using an inexpensive CD recorder sounded "superb". So even he agrees that the CD technology gives superb results, and that the differences is in the source material or mastering. Again, i suggest you read the paper cited above published in the AESJ. we as consumers are dealing with actual commercial CDs not personal digital dubs. But in any event, here's an answer to your question. The longer presentation of the CD, meaning you can listen to over an hour of music without taking a break, can lead to fatigue. The very high dynamic range could lead to a certain amount of unease. So live music must also be fatiguing. So why is it that the same people who report listener fatigue from certaindigital sources do not report it from live music? Now here's the question to you: Why does the majority of critical listeners prefer digital? Prove your premise first. Scott |
|
#92
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 11 Feb 2006 00:07:51 GMT, "jonrkc" wrote: I realize I'm never going to experience the same thing in my listening room as I experience in the concert hall, though there are plenty of times that I wish the performers made house calls so that I, one of the laziest mortals on earth, wouldn't have to make the trip to the hall and sit among increasingly inconsiderate, noisy, unappreciative semi-literates (sorry, got carried away...) to attempt to hear music. My interest at the moment, tangential but pertinent to Mike's original question at the top of the thread, is in why analog sound indisputably pleases many listeners, including critical listeners, more than digital sound. Specifically, why analog media do not produce in those listeners the sense of unease and fatigue that digital recordings provoke. Why aren't you interested in the fact that many other listeners find digital to be both more pleasing and more accurate? Do you really need to ask? Here is a hint, answer the following question. Why aren't you interested in the fact that many other listeners find analog to be both more pleasing and more accurate? then think about how this mirrors your question. BTW, there are many reasons why vinyl and valves sound more pleasant - these are known as euphonic distortions. Why do you continue to refuse to cite these distortions and the mechanisms by which they work? Doesn't make it high fidelity, of course................... Why not? I'm fully aware that many highly trained and sensitive listeners, including dozens or hundreds that frequent this usenet group, are *not* disturbed by digital reproduction. But many others are, and have been since the introduction of easily accessible digital media around 1980. Many people believe in flying saucers, but this doesn't necessarily have any basis in reality. But complaints about digital playback often are based in reality. That makes your point what we call a strawman argument. And I'm not attempting to "put down" digital reproduction on the grounds of my own dysphoria; I wish I could listen happily to digital recordings as so many are able to do. Perhaps if I could spend thousands more on my digital playback apparatus, I might find myself in a happier position with CD's; but the common wisdom seems to be that it's *analog* and specifically LP's, that requires megabucks for proper appreciation. My experience is just the opposite. Why? Top-class vinyl reproduction requires extremely precise mechanical engineering - this is expensive. Top-class CD reproduction requires sophisticated electronics - this is not expensive. Production of quality CDs requires great care and skill. ths is expensive and obviously completely un-neccessary to sell product to the masses, especially when they have bought into the claims of perfect sound forever. Scott |
|
#93
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
bob wrote:
jonrkc wrote: I realize I'm never going to experience the same thing in my listening room as I experience in the concert hall, though there are plenty of times that I wish the performers made house calls so that I, one of the laziest mortals on earth, wouldn't have to make the trip to the hall and sit among increasingly inconsiderate, noisy, unappreciative semi-literates (sorry, got carried away...) to attempt to hear music. If you want live music in your home, you should learn to play an instrument. It will give you more joy than any recording. Odd advice to give a person who is too lazy to get to a live performance. ;-) My interest at the moment, tangential but pertinent to Mike's original question at the top of the thread, is in why analog sound indisputably pleases many listeners, including critical listeners, more than digital sound. Specifically, why analog media do not produce in those listeners the sense of unease and fatigue that digital recordings provoke. This isn't the mystery you imagine. ALL differences in reproduction are the result of distortion, by definition. In this case, either some distortion in digital sounds bad to people, or some distortion in vinyl sounds good to people. And since we know we can make a digital copy of an LP that is audibly identical to that LP, but cannot do the reverse, it seems clear that distortion in the vinyl medium is the explanation here. Like I have said so many times before. I highly recomend you read the paper published in the AESJ about the making of the Mercury CDs. Clearly there are many things that can go worng in the making and mas prouction of a commercial CD. Your anecdote about home brewed digital copies and their alleged sonic tranparency simply does not take all important realities of commercial CD production into consideation. There are several forms of distortion inherent in vinyl reproduction, and it's probably a combination of things that vinylphiles like. So you are just speculating. OK (That, plus all the non-sonic appeal, like tweaking and nostalgia and exclusivity.) More wild speculation. I can tell you that I do not like tweaking and have no interest in exclusivity and feel no nostolgia towards LP sound. your argument holds no water in regards to my preferences. The only problem with the above explanation is that it's a real ego-crusher for vinylphiles who've convinced themselves that their highly trained ears can tell that vinyl is "more life-like." Alas, the physical world doesn't really give a hoot about your ego. That is complete nonsense. I'm fully aware that many highly trained and sensitive listeners, including dozens or hundreds that frequent this usenet group, are *not* disturbed by digital reproduction. But many others are, and have been since the introduction of easily accessible digital media around 1980. And I'm not attempting to "put down" digital reproduction on the grounds of my own dysphoria; I wish I could listen happily to digital recordings as so many are able to do. Perhaps if I could spend thousands more on my digital playback apparatus, I might find myself in a happier position with CD's; but the common wisdom seems to be that it's *analog* and specifically LP's, that requires megabucks for proper appreciation. My experience is just the opposite. Why? If it's the euphonic distortions of vinyl that you like, then all the money on earth won't buy you a satisfying CD player. There in lies the short sightedness of the your perspective. think about it. Invest in a good equalizer instead, and a digital signal processor, and make your own distortions. Do you think you can do this successfully? Do you think you can take a commercial CD and tweak it to sound just like the LP played back on high end equipment? As for the pure-research aspect that I referred to earlier, pure research may or may not amount to an just an intellectual exercise. More often than not, I believe pure research eventually pays off handsomely in practical dividends Well, of course. --in this case, surely, better understanding of psycho-acoustical phenomena must result in better recording methods and reproduction media, and therefore in greater pleasure for listeners, at least at the high end of the audio scale. IME, most audiophiles are either unaware of or dismissive of the massive body of psychoacoustics research that already informs good audio design. I agree. Unfortunately i think it is often grossly misrepresnted by some self proclaimed objectivists. That can be a real turn off. just like the goss misrepresentations of scientific support for specific claims commonly made by objectivists. For those content with low-quality MP3's and the like, any payoff in increased fidelity would be irrelevant. For those content with exclusive brand names and huge price tags, any payoff in increased fidelity would be irrelevant. That may be true. Biases do have an effect. it does crak m up though when those who talk about those biases the most seem to ignore their own biases. Scott |
|
#94
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
jonrkc wrote:
I realize I'm never going to experience the same thing in my listening room as I experience in the concert hall, though there are plenty of times that I wish the performers made house calls so that I, one of the laziest mortals on earth, wouldn't have to make the trip to the hall and sit among increasingly inconsiderate, noisy, unappreciative semi-literates (sorry, got carried away...) to attempt to hear music. My interest at the moment, tangential but pertinent to Mike's original question at the top of the thread, is in why analog sound indisputably pleases many listeners, including critical listeners, more than digital sound. Specifically, why analog media do not produce in those listeners the sense of unease and fatigue that digital recordings provoke. I think this is a very good question. To answer it, we need to have some understanding of how patterns in signals translate into personal experiences. You will notice there is a very curious point of view taken on this newsgroup, which is that we *don't* need to understand that. Here's how you can arrive at this point of view: First you look at the various ways that people try to describe their experiences with audio, and you say that they are essentially meaningless. (A person who prefers to work with hard data will take this position by default.) You reduce most such statements to statements about "preference"---so your comment will be interpreted as you "prefer" analog. Your language about "unease" for example, doesn't matter. Then you declare that "preference" is arbitray and mysterious, so anybody can prefer anything for any reason. Now any statement about an audio experience is explainable. You prefer analog because you "prefer the distortion." Or substitute any reason you like. It seems like you have made a meaningful statement, but it is actual a tautological statement.. it emerges from the assumptions. I disagree with these assumptions.. I think it *is* important to understand how signals turn into experiences, and I think it *is* important to pay attention to the language people use in describing their experiences. I think it *is* important to make a distinction between "I prefer this" and "this is more like live". By the way has no implication of "superior hearing" or any such thing. It corresponds to a very simple observation that anyone can make at any time. "Do I like this painting better, or is the painting more like the scene I see out the window?" A simple and very commonplace use of the senses. It needs investigation, of course. My opinion is that those people who declare this distinction "meaningless" are afraid of the complexities and the uncertainties it will bring. I'm fully aware that many highly trained and sensitive listeners, including dozens or hundreds that frequent this usenet group, are *not* disturbed by digital reproduction. But many others are, and have been since the introduction of easily accessible digital media around 1980. And I'm not attempting to "put down" digital reproduction on the grounds of my own dysphoria; I wish I could listen happily to digital recordings as so many are able to do. Perhaps if I could spend thousands more on my digital playback apparatus, I might find myself in a happier position with CD's; but the common wisdom seems to be that it's *analog* and specifically LP's, that requires megabucks for proper appreciation. My experience is just the opposite. Why? As for the pure-research aspect that I referred to earlier, pure research may or may not amount to an just an intellectual exercise. More often than not, I believe pure research eventually pays off handsomely in practical dividends--in this case, surely, better understanding of psycho-acoustical phenomena must result in better recording methods and reproduction media, and therefore in greater pleasure for listeners, at least at the high end of the audio scale. For those content with low-quality MP3's and the like, any payoff in increased fidelity would be irrelevant. Let me address one other statement we often see he that digital is a flawless, completely transparent medium, because a digital copy of an LP cannot be distinguished from the LP. The important question is, how do we compare two audio signals, A and B? What kind of comparison is meaningful? For example, do you spend a couple minutes listening to A, then switch over to B? Or do you switch back and forth between them rapidly? Do you listen to the same segment repeatedly, or do you keep listening to new music? Do you take a break between segments? My opinion is that the protocol of the test will influence your experience of the music. And my opinion is that you need to be listening to the music *as music*, in a manner that allows you to enjoy it as you normally would. There is a point of view that says whether you are enjoying the sound doesn't matter; it's just sound, and you are comparing the two sounds. This poitn of view implies that there is some part of the brain that processes sound, and another part that enjoys the sound, and that the part that processes sound can be observed in isolation from the part that enjoys the sound. There was a NYT article posted here recently which said that the brain is not a series of systems with one-way flow of information from senses up to consciousness.. instead, *ten times* the number of neurons connect from higher centers to lower centers as the other way. This means that NO PART of the brain can be observed in isolation of any other part. The engineer's habit of reducing systems to parts, simply does not apply. If you investigate, you will find that ALL of the tests which supposedly indicate digital is transparent were conducted by people who thought that the sound-processing ability of the brain operated in isolation of higher centers that construct musical experiences, and designed their protocals accordingly. So in my opinion, this makes them suspect. You will also find that Harry Lavo has proposed a simple kind of test that would allow people to listen to music more as music, a "monadic test," and that his proposal has been ridiculed. So think about that, when you think about whether the information you get here is trustworthy. Mike |
|
#96
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
bob wrote:
wrote: I think it *is* important to understand how signals turn into experiences, and I think it *is* important to pay attention to the language people use in describing their experiences. I think it *is* important to make a distinction between "I prefer this" and "this is more like live". Language is important, and that's why it's important to understand how you're misusing it. An audio reproduction system cannot *be* "more like live." "Lifelikeness" is not an inherent quality of anything. Sure it is! It is by default he quality of live music. It is a judgment, made by a human being. The statement, "System X is more lifelike" is exactly synonymous with the statement, "System X seems more lifelike to me." (Unless, that is, you define "lifelikeness" in terms of technical accuracy--but I'm sure you don't mean to do that!) Oh i think maybe he does. But again technical accuracy has to be measured agianst a reference. If your reference is an elecrical signal that has been passed through a transducer then you have no meaningful reference to judge *sound* OTOH If one were actually record and measure the original aoustic event and then record, measure and compare the output of the recording/playback system using the original recording then one can actually compare Hufi to live music. Oh, but that is really hard and to the best of my knowledge no one has done this much less made any corilations betwen distortions present in actual playback to original events and how they affect our reactions. That would be really hard work. Just because these things have not been done doesn't mean that the reality does not exist. lifelikeness is not an invention of the mind. It is a real world quality of playback. Is there a distinction between "I prefer this" and "this sounds more like live to me"? Of course. But both statements are qualitative judgments, nothing more. If we chose to study the reasons for those judgments, we would study both in the same way--by correlating those judgments to objective characteristics of audio systems. The set of objective differences between System X and System Y is the set of possible explanations for why you prefer System X. It is also the set of possible explanations for why System X seems more lifelike to you. Exactly!!! In the case of vinyl and digital, the set of objective differences (which includes sonic and nonsonic elements) is known and reasonably finite. The best way to study perceptions of those differences would be to artificially introduce individually the various forms of distortion typical of vinyl into a digital signal, and then use blind tests to compare perceptions of the distorted and undistorted signals. YES!!! great idea. snip Let me address one other statement we often see he that digital is a flawless, completely transparent medium, because a digital copy of an LP cannot be distinguished from the LP. The important question is, how do we compare two audio signals, A and B? What kind of comparison is meaningful? For example, do you spend a couple minutes listening to A, then switch over to B? Or do you switch back and forth between them rapidly? Do you listen to the same segment repeatedly, or do you keep listening to new music? Do you take a break between segments? My opinion is that the protocol of the test will influence your experience of the music. And my opinion is that you need to be listening to the music *as music*, in a manner that allows you to enjoy it as you normally would. As Pat Moynihan used to say, everyone is entitled to his own opinion--but not his own facts. There is a point of view that says whether you are enjoying the sound doesn't matter; it's just sound, and you are comparing the two sounds. This poitn of view implies that there is some part of the brain that processes sound, and another part that enjoys the sound, and that the part that processes sound can be observed in isolation from the part that enjoys the sound. There was a NYT article posted here recently which said that the brain is not a series of systems with one-way flow of information from senses up to consciousness.. instead, *ten times* the number of neurons connect from higher centers to lower centers as the other way. This means that NO PART of the brain can be observed in isolation of any other part. The engineer's habit of reducing systems to parts, simply does not apply. If you investigate, you will find that ALL of the tests which supposedly indicate digital is transparent were conducted by people who thought that the sound-processing ability of the brain operated in isolation of higher centers that construct musical experiences, and designed their protocals accordingly. So in my opinion, this makes them suspect. You will also find that Harry Lavo has proposed a simple kind of test that would allow people to listen to music more as music, a "monadic test," and that his proposal has been ridiculed. So think about that, when you think about whether the information you get here is trustworthy. Psychoacoustics experts have long known that such tests as you propose are ineffective. Can you cite a published scientific paper that varifies this claim? In fact, variants of such tests have been done in the past, with predictable results--those short-term tests which you disparage invariably smoke long-term listening. I'll post separately about this. I look forward to reading this. I think there have been far to many allusions to psychoacoutic research and far to little citaions and actual quotes of the research. Scott |
|
#97
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
bob wrote:
wrote: I think it *is* important to understand how signals turn into experiences, and I think it *is* important to pay attention to the language people use in describing their experiences. I think it *is* important to make a distinction between "I prefer this" and "this is more like live". Language is important, and that's why it's important to understand how you're misusing it. An audio reproduction system cannot *be* "more like live." "Lifelikeness" is not an inherent quality of anything. It is a judgment, made by a human being. All you are saying is that people disagree about what is "like live." That doesn't mean it can't be studied. You, Chung, and Stewart like to remind me that people disagree about what is like live. So what? I think that we can, and need to, study how objective features of the signal correspond to liveliness. Those will be different features for different people. So what? do you think we've given up studying the components of blood because people have different blood types? "What is like live" is an abstract quality because it can't be represented by a single instance. So what? There's a branch of cogntive psychology called "pattern recognition" which deals with this phemonema. They don't seem to think it is meaningless. The statement, "System X is more lifelike" is exactly synonymous with the statement, "System X seems more lifelike to me." (Unless, that is, you define "lifelikeness" in terms of technical accuracy--but I'm sure you don't mean to do that!) Is there a distinction between "I prefer this" and "this sounds more like live to me"? Of course. But both statements are qualitative judgments, nothing more. "Nothing more"! Ha! Both statements occur as the result of pattern recognition, which is, believe it or not, a scientific field of stuy which interests a lot of people (but apparently not you). If we chose to study the reasons for those judgments, we would study both in the same way--by correlating those judgments to objective characteristics of audio systems. The set of objective differences between System X and System Y is the set of possible explanations for why you prefer System X. It is also the set of possible explanations for why System X seems more lifelike to you. In the case of vinyl and digital, the set of objective differences (which includes sonic and nonsonic elements) is known and reasonably finite. Absolutely false. We have a few measurements and models which attempt to characterize the differences. We need to correlate those with this sense of liveliness, or if that fails, study models which do correlate. The best way to study perceptions of those differences would be to artificially introduce individually the various forms of distortion typical of vinyl into a digital signal, and then use blind tests to compare perceptions of the distorted and undistorted signals. That would be some useful investigation. It would only be relevant, of course, if it involved comparisons to live sound (not asking about "preference"). snip Let me address one other statement we often see he that digital is a flawless, completely transparent medium, because a digital copy of an LP cannot be distinguished from the LP. The important question is, how do we compare two audio signals, A and B? What kind of comparison is meaningful? For example, do you spend a couple minutes listening to A, then switch over to B? Or do you switch back and forth between them rapidly? Do you listen to the same segment repeatedly, or do you keep listening to new music? Do you take a break between segments? My opinion is that the protocol of the test will influence your experience of the music. And my opinion is that you need to be listening to the music *as music*, in a manner that allows you to enjoy it as you normally would. As Pat Moynihan used to say, everyone is entitled to his own opinion--but not his own facts. Oh, we all know and agree on the facts. How people perform in a short-term listening test is pretty much a fact. However, there is virtually no investigation of how that translates into normal listening experience. When there are no facts, all we have are opinions. You have plenty of opinions yourself, like the opinion that "people differ" somehow implies "liveliness" is a meaningless concept. There is a point of view that says whether you are enjoying the sound doesn't matter; it's just sound, and you are comparing the two sounds. This poitn of view implies that there is some part of the brain that processes sound, and another part that enjoys the sound, and that the part that processes sound can be observed in isolation from the part that enjoys the sound. There was a NYT article posted here recently which said that the brain is not a series of systems with one-way flow of information from senses up to consciousness.. instead, *ten times* the number of neurons connect from higher centers to lower centers as the other way. This means that NO PART of the brain can be observed in isolation of any other part. The engineer's habit of reducing systems to parts, simply does not apply. If you investigate, you will find that ALL of the tests which supposedly indicate digital is transparent were conducted by people who thought that the sound-processing ability of the brain operated in isolation of higher centers that construct musical experiences, and designed their protocals accordingly. So in my opinion, this makes them suspect. You will also find that Harry Lavo has proposed a simple kind of test that would allow people to listen to music more as music, a "monadic test," and that his proposal has been ridiculed. So think about that, when you think about whether the information you get here is trustworthy. Psychoacoustics experts have long known that such tests as you propose are ineffective. In fact, variants of such tests have been done in the past, with predictable results--those short-term tests which you disparage invariably smoke long-term listening. I'll post separately about this. I eagerly sought this post which showed "short-term" listening smokes "long-term listening," only to discover that you regard "long-term listening" as a monolithic concept, and that you think harmonic distortion is representative of differences between components. Mike |
|
#98
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
"Chung" wrote in message
... jonrkc wrote: I realize I'm never going to experience the same thing in my listening room as I experience in the concert hall, though there are plenty of times that I wish the performers made house calls so that I, one of the laziest mortals on earth, wouldn't have to make the trip to the hall and sit among increasingly inconsiderate, noisy, unappreciative semi-literates (sorry, got carried away...) to attempt to hear music. My interest at the moment, tangential but pertinent to Mike's original question at the top of the thread, is in why analog sound indisputably pleases many listeners, including critical listeners, more than digital sound. Specifically, why analog media do not produce in those listeners the sense of unease and fatigue that digital recordings provoke. Before you go too far on this tangent, check out this article: http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...x_testing2.htm A well-known Linn vinyl supporter could not tell LP sound from a digitized version of it, using an early '80's PCM recorder. That experiment tells me that any "sense of unease and fatigue" is not due to digital recording technology, which is much more transparent than vinyl technology. Even in the early '80's. So you are left with preference for LP based on euphonic distortion, mastering differences, and non-sonic differences (which are significant). We just heard from Harry Lavo, an outspoken supporter of LP, said that a CD dubbed from an SACD using an inexpensive CD recorder sounded "superb". So even he agrees that the CD technology gives superb results, and that the differences is in the source material or mastering. Pardon me, but if you are going to quote me, please do not use a misleading context. I said I used a semi-pro Marantz CD recorder. In fact it was a pro recorder, but not the most expensive and it was not balanced line in, which is why I called it semi-pro. It does/did however have an excellent reputation and is far better than the typical consumer CD recorder, particularly in its analog output (ever hear of HDAM?). I also recorded it through my DTI Pro / Proceed DAC, so I was using my system DAC, not the internal Marantz DAC. So it was an excellent recording setup, but not one too expensive (via eBay) for the average audiophile. I was also using the output of a Sony ES series SACD player, so the reproduced analog output was first rate. Given all that, I said the result was superb, and it was. But not as good as the SACD played directly. But in any event, here's an answer to your question. The longer presentation of the CD, meaning you can listen to over an hour of music without taking a break, can lead to fatigue. The very high dynamic range could lead to a certain amount of unease. Now here's the question to you: Why does the majority of critical listeners prefer digital? |
|
#99
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
Bob wrote: "If you want live music in your home, you should learn to
play an instrument. It will give you more joy than any recording. " This is a long thread and it's easy to miss details, but I stated earlier that I do play classical guitar, and in the past have played piano, and harpsichord, and yes, the live instruments do give greater pleasure than any recording, but not because of their sound; because of the active involvement and control and just the pleasure of having a skill and using it. Further he wrote: "If it's the euphonic distortions of vinyl that you like, then all the money on earth won't buy you a satisfying CD player. Invest in a good equalizer instead, and a digital signal processor, and make your own distortions." I cannot honestly agree that the difference talked about in this thread is due to distortion-- unless the distortion in question results somehow in more lifelike reproduction. And that seems, to me, an odd result. As for "huge price tags," I think the loss of irreplaceable recordings due to disintegrating CD's carries a pretty big price tag in itself. I have not had one single LP become unplayable after fifty years of collecting them. I don't know how many of my CD's have self-destroyed by now, because I obviously cannot check on each of them daily or weekly. But two or three are gone forever and others are showing ominous signs of degradation. |
|
#101
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message ... jonrkc wrote: I realize I'm never going to experience the same thing in my listening room as I experience in the concert hall, though there are plenty of times that I wish the performers made house calls so that I, one of the laziest mortals on earth, wouldn't have to make the trip to the hall and sit among increasingly inconsiderate, noisy, unappreciative semi-literates (sorry, got carried away...) to attempt to hear music. My interest at the moment, tangential but pertinent to Mike's original question at the top of the thread, is in why analog sound indisputably pleases many listeners, including critical listeners, more than digital sound. Specifically, why analog media do not produce in those listeners the sense of unease and fatigue that digital recordings provoke. Before you go too far on this tangent, check out this article: http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...x_testing2.htm A well-known Linn vinyl supporter could not tell LP sound from a digitized version of it, using an early '80's PCM recorder. That experiment tells me that any "sense of unease and fatigue" is not due to digital recording technology, which is much more transparent than vinyl technology. Even in the early '80's. So you are left with preference for LP based on euphonic distortion, mastering differences, and non-sonic differences (which are significant). We just heard from Harry Lavo, an outspoken supporter of LP, said that a CD dubbed from an SACD using an inexpensive CD recorder sounded "superb". So even he agrees that the CD technology gives superb results, and that the differences is in the source material or mastering. Pardon me, but if you are going to quote me, please do not use a misleading context. I said I used a semi-pro Marantz CD recorder. In fact it was a pro recorder, but not the most expensive and it was not balanced line in, which is why I called it semi-pro. It does/did however have an excellent reputation and is far better than the typical consumer CD recorder, particularly in its analog output (ever hear of HDAM?). I'm not sure why you are arguing here. Here's what you said on 2/4/06: "Such recorders can be picked up cheap on eBay these days since computerized CD recording has come to the fore. " *You* said cheap, I said inexpensive. Is this an example of gratuitous nitpicking, or what? |
|
#102
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message ... jonrkc wrote: I realize I'm never going to experience the same thing in my listening room as I experience in the concert hall, though there are plenty of times that I wish the performers made house calls so that I, one of the laziest mortals on earth, wouldn't have to make the trip to the hall and sit among increasingly inconsiderate, noisy, unappreciative semi-literates (sorry, got carried away...) to attempt to hear music. My interest at the moment, tangential but pertinent to Mike's original question at the top of the thread, is in why analog sound indisputably pleases many listeners, including critical listeners, more than digital sound. Specifically, why analog media do not produce in those listeners the sense of unease and fatigue that digital recordings provoke. Before you go too far on this tangent, check out this article: http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...x_testing2.htm A well-known Linn vinyl supporter could not tell LP sound from a digitized version of it, using an early '80's PCM recorder. That experiment tells me that any "sense of unease and fatigue" is not due to digital recording technology, which is much more transparent than vinyl technology. Even in the early '80's. So you are left with preference for LP based on euphonic distortion, mastering differences, and non-sonic differences (which are significant). We just heard from Harry Lavo, an outspoken supporter of LP, said that a CD dubbed from an SACD using an inexpensive CD recorder sounded "superb". So even he agrees that the CD technology gives superb results, and that the differences is in the source material or mastering. Pardon me, but if you are going to quote me, please do not use a misleading context. I said I used a semi-pro Marantz CD recorder. In fact it was a pro recorder, but not the most expensive and it was not balanced line in, which is why I called it semi-pro. It does/did however have an excellent reputation and is far better than the typical consumer CD recorder, particularly in its analog output (ever hear of HDAM?). I also recorded it through my DTI Pro / Proceed DAC, so I was using my system DAC, not the internal Marantz DAC. So it was an excellent recording setup, but not one too expensive (via eBay) for the average audiophile. Well Harry, do you understand what you are saying? You are heaping praises at the analog output stage of the CD recorder, as if that explains why it records so well, but (a) you are not using that analog output stage, and (b)you were talking about using the Marantz as a *recorder*, not a DAC. Also, you seem rather, uh, random in your post here. How can the DTI Pro/Proceed DAC play a role in the dubbing process, or explain why you have an excellent recording setup? You were using the analog outputs of the Sony SACD player and feeding those to the Marantz, remember? I was also using the output of a Sony ES series SACD player, so the reproduced analog output was first rate. So as we all knew, that DTI Pro/Proceed DAC played no role in the recording setup. |
|
#103
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... "Chung" wrote in message ... jonrkc wrote: snip I also recorded it through my DTI Pro / Proceed DAC, so I was using my system DAC, not the internal Marantz DAC. So it was an excellent recording setup, but not one too expensive (via eBay) for the average audiophile. Now here's the question to you: Why does the majority of critical listeners prefer digital? snip Before I get inundated, I made a mistake here and gave you my CD recording setup, which is taken from the digital out of the Proceed after passing from CD player to DTI-Pro to DAC. For SACD, I used analog out on the Sony, into my preamp, and through the tape outs to the Marantz analog ins. Usually I listen to the Marantz through its analog output, which is very fine. I can also switch the digital out into the DTI Pro/Proceed Combo but in the case of the Marantz, it adds very little. |
|
#104
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
|
|
#105
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... "Chung" wrote in message ... jonrkc wrote: snip I also recorded it through my DTI Pro / Proceed DAC, so I was using my system DAC, not the internal Marantz DAC. So it was an excellent recording setup, but not one too expensive (via eBay) for the average audiophile. Now here's the question to you: Why does the majority of critical listeners prefer digital? snip Before I get inundated, I made a mistake here and gave you my CD recording setup, which is taken from the digital out of the Proceed after passing from CD player to DTI-Pro to DAC. For SACD, I used analog out on the Sony, into my preamp, and through the tape outs to the Marantz analog ins. Usually I listen to the Marantz through its analog output, which is very fine. I can also switch the digital out into the DTI Pro/Proceed Combo but in the case of the Marantz, it adds very little. Well, maybe you are setting yourself up to get inundated again. You are saying that when you copy from CD to a blank CD, you take the digital out of the CD player to DTI-Pro to DAC? What exactly are you talking about? You have these expensive gear and can't afford a CD burner, which is standard now in just about any PC sold? Here's how the rest of the world copy from a CD to a blank CD, now that we are in 2006. Just rip the tracks from the original CD onto your hard disk, and copy the tracks to a blank CD. No DAC or ADC involved at all. No need for your Marantz semi-pro recoder, either. Use Exact Audio Copy if you are concerned about jitter or errors in the ripping process. (Note: different jitter than that mentioned by high-enders.) Too bad you can't use that wonderful DAC with your vinyl collection, eh?  |
|
#106
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
"Chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "Chung" wrote in message ... jonrkc wrote: I realize I'm never going to experience the same thing in my listening room as I experience in the concert hall, though there are plenty of times that I wish the performers made house calls so that I, one of the laziest mortals on earth, wouldn't have to make the trip to the hall and sit among increasingly inconsiderate, noisy, unappreciative semi-literates (sorry, got carried away...) to attempt to hear music. My interest at the moment, tangential but pertinent to Mike's original question at the top of the thread, is in why analog sound indisputably pleases many listeners, including critical listeners, more than digital sound. Specifically, why analog media do not produce in those listeners the sense of unease and fatigue that digital recordings provoke. Before you go too far on this tangent, check out this article: http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...x_testing2.htm A well-known Linn vinyl supporter could not tell LP sound from a digitized version of it, using an early '80's PCM recorder. That experiment tells me that any "sense of unease and fatigue" is not due to digital recording technology, which is much more transparent than vinyl technology. Even in the early '80's. So you are left with preference for LP based on euphonic distortion, mastering differences, and non-sonic differences (which are significant). We just heard from Harry Lavo, an outspoken supporter of LP, said that a CD dubbed from an SACD using an inexpensive CD recorder sounded "superb". So even he agrees that the CD technology gives superb results, and that the differences is in the source material or mastering. Pardon me, but if you are going to quote me, please do not use a misleading context. I said I used a semi-pro Marantz CD recorder. In fact it was a pro recorder, but not the most expensive and it was not balanced line in, which is why I called it semi-pro. It does/did however have an excellent reputation and is far better than the typical consumer CD recorder, particularly in its analog output (ever hear of HDAM?). I'm not sure why you are arguing here. Here's what you said on 2/4/06: "Such recorders can be picked up cheap on eBay these days since computerized CD recording has come to the fore. " *You* said cheap, I said inexpensive. Is this an example of gratuitous nitpicking, or what? Well, perhaps you are right. But I was saying (or thought I was) that a really good CD recorder could now be picked up cheap via eBay. I would interpret your "inexpensive CD recorder" to be a "$79 Radio Shack Special". For which I make no claims. |
|
#107
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
"Chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "Chung" wrote in message ... jonrkc wrote: I realize I'm never going to experience the same thing in my listening room as I experience in the concert hall, though there are plenty of times that I wish the performers made house calls so that I, one of the laziest mortals on earth, wouldn't have to make the trip to the hall and sit among increasingly inconsiderate, noisy, unappreciative semi-literates (sorry, got carried away...) to attempt to hear music. My interest at the moment, tangential but pertinent to Mike's original question at the top of the thread, is in why analog sound indisputably pleases many listeners, including critical listeners, more than digital sound. Specifically, why analog media do not produce in those listeners the sense of unease and fatigue that digital recordings provoke. Before you go too far on this tangent, check out this article: http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...x_testing2.htm A well-known Linn vinyl supporter could not tell LP sound from a digitized version of it, using an early '80's PCM recorder. That experiment tells me that any "sense of unease and fatigue" is not due to digital recording technology, which is much more transparent than vinyl technology. Even in the early '80's. So you are left with preference for LP based on euphonic distortion, mastering differences, and non-sonic differences (which are significant). We just heard from Harry Lavo, an outspoken supporter of LP, said that a CD dubbed from an SACD using an inexpensive CD recorder sounded "superb". So even he agrees that the CD technology gives superb results, and that the differences is in the source material or mastering. Pardon me, but if you are going to quote me, please do not use a misleading context. I said I used a semi-pro Marantz CD recorder. In fact it was a pro recorder, but not the most expensive and it was not balanced line in, which is why I called it semi-pro. It does/did however have an excellent reputation and is far better than the typical consumer CD recorder, particularly in its analog output (ever hear of HDAM?). I also recorded it through my DTI Pro / Proceed DAC, so I was using my system DAC, not the internal Marantz DAC. So it was an excellent recording setup, but not one too expensive (via eBay) for the average audiophile. Well Harry, do you understand what you are saying? You are heaping praises at the analog output stage of the CD recorder, as if that explains why it records so well, but (a) you are not using that analog output stage, and (b)you were talking about using the Marantz as a *recorder*, not a DAC. Also, you seem rather, uh, random in your post here. How can the DTI Pro/Proceed DAC play a role in the dubbing process, or explain why you have an excellent recording setup? You were using the analog outputs of the Sony SACD player and feeding those to the Marantz, remember? I was also using the output of a Sony ES series SACD player, so the reproduced analog output was first rate. So as we all knew, that DTI Pro/Proceed DAC played no role in the recording setup. Yes, which I discovered after re-reading the post after having sent it, and corrected in another post. I mixed up my SACD recording with my conventional CD recording, where I do use the DTI Pro / Proceed. |
|
#108
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
"chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... "Chung" wrote in message ... jonrkc wrote: snip I also recorded it through my DTI Pro / Proceed DAC, so I was using my system DAC, not the internal Marantz DAC. So it was an excellent recording setup, but not one too expensive (via eBay) for the average audiophile. Now here's the question to you: Why does the majority of critical listeners prefer digital? snip Before I get inundated, I made a mistake here and gave you my CD recording setup, which is taken from the digital out of the Proceed after passing from CD player to DTI-Pro to DAC. For SACD, I used analog out on the Sony, into my preamp, and through the tape outs to the Marantz analog ins. Usually I listen to the Marantz through its analog output, which is very fine. I can also switch the digital out into the DTI Pro/Proceed Combo but in the case of the Marantz, it adds very little. Well, maybe you are setting yourself up to get inundated again. You are saying that when you copy from CD to a blank CD, you take the digital out of the CD player to DTI-Pro to DAC? What exactly are you talking about? You have these expensive gear and can't afford a CD burner, which is standard now in just about any PC sold? I have two PC's with three burners. I use them to copy CD's or DVD's when I just want a casual copy....they are not in my audio system. I burn CD's IN my audio system when I want the best quality...from the player to the DTI Pro in real time which noise shapes them to 20 bits and de-jitters them, then feeds the signal back out from the Proceed via the sp/dif connection to the Marantz CD burner (which uses older, slower, but higher quality CD-R blanks). Here's how the rest of the world copy from a CD to a blank CD, now that we are in 2006. Just rip the tracks from the original CD onto your hard disk, and copy the tracks to a blank CD. No DAC or ADC involved at all. No need for your Marantz semi-pro recoder, either. Use Exact Audio Copy if you are concerned about jitter or errors in the ripping process. (Note: different jitter than that mentioned by high-enders.) I use either Nero 7 or Roxio, as the mood entails. They burn just fine for casual use...and i use those disks in the car or with my second system, so it doesn't matter. For any "masters" for my main system I prefer to use the better disks, real-time burning, and better electronics. I actually set it up that way to burn vinyl (and do) but being perhaps old fashioned I prefer to do my best CD's that way as well. It is, of course, my life..... Too bad you can't use that wonderful DAC with your vinyl collection, eh? Don't need to...I get wonderful vinyl sound without it....one of the advantages of vinyl. |
|
#109
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
jonrkc wrote:
Further he wrote: "If it's the euphonic distortions of vinyl that you like, then all the money on earth won't buy you a satisfying CD player. Invest in a good equalizer instead, and a digital signal processor, and make your own distortions." I cannot honestly agree that the difference talked about in this thread is due to distortion-- unless the distortion in question results somehow in more lifelike reproduction. It doesn't. It results in the PERCEPTION of more lifelike reproduction. All the difference in the world. And that seems, to me, an odd result. As for "huge price tags," I think the loss of irreplaceable recordings due to disintegrating CD's carries a pretty big price tag in itself. I have not had one single LP become unplayable after fifty years of collecting them. I don't know how many of my CD's have self-destroyed by now, because I obviously cannot check on each of them daily or weekly. But two or three are gone forever and others are showing ominous signs of degradation. Odd. I've had exactly the opposite experience. Only one CD of mine has gone bad in 15 years. (I was a late adopter!) I haven't lost a lot of vinyl, but certainly more than that. Once all the CDs are ripped to hard drives (twice, of course), digital will be indestructible, barring a house fire. bob |
|
#110
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
On 14 Feb 2006 00:21:03 GMT, "jonrkc"
wrote: Bob wrote: "If it's the euphonic distortions of vinyl that you like, then all the money on earth won't buy you a satisfying CD player. Invest in a good equalizer instead, and a digital signal processor, and make your own distortions." I cannot honestly agree that the difference talked about in this thread is due to distortion-- unless the distortion in question results somehow in more lifelike reproduction. And that seems, to me, an odd result. It may be 'odd', but it appears to be the case. You can make a CD of an LP, which will have all the 'vinyl magic' of the original. This seems a pretty good indication that what you prefer about vinyl is *added* artifacts, not anything mysteriously 'lost' in a digital recording. As for "huge price tags," I think the loss of irreplaceable recordings due to disintegrating CD's carries a pretty big price tag in itself. I have not had one single LP become unplayable after fifty years of collecting them. Really? You must be extremely careful with them! I've lost tracks on at least half a dozen LPs due to assorted accidents over the last forty years. OTOH, your care doesn't seem to extend to CDs....... I don't know how many of my CD's have self-destroyed by now, because I obviously cannot check on each of them daily or weekly. But two or three are gone forever and others are showing ominous signs of degradation. Interesting, since I have at least fifty from 1983, and not one shows any signs of degradation whatever. AFAIK, there was only *ever* a problem with a couple of month's production from one factory, way back in the mid '80s, so I can't imagine what you're doing to your CDs to have caused this problem. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#111
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... "Chung" wrote in message ... jonrkc wrote: snip I also recorded it through my DTI Pro / Proceed DAC, so I was using my system DAC, not the internal Marantz DAC. So it was an excellent recording setup, but not one too expensive (via eBay) for the average audiophile. Now here's the question to you: Why does the majority of critical listeners prefer digital? snip Before I get inundated, I made a mistake here and gave you my CD recording setup, which is taken from the digital out of the Proceed after passing from CD player to DTI-Pro to DAC. For SACD, I used analog out on the Sony, into my preamp, and through the tape outs to the Marantz analog ins. Usually I listen to the Marantz through its analog output, which is very fine. I can also switch the digital out into the DTI Pro/Proceed Combo but in the case of the Marantz, it adds very little. Well, maybe you are setting yourself up to get inundated again. You are saying that when you copy from CD to a blank CD, you take the digital out of the CD player to DTI-Pro to DAC? What exactly are you talking about? You have these expensive gear and can't afford a CD burner, which is standard now in just about any PC sold? I have two PC's with three burners. I use them to copy CD's or DVD's when I just want a casual copy....they are not in my audio system. I burn CD's IN my audio system when I want the best quality...from the player to the DTI Pro in real time which noise shapes them to 20 bits and de-jitters them, then feeds the signal back out from the Proceed via the sp/dif connection to the Marantz CD burner (which uses older, slower, but higher quality CD-R blanks). You know, Harry, this speaks volumes about the mentality of some subjectivists. I know that you are not alone. The goal is to make a copy of a CD, or certain tracks on a CD, onto a blank CD-R. Normal people use a computer to rip the tracks, and use software, like EAC, to insure that the data is ripped as accurately as possible. Then they use mastering software, such as Nero, to insure that the data is written correctly (verifiably so) to the CD blank. (Nero can write to slow speed CD blanks, too, and there are many burners that do a great job of burning at 4X speeds.) They get a bit-accurate copy of the CD tracks. Some subjectivists go through a DAC conversion, then digital filtering/signal processing, and then further digital manipulations and/or ADC to copy a CD or the tracks of a CD. So they add unnecessary steps, and more importantly signal-to-noise degradations due to the conversions and digital processing, to get the copies. Moreover, they have to do this in real time (a 70 minute CD takes at least 70 minutes to copy using Harry's high-end method), have no permanant copy of the tracks on storage, and cannot make compilations easily. But they *think* they get a *better* copy that way, although they do not get a bit accurate copy. Accuracy to the original CD must not be the most important thing. No wonder they prefer LP's to digital audio .Here's how the rest of the world copy from a CD to a blank CD, now that we are in 2006. Just rip the tracks from the original CD onto your hard disk, and copy the tracks to a blank CD. No DAC or ADC involved at all. No need for your Marantz semi-pro recoder, either. Use Exact Audio Copy if you are concerned about jitter or errors in the ripping process. (Note: different jitter than that mentioned by high-enders.) I use either Nero 7 or Roxio, as the mood entails. They burn just fine for casual use...and i use those disks in the car or with my second system, so it doesn't matter. For any "masters" for my main system I prefer to use the better disks, real-time burning, and better electronics. I actually set it up that way to burn vinyl (and do) but being perhaps old fashioned I prefer to do my best CD's that way as well. It is, of course, my life..... Your preference is sacrosanct, as objectivist love to say... Too bad you can't use that wonderful DAC with your vinyl collection, eh? Don't need to...I get wonderful vinyl sound without it....one of the advantages of vinyl. |
|
#112
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 14 Feb 2006 00:21:03 GMT, "jonrkc" wrote: Bob wrote: "If it's the euphonic distortions of vinyl that you like, then all the money on earth won't buy you a satisfying CD player. Invest in a good equalizer instead, and a digital signal processor, and make your own distortions." I cannot honestly agree that the difference talked about in this thread is due to distortion-- unless the distortion in question results somehow in more lifelike reproduction. And that seems, to me, an odd result. It may be 'odd', but it appears to be the case. You can make a CD of an LP, which will have all the 'vinyl magic' of the original. You keep repeating this as though it were a universal experience, but it is not mine. For one thing, vinyl doesn't have "magic." It is a more accurate reproduction of music than CD, that's all. It's no more magical than live music. Secondly, I've made digital copies of LP and they sound dreadful. For that matter, so do LP's made from digital recordings, for the most part. For example, I have the CD and LP from a digital recording (Leonhardt playing the French Suites) and they sound nearly identical--and both suffer from a typical digital fault, which is failure of the highs to integrate with the body of the sound. Mike |
|
#113
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
"chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... "Chung" wrote in message ... jonrkc wrote: snip I also recorded it through my DTI Pro / Proceed DAC, so I was using my system DAC, not the internal Marantz DAC. So it was an excellent recording setup, but not one too expensive (via eBay) for the average audiophile. Now here's the question to you: Why does the majority of critical listeners prefer digital? snip Before I get inundated, I made a mistake here and gave you my CD recording setup, which is taken from the digital out of the Proceed after passing from CD player to DTI-Pro to DAC. For SACD, I used analog out on the Sony, into my preamp, and through the tape outs to the Marantz analog ins. Usually I listen to the Marantz through its analog output, which is very fine. I can also switch the digital out into the DTI Pro/Proceed Combo but in the case of the Marantz, it adds very little. Well, maybe you are setting yourself up to get inundated again. You are saying that when you copy from CD to a blank CD, you take the digital out of the CD player to DTI-Pro to DAC? What exactly are you talking about? You have these expensive gear and can't afford a CD burner, which is standard now in just about any PC sold? I have two PC's with three burners. I use them to copy CD's or DVD's when I just want a casual copy....they are not in my audio system. I burn CD's IN my audio system when I want the best quality...from the player to the DTI Pro in real time which noise shapes them to 20 bits and de-jitters them, then feeds the signal back out from the Proceed via the sp/dif connection to the Marantz CD burner (which uses older, slower, but higher quality CD-R blanks). You know, Harry, this speaks volumes about the mentality of some subjectivists. I know that you are not alone. The goal is to make a copy of a CD, or certain tracks on a CD, onto a blank CD-R. Normal people use a computer to rip the tracks, and use software, like EAC, to insure that the data is ripped as accurately as possible. Then they use mastering software, such as Nero, to insure that the data is written correctly (verifiably so) to the CD blank. (Nero can write to slow speed CD blanks, too, and there are many burners that do a great job of burning at 4X speeds.) They get a bit-accurate copy of the CD tracks. Some subjectivists go through a DAC conversion, then digital filtering/signal processing, and then further digital manipulations and/or ADC to copy a CD or the tracks of a CD. So they add unnecessary steps, and more importantly signal-to-noise degradations due to the conversions and digital processing, to get the copies. Moreover, they have to do this in real time (a 70 minute CD takes at least 70 minutes to copy using Harry's high-end method), have no permanant copy of the tracks on storage, and cannot make compilations easily. But they *think* they get a *better* copy that way, although they do not get a bit accurate copy. Accuracy to the original CD must not be the most important thing. Oh I see, trekking to the basement or bedroom with CD in hand, burning it to hard disk, burning it again to blank...is not an "extra step". But putting it in the CD player, pushing the "Auto Mode" button on the CD burner in the system, and sitting back to listen to the disk while it burns IS an extra step. I get it. I guess if you take music out of the equation it makes sense. NOT! And by the way, I don't want a permament copy on my hard drive, and I don't want to make compilations. Your values are not my values, Chung.. No wonder they prefer LP's to digital audio .I prefer LP's to CD's for the same reason I prefer SACD's to LP's; in many if not most cases they sound better. Revolutionary thought, isn't it? snip, not relevant |
|
#114
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
"...so I can't imagine what you're doing to your CDs to
have caused this problem." I believe this is called an ad hominem retort. For general information, here's what I'm doing to my CD's: Handling them with extreme care, and storing them in the accursed jewel boxes that their manufacturers put them in. For further information, I will no longer be taking part in this group. |
|
#116
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
"Stewart Pinkerton" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
... On 14 Feb 2006 00:21:03 GMT, "jonrkc" wrote: Interesting, since I have at least fifty from 1983, and not one shows any signs of degradation whatever. AFAIK, there was only *ever* a problem with a couple of month's production from one factory, way back in the mid '80s, so I can't imagine what you're doing to your CDs to have caused this problem. From the professional side I can inform You, that in that time was the growing CD industry full of unexperienced firms, who to save costs and make the quick money, manipulated the UV lacqueer. The result was a coating, which was solvable with alcohol and or, after several month, the aluminium coating was oxidated and the CD became unplayable. To buy a CD with this properties was a question of luck, nothing else. The price and quality race gone until today, where the thickness of the lacqueer coating became the 1/10 the original standard only, however the lacqueer manufacturers are able to deliver much higher quality, wich can resist todays "wetroom tests", which simulates the aging of up to 150-200 years. This reliability is also there by CD-Rs, where the aging of the dye layer was separately _and_ together with the safety lacquer continously developed. There are also new trends in safety coating, to save the disc against scratches and room humidity influences. The development of UV lacquer coatings achieved a niveau by avoiding coagulations, that the homogene surface will have no negative influence on the signal quality anymore. Since the polycarbonate substrate has a hardness of HB and the lacqueer can be 2H-4H, it is a step forward. Best regards -- Johann Spischak SDG, Spischak Digital GmbH +49-911-965-7319 http://sdg-master.com |
|
#117
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
On 17 Feb 2006 00:31:07 GMT, "jonrkc"
wrote: "...so I can't imagine what you're doing to your CDs to have caused this problem." I believe this is called an ad hominem retort. No, it's an expression of surprise. from someone who knows of no reason why normally stored CDs should suffer failure, aside from that early batch I mentioned. For general information, here's what I'm doing to my CD's: Handling them with extreme care, and storing them in the accursed jewel boxes that their manufacturers put them in. In which case, you are suffering failures which no one else has reported. Maybe you have a bad player. For further information, I will no longer be taking part in this group. By all means take your bat and ball home, if you are unable to handle a resoned debate. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#118
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 16 Feb 2006 01:01:39 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 14 Feb 2006 00:21:03 GMT, "jonrkc" wrote: Bob wrote: "If it's the euphonic distortions of vinyl that you like, then all the money on earth won't buy you a satisfying CD player. Invest in a good equalizer instead, and a digital signal processor, and make your own distortions." I cannot honestly agree that the difference talked about in this thread is due to distortion-- unless the distortion in question results somehow in more lifelike reproduction. And that seems, to me, an odd result. It may be 'odd', but it appears to be the case. You can make a CD of an LP, which will have all the 'vinyl magic' of the original. You keep repeating this as though it were a universal experience, but it is not mine. It's a widely experienced effect, but of course there will always be some who claim a difference. Either way it has no bearing on the sound of commercial CDs vs.commercial LPs. For one thing, vinyl doesn't have "magic." It is a more accurate reproduction of music than CD, that's all. It's no more magical than live music. You keep repeating this as though it were a universal experience, but it is not mine, nor that of most audiophiles. I suggest you just speak for yourself. I found one survey on the subject and it doesn't jive with your assertion http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/po...lts&pollid=651 Secondly, I've made digital copies of LP and they sound dreadful. For that matter, so do LP's made from digital recordings, for the most part. Clearly, you're doing it wrong.................... How do you know? For example, I have the CD and LP from a digital recording (Leonhardt playing the French Suites) and they sound nearly identical--and both suffer from a typical digital fault, which is failure of the highs to integrate with the body of the sound. Utter nonsense, no suchh effect exists in the real world. Balony. It was a description. You have no way of supporting your claim. I defy you to tell the difference between a well-made CD-R of an LP, and the original, when you don't *know* which is playing. I defy you to show how this has anything to do with commercial CDs and LPs. Scott |
|
#119
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 17 Feb 2006 00:31:07 GMT, "jonrkc" wrote: "...so I can't imagine what you're doing to your CDs to have caused this problem." I believe this is called an ad hominem retort. No, it's an expression of surprise. No. Wow is an expression of surprise, Oh my gosh is an expression of surprise. The list of poossibilities is quite long. Yours was totally an ad hominem retort. You do know what ad hominem means don't you? from someone who knows of no reason why normally stored CDs should suffer failure, aside from that early batch I mentioned. Then you are in luck it seems a new poster who also is a pro has offered some infortmation on the subject. check out the thread and you will find the post. For general information, here's what I'm doing to my CD's: Handling them with extreme care, and storing them in the accursed jewel boxes that their manufacturers put them in. In which case, you are suffering failures which no one else has reported. Wrong. Maybe you have a bad player. Hey, that is a reasonable possibility. For further information, I will no longer be taking part in this group. By all means take your bat and ball home, if you are unable to handle a resoned debate. Ad Hominem comments are not a part of reasonable debate. But if chasing someone off this news group through ad hominem comments makes you happy then you ought to be quite happy. Scott |
|
#120
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
|
Percpetion
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... "Chung" wrote in message ... jonrkc wrote: snip I also recorded it through my DTI Pro / Proceed DAC, so I was using my system DAC, not the internal Marantz DAC. So it was an excellent recording setup, but not one too expensive (via eBay) for the average audiophile. Now here's the question to you: Why does the majority of critical listeners prefer digital? snip Before I get inundated, I made a mistake here and gave you my CD recording setup, which is taken from the digital out of the Proceed after passing from CD player to DTI-Pro to DAC. For SACD, I used analog out on the Sony, into my preamp, and through the tape outs to the Marantz analog ins. Usually I listen to the Marantz through its analog output, which is very fine. I can also switch the digital out into the DTI Pro/Proceed Combo but in the case of the Marantz, it adds very little. Well, maybe you are setting yourself up to get inundated again. You are saying that when you copy from CD to a blank CD, you take the digital out of the CD player to DTI-Pro to DAC? What exactly are you talking about? You have these expensive gear and can't afford a CD burner, which is standard now in just about any PC sold? I have two PC's with three burners. I use them to copy CD's or DVD's when I just want a casual copy....they are not in my audio system. I burn CD's IN my audio system when I want the best quality...from the player to the DTI Pro in real time which noise shapes them to 20 bits and de-jitters them, then feeds the signal back out from the Proceed via the sp/dif connection to the Marantz CD burner (which uses older, slower, but higher quality CD-R blanks). You know, Harry, this speaks volumes about the mentality of some subjectivists. I know that you are not alone. The goal is to make a copy of a CD, or certain tracks on a CD, onto a blank CD-R. Normal people use a computer to rip the tracks, and use software, like EAC, to insure that the data is ripped as accurately as possible. Then they use mastering software, such as Nero, to insure that the data is written correctly (verifiably so) to the CD blank. (Nero can write to slow speed CD blanks, too, and there are many burners that do a great job of burning at 4X speeds.) They get a bit-accurate copy of the CD tracks. Some subjectivists go through a DAC conversion, then digital filtering/signal processing, and then further digital manipulations and/or ADC to copy a CD or the tracks of a CD. So they add unnecessary steps, and more importantly signal-to-noise degradations due to the conversions and digital processing, to get the copies. Moreover, they have to do this in real time (a 70 minute CD takes at least 70 minutes to copy using Harry's high-end method), have no permanant copy of the tracks on storage, and cannot make compilations easily. But they *think* they get a *better* copy that way, although they do not get a bit accurate copy. Accuracy to the original CD must not be the most important thing. Oh I see, trekking to the basement or bedroom with CD in hand, burning it to hard disk, burning it again to blank...is not an "extra step". But putting it in the CD player, pushing the "Auto Mode" button on the CD burner in the system, and sitting back to listen to the disk while it burns IS an extra step. I get it. Not so quick, Harry. The extra step(s) I referred to was the additional DAC/digital-filtering/ADC that you said your CD went through in the duplicating process. What pray tell is the extra step in going transport - DTI Pro (noise shaping, dejittering) - digital input of the Marantz CDR? I guess if you take music out of the equation it makes sense. NOT! And the amazing thing is that you believe all those extra steps somehow gives you a better copy, despite the fact that you are not getting a bit-accurate copy as most of us could do easily. Except to improve the perceived noise level in the audible midrange? Well, Harry, if you believe that sending the data from a CD through a DTI-Pro where certain noise shaping is applied and then back to the CD recorder to be recorded always improve the "noise level in the audible mid-range", then perhaps you should do that to every CD you own. You know, make a copy of every CD through your patented method. ThePerceived Noise Floor in Audible Midrange gets better! The copy is better than the original! If you think about it more, you are still limited to the 16 bits when you send your data to your CD recorder. Those 20 bit noise shaping does not do you any good. You still have to follow the 16 bit/sample 44.1KHz sampling standard when you make that CD copy. You are *NOT* using the DAC of your vaulted DAC! OTOH, you seem to believe that when you copy a CD, you should not copy the exact data as it was recorded in the original. Somehow massaging it makes a CD "better" than the original...Your 16 bit, 44.1KHz samples somehow sound so much better than the original .And by the way, I don't want a permament copy on my hard drive, and I don't want to make compilations. Your values are not my values, Chung.. Clearly not... Clearly not... |
Linear Mode
