"Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:mopPa.27198$OZ2.4772@rwcrnsc54...
Thought you guys might find the following interesting.

http://www.rogernichols.com/EQ/EQ_2000_02.html

I also suspect that responses will be predictable, but perhaps not.

As I mentioned in my previous response, Harry provided the first
"predictable response" to his own post, simply in what I would
assert is his clear mischaracterization of the topic as "Ears vs
Instruments."

In reading Mr. Nichols' text, we find, in fact, no such conflict
between ears an instruments. Why, because nowhere does he mention
any attempt to use the relevant measurements. I have no doubt that
Mr. Nichols' experienmce is quite real, and, from other sources,
I have no doubt of the problem in the stamper that could lead to
the problems. But Mr. Nichols simply failed to carry out any relevant
measurements. He talks about looking for gross errors and finding none.

He jumps to the conclusion, based on almost no objective data, that
the problem is jitter. He may well be right, but he has no confirming
evidence.

There would be plenty of ways to confirm his diagnosis: simply looking
at the noise floor would be one way, and actually (gasp! horrors! zut
alors!) actually MEASURING the jitter would, i might humbly suggest,
be yet another.

But that was NEVER DONE!

So where, Harry, is the supposed conflict between "ear" and
"instrument" that you see, when, in effect, no "instrument" was
used? He never said that appropriate instrument measurement failed
to reveal the problem. What he DIDN'T say was most eloqient: he never
made ANY relevant measurement.

A completely similar argument could be raised if he measured the
bejeebers out of it and never once listened to it. If jitter was the
problem, you'd see it trivially in a high-resolution spectral plot,
you'd see it trivially in a straight jitter measurement. Now, with
that in hand, where is it reasonable to title a post "Instrument vs.
Ear"?

Again, I am sure Mr. Nichols' experience is quite real. I am also
sure that the conclusion you seem to want people to infer is simply
unsupportable from his data, because he has NO data on "instruments."
Indeed, he does not state otherwise.

Where's the conflict?

Yes is interesting, dare we say it would also be interesting to do a dbt
using the material he used? All we have at best is an anecdotal example
which would be better supported with controled testing. All that is
required is to have one cd from the "good" category and another from the
"bad" and let him rip, as long as he doesn't know which is which, as he
did in the article. Based on the article, we don't know with any certainty
if all he put himself through was a waiste of time or if it had any
reality outside of his self reported experience of it. A more accurate
subject line, based soley on his report, would be "reported perception vs.
reported perception".

Thought you guys might find the following interesting.

http://www.rogernichols.com/EQ/EQ_2000_02.html

I also suspect that responses will be predictable, but perhaps not.

Harry. Lavo
"it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing" - Duke Ellington

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:mopPa.27198$OZ2.4772@rwcrnsc54...
Thought you guys might find the following interesting.

http://www.rogernichols.com/EQ/EQ_2000_02.html

I also suspect that responses will be predictable, but perhaps not.

Well, Harry, your post can be taken as existance proof that the
"predictable responses" have ALREADY begun...

:-)

Dick Pierce wrote:
He jumps to the conclusion, based on almost no objective data, that
the problem is jitter. He may well be right, but he has no confirming
evidence.

There would be plenty of ways to confirm his diagnosis: simply looking
at the noise floor would be one way, and actually (gasp! horrors! zut
alors!) actually MEASURING the jitter would, i might humbly suggest,
be yet another.

But that was NEVER DONE!

So where, Harry, is the supposed conflict between "ear" and
"instrument" that you see, when, in effect, no "instrument" was
used? He never said that appropriate instrument measurement failed
to reveal the problem. What he DIDN'T say was most eloqient: he never
made ANY relevant measurement.

Indeed. In the *only* measurement he did, Mr. Nichols found that the 'bad
sounding' and 'good sounding' versions were bit-perfect copies. Assuming
jitter is the problem, does that mean that the computer CDR drive he used
to transfer the tracks to hard drive for analysis corrected the jitter
problem, or does it mean that jitter does not change the bits? (Or does it
mean some other thing I'm not thinking of?)

--
-S.

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
et...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:mopPa.27198$OZ2.4772@rwcrnsc54...
Thought you guys might find the following interesting.

http://www.rogernichols.com/EQ/EQ_2000_02.html

I also suspect that responses will be predictable, but perhaps not.

As I mentioned in my previous response, Harry provided the first
"predictable response" to his own post, simply in what I would
assert is his clear mischaracterization of the topic as "Ears vs
Instruments."

In reading Mr. Nichols' text, we find, in fact, no such conflict
between ears an instruments. Why, because nowhere does he mention
any attempt to use the relevant measurements. I have no doubt that
Mr. Nichols' experienmce is quite real, and, from other sources,
I have no doubt of the problem in the stamper that could lead to
the problems. But Mr. Nichols simply failed to carry out any relevant
measurements. He talks about looking for gross errors and finding none.

He jumps to the conclusion, based on almost no objective data, that
the problem is jitter. He may well be right, but he has no confirming
evidence.

There would be plenty of ways to confirm his diagnosis: simply looking
at the noise floor would be one way, and actually (gasp! horrors! zut
alors!) actually MEASURING the jitter would, i might humbly suggest,
be yet another.

But that was NEVER DONE!

So where, Harry, is the supposed conflict between "ear" and
"instrument" that you see, when, in effect, no "instrument" was
used? He never said that appropriate instrument measurement failed
to reveal the problem. What he DIDN'T say was most eloqient: he never
made ANY relevant measurement.

A completely similar argument could be raised if he measured the
bejeebers out of it and never once listened to it. If jitter was the
problem, you'd see it trivially in a high-resolution spectral plot,
you'd see it trivially in a straight jitter measurement. Now, with
that in hand, where is it reasonable to title a post "Instrument vs.
Ear"?

Again, I am sure Mr. Nichols' experience is quite real. I am also
sure that the conclusion you seem to want people to infer is simply
unsupportable from his data, because he has NO data on "instruments."
Indeed, he does not state otherwise.

Where's the conflict?


The conflict, Dick, was that SONY and the production plants were all using
conventional measurements that they *thought* provided adequate quality
control to insure that the finished product would sound like the master.
And these measurements were all based on the "bits is bits" assumption.
But the ear/brain combo said "something doesn't sound right". And by
eliminating possibilities, the problem was narrowed down to the point where
the *important* variables creating the problem were eliminated because
somebody else had apparently determined the same thing and made sure those
variables were eliminated. Apparently that Denon plant and the JVC K2
people (that's their XRCD24 line, btw, I believe) trusted their ears too, at
least the JVC people claim to use rigorous listening as well as measurement
in setting up their system and Denon is routinely praised by Audiophiles for
their sound quality (and where John Eargle is (or was?) chief engineer).

So, could it be measured? I'm sure, if one knew what could cause the
problems in the first place and then track them down. But were the right
variables measured? Not routinely by the production engineers convinced
that "bits is bits" and if you don't measure bit errors "do we really have
to listen?" Yep, when all is said and done, there is no substitute....at
least until one has proven that *all* the audible variables are under
control.

p.s. the "they weren't dbt'd and probably the differences were imagined"
chorus has started. But I am pleased that your are focused on the measuremen
ts, because that was my own focus. As I am sure you will yourself agree,
sometimes their *are* large differences so apparent to a group of trained
people that the differences can be accepted as a given. In the antidotes
portrayed, there were tests and comparisons done which resulted in a "no
difference" when it would have been quite possible to have been biased in
favor of finding a difference...for that would allow the problem to be
solved. Instead, "no difference" was declared and the search continued. I
frankly am convinced that in this case the differences were real, and am
more interested in the QA measurement scenario.

"Harry Lavo" wrote:

...large snips about tests, measurements and jitter .....

Again, I am sure Mr. Nichols' experience is quite real. I am also
sure that the conclusion you seem to want people to infer is simply
unsupportable from his data, because he has NO data on "instruments."
Indeed, he does not state otherwise.

Where's the conflict?


The conflict, Dick, was that SONY and the production plants were all using
conventional measurements that they *thought* provided adequate quality
control to insure that the finished product would sound like the master.
And these measurements were all based on the "bits is bits" assumption.
But the ear/brain combo said "something doesn't sound right". And by
eliminating possibilities, the problem was narrowed down to the point where
the *important* variables creating the problem were eliminated because
somebody else had apparently determined the same thing and made sure those
variables were eliminated. Apparently that Denon plant and the JVC K2
people (that's their XRCD24 line, btw, I believe) trusted their ears too, at
least the JVC people claim to use rigorous listening as well as measurement
in setting up their system and Denon is routinely praised by Audiophiles for
their sound quality (and where John Eargle is (or was?) chief engineer).

Unless something has happened I don't know about I am unaware of John Eargle's
(IMO probably the finest recording engineer that has ever lived) association
with Denon. Perhaps you are confusing Delos with Denon.

But that's not why I'm posting. I want to convey another anecdote. I know a
fellow who wons a cd production facility. He recounted a story where a large
Japanese company complained about production samples having 'inferior' sound
quality.

He copied the defective samples returned to him, reproduced same, relabeled
some of the 'defective' product and sent them all back. The client then found
them all to have acceptable sound quality and was happy that he had 'fixed' the
problems.

These anecdotes have no end but by themselves deserve no evidentiary status.

"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:4tLPa.37141$GL4.8369@rwcrnsc53...
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

..large snips about tests, measurements and jitter .....

Again, I am sure Mr. Nichols' experience is quite real. I am also
sure that the conclusion you seem to want people to infer is simply
unsupportable from his data, because he has NO data on "instruments."
Indeed, he does not state otherwise.

Where's the conflict?


The conflict, Dick, was that SONY and the production plants were all
using
conventional measurements that they *thought* provided adequate quality
control to insure that the finished product would sound like the master.
And these measurements were all based on the "bits is bits" assumption.
But the ear/brain combo said "something doesn't sound right". And by
eliminating possibilities, the problem was narrowed down to the point
where
the *important* variables creating the problem were eliminated because
somebody else had apparently determined the same thing and made sure
those
variables were eliminated. Apparently that Denon plant and the JVC K2
people (that's their XRCD24 line, btw, I believe) trusted their ears too,
at
least the JVC people claim to use rigorous listening as well as
measurement
in setting up their system and Denon is routinely praised by Audiophiles
for
their sound quality (and where John Eargle is (or was?) chief engineer).

Unless something has happened I don't know about I am unaware of John
Eargle's
(IMO probably the finest recording engineer that has ever lived)
association
with Denon. Perhaps you are confusing Delos with Denon.


Oops, my bad! I did make that mistake and in retrospect I know better.
But glad we agree on mr. Eargle's credentials and reputation...although I
might put Marc Aubort up there with him.

But that's not why I'm posting. I want to convey another anecdote. I know
a
fellow who wons a cd production facility. He recounted a story where a
large
Japanese company complained about production samples having 'inferior'
sound
quality.

He copied the defective samples returned to him, reproduced same,
relabeled
some of the 'defective' product and sent them all back. The client then
found
them all to have acceptable sound quality and was happy that he had
'fixed' the
problems.

These anecdotes have no end but by themselves deserve no evidentiary
status.


No doubt people can be fooled but that wasn't the case in the article I
referenced.

Mr. Nousaine,

Care to do like Harry and gives names and company details.

Whether it is or not I don't know. But your anecdote has all
the markings of something made up.

Wonder what the large Japanese company would have thought
of this tactic if they had found out? Wonder if something had
been amiss and they decided this CD plant couldn't fix the problems?
Wonder if owners of CD plants handle other complaints this way?
By doing nothing more than a little sleight of hand.

Dennis

_________________________________________________ ____
__________________________________________________ __---
But that's not why I'm posting. I want to convey another anecdote. I know a
fellow who wons a cd production facility. He recounted a story where a large
Japanese company complained about production samples having 'inferior' sound
quality.

He copied the defective samples returned to him, reproduced same, relabeled
some of the 'defective' product and sent them all back. The client then
found
them all to have acceptable sound quality and was happy that he had 'fixed'
the
problems.

"Dennis Moore" wrote:

Mr. Nousaine,

Care to do like Harry and gives names and company details.

No. But Harry made up some of his now didn't he? John Eargle was not, as is not
new, Chief Engineer of Denon.


Whether it is or not I don't know. But your anecdote has all
the markings of something made up.

It was related to me by the owner of a cd making facility. I cannot vouch for
its truthfulness. But Harry can't vouch for the truthfulness of his anecdote
either. On the other hand, I know an engineer at a BMG facility who has related
similar "your product sounds bad" experiences.


Wonder what the large Japanese company would have thought
of this tactic if they had found out?

'Dunno but if the 'new' ones sounded better than 'themselves' perhaps they
would have apologized. Probably not

Wonder if something had
been amiss and they decided this CD plant couldn't fix the problems?
Wonder if owners of CD plants handle other complaints this way?

I'm guessing only in those cases where investigation revealed there was nothing
wrong with the original product.

By doing nothing more than a little sleight of hand.

Dennis

Why do you consider that sleight of hand. They investigated the 'problem',
found none and satisfied a customer.

But that's not why I'm posting. I want to convey another anecdote. I know a
fellow who wons a cd production facility. He recounted a story where a large
Japanese company complained about production samples having 'inferior' sound
quality.

He copied the defective samples returned to him, reproduced same, relabeled
some of the 'defective' product and sent them all back. The client then
found
them all to have acceptable sound quality and was happy that he had 'fixed'
the
problems.

So changing labels on a product, giving the same product to a
customer, who you have gone out of your way to mislead into
thinking is a different product when it is the same isn't sleight
of hand? Okay, what is it? It isn't truthful.

Harry's comment about John Eargle falls under a mistake.
Doesn't appear to be made up, simply a mistake.

Dennis

"Nousaine" wrote in message
...
"Dennis Moore" wrote:

Mr. Nousaine,

Care to do like Harry and gives names and company details.

No. But Harry made up some of his now didn't he? John Eargle was not, as
is not
new, Chief Engineer of Denon.


Whether it is or not I don't know. But your anecdote has all
the markings of something made up.

It was related to me by the owner of a cd making facility. I cannot vouch
for
its truthfulness. But Harry can't vouch for the truthfulness of his
anecdote
either. On the other hand, I know an engineer at a BMG facility who has
related
similar "your product sounds bad" experiences.


Wonder what the large Japanese company would have thought
of this tactic if they had found out?

'Dunno but if the 'new' ones sounded better than 'themselves' perhaps they
would have apologized. Probably not

Wonder if something had
been amiss and they decided this CD plant couldn't fix the problems?
Wonder if owners of CD plants handle other complaints this way?

I'm guessing only in those cases where investigation revealed there was
nothing
wrong with the original product.

By doing nothing more than a little sleight of hand.

Dennis

Why do you consider that sleight of hand. They investigated the 'problem',
found none and satisfied a customer.

But that's not why I'm posting. I want to convey another anecdote. I know
a
fellow who wons a cd production facility. He recounted a story where a
large
Japanese company complained about production samples having 'inferior'
sound
quality.

He copied the defective samples returned to him, reproduced same,
relabeled
some of the 'defective' product and sent them all back. The client then
found
them all to have acceptable sound quality and was happy that he had
'fixed'
the
problems.

Dennis Moore wrote:
Mr. Nousaine,

Care to do like Harry and gives names and company details.

Whether it is or not I don't know. But your anecdote has all
the markings of something made up.

Hardly. If you like, I will seek out the online diary
of a recording engineer, where he recounts the commonplace
occurrence of 'sweetener' knobs in control rooms, which
exist ONLY to placate annoying record producers looking for
that 'extra something'.

The knob isn't connected to anyting, but careful
adjustment, in sight of said producer, accompanied
by asking 'Does that sound better?" seems to always
do the trick.

IIRC I once found a website *selling* such flimflammery
to studios, with a knowing wink.

--
-S.

Steven Sullivan wrote:
IIRC I once found a website *selling* such flimflammery to studios,
with a knowing wink.

Funk Logic: http://www.funklogic.com/

my favorite is the palindrometer:
http://www.funklogic.com/palindrometer.htm

but the Digilog Dynamicator and Algorhythmic Prosecutor are amusing as
well:
http://www.funklogic.com/dd301.htm
http://www.funklogic.com/ap302.htm

for those who master digitally, there is the masterizer plug-in:
http://www.funklogic.com/mastererizer.htm

I'm sure there have to be more.

--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." |
"Isn't an OS that openly and proudly admits to come directly from Holy
UNIX better than a cheap UNIX copycat that needs to be sued in court
to determine what the hell it really is?" -- Michael Sokolov