| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry but for me the only way to have click an pop on a LP is to leave=20
the dust collect on them. I you don't take care of your LP it is sure=20 that you will get noise from a LP. I personnaly have close to 3000 LP=20 and 1000 CD and I do not have any LP that produce anything else but=20 Music (Yes NO SURFACE NOISE, NO CLICK, NO POP). You want to know why?=20 Because I CLEAN my LP. It simply take 15 sec. that all.If you don't know=20 how to clean a LP that's your problem, but if you said that you prefect=20 CD because the LP give you Click and Pop Plus surface Noise may I=20 propose that you try to find someone that own High Quality Turntables=20 and listen carefully to a LP in good condition. I bet that you won't=20 find any surface noise or click and pop. True If you put on any=20 turntable a LP that is scratch and dusty, the sound will be horrible.=20 And when you said that Denon and Technics make good quality turntable=20 sorry but yes Denon do make not so bad turntable (I still have a DP-47f=20 in my basement) but Technics?? sorry the only good thing about those=20 "turntable" is the motor with is high torque. The Technics are only good=20 for DJ not at all for music. Personnaly I own a Oracle Delphi mk V=20 turntable and when I compare it with the Denon (with the same cartridge=20 -Grado Gold-) and yes there is a difference. If you cannot find to the=20 difference between a High-End turntable and a Ordinary turntable that is=20 not because there is no difference, Is it possible that you honestly=20 never listen to a Linn or a Oracle or a Clearaudio turntable? I have several friend that always said that they prefered the sound of=20 their CD players over their Technics (one of them own a sl-1200) and=20 Pioneer turntable. Could you explain to me how come after they listen to=20 my gears all but one of those 6 guys(even the one who own the SL-1200)=20 bought a Project Turntable? It was the first time they had the chance to=20 listen to the sound of a Good LP Gear. I doubt that you never have that=20 chance. One day my brother came to my home with is 5 years old son=20 (Jean-Nicolas). We put the same piece of music (it was a nocturne from=20 Chopin)recorded on a CD and a LP. After we listen to both piece we ask=20 the little boy what sound he prefered and immediatly he said the black=20 disc. When asked why he reply because there was more sound on the black=20 disk I can ear someone reading a book (It was the helper turning the=20 pages of the partition) and on the other disk it is not there. Could you=20 explain how come a 5 years old kid can see that difference while some=20 adult cannot (or is it that they do not) see it. Have you ever thought that if someone tell you that the sound of a LP is=20 more natural than the sound of CD it may be simply because they truly=20 had the chance to really do a real comparison between both media. A=20 thing that sadly maybe you did'nt. I honestly hope that one day you will=20 have that chance. And by the way I do not care what is writen in the hi-fi press. They can=20 write anything they want I do not read them anyway. And by telling this : - no surface noise, no pops and clicks, much=20 better bass response, no wow and flutter, vastly less distortion -=20 essentially, the sound of the original master tape. You proved me that you never really listen to a High-End Turntable gear. Yes with a cheap turntable with a cheap cartridge you will get Wow and=20 Flutter, limited bass (because the cartridge cannot read the bass=20 information), surface noise and more distortion. Concerning Bass response did you know that the lowest frequency on a LP=20 is 7 Hz. Most High-end Cartridge can go as low as 10hz (My Grado Gold do=20 it). The main problem a Lp have with extremely low frequency is the=20 duration on play (the lower the frequence the larger the groove). Do you=20 really need something that go lower that 7HZ? I have a sub with dual 15inch in Isabaric configuration (18Hz -3dB) and=20 on a recording from Saint-Saens (organ symphony) on EMI and I can tell=20 you that the LP does'nt lack bass at all--- I cannot ear it anymore but=20 it really shake everything in the room-- So does the CD have any better=20 bass than a LP : NO WAY. Wow and Flutter is a problem only with low end turntable. Period. The text below was taken from the DJSource web page A word about comparing DATs and CDs to a record; digital levels do not=20 bear any relationship to analog levels. We=92re talking apples and orange= s=20 here. The analog output level of a CD player or DAT deck can be anything=20 the manufacturer wants it to be, but it is generally higher than a phono=20 preamp output. There are two reasons for this. First the digital=20 equipment manufacturers want CDs and DATs to sound better (translate=20 Louder) than records. If the DAT or CD is fairly wide dynamic range, a=20 record can be as loud. HOWEVER, there has been a trend in the last few=20 years to compress digital tapes almost to the point of the level display=20 not moving from the beginning to the end of the song (second reason).=20 This started with rap, filtered through to dance and club mixes, and=20 finally to most new commercial pop releases. The result is that what=20 used to be the peak level is now the average level and we=92re talking 6=20 to 8 dB louder than is physically possible to put on a phonograph record=20 (or analog tape). Remember that the groove can only move so far before=20 the playback stylus mistracks or skips, and magnetic tape can only be=20 driven so hard before it saturates. At any level, a digital recorder is=20 only printing ones and zeroes. There is no analog counterpart. The=20 bottom line is that a really compressed CD or DAT is going to be 6 to 8=20 dB louder than your record. This is not a defect, it=92s a FACT OF LIFE. = I=20 prefer to think of the digital compression as a defect and a scourge to=20 anyone who appreciates dynamic range. I have yet not find ANY digital media that is really better than my=20 Oracle Delphi. If one day I do find something better you can be certain=20 that i will switch. Presently the ONE and ONLY reason to switch is not=20 sound at all it is just convenience, Period. Bye Stewart Pinkerton a =E9crit : On 26 May 2005 23:46:21 GMT, Jocelyn Major wrote: =20 =20 A SACD is supposed to give you the same quality of sound as a LP. =20 =20 I certainly hope not!! =20 =20 I found difference between regular CD vs LP all in favor of the LP. I=20 compare a DVD-AUDIO with an Oracle Delphi and the Oracle still win=20 except the difference where not as dramatic as with CD vs the Oracle. =20 =20 That's simply a matter of personal preference, rather than any kind of 'quality' indicator. =20 =20 All the audio quality that was lost with CD is supposed to be there wit= h=20 SACD. The difference in sound that you noticed with this SACD is=20 exactly what you will find if you compare a CD with a good (NOT=20 JAPANESE) Turntable (LIKE ORACLE, LINN, CLEARAUDIO, ProJect) and a clea= n=20 LP in good condition.=20 =20 =20 Denon and Technics both made turntables as good as any you name, and significantly better than the overhyped Linn - which was generally used with Japanese arms and Japanese cartridges, and none the worse for that. =20 Furthermore, differences between SACD and CD are extremely subtle, quite unlike the gross difference between either of those and vinyl. Don't believe everything you read in the hi-fi press! =20 =20 The SACD is supposed to be finally the LP Killer=20 that the CD promised (but was a sound killer instead). The CD If I am correct use PCM ( data is upsampled, recorded, and=20 noise-filtered and downsampled. =20 =20 That's not a description of PCM. PCM samples sound at a rate slightly more than twice the highest frequency of interest (22kHz for CD), stores the samples, and then reads them back via a DAC which has at its output a reconstruction filter. This filter is a match for the anti-aliasing filter at the input to the ADC, and simply ensures that nothing above 22kHz appears in the output signal. Noise shaping is only required in oversampled systems, where audio band dynamic range is traded for ultrasonic noise.=20 =20 DSD is simply an extreme example of oversampling, and uses a 1-bit system sampled at a couple of megaHertz and noise-shaped to achieve similar audio band dynamic range to a 16-bit system sampling at 44.1kHz. Sony have been using high-oversampling DACs in their CD players for many years, eventually clocking them at 45 MHz! =20 =20 Again if I am correct SACD use DSD : Basically, it removed much of the=20 filtering and downsampling, leaving a purer digital signal to be=20 recorded. The encoding on the SACD is supposed to be lossless. So the=20 sound that is playback is closer to the analog sound. =20 =20 Utter garbage, and there's no reason whatever to suppose that DSD is 'purer' than PCM. Besides which, Sony were forced to drop DSD for recording, due to a fatal flaw in the 1-bit process, and now use what they call DSD Wide, which is simply another name for oversampled hybrid PCM, the same system that you'll find in most modern 24/192 DACs. =20 =20 Owners of Good turntable did'nt have any good reason (except=20 convenience) to change to the CD.=20 =20 =20 Sure they did - no surface noise, no pops and clicks, much better bass response, no wow and flutter, vastly less distortion - essentially, the sound of the original master tape. =20 Those aren't matters of convenience. |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 28 May 2005 20:05:15 GMT, Chung wrote:
So Mark, do you still find the two layers sounding quite different when you don't know which one is playing, and after some level matching? Hi Chung, I tried your level matching procedure but I think I messed it up. No matter; eventually I think I did match the levels adequately. And as I've indicated already, the two layers do not sound anywhere near as different as I thought they did. It is very difficult to distinguish them by direct comparison. I do not infer from this that the two sound identical (in the sense of creating identical sonic events) or are equally satisfying musically. I think it is possible that there are subtle differences between the two that work differently on me as I am listening. I don't think that a subtle difference of that kind is *necessarily* reflected in an ability to label or reidentify the stimulus. However, a test like this gives useful information; it gives some sense of the magnitude of the difference (which is much less than one's initial impression leads one to think it to be). If I still want to spend extra money on SACDs, well, I'm a grownup, and I do so fully in the knowledge that I am betting that the difference is significant despite the fact that it is not big. But it is good to know that. There is this question: how is it *possible* that a difference between SACD and CD is significant, that it makes a difference to my musical enjoyment, if it is so subtle that I cannot reliably distinguish the two? Intuitively it would seem that if the difference is so slight, it can't be significant. I conclude from this, however, not that there can't be a significant difference, but that I just don't fully understand the matter and I need to learn and think more about it. Thanks again for your thoughts about this! Mark |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 28 May 2005 15:14:54 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
BTW in my experience, the sound of cymbals is probably the most consistent give-away of CD sound versu either SACD or DVD-A. I don't find big differences there, but I certainly agree that cymbals are a great way of showing up the deficiencies of LP! BTW, I think Jarre is talking utter nonsense about decay tails. On my system, they certainly do *not* have anything like a periodic tsk tsk tsk sound as he claims. I think it is more that they don't screw up the transients the way low-sample-rate digital does, which bears no resemblance to anything in the natural world. Agreed - vinyl screws up transients *much* worse than CD does! There is no "pre-echo" in the natural world. Nor is there pre-echo in a CD player which uses Bessel or spline filters. This is not a feature of 44/16 per se, only of conventional 'brick-wall' reconstruction filters. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 28 May 2005 15:19:15 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 26 May 2005 23:46:21 GMT, Jocelyn Major wrote: snip Utter garbage, and there's no reason whatever to suppose that DSD is 'purer' than PCM. Besides which, Sony were forced to drop DSD for recording, due to a fatal flaw in the 1-bit process, and now use what they call DSD Wide, which is simply another name for oversampled hybrid PCM, the same system that you'll find in most modern 24/192 DACs. How many times you going to repeat this canard? As often as you attempt to claim that DSD is somehow 'purer' than PCM. That would be untrue, because *real* Sony 'DSD Wide' *is* PCM. Sony's commercial recording always used the "wide" version...from the very beginning they claim. The single-bit claim is a consumer, decoding claim. Moreover, the critics who made the claim have subsequently retracted the criticism. Listen to the Phillips Fischer recordings done pure DSD in 1998 and 1999....do they sound "flawed" to you. They are generally acknowledged to be among the better-sounding recordings out on SACD. So Sony *did* at one time use DSD for recording? Make your mind up. Owners of Good turntable did'nt have any good reason (except convenience) to change to the CD. Sure they did - no surface noise, no pops and clicks, much better bass response, no wow and flutter, vastly less distortion - essentially, the sound of the original master tape. Those aren't matters of convenience. Most will acknowledge they welcomed fewer clicks and pops. But the better bass response and freedom from wow and flutter are very marginal improvements, as the deficiencies in practice were not that great. Maybe on your system, but the bass from CD is *way* better on mine - and on that of anyone else who has a FR extending to the low 20s. BTW, to the latter point I again pulled out a random solo piano disk today....Rubenstein's "My Favorite Chopin". Listened critically a few times for Chung's ever-present "wow and flutter"....and heard none. Greatly enjoyed the recording. It's certainly possible to listen *past* pops, clicks, surface noise, wow and flutter to enjoy the music, but it's so much more relaxing when they're just not there at all........................ -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 28 May 2005 20:14:32 GMT, Jocelyn Major
wrote: Sorry but for me the only way to have click an pop on a LP is to leave the dust collect on them. I you don't take care of your LP it is sure that you will get noise from a LP. I personnaly have close to 3000 LP and 1000 CD and I do not have any LP that produce anything else but Music (Yes NO SURFACE NOISE, NO CLICK, NO POP). You want to know why? Because I CLEAN my LP. It simply take 15 sec. that all.If you don't know how to clean a LP that's your problem, but if you said that you prefect CD because the LP give you Click and Pop Plus surface Noise may I propose that you try to find someone that own High Quality Turntables and listen carefully to a LP in good condition. I bet that you won't find any surface noise or click and pop. I am such a person, and I bet that you will............... True If you put on any turntable a LP that is scratch and dusty, the sound will be horrible. And when you said that Denon and Technics make good quality turntable sorry but yes Denon do make not so bad turntable (I still have a DP-47f in my basement) but Technics?? sorry the only good thing about those "turntable" is the motor with is high torque. The Technics are only good for DJ not at all for music. Clearly, you have never heard an SP-10, one of the all-time classics. As for Denon, I wasn't thinking of the 'mid-fi' DP-47F with its intergral and very average arm, but of the high-end table-only units (Q10? - it was a long time ago). Personnaly I own a Oracle Delphi mk V turntable and when I compare it with the Denon (with the same cartridge -Grado Gold-) and yes there is a difference. If you cannot find to the difference between a High-End turntable and a Ordinary turntable that is not because there is no difference, Is it possible that you honestly never listen to a Linn or a Oracle or a Clearaudio turntable? I own a Michell GyroDec, and the Oracle Delphi is indeed a very fine table in the same basic style. The Linn LP12 however, has always been greatly overhyped and was never IMO in the same class as Michell or of course SME. I have also listened to the legendary Rockport Sirius III, fitted with a Clearaudio Insider cartridge and set up by Andy Payor himself. It was perhaps the best sound I've ever heard from vinyl, but it still had surface noise, splashy treble, and inner-groove distortion - because it was still playing *vinyl*, and those are *inherent* problems of the medium. I have several friend that always said that they prefered the sound of their CD players over their Technics (one of them own a sl-1200) and Pioneer turntable. Could you explain to me how come after they listen to my gears all but one of those 6 guys(even the one who own the SL-1200) bought a Project Turntable? It was the first time they had the chance to listen to the sound of a Good LP Gear. I doubt that you never have that chance. I have that chance every day - and I prefer CD. snip anecdotes And by telling this : - no surface noise, no pops and clicks, much better bass response, no wow and flutter, vastly less distortion - essentially, the sound of the original master tape. You proved me that you never really listen to a High-End Turntable gear. A typically snide vinylphile response - and completely untrue. Yes with a cheap turntable with a cheap cartridge you will get Wow and Flutter, limited bass (because the cartridge cannot read the bass information), surface noise and more distortion. Utter rubbish. You get the same bass response as on a high-end table if you choose the correct arm/cartridge combination, and on most modern tables, audible wow and flutter comes from eccentricity of the record, which is the same on a Rockport as on a Technics SL-1200. Concerning Bass response did you know that the lowest frequency on a LP is 7 Hz. Most High-end Cartridge can go as low as 10hz (My Grado Gold do it). The main problem a Lp have with extremely low frequency is the duration on play (the lower the frequence the larger the groove). Do you really need something that go lower that 7HZ? You are talking utter garbage, and clearly do not know the basics of vinyl technology. In order to avoid 'warp wow', the arm/cartridge fundamental resonance is always recommended to be set in the 10-15Hz range. This means *by definition* that there's no response below that resonance frequency, as the complete arm/cartridge assembly follows the groove, with no stylus/cartridge difference to generate an signal. The *reality* of the situation is that the f3 of vinyl is around 20Hz in a well set up system, and the most important reality is in the vinyl itself. Bass is summed to mono below 80-100Hz, in order to prevent antiphase modulation reducing groove depth to zero, and the response is rolled off below 40Hz in order to achieve reasonable side length. Did it never occur to you that there's a *reason* why the classic wideband Sheffield 'Drum' and 'Track' records are only 7 minutes a side? I have a sub with dual 15inch in Isabaric configuration (18Hz -3dB) and on a recording from Saint-Saens (organ symphony) on EMI and I can tell you that the LP does'nt lack bass at all--- I cannot ear it anymore but it really shake everything in the room-- So does the CD have any better bass than a LP : NO WAY. Utter nonsense. As noted above, vinyl will *never* reach below 20Hz for good physical reasons, and rarely reaches below 30Hz on commercial records, but CD is ruler-flat to less than 10Hz. Fans of organ music are all too well aware of this difference. Wow and Flutter is a problem only with low end turntable. Period. More nonsense - eccentric records abound, and turntable quality makes no difference to this problem. snip technically innacurate cut/paste from DJsource I have yet not find ANY digital media that is really better than my Oracle Delphi. If one day I do find something better you can be certain that i will switch. Presently the ONE and ONLY reason to switch is not sound at all it is just convenience, Period. That's your personal opinion, mine is quite the reverse. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Mark DeBellis" wrote in message ... I was listening today to the recently remastered Heiftez/Munch performances of the Beethoven and Mendelssohn Violin Concertos on RCA Hybrid SACD. ((P) 2004) Comparing CD and SACD layers: (1) The SACD sound seems somehow more *palpable* to me. I'm not sure how else to put it, except that there is a tactile quality to it -- listening through headphones. Especially on something like a timpani roll. What about the technology, if anything, might explain this apparent quality? (2) I have an impression somehow that SACD conveys attacks better--the starts of notes--they are better defined. Is there an objective basis for this impression? That's not just an impression, it is now recognized as the truth. Please provide data that SACD conveys attacks better in an audible way. You are confusing truth with impressions. Perhaps you did not catch what I was asking. How does SACD convey attacks better in an *audible* way? That means, please answer by not looking at pictures, but via listening tests. This is a well understood engineering phenomenon, Chung. It is not an extraordinary claim at all. And I just recently pointed out that pictures showing the comparison of the various media and media sampling rates were handed out at the ISOmic suite at HE2005. To do a fair comparison, make sure the same master/mix is used, levels are matched, and that the CD layer is not intentionally degraded or processed differently (like different peak levels, noticeable clipping, etc.). Then do a a blind comparison. The ISOmic work was done with exactly the same 4ms pulse, so the response differences were obvious. How does that difference in the output pulses translate to a difference in sound? I can have two waveforms that look entirely different, yet sound the same. All I need to do is to add some supersonic signal to one, and it will look nothing like the other. As another example, I can change the phase of one of the signals, and the waveform will look drastically different in the time domain. Yet you cannot tell them apart by *listening*. Or I can filter a square wave so that the waveforms looks nothing like a square wave, but it will sound the *SAME* as another waveform without filtering applied. I just recently ran across a commentary by Jean Jarre (but can't remember where and can't lay my hands on it). He will only record at 192/24. Recording and playback have different requirements. It will be silly to record today at 44.1/16. You need the headroom provided by the hi-rez standards. He said they did level-matched bypass tests in the studio using white noise. Said 192/24 had barely perceptible difference, 96/24 was perceptibly different but not bad. 44.1/16 was atrocious and sounded nothing like the bypass signal With white noise, the only effect you would hear is the pulse effect I descibed. Harry, with white noise you *CANNOT* have any pulse effects. It seems like you don't really understand what you are talking about. You can take white noise, pass it through a filter with an arbitrary phase response. As long as the amplitude response is flat, the output of the filter is still white noise. This is a property of noise. He discribed also listening to the "tails" of cymbal fade using the three media, and while the higher rates sounded like cymbals, the CD fades with a tsk-tsk-tsk-tsk sound. Said henceforth he will not release anything but DVD's and DVD-A. I have never heard a cymbal fade with that sound. It appears there is something wrong in his signal chain. BTW in my experience, the sound of cymbals is probably the most consistent give-away of CD sound versu either SACD or DVD-A. To repeat, you have to better control your test: You have to (a) make sure it is the same mix/master, (b) control for level differences, and (c) blind the identities. Have you done even one of these? The SACD is the only digital hi-rez system that accurately reproduces a 3ms transient pulse. And please tell us the significance of accurately reproducing a 3ms transient pulse, in audio terms? The "naturalness" of attack on all kinds of sounds. Have you done any of the three things I suggested? PCM "smears" the transient with pre-echo and ringing, and has a lot of that post-impulse as well. Except for 192khz PCM, the "time-smear" lasts longer than the known window of perception of human hearing, and so is theoretically audible. Many of us feel it is indeed audible and that it accounts for the slightly "artificial" quality of CD's when compared to SACD or 192khz PCM (which unfortunately very few producing DVD-A recordings actual include for reasons of space limitation). So it's just that many of you feel that way, not a "truth". It's a physical truth. How can it be a physical truth when you were simply saying that "many of us feel it is indeed audible"? If it's indeed audible, then a listening test will reveal that. You don't have to resort to feelings. Whether it bothers you audibly probably varies person to person. To me, it has always been an annoying feature of so-called "CD sound". So now you can pinpoint the cause of your annoyance to that time-smear? I'm very impressed  . You know others have said it was jitter, limitedbandwidth, filter ripple, insufficient bits, non-infinite resolution and a host of other things wrong with the CD standard. Any techncally responsible person will try to prove that those time-smearing effects are indeed audible by doing a level-controlled blind test with and without the digital filter. Where are the results? On the other hand, there are DBT's that show redbook recording to be transparent, like the Lip****z test. 96khz PCM falls somewhere in between CD and 192khz transient performance. Both SACD and DVD-A have a lower noise floor in the most audible section of the frequency response range, from about 100hz up to about 8khz. This, in combination with the superior transient response of SACD, is why the attack of instruments, particularly percussion and percussive instruments like the piano, xylophone, etc. sound very lifelike in SACD compared to CD and why they seem to have more "body". As you mention, even though the CD may sound identical on the surface after a very good remaster, if you listen carefully in the areas you mention you can hear the difference. On a CD that has been sloppily mastered (even if the mix is the same), the difference will be easily obvious because the compression and limiting will distort transient response even more. The really amazing thing to me is the vinyl rigs produce a really poor transient response, and yet some audiophiles wax poetic about how close SACD is to vinyl. I think it is more that they don't screw up the transients the way low-sample-rate digital does, which bears no resemblance to anything in the natural world. There is no "pre-echo" in the natural world. Harry, the distortions introduced by vinyl bears no resemblance to anything in the real world. Does the real world have wow-and-flutter, surface noise, distortion that varies over the disc, bass summed to mono, and the pre-emphasis/de-emphasis errors that result in screwed up transient responses? The question that has not been answered is whether the so-called pre-echo from the digital filters can be audible heard in music. No one has provided an answer. Clue: Testing with white noise is not the way to test effects of pre-shoot ringing. Have you heard the leak-through from adjacent grooves on LP's? That's a much, much more severe and audible form of pre-echo! |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 28 May 2005 15:19:15 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: BTW, to the latter point I again pulled out a random solo piano disk today....Rubenstein's "My Favorite Chopin". Listened critically a few times for Chung's ever-present "wow and flutter"....and heard none. Greatly enjoyed the recording. It's certainly possible to listen *past* pops, clicks, surface noise, wow and flutter to enjoy the music, but it's so much more relaxing when they're just not there at all........................ I'm acutely sensitive to wow and flutter. The first CD I bought was of Prokofiev's Piano Sonata No.6. It was a revelation. I had never heard a recording with absolutely no w & f. Even the "test" LP that I used to check turntables for this characteristic could not compete with the CD. From that day forward, I've purchased no LPs. Norm Strong |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
I don't find big differences there, but I certainly agree that cymbals are a great way of showing up the deficiencies of LP! Interesting. I have heard MANY LPs that get cymbal sound just right. I'm listening to one now, as a matter of fact: LSO/Gamba doing Rossini overtures on Decca. |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 28 May 2005 20:14:32 GMT, Jocelyn Major wrote: Sorry but for me the only way to have click an pop on a LP is to leave the dust collect on them. I you don't take care of your LP it is sure that you will get noise from a LP. I personnaly have close to 3000 LP and 1000 CD and I do not have any LP that produce anything else but Music (Yes NO SURFACE NOISE, NO CLICK, NO POP). You want to know why? Because I CLEAN my LP. It simply take 15 sec. that all.If you don't know how to clean a LP that's your problem, but if you said that you prefect CD because the LP give you Click and Pop Plus surface Noise may I propose that you try to find someone that own High Quality Turntables and listen carefully to a LP in good condition. I bet that you won't find any surface noise or click and pop. I am such a person, and I bet that you will............... You don't have any records that are free from pops and clicks? How are you cleaning them? Maybe you are damaging them with improper cleaning methods. True If you put on any turntable a LP that is scratch and dusty, the sound will be horrible. And when you said that Denon and Technics make good quality turntable sorry but yes Denon do make not so bad turntable (I still have a DP-47f in my basement) but Technics?? sorry the only good thing about those "turntable" is the motor with is high torque. The Technics are only good for DJ not at all for music. Clearly, you have never heard an SP-10, one of the all-time classics. I have heard it several several times and compared it to a few real high end tables. It is not a good sounding atble at all! As for Denon, I wasn't thinking of the 'mid-fi' DP-47F with its intergral and very average arm, but of the high-end table-only units (Q10? - it was a long time ago). Personnaly I own a Oracle Delphi mk V turntable and when I compare it with the Denon (with the same cartridge -Grado Gold-) and yes there is a difference. If you cannot find to the difference between a High-End turntable and a Ordinary turntable that is not because there is no difference, Is it possible that you honestly never listen to a Linn or a Oracle or a Clearaudio turntable? I own a Michell GyroDec, and the Oracle Delphi is indeed a very fine table in the same basic style. The Linn LP12 however, has always been greatly overhyped and was never IMO in the same class as Michell or of course SME. I have also listened to the legendary Rockport Sirius III, fitted with a Clearaudio Insider cartridge and set up by Andy Payor himself. It was perhaps the best sound I've ever heard from vinyl, but it still had surface noise, splashy treble, and inner-groove distortion - because it was still playing *vinyl*, and those are *inherent* problems of the medium. Splashy treble is not an inherent problem with vinyl. Surface noise is hardly audible with the right gear and right records. OTOH one is hard pressed to find CDs that don't have harsh treble. I have several friend that always said that they prefered the sound of their CD players over their Technics (one of them own a sl-1200) and Pioneer turntable. Could you explain to me how come after they listen to my gears all but one of those 6 guys(even the one who own the SL-1200) bought a Project Turntable? It was the first time they had the chance to listen to the sound of a Good LP Gear. I doubt that you never have that chance. I have that chance every day - and I prefer CD. Nobody is claiming that everyone will prefer vinyl even on high end gear. snip anecdotes And by telling this : - no surface noise, no pops and clicks, much better bass response, no wow and flutter, vastly less distortion - essentially, the sound of the original master tape. You proved me that you never really listen to a High-End Turntable gear. A typically snide vinylphile response - and completely untrue. Yes with a cheap turntable with a cheap cartridge you will get Wow and Flutter, limited bass (because the cartridge cannot read the bass information), surface noise and more distortion. Utter rubbish. Wrong it is an absolutely true claim. Cheap tables tend to have much more severe problems with wow and flutter, surface noise and weak bass. You get the same bass response as on a high-end table if you choose the correct arm/cartridge combination, That is irrelevant since such a choice would preclude a cheap rig. and on most modern tables, audible wow and flutter comes from eccentricity of the record, which is the same on a Rockport as on a Technics SL-1200. Gosh, a damaged CD will have it's own audible problems too. So what? You could always try listening to records that aren't cut off center for a change. Concerning Bass response did you know that the lowest frequency on a LP is 7 Hz. Most High-end Cartridge can go as low as 10hz (My Grado Gold do it). The main problem a Lp have with extremely low frequency is the duration on play (the lower the frequence the larger the groove). Do you really need something that go lower that 7HZ? You are talking utter garbage, and clearly do not know the basics of vinyl technology. In order to avoid 'warp wow', the arm/cartridge fundamental resonance is always recommended to be set in the 10-15Hz range. This means *by definition* that there's no response below that resonance frequency, as the complete arm/cartridge assembly follows the groove, with no stylus/cartridge difference to generate an signal. The *reality* of the situation is that the f3 of vinyl is around 20Hz in a well set up system, and the most important reality is in the vinyl itself. Bass is summed to mono below 80-100Hz, in order to prevent antiphase modulation reducing groove depth to zero, and the response is rolled off below 40Hz in order to achieve reasonable side length. Did it never occur to you that there's a *reason* why the classic wideband Sheffield 'Drum' and 'Track' records are only 7 minutes a side? I have a sub with dual 15inch in Isabaric configuration (18Hz -3dB) and on a recording from Saint-Saens (organ symphony) on EMI and I can tell you that the LP does'nt lack bass at all--- I cannot ear it anymore but it really shake everything in the room-- So does the CD have any better bass than a LP : NO WAY. Utter nonsense. As noted above, vinyl will *never* reach below 20Hz for good physical reasons, ah, 20hz, the threshold of audibility. Did it ever occure to you that 20hz can shake a room? and rarely reaches below 30Hz on commercial records, Or CDs. but CD is ruler-flat to less than 10Hz. Fans of organ music are all too well aware of this difference. How would you know that? Your speakers don't go that low. Wow and Flutter is a problem only with low end turntable. Period. More nonsense - eccentric records abound, and turntable quality makes no difference to this problem. snip technically innacurate cut/paste from DJsource I have yet not find ANY digital media that is really better than my Oracle Delphi. If one day I do find something better you can be certain that i will switch. Presently the ONE and ONLY reason to switch is not sound at all it is just convenience, Period. That's your personal opinion, mine is quite the reverse. It varies from title to title. Scott Wheeler |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart I respect your opinion but I do have to correct some words that
you write. Stewart Pinkerton a écrit : On 29 May 2005 21:18:47 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 28 May 2005 20:14:32 GMT, Jocelyn Major wrote: Sorry but for me the only way to have click an pop on a LP is to leave the dust collect on them. I you don't take care of your LP it is sure that you will get noise from a LP. I personnaly have close to 3000 LP and 1000 CD and I do not have any LP that produce anything else but Music (Yes NO SURFACE NOISE, NO CLICK, NO POP). You want to know why? Because I CLEAN my LP. It simply take 15 sec. that all.If you don't know how to clean a LP that's your problem, but if you said that you prefect CD because the LP give you Click and Pop Plus surface Noise may I propose that you try to find someone that own High Quality Turntables and listen carefully to a LP in good condition. I bet that you won't find any surface noise or click and pop. I am such a person, and I bet that you will............... You don't have any records that are free from pops and clicks? How are you cleaning them? Maybe you are damaging them with improper cleaning methods. Doubtful, since I've been an audiophile since the mid '60s, and I've used every known cleaning method. And no, I don't have *any* vinyl which is totally free from pops and clicks. I am sorry to know that you don't have any vinyl that are totally free from pops and clicks. Personnally I am lucky enough to have none. I have always take great care of my LP (I have a nitty gritty record cleaner, so it possibly one reason I do not have any click and pop on my LP) I have to correct one thing I wrote. When I said that I never have any LP that has click and pop, I did once have for a few week about 800 LP that where full of click and pop: In 1978 we suffer a flood and the bottom row of my lp where in the dirty water. For me it was a total disaster because in that row I keep rare LP that where either print in limited quantities or that where not available anymore (several 78 plus a few 16). So it was a great loss. True If you put on any turntable a LP that is scratch and dusty, the sound will be horrible. And when you said that Denon and Technics make good quality turntable sorry but yes Denon do make not so bad turntable (I still have a DP-47f in my basement) but Technics?? sorry the only good thing about those "turntable" is the motor with is high torque. The Technics are only good for DJ not at all for music. Clearly, you have never heard an SP-10, one of the all-time classics. I did listen to the SP-10 and I personnally found that it was far from being a real HI-FI turntable. A friend who use to own a club in Montreal bring is SP-10 with is SME tone-arm (I use to have the same tonearm and cartrige) so we could compare it with my Oracle and another friend who own a Linn (who also have the same arm and cartridge). And the SP-10 was totally outclass by the other two. It was like comparing a Chevette with a BMW and a Mercedes. So no the SP-10 is far from being a HIGH End. I have heard it several several times and compared it to a few real high end tables. It is not a good sounding atble at all! Splashy treble is not an inherent problem with vinyl. Yes, it is. Sorry but no it is not. Surface noise is hardly audible with the right gear and right records. But still, it *is* audible. This is rec.audio.*high-end*, after all. On a high quality LP play on a high quality LP Gear it is NOT AUDIBLE. OTOH one is hard pressed to find CDs that don't have harsh treble. Not really, I must have more than a hundred. Maybe you need better speakers? :-) You are a lucky guy to have more than a hundred that does'nt have harsh treble. I have a pair of Martin Logan and for me the treble of the cd I play are always harsh. So maybe my speaker are not good enough ;-) I have several friend that always said that they prefered the sound of their CD players over their Technics (one of them own a sl-1200) and Pioneer turntable. Could you explain to me how come after they listen to my gears all but one of those 6 guys(even the one who own the SL-1200) bought a Project Turntable? It was the first time they had the chance to listen to the sound of a Good LP Gear. I doubt that you never have that chance. I have that chance every day - and I prefer CD. You perfer CD and that's ok for me. It is your ears after all. Nobody is claiming that everyone will prefer vinyl even on high end gear. A typically snide vinylphile response - and completely untrue. Yes with a cheap turntable with a cheap cartridge you will get Wow and Flutter, limited bass (because the cartridge cannot read the bass information), surface noise and more distortion. Utter rubbish. Wrong it is an absolutely true claim. Cheap tables tend to have much more severe problems with wow and flutter, surface noise and weak bass. No, they don't. *Slightly* more severe, certainly, but the limit is set by the *vinyl*, and the law of diminishing returns hits pretty quickly. I regard any spend above say $3,000 to be well into the tail of the curve. You get the same bass response as on a high-end table if you choose the correct arm/cartridge combination, That is irrelevant since such a choice would preclude a cheap rig. No, it wouldn't, assuming you include a Planar 3 with a $100 cartride as still 'cheap' in vinyl terms. If you're not so prepared, then you are being totally unreasonable, given that vinyl requires precise mechanical engineering by its very nature. and on most modern tables, audible wow and flutter comes from eccentricity of the record, which is the same on a Rockport as on a Technics SL-1200. Gosh, a damaged CD will have it's own audible problems too. So what? You could always try listening to records that aren't cut off center for a change. I'd love to................................................ Concerning Bass response did you know that the lowest frequency on a LP is 7 Hz. Most High-end Cartridge can go as low as 10hz (My Grado Gold do it). The main problem a Lp have with extremely low frequency is the duration on play (the lower the frequence the larger the groove). Do you really need something that go lower that 7HZ? You are talking utter garbage, and clearly do not know the basics of vinyl technology. In order to avoid 'warp wow', the arm/cartridge fundamental resonance is always recommended to be set in the 10-15Hz range. This means *by definition* that there's no response below that resonance frequency, as the complete arm/cartridge assembly follows the groove, with no stylus/cartridge difference to generate an signal. The *reality* of the situation is that the f3 of vinyl is around 20Hz in a well set up system, and the most important reality is in the vinyl itself. Bass is summed to mono below 80-100Hz, in order to prevent antiphase modulation reducing groove depth to zero, and the response is rolled off below 40Hz in order to achieve reasonable side length. Did it never occur to you that there's a *reason* why the classic wideband Sheffield 'Drum' and 'Track' records are only 7 minutes a side? I have a sub with dual 15inch in Isabaric configuration (18Hz -3dB) and on a recording from Saint-Saens (organ symphony) on EMI and I can tell you that the LP does'nt lack bass at all--- I cannot ear it anymore but it really shake everything in the room-- So does the CD have any better bass than a LP : NO WAY. Utter nonsense. As noted above, vinyl will *never* reach below 20Hz for good physical reasons, ah, 20hz, the threshold of audibility. Did it ever occure to you that 20hz can shake a room? Nice that you totally ignored the rest of the argument above, since it totally destroyed Jocelyn's credinbility, but you'd much rather skate over that fact................... Please Steward let me the judge concerning "my credibility" I have a sub with dual 15inch in Isabaric configuration (18Hz -3dB) and on a recording from Saint-Saens (organ symphony) on EMI and I can tell you that the LP does'nt lack bass at all--- I cannot ear it anymore but it really shake everything in the room-- So does the CD have any better bass than a LP : NO WAY. Utter nonsense. As noted above, vinyl will *never* reach below 20Hz for good physical reasons, and rarely reaches below 30Hz on commercial records, but CD is ruler-flat to less than 10Hz. Fans of organ music are all too well aware of this difference. Stewart, could you be so kind to explain to me why when I am using "The vinyl essential test record" on track 6 (it goes from 16hz down to 6hz (funny "since" vinyl never reach below 20hz)) as soon as the track begin everything start to shake in the room? And to let you know: I have all the organ works by J.S.Bach, Camille Saint-Saens, Yanachek plus several LP of organ Music. So this should tell that I am a fan or organ music. And I prefer listening to organ music on LP because contrary to the CD the LP transport me right in the cathedral the recording was made. and rarely reaches below 30Hz on commercial records, But it does reach below 30HZ on high Quality LP of Organ Works Or CDs. And on CD too. Both can go below the limit of human hearing. No, CDs have no problem reproducing a totally antiphase full-output signal at 20Hz, so all the fakery so essential to vinyl mastering simply isn't an issue with CD. but CD is ruler-flat to less than 10Hz. Fans of organ music are all too well aware of this difference. How would you know that? Your speakers don't go that low. Read a few line above and I am lucky to have speaker that do go that low:-) But they *do* go to 20Hz, which vinyl doesn't in the real world. Wow and Flutter is a problem only with low end turntable. Period. More nonsense - eccentric records abound, and turntable quality makes no difference to this problem. snip technically innacurate cut/paste from DJsource I have yet not find ANY digital media that is really better than my Oracle Delphi. If one day I do find something better you can be certain that i will switch. Presently the ONE and ONLY reason to switch is not sound at all it is just convenience, Period. That's your personal opinion, mine is quite the reverse. As you say it is a personal opinion. You prefer CD I respect that. I prefer LP and I hope that you too will respect that. It varies from title to title. I have some CDs which are worse than some of my LPs, of course, but that doesn't alter the main thrust of the argument. |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 29 May 2005 21:18:47 GMT, wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 28 May 2005 20:14:32 GMT, Jocelyn Major wrote: Sorry but for me the only way to have click an pop on a LP is to leave the dust collect on them. I you don't take care of your LP it is sure that you will get noise from a LP. I personnaly have close to 3000 LP and 1000 CD and I do not have any LP that produce anything else but Music (Yes NO SURFACE NOISE, NO CLICK, NO POP). You want to know why? Because I CLEAN my LP. It simply take 15 sec. that all.If you don't know how to clean a LP that's your problem, but if you said that you prefect CD because the LP give you Click and Pop Plus surface Noise may I propose that you try to find someone that own High Quality Turntables and listen carefully to a LP in good condition. I bet that you won't find any surface noise or click and pop. I am such a person, and I bet that you will............... You don't have any records that are free from pops and clicks? How are you cleaning them? Maybe you are damaging them with improper cleaning methods. Doubtful, since I've been an audiophile since the mid '60s, and I've used every known cleaning method. If that is true then you most certainly have damaged some of them since some "known" methods of cleaning records will damage records. And no, I don't have *any* vinyl which is totally free from pops and clicks. I do. True If you put on any turntable a LP that is scratch and dusty, the sound will be horrible. And when you said that Denon and Technics make good quality turntable sorry but yes Denon do make not so bad turntable (I still have a DP-47f in my basement) but Technics?? sorry the only good thing about those "turntable" is the motor with is high torque. The Technics are only good for DJ not at all for music. Clearly, you have never heard an SP-10, one of the all-time classics. I have heard it several several times and compared it to a few real high end tables. It is not a good sounding atble at all! Opinions are good. Like other anatomical items, everyone has one. What would you consider to be a 'real' high end table, if the SP-10 is not? Would you like a list? There are many just based on personal experience. As for Denon, I wasn't thinking of the 'mid-fi' DP-47F with its intergral and very average arm, but of the high-end table-only units (Q10? - it was a long time ago). Personnaly I own a Oracle Delphi mk V turntable and when I compare it with the Denon (with the same cartridge -Grado Gold-) and yes there is a difference. If you cannot find to the difference between a High-End turntable and a Ordinary turntable that is not because there is no difference, Is it possible that you honestly never listen to a Linn or a Oracle or a Clearaudio turntable? I own a Michell GyroDec, and the Oracle Delphi is indeed a very fine table in the same basic style. The Linn LP12 however, has always been greatly overhyped and was never IMO in the same class as Michell or of course SME. I have also listened to the legendary Rockport Sirius III, fitted with a Clearaudio Insider cartridge and set up by Andy Payor himself. It was perhaps the best sound I've ever heard from vinyl, but it still had surface noise, splashy treble, and inner-groove distortion - because it was still playing *vinyl*, and those are *inherent* problems of the medium. Splashy treble is not an inherent problem with vinyl. Yes, it is. No it's not. It can't be since I have any number of records without any splashy treble, an yes, those records do have treble content. Quite life like treble in fact. Surface noise is hardly audible with the right gear and right records. But still, it *is* audible. This is rec.audio.*high-end*, after all. Yes and there is nothing in the guidelines that claims any and all sources must have zero noise content to be high end. so what is your point? OTOH one is hard pressed to find CDs that don't have harsh treble. Not really, No really. It has been a big problem for me. I must have more than a hundred. Maybe you need better speakers? :-) Better than the Sound Lab A3s? I have several friend that always said that they prefered the sound of their CD players over their Technics (one of them own a sl-1200) and Pioneer turntable. Could you explain to me how come after they listen to my gears all but one of those 6 guys(even the one who own the SL-1200) bought a Project Turntable? It was the first time they had the chance to listen to the sound of a Good LP Gear. I doubt that you never have that chance. I have that chance every day - and I prefer CD. Nobody is claiming that everyone will prefer vinyl even on high end gear. But some do seem tempted to claim that vinyl is 'better' without qualification..................... Qualification of opinions can be tedious. you don't seem to qualify your opinions.Here's an example. "Vinyl is certainly capable of portraying the (somewhat artificial) depth effects you mention, but the solidity of the sound, the low-level detail, and the general 'realism' of the recording is *much* superior on CD," Pure opinion with no such qualification as such. If you want others to qualify their opinions as opinions maybe you should start the trend yourslf. snip anecdotes And by telling this : - no surface noise, no pops and clicks, much better bass response, no wow and flutter, vastly less distortion - essentially, the sound of the original master tape. You proved me that you never really listen to a High-End Turntable gear. A typically snide vinylphile response - and completely untrue. Yes with a cheap turntable with a cheap cartridge you will get Wow and Flutter, limited bass (because the cartridge cannot read the bass information), surface noise and more distortion. Utter rubbish. Wrong it is an absolutely true claim. Cheap tables tend to have much more severe problems with wow and flutter, surface noise and weak bass. No, they don't. Yes they do. *Slightly* more severe, certainly, Who is doing the semantic nitpicking now? but the limit is set by the *vinyl*, The limit is set by the medium but the degree of affect of surface noise wow and flutter and the like are audible by at least an order of magnitude on cheap rigs. I lived with that for years in my youth. That was why I embrassed CDs with wreckless enthusiasm when they came out. It was the extreme reduction of those colorations along with the superior attributes that were not found on CD playback that lead me to embrace high end vinyl playback as superior to CD playback. and the law of diminishing returns hits pretty quickly. IYO. My opinion is quite different. And I have every bit as much experience with high end vinyl playback as you. I regard any spend above say $3,000 to be well into the tail of the curve. I don't. Opinions abound. You get the same bass response as on a high-end table if you choose the correct arm/cartridge combination, That is irrelevant since such a choice would preclude a cheap rig. No, it wouldn't, assuming you include a Planar 3 with a $100 cartride as still 'cheap' in vinyl terms. I found it listing for 750.00 http://www.audioreview.com/PRD_121356_1597crx.aspx No I would not call that cheap. I don't know how it measures but I don't think it is the equal at all to my Forsell in bass performance. If you're not so prepared, then you are being totally unreasonable, given that vinyl requires precise mechanical engineering by its very nature. What on earth are you trying to say here? If *I* am not prepared for what? and on most modern tables, audible wow and flutter comes from eccentricity of the record, which is the same on a Rockport as on a Technics SL-1200. Gosh, a damaged CD will have it's own audible problems too. So what? You could always try listening to records that aren't cut off center for a change. I'd love to................................................ I don't get that impression. You can find many of them available from Acoustic Sounds if you really would love to........... I have a hunch you wont be making any orders though. Concerning Bass response did you know that the lowest frequency on a LP is 7 Hz. Most High-end Cartridge can go as low as 10hz (My Grado Gold do it). The main problem a Lp have with extremely low frequency is the duration on play (the lower the frequence the larger the groove). Do you really need something that go lower that 7HZ? You are talking utter garbage, and clearly do not know the basics of vinyl technology. In order to avoid 'warp wow', the arm/cartridge fundamental resonance is always recommended to be set in the 10-15Hz range. This means *by definition* that there's no response below that resonance frequency, as the complete arm/cartridge assembly follows the groove, with no stylus/cartridge difference to generate an signal. The *reality* of the situation is that the f3 of vinyl is around 20Hz in a well set up system, and the most important reality is in the vinyl itself. Bass is summed to mono below 80-100Hz, in order to prevent antiphase modulation reducing groove depth to zero, and the response is rolled off below 40Hz in order to achieve reasonable side length. Did it never occur to you that there's a *reason* why the classic wideband Sheffield 'Drum' and 'Track' records are only 7 minutes a side? I have a sub with dual 15inch in Isabaric configuration (18Hz -3dB) and on a recording from Saint-Saens (organ symphony) on EMI and I can tell you that the LP does'nt lack bass at all--- I cannot ear it anymore but it really shake everything in the room-- So does the CD have any better bass than a LP : NO WAY. Utter nonsense. As noted above, vinyl will *never* reach below 20Hz for good physical reasons, ah, 20hz, the threshold of audibility. Did it ever occure to you that 20hz can shake a room? Nice that you totally ignored the rest of the argument above, Of course I did. It had nothing to do with the original pposter's claim a particular record not lacking bass. since it totally destroyed Jocelyn's credinbility, but you'd much rather skate over that fact................... Why are you attacking her credibity? shouldn't you do a better job of preserving your own? and rarely reaches below 30Hz on commercial records, Or CDs. No, Yes, commercial CDs that go below 30Hz are the exception not the norm. CDs have no problem reproducing a totally antiphase full-output signal at 20Hz, Irrelevant to my claim that they rarely reach below 30Hz just as LPs rarely reach below 30Hz. so all the fakery so essential to vinyl mastering simply isn't an issue with CD. Fakery? What are you talking about? but CD is ruler-flat to less than 10Hz. Fans of organ music are all too well aware of this difference. How would you know that? Your speakers don't go that low. But they *do* go to 20Hz, which vinyl doesn't in the real world. Yes it does. one need look no further than the HiFi News and Record Review Test Record for it. Wow and Flutter is a problem only with low end turntable. Period. More nonsense - eccentric records abound, and turntable quality makes no difference to this problem. snip technically innacurate cut/paste from DJsource I have yet not find ANY digital media that is really better than my Oracle Delphi. If one day I do find something better you can be certain that i will switch. Presently the ONE and ONLY reason to switch is not sound at all it is just convenience, Period. That's your personal opinion, mine is quite the reverse. It varies from title to title. I have some CDs which are worse than some of my LPs, of course, but that doesn't alter the main thrust of the argument. Nor does it alter the main thrust of my argument on the subject. I just like to point out that it is not an all or nothing issue. Scott Wheeler |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
If no difference can be shown to be recognised then the hypothesis that
all sounds alike is not falsefied. A reference, as in "does that sound like x" makes this possible. Another approach is to say that switching is occuring when it is not and if differences are reported then the hypothesis is also not tossed. If someone claims to know a given bit of gear by long experience or grasp of "gestalt" created, then spotting it when switched active should be no problem. It makes no difference what the nature of the claimed difference in descriptive terms, it need only be shown that a difference, any difference can be spotted and a failure to do same retains the hypothesis. Length of listening is up to the listener to grasp "gestalt" or any other factor thought to better enhance hearing a difference retained. why is it a requirement that one be able to reliably *identify* the things in question? If we're trying to disprove the hypothesis that the stimuli are sonically identical (so that any perceived difference is due to expectation bias), wouldn't it be sufficient to demonstrate that the subject exhibits a different response to one than to the other? That would be a weaker requirement than identification. So for example, suppose I set up my stereo to play either the SACD or the CD (at the same level), and on each trial I listen to the whole movement and I say how beautiful I thought the sound was on a scale from 1 to 10. If the average rating I give on the SACD trials is, over a large number of trials, different from the average on the CD trials, doesn't that show I am responding differently to the two, and that there is some difference I am reacting to? (If there is no difference, then wouldn't any disparity in the scores average out in the long run?) I wonder whether the protocol of listening to short snippets and trying to identify which source they are coming from might be comparable to the following: suppose I think that an original painting is more beautiful than a very good reproduction. You say, there is no difference; it's all expectation bias. To prove it, let's have me compare any given one-inch square of the original canvas with the corresponding square of the reproduction, on a quick-switch test. Sure enough ... I'll look at a given square and I won't be able to say reliably whether it comes from the original or the reproduction. Clearly, this is testing for the wrong thing. What has to be compared is the Gestalt of looking at the whole painting (vs. the reproduction), because what I am responding to as beautiful is the whole thing, not individual squares. The thing is that an identification test makes sense in the case of pictures, because if I look at the original, then immediately after that the reproduction, and then "X", if I can't tell which one X is then there probably is no difference. But in the case of music the relevant stimulus is something that takes up a length of time, because the aesthetic reaction is to a long stretch of music, not to individual notes, and it is impossible to hold a long stretch in memory in order to make a direct comparison. Any reaction to that, or note of obvious errors, is appreciated ... Mark |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 28 May 2005 15:19:15 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 26 May 2005 23:46:21 GMT, Jocelyn Major wrote: snip Utter garbage, and there's no reason whatever to suppose that DSD is 'purer' than PCM. Besides which, Sony were forced to drop DSD for recording, due to a fatal flaw in the 1-bit process, and now use what they call DSD Wide, which is simply another name for oversampled hybrid PCM, the same system that you'll find in most modern 24/192 DACs. How many times you going to repeat this canard? As often as you attempt to claim that DSD is somehow 'purer' than PCM. That would be untrue, because *real* Sony 'DSD Wide' *is* PCM. You've been refuted here and on other forums. I'm not going to get into it with you. The fact is, music recorded with DSD and music played back via SACD has nearly perfect transient reproduction. Not true of PCM, although 192/24 comes close. Sony's commercial recording always used the "wide" version...from the very beginning they claim. The single-bit claim is a consumer, decoding claim. Moreover, the critics who made the claim have subsequently retracted the criticism. Listen to the Phillips Fischer recordings done pure DSD in 1998 and 1999....do they sound "flawed" to you. They are generally acknowledged to be among the better-sounding recordings out on SACD. So Sony *did* at one time use DSD for recording? Make your mind up. Semantic games. I'm not playing. Owners of Good turntable did'nt have any good reason (except convenience) to change to the CD. Sure they did - no surface noise, no pops and clicks, much better bass response, no wow and flutter, vastly less distortion - essentially, the sound of the original master tape. Those aren't matters of convenience. Most will acknowledge they welcomed fewer clicks and pops. But the better bass response and freedom from wow and flutter are very marginal improvements, as the deficiencies in practice were not that great. Maybe on your system, but the bass from CD is *way* better on mine - and on that of anyone else who has a FR extending to the low 20s. Well, my FR extends to low '30's, and on the few organ pieces I own I don't miss it. As I said marginal. As for wow and flutter, unless you had an out of spec record, any wow and flutter you heard was due to a poorly set up arm and cartridge, or a mismatch in compliance/compliance requirments. Modern line-contact stylii of medium-compliance in a medium-mass arm simply don't have that problem when properly set up. BTW, to the latter point I again pulled out a random solo piano disk today....Rubenstein's "My Favorite Chopin". Listened critically a few times for Chung's ever-present "wow and flutter"....and heard none. Greatly enjoyed the recording. It's certainly possible to listen *past* pops, clicks, surface noise, wow and flutter to enjoy the music, but it's so much more relaxing when they're just not there at all........................ For some of us who have always taken care of our LP's and use good equipment, properly set up, those are all marginal and manageable problems compared to the quality of the sound we get out of our systems. |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mark DeBellis" wrote in message
... On 27 May 2005 21:09:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: If you are going to do this, pick several sections of music that your prior listening suggests reveal the difference, and listen to that section for each, at least 3-4 minutes. Don't worry about "comparing", just listen to what you hear. Then after you've switched a few times A to B, B to A...make your selection. By "make your selection," do you mean say which one is which ... ? Because ... I realize this issue of testing has been discussed at great length, so thank you for your patience as I work my way up the learning curve ... so the following is probably a naive question, but anyway: why is it a requirement that one be able to reliably *identify* the things in question? If we're trying to disprove the hypothesis that the stimuli are sonically identical (so that any perceived difference is due to expectation bias), wouldn't it be sufficient to demonstrate that the subject exhibits a different response to one than to the other? That would be a weaker requirement than identification. So for example, suppose I set up my stereo to play either the SACD or the CD (at the same level), and on each trial I listen to the whole movement and I say how beautiful I thought the sound was on a scale from 1 to 10. If the average rating I give on the SACD trials is, over a large number of trials, different from the average on the CD trials, doesn't that show I am responding differently to the two, and that there is some difference I am reacting to? (If there is no difference, then wouldn't any disparity in the scores average out in the long run?) Actually, what you suggest is probably the best way to do it...called a "monadic test". But it needs to be blind...you can't know what you are listening to. And for it to be effective, you have to submit you ratings to a ballot box and let some time go by between samples, so you can't be sure how you rated the samples before. The A-B-B-A test I suggested is an attempt to bridge the gap between such a test and the quick switch/short snippet test. By listening to four full samples, in set order (but not knowing for each set, what A is), then you know the second and third samples are different from the first and fourth, but do have to guess which is which. Then the number of "correct" guesses can be talleyed. About 15-20 samples are ususally required for this to have a statistical base. I wonder whether the protocol of listening to short snippets and trying to identify which source they are coming from might be comparable to the following: suppose I think that an original painting is more beautiful than a very good reproduction. You say, there is no difference; it's all expectation bias. To prove it, let's have me compare any given one-inch square of the original canvas with the corresponding square of the reproduction, on a quick-switch test. Sure enough ... I'll look at a given square and I won't be able to say reliably whether it comes from the original or the reproduction. Clearly, this is testing for the wrong thing. What has to be compared is the Gestalt of looking at the whole painting (vs. the reproduction), because what I am responding to as beautiful is the whole thing, not individual squares. The thing is that an identification test makes sense in the case of pictures, because if I look at the original, then immediately after that the reproduction, and then "X", if I can't tell which one X is then there probably is no difference. But in the case of music the relevant stimulus is something that takes up a length of time, because the aesthetic reaction is to a long stretch of music, not to individual notes, and it is impossible to hold a long stretch in memory in order to make a direct comparison. Any reaction to that, or note of obvious errors, is appreciated ... One way out of this is simply to state a preference between "B" and "A" instead of identifying. And then after doing it maybe 20 times, with somebody changing the starting point for you each time ("blind"), you see how your preferences shape up. If there is no difference or you have no preference, you 'll probably get close to a 50-50 split. There are statistical forumulas for this type of testing as well that will tell you to what degree your results can be chance, and to what degree they indicated a real "choice". If you can clearly respond with a preference that is one sided, even if you can't consciously identify it, you are hearing a difference and a difference that leads to preference. |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ...
Mark DeBellis wrote: why is it a requirement that one be able to reliably *identify* the things in question? If we're trying to disprove the hypothesis that the stimuli are sonically identical (so that any perceived difference is due to expectation bias), wouldn't it be sufficient to demonstrate that the subject exhibits a different response to one than to the other? That would be a weaker requirement than identification. So for example, suppose I set up my stereo to play either the SACD or the CD (at the same level), and on each trial I listen to the whole movement and I say how beautiful I thought the sound was on a scale from 1 to 10. If the average rating I give on the SACD trials is, over a large number of trials, different from the average on the CD trials, doesn't that show I am responding differently to the two, and that there is some difference I am reacting to? (If there is no difference, then wouldn't any disparity in the scores average out in the long run?) You could do it that way. Psychoacoustics researchers generally don't do it that way, because they've found other methods that are both more efficient and more sensitive. There is an ill-informed anti-empiricist strain of audiophilia that rejects this, however. I'm sorry, but one member of that "ill-informed anti-empiricist strain of audiophilia" happens to be more up on the implications of what is being discovered than you are. That's why my recomendations are different, and more in line with the professional researchers in the field doing the current cutting-edge work. I wonder whether the protocol of listening to short snippets and trying to identify which source they are coming from might be comparable to the following: suppose I think that an original painting is more beautiful than a very good reproduction. You say, there is no difference; it's all expectation bias. No one would ever say this. Warning: visual analogies never work here. Ever. To prove it, let's have me compare any given one-inch square of the original canvas with the corresponding square of the reproduction, on a quick-switch test. No one would ever claim that looking at a one-inch square bit of a painting is an effective way of judging its beauty. You're proposal here is nonsensical. Sure enough ... I'll look at a given square and I won't be able to say reliably whether it comes from the original or the reproduction. Clearly, this is testing for the wrong thing. What has to be compared is the Gestalt of looking at the whole painting (vs. the reproduction), because what I am responding to as beautiful is the whole thing, not individual squares. The thing is that an identification test makes sense in the case of pictures, because if I look at the original, then immediately after that the reproduction, and then "X", if I can't tell which one X is then there probably is no difference. But in the case of music the relevant stimulus is something that takes up a length of time, Depends on what you're listening for. If you're trying to judge the overall quality of a musical composition/performance, then of course you need to listen to the whole thing. But if you're trying to compare two audio reproduction systems, it can be much more effective to listen to and immediately compare much shorter snippets of sounds, particularly sounds that are notoriously challenging to reproduce. This isn't speculation. It's settled science among those who study human perception for a living. It's only rejected by the anti-empiricist fringe in the audiophile world. What you are hearing here, Mark, is audio orthodoxy as it has been practiced over the last 20-25 years. However, some recent work suggests that the ear/brain *when listening to music* in a way that is emotionally engaging may take as much as two minutes to register, and like-wise to "un-register" if another stimulus does not excite the emotions as much. This obviously has implications for high-end audio testing, since the long term effect of the equipment is either emotionally satisfying, or not ... a reason why some people regret a choice later. These researchers used 3-4 min "whole segments" of music and allowed more than a minute between them (and wished they had left more). Since they are measuring the brains physiological reaction using EEG and MIR as well as conventional audio ratings, they are dealing with "hard," factual phenomena here. They gently suggest that perhaps the previous research was based on false assumptions, as they can make a statistical preference "disappear" simply by shortening the listening snippets to 20 secs. and the time between segments to 1 sec. because the aesthetic reaction is to a long stretch of music, not to individual notes, and it is impossible to hold a long stretch in memory in order to make a direct comparison. Your final clause gets it right. It is indeed impossible to remember partial loudness differences for more than a brief moment, which renders long-term comparisons hopeless. bob ____________ "Further carefully-conducted blind tests will be necessary if these conclusions are felt to be in error." --Stanley P. Lip****z |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 27 May 2005 21:09:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: If you are going to do this, pick several sections of music that your prior listening suggests reveal the difference, and listen to that section for each, at least 3-4 minutes. Don't worry about "comparing", just listen to what you hear. Then after you've switched a few times A to B, B to A...make your selection. The only thing that should change is what your friend starts with...keep the ABBA order the same (the reason is sometimes the change is more evident in one direction than the other). Wait a minute and a half between switches...this is very important as current research suggest s quicker switching does not allow the brain/emotions to adjust to clearly differentiate between samples using your whole brain. If you do this, each "test" will take about 20 minutes. Then take a ten-minut break between tests. Let's get this in proportion, Harry. *One* researcher, Oohashi, has come up with this theory, it has *not* been verified by other research teams, so it is, for the moment, speculation. It also flies in the face of decades of research which indicates that quick-switched tests are the most sensitive, so don't go making claims just yet. OTOH, threre's good reason to test this way, just to see if it *does* make a difference. Of course, he should *also* do some quick-switched 'snippet' testing to see if there's any meat on the bones of Oohashi's claims. I have always made the disclaimer that Oohashi's test needs to be verified, and it looks like the ground work is being laid or already underway for that to happen. However, the implications from his test are extremely important, because if his work turns out to hold, it is quite possible that all thos "nulls" of the last 20 years are the result of completely invalid (unwittingly) research. So some caution needs to be shown and alternative approaches tried. You'll have to do 15 to 20 tests to have a good chance at statistical reliability, so you'll probably have to do this over several days. Then you'll have to supply statistics...how many tests done, how many correct in order to find out whether the results support a difference, or not (a "null"). Yup, getting to the truth is a tedious business, but hobbyists are notoriously obsessive. If anybody here tries to convince you to test another way, do it if you want. But the reason I am stressing the above is because this kind of testing has been shown to differentiate, and most importantly, the testing (preliminarily, not yet confirmed) seems to reveal that the tratditional quick-switch testing is too rapid to allow the brain to adjust, and actually obscures results, rather than promoting true identification of differences. Maybe so, maybe no. You need to try *both* methoids to find out which is more sensitive. I know where I'll place *my* bet. -- Stewart, no "amateur" test is going to bet able to determine this. This is the realm of professional researchers. You should know that. In fact, really tight testing is difficult and amateur testers are more likely than not to screw something up, not "prove" which technique is scientifically better. |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 28 May 2005 15:14:54 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: BTW in my experience, the sound of cymbals is probably the most consistent give-away of CD sound versu either SACD or DVD-A. I don't find big differences there, but I certainly agree that cymbals are a great way of showing up the deficiencies of LP! BTW, I think Jarre is talking utter nonsense about decay tails. On my system, they certainly do *not* have anything like a periodic tsk tsk tsk sound as he claims. I think it is more that they don't screw up the transients the way low-sample-rate digital does, which bears no resemblance to anything in the natural world. Agreed - vinyl screws up transients *much* worse than CD does! There is no "pre-echo" in the natural world. Nor is there pre-echo in a CD player which uses Bessel or spline filters. This is not a feature of 44/16 per se, only of conventional 'brick-wall' reconstruction filters. Yes there is. It shows up even on 192/24...which does not use brick wall filtering. But it does not show up on SACD, whose impulse is asymetric and much closer to the analog response...one cycle of post-ring, and that's it. Moreover, you are one of the people here who disparaged the use of such filters...arguing that simple oversampling in the "modern" player got rid of the problem. Well, it doesn't get rid of pre-echo. |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
What you are hearing here, Mark, is audio orthodoxy as it has been practiced over the last 20-25 years. However, some recent work suggests that the ear/brain *when listening to music* in a way that is emotionally engaging may take as much as two minutes to register, and like-wise to "un-register" if another stimulus does not excite the emotions as much. This obviously has implications for high-end audio testing, since the long term effect of the equipment is either emotionally satisfying, or not ... a reason why some people regret a choice later. These researchers used 3-4 min "whole segments" of music and allowed more than a minute between them (and wished they had left more). Since they are measuring the brains physiological reaction using EEG and MIR as well as conventional audio ratings, they are dealing with "hard," factual phenomena here. They gently suggest that perhaps the previous research was based on false assumptions, as they can make a statistical preference "disappear" simply by shortening the listening snippets to 20 secs. and the time between segments to 1 sec. Are you basing this speculation (which is all it is) on anything other than Oohashi's work? If so, I'd like to know what it is--cited references, etc. If this is all based on Oohashi, it's quite a misrepresentation of his findings, even if you accept them. Oohashi's work deals specifically with sensation of non-audible, hypersonic sounds (signal and/or noise), which I'm willing to bet neither Mark's nor your system is capable of reproducing. IOW, Oohashi provides no evidence that ABX and other standard DBTs are insufficient for detecting any and all audible differences. bob |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 19 May 2005 00:05:58 GMT, in article , Long
Rod Penetrator stated: This brings up an important side issue. I own about 80 SACDs and DVD-As, and most of them sound wonderful. However, fact of the matter is, so do most of my remastered CDs (referring to CDs remastered in the past five or ten years or so). So, to expand on this guy's question, do you really think SACD and DVD-A are audibly better because of their higher bit rates, or are they better simply because they have been newly remastered? In the case of my surround-sound titles, the analog multitracks were first transferred to digital, then digitally mixed, then mastered. I figure anything given that kinda treatment is likely to sound pretty good. I think you are 100% right. I do mastering, and I can tell you that once you've judiciously applied EQ, compression, stereo widening and a volume maximizer, you will usually go "wow" at the difference in sound -- individual instruments seem more clearly discernible in the mix, less muddiness, more volume, more presence. (Of course its also possible to do a bad mastering job but lets stipulate that market forces make that a relative rarity these days). I have SACD and DVD-A and much as I would like to believe they're better, I cannot discern any reliable difference between those formats (in 2 channel stereo) and a well-mastered CD. As a point of reference, I went back and listened to Hendrix's "Live at Winterland" the other day, which was recorded in 1968. The eight-track tapes were transferred to digital and mixed in 1987, and it was something of a landmark release at the time (it was one of the earliest "CD-only" releases and, as such, used the disk's full length). That title still sounds wonderful on red-book CD, and I'm assuming all the digital work was done at 16/44.1 or 16/48, nothing like what they can do today. I also think that stuff like 96 kHz (or higher) and 24 bit mastering make a marginal difference for most material, but that's so common these days that you're going to get it with regular CD. Anyway, even though I support high-resolution digital (particularly SACD), I'm not convinced it's making a substantial difference. I do too, and I'm not convinced it makes any reliably audible difference whatsoever. For that reason, I don't see any future in it. Naturally, the audio magazines will be the last to say this, although Harry Pearson will likely make enough vague and non-committal noises here and there that he can point to them later and say "I told you so." Or not, as the situation demands. |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 1 Jun 2005 00:21:51 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 28 May 2005 15:19:15 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 26 May 2005 23:46:21 GMT, Jocelyn Major wrote: snip Utter garbage, and there's no reason whatever to suppose that DSD is 'purer' than PCM. Besides which, Sony were forced to drop DSD for recording, due to a fatal flaw in the 1-bit process, and now use what they call DSD Wide, which is simply another name for oversampled hybrid PCM, the same system that you'll find in most modern 24/192 DACs. How many times you going to repeat this canard? As often as you attempt to claim that DSD is somehow 'purer' than PCM. That would be untrue, because *real* Sony 'DSD Wide' *is* PCM. You've been refuted here and on other forums. But not with any substance. I'm not going to get into it with you. I'm sure......... The fact is, music recorded with DSD and music played back via SACD has nearly perfect transient reproduction. Not true of PCM, although 192/24 comes close. You claim that as a fact, but I've not seen the evidence that backs this up. Sony's commercial recording always used the "wide" version...from the very beginning they claim. The single-bit claim is a consumer, decoding claim. Moreover, the critics who made the claim have subsequently retracted the criticism. Listen to the Phillips Fischer recordings done pure DSD in 1998 and 1999....do they sound "flawed" to you. They are generally acknowledged to be among the better-sounding recordings out on SACD. So Sony *did* at one time use DSD for recording? Make your mind up. Semantic games. I'm not playing. I'm sure................ To say that Sony claim to have *always* used the hybrid PCM they call DSD wide, and to follow that up in the next paragraph by referring to a 'pure DSD' recording is hardly a matter of semantics. BTW, I have many fine recordings on LP - that doesn't mean that the *medium* is superior. Sony trumpeted DSD as being the purerst form of digital recording, and that they would use it to archive the entire analgue back catalogue to preserve those performances for posterity. Unfortunately, DSD has a problem at very low levels, so Sony rapidly abandoned it in favour of oversampled 8-bit PCM, which they call DSD Wide. They did not however drop the claims of 'purity'.............. Owners of Good turntable did'nt have any good reason (except convenience) to change to the CD. Sure they did - no surface noise, no pops and clicks, much better bass response, no wow and flutter, vastly less distortion - essentially, the sound of the original master tape. Those aren't matters of convenience. Most will acknowledge they welcomed fewer clicks and pops. But the better bass response and freedom from wow and flutter are very marginal improvements, as the deficiencies in practice were not that great. Maybe on your system, but the bass from CD is *way* better on mine - and on that of anyone else who has a FR extending to the low 20s. Well, my FR extends to low '30's, and on the few organ pieces I own I don't miss it. As I said marginal. I see you are true audiophile, with the highest of musical standards............... As for wow and flutter, unless you had an out of spec record, any wow and flutter you heard was due to a poorly set up arm and cartridge, or a mismatch in compliance/compliance requirments. Modern line-contact stylii of medium-compliance in a medium-mass arm simply don't have that problem when properly set up. You seem to be unaware of some basics. Wow and flutter come from turntable speed variation or from record eccentricity, not from anything to do with arm/cartridge compatibility or setup. Perhaps you were thinking of 'warp wow', again really a problem of the medium rather than the equipment. BTW, to the latter point I again pulled out a random solo piano disk today....Rubenstein's "My Favorite Chopin". Listened critically a few times for Chung's ever-present "wow and flutter"....and heard none. Greatly enjoyed the recording. It's certainly possible to listen *past* pops, clicks, surface noise, wow and flutter to enjoy the music, but it's so much more relaxing when they're just not there at all........................ For some of us who have always taken care of our LP's and use good equipment, properly set up, those are all marginal and manageable problems compared to the quality of the sound we get out of our systems. I am such a person, and I am less tolerant than you of these 'marginal' deficiencies. Since all the 'magic' of vinyl can be retained by transcribing it to CD-R, I find the constant whines that something musical is mysteriously 'lost' on CD, to be quite risible. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 1 Jun 2005 00:24:30 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
wrote in message ... Mark DeBellis wrote: why is it a requirement that one be able to reliably *identify* the things in question? If we're trying to disprove the hypothesis that the stimuli are sonically identical (so that any perceived difference is due to expectation bias), wouldn't it be sufficient to demonstrate that the subject exhibits a different response to one than to the other? That would be a weaker requirement than identification. So for example, suppose I set up my stereo to play either the SACD or the CD (at the same level), and on each trial I listen to the whole movement and I say how beautiful I thought the sound was on a scale from 1 to 10. If the average rating I give on the SACD trials is, over a large number of trials, different from the average on the CD trials, doesn't that show I am responding differently to the two, and that there is some difference I am reacting to? (If there is no difference, then wouldn't any disparity in the scores average out in the long run?) You could do it that way. Psychoacoustics researchers generally don't do it that way, because they've found other methods that are both more efficient and more sensitive. There is an ill-informed anti-empiricist strain of audiophilia that rejects this, however. I'm sorry, but one member of that "ill-informed anti-empiricist strain of audiophilia" happens to be more up on the implications of what is being discovered than you are. That's why my recomendations are different, and more in line with the professional researchers in the field doing the current cutting-edge work. You mean Oohashi, whose work is unsupported and doesn't appear to agree with your world view in any case, when you look at what he's actually claiming. What you are hearing here, Mark, is audio orthodoxy as it has been practiced over the last 20-25 years. Indeed - and it's 'orthodox' because it's been shown to work. However, some recent work suggests that the ear/brain *when listening to music* in a way that is emotionally engaging may take as much as two minutes to register, and like-wise to "un-register" if another stimulus does not excite the emotions as much. And *if* so, then we just extend the ABX test, which *never* had any requirement for short snippets, or indeed for quick switching. No problem, and actually easier to set up, if certainly a longer-term exercise. This obviously has implications for high-end audio testing, since the long term effect of the equipment is either emotionally satisfying, or not ... a reason why some people regret a choice later. Buyer's remorse is common to all areas of purchase, not just hi-fi. So it's not a 'reason', merely a speculation on your part. These researchers used 3-4 min "whole segments" of music and allowed more than a minute between them (and wished they had left more). Since they are measuring the brains physiological reaction using EEG and MIR as well as conventional audio ratings, they are dealing with "hard," factual phenomena here. They gently suggest that perhaps the previous research was based on false assumptions, as they can make a statistical preference "disappear" simply by shortening the listening snippets to 20 secs. and the time between segments to 1 sec. And *if* this evidence is supported by other researchers, then it's very easy to move forward and change the standard. Unfortunately, all the other evidence gathered over the past fifty-odd years suggests that the smallest differences can be heard via quick-switched short 'snippets' of sound. We'll need a *lot* more evidence before Oohashi's results can be claimed as other than speculative. Cold Fusion, anyone? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 1 Jun 2005 00:25:14 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 27 May 2005 21:09:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: If you are going to do this, pick several sections of music that your prior listening suggests reveal the difference, and listen to that section for each, at least 3-4 minutes. Don't worry about "comparing", just listen to what you hear. Then after you've switched a few times A to B, B to A...make your selection. The only thing that should change is what your friend starts with...keep the ABBA order the same (the reason is sometimes the change is more evident in one direction than the other). Wait a minute and a half between switches...this is very important as current research suggest s quicker switching does not allow the brain/emotions to adjust to clearly differentiate between samples using your whole brain. If you do this, each "test" will take about 20 minutes. Then take a ten-minut break between tests. Let's get this in proportion, Harry. *One* researcher, Oohashi, has come up with this theory, it has *not* been verified by other research teams, so it is, for the moment, speculation. It also flies in the face of decades of research which indicates that quick-switched tests are the most sensitive, so don't go making claims just yet. OTOH, threre's good reason to test this way, just to see if it *does* make a difference. Of course, he should *also* do some quick-switched 'snippet' testing to see if there's any meat on the bones of Oohashi's claims. I have always made the disclaimer that Oohashi's test needs to be verified, and it looks like the ground work is being laid or already underway for that to happen. Actually, you have always referred to "current research", as you just did above, implying that it's widespread, new and accepted - until you're pulled up on it. However, the implications from his test are extremely important, because if his work turns out to hold, it is quite possible that all thos "nulls" of the last 20 years are the result of completely invalid (unwittingly) research. So some caution needs to be shown and alternative approaches tried. And if his work turns out to be baseless, or if there's some other factor which he's missed, then we carry on until other evidence appears. Thing is, previous research suggests the most sensitive comparison methoid is quick-switched short 'sound bites', so Oohashi is going to have to be *very* convincing. You'll have to do 15 to 20 tests to have a good chance at statistical reliability, so you'll probably have to do this over several days. Then you'll have to supply statistics...how many tests done, how many correct in order to find out whether the results support a difference, or not (a "null"). Yup, getting to the truth is a tedious business, but hobbyists are notoriously obsessive. If anybody here tries to convince you to test another way, do it if you want. But the reason I am stressing the above is because this kind of testing has been shown to differentiate, and most importantly, the testing (preliminarily, not yet confirmed) seems to reveal that the tratditional quick-switch testing is too rapid to allow the brain to adjust, and actually obscures results, rather than promoting true identification of differences. Maybe so, maybe no. You need to try *both* methoids to find out which is more sensitive. I know where I'll place *my* bet. -- Stewart, no "amateur" test is going to bet able to determine this. This is the realm of professional researchers. You should know that. In fact, really tight testing is difficult and amateur testers are more likely than not to screw something up, not "prove" which technique is scientifically better. This is utter rubbish, you're only saying that because replicating Oohashi's work (aside from the neurological tests) is in fact very simple, as it just requires cable swapping rather than elaborate quick-switch arraengements. That's the rub, Harry - it's *easy* to prove the sensitivity of the system. Why have *you* not attempted to support Oohashi's worrk? Why are you afraid of other people doing it? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 1 Jun 2005 00:26:54 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 28 May 2005 15:14:54 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: BTW in my experience, the sound of cymbals is probably the most consistent give-away of CD sound versu either SACD or DVD-A. I don't find big differences there, but I certainly agree that cymbals are a great way of showing up the deficiencies of LP! BTW, I think Jarre is talking utter nonsense about decay tails. On my system, they certainly do *not* have anything like a periodic tsk tsk tsk sound as he claims. I think it is more that they don't screw up the transients the way low-sample-rate digital does, which bears no resemblance to anything in the natural world. Agreed - vinyl screws up transients *much* worse than CD does! There is no "pre-echo" in the natural world. Nor is there pre-echo in a CD player which uses Bessel or spline filters. This is not a feature of 44/16 per se, only of conventional 'brick-wall' reconstruction filters. Yes there is. It shows up even on 192/24...which does not use brick wall filtering. Whaaat? *Of course* 24/192 uses 'brick wall' filtering. If used at full 90kHz bandwidth, it cannot do otherwise. But it does not show up on SACD, whose impulse is asymetric and much closer to the analog response...one cycle of post-ring, and that's it. Moreover, you are one of the people here who disparaged the use of such filters...arguing that simple oversampling in the "modern" player got rid of the problem. Well, it doesn't get rid of pre-echo. You misunderstand how these systems work. Oversampling has nothing to do with 'brick wall' filtering, it simply makes the *analogue* filter easier to implement. The 'brick wall' filtering is done in the digital domain. It has often been suggested that the best implication of 24/192 would be a Bessel filter and 20-25kHz bandwidth. The only 'advantage' of SACD is that, being a noise-shaped single-bit system, it already has lots of extended bandwidth to play with, 1MHz to be precise, so reconstruction filtering can be much more gentle. Now, understand me here, this may indeed be an advantage, and of course does show superior transient response, but is this *audible*? Opinions abound. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... wrote: snip In fact OOhashi et al custom-built a system to play back the test material. Yep, it was pre-SACD so they basically had a custom-built digital player. They can now duplicate it via a SACD recording and instructions/sources for modifying ordinary SACD players to widen bandwidth out to 100khz. And they've made these available to other researchers to pursue the issue. They also used separate amp and supertweeter to reproduce the ultrasonic signal. They've made their reproduction scheme available to other researchers as well. That's simply good, careful control of variables to keep the test absolutely clean. Unlike one englishman here, they know the difference between "professional" and "amateur" when it comes to test design and execution. |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote: What you are hearing here, Mark, is audio orthodoxy as it has been practiced over the last 20-25 years. However, some recent work suggests that the ear/brain *when listening to music* in a way that is emotionally engaging may take as much as two minutes to register, and like-wise to "un-register" if another stimulus does not excite the emotions as much. This obviously has implications for high-end audio testing, since the long term effect of the equipment is either emotionally satisfying, or not ... a reason why some people regret a choice later. These researchers used 3-4 min "whole segments" of music and allowed more than a minute between them (and wished they had left more). Since they are measuring the brains physiological reaction using EEG and MIR as well as conventional audio ratings, they are dealing with "hard," factual phenomena here. They gently suggest that perhaps the previous research was based on false assumptions, as they can make a statistical preference "disappear" simply by shortening the listening snippets to 20 secs. and the time between segments to 1 sec. Are you basing this speculation (which is all it is) on anything other than Oohashi's work? If so, I'd like to know what it is--cited references, etc. If this is all based on Oohashi, it's quite a misrepresentation of his findings, even if you accept them. Oohashi's work deals specifically with sensation of non-audible, hypersonic sounds (signal and/or noise), which I'm willing to bet neither Mark's nor your system is capable of reproducing. IOW, Oohashi provides no evidence that ABX and other standard DBTs are insufficient for detecting any and all audible differences. The time frame was from Oohashi's work. But Oohashi's work is consistent with other research of the last 5-10 years that has identified certain aspects of music as being hard-wired into the brain, creating a response in the thalamus that is unconscious and activates the pleasure response. Oohashi's work seems to indicate that if the full frequency response of an instrument is reproduced, even if ultrasonic, the brain reacts at the primitive level. If that response is truncated, at least as far as instruments with ultrasonics, the brain fails to register the pleasure response. So while ultrasonics per se may be limited to only a few instruments, the general principle if found to hold for more instruments can be far reaching. |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 2 Jun 2005 00:55:34 GMT, "gofab.com" wrote:
On 19 May 2005 00:05:58 GMT, in article , Long Rod Penetrator stated: So, to expand on this guy's question, do you really think SACD and DVD-A are audibly better because of their higher bit rates, or are they better simply because they have been newly remastered? In the case of my surround-sound titles, the analog multitracks were first transferred to digital, then digitally mixed, then mastered. I figure anything given that kinda treatment is likely to sound pretty good. I think you are 100% right. I do mastering, and I can tell you that once you've judiciously applied EQ, compression, stereo widening and a volume maximizer, you will usually go "wow" at the difference in sound -- individual instruments seem more clearly discernible in the mix, less muddiness, more volume, more presence. Point taken, but doesn't this support what I have been saying on another thread, which is that recordings are wisely controlled to produce coherent, satisfying musical experiences, rather than to be thought of as having the function of being accurate copies of sonic events? If a judicious application of EQ or compression helps me hear the individual lines, even if that is a departure from accuracy in some sense, why should I value accuracy more? Mark |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 1 Jun 2005 00:21:51 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 28 May 2005 15:19:15 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 26 May 2005 23:46:21 GMT, Jocelyn Major wrote: snip Utter garbage, and there's no reason whatever to suppose that DSD is 'purer' than PCM. Besides which, Sony were forced to drop DSD for recording, due to a fatal flaw in the 1-bit process, and now use what they call DSD Wide, which is simply another name for oversampled hybrid PCM, the same system that you'll find in most modern 24/192 DACs. How many times you going to repeat this canard? As often as you attempt to claim that DSD is somehow 'purer' than PCM. That would be untrue, because *real* Sony 'DSD Wide' *is* PCM. You've been refuted here and on other forums. But not with any substance. I'm not going to get into it with you. I'm sure......... The fact is, music recorded with DSD and music played back via SACD has nearly perfect transient reproduction. Not true of PCM, although 192/24 comes close. You claim that as a fact, but I've not seen the evidence that backs this up. Pity that you weren't at HE2005. Tell you what. Write Ray Kimber at ISOmike and ask for a copy of their show handout regarding impulse response of analog, sacd, and pcm recordings. Then tell us what you think. I'll make it easy for you: Isomike Ray Kimber 2752 South 1900 West Ogden, UT 84401 tel: 801-621-5530 fax: 801-627-6980 www.isomike.com Just to prevent another round of posts, the site above has not been updated for HE2005 yet, and does not contain the photo containing the comparison. Sony's commercial recording always used the "wide" version...from the very beginning they claim. The single-bit claim is a consumer, decoding claim. Moreover, the critics who made the claim have subsequently retracted the criticism. Listen to the Phillips Fischer recordings done pure DSD in 1998 and 1999....do they sound "flawed" to you. They are generally acknowledged to be among the better-sounding recordings out on SACD. So Sony *did* at one time use DSD for recording? Make your mind up. Semantic games. I'm not playing. I'm sure................ To say that Sony claim to have *always* used the hybrid PCM they call DSD wide, and to follow that up in the next paragraph by referring to a 'pure DSD' recording is hardly a matter of semantics. BTW, I have many fine recordings on LP - that doesn't mean that the *medium* is superior. More semantic games Sony trumpeted DSD as being the purerst form of digital recording, and that they would use it to archive the entire analgue back catalogue to preserve those performances for posterity. Unfortunately, DSD has a problem at very low levels, so Sony rapidly abandoned it in favour of oversampled 8-bit PCM, which they call DSD Wide. They did not however drop the claims of 'purity'.............. And yet more semantic games Owners of Good turntable did'nt have any good reason (except convenience) to change to the CD. Sure they did - no surface noise, no pops and clicks, much better bass response, no wow and flutter, vastly less distortion - essentially, the sound of the original master tape. Those aren't matters of convenience. Most will acknowledge they welcomed fewer clicks and pops. But the better bass response and freedom from wow and flutter are very marginal improvements, as the deficiencies in practice were not that great. Maybe on your system, but the bass from CD is *way* better on mine - and on that of anyone else who has a FR extending to the low 20s. Well, my FR extends to low '30's, and on the few organ pieces I own I don't miss it. As I said marginal. I see you are true audiophile, with the highest of musical standards............... I don't consider having a subwoofer that reaches into the 20hz range as in any way essential for quality reproduction of music. If you do, so be it. But it is a matter of taste, not standards. I'd much rather have an absolutely first rate midrange, and utter coherence from 40hz up to 12khz than the extra few bass notes, when it comes to defining my musical standards. As for wow and flutter, unless you had an out of spec record, any wow and flutter you heard was due to a poorly set up arm and cartridge, or a mismatch in compliance/compliance requirments. Modern line-contact stylii of medium-compliance in a medium-mass arm simply don't have that problem when properly set up. You seem to be unaware of some basics. Wow and flutter come from turntable speed variation or from record eccentricity, not from anything to do with arm/cartridge compatibility or setup. Perhaps you were thinking of 'warp wow', again really a problem of the medium rather than the equipment. I am absolutely aware of the basics. Including that warped records were much more of a problem than non-concentric holes, and that audible, machine-generated wow and flutter was essentially licked when turntables left idler pulleys behind. So indeed, my experience is that warp wow is far and away the predominate form of "wow and flutter" and that it is based on arm/cartridge mass/compliance problems if it is a constant problem in anyone's system. A proper matchup will rarely allow the problem to be heard. BTW, to the latter point I again pulled out a random solo piano disk today....Rubenstein's "My Favorite Chopin". Listened critically a few times for Chung's ever-present "wow and flutter"....and heard none. Greatly enjoyed the recording. It's certainly possible to listen *past* pops, clicks, surface noise, wow and flutter to enjoy the music, but it's so much more relaxing when they're just not there at all........................ For some of us who have always taken care of our LP's and use good equipment, properly set up, those are all marginal and manageable problems compared to the quality of the sound we get out of our systems. I am such a person, and I am less tolerant than you of these 'marginal' deficiencies. Since all the 'magic' of vinyl can be retained by transcribing it to CD-R, I find the constant whines that something musical is mysteriously 'lost' on CD, to be quite risible. And what pray tell does that last paragraph have to do with the quality of LP reproduction? |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 1 Jun 2005 00:24:30 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: wrote in message ... Mark DeBellis wrote: why is it a requirement that one be able to reliably *identify* the things in question? If we're trying to disprove the hypothesis that the stimuli are sonically identical (so that any perceived difference is due to expectation bias), wouldn't it be sufficient to demonstrate that the subject exhibits a different response to one than to the other? That would be a weaker requirement than identification. So for example, suppose I set up my stereo to play either the SACD or the CD (at the same level), and on each trial I listen to the whole movement and I say how beautiful I thought the sound was on a scale from 1 to 10. If the average rating I give on the SACD trials is, over a large number of trials, different from the average on the CD trials, doesn't that show I am responding differently to the two, and that there is some difference I am reacting to? (If there is no difference, then wouldn't any disparity in the scores average out in the long run?) You could do it that way. Psychoacoustics researchers generally don't do it that way, because they've found other methods that are both more efficient and more sensitive. There is an ill-informed anti-empiricist strain of audiophilia that rejects this, however. I'm sorry, but one member of that "ill-informed anti-empiricist strain of audiophilia" happens to be more up on the implications of what is being discovered than you are. That's why my recomendations are different, and more in line with the professional researchers in the field doing the current cutting-edge work. You mean Oohashi, whose work is unsupported and doesn't appear to agree with your world view in any case, when you look at what he's actually claiming. I take it that by "unsupported" you mean that the experiment has not yet been duplicated. That is so, as I have freely and frequently acknowedged. But it is a relatively short time for such to take place, since the source materials to do so were not available until late 2002. That doesn't demean his work, nor the careful listening lab environment, protocols, and rating system they used for the test. Does it now? What you are hearing here, Mark, is audio orthodoxy as it has been practiced over the last 20-25 years. Indeed - and it's 'orthodox' because it's been shown to work. Shown to work when used properly; never validated for use in open-ended evaluation of audio components. However, some recent work suggests that the ear/brain *when listening to music* in a way that is emotionally engaging may take as much as two minutes to register, and like-wise to "un-register" if another stimulus does not excite the emotions as much. And *if* so, then we just extend the ABX test, which *never* had any requirement for short snippets, or indeed for quick switching. No problem, and actually easier to set up, if certainly a longer-term exercise. Could be, but the ABX test looses most of its power when deprived of quick-switching, since it is a comparative test. And in practice its practicioners tend to approximate the IEEE and CCIR guidelines of 20 sec snippets and 1 sec switches. I noticed in your own recent test description that flat out testing would require and AB completion every three minutes, and probably not even that long allowing for time to eat, drink, and make merry. That's pretty fast back and forth switching if you are serious about it. This obviously has implications for high-end audio testing, since the long term effect of the equipment is either emotionally satisfying, or not ... a reason why some people regret a choice later. Buyer's remorse is common to all areas of purchase, not just hi-fi. So it's not a 'reason', merely a speculation on your part. Buyer's remorse can be for a lot of reasons, some objectively legitimate as well as some psychological. Finding that music "just doesn't satisfy" could be either. Neither you nor I know which, for a fact, so you are equally guilty of speculation. These researchers used 3-4 min "whole segments" of music and allowed more than a minute between them (and wished they had left more). Since they are measuring the brains physiological reaction using EEG and MIR as well as conventional audio ratings, they are dealing with "hard," factual phenomena here. They gently suggest that perhaps the previous research was based on false assumptions, as they can make a statistical preference "disappear" simply by shortening the listening snippets to 20 secs. and the time between segments to 1 sec. And *if* this evidence is supported by other researchers, then it's very easy to move forward and change the standard. Unfortunately, all the other evidence gathered over the past fifty-odd years suggests that the smallest differences can be heard via quick-switched short 'snippets' of sound. We'll need a *lot* more evidence before Oohashi's results can be claimed as other than speculative. Cold Fusion, anyone? Well, the pace of brain research in the last 5-10 years outstrips the previous forty in total. So perhaps forty years of telephone and hearing aid research are not the best standard to use when it comes to testing how people/their ears/brains react to music. Or at least, may not be the standards that last or prove accurate in open-ended evaluation of audio equipment. |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 1 Jun 2005 00:25:14 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On 27 May 2005 21:09:20 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote: If you are going to do this, pick several sections of music that your prior listening suggests reveal the difference, and listen to that section for each, at least 3-4 minutes. Don't worry about "comparing", just listen to what you hear. Then after you've switched a few times A to B, B to A...make your selection. The only thing that should change is what your friend starts with...keep the ABBA order the same (the reason is sometimes the change is more evident in one direction than the other). Wait a minute and a half between switches...this is very important as current research suggest s quicker switching does not allow the brain/emotions to adjust to clearly differentiate between samples using your whole brain. If you do this, each "test" will take about 20 minutes. Then take a ten-minut break between tests. Let's get this in proportion, Harry. *One* researcher, Oohashi, has come up with this theory, it has *not* been verified by other research teams, so it is, for the moment, speculation. It also flies in the face of decades of research which indicates that quick-switched tests are the most sensitive, so don't go making claims just yet. OTOH, threre's good reason to test this way, just to see if it *does* make a difference. Of course, he should *also* do some quick-switched 'snippet' testing to see if there's any meat on the bones of Oohashi's claims. I have always made the disclaimer that Oohashi's test needs to be verified, and it looks like the ground work is being laid or already underway for that to happen. Actually, you have always referred to "current research", as you just did above, implying that it's widespread, new and accepted - until you're pulled up on it. My dictionary does not define "current" as widespread or accepted. It does support a standard of "relatively new or up-to-date". You don't believer work done in the 2001-2002 period is "up-to-date"? However, the implications from his test are extremely important, because if his work turns out to hold, it is quite possible that all thos "nulls" of the last 20 years are the result of completely invalid (unwittingly) research. So some caution needs to be shown and alternative approaches tried. And if his work turns out to be baseless, or if there's some other factor which he's missed, then we carry on until other evidence appears. Thing is, previous research suggests the most sensitive comparison methoid is quick-switched short 'sound bites', so Oohashi is going to have to be *very* convincing. The previous research was not done on the open-ended evaluation of music. Oohashi's work is just about the only such work done. You'll have to do 15 to 20 tests to have a good chance at statistical reliability, so you'll probably have to do this over several days. Then you'll have to supply statistics...how many tests done, how many correct in order to find out whether the results support a difference, or not (a "null"). Yup, getting to the truth is a tedious business, but hobbyists are notoriously obsessive. If anybody here tries to convince you to test another way, do it if you want. But the reason I am stressing the above is because this kind of testing has been shown to differentiate, and most importantly, the testing (preliminarily, not yet confirmed) seems to reveal that the tratditional quick-switch testing is too rapid to allow the brain to adjust, and actually obscures results, rather than promoting true identification of differences. Maybe so, maybe no. You need to try *both* methoids to find out which is more sensitive. I know where I'll place *my* bet. -- Stewart, no "amateur" test is going to bet able to determine this. This is the realm of professional researchers. You should know that. In fact, really tight testing is difficult and amateur testers are more likely than not to screw something up, not "prove" which technique is scientifically better. This is utter rubbish, you're only saying that because replicating Oohashi's work (aside from the neurological tests) is in fact very simple, as it just requires cable swapping rather than elaborate quick-switch arraengements. That's the rub, Harry - it's *easy* to prove the sensitivity of the system. Why have *you* not attempted to support Oohashi's worrk? Why are you afraid of other people doing it? Once again you show you do not even comprehend the controls that must be in place to have a truly scientific test that will stand up to peer scrutiny in the scientific world, much less one that will "definitively" prove a difference between test techniques. I have tried to begin to describe what a control test might look like, and you and others have disparaged it as too complicated and unworkable. May be, but good science is not always simple science. |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: snip Perhaps you did not catch what I was asking. How does SACD convey attacks better in an *audible* way? That means, please answer by not looking at pictures, but via listening tests. Well, you have dismissively rejected *any* of the descriptions mentioned here or elsewhere of what people "heard" in SACD vs. CD. If you paid attention, you would have heard a lot of discussion about how the "attack" of drums, other percussion instruments, brass, and stringed instruments, particularly the cellos and basses sounded more nature and gave the instruments more "body" and naturalness. And you would have heard people talking about how SACD somehow seemed to give more micro-dynamic nuance and information than ordinary CD. All of that relates in part to cleaner, more natural attack, especially when combined with a lower sound floor. engineering phenomenon, Chung. It is not an extraordinary claim at all. And I just recently pointed out that pictures showing the comparison of the various media and media sampling rates were handed out at the ISOmic suite at HE2005. To do a fair comparison, make sure the same master/mix is used, levels are matched, and that the CD layer is not intentionally degraded or processed differently (like different peak levels, noticeable clipping, etc.). Then do a a blind comparison. The ISOmic work was done with exactly the same 4ms pulse, so the response differences were obvious. How does that difference in the output pulses translate to a difference in sound? The pre-transient to post-transient smear of a 4ms impulse is longer than the minimum the ear can hear, I am told. That means it is audible, particularly to those of you who argue that dbtn'g can pick up anything that is above audible threshold. I can have two waveforms that look entirely different, yet sound the same. All I need to do is to add some supersonic signal to one, and it will look nothing like the other. As I said, many audiophiles heard in SACD what they heard, with no explanation at the time of what it was. But they heard it. As another example, I can change the phase of one of the signals, and the waveform will look drastically different in the time domain. Yet you cannot tell them apart by *listening*. Or I can filter a square wave so that the waveforms looks nothing like a square wave, but it will sound the *SAME* as another waveform without filtering applied. Well, interestingly enough, I used to sit on the patio with my neighbor Ken Moore who was head of CBS Labs at the time and argue about the audibility of square wave response at high frequencies. He had the same belief. But when his folks in the lab actually put it to the test with amplifiers playing music, they could hear a difference. Ken thought it might be other factors in the design other than just the extended high frequency response, but he couldn't be sure. Unfortunately he died shortly thereafter. I knew no one else at CBS Labs, so that was the end of that. I just recently ran across a commentary by Jean Jarre (but can't remember where and can't lay my hands on it). He will only record at 192/24. Recording and playback have different requirements. It will be silly to record today at 44.1/16. You need the headroom provided by the hi-rez standards. White noise does not require dynamic range. It was a bypass test, straight analogue versus a pass through the ADA converters in the studio. The only recording was the white noise source. He said they did level-matched bypass tests in the studio using white noise. Said 192/24 had barely perceptible difference, 96/24 was perceptibly different but not bad. 44.1/16 was atrocious and sounded nothing like the bypass signal With white noise, the only effect you would hear is the pulse effect I described. Harry, with white noise you *CANNOT* have any pulse effects. It seems like you don't really understand what you are talking about. Depends it seems to me on whether the source was a white noise machine or not. If not, and it was digital, then my understanding that digital white noise is generated via random number selection of frequencies in rapid sequence. If so, then in effect each frequency-burst is a mini-impulse. Under these conditions I suppose it might be possible to hear a sound character change. He claimed so. I am not an EE, so I don't know for sure. You can take white noise, pass it through a filter with an arbitrary phase response. As long as the amplitude response is flat, the output of the filter is still white noise. This is a property of noise. Again, it is my understanding that there is white noise as traditionally generated....analog...and their is digitally generated white noise which sounds the same but is generated differently. If I am wrong, I will yield to you as an EE. He described also listening to the "tails" of cymbal fade using the three media, and while the higher rates sounded like cymbals, the CD fades with a tsk-tsk-tsk-tsk sound. Said henceforth he will not release anything but DVD's and DVD-A. I have never heard a cymbal fade with that sound. It appears there is something wrong in his signal chain. I've heard something nearly that bad at times. And often, a "tizzy" quality to the cymbals that simply isn't there in reality. BTW in my experience, the sound of cymbals is probably the most consistent give-away of CD sound versus either SACD or DVD-A. To repeat, you have to better control your test: Did I use the word "test" in the above statement? Perhaps my eyesight is failing me? You have to (a) make sure it is the same mix/master, (b) control for level differences, and (c) blind the identities. Have you done even one of these? Same mix, yes. Level controls, yes. Blind, no. The SACD is the only digital hi-rez system that accurately reproduces a 3ms transient pulse. And please tell us the significance of accurately reproducing a 3ms transient pulse, in audio terms? The "naturalness" of attack on all kinds of sounds. Have you done any of the three things I suggested? I know what cymbals, tympani, cellos, and basses sound like live. I know what a "natural" attack sounds like. I recorded them for years. I know what they sound like when reproduced on open-reel tape. And on records. And on DAT. And on CD. And the CD comes off the worse for the comparison. I don't need "tests". I'm sorry that you do before you will give any credence to experience. PCM "smears" the transient with pre-echo and ringing, and has a lot of that post-impulse as well. Except for 192khz PCM, the "time-smear" lasts longer than the known window of perception of human hearing, and so is theoretically audible. Many of us feel it is indeed audible and that it accounts for the slightly "artificial" quality of CD's when compared to SACD or 192khz PCM (which unfortunately very few producing DVD-A recordings actual include for reasons of space limitation). So it's just that many of you feel that way, not a "truth". It's a physical truth. How can it be a physical truth when you were simply saying that "many of us feel it is indeed audible"? If it's indeed audible, then a listening test will reveal that. You don't have to resort to feelings. It is a physical truth that the transient impulse is not correctly reproduced. It is a physical truth that the time-smear is long enough that it "should" be audible. Whether it bothers you audibly probably varies person to person. To me, it has always been an annoying feature of so-called "CD sound". So now you can pinpoint the cause of your annoyance to that time-smear? I'm very impressed . You know others have said it was jitter, limitedbandwidth, filter ripple, insufficient bits, non-infinite resolution and a host of other things wrong with the CD standard. To me its always been largely an unnatural high end. Plus a flattening of the soundstage, which may be a related artifact. Any technically responsible person will try to prove that those time-smearing effects are indeed audible by doing a level-controlled blind test with and without the digital filter. Where are the results? On the other hand, there are DBT's that show Redbook recording to be transparent, like the Lip****z test. Perhaps for an audio engineer, yes. I am here as a hobbyist. My recording days are well behind me except as a hobby. 96khz PCM falls somewhere in between CD and 192khz transient performance. Both SACD and DVD-A have a lower noise floor in the most audible section of the frequency response range, from about 100hz up to about 8khz. This, in combination with the superior transient response of SACD, is why the attack of instruments, particularly percussion and percussive instruments like the piano, xylophone, etc. sound very lifelike in SACD compared to CD and why they seem to have more "body". As you mention, even though the CD may sound identical on the surface after a very good remaster, if you listen carefully in the areas you mention you can hear the difference. On a CD that has been sloppily mastered (even if the mix is the same), the difference will be easily obvious because the compression and limiting will distort transient response even more. The really amazing thing to me is the vinyl rigs produce a really poor transient response, and yet some audiophiles wax poetic about how close SACD is to vinyl. I think it is more that they don't screw up the transients the way low-sample-rate digital does, which bears no resemblance to anything in the natural world. There is no "pre-echo" in the natural world. Harry, the distortions introduced by vinyl bears no resemblance to anything in the real world. Does the real world have wow-and-flutter, surface noise, distortion that varies over the disc, bass summed to mono, and the pre-emphasis/de-emphasis errors that result in screwed up transient responses? Underneath all that lies the music. Only wow or flutter truly interferes. Most of these are marginal flaws that properly set up equipment of adequate quality, along with proper care, can largely minimize. Unfortunately, the flaws of a badly recorded and/or mastered CD combined with the intrinsically marginal high-frequency response sometimes greatly affect the quality of the recording. And with digital, the distortions lie "in" the music, not "on top of" it. The question that has not been answered is whether the so-called pre-echo from the digital filters can be audible heard in music. No one has provided an answer. Clue: Testing with white noise is not the way to test effects of pre-shoot ringing. Have you heard the leak-through from adjacent grooves on LP's? That's a much, much more severe and audible form of pre-echo! Apples and oranges, totally irrelevant except from the standpoint of semantics. |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark DeBellis wrote:
Point taken, but doesn't this support what I have been saying on another thread, which is that recordings are wisely controlled to produce coherent, satisfying musical experiences, rather than to be thought of as having the function of being accurate copies of sonic events? If a judicious application of EQ or compression helps me hear the individual lines, even if that is a departure from accuracy in some sense, why should I value accuracy more? "Accuracy in some sense"? Careful with your terms here. Those of us who "extol" the accuracy of CD--the subject of that other thread--are referring to its relationship to the master tape (i.e., after EQ, compression, etc. have been applied), not to the relationship between the CD and the original performance. No one disputes the value of what recording and mastering engineers do to "create" the sound of a recording. (And what they do can be highly individualistic and a far cry from what might be called "preserving the original sound.") A good recording engineer can bring out individual voices in a performance, for example. An accurate home audio system can reproduce that engineer's work. That's the sense in which people on the technical side of things usually talk about accuracy in audio. bob |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message ... Are you basing this speculation (which is all it is) on anything other than Oohashi's work? If so, I'd like to know what it is--cited references, etc. If this is all based on Oohashi, it's quite a misrepresentation of his findings, even if you accept them. Oohashi's work deals specifically with sensation of non-audible, hypersonic sounds (signal and/or noise), which I'm willing to bet neither Mark's nor your system is capable of reproducing. IOW, Oohashi provides no evidence that ABX and other standard DBTs are insufficient for detecting any and all audible differences. The time frame was from Oohashi's work. But Oohashi's work is consistent with other research of the last 5-10 years that has identified certain aspects of music as being hard-wired into the brain, creating a response in the thalamus that is unconscious and activates the pleasure response. No, it's not. You're misrepresenting Oohashi's work yet again. Oohashi claims to have found an effect that none of that other work could have found, because they weren't using the kind of audio reproduction system that could have produced it. Furthermore, he makes no claims about the effect of music on the brain; he claims only that the presence of hypersonic sound alters the response in a subconscious way. There's no relationship whatever between Oohashi's work and this other research you allude to. Oohashi's work seems to indicate that if the full frequency response of an instrument is reproduced, even if ultrasonic, the brain reacts at the primitive level. A highly tendentious reading. The brain reacts in all sorts of ways even when those frequencies aren't present. If that response is truncated, at least as far as instruments with ultrasonics, the brain fails to register the pleasure response. Nonsense. This is a total misreading. The ONLY thing that Oohashi says is that, when hypersonic sound is present, the brain reacts differently than when it is not present. He certainly does not claim that people who listen to music without ultrahigh frequencies can't or don't respond pleasurably. All he shows is that those frequencies stimulate some response in A part of the brain associated with pleasure (among other things). Words mean something, Harry. And Oohashi's words do not carry anything like the meaning you are trying vainly to assign to them. bob |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: The time frame was from Oohashi's work. But Oohashi's work is consistent with other research of the last 5-10 years that has identified certain aspects of music as being hard-wired into the brain, creating a response in the thalamus that is unconscious and activates the pleasure response. Oohashi's work seems to indicate that if the full frequency response of an instrument is reproduced, even if ultrasonic, the brain reacts at the primitive level. If that response is truncated, at least as far as instruments with ultrasonics, the brain fails to register the pleasure response. So while ultrasonics per se may be limited to only a few instruments, the general principle if found to hold for more instruments can be far reaching. There is a known effect of "pleasure", but it is *not* from ultrasonic frequencies. The effect is also known as the "disco"-effect, when high SPLs (above 86db) in the bass stimulate some gland in the brain to produce a drug-like substance. It relates to frequencies below 80Hz. I think you mixed that up. :-)) -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
Well, the pace of brain research in the last 5-10 years outstrips the previous forty in total. So perhaps forty years of telephone and hearing aid research are not the best standard to use when it comes to testing how people/their ears/brains react to music. Or at least, may not be the standards that last or prove accurate in open-ended evaluation of audio equipment. You are underestimating the research, it has nothing to do with hearing aids or cellphones. Already the development of a MP3 codec requires extensive research work of what is audible or not, SACD and even CD have gone to the very edge of audibility, do you think that was done for hearing aid? Your arguments are so thin and your logic is so polemic, at the end you havn't understood or misrepresented your own quotes. ciao Ban |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 3 Jun 2005 00:30:34 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message snip reams of evasion and misdirection For some of us who have always taken care of our LP's and use good equipment, properly set up, those are all marginal and manageable problems compared to the quality of the sound we get out of our systems. I am such a person, and I am less tolerant than you of these 'marginal' deficiencies. Since all the 'magic' of vinyl can be retained by transcribing it to CD-R, I find the constant whines that something musical is mysteriously 'lost' on CD, to be quite risible. And what pray tell does that last paragraph have to do with the quality of LP reproduction? It has to do with the transparency of the two media, as you are well aware. If you want 'vinyl sound' without all the problems, just transcribe your vinyl to CD on a top-class vinyl rig, and you'll get all of the sound with none of the worries and rituals. OTOH, try making a vinyl copy of CD and see how far that gets you! Come to think of it, an audio club could get together very effectively that way, clubbing together for one top-class vinyl rig and a CD burner. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mark DeBellis wrote:
On 2 Jun 2005 00:55:34 GMT, "gofab.com" wrote: On 19 May 2005 00:05:58 GMT, in article , Long Rod Penetrator stated: So, to expand on this guy's question, do you really think SACD and DVD-A are audibly better because of their higher bit rates, or are they better simply because they have been newly remastered? In the case of my surround-sound titles, the analog multitracks were first transferred to digital, then digitally mixed, then mastered. I figure anything given that kinda treatment is likely to sound pretty good. I think you are 100% right. I do mastering, and I can tell you that once you've judiciously applied EQ, compression, stereo widening and a volume maximizer, you will usually go "wow" at the difference in sound -- individual instruments seem more clearly discernible in the mix, less muddiness, more volume, more presence. Point taken, but doesn't this support what I have been saying on another thread, which is that recordings are wisely controlled to produce coherent, satisfying musical experiences, rather than to be thought of as having the function of being accurate copies of sonic events? If a judicious application of EQ or compression helps me hear the individual lines, even if that is a departure from accuracy in some sense, why should I value accuracy more? Mark You value accuracy in playback equipment because you want to listen to what the mastering engineers produced. If you have an inaccurate system, you may not be able to listen to what was intended to sound on the recordings. Here's what Siegfried Linkwitz said that is germane to hi-fi: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/reproduction.htm *** MY OBJECTIVE Minimal alteration of the original should be the goal of sound reproduction since anything else is a falsification. For many pieces of recorded material it may not matter, because the performance is so highly processed and the listener shares no common sonic reference. Also, a listener may be so used to amplified music that the characteristic sound of certain types of loudspeakers becomes the reference. However, ultimately only a system with minimal distortion can hope to achieve the reproduction of an original and, in particular, of a familiar live sonic event such as a choral performance, a solo male voice, or a car driving by. My motto is: True to the Original ... *** |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
Harry Lavo wrote:
Chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: snip Perhaps you did not catch what I was asking. How does SACD convey attacks better in an *audible* way? That means, please answer by not looking at pictures, but via listening tests. Well, you have dismissively rejected *any* of the descriptions mentioned here or elsewhere of what people "heard" in SACD vs. CD. If you paid attention, you would have heard a lot of discussion about how the "attack" of drums, other percussion instruments, brass, and stringed instruments, particularly the cellos and basses sounded more nature and gave the instruments more "body" and naturalness. And you would have heard people talking about how SACD somehow seemed to give more micro-dynamic nuance and information than ordinary CD. All of that relates in part to cleaner, more natural attack, especially when combined with a lower sound floor. Well Harry, you seem to be aware of the importance of controls in listening tests, so I am really surprised at how much faith you put on subjective listening tests where there are so many variables not controlled. Do you know if the mix was identical, meaning was the source being digitized via DSD and PCM identical? How about controlling for levels? And most importantly, where is the control for perceptual bias? You need to hide the identities of what was being played! engineering phenomenon, Chung. It is not an extraordinary claim at all. And I just recently pointed out that pictures showing the comparison of the various media and media sampling rates were handed out at the ISOmic suite at HE2005. To do a fair comparison, make sure the same master/mix is used, levels are matched, and that the CD layer is not intentionally degraded or processed differently (like different peak levels, noticeable clipping, etc.). Then do a a blind comparison. The ISOmic work was done with exactly the same 4ms pulse, so the response differences were obvious. How does that difference in the output pulses translate to a difference in sound? The pre-transient to post-transient smear of a 4ms impulse is longer than the minimum the ear can hear, I am told. That means it is audible, particularly to those of you who argue that dbtn'g can pick up anything that is above audible threshold. How do you know that? You are told that's the case, but don't you think it will be easy to verify that via listening tests? How do you know that it's above audible threshold? I can have two waveforms that look entirely different, yet sound the same. All I need to do is to add some supersonic signal to one, and it will look nothing like the other. As I said, many audiophiles heard in SACD what they heard, with no explanation at the time of what it was. But they heard it. I heard it, too. But then under controlled conditions, I did not hear it. I think Mark would say the same thing. As another example, I can change the phase of one of the signals, and the waveform will look drastically different in the time domain. Yet you cannot tell them apart by *listening*. Or I can filter a square wave so that the waveforms looks nothing like a square wave, but it will sound the *SAME* as another waveform without filtering applied. Well, interestingly enough, I used to sit on the patio with my neighbor Ken Moore who was head of CBS Labs at the time and argue about the audibility of square wave response at high frequencies. He had the same belief. Same belief as what? But when his folks in the lab actually put it to the test with amplifiers playing music, they could hear a difference. Ken thought it might be other factors in the design other than just the extended high frequency response, but he couldn't be sure. Unfortunately he died shortly thereafter. I knew no one else at CBS Labs, so that was the end of that. There can be other factors. The high level harmonics that are supersonic can easily cause intermodulation distortion that shows up in the audible band. In other words, you are hearing the by-products of non-linearities in the system. I just recently ran across a commentary by Jean Jarre (but can't remember where and can't lay my hands on it). He will only record at 192/24. Recording and playback have different requirements. It will be silly to record today at 44.1/16. You need the headroom provided by the hi-rez standards. White noise does not require dynamic range. Of course it does. If it does not, then there is absolutely no advantage in having higher bit-depths which give you more dynamic range when you record white noise. It was a bypass test, straight analogue versus a pass through the ADA converters in the studio. The only recording was the white noise source. So how can this pre-echo possible affect white noise? Noise is random! He said they did level-matched bypass tests in the studio using white noise. Said 192/24 had barely perceptible difference, 96/24 was perceptibly different but not bad. 44.1/16 was atrocious and sounded nothing like the bypass signal With white noise, the only effect you would hear is the pulse effect I described. Harry, with white noise you *CANNOT* have any pulse effects. It seems like you don't really understand what you are talking about. Depends it seems to me on whether the source was a white noise machine or not. What difference does it make how the white noise is generated? If not, and it was digital, then my understanding that digital white noise is generated via random number selection of frequencies in rapid sequence. He was comparing the analog white noise vs the digitized version of white noise, no? The ADC does not generate the white noise via random numbers. It converts the incoming analog signal into bits. I think you are hopeless lost here. If so, then in effect each frequency-burst is a mini-impulse. Under these conditions I suppose it might be possible to hear a sound character change. He claimed so. I am not an EE, so I don't know for sure. I know you are not making sense. You can take white noise, pass it through a filter with an arbitrary phase response. As long as the amplitude response is flat, the output of the filter is still white noise. This is a property of noise. Again, it is my understanding that there is white noise as traditionally generated....analog...and their is digitally generated white noise which sounds the same but is generated differently. If I am wrong, I will yield to you as an EE. You are wrong. Case closed. Which means that you simply cannot say that the fact that someone prefers hi-rez formats over redbook when listening to recorded white noise is proof that there is "pulse effect" that is audible in redbook. You simply have no proof that such pre-echo is audible. He described also listening to the "tails" of cymbal fade using the three media, and while the higher rates sounded like cymbals, the CD fades with a tsk-tsk-tsk-tsk sound. Said henceforth he will not release anything but DVD's and DVD-A. I have never heard a cymbal fade with that sound. It appears there is something wrong in his signal chain. I've heard something nearly that bad at times. And often, a "tizzy" quality to the cymbals that simply isn't there in reality. How can anything in redbook cause cymbals to fade with a tsk-tsk-tsk- tsk sound? Seems like something's broken in his 44.1/16 signal chain. How can we take this guy seriously? BTW in my experience, the sound of cymbals is probably the most consistent give-away of CD sound versus either SACD or DVD-A. To repeat, you have to better control your test: Did I use the word "test" in the above statement? Perhaps my eyesight is failing me? You are right that it is not even close to a listening test of CD sound vs SACD sound. It's basically wishful-thinking at this point. You have to (a) make sure it is the same mix/master, (b) control for level differences, and (c) blind the identities. Have you done even one of these? Same mix, yes. How do you know? Level controls, yes. How do you do it? Blind, no. Well? You know the strength of perceptual bias, right? The SACD is the only digital hi-rez system that accurately reproduces a 3ms transient pulse. And please tell us the significance of accurately reproducing a 3ms transient pulse, in audio terms? The "naturalness" of attack on all kinds of sounds. Have you done any of the three things I suggested? I know what cymbals, tympani, cellos, and basses sound like live. I know what a "natural" attack sounds like. I recorded them for years. I know what they sound like when reproduced on open-reel tape. And on records. And on DAT. And on CD. And the CD comes off the worse for the comparison. I don't need "tests". I'm sorry that you do before you will give any credence to experience. Tests mean you control things so that what you hear as different is really caused by the media and not other factors that have nothing to do with the media. You are just presenting anecdotes, and trying to elevate them to truths, Harry. PCM "smears" the transient with pre-echo and ringing, and has a lot of that post-impulse as well. Except for 192khz PCM, the "time-smear" lasts longer than the known window of perception of human hearing, and so is theoretically audible. Many of us feel it is indeed audible and that it accounts for the slightly "artificial" quality of CD's when compared to SACD or 192khz PCM (which unfortunately very few producing DVD-A recordings actual include for reasons of space limitation). So it's just that many of you feel that way, not a "truth". It's a physical truth. How can it be a physical truth when you were simply saying that "many of us feel it is indeed audible"? If it's indeed audible, then a listening test will reveal that. You don't have to resort to feelings. It is a physical truth that the transient impulse is not correctly reproduced. Any reproduction system will have errors. There is no perfect system that correctly reproduces transients: it would require infinite bandwidth and infinite resolution. Therefore it is also a physical truth that the transient is not correctly reproduced by SACD! And certainly not by vinyl! It is a physical truth that the time-smear is long enough that it "should" be audible. Why is is a physical truth? Any listening test to back that up? Should be easy if it's the truth, right? Whether it bothers you audibly probably varies person to person. To me, it has always been an annoying feature of so-called "CD sound". So now you can pinpoint the cause of your annoyance to that time-smear? I'm very impressed . You know others have said it was jitter, limitedbandwidth, filter ripple, insufficient bits, non-infinite resolution and a host of other things wrong with the CD standard. To me its always been largely an unnatural high end. Plus a flattening of the soundstage, which may be a related artifact. Oh, now that pre-echo is responsible for unnatural high-end and a fattening of the soundstage. I am more and more impressed. Any technically responsible person will try to prove that those time-smearing effects are indeed audible by doing a level-controlled blind test with and without the digital filter. Where are the results? On the other hand, there are DBT's that show Redbook recording to be transparent, like the Lip****z test. Perhaps for an audio engineer, yes. I am here as a hobbyist. My recording days are well behind me except as a hobby. The Lip****z test was taken by an audiophile and a Linn salesman. Definitely not an audio engineer. 96khz PCM falls somewhere in between CD and 192khz transient performance. Both SACD and DVD-A have a lower noise floor in the most audible section of the frequency response range, from about 100hz up to about 8khz. This, in combination with the superior transient response of SACD, is why the attack of instruments, particularly percussion and percussive instruments like the piano, xylophone, etc. sound very lifelike in SACD compared to CD and why they seem to have more "body". As you mention, even though the CD may sound identical on the surface after a very good remaster, if you listen carefully in the areas you mention you can hear the difference. On a CD that has been sloppily mastered (even if the mix is the same), the difference will be easily obvious because the compression and limiting will distort transient response even more. The really amazing thing to me is the vinyl rigs produce a really poor transient response, and yet some audiophiles wax poetic about how close SACD is to vinyl. I think it is more that they don't screw up the transients the way low-sample-rate digital does, which bears no resemblance to anything in the natural world. There is no "pre-echo" in the natural world. Harry, the distortions introduced by vinyl bears no resemblance to anything in the real world. Does the real world have wow-and-flutter, surface noise, distortion that varies over the disc, bass summed to mono, and the pre-emphasis/de-emphasis errors that result in screwed up transient responses? Underneath all that lies the music. Only wow or flutter truly interferes. Most of these are marginal flaws that properly set up equipment of adequate quality, along with proper care, can largely minimize. Unfortunately, the flaws of a badly recorded and/or mastered CD combined with the intrinsically marginal high-frequency response sometimes greatly affect the quality of the recording. And with digital, the distortions lie "in" the music, not "on top of" it. You are starting to sound like those high-end cable ads...You know, like effects of micro-diodes? The question that has not been answered is whether the so-called pre-echo from the digital filters can be audible heard in music. No one has provided an answer. Clue: Testing with white noise is not the way to test effects of pre-shoot ringing. Have you heard the leak-through from adjacent grooves on LP's? That's a much, much more severe and audible form of pre-echo! Apples and oranges, totally irrelevant except from the standpoint of semantics. But you were talking about pre-echo and things not natural, right? I mean how do you deal with pre-echo's that are 1.8 seconds ahead? I know that really bothers me. (33.3rpm = 1.8 secs/revolution.) |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| enhancing early reflections? | Pro Audio | |||
| Some Recording Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
| Some Mixing Techniques | Pro Audio | |||
| Creating Dimension In Mixing- PDF available on Request (112 pages0 | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
