Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard Dale" wrote in message
... Steven Sullivan wrote: Even a seasoned pro can emit the occasional quack now and then. At this point I'm quite used to noted recording engineers making 'i hear it therefore it is true' claims. Excuse me if I've lost the plot, but isn't that what they're paid to do? Their work stand or falls by how good it sounds on the end user delivery medium. Whether CD, LP, SACD DVD or DAVD - Doug Sax or Mark Levinson have my respect. If their work sounds poor, nobody buys it whether it's a Doug Sax mastered LP or a Mark Levinson amplifier. But they've both been in business for over 30 years, why is that? The answer is both simple and a medical fact of life. Neither of them possess the hearing acuity they had 30 years ago and are probably fortunate that they can engage in social conversation without a hearing aid. This goes equally well for Harry Pearson or *anyone* their age (like myself). Enough said? |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
B&D wrote:
Kind of like cars, really, you have an idea it is the good car, but you won't KNOW until you have about 5-10k on the odo... Well......... Last time I had the benefit of checking - cars at least do actually 'run in'. The engine and probably transmission too, 'loosen up' with the result of less friction and higher performance peaking after around 10k miles. Graham |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Richard Dale wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Even a seasoned pro can emit the occasional quack now and then. At this point I'm quite used to noted recording engineers making 'i hear it therefore it is true' claims. Excuse me if I've lost the plot, but isn't that what they're paid to do? Indeed. Their work stand or falls by how good it sounds on the end user delivery medium. True. But their claims about audible difference do not. Whether CD, LP, SACD DVD or DAVD - Doug Sax or Mark Levinson have my respect. If their work sounds poor, nobody buys it whether it's a Doug Sax mastered LP or a Mark Levinson amplifier. But they've both been in business for over 30 years, why is that? So, business longevity means what what they say about audio is true? Interesting idea. Well if they had been making a living as pig farmers for the past 30 years, then yes indeed it would be just an 'interesting idea'. However, Doug Sax has been mastering music in various formats, including 16 bit PCM, and people just kept coming back to him for all this time. Why is that? Mark Levinson has started several companies making High End audio/professional equipment. The current company called 'Mark Levinson' is so impressed with the name that they keep using it, even though the man no longer has any association with them. Why is that? Do you understand why and how Doug Sax or Mark Levinson could be *utterly wrong* about , say, the physiological effects of PCM, or the degradative effects of digital copying, and *still* produce good-sounding product? No, not really. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard Dale" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: In my opinion, with an experienced listener when the sound quality of a system seems to drift one way or another with the passing of time (compared to a live acoustical performance) it can only be a function of the listener re-adjusting his internal bias. Did I say I agreed with this? Where in my post? I simply reported what Mr. Sax said. Some I may agree with; some I may not. This is simply an attempt on your part to draw me into an argument; I pass. I have to say it takes 'chutzpah' to call Doug Sax a quack.. Bring me up to speed here. Who is Doug Sax, and how did he gain guru status? Norm Strong |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
... Can you respond without putting words into my mouth? Did I say I disagreed? Where in the original post or the followup? Here is the only thing I said: "I simply reported what Mr. Sax said." What part of that do you not understand? When you quote someone without comment, you are inferring that you agree with that quote. Barry Goldwater did it back in 1964 when he said that "some have suggested sealing off the (Vietnam) border with low yield nuclear weapons." His failure to say otherwise means that he is at least sympathetic to that point of view. When politicians do this it's called a "trial balloon". The hope is that, if and when the balloon is shot out of the sky, the politician can point out that he never advocated this action. Norm Strong |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Actually, components do age and "break-in", whether they are
electronic as in a CD player or mechanical as in an automobile engine. It is a physical process and many experienced listeners and drivers can attest to each. Whether you can tell when this occurs is another matter, but I would not be fooled into thinking that you could not simply by the suggestion of someone else. Nor would I be by the notion that it does not occur, which is just silly. -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "B&D" wrote in message ... On 8/17/04 11:50 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: 5) his take on A/B tests....he tells students that it is "very dangerous". If the A/B "always" turns out bad, you can throw out the component under test. Otherwise, you have to "live with it for several months" to discover if it "gives you the satisfaction that should be there". Apparently you agree with this idea. My question is exactly how does the sound of a component or medium change while you "live with it for several months"? Actually - I don't think the components age/break-in, but I have found that listening to a CD player, for instance, you get to play a variety of your music on it without bad time limits, and you can measure how much you want to listen to music - and which music. I have found with familiarity, I will listen to how a piece of equipment brings out the music - the detail and enjoyment isn't always obvious at first blush. Kind of like cars, really, you have an idea it is the good car, but you won't KNOW until you have about 5-10k on the odo... |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
On 19 Aug 2004 23:28:48 GMT, "Norman Schwartz"
wrote: Enough said? I am not defending anyone mentioned but the major loss with age and exposure is not acuity but threshhold, beginning at the higher frequencies. Mostly, these guys simply have to listen louder. Kal |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"normanstrong" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... Can you respond without putting words into my mouth? Did I say I disagreed? Where in the original post or the followup? Here is the only thing I said: "I simply reported what Mr. Sax said." What part of that do you not understand? When you quote someone without comment, you are inferring that you agree with that quote. Barry Goldwater did it back in 1964 when he said that "some have suggested sealing off the (Vietnam) border with low yield nuclear weapons." His failure to say otherwise means that he is at least sympathetic to that point of view. When politicians do this it's called a "trial balloon". The hope is that, if and when the balloon is shot out of the sky, the politician can point out that he never advocated this action. Boy, that's news to me. As I said, some of what Mr. Sax said I agree with; some I don't. I simply was amplifying my comment that it was a provacative article by including more of what Mr. Sax said than did the original post. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Norman Schwartz wrote:
The answer is both simple and a medical fact of life. Neither of them possess the hearing acuity they had 30 years ago and are probably fortunate that they can engage in social conversation without a hearing aid. This goes equally well for Harry Pearson or *anyone* their age (like myself). Enough said? ====================================== Only if you can get Harry to admit it. G -GP |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
... On 19 Aug 2004 23:28:48 GMT, "Norman Schwartz" wrote: Enough said? I am not defending anyone mentioned but the major loss with age and exposure is not acuity but threshhold, beginning at the higher frequencies. Mostly, these guys simply have to listen louder. OK Listen louder to be able hear the higher frequencies, maybe, then what happens to the lower frequencies?, speaking relatively of course and what way is this to pass judgment on The Abso!ute Sound? I'd think you would require some type of equalization, and it is more than time to head out to pasture, but certainly young people shouldn't take seriously old farts' audio opinions. (Not to say that they could have been taken seriously when they were young farts.) |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Dale wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote: Whether CD, LP, SACD DVD or DAVD - Doug Sax or Mark Levinson have my respect. If their work sounds poor, nobody buys it whether it's a Doug Sax mastered LP or a Mark Levinson amplifier. But they've both been in business for over 30 years, why is that? So, business longevity means what what they say about audio is true? Interesting idea. Well if they had been making a living as pig farmers for the past 30 years, then yes indeed it would be just an 'interesting idea'. So, if a pig farmer of 30 years experience said pigs didn't evolve, should we believe him? He is, after all, talking about pigs. However, Doug Sax has been mastering music in various formats, including 16 bit PCM, and people just kept coming back to him for all this time. Why is that? Because there's a plethora of choices that a mastering engineer makes in the course of a project, that will *certainly* change the sound. But it doesn't mean that every belief he holds that something affects the sound, is necessarily true. Mark Levinson has started several companies making High End audio/professional equipment. The current company called 'Mark Levinson' is so impressed with the name that they keep using it, even though the man no longer has any association with them. Why is that? Branding certainly has its uses. Do you understand why and how Doug Sax or Mark Levinson could be *utterly wrong* about , say, the physiological effects of PCM, or the degradative effects of digital copying, and *still* produce good-sounding product? No, not really. Suppose a mastering engineer holds a questionable belief about the audible effect of something, that in fact is a superstition -- in fact, it has no audible effect whatever. What will be the effect of holding this belief have on the *sound* of his products? Answer: no effect whatever. Meanwhile, he holds another belief, about the audible effect of something else, and this one turns out to be true. The sonic results of his work are due to the effects of *those* beliefs. What makes one belief 'dubious' and the other not? There are many, many choices a mastering engineer makes that no one would question can make an audible difference to the result: EQ curves, how much noise reduction to use, which source tapes to use, preference for some analog equipment in the chain, which monitors to use, etc. Mr. Sax would have an easy time demonstarting objectively that these makes audible differences. So easy, taht few if any would challenge him to do so on a scientific basis. Then there are those that at present have little basis in hard science. That digital copies are necessarily audibly degraded compared to their originals, is one of those, alas. Such claims require more than anecdotal proof, from *anyone*. The error is to infer from a talent at making the non-dubious choices, that the engineer must also be correct in *all* his beliefs about sound. -- -S. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Subject: Audio quackwatch
From: Steven Sullivan Date: 8/21/2004 8:00 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Richard Dale wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Whether CD, LP, SACD DVD or DAVD - Doug Sax or Mark Levinson have my respect. If their work sounds poor, nobody buys it whether it's a Doug Sax mastered LP or a Mark Levinson amplifier. But they've both been in business for over 30 years, why is that? So, business longevity means what what they say about audio is true? Interesting idea. Well if they had been making a living as pig farmers for the past 30 years, then yes indeed it would be just an 'interesting idea'. So, if a pig farmer of 30 years experience said pigs didn't evolve, should we believe him? He is, after all, talking about pigs. However, Doug Sax has been mastering music in various formats, including 16 bit PCM, and people just kept coming back to him for all this time. Why is that? Because there's a plethora of choices that a mastering engineer makes in the course of a project, that will *certainly* change the sound. But it doesn't mean that every belief he holds that something affects the sound, is necessarily true. Unfortunately your analogies simply don't hold water. A pig farmer's success in decision making does not depend on his beliefs in evolution. A mastering engineer's success does depend on his ability to make decisons based on his or her ability to discern what they are hearing. Mark Levinson has started several companies making High End audio/professional equipment. The current company called 'Mark Levinson' is so impressed with the name that they keep using it, even though the man no longer has any association with them. Why is that? Branding certainly has its uses. Do you understand why and how Doug Sax or Mark Levinson could be *utterly wrong* about , say, the physiological effects of PCM, or the degradative effects of digital copying, and *still* produce good-sounding product? No, not really. Suppose a mastering engineer holds a questionable belief about the audible effect of something, that in fact is a superstition -- in fact, it has no audible effect whatever. What will be the effect of holding this belief have on the *sound* of his products? Answer: no effect whatever. Meanwhile, he holds another belief, about the audible effect of something else, and this one turns out to be true. The sonic results of his work are due to the effects of *those* beliefs. If he believes that things are making a difference which in fact are not. His ability to judge by ear is more suspect than another mastering engineer who is not making such mistakes. People who make decisions by ear on a daily basis and are good at it should be less likely to make such mistakes than the average person. What makes one belief 'dubious' and the other not? There are many, many choices a mastering engineer makes that no one would question can make an audible difference to the result: But one could and should question the quality of the choice. EQ curves, how much noise reduction to use, which source tapes to use, preference for some analog equipment in the chain, which monitors to use, etc. Mr. Sax would have an easy time demonstarting objectively that these makes audible differences. He has had a lifetime of work to show he is a good decision maker. That has to start with a perceptive ear/brain reciever. So easy, taht few if any would challenge him to do so on a scientific basis. Then there are those that at present have little basis in hard science. That digital copies are necessarily audibly degraded compared to their originals, is one of those, alas. Such claims require more than anecdotal proof, from *anyone*. He is not out to prove anything. The error is to infer from a talent at making the non-dubious choices, that the engineer must also be correct in *all* his beliefs about sound. -- -S. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
On 20 Aug 2004 23:25:46 GMT, "Norman Schwartz"
wrote: "Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message ... On 19 Aug 2004 23:28:48 GMT, "Norman Schwartz" wrote: Enough said? I am not defending anyone mentioned but the major loss with age and exposure is not acuity but threshhold, beginning at the higher frequencies. Mostly, these guys simply have to listen louder. OK Listen louder to be able hear the higher frequencies, maybe, then what happens to the lower frequencies?, speaking relatively of course and what way is this to pass judgment on The Abso!ute Sound? I'd think you would require some type of equalization, and it is more than time to head out to pasture, but certainly young people shouldn't take seriously old farts' audio opinions. (Not to say that they could have been taken seriously when they were young farts.) NO eq may be needed since threshhold sensitivity is not the same thing as intensity perception above threshhold. I cannot know what these guys can or cannot hear but I do not think that a little presbycusis disqualifies them. Kal |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
S888Wheel wrote:
Subject: Audio quackwatch From: Steven Sullivan Date: 8/21/2004 8:00 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Richard Dale wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Whether CD, LP, SACD DVD or DAVD - Doug Sax or Mark Levinson have my respect. If their work sounds poor, nobody buys it whether it's a Doug Sax mastered LP or a Mark Levinson amplifier. But they've both been in business for over 30 years, why is that? So, business longevity means what what they say about audio is true? Interesting idea. Well if they had been making a living as pig farmers for the past 30 years, then yes indeed it would be just an 'interesting idea'. So, if a pig farmer of 30 years experience said pigs didn't evolve, should we believe him? He is, after all, talking about pigs. However, Doug Sax has been mastering music in various formats, including 16 bit PCM, and people just kept coming back to him for all this time. Why is that? Because there's a plethora of choices that a mastering engineer makes in the course of a project, that will *certainly* change the sound. But it doesn't mean that every belief he holds that something affects the sound, is necessarily true. Unfortunately your analogies simply don't hold water. A pig farmer's success in decision making does not depend on his beliefs in evolution. Please deomnstarte to me that a mastering engineer's success *depends on* the audibility of digitial copying, or of the phsuyiological effects of PCM. A mastering engineer's success does depend on his ability to make decisons based on his or her ability to discern what they are hearing. Again, some of those decisions are certainly going to affect sound. It is those decisions that actually affect the product...not the superstitions. Or are you saying that mastering engineers never hold untrue beliefs about what affects sound? audio/professional equipment. The current company called 'Mark Levinson' is so impressed with the name that they keep using it, even though the man no longer has any association with them. Why is that? Branding certainly has its uses. Do you understand why and how Doug Sax or Mark Levinson could be *utterly wrong* about , say, the physiological effects of PCM, or the degradative effects of digital copying, and *still* produce good-sounding product? No, not really. Suppose a mastering engineer holds a questionable belief about the audible effect of something, that in fact is a superstition -- in fact, it has no audible effect whatever. What will be the effect of holding this belief have on the *sound* of his products? Answer: no effect whatever. Meanwhile, he holds another belief, about the audible effect of something else, and this one turns out to be true. The sonic results of his work are due to the effects of *those* beliefs. If he believes that things are making a difference which in fact are not. Which can happen, wouldn't you agree? How would you verify? OR do you simply accept what the engineer believes as true? Then you're back where you started. His ability to judge by ear is more suspect than another mastering engineer who is not making such mistakes. 'Mistakes' that in reality involve superstitious belief aren't going to make a real difference in the products of either engineer. YOu need to prove that successful mastering engineers are less prone to superstitions than other humans. My unscientific sample, from reading what they say, is that they are fully as prone to confirmation bias of objectively unconfirmed beliefs, as anyone. People who make decisions by ear on a daily basis and are good at it should be less likely to make such mistakes than the average person. But are they less prone to known psychoacoustic/psychological effects? I want evidence that that's true. The TAS roundtable provides *counterevidence*, if anything. You seem to think that no independent verificiation is needed for a mastering engineer's belief about audible difference. Decades of research say otherwise. What makes one belief 'dubious' and the other not? There are many, many choices a mastering engineer makes that no one would question can make an audible difference to the result: But one could and should question the quality of the choice. Exactly. The quality of the choice made, *for choices that make a sonic difference*, are what determine the quality of the product. The 'quality' of choices that make no sonic difference, *doesn't matter*. So Sax et al. should either put up evidence that digital copying is a choice that *does matter* , or focus on the stuff that unassailably *does matter*. "I heard it, therefore it's true' is simply insufficient for some classes of difference, as we've known for *decades* now. EQ curves, how much noise reduction to use, which source tapes to use, preference for some analog equipment in the chain, which monitors to use, etc. Mr. Sax would have an easy time demonstarting objectively that these makes audible differences. He has had a lifetime of work to show he is a good decision maker. That has to start with a perceptive ear/brain reciever. Perceptive, but certainly not infallible. So demonstrate to me that his decisions re *digital copying*, and not, say, EQ curves or other stuff that practically can't *help* but make a difference, are what determined the quality of the result. So easy, taht few if any would challenge him to do so on a scientific basis. Then there are those that at present have little basis in hard science. That digital copies are necessarily audibly degraded compared to their originals, is one of those, alas. Such claims require more than anecdotal proof, from *anyone*. He is not out to prove anything. Nor is he immune from critique, simply by virtue of having an opinion. You want to argue from his position of authority, yet you don't want his authority questioned on matters audio. I repeat: The error is to infer from a talent at making the non-dubious choices, that the engineer must also be correct in *all* his beliefs about sound. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
On 18 Aug 2004 16:42:11 GMT, Richard Dale
wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: In my opinion, with an experienced listener when the sound quality of a system seems to drift one way or another with the passing of time (compared to a live acoustical performance) it can only be a function of the listener re-adjusting his internal bias. Did I say I agreed with this?**Where*in*my*post?**I*simply*reported*what Mr. Sax said.**Some*I*may*agree*with;*some*I*may*not.**Thi s*is*simply*an attempt on your part to draw me into an argument; I pass. I have to say it takes 'chutzpah' to call Doug Sax a quack.. Not when Doug says that tape has a lower noise floor than CD, it doesn't! He may be an ace vinyl mastering engineer, but he sounds like he's getting nervous about all those hard-won analogue skills now being effectively obsolete............... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
On 20 Aug 2004 00:19:49 GMT, Richard Dale
wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Richard Dale wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Even a seasoned pro can emit the occasional quack now and then. At this point I'm quite used to noted recording engineers making 'i hear it therefore it is true' claims. Excuse me if I've lost the plot, but isn't that what they're paid to do? Indeed. Their work stand or falls by how good it sounds on the end user delivery medium. True. But their claims about audible difference do not. Whether CD, LP, SACD DVD or DAVD - Doug Sax or Mark Levinson have my respect. If their work sounds poor, nobody buys it whether it's a Doug Sax mastered LP or a Mark Levinson amplifier. But they've both been in business for over 30 years, why is that? So, business longevity means what what they say about audio is true? Interesting idea. Well if they had been making a living as pig farmers for the past 30 years, then yes indeed it would be just an 'interesting idea'. However, Doug Sax has been mastering music in various formats, including 16 bit PCM, and people just kept coming back to him for all this time. Why is that? He has a good ear, superb mixdown skills, and can master an average studio multitrack tape into a great-sounding end product - that doesn't make him right about digital............ Mark Levinson has started several companies making High End audio/professional equipment. Indeed he has - ever wonder why? The current company called 'Mark Levinson' is so impressed with the name that they keep using it, even though the man no longer has any association with them. Why is that? Because so-called 'high end' customers just lurrrve designer labels, even thought the actual designer is Harvey Q Knucklehead Junior. Sure Levinson's own products sounded good - but then *any* decent amp with solid power rails sounds good - this isn't exactly rocket science! Do you understand why and how Doug Sax or Mark Levinson could be *utterly wrong* about , say, the physiological effects of PCM, or the degradative effects of digital copying, and *still* produce good-sounding product? No, not really. Ah, well....................... BTW, you do realise that the 'Red Rose' amplifier is a Chinese OEM job which is rebadged by ML, and then has the price jacked by a factor of four or five, don't you? POrobably sounds just fine, but never had anything to do with Mark Levinson................. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
On 21 Aug 2004 15:00:44 GMT, Steven Sullivan wrote:
The error is to infer from a talent at making the non-dubious choices, that the engineer must also be correct in *all* his beliefs about sound. To expand this somewhat, Tim de Paravicini is one of the best transformer designers and rebuilders of classic tubed tape decks such as the Revox G36, on the face of the planet, and James Boyk is a talented recording engineer with a superb knowledge of microphone sound, but both of them have uttered *seriously* whacko pronouncements regarding the tweakier end of audio. It may be coincidental, but note that neither ot them is actually a trained electronics engineer, yet the 'off the wall' pronouncements they have made have been in the engineering arena, regarding such things as 'wire sound' and resolution. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
On 20 Aug 2004 00:20:31 GMT, "normanstrong"
wrote: Bring me up to speed here. Who is Doug Sax, and how did he gain guru status? You can find him easily on Google, but perhaps his best-known work to 'high end' audiophiles, is that he produced most (all?) of the classic Sheffield Labs direct-cut LPs. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
... On 20 Aug 2004 23:25:46 GMT, "Norman Schwartz" wrote: "Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message ... On 19 Aug 2004 23:28:48 GMT, "Norman Schwartz" wrote: Enough said? I am not defending anyone mentioned but the major loss with age and exposure is not acuity but threshhold, beginning at the higher frequencies. Mostly, these guys simply have to listen louder. OK Listen louder to be able hear the higher frequencies, maybe, then what happens to the lower frequencies?, speaking relatively of course and what way is this to pass judgment on The Abso!ute Sound? I'd think you would require some type of equalization, and it is more than time to head out to pasture, but certainly young people shouldn't take seriously old farts' audio opinions. (Not to say that they could have been taken seriously when they were young farts.) NO eq may be needed since threshhold sensitivity is not the same thing as intensity perception above threshhold. I cannot know what these guys can or cannot hear but I do not think that a little presbycusis disqualifies them. If one is going to compensate for diminished response to higher frequencies by jacking up the (entire) volume in order to attempt to learn and hear what's going on up there, what happens to the bottom (lower) end?, it too gets louder and could easily become overwhelming. I can't see how that type of listening is meaningful in any way whatsoever. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
... On 20 Aug 2004 23:25:46 GMT, "Norman Schwartz" wrote: "Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message ... On 19 Aug 2004 23:28:48 GMT, "Norman Schwartz" wrote: Enough said? I am not defending anyone mentioned but the major loss with age and exposure is not acuity but threshhold, beginning at the higher frequencies. Mostly, these guys simply have to listen louder. OK Listen louder to be able hear the higher frequencies, maybe, then what happens to the lower frequencies?, speaking relatively of course and what way is this to pass judgment on The Abso!ute Sound? I'd think you would require some type of equalization, and it is more than time to head out to pasture, but certainly young people shouldn't take seriously old farts' audio opinions. (Not to say that they could have been taken seriously when they were young farts.) NO eq may be needed since threshhold sensitivity is not the same thing as intensity perception above threshhold. I cannot know what these guys can or cannot hear but I do not think that a little presbycusis disqualifies them. I don't know about little vs. significant, but sticking your head into the sand, just a little doesn't make for the best listening experience. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
From: Steven Sullivan
Date: 8/22/2004 9:07 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: Subject: Audio quackwatch From: Steven Sullivan Date: 8/21/2004 8:00 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Richard Dale wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: Whether CD, LP, SACD DVD or DAVD - Doug Sax or Mark Levinson have my respect. If their work sounds poor, nobody buys it whether it's a Doug Sax mastered LP or a Mark Levinson amplifier. But they've both been in business for over 30 years, why is that? So, business longevity means what what they say about audio is true? Interesting idea. Well if they had been making a living as pig farmers for the past 30 years, then yes indeed it would be just an 'interesting idea'. So, if a pig farmer of 30 years experience said pigs didn't evolve, should we believe him? He is, after all, talking about pigs. However, Doug Sax has been mastering music in various formats, including 16 bit PCM, and people just kept coming back to him for all this time. Why is that? Because there's a plethora of choices that a mastering engineer makes in the course of a project, that will *certainly* change the sound. But it doesn't mean that every belief he holds that something affects the sound, is necessarily true. Unfortunately your analogies simply don't hold water. A pig farmer's success in decision making does not depend on his beliefs in evolution. Please deomnstarte to me that a mastering engineer's success *depends on* the audibility of digitial copying, or of the phsuyiological effects of PCM. Why? Shouldn't you ask the relevant question? Is a mastering engineer's success dependent on his or her ability to evaluate what they hear and make decisions based on what they hear? The answer to that is yes. A mastering engineer's success does depend on his ability to make decisons based on his or her ability to discern what they are hearing. Again, some of those decisions are certainly going to affect sound. It is those decisions that actually affect the product...not the superstitions. Those decisions hinge upon the mastering engineer's ability to evaluate what they hear. That does speak to their ability to hear subtle differences and recognize them. Or are you saying that mastering engineers never hold untrue beliefs about what affects sound? Hardly. But I am saying your analogy doesn't hold water. audio/professional equipment. The current company called 'Mark Levinson' is so impressed with the name that they keep using it, even though the man no longer has any association with them. Why is that? Branding certainly has its uses. Do you understand why and how Doug Sax or Mark Levinson could be *utterly wrong* about , say, the physiological effects of PCM, or the degradative effects of digital copying, and *still* produce good-sounding product? No, not really. Suppose a mastering engineer holds a questionable belief about the audible effect of something, that in fact is a superstition -- in fact, it has no audible effect whatever. What will be the effect of holding this belief have on the *sound* of his products? Answer: no effect whatever. Meanwhile, he holds another belief, about the audible effect of something else, and this one turns out to be true. The sonic results of his work are due to the effects of *those* beliefs. If he believes that things are making a difference which in fact are not. Which can happen, wouldn't you agree? Sure it can happen. Experts make mistakes, whether they are mastering engineers or pig farmers. If they are not less prone to such mistakes via their experience and talent then they are not likely to be an exceptional mastering engineer. How would you verify? You probably don't. Mastering engineers are in the business of mastering not proving audibility. OR do you simply accept what the engineer believes as true? It isn't an either or situation. You listen to their work and take it for what it is. As a consumer you support work that you like and pass on work you do not like. Then you're back where you started. Not really. You can listen for yourself and see if you agree or disagree with the views of any audio expert. His ability to judge by ear is more suspect than another mastering engineer who is not making such mistakes. 'Mistakes' that in reality involve superstitious belief aren't going to make a real difference in the products of either engineer. The suseptability to make mistyakes, the inablity to know when you are being fooled will, in the long run, be reflected in a mastering engineer's work IMO. Unlike the pig farmer whose beliefs in evolution will not likely ever be reflected in the quality of his ham. That is the problem with your analogy. Failure to discern what one is hearing will be reflected in one's work if they are a mastering engineer. YOu need to prove that successful mastering engineers are less prone to superstitions than other humans. No I don't. My unscientific sample, from reading what they say, is that they are fully as prone to confirmation bias of objectively unconfirmed beliefs, as anyone. I agree that your sample and your theory are not terribly scientific. People who make decisions by ear on a daily basis and are good at it should be less likely to make such mistakes than the average person. But are they less prone to known psychoacoustic/psychological effects? I'd bet they are. I want evidence that that's true. Some one would have to put it to the test. That has not been done to my knowledge. Until it has we are just speculating. The TAS roundtable provides *counterevidence*, if anything. Nah, you just don't like their views. You seem to think that no independent verificiation is needed for a mastering engineer's belief about audible difference. I don't think verification is needed for belief. If we are really worried about proving or disproving their beliefs then varification would be needed.I don't expect opinions to need scientific varification unless they are presented as scientifically valid claims.Gosh, I think The Much Box makes the best burger in town. I don't feel a need to conduct blind taste tests to hold that opinion. Decades of research say otherwise. Please cite the decades of research that suggests experienced, excellent mastering engineers are equaly suseptable to bias effects as is the average person. What makes one belief 'dubious' and the other not? There are many, many choices a mastering engineer makes that no one would question can make an audible difference to the result: But one could and should question the quality of the choice. Exactly. The quality of the choice made, *for choices that make a sonic difference*, are what determine the quality of the product. The 'quality' of choices that make no sonic difference, *doesn't matter*. The ability to discern what one is hearing does matter in *al* decisions. If a mastering engineer is no better at this than the average Joe I would be surprised if he is really an exceptional mastering engineer. So Sax et al. should either put up evidence that digital copying is a choice that *does matter* , or focus on the stuff that unassailably *does matter*. I disagree, They should go about their business and let the consumers decide if they are good at what they do. They do not owe us anything more than that. "I heard it, therefore it's true' is simply insufficient for some classes of difference, as we've known for *decades* now. No one is twisting your arm to believe them or anyone else. EQ curves, how much noise reduction to use, which source tapes to use, preference for some analog equipment in the chain, which monitors to use, etc. Mr. Sax would have an easy time demonstarting objectively that these makes audible differences. He has had a lifetime of work to show he is a good decision maker. That has to start with a perceptive ear/brain reciever. Perceptive, but certainly not infallible. Who is claiming infalibility? I bet the best pig farmers make mistakes too. So demonstrate to me that his decisions re *digital copying*, and not, say, EQ curves or other stuff that practically can't *help* but make a difference, are what determined the quality of the result. I don't need to. It is not relevant to your failed analogy. Besides, there is no practical way for me to prove anything one way or another.I could ask you to demonstrate that his decisions re *digital copying* did *not* make a difference. You can't. The request either way is completely unreasonable due to practicality alone. So easy, taht few if any would challenge him to do so on a scientific basis. Then there are those that at present have little basis in hard science. That digital copies are necessarily audibly degraded compared to their originals, is one of those, alas. Such claims require more than anecdotal proof, from *anyone*. He is not out to prove anything. Nor is he immune from critique, simply by virtue of having an opinion. Who said he was? You want to argue from his position of authority, yet you don't want his authority questioned on matters audio. Not at all. I take his opinions more seriously than the average audiophile because his work supports the notion that he might know what he hears. I don't take them as irrefutable fact. I repeat: The error is to infer from a talent at making the non-dubious choices, that the engineer must also be correct in *all* his beliefs about sound. Tell it to someone claiming infalibility. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 20 Aug 2004 00:19:49 GMT, Richard Dale The current company called 'Mark Levinson' is so impressed with the name that they keep using it, even though the man no longer has any association with them. Why is that? Because so-called 'high end' customers just lurrrve designer labels, even thought the actual designer is Harvey Q Knucklehead Junior. Sure Levinson's own products sounded good - but then *any* decent amp with solid power rails sounds good - this isn't exactly rocket science! Once again demonstrating the principle: if you (or someone working for you) do the *important stuff* right, how you do the *ridiculous stuff* really shouldn't matter. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
... On 20 Aug 2004 23:25:46 GMT, "Norman Schwartz" wrote: "Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message ... On 19 Aug 2004 23:28:48 GMT, "Norman Schwartz" wrote: Enough said? I am not defending anyone mentioned but the major loss with age and exposure is not acuity but threshhold, beginning at the higher frequencies. Mostly, these guys simply have to listen louder. OK Listen louder to be able hear the higher frequencies, maybe, then what happens to the lower frequencies?, speaking relatively of course and what way is this to pass judgment on The Abso!ute Sound? I'd think you would require some type of equalization, and it is more than time to head out to pasture, but certainly young people shouldn't take seriously old farts' audio opinions. (Not to say that they could have been taken seriously when they were young farts.) NO eq may be needed since threshhold sensitivity is not the same thing as intensity perception above threshhold. I cannot know what these guys can or cannot hear but I do not think that a little presbycusis disqualifies them. I believe this is wishful thinking on your part. When I first started listening to my Tympanis I always padded down the tweeter ribbons feeling uncomfortable listening to them "full range" regardless of the source material (phono, tape, CD, tuner), amplification -or- the listening room they were in. Within the last couple of years this in no longer the case, the resistors have been removed and I'm content with their present sound. There may be more than a bit of truth in the adage commenting that the silver disc is dedicated to the nursing home crowd (CDs that were once to bright and edgy at the top end have now become acceptable). The old gray mare isn't what it used to be and I know that I can't tell youngins how the tunes may actually sound *to them*. I'm merely happy that I can appreciate them at my level. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
On 22 Aug 2004 23:41:37 GMT, "Norman Schwartz"
wrote: I believe this is wishful thinking on your part. When I first started listening to my Tympanis I always padded down the tweeter ribbons feeling uncomfortable listening to them "full range" regardless of the source material (phono, tape, CD, tuner), amplification -or- the listening room they were in. Within the last couple of years this in no longer the case, the resistors have been removed and I'm content with their present sound. There may be more than a bit of truth in the adage commenting that the silver disc is dedicated to the nursing home crowd (CDs that were once to bright and edgy at the top end have now become acceptable). The old gray mare isn't what it used to be and I know that I can't tell youngins how the tunes may actually sound *to them*. I'm merely happy that I can appreciate them at my level. You may be right but that's just speculation unless you have some measurements of the speakers and your ears over the relevant years. Kal |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
On 22 Aug 2004 17:20:09 GMT, "Norman Schwartz"
wrote: If one is going to compensate for diminished response to higher frequencies by jacking up the (entire) volume in order to attempt to learn and hear what's going on up there, what happens to the bottom (lower) end?, it too gets louder and could easily become overwhelming. I can't see how that type of listening is meaningful in any way whatsoever. You are confusing threshhold with sensitivity. Kal |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"Buster Mudd" wrote in message
... Steven Sullivan wrote in message ... today's entries.... Similary, it is claimed (by Sax, unfortunately) that analog beats digital because it has 'at least an octave' over CD, and a better noise floor. I presume he is comparing 1/4 inch tape to CD -- that is, production analog to final product (Redbook 16/44) digital -- not LP to CD, or p[roduction digital to production analog, but that's not clarified. Well, I don't know what planet Doug gets his analog tape decks from, but I've never encountered a 1/4" *or* 1/2" machine with a "better" noise floor than Red Book CD. But he's right about the extra octave, that's just a given. The issue is whether or not this extra octave+ is audible to humans...or audible beneath that aforementioned analog noise floor! And at Doug's age, he hasn't heard a sound above 14KHz in years! So what's he yammering about an extra octave? He might as well be barking at the moon as to being able to hear any difference between vinyl or digital. Maybe he can't hear the vinyl ticks and pops anymore! That CERTAINLY would make vinyl sound better. Ha! Regards, Tom |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Uptown Audio wrote:
Actually, components do age and "break-in", whether they are electronic as in a CD player or mechanical as in an automobile engine. It is a physical process and many experienced listeners and drivers can attest to each. Whether you can tell when this occurs is another matter, but I would not be fooled into thinking that you could not simply by the suggestion of someone else. Nor would I be by the notion that it does not occur, which is just silly. -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "B&D" wrote in message ... On 8/17/04 11:50 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: 5) his take on A/B tests....he tells students that it is "very dangerous". If the A/B "always" turns out bad, you can throw out the component under test. Otherwise, you have to "live with it for several months" to discover if it "gives you the satisfaction that should be there". Apparently you agree with this idea. My question is exactly how does the sound of a component or medium change while you "live with it for several months"? Actually - I don't think the components age/break-in, but I have found that listening to a CD player, for instance, you get to play a variety of your music on it without bad time limits, and you can measure how much you want to listen to music - and which music. I have found with familiarity, I will listen to how a piece of equipment brings out the music - the detail and enjoyment isn't always obvious at first blush. Kind of like cars, really, you have an idea it is the good car, but you won't KNOW until you have about 5-10k on the odo... The latter comment has nothing to do with 'break-in.' It has to do with the driver acclimating himself to the vehicle and the relative incidence or lack-of problems. But the former comment is simply OSAF; with audio products, even speakers, there is no evidence that break-in is a function of electronics or loudspeakers. In the first case Mil-Spec requires break-in but that's simply to eliminate crib-death and other early-failure modes. It's not a function of adjusting to performance. I've personally conducted three break-in studies of loudspeakers and found that there-ain't-no-such-thing. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
(S888Wheel) wrote:
From: (Nousaine) Date: 8/17/2004 8:50 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "Harry Lavo" wrote: Whatever your views, the article is worth reading simply for its provocative thoughts. Among Sax's observations / opinions: ...snip to specific comment..... 5) his take on A/B tests....he tells students that it is "very dangerous". If the A/B "always" turns out bad, you can throw out the component under test. Otherwise, you have to "live with it for several months" to discover if it "gives you the satisfaction that should be there". Apparently you agree with this idea. My question is exactly how does the sound of a component or medium change while you "live with it for several months"? It is a question built on a false premise. Sax does not claim the sound will change. So why do you have to "live with it" to see if it satisfies? I just don;t get it if the accuracy of the sound compared to live music is to be the reference. I can understand how operating functions or quirks might become familiar over time and with usage and training. But how does the "sound" referenced to live acoustical performance manage to change or adjust itself over time? Again, your question is based on a false premise. When audiophiles take home a new piece of gear they are not likely to have a practical live reference to use as a standard. So what you are saying is that live acoustical music is not the reference. I guess I just couldn't believe that it wasn't. In my opinion, with an experienced listener when the sound quality of a system seems to drift one way or another with the passing of time (compared to a live acoustical performance) it can only be a function of the listener re-adjusting his internal bias. Not everyone agrees with you. Some experienced listeners feel they need more time to get the full effect and digest it's merits. To get the 'full effect' of a static sound system (one that is not changing with time)? Then whatever adjustment is a function of the listener and not the system. Thank you for making that clear. What I find interesting is that I've never found a music enthusiast who had any trouble desciding whether a live performance in audio or musical performance was satisfactory or not. To me, that means that when home-audio high-end enthusiasts must need time to adjust psychologically-socially because the sound sure isn't changing. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
On 8/23/04 7:19 PM, in article , "Nousaine"
wrote: Uptown Audio wrote: Actually, components do age and "break-in", whether they are electronic as in a CD player or mechanical as in an automobile engine. It is a physical process and many experienced listeners and drivers can attest to each. Whether you can tell when this occurs is another matter, but I would not be fooled into thinking that you could not simply by the suggestion of someone else. Nor would I be by the notion that it does not occur, which is just silly. -Bill www.uptownaudio.com Roanoke VA (540) 343-1250 "B&D" wrote in message ... On 8/17/04 11:50 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: 5) his take on A/B tests....he tells students that it is "very dangerous". If the A/B "always" turns out bad, you can throw out the component under test. Otherwise, you have to "live with it for several months" to discover if it "gives you the satisfaction that should be there". Apparently you agree with this idea. My question is exactly how does the sound of a component or medium change while you "live with it for several months"? Actually - I don't think the components age/break-in, but I have found that listening to a CD player, for instance, you get to play a variety of your music on it without bad time limits, and you can measure how much you want to listen to music - and which music. I have found with familiarity, I will listen to how a piece of equipment brings out the music - the detail and enjoyment isn't always obvious at first blush. Kind of like cars, really, you have an idea it is the good car, but you won't KNOW until you have about 5-10k on the odo... The latter comment has nothing to do with 'break-in.' It has to do with the driver acclimating himself to the vehicle and the relative incidence or lack-of problems. Depends - I have found that *I* break in to a new pair of speakers, for instance, by playing a lot of my music on it and hearing how it presents it to me in a slightly new way (more detail, tonal balance or timing or whatever). I would surmise that when one buys ANYTHING that is supposed to enhance an experience - there is a period of time where one gets used to it. But the former comment is simply OSAF; with audio products, even speakers, there is no evidence that break-in is a function of electronics or loudspeakers. In the first case Mil-Spec requires break-in but that's simply to eliminate crib-death and other early-failure modes. It's not a function of adjusting to performance. I've personally conducted three break-in studies of loudspeakers and found that there-ain't-no-such-thing. But the incidence of break in of the listener is a widespread fact, though, which is what my point was |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"Norman Schwartz" wrote:
"Nousaine" wrote in message ... Kalman Rubinson wrote: On 19 Aug 2004 23:28:48 GMT, "Norman Schwartz" wrote: Enough said? I am not defending anyone mentioned but the major loss with age and exposure is not acuity but threshhold, beginning at the higher frequencies. Mostly, these guys simply have to listen louder. Kal Mead Killion of Etymotic Research described hearing loss as such. He noted that there are musicians in there 70s with significant hearing loss who are still making significant musical contribution because their loss is a threshold function ---- if its loud enough their hearing may be close to normal. BS. In order to hear significantly loud tape hiss from (non-Dolby encoded) O/R tapes I have to jack up the gain to a point that it makes it impossible to comfortably listen to the music for more than 20 seconds. Please take my comments in conterxt. If you have a problem with what Killion said please take that up with him. Within 5 yards of the right stack the SPL measured Flat at Fast integration was 122 dB Max and 114 dB Average over 2-3 minutes. At 60 yards it was 114 dB Max and 107 Average. The peak SPL at 5-yards was 80-100 Hz; and at 60 yards it was between 125 and 160 Hz. At 120 yards the SPL was 3-4 dB less but the Stack at that stage was apparently larger. This was at an outdoor event located on the bay in Duluth. There were no nearby significant reflective surfaces other than the stages themselves. My point? You DO need Musicans's Ear Plugs at these events. ER-15 (15-dB attenuation) is a good compromise. I have ER-9 and ER-25 to accomodate every venue. I recently attended one of Rod Stewart's current cycle of concerts in an auditorium with plenty of amplification (of course), was about 75 yards from the stage and used no hearing protection. Perhaps at my age little hearing remains that might be worth protecting. Nevertheless I'm under the impression that attenuating the sound level would have deprived me of much of the fun. That may be your perception. l am simply reporting what I measured at a recent event. IMO I would have been remiss at NOT protecting myself at this event. According to the discussion here I should have been able to hear higher frequencies as well as any bats in attendance. There were plenty of Bats; not the least of which were Ko KJo Taylor and Little Richard. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
On 19 Aug 2004 23:36:28 GMT, Pooh Bear
wrote: B&D wrote: Kind of like cars, really, you have an idea it is the good car, but you won't KNOW until you have about 5-10k on the odo... Well......... Last time I had the benefit of checking - cars at least do actually 'run in'. The engine and probably transmission too, 'loosen up' with the result of less friction and higher performance peaking after around 10k miles. And then, of course, they wear out...................... There are many speakers and amplifiers which have been running happily every day for twenty years, and show no sign of wear, making the 'break in' phenomenon unlikely, to say the least. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
On 24 Aug 2004 23:40:58 GMT, "Norman Schwartz"
wrote: I'm not attempting to distinguish threshold with sensitivity, but merely commenting on your implied suggestion that turning up the juice is going to make older folk's hearing = that of younger people. It isn't and therefore older listeners are not in any position to comment and audio matters. Nice try Norman (I'm guessing that you're quite young?), but if you want an opinion on musical or hi-fi matters, you don't usually ask a teenager. Experience counts, and no one has suggested that anything other than treble threshold is affected with age. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Crazy market saturation! | Car Audio | |||
Comments about Blind Testing | High End Audio | |||
Dithering Digital Audio | High End Audio | |||
FAQ: RAM LISTING OF SCAMMERS, SLAMMERS, AND N'EER DO WELLS! V. 8.1 | Audio Opinions | |||
science vs. pseudo-science | High End Audio |