[MiNe 109]

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:37:16 -0800, MiNe 109 wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Sonnova wrote:

That's what I am wondering. If I'm not mistaken, Arny is trying to say
here
that digital transcriptions of "rare music" (whatever that means) are
actually made from a phonograph record as the master source material.

Many of them are.

Please name at least one.

You might have overlooked this one:

snip

Well, I didn't say it wasn't possible. I just said that I had never heard of
the practice. But then, I do not listen to or follow the genre broadly
described as "rock-n-roll" or indeed, any pop-culture music so you will
forgive me for not having heard of this practice. I've certainly never seen
it done in classical, film music, or jazz, but then it's possible I've never
just never run across it before and it's much more common than I think it is.

I'm sure the latter is the case in classical and jazz.

Naxos Historical uses lp sources for some reissues which include such
famous recordings as Glenn Gould's Goldberg Variations.

There are also small reissue labels that specialize in transfers of
public-domain performances from lps and other media: Pristine Audio,
ReDiscovery, etc.

Stephen

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
On 6 Mar, 11:33, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
On 5 Mar, 03:22, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in ...
On 3 Mar, 12:10, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message
I find my personal bias controlled comparisons to be relaible enough
evidence for me.

That makes you like a person who says they are greatest cook in the world,
based on their taste tests of their cooking.
No Arny. I think you are getting things confused here. You and I are
the hobbyists here not the pros. We are the patrons of the proverbial
restaurant not the chefs. The wierd thing is no one ever demands that
we do blind tests as evidence that our opinions on food are valid.

How often are opinions on food offered here?

I don't keep count. What does it matter? This is more about subjective
evaluation in general.

If people populated this newsgroup with opinions about food,
then you would see a lot more skepticism about the claims for
food quality made based purely on 'subjective evaluation'.

Actually blind taste tests are a well-known tool, in the food industry.
And of course in areas like wine appreciation.

I see nothing wrong with chefs using blind tatse tests to aid them in
their endevours to improve their craft.

Or food manufacturers doing product testing...to improve their market
share in, say, cheese puffs.

The lofty language of 'improving craft' and artisanship sure sounds nicer,
though.

My point is it is not on the
patrons to prove anything. We are entitled to our subjective opinions
be it fine food or audio. We as consumers are not obligated to prove
our aesthetic impressions are scientifically valid. It's on the
providers to do what the need to do to please the consumers. If bias
controls help them that is fine with me. I don't care about the means.
I care about the results.

You mean, you care about your subjective beliefs, which may or
may not have a basis in objective reality. Your 'results' could be
entirely due to something other than what you believe them to be...and
other than what the 'providers' claim.

However, most of the time people simply don't question whether
two things taste *different*, and much of the time, there's no need to
(similar, in audio, to the situation with loudspeakers). But
of course when 'brands' and other biasing factors are involved,
blind taste testing to test what factors are affecting *preference*,
beyond the actual taste, is certainly the way to go.

This seems to be a coomon misconception amoung certain audiophiles
that bias effects only mattert when they suspect there is no audible
differences.

IME audiophiles commonly harbor LOTS of misconceptions as regards
the purity of subjective evaluation.

They are always in play and always affect the listener. I
actually find it ironic that some people do all this hand waving about
DBTs and the need for objective proof of subjective imporessions when
they utterly neglect bias effects when it comes to the one thing they
actually do believe is important, speakers. at the end of the day the
folks who make such a stink about the need for DBTs when it comes to
amps, cables, CD players etc. really have no bias controls in place in
their own proverbial home.

Are you deliberately ignoring what I wrote? I distinguished between
there being an *audible difference* between loudspeakers -- which one
could predict to be likely based just on the way loudspeakers work
-- versus basing loudspeaker *quality assessement* just on sighted audition.

Of course the latter calls for DBT conditions. This is why
most people who do the 'hand waving' you cite also cite things like
the NRC/Harman work of Toole and Olive -- blind test where
factors affecting sound quality assessment of *loudspeakers*, were
studied. It is uncontroversial among DBT advocates I know of,
that making comparative *sound quality* claims about
loudspeakers in the home, without some technical backup/measurements,
is fraught with the usual confounders.

This cannot possibly be news to you, so I have to wonder what your point is.

1. ABX ( the apparent prefered bias
controlled test for these folks) does nothing to prevent the bias of
same sound from affecting the results.

Audio ABX is essentially for testing whether a *difference* can be heard.
Preference tests generally use a different protocol (e.g., ABC/hr)

That seems to be a prevalant
bias in play for these particular audiophiles. 2. bias effects are
well known to affect preferences even with things like speakers and
one finds very little attempt on the part of the said audiophiles to
do bias controlled auditions of speakers.

That would be because such tests are probably even MORE difficult to
properly set up with loudspeakers, than with other classes of gear.

Again, this cannot possibly be news to you. Harman spent more than
a million to create its blind speaker testing facility.

So, in the end, these folks
are no more free of bias effects than the garden variety subjectivist.

WHO SAYS that DBT advocates don't recognize the same pitfalls in sighted loudspeaker
evaluation as they do in sighted evaluations of the sound of other audio gear?

fruitful than you seem to realize. IME artists, chefs, audio designers
etc. that excel are the ones who are trying to please themselves.

Most amateurs are trying to 'please themselves', too.

That's hardly a reliable indicator of excellence.

What is a reliable indicator of excellence when it comes to things
that are so subjective?

Instead of this typical attempt at semantic diversion, please just
tell me how the goal of 'pleasing oneself' necessarily, or even
predictably, translates to 'excelling'?

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[[email protected]]

On Mar 6, 8:03*pm, Steve wrote:
Hi,

I am the OP. I have to admit vinyl is not an option for me

Well, who cares about you? :-)

snip

I guess a sub woofer to make the Harbeths full range may be another
option. Nobody mentions this but surely this is an option for most
stereo systems without hideously large and expensive speakers?

Absolutely. Had you specified your speakers sooner, I'm sure this
would have come up.

What is interesting is that the conventional way to improve would be
to put a DAC between the SB3 and the AMP such as DacMagic or
Benchmark1, and to upgrade the NAD to a more expensive amp. *It seems
that most posters here think that these are not worthwhile options?

DACs are pretty close to commodity items these days. And your NAD is
probably quite adequate for driving your speakers, so you're unlikely
to notice a real improvement there. (Imaginary improvements are always
possible, of course.)

A good sub and a little more absorption/defraction in the first
reflection points seems the way to go.

bob

[Bob Myers]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
\ If people populated this newsgroup with opinions about food,
then you would see a lot more skepticism about the claims for
food quality made based purely on 'subjective evaluation'.

Nope.

In fact, I think food is an excellent example to use to discuss
the difference between "objective" and "subjective" evaluation.

Food QUALITY is actually a very objectively-defined and
measureable thing. It has to do with the nutrional value of the
food in question, its purity/cleanliness, etc. - all very objective,
very quantifiable, very *measureable*.

The subjective aspects of food are also very obvious, and simply
boil down to the questions of "do you like this, and why?" But
there is also generally agreement that this part of determining the
"goodness" of food IS subjective, and very much a matter of
personal tastes and preferences. We don't expect everyone to
like the same things, and those of us who don't like a given taste
aren't expected to be good judges of what makes a "good" example
of that sort of food.

*Music* is similar to food in that we don't expect everyone to like
the same styles of music, the same performers, etc.. If you don't
like, say, country music, then you're simply not going to LIKE it
no matter how technically adept the performers are, or even if you
can separately appreciate that technical ability.

But *audio* is not entirely about *music*. Where we run into trouble
in the "objective vs. subjective" debates is generally to what degree you
personally believe that human hearing IS capable of judging *accuracy*
in an objective sense. And "accuracy," if you believe that IS what you're
determining through listening-based tests, clearly SHOULD be an
objective measure. The bottom line is that the person who believesthey
can objectively determine accuracy purely through listening is not likely
to be receptive to non-listening-based objective measures which suggest
otherwise; that's just human nature.

Bob M.

ing other than what you believe them to be...and
other than what the 'providers' claim.

However, most of the time people simply don't question whether
two things taste *different*, and much of the time, there's no need
to (similar, in audio, to the situation with loudspeakers). But
of course when 'brands' and other biasing factors are involved,
blind taste testing to test what factors are affecting *preference*,
beyond the actual taste, is certainly the way to go.

This seems to be a coomon misconception amoung certain audiophiles
that bias effects only mattert when they suspect there is no audible
differences.

IME audiophiles commonly harbor LOTS of misconceptions as regards
the purity of subjective evaluation.

They are always in play and always affect the listener. I
actually find it ironic that some people do all this hand waving
about DBTs and the need for objective proof of subjective
imporessions when they utterly neglect bias effects when it comes to
the one thing they actually do believe is important, speakers. at
the end of the day the folks who make such a stink about the need
for DBTs when it comes to amps, cables, CD players etc. really have
no bias controls in place in their own proverbial home.

Are you deliberately ignoring what I wrote? I distinguished between
there being an *audible difference* between loudspeakers -- which one
could predict to be likely based just on the way loudspeakers work
-- versus basing loudspeaker *quality assessement* just on sighted
audition.

Of course the latter calls for DBT conditions. This is why
most people who do the 'hand waving' you cite also cite things like
the NRC/Harman work of Toole and Olive -- blind test where
factors affecting sound quality assessment of *loudspeakers*, were
studied. It is uncontroversial among DBT advocates I know of,
that making comparative *sound quality* claims about
loudspeakers in the home, without some technical backup/measurements,
is fraught with the usual confounders.

This cannot possibly be news to you, so I have to wonder what your
point is.

1. ABX ( the apparent prefered bias
controlled test for these folks) does nothing to prevent the bias of
same sound from affecting the results.

Audio ABX is essentially for testing whether a *difference* can be
heard. Preference tests generally use a different protocol (e.g.,
ABC/hr)

That seems to be a prevalant
bias in play for these particular audiophiles. 2. bias effects are
well known to affect preferences even with things like speakers and
one finds very little attempt on the part of the said audiophiles to
do bias controlled auditions of speakers.

That would be because such tests are probably even MORE difficult to
properly set up with loudspeakers, than with other classes of gear.

Again, this cannot possibly be news to you. Harman spent more than
a million to create its blind speaker testing facility.

So, in the end, these folks
are no more free of bias effects than the garden variety
subjectivist.

WHO SAYS that DBT advocates don't recognize the same pitfalls in
sighted loudspeaker evaluation as they do in sighted evaluations of
the sound of other audio gear?

fruitful than you seem to realize. IME artists, chefs, audio
designers etc. that excel are the ones who are trying to please
themselves.

Most amateurs are trying to 'please themselves', too.

That's hardly a reliable indicator of excellence.

What is a reliable indicator of excellence when it comes to things
that are so subjective?

Instead of this typical attempt at semantic diversion, please just
tell me how the goal of 'pleasing oneself' necessarily, or even
predictably, translates to 'excelling'?

[Doug McDonald[_3_]]

MiNe 109 wrote:
Sonnova wrote:

That's what I am wondering. If I'm not mistaken, Arny is trying to say
here
that digital transcriptions of "rare music" (whatever that means) are
actually made from a phonograph record as the master source material.

Naxos Historical uses lp sources for some reissues which include such
famous recordings as Glenn Gould's Goldberg Variations.

There are also small reissue labels that specialize in transfers of
public-domain performances from lps and other media: Pristine Audio,
ReDiscovery, etc.

And even larger labels who own the music have done so ...
there is the case of Vox, for a 1960s set of 5 LPs
of Bartok piano music by Gyorgy Sandor, which they reissued on CD.

The could not find one of the master tapes, so they copied it from an LP!

Doug McDonald

[Steven Sullivan]

Bob Myers wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
\ If people populated this newsgroup with opinions about food,
then you would see a lot more skepticism about the claims for
food quality made based purely on 'subjective evaluation'.

Nope.

In fact, I think food is an excellent example to use to discuss
the difference between "objective" and "subjective" evaluation.

Food QUALITY is actually a very objectively-defined and
measureable thing. It has to do with the nutrional value of the
food in question, its purity/cleanliness, etc. - all very objective,
very quantifiable, very *measureable*.

No, it doesn't..unless you define it as that.

Subjective evaluation of quality -- whether A is reported to taste 'better
or worse' than B -- may have influences not related to the actual taste,
just as subjective evaluation of audio quality may have components that
have nothing to do with the actual sound.

These influences are revealed when comparisons are done blind.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:42:50 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 07:22:27 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Since there is no such thing as a record without some kind of surface
noise or re-occurring "vinyl rush" to give it away, I think I'd notice.

A lot of those artifacts can be processed so that they are not
immediately
obvious. Or in the case of material that is only available as masters
that
were also cut onto a disc, they are present on all extant media.

Yes, that's possible. On the other hand, wouldn't the producers be obliged
to
mention that the CD was transcribed from commercially available vinyl LPs
in
the CD's liner notes somewhere?

There's no legal requirement to do such a thing.

I just don't think that this is a widely practiced process.

Not widely, but it is done.

. Even stuff sourced from the pre-audio tape era wasn't
transcribed from commercial records, but rather from the original
transcriptions themselves which were generally cut on acetate. I know
for
a fact that most of RCA's 1940s Toscanini recordings were transferred
from
acetate transcriptions to magnetic tape back in the 1950's and any CDs
made of those performances would be made from those tapes. It is
possible
that some early performances are sourced from 78 RPM shellac discs or
even
Edison cylinders because those are the best (or only sources)
available for
such historic works. But tape has been available for practically all
of the
LP era, and that's the source of every LP reissue to digital AFAIK.

Tape is preferred, but master tapes get lost and/or stolen.

You need to explain why a LP you play at home would sound any better
than
a digital transcription of a sister LP that was made by a skilled
technician.

There are only reasons why the LPs you play at home would sound worse.
I'm not saying that it would or wouldn't.

I think that you have already said that it is likely that a LP taken off
the shelf and played at home is more likely to sound worse than a
professionally-done transcription, barring incompetence on the part of the
professional.

There is a market for transcriptions of LPs, but it seems to be somewhat
low-level and even partially concealed. I have a friend who is a collector
of recordings. He has informed me of the very many ways that both
commercial copies and tape masters of recordings become unavailable.
Copyrights do run out. For example, works created before 1925 had a
statutory 75 year copyright which ran out some years back.

Implicitly, you are saying that a LP transcription would be somewhat
undesirable, since you are asserting that such a thing is rarely if ever
done.

I don't see the connection between the two statements. The sound quality
of
the resultant CD and frequency with which the record industry tends to
transcribe commercially produced LPs to CD for further commercial release
has
no intrinsic relationship.

There is an intrinsic relationship, but it is not a constant. It has now
been shown by a number of posts that phonograph recordings are at least
occasionally transcribed to CD and sold as regular commercial recordings, or
specialty products.

What is implicit is the confidence in the record
companies to use the best source material available for releasing older
material on CD.

I am informed that this trust is at least occasionally broken.

I assume, when I buy a CD of some older performance, that the
source is tape at least, and hopefully a master tape. In the case of pre-
1948 performances, my expectations are, of course, lower. I expect these
transcriptions to be from studio masters on acetate, or optical film
because
that was what was available.

I am informed that this trust is at least occasionally broken. Sometimes in
haste, sometimes due shall we say lack of appropriate funding, and sometimes
due to incompetence.

[Arny Krueger]

"Steve" wrote in message
...

I am the OP. I have to admit vinyl is not an option for me - I
recently sold my record collection and player that had been lying
dormant for several years and quite frankly I wont miss them!

We have to remember that there are people who are personally committed to
keeping the vinyl medium alive in their own minds, regardless of the fact
that almost all music lovers have long abandoned it.

I have Harbeth Super HL5 speakers, picked after listening to dozens of
other speakers at a similer price or cheaper, because for me they were
simply better at reproducing the music and the ambiance of the music
(I could here characteristics of the venue the music was recorded at
something rivals failed to do);

http://www.harbeth.co.uk/uk/index.ph...=Sup er%20HL5

Interesting. Basically 8" 3-way speakers with average to low efficiency.
Probably pretty nice sounding, but without much chance of reproducing the
lowest octave.


They are driven by budget electronics specially a squeezebox 3 streamer
(fed by flac from a PC via a wireless router) ;

http://www.slimdevices.com/pi_squeezebox.html

and a NAD 325 BEE budget amp;

http://nadelectronics.com/products/h...ated-Amplifier

Put me in the "all good amps sound pretty much the same" crowd. You can call
NAD "budget", but IME its usually very solid stuff.

On the whole I am satisfied with the sound my system produces but if I
can improve it - why not try! Upgrading speakers is not an option for
me as the Harbeths were dream speakers for me and cost more then I can
afford.

I agree. They could be begging for a good subwoofer, but it can't be
something small and cheap.

The relevant advice I hear here is to move my speakers around and use
room treatments. Well that is possible. The speakers are on stands and
there are door coasters under the stands that make it easy to move
them around and they come out of their corners into the center of the
room when I want to listen seriously. Maybe I should invest in a mike
and SPL meter so I can do this more scientifically as suggested by some
posters above.

In my experience, both equipment and ears are your best guide to good sound.

As for room treatments; the speakers are in our living room and I may
put in a bookcase or some drapes over the windows but there is no way
there is going to be any treatments that aren't functional and
aesthetic and fit in with a my small houses main living room.

Go ahead with the bookcases and drapes if they will look good and make the
room sound better.

I am playing with the idea of trying some DSP EQ room treatment using
pro device like this;

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...acurve2496.htm

This, along with an ECM 8000 microphone could be a good foundation for the
equipment side of the equation.

I guess a sub woofer to make the Harbeths full range may be another
option. Nobody mentions this but surely this is an option for most
stereo systems without hideously large and expensive speakers?

A properly-integrated subwoofer could be a big help.

What is interesting is that the conventional way to improve would be
to put a DAC between the SB3 and the AMP such as DacMagic or
Benchmark1, and to upgrade the NAD to a more expensive amp. It seems
that most posters here think that these are not worthwhile options?

Right, the benefits of speaker positioning, room acoustical treatments, and
equalization will give you far more for the buck, and take you to places
where more expensive amps and DACs can't possibly take you.

[Bob Myers]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Bob Myers wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
\ If people populated this newsgroup with opinions about food,
then you would see a lot more skepticism about the claims for
food quality made based purely on 'subjective evaluation'.

Nope.

In fact, I think food is an excellent example to use to discuss
the difference between "objective" and "subjective" evaluation.

Food QUALITY is actually a very objectively-defined and
measureable thing. It has to do with the nutrional value of the
food in question, its purity/cleanliness, etc. - all very objective,
very quantifiable, very *measureable*.

No, it doesn't..unless you define it as that.

Subjective evaluation of quality -- whether A is reported to taste
'better or worse' than B -- may have influences not related to the
actual taste, just as subjective evaluation of audio quality may have
components that have nothing to do with the actual sound.

And you snipped the rest of the post which made just that point.

Bob M.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 07:54:07 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...

These cheap direct-drive 'DJ' tables
in the article you referenced are not designed to do anything but spin
records, get up to speed fairly quickly and be able to be back-cued and
make
that funny rurr-rurr sound that disco goers seem to like so much.

If that's true, then the problems you mention will show up clearly and
audibly in the files you can download from:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=69979 .

Actually, they probably won't unless (A) you KNOW the record that the
samples
came from,

The source provides the music as digitized from the turntable, and also from
the CD with the closest mastering to the LP.

and know how much bass is available from that record when
played-back on a decent table.

I don't think there is any LP playback system that can touch the accuracy
and extension of a properly-made CD.

And (B) the files were made from records that
were warped or eccentric (not all are, you know).

The person making the transcriptions is using LPs in excellent condition. In
addition, the transcriptions may be QCd for 0.3 Hz (+ harmonics_ FM
distortion, the objective indication of warping and eccentricity.

Failure to notice either of
these two problems on the samples provided tells us nothing. There are
simply
too many variables involved

They are well-known and will be carefully monitored.

There are files there for both musical tracks and technical tracks.

Note that the musical tracks are level-matched and time-synched. They
allow
you to compare the CD and LP versions of music that has in several
person's
opinion, been mastered as closely as possible.

But if you don't know the level of bass that's on the disc, the lack of
that
amount won't tell you anything.

Asked and answered, please see above.

That's the problem with sins of omission in
audio. Unless you know what it's SUPPOSED to be, you won't know that the
equipment that you are using is missing that information.

Please see above.

This is far better, fairer and closer comparison than most people have
ever
heard in their whole lives. With one of the many freely downloadable
music
players designed to faciliate sonic comparisons, sighted, ABX and ABC/hr
comparisons are possible.

Except that unless you know what the disc CAN sound like on a decent
'table
setup, you don't know what the test rig is not reproducing.

Since CDs can have far more detail and bass extension than LPs, using a
properly mastered CD of a title where the mastering of the LP and CD used
were known to be both excellent and similar, addresses that concern.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:02:08 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 07:54:07 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...

These cheap direct-drive 'DJ' tables
in the article you referenced are not designed to do anything but spin
records, get up to speed fairly quickly and be able to be back-cued and
make
that funny rurr-rurr sound that disco goers seem to like so much.

If that's true, then the problems you mention will show up clearly and
audibly in the files you can download from:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/...howtopic=69979 .

Actually, they probably won't unless (A) you KNOW the record that the
samples
came from,

The source provides the music as digitized from the turntable, and also from
the CD with the closest mastering to the LP.

No, no, you misunderstand, I think. In order for one to evaluate the digital
samples presented on that web site, one would have to know what the
particular LP that those samples represent is actually capable of under the
best conditions. Cartridge colorations and turntable physics color the sound
from a record much more than any DAC ever could change the sound of a CD, so.
unless you know what the record is SUPPOSED to sound like, the provided
samples of the digitized record means nothing./

and know how much bass is available from that record when
played-back on a decent table.

I don't think there is any LP playback system that can touch the accuracy
and extension of a properly-made CD.

Again, that's irrelevant. An LP is THE SOURCE for these files. The playback
of the LP has everything to do with the amount and quality of bass that ends
up in these sample files. If the turntable/cartridge setup used to make these
files isn't resolving all of the bass available on the LP, then the digitized
file is going to sound more thin than it could sound with better playback
equipment, irrespective of how good the quantization process is in the low
frequency region. The file is only going to be as good as the resolving power
of the turntable/arm/and cartridge used to play the original record.

And (B) the files were made from records that
were warped or eccentric (not all are, you know).

The person making the transcriptions is using LPs in excellent condition. In
addition, the transcriptions may be QCd for 0.3 Hz (+ harmonics_ FM
distortion, the objective indication of warping and eccentricity.

Failure to notice either of
these two problems on the samples provided tells us nothing. There are
simply
too many variables involved

They are well-known and will be carefully monitored.

So these samples tell you how these turntables will perform playing warped or
eccentric records when none of the samples posted are eccentric or warped?
How omniscient you are. I certainly can't tell how anything will work under
adverse conditions when nothing in the samples was made under those adverse
conditions. That's like being able to tell how a car will perform on the race
track by driving it around the parking lot.

There are files there for both musical tracks and technical tracks.

Note that the musical tracks are level-matched and time-synched. They
allow
you to compare the CD and LP versions of music that has in several
person's
opinion, been mastered as closely as possible.

But if you don't know the level of bass that's on the disc, the lack of
that
amount won't tell you anything.

Asked and answered, please see above.

No, you answered NOTHING.

That's the problem with sins of omission in
audio. Unless you know what it's SUPPOSED to be, you won't know that the
equipment that you are using is missing that information.

Please see above.

This is far better, fairer and closer comparison than most people have
ever
heard in their whole lives. With one of the many freely downloadable
music
players designed to faciliate sonic comparisons, sighted, ABX and ABC/hr
comparisons are possible.

Except that unless you know what the disc CAN sound like on a decent
'table
setup, you don't know what the test rig is not reproducing.

Since CDs can have far more detail and bass extension than LPs, using a
properly mastered CD of a title where the mastering of the LP and CD used
were known to be both excellent and similar, addresses that concern.

How do you know it's properly mastered? I have the Wilma Cozert Fine mastered
CD of the Mercury recording of Starvinksy's "Firebird". The 45 RPM Classic
Records release single-sided LP set of this recording sounds so much better
than the CD that its hard to believe that they are the same performance and
recording. The CD has less bass, and sounds bland and lifeless while the LP
is exciting and moving. No, assuming that the commercial CD is the benchmark
for a recording is no guarantee that it is. Many CDs made from perfectly
great sounding masters are duds. It's not the digital media's fault, but the
fault of those making the transfer. They are making decisions based on
factors other than giving the consumer the best sound that the source is
capable of giving, and its the fault of the user who assumes that the CD (or
the LP) sounds like the master tape. The only way to judge the efficacy of
the LP playback system is to compare playback of that equipment with the LP
played back on known good vinyl playback equipment.