Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: I perhaps do not agree with everything I've read, but (as ukra's leading 'vinyl bigot') I would just like to say how refreshing it is to see an intelligent rationale like this one - the digital bigots in ukra can't do anything like it without getting all twisted out of shape!! If you think the above is 'new', No, not 'new' - the refreshing bit is the lack of the usual (and strange) 'digital bile' in the whole post! then you may find http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioM.../feedback.html interesting. :-) The above page was put onto the web in Jan 2003 and summarises work by Noel Keywood and others back in the late 1970's and early 1980's. Yes that it interesting - thank you! (I believe I have seen it before some time back!) |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"Nick Gorham" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Nick Gorham" wrote in message Richard Crowley wrote: "Nick Gorham" wrote ... Richard Crowley wrote: Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it may be but how and why they don't care. Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year. "Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before posting it? Or are they using a different definintion of "real" than the rest of us? No, but you do seem to be using a different method of clipping a post to make the point you want, and attempting to acredit the author of a statement to the wrong group in this case. Huh? If you look closely, you will see that I "accredited" it to NO specific author. I neither know nor care who said it. I'm questioning the concept of "adding realism" quite apart from whether this applies to vinyl or digital, or even to audio as such. I did look closely, I see two "they"'s and a "us". To me that involves at least two groups, and you are placing yourself in the not "them" one. Note that Nick is picking at words to avoid dealing with the important issues that were raised. Nick has effectively conceeded the points raised to Richard, but lacks the candor to come out and say it. Actually I don't give a toss if you think I am one one side or the other in this, it just seemed to be rather sad, that Dave created a comment that he tried to put in the mouths of the pro-vinyl group, then Richard seems to have taken this point out of context and tried to make it the subject of a strawman argument. Then following this several people (including yourself Arni) has then jumped on this as a excuse to wheel out the normal old stuff. As it happens, I doubt you have ever head me claim that I believe that vinyl has anywhere near the SN of CD, anywhere the low level of distortion or anywhere near the convienence. No-one has ever claimed any of that - it's only in the heads of the twisty people who are *terrified* by vinyl.... |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"Keith G" wrote in message
No-one has ever claimed any of that - it's only in the heads of the twisty people who are *terrified* by vinyl.... Hmm, Keith's post is 100% name-calling and a claim that others are paranoid. Interesting how quickly he brings a reasoned discussion down that his level. |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
In article ,
Nick Gorham wrote: Actually I don't give a toss if you think I am one one side or the other in this, it just seemed to be rather sad, that Dave created a comment that he tried to put in the mouths of the pro-vinyl group, My intention was to summarise what was said recently on the 'Vinyl to CD on a PC' thread on ukra by the, as ever, extremely vocal vinyl lobby. Above all, they emphasise the 'realism' of anything on vinyl. Rumble, hiss, clicks, pops, varying bandwidth and distortion throughout the record matters not one jot - it's 'realism'. -- *Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"bob" wrote in message
oups.com To the extent that this is correct, the technically preferable way to induce this effect is to start with the cleanest, most accurate recording possible and then use digital signal processing to introduce phase distortion at the user's discretion. This allows you to adjust the effect to the recording, rather than accepting the fixed distortion of a particular vinyl rig. Agreed |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
In article , Nick Gorham wrote: Actually I don't give a toss if you think I am one one side or the other in this, it just seemed to be rather sad, that Dave created a comment that he tried to put in the mouths of the pro-vinyl group, Assuming that I'm the "Dave" you're referring to - I was not trying to put words into mouth of anyone at all other than myself. What I wrote was my own personal opinion and understanding, based on my own experiences and on research I've read over the years. The first writeup and research I remember reading on the whole issue of microphonic pickup by LP platters, and acoustic ringing in poorly-damped LPs, was in a fairly early issue of "International Audio Review" back in the late 1970s. It was in part due to the tests published in this magazine that I chose to purchase an Oracle turntable, which I still possess and occasionally use today. I do not claim (or even expect) that the more strongly-opined LP enthusiasts will agree with my suggestions as to the reasons why they might prefer the sound of LPs to the sound of CDs. Please do not attribute to me, motives that I do not actually possess. -- Dave Platt AE6EO Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads! |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
Dave Platt wrote:
In article , Nick Gorham wrote: Actually I don't give a toss if you think I am one one side or the other in this, it just seemed to be rather sad, that Dave created a comment that he tried to put in the mouths of the pro-vinyl group, Assuming that I'm the "Dave" you're referring to - I was not trying to put words into mouth of anyone at all other than myself. What I wrote was my own personal opinion and understanding, based on my own experiences and on research I've read over the years. I didn't for one moment suggest you were, its wasnt your post I was refering to. Dave Plownam (news) posted In article , Serge Auckland wrote: The converse is not true:- An LP cut from a CD will not sound identical, whatever mastering it has gone through. There are those who think the LP will sound better, that's fine as their opinion, but the fact that it *is* different means that CD is a transparent medium (what you put in you get out) whilst LP is not. You can say this 'till you're blue in the face but it won't make a scrap of difference to vinyl freaks. Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it may be but how and why they don't care. And then Richard Crowley took what I assume was just Dave making a off the cuff comment, and made it look like someone had said part of the above while meaning it Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it may be but how and why they don't care. Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year. "Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before posting it? Or are they using a different definintion of "real" than the rest of us? So, nothing related you any of your postings. Please do not attribute to me, motives that I do not actually possess. Didn't, haven't and won't :-). -- Nick |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"Here in Ohio" wrote in message
On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 20:47:58 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: It's well known, for example, that adding some amount of delayed, out-of-phase signal components to a piece of music can create a sense of "air" or "ambience" that makes the playback seem more like listening to the music as it might be when played in a live venue. Yes, the well-known phasiness, which is actually not usually characteristic of a high quality live venue such as a symphony hall. Multi-channel playback systems such as the venerable Dynaquad, or the various digital-delay ambience-synthesis systems such as Yamaha and a/d/s have made, have been used to good advantage for this for decades. Again, many listeners observe that many recordings give strong directional cues that actually don't exist in a quality live venue. Yes, I always felt that this was due to phase distortions between the stereo channels added by the vinyl recording/playback process. Sometimes true of recordings that are 100% digital. Phase differences between the sound event as received by our two ears is one of the cues we use for localization. Though secondary to amplitude differences. Normal "stereo" tends to screw up parts of the localization process. Perhaps gobs of added phase distortion from vinyl makes some people think the "imaging" is better. Classic example would be the old ADC XLM cartridge. Ragazines like TAS ranted and raved about how the soundstage of this cartridge blew away competitive cartridges like the V15. It turned out that records that were even slightly warped or slightly eccentric would combine with the nonlinearity of the XLM to produce all kinds of phase and amplitude changes. Sure, the XLM produced an exciting soundstage, but big gobs of the excitement were generated right in the cartrdige. Counterpoint - multi-miced recordings can sound "phasey" due to leakage between the mics, while coincident-mic minimla-miced recordings tend to create sound fields that implement "intensity stereo" that have vastly reduced phase differences between the channels. Spaced-mic recording doubles the signal when played back through normal speakers. That's one way to look at it. Coincident-mic recording leaves some of the localization up to the spacing of the speakers in relation to your ears. Though not uniquely so. I don't think either method is optimal, but coincident miking seems to produce a more accurate result overall. I do a lot of work with coincident mics, including multiple coincident mics. |
#49
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
In rec.audio.tech Jeff Findley wrote:
A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from what he understands from working there, the type of media used to deliver the master to the CD plant could make some difference. If the media was digital, then the CD's pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media was analog, that meant that what the plant got was going to be an "AAD" CD with the additional possibility that the CD plant's analog to digital conversion might not be as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing studio. SPARS Code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_Code When was the last time anyone delivered analog media to a CD pressing plant? Was this something done in the early 80s? I always took 'AAD' to mean that the CD was mastered digitally -- redundant, really, since by definition all CDs involve digital mastering. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
In rec.audio.tech Richard Crowley wrote:
Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it may be but how and why they don't care. Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year. "Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before posting it? Or are they using a different definintion of "real" than the rest of us? er...he was being sarcastic, you know. Repeating the 'vinyl freak' (that should have been a tipoff, btw) mantra. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
In rec.audio.tech Dave Platt wrote:
In article , Richard Crowley wrote: Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it may be but how and why they don't care. Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year. "Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before posting it? Or are they using a different definintion of "real" than the rest of us? I think that a valid distinction can be made between "accuracy" (a term I use here to denote an objective relationship between source and playback) and "realism" (which term I use to indicate a _subjective_ perception). It's well known, for example, that adding some amount of delayed, out-of-phase signal components to a piece of music can create a sense of "air" or "ambience" that makes the playback seem more like listening to the music as it might be when played in a live venue. Multi-channel playback systems such as the venerable Dynaquad, or the various digital-delay ambience-synthesis systems such as Yamaha and a/d/s have made, have been used to good advantage for this for decades. Such modification of the signal is artifical. The resulting signal is less accurate (in the objective sense). It may, on the other hand, be more "realistic", in the sense that the music sounds more like it might if the musicians were actually present in the listening room, performing the music in a real live venue. These are good points worth repeating occasionally. Me, I'd hate to have to go back to listening to two-channel without Dolby Pro Logic II (muisc mode) and 5.1 system. I don't claims it's accurate -- it certainly modifies the signal! -- but I like it. It's intentional euphonic distortion. I can even adjust and tweak the DPLII parameters to suit. But of course it's not intrinsic to digital playback. If I someday decide I don't like it, I can turn it OFF...or substitute some processing I like more. Try THAT with a turntable/LP system. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#52
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
In rec.audio.tech Rob wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote: "Rob" wrote in message " Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does. But your method eliminates that variable completely, and the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a factor, either. " Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has managed two maxims from anecdote. No assumptions there at all. Just the facts. Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire LP music recording. It's a reasonable assumption that the *audible part* of any LP is fully captured by a decent CD transcription of it. Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording captures in entirety any variance in sources. What variances in *this* souce -- would you suggest fail to be captured? These assumptions aren't facts. What data would demonstrate that they are or are not, to you? How would you falsify Mr. Satz' claims? ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#53
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... In rec.audio.tech Jeff Findley wrote: A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from what he understands from working there, the type of media used to deliver the master to the CD plant could make some difference. If the media was digital, then the CD's pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media was analog, that meant that what the plant got was going to be an "AAD" CD with the additional possibility that the CD plant's analog to digital conversion might not be as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing studio. SPARS Code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_Code When was the last time anyone delivered analog media to a CD pressing plant? Was this something done in the early 80s? I always took 'AAD' to mean that the CD was mastered digitally -- redundant, really, since by definition all CDs involve digital mastering. I believe this was actually the early 90's, but he did say by then delivery of analog audio to them was becoming less and less common. Still, he still tends to avoid buying AAD CD's based on what he saw going on at the plant since you can't tell from the AAD code who did the mastering from the analog tapes. Jeff -- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) |
#54
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message ... "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... In rec.audio.tech Jeff Findley wrote: A guy I work with used to work at a CD plant and from what he understands from working there, the type of media used to deliver the master to the CD plant could make some difference. If the media was digital, then the CD's pressed would be exact digital copies, but if the media was analog, that meant that what the plant got was going to be an "AAD" CD with the additional possibility that the CD plant's analog to digital conversion might not be as good as what could be done by a recording/mixing studio. SPARS Code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARS_Code When was the last time anyone delivered analog media to a CD pressing plant? Was this something done in the early 80s? I always took 'AAD' to mean that the CD was mastered digitally -- redundant, really, since by definition all CDs involve digital mastering. I believe this was actually the early 90's, but he did say by then delivery of analog audio to them was becoming less and less common. Still, he still tends to avoid buying AAD CD's based on what he saw going on at the plant since you can't tell from the AAD code who did the mastering from the analog tapes. Jeff I always purchased CDs based on the quality of the music. The SPARS code was irrelevant to me, but I always took comfort that if it said AAD, it meant that the master tape ensured adequate dithering for the CD. :-) |
#55
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: "Rob" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: "Rob" wrote in message " Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does. But your method eliminates that variable completely, and the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a factor, either. " Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has managed two maxims from anecdote. No assumptions there at all. Just the facts. Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire LP music recording. Not all of the recording, just all of the audible parts, and with a very considerable safety magin. But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It can be verified with both listening tests and measurements. Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording captures in entirety any variance in sources. Not all of the sources, just all of the audible parts, and with a considerable margin. But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It can be verified with both listening tests and measurements. The measurements need to be coordinated with what is known about human perception of sound. This has been done. That's fine - I didn't know that. Reading lots of waffle about supertweeters you can't hear, and subwoofers you shouldn't hear, makes the notion of 'audible' a problem for dunces like me :-) These assumptions aren't facts. Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used. Properly stated they are findings of science that have been verified by just about anybody who has bothered to take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or even collect their own data. There are no known adverse findings that are anywhere as near unbiased. Okeydokey. I'm probably expecting too much, but do you have a reference to a (preferably peer reviewed) source to substantiate this? Here's an example of some people who tried to collect their own data: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm The digital delay device being tested used the identical same data format as audio CDs and was of professional grade. It acted like a CD recorder and CD player back-to-back. Similar tests have been rerun from time to time in more modern contexts with identical results. OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling gets me to: http://www.pcabx.com/ with an odd statement about methodology. What exactly is the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on these points to accept what you say. The bibliography is rather narrow and doesn't (of course) guide the reader towards references. What made the inventor choose that method? It didn't just come out of the air! This is a problem because it still doesn't explain *why* some people prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl. That wasn't the point. Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no attempt is made to explain cause. The cause is pretty easy to figure out. Preference is based on stimulus and perception. Perception is based on the body's sensory reaction to stimulus and how the brain processes those reactions. If you trace through the steps, you find the most variations in how different people's brains work. Is this your opinion or another robust fact? Robust fact. If you're not interested in 'why' then fine. The reason why can be easily understood if you are well-informed about sensation and perception. I think you're steering towards a rational/'nature'/positivist explanation. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but you do understand there are different ways of thinking about things?! It seems to me that when a bunch of audiophiles and recording engineers listen to high quality live and recorded analog sources and find that they can't tell the difference between a short piece of wire and relatively complex digital encoding and decoding in the signal path, a lot of heavy philosophical thinking can be bypassed. Of course - but it's obvious to anyone looking at those tests that it's a pretty narrow respondent sample. To turn it round and say "Well, they are the most qualified to comment" is IMO elitist claptrap. |
#56
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"Rob" wrote in
message Arny Krueger wrote: "Rob" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: "Rob" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used. Properly stated they are findings of science that have been verified by just about anybody who has bothered to take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or even collect their own data. There are no known adverse findings that are anywhere as near unbiased. Okeydokey. I'm probably expecting too much, but do you have a reference to a (preferably peer reviewed) source to substantiate this? Here's an example of some people who tried to collect their own data: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm The digital delay device being tested used the identical same data format as audio CDs and was of professional grade. It acted like a CD recorder and CD player back-to-back. Similar tests have been rerun from time to time in more modern contexts with identical results. OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling gets me to: http://www.pcabx.com/ with an odd statement about methodology. What exactly is the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on these points to accept what you say. Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique used many times before and I'm not playing. |
#57
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling gets me to: http://www.pcabx.com/ with an odd statement about methodology. What exactly is the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on these points to accept what you say. Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique used many times before and I'm not playing. Well, it's your ball :-) |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
In article ,
Rob wrote: What exactly is the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on these points to accept what you say. Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique used many times before and I'm not playing. Well, it's your ball :-) Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your question to me in plain English? I'm afraid that when I read it the jargon and context passed me by. :-) Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
#59
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"Rob" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Rob" wrote in message OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling gets me to: http://www.pcabx.com/ with an odd statement about methodology. What exactly is the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on these points to accept what you say. Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique used many times before and I'm not playing. Well, it's your ball :-) What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!?? :-) (That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-) |
#60
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"Keith G" wrote in message news "Rob" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Rob" wrote in message OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling gets me to: http://www.pcabx.com/ with an odd statement about methodology. What exactly is the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on these points to accept what you say. Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique used many times before and I'm not playing. Well, it's your ball :-) What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!?? :-) (That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-) It seems to me, the sudden change in terminology (without definitions) by Dr Rob seems to indicate a B.S. gambit here. Frankly, I don't know why they're discussing (or I'm reading) an issue that was already settled 25 years ago by anyone willing to accept the obvious physical, mathematical and usability advantages of digital audio, instead of, oh, I don't know, whether Western Civilization has the nerve to fight a dangerous religious war to the death, or if we're in life-threatening denial. At least we have our priorities straight. :-) |
#61
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
Karl Uppiano wrote:
"Keith G" wrote in message news "Rob" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Rob" wrote in message OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling gets me to: http://www.pcabx.com/ with an odd statement about methodology. What exactly is the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on these points to accept what you say. Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique used many times before and I'm not playing. Well, it's your ball :-) What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!?? :-) (That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-) It seems to me, the sudden change in terminology (without definitions) by Dr Rob seems to indicate a B.S. gambit here. Do you mean ontology and epistemology? They're common enough words when discussing methodology - Arny started that ball rolling. I do tend to agree that a lot of BS accompanies philosophical 'analysis'. Frankly, I don't know why they're discussing (or I'm reading) an issue that was already settled 25 years ago by anyone willing to accept the obvious physical, mathematical and usability advantages of digital audio, Agreed. But I didn't start it :-) instead of, oh, I don't know, whether Western Civilization has the nerve to fight a dangerous religious war to the death, or if we're in life-threatening denial. At least we have our priorities straight. :-) I didn't start that one either! |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob wrote: What exactly is the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on these points to accept what you say. Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique used many times before and I'm not playing. Well, it's your ball :-) Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your question to me in plain English? I'm afraid that when I read it the jargon and context passed me by. :-) Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or patronising - you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind to me on more than one occasion. But here we go: Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to be explained ('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists, how do you propose to set about knowing this reality (your epistemology)? Given what exists and the approach you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity methodology)? Your method I know, roughly, thank you. The context was several 'facts' Arny laid out earlier in this thread. |
#63
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
Keith G wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Rob" wrote in message OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling gets me to: http://www.pcabx.com/ with an odd statement about methodology. What exactly is the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on these points to accept what you say. Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique used many times before and I'm not playing. Well, it's your ball :-) What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!?? :-) (That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-) Oh I think not :-) Still, he's a bloody good sport that Arny! |
#64
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message news:z6q3h.2238$Wd5.62@trnddc05... "Keith G" wrote in message news "Rob" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Rob" wrote in message OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling gets me to: http://www.pcabx.com/ with an odd statement about methodology. What exactly is the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on these points to accept what you say. Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique used many times before and I'm not playing. Well, it's your ball :-) What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!?? :-) (That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-) It seems to me, the sudden change in terminology (without definitions) by Dr Rob seems to indicate a B.S. gambit here. Sure, why not? It definitely says 'fight fire with fire' on page 28 of my copy of 'How To Scrape By'.....??? Talking of which, here's a clip of a St Neots (UK) inhabitant enjoying his fireworks display tonight: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...0Fireworks.mp3 :-) (Dual mono for technical reasons.....) |
#65
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"Rob" wrote in message ... Keith G wrote: "Rob" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Rob" wrote in message OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling gets me to: http://www.pcabx.com/ with an odd statement about methodology. What exactly is the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on these points to accept what you say. Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique used many times before and I'm not playing. Well, it's your ball :-) What's this? Arny crying 'no fair'...!!?? :-) (That's Game, Set and Match to Dr Rob, I think...!! :-) Oh I think not :-) Still, he's a bloody good sport that Arny! Good sport or *a* good sport? - There's a big difference! (I'd agree with the former....!! ;-) |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"Rob" wrote in
message Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , Rob wrote: What exactly is the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on these points to accept what you say. Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique used many times before and I'm not playing. Well, it's your ball :-) Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your question to me in plain English? I'm afraid that when I read it the jargon and context passed me by. :-) Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or patronising - you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind to me on more than one occasion. But here we go: Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to be explained ('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists, how do you propose to set about knowing this reality (your epistemology)? Given what exists and the approach you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity methodology)? Your method I know, roughly, thank you. 100% BS. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
In article , Rob
wrote: Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , Rob wrote: What exactly is the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on these points to accept what you say. Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique used many times before and I'm not playing. Well, it's your ball :-) Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your question to me in plain English? I'm afraid that when I read it the jargon and context passed me by. :-) Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or patronising - No such motives or hidden intents. I asked for the reasons given. I didn't know what you were asking, or why. you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind to me on more than one occasion. But here we go: Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to be explained ('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists, how do you propose to set about knowing this reality (your epistemology)? Given what exists and the approach you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity methodology)? Your method I know, roughly, thank you. Are you asking about something specific (see below)? Or are you asking Arny to explain the general basis of the scientific method and the design and use of experimental protocols and/or the analysis of experimental results? If you are asking for his personal view, then it would be for him to explain. However whatever his view, it may not alter the actual methods or results he and others refer to. If you are asking for a more general explanation of something anyone might give, then perhaps someone else can help. None of this was/is clear to me, hence my question. The context was several 'facts' Arny laid out earlier in this thread. Again, as in my previous posting re 'context' - I don't know what 'facts' you are referring to here. If your point is specific, can you please explain? Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
In article , Rob wrote: Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , Rob wrote: What exactly is the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on these points to accept what you say. Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique used many times before and I'm not playing. Well, it's your ball :-) Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your question to me in plain English? I'm afraid that when I read it the jargon and context passed me by. :-) Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or patronising - No such motives or hidden intents. I asked for the reasons given. I didn't know what you were asking, or why. you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind to me on more than one occasion. But here we go: Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to be explained ('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists, how do you propose to set about knowing this reality (your epistemology)? Given what exists and the approach you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity methodology)? Your method I know, roughly, thank you. Are you asking about something specific (see below)? Or are you asking Arny to explain the general basis of the scientific method and the design and use of experimental protocols and/or the analysis of experimental results? None of the above. He's simply obfuscating. |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message In article , Rob wrote: Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , Rob wrote: What exactly is the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on these points to accept what you say. Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique used many times before and I'm not playing. Well, it's your ball :-) Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your question to me in plain English? I'm afraid that when I read it the jargon and context passed me by. :-) Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or patronising - No such motives or hidden intents. I asked for the reasons given. I didn't know what you were asking, or why. you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind to me on more than one occasion. But here we go: Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to be explained ('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists, how do you propose to set about knowing this reality (your epistemology)? Given what exists and the approach you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity methodology)? Your method I know, roughly, thank you. Are you asking about something specific (see below)? Or are you asking Arny to explain the general basis of the scientific method and the design and use of experimental protocols and/or the analysis of experimental results? None of the above. He's simply obfuscating. When audiophiles reach for ontological/epistomological arguments to defend why they 'trust what they hear', you know they're in desperate straits -- nothing less than an attack on scientific method remains to them. And I know it it's time to reach for my killfile, because what is the point with arguing with solipsists ('what I hear is real to me, and that's enough')? ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger wrote: "Jim Lesurf" wrote in message In article , Rob wrote: Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , Rob wrote: What exactly is the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on these points to accept what you say. Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique used many times before and I'm not playing. Well, it's your ball :-) Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your question to me in plain English? I'm afraid that when I read it the jargon and context passed me by. :-) Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or patronising - No such motives or hidden intents. I asked for the reasons given. I didn't know what you were asking, or why. you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind to me on more than one occasion. But here we go: Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to be explained ('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists, how do you propose to set about knowing this reality (your epistemology)? Given what exists and the approach you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity methodology)? Your method I know, roughly, thank you. Are you asking about something specific (see below)? Or are you asking Arny to explain the general basis of the scientific method and the design and use of experimental protocols and/or the analysis of experimental results? None of the above. He's simply obfuscating. When audiophiles reach for ontological/epistomological arguments to defend why they 'trust what they hear', you know they're in desperate straits -- nothing less than an attack on scientific method remains to them. And I know it it's time to reach for my killfile, because what is the point with arguing with solipsists ('what I hear is real to me, and that's enough')? IOW, the well-known red herring argument. The questions Rob asked raise a humungious number of issues that have been asked and answered dozens of times over. If someone were stupid enough to take the bait, there are a zillion size issues that could be argued, while the important issues were obfuscated. |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob wrote: Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , Rob wrote: What exactly is the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on these points to accept what you say. Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique used many times before and I'm not playing. Well, it's your ball :-) Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your question to me in plain English? I'm afraid that when I read it the jargon and context passed me by. :-) Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or patronising - No such motives or hidden intents. I asked for the reasons given. I didn't know what you were asking, or why. Fair enough - sorry if my opening was a little offhand. you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind to me on more than one occasion. But here we go: Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to be explained ('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists, how do you propose to set about knowing this reality (your epistemology)? Given what exists and the approach you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity methodology)? Your method I know, roughly, thank you. Are you asking about something specific (see below)? Or are you asking Arny to explain the general basis of the scientific method and the design and use of experimental protocols and/or the analysis of experimental results? Arny has reached certain conclusions from a test. That test relied on a certain method. And that method - whether he or anyone else like it or not - arose from a particular methodology. In very plain terms I was asking for the reasoning behind the method. If you are asking for his personal view, then it would be for him to explain. He doesn't want to, and that's fine by me. However whatever his view, it may not alter the actual methods or results he and others refer to. I can only assume that he doesn't have a view. If you are asking for a more general explanation of something anyone might give, then perhaps someone else can help. None of this was/is clear to me, hence my question. No, nothing general - just why he would choose a method for a test. I wasn't asking for general answers - it's by belief that there is no 'correct' methodology. The context was several 'facts' Arny laid out earlier in this thread. Again, as in my previous posting re 'context' - I don't know what 'facts' you are referring to here. If your point is specific, can you please explain? The specific point, and where this thread started, was an assertion that CD-standard recording captures the whole LP audio recording for all practical purposes. I had certain issues with the source of that assertion which went unanswered; no matter. Arny then associated that assertion with certain facts: 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire LP music recording. 2 - CD-standard recording captures in entirety any variance in sources. I felt these were assumptions, and Arny then led me to a test carried out which I think he feels was a good example of data collection in this context: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm I cuoldn't see any explanation of method, variables, respondents. A bunch of people - probably highly skilled in their field - concluding that they couldn't reliably hear any difference given two modes of playback. I would add an important part of context - the thread is about *audible* difference. Digging a little deeper, there's a reference on the ABX site to something called "Virtual Reality Methodology". I wondered what that methodology was all about. Arny wouldn't tell me. And that, as they say, is that. |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"Rob" wrote in
message The specific point, and where this thread started, was an assertion that CD-standard recording captures the whole LP audio recording for all practical purposes. I had certain issues with the source of that assertion which went unanswered; no matter. Arny then associated that assertion with certain facts: 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire LP music recording. 2 - CD-standard recording captures in entirety any variance in sources. I felt these were assumptions, and Arny then led me to a test carried out which I think he feels was a good example of data collection in this context: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm I cuoldn't see any explanation of method, variables, respondents. Didn't find any of that anywhere on that whole web site? Then you didn't look. A bunch of people - probably highly skilled in their field - concluding that they couldn't reliably hear any difference given two modes of playback. I would add an important part of context - the thread is about *audible* difference. Does that require discussion of all those things you questioned? Digging a little deeper, there's a reference on the ABX site to something called "Virtual Reality Methodology". I wondered what that methodology was all about. Arny wouldn't tell me. I would, if I thought that you weren't trolling. |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger wrote: "Jim Lesurf" wrote in message In article , Rob wrote: Jim Lesurf wrote: In article , Rob wrote: What exactly is the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on these points to accept what you say. Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique used many times before and I'm not playing. Well, it's your ball :-) Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your question to me in plain English? I'm afraid that when I read it the jargon and context passed me by. :-) Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or patronising - No such motives or hidden intents. I asked for the reasons given. I didn't know what you were asking, or why. you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind to me on more than one occasion. But here we go: Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to be explained ('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists, how do you propose to set about knowing this reality (your epistemology)? Given what exists and the approach you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity methodology)? Your method I know, roughly, thank you. Are you asking about something specific (see below)? Or are you asking Arny to explain the general basis of the scientific method and the design and use of experimental protocols and/or the analysis of experimental results? None of the above. He's simply obfuscating. When audiophiles reach for ontological/epistomological arguments to defend why they 'trust what they hear', you know they're in desperate straits -- nothing less than an attack on scientific method remains to them. And I know it it's time to reach for my killfile, because what is the point with arguing with solipsists ('what I hear is real to me, and that's enough')? OK. I'm *fairly* sure I can hear a difference between LP-CD recordings and LP-original. Not absolutely sure mind, no rigorous test, just mild and recreational observation. Then I'm told there can't be any difference. The reasoning, I gather, is based on something called "Virtual Reality" methodology, which involves double-blind testing amongst other things. And I asked what that was all about in an admittedly precise way. Nothing to do with solipsism - at least from my end. |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
In article ,
Rob wrote: OK. I'm *fairly* sure I can hear a difference between LP-CD recordings and LP-original. Not absolutely sure mind, no rigorous test, just mild and recreational observation. The CD made using the same pickup etc as you're using for the playback - and a high quality sound card on the computer, etc? And how did you match levels exactly for the comparison? -- *Modulation in all things * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
In rec.audio.tech Rob wrote:
OK. I'm *fairly* sure I can hear a difference between LP-CD recordings and LP-original. Not absolutely sure mind, no rigorous test, just mild and recreational observation Then, simply put, your 'fair surety' is not warranted. Then I'm told there can't be any difference. Bull****. NO ONE said there CAN'T be any difference. It's possible to make a suboptimal transfer. The reasoning, I gather, is based on something called "Virtual Reality" methodology, which involves double-blind testing amongst other things. 'Double blind testing' existed long before 'virtual reality' technology. And I asked what that was all about in an admittedly precise way. Nothing to do with solipsism - at least from my end. You are laboring under at least several misconceptions. There is NO known technical or physiological reason why a good digital transfer of LP playback shouldn't capture ALL of the audible information available. Proceed from there. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#76
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
Arny Krueger wrote:
Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the CD of the same album, play them both and compare the results, they weren't really comparing the two media. Instead, they were comparing the (generally quite separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting, etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular characteristics of their LP and CD playback equipment. So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been compressed to within an inch of its life? (Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...) -- Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735 Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/ IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation |
#77
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
In article ,
Glenn Richards wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the CD of the same album, play them both and compare the results, they weren't really comparing the two media. Instead, they were comparing the (generally quite separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting, etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular characteristics of their LP and CD playback equipment. So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been compressed to within an inch of its life? You can't generalise. Indeed in my experience this isn't the case - but then I stopped buying LPs when I got my first CD player. This 'loudness wars' thingie with CD mastering is relatively recent and mainly applies to some pop releases. (Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...) But then there are the inherent problems with vinyl which no mastering can get round. So you're not starting from an even playing field. -- *Marriage changes passion - suddenly you're in bed with a relative* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#78
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"Glenn Richards" wrote in message . uk... So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? That of course can be the case, but the reverse is also true, far more often. (Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...) Obviously. MrT. |
#79
Posted to rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
In article , Rob
wrote: Jim Lesurf wrote: [snip] Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or patronising - No such motives or hidden intents. I asked for the reasons given. I didn't know what you were asking, or why. Fair enough - sorry if my opening was a little offhand. Ok. :-) you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind to me on more than one occasion. But here we go: Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to be explained ('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists, how do you propose to set about knowing this reality (your epistemology)? Given what exists and the approach you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity methodology)? Your method I know, roughly, thank you. Are you asking about something specific (see below)? Or are you asking Arny to explain the general basis of the scientific method and the design and use of experimental protocols and/or the analysis of experimental results? Arny has reached certain conclusions from a test. That test relied on a certain method. And that method - whether he or anyone else like it or not - arose from a particular methodology. In very plain terms I was asking for the reasoning behind the method. Is this specific to the individual test(s) he has described? Or are you asking about the method generally called 'ABX' whenever it is employed? My impression is that you are directing your questions just to a specific instance, but I am not entirely sure of that. [snip] However whatever his view, it may not alter the actual methods or results he and others refer to. I can only assume that he doesn't have a view. FWIW In my experience many academic scientists and engineers employ the scientific method and various experimental protocols because they are the usual techniques they are taught and find useful. Many seem not to concern themselves with the arguments for or against them. Just use the tools from the toolbox. I doubt most of my ex-colleagues would know what 'epistimology' or 'ontology' means without looking it up. They would suspect they have encountered a theologian, or a philosopher who walked into the wrong dept by mistake. :-) If you are asking for a more general explanation of something anyone might give, then perhaps someone else can help. None of this was/is clear to me, hence my question. No, nothing general - just why he would choose a method for a test. I wasn't asking for general answers - it's by belief that there is no 'correct' methodology. Can you explain what you mean here by "correct"? Your wording implies a unique methodology. The reality is that various techniques may be applied, and are chosen on the basis of what idea(s) an observation or experiment is aimed at testing, and what forms of problems may be significant in the specific context. The context was several 'facts' Arny laid out earlier in this thread. Again, as in my previous posting re 'context' - I don't know what 'facts' you are referring to here. If your point is specific, can you please explain? The specific point, and where this thread started, was an assertion that CD-standard recording captures the whole LP audio recording for all practical purposes. I had certain issues with the source of that assertion which went unanswered; no matter. Arny then associated that assertion with certain facts: 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire LP music recording. 2 - CD-standard recording captures in entirety any variance in sources. As you inserted yourself, the above need to be qualified in some way to mean they refer to what is 'audible' in terms of being distinguishable since all real systems will have limitations. Ditto for the circumstances of use. However I would take such qualifiers to be read into the statements in this context. That said, the above seem simply to re-state the assertion you questioned. However is this not on the basis that controlled tests return results that support these "assumptions"? So your point is to question the nature of those controlled tests? When a statement has been subject to controlled experimental tests, designed to cope with the relevant experimental problems, and found to be supported, then the conclusions should only be called "assumptions" with care as this term might me misunderstood. Do you do this because you don't know the details of the experiments or the results? I could easily say that if I hold a pen and then let it go it is my "assumption" that it will accellerate downwards and fall to the ground. However most people in most normal circumstances would not feel that calling this an "assumption" means it is a mistake or in any serious doubt. Of course, I can find circumstances where it won't apply, and in general, we can expect any conclusions to only apply within a range of circumstances, etc. In general, also, if you have doubts about a given experimental design, etc, and regard the results as doubtful, the normal recourse in science is to propose better controlled experiments and judge on the basis of their results. I felt these were assumptions, I obviously can't speak for Arny, but my understanding is that suitable tests do support what you call assumptions. Also that descriptions of the experimental designs and the control conditions, etc, have been dicussed on many occasions over the years. Given this, is it suprising if Arny decides he can't be bothered to cover old ground yet again? Is this not already covered on his website or elsewhere? and Arny then led me to a test carried out which I think he feels was a good example of data collection in this context: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm [snip] Digging a little deeper, there's a reference on the ABX site to something called "Virtual Reality Methodology". I wondered what that methodology was all about. Arny wouldn't tell me. Afraid I don't know off-hand what it means, so can't comment on that. :-) If I have seen the phrase in the past, then I am afraid I have forgotten about it. But when I get a chance I'll check the above reference. Slainte, Jim -- Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html |
#80
Posted to alt.audio.equipment,rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Independent View Of LP versus CD
"Glenn Richards" wrote in message . uk... Arny Krueger wrote: Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the CD of the same album, play them both and compare the results, they weren't really comparing the two media. Instead, they were comparing the (generally quite separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting, etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular characteristics of their LP and CD playback equipment. So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been compressed to within an inch of its life? (Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...) Me too, but what puzzles me is that instead of *demanding* that people concede 'CD is better' for any particular reason (??) none of the digital bigots ever seem to want to know why anyone might *prefer* to play vinyl? (Outside this ng, in the real world, plenty of people do it seems....??) Almost within touching distance of where I'm sitting, there are two CD racks full of the sort stuff I like to (and do) play. It is though they do not exist - I *never* think to play them! I just looked, there is even a 'boxed set' called 'Smooth Classics FM, do not disturb' and it hasn't been - it's still sealed in a cellophane wrapper!! http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/cellophane.jpg It must have been there some years now and one of the *few* things I like on Carsick FM is the 'Smooth Classics at Seven' prog..!!?? In fact, I suspect over half of them have never been played even once since they were bought - why is that...?? (I think it's a 'natural selection' based on a genuine preference that has bugger-all to do with technical differences!) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Independent View Of LP versus CD | General | |||
Diamond Cut DC6 versus Adobe Audition versus GoldWave | Tech | |||
adobe audition: cd tracks, session files, and project view | Pro Audio | |||
Want To Release Your Own Independent CD? | Tech | |||
A comparative versus evaluative, double-blind vs. sighted control test | High End Audio |