Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
"Randy Yates" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" writes: [...] One the last things in audio to go wrong was so-called high resolution audio for distribution to consumers. Serious money was put into DVD-A and SACD, and they both failed to gather moementum in the mainstream marketplace. In contrast, there was a concurrent effort called high definition video, and there seems to be a great number of indications that this will become the next mainstream technology. I think this is as much an indication that the business model is flawed as anything else. The business model that ties a hoard of income to royalties for the basic technology is always going to encourage format wars. In the case of SACD, you probably nailed it, Randy. SACD involved a fair amount of technology that was probably both patentable, and also patented. At one point, Sony seemed to be trying to talk the world into going DSD from someplace inside the microphone case, to someplace within the speaker case, and everyplace in-between. If the audio world had bitten into the DVD hype, Sony and Philips stood to make a ton of money, given reasonable competence on their part. Thus there was a clear profit motive behind all the absolutely anti-scientific claims that DVD sounded better than PCM. In contrast, DVD-A seemed to involve virtually nothing that was not already prior art, just the clock speed goosed somewhat. |
#122
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:57:18 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
wrote: Perfect and true, but incomplete. It is not true, what is true is that the group of testpersons could not hear a difference, you can only make probability predictions based on such data, a very high probability may be reachable but not absolute knowledge. Always read the fine print that goes with the test ..... Properly blinded testing can remove false positives (a classical issue in the audio field, fersure) but leave open the issue of false negatives. My personal take is that properly blinded testing is a useful winnowing in intermediately difficult judgements. In other situations, it falls down. In a situation where the slippery objective Truth, whatever that means, is below the test's rigor, it fails. (False negative). And in a situation where a simple difference is less important to the goal of the testing than a ranking, it fails. (False ranking). This will be controversial, so maybe shouldn't be introduced here. But it's introduced to remind us all that nothing is perfect and that *all* decisions are provisional, all hardware and all observations are imperfect, all judgements inherently biased: "Life is short Art is long Experiment treacherous Judgement difficult." -Hippocrates Much thanks, as always, Chris Hornbeck |
#123
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in
message Properly blinded testing can remove false positives (a classical issue in the audio field, fersure) but leave open the issue of false negatives. The logical failure here is the lack of a balanced discussion of the equally-serious or even more serious problem of false negatives during sighted evaluations. One of the ironies of life is the fact that I built the first ABX Comparator with the main goal of avoiding false negatives during sighted evaluations. I was so optimistic about the possibility of nearly universal positive results relating to the audio issues that I was interested in at the time such as differences between power amplifiers, that I was totally surprised when so many tests came out negative. My reasoning was that a blind test tends to decouple the listener from his biases. In a blind test, the listener doesn't know what kind of response to give in each trial, in order to produce the overall result that he expects and/or desires. If he intentionally randomizes his responses, then he is singled out as being an insensitive listener. There are many causes of false negatives during sighted evaluations. Here are just a few: (1) The listener's biases were in favor of a negative outcome but the correct answer is a positive outcome. Since a sighted evaluation has inadequate bias controls, the listener's report of a negative result could be due to his biases, not based on what he heard. (2) Many sighted evaluations are either/or tests. The user responds in accordance with his biases which results in an outcome that he favors and/or that agrees with his biases. However, the correct answer is the other outcome. His response is a false negative. (3) In many sighted evaluations, the presumed correct answer is merely determined by someone's biases. The person who has decided what the right answer is, could be exactly wrong. Therefore, all the people that agree with him, would then be reporting a false negative. (4) A listener may feel that he is biased towards a certain outcome, and in an effort to appear to be unbiased, overcompensate and report a false negative for the outcome that he thinks he is biased toward. |
#124
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:18:29 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan wrote: Chris Hornbeck wrote: Figured as much. So you don't do much recording, do you? No, but my standards of proof are set by science. Do much of that? I try to. And I believe that my standards of proof are set pretty high. We will probably differ very little here, but ya never can tell what any particular person will consider "science" and another consider "religion". Once a shouting match begins, rationality goes out the window. A good reason to utterly avoid places like rec.audio.opinion and audioasylum.com For an island of audio sanity I tend to rely on hydrogenaudio.org. Do you post there? ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#125
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message Chris Hornbeck wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:51:30 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan wrote: In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen wrote: geoff wrote: Why 96/16 rather than 44k1/24 ? I don't follow that logic. Because the treble sounds cleaner with better inter-transient silence, and that really matters with decayed audio, it gets less splatty. Do tell. Your proof of this is....? I stated an opinion. I do not waste time proving recording choices, I make them based on what sounds best. Figured as much. So you don't do much recording, do you? No, but my standards of proof are set by science. Do much of that? If you do , you'll understand that claims should be independently verifiable. IF what you guys hear is real, it should be readily verified in a controlled listening test, no? Note that two recent AES papers have come out relating to so-called high resolution audio. In both cases it looks to me like the experimenters made a heck of a try, but both sets of test results showed essentially random guessing. You know, something like 50% or less of the listener choices favored so-called high definition audio as compared to CD-format audio. But one possibly significant difference is that Meeyer & Moran (2007) was in JAES, thus peer-reviewed, while the Woszczyk & Usher (200& AES conference paper, was not. Assuming those are the two you're referring to. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#126
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:01:46 -0500, Randy Yates wrote: Chris Hornbeck writes: [...] It would be interesting to read your equally well put description of the contrapositive position. Which logical statement are you requesting the contrapositive of? If something is audible, then it can be heard in a double-blind test. ^ v If something can't be heard in a double-blind test, then it isn't audible. That one. (I'm sorry that this was unclear. Arny and I have danced this dance before, and can shortcut a lot. I greatly admire his work, but function as a gadfly in some areas of mutual interest.) Science deals in probabilities. You know this, I know this, Arny knows this, audiophiles who use the 'never say never' argument may know this. But the latter often twist its meaning to imply that the negative DBT means NOTHING, when in fact it's another data point -- another sample of the population -- showing lack of support for a hypothesis of audible difference. Audiophiles tend to think that the possibility of someone else hearing a difference remains the same, no matter how many times 'no difference' is achieved. That's certainly not how science works. Science doesn't ignore current data and instead hold all likelihoods as equal. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#127
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 08:57:18 +0100, "Peter Larsen" wrote: Perfect and true, but incomplete. It is not true, what is true is that the group of testpersons could not hear a difference, you can only make probability predictions based on such data, a very high probability may be reachable but not absolute knowledge. Always read the fine print that goes with the test ..... Properly blinded testing can remove false positives (a classical issue in the audio field, fersure) but leave open the issue of false negatives. Protocols can account for both Type I and Type II errors. My personal take is that properly blinded testing is a useful winnowing in intermediately difficult judgements. In other situations, it falls down. In a situation where the slippery objective Truth, whatever that means, is below the test's rigor, it fails. (False negative). Please give a real-world example of such 'slippery objective Truth'. And in a situation where a simple difference is less important to the goal of the testing than a ranking, it fails. (False ranking). Proper 'ranking' tests are done blind, too. This will be controversial, so maybe shouldn't be introduced here. But it's introduced to remind us all that nothing is perfect and that *all* decisions are provisional, all hardware and all observations are imperfect, all judgements inherently biased: It's introduced without evidence, and that's what rankles. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#128
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message Chris Hornbeck wrote: On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:51:30 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan wrote: In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote: In rec.audio.tech Peter Larsen wrote: geoff wrote: Why 96/16 rather than 44k1/24 ? I don't follow that logic. Because the treble sounds cleaner with better inter-transient silence, and that really matters with decayed audio, it gets less splatty. Do tell. Your proof of this is....? I stated an opinion. I do not waste time proving recording choices, I make them based on what sounds best. Figured as much. So you don't do much recording, do you? No, but my standards of proof are set by science. Do much of that? If you do , you'll understand that claims should be independently verifiable. IF what you guys hear is real, it should be readily verified in a controlled listening test, no? Note that two recent AES papers have come out relating to so-called high resolution audio. In both cases it looks to me like the experimenters made a heck of a try, but both sets of test results showed essentially random guessing. You know, something like 50% or less of the listener choices favored so-called high definition audio as compared to CD-format audio. But one possibly significant difference is that Meeyer & Moran (2007) was in JAES, thus peer-reviewed, while the Woszczyk & Usher (200& AES conference paper, was not. Right. So the JAES article, being peer-reviewed, is the far more authoritative of the two. The conference paper showed a lot of experimental vigor, but taxes one's ability to suspend disbelief, given that their results were so close to 50% inconsistent results, or worse. We need a professor Bernstein (sp?) to elucidate the problems with its statistical analyis. Assuming those are the two you're referring to. Right. |
#129
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:45:12 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote: Once a shouting match begins, rationality goes out the window. A good reason to utterly avoid places like rec.audio.opinion and audioasylum.com For an island of audio sanity I tend to rely on hydrogenaudio.org. Do you post there? No, only in rec.audio.pro these days. My hobby newsgroups have gotten contaminated; and I'm only a tourist here. But from the generally high tone seen here lately, I'll be reading here alot. Thanks, as always, Chris Hornbeck |
#130
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:57:36 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote: In a situation where the slippery objective Truth, whatever that means, is below the test's rigor, it fails. (False negative). Please give a real-world example of such 'slippery objective Truth'. All "capital T" truth is slippery. To my way of thinking, our incredible ignorance of the listening process/machinery should always be forefront when belief is attempted. But hey, I'm a pretty conservative guy. Makes me vewy, vewy agenda-averse and largely obvious-conclusion-averse. Thanks, as always, Chris Hornbeck |
#131
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:22:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: My reasoning was that a blind test tends to decouple the listener from his biases. In a blind test, the listener doesn't know what kind of response to give in each trial, in order to produce the overall result that he expects and/or desires. If he intentionally randomizes his responses, then he is singled out as being an insensitive listener. My light-bulb-on moment was in the mid-1970's at the retail audio store that employed me (and does for the fourth time today!). I boldly claimed that I could tell a McIntosh from a Phase Linear amplifier in the showroom by listening alone. Couldn't. There are many causes of false negatives during sighted evaluations. Here are just a few: list snipped for bandwidth False negatives during blinded testing are the much more pertinent and useful issue. Much thanks, as always, Chris Hornbeck |
#132
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:57:36 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote: and that's what rankles. Rereading, I *finally* caught the pun. Arf! Much thanks, as always, Chris Hornbeck |
#133
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in
message On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:22:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: My reasoning was that a blind test tends to decouple the listener from his biases. In a blind test, the listener doesn't know what kind of response to give in each trial, in order to produce the overall result that he expects and/or desires. If he intentionally randomizes his responses, then he is singled out as being an insensitive listener. My light-bulb-on moment was in the mid-1970's at the retail audio store that employed me (and does for the fourth time today!). I boldly claimed that I could tell a McIntosh from a Phase Linear amplifier in the showroom by listening alone. Couldn't. Been there, done that. There are many causes of false negatives during sighted evaluations. Here are just a few: list snipped for bandwidth False negatives during blinded testing are the much more pertinent and useful issue. Why? A lot more sighted evaluations are done than blind tests. Anything that afflicts the most listening evaluations should be of greater interest. |
#134
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:53:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: False negatives during blinded testing are the much more pertinent and useful issue. Why? A lot more sighted evaluations are done than blind tests. Anything that afflicts the most listening evaluations should be of greater interest. Because unblinded evaluations are pretty much useless for anything of real interest. It's a dead horse. I'm interested in moving forward, technically if not spiritually (Arf), so discount unblinded evaluations, except on TV's. And I make an exception in the case of very long term use by professionally critical folks with no obvious agenda. If such a person were to tell me something that conflicted with a properly blinded difference eliminating test, I would begin by studying the flaws of the test itself, looking, usually, for false negatives. We've done this before, so both our positions here are clear, I hope. We're each fighting for the higher ground scientifically from within our own personal religious framework. You say that your religion is science; I say that my religion is science. It's the story of the world; thus has it been, thus will it ever be. Much thanks, as always, Chris Hornbeck |
#135
Posted to rec.audio.misc,rec.audio.tech,uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
"tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , Arny Krueger This is a UK froop, the last poster we want in here is Arny Krueger, whatever the subject, no matter the thread evolution AK will eventually resort to his cyberstalking of John Aitkinson, and Arny's ******** about ABX and his highly dubious contentions...yawn. If you're placing any credibilty in Arny's opnions or views then go ask him in the froops he haunts, he's not wanted here in the land of the sane and knowledgeable. |
#136
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
In article , "Arny Krueger"
wrote: We need a professor Bernstein (sp?) to elucidate the problems with its statistical analyis. Be careful what you wish for. ;-) Herman Burstein wasn't the only one who could understand the statistical issues involved in listening tests. Statisticians do that sort of thing all the time. Now it's the end of the semester, and I have piles of final exams to grade. After I've submitted final course grades, I'll post some comments on both of the AES articles mentioned earlier in this thread. |
#138
Posted to rec.audio.tech
|
|||
|
|||
Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
"Randy Yates" wrote in message
(John Corbett) writes: In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: We need a professor Bernstein (sp?) to elucidate the problems with its statistical analyis. Be careful what you wish for. ;-) Herman Burstein wasn't the only one who could understand the statistical issues involved in listening tests. Statisticians do that sort of thing all the time. Now it's the end of the semester, and I have piles of final exams to grade. After I've submitted final course grades, I'll post some comments on both of the AES articles mentioned earlier in this thread. I look forward to it, John. As will I. |
#139
Posted to rec.audio.misc, rec.audio.tech, uk.rec.audio
|
|||
|
|||
Digitizing Vinyl. Help!
On Dec 11 2007, 10:37*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message "Dave W." *wrote ... *Adrian*wrote: This past weekend I copied three albums. *The signal is clean but not strong. *I have the gain on theUSBPhono turned to the max. If, as you say, the signal is clean, then as long as you have it digitised there is no problem. Lets review the bidding.... * *Low-output MC cartridge feeding an inexpensive RIAA phono preamp designed for MC. * *Gain on the preamp "turned to the max". * *Signal is "clean but not strong" Therefore, by definition, the captured signal is NOT "clean" after amplifying it (plus the noise) to the nominal level. Agreed. Of course,Adriancould decide that it is good enough for his purposes, and that is fine. *But conventional wisdom would suggest that the solution might be... 1) Use a conventional MM cartridge 2) Use a step-up transformer or pre-pre-amp for MC 3) Use a preamp designed for MC. I'd vote for solution number 1, more specificially this cartridge: http://www.amazon.com/Shure-M97xE-Hi...etic-Cartridge... Cheapest way out and solves more problems. Solution implemented. The results, to quote Pop Larkin are "Perfick", or at least somewhat as close as we ever get to perfect in the world of audio reproduction. :-) Many thanks Adrian |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Digitizing Vinyl. Help! | General | |||
Digitizing Old Cassette Tapes | Pro Audio | |||
Digitizing my CD Collection w EAC: Advice Please | Tech | |||
Digitizing my vinyl using an outboard A2D box | Tech | |||
Digitizing vinyl records | Tech |