[geoff]

On 30/01/2015 2:56 p.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote:
Any other method is simply a waste of time, or designed to mislead. The
latter is the usual reason for doing it wrong. The number of people who
proved they could hear a difference between *completely* different vinyl
records and CD's (in non controlled tests to boot) in the past is truly
astounding.

My absolute favorite was the Kanagawa Institute study where they found
differing brain wave patterns between people listening to music at
44.1 ksamp/sec and the same people listening to different music at 96 ksamp/sec
and concluded that perception of ultrasonics was reponsible.
--scott



Possibly the coffee they had between listens....

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:

I can't remember who did it (Linn maybe ?), but I do recall a
double-blind test with live versus 10 daisy-chained AD-DAs .

A number of folks did that back in the eighties back when converters were
pretty bad, and the results were varying. I'd love to see it done with
modern designs.

Bob Pease used to have a great demo where he had an op-amp and an attenuator
on a board, and ran a 1kc square wave through it and looked great. Then he
got a board with a hundred op-amps and the square wave did not look so hot.
Then he went behind the curtain and brought out a huge board with a thousand
op-amp/attenuator stages on it, and the square wave through that was hardly
recognizable.

Mind you, op-amps are a lot better now too.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

geoff wrote:

does 'one boot fits all' also apply here.

No, but it's gonna, if Memphis Minnie ever catches up with that
sumbtich.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[geoff]

On 1/02/2015 4:03 p.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:

I can't remember who did it (Linn maybe ?), but I do recall a
double-blind test with live versus 10 daisy-chained AD-DAs .

A number of folks did that back in the eighties back when converters were
pretty bad, and the results were varying. I'd love to see it done with
modern designs.

Bob Pease used to have a great demo where he had an op-amp and an attenuator
on a board, and ran a 1kc square wave through it and looked great. Then he
got a board with a hundred op-amps and the square wave did not look so hot.
Then he went behind the curtain and brought out a huge board with a thousand
op-amp/attenuator stages on it, and the square wave through that was hardly
recognizable.

Mind you, op-amps are a lot better now too.
--scott



Didn't realise they had op-amps back in the days when Hertz were
cycles-per-second ;-)

geoff

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"geoff" skrev i en meddelelse
...

On 31/01/2015 11:19 a.m., JackA wrote:

Most groups haven't a clue ..

You also don't appear to understand the difference between overdubbing and
muli-tracking.

Nor the power of the killfile ...

geoff

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 22:19:25 +1300, geoff
wrote:

On 1/02/2015 4:03 p.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:

I can't remember who did it (Linn maybe ?), but I do recall a
double-blind test with live versus 10 daisy-chained AD-DAs .

A number of folks did that back in the eighties back when converters were
pretty bad, and the results were varying. I'd love to see it done with
modern designs.

Bob Pease used to have a great demo where he had an op-amp and an attenuator
on a board, and ran a 1kc square wave through it and looked great. Then he
got a board with a hundred op-amps and the square wave did not look so hot.
Then he went behind the curtain and brought out a huge board with a thousand
op-amp/attenuator stages on it, and the square wave through that was hardly
recognizable.

Mind you, op-amps are a lot better now too.
--scott



Didn't realise they had op-amps back in the days when Hertz were
cycles-per-second ;-)


Op-amps pre-date semiconductors by many years. The first were
constructed with valves.

d

[Phil W[_3_]]

Peter Larsen:
"geoff":

On 31/01/2015 11:19 a.m., JackA wrote:

Most groups haven't a clue ..

JackA, *you* happen to have even less of a clue, as it seems. Either learn
facts or leave it.

You also don't appear to understand the difference between overdubbing
and
muli-tracking.

Nor the power of the killfile ...

So, you know it exists. Now, the question is, why it does not get used for
the trolls? ;-)

[John Williamson]

On 01/02/2015 16:02, Phil W wrote:
Peter Larsen:
"geoff":

You also don't appear to understand the difference between
overdubbing and
muli-tracking.

Nor the power of the killfile ...

So, you know it exists. Now, the question is, why it does not get used
for the trolls? ;-)

Because one or two of them are slightly amusing?

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Ralph Barone[_2_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:

I can't remember who did it (Linn maybe ?), but I do recall a
double-blind test with live versus 10 daisy-chained AD-DAs .

A number of folks did that back in the eighties back when converters were
pretty bad, and the results were varying. I'd love to see it done with
modern designs.

Bob Pease used to have a great demo where he had an op-amp and an attenuator
on a board, and ran a 1kc square wave through it and looked great. Then he
got a board with a hundred op-amps and the square wave did not look so hot.
Then he went behind the curtain and brought out a huge board with a thousand
op-amp/attenuator stages on it, and the square wave through that was hardly
recognizable.

Mind you, op-amps are a lot better now too.
--scott


I was trying to imagine an A/D and D/A architecture where conversion in
each direction was crap, but complementary crap, such that one pass through
the A/D/A chain have no signal deterioration. That would mess with some
people's heads.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 16:31:50 GMT, Ralph Barone
wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:

I can't remember who did it (Linn maybe ?), but I do recall a
double-blind test with live versus 10 daisy-chained AD-DAs .

A number of folks did that back in the eighties back when converters were
pretty bad, and the results were varying. I'd love to see it done with
modern designs.

Bob Pease used to have a great demo where he had an op-amp and an attenuator
on a board, and ran a 1kc square wave through it and looked great. Then he
got a board with a hundred op-amps and the square wave did not look so hot.
Then he went behind the curtain and brought out a huge board with a thousand
op-amp/attenuator stages on it, and the square wave through that was hardly
recognizable.

Mind you, op-amps are a lot better now too.
--scott


I was trying to imagine an A/D and D/A architecture where conversion in
each direction was crap, but complementary crap, such that one pass through
the A/D/A chain have no signal deterioration. That would mess with some
people's heads.

Exactly that was used in telephony with its limited bit depth (8
bits). The converters were not linear, but concentrated most of their
levels in the lower reaches to reduce quantization noise levels. A/D
and D/A were made complementary so the result was linear. There were
two laws in use, mu and A. One was in the States, the other the rest
of the world (can't remember which was which). Luckily they were so
similar that they could inter-operate with virtually no ill-effects.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

Ralph Barone wrote:

I was trying to imagine an A/D and D/A architecture where conversion in
each direction was crap, but complementary crap, such that one pass through
the A/D/A chain have no signal deterioration. That would mess with some
people's heads.

It could happen with a ladder system that might have some nonlinearity in
the A/D ladder and complementary nonlinearity in the D/A.

Back in the eighties, though, the worst offenders were things like the
Wadia D/A converters that had no reconstruction filters at all.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce wrote:

Op-amps pre-date semiconductors by many years. The first were
constructed with valves.

My signals and systems professor always insisted that op-amps were
mathematical abstractions and that the monolithic chips you see (and
those Philbrick tube modules) shouldn't be called "op-amps" because
they were only approximations of the archetypical op-amp.

I think he lost that fight a few decades ago.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 1 Feb 2015 12:14:12 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Op-amps pre-date semiconductors by many years. The first were
constructed with valves.

My signals and systems professor always insisted that op-amps were
mathematical abstractions and that the monolithic chips you see (and
those Philbrick tube modules) shouldn't be called "op-amps" because
they were only approximations of the archetypical op-amp.

I think he lost that fight a few decades ago.
--scott

You can only take the "perfection or nothing" fight so far. I guess he
defined an op amp as a perfect integrator? In any given application,
you only need to be perfect enough, particularly once you've made it
into something useful with feedback.

d

[Ralph Barone[_2_]]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 01 Feb 2015 16:31:50 GMT, Ralph Barone
wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:

I can't remember who did it (Linn maybe ?), but I do recall a
double-blind test with live versus 10 daisy-chained AD-DAs .

A number of folks did that back in the eighties back when converters were
pretty bad, and the results were varying. I'd love to see it done with
modern designs.

Bob Pease used to have a great demo where he had an op-amp and an attenuator
on a board, and ran a 1kc square wave through it and looked great. Then he
got a board with a hundred op-amps and the square wave did not look so hot.
Then he went behind the curtain and brought out a huge board with a thousand
op-amp/attenuator stages on it, and the square wave through that was hardly
recognizable.

Mind you, op-amps are a lot better now too.
--scott


I was trying to imagine an A/D and D/A architecture where conversion in
each direction was crap, but complementary crap, such that one pass through
the A/D/A chain have no signal deterioration. That would mess with some
people's heads.

Exactly that was used in telephony with its limited bit depth (8
bits). The converters were not linear, but concentrated most of their
levels in the lower reaches to reduce quantization noise levels. A/D
and D/A were made complementary so the result was linear. There were
two laws in use, mu and A. One was in the States, the other the rest
of the world (can't remember which was which). Luckily they were so
similar that they could inter-operate with virtually no ill-effects.

d

Yup, that would do it. I wonder if any manufacturer has ever
unintentionally built something like that (a badly non-linear D/A and a
successive approximation A/D built around the faulty D/A).

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce wrote:
On 1 Feb 2015 12:14:12 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

Op-amps pre-date semiconductors by many years. The first were
constructed with valves.

My signals and systems professor always insisted that op-amps were
mathematical abstractions and that the monolithic chips you see (and
those Philbrick tube modules) shouldn't be called "op-amps" because
they were only approximations of the archetypical op-amp.

I think he lost that fight a few decades ago.

You can only take the "perfection or nothing" fight so far. I guess he
defined an op amp as a perfect integrator? In any given application,
you only need to be perfect enough, particularly once you've made it
into something useful with feedback.

It's an amplifier with infinite gain! It only turns into a perfect
integrator when you add a perfect capacitor to it.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 1 Feb 2015 13:38:09 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On 1 Feb 2015 12:14:12 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

Op-amps pre-date semiconductors by many years. The first were
constructed with valves.

My signals and systems professor always insisted that op-amps were
mathematical abstractions and that the monolithic chips you see (and
those Philbrick tube modules) shouldn't be called "op-amps" because
they were only approximations of the archetypical op-amp.

I think he lost that fight a few decades ago.

You can only take the "perfection or nothing" fight so far. I guess he
defined an op amp as a perfect integrator? In any given application,
you only need to be perfect enough, particularly once you've made it
into something useful with feedback.

It's an amplifier with infinite gain! It only turns into a perfect
integrator when you add a perfect capacitor to it.
--scott

True, but the dominant pole is what makes the op-amp a viable circuit
block.

d

[geoff]

On 2/02/2015 3:12 a.m., Don Pearce wrote:




Didn't realise they had op-amps back in the days when Hertz were
cycles-per-second ;-)


Op-amps pre-date semiconductors by many years. The first were
constructed with valves.

d



OK - dual-in-line op-amps then ;-)


geoff

[geoff]

On 2/02/2015 6:20 a.m., Don Pearce wrote:
On 1 Feb 2015 12:14:12 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Op-amps pre-date semiconductors by many years. The first were
constructed with valves.

My signals and systems professor always insisted that op-amps were
mathematical abstractions and that the monolithic chips you see (and
those Philbrick tube modules) shouldn't be called "op-amps" because
they were only approximations of the archetypical op-amp.

I think he lost that fight a few decades ago.
--scott

You can only take the "perfection or nothing" fight so far. I guess he
defined an op amp as a perfect integrator? In any given application,
you only need to be perfect enough, particularly once you've made it
into something useful with feedback.

d


An SM58 is certainly a microphone ....


geoff

[geoff]

On 2/02/2015 6:12 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
Ralph Barone wrote:

I was trying to imagine an A/D and D/A architecture where conversion in
each direction was crap, but complementary crap, such that one pass through
the A/D/A chain have no signal deterioration. That would mess with some
people's heads.

It could happen with a ladder system that might have some nonlinearity in
the A/D ladder and complementary nonlinearity in the D/A.

Back in the eighties, though, the worst offenders were things like the
Wadia D/A converters that had no reconstruction filters at all.
--scott



Wadia think of that then !


geoff

[david gourley[_2_]]

geoff said...news:yLydnWm-G465DFDJnZ2dnUU7-
:

On 31/01/2015 12:18 p.m., JackA wrote:
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 5:55:12 PM UTC-5, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 1/30/2015 11:19 PM, JackA wrote:
Most groups haven't a clue what they want to record

And that's exactly what's wrong with much of today's music. No
vision, just throwing paint against the canvas, eeping the ones
that look OK and throwing the others out. Or, with unused
recording, to be saved and issued as "lost takes" or "remixes" when
the musician gets famous.

-- For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

No, Mike, what is wrong with today's music is, you need no talent,
everything is created with the aid of a computer. At the next
Grammies, they'll nominate and applaud some Dell computer!! Me, I
want someone to admire, a great singer, a great guitar fill, a great
drummer. But today's Pop music gets worse and worse. Give me the Big
Bands back!!

Jack


Name any recent fantastic sounding album (yes, there are plenty) from
the last 10 years, any style , and it was most likely done on a
computer. Don't blame the tool.


geoff

In most cases, it's the tool behind the tool.

david

[John Hardy]

On 2/1/2015 11:12 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Ralph Barone wrote:

I was trying to imagine an A/D and D/A architecture where conversion in
each direction was crap, but complementary crap, such that one pass through
the A/D/A chain have no signal deterioration. That would mess with some
people's heads.

It could happen with a ladder system that might have some nonlinearity in
the A/D ladder and complementary nonlinearity in the D/A.

Back in the eighties, though, the worst offenders were things like the
Wadia D/A converters that had no reconstruction filters at all.
--scott


At least one of the Wadia A/D converters back then (late 80s, perhaps
early 90s) ran on +/-5V power supplies. There was an input stage,
followed by a level control, followed by some sort of metering. An input
signal that was higher than about +8 dBu would start clipping at the
input stage, the user would turn the level control down to compensate,
the meter would then indicate that the signal level was OK, but it was
still clipped at the input stage. One of the more stupidly designed
pieces of gear I have seen.

I learned about that A/D converter when a customer of mine bought a
2-channel M-1 mic preamp without the output transformers. A few weeks
later he called to see about adding the output transformers, explaining
that when the output of the M-1 went above the +8 dBu point (or so), it
would begin to sound "distressed" after going to the Wadia A/D. He
thought the output transformers might help.

John Hardy
The John Hardy Co.
www.johnhardyco.com

[JackA]

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 7:51:52 PM UTC-5, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
That's the problem with the Beatles old mono recordings, there weren't
enough tracks in the studio to mic everything up as a modern engineer
would, keeping everything isolated until the final mix, so you get time
delayed versions of Ringo on all the other tracks, as well as vice
versa, and these give rise to the bad effects you hear when you try and
remix for stereo reproduction. They can be reduced, but not eliminated
altogether.

Separation has nothing to do with the number of tracks available.
It's perfectly possible to have excellent separation recording to one
track in mono.

Yeah, Dave, a great audio engineer can record the finest stereo with just two tape tracks!! Full track monophonic recordings are pretty difficult to record/mix in/to stereo.

Jack


--
*Save a tree, eat a beaver*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[JackA]

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 9:37:48 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 31/01/2015 1:03 p.m., JackA wrote:


Okay. Don't follow much current music, but most of it (Pop) sounds
like old clothes washers with an out of balance load, just constant
thumping!


Make up your mind. You don't follow much current music, but you appear
to know how it all sounds !!??

Well, okay, I have done Green Day remixes and even Bon Jovi remixes!
A few decades behind, but lots of time to catch up!!

Jack :-)



geoff

[JackA]

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 5:46:17 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 4:20:11 PM UTC-5, None wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 8:42:55 PM UTC-5,
wrote:
Jack
I have no interest in your discussion, but i am curious about where
you
Got the isolated stem tracks of these commercial recordings?

Mark

OK I'll answer my own question.
look like the "alternate mixes" came from here;

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/

some are just (dynamic range) squashed versions of the originals

Mark

Isn't that Jersey JackAss's website?

I don't know, but I have to agree, some of these sound GREAT compared to the released versions. The first few I listened to were nothing great, but I've been sampling all the other material and some of it is wonderful.


WHERE DID THIS STUFF COME FROM?

Mark, I repeat, look up the word "RockBand" and/or "GuitarHero" and it'll lead you to where these multi-tracks were used. Okay, NOT ALL are "hit" version multi-tracks. Probably due to licensing, or loss of multi-tracks, some songs were recreated. BUT, some sounded so good, The Romantics sued (2008?) over this version others didn't record!!...

What I Like About You...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...likeaboutu.mp3

Jack


Mark

[JackA]

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 10:03:16 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
geoff wrote:

I can't remember who did it (Linn maybe ?), but I do recall a
double-blind test with live versus 10 daisy-chained AD-DAs .

A number of folks did that back in the eighties back when converters were
pretty bad, and the results were varying. I'd love to see it done with
modern designs.

Bob Pease used to have a great demo where he had an op-amp and an attenuator
on a board, and ran a 1kc square wave through it and looked great. Then he
got a board with a hundred op-amps and the square wave did not look so hot.

[JackA]

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 7:49:29 PM UTC-5, Nil wrote:
On 31 Jan 2015, Luxey wrote in rec.audio.pro:

But then, he posted isolated and mutilated drum track for Drive my
car? Where did that one come from?

It came from Rock Band. They can digitally extract some elements from a
mixed track using some kind of magic filtering tricks.

Some elements? True, some stink in sound quality, some are brick-walled. But, some of Queen's multi-tracks, when I can hear every tap of the drummers cymbal and high-hat, my ears perk up!! BUT, Nil, a LOT of the songs are the unreleased versions, no faded endings, no underdubbibg, you get what was recorded in the studio, not some crazy person's edited down version. Radar Love (Golden Earing) was a pleasure to hear before, get this, someone overdubbed the 2 track stereo mix-down tape with added vocals!!

Jack

[JackA]

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 9:33:57 PM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 31/01/2015 11:19 a.m., JackA wrote:



Most groups haven't a clue what they want to record, so track by
track recording is sometimes a dream. I feel it would be difficult to
build a song track-by-track. Tom Dowd (engineer - RIP) wanted "live"
recordings while less professionals, like Al Kooper didn't care about
overdubbing. You heard of The Knack, I'm sure. Their leader (RIP)
wanted to sounds as good live as in the studio, so he/they kept any
overdubbing to a minimum! PLUS, early on, many real times recordings
cost a fortune, getting everything correct from singing to sound
recording more or less forced the industry to overdub! This stereo
separation problem sounds like an afterthought!!

You also don't appear to understand the difference between overdubbing
and muli-tracking.

Buddy Rich (drummer - RIP - idol) never overdubbed. I guess the world doesn't have that great of Pop artists!! Give me the Big Band back or give me Death!! That's, ahem, just a joke!! :-)

Jack

geoff

[JackA]

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 at 7:09:13 PM UTC-5, Luxey wrote:
Seams I did not understand what JackA was doing. I still do not.
I thought he had access to (quasi) multitracks and was making his own mixes from
scratch. Now, from what I read at that site, seems he uses wrong terminology and
he actually did not (re) mix anything, but rather is collecting rare versions for
different markets, somewhat enhancing them in gold wave editor.

But then, he posted isolated and mutilated drum track for Drive my car?
Where did that one come from?

From what Giles Martin (George's son) let loose! True, especially with the advent of 16+ recording tracks, some are premixed stereo tracks, maybe (4) of them. You can break apart the stereo, and have some fun. BUT, the one thing that bugs me, a LOT of tracks have two (stereo) channels assigned, but nothing is stereo (content). Makes the file TWICE the size it needs to be!! I delete duplicates, loads my 'puter down. But, all in all, since I collect the "uncommon" US Top 40 material, these are a gem to find! Some say, DO NOT REMIX, I say poo poo on them, I want fantastic sound quality, not the same ol' worn out master remastering!

Jack

[geoff]

On 2/02/2015 3:52 p.m., JackA wrote:

Oh, heck, I built and op-amp (military grade) stereo phono cartridge
preamp decades ago. Designer: Walter Jung (from a book he wrote on
op-amps.

So that would be "741 Music-As-A-Weapon Cookbook" ?

geoff

[Luxey]

понедељак, 02. фебруар 2015. 04.50.32 UTC+1, JackA је напи�ао/ла:

... some ignorant and idiotic troll spamming BS ...

JackA, cut the crap, we figured it all out, you can not troll any more, so no need to spam either. Find yourself another piece of turf to fertilize.

[Trevor]

On 1/02/2015 1:45 PM, geoff wrote:
I can't remember who did it (Linn maybe ?), but I do recall a
double-blind test with live versus 10 daisy-chained AD-DAs .

And the point was?

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 2/02/2015 9:16 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 1/02/2015 1:45 PM, geoff wrote:
I can't remember who did it (Linn maybe ?), but I do recall a
double-blind test with live versus 10 daisy-chained AD-DAs .

And the point was?

Trevor.




IIRC most of the subjects could not reliably tell the difference. Might
be urban legend, given it was digital early-days.

geoff

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
JackA wrote:
On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 7:51:52 PM UTC-5, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Williamson wrote:
That's the problem with the Beatles old mono recordings, there
weren't enough tracks in the studio to mic everything up as a
modern engineer would, keeping everything isolated until the final
mix, so you get time delayed versions of Ringo on all the other
tracks, as well as vice versa, and these give rise to the bad
effects you hear when you try and remix for stereo reproduction.
They can be reduced, but not eliminated altogether.

Separation has nothing to do with the number of tracks available.
It's perfectly possible to have excellent separation recording to one
track in mono.

Yeah, Dave, a great audio engineer can record the finest stereo with
just two tape tracks!! Full track monophonic recordings are pretty
difficult to record/mix in/to stereo.

Separation intrinsically has nothing to do with stereo or mono.

--
*I got a job at a bakery because I kneaded dough.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:
On 1/02/2015 1:45 PM, geoff wrote:
I can't remember who did it (Linn maybe ?), but I do recall a
double-blind test with live versus 10 daisy-chained AD-DAs .

And the point was?

The point is to exaggerate whatever artifacts are in the A/D-D/A process.

If the converters are good, the point is to show how good they are. If
the converters are bad, the point is to show what is bad about them (which
is the first step toward fixing the badness).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

On 2/02/2015 9:10 PM, geoff wrote:
On 2/02/2015 9:16 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 1/02/2015 1:45 PM, geoff wrote:
I can't remember who did it (Linn maybe ?), but I do recall a
double-blind test with live versus 10 daisy-chained AD-DAs .

And the point was?



IIRC most of the subjects could not reliably tell the difference. Might
be urban legend, given it was digital early-days.


Could not tell the difference between "live" sound and that coming
through microphones and loudspeakers? Only a complete moron would fail
that test. Not to say there aren't some of course :-(

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 3/02/2015 1:15 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote:
On 1/02/2015 1:45 PM, geoff wrote:
I can't remember who did it (Linn maybe ?), but I do recall a
double-blind test with live versus 10 daisy-chained AD-DAs .

And the point was?

The point is to exaggerate whatever artifacts are in the A/D-D/A process.

If the converters are good, the point is to show how good they are. If
the converters are bad, the point is to show what is bad about them (which
is the first step toward fixing the badness).

No, the claim was "double-blind test with ***live*** versus 10
daisy-chained AD-DAs". Only a complete moron could not tell the
difference between "live" sound and that coming through a
microphone-preamp-10*AD/DA-amplifier-speaker set up!!!

Of course if he meant something else, he should have said so.

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 3/02/2015 2:15 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 2/02/2015 9:10 PM, geoff wrote:
On 2/02/2015 9:16 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 1/02/2015 1:45 PM, geoff wrote:
I can't remember who did it (Linn maybe ?), but I do recall a
double-blind test with live versus 10 daisy-chained AD-DAs .

And the point was?



IIRC most of the subjects could not reliably tell the difference. Might
be urban legend, given it was digital early-days.


Could not tell the difference between "live" sound and that coming
through microphones and loudspeakers? Only a complete moron would fail
that test. Not to say there aren't some of course :-(

Trevor.





No - couldn't tell the difference between the live performance coming
thru the speakers, and the same coming through 10 x AD-DA stages, and
the speakers. Of course you were joking, yes ?!!!

geoff

[geoff]

On 3/02/2015 2:21 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 3/02/2015 1:15 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor
wrote:
On 1/02/2015 1:45 PM, geoff wrote:
I can't remember who did it (Linn maybe ?), but I do recall a
double-blind test with live versus 10 daisy-chained AD-DAs .

And the point was?

The point is to exaggerate whatever artifacts are in the A/D-D/A process.

If the converters are good, the point is to show how good they are. If
the converters are bad, the point is to show what is bad about them
(which
is the first step toward fixing the badness).

No, the claim was "double-blind test with ***live*** versus 10
daisy-chained AD-DAs". Only a complete moron could not tell the
difference between "live" sound and that coming through a
microphone-preamp-10*AD/DA-amplifier-speaker set up!!!

Of course if he meant something else, he should have said so.

Trevor.




Thought the scenario was so obvious even rockheadman and JackS would
have got it....

geoff

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Trevor wrote:
Only a complete moron could not tell the
difference between "live" sound and that coming through a
microphone-preamp-10*AD/DA-amplifier-speaker set up!!!

Really? Lots of morons around then because I've been involved in such a
test.

Thing with all these tests is you can usually get the result you are
looking for - if in charge of the tests.

--
*How can I miss you if you won't go away?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Tom McCreadie]

Dave Plowman wrote:

Thing with all these tests is you can usually get the result you are
looking for - if in charge of the tests.

But the whole point - well, half the point :-) - of a properly-conducted double
blind test is that the researcher himself is _not_ in charge of the tests; he's
not allowed to be aware of the identity pf the choices that he's presenting to
the "patients", so he's not in a position to influence the results.