Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
...

Yes, it does. You should realize, however, that those experiences
are
discounted by some here. If you think that your experiences listed
above inform your judgements about the sound of music through audio
componets, I would agree! Since I have those experiences virtually
every day, I'm sure that you'll agree that I able to judge the
sound of
instruments through a piece of gear.

Arguments weighted by counting hours of experience appear to be
meaningless.

If you believe that there is little or no value in increased listening
experience in a hobby that is, at the end of the day, about listening,
that's OK. I hold a different opinion.


Which medium did Isaac Stern prefer for listening to violin
recordings?

Vinyl, for the most part. He had a SOTA Saphire that he did most of
his home listening with.

which one did Herbert von Karajan prefer for hearing orchestral
recordings?

No idea.


How many listening hours did one have over the other? Whose
experience
allowed them to be the better judge? Nonsense. I like Strawberry; you
prefer
Raspberry, case closed.


Again, that's exactly the point. It IS all opinion.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 19 May 2005 00:59:16 GMT, "Jenn" wrote:
Please see my comments to Chung.

I've seen them, and you are now becoming defensive, rejecting comment
made by another musician who does not share your view of vinyl and
CD.

Sorry, but incorrect. I didn't reject Chung's comments. I simply said
to him in regards to his experience with playing instruments the SAME
THING that was said to me about the same experiences!

Again, the ONLY reason I brought up the quantity of my listening of
live music and my training in hearing details in sound is as a reaction
to that which was evident when I first checked in here about claimed
infalability of scientific measurement in determining the quality of
audio equipment. This "claim to authority" didn't match up with my
experiences in music.

On 20 May 2005 01:33:54 GMT, Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On 19 May 2005 00:48:26 GMT, Mark DeBellis wrote:

On 15 May 2005 16:49:03 GMT, Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Jenn and others say they
prefer vinyl. How is this possible? How are we to understand this?

That's easy enough. Vinyl produces several euphonic artifacts which
can easily be mistaken for a more 'lifelike' sound. Specifically, it
has more 'rounded' treble, it has midrange phasiness which adds excess
'ambience' to the sound, it usually has compression which lifts
low-level detail above surface noise, it has limiting which smooths
off the highest peaks, and it has high surface noise, which provides a
masking effect often found to make music more pleasant to listen to.

Thanks. I appreciate the summary; I don't know this stuff; and I
realize that it's all old news to most here, so thanks for your
patience.


This explains the not uncommon *preference* for vinyl, but it is still
greatly inferior as a * high fidelity* medium.

... that this is what the "objectivist/subjectivist" debate is (in part)
about?

It could also be argued that a painting of a landscape is more
beutiful than the actual landscape, as it may conceal some
imperfections in reality. However, a photograph would be a more
*accurate* representation of the original scene.

OK--you are expressing a conception of "high fidelity" as accuracy,
which is not at all unreasonable. (What else could it be?) And I can
understand why you have an aesthetic preference for it. What bothers
me a little is that, on the objectivist paradigm, other preferences
seem to turn out to be preferences for a sort of *adulteration*.

I mean, doesn't it sound like a preference for "euphonic distortion"
is on a par with listening to music (or living one's life) through a
drug-induced haze, one that smooths out the rough edges but also masks
many of its real aspects?

Now there are lots of cases where we would describe the object of a
certain preference as a kind of adulteration. Take, for instance, a
preference for reading bowdlerizations or Cliff's Notes over reading
the original books; or consider the way devotees of historically
informed, "authentic" performance on original instruments would regard
a preference for Romantic interpretations of Bach, encrusted with all
sorts of "bad" performance traditions. In cases like these I can
understand why someone (not necessarily you) would view such
preferences as not admirable, as aesthetically defective in a way. (I
am not making a blanket endorsement of the "authenticist" position,
I'm just saying you can see where they're coming from.)

But I am not convinced that a preference for vinyl is rightly looked
at in that way, and that's why I brought in the analogy to photography
as an alternative model. Black-and-white photographs, say, are not as
accurate as color photographs in terms of preserving visual
information, but nobody thinks of a preference for black-and-white
fine art photography as a preference for inaccuracy or adulteration.
Maybe vinyl is more like that.

The word "accuracy" implies truth, and then it is hard to see how any
other goal can be legitimate. I just don't think the argument should
go that fast.

Mark

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Chung" wrote in message
...
Check this out, Jenn:

http://www.sony.net/Fun/SH/1-19/h3.html

BTW, the point made was that HVK preferred the sound of CD's, while you
preferred vinyl. And whose preference we trust more. It would be rather
extraordinary to find HVK having exactly stated that "CD sounds more
like real music than LP", but given his strong support, one can
logically conclude that he preferred CD.

It is worth noting that they are talking about a protype PCM recorder, not a
consumer deck reproduced 44.1/16 bit product. At the time, Soundstream was
developing a 50khz machine used in some early Telarc recording that now that
we have high-resolution audio we know can sound reasonably good. It is hard
to tell what Von Karajan heard. It could have been 50khz/18bit for all we
know.

It's not as if nothing is known about the PCM-1 referred to in the von
Karajan story.

http://www.thevintageknob.org/SONY/s...PCM1/PCM1.html

44.056 KHz sampling frequency (insignificantly less than CD), 14-bit
equivalent sample width (significantly less than CD).

--
Tim

Stewart Pinkerton writes:

We don't believe that a conductor is concentrating on the same things
that we are. But a recording engineer certainly is.

So, Stewart, what do you think of a recording engineer like Steve
Hoffman?

--woodstock
--
It's funny how you can go through life thinking you've seen
everything... Then you suddenly realize there are millions of things
you've never seen before. -- Linus, to Charlie Brown _~~.
(_" /
'`

Chung wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Chung wrote:
Jenn wrote:
2. We have no idea that HVK's ideal in home audio was the sound of
actual music. I addressed this before. We all know that the
majority
of people who listen to stereos have no idea that this can even BE
a
goal. They judge audio by such things as, "It has great bass" or
"It
plays loud" or "There is no surface noise."

HVK appeared to find CD's to sound better; he was present at the
launching of the format, and had always been a vigorous supporter. I
would tend to believe "better" in the sense that it is closer to his
ideal of life-like music reproduction.

It does? Once again, people have all kinds of standards concerning
home audio. Your point would have more validity had he said, "This
technology brings the sound of the BPO into my home in a more realistic
way" or something similar. I don't think that it's grasping at straws.


3. HVK had definite financial interest in a new playback medium
that
would allow him to record yet another set of Beethoven Symphonies,
for
example.

So you think he was very impressed by the sound he heard at Morita's
house because he knew that he would have financial interest in a new
format?

I don't know that he was.

Why can't you simply believe that he really liked the new
format because of the way it sounded? I mean there are many prople
who
love the CD sound. I remember I was in total awe when I heard the CD
for
the first time, because it was so realistic.
usician
As was I.

And you know that he is not
the only conductor or musician to fall in love with the CD sound. Did

the others also like the new format because of financial interests?

I don't know. I do know that HVK was very much a "megalamanic" (well
documented) who had financial interest in DGG and the parent company,
Universal. I also don't recall any other classical musicians stating
that they though that digital sounds more like music than LP. I'll
look around to see if I can find any statements like that. I know that
Frederick Fennell liked LP better.


4. Judging by the sound of HVK's DGG LPs, he wasn't too much into
audio as we think of it. Those records are famously BAD in
reproducing
the timbres of instruments. I have, for example, a LP and a CD of
his
"Les Preludes" recording. There is a trumpet entrance where the
instruments are literally anything resembling a trumpet! If I
didn't
know the work, I would have no idea that it's a trumpet. The DGG
LPs
had great surfaces, and generally bad sound. The CDs made from
those
tapes kept the bad sound, of course.

Now we are back onto personal preferences and anecdotes. I happen to
think that some of his work were definitive works, probably the best
interpretations ever recorded.

Apples and oranges here. I didn't comment on his interpretations on
DGG, but rather on the sound. As it happens, I largely agree with you
about his work. Some of the best ever, IMO, other than the thing I
mentioned before about his Mozart sounding a bit like Mahler vis-a-vis
the size of the ensemble, etc.

On 20 May 2005 01:17:56 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 18 May 2005 00:56:16 GMT, "Jenn" wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Face it Jenn, you're out
on a limb here, despite all your 'calls to authority'. Which,
incidentally, never work in this forum.

And yet, those with electrical and testings background or knowledge
claim a "call to authority" constantly.

No, they point to the body of accumulated knowledge, and observe that
if you wish to challenge this knowledge, then it's up to *you* to
provide reliable and repeatable *evidence* to back your claims. Calls
to personal authority simply have no credibility. Around here, you're
only as good as your last post! :-)

Notice, Jenn, how they have all been rushing to provide the references that
I asked for to back up their specific testing assertions for the open-ended
evaluation of audio equipment. They talk "science" but they offer nothing
to back it up that would allow you or I to a) be convinced, or b) find any
weaknesses in the testing or their conclusions therefrom.

Notice Jenn, how Harry flies in the face of all accumulated knowledge
about audio testing, comes up with his own 'monadic testing' scheme,
but refuses to do his *own* experiments to back up his extraordinary
claims.

Notice how he even claims that sighted testing is of value, when
anyone with ten minutes to spare can prove it's total worthlessness.

You are on the right track...it is a "call to authority" on their part.

Total nonsense, *you* are the one who is making the extraordinary
claims. Pointing to common knowledge is not a 'call to authority', at
least learn the *meaning* of expressions before you use them.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Mark DeBellis writes:

[...], but I've also had this special feeling of involvement when
someone else was operating the stereo :-) FWIW, nowadays I have the
general feeling with audio (which in my case is usually CD) that I am
*here* and the sound, or music, is out *there*, whereas I would like
to be absorbed, to lose myself in it. Quite possibly this has to do
more with me than anything else, but I mention it in case it resonates
with anyone else.

I greatly enjoy live music events. I have also experienced immersion
into music playing on stereos for over 20 years -- heck, that's why I
became an audiophile in the first place: because I love listening to
music. Combine that with a college-student budget, and a stereo
represented great value from a cost-per-listening standpoint. I found
myself becoming immersed in music played from LP and tape, and from the
Nak CD player that was the first one I heard back in 1983 or so.

Of course, a stereo still does represent good value to me now, even with
a significantly upgraded stereo, since both time and money are a factor;
being able to listen whenever I want, and not on a musician's schedule,
is quite nice. And I still find myself getting immersed in music,
whether it is on LP or CD or SACD or live. Certainly not all music
draws me in, but a significant amount does, and it does it independent
of format -- I've been sucked in to Bob Dylan's "Blood on the Tracks" on
vinyl just as intensely as on hybrid SACD.

And that's what I own a stereo for -- to have that musical immersion
experience. I don't always put on music with the intention of getting
immersed, but I do often enough that I bought a system that entices me
in as much as possible.

Whether a format is "dead" to the rest of the world doesn't matter a wit
if I (and others in the room) can become emotionally involved in the
music that is being played, whether that's LP, CD, or SACD. But that's
another can o' worms, I guess.

Mark, you might want to return to the music that thrilled you "back in
the day," find some free time (or make some), and listen to that music
again, seeing whether it draws you back in. I think you'll find that
stuff you enjoy, toonage that moves you emotionally, will do so
independent of format if you give yourself the chance to listen.

Happy listening,
--woodstock
--
It's funny how you can go through life thinking you've seen
everything... Then you suddenly realize there are millions of things
you've never seen before. -- Linus, to Charlie Brown _~~.
(_" /
'`

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message
...

snip


I often found significantly different sounding CD players in a store
(including hi-end ones). But if I were to carefully control the test,
which I can do in a home environment, I would find those differences
disappearing.

Does anyone but me see this as an act of faith? How on earth can one be
objective when one *expects* all differences to disappear, even if one hears
then under non-test conditions and makes a judgment on that expectation
instead.
Listening to them at home is fine. Testing them at home is fine. But
prejudging that there is no need to do that because I just *know* I will
find no differences is not science, it is faith.

How about instead simply varying the volume up and down in the store and see
if the perceived "difference" disappears, for a starter? Or carrying a
meter and level matching two players, if you are doing a comparison? That
would be a start of a "scientific" investigation. Dismissing what you heard
based on expectation of "no difference" is not science.


Harry, here are three things I can easily do at home when I compare CD
players:

1. Carefully level match with test signals from a test CD.
2. Blind the identities of the players.
3. Use short snipets of music for comparison.

Does that answer your concerns?

BTW, I am not telling anyone to take my experience as an article of
faith. I am suggesting that anyone who wants to compare CD players be
aware of the difficulties of doing a fair comparison at a store.

Jenn wrote:

Chung wrote:
Jenn wrote:

Chung wrote:
In the matter of sound of certain instruments, I have access to
those

instruments every day.

Do you mean your piano, or do you also mean other instruments?
But, if
I may apply the same standard to YOU as has been applied to ME
here,
you don't really know the sound of the piano, since you're
listening to
it while sitting at the keyboard.

Well, I have a piano, a flute, a saxophone, a set of drums and
several
guitars in my house.

I have listened to the piano played by myself, by members of my
family,
by friends and relatives in my house. I have been to many recitals
and
concerts where piano solos are played. Does that answer your
question?

Yes, it does. You should realize, however, that those experiences
are
discounted by some here. If you think that your experiences listed
above inform your judgements about the sound of music through audio
componets, I would agree! Since I have those experiences virtually
every day, I'm sure that you'll agree that I able to judge the
sound of
instruments through a piece of gear.

So that gets back to my very first post in this thread. It's
opinions,
and there are a lot of them out there. There are conductors who much
prefer CD's and there are some that do not. I am not trying to set up

myself as a standard at all.

You're correct; this gets back to the original point. It IS all
opinion, not measurements! That's my entire point.

Wait a minute, I thought your entire point was that vinyl sounded like
live music to you. How does "not meaurements" become your entire point
now? And I can't help but notice that you seem to be trying to discredit
others' opinions (like HVK's) when we brought them up as different than
yours.

Jenn wrote:


This is where we differ, I guess. My stance is that I'm not
listening
for either THD or rolled off top octave. My approach is from the
other
direction, if you will. My first though is, for example, this
trumpet
doesn't sound like a trumpet. Then I listed to another recording.
If
that trumpet ALSO sounds unlike a trumpet, I have ask why. THEN I
listen for what might be causing this effect. Are, for example, the
overtones of the 4th partial above the fundamental less in volume
than
in real live, as heard on several recordings? If so, it can be
assumed
that the upper mid-range of the equipment is less than satisfactory,

What you're saying is that if some recordings sound "right" to you, and
other recordings don't sound "right" to you, you blame the playback
equipment rather than the recording. That makes so little sense that I
can't imagine it's what you mean.

Now, if you'd said that a recording played in one CD player sounds more
"real" than the same recording played in another CD player, because in
the latter case "the overtones of the 4th partial above the fundamental
[are] less in volume than in real live," suggesting that "the upper
mid-range of the equipment is less than satisfactory"--well, now we
have an assertion that is testable in two ways. First, we can measure
the output of the two players and see if there is indeed a significant
difference in frequency response in that (or any other) range. And
second, we can subject you to a blind test, and see if you can really
tell these two players apart.

bob

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 18 May 2005 00:56:16 GMT, "Jenn" wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Face it Jenn, you're out
on a limb here, despite all your 'calls to authority'. Which,
incidentally, never work in this forum.

And yet, those with electrical and testings background or knowledge
claim a "call to authority" constantly.

No,


Actually yes. Here is an example just on this thread alone.
"OK, you think you are speaking from vast experiences here, even though

you are not an engineer. How about deferring to those who *are*
engineers, who are speaking from *real* engineering experience?"



they point to the body of accumulated knowledge,



Actually it's a lot of hand waving. Ask for citation of this alleged
"body of accumulated body of knowledge" and see what you get. They'll
tell you to do your own home work. One would think they'd have all the
pages book marked for specific references to this "accumulated body of
knowledge." Any time I have actually been given specific references on
the subject the references do not support the broad claims made. I can
understand why they don't like making specific references to the
"accumulated body of knowledge." it's a lot easier just to posture
about it and assert what it does and does not say rather than cite it
and run the risk of actual analysis.





and observe that
if you wish to challenge this knowledge, then it's up to *you* to
provide reliable and repeatable *evidence* to back your claims.


The "knowledge" has to be presented to be challenged. I'm not sure that
when actually looked at the *real* knowledge would be challenged at
all, just the objectivist slant on this "knowledge."




Calls
to personal authority simply have no credibility.



Then I would suggest that everyone, including you, refrain from doing
it.




Around here, you're
only as good as your last post! :-)







Scott Wheeler

Harry Lavo wrote:

"Ban" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

I recall a discussion here about two years agao where somebody (I
think it was Stewart but I could be wrong) said that if the CD player
measured 20-20khz flat, it couldn't possible have weak bass. It is
relatively easy to design a CD player with those specs. It is
trivially easy to build a line output using cheap opamps that will
spec well, probably not much different from high quality discrete
output stages built with premium parts. And with standard specs,
nothing will be said about the power supply. But the difference
between a cheap, undersized power supply and something substantial
with good design and capacitance to spare will be audible, IMO. What
those players sound like playing music are two different things.

Your answer shows your incompetence in engineering affairs and it also
shows
your beliefs in the Quack argumentation. In the first place "high quality
discrete" designs are *not* better than integrated solution, in the
contrary. It will be worse because of the poor thermal tracking of
discrete
devices, which will certainly increase distortion(esp. in the bass region)
and offset voltage.

Never claimed to be an engineer. But I do have extensive listening
experience and have noticed a correclation between "robustness" in design,
usually isolation and power supply, and a quality of solidity in the bass
and lower midrange that contribute to an ultimate sense of realism. I am an
audiophile, not an engineer. Forgive me if I am wrong.

Now to the "weak" bass. This almost certainly has nothing to do with the
power supply. Opamps have a very high power supply rejection ratio,
especially in the bass region, which doesn't even require a regulated
supply. And the current consumed by the output stage is so small, less
than
10mA even with low loads for both channels driven simultanously to maximum

level. This is hardly the place to have weaknesses even in cheap designs.
If you experience weak bass it is usually an indication of too small a
capacitor on the output. Since the cheap models do use unipolar supply
(+5V
or +3.3V) and do not have aversions against electrolytic caps, it is
equally
unprobable to have a too high cut off frequency, a 47uF/6.3V cost only a
couple of cents.

Again, forgive me for not being an engineer, but in my simplistic view of
things, the output capacitors are part of the power supply (for the analog
stages).

Harry, you keep making technical claims to justify your rather
ill-formed opinions, and in the process show that you have some
seriously wrong assumptions. How could the output coupling capacitors be
considered part of the power supply? And as explained to you, those
capacitors are inexpensive, not "premium parts".

My lack of engineering may have confused the issue, but I was
including the capacitors in my thinking. If it is so simple, why for
example do virtually all portable media players have abysmal bass output
(not just me, pretty widely commented upon).

Getting good bass response is really that simple. We're talking about CD
players, not power amplifers, and certainly not tubed power amps. A lot
of portable players actually have acceptable frequency response at the
low end. The original iPod, tested here in 2003, is an example of a
blameless frequency response:

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...34/index5.html

Clearly the iPod does not have an expensive output stage based on
discrete components and premium parts. You should also notice that
accurate bass response does not require a heavy duty "substantial" power
supply, which the iPod does not have.

The "problem" you probably are thinking of is that portable players have
less output. They are not designed to output 2V rms signal, but that
does not translate to weak bass. You just have to (once again) level
match when you compare a portable player vs a desktop one!

Here's a lowly RadioShack portable player of 1994 vintage:

http://www.stereophile.com/digitalso...0/index11.html

Its response is only down by about 0.3 dB at 20 Hz. Certainly not
absymal and in fact better than some expensive players. It has 720 mV FS
output, a full 8.9 dB below standard levels. Perhaps that translates
into "absymal bass"?


The IPod shuffle is notable in
part because it is one of the few players to get the bass/lower midrange
correct.

No, the original iPod got it right. Many portable CD players get it
right. Many car players get it right.

Different type of gear, but same I would think the same principle
would apply. Headphone stages are also pretty low level.

Low output level does not equal weak bass.


I have experienced low roll-off frequencies of more than 10Hz only in
"high-end" CD-players, because they use expensive popypropylene caps, a
47u
M-Cap is over 20$. And often the load of the audiophool preamp is way
below
the normal impedance(47k).
If the power supply ripple will have modulation effects, it is more prone
to
the D/A converter, you forgot to mention this.


You are correct, I was concentrating on the analog stages. But I am well
aware fo the reasons for isolating the digital stages, and I should have
mentioned them. That is why any decent player does this, and why some do it
extensively.

On these issues I will yield to the engineers on the group.


I wish you would yield less to those tweakers and modders...

Jenn wrote:

Chung wrote:
Jenn wrote:

Chung wrote:
Jenn wrote:

wrote:
Nathan Hess wrote:
"Timothy A. Seufert" writes:

This effect is frequently used by less than ethical
salesmen:
turn
the
volume knob up a little on the more expensive box, and it
will
quite
reliably sound better to the vast majority of people.

Does the converse apply? In other words, if a
system/component
sounds
better to me than another one, and yet the better-sounding
one
has
a
*lower* volume, is that indicative of that component
like-fer-sher
sounding better when level-matched?

Not necessarily. Louder is better is a general rule, not an
iron
law.

So, presumming that one player was demoed louder, and presumming
that I
chose the less loud one, what would be your response?

You could have preferred the less loud one for a host of reasons.
But
at
least that explains why you would say they are not unique in the
way
they sound, since now there is a reason why they do not sound the
same.

I wish to clarify something; perhaps I wasn't clear. These are
hypthetical questions. To the best of my knowledge, the levels
were
the same in my shopping experience.

I am afraif that "to the best of your knowledge" may not suffice.

Then I'll ask you what I asked someone else: How do you personally
shop for audio gear? Do you take a dB meter to the store with you?

When I shop for CD players (which I have not done for a long time), I
look for features and user-friendliness. I also make sure that I can
return the unit, in case I uncover some problem when I take it home. The
last thing I want to base my decision on is a sighted listening session
at a high-end store, with no idea whether levels are matched, and with
speakers that I am not familiar with. Like I told you, just about all
differences disappear when levels are matched.

Nowadays, I would highly recommend getting a DVD player that preferably
plays CD and other audio formats. I wouldn't waste time at a store
listening to it playing CD though. Just get a money-back guarantee and
listen at home.

Now when I shop for power amplifiers about 15 years ago. I actually had
the amps tested blind at the store. I bought the amp, knowing that I
could return it. I ran some tests on it on the bench and confirmed that
it actually met the specs. I also checked the construction carefully,
and liked what I saw. I am not suggesting that you have to do this,
since you do not have the proper equipment or training to run the tests.
But be aware that blinding the identities and level matching are very
important in comparing amplifiers. Ditto for preamps, which sound even
more alike than power amps to me. Exact phono preamps, of course.

When I shop for portable players (which I use quite a bit now), I just
look for great industrial design and the coolness factor! Oh, and the
software that accompanies it.

Mark DeBellis wrote:
On 20 May 2005 01:09:11 GMT, wrote:

Mark DeBellis wrote:

A third possibility is that Jenn and the
rest actually prefer certain kinds of imperfection, or "euphonic
distortion."

This would be the reigning paradigm.

The thing that bothers me about this last way of putting the issue
is
that it makes it sound like Jenn is making some kind of aesthetic
*mistake*, because in comparing one copy of X with another she
prefers
a less perfect copy to a more perfect one.

People tend to take it that way, but it's not what we mean at all.
(OK,
maybe it's what Stewart means...) Look, NO audio system can
perfectly
recreate the sound of live music. For each of us, it comes down to
which imperfections bother us the least, or which imperfections make
us
"suspend disbelief," as the lit-crit boys say. No one's mistaken,
because there is no right or wrong answer to that. (Nor does anyone
have any more expertise at this than anyone else. It is entirely a
personal preference.)

Fair enough ... I guess what I am trying to articulate is a
conception
of what audio is about, that makes it intelligible why such tastes
should be taken seriously. I'm not sure that the reigning paradigm
does that, because it sets up the goals of audio in such a way that
what makes (some of) us "suspend disbelief" counts as "distortion" on
that paradigm.

Distortion is just a technical term, having to do with the relationship
between inputs and outputs. It has nothing to do with "realism" or lack
thereof. Realism is just the illusion of reality--after all, it's
always an illusion that the musicians seem to be in the room with you,
or that you seem to be in a larger hall with them.

Now, sometimes objectivists will argue that the "best" way to assemble
an audio system is to make the electronics as distortion-free as
possible up to the speaker terminals--a task that's fairly
straightforward in the solid-state digital era. Then the only variables
are the speaker and the room (and the recording, of course, but that's
out of the control of the listener). But that's not the end of it. Some
people actually go further and intentionally distort the signal, with
tone controls or an equalizer, or with digital signal processing, which
can include synthesizing new channels. All this in the interest of
trying to enhance that illusion of reality. It's not just subjectivists
who embrace "euphonic distortions."

If it's distortion, it's not what audio is aiming at
and a preference for it doesn't need to be taken seriously by the
paradigm; but shouldn't the suspension of disbelief be precisely the
goal?

The goal of the consumer, definitely, but it's something that's purely
individual, so it's not something that the designers of audio
components can design for.

bob

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message
...

snip


I often found significantly different sounding CD players in a
store
(including hi-end ones). But if I were to carefully control the
test,
which I can do in a home environment, I would find those
differences
disappearing.

Does anyone but me see this as an act of faith?

Nope. It's based on a deep understanding of how the gear works, it's
design and capabilities, as well as the capabilities and limitations of
human hearing. And all of that is based on solid empirical research of
the kind you refuse to either acknowledge or perform. Just because you
reject empiricism on faith doesn't mean that those who accept it are
also acting on faith.

bob

Jenn wrote:

How many listening hours did one have over the other? Whose
experience
allowed them to be the better judge? Nonsense. I like Strawberry;
you
prefer
Raspberry, case closed.


Again, that's exactly the point. It IS all opinion.

Except that this wasn't the point with which some of us are arguing.
The point some of us are arguing was your insistence that, because of
your training and experience, your opinion is somehow better than
someone else's. If all we're talking about is preference, then clearly
it isn't.

bob

Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message
...

Let me rephrase my question: Do you believe that Oohashi's
listening
test can detect differences among any types of consumer audio gear
that
an ABX test cannot?

The short answer is yes.

So rather than continuing to hide behind some impossibly Rube
Goldberg-esque test protocol that can't be implemented and wouldn't
prove anything if it were, why don't you try to do some Oohashi-style
tests and confirm this? After all, Oohashi's test is even easier to
pull off than an ABX test, because you don't need an instantaneous
switching facility. All you need are two CD players you think sound
different, a voltmeter for matching levels, and a simple post-test
questionnaire.

bob

"Chung" wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote:

snip

4. Judging by the sound of HVK's DGG LPs, he wasn't too much into
audio as we think of it. Those records are famously BAD in reproducing
the timbres of instruments. I have, for example, a LP and a CD of his
"Les Preludes" recording. There is a trumpet entrance where the
instruments are literally anything resembling a trumpet! If I didn't
know the work, I would have no idea that it's a trumpet. The DGG LPs
had great surfaces, and generally bad sound. The CDs made from those
tapes kept the bad sound, of course.

Now we are back onto personal preferences and anecdotes. I happen to
think that some of his work were definitive works, probably the best
interpretations ever recorded. That does not mean everything he did was
great, but overall I tend to trust his judgment of sound recordings. So
there you go.

Well whatever you think of his interpretations, Chung, the audiophile and
recording communities share Jenn's viewpoint by and large on the sound of
his recordings. DGG is often cited as the "poster-child" for over-mic'd,
sonically screwed up recording excesses of the seventies and eighties.

Nathan Hess wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton writes:

We don't believe that a conductor is concentrating on the same
things
that we are. But a recording engineer certainly is.

So, Stewart, what do you think of a recording engineer like Steve
Hoffman?

--woodstock
--
It's funny how you can go through life thinking you've seen
everything... Then you suddenly realize there are millions of things
you've never seen before. -- Linus, to Charlie Brown
_~~.

(_" /

'`





Steve Hoffman is primarily a mastering engineer. But I think he is one
of the best mastering engineers in the business. He takes a lot of flak
form objectivists but I would love to turn the tables on those
objectivists and challenge them to make blind preference comparisons
between his work and the competition.





Scott Wheeler

Chung wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Chung wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Another may very well be intense bias against less precisely
measured
and analysed media.

Nope, just many years of *listening* to both media. As noted by
someone else, I side with Herbert von Karajan in this regard.

Perhaps you could show us where HVK stated that CD sounds more
like
real music than LP does?

Check this out, Jenn:

http://www.sony.net/Fun/SH/1-19/h3.html

BTW, the point made was that HVK preferred the sound of CD's,
while
you
preferred vinyl. And whose preference we trust more. It would be
rather
extraordinary to find HVK having exactly stated that "CD sounds
more
like real music than LP", but given his strong support, one can
logically conclude that he preferred CD.

There is no evidence that HVK thought that CD sounds more like
music
than LP. There are several aspects to this story that are
significant:
1. The report above doesn't refer to the sound of CD.

It referred to the Sony PCM recorder which was the predecessor to the

much improved recorders used in the early '80's. I think you are
grasping at straws here.


The story is a nice one but clearly meaningless. Are we all forgetting
that this whole demo took place with an unfamiliar system to HVK? Do
you think for example, I would have any trouble convincing people of a
VAST VAST superiority of LPs if I were to merely play LPs and only LPs
for people with my Sound Lab A3s? Now HVK may have later on made
comparisons between actual CDs and LPs on who knows what LP rig and
prefered CDs. But this story simply shows tooooo many variables for it
to have much if any meaning.





2. We have no idea that HVK's ideal in home audio was the sound of
actual music. I addressed this before. We all know that the
majority
of people who listen to stereos have no idea that this can even BE
a
goal. They judge audio by such things as, "It has great bass" or
"It
plays loud" or "There is no surface noise."

HVK appeared to find CD's to sound better; he was present at the
launching of the format, and had always been a vigorous supporter.


Interesting point. I accept that HVK found CDs to be superior to LPs.
Does this matter to our preferences? Would you prefer LPs to CDs if HVK
did? Stewert did seem to think the opinions of recording engineers
should be given far more weight than the opinions of conductors on what
sounds more like the real thing in the world of audio. Would you agree?




I
would tend to believe "better" in the sense that it is closer to his
ideal of life-like music reproduction. It seems to me that you are
hung
up on semantics here.



I don't think so. Jenn is asking fair questions about HVK's personal
priorities on playback as well as his personal experiences with it. We
don't have the answers to those questions.




3. HVK had definite financial interest in a new playback medium
that
would allow him to record yet another set of Beethoven Symphonies,
for
example.

So you think he was very impressed by the sound he heard at Morita's
house because he knew that he would have financial interest in a new
format?



Do you think that had nothing to do with the speakers or room or mics
used or any number of other variables?




Why can't you simply believe that he really liked the new
format because of the way it sounded?


I do. But, as Jenn has pointed out, we don't know the extent of his
experience with comparisons between the two media or the nature of his
priorities when it comes to audio. In fact we don't even know what his
hearing was like at that time. Have you heard, for instance, the
remasters of Led Zeppelin's catalog that was supervised by Jimmy Page?
I feel confident that he has lost a lot of his high frequency hearing.
Those remasters are unlistenably bright. OTOH the Classic reissues are
largely quite superior on every level. I don't think Jimmy would agree
though.



I mean there are many prople who
love the CD sound. I remember I was in total awe when I heard the CD
for
the first time, because it was so realistic.



I was in total awe as well. Funny how things went from there.




And you know that he is not
the only conductor or musician to fall in love with the CD sound. Did

the others also like the new format because of financial interests?


Shall we do a survey? You will find advocates of both media amoung
conductors, musicians and recording engineers etc.





4. Judging by the sound of HVK's DGG LPs, he wasn't too much into
audio as we think of it. Those records are famously BAD in
reproducing
the timbres of instruments. I have, for example, a LP and a CD of
his
"Les Preludes" recording. There is a trumpet entrance where the
instruments are literally anything resembling a trumpet! If I
didn't
know the work, I would have no idea that it's a trumpet. The DGG
LPs
had great surfaces, and generally bad sound. The CDs made from
those
tapes kept the bad sound, of course.

Now we are back onto personal preferences and anecdotes.



You like the sound of the DG recordings that he was making at the end
of his career?




I happen to
think that some of his work were definitive works, probably the best
interpretations ever recorded.


In the 60's he was quite good. He evolved into arguably one of the
worst conductors on any label by the time he was done. Sadly he often
rejected his old, excellent work to promote his later work which was
mediocre to dreadful.



That does not mean everything he did was
great, but overall I tend to trust his judgment of sound recordings.
So
there you go.



Would you have trusted his judgements if he prefered vinyl? It's easy
to trust people when you already know they agree with you.






Scott Wheeler

Jenn wrote:

Chung wrote:
Just some simple questions then: you think live music in a dry
recording
studio sounds the same as live music in a full-house concert hall?

Of course not.

And
how do you really know what has been recorded on the medium, i.e.,
the
room acoustics, the equalization applied, the particular voice of the

instruments (a Steinway sounds very different than a Yamaha, for
instance), etc.? Not to mention the way your system's frequency
response
can affect the sound you hear from your home?

Fair question. Obviously my opinion would be based on a variety of
recordings, including ones where I know where and how they were
recorded. If I play 5 recodings, and in each of them, they string
sound is poor, when I've heard the string sound be good on a variety of
other equipment, including equipment in the store where I'm auditioning
gear (so the acoustic environment is the same), it can deduced that the
device in question isn't reproducing string sound well.

Or simply levels are not matched.

But the underlying question is this, how do you know how a certain
recording is supposed to sound, if you were not there when they recorded
it? For example, you hear a piano on LP and on CD. You conclude that the
LP sounds more lifelike. Let's leave technical errors like
wow-and-flutter, pops and clicks, surface noise out for the time being.
How do you know the LP is more life-like? Can you tell the model of the
piano being played? How do you know what processing (compression,
equalizatio, etc) has been applied? How do you know how the acoustics of
the recording venue modify the sound of the piano? How would you know
that your concept of life-like sound agrees with that of the reocrding
engineer (who is trying to achieve his concept of life-like sound)?

Perhaps you should read the Lip****z test. At least it should tell you
how difficult it is to tell a vinyl rig's output from a digitally
recorded version of it:

http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...x_testing2.htm

Jenn wrote:

Chung wrote:
Jenn wrote:

Chung wrote:
In the matter of sound of certain instruments, I have access to
those

instruments every day.

Do you mean your piano, or do you also mean other instruments?
But, if
I may apply the same standard to YOU as has been applied to ME
here,
you don't really know the sound of the piano, since you're
listening to
it while sitting at the keyboard.

Well, I have a piano, a flute, a saxophone, a set of drums and
several
guitars in my house.

I have listened to the piano played by myself, by members of my
family,
by friends and relatives in my house. I have been to many recitals
and
concerts where piano solos are played. Does that answer your
question?

Yes, it does. You should realize, however, that those experiences
are
discounted by some here. If you think that your experiences listed
above inform your judgements about the sound of music through audio
componets, I would agree! Since I have those experiences virtually
every day, I'm sure that you'll agree that I able to judge the
sound of
instruments through a piece of gear.

So that gets back to my very first post in this thread. It's
opinions,
and there are a lot of them out there. There are conductors who much
prefer CD's and there are some that do not. I am not trying to set up

myself as a standard at all.

You're correct; this gets back to the original point. It IS all
opinion, not measurements! That's my entire point.

Your preferences are based on your opinions, and perhaps vice versa.
Whether a particular recording sounds more life-like is an opinion and a
preference. Whether you like vinyl or CD more, that is a preference, and
an opinion.

Now if we are talking about accuracy of a medium or a technology, then
clearly measurements are important. We can objectively measure the
accuracy of a delivery medium, and the CD is much better than vinyl.
That is *NOT* an opinion.

Of course, you certainly have the right to not care about the technology
or the medium, but if you want to comment on the accuracy of such, then
you really should be ready to supply some evidence, unlike in the case
of commenting on the accuracy of a certain recording, or commenting on
your preference.

"Chung" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Another may very well be intense bias against less precisely
measured
and analysed media.

Nope, just many years of *listening* to both media. As noted by
someone else, I side with Herbert von Karajan in this regard.

Perhaps you could show us where HVK stated that CD sounds more like
real music than LP does?

Check this out, Jenn:

http://www.sony.net/Fun/SH/1-19/h3.html

BTW, the point made was that HVK preferred the sound of CD's, while you
preferred vinyl. And whose preference we trust more. It would be rather
extraordinary to find HVK having exactly stated that "CD sounds more
like real music than LP", but given his strong support, one can
logically conclude that he preferred CD.

It is worth noting that they are talking about a protype PCM recorder,
not a
consumer deck reproduced 44.1/16 bit product.

So you think the later Sony PCM recorders were *worse* in performance?
My understanding is that those early Sony recorders are all 44.1/16
designs. The famous Lip****z test was also based a Sony 44.1/16 recorder.

So I guess you are also implying that the *problem* with CD is not in
the recording but in the playback unit?


I think the consensus of this group is that it is where it lies. And I've
moved in that direction myself.

At the time, Soundstream was
developing a 50khz machine used in some early Telarc recording that now
that
we have high-resolution audio we know can sound reasonably good. It is
hard
to tell what Von Karajan heard. It could have been 50khz/18bit for all
we
know. It certainly is not an "automatic endorsement" of the CD as we
know
it as a commercial product.

Of course, HVK attended the official aunch of the CD's. That would
appear as a strong endorsement to me.

That would appear to be a strong "commercial" endorsement.


Also, keep in mind that when first exposed to any new technology there
tends
to be an initial, naive 'wow" factor because we hear some thing's better
than we have heard them before. Probably also true for HVK.


Wow, you are saying that subjective bias can overcome real sonic
differences?

No, I'm saying there are real differences but when we first here something
new and better in some regards, we tend to overlook what might be less good.
That awareness tends to grow with use and time. Common sense.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 20 May 2005 01:16:15 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Chung" wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Another may very well be intense bias against less precisely
measured
and analysed media.

Nope, just many years of *listening* to both media. As noted by
someone else, I side with Herbert von Karajan in this regard.

Perhaps you could show us where HVK stated that CD sounds more like
real music than LP does?

Check this out, Jenn:

http://www.sony.net/Fun/SH/1-19/h3.html

BTW, the point made was that HVK preferred the sound of CD's, while you
preferred vinyl. And whose preference we trust more. It would be rather
extraordinary to find HVK having exactly stated that "CD sounds more
like real music than LP", but given his strong support, one can
logically conclude that he preferred CD.

It is worth noting that they are talking about a protype PCM recorder,
not a
consumer deck reproduced 44.1/16 bit product. At the time, Soundstream
was
developing a 50khz machine used in some early Telarc recording that now
that
we have high-resolution audio we know can sound reasonably good.

What, you think there's a big difference between 44.1 and 50k? Note
that the SS system was not 50kHz bandwidth, it was 50k *sampling*,
i.e. less than 25kHz bandwidth.


Yeah, there is a big difference, even between 48/16 and 44.1/16, as any
recording engineer will tell you (they universally record at 48khz if they
are forced to make that choice, unless they are simply recording two tracks
to transcribe directly t CD, where they would chose to skip the conversion
step. They record at 48khz for archive and mixing because those extra 2khz
of audible bandwidth lie right at the edge of perception and seem to cause
an extraordinary amount of aural discomfort when filtered.

And thank you, Stewart. I do know about the Nyquist theorem and that actual
bandwidth is a bit less than half the sampling frequency.

It is hard
to tell what Von Karajan heard. It could have been 50khz/18bit for all
we
know. It certainly is not an "automatic endorsement" of the CD as we
know
it as a commercial product.

Nice try Harry, but we do know what Karajan heard, and it was 16/44.1,
because that was the video-camera based system that was launched as
the PCM-1.

Well, perhaps you do. But I did not. Pray tell, Stewart, on what *factual*
basis are you certain that the in-studio quoted event was based on a Sony
44.1/16 bit video deck. There were also a lot of experimental pieces being
built by the industry players interested in digital in those days. You
don't think perhaps somewhere in Sony's vast labs they might have been
trying to match Soundstream?


Also, keep in mind that when first exposed to any new technology there
tends
to be an initial, naive 'wow" factor because we hear some thing's better
than we have heard them before. Probably also true for HVK.

Actually, in the case of CD, there was an initial wow factor because
it *was* vastly better than vinyl. OTOH, we certainly can't say the
same for SACD...................

No, the wow factor for SACD was....wow, at last digital that I can relax to.
Kind of an anti-wow. :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 20 May 2005 01:29:20 GMT, "Jenn" wrote:

Chung wrote:
Jenn wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Another may very well be intense bias against less precisely
measured
and analysed media.

Nope, just many years of *listening* to both media. As noted by
someone else, I side with Herbert von Karajan in this regard.

Perhaps you could show us where HVK stated that CD sounds more
like
real music than LP does?

Check this out, Jenn:

http://www.sony.net/Fun/SH/1-19/h3.html

BTW, the point made was that HVK preferred the sound of CD's,
while
you
preferred vinyl. And whose preference we trust more. It would be
rather
extraordinary to find HVK having exactly stated that "CD sounds
more
like real music than LP", but given his strong support, one can
logically conclude that he preferred CD.

There is no evidence that HVK thought that CD sounds more like music
than LP. There are several aspects to this story that are
significant:
1. The report above doesn't refer to the sound of CD.

It refers to 16/44.1 digital. That *is* the sound of CD.


There is more to the sound of a CD than just those numbers.





2. We have no idea that HVK's ideal in home audio was the sound of
actual music. I addressed this before. We all know that the
majority
of people who listen to stereos have no idea that this can even BE a
goal. They judge audio by such things as, "It has great bass" or
"It
plays loud" or "There is no surface noise."

This of course would apply to you as well as to HvK.


No, Maybe you should pay closer attention to what Jenn is posting. She
has stated numerous times that her experience with *live* music is her
ideal.



It would
certainly explain your preference for vinyl, which many of us would
suggest cannot be rooted merely in how it sounds.


I see misrepresenting Jenn's ideals in audio would explain her
preference for vinyl. Sorry but when deliberate misrepresentations are
used as axioms for arguments the arguments fail misreably and the
pundit loses credibility.





3. HVK had definite financial interest in a new playback medium
that
would allow him to record yet another set of Beethoven Symphonies,
for
example.

As you have a financial interest in maintaining that you have
superior
hearing as a result of being a trained conductor.


Another misrepresentation. A personal attack when you get right down to
it.




4. Judging by the sound of HVK's DGG LPs, he wasn't too much into
audio as we think of it. Those records are famously BAD in
reproducing
the timbres of instruments. I have, for example, a LP and a CD of
his
"Les Preludes" recording. There is a trumpet entrance where the
instruments are literally anything resembling a trumpet! If I
didn't
know the work, I would have no idea that it's a trumpet.

Perhaps he transcribed it. How do you *know*?



Credits? Liner notes? It obviously would be noted.



Further, who says these
records are bad at reproducing instrument timbre (more than any other
vinyl, at least)?



I'm pretty sure Jenn said it.



That's not been my experience.



So? Your experience should have any authority over Jenn's experience?





The DGG LPs had great surfaces, and generally bad sound.

Not my experience,



You find DGs generally have good sound?




in fact one of the best solo piano albums in my
collection is the 1981 DGG recording of Emil Gilels playing various
Beethoven pieces. It's quite magnificent, and the CD version is
*clearly* more like a live piano than is the LP.


And you would say that this CD is more life like than say the Nojima
LPs from RR or the various piano LPs from Wilson Audio, Waterlily,
Sheffield Labs or Performance recordings?





Note this telling comment from you:

The CDs made from those tapes kept the bad sound, of course.

So, it would follow that CDs made from good tapes would preserve good
sound, no?

No. Bad LPs made from bad tapes sound bad. Would it follow that LPs
made from good tapes preserve good sound?



After all, the subtle cues that tell you a sound is *bad*
on one master tape, are the same cues that tell you another tape is
good.


Really? How do you know?






But we get the basic message - we should accept your opinion as
superior to that of HvK. OK, I think we have the picture now.





So you base your preferences on HVK's preferences?




Scott Wheeler

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote:

snip

4. Judging by the sound of HVK's DGG LPs, he wasn't too much into
audio as we think of it. Those records are famously BAD in reproducing
the timbres of instruments. I have, for example, a LP and a CD of his
"Les Preludes" recording. There is a trumpet entrance where the
instruments are literally anything resembling a trumpet! If I didn't
know the work, I would have no idea that it's a trumpet. The DGG LPs
had great surfaces, and generally bad sound. The CDs made from those
tapes kept the bad sound, of course.

Now we are back onto personal preferences and anecdotes. I happen to
think that some of his work were definitive works, probably the best
interpretations ever recorded. That does not mean everything he did was
great, but overall I tend to trust his judgment of sound recordings. So
there you go.

Well whatever you think of his interpretations, Chung, the audiophile and
recording communities share Jenn's viewpoint by and large on the sound of
his recordings. DGG is often cited as the "poster-child" for over-mic'd,
sonically screwed up recording excesses of the seventies and eighties.


More personal opinions, reinforced by groupthink.

There are many excellent DG recordings in the 70's and the 80's, IMO, so
it is so easy to disregard your opinion. If you must believe in numbers,
HvK's Beethoven 9th recorded in 1977 is considered by many to be one of
his best work. But of course, we're back to preferences and opinions,
and it's rather pointless to argue those. Certainly this newsgroup is
not the right place to discuss which recordings do we prefer.

Hello!

I have a little question!!!
Does it occur to you that when "Herbert Von Karajan claimed to prefer
the sound of the PCM system over that of analog recordings, which he was
more accustomed to. The engineers were extremely happy and felt much
encouragement with the approval of Maestro Karajan." he could have been
paid by Sony just to say that like we have see so many time before with
celebrities telling that he(or she) prefer Coke over Pepsi or Burger
King over McDonald and so on. Personally I simply do not care what
Karajan "Prefer" or not. What I do care is what my personnal "EARS" do
prefer. What is important is what we all personally prefer.

I even remember about 8 years ago I took a friend to the Montreal
Symphonic Orchestra for a concert. After the concert I ask him what was
is impression. He told me that he found that the sound was lacking high
frequency. When I point to him that it was probably HIS sound system
that was giving to much high frequency, he reply that it was not
possible because his audio system was a "High End" Sony equipment and
that Sony knew how the music should play and that is the sound was
lacking high frequency is was probably due to the concert hall that was
not "design properly"??????

My friend prefer the sound of his Sony to the sound of real LIVE
instrument. It is OK for me. Some prefer the sound of CD, It's ok for
me. I prefer the sound of LP is is still ok for me "and hopefully for
you" :-)

So..... Enjoy the way you listen to your music


Bye Bye

Jocelyn

Chung a écrit :
Jenn wrote:

Chung wrote:

Jenn wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Another may very well be intense bias against less precisely
measured
and analysed media.

Nope, just many years of *listening* to both media. As noted by
someone else, I side with Herbert von Karajan in this regard.

Perhaps you could show us where HVK stated that CD sounds more like
real music than LP does?

Check this out, Jenn:

http://www.sony.net/Fun/SH/1-19/h3.html

BTW, the point made was that HVK preferred the sound of CD's, while

you

preferred vinyl. And whose preference we trust more. It would be

rather

extraordinary to find HVK having exactly stated that "CD sounds more
like real music than LP", but given his strong support, one can
logically conclude that he preferred CD.


There is no evidence that HVK thought that CD sounds more like music
than LP. There are several aspects to this story that are significant:
1. The report above doesn't refer to the sound of CD.


It referred to the Sony PCM recorder which was the predecessor to the
much improved recorders used in the early '80's. I think you are
grasping at straws here.

2. We have no idea that HVK's ideal in home audio was the sound of
actual music. I addressed this before. We all know that the majority
of people who listen to stereos have no idea that this can even BE a
goal. They judge audio by such things as, "It has great bass" or "It
plays loud" or "There is no surface noise."


HVK appeared to find CD's to sound better; he was present at the
launching of the format, and had always been a vigorous supporter. I
would tend to believe "better" in the sense that it is closer to his
ideal of life-like music reproduction. It seems to me that you are hung
up on semantics here.

3. HVK had definite financial interest in a new playback medium that
would allow him to record yet another set of Beethoven Symphonies, for
example.


So you think he was very impressed by the sound he heard at Morita's
house because he knew that he would have financial interest in a new
format? Why can't you simply believe that he really liked the new
format because of the way it sounded? I mean there are many prople who
love the CD sound. I remember I was in total awe when I heard the CD for
the first time, because it was so realistic. And you know that he is not
the only conductor or musician to fall in love with the CD sound. Did
the others also like the new format because of financial interests?

4. Judging by the sound of HVK's DGG LPs, he wasn't too much into
audio as we think of it. Those records are famously BAD in reproducing
the timbres of instruments. I have, for example, a LP and a CD of his
"Les Preludes" recording. There is a trumpet entrance where the
instruments are literally anything resembling a trumpet! If I didn't
know the work, I would have no idea that it's a trumpet. The DGG LPs
had great surfaces, and generally bad sound. The CDs made from those
tapes kept the bad sound, of course.


Now we are back onto personal preferences and anecdotes. I happen to
think that some of his work were definitive works, probably the best
interpretations ever recorded. That does not mean everything he did was
great, but overall I tend to trust his judgment of sound recordings. So
there you go.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Jenn wrote:
1. The report above doesn't refer to the sound of CD.

It refers to 16/44.1 digital. That *is* the sound of CD.

Do we know that the PCM tape sounds exactly like CD?

2. We have no idea that HVK's ideal in home audio was the sound of
actual music. I addressed this before. We all know that the
majority
of people who listen to stereos have no idea that this can even BE a
goal. They judge audio by such things as, "It has great bass" or
"It
plays loud" or "There is no surface noise."

This of course would apply to you as well as to HvK.

No, I've stated that my goal for hi-fi is to recreate the sound of live
music, as much as that is possible. I haven't see where HVK stated
that.

3. HVK had definite financial interest in a new playback medium
that
would allow him to record yet another set of Beethoven Symphonies,
for
example.

As you have a financial interest in maintaining that you have
superior
hearing as a result of being a trained conductor.

Apples and oranges.


4. Judging by the sound of HVK's DGG LPs, he wasn't too much into
audio as we think of it. Those records are famously BAD in
reproducing
the timbres of instruments. I have, for example, a LP and a CD of
his
"Les Preludes" recording. There is a trumpet entrance where the
instruments are literally (sounding like nothing..correction)
resembling a trumpet! If I didn't
know the work, I would have no idea that it's a trumpet.

Perhaps he transcribed it. How do you *know*?
Respectfully, this, again, shows lack of knowledge of what conductors
do. He would no more transcribe it than would you forge a measurement.

The DGG LPs had great surfaces, and generally bad sound.

Not my experience, in fact one of the best solo piano albums in my
collection is the 1981 DGG recording of Emil Gilels playing various
Beethoven pieces. It's quite magnificent, and the CD version is
*clearly* more like a live piano than is the LP.

I'm glad that you enjoy that CD. I don't have any DGG piano recordings
to compare. Orchestrally speaking though, they are uniformly bad as
far as instrument timbres are concerned.

Note this telling comment from you:

The CDs made from those tapes kept the bad sound, of course.

So, it would follow that CDs made from good tapes would preserve good
sound, no? After all, the subtle cues that tell you a sound is *bad*
on one master tape, are the same cues that tell you another tape is
good.

Perhaps; perhaps not. If the errors on many CD are additive, for
example...

But we get the basic message - we should accept your opinion as
superior to that of HvK. OK, I think we have the picture now.

No, you clearly don't.

wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Chung" wrote in message
...

snip


I often found significantly different sounding CD players in a
store
(including hi-end ones). But if I were to carefully control the
test,
which I can do in a home environment, I would find those
differences
disappearing.

Does anyone but me see this as an act of faith?

Nope. It's based on a deep understanding of how the gear works, it's
design and capabilities, as well as the capabilities and limitations of
human hearing. And all of that is based on solid empirical research of
the kind you refuse to either acknowledge or perform. Just because you
reject empiricism on faith doesn't mean that those who accept it are
also acting on faith.


You should remember the original context of Chung's response (I'm sorry now
that I snipped it). He was asked by Jenn after determining that it was the
'softer" that sounded better:

". It's not in the realm of possibility for you that one of the components
actually SOUNDED better?".

He then went on to say that he heard differences in the store. But he
didn't say he would take one he thought sounded better home to test it
(which would represent engineering curiosity). He said he already *knew*
what he would find:

"But if I were to carefully control the test, which I can do in a home
environment, I would find those differences disappearing."

He didn't say "Well, I would find it interesting, but I think they would
disappear..." He didn't say "My experience suggests they would probably
disappear." He flat out asserted they would disappear, thereby justifying
his disinterest.
in even pursuing apparent differences in sound.

To me, that is an act of faith, not science.

wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message
...

Let me rephrase my question: Do you believe that Oohashi's
listening
test can detect differences among any types of consumer audio gear
that
an ABX test cannot?

The short answer is yes.

So rather than continuing to hide behind some impossibly Rube
Goldberg-esque test protocol that can't be implemented and wouldn't
prove anything if it were, why don't you try to do some Oohashi-style
tests and confirm this? After all, Oohashi's test is even easier to
pull off than an ABX test, because you don't need an instantaneous
switching facility. All you need are two CD players you think sound
different, a voltmeter for matching levels, and a simple post-test
questionnaire.

Not so. Do you not understand that monadic testing requires dozens (at
least) of subjects and cannot be done alone? Why do you suppose I was
trying to solicit interest from the group last year in doing such a test?

On 21 May 2005 15:35:07 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Chung" wrote in message
...

I often found significantly different sounding CD players in a store
(including hi-end ones). But if I were to carefully control the test,
which I can do in a home environment, I would find those differences
disappearing.

Does anyone but me see this as an act of faith? How on earth can one be
objective when one *expects* all differences to disappear, even if one hears
then under non-test conditions and makes a judgment on that expectation
instead.

Simple, really. One expects this, because previous experimentation has
shown that it is almost always the case. That's not 'faith', that's
*experience*. To believe that amps and CD players *should* sound
different, would be an act of faith...............

Listening to them at home is fine. Testing them at home is fine. But
prejudging that there is no need to do that because I just *know* I will
find no differences is not science, it is faith.

Nope, it's a good bet.

How about instead simply varying the volume up and down in the store and see
if the perceived "difference" disappears, for a starter? Or carrying a
meter and level matching two players, if you are doing a comparison? That
would be a start of a "scientific" investigation. Dismissing what you heard
based on expectation of "no difference" is not science.

Neither is dismissing what you heard based on expectation of
difference. That seems to be where you stand, Harry, or you would
accept DBTs.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 21 May 2005 16:58:55 GMT, Nathan Hess wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton writes:

We don't believe that a conductor is concentrating on the same things
that we are. But a recording engineer certainly is.

So, Stewart, what do you think of a recording engineer like Steve
Hoffman?

I don't generally use that kind of language.......

His website is a source of utter hilarity to anyone interested in
accurate sound reproduction, and his opinions have no basis in
reality. That doesn't mean that he's not a talented recording guy, but
his technical pronouncements are clearly batty. All professions have
their outliers - you could also have mentioned James Boyk.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On 21 May 2005 16:55:35 GMT, "Jenn" wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 19 May 2005 00:59:16 GMT, "Jenn" wrote:
Please see my comments to Chung.

I've seen them, and you are now becoming defensive, rejecting comment
made by another musician who does not share your view of vinyl and
CD.

Sorry, but incorrect. I didn't reject Chung's comments. I simply said
to him in regards to his experience with playing instruments the SAME
THING that was said to me about the same experiences!

Quite so - when challenged on the irrelevance of your musical
experience, your defence is to attack the musical experience of
another who doesn't share your views on vinyl. Illogical, captain....

You're also trying to discredit von Karajan, which seems foolish in
the extreme.

Again, the ONLY reason I brought up the quantity of my listening of
live music and my training in hearing details in sound is as a reaction
to that which was evident when I first checked in here about claimed
infalability of scientific measurement in determining the quality of
audio equipment.

I don't recall any such claim ever having been made, although the
subjectivists certainly *claim* that such statements abound.

This "claim to authority" didn't match up with my
experiences in music.

Good job it was never made, then................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

wrote:
Jenn wrote:
And I'm pointing to a body of accumulated knowledge,

No, you're not. In the case of differences in CDs, you're merely
pointing to experiences which lack any scientific validity (certainly
a
prerequisite for a "body of knowledge").

A "body of knowledge" must have scientific validity? If a person is,
for example, has a great deal of experience in driving manual
transmission autos, must that peron only speak of those driving
experiences in terms of "scientific validity" when teaching his or her
child to drive?

Harry Lavo wrote:
That's one of the things that happened in the late '60's / early
'70's.
With multitracking, the engineers stopped "serving the music"; and
started
rising to prominence in their own right. If you go back to the '50's
and
'60's you will find that the producers and engineers worked very hard
to
capture what the conductor wanted. And the Capital engineers worked
very
hard to produce what Nelson Riddle and Frank Sinatra wanted. But in
return,
they were respected for their craft, and they all worked as a team.

So true, IMO, Harry. I think that the tide was turned partially with
the hiring of John Mclure to record Bernstein's work, and furthered by
what is evident in most of the recordings of von Karajan in Berlin.
Tons of mics, etc. There are virtually no good sounding recording of
Bernsetin's work, which is a crime.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
To others still, merely someone with
little knowledge of the mechanisms underlying audio components, of
the
euphonic artifacts present in certain media and certain typoes of
replay gear, and of the psychoacoustics of how we hear things. An
interesting position for a 'highly trained conductor', no? :-)

Yes, interesting in that what the mechanisms are don't really concern
me. Whatever makes my home audio sound like music, I'm in favor of.

"Chung" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:


snip


Well whatever you think of his interpretations, Chung, the audiophile
and
recording communities share Jenn's viewpoint by and large on the sound
of
his recordings. DGG is often cited as the "poster-child" for
over-mic'd,
sonically screwed up recording excesses of the seventies and eighties.


More personal opinions, reinforced by groupthink.


I stated my observaions of what I have perceived is the dominant thought of
the audiophile and pro audio communities. It comes from being an active
participant in those communicites for the last 40 years and participating in
forums in both areas. Groupthink? Perhaps. Informed Group Opinion? More
likely.. See what a difference symantics make? :-)


There are many excellent DG recordings in the 70's and the 80's, IMO, so
it is so easy to disregard your opinion.

Nobody said you had to accept it.

If you must believe in numbers, HvK's Beethoven 9th recorded in 1977 is
considered by many to be one of
his best work. But of course, we're back to preferences and opinions,
and it's rather pointless to argue those. Certainly this newsgroup is
not the right place to discuss which recordings do we prefer.

And you will notice that I said not a word about interpretation, despite
owning the entire von Karajan's Beethoven Symphony set on LP and a few on
CD.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 20 May 2005 01:30:48 GMT, "Jenn" wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 18 May 2005 00:56:16 GMT, "Jenn"
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Face it Jenn, you're out
on a limb here, despite all your 'calls to authority'. Which,
incidentally, never work in this forum.

And yet, those with electrical and testings background or
knowledge
claim a "call to authority" constantly.

No, they point to the body of accumulated knowledge, and observe
that
if you wish to challenge this knowledge, then it's up to *you* to
provide reliable and repeatable *evidence* to back your claims.

And I'm pointing to a body of accumulated knowledge,

Which body of accumulated knowledge would that be, Jenn?

and observing that
if you wish to challenge this knowledge, then it's up to you to
provide...blah blah blah. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but your
statement is just as easily turned around.

No, it isn't. Which body of accumulated knowledge would that be,
Jenn?

Just as the others have
vastly more experience than do I in matters of how to measure
things, I
have vastly more experience than do they in the experience of music.

Do you? Are you sure about that? One of your opponents owns his own
grand piano, and several other musical instruments, and I'm sure that
he's a regular concert-goer, just like the rest of us. You are
starting to sound very defensive here, and making calls to personal
authority needs to be backed up with facts.

Thanks for you opinion regarding the value of my posts. I'm glad that
Chung owns instruments, and I'm glad that he goes to concerts. I have
NEVER said that his listening experiences are less valuable than are
mine. I'm offering an OPINION (gasp!) on the sound of media and
equipment, and Chung and everyone else is certainly entitled to theirs.
I thought that it might be interesting to those who are interested in
hi-fi to have the opinion of one who, in essance, listens for a living,
and who has, according to objective MEASUREMENT :-) more listening
experience. I listen all day at work, I listen to other's work, I
listen when I get home. If I don't listen well, I'm fired. I've not
stated that "hear better" than anyone else (in spite of those readings
of what I've said). Like the race car driver who has driven a course a
number of times, I have a lot of experience in negociating the "curves"
of attempting to get realistic sound at home because I've "driven the
course" of hearing live music more than have most people. That's all.
If that experience means little or nothing to you, you're entitled.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
That's what recording
engineers do - it's absolutely *not* what conductors do, despite
Jenn's risible claims about listening to hall ambience.

Oh, you're right, I guess. Conductors are not required to listen to
the sound of the hall and make constant adjustments based on delay
times in terms of frequemcy, lenth of notes, style of articulation,
etc. I guess that I'll have to stop doing that.