Chung wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 29 Jan 2006 02:25:55 GMT, wrote:

wrote:
wrote:

Absolute nonsense. Digital recording uses dither to achieve randomness
in its individual samples, the real difference is that this randomness
is achieved with *vastly* greater dynamic range than is possible with
any analogue medium.
Thank goodness some people were using their ears and came up with
dither as an improvement on a medium that was already declared
sonically perfect.

You are, of course, completely incorrect here. Dither is a process that
predates the introduction of the commercial introduction of digital
audio
by several decades. Further, the specific use and requirement of dither
was specifically discussed in the context of digital audio in a number
of
articles on the topic that predates the introduction of consumer
digital
audio. For example,


Perhaps "came up with" was not the best choice of words. The fact is
CDs were initialy issued without the use of dither and suffered for it.

No, *some* early CDs failed to use dither when the old analogue master
tapes were digitised. Heck, some even used LP cutting masters, with
grossly boosted treble and reduced bass! The ability of some idiots to
misuse the tools, is not a fault of the available technology, See Dire
Straits 'Love Over Gold' for how it could be done right from day one.

Those who thought the medium was perfect blamed the source material.
Those who recognized the problem saw dither as a means of improving CD
sound.

Those who recognised the problem laughed at the idiots who had failed
to use dither.


Those that recognized the problem clearly weren't those that had
already proclaimed the medium perfect. That would be the subjectivists.



Dither had been used for *decades* before CDs were
launched, it's an *essential* part of digital signal processing.


That's nice although it is entirely irrelevant to my point.





Your statement:

"Thank goodness some people were using their ears and
came up with dither as an improvement on a medium that
was already declared sonically perfect."

looks pretty silly in light of the pretty extensive history of the
technical
literature on the topic, and in light of the actual implementation of
digital audio systems over the last 35 years and more.

In light of the reality of the history of early CDs it ought not to
look so silly if you can get past the semantics. Fact is dither was not
initially used on CDs. The introduction of dither was the result of
some people acknowledging that CD sound was leaing much to be desired.

Fact is that you don't know what you're talking about. Dither most
certainly was used on most early CDs. Only the technically ignorant
failed to use it.


Prove it. Posturing is easy on Usenet. show us the facts that support
your claim.




That YOU aren'y aware of this, or that some members of the hi-end
press are not aware of it doesn't make the fact that dither has ALWAYS
been an intergral part of digital audio implementation since BEFORE
the introduction of the CD.

I suggest you go back and look at the history of CDs rather than the
history of dither. The fact is that dither has NOT "ALWAYS been an
intergral part" of the implementation of CDs.

I suggest you go back and look at the history of CDs rather than the
history of dither. The fact is that dither *has* always been an
"integral part" of the *correct* implementation of CDs. That some
idiots were unaware of this, is not the fault of the technogy.

In the case of early CD's made from analog master tapes with a fairly
high noise floor, that noise floor can effectively provide dithering,
since it will always activate the lower order bits of the ADC and DAC to
randomize the transitions.


J Gordon Holt made the same argument over twenty years ago. But he
wouldn't have made the argument had all those early CDs been dithered
in the first place.



So the resulting CD would most likely sound
the same regardless of whether digital dithering has been applied.


Oh, dithering is that simple? I thought there was a bit ore to it than
that.



Dithering is much more necessary if the source has a very high dynamic
range.

I guess someone clueless may mistakenly leave out the dithering when
mastering a CD, but I have yet to find a CD sounding bad because
dithering was not applied.


How do you know? Which CDs have you listened to that you know were not
dithered that you found excellent?


It also takes someone clueless to conclude
that introduction of dithering was due to people finding out that CD's
sounded bad.


Gee wiz, you got an insult in. You must be right! Insults are a far
more effect way of proving one's position than evidence. SOOOO, if
anyone has any actual evidence that contradicts my claims rather than
insults or posturing or straw man arguments I'd love to see it.


One of the best piano CD's I have was recorded digitally in
1981 and released in CD in 1983. As good a sound as anything made today.


If it is the one you were talking about a while back on DG I finally
got to hear it. IMO it is pretty far from SOTA sound quality. If you
really think that is SOTA sound qualiy I have to disagree with your
judgement on sound quality in general and that would include your
opinion on nondithered CDs. If nothing else, we are prioritizing
different elements of realism in playback.


Scott

wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 29 Jan 2006 02:26:16 GMT, wrote:

Let's call monochrome a "distortion" since it removes the lifelike
colors. Would you agree that monochrome can enhance the emotional
impact of some scenes, but not all? Would you claim that b&w is
superior for conveying the essence of every possible scene?

I find this unlikely, just as I find it unlikely that a distortion
could make reproduced sound more lifelike in all contexts.

I notice you aren't responding to this.

I think we are not responding to this because it is obviously true. A
distortion cannot make reproduced sound more likelife in all contexts.
And, guess what, it does not.

You, of course, implicitly
claim that a distortion is responsible for the lifelike quality, but
you haven't described any distortion that is consistent with the actual
experience of, say, musicians who find analog to be more accurate.

Do those musicians find that a distortion could make reproduced sound
more lifelike in all contexts?

See, there is nothing to agree or disagree here. For the simple reason
that only *some*, and not all, musicians find analog to be more accurate
for *some* recordings. Big deal. We all know that perceived accuracy to
one person is not necessarily perceived accuracy to another.


It seems to
me the most obvious explanation is that analog is accurately
reproducing the key patterns.

Unfortunately, that is not consistent with the facts of the matter,
which are that digital is *vastly* more accurate than analogue in
reproducing *all* the patterns.

One typical aspect of the objectivist/subjectivist divide is that the
objectivists think they have categorized all the patterns, while the
subjectivists point out that they don't even know what patterns
correspond to key *musical experiences* such as beauty.

More likely, the subjectivists cannot separate audio reproduction from
music. Or technical objective facts from preferences.

And I wonder when and where did you read that "objectivists think that
they have categorized all patterns" (whatever that means)? Are you
saying that subjectivists point out that *ubjectivists* don't even know
what patterns correspond to key "musical experiences" such as beauty? I
tend to agree with you there. But what exactly were you trying to say?
Is there a point there?

Perhaps the great divide is that using ambiguity in place of cogent
arguments, certain subjectivists make it nearly impossible to have
meaningful debates. If I were a subjectivist, I would hate to have you
speak for me.

On 2 Feb 2006 00:32:27 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 29 Jan 2006 02:26:16 GMT, wrote:

Let's call monochrome a "distortion" since it removes the lifelike
colors. Would you agree that monochrome can enhance the emotional
impact of some scenes, but not all? Would you claim that b&w is
superior for conveying the essence of every possible scene?

I find this unlikely, just as I find it unlikely that a distortion
could make reproduced sound more lifelike in all contexts.

I notice you aren't responding to this. You, of course, implicitly
claim that a distortion is responsible for the lifelike quality, but
you haven't described any distortion that is consistent with the actual
experience of, say, musicians who find analog to be more accurate.

Its is however consistent with the actual experience of the vast
majority of musicians who find digital to be more accurate.

Nice try...................

It seems to
me the most obvious explanation is that analog is accurately
reproducing the key patterns.

Unfortunately, that is not consistent with the facts of the matter,
which are that digital is *vastly* more accurate than analogue in
reproducing *all* the patterns.

One typical aspect of the objectivist/subjectivist divide is that the
objectivists think they have categorized all the patterns, while the
subjectivists point out that they don't even know what patterns
correspond to key *musical experiences* such as beauty.

Doesn't matter if you accurately reproduce *everything*.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Chung wrote:
wrote:

You, of course, implicitly
claim that a distortion is responsible for the lifelike quality, but
you haven't described any distortion that is consistent with the actual
experience of, say, musicians who find analog to be more accurate.

Do those musicians find that a distortion could make reproduced sound
more lifelike in all contexts?

They find that analog is more lifelike in virtually all contexts, hence
the unlikeliness that a distortion is responsible. If you wish to
postulate a distortion that is responsible, you need to explain why it
has that specific subjective effect.

One typical aspect of the objectivist/subjectivist divide is that the
objectivists think they have categorized all the patterns, while the
subjectivists point out that they don't even know what patterns
correspond to key *musical experiences* such as beauty.

More likely, the subjectivists cannot separate audio reproduction from
music. Or technical objective facts from preferences.

And I wonder when and where did you read that "objectivists think that
they have categorized all patterns" (whatever that means)?

It's implied by Stewart's comment. It is stated directly in an article
by Ethan Winer that appeared in Skeptic Magazine, reproduced he

http://www.ethanwiner.com/audiophoolery.html

It's implied by anyone that thinks accurate audio circuits can be
designed by measurement.

No one, subjectivist or objectivist alike, has a good handle on what
patterns correspond to musical beauty. But only objectivists claim it
doesn't matter.

Mike

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 2 Feb 2006 00:32:27 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 29 Jan 2006 02:26:16 GMT, wrote:
It seems to
me the most obvious explanation is that analog is accurately
reproducing the key patterns.

Unfortunately, that is not consistent with the facts of the matter,
which are that digital is *vastly* more accurate than analogue in
reproducing *all* the patterns.

One typical aspect of the objectivist/subjectivist divide is that the
objectivists think they have categorized all the patterns, while the
subjectivists point out that they don't even know what patterns
correspond to key *musical experiences* such as beauty.

Doesn't matter if you accurately reproduce *everything*.

Of course not. It does matter, however, if you accurately reproduce
beauty, since that is one of the aspects of live music audio is
supposed to reproduce.

Mike

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

I thought not at one time then i reconsidered tht opinion.

I'm willing to consider it, but I'm waiting for someone to propose a
distortion mechanism that explains what I actually hear. I would love
to hear your ideas on this.


Yes, try to contact Jim Johnston. I remember him claiming to have some
ideas on this very matter.





Actually harmonic distortion in effect does know because the source of
harmonic distortion is the original signal. So harmonic distortion from
a brass quartet is directly related to the sound of a brass quartet.

But a distortion, like any "tweak" to the music, should improve some
things but not others. If you swap out the brass instruments for
instruments of a different design, it might improve things---but
probably only on certain pieces of music.


why would you assume this? If there is an inherent short coming in the
recording/playback chain (there are many actually) then why would you
assume that there are no colorations that universally act as a counter
to such distortions?

I don't assume it. I just point out that no tweak to live music can
make a universal improvement, hence it is unlikely a tweak to the
reproduction would. However, I agree that two distortions could cancel
each other out, or combine synergistically. So which two? What affect
do they have? How do they cancel out?



But then, we would agree it
*changed* things, don't you think?


Yes.


I'm still waiting for an explanation
why analog is *generally* superior, *in the sense of more accurate*, if
the distortion is responsible.


I think you may be asking the wrong people. Try asking Doug Sax, Steve
Hoffman or Stan Ricker.

Good point. It would seem reasonble to ask this on this newsgroup
however, seeing as Pinkerton and Chung have stated that analog
distortion is a major cause of the aesthetic reaction to analog.


I remember one recording/mastering engineer claiming that the LPs of
his recordings sounded better (more like the original) than the master
tape. I think it may have been Doug Sax.

If it was Doug Sax, wouldn't that have been been a directly mastered
LP?


Not always.


" In that case, he's not claiming that adding an extra stage improved
things.. he's actually claiming that a single stage of LP distorts the
music less than a single stage of tape."


No, in this particular case he was talking about LPs he mastered from
analog master tapes.

Well, that's interesting. It certainly would be an interesting study,
to see which distortion was responsible and the aesthetic effect of
that distortion.






Well, that may be. I don't have a tremendous amount of experience with
this. But check out Boyk's "Magnesaurus" tape recorder. Every single
design decision was for the purposes of *reducing* distortion.


i agree but then check out his choice of microphones and mic preamp.

I believe he chose those for their accuracy.



I would suggest checking out what guys like Steve Hoffman and James
Boyk say about this. I think you will find that they use the distortion
of tubes to increase the life like quality of their work.

Boyk has told me he uses the *accuracy* of tubes, not the *distortion*
of tubes. For example, he probably wouldn't put an extra tube stage in
the chain to add distortion.


"accuracy" becomes a dodgy term here. Now i do know that Boyk at one
time felt SS components color the sound in an ugly way. So I think it
is a matter of accuracy to the elements of sound that he thinks are
important in the inherent beauty of live music. I have not heard him
say that tubes are more accurate in general just better at getting the
important parts of musical reproduction right.

Since the point of audio is to reproduce an aesthetic experience, I
*define* "accuracy" as "getting the important parts of musical
reproduction right."

Mike

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 2 Feb 2006 00:32:27 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 29 Jan 2006 02:26:16 GMT, wrote:

Let's call monochrome a "distortion" since it removes the lifelike
colors. Would you agree that monochrome can enhance the emotional
impact of some scenes, but not all? Would you claim that b&w is
superior for conveying the essence of every possible scene?

I find this unlikely, just as I find it unlikely that a distortion
could make reproduced sound more lifelike in all contexts.

I notice you aren't responding to this. You, of course, implicitly
claim that a distortion is responsible for the lifelike quality, but
you haven't described any distortion that is consistent with the actual
experience of, say, musicians who find analog to be more accurate.

Its is however consistent with the actual experience of the vast
majority of musicians who find digital to be more accurate.

It's the population of musicians who find analog to be more accurate
which is the population you are describing, when you describe the
aesthetic reaction to analog. If you want to describe this popluation,
then "the musicians who find digital to be more accurate" are not
relevant.

Even if it were a "vast majority", which is a questionable claim seeing
how easy it is to find musicians who express a preference for analog,
why would that matter?

Mike

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
Its is however consistent with the actual experience of the vast
majority of musicians who find digital to be more accurate.

Nice try...................

Really? You talked to all the musicians who prefer digital pesonally?
Or did you read some survey?

Nice try.................



It seems to
me the most obvious explanation is that analog is accurately
reproducing the key patterns.

Unfortunately, that is not consistent with the facts of the matter,
which are that digital is *vastly* more accurate than analogue in
reproducing *all* the patterns.

One typical aspect of the objectivist/subjectivist divide is that the
objectivists think they have categorized all the patterns, while the
subjectivists point out that they don't even know what patterns
correspond to key *musical experiences* such as beauty.

Doesn't matter if you accurately reproduce *everything*.


Since you can't it doesn't matter that it wouldn't matter.



Scott

Chung wrote:
wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 29 Jan 2006 02:26:16 GMT, wrote:

Let's call monochrome a "distortion" since it removes the lifelike
colors. Would you agree that monochrome can enhance the emotional
impact of some scenes, but not all? Would you claim that b&w is
superior for conveying the essence of every possible scene?

I find this unlikely, just as I find it unlikely that a distortion
could make reproduced sound more lifelike in all contexts.

I notice you aren't responding to this.

I think we are not responding to this because it is obviously true. A
distortion cannot make reproduced sound more likelife in all contexts.
And, guess what, it does not.


And you know this how? Can you cite some published studies?



You, of course, implicitly
claim that a distortion is responsible for the lifelike quality, but
you haven't described any distortion that is consistent with the actual
experience of, say, musicians who find analog to be more accurate.

Do those musicians find that a distortion could make reproduced sound
more lifelike in all contexts?


Obviously some musicians find analog make reproduced sound more life
like than digital. *If* that s the result of distortion then the answer
would be yes. It seems you and a few others are in denial about the
fact that some people including some musicians find analog at it's best
to be superior to digital. now I think there is a need for making this
a conditional claim. Digital recording has been getting better over the
years. I know that some musicians that at one time found digital
lacking have come to be quite satisfied with the current SOTA.



See, there is nothing to agree or disagree here.


Yes, I see refusing to accept the reality of many peoples'
dissatisction with digital.

For the simple reason
that only *some*, and not all, musicians find analog to be more accurate
for *some* recordings. Big deal. We all know that perceived accuracy to
one person is not necessarily perceived accuracy to another.


Inexplicably?




It seems to
me the most obvious explanation is that analog is accurately
reproducing the key patterns.

Unfortunately, that is not consistent with the facts of the matter,
which are that digital is *vastly* more accurate than analogue in
reproducing *all* the patterns.

One typical aspect of the objectivist/subjectivist divide is that the
objectivists think they have categorized all the patterns, while the
subjectivists point out that they don't even know what patterns
correspond to key *musical experiences* such as beauty.

More likely, the subjectivists cannot separate audio reproduction from
music.


Thank goodness we have the objectivists to seperate audio reproduction
from music.



Or technical objective facts from preferences.

And I wonder when and where did you read that "objectivists think that
they have categorized all patterns" (whatever that means)? Are you
saying that subjectivists point out that *ubjectivists* don't even know
what patterns correspond to key "musical experiences" such as beauty? I
tend to agree with you there. But what exactly were you trying to say?
Is there a point there?

Perhaps the great divide is that using ambiguity in place of cogent
arguments, certain subjectivists make it nearly impossible to have
meaningful debates. If I were a subjectivist, I would hate to have you
speak for me.


Who would you want? Really, who do you think has given you cause to
question your beliefs in audio from the subjectivist side?




Scott

In article , Chung
wrote:
snip

See, there is nothing to agree or disagree here. For the simple reason
that only *some*, and not all, musicians find analog to be more accurate
for *some* recordings. Big deal. We all know that perceived accuracy to
one person is not necessarily perceived accuracy to another.

I haven't heard of any musicians stating that analog is more accurate,
if by accurate you mean measuring as more accurate. I'd be interested
in reading their views.

Jenn wrote:
In article , Chung
wrote:
snip

See, there is nothing to agree or disagree here. For the simple reason
that only *some*, and not all, musicians find analog to be more accurate
for *some* recordings. Big deal. We all know that perceived accuracy to
one person is not necessarily perceived accuracy to another.

I haven't heard of any musicians stating that analog is more accurate,
if by accurate you mean measuring as more accurate. I'd be interested
in reading their views.

Hi Jenn,

I used the word "accurate" in the sense that a recording captures the
timbre of the instruments, the balance of the players and the musical
"logic" behind their choices, and so on. Many musicians describe that
analog gets these things better.

Mike

wrote:
Chung wrote:
wrote:

You, of course, implicitly
claim that a distortion is responsible for the lifelike quality, but
you haven't described any distortion that is consistent with the actual
experience of, say, musicians who find analog to be more accurate.

Do those musicians find that a distortion could make reproduced sound
more lifelike in all contexts?

They find that analog is more lifelike in virtually all contexts, hence
the unlikeliness that a distortion is responsible. If you wish to
postulate a distortion that is responsible, you need to explain why it
has that specific subjective effect.

One typical aspect of the objectivist/subjectivist divide is that the
objectivists think they have categorized all the patterns, while the
subjectivists point out that they don't even know what patterns
correspond to key *musical experiences* such as beauty.

More likely, the subjectivists cannot separate audio reproduction from
music. Or technical objective facts from preferences.

And I wonder when and where did you read that "objectivists think that
they have categorized all patterns" (whatever that means)?

It's implied by Stewart's comment.

You might want to state which comment. I'll let Stewart decide whether
he implied that "objectivists think they have categorized all patterns",
but I certainly don't think he did.

It is stated directly in an article
by Ethan Winer that appeared in Skeptic Magazine, reproduced he

http://www.ethanwiner.com/audiophoolery.html

You got to understand what you are reading. He is talking about
characterizing audio reproduction. You are talking about musical
experiences. You can have the most measureably accurate reproduction
equipment, and you still may not like it, because you have certain
preferences. No one has "categorized all patterns" as far as determining
what you find to be musical beauty.


It's implied by anyone that thinks accurate audio circuits can be
designed by measurement.

How else is accurate audio circuits designed? By subjective listening?
Show me one audio designer who does not depend on measurements.


No one, subjectivist or objectivist alike, has a good handle on what
patterns correspond to musical beauty. But only objectivists claim it
doesn't matter.

If you can separate audio reproduction from music appreciation, you'll
understand what they are saying.


Mike

Jenn wrote:

In article , Chung
wrote:
snip

See, there is nothing to agree or disagree here. For the simple reason
that only *some*, and not all, musicians find analog to be more accurate
for *some* recordings. Big deal. We all know that perceived accuracy to
one person is not necessarily perceived accuracy to another.

I haven't heard of any musicians stating that analog is more accurate,
if by accurate you mean measuring as more accurate. I'd be interested
in reading their views.

I have not heard any musician stating that analog is more accurate
either. I was simply giving michaelmossey the benefit of the doubt. He
is the one who said that musicians find analog more accurate, as in this
paragraph he wrote (which you snipped) dated 2/1/06:

"You, of course, implicitly claim that a distortion is responsible for
the lifelike quality, but you haven't described any distortion that is
consistent with the actual experience of, say, musicians who find analog
to be more accurate."

On 3 Feb 2006 03:09:33 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 2 Feb 2006 00:32:27 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 29 Jan 2006 02:26:16 GMT, wrote:
It seems to
me the most obvious explanation is that analog is accurately
reproducing the key patterns.

Unfortunately, that is not consistent with the facts of the matter,
which are that digital is *vastly* more accurate than analogue in
reproducing *all* the patterns.

One typical aspect of the objectivist/subjectivist divide is that the
objectivists think they have categorized all the patterns, while the
subjectivists point out that they don't even know what patterns
correspond to key *musical experiences* such as beauty.

Doesn't matter if you accurately reproduce *everything*.

Of course not. It does matter, however, if you accurately reproduce
beauty, since that is one of the aspects of live music audio is
supposed to reproduce.

No, it isn't. High fidelity audio is supposed to reproduce the mic
feed *accurately*. 'Beauty' is in the hands of the performer, and the
ear of the listener.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article ,
wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , Chung
wrote:
snip

See, there is nothing to agree or disagree here. For the simple reason
that only *some*, and not all, musicians find analog to be more accurate
for *some* recordings. Big deal. We all know that perceived accuracy to
one person is not necessarily perceived accuracy to another.

I haven't heard of any musicians stating that analog is more accurate,
if by accurate you mean measuring as more accurate. I'd be interested
in reading their views.

Hi Jenn,

I used the word "accurate" in the sense that a recording captures the
timbre of the instruments, the balance of the players and the musical
"logic" behind their choices, and so on. Many musicians describe that
analog gets these things better.

Mike

Oh, I very much agree, but I wanted to see if any musician is known to
have used the term "analogue is more accurate" in the "measurement"
sense.

Best,
Jenn

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 3 Feb 2006 03:09:33 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 2 Feb 2006 00:32:27 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 29 Jan 2006 02:26:16 GMT, wrote:
It seems to
me the most obvious explanation is that analog is accurately
reproducing the key patterns.

Unfortunately, that is not consistent with the facts of the matter,
which are that digital is *vastly* more accurate than analogue in
reproducing *all* the patterns.

One typical aspect of the objectivist/subjectivist divide is that the
objectivists think they have categorized all the patterns, while the
subjectivists point out that they don't even know what patterns
correspond to key *musical experiences* such as beauty.

Doesn't matter if you accurately reproduce *everything*.

Of course not. It does matter, however, if you accurately reproduce
beauty, since that is one of the aspects of live music audio is
supposed to reproduce.

No, it isn't. High fidelity audio is supposed to reproduce the mic
feed *accurately*. 'Beauty' is in the hands of the performer, and the
ear of the listener.

Unless, of course, the remaining flaws in much audio gear still causes
"loss" of accuracy and some equipment does not. In that sense, such
equipment may be said to be "more musical". And it is even possible that a
small amount of 2nd harmonic distortion makes the sound "more musical",
perhaps by masking other higher order distortions.

On 3 Feb 2006 15:09:55 GMT, wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article , Chung
wrote:
snip

See, there is nothing to agree or disagree here. For the simple reason
that only *some*, and not all, musicians find analog to be more accurate
for *some* recordings. Big deal. We all know that perceived accuracy to
one person is not necessarily perceived accuracy to another.

I haven't heard of any musicians stating that analog is more accurate,
if by accurate you mean measuring as more accurate. I'd be interested
in reading their views.

Hi Jenn,

I used the word "accurate" in the sense that a recording captures the
timbre of the instruments, the balance of the players and the musical
"logic" behind their choices, and so on. Many musicians describe that
analog gets these things better.

Equally, many musicians will state that digital does it better. You
cannot therefore use 'musicians' as a group in support of any such
pro-analogue argument.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 3 Feb 2006 03:09:33 GMT, wrote:


Of course not. It does matter, however, if you accurately reproduce
beauty, since that is one of the aspects of live music audio is
supposed to reproduce.

No, it isn't.


It's no wonder you prefer CDs ;-)

High fidelity audio is supposed to reproduce the mic
feed *accurately*.



Sorry but that is simply not true since a mic feed is an electrical
signal and Hifi is about producing an acoustic output.



'Beauty' is in the hands of the performer, and the
ear of the listener.


Riiiiiight. The equipment used from live performance to playback and
the decisions made by the recording engineers and mastering engineer
and the means by whcih everything is produced has nothing to do with
it.




Scott

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

I thought not at one time then i reconsidered tht opinion.

I'm willing to consider it, but I'm waiting for someone to propose a
distortion mechanism that explains what I actually hear. I would love
to hear your ideas on this.


Yes, try to contact Jim Johnston. I remember him claiming to have some
ideas on this very matter.





Actually harmonic distortion in effect does know because the source of
harmonic distortion is the original signal. So harmonic distortion from
a brass quartet is directly related to the sound of a brass quartet.

But a distortion, like any "tweak" to the music, should improve some
things but not others. If you swap out the brass instruments for
instruments of a different design, it might improve things---but
probably only on certain pieces of music.


why would you assume this? If there is an inherent short coming in the
recording/playback chain (there are many actually) then why would you
assume that there are no colorations that universally act as a counter
to such distortions?

I don't assume it. I just point out that no tweak to live music can
make a universal improvement, hence it is unlikely a tweak to the
reproduction would.


You are comparing apples to oranges here. All playback of live music
goes through the same chain in general. In that chain there may be
inherent colorations that will benifit from the same counter
coloration. Live music does not involve any such common chain that
would make a tweak likely to reap universal benifits.


However, I agree that two distortions could cancel
each other out, or combine synergistically. So which two? What affect
do they have? How do they cancel out?


Again, I would suggest trying to track down Mr. Johnston since he has
technical expertise and seems to have some ideas on this subject. i'm
simply not qualified to comment.






But then, we would agree it
*changed* things, don't you think?


Yes.


I'm still waiting for an explanation
why analog is *generally* superior, *in the sense of more accurate*, if
the distortion is responsible.


I think you may be asking the wrong people. Try asking Doug Sax, Steve
Hoffman or Stan Ricker.

Good point. It would seem reasonble to ask this on this newsgroup
however, seeing as Pinkerton and Chung have stated that analog
distortion is a major cause of the aesthetic reaction to analog.


Were it that they accepted this as a reasonable reaction. OTO the guys
above do see it as a reasonable reaction *and* they have hands on
experience with it. IOW they are actual experts with extensie
experience and don't have a condoncending attitude towards your
aesthetics. check out Steve Hoffman's forum. you will find a lot of
discussions on the subject.





I remember one recording/mastering engineer claiming that the LPs of
his recordings sounded better (more like the original) than the master
tape. I think it may have been Doug Sax.

If it was Doug Sax, wouldn't that have been been a directly mastered
LP?


Not always.


" In that case, he's not claiming that adding an extra stage improved
things.. he's actually claiming that a single stage of LP distorts the
music less than a single stage of tape."


No, in this particular case he was talking about LPs he mastered from
analog master tapes.

Well, that's interesting. It certainly would be an interesting study,
to see which distortion was responsible and the aesthetic effect of
that distortion.


I agree. Seems such info would be of great value to any mastering
engineer looking to make the best sounding CDs.








Well, that may be. I don't have a tremendous amount of experience with
this. But check out Boyk's "Magnesaurus" tape recorder. Every single
design decision was for the purposes of *reducing* distortion.


i agree but then check out his choice of microphones and mic preamp.

I believe he chose those for their accuracy.


His preamp certainly isn't lower in measured distortion than your
garden variety SS mic preamp. His choice of vintage ribbon mic is also
not conventional. I think you will find a substantial difference in the
measured performance of his mic and preamp and the perceptual
performance when compared to the more commonly used stuff. A classic
case of measures poorly and performs excellently.






I would suggest checking out what guys like Steve Hoffman and James
Boyk say about this. I think you will find that they use the distortion
of tubes to increase the life like quality of their work.

Boyk has told me he uses the *accuracy* of tubes, not the *distortion*
of tubes. For example, he probably wouldn't put an extra tube stage in
the chain to add distortion.


"accuracy" becomes a dodgy term here. Now i do know that Boyk at one
time felt SS components color the sound in an ugly way. So I think it
is a matter of accuracy to the elements of sound that he thinks are
important in the inherent beauty of live music. I have not heard him
say that tubes are more accurate in general just better at getting the
important parts of musical reproduction right.

Since the point of audio is to reproduce an aesthetic experience, I
*define* "accuracy" as "getting the important parts of musical
reproduction right."


As i think you have now learned, not everyone defines accuracy as you
do. But it is nice to find someone on RAHE that shares my values in
audio.



Scott

Chung wrote:

How else is accurate audio circuits designed? By subjective listening?
Show me one audio designer who does not depend on measurements.



The designers for Audio Research, VTL, Manley, Joule Electra,
Atma-Sphere......
The list is actually quite long. Many of them certainly do use
measurements o aid their work but they depend on subjective listening
to make final determinations in their designs.





No one, subjectivist or objectivist alike, has a good handle on what
patterns correspond to musical beauty. But only objectivists claim it
doesn't matter.

If you can separate audio reproduction from music appreciation, you'll
understand what they are saying.


There in lies one major problem many subjectivists have with the
objectivist approach to audio. Check out the following at the Joule
Electra website.


".... I should have been able to make the discovery that turned this
thing around, but being an engineer, I was convinced that what measured
the best, sounded the best! For fifteen agonizing years the audio
community struggled with the realization that tube hardware used
judiciously in a playback system almost always produced a more
enjoyable sound and a better illusions of live music.
..... The engineers laughed at this and continued to bash anything that
did not measure perfectly. In fact they were so sure that ordinary
copper wire measured so perfect, the developing high end cable industry
was thought to be a bad joke. In fact you still hear some engineers say
that the best amplifier is a straight wire with gain. Wow, how wrong
can you be!



To put it simply, tubes have a sonic signature that mimics acoustic
music and transistors do not. Now I'm going to lay low while the cannon
shots pass over my head. It is certainly true that good, let's say
average, performance is easier to obtain with solid state hardware than
with tube designs. However, well designed tube equipment coupled with a
good output transformer will sound more musical and is more satisfying
to listen to than solid state at any price. It does take a little
maintenance, but it will warm your feet on a cold winter night. The
next level of sonic achievement can be obtained by use of an all tube
OTL - but that's another story.
..... The real improvement in audio reproduction in the last forty years
has taken place at the ends of the chain - namely good transducers.
These are the devices that change acoustic energy to electrical energy
and back again. Even the CD player, which begins its life with solid
state technology, is a major advancement in transducer technology.
Better analogue circuitry has resulted in very good sounding digital
information recovery, but it still lies in the realm of the vacuum tube
to produce the recorded sound musically and with realism.
..... You will notice that I don't use the term accuracy. This throws us
back into the engineer's argument with the artisans that the most
accurate is the best. The answer to that is a flat no. "

http://www.joule-electra.com/index2.htm



Scott

Chung wrote:
I have not heard any musician stating that analog is more accurate
either.


So you have *never* read anything Jams Boyk has written on the matter
here on this forum?


I was simply giving michaelmossey the benefit of the doubt. He
is the one who said that musicians find analog more accurate, as in this
paragraph he wrote (which you snipped) dated 2/1/06:

"You, of course, implicitly claim that a distortion is responsible for
the lifelike quality, but you haven't described any distortion that is
consistent with the actual experience of, say, musicians who find analog
to be more accurate."


He didn't actually say "musicians find analog more accurate" did he?



Scott

Chung wrote:
wrote:
Chung wrote:
wrote:

You, of course, implicitly
claim that a distortion is responsible for the lifelike quality, but
you haven't described any distortion that is consistent with the actual
experience of, say, musicians who find analog to be more accurate.

Do those musicians find that a distortion could make reproduced sound
more lifelike in all contexts?

They find that analog is more lifelike in virtually all contexts, hence
the unlikeliness that a distortion is responsible. If you wish to
postulate a distortion that is responsible, you need to explain why it
has that specific subjective effect.

One typical aspect of the objectivist/subjectivist divide is that the
objectivists think they have categorized all the patterns, while the
subjectivists point out that they don't even know what patterns
correspond to key *musical experiences* such as beauty.

More likely, the subjectivists cannot separate audio reproduction from
music. Or technical objective facts from preferences.

And I wonder when and where did you read that "objectivists think that
they have categorized all patterns" (whatever that means)?

It's implied by Stewart's comment.

You might want to state which comment. I'll let Stewart decide whether
he implied that "objectivists think they have categorized all patterns",
but I certainly don't think he did.

It is stated directly in an article
by Ethan Winer that appeared in Skeptic Magazine, reproduced he

http://www.ethanwiner.com/audiophoolery.html

You got to understand what you are reading. He is talking about
characterizing audio reproduction. You are talking about musical
experiences.

I thought the point of audio reproduction was to facilitate a musical
experience! An accurate audio system is one that reproduces the
original experience as closely as possible.

Winer reduces all possible behaviors of a system to a few categories.
But life always operates outside our models of it, and the experience
of a listener is the final and only test of audio performance.

Mike


You can have the most measureably accurate reproduction
equipment, and you still may not like it, because you have certain
preferences. No one has "categorized all patterns" as far as determining
what you find to be musical beauty.


It's implied by anyone that thinks accurate audio circuits can be
designed by measurement.

How else is accurate audio circuits designed? By subjective listening?
Show me one audio designer who does not depend on measurements.


No one, subjectivist or objectivist alike, has a good handle on what
patterns correspond to musical beauty. But only objectivists claim it
doesn't matter.

If you can separate audio reproduction from music appreciation, you'll
understand what they are saying.


Mike

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 3 Feb 2006 03:09:33 GMT, wrote:


Of course not. It does matter, however, if you accurately reproduce
beauty, since that is one of the aspects of live music audio is
supposed to reproduce.

No, it isn't. High fidelity audio is supposed to reproduce the mic
feed *accurately*. 'Beauty' is in the hands of the performer, and the
ear of the listener.

Believe it or not, a physical medium does in fact transmit the actions
of the performer to the ear of the listener. That qualifies the
performer and listener to make the final judgment on whether a system
has reproduced the music accurately.

Mike

wrote:
Chung wrote:
wrote:
Chung wrote:
wrote:

You, of course, implicitly
claim that a distortion is responsible for the lifelike quality, but
you haven't described any distortion that is consistent with the actual
experience of, say, musicians who find analog to be more accurate.

Do those musicians find that a distortion could make reproduced sound
more lifelike in all contexts?

They find that analog is more lifelike in virtually all contexts, hence
the unlikeliness that a distortion is responsible. If you wish to
postulate a distortion that is responsible, you need to explain why it
has that specific subjective effect.

One typical aspect of the objectivist/subjectivist divide is that the
objectivists think they have categorized all the patterns, while the
subjectivists point out that they don't even know what patterns
correspond to key *musical experiences* such as beauty.

More likely, the subjectivists cannot separate audio reproduction from
music. Or technical objective facts from preferences.

And I wonder when and where did you read that "objectivists think that
they have categorized all patterns" (whatever that means)?

It's implied by Stewart's comment.

You might want to state which comment. I'll let Stewart decide whether
he implied that "objectivists think they have categorized all patterns",
but I certainly don't think he did.

It is stated directly in an article
by Ethan Winer that appeared in Skeptic Magazine, reproduced he

http://www.ethanwiner.com/audiophoolery.html

You got to understand what you are reading. He is talking about
characterizing audio reproduction. You are talking about musical
experiences.

I thought the point of audio reproduction was to facilitate a musical
experience!

The "point" of audio reproduction is to be as accurate as possible in
the technical sense. That's why they are going to higher bit rates and
higher resolutions: so as to be as faithful as possible to the original
signal that is to be captured and replayed. We want the output to be a
faithful scaled version of the input. When you do that, then you are
capturing all that can be captured. That way, you can enjoy the musical
experience as it was recorded. In that regard, the audio reproduction
facilitates a musical experience, if you want to use those ambiguous
words. Of course, you may not like that musical experience. But you
have to separate audio reproduction from subjective evaluation of music.

An accurate audio system is one that reproduces the
original experience as closely as possible.

An accurate audio system is one that reproduces the input signal
accurately so that errors in the output are minimized. It allows you to
experience the music as it is recorded, *not necessarily* as you may
like it.


Winer reduces all possible behaviors of a system to a few categories.
But life always operates outside our models of it, and the experience
of a listener is the final and only test of audio performance.

No, the test of whether an audio system is accurate or not can be
performed by instruments. Whether you will like a piece of audio gear or
not depends a lot of things. On any given recording, you may like that
recording more if there are distortions added, and that's OK since it is
your preference. Just like someone may want to pump up the bass more, or
turn up the treble. It may sound better, but it may not be more
accurate. What I like and what you like are different.

If we use your definition, then an accurate system is simply one that
you like. Not much meaning to other people.



Mike


You can have the most measureably accurate reproduction
equipment, and you still may not like it, because you have certain
preferences. No one has "categorized all patterns" as far as determining
what you find to be musical beauty.


It's implied by anyone that thinks accurate audio circuits can be
designed by measurement.

How else is accurate audio circuits designed? By subjective listening?
Show me one audio designer who does not depend on measurements.


No one, subjectivist or objectivist alike, has a good handle on what
patterns correspond to musical beauty. But only objectivists claim it
doesn't matter.

If you can separate audio reproduction from music appreciation, you'll
understand what they are saying.


Mike

On 4 Feb 2006 14:44:51 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 3 Feb 2006 03:09:33 GMT, wrote:


Of course not. It does matter, however, if you accurately reproduce
beauty, since that is one of the aspects of live music audio is
supposed to reproduce.

No, it isn't. High fidelity audio is supposed to reproduce the mic
feed *accurately*. 'Beauty' is in the hands of the performer, and the
ear of the listener.

Believe it or not, a physical medium does in fact transmit the actions
of the performer to the ear of the listener. That qualifies the
performer and listener to make the final judgment on whether a system
has reproduced the music accurately.

I seriously doubt that the performer is ever in a position to make
such a judgement, there's *way* too much non-audio-related stuff going
on in his head to render that possible.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

wrote:

. . .

I thought the point of audio reproduction was to facilitate a musical
experience! An accurate audio system is one that reproduces the
original experience as closely as possible.


It would be nice if you would define "original experience".
Then we can think about if it is possible to record it, how to record
it, and how to reproduce it. For now all that we can do well is to
record electrical signal produced by microphone.

Another problem in your approach is that even if you listen the
same recording twice you have to different experiences. I will have two
different experiences that are different from yours. So what particular
"experience" is right? All of them? Only one of them? What do you
expect that audio system should reproduce?

Just think about what you really want and try to express it in
objective terms. (OOPS!!! Did I commit blasphemy?)

vova

Winer reduces all possible behaviors of a system to a few categories.
But life always operates outside our models of it, and the experience
of a listener is the final and only test of audio performance.

Mike


You can have the most measureably accurate reproduction
equipment, and you still may not like it, because you have certain
preferences. No one has "categorized all patterns" as far as determining
what you find to be musical beauty.


It's implied by anyone that thinks accurate audio circuits can be
designed by measurement.

How else is accurate audio circuits designed? By subjective listening?
Show me one audio designer who does not depend on measurements.


No one, subjectivist or objectivist alike, has a good handle on what
patterns correspond to musical beauty. But only objectivists claim it
doesn't matter.

If you can separate audio reproduction from music appreciation, you'll
understand what they are saying.


Mike

Chung wrote:
wrote:

I thought the point of audio reproduction was to facilitate a musical
experience!

The "point" of audio reproduction is to be as accurate as possible in
the technical sense.


Thank goodness you don't have the power to dictate your will on
everyone else. That may be the point for YOU but it is hardly the point
for all audiophiles. I am of the school of belief that the technlogy is
there to serve the aesthetic. You seem to believe that the aesthetic
should comply to the technical. That certainly is what "The "point" of
audio reproduction is to be as accurate as possible in the technical
sense." says to me. you are free to prioritize the technical aspects of
audio over the aesthetic aspects but no one is free to dictate that to
others.



That's why they are going to higher bit rates and
higher resolutions: so as to be as faithful as possible to the original
signal that is to be captured and replayed.


I thought the market was going towards MP3.


We want the output to be a
faithful scaled version of the input.

We? I suggest you speak for yourself.


When you do that, then you are
capturing all that can be captured. That way, you can enjoy the musical
experience as it was recorded.


Unfortunately that is an overly simplistic view of the whole picture
and when implemented that wayoften failes misreably. Thankfully we have
people in recording and mastering that understand thee is so much more
to the picture. They are the ones responsible for the vat majorty of
great sounding LPs and, gasp, CDs not to mention DVD-As and SACDs. here
is a taste of the real complexities involved in creating truly
outstanding LPs and CDs.
http://www.classicrecs.com/frames/be...s_frameset.htm
This illustrates a fine example of the care that is needed in making
critical choices during the mastering process. this idea that digital
solves all and all you have to do is run a straight transfer to digital
is completely wrong headed and destined to wrought terrible results in
many cases. To get an idea of another level of complexity in the whole
process one need look no further than the paper presented to the AESJ
by the folks that remastered the Mercury catalog. Seems that getting
what is on the master tape onto the commercial CD is not as easy as it
seems on paper.


In that regard, the audio reproduction
facilitates a musical experience, if you want to use those ambiguous
words. Of course, you may not like that musical experience. But you
have to separate audio reproduction from subjective evaluation of music.


You don't. and the real masters of recording and mastering don't. Not
to mention the designers of the best playback equipment.




An accurate audio system is one that reproduces the
original experience as closely as possible.

An accurate audio system is one that reproduces the input signal
accurately so that errors in the output are minimized. It allows you to
experience the music as it is recorded, *not necessarily* as you may
like it.


Accuracy is always measured by a reference. you may choose an
electrical signal as a reference but that is not something everyone
else has to choose. That is also a significant difference betwen many
objectivists and subjectivists. Perhaps something as quantifiable as an
electrcal signal makes objectivists more comfortable as a reference but
it makes no sense for those who want to recreate the sound of live
music in their home.





Winer reduces all possible behaviors of a system to a few categories.
But life always operates outside our models of it, and the experience
of a listener is the final and only test of audio performance.

No, the test of whether an audio system is accurate or not can be
performed by instruments.


Can you cite any such measurements? I would suspect that would involve
comparing the mic feed of a live event to the mic feed of a playback
system using the original mic feed of the live event as a source and
measuring the sound at the listener position to the orignal mic feed.



Whether you will like a piece of audio gear or
not depends a lot of things. On any given recording, you may like that
recording more if there are distortions added, and that's OK since it is
your preference. Just like someone may want to pump up the bass more, or
turn up the treble. It may sound better, but it may not be more
accurate. What I like and what you like are different.


Accurate to what? An inaudible electrical signal? Just because you
choose a reference that makes measurements an easier task does not make
your reference a superior one for making astheic judgements on
playback.




If we use your definition, then an accurate system is simply one that
you like.


WRONG. First you must understand the subjectivist position before you
can crtique it. live sound is not arbitrary


Not much meaning to other people.


Again, I suggest you speak for yourself. I find plenty of meaning in
Mike's ideas of accuracy in audio. Just because You don't get it
doesn't mean there is nothing to get.

Scott

Chung wrote:
wrote:
Chung wrote:
wrote:

It is stated directly in an article
by Ethan Winer that appeared in Skeptic Magazine, reproduced he

http://www.ethanwiner.com/audiophoolery.html

You got to understand what you are reading. He is talking about
characterizing audio reproduction. You are talking about musical
experiences.

I thought the point of audio reproduction was to facilitate a musical
experience!

The "point" of audio reproduction is to be as accurate as possible in
the technical sense. That's why they are going to higher bit rates and
higher resolutions: so as to be as faithful as possible to the original
signal that is to be captured and replayed. We want the output to be a
faithful scaled version of the input. When you do that, then you are
capturing all that can be captured.

This is the basic objectivist/subjectivist disagreement. The final test
of accuracy is to listen to some live music, then listen to the
reproduction, and ask if they are similar. Measurements are appealing,
but they never capture every dimension of the system's behavior, and
often systems that measure very well fall down in their ability to
simply reproduce the qualities of music which are evident live.

That way, you can enjoy the musical
experience as it was recorded. In that regard, the audio reproduction
facilitates a musical experience, if you want to use those ambiguous
words. Of course, you may not like that musical experience. But you
have to separate audio reproduction from subjective evaluation of music.

You have to understand that the final evaluation of a system's
performance is how well it reproduces this "ambiguous" thing called a
musical experience. Measurements are appealing because they are simpler
and direct to work with, but unfortunately audio is not that simple.
It's no simpler than music-making itself.


An accurate audio system is one that reproduces the
original experience as closely as possible.

An accurate audio system is one that reproduces the input signal
accurately so that errors in the output are minimized. It allows you to
experience the music as it is recorded, *not necessarily* as you may
like it.


Winer reduces all possible behaviors of a system to a few categories.
But life always operates outside our models of it, and the experience
of a listener is the final and only test of audio performance.

No, the test of whether an audio system is accurate or not can be
performed by instruments. Whether you will like a piece of audio gear or
not depends a lot of things. On any given recording, you may like that
recording more if there are distortions added, and that's OK since it is
your preference.

I'm interested in comparing live sound to the reproduction, not simply
asking what I like. I'm still waiting for someone to explain which
distortion makes analog more lifelike in a way that corresponds to what
we actually experience.. for example, which distortion makes harmonic
intervals have the right quality, same as live?

Just like someone may want to pump up the bass more, or
turn up the treble. It may sound better, but it may not be more
accurate. What I like and what you like are different.

If we use your definition, then an accurate system is simply one that
you like. Not much meaning to other people.

There are differences in what people listen for. You have the same bind
with measurements; when your measurements don't have any correspondance
with the patterns that concern me, then your measurements don't have
any meaning to me. The idea that audio performance can be reduced to
objective measurements is appealing, since it appears to make things
simpler, but this is an illusion.

Mike

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 4 Feb 2006 14:44:51 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 3 Feb 2006 03:09:33 GMT, wrote:


Of course not. It does matter, however, if you accurately reproduce
beauty, since that is one of the aspects of live music audio is
supposed to reproduce.

No, it isn't. High fidelity audio is supposed to reproduce the mic
feed *accurately*. 'Beauty' is in the hands of the performer, and the
ear of the listener.

Believe it or not, a physical medium does in fact transmit the actions
of the performer to the ear of the listener. That qualifies the
performer and listener to make the final judgment on whether a system
has reproduced the music accurately.

I seriously doubt that the performer is ever in a position to make
such a judgement, there's *way* too much non-audio-related stuff going
on in his head to render that possible.

Actually, a good performer is focused primarily on sound. In
practicing, they listen. In performing, they listen. The body movements
should be background.

This is not to say a performer has a complete understanding of how they
sound. They can benefit from hearing a recording of themselves, and
James Boyk wrote a whole book about that (To Hear Outselves As Others
Hear Us).

Nonetheless, a performer knows what sound they intended, and in
particular what modulations of that sound were intended (e.g.
articulation). Modulations are abstract, in the sense they can be
perceived from different perspectives. When system A makes those clear,
and system B doesn't, then system A is arguably more accurate.

It turns out that for many musicans, system A is analog. I have not
seen any reasonable explanation for this other than system A is
accurately reproducing the signal patterns which convey these
modulations.

Mike

vlad wrote:
wrote:

. . .

I thought the point of audio reproduction was to facilitate a musical
experience! An accurate audio system is one that reproduces the
original experience as closely as possible.


It would be nice if you would define "original experience".
Then we can think about if it is possible to record it, how to record
it, and how to reproduce it. For now all that we can do well is to
record electrical signal produced by microphone.

Another problem in your approach is that even if you listen the
same recording twice you have to different experiences. I will have two
different experiences that are different from yours. So what particular
"experience" is right? All of them? Only one of them? What do you
expect that audio system should reproduce?

Just think about what you really want and try to express it in
objective terms. (OOPS!!! Did I commit blasphemy?)

vova


Basically you prefer to work with objective terms because they seem
more concrete, more absolute and universal. It's an illusion to think
that this has gotten you any closer to accurately reproducing a live
experience.

And yes, what is accurate is relative to an individual's perspective,
and an experience can be different each time. However, common
experiences between individuals exist, stable abstract perceptions
exist.

The problem with retreating from this "messiness" into the emphasis on
measurements, is that you haven't gotten any closer to understanding
what patterns people perceive in live music or how to reproduce those
experiences. Furthermore, if you were to say that

Person A likes CD because it is accurate

Person B likes analog because he likes the distortion

These statements become meaningless. They are tautological within the
framework that "accuracy = our known measurements"

Mike

vlad wrote:
wrote:

. . .

I thought the point of audio reproduction was to facilitate a musical
experience! An accurate audio system is one that reproduces the
original experience as closely as possible.


It would be nice if you would define "original experience".


That would be the original performance of the music being recorded.


Then we can think about if it is possible to record it,

of course it is possible to record it. How else would we have anything
to play back? The question is whether or not it is possible to record
it and play it back with no percievable distortions. The answer is no.
Then the question for me becomes what does the best job of providing
the next best thing.


how to record
it, and how to reproduce it. For now all that we can do well is to
record electrical signal produced by microphone.


Well no. not even close. There is more to it than just recording the
signal off the mic. That is just one link in a long chain of important
elements.



Another problem in your approach is that even if you listen the
same recording twice you have to different experiences.


You mean that doesn't happen if one becomes an objectivist?


I will have two
different experiences that are different from yours. So what particular
"experience" is right? All of them? Only one of them?


All of them. how can one have a wrong experience when the point is the
experience? OTOH if for some the point isn't the experience then it
makes complete sense to brand certain experiences wrong given that they
will vary.


What do you
expect that audio system should reproduce?


I want it to reproduce the elements of live music hat gives it it's
intrinsic beauty. Of course it's nice if it could get everything right
but I do have priorities when it comes to colorations.




Just think about what you really want and try to express it in
objective terms. (OOPS!!! Did I commit blasphemy?)


I think it has been said many times that some of us simply don't know
how to quantify such things. one does not need a technical explination
for their experiences to actually have those experiences. It's up to
the engineers to come up with the objective causes. the good ones
actually do this rather than just ignore subjective perceptions.


Scott

wrote:
vlad wrote:
wrote:

. . .

I thought the point of audio reproduction was to facilitate a musical
experience! An accurate audio system is one that reproduces the
original experience as closely as possible.


It would be nice if you would define "original experience".
Then we can think about if it is possible to record it, how to record
it, and how to reproduce it. For now all that we can do well is to
record electrical signal produced by microphone.

Another problem in your approach is that even if you listen the
same recording twice you have to different experiences. I will have two
different experiences that are different from yours. So what particular
"experience" is right? All of them? Only one of them? What do you
expect that audio system should reproduce?

Just think about what you really want and try to express it in
objective terms. (OOPS!!! Did I commit blasphemy?)

vlad


Basically you prefer to work with objective terms because they seem
more concrete, more absolute and universal. It's an illusion to think
that this has gotten you any closer to accurately reproducing a live
experience.

And yes, what is accurate is relative to an individual's perspective,
and an experience can be different each time. However, common
experiences between individuals exist, stable abstract perceptions
exist.

The problem with retreating from this "messiness" into the emphasis on
measurements, is that you haven't gotten any closer to understanding
what patterns people perceive in live music or how to reproduce those
experiences. Furthermore, if you were to say that

Person A likes CD because it is accurate

Person B likes analog because he likes the distortion

These statements become meaningless. They are tautological within the
framework that "accuracy = our known measurements"

Mike

I must confess that I am at a total loss about what you said. I cannot
find even one bit of information here. Does anybody else understand
what it is about?

I'll try one more time. Literally you said:


I thought the point of audio reproduction was to facilitate a musical
experience! An accurate audio system is one that reproduces the
original experience as closely as possible.


I hope you will agree with me that musical experience depend on many
factors and not only on the sound produced by the real musical
ensemble, orchestra, singer, etc. For instance it depends on the
temperature of the air, if you listen to them being hungry or after
good dinner, if you had a quarrel with your girlfriend this day, if you
are tired or not, etc., etc. Every time you particular experience will
be colored by the factors that you probably even will not recognize
consciously.

So how you expect recording engineer to capture this experience? For
reproducing "original experience" you must capture it first,
don't you agree?

This is the part of the problem. At reproduction time you will have
different musical experiences in different listening sessions anyway.
It means that the recording did not capture 'original experience'
just because you have differences experiences from the same recording
played on the same equipment and probably reproducing absolutely the
same sound in both times. And if they are different than one of them is
grossly wrong. In this case, is recording engineer at fault? Is digital
technology at fault?

I just want you to be precise in your thinking and expression of your
thinking. That's all. Of course, if all that you are interested is in
having a 'meaningful discussion' with another similarly minded
subjectivist than it is not me. I have more important things to do in
life then have this 'meaningful' talk with you :-)

My point of view is that one has a different experience every time when
he is listening the same piece of music. Factors affecting him are
innumerous. I expect from the recording exact replica of the signal
that fed in. And I trust the competently designed gear to do it for me.


In real life people hinting me about mystical properties of audio gear
that "can be heard, but cannot be measured" most probably want to pick
my pocket.

Vlad

PS. BTW, Harry's 'monadic' listening test suffers from the same
problems as "reproduction of original experience".

"vlad" wrote in message
...
wrote:
vlad wrote:
wrote:


snip, not relevant to following


PS. BTW, Harry's 'monadic' listening test suffers from the same
problems as "reproduction of original experience".

Vlad -

I respectfully suggest that you have misunderstood my monadic test
proposals.

I have discussed two he

1) The first, part of a validatin proceedure for abx, carefully matched
panels of 200 people for each of two variables. Differences in "listener
experience" are thus averaged out over the 200 people, and because the
panels are matched on key characteristics, "listening experience" due to
these variables are minimized. This type of testing could be done
professionally on an occassional basis by a large organization, but is not
practical to organize for hobbyists.

2) An extended A vs B test using monadic testing at home. In this case,
each listening session is monadically rated. However by doing two pieces of
gear, each over many, many trials the fluctuations in "listening experience"
due to extraneous variables tends to even out. I hasten to add that this is
not a very practical test in any case due to the number of trials and time
needed.

While in both cases, the listening and ratings are done monadically, the
test design itself takes account of and neutralizes "listening experience"
variables.

Harry

vlad wrote:
wrote:
vlad wrote:
wrote:

. . .

I thought the point of audio reproduction was to facilitate a musical
experience! An accurate audio system is one that reproduces the
original experience as closely as possible.


It would be nice if you would define "original experience".
Then we can think about if it is possible to record it, how to record
it, and how to reproduce it. For now all that we can do well is to
record electrical signal produced by microphone.

Another problem in your approach is that even if you listen the
same recording twice you have to different experiences. I will have two
different experiences that are different from yours. So what particular
"experience" is right? All of them? Only one of them? What do you
expect that audio system should reproduce?

Just think about what you really want and try to express it in
objective terms. (OOPS!!! Did I commit blasphemy?)

vlad


Basically you prefer to work with objective terms because they seem
more concrete, more absolute and universal. It's an illusion to think
that this has gotten you any closer to accurately reproducing a live
experience.

And yes, what is accurate is relative to an individual's perspective,
and an experience can be different each time. However, common
experiences between individuals exist, stable abstract perceptions
exist.

The problem with retreating from this "messiness" into the emphasis on
measurements, is that you haven't gotten any closer to understanding
what patterns people perceive in live music or how to reproduce those
experiences. Furthermore, if you were to say that

Person A likes CD because it is accurate

Person B likes analog because he likes the distortion

These statements become meaningless. They are tautological within the
framework that "accuracy = our known measurements"

Mike

I must confess that I am at a total loss about what you said. I cannot
find even one bit of information here. Does anybody else understand
what it is about?


Yeah, i had no trouble undestanding Mike's point. as I said to somebody
else, just because you don't get it doesn't mean there is nothing to
get.



I'll try one more time. Literally you said:


I thought the point of audio reproduction was to facilitate a musical
experience! An accurate audio system is one that reproduces the
original experience as closely as possible.


I hope you will agree with me that musical experience depend on many
factors and not only on the sound produced by the real musical
ensemble, orchestra, singer, etc. For instance it depends on the
temperature of the air, if you listen to them being hungry or after
good dinner, if you had a quarrel with your girlfriend this day, if you
are tired or not, etc., etc. Every time you particular experience will
be colored by the factors that you probably even will not recognize
consciously.

So how you expect recording engineer to capture this experience?

By doing his best to capture the aural event.


For
reproducing "original experience" you must capture it first,
don't you agree?

Of course. But it is alays a matter of degree in the end.



This is the part of the problem.


it is not news that there is no perfect way to record a live musical
event.


At reproduction time you will have
different musical experiences in different listening sessions anyway.
It means that the recording did not capture 'original experience'
just because you have differences experiences from the same recording
played on the same equipment and probably reproducing absolutely the
same sound in both times. And if they are different than one of them is
grossly wrong. In this case, is recording engineer at fault? Is digital
technology at fault?


No. But you are missing the point. Just because one's experience is
subject to other factors does not render one's experience uterly ranom
in nature. The quality of the recording and playback will be the
over-riding factor in the long run. that allows us to ignore the other
factors that you sem to be quite caught up on.



I just want you to be precise in your thinking and expression of your
thinking. That's all.


Maybe there is a Usnet rec. precise expression group that may
facilitate your desires. if your poin is about that and not about audio
you are off topic.



Of course, if all that you are interested is in
having a 'meaningful discussion' with another similarly minded
subjectivist than it is not me. I have more important things to do in
life then have this 'meaningful' talk with you :-)


then get to them.



My point of view is that one has a different experience every time when
he is listening the same piece of music. Factors affecting him are
innumerous. I expect from the recording exact replica of the signal
that fed in.

Then you will be disappointed. it nver happens.


And I trust the competently designed gear to do it for me.


Sounds like blind faith. What is objective about that?




In real life people hinting me about mystical properties of audio gear
that "can be heard, but cannot be measured" most probably want to pick
my pocket.


Irrelevant. No one is talking about magic here.




Vlad

PS. BTW, Harry's 'monadic' listening test suffers from the same
problems as "reproduction of original experience".


Suffers from or enjoys? I think the later.


Scott

On 5 Feb 2006 21:16:07 GMT, wrote:

Nonetheless, a performer knows what sound they intended, and in
particular what modulations of that sound were intended (e.g.
articulation). Modulations are abstract, in the sense they can be
perceived from different perspectives. When system A makes those clear,
and system B doesn't, then system A is arguably more accurate.

It turns out that for many musicans, system A is analog. I have not
seen any reasonable explanation for this other than system A is
accurately reproducing the signal patterns which convey these
modulations.

Try finding a reasonable explanation for the preference of many
musicians for digital. Here's a clue - personal preference has little
to do with accuracy of reproduction.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 5 Feb 2006 21:16:07 GMT, wrote:

Nonetheless, a performer knows what sound they intended, and in
particular what modulations of that sound were intended (e.g.
articulation). Modulations are abstract, in the sense they can be
perceived from different perspectives. When system A makes those clear,
and system B doesn't, then system A is arguably more accurate.

It turns out that for many musicans, system A is analog. I have not
seen any reasonable explanation for this other than system A is
accurately reproducing the signal patterns which convey these
modulations.

Try finding a reasonable explanation for the preference of many
musicians for digital. Here's a clue - personal preference has little
to do with accuracy of reproduction.

Of course some musician "prefer" digital. And some find it more life
like. Same as analog.

I think there is a question lurking behind your comments which you have
not addressed:

If a musician states that system X sounds more like life, how are we to
determine whether this perception is based on just liking the sound, or
based on an accurate reproduction of the patterns that that particular
musician perceives in live sound?

Mike

wrote:

If a musician states that system X sounds more like life, how are we to
determine whether this perception is based on just liking the sound, or
based on an accurate reproduction of the patterns that that particular
musician perceives in live sound?

A very good question. The short and easy answer is, we can't. You're
talking about a judgment that occurs inside someone's brain. We don't
know very much about that sort of thing; psychoacoustics is largely
concerned with what sonic information reaches the brain, not what the
brain does with it. I think the most we can say is that the latter
explanation would be more plausible if system X were more accurate in
the technical sense.

Here's a question in return: Why should we care? For manufacturers, the
key question is, what do consumers prefer? That's the question you ask
if you want to maximize sales. It doesn't really matter why they prefer
something. If some subset of consumers prefer a system that adds a lot
of second harmonic distortion, someone can and will make money selling
components that add that distortion. He won't care whether his
customers think the sound is more life-like, less life-like, or just
"better."

So why does it matter WHY someone thinks one system sounds more
lifelike than another?

bob

bob wrote:
wrote:


If a musician states that system X sounds more like life, how are we to
determine whether this perception is based on just liking the sound, or
based on an accurate reproduction of the patterns that that particular
musician perceives in live sound?


A very good question. The short and easy answer is, we can't. You're
talking about a judgment that occurs inside someone's brain. We don't
know very much about that sort of thing; psychoacoustics is largely
concerned with what sonic information reaches the brain, not what the
brain does with it. I think the most we can say is that the latter
explanation would be more plausible if system X were more accurate in
the technical sense.

Here's a question in return: Why should we care? For manufacturers, the
key question is, what do consumers prefer? That's the question you ask
if you want to maximize sales. It doesn't really matter why they prefer
something. If some subset of consumers prefer a system that adds a lot
of second harmonic distortion, someone can and will make money selling
components that add that distortion.

Only if that someone does not honestly advertise said components as
having more second order harmonic distortion. Instead he has to use
adjectives like "life-like", "musically accurate", "emotionally
involving", "magical", and so on. Better yet, get some reviewers to do that.

He won't care whether his
customers think the sound is more life-like, less life-like, or just
"better."

So why does it matter WHY someone thinks one system sounds more
lifelike than another?

Especially when another person may think otherwise?


bob

bob wrote:
wrote:

If a musician states that system X sounds more like life, how are we to
determine whether this perception is based on just liking the sound, or
based on an accurate reproduction of the patterns that that particular
musician perceives in live sound?

A very good question. The short and easy answer is, we can't. You're
talking about a judgment that occurs inside someone's brain. We don't
know very much about that sort of thing; psychoacoustics is largely
concerned with what sonic information reaches the brain, not what the
brain does with it. I think the most we can say is that the latter
explanation would be more plausible if system X were more accurate in
the technical sense.

Well, again accuracy is very much a matter of what one chooses as a
reference. I see a fundamnetal problem with choosing an inaudible
signal that has already been profoundly affected by a transducer as a
reference for playback which is acoustic. so if we really want to
mesure accuracy we have to begin and end with an acoustic event and
compare that. It may be harder to do but it involves a meaningful
reference.




Here's a question in return: Why should we care?


Because the answers could lead to greater satisfaction for the
hobbyists.



For manufacturers, the
key question is, what do consumers prefer? That's the question you ask
if you want to maximize sales. It doesn't really matter why they prefer
something. If some subset of consumers prefer a system that adds a lot
of second harmonic distortion, someone can and will make money selling
components that add that distortion. He won't care whether his
customers think the sound is more life-like, less life-like, or just
"better."


I think you are selling designers and business owners short here. When
it comes to excellence passion plays an important part. Put a
disinterested designer up against a passionate one that really does
care pesonally about the result and my money is on the designer with
passion. Indeed one has to share the same passion with a particular
market if they are going to compete in that market but that kind of
goes without saying. If you are pasionate builder of models out of
bottle caps you will have to live with a rather small market. The high
end is a cottage industry and those who are passionate live with that
market. I have yet to run across the disinterested designer that has
succeeded in that market.



So why does it matter WHY someone thinks one system sounds more
lifelike than another?


That is very broad question

Scott

Here's a question in return: Why should we care?


Because the answers could lead to greater satisfaction for the
hobbyists.

I can think of another reason in addition to that good one: Because
investigation could lead to general knowledge about human perception,
and that can be useful even outside the audio field. And because the
question is so difficult to investigate scientifically, the challenge
could lead to new understanding of methods of researching difficult
areas of study. And finally because research--pure research--is good
for its own sake, though I realize this view is considered pretty
outdated in today's market-driven world.