[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 19, 5:39?am, Steven Sullivan wrote:

No, it isn't. And as this has been explained dozens, if not hundreds,
if times here, I'm going to suggest you do some more research on
DBT before making such claims.

Now, the problem with non-blind test is that it is necessarily subject to
bias.

How would you design a long-term DBT test in the testee's residence?
How would you protect it from curiosity?

Put another way, unless the test is based on the permanent location &
actual set-up of the equipment it is invalid on its face.

These are issues of practicality and dedication to research, not impossibility. That
something is difficult to do correctly, doesn't make it *impossible*. Someone truly dedicated
to researching the matter could, for example, use an ABX apparatus, or they could recruit a
helper to do a more traditional DBT.

There actually have been DBTs done where the subject was allowed to, and encouraged to, listen
to the two sources for weeks before the actual blind part of the test -- for the purpose of
building confidence that they could tell them apart. Thus they go into the DBT believing
firmly that they can audibly distinguish the two. (Of course, that doesn't mean they really
can -- that's what a blind test tests)

As for testing whether one source is more 'fatiguing' over the long term than another,
it would be a matter of first identifying, sighted, at what point the fatiguing source
becomes 'fatiguing', then doing a set of double blind A/B listening tests each of which lasts
for at least that amount of time. Short of physiologically measuring fatigue, there would be
no other way to scientifically test this.

Meanwhile, you have not addressed the fact that sighted listening, while easy, is simply not
by itself reliable enough to assume dependable accurate evaluation and identification of sonic
differences, especially small or nonexistent ones. If sighted bias didn't exist, there would
be NO REASON FOR BLIND CONTROLS TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE and scientific research itself
would be vastly simplified.



--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

This assumes of course, that you've actually done the
blind tests...it seems most
of the anti-MP3 brigade never even takes that first step.

I did a brief blind test a few years ago and then some
extended sighted listening, which I've already mentioned
at some point, of 256 MP3 downloaded via Real Audio and
played back via my high-end system. It put me firmly in
Sonnova's "ear-bleeding" camp. I haven't been tempted
since.

I have to really shake my head at the recent examples of totally unfair
and
false comments about my biases related to my opinions of the LP.

It is an undisputed fact that I am just about 62 years old, and thus had
nothing but analog sources to listen to with any regularity until 1983 and
the advent of the CD.

That makes 37 years of forced listening to the LP. My first memories of
listening to a record player go back to when I was about 5, so that still
leaves 32 years of conscious memories of listening to essentially nothing
but LPs and a few open reel tapes.

From when I was about 16 until I was 39, (23 years) I had a growing LP
collection that topped out over 1,000 discs, both domestic and import, and
far better than average equipment to play it. From when I was 21 onward,
my
cartridge of choice was the current model of V-15, but I had other fine
cartrdiges on hand such as the ADC XLM. I was an early adopter of the AR
turntable owned 3 different ones when I upgraded to something else, and it
failed me. I eventually moved up to the then best-available Thorens
turntable and SME tonearm which had owned for about 15 years when I
obtained
my first CD player.

I sold my analog equipment about 3 years after I started using my Sony CDP
101, on the grounds of my perceptions of tremendously improved sound
quality with digital.

Shortly after Y2K I reinvested in LP playback equipment, which I use to
this
day for transcribing vinyl to CD for friends and clients. AFAIK, my LP
playback equipment has the best measured performance posted anyplace on
the
internet.

I have accepted many invitations to listen to the high end vinyl playback
setups, on many occasions, and visited and auditioned dozens of high end
vinyl playback setups at HE2005.

With all that said, the very people who disparage my biases have been
admitting that the basis for their tightly-held negative opinions of MP3s
is
a literal handful of ad hoc listening experiences. None seem to be able to
balance that with my vastly greater experience listening to LPs.

It should be very clear that balance, reason, honesty and fairness play no
perceptible role in the highly negative things that have been said about
the
experiential basis for my opinions of the sound quality of the LP. I gave
it
a heck of a chance and it failed me. I moved on, just like several billion
other music lovers.

Perhaps it doesn't take some of us so long. I had no problem moving quickly
to SACD and to a slightly lesser degree, DVD-Audio based on superior audio
quality. But why should I listen to what were clearly inferior
reproductions? And why should I invest in equipment to continue to do so?

[[email protected]]

On Nov 19, 4:29�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message







On Nov 18, 8:43?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



On Nov 17, 8:20 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in
message



When I say GOOD, it is in the context of high-end
audio, IOW it has superior sound quality in that it
sounds more like real, live music, played in a real
space and has a you-are-there palpability that the
average recording (even digital) lacks.

Superior sound quality is impossible when a great deal
of audible noise and distortion can be heard. In fact
there is a widespread belief that freedom from
audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for
superior sound. IOW it is necessary, but not
sufficient.

That is quite an interesting claim. Do you feel that you
are actually getting distortion free sound from your
playback system?

Non-responsive.

Responsive to what? I see no question asked there.

I said "a great deal of audible noise and distortion can
be heard"

You say " distortion free sound from your playback
system?"

Can't you see the difference?-

This is what you said. "there is a widespread belief that
freedom from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite
for superior sound."

That's not the same as distortion-free sound from a playback system. Can you
see why?

Nope. Feel free to explain the difference between "freedom from
audible distortion" and... "audible distortion free." I'm just not
seeing the difference.





My question is based on thay assertion by you. Do you
feel you ar anyone else for that matter are getting
"audible distortion free" playback from their systems?

In the case of digital media like the CD, the playback of the media is
generally distortion free. �However, the speakers and the room aren't
distortion free.

Thank you for making my point. Then it stands to reason that no one is
listening to any playback that is free of audible distortions. Looks
like you set the bar for excellence above that which is possible in
the real world.


After all you seem to be saying it is a prerequisit for
superior sound.

I'm saying that playback of the media that is free of audible distortion and
noise is a prerequisite for superior sound. In addition, the speakers and
room have to be relatively free of audible noise and distoriton, as well.

But speakers, rooms and microphones never are free of audible noise
and distortion. So you have set an unattainable standard for superior
sound. I suppose in the purest sense that is fair. But for practical
purposes it makes the term "superior sound" in playback unusable. So
why bother using it?



Since the LP format, like cassette tape, and low-bitrate MP3 has inherent
noise and distortion that is greater than high quality room+speakers, it is
automatically disqualified as a means to obtain superior sound

That is a purely semantical argument that is ultimately self
defeating. You are really engaging in the classic logical fallacy
known as the moving goal posts. You are moving the standards of
excellence merely to support your prejudices against vinyl.
Unfortunately those specific standards betray your attempt to make
nothing more than a semantic argument against vinyl playback in that
those standards that suit your semantic argument ultimately also
exclude all transducers. You can't have any recording or playback
without transducers. So by your own axioms and logical arguments
superior sound is unattainable. You have painted yourself into a
corner with this argument.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Nov 19, 6:28?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message


What I'm saying is that there's really only one logical
explanation for people who need certain very
characteristic and unnatural kinds of audible noise and
distortion to be added to their recordings so that they
sound real to them, and that is a triumph of bias over
reason.

This is a study in logical fallacies. First logical
fallacy is the reduction of many possibile explinations
to just one.

Prove that there are other fallacious reasons to prefer the sound of vinyl.
Be my guest. If you can't prove that there any other fallacious reasons for
preferring vinyl, then you cannot dispute my point.


Next you use a false premise that people
*need* audible noise and distortion to be added to
recordings so they sound real to them.

Well, at this point it has been conclsively proven that the essence of
recording something on vinyl is adding noise and distortion to it. We have
people who say that a given recording, not even its master tape or digital
master sound right to them until it is re-recorded on vinyl. Therefore we
have proof by analysis of the process that is required for them to perceive
maximum realism from the recording.

And you end with a false dichotomy. Bias or reason.

Are you saying that it is false to characterize them as being different or
relevant?

You miss the obvious
possible explination that it is a result of pure audible
perception.

If it is the result of truely pure audible perception, then there is
actually no need to bother to play the recording. No, sensation and the
nature of the sound coming out of the speakers are relevant, no matter how
you may posture.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message


Its pretty much the same with me. I can listen to
satellite radio in the car or as background at home,

Interesting. I can't tolerate Sirrius/XM at all.

Though not as bad as
streaming radio or iTunes downloads, the lossy
compression used by XM/Sirius is still audible.

iTunes downloads must be really bad, because XM/Sirius is just horrible. I
prefer good analog AM radio to it.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Nov 19, 4:29�pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message







On Nov 18, 8:43?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



On Nov 17, 8:20 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in
message



When I say GOOD, it is in the context of high-end
audio, IOW it has superior sound quality in that it
sounds more like real, live music, played in a real
space and has a you-are-there palpability that the
average recording (even digital) lacks.

Superior sound quality is impossible when a great
deal of audible noise and distortion can be heard.
In fact there is a widespread belief that freedom
from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for
superior sound. IOW it is necessary, but not
sufficient.

That is quite an interesting claim. Do you feel that
you are actually getting distortion free sound from
your playback system?

Non-responsive.

Responsive to what? I see no question asked there.

I said "a great deal of audible noise and distortion
can be heard"

You say " distortion free sound from your playback
system?"

Can't you see the difference?-

This is what you said. "there is a widespread belief
that freedom from audible noise and distortion is
prerequisite for superior sound."

That's not the same as distortion-free sound from a
playback system. Can you see why?

Nope. Feel free to explain the difference between
"freedom from audible distortion" and... "audible
distortion free." I'm just not seeing the difference.

To repeat:

I said "a great deal of audible noise and distortion
can be heard"

You say " distortion free sound from your playback
system?"

Now, without interjecting anything else, explain why the two are the same.

My question is based on they assertion by you. Do you
feel you are anyone else for that matter are getting
"audible distortion free" playback from their systems?

In the case of digital media like the CD, the playback
of the media is generally distortion free. �However,
the speakers and the room aren't distortion free.

Thank you for making my point.

You have a funny way of agreeing with me.

Then it stands to reason
that no one is listening to any playback that is free of
audible distortions.

However, the audible distortions of the LP playback system are audible
through speakers, often just about any speakers, even the 3" speakers on an
AC-DC player. In contrast, the distortions in a representative CD system are
not audible, even on the very best speakers. Big different.

After all you seem to be saying it is a prerequisite for
superior sound.

I'm saying that playback of the media that is free of
audible distortion and noise is a prerequisite for
superior sound. In addition, the speakers and room have
to be relatively free of audible noise and distortion,
as well.

But speakers, rooms and microphones never are free of
audible noise and distortion.

However, they generally have less distortion than is inherent in the LP
format.

Since the LP format, like cassette tape, and low-bitrate
MP3 has inherent noise and distortion that is greater
than high quality room+speakers, it is automatically
disqualified as a means to obtain superior sound

That is a purely semantical argument that is ultimately
self defeating.

No its not. It's a very practical real-world argument. In fact no discussion
of word meanings are contained in it. Semantics is the study of the meaning
of words, as you apparently don't seem to know. Semantics and that paragraph
are irrelevant.

You are really engaging in the classic
logical fallacy known as the moving goal posts

Again you are wrong because a fixed reference, being the distortion of "high
quality room+speakers," was referenced. The goal posts are fixed for the
duration of the discussion, for all practical purposes.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

This assumes of course, that you've actually done the
blind tests...it seems most
of the anti-MP3 brigade never even takes that first
step.

I did a brief blind test a few years ago and then some
extended sighted listening, which I've already mentioned
at some point, of 256 MP3 downloaded via Real Audio and
played back via my high-end system. It put me firmly in
Sonnova's "ear-bleeding" camp. I haven't been tempted
since.

I have to really shake my head at the recent examples of
totally unfair and
false comments about my biases related to my opinions of
the LP.

It is an undisputed fact that I am just about 62 years
old, and thus had nothing but analog sources to listen
to with any regularity until 1983 and the advent of the
CD.

That makes 37 years of forced listening to the LP. My
first memories of listening to a record player go back
to when I was about 5, so that still leaves 32 years of
conscious memories of listening to essentially nothing
but LPs and a few open reel tapes.

From when I was about 16 until I was 39, (23 years) I
had a growing LP
collection that topped out over 1,000 discs, both
domestic and import, and far better than average
equipment to play it. From when I was 21 onward, my
cartridge of choice was the current model of V-15, but I
had other fine cartrdiges on hand such as the ADC XLM.
I was an early adopter of the AR turntable owned 3
different ones when I upgraded to something else, and it
failed me. I eventually moved up to the then
best-available Thorens turntable and SME tonearm which
had owned for about 15 years when I obtained
my first CD player.

I sold my analog equipment about 3 years after I started
using my Sony CDP 101, on the grounds of my perceptions
of tremendously improved sound quality with digital.

Shortly after Y2K I reinvested in LP playback equipment,
which I use to this
day for transcribing vinyl to CD for friends and
clients. AFAIK, my LP playback equipment has the best
measured performance posted anyplace on the
internet.

I have accepted many invitations to listen to the high
end vinyl playback setups, on many occasions, and
visited and auditioned dozens of high end vinyl playback
setups at HE2005.

With all that said, the very people who disparage my
biases have been admitting that the basis for their
tightly-held negative opinions of MP3s is
a literal handful of ad hoc listening experiences. None
seem to be able to balance that with my vastly greater
experience listening to LPs.

It should be very clear that balance, reason, honesty
and fairness play no perceptible role in the highly
negative things that have been said about the
experiential basis for my opinions of the sound quality
of the LP. I gave it
a heck of a chance and it failed me. I moved on, just
like several billion other music lovers.

Perhaps it doesn't take some of us so long.

Actually, it took you far longer. Or have you finally scrapped your LP
playback system?

I had no
problem moving quickly to SACD and to a slightly lesser
degree,

Harry, you seem to be very confused, This is not about giving CD a chance,
this is about me giving the LP a chance.

DVD-Audio based on superior audio quality.

Now Harry, you are massively confused, because DVD-A is not relevant to the
discussion at all.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...

Streaming internet is generally *not* a demonstration of
high MP3 quality.

To say the least. It looks like people are changing their stories again and
again. A lot of internet streaming audio is not MP3 at all.

No, but it is one of the more practical uses of it, and
as a sound source it sucks.

Interesting how people are wandering (backpedaling?) away from actually
discussion reasonble-bitrate MP3s.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 19, 7:52�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



On Nov 19, 6:28?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message

What I'm saying is that there's really only one logical
explanation for people who need certain very
characteristic and unnatural kinds of audible noise and
distortion to be added to their recordings so that they
sound real to them, and that is a triumph of bias over
reason.
This is a study in logical fallacies. First logical
fallacy is the reduction of many possibile explinations
to just one.

Prove that there are other fallacious reasons to prefer the sound of vinyl.
Be my guest. If you can't prove that there any other fallacious reasons for
preferring vinyl, then you cannot dispute my point.

That makes no sense. I simply pointed out the logical fallacies of
your argument. I have no idea what you mean by demanding I prove "that
there are other fallacious reasons to prefer the sound of vinyl." Nor
do I see how it follows that if I fail to do so then I can not dispute
your point. I already have disputed your point based on it's logical
fallacies.


Next you use a false premise that people
*need* audible noise and distortion to be added to
recordings so they sound real to them.

Well, at this point it has been conclsively proven that the essence of
recording something on vinyl is adding noise and distortion to it.

No it has not. Nor has it been proven that those of us who often
prefer any given recording on vinyl cannot also enjoy music played
back on CD. You seem to choose to ignore this fundamental problem with
your premise. So your argument is simply based on a false premise.
Given that everybody on this thread who has argued in favor of the
excellence of vinyl playback has also expressed clearly that they can
and do actually enjoy many recordings on CD pretty much proves that
you are arguing from a false premise that some of us "need" audible
noise and distortion to be added to recordings to sound "real" to us.
You are also completely ignoring the fact that the differences between
CDs and LPs of any given title are mostly mastering based
differences.

We have
people who say that a given recording, not even its master tape or digital
master sound right to them until it is re-recorded on vinyl.

Where do we have these people? Certainly we don't have them
participating in this thread.

Therefore we
have proof by analysis of the process that is required for them to perceive
maximum realism from the recording.

What is the relevance of the beliefs of these unnamed unknown people
who are not here to express these alleged extreme view points?





And you end with a false dichotomy. Bias or reason.

Are you saying that it is false to characterize them as being different or
relevant?

I am saying that you have created a false dichotomy. Here is an
explination of a false dichotomy.
"Arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two. For
example, evolution is not possible, therefore we must have been
created (assumes these are the only two possibilities). This fallacy
can also be used to oversimplify a continuum of variation to two black
and white choices. For example, science and pseudoscience are not two
discrete entities, but rather the methods and claims of all those who
attempt to explain reality fall along a continuum from one extreme to
the other. "
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp


You miss the obvious
possible explination that it is a result of pure audible
perception.

If it is the result of truely pure audible perception, then there is
actually no need to bother to play the recording. No, sensation and the
nature of the sound coming out of the speakers are relevant, no matter how
you may posture.

That makes no sense. We are talking about *audible* perceptions. I
really should have said *aural* perceptions. Anyway one must have
sound for that.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 19, 8:46�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message







On Nov 19, 4:29 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



On Nov 18, 8:43?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



On Nov 17, 8:20 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in
message



When I say GOOD, it is in the context of high-end
audio, IOW it has superior sound quality in that it
sounds more like real, live music, played in a real
space and has a you-are-there palpability that the
average recording (even digital) lacks.

Superior sound quality is impossible when a great
deal of audible noise and distortion can be heard.
In fact there is a widespread belief that freedom
from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for
superior sound. IOW it is necessary, but not
sufficient.

That is quite an interesting claim. Do you feel that
you are actually getting distortion free sound from
your playback system?

Non-responsive.

Responsive to what? I see no question asked there.

I said "a great deal of audible noise and distortion
can be heard"

You say " distortion free sound from your playback
system?"

Can't you see the difference?-

This is what you said. "there is a widespread belief
that freedom from audible noise and distortion is
prerequisite for superior sound."

That's not the same as distortion-free sound from a
playback system. Can you see why?

Nope. Feel free to explain the difference between
"freedom from audible distortion" and... "audible
distortion free." �I'm just not seeing the difference.

To repeat:

I said "a great deal of audible noise and distortion
�can be heard"

You say " distortion free sound from your playback
�system?"

Now, without interjecting anything else, explain why the two are the same.

Sorry but you don't have that level of control over the converstaion.
The fact is you said "In fact there is a widespread belief that
freedom from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for superior
sound." It's right here on this thread. Scroll up and read your own
words for yourself. My comments were based on *that* assertion. I have
simply pointed out obvious problems with that assertion. There is no
playback that enjoys "freedom from audible noise and distortion." So,
based on your premise and logic, no one actually is enjoying "superior
sound" at home and your argument does nothing more than make the term
'superior sound" useless when we talk about home audio.



My question is based on they assertion by you. Do you
feel you are anyone else for that matter are getting
"audible distortion free" playback from their systems?
In the case of digital media like the CD, the playback
of the media is generally distortion free. However,
the speakers and the room aren't distortion free.
Thank you for making my point.
Then it stands to reason
that no one is listening to any playback that is free of
audible distortions.

However, the audible distortions of the LP playback system are audible
through speakers, often just about any speakers, even the 3" speakers on an
AC-DC player.

I think you are grossly mischaracterizing the nature of the audible
distortion that can be found in state of the art vinyl playback. I am
quite confident that in many many cases no one would be able to
identify a source as vinyl just by listening. I am also quite
confident that with the right rig, for example my rig, under blind
conditions listeners would,in many instances, actually percieve my rig
playing back vinyl as the more life like playback and the master tape
as less life like playback. That is what is called a euphonic
distortion. A kind of audible distortion that could not be easily or
readily identified as a distortion without a reference for direct
comparison, a distortion that causes the listener to percieve an
improvement in the sound.

In contrast, the distortions in a representative CD system are
not audible, even on the very best speakers. Big different.

Not everyone agrees with that assertion either but that is a topic for
another thread.



After all you seem to be saying it is a prerequisite for
superior sound.

I'm saying that playback of the media that is free of
audible distortion and noise is a prerequisite for
superior sound. In addition, the speakers and room have
to be relatively free of audible noise and distortion,
as well.
But speakers, rooms and microphones never are free of
audible noise and distortion.

However, they generally have less distortion than is inherent in the LP
format.

Once again you try to move the goal posts to fit your position. The
fact is all rooms, speakers and mics are audibly distorted. You
asserted that "In fact there is a widespread belief that freedom from
audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for superior sound." in
an obvious attempt to make a semantical argument against vinyl
playback. Now that you painted yourself into a corner by setting the
goal posts in a self defeating location you are once again trying to
move them. This is yet another form of logical fallacy.
"Special pleading, or ad-hoc reasoning This is a subtle fallacy which
is often difficult to recognize. In essence, it is the arbitrary
introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so
that they appear valid."
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp


Since the LP format, like cassette tape, and low-bitrate
MP3 has inherent noise and distortion that is greater
than high quality room+speakers, it is automatically
disqualified as a means to obtain superior sound
That is a purely semantical argument that is ultimately
self defeating.

No its not. It's a very practical real-world argument. In fact no discussion
of word meanings are contained in it. Semantics is the study of the meaning
of words, as you apparently don't seem to know. Semantics and that paragraph
are irrelevant.

It certainly is a semantical argument. You have tried to redefine the
meaning of "superior sound" and now you have tried to redefine it once
again since it has been pointed out that your first attempt to
redefine the term went too far and was self defeating. So not only is
it a semantical argument but it is one that suffers from ad-hoc
reasoning.


You are really engaging in the classic
logical fallacy known as the moving goal posts

Again you are wrong because a fixed reference, being the distortion of "high
quality room+speakers," was referenced. The goal posts are fixed for the
duration of the discussion, for all practical purposes

Then explain this earlier assertion.
"Superior sound quality is impossible when a great deal of audible
noise and distortion can be heard. In fact there is a widespread
belief that free from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for
superior sound." Your words Arny. scroll up and read them for yourself
in their original context. Your arguments clearly suffer from moving
goal posts and Special pleading, or ad-hoc reasoning. Protest all you
want. The content of the thread speaks for itself.

Let's also not forget that you have failed to show that any of your
characterizations of the sound of vinyl playback are not poisoned with
extreme anti-vinyl bias.

[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 19, 5:39?am, Steven Sullivan wrote:

No, it isn't. And as this has been explained dozens, if not hundreds,
if times here, I'm going to suggest you do some more research on
DBT before making such claims.

Now, the problem with non-blind test is that it is necessarily subject
to
bias.

How would you design a long-term DBT test in the testee's residence?
How would you protect it from curiosity?

Put another way, unless the test is based on the permanent location &
actual set-up of the equipment it is invalid on its face.

These are issues of practicality and dedication to research, not
impossibility. That
something is difficult to do correctly, doesn't make it *impossible*.
Someone truly dedicated
to researching the matter could, for example, use an ABX apparatus, or
they could recruit a
helper to do a more traditional DBT.

There actually have been DBTs done where the subject was allowed to, and
encouraged to, listen
to the two sources for weeks before the actual blind part of the test --
for the purpose of
building confidence that they could tell them apart. Thus they go into
the DBT believing
firmly that they can audibly distinguish the two. (Of course, that doesn't
mean they really
can -- that's what a blind test tests)

Here's the crux of the matter. It doesn't MATTER how long one has listened
or thinks they can identify the differences in sighted listening, if in fact
the TEST INTERVENES with extraneous variables....such as shifting from
listening to differentiating, from relaxed consciousness to attentive
self-consciouness, from a time-frame aceepting of fleeting moments of
insight, to one of forced choice and the need to switch back and forth to
make that choice, and where "don't know at this time" is not an option.
Keep in mind we are not just hearing differences, we are trying to identify
if there are differences and "matching up" three variables, at least in the
ABX test.

The only blind test that can come close to this is simply a preference test
with three choices: think I prefer A, think I prefer B, or Can't Decide or
Don't Prefer One over the Other at this Time. And this has to be holistic
and unforced. Neither ABX or ABC/hr as practiced meets this
criteria....neither is a preferene test and both in their own way require a
structured response and a definite identification or choice. And as
practiced, both use short snippets. So conclusions drawn from them, no
matter how many times they are used, must be viewed with suspicion. As I
pointed out yesterday.....THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN VALIDATED as to intrusiveness
and its effect on validity in catching musical nuance.

As for testing whether one source is more 'fatiguing' over the long term
than another,
it would be a matter of first identifying, sighted, at what point the
fatiguing source
becomes 'fatiguing', then doing a set of double blind A/B listening tests
each of which lasts
for at least that amount of time. Short of physiologically measuring
fatigue, there would be
no other way to scientifically test this.

Meanwhile, you have not addressed the fact that sighted listening, while
easy, is simply not
by itself reliable enough to assume dependable accurate evaluation and
identification of sonic
differences, especially small or nonexistent ones. If sighted bias didn't
exist, there would
be NO REASON FOR BLIND CONTROLS TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE and scientific
research itself
would be vastly simplified.

That doesn't make it essential or practical for an audiophile to enjoy his
hobby and make choices.

[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message
...
On Nov 19, 7:52�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message




snip

We have
people who say that a given recording, not even its master tape or
digital
master sound right to them until it is re-recorded on vinyl.

Where do we have these people? Certainly we don't have them
participating in this thread.

Therefore we
have proof by analysis of the process that is required for them to
perceive
maximum realism from the recording.

What is the relevance of the beliefs of these unnamed unknown people
who are not here to express these alleged extreme view points?


They do have a name.....they are called "strawmen". And their relevance is
that they support whatever point the poster wishes to make. :-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Here's the crux of the matter. It doesn't MATTER how
long one has listened or thinks they can identify the
differences in sighted listening, if in fact the TEST
INTERVENES with extraneous variables....such as shifting
from listening to differentiating, from relaxed
consciousness to attentive self-consciousness, from a
time-frame accepting of fleeting moments of insight, to
one of forced choice and the need to switch back and
forth to make that choice, and where "don't know at this
time" is not an option.

These false claims have been refuted oh, so many times.

Keep in mind we are not just
hearing differences, we are trying to identify if there
are differences and "matching up" three variables, at
least in the ABX test.

There are only two actual different variables, or if you will two different
states, in an ABX test. The state of X is different from A and B, only as an
illusion. Veridical perceptions conclude that X is either A or B.

The only blind test that can come close to this is simply
a preference test with three choices: think I prefer A,
think I prefer B, or Can't Decide or Don't Prefer One
over the Other at this Time.

Again Harry you are totally confused. ABX testing is not of itself a
preference test.

And this has to be
holistic and unforced. Neither ABX or ABC/hr as
practiced meets this criteria....neither is a preference
test and both in their own way require a structured
response and a definite identification or choice. And as
practiced, both use short snippets.

More false claims that have been refuted many times.

Interestingly enough because of a comment that Harry made some weeks back, I
obtained and started reading three books that I named at the time. They are
about the perception of music. I believe that the one that Harry named was
actually about pathological perceptions. I started reading Jourdain's book
the most intensively, which is about normal perceptions with a fair amount
of discussion about common pathologies.

One of the interesting things that Jourdain mentions is that the normal time
window through which we sense music is about 2 seconds, maybe 10 seconds at
the very most. Anything that is outside of this window may be perceived, but
it is really outside the realm of current sensation. Our ability to perceive
details falls off rapidly outside the window. This exactly agrees with the
observation we make with ABX where displacing sounds outside of a similar
time window makes them very indistinct and difficult or impossible to
compare to each other.

I think that Harry's biggest mistake is ignoring the fact that equipment
does not know about music, and audible equipment faults don't necessarily
change music as it is perceived over a long term listening experience. By
the time music has been listened to for long periods of time, it exists in
our brain only in a highly distilled form that removes humongous amounts of
detail. Small details like barely audible timbre shifts are long gone.

So conclusions drawn
from them, no matter how many times they are used, must
be viewed with suspicion. As I pointed out
yesterday.....THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN VALIDATED as to
intrusiveness and its effect on validity in catching
musical nuance.

Again Harry confuses the perception of music with the perception of audible
faults in equipment.

As for testing whether one source is more 'fatiguing'
over the long term than another,
it would be a matter of first identifying, sighted, at
what point the fatiguing source
becomes 'fatiguing', then doing a set of double blind
A/B listening tests each of which lasts
for at least that amount of time. Short of
physiologically measuring fatigue, there would be
no other way to scientifically test this.

Meanwhile, you have not addressed the fact that sighted
listening, while easy, is simply not
by itself reliable enough to assume dependable accurate
evaluation and identification of sonic
differences, especially small or nonexistent ones. If
sighted bias didn't exist, there would
be NO REASON FOR BLIND CONTROLS TO EXIST IN THE FIRST
PLACE and scientific research itself
would be vastly simplified.

That doesn't make it essential or practical for an
audiophile to enjoy his hobby and make choices.

Resolved, let's choose audio gear by the least reliable and representative
means possible. Let's bias every evaluation so that the only seemingly
logical outcome is to spend more time and money on audio gear, and by
logical extension, less time just listening. ;-)

[[email protected]]

wrote:
On Nov 19, 7:52�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

snip

We have
people who say that a given recording, not even its master tape or digital
master sound right to them until it is re-recorded on vinyl.

Where do we have these people? Certainly we don't have them
participating in this thread.

Uhmmm....how about you yourself? In your very next post, you stated:

"...I am also quite confident that with the right rig, for example my
rig, under blind conditions listeners would,in many instances, actually
percieve my rig playing back vinyl as the more life like playback and
the master tape as less life like playback."

Now, unless you're will to stipulate that "sound right" is qualitatively
different than "more lifelike", then you are one of "these people". If
they are qualitatively different in your lexicon, then how do recordings
that sound "more lifelike" to you sound "less right"?

You go on, in that post, to say:

"That is what is called a euphonic distortion. A kind of audible
distortion that could not be easily or readily identified as a
distortion without a reference for direct comparison, a distortion that
causes the listener to percieve an improvement in the sound."

Interesting. After your having spent a great deal of time and bandwidth
lately arguing against the "inherent" distortions of vinyl, you now
openly admit that vinyl has a euphonic distortion that often results in
your preference for it. So, either the distortion is inherent in the
medium itself, or you're using your "rig" as a distortion generator. In
either case, you have explicitly agreed that "vinyl playback", as a
front end *system*, is not accurate relative to the master recording.

Ah...so many bullets, so few feet. :-)

Keith Hughes

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 19, 12:28*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Drop off an ABX comparator, set up the levels, etc, train the person how to
do the test, and provide tech and emotional support as they request it.

How would you protect it from curiosity?

Meaning what?

Bottom line, you have to trust people to not be fraudulent.

I can cheat on virtually any test, given a little time and preparation.

Put another way, unless the test is based on the
permanent location & actual set-up of the equipment it is
invalid on its face.

It's a given that anybody who wants to be hypercritical can do so. Anybody
who wants something to be invalid will find it that way. If reasonable good
faith is demonstrated, the results are going to be at the very worst,
interesting and educational for the participant.

Amazing. You are in someone's residence. Complicated equipment and
some means by which the equipment under test cannot be distinguished
as to which-is-which, yet leaving the testee with full freedom to
adjust volume, tone, balance and so forth. And then not have the
testee intimidated by the set-up such that they are listening as they
normally would.

This ain't nohow hypercritical. This is just recognizing a pretty
simple reality - that a test of that nature will be incredibly hard to
set up in a way satisfactory to all parties, most especially its
victim. And also that the actual chances of such tests actually taking
place are vanishingly small due to that difficulty. So, that something
is possible does not make it practical in the real world. Are any of
its advocates here able to cite the last-most-recent such tests that
they have observed or is this all purely theoretical?

And, what part of 'curiosity' do you not understand? If I am told that
some sort of "comparator" unit - necessarily a layer of something
between me and the equipment in question - has the means to defeat my
natural curiosity and/or prejudice, I am going to do my level-best to
determine how it does that - and hopefully defeat it. Not through
fraud or breaking the rules - necessarily. I am NOT a passive listener
when I am listening for content rather than background. So, testing
the test would certainly be part of the challenge.

Again, Long-term DBT advocates seem to miss the point - or be super-
glued to their point such that they do not recognize the inherent
problems at hand. DBT works great as a screen to separate wheat from
chaff. Much as a tube-tester works great for determining whether at
tube is "good" or "bad" within certain parameters. If, in a short-term
DBT test in whatever venue - as long as the conditions are identical
for all items-under-test - a listener cannot discern differences
between A or B or A or C or B or C, then it is likely that they may
choose A or B or C for a long-term, at-home test with equal chance for
long-term approval. If they can (consistently) discern between A or B
or C, then they must make a much harder choice based on what they take
home as noted above.

Cumulative annoyances and petty difficulties just might not manifest
sufficiently to color a (relatively) short-term test in an artificial
venue. OR, or, or, sufficiently broad differences may drive someone
towards the evil of several lessers.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[vlad]

On Nov 20, 6:52*am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

...



Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 19, 5:39?am, Steven Sullivan wrote:

No, it isn't. And as this has been explained dozens, if not hundreds,
if times here, I'm going to suggest you do some more research on
DBT before making such claims.

Now, the problem with non-blind test is that it is necessarily subject
to
bias.

How would you design a long-term DBT test in the testee's residence?
How would you protect it from curiosity?

Put another way, unless the test is based on the permanent location &
actual set-up of the equipment it is invalid on its face.

These are issues of practicality and dedication to research, not
impossibility. *That
something is difficult to do correctly, doesn't make it *impossible*.
Someone truly dedicated
to researching the matter could, for example, use an ABX apparatus, or
they could recruit a
helper to do a more traditional DBT.

There actually have been DBTs done where the subject was allowed to, and
encouraged to, listen
to the two sources for weeks before the actual blind part of the test -- *
for the purpose of
building confidence that they could tell them apart. *Thus they go into
the DBT believing
firmly that they can audibly distinguish the two. (Of course, that doesn't
mean they really
can -- that's what a blind test tests)

Here's the crux of the matter. *It doesn't MATTER how long one has listened
or thinks they can identify the differences in sighted listening, if in fact
the TEST INTERVENES with extraneous variables....such as shifting from
listening to differentiating, from relaxed consciousness to attentive
self-consciouness, from a time-frame aceepting of fleeting moments of
insight, to one of forced choice and the need to switch back and forth to
make that choice, and where "don't know at this time" is not an option.
Keep in mind we are not just hearing differences, we are trying to identify
if there are differences and "matching up" three variables, at least in the
ABX test.

The only blind test that can come close to this is simply a preference test
with three choices: *think I prefer A, think I prefer B, or Can't Decide or
Don't Prefer One over the Other at this Time. * And this has to be holistic
and unforced. *Neither ABX or ABC/hr as practiced meets this
criteria....neither is a preferene test and both in their own way require a
structured response and a definite identification or choice. *And as
practiced, both use short snippets. *So conclusions drawn from them, no
matter how many times they are used, must be viewed with suspicion. *As I
pointed out yesterday.....THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN VALIDATED as to intrusiveness
and its effect on validity in catching musical nuance.



As for testing whether one source is more 'fatiguing' over the long term
than another,
it would be a matter of first identifying, sighted, at what point the
fatiguing source
becomes 'fatiguing', then doing a set of double blind A/B listening tests
each of which lasts
for at least that amount of time. Short of physiologically measuring
fatigue, there would be
no other way to scientifically test this.

Meanwhile, you have not addressed the fact that sighted listening, while
easy, is simply not
by itself reliable enough to assume dependable accurate evaluation and
identification of sonic
differences, especially small or nonexistent ones. If sighted bias didn't
exist, there would
be NO REASON FOR BLIND CONTROLS TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE and scientific
research itself
would be vastly simplified.

That doesn't make it essential or practical for an audiophile to enjoy his
hobby and make choices.

Harry, you repeat again and again that DBT should be validated before
we can use it. Is this the standard that we should apply to any test
procedure? In this case, haw do you suggest to validate your
"holistic" test procedure? Inquiring minds want to know.

vova

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Nov 19, 8:46�pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message







On Nov 19, 4:29 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



On Nov 18, 8:43?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



On Nov 17, 8:20 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in
message



When I say GOOD, it is in the context of high-end
audio, IOW it has superior sound quality in that
it sounds more like real, live music, played in a
real space and has a you-are-there palpability
that the average recording (even digital) lacks.

Superior sound quality is impossible when a great
deal of audible noise and distortion can be heard.
In fact there is a widespread belief that freedom
from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite
for superior sound. IOW it is necessary, but not
sufficient.

That is quite an interesting claim. Do you feel that
you are actually getting distortion free sound from
your playback system?

Non-responsive.

Responsive to what? I see no question asked there.

I said "a great deal of audible noise and distortion
can be heard"

You say " distortion free sound from your playback
system?"

Can't you see the difference?-

This is what you said. "there is a widespread belief
that freedom from audible noise and distortion is
prerequisite for superior sound."

That's not the same as distortion-free sound from a
playback system. Can you see why?

Nope. Feel free to explain the difference between
"freedom from audible distortion" and... "audible
distortion free." �I'm just not seeing the difference.

To repeat:

I said "a great deal of audible noise and distortion
�can be heard"

You say " distortion free sound from your playback
�system?"

Now, without interjecting anything else, explain why the
two are the same.

Sorry but you don't have that level of control over the
converstaion.

Sure I do.

I don't have to justify things I never said in the given context.

However, the audible distortions of the LP playback
system are audible through speakers, often just about
any speakers, even the 3" speakers on an AC-DC player.

I think you are grossly mischaracterizing the nature of
the audible distortion that can be found in state of the
art vinyl playback.

I see no reliable evidence that SOTA playback has lower or less audible
distortion than sub-SOTA LP playback.

The weak link in both cases is the process, which is inherently flawed.

Furthermore, I can see how vinylphiles may prefer playback equipment that
has more, not less of the distortions that they seem to prefer to have added
to the music they listen to.

I am quite confident that in many
many cases no one would be able to identify a source as
vinyl just by listening.

That's an unsupported assertion until to prove it. It's also a vague
assertion as worded.

I am also quite confident that
with the right rig, for example my rig, under blind
conditions listeners would,in many instances, actually
perceive my rig playing back vinyl as the more life like
playback and the master tape as less life like playback.

That would support my theory that some vinylphiles confuse music with added
audible noise and distortion with more accurate reproduction.

It's a moot point, because there are no extant examples of *anybody*
confusing a vinyl reproduction of any representative piece of music with the
same music from a source that is closer to the original, in something like
an ABX test. It has been tried.

That is what is called a euphonic distortion.

The formal definition of euphonic, is "agreeable" and it is not "superior or
more accurate".

I can imagine that some people have conditioned themselves to find the
inherent noise and distortion that is inherent in the LP format to be
agreeable. For example my mother preferred her 5-tube AC/DC radio built in
1946 with worn-out tubes, a humming power supply, and a buzzing speaker to
any audio system I ever had, "because it didn't sound so clear".

People's preferences are their privilege as long as they don't confuse their
peculiar preferences with something that represents what most music lovers
find preferable, or believe that it is due to some inaccuracy in some other
form of that recording in a medium that is in all known relevant ways,
technically more accurate.

A kind of
audible distortion that could not be easily or readily
identified as a distortion without a reference for direct
comparison, a distortion that causes the listener to
perceive an improvement in the sound.

Right, its a matter of how people chose to habituate themselves. For
example, if I camp outdoors in the fall for a few days, I acclimatize myself
to ambient temperatures that are far lower than the ones in my house. When I
first return home, I find the house to be too warm. In this case the
acclimatization passes away pretty quickly. Of course unlike some
vinylphiles, I have no investment in keeping my house that cold, so I have
no emotional stake in the Fall weather temperatures.

In contrast, the distortions in a representative CD
system are
not audible, even on the very best speakers. Big
different.

Not everyone agrees with that assertion

That's not an assertion, but a often demonstrated fact. In fact it can be
demonstrated to vinylphiles, who will often continue to prefer vinyl even
after they hear that the CD format is actually far more accurate to the
original recording. Some people just love those tics, pops, noise, and
distortion. On occasion I find that sound to strike a sentimental chord, but
it passes pretty quickly when I realize that I'm listening to the medium,
not the message. I love music, and I've heard too much of it unstained by
any artifacts of reproduction (e.g. live music) to be distracted by curious
noises and distortions for long.

After all you seem to be saying it is a prerequisite
for superior sound.

I'm saying that playback of the media that is free of
audible distortion and noise is a prerequisite for
superior sound. In addition, the speakers and room have
to be relatively free of audible noise and distortion,
as well.

But speakers, rooms and microphones never are free of
audible noise and distortion.

However, they generally have less distortion than is
inherent in the LP format.

Once again you try to move the goal posts to fit your
position.

Nope, the goal posts don't move that fast and I have no control over them,
anyhow.

The fact is all rooms, speakers and mics are
audibly distorted.

The largest of those distortions are due to the room, and they are basically
as the ones in which we listen to live music in. There is no natural
circumstance that has noise and distortion on the monumental scale and with
all of the exact types of noise and distortion that are endemic in
reproduction of music via Vinyl.

Listening to music that has been contaminated by vinyl's inherent noise and
distortion is a relatively unique experience. Not even computer programs
that do a fair job of simulating it seem to be able to satisfy vinylphiles.
It seems to be a holistic experience for them. Let them enjoy it, debating
personal preferences is silly.

The debate comes when poorly-informed people confuse urban legend with
scientific fact, and think that enjoying vinyl is *anything* but the sort of
odd personal preference of a tiny, shrinking, minority.

You asserted that "In fact there is a
widespread belief that freedom from audible noise and
distortion is prerequisite for superior sound."

That is a truism, and even embedded in the phrase "High Fidelity". Do you
think that we prize "High Fidelity" because it is actually the lowest
accuracy that we can stand to listen to?

in an
obvious attempt to make a semantically argument against
vinyl playback.

It is only a coincidence that vinyl has so much noise and distortion. The
definitions of words has nothing to do with it.

In fact about 100 years were spent trying to remove as much noise and
distortion from the playback of mechanical recording techniques such as
vinyl. Perhaps 50 years were spent trying to remove as much noise and
distortion from the playback of magnetic recording techniques such as analog
tape.

At some point scientists realized that mechanical-based and magnetic-based
reproduction was about as good as it practically was going to get. Aided by
the fact that digital was getting cheap and plentiful, almost everybody
moved on.

If you will, the problems with mechanical and magnetic recording were
coincidences. They were natural events playing out in ways that nobody ever
planned. A great deal of effort was put into polishing those pieces of soil,
and the shine never held.

[Harry Lavo]

"vlad" wrote in message
...
On Nov 20, 6:52 am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

.snip


Harry, you repeat again and again that DBT should be validated before
we can use it. Is this the standard that we should apply to any test
procedure? In this case, haw do you suggest to validate your
"holistic" test procedure? Inquiring minds want to know.

Inquiring minds can start by reading one of my posts from yesterday or day
before, where I laid out in general terms the procedure. If you want more
detail than that go back a few years looking for "validation test" and read
some of the exchanges between others and myself. I dealt much more in test
specifics in those posts, and I am not wont to repeat them.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 20, 8:23�am, wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 19, 7:52 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

snip

We have
people who say that a given recording, not even its master tape or digital
master sound right to them until it is re-recorded on vinyl.

Where do we have these people? Certainly we don't have them
participating in this thread.

Uhmmm....how about you yourself? �In your very next post, you stated:

"...I am also quite confident that with the right rig, for example my
rig, under blind conditions listeners would,in many instances, actually
percieve my rig playing back vinyl as the more life like playback and
the master tape as less life like playback."

Now, unless you're will to stipulate that "sound right" is qualitatively
different than "more lifelike", then you are one of "these people". �If
they are qualitatively different in your lexicon, then how do recordings
that sound "more lifelike" to you sound "less right"?

Several points. "Sounds right" is a term that implies a false
dichotomy. We are talking about aesthetic experiences not mathematical
equations. The term "sounds right" inherently implies that any other
sound sounds wrong. False dichotomy. Sound quality is a matter of
degree. More lifelike sound from playback does not mean actual
lifelike sound or "right sound" as though all other sounds are wrong.
The fact that my rig adds euphonic colorations that make many
recordingss sound more life like does not mean that I am incapable of
enjoying excellent sound from CDs. Please also not that I said "in
many instances." And also note that I made the assertion that it isn't
just me. If we could set up some propper listening tests I would bet
that most listeners would have the same impression as I have about the
vinyl sounding more life like than the master tape in many instances.


You go on, in that post, to say:

"That is what is called a euphonic distortion. A kind of audible
distortion that could not be easily or readily identified as a
distortion without a reference for direct comparison, a distortion that
causes the listener to percieve an improvement in the sound."

Interesting. �After your having spent a great deal of time and bandwidth
lately arguing against the "inherent" distortions of vinyl, you now
openly admit that vinyl has a euphonic distortion that often results in
your preference for it.

I suggest you go back and read what I actually wrote. Here I will make
it easy and quote myself from the first post of the thread about
inherent euphonic colorations.
"Inherent colorations: Yep, they do exist."
"Euphonic colorations: Yep, they do exist as well. I should know, I
paid about 15K for them
in my TT rig."
Does that look to you like I am arguing against the existance of
"inherent colorations" in vinyl playback?
Does it look like I am just now admitting that my rig (not vinyl in
general but *my rig*) enjoys euphonic colorations?
Do you think that if a euphonic coloration is, as I describe it, a
coloration "that could not be easily or readily identified as a
distortion without a reference for direct comparison, a distortion
that causes the listener to percieve an improvement in the sound" that
it is a bad thing?

�So, either the distortion is inherent in the
medium itself,

There are clearly some inherent audible distortions in the medium. Not
sure if any of them are euphonic. Maybe maybe not. That has been my
position throughout these threads.

or you're using your "rig" as a distortion generator.

I firmly believe my rig does have a unique sonic signature that is
euphonically colored and I bought it for that sound.

�In
either case, you have explicitly agreed that "vinyl playback", as a
front end *system*, is not accurate relative to the master recording.

Yes I have. If a master tape can be improved upon, it ought to be
improved upon. Whatever sounds better is better. End of story.

[Steven Sullivan]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

I did a brief blind test a few years ago and then some extended sighted
listening, which I've already mentioned at some point, of 256 MP3
downloaded
via Real Audio and played back via my high-end system. It put me firmly
in
Sonnova's "ear-bleeding" camp. I haven't been tempted since.

How about making your OWN MP3s, where you can control which codec is used,
and control what is
encoded, rather than judging the format on a download that you did a
'brief blind test' of a
few years ago. How many years ago? what score? what codec? what
sample? -- all of these
things can have an audible impact on how transparent an MP3 is to source.

Because I see no advantage in it.

Yet you feel free to pronounce on the capabalities of MP3.

I'm not suggesting you convert your collection to MP3. I'm suggesting that if you want to
make claims about the 'format', then you can't rely just on the sample you had. This would be
like me making sweeping claims about cassette tapes or LPs based on one I bought at a
flea market.

I will repeat: the fact is, that it is easy for someone to *make* MP3s
today that are
likely to be indistinguishable to them in a blind test. (It would also be
easy to
make MP3s that aren't.)

What interests me is what the general public is willing to buy, because that
is what will be available. Just as with CD's. I don't enjoy CD's as much
as LP's, SACD, and DVD-A for the most part. And I don't enjoy what I've
heard of compressed audio much at all. One makes choices as to where one
puts one's intererst and energy.

What's interesting psychologically is how much, or little , 'enjoyment' has to do
with preconceptions about formats, rather than actual sound.

Streaming internet is generally *not* a demonstration of high MP3 quality.
..
No, but it is one of the more practical uses of it, and as a sound source it
sucks.

Again, this is a sweeping statement. Streaming media sound can be made as good,
or as bad, as the streamer is willing to make it (and pay for it).

--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[Steven Sullivan]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message


Its pretty much the same with me. I can listen to
satellite radio in the car or as background at home,

Interesting. I can't tolerate Sirrius/XM at all.

It can vary with channels, but it's often massively lossy compressed, though the details of
the codecs and settings are kept 'secret'. Doubtless it's compressed in dynamic range too, as
is typical for radio broadcast. And of course the more channels, the less bandwidth is
avaialble (XM or Sirius license gives them a specified amount), so the amount of lossy
compression has to go up on some channels if other channels are to be kept at the original
quality.

Though not as bad as
streaming radio or iTunes downloads, the lossy
compression used by XM/Sirius is still audible.

iTunes downloads must be really bad, because XM/Sirius is just horrible. I
prefer good analog AM radio to it.

Again, while the audio quality can vary from channel to channel within a service (I would HOPE
that classical channels on Sirius/XM were given more bandwidth than others) satellite radio
audio is typically of *worse* quality with more audible artifacting than a decent AAC encode from
iTunes. Whihc makes Sonnova's experience all the more peculiar. Bottom line is that a good MP3
can easily be mistaken for CD, while that would be rare for satellite radio audio.

--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

On Nov 19, 12:28 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Drop off an ABX comparator, set up the levels, etc,
train the person how to do the test, and provide tech
and emotional support as they request it.

How would you protect it from curiosity?

Meaning what?

Bottom line, you have to trust people to not be
fraudulent.

I can cheat on virtually any test, given a little time
and preparation.

Put another way, unless the test is based on the
permanent location & actual set-up of the equipment it
is invalid on its face.

It's a given that anybody who wants to be hypercritical
can do so. Anybody who wants something to be invalid
will find it that way. If reasonable good faith is
demonstrated, the results are going to be at the very
worst, interesting and educational for the participant.

Amazing. You are in someone's residence. Complicated
equipment and some means by which the equipment under
test cannot be distinguished as to which-is-which, yet
leaving the testee with full freedom to adjust volume,
tone, balance and so forth.

Actually, that's allowable if it affects both alternatives equally.

And then not have the testee
intimidated by the set-up such that they are listening as
they normally would.

In some cases the test has been packaged up into a sealed box with two
signal cables coming in, two signal cables going out, and a control line.
The box is the secure area, and it can be plugged into the system or
bypassed without affecting it.

This ain't nohow hypercritical.

Oh no? The tone and use of words like "victim" tell a different story.

This is just recognizing
a pretty simple reality - that a test of that nature will
be incredibly hard to set up in a way satisfactory to all
parties, most especially its victim.

Simply not true, because people are inherently curious, and comparing many
components just isn't that hard.

And also that the
actual chances of such tests actually taking place are
vanishingly small due to that difficulty.

It is true that millions of listening expereinces happen every day, but the
number of lisetning tests is fairly small.

But that's true for testing in general, other than testing for production
and maintenance.

However that all makes sense, as you don't have to test things nearly as
much as you just use them.

So, that
something is possible does not make it practical in the
real world. Are any of its advocates here able to cite
the last-most-recent such tests that they have observed
or is this all purely theoretical?

When the PCABX web site was running, the rate of downloads suggested that
several 100 new tests were being started up every week.

And, what part of 'curiosity' do you not understand?

That's the point. If someone cheats on a test that they are doing to satisfy
their own curiosity, then they are wasting their own time.

If I am told that some sort of "comparator" unit - necessarily
a layer of something between me and the equipment in
question - has the means to defeat my natural curiosity
and/or prejudice, I am going to do my level-best to
determine how it does that - and hopefully defeat it.

Defeating it is trivial - waste your time and effort as you will.

However, its all pretty simple and pretty easy to explain. Your curiousity
about the process and the gear gets satisifed pretty quickly.

through fraud or breaking the rules - necessarily. I am
NOT a passive listener when I am listening for content
rather than background. So, testing the test would
certainly be part of the challenge.

No its not. Breaking the test is self-defeating if you are at all curiouis
about the results.

Again, Long-term DBT advocates seem to miss the point -
or be super- glued to their point such that they do not
recognize the inherent problems at hand.

Oh, its the logical whipsaw - now that we've debunked the "no long term DBT"
fable, suddenly they are bad, well because...

DBT works great
as a screen to separate wheat from chaff. Much as a
tube-tester works great for determining whether at tube
is "good" or "bad" within certain parameters. If, in a
short-term DBT test in whatever venue - as long as the
conditions are identical for all items-under-test

That is easy to maintain, and its one of the benefits of allowing people to
switch alternatives at will.

a listener cannot discern differences between A or B or A
or C or B or C, then it is likely that they may choose A
or B or C for a long-term, at-home test with equal chance
for long-term approval. If they can (consistently)
discern between A or B or C, then they must make a much
harder choice based on what they take home as noted
above.

That's outside the test. The test is pretty simple - is X going to be A or
B?

Cumulative annoyances and petty difficulties just might
not manifest sufficiently to color a (relatively)
short-term test in an artificial venue. OR, or, or,
sufficiently broad differences may drive someone towards
the evil of several lessers.

It isn't that hard or strange, once you actually are doing it. It's probably
harder to think about than actually do.

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 19, 12:28?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Drop off an ABX comparator, set up the levels, etc, train the person how to
do the test, and provide tech and emotional support as they request it.

How would you protect it from curiosity?

Meaning what?

Bottom line, you have to trust people to not be fraudulent.

I can cheat on virtually any test, given a little time and preparation.

Put another way, unless the test is based on the
permanent location & actual set-up of the equipment it is
invalid on its face.

It's a given that anybody who wants to be hypercritical can do so. Anybody
who wants something to be invalid will find it that way. If reasonable good
faith is demonstrated, the results are going to be at the very worst,
interesting and educational for the participant.

Amazing. You are in someone's residence. Complicated equipment and
some means by which the equipment under test cannot be distinguished
as to which-is-which, yet leaving the testee with full freedom to
adjust volume, tone, balance and so forth. And then not have the
testee intimidated by the set-up such that they are listening as they
normally would.

The 'equipment' need be no more complicated than an ABX box, actually,
for some comparisons.

This ain't nohow hypercritical. This is just recognizing a pretty
simple reality - that a test of that nature will be incredibly hard to
set up in a way satisfactory to all parties, most especially its
victim.

Ah, well, that's a different thing from 'impossible' -- especially that
stipulation about satisfying *everyone*, since even scientists don't feel
the need to address *unreasonable* criticisms.

And also that the actual chances of such tests actually taking
place are vanishingly small due to that difficulty. So, that something
is possible does not make it practical in the real world. Are any of
its advocates here able to cite the last-most-recent such tests that
they have observed or is this all purely theoretical?

Before I point you to one, can you explain what the objection is to
having a period where the listener WAS free to compare both DUTs at
length, under no restraints, sighted, followed by a blind test?

And, what part of 'curiosity' do you not understand? If I am told that
some sort of "comparator" unit - necessarily a layer of something
between me and the equipment in question - has the means to defeat my
natural curiosity and/or prejudice, I am going to do my level-best to
determine how it does that - and hopefully defeat it. Not through
fraud or breaking the rules - necessarily. I am NOT a passive listener
when I am listening for content rather than background. So, testing
the test would certainly be part of the challenge.

So, you're totally unfamiliar with teh ABX technology that DOES exist,
I take it?

Again, Long-term DBT advocates seem to miss the point - or be super-
glued to their point such that they do not recognize the inherent
problems at hand. DBT works great as a screen to separate wheat from
chaff. Much as a tube-tester works great for determining whether at
tube is "good" or "bad" within certain parameters. If, in a short-term
DBT test in whatever venue - as long as the conditions are identical
for all items-under-test - a listener cannot discern differences
between A or B or A or C or B or C, then it is likely that they may
choose A or B or C for a long-term, at-home test with equal chance for
long-term approval.

? This is pretty much what DBT advocates (there is no subspecies of
long term DBT advocates' AFAIK)

If they can (consistently) discern between A or B
or C, then they must make a much harder choice based on what they take
home as noted above.

The crucial point is that other from DBT, there IS no comparative listening
method that adequately controls for the biases that are inherent in sighted listening...
even long term listening. So if DBT is 'only' good for short term wheat/chaff
(which isn't true, but let's allow it) what is 'sighted' listening good
for?

--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:00:01 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message


Its pretty much the same with me. I can listen to
satellite radio in the car or as background at home,

Interesting. I can't tolerate Sirrius/XM at all.

It can vary with channels, but it's often massively lossy compressed, though
the details of
the codecs and settings are kept 'secret'. Doubtless it's compressed in
dynamic range too, as
is typical for radio broadcast. And of course the more channels, the less
bandwidth is
avaialble (XM or Sirius license gives them a specified amount), so the amount

of lossy
compression has to go up on some channels if other channels are to be kept at

the original
quality.

Basically, all I listen to is the classical channels and "they" say that
these are given more bandwidth than the pop and talk channels. Anyway, as
long as I don't try to listen critically at home or as long as I'm listening
to XM/Sirius in the car, I don't notice any artifacts on the classical
channels. At home, if I turn the music up and listen attentively I can hear
compression artifacts sometimes, but since I only use XM/Sirius as background
music at home, its not a problem.

Though not as bad as
streaming radio or iTunes downloads, the lossy
compression used by XM/Sirius is still audible.

iTunes downloads must be really bad, because XM/Sirius is just horrible. I
prefer good analog AM radio to it.

Again, while the audio quality can vary from channel to channel within a
service (I would HOPE
that classical channels on Sirius/XM were given more bandwidth than others)
satellite radio
audio is typically of *worse* quality with more audible artifacting than a
decent AAC encode from
iTunes. Whihc makes Sonnova's experience all the more peculiar. Bottom line
is that a good MP3
can easily be mistaken for CD, while that would be rare for satellite radio
audio.

[vlad]

On Nov 20, 2:57*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"vlad" wrote in message

...

On Nov 20, 6:52 am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
.snip

Harry, you repeat again and again that DBT should be validated before
we can use it. Is this the standard that we should apply to any test
procedure? In this case, haw do you suggest to validate your
"holistic" test procedure? Inquiring minds want to know.

Inquiring minds can start by reading one of my posts from yesterday or day
before, where I laid out in general terms the procedure. *If you want more
detail than that go back a few years looking for "validation test" and read
some of the exchanges between others and myself. *I dealt much more in test
specifics in those posts, and I am not wont to repeat them.

Harry,

I have read most (if not all of your posts) and do not remember any
kind of 'validation' procedure for your proposed 'holistic' test. So
will you be so kind to re post it here?

I must confess that I am not keeping my breath for this :-)

vova

[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

I did a brief blind test a few years ago and then some extended
sighted
listening, which I've already mentioned at some point, of 256 MP3
downloaded
via Real Audio and played back via my high-end system. It put me
firmly
in
Sonnova's "ear-bleeding" camp. I haven't been tempted since.

How about making your OWN MP3s, where you can control which codec is
used,
and control what is
encoded, rather than judging the format on a download that you did a
'brief blind test' of a
few years ago. How many years ago? what score? what codec? what
sample? -- all of these
things can have an audible impact on how transparent an MP3 is to
source.

Because I see no advantage in it.

Yet you feel free to pronounce on the capabalities of MP3.

I'm not suggesting you convert your collection to MP3. I'm suggesting
that if you want to
make claims about the 'format', then you can't rely just on the sample you
had. This would be
like me making sweeping claims about cassette tapes or LPs based on one I
bought at a
flea market.

Could you point out to me where in the above few paragraphs I made any
sweeping statements about anything. I described a test I did and my
reaction to it, in response to your suggestion that I had perhaps never done
a test of MP3s. No sweeping statements!


I will repeat: the fact is, that it is easy for someone to *make* MP3s
today that are
likely to be indistinguishable to them in a blind test. (It would also
be
easy to
make MP3s that aren't.)

What interests me is what the general public is willing to buy, because
that
is what will be available. Just as with CD's. I don't enjoy CD's as
much
as LP's, SACD, and DVD-A for the most part. And I don't enjoy what I've
heard of compressed audio much at all. One makes choices as to where one
puts one's intererst and energy.

What's interesting psychologically is how much, or little , 'enjoyment'
has to do
with preconceptions about formats, rather than actual sound.

Streaming internet is generally *not* a demonstration of high MP3
quality.
..
No, but it is one of the more practical uses of it, and as a sound source
it
sucks.

Again, this is a sweeping statement. Streaming media sound can be made as
good,
or as bad, as the streamer is willing to make it (and pay for it).

Yes, this is a sweeping statement, and I stand behind it so far as internet
radio is concerned -- which is WHAT I MADE MY STATEMENT ABOUT -- not
streaming media as a technology done in the home between a music server and
an audio system. Do you ever really READ what I write? I don't listen
long, but over the years I have listened often off and on many times to
internet radio. I have listened to low-bandwidth stations and to
high-bandwidth stations and to music of all types, and it doesn't even
measure up to am radio through a decent system. It is purely a low-fi
convenience medium, IMO.

[Steven Sullivan]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

I did a brief blind test a few years ago and then some extended
sighted
listening, which I've already mentioned at some point, of 256 MP3
downloaded
via Real Audio and played back via my high-end system. It put me
firmly
in
Sonnova's "ear-bleeding" camp. I haven't been tempted since.

How about making your OWN MP3s, where you can control which codec is
used,
and control what is
encoded, rather than judging the format on a download that you did a
'brief blind test' of a
few years ago. How many years ago? what score? what codec? what
sample? -- all of these
things can have an audible impact on how transparent an MP3 is to
source.

Because I see no advantage in it.

Yet you feel free to pronounce on the capabalities of MP3.

I'm not suggesting you convert your collection to MP3. I'm suggesting
that if you want to
make claims about the 'format', then you can't rely just on the sample you
had. This would be
like me making sweeping claims about cassette tapes or LPs based on one I
bought at a
flea market.

Could you point out to me where in the above few paragraphs I made any
sweeping statements about anything. I described a test I did and my
reaction to it, in response to your suggestion that I had perhaps never done
a test of MP3s. No sweeping statements!


I will repeat: the fact is, that it is easy for someone to *make* MP3s
today that are
likely to be indistinguishable to them in a blind test. (It would also
be
easy to
make MP3s that aren't.)

What interests me is what the general public is willing to buy, because
that
is what will be available. Just as with CD's. I don't enjoy CD's as
much
as LP's, SACD, and DVD-A for the most part. And I don't enjoy what I've
heard of compressed audio much at all. One makes choices as to where one
puts one's intererst and energy.

What's interesting psychologically is how much, or little , 'enjoyment'
has to do
with preconceptions about formats, rather than actual sound.

Streaming internet is generally *not* a demonstration of high MP3
quality.
..
No, but it is one of the more practical uses of it, and as a sound source
it
sucks.

Again, this is a sweeping statement. Streaming media sound can be made as
good,
or as bad, as the streamer is willing to make it (and pay for it).

Yes, this is a sweeping statement, and I stand behind it so far as internet
radio is concerned -- which is WHAT I MADE MY STATEMENT ABOUT -- not
streaming media as a technology done in the home between a music server and
an audio system.

Harry, I meant streaming media over the *Internet*. I wasn't moving the goalposts
as some here so often do.

Your statement still stands as too sweeping. It's possible to stream high-quality audio over
the internet. It's a matter of bandwidth and cost.


Do you ever really READ what I write? I don't listen
long, but over the years I have listened often off and on many times to
internet radio. I have listened to low-bandwidth stations and to
high-bandwidth stations and to music of all types, and it doesn't even
measure up to am radio through a decent system. It is purely a low-fi
convenience medium, IMO.

And what I'm saying again is, there, you're wrong. It is most certainly not *purely* a
low-fi convenience medium, any more than MP3 itself is.


--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[hwh]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Again, while the audio quality can vary from channel to channel within a service (I would HOPE
that classical channels on Sirius/XM were given more bandwidth than others) satellite radio
audio is typically of *worse* quality with more audible artifacting than a decent AAC encode from
iTunes. Whihc makes Sonnova's experience all the more peculiar. Bottom line is that a good MP3
can easily be mistaken for CD, while that would be rare for satellite radio audio.

As I understand it Sirius/XM uses just 40 kbps 'AAC+' audio per channel.
For anything resembling FMradio that would have to be more like 64 kbps.

gr, hwh

[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

I did a brief blind test a few years ago and then some extended
sighted
listening, which I've already mentioned at some point, of 256 MP3
downloaded
via Real Audio and played back via my high-end system. It put me
firmly
in
Sonnova's "ear-bleeding" camp. I haven't been tempted since.

How about making your OWN MP3s, where you can control which codec is
used,
and control what is
encoded, rather than judging the format on a download that you did a
'brief blind test' of a
few years ago. How many years ago? what score? what codec? what
sample? -- all of these
things can have an audible impact on how transparent an MP3 is to
source.

Because I see no advantage in it.

Yet you feel free to pronounce on the capabalities of MP3.

I'm not suggesting you convert your collection to MP3. I'm suggesting
that if you want to
make claims about the 'format', then you can't rely just on the sample
you
had. This would be
like me making sweeping claims about cassette tapes or LPs based on one
I
bought at a
flea market.

Could you point out to me where in the above few paragraphs I made any
sweeping statements about anything. I described a test I did and my
reaction to it, in response to your suggestion that I had perhaps never
done
a test of MP3s. No sweeping statements!


I will repeat: the fact is, that it is easy for someone to *make*
MP3s
today that are
likely to be indistinguishable to them in a blind test. (It would
also
be
easy to
make MP3s that aren't.)

What interests me is what the general public is willing to buy,
because
that
is what will be available. Just as with CD's. I don't enjoy CD's as
much
as LP's, SACD, and DVD-A for the most part. And I don't enjoy what
I've
heard of compressed audio much at all. One makes choices as to where
one
puts one's intererst and energy.

What's interesting psychologically is how much, or little , 'enjoyment'
has to do
with preconceptions about formats, rather than actual sound.

Streaming internet is generally *not* a demonstration of high MP3
quality.
..
No, but it is one of the more practical uses of it, and as a sound
source
it
sucks.

Again, this is a sweeping statement. Streaming media sound can be made
as
good,
or as bad, as the streamer is willing to make it (and pay for it).

Yes, this is a sweeping statement, and I stand behind it so far as
internet
radio is concerned -- which is WHAT I MADE MY STATEMENT ABOUT -- not
streaming media as a technology done in the home between a music server
and
an audio system.

Harry, I meant streaming media over the *Internet*. I wasn't moving the
goalposts
as some here so often do.

Your statement still stands as too sweeping. It's possible to stream
high-quality audio over
the internet. It's a matter of bandwidth and cost.

Okay, let's put it into a practical framework. Can you name me a station
that is playing classical music or jazz, that when fed over a true high-end
home audio system qualifies as high-end sound? If not, then for all intents
and purposes what you are arguing is simply a meaningless technical
achievement, of not use to a practical audiophile.


Do you ever really READ what I write? I don't listen
long, but over the years I have listened often off and on many times to
internet radio. I have listened to low-bandwidth stations and to
high-bandwidth stations and to music of all types, and it doesn't even
measure up to am radio through a decent system. It is purely a low-fi
convenience medium, IMO.

And what I'm saying again is, there, you're wrong. It is most certainly
not *purely* a
low-fi convenience medium, any more than MP3 itself is.

Isn't it like saying if we reduced the compression ratio on mp3's enough, we
eventually would have High-End Sound....but if we do so it will no longer
have much size advantage over lossless? Is it really relevant in any
practical sense?

[Peter Wieck]

On Nov 21, 12:42*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

I did a brief blind test a few years ago and then some extended
sighted
listening, which I've already mentioned at some point, of 256 MP3
downloaded
via Real Audio and played back via my high-end system. *It put me
firmly
in
Sonnova's "ear-bleeding" camp. *I haven't been tempted since.

How about making your OWN MP3s, where you can control which codec is
used,
and control what is
encoded, rather than judging the format on a download that you did a
'brief blind test' of a
few years ago. *How many years ago? what score? what codec? what
sample? -- all of these
things can have an audible impact on how transparent an MP3 is to
source.

Because I see no advantage in it.

Yet you feel free to pronounce on the capabalities of MP3.

I'm not suggesting you convert your collection to MP3. *I'm suggesting
that if you want to
make claims about the 'format', then you can't rely just on the sample you
had. *This would be
like me making sweeping claims about cassette tapes or LPs based on one I
bought at a
flea market.
Could you point out to me where in the above few paragraphs I made any
sweeping statements about anything. *I described a test I did and my
reaction to it, in response to your suggestion that I had perhaps never done
a test of MP3s. *No sweeping statements!

I will repeat: the fact is, that it is easy for someone to *make* MP3s
today that are
likely to be indistinguishable to them in a blind test. *(It would also
be
easy to
make MP3s that aren't.)

What interests me is what the general public is willing to buy, because
that
is what will be available. *Just as with CD's. *I don't enjoy CD's as
much
as LP's, SACD, and DVD-A for the most part. *And I don't enjoy what I've
heard of compressed audio much at all. *One makes choices as to where one
puts one's intererst and energy.

What's interesting psychologically is how much, or little , 'enjoyment'
has to do
with preconceptions about formats, rather than actual sound.

Streaming internet is generally *not* a demonstration of high MP3
quality.
..
No, but it is one of the more practical uses of it, and as a sound source
it
sucks.
Again, this is a sweeping statement. *Streaming media sound can be made as
good,
or as bad, as the streamer is willing to make it (and pay for it).
Yes, this is a sweeping statement, and I stand behind it so far as internet
radio is concerned -- which is WHAT I MADE MY STATEMENT ABOUT -- not
streaming media as a technology done in the home between a music server and
an audio system.

Harry, I meant streaming media over the *Internet*. *I wasn't moving the goalposts
as some here so often do.

Your statement still stands as too sweeping. *It's possible to stream high-quality audio over
the internet. *It's a matter of bandwidth and cost. *

Do you ever really READ what I write? * I don't listen
long, but over the years I have listened often off and on many times to
internet radio. *I have listened to low-bandwidth stations and to
high-bandwidth stations and to music of all types, and it doesn't even
measure up to am radio through a decent system. *It is purely a low-fi
convenience medium, IMO.

And what I'm saying again is, there, you're wrong. *It is most certainly not *purely* a
low-fi convenience medium, any more than MP3 itself is. *

No, not purely.

But as practiced it is mostly. Not every vehicle is a Ferrari, nor is
every vehicle a Yugo. But internet streaming is far more often the
latter rather than the former. Get real now. How many of you *here*
use a streamed source for serious high-fidelity listenening?

Sure, absolute statements are absolutely wrong most of the time.
However, neither should one reason that the possible requires it to be
the probable.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[[email protected]]

On Nov 20, 2:53�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message







On Nov 19, 8:46 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



On Nov 19, 4:29 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



On Nov 18, 8:43?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



On Nov 17, 8:20 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in
message



When I say GOOD, it is in the context of high-end
audio, IOW it has superior sound quality in that
it sounds more like real, live music, played in a
real space and has a you-are-there palpability
that the average recording (even digital) lacks.

Superior sound quality is impossible when a great
deal of audible noise and distortion can be heard.
In fact there is a widespread belief that freedom
from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite
for superior sound. IOW it is necessary, but not
sufficient.

That is quite an interesting claim. Do you feel that
you are actually getting distortion free sound from
your playback system?

Non-responsive.

Responsive to what? I see no question asked there.

I said "a great deal of audible noise and distortion
can be heard"

You say " distortion free sound from your playback
system?"

Can't you see the difference?-

This is what you said. "there is a widespread belief
that freedom from audible noise and distortion is
prerequisite for superior sound."

That's not the same as distortion-free sound from a
playback system. Can you see why?

Nope. Feel free to explain the difference between
"freedom from audible distortion" and... "audible
distortion free." I'm just not seeing the difference.

To repeat:

I said "a great deal of audible noise and distortion
can be heard"

You say " distortion free sound from your playback
system?"
Now, without interjecting anything else, explain why the
two are the same.
Sorry but you don't have that level of control over the
converstaion.

(You snipped the context of my post here so I am resoting the snipped
material as I believe it is relevant to the converstaion.)
The fact is you said "In fact there is a widespread belief that
freedom from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for
superior
sound." It's right here on this thread. Scroll up and read your own
words for yourself. My comments were based on *that* assertion. I
have
simply pointed out obvious problems with that assertion. There is no
playback that enjoys "freedom from audible noise and distortion." So,
based on your premise and logic, no one actually is enjoying
"superior
sound" at home and your argument does nothing more than make the term
'superior sound" useless when we talk about home audio.


However, the audible distortions of the LP playback
system are audible through speakers, often just about
any speakers, even the 3" speakers on an AC-DC player.
I think you are grossly mischaracterizing the nature of
the audible distortion that can be found in state of the
art vinyl playback.

I see no reliable evidence that SOTA playback has lower or less audible
distortion than sub-SOTA LP playback.

This is yet another subtle twist on the logical fallacy of arguing
from authority, You are not the arbitrator of truth. The reality of my
assertion does not hinge on your ability or willingness to see or
understand the support for my assertion.



I am quite confident that in many
many cases no one would be able to identify a source as
vinyl just by listening.

That's an unsupported assertion until to prove it. It's also a vague
assertion as worded.

Actually it is well supported by my own blind listening tests and
there is nothing vague about the assertion. I am asserting that in
many instances listeners have not been able to identify an LP as an LP
by hearing inherent ninyl distortions. IOW the listeners could not say
that they were listening to an LP or a CD because there were no
obvious audible indicators.



I am also quite confident that
with the right rig, for example my rig, under blind
conditions listeners would,in many instances, actually
perceive my rig playing back vinyl as the more life like
playback and the master tape as less life like playback.


It's a moot point, because there are no extant examples of *anybody*
confusing a vinyl reproduction of any representative piece of music with the
same music from a source that is closer to the original, in something like
an ABX test. �It has been tried.


Actually there have been many such bias controlled tests. I have done
many of them myself.



That is what is called a euphonic distortion.

The formal definition of euphonic, is "agreeable" and it is not "superior or
more accurate".


You are making another semantic argument. I stated in no uncertain
terms the nature of the euphonic colorations I am specifically
refering to. Euphonic colorations that sound more life like. It may be
the case that many of us find more life like sound to be more
agreeable but I did not say these euphonic colorations sound more
agreeable. I said they sound more life like.






I can imagine that some people have conditioned themselves to find the
inherent noise and distortion that is inherent in the LP format to be
agreeable. For example my mother preferred her 5-tube AC/DC radio built in
1946 with worn-out tubes, a humming power supply, and a buzzing speaker to
any audio system I ever had, "because it didn't sound so clear".



I will take you at your word that you can imagine it. But in many
cases we are talking about the aural perceptions of people who are
intimately familiar with the sound of live music. Those people are
largely conditioned by that. That fact cannot be imagined away.



A kind of
audible distortion that could not be easily or readily
identified as a distortion without a reference for direct
comparison, a distortion that causes the listener to
perceive an improvement in the sound.

Right, its a matter of how people chose to habituate themselves.


I am talking in large part about listeners who chose to habituate
themselves in concert halls listening to live acoustic music



After all you seem to be saying it is a prerequisite
for superior sound.

I'm saying that playback of the media that is free of
audible distortion and noise is a prerequisite for
superior sound. In addition, the speakers and room have
to be relatively free of audible noise and distortion,
as well.
But speakers, rooms and microphones never are free of
audible noise and distortion.
However, they generally have less distortion than is
inherent in the LP format.
Once again you try to move the goal posts to fit your
position.
The fact is all rooms, speakers and mics are
audibly distorted.

The largest of those distortions are due to the room, and they are basically
as the ones in which we listen to live music in.

You are making a huge mistake here. One that should not ever be made
by any experienced recordist or audiophile. You are confusing the
ambient sound present with live acoustic music with the distortion
created by room sound during playback. Anybody with any experience in
recording or even listening to live music and dealing with playback
should know that the rules of acoustics are completely different for
live music and playback because their effects on each are completely
different. Room sound during a live acoustic performance is an
intregal and important part of the original sound. Room sound during
playback is purely a distortion since it is sound that is added during
playback and was not present during the original acoustic event.



You asserted that "In fact there is a
widespread belief that freedom from audible noise and
distortion is prerequisite for superior sound."

That is a truism, and even embedded in the phrase "High Fidelity". �Do you
think that we prize "High Fidelity" because it is actually the lowest
accuracy that we can stand to listen to?

It is not a truism. It is an unattainable self-defeating standard
suggested by you in an attempt to semantically argue against the
excellence of vinyl playback.

[vlad]

On Nov 21, 2:39*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

...



Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

I did a brief blind test a few years ago and then some extended
sighted
listening, which I've already mentioned at some point, of 256 MP3
downloaded
via Real Audio and played back via my high-end system. *It put me
firmly
in
Sonnova's "ear-bleeding" camp. *I haven't been tempted since.

How about making your OWN MP3s, where you can control which codec is
used,
and control what is
encoded, rather than judging the format on a download that you did a
'brief blind test' of a
few years ago. *How many years ago? what score? what codec? what
sample? -- all of these
things can have an audible impact on how transparent an MP3 is to
source.

Because I see no advantage in it.

Yet you feel free to pronounce on the capabalities of MP3.

I'm not suggesting you convert your collection to MP3. *I'm suggesting
that if you want to
make claims about the 'format', then you can't rely just on the sample
you
had. *This would be
like me making sweeping claims about cassette tapes or LPs based on one
I
bought at a
flea market.

Could you point out to me where in the above few paragraphs I made any
sweeping statements about anything. *I described a test I did and my
reaction to it, in response to your suggestion that I had perhaps never
done
a test of MP3s. *No sweeping statements!

I will repeat: the fact is, that it is easy for someone to *make*
MP3s
today that are
likely to be indistinguishable to them in a blind test. *(It would
also
be
easy to
make MP3s that aren't.)

What interests me is what the general public is willing to buy,
because
that
is what will be available. *Just as with CD's. *I don't enjoy CD's as
much
as LP's, SACD, and DVD-A for the most part. *And I don't enjoy what
I've
heard of compressed audio much at all. *One makes choices as to where
one
puts one's intererst and energy.

What's interesting psychologically is how much, or little , 'enjoyment'
has to do
with preconceptions about formats, rather than actual sound.

Streaming internet is generally *not* a demonstration of high MP3
quality.
..
No, but it is one of the more practical uses of it, and as a sound
source
it
sucks.

Again, this is a sweeping statement. *Streaming media sound can be made
as
good,
or as bad, as the streamer is willing to make it (and pay for it).

Yes, this is a sweeping statement, and I stand behind it so far as
internet
radio is concerned -- which is WHAT I MADE MY STATEMENT ABOUT -- not
streaming media as a technology done in the home between a music server
and
an audio system.

Harry, I meant streaming media over the *Internet*. *I wasn't moving the
goalposts
as some here so often do.

Your statement still stands as too sweeping. *It's possible to stream
high-quality audio over
the internet. *It's a matter of bandwidth and cost.

Okay, let's put it into a practical framework. *Can you name me a station
that is playing classical music or jazz, that when fed over a true high-end
home audio system qualifies as high-end sound? *If not, then for all intents
and purposes what you are arguing is simply a meaningless technical
achievement, of not use to a practical audiophile.



Do you ever really READ what I write? * I don't listen
long, but over the years I have listened often off and on many times to
internet radio. *I have listened to low-bandwidth stations and to
high-bandwidth stations and to music of all types, and it doesn't even
measure up to am radio through a decent system. *It is purely a low-fi
convenience medium, IMO.

And what I'm saying again is, there, you're wrong. *It is most certainly
not *purely* a
low-fi convenience medium, any more than MP3 itself is.

Isn't it like saying if we reduced the compression ratio on mp3's enough, we
eventually would have High-End Sound....but if we do so it will no longer
have much size advantage over lossless? *Is it really relevant in any
practical sense?

Harry, I am still waiting answer from your about validation of your
monadic holistic test procedure. Is the absence of answer from you
means that there is none?

vova

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Nov 20, 2:53�pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I see no reliable evidence that SOTA playback has lower
or less audible distortion than sub-SOTA LP playback.

This is yet another subtle twist on the logical fallacy
of arguing from authority,

The logical fallacy here is that arguing from authority is a fallacy.

Resolved that nobody can make a valid argument from authority. That means
that every wheel has to be re-invented from scratch.

You are not the arbitrator of truth.

If there are no authorities, then every truth has to be invented from
scratch.


I am quite confident that in many
many cases no one would be able to identify a source as
vinyl just by listening.

That's an unsupported assertion until to prove it. It's
also a vague assertion as worded.

Actually it is well supported by my own blind listening
tests and there is nothing vague about the assertion.

We've already invalidated your single-blind listening tests on the grounds
that it is very easy for a single-blind listening test to be biased. Ever
hear of Clever Hans the talking horse. That was a single-blind test.


I
am asserting that in many instances listeners have not
been able to identify an LP as an LP by hearing inherent
ninyl distortions. IOW the listeners could not say that
they were listening to an LP or a CD because there were
no obvious audible indicators.

Proof by an assertion supported only by highly flawed experimental evidence
is not reliable proof at all.

Besides, you are using yourself as an authority, and you already claimed
that proof by authority is invalid.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Isn't it like saying if we reduced the compression ratio
on mp3's enough, we eventually would have High-End
Sound....but if we do so it will no longer have much size
advantage over lossless?

320 kbps still has a 2:1 advantage over lossless.

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:36:03 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Isn't it like saying if we reduced the compression ratio
on mp3's enough, we eventually would have High-End
Sound....but if we do so it will no longer have much size
advantage over lossless?

320 kbps still has a 2:1 advantage over lossless.


Depends on your definition of "advantage". If you mean it has a 2:1 packing
density advantage over lossless, I might agree, but if you mean quality-wise,
then no.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Isn't it like saying if we reduced the compression ratio
on mp3's enough, we eventually would have High-End
Sound....but if we do so it will no longer have much size
advantage over lossless?

320 kbps still has a 2:1 advantage over lossless.

Except that many people do not agree 320kps is sufficient. Even you and/or
Steven report that some people/some-of-the-time can hear a difference. So
if you increase it 50% again, you are so close to lossless it doesn't
matter.

[[email protected]]

On Nov 21, 8:56�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



On Nov 20, 2:53 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
I see no reliable evidence that SOTA playback has lower
or less audible distortion than sub-SOTA LP playback.
This is yet another subtle twist on the logical fallacy
of arguing from authority,

The logical fallacy here is that arguing from authority is a fallacy.

You might want to check this out.
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp
"Argument from authority Stating that a claim is true because a person
or group of perceived authority says it is true. Often this argument
is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal
degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. It is
reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the
proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of
the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for
which they cannot demonstrate expertise. But the truth of a claim
should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the
person promoting it."


Resolved that nobody can make a valid argument from authority. That means
that every wheel has to be re-invented from scratch.

You are not the arbitrator of truth.

If there are no authorities, then every truth has to be invented from
scratch.

No, it just has to be supported by arguments that don't suffer from
logical fallacies such as arguing from authority. Imagine for a moment
a scientific research paper that uses such an argument. would it pass
peer review? No chance. Once again you snipped the jist of my point.
My point still stands. The reality of my
assertion does not hinge on your ability or willingness to see or
understand the support for my assertion.


I am quite confident that in many
many cases no one would be able to identify a source as
vinyl just by listening.
That's an unsupported assertion until to prove it. It's
also a vague assertion as worded.
Actually it is well supported by my own blind listening
tests and there is nothing vague about the assertion.

We've already invalidated your single-blind listening tests on the grounds
that it is very easy for a single-blind listening test to be biased. Ever
hear of Clever Hans the talking horse. That was a single-blind test.

You are just making the same old argument with the same old logical
fallacy.
False Continuum The idea that because there is no definitive
demarcation line between two extremes, that the distinction between
the extremes is not real or meaningful: There is a big difference
between a single blins test and a sighted test. If a single blind test
is done well enough it will be free of biases that it is trying to
control. Clever Hans was not any sort of single blind test. As
explained to you before. There are no perfect listening tests. double
blind protocols are certainly better than single blind if all else is
equal. That does not invalidate the results of single blind tests. It
only reduces their reliability to a degree. Single blind tests done
with reasonable care are quite sufficient for the purpose of
controlling biases for the purposes of the audiophile. even the ones
that don't agree with your prejudices.


I
am asserting that in many instances listeners have not
been able to identify an LP as an LP by hearing inherent
ninyl distortions. IOW the listeners could not say that
they were listening to an LP or a CD because there were
no obvious audible indicators.

Proof by an assertion supported only by highly flawed experimental evidence
is not reliable proof at all.

Just because you don't like the results does not mean the results are
not valid. You have no meaningful evidence that would suggest any of
my bias controlled tests are highly flawed.



Besides, you are using yourself as an authority, and you already claimed
that proof by authority is invalid.

No. I am simply stating the fact that I have done bias controlled
listening tests that support my assertions. Just because you don't
like the results does not invalidate them.

[hwh]

Harry Lavo wrote:
Isn't it like saying if we reduced the compression ratio on mp3's enough, we
eventually would have High-End Sound....but if we do so it will no longer
have much size advantage over lossless? Is it really relevant in any
practical sense?

Interestingly, one could even argue that taking a high-end source like
24/192 kHz and making a 'reduced compression' MP3 from that could sound
better than 16/44,1 uncompressed, because there would be no 'unused'
bits taking up space or bandwidth. Of course this would only increase
the quality vs. bandwidth ratio, if that would be an issue.

gr, hwh

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 21, 12:42?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

No, not purely.

But as practiced it is mostly. Not every vehicle is a Ferrari, nor is
every vehicle a Yugo. But internet streaming is far more often the
latter rather than the former. Get real now. How many of you *here*
use a streamed source for serious high-fidelity listenening?

Yes, and if I was asked, is it *likely* that streamed audio over the
internet will sound as good a CD, I'd say, no, not likely.

But what Harry originally said was the equivalent of going to a Yugo lot
and claiming, there can be no Ferraris.

Sure, absolute statements are absolutely wrong most of the time.
However, neither should one reason that the possible requires it to be
the probable.

And I didn't say *probable*...nor is it *probable* the the next car you
see will be a Ferrari. My objection is to those who tend to dismiss a
technology in terms that imply it *can't* be 'high fi', based on a
'typical' internet download or stream. That's just sloppy and ignorant.
MP3 *can* sound 'hi fi', for example, yet commonly 'audiophiles' dismiss
them, having never made good ones of their own, and never tested them
against source in their own ABX trials. I can and do make mp3s that I
would stake against .wavs in a blind test, and I *could* set up a 320 kbps
streaming audio service, for example, if I so desired to spend my time and
money that way, and I highly doubt Harry would be able to tell it from
source, in a blind test.

(If internet radio stations are simply streaming their OTA radio
broadcast, of course it's not going to sound more 'hi fi' than the radio
content does.)


--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy

[Steven Sullivan]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Isn't it like saying if we reduced the compression ratio
on mp3's enough, we eventually would have High-End
Sound....but if we do so it will no longer have much size
advantage over lossless?

320 kbps still has a 2:1 advantage over lossless.

Except that many people do not agree 320kps is sufficient.

Those people usually havn't got a leg to stand on.

Even you and/or
Steven report that some people/some-of-the-time can hear a difference.

That;s misreporting what I;ve written, Harry.

I reported that *extremely* few people -- as in a literal handful --
of the many who actually done blind ABX, have *ever* provided good evidence
for having detected audible differences on anything but 'killer' samples.
They were typically people involved *developing* and *tuning* the LAME codec, and
so highly attuned to its artifacts....and even THEY report that it's
hard to do.

So your concerns are vastly overblown. I can practically guarantee
that you, and 'many people', would simply FAIL to distinguish
high waulity MP3 from source, in a fair test.

So
if you increase it 50% again, you are so close to lossless it doesn't
matter.

Actually, most people begin failing to differentiate MP3 from source well
BELOW 320 kbps, in a fair test..and again, I predict you would be one of them.

--
-S
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can
seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit
the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have
woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy