Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#201
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
"Sonnova" wrote in message
I don't recall anyone saying anything about a vinyl transcription sounding better than a master. I do remember myself and a couple of others saying that in some specific instances, certain LPs sound better than the CDs made from the same original analog master, but since few (if any) of us have actually heard the master tapes in question, we're not likely to be in any position know that the vinyl transcription sounds better than the master (something that I doubt, in any case). The archives show that this claim has been made by James Boyk realted to one of his own recordings. Strangly enough, this could be true - if the LP mastering process corrected audible imbalances in his master. There's no reason, in fact it is more likely that the same would happen during CD happening, however there's no guarantee that this would happen. |
#202
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:12:33 -0800, wrote (in article ): wrote: On Nov 24, 7:44�am, wrote: snip a bunch I don't recall anyone saying anything about a vinyl transcription sounding better than a master. Actually, Scott wrote on 11/20/2008: "...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." I do remember myself and a couple of others saying that in some specific instances, certain LPs sound better than the CDs made from the same original analog master, but since few (if any) of us have actually heard the master tapes in question, we're not likely to be in any position know that the vinyl transcription sounds better than the master (something that I doubt, in any case). I would agree with you on that. Scott would likely argue, however, that the terms "more lifelike" and "sounds better" are neither analogous nor consonant, having argued vehemently that "more lifelike" and "sounds right" are unrelated terms. Keith Hughes |
#203
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
|
#204
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 27, 1:40�am, wrote:
wrote: On Nov 26, 5:12 am, wrote: wrote: On Nov 24, 7:44 am, wrote: You misunderstand. It's the capability to *start* with the undistorted signal that is the point. From there, it can be left alone, or modified as needed to overcome other effects such as speaker/room interactions. 1. An undistorted signal? No such thing with any recording of live music. AHEM...I thought you said you were through with semantic quibbling... You think the distortions that precede the master tape are a matter of semantics? I disagree. They are a real issue that we, as audiophiles, have to live with and deal with. That is one of the reasons I cited as to why the master tape is not a meaningful reference. All master tapes suffer from the inherent distortions of stereo recording, the distortions of the equipment used to make them and the limitations of the choices made by the recording engineer. To hold this set of compramises that lies squarely in the middle of the recording and playback system as any kind of reference is to fail to see the forest for the trees. OK, let's try one last time. �The master tape *IS* the recording is it not? Do you dispute that? If so, then exactly what is "the recording"? It is a recording. Who said "the recording?" Not sure what you are trying to say or what point you are trying to make. I was speaking of the entire chain when I said "the recording and playback system." That is an entire chain. The master tape is one link in that chain. The goal IMO of that chain is the illusion of a recreation of the original acoustic event from a designated listening position. The master tape is a record of an intermediate signal in the chain that as a whole is designed to try to create that illusion of the original acoustic event from a particular perspective. So the distortions suffered by the chain that precede the master tape are quite significant along with the inherent limitations of the system as a whole. Given the goals of the system and the nature of the system it is quite illogical to make an intermediate stage with no intrinsic sound on it's own a reference. Whatever failures, limitations, distortions, additions/deletions that occur in the recording process (to make the master) are irrelevant to the point of this discussion. No they are not. Again this is a classic case of seeing the trees and missing the forrest. �They are there for BOTH CD and LP, and are not subject to our control. That is actually irrlevant to the discussion and not entirely true. That is why one should have both media and pay attention to differences in mastering. That actually does give us some control. In practice it is arguably the some of the most significant control we have. Yet your audio philosophy seems to ignore it in favor of reletively trivial differences between the two media. �However, starting at the process point from which we *do* have control, we have (within the context of this discussion, and assuming SOTA transcriptions) one of the following paths: Master -- Bit perfect CD -- Playback chain OR Master -- LP with added distortion -- Playback chain To begin with your paths are simply an inaccurate description of our real world choices as audiophiles. Assuming SOTA transcriptions? What does that have to do with reality? I'm not really interested in the abstract arguments about audio. I am a pragmatic audiophile. Let's deal with reality or agree that we have different concerns, mine the realities of audio and yours the abstract arrguments of audio. You are completely leaving out the mastering process to make your argument which in most cases is the single most significant part of the chain when it comes to choices we as audiophiles can make. How is that in any way an argument that means anything to audiophiles who are just trying to get the best sound they can from their favorite recordings? Starting with CD, you start without distortion of the master, which is NOT the case with LP. �AND, let's not forget that YOU cannot even control the extent or spectrum of distortion added in the LP process, since it occurs upstream of your process entry point. �And the distortion is irrespective of, and independent from, any limitations of the master recording. �Case closed. Maybe for you. You are putting the cart before the horse. You are ignoring the need for the whole system approach. What I find painfully missing from all of your explinations of your audio philosophies is any reference to actually just sitting down and listening to the final product from each path and judging the sound rather than the path by which the sound is achieved. 2. This does not change the fact that once you chose to alter that signal you are introducing distortion. With equalization, that is certainly true. �Which ignores the base of the argument. �I start with a true representation of the master recording, and adjust, if it is necessary, to compensate for local (i.e. within the playback chain / venue that *I* do control) affects. �With LP, I start with a distorted representation of the master, and do not have the option of *not* adjusting if I want to hear how the actual master sounded. I am not ignoring the base of your argument. "The master tape is the reference." You are ignoring my arguments as to why this is a poor choice of references. Ultimately the choice of reference is a purely subjective one. So, subjectively speaking why do you chose a reference that is subject to the inherent limitations of stereo recording and playback, distorted by the euqipment that preceded it, skewed by the choices made by the recording engineer and has no intrinisc sound of it's own due to being nothing more than a record of an electrical signal? What aesthetic subjective reason do you have for chosing that as a reference for audio? Maybe you should read this interesting paper that was originally posted by Steve Sullivan. I have, however it is not responsive to the argument. �In fact, it highlights the basic problem. �The vinyl replay process is a blunt force 'equalization' of a signal that comes pre-packed with distortions that vary from recording to recording. It seems to me that your interpretation is in direct conflict with the author"s who seems to have done a fair amount of research on the subject. http://classicproaudio.com/franci.htm "Several years ago I was involved in my first recording which appeared on vinyl and CD. It gave me a unique opportunity to compare analogue and digital reproduction because I also had a copy of the original master tape. Unhesitatingly, I should say, the CD was 'nearer' the master, but vinyl produced a 'better' stereo image - in fact, better than the master tape! A conundrum indeed. After much deliberation and armchair theorizing I set about doing some experiments. Late nights with an oscilloscope eventually uncovered that electrical and mechanical crosstalk within the cartridge and pre- amp were causing a stereo image manipulation which was similar to that brought about by the Blumlein 'Shuffler' circuit and Edeko's loudspeakers - all the important narrowing of the stereo image at high frequencies. It supported what I and so many hi-fi fans knew to be the case, that vinyl really does sound better than CD - especially in LP's presentation of a realistic soundstage." |
#205
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 27, 1:40�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message I don't recall anyone saying anything about a vinyl transcription sounding better than a master. I do remember myself and a couple of others saying that in some specific instances, certain LPs sound better than the CDs made from the same original analog master, but since few (if any) of us have actually heard the master tapes in question, we're not likely to be in any position know that the vinyl transcription sounds better than the master (something that I doubt, in any case). The archives show that this claim has been made by James Boyk realted to one of his own recordings. I don't believe Boyk has ever made this claim at all. Here are a few things he did actually say here on this forum. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...744f43e e1414 "The whole recording chain ending in the Lp more faithfully captures the original sound than the whole recording chain ending in the CD. The ambience is better represented, the tone color of that particular piano, the harmonic decay of sustained notes. The musical dynamics are *much* better represented. To me as the performer, the difference is musically significant. " "Oh, the best (direct-to-disk) Lp clearly does a better job of reproducing musical dynamics than any CD-format digital I've heard. And the best analog tape does a better job than CD also, in my experience. I think it would be a fairly unusual professional recording engineer who would disagree with these statements, actually. I think there's a lot of agreement about the virtues of analog master recording. But whether there is or not, such are my views." "Yes, I would say that the Lp "more faithfully captures the material on the master tape," and that the tape + Lp *system* more faithfully captures the actual original sound of that piano, that pianist (me), that room...that event!" "I'm saying that when a master lacquer is heard Against the Live Microphone Feed Coming Over the Control-Room Speakers, it can be very very close. I've heard it be so close that professional recording engineers visiting the session turned their heads and stared at each other. To be sure, the final Lp isn't so good as the lacquer, but it hasn't lost all that much, either. " While he does express some very strong opinions about the virtues of LPs over CDs and his opinions are based on comparisons that use a mic feed as a reference he does not ever express the opinion that the LP made from an analog tape ever sounded more life like than the original analog tape. His views seem to run contrary to your characterizations of the inherent coloration of vinyl as a medium. |
#206
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
wrote in message
1. An undistorted signal? No such thing with any recording of live music. Excluded middle argument. Obvious claim that since any recording has some distortion no matter how vanishingly small, addition of unlimited amounts of distortion is at worst innocuous. All master tapes suffer from the inherent distortions of stereo recording, the distortions of the equipment used to make them and the limitations of the choices made by the recording engineer. So what? Does the presence of *any* distortion make the addition of *any* amount of distortion innocuous or even desirable? To hold this set of compromises that lies squarely in the middle of the recording and playback system as any kind of reference is to fail to see the forest for the trees. Comparing a forest and a single tree suggests that quantification is actually relevant. Can you quantify the distortion present in a master recording and the distortion in the same recording after recording and playback by means of vinyl? 2. This does not change the fact that once you chose to alter that signal you are introducing distortion. False claim. Once distortion is adequately identified, it can be compensated for, sometimes exactly, sometimes just mitigated signficantly. But the essence of a distortion corrector is the addition of distortion. Now this distortion is designed to compensate for undesirable distortion so it helps, but because the statement above is so blatantly general, that statement is now falsified. Where CD can be a bit-perfect copy of the master, vinyl cannot. The difference lies in having an accurate-to-the-master signal that can then be adjusted to offset speaker/room effects, or having a fixed distorted (to whatever degree) version of the original master. I see you use distortions to counter other distortions. This has been accepted engineering practice for at least 100 years. But you are quite certain that no such thing is possible with LP playback. I am not so certain. One better known attempts to compensate for some inherent distortions in vinyl was known as "Dynagroove". What is the audiophile lore about Dynagroove? I believe it is. I'm not sure how any added sound to the playback that was not present at the recording venue can be described as anything but distortion. Well, it could be noise. The difference between noise and distortion is that distortion is correlated with the signal, and noise need not be correlated with the signal. There are some intermediate cases such as modulation noise. ?And yes, since *you* have explicitly stated that LPs add distortion, you should, perforce be certain that such a thing is not possible with LP. Maybe you should read this interesting paper that was originally posted by Steve Sullivan. http://classicproaudio.com/franci.htm "Several years ago I was involved in my first recording which appeared on vinyl and CD. It gave me a unique opportunity to compare analogue and digital reproduction because I also had a copy of the original master tape. Unhesitatingly, I should say, the CD was 'nearer' the master, but vinyl produced a 'better' stereo image - in fact, better than the master tape! A conundrum indeed. Speaks to the vagueness of the word "better". We've been here before, and very recently. Words like "better" can be quantified by skilled engineers, but obviously the author lacks that kind of skill or he would have done so, since it would be very appropriate. |
#207
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 27, 8:16�am, Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:31:34 -0800, wrote (in article ): On Nov 26, 9:07 am, Sonnova wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:12:33 -0800, wrote (in article ): wrote: On Nov 24, 7:44 am, wrote: snip That is especially significant when talking about playback in which the goals maybe very specific. By the way, what was this alleged "clear mistatement?" Following your assertion/observation that, to paraphrase, some vinyl transcriptions sound "more lifelike" than the actual master, Arny replied: "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." To which you replied: "Where do we have these people? Certainly we don't have them participating in this thread." You, however, *are* one of these people who believe such, based on your own words, your tortured interpretation of "sounds right" notwithstanding. No I am not. Sorry but you are really twisting things to try to make them fit. I don't make any claims about anything sounding "right" or wrong so I can't possibly fit Arny's description. No, you are claiming that if anything sounds right, then all else sounds wrong. A position that is at odds with common usage of the term. And you are using tortured logic to try and defend that. You may wish to equate the fact that some times LPs sound more life like to me than other sources that are likely to be more accurate to the original master recording with the idea that I "need" the signal transcribed on vinyl to sound "right." but they aint the same thing no matter how you or Arny try to twist it. The twisting is on your end I'm afraid, and the fallacy is yours. That is, that "sounds right" is exclusionary, and can only apply to one instance of any particular specie. A fallacy required, BTW, if you are to exclude yourself from Arny's argument. So far all you have done is argue over a trivial point about the meaning of the word right. A word I did not use myself in any of my assertions. The point, Scott, is that you were using an artificially narrowed interpretation of "sounds right" as the basis for your argument. It's a failed point Keith because I did not use that term. Arny did and IMO he misused it. Sorry, but when begin describing "sounds right" in terms of a logical fallacy, it is indeed the *subject* of your discussion, and is therefore in implicit usage on your part. snip The *true* dichotomy is implicit in *your* argument that any master recording would have to be transcribed onto vinyl to be "more lifelike". That is hardly a dichotomy, false or otherwise, and I never did say or imply that master recordings "have to be transcribed onto vinyl to be more life like. I have simply obsrved that it happens quite often. Sorry, doesn't wash. If any recording sounds "more lifelike" on the vinyl transcription than on the master from which that transcription was made - as is your contention, then at least for *that* recording, there are only three possibilities; A) it has to transcribed onto vinyl to be "more lifelike"; B) it has to transcribed onto some other medium to be "more lifelike"; or C) the term "more lifelike" is without meaning in this context. Well that is a false trichotomy. A. suffers from a non sequitor. it does not follow that because in some cases added distsortion makes some recordings sound more life like that that same distortion has to be added to all recordings to make them all more life like. Clearly you ignored "...then at least for *that* recording...", a very specific qualification. But then that's necessary to make your argument work. I don't recall anyone saying anything about a vinyl transcription sounding better than a master. I do remember myself and a couple of others saying that in some specific instances, certain LPs sound better than the CDs made from the same original analog master, but since few (if any) of us have actually heard the master tapes in question, we're not likely to be in any position know that the vinyl transcription sounds better than the master (something that I doubt, in any case).- Hide quoted text - In all fairness I will take credit for actually saying as much. And though I have never actually compared masters to their LP counterpart I have based my assertions on two things. 1. The assumption that at least some of the CDs I have compared to LP versions and found lesser in quality have a mastering pedigree that is well documented would reasonably suggest the CD would be sonically very close if not identical to the master tape. 2, Claims by various mastering and recording engineers of this very phenomenon. These folks actually do use master tapes for comparisons. I understand what you are saying, however, I wouldn't go so far as to make that leap of faith (doesn't mean that you can't or shouldn't, though). Returning once again to my comments vis-as-vis the Classic Records 45RPM remastering of Stravinsky's Firebird, I do have the CD and a copy of the Philips-pressed LP. Neither sound anywhere NEAR as good as the Classic records re-issue. I have played all three for people and had them say that it was hard to believe that all three recordings came from the same master tape of the same performance. They sound THAT different. Needless to say, something is different about all three incarnations of this master tape, but not having heard the master, I certainly cannot say that the CD, as lackluster and insipid as it is is what the actual master tape sounds like, and that the Classic LP is better than the master. I will say that the Philips LP and the CD sound more alike than does the Classic LP and the CD. Why? I couldn't hazard a guess In the case of the Firebird we have a pretty good account of how the CD was mastered. I see no errors in Dennis Drake's methodologies given his goal to most accurately represent the signal coming off the tape deck. Sometimes it is hard to pin down mastering engineers about their tweaks. Steve Hoffman is very explicit about the subject. "If he told us what he did he would have to kill us." IOW trade secrets abound in mastering. We know that Bernie Grundman did not use any sort of compression on the Classics LPs but we don't know what else he did or didn't do to tweak the sound. Interestingly enough...or not, I have had the opportunity to compare both Steve Hoffman/Kevin Gray's mastering of John Coltrain, Blue Train on Analog Productions label with Bernie Grundman's mastering on the Classics label. I was involved in a test by Classics of their new vinyl formulation and this was the title used for that test. Both are on 45 rpm LP. Both masterings were from the original two track session tapes. I prefered the Hoffman/Gray version. They were pretty easy to distinguish. Michael Hobson, the president of Classics was of the opinion that Bernie's mastering was truer to the original master tapes. I suspect he might be right. But I'll take the more life like version over the more accurate version to the master tapes every time. |
#208
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
wrote in message
On Nov 27, 1:40?am, wrote: wrote: On Nov 26, 5:12 am, wrote: wrote: On Nov 24, 7:44 am, wrote: You misunderstand. It's the capability to *start* with the undistorted signal that is the point. From there, it can be left alone, or modified as needed to overcome other effects such as speaker/room interactions. 1. An undistorted signal? No such thing with any recording of live music. AHEM...I thought you said you were through with semantic quibbling... You think the distortions that precede the master tape are a matter of semantics? I disagree. They are a real issue that we, as audiophiles, have to live with and deal with. It's all about quantification. The nonlinear distortion in the recording chain up to the point where a LP might be cut is trivial compared to the bad things that happen when the music goes through the vinyl meat grinder. After much deliberation and armchair theorizing I set about doing some experiments. Late nights with an oscilloscope eventually uncovered that electrical and mechanical crosstalk within the cartridge and pre- amp were causing a stereo image manipulation which was similar to that brought about by the Blumlein 'Shuffler' circuit and Edeko's loudspeakers - all the important narrowing of the stereo image at high frequencies. If you want to narrow the image at high frequencies, it can be done far more effectively, and with far less distortion by purely electronic means. However, there's no technical consensus that artificially narrowing the image at high frequencies is even a good idea. Nobody designs the usual loss of high frequency separation into phono cartridges. They are just another form of distortion that is inherent in the process. Furthermore, it is completely illogical to believe that there is a "one-size fixt all" distortion of this kind that should be indiscriminately applied to every recording. It supported what I and so many hi-fi fans knew to be the case, that vinyl really does sound better than CD - Hey, if music with added audible noise and distortion of a characteristic and randomly-chosen kind is what floats your boat, then enjoy! especially in LP's presentation of a realistic soundstage." I see considerable evidence of a well-known technical problem that someone is attempting to make us all pay the big bucks to obtain for ourselves. |
#209
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
wrote in message
om On Nov 27, 1:40?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Sonnova" wrote in message I don't recall anyone saying anything about a vinyl transcription sounding better than a master. I do remember myself and a couple of others saying that in some specific instances, certain LPs sound better than the CDs made from the same original analog master, but since few (if any) of us have actually heard the master tapes in question, we're not likely to be in any position know that the vinyl transcription sounds better than the master (something that I doubt, in any case). The archives show that this claim has been made by James Boyk related to one of his own recordings. I don't believe Boyk has ever made this claim at all. .....and then you document it! Good job! Here are a few things he did actually say here on this forum. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...744f43e e1414 "The whole recording chain ending in the LP more faithfully captures the original sound than the whole recording chain ending in the CD. The ambience is better represented, the tone color of that particular piano, the harmonic decay of sustained notes. The musical dynamics are *much* better represented. To me as the performer, the difference is musically significant. " Obviously, someone is trying to sell their preferences for added audible noise and distortion in the form of LP recordings. Since it is well-known that the CD format is sonically transparent, Boyk is in essence claiming that his LPs sound better than the master tapes that were used to make them. |
#210
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 28, 6:09�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message 1. An undistorted signal? No such thing with any recording of live music. All master tapes suffer from the inherent distortions of stereo recording, the distortions of the equipment used to make them and the limitations of the choices made by the recording engineer. So what? Given that the point of audio recording and playback is to create an illusion of an original acoustic event from a single perspective these limitations are major factors. I would think that would be so obvious as to not need any explination. �Does the presence of *any* distortion make the addition of *any* amount of distortion innocuous or even desirable? If it improves the illusion of live music, yes. If it degrades the illusion, no. If it sounds better it is better. To hold this set of compromises that lies squarely in the middle of the recording and playback system as any kind of reference is to fail to see the forest for the trees. Comparing a forest and a single tree suggests that quantification is actually relevant. Can you quantify the distortion present in a master recording and the distortion in the same recording after recording and playback by means of vinyl? The validity of my perceptions or anyone else's does not depend on one's ability to measure and quantify distortions and corolate them with perceptions. Anyone who understands the very basis of audio as a hobby understands that it starts with perceptions. Any measurement and corolation with perceptions then may follow. It would appear that you are trying to discredit perceptions based on a lack of quantisization on my part. That would be absurd. It would the equivalent of demanding a chemical analysis from anyone claiming they enjoyed a paticular meal in order for them to have actually enjoyed that meal. The perception does not rely on any measurements to be valid much less actually exist. In fact prior knowledge of any measurements could be a source of bias. 2. This does not change the fact that once you chose to alter that signal you are introducing distortion. False claim. Once distortion is adequately identified, it can be compensated for, sometimes exactly, sometimes just mitigated signficantly. That is just the use of one distortion to counter the audible effects of other distortions. Earlier in this post you asked the question "Does the presence of *any* distortion make the addition of *any* amount of distortion innocuous or even desirable?" Looks like you answered your own question. In some cases yes. But the essence of a distortion corrector is the addition of distortion. Now this distortion is designed to compensate for undesirable distortion so it helps, but because the statement above is so blatantly general, that statement is now falsified. That is an argument that suffers from the logical fallacy of "Inconsistency Applying criteria or rules to one belief, claim, argument, or position but not to others." and "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." and it completely ignores the evidence to the contrary. The fact is the inherent limitations of stereo recording and playback are very well documented. A paper was presented by no other than Steve Sullivan that offered a well researched hypothesis that very much asserted it that indeed the inherent distortions of vinyl playback did actually compensate for an inherent limitation of stereo recording and playback. That paper states the following: " Blumlein was well aware of Duplex spatial-hearing theory and gives a good pr�cis in his patent application (1933). He therefore expected that the high-frequency inter-aural intensity cues and low-frequency inter-aural delay cues would be formed differently." "Several years ago I was involved in my first recording which appeared on vinyl and CD. It gave me a unique opportunity to compare analogue and digital reproduction because I also had a copy of the original master tape. Unhesitatingly, I should say, the CD was 'nearer' the master, but vinyl produced a 'better' stereo image - in fact, better than the master tape! A conundrum indeed. After much deliberation and armchair theorizing I set about doing some experiments. Late nights with an oscilloscope eventually uncovered that electrical and mechanical crosstalk within the cartridge and pre- amp were causing a stereo image manipulation which was similar to that brought about by the Blumlein 'Shuffler' circuit and Edeko's loudspeakers - all the important narrowing of the stereo image at high frequencies. It supported what I and so many hi-fi fans knew to be the case, that vinyl really does sound better than CD - especially in LP's presentation of a realistic soundstage." http://classicproaudio.com/franci.htm Do you have any research that contradicts Richard Brices extensive investigation and findings? http://classicproaudio.com/franci_revisited.htm Where CD can be a bit-perfect copy of the master, vinyl cannot. The difference lies in having an accurate-to-the-master signal that can then be adjusted to offset speaker/room effects, or having a fixed distorted (to whatever degree) version of the original master. I see you use distortions to counter other distortions. This has been accepted engineering practice for at least 100 years. Why then do you reject it in the case of vinyl playback? You have now been presented with a paper that documents how vinyl playback compensates for an inherent distortion is the system of stereo recording and playback. An inherent distrotion identified by Blumlein himself. But you are quite certain that no such thing is possible with LP playback. I am not so certain. I believe it is. I'm not sure how any added sound to the playback that was not present at the recording venue can be described as anything but distortion. Well, it could be noise. The difference between noise and distortion is that distortion is correlated with the signal, and noise need not be correlated with the signal. There are some intermediate cases such as modulation noise. But it isn't. Room reflections are directly corolated to the signal feeding the speakers. Besides, you have argued that noise is a problem. So room noise would fall under that umbrella. ?And yes, since *you* have explicitly stated that LPs add distortion, you should, perforce be certain that such a thing is not possible with LP. Maybe you should read this interesting paper that was originally posted by Steve Sullivan. http://classicproaudio.com/franci.htm "Several years ago I was involved in my first recording which appeared on vinyl and CD. It gave me a unique opportunity to compare analogue and digital reproduction because I also had a copy of the original master tape. Unhesitatingly, I should say, the CD was 'nearer' the master, but vinyl produced a 'better' stereo image - in fact, better than the master tape! A conundrum indeed. Speaks to the vagueness of the word "better". This guy was the recording engineer. If he says the imaging was better it stands to reason that he is basing that judgement on his direct experience with original event. I would think anyone who has listened extensively to stereo playback and live music would understand what better means when it comes to stereo imaging. It is hardly vague. We've been here before, and very recently. Words like "better" can be quantified by skilled engineers, but obviously the author lacks that kind of skill or he would have done so, since it would be very appropriate. That is nothing but an ad hominem attack on Richard Brice. A classic logical fallacy and a rather nasty one at that. What specifically do you actually know of Mr. Brice's "skills?" More importantly do you have any actual logical arguments based on actual empirical evidence that in any way disproves the findings of his research? |
#211
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 27, 1:41�am, wrote:
Sonnova wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:12:33 -0800, wrote (in article ): �Scott would likely argue, however, that the terms "more lifelike" and "sounds better" are neither analogous nor consonant, having argued vehemently that "more lifelike" and "sounds right" are unrelated terms. "More life like" does "sounds better" if one's goal is more life like sound. It's really very simple. Some people apparently feel the need for some sort of assurance of accuracy even if it means using an arbitrary point of reference just because it is easily quantifiable regardless of the aesthetic qualities of the results. To each his own. For me more life like sound is almost always better sound. Better is always in the eyes of the beholder. It is a purely subjective term. Someone has to make some sort of purely subjective decision as to what the ideal is before there can be any discussion about what is better. |
#212
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
|
#213
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 28, 8:42�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message On Nov 27, 1:40?am, wrote: wrote: On Nov 26, 5:12 am, wrote: wrote: On Nov 24, 7:44 am, wrote: You misunderstand. It's the capability to *start* with the undistorted signal that is the point. From there, it can be left alone, or modified as needed to overcome other effects such as speaker/room interactions. 1. An undistorted signal? No such thing with any recording of live music. AHEM...I thought you said you were through with semantic quibbling... You think the distortions that precede the master tape are a matter of semantics? I disagree. They are a real issue that we, as audiophiles, have to live with and deal with. It's all about quantification. No it's all about aural perception. You are putting the cart before the horse. Unless you are more interested in bench test results than aesthetic values. I am not. To each his own. After much deliberation and armchair theorizing I set about doing some experiments. Late nights with an oscilloscope eventually uncovered that electrical and mechanical crosstalk within the cartridge and pre- amp were causing a stereo image manipulation which was similar to that brought about by the Blumlein 'Shuffler' circuit and Edeko's loudspeakers - all the important narrowing of the stereo image at high frequencies. If you want to narrow the image at high frequencies, it can be done far more effectively, and with far less distortion by purely electronic means. How? How can I take a signal off of my CD player and process it so it mimics the improvements wrought by my vinyl playback system? Furthermore, it is completely illogical to believe that there is a "one-size fixt all" distortion of this kind that should be indiscriminately applied to every recording. 1. No one is saying that such distortion works equally well for all recordings. 2. It is logical when one considers that at it seems to be addressing a universal inherent limitation of stereo recording and playback. 3. Given the fact that different vinyl playback equipment has distinctive unique sonic signatures it stands to reason that this is not actually a 'one size fits all" solution. It supported what I and so many hi-fi fans knew to be the case, that vinyl really does sound better than CD - Hey, if music with added audible noise and distortion of a characteristic and randomly-chosen kind is what floats your boat, then enjoy! That was a quote from Richard Brice. He was the one who actually engineered the recordings and had first hand experience with the original acoustic event. especially in LP's presentation of a realistic soundstage." I see considerable evidence of a well-known technical problem that someone is attempting to make us all pay the big bucks to obtain for ourselves I see you making another ad hominem attack which is both a logical fallacy and a rather nasty thing to do to people who have done nothing to you. |
#214
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 28, 9:16�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message om On Nov 27, 1:40?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Sonnova" wrote in message I don't recall anyone saying anything about a vinyl transcription sounding better than a master. I do remember myself and a couple of others saying that in some specific instances, certain LPs sound better than the CDs made from the same original analog master, but since few (if any) of us have actually heard the master tapes in question, we're not likely to be in any position know that the vinyl transcription sounds better than the master (something that I doubt, in any case). The archives show that this claim has been made by James Boyk related to one of his own recordings. I don't believe Boyk has ever made this claim at all. ....and then you document it! �Good job! Here are a few things he did actually say here on this forum. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...e_thread/threa... "The whole recording chain ending in the LP more faithfully captures the original sound than the whole recording chain ending in the CD. The ambience is better represented, the tone color of that particular piano, the harmonic decay of sustained notes. The musical dynamics are *much* better represented. To me as the performer, the difference is musically significant. " Obviously, someone is trying to sell their preferences for added audible noise and distortion in the form of LP recordings. Pure Ad Hominem. Since it is well-known that the CD format is sonically transparent, Boyk is in essence claiming that his LPs sound better �than the master tapes that were used to make them.- Hide quoted text - Boyk's claims are clear and speak for themsleves. His claims are predicated on his observations that the CDs of his recordings at that time were not transparent transcriptions of the signal which fed the A/ D converter. Your complete misrepresntation of his conclusions speaks for itself as well. It is one thing to disagree with his claims it is another to misrepresent them. You have clearly done the latter. There is no reasonable interpretation of James Boyk's claims that would lead to the conclusion you present. One has to deliberately take his claims out of context to do so. |
#216
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
|
#217
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 29, 8:45�am, wrote:
wrote: On Nov 27, 1:40 am, wrote: wrote: On Nov 26, 5:12 am, wrote: wrote: On Nov 24, 7:44 am, wrote: You misunderstand. It's the capability to *start* with the undistorted signal that is the point. From there, it can be left alone, or modified as needed to overcome other effects such as speaker/room interactions. 1. An undistorted signal? No such thing with any recording of live music. AHEM...I thought you said you were through with semantic quibbling... You think the distortions that precede the master tape are a matter of semantics? I disagree. They are a real issue that we, as audiophiles, have to live with and deal with. The semantic quibble is your pretense that *you*, the audiophile, have any input into the process. We do have input. It's our money. The existance of audio depends on our choices. Ultimately we are the arbitrators of quality. we also have the opportunity to engage the people responsible for recording and mastering, learn from them so we can make better educated choices and lean on the music producers to give us better product. That has actually worked. One need look no further than the amazing reissues coming from the likes of Classics,Analog Productions, Pure Pleasure, Speaker's Corner etc. to see that we audiophiles have actually had substantial input. Without that input I suspect there would be nothing but no noised compressed crap on CD for us to listen to. �There could be a giant dust bunny sitting on a viola string causing distortion of that instrument during recording. �What are *YOU* going to do about that? �Maybe the mic is bad, maybe lots of things are wrong causing distortion - YOU cannot do anything about that. �What YOU get is the recording when it is finished. Hey lets talk about real world examples. A classic one is the Miles Davis Kind of Blue recording. One side was recorded off speed and that is what we have lived with for years. But Classics remastered it at the correct speed. so in essence what I did about it was give my business to people with the skills and determination to actually fix prior problems. Of course if one puts the philosophy that the master tape is the reference before their aesthetic values one could never actually have these sorts of corrections. I am not willing to fall on my philosophical sword at the expense of my aesthetic values. That is why anything upstream of the master is irrelevant, it will be made outside of your control, outside of your input, and outside of your ability to remediate. �The ONLY things you can control begin after the master is created. You are very much mistaken. It is relevant and it is possible for we the consumer to affect it. That has been plainly demonstrated. That is one of the reasons I cited as to why the master tape is not a meaningful reference. All master tapes suffer from the inherent distortions of stereo recording, the distortions of the equipment used to make them and the limitations of the choices made by the recording engineer. To hold this set of compramises that lies squarely in the middle of the recording and playback system as any kind of reference is to fail to see the forest for the trees. OK, let's try one last time. The master tape *IS* the recording is it not? Do you dispute that? If so, then exactly what is "the recording"? It is a recording. Who said "the recording?" Not sure what you are trying to say or what point you are trying to make. I was speaking of the entire chain when I said "the recording and playback system." That is an entire chain. The master tape is one link in that chain. The goal IMO of that chain is the illusion of a recreation of the original acoustic event from a designated listening position. The master tape is a record of an intermediate signal in the chain that as a whole is designed to try to create that illusion of the original acoustic event from a particular perspective. So the distortions suffered by the chain that precede the master tape are quite significant along with the inherent limitations of the system as a whole. Given the goals of the system and the nature of the system it is quite illogical to make an intermediate stage with no intrinsic sound on it's own a reference. As an end user, you get a recording to work with. �That's it. You can choose the medium (and the accompanying distortion(s))to which that recording is transcribed. �That is your entry point into the process, and anything that happens upstream of that entry point is irrelevant. YOU are not involved upstream. No. I don't get "a recording" I get a mastering or in most cases I get severalk masterings to chose from, some on CD some on LP all with different sonic characteristics. You continue to deny this basic and important fact. I also have the ability to chose an LP rig that has a sonic signature that shows recordings in a more favorable light. Whatever failures, limitations, distortions, additions/deletions that occur in the recording process (to make the master) are irrelevant to the point of this discussion. No they are not. Again this is a classic case of seeing the trees and missing the forrest. No, this is a classic case of strawman erection on your part. �The "Point" of this discussion (i.e. this part of the main thread) has been about LP/CD distortion, and preference for any resulting euphony, especially in preference to the master. �The master is basically the point at which the LP/CD distinction *occurs*. �Events that precede, and apply equally to, that distinction are logically irrelevant. You are trying to turn the discussion into an irrelevant abstract discussion that does not relate to the realities we face as audiophiles. Again you want to talk about a tree and I am only interested in the forrest. One can't ignore the nature of real world recordings when discussing the merits of the various media that play them. One also can't ignore the real world choices we actually have when it comes to the mastering of real world recordings. this discussion is starting to remind me of a bit in the Monty Python movie the Life of Brian "OK besides the law and order and the aquaducts and the sanitation what have the Romans ever done for us?" If you choose to believe that euphonic distortions in the LP transcription process "improve" the *actual* recording, that is your prerogative. �If you state that the LP is an accurate transcription of that recording, you are incorrect. In many cases in the real world the LP actually is far more accurate to the master tape than any CD version. Again it seems you want to limit this discussion to the abstract and ignore the realities of what product is actually out there for us to chose from. They are there for BOTH CD and LP, and are not subject to our control. That is actually irrlevant to the discussion and not entirely true. Really? �Which part of the recording process do *YOU* the consumer/audiophile have control over? I have control over which mastering I buy. That is why one should have both media and pay attention to differences in mastering. That actually does give us some control. In practice it is arguably the some of the most significant control we have. Yet your audio philosophy seems to ignore it in favor of reletively trivial differences between the two media. Well, first off, its clear you do not appreciate the distinction between "choice" and "control". Indeed I don't. Exercising choice is a form of exercising control. �A distinction quite necessary to apprehend the discussion at hand. �That you can "choose" different masterings, when such exist, confers exactly ZERO control over said process. It would seem you don't understand the economics of the market place. Those very choices by myself and like minded audiophiles have directly lead to the actual existance of literally hundreds of the masterings I own. I would assert that my choices has exerted a great deal of control over the process. If you don't agree feel free to ask the guys who are actually making these reissues that I find so favorable. Just email the folks at Classics, Analog Poductions, Pure Pleasure etc. I am quite sure they will tell you that it is audiophiles like myself that drive the market and allow for the production of literally humdreds of LPs and CDs with superior mastering. In fact, this statement validates my point precisely. �That your "most significant control" is choosing *which* mastering you buy, clearly means you have no significant input upstream of that recording. You seem to fail to understand that ultimately the mastering does affect what was upstream in the recording. I clear example is my ability to hear Kind of Blue at the correct speed. Secondly, of course, the differences between CD and LP are anything but "trivial". �How else could there exist the consistent subjective differences between them that you have so often extolled? �Much less the easily measured differences. They are pretty trivial actually and most of the time people are hearing differences in the mastering and problems from inferior equipment in the vinyl side of things. However, starting at the process point from which we *do* have control, we have (within the context of this discussion, and assuming SOTA transcriptions) one of the following paths: Master -- Bit perfect CD -- Playback chain OR Master -- LP with added distortion -- Playback chain To begin with your paths are simply an inaccurate description of our real world choices as audiophiles. Assuming SOTA transcriptions? You normally buy bad masterings and continue listening to them? Bad pressings? �No? No. If given a choice I buy better masterings. What does that have to do with reality? I'm not really interested in the abstract arguments about audio. I am a pragmatic audiophile. Let's deal with reality or agree that we have different concerns, mine the realities of audio and yours the abstract arrguments of audio. Sorry, you don't get to decide what my concerns are. I certainly get to offer an opinion about them. �You can choose to denigrate what you perceive my concerns to be, if that's the extent of your argument. �Don't expect it be very convincing however. If others wish to chime in and offer an opinion about whose arguments are better, yours or mine they are free to do so. I don't think you qualify as an objective observer on that question. You are completely leaving out the mastering process to make your argument which in most cases is the single most significant part of the chain when it comes to choices we as audiophiles can make. How is that in any way an argument that means anything to audiophiles who are just trying to get the best sound they can from their favorite recordings? OK, let's parse this paragraph. It's pretty illustrative of the confusion you're trying to generate. Ad hominem. Both a logical fallacy and a bit rude.�Ironic that you would chastise me for offering an opinion about your concerns and then turn around and misrepresent my intentions. First you state "...You are completely leaving out the mastering process..." extolling the importance of a process over which you and I have no control, Faulty premise. We as consumers do have substantial control in a niche market. One need look no further than the Steve Hoffman forums where one can see first hand the exchanges between the consumers and producers of audiphile reissues. then say "...audiophiles who are just trying to get the best sound they can from their favorite ***recordings***?" �You, as an audiophile, can do *nothing* about the first case (i.e. the mastering), therefore the mastering has nothing to do with how you "try to get the best sound" out of *a* recording. That is again a faulty premise. I can both chose amongst existing masterings and exert influence to create better masterings. �You can choose which mastering you like best, and from that point, you can do whatever you like to "try to get the best sound" out of it. That is actually right. but if I were to let the philosophical ideaology that asserts vinyl is a flawed medium and should therefore be avoided drive my actions as an aduiophile I would no longer have the same choices amongst the many different masterings out there in the real world. So that choice would be in direct conflict with " just trying to get the best sound one can from their favorite ***recordings" It would seem that such a choice would put one's ideaology above one's actual aesthetic values. The original goal of fidelity is premised on the inherent superior aesthetic values of live acoustic music. This narrow minded ideological belief that vinyl is a flawed medium that needs to be avoided and any euphonic colorations from any vinyl rig are inherently inferior because it is not accurate to the master tape appears to ultimately be self-defeating. Starting with CD, you start without distortion of the master, which is NOT the case with LP. AND, let's not forget that YOU cannot even control the extent or spectrum of distortion added in the LP process, since it occurs upstream of your process entry point. And the distortion is irrespective of, and independent from, any limitations of the master recording. Case closed. Maybe for you. You are putting the cart before the horse. You are ignoring the need for the whole system approach. What I find painfully missing from all of your explinations of your audio philosophies is any reference to actually just sitting down and listening to the final product from each path and judging the sound rather than the path by which the sound is achieved. What I find painfully missing from you is attentiveness to obvious text. More ad Hominem. It appears you have run out of any logical arguments supported by meaningful evidence. � What part of "...I have many hundreds of LPs that I have replaced with CD versions. �Except for some truly awful transfers in the early days of CD, the CDs give *me* the better sound. �And in the cases of those awful CD's, remastered versions I've purchased have all sounded better than the LP version...?" did you overlook? No. But I did see the obvious anti vinyl bias in such a broad sweeping claim. Perhaps if you had done the comparisons with bias controls in place I might have taken your assertion more seriously. |
#218
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
wrote in message
No. But I did see the obvious anti vinyl bias in such a broad sweeping claim. Perhaps if you had done the comparisons with bias controls in place I might have taken your assertion more seriously. Single blind tests = essentially no adequate bias controls. If it were possible to have a LP playback for an appreciable amount of time with zero characteristic tics and pops, then bias controlled tests comparing the LP to more modern forms of recording could make some sense. As things stand, any listener who would be so inclined would simply wait for the first audible tic or pop, and vote his biases. Still waiting for a CD transcribed with a side of a LP, no tic and pop removal, and with no tics or pops... |
#219
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 29, 8:09�pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: On Nov 27, 1:41???am, wrote: Sonnova wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:12:33 -0800, wrote (in article ): ???Scott would likely argue, however, that the terms "more lifelike" and "sounds better" are neither analogous nor consonant, having argued vehemently that "more lifelike" and "sounds right" are unrelated terms. "More life like" does "sounds better" if one's goal is more life like sound. It's really very simple. � Actully, it's a rather complex situation, because without a constant, blind reference to a real, live performance, many preferences (and thus biases) come into play when a person decides whether something sounds 'lifelike . That is a fair point. Interestingly enough the few people I know who actually have done blind comparisons between a live mic feed, digital recording, analog tape and a direct cut laquer are James Boyk, Doud Sax and Kavi Alexander. Here are some of James Boyk's comments on some of those experiences. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...006e0ea d8b9c "On CD vs Lp, I can't resist--unwisely I know--mentioning that a master disk for an Lp can be cut of such quality that you can't pick it from the master tape; or can pick it only with great difficulty. I have personally heard such disks. From that point, it's a matter of how closely the finished Lp's hew to the master; and they can be very close indeed." http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...744f43e e1414 "The whole recording chain ending in the Lp more faithfully captures the original sound than the whole recording chain ending in the CD. The ambience is better represented, the tone color of that particular piano, the harmonic decay of sustained notes. The musical dynamics are *much* better represented. To me as the performer, the difference is musically significant." "Oh, the best (direct-to-disk) Lp clearly does a better job of reproducing musical dynamics than any CD-format digital I've heard. And the best analog tape does a better job than CD also, in my experience. I think it would be a fairly unusual professional recording engineer who would disagree with these statements, actually. I think there's a lot of agreement about the virtues of analog master recording. But whether there is or not, such are my views." See the paper on the problems with hedonic listening tests that Arny linked to, for a list of them. �There is also the issue of audio memory, which is not particularly good at details over the long haul. It's not particularly bad when it comes to mere recognition. Recognizing the sound of live instruments for the sound of live instruments is not terribly challenging IME. Is there any evidence out there that suggests I am mistaken and overstating the acuity of aural recognition? For instance I can recognize the unique sound of an old freinds voice often without hearing that voice for many years. That sort of aural memory seems to be rather acute among we humans. Do you think otherwise? So whatever it is, it is certainly not 'really very simple'. �You may have a *simplistic* view of the issues involved, but that's a different word and a different thing. What I said was "More life like" does "sounds better" if one's goal is more life like sound." When I said that was simple I was trying to state that it is a simple concept. I still believe it is a simple concept. |
#220
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
wrote in message
On Nov 28, 9:16?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Since it is well-known that the CD format is sonically transparent, Boyk is in essence claiming that his LPs sound better ?than the master tapes that were used to make them.- Hide quoted text - Boyk's claims are clear and speak for themsleves. Yes, Boyk's pro LP bias and his anti-science views about things like wires and cables are a matter of the public record. His claims are predicated on his observations that the CDs of his recordings at that time were not transparent transcriptions of the signal which fed the A/ D converter. I see no evidence of any adequate bias controlled tests done by Boyk to confirm any such claim. Can you cite it? |
#221
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
wrote in message
On Nov 27, 1:41�am, wrote: Sonnova wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:12:33 -0800, wrote (in article ): �Scott would likely argue, however, that the terms "more lifelike" and "sounds better" are neither analogous nor consonant, having argued vehemently that "more lifelike" and "sounds right" are unrelated terms. "More life like" does "sounds better" if one's goal is more life like sound. However, it is very clear that audiophiles in general have no fixed local reference for determining that a given reproduced sound is more or less "life like". IME experience they may have been educated to rely on local, highly indirect references such as the sound of their favorite loudspeakers at their favorite local high end audio store. Certainly, when people habitually state that the best available recorded sound needs to have randomly-selected, audible noise and distortion added to it in order for it to sound maximally life-like, something is desperately awry. It's really very simple. Some people apparently feel the need for some sort of assurance of accuracy even if it means using an arbitrary point of reference just because it is easily quantifiable regardless of the aesthetic qualities of the results. So you can't see that using an "arbitrary point of reference just because it is easily quantifiable" is horribly wrong? To each his own. Indeed. For me more life like sound is almost always better sound. Except it can't be because of your oft-stated preference for the best available recorded sound with added randomly-selected, audible noise and distortion, to sound maximally life-like Better is always in the eyes of the beholder. However, technological progress is based on the idea that the eyes of the beholders tend to converge in a certain locality. Indeed we see this to be true for music lovers. The vast and overwhelming majority of music lovers ignore and even sometimes eschew that addition of the vinyl LP's characteristic and universal inherent collections of noises and distortions. It is a purely subjective term. But again subjectivity seems to converge. Certain concert halls such as Orchestra Hall in Detroit as well as other legendary concert halls world-wide are generally preferred, while others receive expensive modifications and some are *enhanced* by means of the wrecking ball. Someone has to make some sort of purely subjective decision as to what the ideal is before there can be any discussion about what is better. The good news is that almost everybody made that decision vis-a-vis vinyl versus digital about 30 years ago. Just a tiny and regrettably noisy minority spend much time promoting it. |
#222
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 30, 8:32�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message No. But I did see the obvious anti vinyl bias in such a broad sweeping claim. Perhaps if you had done the comparisons with bias controls in place I might have taken your assertion more seriously. Single blind tests = essentially no adequate bias controls. That simply is not true. This is just another case of faulty logic. "The Moving Goalpost A method of denial arbitrarily moving the criteria for "proof" or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence currently exists." http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp Please cite one peer reviewed paper on pychoacoustics that asserts single blind blind tests are inadequate for hobbyists personal use. If it were possible to have a LP playback for an appreciable amount of time with zero characteristic tics and pops, then �bias controlled tests comparing the LP to more modern forms of recording could make some sense. As things stand, any listener who would be so inclined would simply wait for the first audible tic or pop, and vote his biases. That would be a flawed test. It doesn't take much enginuity to get around such simple problems. |
#223
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 30, 8:42�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message On Nov 28, 9:16?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Since it is well-known that the CD format is sonically transparent, Boyk is in essence claiming that his LPs sound better ?than the master tapes that were used to make them.- Hide quoted text - Boyk's claims are clear and speak for themsleves. Yes, Boyk's pro LP bias and his anti-science views about things like wires and cables are a matter of the public record. Classic use of faulty logic. Pure ad hominem. His �claims are predicated on his observations that the CDs of his recordings at that time were not transparent transcriptions of the signal which fed the A/ D converter. I see no evidence of any adequate bias controlled tests done by Boyk to confirm any such claim. More faulty logic. You once again present your personal, limited, highly biased beliefs as some sort of actual objective universal reference. It does not matter what you chose to see or how you chose to interpret it. Can you cite it? Yes.It was documented in an interview of James Boyk in The Absolute Sound. But you can always email Kavi Alexander, James Boyk and/or Doug Sax to get a first hand account. I am sure you will have no trouble tracking down the original article or the email addresses of the participants in those blind comparisons. |
#224
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
|
#226
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 30, 12:57�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message On Nov 27, 1:41 am, wrote: Sonnova wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:12:33 -0800, wrote (in article ): Scott would likely argue, however, that the terms "more lifelike" and "sounds better" are neither analogous nor consonant, having argued vehemently that "more lifelike" and "sounds right" are unrelated terms. "More life like" does "sounds better" if one's goal is more life like sound. However, it is very clear that audiophiles in general have no fixed local reference for determining that a given reproduced sound is more or less "life like". I can't speak for audiophiles in general and I'm not sure there would be any relevance if I could. There are many audiophiles with very diverse beliefs and experiences. So much so that IMO any reference to audiophiles in general is pretty close to meaningless. I can speak for myself though. I listen to a lot of live music on a regular basis. �IME experience they may have been educated to rely on local, highly indirect references such as the sound of their favorite loudspeakers at their favorite local high end audio store. Maybe you are hanging out with the wrong audiophiles. Certainly, when people habitually state that the best available recorded sound needs to have randomly-selected, audible noise and distortion added to it in order for it to sound maximally life-like, something is desperately awry. Who has ever made such a statement? Quotes please? It's really very simple. �Some people apparently feel the need for some sort of assurance of accuracy even if it means using an arbitrary point of reference just because it is easily quantifiable regardless of the aesthetic qualities of the results. So you can't see that using an "arbitrary point of reference just because it is easily quantifiable" is horribly wrong? IMO it is. You should be asking yourself and the others that are advocating such a reference that question. Heck I'll ask you. Can't *you* see that using an arbitrary point of reference (master tape) just because it is easily quantifiable" is horribly wrong? To each his own. Indeed. For me more life like sound is almost always better sound. Except it can't be because of your oft-stated preference for the �best available recorded sound with added randomly-selected, audible noise and distortion, to sound maximally life-like That is yet another use of faulty logic. Tautology A tautology is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not immediately apparent as such. http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp Better is always in the eyes of the beholder. However, technological progress is based on the idea that the eyes of the beholders tend to converge in a certain locality. No it is also based on goals and the achievement of those goals. Goals are ultimately based on what human beings desire. Those things are subjective and diverse in nature. One of the most significant convergences in audio in the last 15 years has been the resulting excessive compression of commecial recordings on CD and MP3. That is not my idea of technilogical progress. You may feel differently. Indeed we see this to be true for music lovers. The vast and overwhelming majority of music lovers ignore and even sometimes eschew that addition of the vinyl LP's characteristic and universal inherent collections of noises and distortions. They also seem to be embrassing CDs and MP3s that are compressed to death iwth their patronage. You may find the buying habbits of the masses as some sort of meaningful guide to better sound. I do not. It is a purely subjective term. But again subjectivity seems to converge. Certain concert halls such as Orchestra Hall in Detroit as well as other legendary concert halls world-wide are generally preferred, while others receive expensive modifications and some are *enhanced* by means of the wrecking ball. And yet the vast majority of concert goers are listening to concerts over bad PAs in large stadiums and sports venues. This so called convergence has been the rule for many years now. I guess I am not one to be a confomist. Someone has to make some sort of purely subjective decision as to what the ideal is before there can be any discussion about what is better. The good news is that almost everybody made that decision vis-a-vis vinyl versus digital about 30 years ago. Just a tiny and regrettably noisy minority spend much time promoting it. The same folks who are now embrassing excessive compression in their CDs and MP3s. If you wish to count yourself among these people I won't try to stop you. |
#227
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
wrote in message
On Nov 30, 8:32?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message No. But I did see the obvious anti vinyl bias in such a broad sweeping claim. Perhaps if you had done the comparisons with bias controls in place I might have taken your assertion more seriously. Single blind tests = essentially no adequate bias controls. That simply is not true. Nobody has taken single blind tests seriously since Clever Hans *talked* back in the early 1800s. This is just another case of faulty logic. No, its not. If single blind tests are so good, why are DBTs practically required when human life and health is at stake? If it were possible to have a LP playback for an appreciable amount of time with zero characteristic tics and pops, then ?bias controlled tests comparing the LP to more modern forms of recording could make some sense. As things stand, any listener who would be so inclined would simply wait for the first audible tic or pop, and vote his biases. That would be a flawed test. It doesn't take much ingenuity to get around such simple problems. Prove it to me. Looking forward to that unprocessed, unedited side of a LP transcribed to a CD. |
#228
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 30, 1:16�pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote: On Nov 29, 8:09?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: wrote: On Nov 27, 1:41???am, wrote: Sonnova wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:12:33 -0800, wrote (in article ): ???Scott would likely argue, however, that the terms "more lifelike" and "sounds better" are neither analogous nor consonant, having argued vehemently that "more lifelike" and "sounds right" are unrelated terms. "More life like" does "sounds better" if one's goal is more life like sound. It's really very simple. ? Actully, it's a rather complex situation, because without a constant, blind reference to a real, live performance, many preferences (and thus biases) come into play when a person decides whether something sounds 'lifelike . That is a fair point. Interestingly enough the few people I know who actually have done blind comparisons between a live mic feed, digital recording, analog tape and a direct cut laquer are James Boyk, Doud Sax and Kavi Alexander. Here are some of James Boyk's comments on some of those experiences. I don't consider Boyk a credible source on these matters, and haven't for years. So what? Are you the arbitrator of credibility? In one of your pullquotes, for example, he seems to assert that 'euphonic colorations' do not exist. One may refer to the far more credible posts of jj, Dick Pierce, et al, in those threads. Do JJ or Dick Pierce have more experience than Boyk in making direct comparisons of actual live muisic or mic feeds to the various sources in question? Are they proven better listeners? By what objective criteria are they more credible when it comes to the assesment of sound quality of the various media in direct comparison to a live source? It is easy to start making ad Hominem attacks on various peoples' credibility but it is a basic logical fallacy. You may not like James Boyk's findings but to question his "credibility" on this subject you have to find objective fault with his experience, methodologies or reasoning. See the paper on the problems with hedonic listening tests that Arny linked to, for a list of them. ?There is also the issue of audio memory, which is not particularly good at details over the long haul. It's not particularly bad when it comes to mere recognition. Recognizing the sound of live instruments for the sound of live instruments is not terribly challenging IME. Is there any evidence out there that suggests I am mistaken and overstating the acuity of aural recognition? For instance I can recognize the unique sound of an old freinds voice often without hearing that voice for many years. That sort of aural memory seems to be rather acute among we humans. Do you think otherwise? One error is that you are equaing the sound of an individual human voice -- a soiund we are evolutionarily quite well attuned to -- with the sound of some generic 'live' performance. I wasn't equating anything, Just citing one of many examples of long term recognition. I can think of other examples that involved musical instruments. But I will ask a more specific question. Do you believe it is difficult for listeners to recognize the distinct sound of live instruments v. the sound of instruments recorded and played back based on long term aural memory of the sound of live instruments? |
#229
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
wrote in message
On Nov 30, 12:57�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message On Nov 27, 1:41 am, wrote: Sonnova wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:12:33 -0800, wrote (in article ): Scott would likely argue, however, that the terms "more lifelike" and "sounds better" are neither analogous nor consonant, having argued vehemently that "more lifelike" and "sounds right" are unrelated terms. "More life like" does "sounds better" if one's goal is more life like sound. However, it is very clear that audiophiles in general have no fixed local reference for determining that a given reproduced sound is more or less "life like". I can't speak for audiophiles in general and I'm not sure there would be any relevance if I could. There are many audiophiles with very diverse beliefs and experiences. So much so that IMO any reference to audiophiles in general is pretty close to meaningless. I can speak for myself though. I listen to a lot of live music on a regular basis. �IME experience they may have been educated to rely on local, highly indirect references such as the sound of their favorite loudspeakers at their favorite local high end audio store. Maybe you are hanging out with the wrong audiophiles. Show me something better! Certainly, when people habitually state that the best available recorded sound needs to have randomly-selected, audible noise and distortion added to it in order for it to sound maximally life-like, something is desperately awry. Who has ever made such a statement? Quotes please? Your choice of promoters of the vinyl format, posting on Usenet and HTML conferences. Any issue of your favorite high end ragazine. It's really very simple. �Some people apparently feel the need for some sort of assurance of accuracy even if it means using an arbitrary point of reference just because it is easily quantifiable regardless of the aesthetic qualities of the results. So you can't see that using an "arbitrary point of reference just because it is easily quantifiable" is horribly wrong? IMO it is. You should be asking yourself and the others that are advocating such a reference that question. Heck I'll ask you. Can't *you* see that using an arbitrary point of reference (master tape) just because it is easily quantifiable" is horribly wrong? My choices of reference are far from being arbitrary. For me more life like sound is almost always better sound. Except it can't be because of your oft-stated preference for the �best available recorded sound with added randomly-selected, audible noise and distortion, to sound maximally life-like That is yet another use of faulty logic. So you say. Tautology A tautology is an argument that utilizes circular reasoning, which means that the conclusion is also its own premise. The structure of such arguments is A=B therefore A=B, although the premise and conclusion might be formulated differently so it is not immediately apparent as such. http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp That's not an answer, its just a irrelevant truism. It's a smoke screen put up by someone who has no relevant reliable facts to back up his exceptional, anti-scientific claims. Better is always in the eyes of the beholder. However, technological progress is based on the idea that the eyes of the beholders tend to converge in a certain locality. No it is also based on goals and the achievement of those goals. The logical error is the idea that ascribing one property to something necessarily involves invalidates all other properties that it might have. IOW, sure, its based on goals and achievment of those goals, but this begs the question whether or not the goal is well-defined. So far all we hear from those who praise vinyl over digital is relatively rare personal perceptions that may well be illusions. Goals are ultimately based on what human beings desire. Those things are subjective and diverse in nature. One of the most significant convergences in audio in the last 15 years has been the resulting excessive compression of commecial recordings on CD and MP3. That is not my idea of technilogical progress. You may feel differently. It's not a matter of feeling, it is a matter of observing and reaching logical conclusions. The CD almost totally destroyed the market for LPs because in the eyes of almost everybody (not just many, not just a lot, but about 99% of all music lovers) it did a better job of delivering music to people who loved it. The sound of the CD was generally better, it was more convenient, more reliable, and ultimately it became cheaper and simply more usable. The numbers and facts are there and they are incontrivertable, except in the eyes of a tiny minority who behave like know-nothings. They only read documents that support their viewpoint, they only hear what they want to hear. They can't be bothered with studying established accepted technology, they dismiss all technical measures of audible performance, and they dismiss the preferences of about 99% of all music lovers. Indeed we see this to be true for music lovers. The vast and overwhelming majority of music lovers ignore and even sometimes eschew that addition of the vinyl LP's characteristic and universal inherent collections of noises and distortions. They also seem to be embrassing CDs and MP3s that are compressed to death iwth their patronage. You have again confused the message with the medium. The CD medium can do 2 channel stereo with sonic perfection, low cost and high levels of reliability and convenience. People have the choice to use it that way, or not. It's a free country and a free market. It is a purely subjective term. But again subjectivity seems to converge. Certain concert halls such as Orchestra Hall in Detroit as well as other legendary concert halls world-wide are generally preferred, while others receive expensive modifications and some are *enhanced* by means of the wrecking ball. And yet the vast majority of concert goers are listening to concerts over bad PAs in large stadiums and sports venues. That is a choice they get to make. I take it that you would prefer that we sanction those activities. This so called convergence has been the rule for many years now. I guess I am not one to be a confomist. You are a conformist, just you conform to a different set of standards. Everything you say echoes what the high end ragazines have been saying for decades. Someone has to make some sort of purely subjective decision as to what the ideal is before there can be any discussion about what is better. The good news is that almost everybody made that decision vis-a-vis vinyl versus digital about 30 years ago. Just a tiny and regrettably noisy minority spend much time promoting it. The same folks who are now embrassing excessive compression in their CDs and MP3s. Plenty of music that has been recorded with the goals of accuracy and natural dynamics is still available as a new product. In fact that new CD that I cited last week has the highest dynamic range I've ever found on any commercial recording, anyplace. If you wish to count yourself among these people I won't try to stop you. That's an ad hominem argument, isn't it? ;-) |
#230
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
wrote in message
Do JJ or Dick Pierce have more experience than Boyk in making direct comparisons of actual live muisic or mic feeds to the various sources in question? Good question, and the answer is not obvious. One thing that is well-known, and that is in contrast to Boyk, both JJ and Mr. Pierce are technically competent in audio and electronics. Are they proven better listeners? This question seems to be a demonstration of inability to ask a relevant question. Boyk is a musican, while JJ and Mr. Pierce are both primarily technicans. Musicans and technicans generally listen differently. There's a well-known difference between hearing sound quality and hearing music. Perhaps this book will help you out: http://www.amazon.com/Music-Brain-Ec.../dp/038078209X By what objective criteria are they more credible when it comes to the assesment of sound quality of the various media in direct comparison to a live source? Musicans are notorious for failing to be able to hear small differences in sound quality, despite the fact that many are superior and reliable perceivers of musical quality. The two talents are nearly mutually exclusive. |
#231
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 30, 4:25�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message On Nov 30, 8:32?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message No. But I did see the obvious anti vinyl bias in such a broad sweeping claim. Perhaps if you had done the comparisons with bias controls in place I might have taken your assertion more seriously. Single blind tests = essentially no adequate bias controls. That simply is not true. Nobody has taken single blind tests seriously since Clever Hans *talked* back in the early 1800s. You snipped an important part of my post. So I will restate it. That simply is not true. This is just another case of faulty logic. "The Moving Goalpost A method of denial arbitrarily moving the criteria for "proof" or acceptance out of range of whatever evidence currently exists." http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp Please cite one peer reviewed paper on pychoacoustics that asserts single blind blind tests are inadequate for hobbyists personal use. Your failure to cite any peer review paper on psychoacoustics that assert single blind tests are inadequate for hobbyists' personal use puts your assertions in perspective. assertions without support. This is just another case of faulty logic. No, its not. If single blind tests are so good, why are DBTs practically required when human life �and health is at stake? Huh? Are you asserting that they are doing DBTs in emergency wards and intensive care units? I think not. But I would expect a much higher standards of testing when lives are at stake. I am quite satisfied with the sighted tests done by doctors and nurses in the ER. I think they do a heroic job. If it were possible to have a LP playback for an appreciable amount of time with zero characteristic tics and pops, then ?bias controlled tests comparing the LP to more modern forms of recording could make some sense. As things stand, any listener who would be so inclined would simply wait for the first audible tic or pop, and vote his biases. That would be a flawed test. It doesn't take much ingenuity to get around such simple problems. Prove it to me. Looking forward to that unprocessed, unedited side of a LP transcribed to a CD. Sorry Arny but I am not interested in trying to persuade *you* of anything. I believe you are too committed to the old subjectiveist/ objectivist feud. |
#232
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
wrote:
On Nov 30, 8:42?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message On Nov 28, 9:16?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Since it is well-known that the CD format is sonically transparent, Boyk is in essence claiming that his LPs sound better ?than the master tapes that were used to make them.- Hide quoted text - Boyk's claims are clear and speak for themsleves. Yes, Boyk's pro LP bias and his anti-science views about things like wires and cables are a matter of the public record. Classic use of faulty logic. Pure ad hominem. Boyk's work and claims have been discussed ad nauseam on Usenet audio forums, as you well know,since you posted links to some of the discussion. If to some, LPs sound better than master tapes, it *has* to be due to some form of euphonic coloration....as others who share that perception have recognized. http://classicproaudio.com/franci.htm "Several years ago I was involved in my first recording which appeared on vinyl and CD. It gave me a unique opportunity to compare analogue and digital reproduction because I also had a copy of the original master tape. Unhesitatingly, I should say, the CD was 'nearer' the master, but vinyl produced a 'better' stereo image - in fact, better than the master tape! A conundrum indeed. After much deliberation and armchair theorizing I set about doing some experiments. Late nights with an oscilloscope eventually uncovered that electrical and mechanical crosstalk within the cartridge and pre-amp were causing a stereo image manipulation which was similar to that brought about by the Blumlein 'Shuffler' circuit and Edeko's loudspeakers - all the important narrowing of the stereo image at high frequencies. It supported what I and so many hi-fi fans knew to be the case, that vinyl really does sound better than CD - especially in LP's presentation of a realistic soundstage." (This testimony is, of course, also subject to criticism for apparent lack of bias controls) -- -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 |
#233
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
wrote in message
On Nov 30, 4:25�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message On Nov 30, 8:32?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message No. But I did see the obvious anti vinyl bias in such a broad sweeping claim. Perhaps if you had done the comparisons with bias controls in place I might have taken your assertion more seriously. Single blind tests = essentially no adequate bias controls. That simply is not true. Nobody has taken single blind tests seriously since Clever Hans *talked* back in the early 1800s. You snipped an important part of my post. So I will restate it. It is just an irrelevant truism. Your failure to cite any peer review paper on psychoacoustics that assert single blind tests are inadequate for hobbyists' personal use puts your assertions in perspective. assertions without support. Here we have a false argument based on adding on irrelevant qualifications until the conditions are practically impossible to meet. According to this argument, general criticisms of single blind tests are irrelevant because they don't specifically apply to hobbiest personal use, or tests involving pink elephants, or whatever. This is just another case of faulty logic. No, its not. If single blind tests are so good, why are DBTs practically required when human life �and health is at stake? Huh? Are you asserting that they are doing DBTs in emergency wards and intensive care units? Here we have yet another false argument based on irrelevant conditions. It is apparently not sufficient that medications and other treatment options are validated, often in accordance with the law, based on DBTs. Now, according to the false argument presented above, DBTs aren't valid unless they are used by emergency room doctors to make on-the-spot treatment choices. Prove it to me. Looking forward to that unprocessed, unedited side of a LP transcribed to a CD. Sorry Arny but I am not interested in trying to persuade *you* of anything. Then show that you actually believe in this to the point where you stop arguing that the LP is generally superior to the CD. I believe you are too committed to the old subjectiveist/ objectivist feud. In fact this has nothing to do with your failure to back your claims up by doing something that tens of thousands of home audiophiles do every day. |
#234
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 30, 1:21�pm, wrote:
wrote: On Nov 29, 8:45 am, wrote: snip The semantic quibble is your pretense that *you*, the audiophile, have any input into the process. We do have input. It's our money. You are confusing marketing input with "process" input. I think you are denying the clear connection between the two. It was the market input of audiophiles like myself that directly led to the processes used on many of the current audiophile releases. Again if you doubt this fact it is easy to varify. a simple email to Chad Kassem of Analog Productions or Michael Hobson of classics will do the trick. Ask them if you don't believe me. �Yes, if no one buys "Mastering A", then possibly "Mastering B" will be created. �You still have NO input into any decisions made regarding the choices made to create "Mastering B". That is simply not true. Our choices as consumers do affect choices made by the producers. In the case of the audiophile market our feedback also affects choices by producers. Again, you cannot affect the mastering choices made, you can only affect your choice of masters to buy. Again we can affect such choices to a degree by simply supporting the work of mastering engineers whose work we prefer. the effect is those mastering engineers get more jobs and we get more product mastered the way we like it mastered. �And that choice is significantly diluted, effectually, by the fact that you typically have to purchase the recording before you get to evaluate it. Of course our influence is diluted. at the same time in the real world of audiophilia that influence has been pretty profound. Like minded audiophiles have created a market for these audiophile reissues that are in most cases IME the best out there. These titles now exist in huge quantities. 20-25 years ago when Record Companies started reissuing their back catalogs on CD with near zero quality control it was this same vocal group that expressed their dislike for that garbage. The general public was largely accepting that garbage as state of the art sound. They accepted the argument that much of the bad sound they were hearing was just a case of a more accurate transcription of a bad recording. so yeah, I do believe that we have very much created a rich marketplace filled with amazing remasters for ourselves that would not exist if nobody spoke up about crap sounding CDs. A market that would not exist if everyone just accepted any and all CDs as perfect transcriptions of the master tape and believed that is how it should be. snip That is why anything upstream of the master is irrelevant, it will be made outside of your control, outside of your input, and outside of your ability to remediate. The ONLY things you can control begin after the master is created. You are very much mistaken. It is relevant and it is possible for we the consumer to affect it. That has been plainly demonstrated. That is your opinion, clearly. �That does not, however, make your belief accurate. But it is accurate and you can check if you are actually interested in the accuracy of that claim with the actual producers of audiophile recordings and reissues. You can reach Chas Kassem by email at Acoustic Sounds http://store.acousticsounds.com/supp...?support=email and Michael Hobson by email at Classics � If you are simply more interested in just arguing about differences between CDs and vinyl without any connection to the realities of what is actually out there on vinyl and CD count me out. I've talked to these folks. I know what they have to say about it in reality. Of course consumers can have an effect, in a very gross indirect way (which is why I stated that it as not relevant in this context), but you have demonstrated absolutely NO mechanism whereby YOU the consumer get to make mastering (i.e. the physical process, not the purchasing decision) decisions. I influence the mastering decisions I actually want made by supporting the work of the mastering engineers whose work I like best. It could be a coincidence but those guys are now getting a great deal of the work. That makes me very happy. snip As an end user, you get a recording to work with. That's it. You can choose the medium (and the accompanying distortion(s))to which that recording is transcribed. That is your entry point into the process, and anything that happens upstream of that entry point is irrelevant. YOU are not involved upstream. No. I don't get "a recording" I get a mastering or in most cases I get severalk masterings to chose from, some on CD some on LP all with different sonic characteristics. You continue to deny this basic and important fact. snip semantical argument I also have the ability to chose an LP rig that has a sonic signature that shows recordings in a more favorable light. And? And enjoy it? And what?� That has been the discussion after all. �The problem is, with LP, you don't have option of NOT adding a sonic signature, euphonic or not. You are just trying to misrerpresent the debate over CD v. LP in a way that assumes one has to abandon one for the other. If a CD sounds better for a particular title than any LP for whatever reasons then listen to the CD. That's what I do. It is a purely pragmatic approach. Whatever failures, limitations, distortions, additions/deletions that occur in the recording process (to make the master) are irrelevant to the point of this discussion. No they are not. Again this is a classic case of seeing the trees and missing the forrest. No, this is a classic case of strawman erection on your part. The "Point" of this discussion (i.e. this part of the main thread) has been about LP/CD distortion, and preference for any resulting euphony, especially in preference to the master. The master is basically the point at which the LP/CD distinction *occurs*. Events that precede, and apply equally to, that distinction are logically irrelevant. You are trying to turn the discussion into an irrelevant abstract discussion that does not relate to the realities we face as audiophiles. Again you want to talk about a tree and I am only interested in the forrest. You can repeat this simple fallacy as much as you like, it is still a strawman. �Repetition does not create reality. Do you have an actual logical argument to make here? This is just ad hominem and unsupported assertion. One can't ignore the nature of real world recordings when discussing the merits of the various media that play them. One also can't ignore the real world choices we actually have when it comes to the mastering of real world recordings. Are you saying I've done so? �When? Yes, On this thread. this discussion is starting to remind me of a bit in the Monty Python movie the Life of Brian "OK besides the law and order and the aquaducts and the sanitation what have the Romans ever done for us?" Now that is a total non-sequitur. �I'm not ignoring real world choices. � I'm discussion one very real, very large, real world choice, and that is between LP and CD as a source. Yes that is my point. You are trying to promote a false dichotomy between LP and CD as a source. You are arguing your case from an abstract position that ignores the real world choices we have amongst the different masterings available on CD and LP. Those masterings clearly have a much greater inpact than the inherent sonic signatures of either media. You are trying to defend your ideological choice to shoot yourself in the foot and abandon vinyl as a medium by asserting all audiophiles have to make one final all or nothing choice between the two media. Your arguments are completely destroyed by the simple fact that I and the vast majority of other vinyl enthusiasts have CD players and listen to CDs. We allow ourselves the choice of the best masterings available on both media. When the best choice happens to be on LP that is simply an observation. You may wish to argue away those observations but that is not how things work. It would appear that you have chosen to cut yourself off from the opportunity to make those decisions based on some idealogical anti vinyl position. Your foot your gun. You can argue all you want. I have had far too many real world experiences with LPs sonically out performing CDs and visa versa for me to abandon my pragmatic approach for the sake of some idealogical argument. If you choose to believe that euphonic distortions in the LP transcription process "improve" the *actual* recording, that is your prerogative. If you state that the LP is an accurate transcription of that recording, you are incorrect. In many cases in the real world the LP actually is far more accurate to the master tape than any CD version. Again it seems you want to limit this discussion to the abstract and ignore the realities of what product is actually out there for us to chose from. OK. �You have repeatedly admitted that LP ADDS distortion, yes? �CDs have been shown capable of bit-perfect reproduction of digital masters, yes? �So exactly how is it possible for LP to more accurate to the master tape than *any* CD? Such a question speaks loudly of your choice to argue this point from the abstract and ignore the real world choices of audiophiles. I'll ask you a simple question about real world choices between LPs and CDs of the same title. Which do you think is more accurate to the master tape with Red Hot Chilli Peppers Stadium Arcadium, the LP or the CD? Now before you answer here is some real world information on the real world LP and CD in question. http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f9/ama...-vinyl-184499/ I think it should be pretty self evident the many ways in which an LP can be far more accurate to the master tape than the CD of the same title. They are there for BOTH CD and LP, and are not subject to our control. That is actually irrlevant to the discussion and not entirely true. Really? Which part of the recording process do *YOU* the consumer/audiophile have control over? I have control over which mastering I buy. Non-responsive to the question - but you knew that right? It was quite responsive. I'm sorry that you don't see the connection. snip Well, first off, its clear you do not appreciate the distinction between "choice" and "control". Indeed I don't. Well, a rare point of agreement. Exercising choice is a form of exercising control. Purely sophistry in this context, as previously discussed. Ad hominem. at least an attempt. I am curious though how one would rationally argue that sopistry is wrong minded in the evaluation of any aesthetic experience. Do you think one has some sort of obligation to tailor their aesthetic values to suit some standard set of aesthetic values? If so, who is the arbitrator of those alleged standard aesthetic values? �No matter what you buy, you have no control over the methods used to create the product. Not true. Consumer choices ultimately do affect methods used. A distinction quite necessary to apprehend the discussion at hand. That you can "choose" different masterings, when such exist, confers exactly ZERO control over said process. It would seem you don't understand the economics of the market place. Those very choices by myself and like minded audiophiles have directly lead to the actual existance of literally hundreds of the masterings I own. I would assert that my choices has exerted a great deal of control over the process. If you don't agree feel free to ask the guys who are actually making these reissues that I find so favorable. Just email the folks at Classics, Analog Poductions, Pure Pleasure etc. I am quite sure they will tell you that it is audiophiles like myself that drive the market and allow for the production of literally humdreds of LPs and CDs with superior mastering. And you give them technical input into the mastering process right? They call you for advice on the mixes and masters, right? �You get an LP that doesn't sound "life like" enough and you call them and they remaster it right? This is a classic case of faulty logic. "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 I would no more tell a great mastering engineer how to do his job than I would tell a great chef how to cook a meal. I am not claiming to have direct control of the mastering process. I wouldn't want that if I could have it. I would rather have people with real talent and experience doing it for me. That is where I do have some control. I can pick my restaurants and I can buy product mastered by my favorite mastering engineers. You seem to think that influence is non existant or inconsequencial. I disagree and I would assert that this disagreement can easily be settled by the actual producers of audiophile reissues. You can talk to them. I gave you the contact inofrmation. I already have talked to them many times. In fact, this statement validates my point precisely. That your "most significant control" is choosing *which* mastering you buy, clearly means you have no significant input upstream of that recording. You seem to fail to understand that ultimately the mastering does affect what was upstream in the recording. I clear example is my ability to hear Kind of Blue at the correct speed. Fixing a clear, gross, error in recording during mastering is NOT an example of where YOU have any control over the mastering process. Actually it is. Well, not me personally, but me and the group of like minded audiophiles (myself included) who pay attention to mastering do influence the process to the point of creating porduct. Classics would not exist were it not for our patronage. Therefore that particular reissue would have never come into being. So our influence very much manifested that fix. �That a screwed up recording was "what we have lived with for years" is a clear demonstration that you have no control over the process. No *that* is a clear demonstration of what was happening before like minded audiophiles (myself included) created a market for audiophile reissues.�Once that market gained momentum the flood gates were opened up for this kind of thing. This is he direct result of the interaction of audiophiles and producers or audiophile product. You seem to fail to understand that while yes, having a perceived market for a remastered version supplied the impetus for a new product, YOU still had zero input into what that product would be, and thus the recording you get, on your medium of choice, is where your "control" over the process begins. We as a group have had tremendous influence. I as an individual have shared in some of that influence. That is clearly more than zero. You are arguing a point that is extreme to the point of absurdity. You seem to be trying to create a false dichotomy. Control is not an all or nothing proposition. There are vast areas of gray in between those two extremes. Secondly, of course, the differences between CD and LP are anything but "trivial". How else could there exist the consistent subjective differences between them that you have so often extolled? Much less the easily measured differences. They are pretty trivial actually and most of the time people are hearing differences in the mastering and problems from inferior equipment in the vinyl side of things. OSAF. �They are not trivial IME, and I've heard many examples of many vinyl rigs over the years. �And no one is arguing that vinyl can, indeed, sound very good, especially given the crudity of the actual process. Here are somethings siad by folks who actually have done blind comparisons between laquers and the master tapes or even better the direct mic feed. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...006e0ea d8b9c "On CD vs Lp, I can't resist--unwisely I know--mentioning that a master disk for an Lp can be cut of such quality that you can't pick it from the master tape; or can pick it only with great difficulty. I have personally heard such disks. From that point, it's a matter of how closely the finished Lp's hew to the master; and they can be very close indeed. " James Boyk http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...d.php?t=133328 "First, let me say that I love records, compact discs and SACDs; I have a bunch of all three formats. Nothing that I discovered below changed that one bit. I did these comparisons a few years ago. Since I spilled the beans to an interviewer on mic last year I continually get quoted and misquoted about this subject. I'll try to set the "record" straight in this thread. Please note I'm typing on a whacked out computer not my own with a tiny monitor and no spell check.... There could be a (gasp) typo or two... A few years ago, mainly out of curiosity (and nothing else) I got the chance at AcousTech Mastering to compare an actual master tape to the playback of a record lacquer and digital playback. Also did the same test using DSD (SACD) playback as well later on in the day. The results were interesting. The below is just my opinion. Note that we cut the record at 45 because the lathe was set for that speed. A similar test we did using the 33 1/3 speed yielded the same result. FIRST COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with DIGITAL PACIFIC MICROSONICS CAPTURE. We had the master tape of the Riverside stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/ WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to do this little comparison. Since the actual master needs a bunch of "mastering" to make it sound the best, I set the title track up as if it was going to be mastered (which in a sense it was, being cut on to an acetate record). We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to the digital computer at the same time with the same moves. Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels. Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I noticed: The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the same. We couldn't tell one from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the SAE arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in so many pictures posted here of AcousTech). The flat digital playback of my mastering sounded different. NOT BAD, just different. The decay on the piano was different, the plucks of Scott's bass were different, the reverb trail was noticeably truncated due to a loss of resolution. Non unpleasant, just not like the actual master tape. This is slightly frustrating to me because it confirmed the fact that when mastering in digital one has to compensate for the change (which I do with my usual "tricks"). The record however, gave back exactly what we put in to it. Exactly. This reinforced my opinion that AcousTech Mastering has the best cutting chain in the world. Please note that an actual record for sale would have gone through the manufacturing process and the lacquer would have been processed to a MASTER, MOTHER, STAMPER and VINYL with increased surface noise, etc. but the sound of the music remains intact for the most part. A remarkable thing since records have been basically made the same way for over 100 years. SECOND COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE LACQUER AT 45 RPM with DSD MASTER (SACD MASTER). So, using the same master tape of WALTZ FOR DEBBY, we compared the before mentioned acetate that we cut on the AcousTech lathe (manufactured in 1967 and modded by Kevin Gray) with a DSD playback of the same tape with the same mastering and levels. Result? The DSD/SACD version sounded even MORE different than the compact disc digital playback compared to the analog master. More not- like the sound of the actual master tape. The resolution was fine and we could hear the notes decay, etc. just like analog but the TONALITY was a bit off. It was not telling the truth when compared to the master tape or the acetate record. THIRD COMPARISON: MASTER TAPE with ACETATE RECORD with OPEN REEL TAPE COPY AT 15 ips: We made a dub of the tune WALTZ FOR DEBBY to an Ampex ATR-100 at 15 ips non-Dolby, +3 level and played it back with the actual master tape and the acetate record. Both of us thought the open reel tape copy sounded inferior to the acetate record when compared to the master tape; weaker transients, a more "blurred" sound that would never be noticeable unless played back with the actual master tape to compare it to. So, what does this mean to you? Probably nothing. What did it mean to me? I found it interesting. The CD playback had more accurate tonality than the DSD/SACD playback. The DSD playback had more front to back resolution than the CD playback. The tape copy sounded slightly lackluster. The acetate record playback beat them all in terms of resolution, tonal accuracy and everything else when compared directly with the analog master in playback. This is not wonderful news in a certain sense; vinyl playback is sometimes a pain in the butt and knowing that CD's are not capturing everything in perfect resolution drives me bonkers. Regarding the lowly phonograph record: Remember, a record groove is a true "analog" of a sound wave; not a SAMPLE but the real deal. Even the electrically recorded 78's I have from the 1920's have a wonderful sound with a lifelike convincing midband (which is where the "heart" of the music lies). Read what Kevin Gray wrote in this essay: http://www.recordtech.com/prodsounds.htm http://www.recordtech.com/faq.htm Of course records have their problems (could be noisy, warped, bad cutting, etc.) as well but for the most part they will be a damn miraculous representation of the actual master recording for not much money. Your comments are welcome. Please remember, the above is just my OPINION but I found it interesting. I love my compact discs but I realize they are not the last word in resolution; they are damn fine though and when listening for pleasure I play CDs and records, with CDs getting the most play. My Sony and Living Stereo SACDs are never far away from me either. If you disagree with me, that's cool. It's all fun, or should be. Sorry again for some awkward English in this; my proofing time was limited (but not compressed)." Steve Hoffman It is quite clear that these three very experienced, very skilled listeners found the colorations of these laquers to be trivial at best. Now you may fancy yourself a more skilled listener than either James Boyk, Steve Hoffman or Kevin Gray but that would be at best just your biased subjective opinion. Or you may think your system is more revealing than the ones they used. I'd want to see some evidence of that though. Any which way what we have here is much more than just some casual opinion. It is the observation of three very skilled very experienced listeners of comparisons between the playback of laquers directly to the master tape or the direct mic feed. They also offer pretty explicit opinions on the differences between the laquers and the final product. Not much. And, one might ask, of what value is the significant investment you've made in your *rig* if the difference in sound between LP on your rig and CD are trivial? I have already explained that. My rig has a sonic signature that proved to be quite favorable under blind conditions in direct comparisons over a rig that is likely to be among the least colored in the world. Those differences were not so trivial. To begin with your paths are simply an inaccurate description of our real world choices as audiophiles. Assuming SOTA transcriptions? You normally buy bad masterings and continue listening to them? Bad pressings? No? No. �If given a choice I buy better masterings. Then your statement is either fallacious or facetious. �Not sure which. Only if one accepts all of your hypothetical premises which bear no resemblence to the real world. I simply don't accept those hypothetical premises because I would rather focus on real world choices as an audiophile. What does that have to do with reality? I'm not really interested in the abstract arguments about audio. I am a pragmatic audiophile. Let's deal with reality or agree that we have different concerns, mine the realities of audio and yours the abstract arrguments of audio. Sorry, you don't get to decide what my concerns are. I certainly get to offer an opinion about them. You have to understand them first, and you've demonstrated little facility for that so far. Pure Ad Hominem. snip You can choose which mastering you like best, and from that point, you can do whatever you like to "try to get the best sound" out of it. That is actually right. but if I were to let the philosophical ideaology that asserts vinyl is a flawed medium and should therefore be avoided drive my actions as an aduiophile I would no longer have the same choices amongst the many different masterings out No response. And this is the jist of things. |
#235
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
wrote in message
You can reach Chas Kassem by email at Acoustic Sounds http://store.acousticsounds.com/supp...?support=email and Michael Hobson by email at Classics � If you are simply more interested in just arguing about differences between CDs and vinyl without any connection to the realities of what is actually out there on vinyl and CD count me out. I've talked to these folks. I know what they have to say about it in reality. if these people are as helpful as you claim, then perhaps you can have them help you your claim that the LP format has none of the problems that we say it does, by providing an unprocessed, unedited transcription of a LP side that as you have repeatedly claimed, lacks all of the audible problems we've been talking about. Since it is your reputation that is at stake here, of course it is up to you to provide the recording, not us. |
#236
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
wrote in message
On Nov 28, 8:42�am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message On Nov 27, 1:40?am, wrote: wrote: On Nov 26, 5:12 am, wrote: wrote: On Nov 24, 7:44 am, wrote: You misunderstand. It's the capability to *start* with the undistorted signal that is the point. From there, it can be left alone, or modified as needed to overcome other effects such as speaker/room interactions. 1. An undistorted signal? No such thing with any recording of live music. AHEM...I thought you said you were through with semantic quibbling... You think the distortions that precede the master tape are a matter of semantics? I disagree. They are a real issue that we, as audiophiles, have to live with and deal with. It's all about quantification. No it's all about aural perception. You are putting the cart before the horse. Unless you are more interested in bench test results than aesthetic values. I am not. To each his own. The above shows a lack of understanding of the word perception, which I have observed before. Perceptions may be either veridical or illusory. Illusory perceptions need not be connected with actual, genuine, or reliable objects or events. Therefore, saying that something is all about aural perception ignores the critical fact that the aural perception can easily be illusory, which is to say that it has no basis in reality outside the brain of the one perceiving. After much deliberation and armchair theorizing I set about doing some experiments. Late nights with an oscilloscope eventually uncovered that electrical and mechanical crosstalk within the cartridge and pre- amp were causing a stereo image manipulation which was similar to that brought about by the Blumlein 'Shuffler' circuit and Edeko's loudspeakers - all the important narrowing of the stereo image at high frequencies. If you want to narrow the image at high frequencies, it can be done far more effectively, and with far less distortion by purely electronic means. How? How can I take a signal off of my CD player and process it so it mimics the improvements wrought by my vinyl playback system? A reasonable first step would be to ascertain tha the so-called improvements aren't actually illusions. In fact there few if any sucessful recordists who are using LP playback systems as signal improvers. Can you document a well-known recordist or mastering engineer who proudly and routinely cuts recordings to LPs and then plays them back as part of their production of SACDs or DVD-As? Furthermore, it is completely illogical to believe that there is a "one-size fixt all" distortion of this kind that should be indiscriminately applied to every recording. 1. No one is saying that such distortion works equally well for all recordings. Since we don't know if the so-called improvements are illusions or veridical, we don't know what "works well" means in your lexicon. 2. It is logical when one considers that at it seems to be addressing a universal inherent limitation of stereo recording and playback. Again, cutting recordings to LPs and then playing them back is not a generally-accepted part of their production of SACDs or DVD-As, or even CDs. This seems to be an exceptional claim which needs to be proven by a more rigorous method than unusupported assertion without any evidence but some LP enthusiast's say-so. 3. Given the fact that different vinyl playback equipment has distinctive unique sonic signatures it stands to reason that this is not actually a 'one size fits all" solution. Then there is no evidence that any LP playback system but yours has this benefit? It supported what I and so many hi-fi fans knew to be the case, that vinyl really does sound better than CD - Hey, if music with added audible noise and distortion of a characteristic and randomly-chosen kind is what floats your boat, then enjoy! That was a quote from Richard Brice. He was the one who actually engineered the recordings and had first hand experience with the original acoustic event. Proof by means of name-dropping? Is that listed as being a good thing or a bad thing in the skeptic's literature that you keep quoting? Is it listed at all, or is it something that you invented for yourself? |
#238
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message On Nov 30, 8:32?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message No. But I did see the obvious anti vinyl bias in such a broad sweeping claim. Perhaps if you had done the comparisons with bias controls in place I might have taken your assertion more seriously. Single blind tests = essentially no adequate bias controls. That simply is not true. Nobody has taken single blind tests seriously since Clever Hans *talked* back in the early 1800s. They have their limited uses -- there are experiments where the experimenters cannot eithically 'blind' themselves, e.g. sham surgery. But for experimetnal psychology, DBT is the way to go. -- -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 |
#239
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
|
#240
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: Musicans are notorious for failing to be able to hear small differences in sound quality, despite the fact that many are superior and reliable perceivers of musical quality. The two talents are nearly mutually exclusive. Really? Please supply evidence. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Klipschorns in the 21st Century? | Tech | |||
21st Century E-Business Money Making Formula | Vacuum Tubes | |||
21st Century E-Business Money Making Formula | Audio Opinions | |||
21st Century E-Commerce Money Making Formula | Audio Opinions | |||
21st Century E-Commerce Money Making Formula | Pro Audio |