On Feb 13, 11:01=A0am, ScottW wrote:
On Feb 12, 4:48=3DA0pm, Scott wrote:
On Feb 12, 1:39=3D3DA0pm, ScottW wrote:
=3D3DA0and this argument has me a bit confused.
On the one hand vinyl has supposed (and I assume) audible euphonic
distortions that make it superior to CD for the creation of the
acoustic illusion
and on the other side is vinyl has audible distortion.
I can see where this would seem confusing. I'm not saying the euphonic
colorations are inaudible. I am saying they are not identifiable as
audible distortion without a reference. Others are saying nay to the
very idea of euphonic colorations in vinyl playback and that there are
readily identifiable colorations that prevent any LP from sounding
truly great.
=A0I don't agree with that at all as I have some LPs that I think are
fabulous.
yet another reason the challenge isn't aimed at you.
I also think that that I could select some passages that mask most of
the obvious
With the records I have in mind I am of the opinion that I will not
have to be particulary selective.
deficiencies in vinyl and be very difficult to identify as vinyl but
that wouldn't prove that differences don't exist.
That was never my stated postion though. I agree the differences
exist. I don't agree that the *inherent* colroations of vinyl are so
gross that one can easily identify them by ear alone and I also
disagree that the colorations are so severe that no LP can ever truly
sound great. But it looks like you already agree with me on both
counts.
The rest of the test is simple subjective preference and mostly
taylored to address one man's opinion.
I am of the opinion that there is some universality and certainly much
common ground in the world of subjective aesthetic evaluation.
There does not appear to be an argument that vinyl is audibly
different,
just wether those differences are preferable or not.
It runs much deeper than that. There is the question of whether or not
vinyl is inherently so colored by distortions that those audible
colorations are identifiable by ear alone without any reference to
compare it with.
=A0Again, I think that depends greatly upon the passage selected.
If the *inherent* colorations are so great it would be clear on any
and all passages. So again we are much closer to agreement here as
well.
Then again...if vinyl is not audibly different than vinyl and Arny
should fail in his
test....then it's not clear how the argument of preference for vinyl
can be
sustained on the basis of euphonic distortion.
There are two parts to the test. the second part of the test askes the
testee to rate the sound quality of each sample. If some of the
samples that are sourced from vinyl are rated as excellent or great it
is evidence against the assertion that no LP can truly sound great due
to the effects of the inherent colorations of the medium.
=A0My own perception of greatness varies from day to day 
.
How much does it vary? One day you listen to a recording and think it
is world class and offers an extraordinary illusion fo live music
played in a real space, next day it sounds like crap?
volume and content to mask the obvious audible noise floors of vinyl
may well be indistinguishable by ear.
I plan to include very quite passages and passages with the trail off
of sustained notes. that should address that concern.
=A0I think in those cases Arny (or I) will be able to easily ID the
vinyl.
=A0The noise floor is audible with sufficient volume.
Ah you mean he will turn up the volume to make the identification. I
gotta ask how much of a coloration is it if one has to crank the
volume way past normal listening levels to hear the noise? Even then,
I think the results may surprise a lot of folks here.
=A0It's not at my normal listening levels and therefore not an issue to
me for listening, but it is easily detectable if I wanted to.
If one has to go beyond normal listening levels just to discern it
then we can't really be talking about some gross deal breaking
coloration now can we?
=3D3DA0Tell you what, you include tracks of MoFis Vinyl of Modern Coo=
l
(which I haven't heard) and the CD and
then I'll be impressed.
I don't have that. I don't even know what it is. I was going to use
nothing but acoustic music.
=A0Particia Barbers Modern Cool. One of my favorite test CDs.
All her stuff is pretty well recorded.
thanks for the tip
Mostly if not exclusively classical. I was
going to use the very best sounding LPs and CDs I have as sources from
both analog and digital recordings. I don't think using crap sounding
digital sources helps support my position. If I did that and the
testee simply chose to say all the samples sounded like crap. Well, I
wouldn't have a leg to stand on in rebutting that claim. If I include
the best digital recordings from the best CDs that easy out is
eliminated. If the testee calls all the samples bad at that point then
the testee shoots his credibility in the foot. If it were to come to
that I would ask that the testee supply his own sample of what he
considers to be a great sounding sample so all interested parties can
compare for themsleves after the results are revealed.
If the test ever comes to be, could you make available the files for
download?
I'd like to lend my ears. =A0thanks.
I will send you a copy on disc. But I really don't think it will come
to pass.