wrote in message
...
Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my
views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose
some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to
get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from
objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions
. It is my impression that
1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to
the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of
the signal used to make them.
2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor
quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering
engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or
manugfacturing of those CDs.
3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been
done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding
version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus
will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/
engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the
master.
4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when
not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic
colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like
them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the
original sound of a live recording.
5. Objectivists believe the primary source of preferences for LPs over
CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases.
Let me know if I am making any misrepresentations of objectivists
beliefs on this subject.

You have stated the position extremely well. One small quibble, however, is
the use of the word "belief". With the exception of the 5th item, it is not
a question of belief, but of measurable and repeatable objective evidence.

S.

Serge Auckland wrote:
wrote in message
...
Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my
views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose
some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to
get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from
objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions
. It is my impression that
1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to
the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of
the signal used to make them.
2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor
quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering
engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or
manugfacturing of those CDs.
3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been
done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding
version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus
will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/
engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the
master.
4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when
not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic
colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like
them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the
original sound of a live recording.
5. Objectivists believe the primary source of preferences for LPs over
CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases.
Let me know if I am making any misrepresentations of objectivists
beliefs on this subject.

You have stated the position extremely well. One small quibble, however, is
the use of the word "belief". With the exception of the 5th item, it is not
a question of belief, but of measurable and repeatable objective evidence.

S.

Yes, but how do you know you aren't just a brain in a jar, dreaming it
all? ;


As for Scott's list,




1. can be, if done well and compared blind. Assuming the 'signal
used to make them' refers to the signal after having been captured
by a microphone.


2. the digital conversion *can* be at fault, but it is not
an *inherent* problem


3. *if* accuracy is defined as measurable accuracy. If accuracy
is defined subjectively, then it is best determined by *well-controlled*
comparison to source. It is slightly dodgy of Scott to stick in that
bit about 'artists' intentions'. It is entirely possible that
the 'intention' may not have been finalize until the cutting stage
of an LP, as is the case when last minute fades or dubs
are introduced. Hence some CD reissues end up lacking the fade
or the part of the original 'mix' (e.g. recent reissues of Yes and
Jethro Tull albums). To that extent they are less
accurate representations of the artists original intentions.
THis of course is not an inherent flaw of digital, or an inherent
benefit of vinyl. It's simply careless remastering.

4) again, define what 'accurate' means in this context. *Objective* accuracy is
measurable and repeatable -- two different people measuring it with the same
equipment, will arrive at the same result. *Subjective* sense of 'accuracy'
can only be measured reliably by directly comparing the sound to the source of
the recording ...e.g., LP or CD to the master tape (it simply isn't
feasible to compare either to a live performance in real time, though
the signal chain leading up to them can be, to a degree).

6) only if preference for euphonic distortion is considered a form
of *bias*. If so, then preference for lack of same, is also a 'bias'.
But I don't think this is what objectivists mean when they speak of bias
towards LPs. They are referring to non-audible factors , such as
preconceptions arising from the *reputation* of vinyl amongst audiophiles
and the audiophile press.








--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Serge Auckland wrote:
wrote in message
...
Perhaps a beaten horse but still a hot topic. Before going into my
views on the subject v. the views of objectivists I would like to pose
some of my impressions about objectivist views to objectivists. Just to
get a fair representation of those views I would like to hear from
objectivists on the accuracy of my impressions
. It is my impression that
1. objectivists believe that commerical CDs from thier intorduction to
the market place to the present are audibly transparent transfers of
the signal used to make them.
2. Objectivists blame any faults of commercial CD sound to the poor
quality of the original recordings or bad choices made by mastering
engineers but never blame the actual digital conversion or
manugfacturing of those CDs.
3. Objectivists believe that CDs in the cases that no tweaking has been
done by the mastering engineers always present a more accurate sounding
version of that master than any LP played back on any TT rig and thus
will offer a more accurate representation of the artists/producer/
engineer's intentions as well as a more accurate reproduction of the
master.
4. Objectivists believe the often cited preference for LPs to CDs when
not a result of mastering differences is often the result of euphonic
colorations inherent in LPs as a medium and that while some may like
them they are never more accurate to the master tape or even the
original sound of a live recording.
5. Objectivists believe the primary source of preferences for LPs over
CDs by vinyl enthusiasts is mostly a result of biases.
Let me know if I am making any misrepresentations of objectivists
beliefs on this subject.

You have stated the position extremely well. One small quibble, however, is
the use of the word "belief". With the exception of the 5th item, it is not
a question of belief, but of measurable and repeatable objective evidence.

S.

Yes, but how do you know you aren't just a brain in a jar, dreaming it
all? ;


As for Scott's list,




1. can be, if done well and compared blind. Assuming the 'signal
used to make them' refers to the signal after having been captured
by a microphone.

The position has nothing to do with posibilities or capabilities of CD.
So it says nothing about what "can be." It states a very simple
assertion of what has happened when it comes to commercial CDs. If you
feel it is not accurate then please say so and perhaps add why. If you
feel it does represent what you believe then just says so.




2. the digital conversion *can* be at fault, but it is not
an *inherent* problem


So you believe there are commercial CDs out there that have been
audibly degraded during the A/D conversion?





3. *if* accuracy is defined as measurable accuracy. If accuracy
is defined subjectively, then it is best determined by *well-controlled*
comparison to source.


It is defined subjectively. So it is best determined by well controlled
comparison to the source. I agree. So do you agree with the assertion
or disagree with it? lets just address the first part. Do you agree
that commercial CDs always are subjectively more accurate than LPs to
the source that they were made from. Again . I'm not talking about
anything the mastering engineer may hav done to manipulate the sound of
the original master. I am talking fidelity to the signal that fed
either the cutting console for an LP or the A/D converter in the case
of CD.


It is slightly dodgy of Scott to stick in that
bit about 'artists' intentions'.


I stuck it in because it has been claimed that commercial CDs are a
bettr representation of the intentions of those who made the original
recording because they are transaparent copies of the master tape
provided no mastering engineer has tampered with them. Again this is my
impression of the objectivsts POVs on the subject and not mine. If you
don't agree just say so and perhaps say why. I'm trying to get the most
accurate account of objectivists beliefs at this point.


It is entirely possible that
the 'intention' may not have been finalize until the cutting stage
of an LP, as is the case when last minute fades or dubs
are introduced. Hence some CD reissues end up lacking the fade
or the part of the original 'mix' (e.g. recent reissues of Yes and
Jethro Tull albums). To that extent they are less
accurate representations of the artists original intentions.


OK that answers the question to a degree.



THis of course is not an inherent flaw of digital, or an inherent
benefit of vinyl. It's simply careless remastering.


True, but a real world reality none the less.




4) again, define what 'accurate' means in this context.


Same as above. In terms of audio the subjective is all that matters
IMO.


*Objective* accuracy is
measurable and repeatable -- two different people measuring it with the same
equipment, will arrive at the same result. *Subjective* sense of 'accuracy'
can only be measured reliably by directly comparing the sound to the source of
the recording ...e.g., LP or CD to the master tape (it simply isn't
feasible to compare either to a live performance in real time, though
the signal chain leading up to them can be, to a degree).


OK. I agree. So are you saying that you don't think CDs will
subjectively sound more like the master tape than LPs? Are you saying
you just don't know? Are you saying sometimes yes sometimes no? It's
not about possibilities. I am interested in your beliefs on the reality
of the state of CDs and Lps.




6) only if preference for euphonic distortion is considered a form
of *bias*.


No. a preference for ephonic colorations is a seperate issue and is
caused by actual sound and not expectations.


If so, then preference for lack of same, is also a 'bias'.
But I don't think this is what objectivists mean when they speak of bias
towards LPs. They are referring to non-audible factors , such as
preconceptions arising from the *reputation* of vinyl amongst audiophiles
and the audiophile press.


I agree. So do you agree with the above assertion that vinyl
enthusiasts' preference is largely driven by bias or not?


Scott