[Rob]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
factor, either.
"

Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has
managed two maxims from anecdote.

No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire LP music recording.
Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording captures in entirety any variance
in sources.

These assumptions aren't facts.


This is a problem
because it still doesn't explain *why* some people prefer
a similar/same recording on vinyl.

That wasn't the point.


Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no attempt is made
to explain cause. If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.

It's just another attampt at closure of the point: 'They can not, they
must
not'.

Completely missed the point.


I don't think so. Perhaps I could have rephrased to: "It's another
attempt by Arny to achieve closure ...". Why else would you have posted?

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely,
and the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't
a factor, either.
"

Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has
managed two maxims from anecdote.

No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire
LP music recording.

Not all of the recording, just all of the audible parts, and with a very
considerable safety magin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It can be verified with
both listening tests and measurements.

Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording
captures in entirety any variance in sources.

Not all of the sources, just all of the audible parts, and with a
considerable margin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It can be verified with
both listening tests and measurements. The measurements need to be
coordinated with what is known about human perception of sound. This has
been done.

These assumptions aren't facts.

Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used. Properly stated they are
findings of science that have been verified by just about anybody who has
bothered to take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or even
collect their own data. There are no known adverse findings that are
anywhere as near unbiased.

This is a problem
because it still doesn't explain *why* some people
prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl.

That wasn't the point.

Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no
attempt is made to explain cause.

The cause is pretty easy to figure out. Preference is based on stimulus and
perception. Perception is based on the body's sensory reaction to stimulus
and how the brain processes those reactions. If you trace through the steps,
you find the most variations in how different people's brains work.

If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.

The reason why can be easily understood if you are well-informed about
sensation and perception.

It's just another attampt at closure of the point:
'They can not, they must
not'.

Completely missed the point.


I don't think so. Perhaps I could have rephrased to:
"It's another attempt by Arny to achieve closure ...". Why else would
you have posted?

Error correction. Education.

[Rob]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely,
and the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't
a factor, either.
"
Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has
managed two maxims from anecdote.
No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.
Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire
LP music recording.

Not all of the recording, just all of the audible parts, and with a very
considerable safety magin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It can be verified with
both listening tests and measurements.

Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording
captures in entirety any variance in sources.

Not all of the sources, just all of the audible parts, and with a
considerable margin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It can be verified with
both listening tests and measurements. The measurements need to be
coordinated with what is known about human perception of sound. This has
been done.


That's fine - I didn't know that. Reading lots of waffle about
supertweeters you can't hear, and subwoofers you shouldn't hear, makes
the notion of 'audible' a problem for dunces like me :-)

These assumptions aren't facts.

Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used. Properly stated they are
findings of science that have been verified by just about anybody who has
bothered to take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or even
collect their own data. There are no known adverse findings that are
anywhere as near unbiased.


Okeydokey. I'm probably expecting too much, but do you have a reference
to a (preferably peer reviewed) source to substantiate this?

This is a problem
because it still doesn't explain *why* some people
prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl.

That wasn't the point.

Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no
attempt is made to explain cause.

The cause is pretty easy to figure out. Preference is based on stimulus and
perception. Perception is based on the body's sensory reaction to stimulus
and how the brain processes those reactions. If you trace through the steps,
you find the most variations in how different people's brains work.


Is this your opinion or another robust fact?

If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.

The reason why can be easily understood if you are well-informed about
sensation and perception.


I think you're steering towards a rational/'nature'/positivist
explanation. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but you do understand
there are different ways of thinking about things?!

It's just another attampt at closure of the point:
'They can not, they must
not'.

Completely missed the point.


I don't think so. Perhaps I could have rephrased to:
"It's another attempt by Arny to achieve closure ...". Why else would
you have posted?

Error correction. Education.


Is that some sort of crossword clue?

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in
its audible sound quality than CD playback
equipment does. But your method eliminates that
variable completely, and the mastering decisions of
a commercial CD aren't a factor, either.
"
Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer
has managed two maxims from anecdote.
No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire
LP music recording.

Not all of the recording, just all of the audible parts,
and with a very considerable safety magin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It
can be verified with both listening tests and
measurements.

Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording
captures in entirety any variance in sources.

Not all of the sources, just all of the audible parts,
and with a considerable margin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It
can be verified with both listening tests and
measurements. The measurements need to be coordinated
with what is known about human perception of sound. This
has been done.

That's fine - I didn't know that. Reading lots of waffle
about supertweeters you can't hear, and subwoofers you
shouldn't hear, makes the notion of 'audible' a problem
for dunces like me :-)

These assumptions aren't facts.

Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used.
Properly stated they are findings of science that have
been verified by just about anybody who has bothered to
take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or
even collect their own data. There are no known adverse
findings that are anywhere as near unbiased.

Okeydokey. I'm probably expecting too much, but do you
have a reference to a (preferably peer reviewed) source
to substantiate this?

Here's an example of some people who tried to collect their own data:

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm

The digital delay device being tested used the identical same data format as
audio CDs and was of professional grade. It acted like a CD recorder and CD
player back-to-back. Similar tests have been rerun from time to time in more
modern contexts with identical results.


This is a problem
because it still doesn't explain *why* some people
prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl.

That wasn't the point.

Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no
attempt is made to explain cause.

The cause is pretty easy to figure out. Preference is
based on stimulus and perception. Perception is based on
the body's sensory reaction to stimulus and how the
brain processes those reactions. If you trace through
the steps, you find the most variations in how different
people's brains work.

Is this your opinion or another robust fact?

Robust fact.

If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.

The reason why can be easily understood if you are
well-informed about sensation and perception.

I think you're steering towards a
rational/'nature'/positivist explanation. Nothing wrong
with that in itself, but you do understand there are
different ways of thinking about things?!

It seems to me that when a bunch of audiophiles and recording engineers
listen to high quality live and recorded analog sources and find that they
can't tell the difference between a short piece of wire and relatively
complex digital encoding and decoding in the signal path, a lot of heavy
philosophical thinking can be bypassed.

[Rob]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in
its audible sound quality than CD playback
equipment does. But your method eliminates that
variable completely, and the mastering decisions of
a commercial CD aren't a factor, either.
"
Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer
has managed two maxims from anecdote.
No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire
LP music recording.

Not all of the recording, just all of the audible parts,
and with a very considerable safety magin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It
can be verified with both listening tests and
measurements.

Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording
captures in entirety any variance in sources.

Not all of the sources, just all of the audible parts,
and with a considerable margin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It
can be verified with both listening tests and
measurements. The measurements need to be coordinated
with what is known about human perception of sound. This
has been done.

That's fine - I didn't know that. Reading lots of waffle
about supertweeters you can't hear, and subwoofers you
shouldn't hear, makes the notion of 'audible' a problem
for dunces like me :-)

These assumptions aren't facts.

Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used.
Properly stated they are findings of science that have
been verified by just about anybody who has bothered to
take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or
even collect their own data. There are no known adverse
findings that are anywhere as near unbiased.

Okeydokey. I'm probably expecting too much, but do you
have a reference to a (preferably peer reviewed) source
to substantiate this?

Here's an example of some people who tried to collect their own data:

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm

The digital delay device being tested used the identical same data format as
audio CDs and was of professional grade. It acted like a CD recorder and CD
player back-to-back. Similar tests have been rerun from time to time in more
modern contexts with identical results.


OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a list of
(incomplete) variables and population. Googling gets me to:

http://www.pcabx.com/

with an odd statement about methodology. What exactly is the ontological
and epistemological basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have
to be absolutely clear on these points to accept what you say. The
bibliography is rather narrow and doesn't (of course) guide the reader
towards references. What made the inventor choose that method? It didn't
just come out of the air!

This is a problem
because it still doesn't explain *why* some people
prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl.
That wasn't the point.
Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no
attempt is made to explain cause.

The cause is pretty easy to figure out. Preference is
based on stimulus and perception. Perception is based on
the body's sensory reaction to stimulus and how the
brain processes those reactions. If you trace through
the steps, you find the most variations in how different
people's brains work.

Is this your opinion or another robust fact?

Robust fact.

If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.

The reason why can be easily understood if you are
well-informed about sensation and perception.

I think you're steering towards a
rational/'nature'/positivist explanation. Nothing wrong
with that in itself, but you do understand there are
different ways of thinking about things?!

It seems to me that when a bunch of audiophiles and recording engineers
listen to high quality live and recorded analog sources and find that they
can't tell the difference between a short piece of wire and relatively
complex digital encoding and decoding in the signal path, a lot of heavy
philosophical thinking can be bypassed.


Of course - but it's obvious to anyone looking at those tests that it's
a pretty narrow respondent sample. To turn it round and say "Well, they
are the most qualified to comment" is IMO elitist claptrap.

[Arny Krueger]

"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used.
Properly stated they are findings of science that have
been verified by just about anybody who has bothered to
take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or
even collect their own data. There are no known adverse
findings that are anywhere as near unbiased.

Okeydokey. I'm probably expecting too much, but do you
have a reference to a (preferably peer reviewed) source
to substantiate this?

Here's an example of some people who tried to collect
their own data: http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm

The digital delay device being tested used the identical
same data format as audio CDs and was of professional
grade. It acted like a CD recorder and CD player
back-to-back. Similar tests have been rerun from time to
time in more modern contexts with identical results.

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/

with an odd statement about methodology.


What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.

Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique
used many times before and I'm not playing.

[Rob]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

OK - I can't see any clear reference to method - just a
list of (incomplete) variables and population. Googling
gets me to:
http://www.pcabx.com/

with an odd statement about methodology.


What exactly is
the ontological and epistemological basis of the 'virtual
reality' methodology? I have to be absolutely clear on
these points to accept what you say.

Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights. I've seen this technique
used many times before and I'm not playing.


Well, it's your ball :-)

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Rob wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
factor, either.
"

Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has
managed two maxims from anecdote.

No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire LP music recording.

It's a reasonable assumption that the *audible part* of any LP is fully
captured by a decent CD transcription of it.

Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording captures in entirety any variance
in sources.

What variances in *this* souce -- would you suggest fail to be
captured?


These assumptions aren't facts.

What data would demonstrate that they are or are not, to you?
How would you falsify Mr. Satz' claims?


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason