[vlad]

On Sep 15, 6:30=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:


Actually, there's no evidence presented to support that assertion.

You presented your private experience of experiencing "fatigue"
after listening of couple of CD's. I presented results of my own
analysis why CD takes more efforts from me to listen. So we are even,
so far - each of us presented his own opinion.

Logically speaking, if you're going to go down that path, the
record noise and
especially the "horrible distortion" of LP playback should cause
far more
listening fatigue than the clean purity of CD.

It is not obvious, it is just your strawman :-) It is possible,
that some forms of distortion are pleasing to the ear/brain ( is it
what they call 'euphonic'?) at the same time reduce flow of
information making it easier and more pleasant for the ear/brain to
process. May be, LP distortions fall into this category. Sorry, but I
have no scientific evidence for that :-). Just my guess. I personally,
prefer CD's.

You can't have it both ways.
Study after study, over many decades, have shown that various types
of
distortion are THE primary CAUSE of listening fatigue.

Care to provide reference or URL? My uninformed opinion is that
you took this from the thin air.

And even such studies exist, how did it happen that distortions
of
LP are exempt from results of these studies?

If you (and Mr.
Kruger) are going to go on record (no pun intended) by asserting
that the
clarity and freedom from distortion in CD is what causes listener
fatigue in
CD, due to the extra detail present in digital recordings, then you
are
flying in the face of countless scientific studies which have found
that just
the opposite should be true.

References, please. I strongly suspect that you are inventing
these studies :-) But of course it is just my private opinion.

vlad

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:58:09 -0700, vlad wrote
(in article ):

On Sep 15, 6:30=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:


Actually, there's no evidence presented to support that assertion.

You presented your private experience of experiencing "fatigue"
after listening of couple of CD's. I presented results of my own
analysis why CD takes more efforts from me to listen. So we are even,
so far - each of us presented his own opinion.

Logically speaking, if you're going to go down that path, the
record noise and
especially the "horrible distortion" of LP playback should cause
far more
listening fatigue than the clean purity of CD.

It is not obvious, it is just your strawman :-) It is possible,
that some forms of distortion are pleasing to the ear/brain ( is it
what they call 'euphonic'?) at the same time reduce flow of
information making it easier and more pleasant for the ear/brain to
process. May be, LP distortions fall into this category. Sorry, but I
have no scientific evidence for that :-). Just my guess. I personally,
prefer CD's.

You can't have it both ways.
Study after study, over many decades, have shown that various types
of
distortion are THE primary CAUSE of listening fatigue.

Care to provide reference or URL? My uninformed opinion is that
you took this from the thin air.

And even such studies exist, how did it happen that distortions
of
LP are exempt from results of these studies?

Who says that they are exempt in any way or form.

If you (and Mr.
Kruger) are going to go on record (no pun intended) by asserting
that the
clarity and freedom from distortion in CD is what causes listener
fatigue in
CD, due to the extra detail present in digital recordings, then you
are
flying in the face of countless scientific studies which have found
that just
the opposite should be true.

References, please. I strongly suspect that you are inventing
these studies :-) But of course it is just my private opinion.

Well, off the top of my head I know that Bell Labs did a number of tests
during the 1930's of these phenomenon, and Harry Olsen of RCA Labs did some
in the 1940's and seems to me that I recall that Benjamin Bauer of CBS Labs
did similar studies in the 1950s or 1960's. I've been in audio A LONG TIME
and have read thousands of articles on this and other subjects. But the
biggest ally for my assertion is common sense. If something sounds distorted,
or noisy in a way that bothers a listener (and this could be subliminal) he
or she is not going to listen to it for long. Of course, gross distortions
will get an immediate reaction and people will stop listening, but more
subtle forms of distortion may not drive the listener away immediately, but
could do so over a long listening session.

One Forum that I looked had a respondent go so far as to say:

"For me many factors contribute to listening fatigue. One of the main ones is
CD Red Book quality audio which has less low level information than all but
the worst analog recordings, if that. Meaning there is just less involvement
possible with the music, so the recording flaws stand out more. I was
semi-enthusiastic about SACD and DVD Audio for a while wrt to resolving the
low level resolution and brick wall cutoff problems with Red Book, but it
appears they are going by the wayside."

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi...ening-fatigue-
14.html

Not so sure that I buy that, but it is a thought.

Just a cursory search on Google found this description on Wikipedia:

"Listener fatigue occurs when the ear tunes out unwanted noises and focuses
on the wanted ones. When listening to music for example, the speakers may
give off an unwanted hissing noise that the person has to focus out, causing
"Listener Fatigue".

This is an extension of the quantifiable psychological perception of sound,
adding time-variance effects.

This subject is not well covered on the internet because most of these
research papers haven't been posted.

However, Howard Tremaine's "Audio Cyclopedia" discusses the subject and the
seminal work by Read and Welch, "From Tinfoil to Stereo" mentions listener
fatigue modeling done at Bell Laboratories in 1933. This battery of tests
tended to show that some types of distortion cause greater listening fatigue
than do others. For Instance, Harmonic distortion in amplifiers is more well
tolerated than it is in signal sources such as phonograph records and radio
reception, but that intermodulation distortion was poorly tolerated wherever
it occurred and very small measured amounts is clearly audible.


If you want to look for more and better cites, than I provided, be my guest,
but be advised that this information is thin on the ground.

My only real assertion here is that distortion on some level and of some
kinds cause listener fatigue. This is well known. CDs have LESS distortion
than analog sources and should therefore NOT cause listening fatigue. That it
does for some people is a fact, that I don't even pretend to understand. I
don't think anybody does.

[vlad]

On Sep 17, 3:18=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:58:09 -0700, vlad wrote
(in article ):

.. . .
=A0 =A0 =A0References, please. I strongly suspect that you are inventin=
g
=A0these studies :-) But of course it is just my private opinion.

Well, off the top of my head I know that Bell Labs did a number of tests
during the 1930's of these phenomenon, and Harry Olsen of RCA Labs did so=
me
in the 1940's and seems to me that I recall that Benjamin Bauer ofCBSLabs
did similar studies in the 1950s or 1960's. I've been in audio A LONG TIM=
E
and have read thousands of articles on this and other subjects. But the
biggest ally for my assertion is common sense. If something sounds distor=
ted,
or noisy in a way that bothers a listener (and this could be subliminal) =
he
or she is not going to listen to it for long. Of course, gross distortion=
s
will get an immediate reaction and people will stop listening, but more
subtle forms of distortion may not drive the listener away immediately, b=
ut
could do so over a long listening session.

Exactly what I expected - "somebody, somewhere in 30's and 50's"
did research on the subject. Never mind that it was a completely
different landscape in music's recording and reproduction.

You mentioned "numerous scientific studies", I am still waiting
one or more direct references.


One Forum that I looked had a respondent go so far as to say:

"For me many factors contribute to listening fatigue. One of the main one=
s is
CD Red Book quality audio which has less low level information than all b=
ut
the worst analog recordings, if that. Meaning there is just less involvem=
ent
possible with the music, so the recording flaws stand out more. I was
semi-enthusiastic about SACD and DVD Audio for a while wrt to resolving t=
he
low level resolution and brick wall cutoff problems with Red Book, but it
appears they are going by the wayside."


Sounds like one of those misguided vinyl lovers who never heard
about dithering. I am surprised he did not use step-sound-wave as an
argument :-)

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi...uses-listening...
14.html

Not so sure that I buy that, but it is a thought.

Just a cursory search onGooglefound this description on Wikipedia:

"Listener fatigue occurs when the ear tunes out unwanted noises and focus=
es
on the wanted ones. When listening to music for example, the speakers may
give off an unwanted hissing noise that the person has to focus out, caus=
ing
"Listener Fatigue".

This is an extension of the quantifiable psychological perception of soun=
d,
adding time-variance effects.

This subject is not well covered on the internet because most of these
research papers haven't been posted.

So we don't know what they researched and what results they got.
They just used term "fatigue" and, probably, in their own way.


However, Howard Tremaine's "Audio Cyclopedia" discusses the subject and t=
he
seminal work by Read and Welch, "From Tinfoil to Stereo" mentions listene=
r
fatigue modeling done at Bell Laboratories in 1933. This battery of tests
tended to show that some types of distortion cause greater listening fati=
gue
than do others.

1933? :-) And still no exact reference.

For Instance, =A0Harmonic distortion in amplifiers is more well
tolerated than it is in signal sources such as phonograph records and rad=
io
reception, but that intermodulation distortion was poorly tolerated where=
ver
it occurred and very small measured amounts is clearly audible.

If you want to look for more and better cites, than I provided, be my gue=
st,
but be advised that this information is thin on the ground.


References, please, if you have any.

=A0My only real assertion here is that distortion on some level and of so=
me
kinds cause listener fatigue. This is well known. CDs have LESS distortio=
n
than analog sources and should therefore NOT cause listening fatigue. Tha=
t it
does for some people is a fact, that I don't even pretend to understand. =
I
don't think anybody does. =A0

I did offer you my explanation, did not I? I just believe (from my
own experience) that well recoded music causes more emotional response
and more "fatigue" in the listener (me). That is all.

I agree with you that distortions can cause stress and fatigue.
Strangely most of distortions inherent in LP technology do not fall
into this category :-)

I suspect that your real agenda is to rehash old "fatigue"
argument proving superiority of LP vs. CD. That is it, I am out of
this thread.

vlad

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 15:04:46 -0700, vlad wrote
(in article ):

On Sep 17, 3:18=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:58:09 -0700, vlad wrote
(in article ):

. . .
=A0 =A0 =A0References, please. I strongly suspect that you are inventin=
g
=A0these studies :-) But of course it is just my private opinion.

Well, off the top of my head I know that Bell Labs did a number of tests
during the 1930's of these phenomenon, and Harry Olsen of RCA Labs did so=
me
in the 1940's and seems to me that I recall that Benjamin Bauer ofCBSLabs
did similar studies in the 1950s or 1960's. I've been in audio A LONG TIM=
E
and have read thousands of articles on this and other subjects. But the
biggest ally for my assertion is common sense. If something sounds distor=
ted,
or noisy in a way that bothers a listener (and this could be subliminal) =
he
or she is not going to listen to it for long. Of course, gross distortion=
s
will get an immediate reaction and people will stop listening, but more
subtle forms of distortion may not drive the listener away immediately, b=
ut
could do so over a long listening session.

Exactly what I expected - "somebody, somewhere in 30's and 50's"
did research on the subject. Never mind that it was a completely
different landscape in music's recording and reproduction.

You mentioned "numerous scientific studies", I am still waiting
one or more direct references.


One Forum that I looked had a respondent go so far as to say:

"For me many factors contribute to listening fatigue. One of the main one=
s is
CD Red Book quality audio which has less low level information than all b=
ut
the worst analog recordings, if that. Meaning there is just less involvem=
ent
possible with the music, so the recording flaws stand out more. I was
semi-enthusiastic about SACD and DVD Audio for a while wrt to resolving t=
he
low level resolution and brick wall cutoff problems with Red Book, but it
appears they are going by the wayside."


Sounds like one of those misguided vinyl lovers who never heard
about dithering. I am surprised he did not use step-sound-wave as an
argument :-)

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi...uses-listening...
14.html

Not so sure that I buy that, but it is a thought.

Just a cursory search onGooglefound this description on Wikipedia:

"Listener fatigue occurs when the ear tunes out unwanted noises and focus=
es
on the wanted ones. When listening to music for example, the speakers may
give off an unwanted hissing noise that the person has to focus out, caus=
ing
"Listener Fatigue".

This is an extension of the quantifiable psychological perception of soun=
d,
adding time-variance effects.

This subject is not well covered on the internet because most of these
research papers haven't been posted.

So we don't know what they researched and what results they got.
They just used term "fatigue" and, probably, in their own way.


However, Howard Tremaine's "Audio Cyclopedia" discusses the subject and t=
he
seminal work by Read and Welch, "From Tinfoil to Stereo" mentions listene=
r
fatigue modeling done at Bell Laboratories in 1933. This battery of tests
tended to show that some types of distortion cause greater listening fati=
gue
than do others.

1933? :-) And still no exact reference.

You want the page numbers from the books I referenced?

For Instance, =A0Harmonic distortion in amplifiers is more well
tolerated than it is in signal sources such as phonograph records and rad=
io
reception, but that intermodulation distortion was poorly tolerated where=
ver
it occurred and very small measured amounts is clearly audible.

If you want to look for more and better cites, than I provided, be my gue=
st,
but be advised that this information is thin on the ground.


References, please, if you have any.

I gave them to you; Howard Tremaine, and Read and Welch. If you mean web
references, you are making the common mistake of many in assuming that the
sum total of man's knowledge is available on the web and can be found simply
by Googling. I assure you this is not the case.

=A0My only real assertion here is that distortion on some level and of so=
me
kinds cause listener fatigue. This is well known. CDs have LESS distortio=
n
than analog sources and should therefore NOT cause listening fatigue. Tha=
t it
does for some people is a fact, that I don't even pretend to understand. =
I
don't think anybody does. =A0

I did offer you my explanation, did not I? I just believe (from my
own experience) that well recoded music causes more emotional response
and more "fatigue" in the listener (me). That is all.

I don't think that follows. less distortion should result in LESS listening
fatigue.

I agree with you that distortions can cause stress and fatigue.
Strangely most of distortions inherent in LP technology do not fall
into this category :-)

It's certainly possible. I don't pretend to know.


I suspect that your real agenda is to rehash old "fatigue"
argument proving superiority of LP vs. CD. That is it, I am out of
this thread.

I don't have any agenda. I merely noted that I find that I can turn listening
to one record into a whole night of vinyl listening sessions and that CDs
never pull me in like that.

Since I started this thread, I have had more respondents coming down on my
side of the fence than have come down on yours. That doesn't really mean
much, but what it does show is that my experience is not an isolated case.
Given the number of people who respond on this NG, I'd say that the
phenomenon is more common than not.

[KH]

On 9/17/2010 7:31 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
snip

I don't have any agenda. I merely noted that I find that I can turn listening
to one record into a whole night of vinyl listening sessions and that CDs
never pull me in like that.

Since I started this thread, I have had more respondents coming down on my
side of the fence than have come down on yours. That doesn't really mean
much, but what it does show is that my experience is not an isolated case.
Given the number of people who respond on this NG, I'd say that the
phenomenon is more common than not.

Well, you can count me on the other side of your fence on this one.
Relative to fatigue, have you ever considered the relatively simple
explanation that the care and feeding required by LP listening (cleaning
and turning, or merely turning sides) provides an intermezzo in the
performance? You simply cannot listen to LP's in the same duration
intervals that you do with CD's (unless you purposely alter your CD
listening patterns), and possibly those enforced breaks and additional
non-music related activities are what breaks up the sessions and reduces
the fatigue you seem to experience with CD?

For me, those enforced breaks simply add to the other LP characteristics
that annoy me. Interestingly enough, an audiophile friend of mine just
purchased a Pro-ject turntable and has been re-exploring vinyl for the
last couple of weeks (after listening solely to CD for 20 years). He
has been surprised that vinyl can sound as good as it does - at times.
He also bought a pair of Sonus Faber Cremona M's a couple of months ago,
having caught upgrade-itis after listening to my recently purchased
Wilson Sophia 2's. I also listened to quite a bit of vinyl to compare
with CD on the Sophia's vs the B&W M802's they replaced. The Sophia's
are much better in the mid's and upper octaves than the B&W's, and
actually LP's sound worse on them than on the B&W's, relative to the CD
version. I have yet to get fatigued listening to the Sophia, even with
some overly-bright recordings that were a problem on the B&W's. YMMV,
obviously.

Keith Hughes

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:38:03 -0700, KH wrote
(in article ):

On 9/17/2010 7:31 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
snip

I don't have any agenda. I merely noted that I find that I can turn
listening
to one record into a whole night of vinyl listening sessions and that CDs
never pull me in like that.

Since I started this thread, I have had more respondents coming down on my
side of the fence than have come down on yours. That doesn't really mean
much, but what it does show is that my experience is not an isolated case.
Given the number of people who respond on this NG, I'd say that the
phenomenon is more common than not.

Well, you can count me on the other side of your fence on this one.
Relative to fatigue, have you ever considered the relatively simple
explanation that the care and feeding required by LP listening (cleaning
and turning, or merely turning sides) provides an intermezzo in the
performance? You simply cannot listen to LP's in the same duration
intervals that you do with CD's (unless you purposely alter your CD
listening patterns), and possibly those enforced breaks and additional
non-music related activities are what breaks up the sessions and reduces
the fatigue you seem to experience with CD?

You certainly have a point there. I had not considered that. Can't argue with
the logic of that hypothesis.

For me, those enforced breaks simply add to the other LP characteristics
that annoy me. Interestingly enough, an audiophile friend of mine just
purchased a Pro-ject turntable and has been re-exploring vinyl for the
last couple of weeks (after listening solely to CD for 20 years). He
has been surprised that vinyl can sound as good as it does - at times.

Well, yes. like everything else, most vinyl is not very good. There are a
myriad of reasons for this ranging from poor master recording, to indifferent
LP mastering, to poor production materials (regrind vinyl vs virgin) to
sloppy production methods.

I recall that in the 1970's when EMI owned Capitol Records and their
classical label, Angel, they used to press Angel records in Capitol's
pressing plants. I have never been able to find out where in the process this
occurred, but Angels always sounded LOUSY. Luckily, the British pressings of
these Angel records (especially of British music - Elagr, Walton, Vaughan
Williams, etc.) were available (for a slight premium) at big record stores
like Tower. Usually they had gold "Odeon" stickers pasted over the EMI HMV
label ('Nipper' looking into the phonograph horn - the same logo that RCA
Victor used here in the states). The British pressings always sounded better.
They were quieter, they had more dynamic range and they simply had better
sound. Often the difference was spectacular - now this is on IDENTICAL titles
made from the same master tapes! I got so that I wouldn't buy an Angel unless
it was absolutely necessary. I even resorted to buying the titles from
England.

He also bought a pair of Sonus Faber Cremona M's a couple of months ago,
having caught upgrade-itis after listening to my recently purchased
Wilson Sophia 2's. I also listened to quite a bit of vinyl to compare
with CD on the Sophia's vs the B&W M802's they replaced. The Sophia's
are much better in the mid's and upper octaves than the B&W's, and
actually LP's sound worse on them than on the B&W's, relative to the CD
version. I have yet to get fatigued listening to the Sophia, even with
some overly-bright recordings that were a problem on the B&W's. YMMV,
obviously.

I've never been impressed with B&Ws. In fact I went to a digital audio
symposium recently that had the latest "Statement" B&Ws (don't remember the
models) and some smaller B&Ws on stands. different demos used either the big
pair or the smaller. Even though the smaller B&Ws didn't have the bass of the
larger ones, everybody agreed that the smaller 2-way speaker sounded much
better and more musical than did the large three-way floor standers.

Myself, I have Martin-Logan Vistas with a pair of self-powered Paradigm
subwoofers. To me they are the most transparent speakers I've ever owned. I
simply love 'em! I used to own a pair of Magnepan Tympani IIICs (all EIGHT
panels) and a Pair of MG3.6s. I recently heard the new Maggie 1.7s and I
think that they are the best speakers Winey & Co. has ever produced, bar
none!

[KH]

On 9/18/2010 12:17 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:38:03 -0700, KH wrote
(in ):

On 9/17/2010 7:31 PM, Audio Empire wrote:
snip

Relative to fatigue, have you ever considered the relatively simple
explanation that the care and feeding required by LP listening (cleaning
and turning, or merely turning sides) provides an intermezzo in the
performance? You simply cannot listen to LP's in the same duration
intervals that you do with CD's (unless you purposely alter your CD
listening patterns), and possibly those enforced breaks and additional
non-music related activities are what breaks up the sessions and reduces
the fatigue you seem to experience with CD?

You certainly have a point there. I had not considered that. Can't argue with
the logic of that hypothesis.

Certainly a logical possibility. Might not be the root cause, but
something to consider.

snip

Well, yes. like everything else, most vinyl is not very good. There are a
myriad of reasons for this ranging from poor master recording, to indifferent
LP mastering, to poor production materials (regrind vinyl vs virgin) to
sloppy production methods.

As I was just discussing with my friend, the quality of mass produced
vinyl hit a real inflection point, IME, in the early/mid 70's, and just
went downhill from there. Out here, we had Odyssey and Tower, and they
and their ilk seemed to help drive the price wars that made higher
regrind levels a necessity for producers. Not a bad marketing strategy,
really, as it was likely more profitable to market dirt cheap LP's
(Odyssey had $2.66 deals on new releases if you bought 3, in mid/late
'70s) that needed replacing often than higher cost pressings that
actually lasted. And here in Phoenix, back then, getting an LP without
any warp was very unlikely.


I recall that in the 1970's when EMI owned Capitol Records and their
classical label, Angel, they used to press Angel records in Capitol's
pressing plants. I have never been able to find out where in the process this
occurred, but Angels always sounded LOUSY. Luckily, the British pressings of
these Angel records (especially of British music - Elagr, Walton, Vaughan
Williams, etc.) were available (for a slight premium) at big record stores
like Tower. Usually they had gold "Odeon" stickers pasted over the EMI HMV
label ('Nipper' looking into the phonograph horn - the same logo that RCA
Victor used here in the states). The British pressings always sounded better.
They were quieter, they had more dynamic range and they simply had better
sound. Often the difference was spectacular - now this is on IDENTICAL titles
made from the same master tapes! I got so that I wouldn't buy an Angel unless
it was absolutely necessary. I even resorted to buying the titles from
England.

Back in the heyday, I could seldom afford UK pressings, but I did buy
several (Genesis, Gentle Giant, etc.) and they were, without exception,
vastly superior to the identical US pressings. Yes, they were much
quieter, and *stayed* that way far longer.


I've never been impressed with B&Ws. In fact I went to a digital audio
symposium recently that had the latest "Statement" B&Ws (don't remember the
models) and some smaller B&Ws on stands. different demos used either the big
pair or the smaller. Even though the smaller B&Ws didn't have the bass of the
larger ones, everybody agreed that the smaller 2-way speaker sounded much
better and more musical than did the large three-way floor standers.

Actually, I've always been a B&W fan (still have half a dozen pairs),
and I do like what their "house" sound used to be, but that's a personal
preference. The bigger B&W's (800 series) sound, IMO, very good at high
volumes, but do not do well at lower levels. When the CDM line came
out, I was surprised - never heard any of them that I really liked.
And, I've never been a Wilson fan, although I've gone and demo'd most of
their line as they've evolved over the years. Never heard a Watt-Puppy
I'd own (much less PAY the price for), and although the newer MAXX's
sound really good, they're ludicrously priced and too large for "normal"
rooms. When I heard the Sophia 2's however, I was hooked. As one
reviewer put it, they are the Wilson's for folks who don't like
Wilson's. And they still sound full when played a low volumes, as the
B&W's never did. Still over-priced, but I got a demo pair at 40% off
retail when the model 3's came out, so they were Expensive vs. "are you
crazy?"

Myself, I have Martin-Logan Vistas with a pair of self-powered Paradigm
subwoofers. To me they are the most transparent speakers I've ever owned. I
simply love 'em! I used to own a pair of Magnepan Tympani IIICs (all EIGHT
panels) and a Pair of MG3.6s. I recently heard the new Maggie 1.7s and I
think that they are the best speakers Winey& Co. has ever produced, bar
none!

All fine speakers IMO. One thing I think we can all agree on is that
speakers are colored. So they, at least, will subject to real sonic
preferences. Planars/dipoles just never sounded quite "right" to me.
Couldn't afford any in the "old" days, although I drooled significantly
over those big Mangneplanars when they came out, and now I have too many
box speaker years under the belt to consider changing.

Keith Hughes

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


Well, off the top of my head I know that Bell Labs did a
number of tests during the 1930's of these phenomenon,
and Harry Olsen of RCA Labs did some in the 1940's and
seems to me that I recall that Benjamin Bauer of CBS Labs
did similar studies in the 1950s or 1960's. I've been in
audio A LONG TIME and have read thousands of articles on
this and other subjects. But the biggest ally for my
assertion is common sense. If something sounds distorted,
or noisy in a way that bothers a listener (and this could
be subliminal) he or she is not going to listen to it for
long. Of course, gross distortions will get an immediate
reaction and people will stop listening, but more subtle
forms of distortion may not drive the listener away
immediately, but could do so over a long listening
session.

This is all true. The proof of it is modern life. If you know what the
technical performance of mainstream audio was like in 1930, 1960, 1990, and
2010, there has been a steady reduction of audible noise and distortion. I'm
talking about the audio heard in theatres, homes, businesses.

One Forum that I looked had a respondent go so far as to
say:

"For me many factors contribute to listening fatigue. One
of the main ones is CD Red Book quality audio which has
less low level information than all but the worst analog
recordings, if that.

This is a gigantic misapprehension. In fact the inverse is true, and not by
just a little. Redbook CD audio has an average of 20-30 dB more low level
audio than the best analog recordings.

Meaning there is just less
involvement possible with the music, so the recording
flaws stand out more.

The reality is that CD's don't mask recording flaws nearly as well as
analog, particularly LP recording does.


I was semi-enthusiastic about SACD
and DVD Audio for a while wrt to resolving the low level
resolution and brick wall cutoff problems with Red Book,
but it appears they are going by the wayside."

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi...ening-fatigue-
14.html

SACD did add another 20 dB or so of low level detail to redbook CD audio,
but due to problems with other parts of the record/playback chain, the
technical enhancement was practically moot. DVD-A added almost another 20
dB to what SACD provides, but now we are talking moot squared.


Not so sure that I buy that, but it is a thought.

Just a cursory search on Google found this description on
Wikipedia:

"Listener fatigue occurs when the ear tunes out unwanted
noises and focuses on the wanted ones. When listening to
music for example, the speakers may give off an unwanted
hissing noise that the person has to focus out, causing
"Listener Fatigue".

Add to hiss the incessant tics, pops, flutter, wow, inner groove distortion,
etc and the relevant question becomes "Why isn't listening to LPs more
fatiqueing?" For most of us, it is.

This is an extension of the quantifiable psychological
perception of sound, adding time-variance effects.

This subject is not well covered on the internet because
most of these research papers haven't been posted.

However, Howard Tremaine's "Audio Cyclopedia" discusses
the subject and the seminal work by Read and Welch, "From
Tinfoil to Stereo" mentions listener fatigue modeling
done at Bell Laboratories in 1933. This battery of tests
tended to show that some types of distortion cause
greater listening fatigue than do others. For Instance,
Harmonic distortion in amplifiers is more well tolerated
than it is in signal sources such as phonograph records
and radio reception, but that intermodulation distortion
was poorly tolerated wherever it occurred and very small
measured amounts is clearly audible.

The fallacy here is that there are equipment properties called "Harmonic
Distortion (THD)" and "IM Distortion" and that they are somehow distinct
from each other. Reality is that equipment has nonlinear (and linear)
distortion , and that THD and IM are abstract ways to measure nonlinear
distortion. Every real world instance, every piece of real world audio gear
that produces nonlinear distoriton will product measurable amounts of both
THD and IM, if you use appropriate measurement techniques.

The amount of nonlinear distortion in ca. 1933 phonograph records and radio
receivers was horrific. Some of the amplfiers of the day were not nearly as
bad. There were no DBTs in 1933 and what we would call clean signal sources
were practically unheard of. Perceptions of which equipment was sonically
clean and which was sonically dirty was therefore highly flawed.


My only real assertion here is that distortion on some
level and of some kinds cause listener fatigue.

The "human factors" contributions to fatigue are very important. Attitude,
preferences and mental circumstances have a lot to do with it.

This is
well known. CDs have LESS distortion than analog sources
and should therefore NOT cause listening fatigue.


This is true until you start considering the non technical human factors.

That it
does for some people is a fact, that I don't even pretend
to understand. I don't think anybody does.

I've presented viable explanations that are based on modern human factors
reasearch. YOu've got to look at the big picture and admit that you are not
totally removed from your biases and sentimental feelings.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 07:35:55 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


Well, off the top of my head I know that Bell Labs did a
number of tests during the 1930's of these phenomenon,
and Harry Olsen of RCA Labs did some in the 1940's and
seems to me that I recall that Benjamin Bauer of CBS Labs
did similar studies in the 1950s or 1960's. I've been in
audio A LONG TIME and have read thousands of articles on
this and other subjects. But the biggest ally for my
assertion is common sense. If something sounds distorted,
or noisy in a way that bothers a listener (and this could
be subliminal) he or she is not going to listen to it for
long. Of course, gross distortions will get an immediate
reaction and people will stop listening, but more subtle
forms of distortion may not drive the listener away
immediately, but could do so over a long listening
session.

This is all true. The proof of it is modern life. If you know what the
technical performance of mainstream audio was like in 1930, 1960, 1990, and
2010, there has been a steady reduction of audible noise and distortion. I'm
talking about the audio heard in theatres, homes, businesses.

Yep. In most cases, this is actual fact. If you look at network videotape
performances from the '60's and '70's, you' will notice that the audio is not
clean as it is on later video performances. Certainly modern cinema sound is
head and shoulders above that available in the past. Even really big budget,
wide-screen productions upon which was lavished every advantage that the
studios could bring to bear (Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, How The West Was
Won) had sound that is primitive by today's standards for even
run-of-the-mill "bubble-gum" productions.

One Forum that I looked had a respondent go so far as to
say:

"For me many factors contribute to listening fatigue. One
of the main ones is CD Red Book quality audio which has
less low level information than all but the worst analog
recordings, if that.

This is a gigantic misapprehension. In fact the inverse is true, and not by
just a little. Redbook CD audio has an average of 20-30 dB more low level
audio than the best analog recordings.

Yep.

Meaning there is just less
involvement possible with the music, so the recording
flaws stand out more.

The reality is that CD's don't mask recording flaws nearly as well as
analog, particularly LP recording does.

Well, there are really BAD sounding LPs out there and really BAD sounding CDs
as well. But the bad CDs sound bad in a different way than do bad LPs (!)


I was semi-enthusiastic about SACD
and DVD Audio for a while wrt to resolving the low level
resolution and brick wall cutoff problems with Red Book,
but it appears they are going by the wayside."

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi...stening-fatigu
e-
14.html

SACD did add another 20 dB or so of low level detail to redbook CD audio,
but due to problems with other parts of the record/playback chain, the
technical enhancement was practically moot. DVD-A added almost another 20
dB to what SACD provides, but now we are talking moot squared.

The DVD-A people squandered that advantage by not standardizing on one set of
sample rates and bit depths for stereo (24/192) and one set for surround.
When one bought a DVD-A, one never knew what one was getting unless one read
the label VERY carefully. Now Blu-Ray offers the record companies another
chance to screw it up once more with at least EIGHT different primary audio
specifications being supported.


Not so sure that I buy that, but it is a thought.

Just a cursory search on Google found this description on
Wikipedia:

"Listener fatigue occurs when the ear tunes out unwanted
noises and focuses on the wanted ones. When listening to
music for example, the speakers may give off an unwanted
hissing noise that the person has to focus out, causing
"Listener Fatigue".

Add to hiss the incessant tics, pops, flutter, wow, inner groove distortion,
etc and the relevant question becomes "Why isn't listening to LPs more
fatiqueing?" For most of us, it is.


Well, for SOME of you it is. Remember, people don't actually make a choice
between CD and LP, they buy what's available that has THEIR music on it and
what's available are MP3 downloads and CDs.

This is an extension of the quantifiable psychological
perception of sound, adding time-variance effects.

This subject is not well covered on the internet because
most of these research papers haven't been posted.

However, Howard Tremaine's "Audio Cyclopedia" discusses
the subject and the seminal work by Read and Welch, "From
Tinfoil to Stereo" mentions listener fatigue modeling
done at Bell Laboratories in 1933. This battery of tests
tended to show that some types of distortion cause
greater listening fatigue than do others. For Instance,
Harmonic distortion in amplifiers is more well tolerated
than it is in signal sources such as phonograph records
and radio reception, but that intermodulation distortion
was poorly tolerated wherever it occurred and very small
measured amounts is clearly audible.

The fallacy here is that there are equipment properties called "Harmonic
Distortion (THD)" and "IM Distortion" and that they are somehow distinct
from each other. Reality is that equipment has nonlinear (and linear)
distortion , and that THD and IM are abstract ways to measure nonlinear
distortion. Every real world instance, every piece of real world audio gear
that produces nonlinear distoriton will product measurable amounts of both
THD and IM, if you use appropriate measurement techniques.

That's true to a degree, but different types of distortion affect people in
different ways. Some types of distortion (I guess we should say distortion
that arises from different causes) people don't mind so much, and other types
of distortion, that even in minute amounts, cause listening distress. For
instance, it has been found that the human ear is quite insensitive to what
we call THD in amplifiers. Some amps produce as much 2% BEFORE clipping, and
yet some of these amps "listen" so well that they actually gained cult status
as the best there was in their day. I'm thinking specifically here of a
French tube amp (forget the brand) from about 10 or 15 years ago that was the
rave of the high-end set. At high-wattage, output it produced more than 2%
THD, yet even on crescendo's nobody could detect it by listening. Yet small
amounts of IM, which is mostly made up of odd harmonics is very noticeable
because it is often uncorrelated.

The amount of nonlinear distortion in ca. 1933 phonograph records and radio
receivers was horrific. Some of the amplfiers of the day were not nearly as
bad. There were no DBTs in 1933 and what we would call clean signal sources
were practically unheard of. Perceptions of which equipment was sonically
clean and which was sonically dirty was therefore highly flawed.

No doubt, but the basic principles of what people will and won't tolerate
still apply.


My only real assertion here is that distortion on some
level and of some kinds cause listener fatigue.

The "human factors" contributions to fatigue are very important. Attitude,
preferences and mental circumstances have a lot to do with it.

Yep.

This is
well known. CDs have LESS distortion than analog sources
and should therefore NOT cause listening fatigue.


This is true until you start considering the non technical human factors.

Of course.

That it
does for some people is a fact, that I don't even pretend
to understand. I don't think anybody does.

I've presented viable explanations that are based on modern human factors
reasearch. YOu've got to look at the big picture and admit that you are not
totally removed from your biases and sentimental feelings.

Oh, I Know that probably better than most. But remember Mr. Kruger, with all
due respect, that blade has two edges.

[Harry Lavo]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

My only real assertion here is that distortion on some level and of some
kinds cause listener fatigue. This is well known. CDs have LESS distortion
than analog sources and should therefore NOT cause listening fatigue. That
it
does for some people is a fact, that I don't even pretend to understand. I
don't think anybody does.

I have a hunch that it lies in "listening past" the "pre-ringing" on
transients that is pretty much part and parcel of the CD listening
experience. I note that the recent Meredian players that feature an
innovative digital filter that replaces this behavior with natures own
waveform (eg. steep initial transient slopes) with any ringing after the
fact, seems to get universal acceptance as perhaps the best sounding CD
player on the market with comments upon it's "natural quality". These same
sentiments have been expressed about SACD and (to a somewhat lesser degree)
DVD-A, both of which have much less to the point of disappearing
"pre-ringing". I wrote to Robert Harley at Stereophile about this after his
article appeared dismissing the pre-ringing argument; less than two years
later Stereophile is on record as saying the filter makes a (favorable)
difference. I suspect it does, and with good reason. How is it possible
for a brain as tuned to detect "unnatural" noises (a defense mechanism and
one of hearings main functions) not to be disturbed (at least subliminally)
by a distorted transient performance not found in nature?

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:58:09 -0700, vlad wrote
(in article ):

On Sep 15, 6:30=3DA0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
=20

Actually, there's no evidence presented to support that assertion.
=20
You presented your private experience of experiencing "fatigue"
after listening of couple of CD's. I presented results of my own
analysis why CD takes more efforts from me to listen. So we are even,
so far - each of us presented his own opinion.
=20
Logically speaking, if you're going to go down that path, the
record noise and
especially the "horrible distortion" of LP playback should cause
far more
listening fatigue than the clean purity of CD.
=20
It is not obvious, it is just your strawman :-) It is possible,
that some forms of distortion are pleasing to the ear/brain ( is it
what they call 'euphonic'?)

No doubt. Many will say that why LPs sound better than CD to some people.=
LPs=20
have euphonic colorations that that please the ear. It's certainly possib=
le.=20
But here's the rub. Euphonic colorations are not PERCEIVED by the listene=
r as=20
distortion but rather as something that, for some reason, puts the liste=
ner=20
in mind of real instruments playing in a real space. Would these cause=20
listener fatigue? It seems not. But if ticks and pops and other record no=
ises=20
DO bother a listener, then those LP artifacts, would, IMHO, indeed, cause=
=20
listener fatigue in that person but probably not in someone who finds tha=
t he=20
or she can easily and handily listen "around" thos artifacts. This might=20
explain a number of things. For instance, someone who was brought-up on L=
P=20
learned early-on to ignore ticks and pops. I find that I can do so handil=
y,=20
for instance. Today's generation, OTOH, seem to mostly listen to MP3s, of=
ten=20
at really low data rates (to fit more music on their MP3 players) and see=
m=20
not to mind the compression artifacts. Now whether they actually have tra=
ined=20
their ears to listen around these artifacts, or whether it's because the=20
nature of pop music effectively masks these artifacts, I can't say. What =
I=20
can say is that even though I can listen around ticks and pops an vinyl r=
ush,=20
and tape hiss, and all of the other noises that can intrude on LP playbac=
k, I=20
simply cannot abide MP3, especially at low data rates. (although, I can=20
listen to compressed internet radio as background as long as the data rat=
e is=20
higher than 128 KB/s=20


at the same time reduce flow of
information making it easier and more pleasant for the ear/brain to
process. May be, LP distortions fall into this category. Sorry, but I
have no scientific evidence for that :-). Just my guess. I personally,
prefer CD's.

That's fine. I do 90% of my listening via the little silver disc too (in =
all=20
it's guises =AD CD, DVD-A, SACD, Blu-Ray) and haven't bought an LP in at =
least=20
decade. I mean, CD is what we've got, right? Very little new music is=20
released on LP these days, but if one reads the audio press, one would ge=
t=20
the impression that this is changing. For instance, mastering legend Stan=
=20
Ricker closed down his mastering lab in the early 1990's and put his lath=
es=20
and cutters in storage. Recently, he has set his lab up again, and is bac=
k to=20
mastering LP, and apparently, is swamped with work. It seems that the LP=20
medium is undergoing a bit of a renaissance. How big this resurgence of=20
interest in vinyl will ultimately be is anyone's guess, but for the here =
and=20
now, it's getting healthier and healthier and, apparently, the interest i=
s=20
coming from young people who don't even remember the halcyon days of viny=
l,=20
before the CD! There are some on this forum who believe that the=20
"disc-jocky"/disco market is the only market for LP outside of the "lunat=
ic=20
fringe" LP luddites and old fogies. This seems not to be true. Ricker say=
s=20
that he believes that LP will outlive CD as he sees an eventual demise of=
the=20
physical digital medium. I'm not sure that I agree and I'll tell you why.=
=20
Even though nobody can argue that downloading music via the internet is q=
uick=20
(given today's wide-band connections) and easy and even cheap, the idea o=
f=20
archiving a music collection on a hard drive is NOT a great solution. Sev=
eral=20
years ago, I read where some research institution (Gartner?) found that l=
ess=20
than one percent of all computer users bother to back-up their HDDs on a=20
regular basis. If true, this means that 99% of all computer music collect=
ions=20
are in serious danger of being completely destroyed by a hard disc failur=
e. I=20
know of at least two people who have had this happen fairly recently. The=
se=20
people now back their libraries up to CD or DVD, because these media are =
more=20
permanent (how permanent? The jury is out on that as well).=20

[David[_21_]]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
Very little new music is
released on LP these days, but if one reads the audio press, one would get
the impression that this is changing.

Every newly released album I've bought in the last 10 years, excepting very
minor labels/local bands, has been available on vinyl. You have to pay a
more (about �12 - �16 on average, compared to �8-�10 for CD) but they are
all now pressed on very good quality vinyl at 180+ grams. No you can't pop
into your local music shop and buy it, it has to be ordered, but it is
available.

Arny, just out of curiosity, what turntable(s) do you listen too?

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:13:47 -0700, David wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message=20
...
Very little new music is
released on LP these days, but if one reads the audio press, one would=
get
the impression that this is changing.
=20
Every newly released album I've bought in the last 10 years, excepting =
very=20
minor labels/local bands, has been available on vinyl. You have to pay=
a=20
more (about =EF=BF=BD12 - =EF=BF=BD16 on average, compared to =EF=BF=BD=
8-=EF=BF=BD10 for CD) but they=20

are=20
all now pressed on very good quality vinyl at 180+ grams. No you can't=
pop=20
into your local music shop and buy it, it has to be ordered, but it is=20
available.

I guess this depends on the kind of music to which one listens. I listen=20
mostly to classical, along with some jazz. While there are hundreds of ja=
zz=20
and classical titles available as LPs, AFAICS, they're mostly all reissue=
s of=20
stuff from the fifties and sixties. Yes, they are all on 180 gram vinyl (=
some=20
are on 200 gram), but I certainly haven't seen any new releases from thes=
e=20
genres of music, although they might exist.=20

=20
Arny, just out of curiosity, what turntable(s) do you listen too?=20
=20
=20

I could be wrong, but I get the impression from what Mr. Kruger has writt=
en=20
here, that has several turntables and listens to none of them.=20