[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 15, 7:27=A0am, vlad wrote:
On Sep 14, 7:43=3DA0pm, Audio Empire wrote:





On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:30:45 -0700, David wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs,=
I
usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do somet=
hi=3D
ng
else
(like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I l=
is=3D
ten
to
vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to
another
and then another.

Not only do I agree 100% but now you've got me thinking about it, my
turntable has been out of action for a little while and I have listen=
ed=3D
=A0to a
LOT less music.

D

This seems to me to be a common experience among vinyl listeners.

Funny isn't it? A media that many will insist is obsolete, wrought with
unlistenable distortions and background noise and severely limited in d=
yn=3D
amic
range would elicit from many a desire to hear MORE records and less CDs=
?
Obviously, while many insist that CDs are capable of being damn nigh to
perfect, others suffer (and rather quickly too) from listening fatigue =
wi=3D
th
CDs that they DON'T get when they listen to LPs. =3DA0

I've seen this "explained" away by digital boosters by them saying that=
C=3D
D
presents so much more musical detail than LP that the brain has to work
harder to hear it all. I say rubbish to that argument. If the mechanism=
a=3D
t
work here were the amount of detail and clarity of presentation afforde=
d =3D
by
CD, then a half hour's worth of live music at a concert would cause the
audience to get up and leave due to listening fatigue brought on by exc=
es=3D
sive
exposure to the musical detail and lack of distortion engendered by lis=
te=3D
ning
to the REAL THING unencumbered as it is by the imperfecttechnologyof th=
e
recording and playback process.

Nonsense!

=A0 =A0 A typical concert in a symphony hall is about hour and a half, my
be two hours. You know why? Because it is as much as audience can
bear.

That depends on the audience. I had no trouble sitting through three
to four hours of rehersals at the Snata Fe Chamber music festival
before attending the concerts each night. OTOH I have yet to go to a
classical concert and not find audience members sound asleep at some
point in the concert. I don't think that is a result of "listener"
fatigue. With concerts, theater film and the like one finds a pretty
broad range of attendees and consideration doew have to be given to
attention spans of that broad base.


Long live concert is a tiring thing. So it rather proves =A0that
reproduction =A0from LP is less demanding on your ears and brain :-)

No it really doesn't. And long live concerts are not the least bit
tiring for me unless they are...well...not up to snuff.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:27:31 -0700, vlad wrote
(in article ):

On Sep 14, 7:43=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:30:45 -0700, David wrote
(in article ):



"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I
usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do somethi=
ng
else
(like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I lis=
ten
to
vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to
another
and then another.

Not only do I agree 100% but now you've got me thinking about it, my
turntable has been out of action for a little while and I have listened=
to a
LOT less music.

D

This seems to me to be a common experience among vinyl listeners.

Funny isn't it? A media that many will insist is obsolete, wrought with
unlistenable distortions and background noise and severely limited in dyn=
amic
range would elicit from many a desire to hear MORE records and less CDs?
Obviously, while many insist that CDs are capable of being damn nigh to
perfect, others suffer (and rather quickly too) from listening fatigue wi=
th
CDs that they DON'T get when they listen to LPs. =A0

I've seen this "explained" away by digital boosters by them saying that C=
D
presents so much more musical detail than LP that the brain has to work
harder to hear it all. I say rubbish to that argument. If the mechanism a=
t
work here were the amount of detail and clarity of presentation afforded =
by
CD, then a half hour's worth of live music at a concert would cause the
audience to get up and leave due to listening fatigue brought on by exces=
sive
exposure to the musical detail and lack of distortion engendered by liste=
ning
to the REAL THING unencumbered as it is by the imperfecttechnologyof the
recording and playback process.

Nonsense!

A typical concert in a symphony hall is about hour and a half, my
be two hours. You know why? Because it is as much as audience can
bear. Long live concert is a tiring thing. So it rather proves that
reproduction from LP is less demanding on your ears and brain :-)

I would suspect that the cumulative effect of sitting in an auditorium seat
amongst hundreds of other concert-goers rattling their programs, coughing,
sneezing, and squirming in their seats has a lot more to do with that than
does the live music. Listening at home from the comfort of one's easy chair,
is lot less stressful.

[vlad]

On Sep 15, 11:10=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:27:31 -0700, vlad wrote
(in article ):


=A0 =A0 A typical concert in a symphony hall is about hour and a half, =
my
be two hours. You know why? Because it is as much as audience can
bear. Long live concert is a tiring thing. So it rather proves =A0that
reproduction =A0from LP is less demanding on your ears and brain :-)

I would suspect that the cumulative effect of sitting in an auditorium se=
at
amongst hundreds of other concert-goers rattling their programs, coughing=
,
sneezing, and squirming in their seats has a lot more to do with that tha=
n
does the live music. Listening at home from the comfort of one's easy cha=
ir,
is lot less stressful.

So, live performance is full of different little noises that are
masking subtleties in a musical performance. Well documented technical
shortcomings of LP are doing the same - masking subtle nuances in a
music and it makes job for your ears and brain easier by reducing
amount of information to process. That was my point all along, that
your ears and brain do more work listening to CD - they are getting
more information to process. So, your so called "fatigue" is kind of
expected.

Also, I tend to agree with Arnie that your whole life experience
of listening LP's can create a bias in your mind.

vlad

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:54:01 -0700, vlad wrote
(in article ):

On Sep 15, 11:10=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 07:27:31 -0700, vlad wrote
(in article ):


=A0 =A0 A typical concert in a symphony hall is about hour and a half, =
my
be two hours. You know why? Because it is as much as audience can
bear. Long live concert is a tiring thing. So it rather proves =A0that
reproduction =A0from LP is less demanding on your ears and brain :-)

I would suspect that the cumulative effect of sitting in an auditorium se=
at
amongst hundreds of other concert-goers rattling their programs, coughing=
,
sneezing, and squirming in their seats has a lot more to do with that tha=
n
does the live music. Listening at home from the comfort of one's easy cha=
ir,
is lot less stressful.

So, live performance is full of different little noises that are
masking subtleties in a musical performance. Well documented technical
shortcomings of LP are doing the same - masking subtle nuances in a
music and it makes job for your ears and brain easier by reducing
amount of information to process. That was my point all along, that
your ears and brain do more work listening to CD - they are getting
more information to process. So, your so called "fatigue" is kind of
expected.

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

Also, I tend to agree with Arnie that your whole life experience
of listening LP's can create a bias in your mind.

vlad

Mr. Kruger is wrong in my case. I don't dislike CD, I just don't dislike LP
the way he does. AFAIC, both are valid musical sources and both are
enjoyable. Just because I have noticed that I can listen to LP longer than I
can CD without "listening fatigue" setting in, doesn't mean that I eschew
CD, or, indeed any part of digital reproduction. On the contrary. I probably
listen to far more CDs than LPs.

OTOH, when doing location recording (another avocation of mine), I wouldn't
record any other way. I've had my fill of lugging heavy road cases full of
pro tape recorders weighing-in at 50 Kg or so and then connecting them with
huge, heavy mixing boards, along with Dolby units and outboard power-supplies
for the microphones. Then spending an hour before rolling tape making sure
that the heads are properly aligned, and the EQ is correct for the tape being
used, etc., etc., etc. So nice it is to use a mixer the size of a briefcase,
with built-in phantom power for the microphones and to use a pair of digital
recorders (the main one being DSD, the "back-up" one being 24/96 LPCM) not
much larger than a couple of packs of cigarettes, and getting absolutely
stunning recordings from both. In fact, when I compare some of my better
analog recordings with some of my recent digital work, I find the digital
recordings to be better in every way. Sure, the modern recordings are
quieter, the mixers have better S/N and certainly the dynamic range of DSD or
even 24/96 LPCM is greater than anything possible via analog, but that's not
really what I'm talking about. The recordings just SOUND better. they have
better imaging, they are smoother in frequency response, and they are a LOT
cleaner. I don't really know how much of that to attribute to the modern
microphones that I use (alas, I no longer own the Sony C37Ps that I used to
record with back in analog days, so I cannot compare those), and how much to
attribute to the modern electronics, and how much to attribute to the digital
recorders, themselves, but Modern digital recordings, even when recorded
using modest equipment, can be stunningly real and better than anything one
can buy commercially.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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

[Kele]

I put my turntable away and didn't open the box for ten years. When I
did set it up it didn't work and took it to an old school stereo
repair who just cleaned it and who said that playing it is the best
thing to keep it from gumming up. So it's set-up in my system for the
first time in ten years and upon the first play, I was amazed. For
ten years I'd been listening to CDs exclusively for music. This was a
revelation; the sound of the record/turntable was so much more, I'm
going to say, "juicy". The CDs are shrill and brittle by comparison.
Everything in my system is about the same quality level, high middle-
end. I play CDs in two players a DVD combo, and a dedicated CD player
using decent patch cables (cables, even power cables do make a
difference); both players sound similar - the dedicated CD player
maybe a hair sweeter. Neither sound as rich as the turntable. I
recently replaced the turntable's cartridge (Sumiko BP from a
Denon103) and now the turntable sounds quicker and less rose colored.
There's is definitely more detail now and I have no doubt I prefer
listening to Dark Side on the turntable compared to the GoldDiskCD.
The convenience of CDs is the thing that stomps turntables.

Something I find interesting... I use the computer to transfer albums
to disc. It's odd but those rips sound better in a lot of ways than
the store bought commercial equivalent. The rips don't sound as good
as the album; the CD-R seems compressed by comparison and that makes
it less involving for me. Why I think the DVD-Rs sound different and
mostly better than the store bought might have to do with the studio
that mixes to make the CD. The commercial CDs often sound tighter
less raw and flowing than the rips to disc from album I make. I wish
I had a new music album vs CD as the recordings are better to CD than
they were back in the 80's (which is the time frame I have redundant
albums and CDs). I bet the studios could make a CD sound closer to
the "album sound" if they tried, but so far CDs just don't sound as
juicy as records. - Kele

[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?

[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

[DMHenrie[_2_]]

Quite possibly, it is because we must sit there and get ready to flip sides
of the record. Causes us not to "go anywhere", so we must remain focused on
the task at hand.
I'm not complaining, I love records. I just wish they lasted 74 minutes per
side.



"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
Has anyone else here noticed/experienced this? When I listen to CDs, I
usually listen to a couple, then turn the stereo off and go do something
else
(like work on the restoration of my Alfa Romeo GTV-6) . But when I listen
to
vinyl, I find myself caught-up in the listening. One record leads to
another
and then another. If I had a dollar for every time I've stayed-up almost
all
night listening to records, I could easily pay for that $10,000 paint job
I
want for my Alfa!

There seems to be something compelling about listening to records that CD
can't match (at least for me). I don't know what it is. I like digital,
hell,
I record digitally and get very realistic sounding results. I have read
articles by audio writers who have expressed experiencing this phenomenon
as
well, but I'm just wondering if anyone on this forum has had similar
experiences?