Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 30 Jun 2005 22:09:47 GMT, "Helen Schmidt"
wrote:

When the overwhelming pattern is that CD's have faults such as
edginess (commercially produced CD's) and vinyl is free from these
faults, the obvious conclusion is that the problem is inherent to
digital.

This looks to me to be a case of very bad logic. If even a minority of
CD's do not display this "edginess" then it must be true that the
edginess is *not* inherent in the medium. Only if 100% of CD's
exhibited "edginess" would there be any justification for suspecting
that the "edginess" is inherent.

ONE single CD without "edginess", on the other hand, is actually proof
by counterexample that the "edginess" is not inherent.

Aside from which, it is NOT the 'overhwhelming pattern' that CDs have
'faults such as edginess'; that is only a *common belief* of
*audiophile culture* -- which is a tiny, tiny segment of the listening
public.


--

-S
"You know what love really is? It's like you've swallowed a great big
secret. A warm wonderful secret that nobody else knows about." - 'Blame it
on Rio'

Helen Schmidt wrote:

When the overwhelming pattern is that CD's have faults such as
edginess (commercially produced CD's) and vinyl is free from these
faults, the obvious conclusion is that the problem is inherent to
digital.

No, the uninformed conclusion would be that the problem is inherent to
digital. To conclude that the problem is inherent to digital, you'd
have to go through a few more steps. First of all, you'd want to
confirm, through something more robust than anecdotal impression, that
there is indeed such a pattern of perception--for example, we don't
even know whether those who complain of "edginess" are even referring
to the same thing. And second, you'd want to do a comparison in which
the only variable is the medium. Comparing commercial releases does not
cut it.

Of course, since this can't be understood using our current set of
measurements (of audio systems and brains),

Why not? What is not to understand? It's actually quite simple to test
the assertion that digital is inherently "edgy." Make a good CD-R of a
vinyl record, compare the two blind, and ask listeners which sounds
more edgy to them. If digital really is "edgy," you'll know.

the objectivist who craves
understanding must fall back on other explanations.

I suspect that most objectivists really don't care why people think the
things they do about vinyl. Once again, you are over-generalizing--and
insulting at the same time. Very nice.

The tricky thing
is that many of these alternative explanations are valid in some
situations. The explanations include:

- vinyl has euphonic distortions

- CD reveals the limitations of the system

This is debatable. It's also an assertion I've rarely if ever heard
from an objectivist.

Of course, these can realistically describe some situations.

There are distortions which, applied to music, make it
sound "better." But if I'm not talking about "better," but about
"truth-to-life", the objectivist answers in the same way.

Well, if there are known physical differences between the two, and
there are consistent perceived differences between the two (and it
doesn't matter which perceived differences we're talking about), it's
only reasonable to believe that the perceived differences are a
reaction to the physical differences.

There are systems with limitations which higher quality source can
reveal. But if those who favor analog do so consistently even in
SOTA systems, the objectivist answers in the same way.

Why not? Some of those physical differences remain.

As far as the explanation that "distortion sounds good" -- better
turntables are in fact better mechanically--that is they produce
*less* distortion. And those who favor analog find more truth-to-life
in such systems.

Better turntables can reduce *some* forms of distortion, but not
others. So the explanation remains sound.

At bottom, there are only two* possible explanations for why some
listeners esteem vinyl over CD:

1) Because of some combination of the known physical differences
between the two media; or

2) Because of some unknown physical difference between the two media.

Tests can confirm #1, at least in part. And while we cannot ever
completely rule out the possibility that there is "something else,"
neither do we need to spend much time considering it until somebody
comes up with at least a reasonable hypothesis about what that
something might be.

So rather than just putting down objectivists whom you obviously
believe to be your intellectual inferiors, why don't you get to work?

bob

Helen Schmidt wrote:
Russ Button wrote:


As an exercise, I recently digitized "Supersax Plays Bird" from
my MFSL recording.

When the overwhelming pattern is that CD's have faults such as
edginess (commercially produced CD's) and vinyl is free from these
faults, the obvious conclusion is that the problem is inherent to
digital.

Remember that in my example, the vinyl is my "original"
source. The CD I made is a copy of that source and was
then compared to it. If the CD record/playback chain was
truly perfect, then it should have sounded identical when
compared to the vinyl source from which it was made.

- vinyl has euphonic distortions

Irrelevant in this case because those "euphonic distortions"
would have been captured in the digital signal as they
were part of the source signal.

Russ

Russ Button wrote:
Helen Schmidt wrote:
Russ Button wrote:


As an exercise, I recently digitized "Supersax Plays Bird" from
my MFSL recording.

When the overwhelming pattern is that CD's have faults such as
edginess (commercially produced CD's) and vinyl is free from these
faults, the obvious conclusion is that the problem is inherent to
digital.

Remember that in my example, the vinyl is my "original"
source. The CD I made is a copy of that source and was
then compared to it. If the CD record/playback chain was
truly perfect, then it should have sounded identical when
compared to the vinyl source from which it was made.

In my personal experience, which accords with the scientific
literature, comparisons of audio that are done 'sighted',
such as yours seems to have been, are highly prone to false positive
impressions of 'difference'. Have you tried to repeat the comparison
with some elementary controls in place? Admittedly these will
be difficult to put in place for a vinyl/CD copy comparison,
since to do it right you'll have to not only level match both
channels, but also time-synch the two sources, and devise some
means of random switching between them. It also assumes that
the LP doesn't pick up new pops and ticks before or during the
test.

Without these precautions any report of difference between an LP
and a competently-made digital copy of same is inherently suspect.




--

-S
"You know what love really is? It's like you've swallowed a great big
secret. A warm wonderful secret that nobody else knows about." - 'Blame it
on Rio'

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Russ Button wrote:

Remember that in my example, the vinyl is my "original"
source. The CD I made is a copy of that source and was
then compared to it. If the CD record/playback chain was
truly perfect, then it should have sounded identical when
compared to the vinyl source from which it was made.


In my personal experience, which accords with the scientific
literature, comparisons of audio that are done 'sighted',
such as yours seems to have been, are highly prone to false positive
impressions of 'difference'. Have you tried to repeat the comparison
with some elementary controls in place?

For the various reasons you cited, I am unable to make the
kind of comparison you suggest.

Without these precautions any report of difference between an LP
and a competently-made digital copy of same is inherently suspect.

Your concerns are noted, but given what I have to work with, it's
the best I can do.

I don't like to do quick A-B comparisons. Instead I like to listen to
one for a while, and then later switch to the other. I find that I
seem to have different reactions to things over time in a fashion
I can only describe as emotional.

As I said earlier, the edginess I experienced seemed rather
subtle, but there nonetheless.

Russ

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Russ Button wrote:
Helen Schmidt wrote:
Russ Button wrote:


As an exercise, I recently digitized "Supersax Plays Bird" from
my MFSL recording.

When the overwhelming pattern is that CD's have faults such as
edginess (commercially produced CD's) and vinyl is free from these
faults, the obvious conclusion is that the problem is inherent to
digital.

Remember that in my example, the vinyl is my "original"
source. The CD I made is a copy of that source and was
then compared to it. If the CD record/playback chain was
truly perfect, then it should have sounded identical when
compared to the vinyl source from which it was made.

In my personal experience, which accords with the scientific
literature, comparisons of audio that are done 'sighted',
such as yours seems to have been, are highly prone to false positive
impressions of 'difference'. Have you tried to repeat the comparison
with some elementary controls in place? Admittedly these will
be difficult to put in place for a vinyl/CD copy comparison,
since to do it right you'll have to not only level match both
channels, but also time-synch the two sources, and devise some
means of random switching between them. It also assumes that
the LP doesn't pick up new pops and ticks before or during the
test.

Without these precautions any report of difference between an LP
and a competently-made digital copy of same is inherently suspect.

Even with all those precautions in place, some WA is going to come along and
say the stylus has been worn to some degree as a result of having recorded
the CD.

Well don't confuse CD as the only digital. Or all flaws on CD as the
fault of digital.

Try some recordings with your computer. If you can manage it, feed the
pre-amp out to your sound card with some interconnects and adapters.
Record some LP's and then burn a CD-R or CD-RW. See what you
think? Might be very surprised.

Dennis

Dennis Moore wrote:
Well don't confuse CD as the only digital. Or all flaws on CD as the
fault of digital.

Agreed.

Try some recordings with your computer. If you can manage it, feed the
pre-amp out to your sound card with some interconnects and adapters.
Record some LP's and then burn a CD-R or CD-RW. See what you
think? Might be very surprised.

This is exactly what I did. The edginess is there, though it is not glaring.
I can think of several possible reasons for it.

1. Operator error. I may not be running the equipment properly or
I might be using less than optimal settings on the capture software.

2. The A to D converter in the Xitel Inport may just be of a lower
quality than A to D converters used in pro grade setups.

3. Digital at 44.1 khz may introduce audible artifacts which manifest
as edginess.

Russ

On 30 Jun 2005 22:09:47 GMT, "Helen Schmidt"
wrote:

Russ Button wrote:

As an exercise, I recently digitized "Supersax Plays Bird" from
my MFSL recording. I have a Xitel Inport, which is a cute little
A to D converter, which feeds into a PC USB port. I can then
burn a CD from it. When comparing the CD to the original
vinyl, there does appear to be some added edginess. Is that
an artifact of the Xitel Inport, or is it inherent to digitial?
I don't know.

When the overwhelming pattern is that CD's have faults such as
edginess (commercially produced CD's) and vinyl is free from these
faults, the obvious conclusion is that the problem is inherent to
digital.

That would be *if*, not when, as relatively few current CDs exhibit
this problem. It follows that it's not an *inherent* problem of CD.

Of course, since this can't be understood using our current set of
measurements (of audio systems and brains), the objectivist who craves
understanding must fall back on other explanations.

Utter rubbish. These defects can certainly be understood and measured.
I have never yet heard an audible defect that did not have a readily
measurable cause.

The tricky thing
is that many of these alternative explanations are valid in some
situations. The explanations include:

- vinyl has euphonic distortions

- CD reveals the limitations of the system

Of course, these can realistically describe some situations.

There are distortions which, applied to music, make it
sound "better." But if I'm not talking about "better," but about
"truth-to-life", the objectivist answers in the same way.

That's because the same mechanisms apply - and *opinions* regarding
'truth to life' vary greatly.

There are systems with limitations which higher quality source can
reveal. But if those who favor analog do so consistently even in
SOTA systems, the objectivist answers in the same way.

As far as the explanation that "distortion sounds good" -- better
turntables are in fact better mechanically--that is they produce
*less* distortion. And those who favor analog find more truth-to-life
in such systems.

Do they? Or do they simply look at all that magnificent engineering
and assume that it *must* be 'better'? There's a pattern here, in that
the 'subjectivists' seem to favour sighted listening, which leads to
this kind of expectation bias. Besides, the inherent flaws of vinyl
override playback equipment quality once you get above the level of
say the Rega Planar 3. Even a Forsell or Rockport will exhibit audible
wow if the record groove isn't *exactly* concentric with the hole, and
there's no cure for inner-groove distortion, or for rolled-off and
summed to mono bass.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

There are distortions which, applied to music, make it
sound "better." But if I'm not talking about "better," but about
"truth-to-life", the objectivist answers in the same way.

That's because the same mechanisms apply - and *opinions* regarding
'truth to life' vary greatly.

Absolute rubbish. It's not opinion. Everything can be measured.

As far as the explanation that "distortion sounds good" -- better
turntables are in fact better mechanically--that is they produce
*less* distortion. And those who favor analog find more truth-to-life
in such systems.

Do they? Or do they simply look at all that magnificent engineering
and assume that it *must* be 'better'?

They listen. With their ears. I know, a confusing concept. But you do get
better at it when you do it more. You'll just have to trust me on that one.

In article , "jeffc"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

There are distortions which, applied to music, make it
sound "better." But if I'm not talking about "better," but about
"truth-to-life", the objectivist answers in the same way.

That's because the same mechanisms apply - and *opinions* regarding
'truth to life' vary greatly.

Absolute rubbish. It's not opinion. Everything can be measured.

snip

EVERYTHING? Are you certain? Did they believe that 50 years ago?

On 9 Jul 2005 18:54:10 GMT, "jeffc" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

There are distortions which, applied to music, make it
sound "better." But if I'm not talking about "better," but about
"truth-to-life", the objectivist answers in the same way.

That's because the same mechanisms apply - and *opinions* regarding
'truth to life' vary greatly.

Absolute rubbish. It's not opinion. Everything can be measured.

Oh, really? Please specify the measures used to determine 'truth to
life'.

As far as the explanation that "distortion sounds good" -- better
turntables are in fact better mechanically--that is they produce
*less* distortion. And those who favor analog find more truth-to-life
in such systems.

Do they? Or do they simply look at all that magnificent engineering
and assume that it *must* be 'better'?

They listen. With their ears. I know, a confusing concept. But you do get
better at it when you do it more. You'll just have to trust me on that one.

Why would I trust *you*, when I have forty five years of my own
experience to go by - mostly without digital? Also, why would I trust
someone so woefully ignorant as yourself of the basics of both
analogue and digital audio?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Helen Schmidt wrote:

Russ Button wrote:


As an exercise, I recently digitized "Supersax Plays Bird" from
my MFSL recording. I have a Xitel Inport, which is a cute little
A to D converter, which feeds into a PC USB port. I can then
burn a CD from it. When comparing the CD to the original
vinyl, there does appear to be some added edginess. Is that
an artifact of the Xitel Inport, or is it inherent to digitial?
I don't know.


When the overwhelming pattern is that CD's have faults such as
edginess (commercially produced CD's) and vinyl is free from these
faults, the obvious conclusion is that the problem is inherent to
digital.


This paragraph speaks volumes about the poster's bias against CD.

1. There are many CD's that do not exhibit edginess at all. Edginess
is most likely a result of equalization by the mastering engineers. In
fact, other than some very poorly mastered CD's from the early '80's, I
have heard very few "edgy" CD's. I guess I should qualify that by saying
that I mostly listen to classical music these days.

2. I have heard many vinyl recordings that exhibit edginess. These
were mostly from the 1970's and '80's.

3. Even if you accept that there are more edgy CD's than vinyl LP's,
the conclusion that the problem is inherent to digital is seriously
wrong. To arrive at that conclusion, you have to show evidence that (a)
there is no vinyl LP that is edgy, (b) all digital recordings show
edginess, and (c) have vinyl and digital records made from the same
master where you prove that the vinyl is not edgy while the digital is.

4. There is not even a consensus about what "edgy" means. Edgy to you
may be clear and transparent to others. Define "edgy" in a way that is
quantifiable, then we can have a more meaningful discussion.

Of course, since this can't be understood using our current set of
measurements (of audio systems and brains), the objectivist who craves
understanding must fall back on other explanations. The tricky thing
is that many of these alternative explanations are valid in some
situations. The explanations include:

- vinyl has euphonic distortions

- CD reveals the limitations of the system

Of course, these can realistically describe some situations.


I guess it is tricky when you do not have any argument against those
explanations, and you really, really, don't want to believe them .

I can provide other explanations, too. Maybe you'll find them tricky
also. How about:

(a) There are excellent vinyl recordings of certain performances that
have not been successfully remastered in digital.

(b) Some people like vinyl for nostalgic reasons.

(c) Some people like vinyl for the coolness factor. Vinyl is such a
samll niche that it might make someone feel special to still prefer
vinyl. One of my sons told me that, so it is true.

(d) Some people have no luck in getting good CD's (and/or high-rez digital).

(e) Some people just love going through the ritual of cleaning,
adjusting, tweaking, getting up to change sides, etc.

(f) Some people do not like to be startled by the huge dynamic range
inherent in CD and digital. They feel more comfortable listening to
recordings where there is always a certain hiss, reminding them that
they are listening to a vinyl record.

(g) Vinyl provides limitless opportunities in tweaking. There are many
things in a vinyl system that you can change to effect a noticeable
audio difference. Some people like tweaking. Some people like to always
look for upgrades. Some people want to debate what is SOTA, or what is
hi-end, and the vinyl systems allow them to do that.

But, seriously, why do you care about why people prefer certain things?
If I prefer CD's, are you going to start researching why?

Helen Schmidt wrote:

Hi,

I've been lurking here recently. There was a post by a self-described
"newbie" on CD vs. vinyl, which actually leads to a very important
point. I repeat the post he

snip


eaning the whole idea
and claiming the superiority of "objective evidence." This
misunderstands so many things, the main thing being that life is not
"objective evidence versus introspection;" the two can and must be
integrated. I will postpone this discussion for now, but later I can
explain how the conclusions of so-called "objective" experiments
collapse over the shaky foundation of introspective naivety.

Helen

Aside from this looking awfuly lot like a troll, here's the actual answer:

1- some material is not available and never will be on CD
2- CD not analog is a technically superior medium in terms of *most* of
the measurable parameters - the most obvious being S/N and ergo dynamic
range.
3- listened to on Technics TT and Stanton cartridges with somewhat of an
average signal chain to follow, CD is likely to "sound better."
Therefore for the average listener or consumer, CD is the preferred
medium - witness the sales and shift to CD
4- For the sophisticated "high-end" enthusiast or even the budget "DIY"
enthusiast LP does hold some true beauty in terms of the sonic
presentation - which is usually different than what the CD provides, and
sometimes "more pleasant to listen to." You don't usually get this
result with random or run-of-the-mill gear.
5- So, yes one does need to spend some time and/or money in order to get
outstanding results from LP.

Imho, the issues of psychology, visual prejudice, or "objective
measurement" really are moot and irrelevant in their entirety to the
question of how "good" is LP or not.

For those who enjoy LP, it is better that more people than not do not
think LP is any good, that way there are more LPs around for those that
like them? :- )

_-_-bear

I forgot to mention the easy readability of the covers and the colorful,
and framable artwork that they make!

;_)


Also, there was a kids program on TV that showed how to heat the LP and
then make it into a bowl for serving popcorn. :- )

Try to do THAT with a CD!!

And, of course there is the exotic and delicate playback mechanism
called the turntable that you can watch as it spins! When I was a child
my turntable had a rubber mat with concentric raised rings. You could
put marbles on the platter and at 78rpm the marbles liked to spin in
place making very nice patterns and glistening in the light...

More reasons to like LP...

_-_-bear

"BEAR" wrote in message
...
I forgot to mention the easy readability of the covers and the colorful,
and framable artwork that they make!

;_)


Also, there was a kids program on TV that showed how to heat the LP and
then make it into a bowl for serving popcorn. :- )

Try to do THAT with a CD!!

And, of course there is the exotic and delicate playback mechanism called
the turntable that you can watch as it spins! When I was a child my
turntable had a rubber mat with concentric raised rings. You could put
marbles on the platter and at 78rpm the marbles liked to spin in place
making very nice patterns and glistening in the light...

More reasons to like LP...

_-_-bear


.....whilst others kiddies were tweaking Fisher-Price record players with
plasticine supports and bubblegum record clamps? :-)

Mike

Mike Gilmour wrote:
"BEAR" wrote in message
...


snip
When I was a child my
turntable had a rubber mat with concentric raised rings. You could put
marbles on the platter and at 78rpm the marbles liked to spin in place
making very nice patterns and glistening in the light...

More reasons to like LP...

_-_-bear



....whilst others kiddies were tweaking Fisher-Price record players with
plasticine supports and bubblegum record clamps? :-)

Mike


Oh dear!

It seems that I've gotten older than I'd like to think!

I pre-date the existence of "Fisher-Price" and the world of 100% plastic
toys!

I think actually at the time that was one of those turntables in a box
deals. Metal TT and heavy wood box with vinyl covering on the outside -
brown and beige, iirc. The arm lifted by itself, ceramic cartridge that
flipped to go from 33 1/3 "Long Playing" records to the "regular" 45s
and 78rpm side.

_-_-bear

"BEAR" wrote in message
...
Mike Gilmour wrote:
"BEAR" wrote in message
...


snip
When I was a child my
turntable had a rubber mat with concentric raised rings. You could put
marbles on the platter and at 78rpm the marbles liked to spin in place
making very nice patterns and glistening in the light...

More reasons to like LP...

_-_-bear



....whilst others kiddies were tweaking Fisher-Price record players with
plasticine supports and bubblegum record clamps? :-)

Mike

Oh dear!

It seems that I've gotten older than I'd like to think!

I pre-date the existence of "Fisher-Price" and the world of 100% plastic
toys!

I think actually at the time that was one of those turntables in a box
deals. Metal TT and heavy wood box with vinyl covering on the outside -
brown and beige, iirc. The arm lifted by itself, ceramic cartridge that
flipped to go from 33 1/3 "Long Playing" records to the "regular" 45s and
78rpm side.

_-_-bear


Oh dear, probably the same era as me then. The ubiquitous Dansette (or
Regentone) fed with regular pocket money 45's after hearing the latest hit
on a fading Radio Luxemburg. Big step up though from winding handles for
fragile 78's ;-) Jumpers for gaolposts...

Mike

Helen Schmidt wrote:

... the "objectivists" here are extremely naive,
philosophically...

But to give credit where credit is due, Chung's argument about Karajan
and Jenn back on the "Newbie CD vs Vinyl" thread is a classic use of
the Skeptic's procedure of opposition (as outlined by Sextus Empiricus
in the 2nd century A.D.), which seems to me to be pretty cool.

Mark