CD Vs. Vinyl?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 2 Apr 2005 15:59:06 GMT, Michael <newsoffthewire@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> > This has *nothing* to do with 'high-end' audio.
>
>It most certainly does. It simply states that equal base-points do not
>imply equal performance when contrasting two periods.

Indeed not, and in the 21st century, 'high-end' audio gear has no
practical value outside its build quality, speakers aside.

> > It was greater. This is not conjecture, check out industry sales
> > figures.
>
>It was more or less the same.

That is simply not true.

> > Less than there used to be............
>
>Wrong again. Currently, consumers have more options than ever.

Options are not sales.

> > *High end* stores, however, are going out of business, and you can't
> > buy high end gear in supermarkets.
>
>When one high end store closes, ten popup on the internet.

That doesn't mean there are any sales. Would *you* buy a $10,000
amplifier without a demo?

> > Not if no one is replacing their 'high end' equipment. That is the
> > truly obvious outcome.
>
>That is flawed, because if it were the case, most audiophiles would be
>running antiques. Yet, most antique pieces are used more as commodities
>or good bargains. As time changes, technology does get better. If
>you're trying to argue that high end audio was better back thirty years
>ago, then you'll be alone in the audiophile world. I do not know of any
>antique users that would agree with you.

Actually, my point in this regard would be that good mass-market
electronics now achieves what was only possible with 'high-end' gear a
couple of decades ago. Hence, the current 'high-end' market is only
for the acquiring of male jewellery, not superior audio performance.
Yes, I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I'll lay odds that it doesn't
*sound* better than my Pioneer DV-575.

> > Utter nonsense, and all the rambling and handwaving in the world won't
> > change the *fact* that the 'high end' two-channel market is shrinking
> > rapidly, which is why the brighter companies like Krell are rushing
> > into the Home Theater market, which certainly is expanding.
>
>Sure, Krell left the market, but I know of a few companies that have
>since emerged: Maori, Audio Dominance, Lister Audio Systems, etc. All
>of these companies make only stereo gear, and their ads are usually
>found in audiophile magazines.

Never heard of 'em.................

Have they made any sales?

>With that aside, your post makes no sense. For people clearly are using
>high end multichannel audio gear for music, so your point is moot.
>Whatever the intended purpose of the gear is, people are using it to
>fulfill their required functions, and listening to stereo music is part
>of that. Whether you like it or not, those multichannel receivers have
>to be considered when looking at the audio world. And, as we all know,
>the passion for multichannel receivers is a force to be reckoned with.

If you'd care to look up at the thread title....................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 2 Apr 2005 16:06:04 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> disagree, including the late, great Gabe Wiener of PGM, who also made
>> many superb recordings. For some of the best music you'll ever hear,
>> also try the JVC XRCD range, which are all made from analog tape
>> masters.

>I was reading an old thread about Gabe Wiener and you mentioned his St.
>John Passion recording. I found it on Amazon, and I'm interested to
>hear it for the sound, but I wonder about the performance. As far as
>Bach interpretation and my taste, Leonhardt is just right, I can't
>stand Harnoncourt, and Klemperer can be dramatic but not really enough
>genuine Baroque in him. Does this give you any reference to describe
>the Milnes interpretation?

I like it, I find it 'authentically dated', but matters of musical
taste are irrelevant to this newsgroup.

>By the way, have you heard any of James Boyk's piano recordings? I
>think they are fabulous, and I've attended a couple of the live
>concerts that were being recorded. I would be curious to know if you
>think that a guy, who in your opinion is full of nonsense on the
>subject of engineering, created a piano recording that sounds lifelike
>to you?

I haven't heard any, but I accept that he is a decent pianist and an
excellent recordist, so I'm happy to stipulate that he has made good
recordings. This does not exclude some of his pratings on the
audibility of wire being utter nonsense.

>Boyk consistently states over and over that tubes and analog produce a
>more accurate sound, one that captures the details of the sound he
>hears at the piano, while digital generally falls down at this task.

Fine, that's his opinion, to which he's entitled. Other fine artists
agree with him, and many more disagree.

>Your explanation, no doubt, is that he loves the euphonic effects. So
>do you hear these in his recordings?

As noted, I have not heard his recordings.

> In fact, do the distortions of
>tape, LP, and tubes specifically sound not lifelike to you?

They do not sound lifelike to me. They do of course give a sense of
'warmth' and 'air' to the recording, which is seductive, but *not*
accurate. I take it that you're aware that most studios keep an
analogue tape machine for doing 'pass throughs' of previously made
difgital recordings, in order to *add* those characteristic artifacts.
Does that sound likely to increase realism, to 'put back' something
mysteriously lost by digital - or just something that sounds nice?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Richard]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Musicians, martial artists, meditators, pyschologists, and
>practitioners of Alexander Technique and the Feldenkrais Method
>commonly report that "trying really hard" interferes with performance
>and awareness. I think it is plausible theory that you often didn't
>hear a difference because you weren't conscious of how the test
>conditions affected your brain's conscious construction of musical
>experience. Is it far-fetched to suggest that you might not be aware
>of how you construct a musical experience or what factors contribute to
>that? These same people commonly report becoming aware, gradually over
>time, of how their perceptual habits affect their conscious experience,
>and they regard it as a lifetime's work.

(SNIP)

We see this argument so often used against any kind of comparison test
and it is rather silly because it flies in the face of reason.

I do think it is not only possible but also likely that "trying really
hard" probably does interfere with performance for some. The real
question becomes "how long is one affected." Based on personal
experience, I say that performance anxiety fades rather quickly as one
becomes more comfortable in their new situation and "involved" with
the task at hand. If this were not so then how could any _normal_
person ever successfully perform or compete?
Athletes and performers and even those interviewing for jobs are
surely a bit nervous at first, but a normal healthy human will
overcome this and turn this nervous energy to their advantage. It
seems to me that I am stating the obvious here, but you can NOT use
this argument to negate all tests otherwise no one could EVER pass any
kind of test or win any competition. This is just common sense!

Richard

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> > The preference for tubes is hardly based on the idea that "older is
> > better." There may indeed be a tiny band of people that believe
this
> > but that hardly acounts for the majority of people that prefer tube
> > amplification.
> >
>
>
> What evidence do you have that the majority prefer tube
amplification?


Where did I ever say that the majority of people prefer tube
amplification?


> I certainly don't, and I have good ears.


I certainly do in my system and I have very good hearing.


Tubes distort in rather
> unpleasant ways.


I bit broad but if you find it unpleasant then fine. I find tubes to
sound more like real music for the most part.


Scott Wheeler

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Richard wrote:
> "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Musicians, martial artists, meditators, pyschologists, and
> >practitioners of Alexander Technique and the Feldenkrais Method
> >commonly report that "trying really hard" interferes with
performance
> >and awareness. I think it is plausible theory that you often didn't
> >hear a difference because you weren't conscious of how the test
> >conditions affected your brain's conscious construction of musical
> >experience. Is it far-fetched to suggest that you might not be
aware
> >of how you construct a musical experience or what factors contribute
to
> >that? These same people commonly report becoming aware, gradually
over
> >time, of how their perceptual habits affect their conscious
experience,
> >and they regard it as a lifetime's work.
>
> (SNIP)
>
> We see this argument so often used against any kind of comparison
test
> and it is rather silly because it flies in the face of reason.
>
> I do think it is not only possible but also likely that "trying
really
> hard" probably does interfere with performance for some. The real
> question becomes "how long is one affected." Based on personal
> experience, I say that performance anxiety fades rather quickly as
one
> becomes more comfortable in their new situation and "involved" with
> the task at hand. If this were not so then how could any _normal_
> person ever successfully perform or compete?
> Athletes and performers and even those interviewing for jobs are
> surely a bit nervous at first, but a normal healthy human will
> overcome this and turn this nervous energy to their advantage. It
> seems to me that I am stating the obvious here, but you can NOT use
> this argument to negate all tests otherwise no one could EVER pass
any
> kind of test or win any competition. This is just common sense!
>
> Richard

I'm not talking about performance anxiety. I think you are right that
performance anxiety is not a good explanation for consistent null
results with digital feeds or inconnects.

"Trying really hard" (Stewart's words) tends to narrow focus. If you
want to compare two paintings and you are feeling uncertain about the
difference, you naturally want to get closer. But maybe the difference
in those paintings can only come to consciousness through an overall
impression, and the thing to do would actually be to step back.

I read about an experiment in which 100-yard dash runners got faster
times when they didn't "try really hard" but actually backed off the
effort for the first half of the race, and saved the maximum effort for
the last part. This is not about anxiety--it's about a smart way to
run, which might not be obvious. I think the more obvious thing to do
is run as hard as you can the whole way. But that turns out not to be
the best strategy.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> Michael Mossey wrote:
> > Chung wrote:
> > >
> > > Check out this article:
> > >
> > > http/www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm
> > >
> > > This is one of the early ABX tests establishing the transparency
of
> > > digital audio. Also check out posts by the late Gabe Wiener, a
> > > well-known recording engineer, on this subject, right here on
rahe.
> >
> > "Establishing the transperency of digital audio"? That seems like
> too
> > grand and universal conclusion from the test you mentioned. It was
a
> > quick-switching test,
>
> Which is the best kind, as any expert in psychoacoustics (i.e., NOT
> James Boyk) could explain to you.
>
> > and not only that, the writeup said they "quickly
> > did 37 trials."
>
> Did you miss the part where he explained that the switching was
> controlled by the subject? If he'd needed more time, he could have
> taken it. The reason it went so quickly is that the subject had no
> trouble "hearing the difference."

I understand that people can "hear a difference" where there is none.
I think this particular subject got pulled into this mental state where
he "heard a difference" and he didn't know how to put himself in
another mental state, nor even indeed recognized that his mode of
attention would affect his state. And yes, that theory of mine needs
evidence to support it. I'm working on that.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 1 Apr 2005 01:13:54 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Chung wrote:
> >> Michael Mossey wrote:
> >>
> >> > An even better test is to listen to a live feed, then listen to
its
> >> > reproduction in analog and digital. Some engineers I know in
the
> >Los
> >> > Angeles area did that and said that the analog "blew away" the
> >digital.
> >> > I've done it informally by hearing James Boyk perform live in
> >Dabney
> >> > Concert Hall, then hearing the same piece recorded on LP and
> >recorded
> >> > on CD. The LP "blew away" the CD. And it does sound more
> >accurate.
> >>
> >> Check out this article:
> >>
> >> http/www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm
> >>
> >> This is one of the early ABX tests establishing the transparency
of
> >> digital audio. Also check out posts by the late Gabe Wiener, a
> >> well-known recording engineer, on this subject, right here on
rahe.
> >
> >"Establishing the transperency of digital audio"? That seems like
too
> >grand and universal conclusion from the test you mentioned.
>
> He said it was *one* of the early tests which established
> transparency.
>
> > It was a
> >quick-switching test, and not only that, the writeup said they
"quickly
> >did 37 trials." I can't pay good attention to anything that I do
> >quickly, 37 times.
>
> As you would doubtless suggest, others may not have this
> problem............
>

Perhaps. But I think you misunderstand what I mean by "good"
attention. Paying "good" attention is a pretty deep concept. For
example, I mean something like listening to whole pieces, so you get a
true musical impression, and then NOT listening to the same piece over
and over, so you don't go numb to the musical impression. I think that
people can easily fool themselves into thinking they are paying
attention to the whole of a sensory experience when they are not.

My purpose here is to explore how our paradigms differ, not to assert
in any rigid way that digital has artifacts.



> >And that was just ONE part of a day's work. James
> >Boyk told me that he did something similar with a live feed as
source,
> >and could hear the degradation of digital, but I don't have any
> >details.
>
> If you read more of Boyk's stuff, you'll find that he says many very
> strange things................
>
> >If we get away from a reductionist viewpoint, we also realize that a
> >live digital feed is a different system than stored digital
recordings.
>
> Why do you accuse everyone else of 'reductionism'? And in exactly
what
> way is a stored digital recording different from a live feed? Stop
> making vague claims, and offer something tangible.

I don't mean to say this is evidence that you are wrong about
anything--my point is very simple. Playback of a stored digital signal
is a different system than a live digital feed. Therefore it might
behave differently. I still think that we need to search for evidence
that it behaves differently. Within a model of that system there might
be no way that it could behave differently. But that model is not
reality. It is "reductionist" to draw conclusions about reality from
the basis of a model. Not necessarily invalid, but still reductionist.
At the moment I'm simply being careful about what conclusions can be
drawn from a live digital feed test.

>
> > So the fact that most CD's sound like degraded live feeds to me,
and
> >my hypothesis that this occurs from artifacts in the process, is
still
> >tenable.
>
> Your hypothesis is not tenable until you offer some *evidence* to
> support it. You have been asked several times exactly what 'digital
> artifacts' you are referencing, but you have never answered this
> simple question.
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

I don't know what digital artifacts. Could be something in a mechanism
already modelled, such as jitter, or it could be something new. I
could be wrong that digital has artifacts--perhaps I like analog better
for its distortion. In the words of Skeptic Magazine, "Maybe yes,
maybe no."

-Mike

 

[Michael]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> That is simply not true.

We're running around in circles, Stew. Just think back when you were a
kid, remember the products, remember the popularity, and you'll realize
that the world of stereo is not dyeing.


> Options are not sales.

Very true, which is why we do not call sales “options”, and vice-versa.
Options dictate the level of market interest. I could delve into the
economics of this, but this is neither the time nor the place.


> That doesn't mean there are any sales. Would *you* buy a $10,000
> amplifier without a demo?

See, friend, your diluting the point. The original point was in regards
to stereo only stores and not places where stereo equipment can be heard.

It's a very common practice for one to audition the equipment at a home
theater store, go online, get the best price for the equipment, and
order it online.

To answer your odd question, I would never purchase a piece of audio
equipment without using it first.

> Actually, my point in this regard would be that good mass-market
> electronics now achieves what was only possible with 'high-end' gear a
> couple of decades ago. Hence, the current 'high-end' market is only
> for the acquiring of male jewellery, not superior audio performance.
> Yes, I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I'll lay odds that it doesn't
> *sound* better than my Pioneer DV-575.

Right on, friend. I completely agree with you here.

> Never heard of 'em.................
>
> Have they made any sales?

While they are not extremely popular, they are doing well. Most people
classify them as kit finishers, and not real producers. This leads the
market to segment them out of the mainstream goods arena. Their ads do
occasionally find their way into the pages of Stereophile and the others.

> If you'd care to look up at the thread title....................

Witty. The problem with this discussion, just like discerning audio
quality, is that we all look at something through different windows. In
this particular case, this discussion is starting to verve off into many
different avenues.

I still contend and can prove that stereo sales are not slowing down.
These findings discount the sale of multichannel equipment. For an
outsider, he would ask how they discern between stereo equipment and
multichannel equipment, since at times, the division bell is blurred.
While this is a good point to determine consumer buying habits, it's
rather moot in regards to the popularity of stereo music.

If stereo music were truly fading away into oblivion, the consumer
interest in the medium would be waning, Stereophile would be out of
business, stereo CD sales would be plummeting, etc. The reality of the
situation is that the interest in stereo is slightly greater to that of
years past.

Yours truly,

Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 2 Apr 2005 16:06:04 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >
> >> disagree, including the late, great Gabe Wiener of PGM, who also
made
> >> many superb recordings. For some of the best music you'll ever
hear,
> >> also try the JVC XRCD range, which are all made from analog tape
> >> masters.
>
> >I was reading an old thread about Gabe Wiener and you mentioned his
St.
> >John Passion recording. I found it on Amazon, and I'm interested to
> >hear it for the sound, but I wonder about the performance. As far
as
> >Bach interpretation and my taste, Leonhardt is just right, I can't
> >stand Harnoncourt, and Klemperer can be dramatic but not really
enough
> >genuine Baroque in him. Does this give you any reference to
describe
> >the Milnes interpretation?
>
> I like it, I find it 'authentically dated', but matters of musical
> taste are irrelevant to this newsgroup.

I am tired of arguing "against you" and I thought we might find
something to agree on. For example, we might agree that this recording
has superb sound. We might both like the interpretation.

I did find some clips on amazon and I didn't like the chorales very
much, a bit mechanical in tempo. So I probably won't order it, because
I want to focus my collecting energy on performances I enjoy. I am
open to the possibility that it is a superb recording and I would
really like to hear digital done by a digital advocate.

>
> >By the way, have you heard any of James Boyk's piano recordings? I
> >think they are fabulous, and I've attended a couple of the live
> >concerts that were being recorded. I would be curious to know if
you
> >think that a guy, who in your opinion is full of nonsense on the
> >subject of engineering, created a piano recording that sounds
lifelike
> >to you?
>
> I haven't heard any, but I accept that he is a decent pianist and an
> excellent recordist, so I'm happy to stipulate that he has made good
> recordings. This does not exclude some of his pratings on the
> audibility of wire being utter nonsense.
>
> >Boyk consistently states over and over that tubes and analog produce
a
> >more accurate sound, one that captures the details of the sound he
> >hears at the piano, while digital generally falls down at this task.
>
> Fine, that's his opinion, to which he's entitled. Other fine artists
> agree with him, and many more disagree.
>
> >Your explanation, no doubt, is that he loves the euphonic effects.
So
> >do you hear these in his recordings?
>
> As noted, I have not heard his recordings.
>
> > In fact, do the distortions of
> >tape, LP, and tubes specifically sound not lifelike to you?
>
> They do not sound lifelike to me. They do of course give a sense of
> 'warmth' and 'air' to the recording, which is seductive, but *not*
> accurate.

>I take it that you're aware that most studios keep an
> analogue tape machine for doing 'pass throughs' of previously made
> difgital recordings, in order to *add* those characteristic
artifacts.
> Does that sound likely to increase realism, to 'put back' something
> mysteriously lost by digital - or just something that sounds nice?

I agree that this is good evidence that analog adds something that
sounds nice and is not more accurate. I would still be interested to
hear for myself a digital recording "before" and "after" the analog
pass. However, we are clearly very different people since my
perception of a good analog recording goes way beyond "warmth" and
"air"--it is actually a more lifelike musical impression and closer to
the live feed.

There's really no need to choose between "analog is accurate"/"analog
is euphonic". The answer might depend on the individual. I think it
is reductionist to answer this question in one way that applies to all
individuals.

-Mike


> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Chung wrote:
> Michael Mossey wrote:
>
> >
> > I was a student at Caltech 1987 to 1991.
>
> Let me get this straight. You went to Caltech, and you believe that
> interconnects may sound different?

I don't believe that interconnects sound different---I'm just open to
it as a possibility, and I see problems in the tests that have
attempted to rule out that possibility.

> Don't you think that if there were
> audible differences, they will be accompanied by easily meaasureable
> differences? So why not make measurements, instead of long DBT's? Do
you
> have any theory as to why they may sound different?

If we knew what to measure, yes. Anyway, don't they all measure
differently? Isn't the question whether the difference is within the
threshold of hearing?

>
> Just out of curiosity, what did you major in at Caltech?

"Engineering and Applied Science." It gave me a good background in
linear time-invariant models of systems.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> Michael Mossey wrote:
>
> > Don't get confused between subjective accuracy and objective
> accuracy.
>
> You're the one who's confused, or trying to confuse. There is no such
> thing as "subjective accuracy," as you define it. There may be a
> "subjective sense of similarity," but to appropriate a technical term
> like accuracy to elevate this concept is to muddy the waters, not
> clarify them.

Let me just explain the danger as I see it... I'm referring to the
danger of placing objective measurements above conscious experience.
The whole point of audio is to duplicate a conscious experience. And
some people are concerned with simply creating the most enjoyable
conscious experience possible, while I'm concerned mostly with
replicating the conscous experience of live music. So "accuracy" or
"similarity" or whatever you want to call it--this concept should apply
first to similarity of conscious experience.

It is certainly easier to demonstrate that two signals measure
similarly than it is to demonstrate that two conscious experiences are
the same. But this should not place measurements above conscious
experience. Because .... (continued below)

>
> > It SOUNDS more accurate;
>
> But it IS less accurate. Therefore, this seeming "accuracy" is likely
> some form of illusion.

because it is too easy to apply the label "illusion" to conscious
experiences that seem to contradict the measurements, without actually
having demonstrated anything about consciousness.

Example: intermodulation distortion interferes with the conscious
experience of music more than harmonic distortion. So an amplifier
that has a tiny amount of intermodulation distortion and NO harmonic
distortion, is less accurate than an amplier that has a lot of harmonic
distortion and no IM distortion. The amplifier with less distortion in
terms of numbers is arguably LESS accurate. This shows the danger of
separating the conscious effect of distortion from the measurement of
distortion.

Or, as another possibility, a form of distortion could actually
contribute to replicating a conscious experience. In that case, it
simply would not be true to claim that the perceived similarity is an
illusion. If a PET scan could prove the similarity of conscious
experience, we would have a measureable and objective way to make more
accurate recordings through the addition of distortion. As I see it,
our limited ability to measure conscious experience is what prevents us
from considering this possibitilty-- not that this possibility doesn't
exist.

Now, if I want to assert that digital is less accurate than analog, of
course I eventually have to provide evidence that a measureable form of
distortion exists. Digital has measureable distortion--the question is
whether it is audible. I know it's not a question for you, but it is
still an open question for me.

-Mike



>
> > that's a statement about subjective
> > experience. If you try to tell me it sounds more "pleasant," then
> you
> > are trying to impose your own words on my subjective experience.
> >
> > But please realize that analogphiles are more sophisticated then
you
> > imply here. We are interested in accuracy, and we are interested
in
> > direct comparison of source and recording. It's been done many
> times,
> > and analog was found to be more accurate by the listeners.
>
> Who knew what they were listening to, and who entered with a
> preconceived notion that analog is superior. (You've just called them
> "analogphiles," after all.)
>
> bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Theporkygeorge@aol.com wrote:
> uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > The preference for tubes is hardly based on the idea that "older
is
> > > better." There may indeed be a tiny band of people that believe
> this
> > > but that hardly acounts for the majority of people that prefer
tube
> > > amplification.
> > >
> >
> >
> > What evidence do you have that the majority prefer tube
> amplification?
>
>
> Where did I ever say that the majority of people prefer tube
> amplification?

Here:

"There may indeed be a tiny band of people that believe
this but that hardly acounts for the majority of people that prefer
tube
amplification."
>
>
> > I certainly don't, and I have good ears.
>
>
> I certainly do in my system and I have very good hearing.
>
>
> Tubes distort in rather
> > unpleasant ways.
>
>
> I bit broad but if you find it unpleasant then fine. I find tubes to
> sound more like real music for the most part.

Nope. Added colorations throughout the mid-range especially.
>
>
> Scott Wheeler

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Gary Rosen wrote:
> "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:d2kq7o02sd@news4.newsguy.com...
> > Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> > > On 31 Mar 2005 04:12:05 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> > > <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >I was a student at Caltech 1987 to 1991. James Boyk introduced
me
> > to
> > > >an engineer at Sheffield Lab. A group of engineers at the
Sheffield
> > > >Lab had, a few years prior, compared a live feed to its
recording,
> > in
> > > >digital, analog tape, and direct-to-disk master. The
direct-to-disk
> > > >was the best reproduction of the live feed, followed by the
analog
> > tape
> > > >and digital.
> > > >
> > > >If you want to know more, contact the folks at Sheffield Lab.
> > Which,
> > > >by the way, has the best recordings I've ever heard.
> > >
> > > And guess what, Sheffield Lab made their money by selling
direct-cut
> > > vinyl. Of course *they* will say that DD is best,
> >
> > I think that it is convenient for you to believe that people who
> > disagree with you have some ulterior motive.
> >
> > I'm sure you've done listening tests in which the result came back
> > null. Perhaps you've compared two amplifiers or inserted a digital
> > processor into a live feed. And very likely you reported hearing
no
> > difference. Now, if I wanted to do the same thing you are doing, I
> > could say that you didn't hear a difference because you didn't want
to
> > hear a difference. After all, it is far more comforting to live in
a
> > world that's logical, predictable, and can be understood via
> > reductionism. To hear a difference would threaten this world.
>
> What exactly do you mean by "reductionism"? And how is
> Stewart's viewpoint (which has considerably more evidence
> to support it than yours, as far as I can tell) more "reductionist"
> than yours? I don't mean to start a flame war, but it seems
> to me you are using this term to denigrate those who
> disagree with you without addressing the evidence supporting
> them.
>
> - Gary Rosen

By reductionism I mean reducing reality to parts with easily modelled
interactions. So for example, to investigate the ear/brain behavior
using quick-switch and then to ignore how other contexts affect musical
consciousness would be reductionist. "Hearing" becomes somewhat
separated from "consciousness". Now, please note that my statement is
itself reductionist! The reality of how data is collected about the
ear is richer than implied in my statement. And in that richness could
be found the possibilities that contradict my simple model. I.e., I
could be wrong.

However, quick-switch testing could also be wrong, since it has thrown
out possibilities.

I don't mean to denigrate people using reductionist thinking--we all
have to do that. I mean to question the certainty of the conclusions
we make.

You could also argue that I'm attacking anything I disagree with by
claiming it is uncertain, such as a criminal defense attorney would do
to create a "reasonable doubt." I don't think I am, because I think
that it is the fact that *consciousness* is involved in audio research
that makes reductionism dangerous. (I think reductionism is a
wonderful way to make a better digital network.) And because I am
willing to change my mind when I eventually fail to find the evidence
to support my hypothesis. When searching for evidence, I will weight
particularly highly tests that try to account for the mechanism of
forming conscious musical impressions.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:d2p2o801nt9@news1.newsguy.com...
> Harry F Lavo wrote:
> > "Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> > news:d2mfh30263k@news4.newsguy.com...
> >> Harry F Lavo wrote:
> >> > "Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The industry is firmly committed to high res as sounding better.
They
> > just
> >> > don't know what its commercial future is. Hard to find a sound
engineer
> >> > anywhere who will support your position. Hard to find any pro gear
that
> > is
> >> > not upgrading to 24/96 (in or out) or greater. Would Benchmark have
> > built
> >> > in 24/96 downconversion if it didn't count in monitoring quality?
And
> > don't
> >> > tell me that it is only for mixing...that may hold for the inputs,
but
> > not
> >> > for the outputs. The ordinary pro audio world is moving to 24/96
> > surround
> >> > as a needed output, whether as straight DVD-A, or as downmixed Dolby
> > Digital
> >> > / DTS. With the stereo tracks maintained at this or a higher 24/192
> > rate.
> >> > And a substantial portion of the classical pro audio world has moved
to
> > DSD
> >> > for its superior naturalness as a mastering technology using simple
> > micing.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Given the line of reasoning you have demonstrated above, can we finally
> >> conclude that digital audio (including the redbook CD standard) sounds
> >> better than vinyl? After all, the industry has been firmly committed to
> >> digital audio since, oh, the early '80's.
> >>
> >> It's so nice to have closure...
> >
> > Only by your stretch of logic.......
>
> Somehow, your own logic, applied to vinyl vs digital, sounds rather
> illogical to you, I guess...
>

The only thing that I've ever claimed for vinyl is that in my own informal
testing among younger people raised on cd's, they come away prefering vinyl
when presented with commercial material from identical masters in the two
media. This done using my equipment played through my system. And I
presented it as antecdotal, not 'evidence' in support of the fact that many
people, audiophiles and non-audiophiles alike (when exposed to very good
vinyl playback) seem to find it more compelling (descirbed as "more
realistic") than CD. I've further stated that for me this hasn't been an
issue since about 1990 when CD playback equipment finally got good enough to
allow me to enjoy the unmistakable benefits of the silver disk because the
perceived difference if any from vinyl had gotten narrow enough that
convenience won out. But in close comparative listening, I still usually
prefer the vinyl for sound quality alone. This as I have pointed out is
also consistent with my preference for jazz, chamber, and
singer-songwriters...none of which makes large dynamic demands at the
frequency extremes. So where in all this do you see logical flaws?

> >
> > You've had closure...or at least a closed mind to vinyl...for as long as
> > you've been here.
>

> I have some vinyl recordings that are well recorded, and I have digital
> recordings that are poorly recorded. What I am objecting to, if you have
> noticed, are pseudo-technical claims of the imaginary short-comings of
> digital so as to prove the superiority of vinyl.

Would you care to quote me? I don't recall making those claims for a long,
long time..if ever.

>
> >
> > Measured by recreating the emotional impact and sense of "realism" of
the
> > original performance, vinyl still has much to recommend it, given
careful
> > selection of the components reproducing it.
>

> You get it all wrong. The creation of emotional impact and realism is in
> the hands of the performers and the producers, and is certainly not
> better done via the LP technology. It fact, LP technology is
> demonstrably less accurate, by all measures of accuracy.

I don't get it wrong at all. The medium that lets whatever is there in a
great performance get through most akin to that same performance heard live
is the superior medium, from a musical standpoint regardless of the
technical merits of same. Thus I often prefer vinyl to cd in this regard,
and usually prefer SACD to DVD-A, and either to CD. Based on my emperical
observation that for me, these media offer more examples of this "akin to
live" experience.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Michael" <newsoffthewire@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:d2p2t901o29@news1.newsguy.com...
> Harry F Lavo wrote:
> > You've had closure...or at least a closed mind to vinyl...for as long as
> > you've been here.
> >
> > Measured by recreating the emotional impact and sense of "realism" of
the
> > original performance, vinyl still has much to recommend it, given
careful
> > selection of the components reproducing it.
> >
>
>
> Hello, Harry.
>
> The funny thing about this debate is your can replace the word "vinyl"
> with "CD" and it will still be applicable. Any format will sound
> wonderful provided the following two circumstances: it was mastered well
> and it is played upon competent hardware.
>
> The real question of a better format becomes one of price to
> performance. In terms of CD versus vinyl, CD sounds a lot better on
> less than vinyl on less. Yet, this, of course, is a moot point if the
> CD is from a terrible master, and likewise for vinyl.
>

No argument from me, Michael. I take all that as a given. However, I've
got about eight CD's and Original well-cared for vinyl of classical, jazz,
and pop albums that on my system sound identical in tonal coloration and are
identical in mix and listened to casually, could not be told apart.
However, in careful listening the vinyl is usually preferred, tending to a
slightly more dynamic and well defined bass, clearner high end (cymbals,
violins) and a more defined sense of mid-range 'space': e.g. voices have
more body and seem to have more space behind them. The objectivists here
have convinced me that his is phasiness, and it seems to be fairly well
acknowledged these days. But that still doesn't seem to convince a large
number of audiophiles that for whatever reason, vinyl (on a really good
system) can sound more "real" than CD. However, as I said in another post
here tonight, I myself switched most of my new purchases and listening to CD
in the early '90's. This occurred because the sound differences became so
small between my Linn/Syrinx/Accuphase/Counterpoint SA-2 vinyl system and my
Phillips 880/DTI Pro/Proceed CD system that the convenience of those silver
disks won out.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 3 Apr 2005 15:41:59 GMT, Michael <newsoffthewire@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 2 Apr 2005 15:57:53 GMT, Michael <newsoffthewire@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>>
>>>>Anyone who doubts the truth of this matter is directed to Ken
>>>>Kessler's article on the back page of this month's Hi-Fi News, just
>>>>out.
>>>
>>>Hello, Stew.
>>>
>>>And, that is your opinion of the current situation, friend.
>>
>> The point was that it's also Ken Kessler's, and is shared by the
>> high-end manufacturers, which is why the brighter ones are getting
>> into 'home theater'.
>
>Howdy, Stew.
>
>As you just said, that's not the actual case.

What? Where did I say that?

> You claim that it's some
>universal truth, then you rephrase that to the only bright ones.
>Obviously, even you are quite unsure about your claims.

No, I stated as a plain fact that high-end stereo is a shrinking
market, which is *why* the brighter ones are getting out. The less
bright are dying. Do you have any *evidence* in rebuttal?

>The bottom line is that while certain companies may be expanding their
>horizons, they are not ditching their current stereo stuff in leu of
>multichannel gear, and many new stereo-only companies are emerging.

This is utter nonsense.

>And, according to many reports, stereo sales and media sales keep
>increasing at a good pace. Again, this is in leu of internet file
>sharing and the multichannel craze.

Nope, the so-called 'high-end' 2-channel market is rapidly shrinking,
as published sales figures clearly demonstrate. Do you have *anything*
other than wild assertions to offer in rebuttal?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d2p32101o84@news1.newsguy.com...
> On 2 Apr 2005 23:57:28 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
>> These same people commonly report becoming aware, gradually over
>>time, of how their perceptual habits affect their conscious experience,
>>and they regard it as a lifetime's work.
>>
>>And: can you prove to me that you were really trying to hear a
>>difference? Can you prove it in an objective way?
>
> No one can prove what they are thinking. Why would I have to?

After thinking about this issue for a while (was the subject really trying
to hear a difference?) I've come up with a possible approach. It isn't
really necessary to tell the subject the truth about what he's likely to
hear. You can tell him that both signals are the same loudness, but one of
them has 25% 2nd harmonic distortion. This is a difference that both
objectivists and subjectivists are probably going to suspect is audible. No
guarantees, but both are apt to listen carefully if both feel they have a
chance of success.

Another approach is to start out with 2 signals having dramatic differences
easily heard. Then gradually bring them closer. The trick is to make the
last comparison the real one. The others were just there to put the subject
on his mettle.

What do you think?

Norm Strong

 

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Michael Mossey wrote:
> Chung wrote:
>> Michael Mossey wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I was a student at Caltech 1987 to 1991.
>>
>> Let me get this straight. You went to Caltech, and you believe that
>> interconnects may sound different?
>
> I don't believe that interconnects sound different---I'm just open to
> it as a possibility, and I see problems in the tests that have
> attempted to rule out that possibility.

So you don't believe it, but you are open to it as a possibilty. What
evidence have you encountered that leads to this openness? From reviews?

BTW, you could be a very busy man, if you are open to possibilities that
you don't believe in, and you want to test them. Remember the old
saying: if you have too open a mind, your brain may fall out.

>
>> Don't you think that if there were
>> audible differences, they will be accompanied by easily meaasureable
>> differences? So why not make measurements, instead of long DBT's? Do
> you
>> have any theory as to why they may sound different?
>
> If we knew what to measure, yes. Anyway, don't they all measure
> differently? Isn't the question whether the difference is within the
> threshold of hearing?

Well, for starters, frequency response, distortion, and noise added. We
know that we can only detect about a 0.3 dB difference in level (but
most likely only in a quick switching test, I might add) at 1KHz. There
is really no reason why a mechanically sound cable can introduce
distortion or noise, but those impairments can easily be measured down
to the -100 dB level. Any reason why you think there may be impairments
from cables that can be heard but not measured?

If two cables measure differently, like one is 1 inch longer, you think
they may sound different? Why do you think that we might not know what
to measure, when it comes to cables?

>
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, what did you major in at Caltech?
>
> "Engineering and Applied Science." It gave me a good background in
> linear time-invariant models of systems.

Well, one of my professors started a linear systems course by stating
that the whole blackboard is the set of all systems. Then he placed a
chalk dot on the board, and said that the dot represented the set of all
linear systems. It may be worthy to note that it is almost the
definition of reductionism to consider linear time-invariant systems.
Not that there is anything wrong with being reductionistic.

It is really unusual to hear a graduate from Caltech talk about
interconnects possibly sounding different, yet have no theory for why
they may sound different, or believe that they might sound different. Or
hear him say that there are digital artifacts, but presents no evidence.

 

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry F Lavo wrote:
> "Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> news:d2p2o801nt9@news1.newsguy.com...
>> Harry F Lavo wrote:
>> > "Chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
>> > news:d2mfh30263k@news4.newsguy.com...
>> >> Harry F Lavo wrote:
>> >> > "Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > The industry is firmly committed to high res as sounding better.
> They
>> > just
>> >> > don't know what its commercial future is. Hard to find a sound
> engineer
>> >> > anywhere who will support your position. Hard to find any pro gear
> that
>> > is
>> >> > not upgrading to 24/96 (in or out) or greater. Would Benchmark have
>> > built
>> >> > in 24/96 downconversion if it didn't count in monitoring quality?
> And
>> > don't
>> >> > tell me that it is only for mixing...that may hold for the inputs,
> but
>> > not
>> >> > for the outputs. The ordinary pro audio world is moving to 24/96
>> > surround
>> >> > as a needed output, whether as straight DVD-A, or as downmixed Dolby
>> > Digital
>> >> > / DTS. With the stereo tracks maintained at this or a higher 24/192
>> > rate.
>> >> > And a substantial portion of the classical pro audio world has moved
> to
>> > DSD
>> >> > for its superior naturalness as a mastering technology using simple
>> > micing.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Given the line of reasoning you have demonstrated above, can we finally
>> >> conclude that digital audio (including the redbook CD standard) sounds
>> >> better than vinyl? After all, the industry has been firmly committed to
>> >> digital audio since, oh, the early '80's.
>> >>
>> >> It's so nice to have closure...
>> >
>> > Only by your stretch of logic.......
>>
>> Somehow, your own logic, applied to vinyl vs digital, sounds rather
>> illogical to you, I guess...
>>
>
> The only thing that I've ever claimed for vinyl is that in my own informal
> testing among younger people raised on cd's, they come away prefering vinyl
> when presented with commercial material from identical masters in the two
> media. This done using my equipment played through my system. And I
> presented it as antecdotal, not 'evidence' in support of the fact that many
> people, audiophiles and non-audiophiles alike (when exposed to very good
> vinyl playback) seem to find it more compelling (descirbed as "more
> realistic") than CD. I've further stated that for me this hasn't been an
> issue since about 1990 when CD playback equipment finally got good enough to
> allow me to enjoy the unmistakable benefits of the silver disk because the
> perceived difference if any from vinyl had gotten narrow enough that
> convenience won out. But in close comparative listening, I still usually
> prefer the vinyl for sound quality alone. This as I have pointed out is
> also consistent with my preference for jazz, chamber, and
> singer-songwriters...none of which makes large dynamic demands at the
> frequency extremes. So where in all this do you see logical flaws?

Well, when I presented your line of reasoning (basically you were saying
that since pro-audio has gone to 24/96 that must mean hi-rez sounds
better) and deduced from that line that digital audio must sound better
than vinyl, since pro-audio has gone digital since 1980's, you said that
it was a stretch of logic on my part. That's why I said that your own
logic somehow did not sound logical *to you*, when it was used to
compare vinyl vs CD or digital audio.


>
>> >
>> > You've had closure...or at least a closed mind to vinyl...for as long as
>> > you've been here.
>>
>
>> I have some vinyl recordings that are well recorded, and I have digital
>> recordings that are poorly recorded. What I am objecting to, if you have
>> noticed, are pseudo-technical claims of the imaginary short-comings of
>> digital so as to prove the superiority of vinyl.
>
> Would you care to quote me? I don't recall making those claims for a long,
> long time..if ever.

Well, in this instance, in this very thread, people were saying that
there were digital artifacts, yet presented no evidence. Just off the
top of my head, I remember you were quoting someone saying that PCM
sounded bad, and IIRC, you said it was one of the best articles on PCM?
Perhaps I am objecting to those views you readily accept and welcome?

Here's that post of yours:

http/groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/8db30fee70542793?dmode=source

And here is another example of you actually making claims of the
imaginary short-comings of digital:

http/groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/47a2dc9821fe05ce?dmode=source

where you claimed:

"(my issues) with CD's tendency to have less depth and a 'flatter' bass
and lower midrange dimensionality."

"(SACD) has the absence of digital artifacts, same as vinyl and
pre-recorded tape".

I am sure there are a lot more examples.

Also, interesting that when I said I object to something, you
immediately assume that I was objecting to what you claim, as in here
and now.

>
>>
>> >
>> > Measured by recreating the emotional impact and sense of "realism" of
> the
>> > original performance, vinyl still has much to recommend it, given
> careful
>> > selection of the components reproducing it.
>>
>
>> You get it all wrong. The creation of emotional impact and realism is in
>> the hands of the performers and the producers, and is certainly not
>> better done via the LP technology. It fact, LP technology is
>> demonstrably less accurate, by all measures of accuracy.
>
> I don't get it wrong at all. The medium that lets whatever is there in a
> great performance get through most akin to that same performance heard live
> is the superior medium, from a musical standpoint regardless of the
> technical merits of same. Thus I often prefer vinyl to cd in this regard,
> and usually prefer SACD to DVD-A, and either to CD. Based on my emperical
> observation that for me, these media offer more examples of this "akin to
> live" experience.

Of course, there is the minor problem that digital redbook audio so
often proves to be much more transparent (like the Lipshitz test found),
and vinyl is demonstrably inaccurate compared to CD. The point is that
the realism and emotion should be set by the performers and the
producers, and the medium has to be as faithful as possible.

 

[Michael]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry F Lavo wrote:
>
> No argument from me, Michael. I take all that as a given. However, I've
> got about eight CD's and Original well-cared for vinyl of classical, jazz,
> and pop albums that on my system sound identical in tonal coloration and are
> identical in mix and listened to casually, could not be told apart.
> However, in careful listening the vinyl is usually preferred, tending to a
> slightly more dynamic and well defined bass, clearner high end (cymbals,
> violins) and a more defined sense of mid-range 'space': e.g. voices have
> more body and seem to have more space behind them. The objectivists here
> have convinced me that his is phasiness, and it seems to be fairly well
> acknowledged these days. But that still doesn't seem to convince a large
> number of audiophiles that for whatever reason, vinyl (on a really good
> system) can sound more "real" than CD. However, as I said in another post
> here tonight, I myself switched most of my new purchases and listening to CD
> in the early '90's. This occurred because the sound differences became so
> small between my Linn/Syrinx/Accuphase/Counterpoint SA-2 vinyl system and my
> Phillips 880/DTI Pro/Proceed CD system that the convenience of those silver
> disks won out.
>

Hey, Harry.

Could you give me a small list of Jazz auditions and state which medium
that sound best on? It's an interesting sound that has made itself well
known on SACD lately.

Thanks,

Michael