CD Vs. Vinyl?

[Guest]

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

"chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:d31vt102r81@news3.newsguy.com...
> Michael Mossey wrote:
> snip
> >
> > 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.
>
> The nonlinearlity that generates IM will always generate harmonic
> distortion, so your example is a poor one.
>
> In the case of two interconnects, all distortion products are -100dB or
> less, frequency response is < 0.1 dB in the audio range, and measured
> added noise is -100dB or less. Shouldn't that be enough to convince you
> that they sound the same?
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> So why would an ABX type test not show positive results?
>
> > 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.
>
> If it is audible, why would an ABX type not show it?

Does your world simply begin and end with cables and ab testing? Michael
asked about non-linear systems and you respond talking about cables,
emphasizing that they are linear systems. Why don't you just respond to his
question? And again as others do here, you predicate the validity of ab
testing on ab testing. It is a dogmatic belief, as is revealed by thye fact
that even hypothetical challenge seems so threatening that you are unable to
step outside the box even theoretically and look at a universe that allows
the possibility that the test may have some flaws. How scientific if that?
Especially since that "universe" is coming right out of text books on
psychoacoustics?

 

[Guest]

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

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d3209302rn0@news3.newsguy.com...
> On 6 Apr 2005 00:50:57 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >By the way, science proceeds from the hypothesis stage to the
> >experiment stage. I'm in the hypothesis stage. Do you want to stamp
> >out competing hypotheses before they can be tested? Isn't that
> >unscientific and more like a turf-war?
>
> Actually, science proceeds from the *observation* stage to the
> hypothesis stage to the experiment stage. Can you report any reliable
> and repeatable observation which would lead to your hypothesis? Simply
> making something up is not science.

He has already said that his inquiry started with doing better in blind
testing (albeit unconventional blind testing) than he would have believed
based on his scientific training. So he wanted to do more to see if it held
up, and he was intriqued by the possibility that his scientific training
could be wrong. He is also a music-loving audiophile, and has plenty of
music listening and component selection experience to draw upon. Certainly
as much or more as Einstein's "passing train" that ultimately led to the
theory of relativity. Oft-times, dramatic shifts in scientific paradigm
come about more by intuitive linking of scant facts. And by definition most
can't see the possible links. On this basis, a great intuitive hypothesis
is formed aAnd then eventually the great intuitive hypothesis is translated
into tests designed to prove it. It took decades to prove Einstein
right...so long, that even he began to doubt some of the ramifications of
his hypotheses.

Perhaps part of the problem here is that Michael seems adept at seeing the
possible dots that could be connected. With some lack of modesty, that has
been one of my strengths over the years that led to great success in my
field. And I would suggest that those drawn to engineering, or who
naturally gravitate to an engineering-like appreciation of things, while of
equal intelligence, may have more interest in pragmatic application of
things, and less tolerance for what some of my friends call "flying". And
before you start, my Dad was an engineer, so I am not besmirching
engineers -- simply pointing out that personality type does influence career
choices, and engineers seem to be very good at practical problem
solving...but not necessarily interested in hypotheticals.

 

[ban]

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

Michael Mossey wrote:
>
> Let's do a thought experiment. Do you think you could tell,
> blindfolded, the difference between the sound of a friend speaking to
> you, and the playback of your friend's voice over a stereo system?
>
> If you think that you can, you are successfully judging the similarity
> to a memory of an aural experience.
>

I did this experiment a couple of times with different persons who were not
even blindfolded and they got fooled each time. I was playing some recorded
voice clips of mine through my big speakers and no one could tell the
difference. Of course I was faking the mouth movements.
Even after I revealed the truth, and repeated the experiment, there was
absolute incertainty about the source. Life or recorded? I did the same for
some Tibetan sound bowls and key-ringing and they would only identify the
recorded signal when I was in a different location from the recording. BTW I
did the recording with a Sony ECM959A stereo mike in the 90° setting. The
120° was easily identifiable by a strange comb filter effect.
But you need good speakers for that. Here they are:
http/www.pupazzo.page.ms/
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

 

[chung]

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

Harry F Lavo wrote:
> "chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> news:d2v8d805o1@news4.newsguy.com...
>> 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.
>>
>
> No, it means high-rez has gotten close and the convenience, editing, and
> mixing advantages (and cost) are much on digital's side. Moreover, we are
> talking pro input here, for a long time 24/48 and for a substantial time
> 24/96. Not the final consumer output of 44.1/16 CD.
>

Well, Harry, here's where your logic fails. Stewart was asking whether
DVD-A was audibly better than CD, and you said yes, and that the proof
lies in the fact that whole pro audio industry has gone hi-rez. Now you
are saying that hi-rez has the convenience, editing and mixing
advantages of digital audio. So now you are basically stating that the
convenience factor is the main reason for the whole industry going to
hi-rez.

Of course, we know that 24/96 gives a lot more "elbow room" in
processing of digital audio. The question asked was whether hi-rez
sounds audibly better than redbook.

You are caught in your own logic inconsistency. You want to say that
hi-rez must sound better than redbook because the whole industry is
adopting hi-rez, and yet that logic would also lead to digital audio
sounding better than vinyl because the whole industry has gone digital
twenty years ago.


>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 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?
>>
>
> What other people has said is of no relevance to what I may have said.
>
>> Here's that post of yours:
>>
>>
> http/groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.audio.high-end/msg/8db30fee70542793?dmode=source
>>
>
> An article simply refering you folks to an article by Ed Meitner? In praise
> of DSD? What has that to do with my views on vinyl?
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> There aren't...as you must know if you reviewed the post. I was descibing
> specifically some of the subjective sonic problems that I and many other
> (and many professional recording people) recognize as problems with the CD
> playback standard...indeed many here in the objectivist camp acknowledge the
> filtering issue with regard to CD playback. I went on to discuss analog
> tape, DSD, and PCM, again from a listening standpoint and concluded:
>
> "I'm not sure what your point is here. My issues have always largely been
> with the high-end of the CD standard. And secondarily with CD's tendency to
> have less depth and a 'flatter' bass and lower midrange dimensionality.
> SACD solves these problems wonderfully. So does DVD-A. Both assuming
> equipment that allows the advantage to come through, of course."
>
> Where in this do you find me anti-digital or obsessively pro-vinyl? I
> didn't even discuss vinyl.

This one is easy: your basis in your comparison has always been amalog
and vinyl. When you described those shortcomings of CD, you were making
comparisons to analog/vinyl.

Obsesseively? I don't know. But you are very firmly pro-vinyl. Nothing
really wrong with that, as long as you don't state that vinyl has
technical superiority over digital.

>
>> 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.
>>
>
> ???? I don't understand what you are saying.

You said that my mind has always been closed ("or at least a closed mind
to vinyl"). I said that no, I was only objecting to certain efforts to
denigrate CD, and you immediately thought that I was objecting to what
you said. You had the strange sixth sense...

>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > 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.
>
> As an engineer, I can understand your viewing it that way.

Oh, you are an engineer, too .

> But if the goal
> is to promote as close as possible the reproduction/emotional response of a
> live performance through a long chain of electronics and mechnical devices,
> then the most technically accurate in conventional measurements may not be
> the one that succeeds the most in "getting out of the way" to allow the
> performance to assert itself. As Michael points out, we aren't necessarily
> even yet aware that what we are measuring are the most important things,
> sonically.

So you are saying that transparent (that is what technical accuracy is,
no?) is not good, and sometimes adding distortion or errors is good?
Nothing wrong with that, except you seem offended if people characterize
certain subjectivists that way...

 

[Guest]

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 6 Apr 2005 00:50:57 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >By the way, science proceeds from the hypothesis stage to the
> >experiment stage. I'm in the hypothesis stage. Do you want to
stamp
> >out competing hypotheses before they can be tested? Isn't that
> >unscientific and more like a turf-war?
>
> Actually, science proceeds from the *observation* stage to the
> hypothesis stage to the experiment stage. Can you report any reliable
> and repeatable observation which would lead to your hypothesis?
Simply
> making something up is not science.
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Have you been reading what I've been saying? Psychology and neurology
are filled with observations that people aren't aware of how they
construct their conscious experience nor what they are leaving out of
it.

- Mike

 

[Guest]

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

On 7 Apr 2005 01:08:25 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 4 Apr 2005 23:51:31 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
><michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>>
>> >Playback of a stored digital signal
>> >is a different system than a live digital feed.
>>
>> This is a mere assertion, with no basis in fact.
>
>Look at the systems end-to-end. One system has storage media in it,
>the other doesn't. Hence they are different systems.

If you understand how digital systems work, you'll see that this is
meaningless. *All* A/D-D/A systems include storage media, and once the
data are in the store, it's irrelevant whether they are there for
milliseconds or millenia.

>Now, I'm not claiming that storage of digital data degrades it. I'm
>not claiming any specific method of degradation. I'm just pointing out
>that changing the system has the potential of changing the behavior in
>a way we don't expect.

See above - you did *not* change the system. Further, your statement
only says that your speculation is fanciful, unless you can
*demonstrate* such a degradation. You might as well note that, since
your body is constantly in a state of entropic degradation, you can
never actually say that something you experiencecd yesterday will have
the same effect today.

>> If you want a better guide to reality than Skeptic Magazine, try
>> Occam's Razor.
>
>It's my experience that the ability to say "Maybe yes, maybe no" is an
>important part of critical thinking and an important part of moving
>toward the truth.

It's my experience that discarding fanciful supposition is the
greatest time-saver available. Life is short.

>Skeptic Magazine just published an article on audio, by Ethan Winer,
>that you would probably love. It agrees with you in every respect.

That is unimportant. What matters is that it be factually accurate.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

On 7 Apr 2005 01:03:49 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 4 Apr 2005 23:53:56 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
><michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> You have a love of the term 'reductionism',
>> but you seem to use it as
>> a convenient excuse for anything with which you disagree.
>
>Ad hominen and strawman.

No, a simple observation, followed by a logically drawn hypothesis.
Basic science, Michael - try it.

>> The physical
>> soundfield is reality, and it either is, or is not, an accurate
>> representation of the soundfield at a particular listening position at
>> the original live performance (obviously, you can't use 'accuracy'
>> when referring to a studio recording).
>
>With two channel audio, I think it is pretty undisputed that the
>soundfield is NOT an accurate representation.. i.e. most anyone could
>tell whether they were hearing live music or a reproduction, not to
>mention that two channels can't reproduce the wavefront properly from
>all directions.

Actually, that is proveably untrue, as has been demonstrated by John
Bowers of B&W, who has played on stage and then mimed to a recording.
The audience did not know when he had stopped playing, until he
lowered the instrument.

Similarly, on a good sound system which is in the same room as a
piano, it is often impossible to tell from an adjoining room, which is
playing. Unless it's Metallica............

>So the question becomes, "Out of two inaccurate soundfields which is
>more accurate?" This question must be answered by *listening.*

Quite so - under properly controlled conditions.

> I read
>the Harman white paper by Floyd Toole describing their experiments with
>loudspeakers and listening panels. Guess what? They had people
>*listen* and rate preference, and then used the result of listening to
>formulate a model of speaker preference (or accuracy, the concepts
>overlap somewhat here). They didn't try to formulate the model before
>anyone listened.

The did however use *controlled* listening conditions, and they did
not make up fanciful 'hypotheses' *before* gathering the results of
the listening sessions.

>> There *is* a need to choose between "analogue is accurate" and
>> "analogue is euphonic", since this refers to the physical soundfield,
>> not to an individual impression.
>
>It looks like this statement is based on your idea that you can
>separate engineering and listening,

Excuse me?

> but I'm not sure what you saying.
>It is clear that we have different reactions to analog: it sounds like
>"air" and "warmth" to you, while it sounds like realism to me.

Depends what you mean by 'analogue'. A really good 15ips recording can
be very realistic, but vinyl adds many artifacts which have nothing to
do with the live mic feed. OTOH, a good CD made from that master tape
is virtually indistinguishable from the original. That's what I call
accurate.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Michael Mossey <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > chung wrote:
> > > 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?
>
> > Primarily from four blind trials, the very first I ever did, in
which I
> > felt sure I knew what cable I was hearing, felt that the
differences
> > were easily audible, and was right four times. That made an
> > impression.
>
> > (But winning a big prize the first time you step in a casino makes
a
> > big impression too.)
>
> > On another occasion, I did eight trials and was wrong three times.
>
>
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> > Yeah, yeah. And if you have too closed a mind, your brain will get
> > claustrophobic.
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > >> 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.
>
> > According to the psychoacoustics textbook I'm reading, you are
> > right---about discrimination on test tones such as noise or pure
tones.
> > However, the books also say that based on the information that the
> > auditory nerve can carry, the theoretical DL (discriminatory limen)
> > could be more like 0.1 dB, it's the way the higher centers process
the
> > signal that reduces the DL.
>
> > Discriminating test tones is a task very unlike listening for
musical
> > enjoyment.
>
> True. *They are often more sensitive tests* of difference
perception.
> Pink noise and test tones commonly allow the testee to discern levels
of
> difference *smaller* than those achieved with music.
>
> > So I'm going to be carefully examined what conclusions can
> > be drawn from psychoacoustical testing and whether it is valid to
> > extrapolate them to listening to the vastly more complex musical
> > signals. See below..
>
> The conclusion to be drawn from work thus far where the two sorts
> of signals have been compared, is that test tones and pink noise
> are allow for *more sensitive* discrimination of difference than
> music does.
>
> Now I will play Kreskin and predict your response:
> "They tested for the wrong differences."
>

If the music was played in little repeating loops, then it isn't really
different than a test signal. I realize that pure test tones have a
way of isolating features, and pink noise has wideband energy which
makes frequency response differences more obvious (since it involves
more of a change of energy).

You are half-right about my response. I don't *assert* they tested for
the wrong differences, but rather I challenge the notion that test
tones and pink noise can *completely characterize* the ear/brain
system. Especially when a large part of the brain, e.g. the parts
responsible for detecting and placing real sounds out in space, the
parts that detect beauty, the parts that detect emotion, are *not
involved at all* in the perception of test tones. Would you care to
offer an argument, or evidence, that you can characterize the behavior
of these parts of the brain from a stimulus that doesn't activate them?

-Mike

 

[Guest]

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

Chung wrote:

>
> An interconnect cable is actually one of the most linear components
that
> you will encounter, assuming you are not using it to arc-weld. To
prove
> its linearity, simply run a distortion test. Next question?
>
> Or are you now assuming that the cable may be time-variant? If so,
> please present evidence.

Actually my question is much broader. Read it again. I'm asking you
how to characterize a non-linear system from a few measurements. Can
it be done? I would like to know, if so.

I'm willing to accept that cables are very linear. But my question is
still of interest related to other systems.


> >
> > By the way, science proceeds from the hypothesis stage to the
> > experiment stage. I'm in the hypothesis stage. Do you want to
stamp
> > out competing hypotheses before they can be tested? Isn't that
> > unscientific and more like a turf-war?
>
> It does not mean that you have to ignore progress already made. And
some
> hypotheses are simply without virtue to the point that it is a waste
of
> time to test them. For instance, if someone says elephants can fly,
are
> you going to test that hypothesis? Doesn't it make more sense for the

> one proposing such a hypothesis to supply evidence? No, someone
simply
> saying that he has seen elephants flying is not enough evidence. And
it
> makes no sense to argue that whether elephants fly or not is a
function
> of one's consciousness...

It is simply your opinion that my hypotheses are without virtue. By
the way, my hypothesis is not so much that cables are audible, it's
that there's something wrong with the tests we use to prove they aren't
audible. There's plenty of evidence from psychology that relates to
this.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

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

Harry F Lavo wrote:
>
> He has already said that his inquiry started with doing better in
blind
> testing (albeit unconventional blind testing) than he would have
believed
> based on his scientific training.

Except that he didn't do any better than he should have expected. He
had a hot short run (4 trials), and when he tried again he barely broke
50%.

bob

 

[chung]

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

Michael Mossey wrote:
> Chung wrote:
>
>>
>> An interconnect cable is actually one of the most linear components
> that
>> you will encounter, assuming you are not using it to arc-weld. To
> prove
>> its linearity, simply run a distortion test. Next question?
>>
>> Or are you now assuming that the cable may be time-variant? If so,
>> please present evidence.
>
> Actually my question is much broader. Read it again. I'm asking you
> how to characterize a non-linear system from a few measurements. Can
> it be done? I would like to know, if so.

In general, a non-linear system is very difficult to *completely*
characterize, especially considering that the non-linearity is
frequency-dependent. But the issue here is not to fully characterize
them, but rather to determine if two systems are going to be audibly
different. If you have two systems with distortion products that are
very low (e.g. less than -80dB) with almost identical freqeuncy response
and S/N's, then it is a high probability that they will sound the same.

Of course there are systems where measurements cannot positively confirm
whether they are audibly different or not. In those cases, some form of
DBT's will be the best tool to determine if they are audibly different.


>
> I'm willing to accept that cables are very linear. But my question is
> still of interest related to other systems.

So I guess that now you agree that it's better to simply measure cables
than to try to tell if they are different by listening.

>
>> >
>> > By the way, science proceeds from the hypothesis stage to the
>> > experiment stage. I'm in the hypothesis stage. Do you want to
> stamp
>> > out competing hypotheses before they can be tested? Isn't that
>> > unscientific and more like a turf-war?
>>
>> It does not mean that you have to ignore progress already made. And
> some
>> hypotheses are simply without virtue to the point that it is a waste
> of
>> time to test them. For instance, if someone says elephants can fly,
> are
>> you going to test that hypothesis? Doesn't it make more sense for the
>
>> one proposing such a hypothesis to supply evidence? No, someone
> simply
>> saying that he has seen elephants flying is not enough evidence. And
> it
>> makes no sense to argue that whether elephants fly or not is a
> function
>> of one's consciousness...
>
> It is simply your opinion that my hypotheses are without virtue. By
> the way, my hypothesis is not so much that cables are audible, it's
> that there's something wrong with the tests we use to prove they aren't
> audible. There's plenty of evidence from psychology that relates to
> this.

The point is that you can't say that "stamping out competing hypotheses
before they can be tested" is unscientific. There are hypotheses that do
not merit any testing. And it won't be unscientific to not test them.

 

[chung]

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

Harry F Lavo wrote:

> "chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> news:d31vt102r81@news3.newsguy.com...
>> Michael Mossey wrote:
>> snip
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> The nonlinearlity that generates IM will always generate harmonic
>> distortion, so your example is a poor one.
>>
>> In the case of two interconnects, all distortion products are -100dB or
>> less, frequency response is < 0.1 dB in the audio range, and measured
>> added noise is -100dB or less. Shouldn't that be enough to convince you
>> that they sound the same?
>>
>>
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> So why would an ABX type test not show positive results?
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> If it is audible, why would an ABX type not show it?
>
> Does your world simply begin and end with cables and ab testing?

Not really, but that's beside the point. This thread started with
Michael's post on testing interconnects, if you have not forgotten.

The point is, of course, ABX is very sensitive in revealing differences,
and hence my question that if there were "digital distortion", why
wouldn't an ABX/DBT reveal that. I see that you do not have an answer.

> Michael
> asked about non-linear systems and you respond talking about cables,
> emphasizing that they are linear systems. Why don't you just respond to his
> question?

Hmmm, I thought I responded already. Perhaps it has something to do with
Michael's desire to test cables?

> And again as others do here, you predicate the validity of ab
> testing on ab testing. It is a dogmatic belief, as is revealed by thye fact
> that even hypothetical challenge seems so threatening that you are unable to
> step outside the box even theoretically and look at a universe that allows
> the possibility that the test may have some flaws.

Actually we are very open to certain possibilities. But please show some
real evidence first. That's why we want you to do some controlled blind
testing. Which you seem to firmly refuse to do. Now who is not stepping
out of the box ?


> How scientific if that?

I think it is downright unscientific to blame an established test
protocol on being insensitive, without any evidence.

> Especially since that "universe" is coming right out of text books on
> psychoacoustics?

Not sure which textbooks say that ABX/DBT's are not sensitive for
detecting differences.
>

 

[Guest]

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 7 Apr 2005 01:03:49 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> >> On 4 Apr 2005 23:53:56 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
>
> >> The physical
> >> soundfield is reality, and it either is, or is not, an accurate
> >> representation of the soundfield at a particular listening
position at
> >> the original live performance (obviously, you can't use 'accuracy'
> >> when referring to a studio recording).
> >
> >With two channel audio, I think it is pretty undisputed that the
> >soundfield is NOT an accurate representation.. i.e. most anyone
could
> >tell whether they were hearing live music or a reproduction, not to
> >mention that two channels can't reproduce the wavefront properly
from
> >all directions.
>
> Actually, that is proveably untrue, as has been demonstrated by John
> Bowers of B&W, who has played on stage and then mimed to a
recording.
> The audience did not know when he had stopped playing, until he
> lowered the instrument.

Not the same thing. If they were blindfolded then it would be closer
to what I was talking about. I'm really comparing being in a listening
room with two speakers, to being in the concert hall.

>
> Similarly, on a good sound system which is in the same room as a
> piano, it is often impossible to tell from an adjoining room, which
is
> playing. Unless it's Metallica............

Being in the same room, not an adjoining room, would have more
relevance.

>
> >So the question becomes, "Out of two inaccurate soundfields which is
> >more accurate?" This question must be answered by *listening.*
>
> Quite so - under properly controlled conditions.

Guess what? Those people were conscious of the their listening
experience. Harman constructed a model of preference/accuracy based on
a report of subjective experience. So consciousness and subjective
experience can't be taken out of the equation. That brings us right
back to my point that audio is about replicating a conscious
experience.

>
> > I read
> >the Harman white paper by Floyd Toole describing their experiments
with
> >loudspeakers and listening panels. Guess what? They had people
> >*listen* and rate preference, and then used the result of listening
to
> >formulate a model of speaker preference (or accuracy, the concepts
> >overlap somewhat here). They didn't try to formulate the model
before
> >anyone listened.
>
> The did however use *controlled* listening conditions, and they did
> not make up fanciful 'hypotheses' *before* gathering the results of
> the listening sessions.

I've never advocated using uncontrolled listening conditions.

My hypotheses are based on the results of experiments in psychology, as
well as introspection--- which by the way, is how a lot of hypotheses
in psychology got started. For example, experiments in memory and
attention often start with some basic questions derived from the
obvious features of conscious experience.

- Mike

 

[Guest]

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

Ban wrote:
> Michael Mossey wrote:
> >
> > Let's do a thought experiment. Do you think you could tell,
> > blindfolded, the difference between the sound of a friend speaking
to
> > you, and the playback of your friend's voice over a stereo system?
> >
> > If you think that you can, you are successfully judging the
similarity
> > to a memory of an aural experience.
> >
>
> I did this experiment a couple of times with different persons who
were not
> even blindfolded and they got fooled each time. I was playing some
recorded
> voice clips of mine through my big speakers and no one could tell the

> difference. Of course I was faking the mouth movements.

If you were faking the mouth movements, that makes it a different test.
You are testing whether people fail to notice something has changed
when there is a compelling stimulus in another sense modality that
didn't change.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

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

On 8 Apr 2005 02:45:17 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Yes, I think that the human brain is very sensitive to realism of
>stimuli, to the question of whether the details line up. If we are
>presented with something phony, we know it.

Michael, at least three people have now told you that this is not
true, and have described the situations where they and others were
'fooled'. Where is your *evidence* to back your assertion that we know
if a sound is not 'live'?

> Again I mention the
>experiments with infants in which they preferred to look at a movie
>with synchronized sound and image (compared to a movie with a skew
>between sound and image).

What has this to do with anything?

>It doesn't even have to be a question of memory--you don't have to
>"remember" anything to know that "something is wrong with this
>picture." Infants can do it at a few months old.

Can they however tell the difference between the sound of their mother
speaking to them, and a recording of her voice?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

On 8 Apr 2005 02:45:58 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 6 Apr 2005 00:50:57 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
><michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >By the way, science proceeds from the hypothesis stage to the
>> >experiment stage. I'm in the hypothesis stage. Do you want to stamp
>> >out competing hypotheses before they can be tested? Isn't that
>> >unscientific and more like a turf-war?
>>
>> Actually, science proceeds from the *observation* stage to the
>> hypothesis stage to the experiment stage. Can you report any reliable
>> and repeatable observation which would lead to your hypothesis? Simply
>> making something up is not science.

>Have you been reading what I've been saying?

I've been reading - have you been saying anything?

> Psychology and neurology
>are filled with observations that people aren't aware of how they
>construct their conscious experience nor what they are leaving out of
>it.

They are however aware of two pieces of music sounding the same or
different, however they reach that conclusion, and decades of
experimentation have shown which comparison methods are able to
discriminate the smallest differences. If *you* wish to claim that
these methods are somehow flawed, then *you* have to present some
convincing evidence, not just handwave about psychoacoustics.

I trust that you *are* aware that it is psychoacousticians who helped
develop the various audio compression algorithms such as MP3 and AAC
which are in common use today, proving that two sounds can be
*grossly* different in a measured sense, and yet be sonically
indistinguishable by even the most critical listener? Those
psychoacousticians did not search desperately for wild hypotheses,
They did not worry that we don't actually know everything about the
Universe, they just got on with the job of *proving* that it's
possible to discard more than 90% of the data without losing any of
the audible information.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[ban]

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

Michael Mossey wrote:
>
> Hi Harry,
>
> Yes, I think that the human brain is very sensitive to realism of
> stimuli, to the question of whether the details line up. If we are
> presented with something phony, we know it. Again I mention the
> experiments with infants in which they preferred to look at a movie
> with synchronized sound and image (compared to a movie with a skew
> between sound and image).
>
> It doesn't even have to be a question of memory--you don't have to
> "remember" anything to know that "something is wrong with this
> picture." Infants can do it at a few months old.
>
> -Mike

That is one of the reasons why pink or even white noise as test stimuli
result in the highest sensitivity for tonal changes. The test signal is
absolutly unpredictable and has no repeating patterns.
Despite this our mind tries to find familiarities and listens with maximum
capacity, but no pattern matches. In fact you can watch this. Even in a
random signal the mind wants to discover some known pattern. Listen some
moment to the white noise of the TV tuned away from a transmitter signal and
you will know what I mean.
--
ciao Ban
Bordighera, Italy

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Mossey wrote:

> It is simply your opinion that my hypotheses are without virtue. By
> the way, my hypothesis is not so much that cables are audible, it's
> that there's something wrong with the tests we use to prove they
aren't
> audible. There's plenty of evidence from psychology that relates to
> this.

No, there isn't a shred of evidence from psychology that these tests
are inadequate. That's why tenured psychology professors like the
people whose books you are quoting use them every day.

bob

 

[Guest]

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

nabo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Michael Mossey wrote:
>
> > It is simply your opinion that my hypotheses are without virtue.
By
> > the way, my hypothesis is not so much that cables are audible, it's
> > that there's something wrong with the tests we use to prove they
> aren't
> > audible. There's plenty of evidence from psychology that relates
to
> > this.
>
> No, there isn't a shred of evidence from psychology that these tests
> are inadequate. That's why tenured psychology professors like the
> people whose books you are quoting use them every day.
>
> bob

Not a "shred," eh? I suppose you have me accept *your* summary of an
entire field of research on the force of your authority? I think that
you simply wish to be *entirely* sure of something, *utterly* beyond a
doubt, so that you can't tolerate the idea that *any* evidence, not
even the tiniest bit, would point in some other direction, or that
there would be any ambiguity.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> They are however aware of two pieces of music sounding the same or
> different, however they reach that conclusion, and decades of
> experimentation have shown which comparison methods are able to
> discriminate the smallest differences. If *you* wish to claim that
> these methods are somehow flawed, then *you* have to present some
> convincing evidence, not just handwave about psychoacoustics.

Actually *I* (you just love putting stars around the word "you", don't
you?) don't have to do anything. Any idea can be hypothesized whether
or not it passes your personal standards. If you think it's bs, I
suggest you simply not respond.

-Mike