CD Vs. Vinyl?

[Guest]

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

Michael Mossey wrote:

> We can also try to improve the conditions of DBT's by developing an
> understanding of consciousness.

Try to count how many assumptions are packed into this single sentence.
You have no evidence that DBTs are insufficient for their purposes. Nor
have you any evidence that the people who developed and use DBTs lack
any necessary understanding of consciousness. I daresay that since a
fair number of them have PhDs in psychology, their understanding of
consciousness is pretty good. Certainly much better than mine. How
about yours?

> > > 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.
> >
> > No doubt many hypotheses in psychology start as introspection.
Does
> > this mean that all introspection results in a valid psychological
> > hyopthesis?
> >
> > - Gary Rosen
>
> Another good philosophical question. I don't think there really is
> such a notion as "valid" or "invalid" hypotheses. There are "likely"
> and "unlikely" hypotheses. There are hypotheses we wish to spend our
> money testing, and those we don't. There are hypotheses we with to
> spend our time debating, and those we don't.

And there are hypotheses that have been tested and rejected--more than
you seem to imagine.

> My hypothesis happens to match the subjective experience of a lot of
> people. (I'm not talking about the subjective experience of cables
> mattering or anything like that,

But you are talking about exactly that. There is no reason to question
the utility of DBTs for audio purposes unless you have some evidence
that they are insensitive. In particular, the following:

> but rather the subjective experience
> of knowing that context affects perception.)

....does not constitute a reason to question DBTs, because it is
universally accepted by those who use DBTs. Of course context affects
perception. So what? Nobody's ever found a context in which distortion
100 dB down matters. And, as Stewart has pointed out a couple of times,
there is a good anatomical reason to believe that nobody ever will. So
the point of "philosophizing" about this escapes me.

> I happen to trust these
> observations--not as absolute truth, but certainly as leading to a
> hypothesis that is worth discussing and testing. I happen to wish to
> spend my time discussing it. And if I had some spare money, I would
> spend that testing it.
>
> Other people disagree. That's fine, although it is a bit odd to
> denounce my hypothesis as absurd, and then spend so much time
replying
> to me.

Take it as a compliment. We may think you're wrong, but we don't think
you're beyond hope!

bob

 

[Guest]

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

Michael Mossey wrote:

> We *know* that some signals are distorted enough to detect on that
> basis, no memory required. I extend from that, the possibility that
> audiophiles can detect distortions in their equipment or remember
> sounds better than we think.
>
> What's my evidence? Intuition gained from other fields.

Intuition isn't evidence. That's kind of basic to the philosophy of
science.

> Last time I
> checked, "intuition" was an acceptable reason to post something on
> RAHE.

Sure, and many, many people have preceded you. That's part of the
problem. You think you are arguing something new, and we have heard it
all before. Lots of people "hear" differences between cables, and offer
their intuition about why that difference exists. I don't have to tell
you what's wrong with that.

Your intuition seems to be more subtle. It's that standard DBTs prevent
subjects from concentrating on the things that would most help them
identify subtle sonic differences. This is factually wrong on a number
of levels, as has been explained to you before. That's the thing about
intuition--it can always be trumped by counterevidence.

bob

 

[Guest]

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

On 10 Apr 2005 00:45:02 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>What's my evidence? Intuition gained from other fields. Last time I
>checked, "intuition" was an acceptable reason to post something on
>RAHE.

Intuition isn't evidence. Philosphical points aren't evidence. People
in Galileo's time wouldn't look through his telescope because their
intuition and philosophy told them he couldn't be seeing what he
actually was seeing. Guess who turned out to be right.

Not that there's wrong with being intuitive or being philosophical.
Einstein used his intuition in coming up with relativity theory. But
his new theory wasn't accepted by science because of his intuition, it
was accepted (eventually) because of cold hard evidence.

Maybe people can hear the difference between wires, but there's plenty
of evidence to suggest that they can't. Based on that evidence I think
they almost certainly can't, but I'm willing to have my mind changed.
If you want to prove differently, that's great - just provide some
evidence. Enough evidence will change my mind, but I'm afraid it would
have to be actual evidence, not intuition or philosophy.


Ed Seedhouse,
Victoria, B.C.

 

[Guest]

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

On 9 Apr 2005 21:10:25 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Michael Mossey wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> RAHE is not your personal blog, Michael.
>
>Nor is it yours. Nor is it Stewart's. We're all free to do whatever
>we want. I'm not the one demanding what other people do.

Oh, really? So, what exactly did you mean by "If you think it's bs, I
suggest you simply not respond", if you don't consider that a demand
for the opposition to keep quiet?

> It's fine
>with me whether you present evidence for your position or not.

It's fine with me that you don't present any evidence, so long as you
don't mind us calling your 'hypotheses' fanciful BS until such time as
you *do* present some evidence - or admit that you were in error.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

On 10 Apr 2005 00:40:52 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> No doubt many hypotheses in psychology start as introspection. Does
>> this mean that all introspection results in a valid psychological
>> hyopthesis?

>Another good philosophical question. I don't think there really is
>such a notion as "valid" or "invalid" hypotheses.

Getting your excuses in early?

> There are "likely"
>and "unlikely" hypotheses. There are hypotheses we wish to spend our
>money testing, and those we don't. There are hypotheses we with to
>spend our time debating, and those we don't.

And there are hypotheses which testing reveals to be flat-out wrong -
invalid, if you prefer. I predict that yours will turn out to be one
of them, when you ever get around to testing it.

>My hypothesis happens to match the subjective experience of a lot of
>people. (I'm not talking about the subjective experience of cables
>mattering or anything like that, but rather the subjective experience
>of knowing that context affects perception.) I happen to trust these
>observations--not as absolute truth, but certainly as leading to a
>hypothesis that is worth discussing and testing. I happen to wish to
>spend my time discussing it. And if I had some spare money, I would
>spend that testing it.

You don't need money to test your 'hypothesis', just time and some
assistance.

>Other people disagree. That's fine, although it is a bit odd to
>denounce my hypothesis as absurd, and then spend so much time replying
>to me.

Some of us have the education vocation!

Seriously, it is always worth while debating invalid hypotheses with
someone who at least shows willing to test his hypotheses - to
destruction in this case, I predict. Certain other long-time posters
here might *appear* to agree with you, but in fact have proven to have
utterly closed minds, and hence not worth debating with.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

On 10 Apr 2005 00:41:47 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:

>nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Michael Mossey wrote:
>> > nabo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > 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.

>> > Not a "shred," eh?
>>
>> No, not a shred. Present to us a counterexample--a single psychology
>> text anywhere that states that these tests are inadequate for the
>> purposes for which we are using them. You said psychology offered
>such
>> evidence. So supply it, and I'll eat crow. Or don't supply it, and
>pass
>> your plate.
>>
>> bob
>
>I think we are getting a bit off the track. I know we are on the track
>*you* want to be on, which is an evidence vs. evidence pitched battle
>to the death.

No, he simply asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to
back your assertion that psychology textbooks say that quick-switched
tests are inappropriate for audio comparisons. If you cannot provide
even *one* such quote, then please retract your assertion.

> However, from the beginning I have made it clear that I
>have a *philosophical* objection to the experimental technique. Of
>course, from *inside* the technique, nothing will look wrong. If you
>consider thinking about "how we know what we know" to be a waste of
>time, then I suggest you ignore me.

Yes, we know you'd like that, but it's not going to happen.

>There happens to be plenty of evidence from psychology that
>consciousness is not a projection of our senses onto an internal
>screen, where we are free to see anything we wish or anything we think
>relevant.

So what?

>As humans,
>our feeling that we should be able to "see" everything going in front
>of our noses is very strong, but it's not true.

Yes, we already know that. What has this to do with blind listening
test protocols?

>You probably think this is meaningless. Fine. Feel free to call it
>ridiculous, or not evidence, or anything you want. However, I'm going
>to keep thinking about *how* we know what we know. I'm going to keep
>doing blind tests whenever I can get my friend to help. I hope to test
>my ability to distinguish vinyl and digital copy.

That will be much more productive than mere 'thinking'.

>If you aren't interested in a discussion on philosophical grounds, or
>you aren't interested in looking *outside* a field into order to find
>links back into it, then don't reply.

Telling others what to do in an open discussion forum isn't
productive, and tells us more than you'd like us to know about your
own confidence in your 'hypotheses'.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

On 10 Apr 2005 15:11:23 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:

>normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:

>> I think you're being needlessly rough with Mr. Mossey. Of all the
>> individuals taking the subjective viewpoint on this board, he is the most
>> reasonable and open to change. Personally, I'd like him to stay with us,
>> not be hounded to the point where he feels unwelcome.

>Thanks, Norm. Actually, I have participated in several usenet groups
>from time to time, but usually my interest is short-lived.

Really? Quelle surprise...............

> I realize
>we aren't getting much from this current discussion and I will attempt
>to leave it alone if I can convince myself to be so rational.

We are getting much from this discussion, it's just that you don't
appear to be receptive to the weight of available evidence. As
suggested by you above, do you always cut and run when things don't go
your way?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2005 15:11:23 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:
>
> >> I think you're being needlessly rough with Mr. Mossey. Of all the
> >> individuals taking the subjective viewpoint on this board, he is
the most
> >> reasonable and open to change. Personally, I'd like him to stay
with us,
> >> not be hounded to the point where he feels unwelcome.
>
> >Thanks, Norm. Actually, I have participated in several usenet
groups
> >from time to time, but usually my interest is short-lived.
>
> Really? Quelle surprise...............
>
> > I realize
> >we aren't getting much from this current discussion and I will
attempt
> >to leave it alone if I can convince myself to be so rational.
>
> We are getting much from this discussion, it's just that you don't
> appear to be receptive to the weight of available evidence. As
> suggested by you above, do you always cut and run when things don't
go
> your way?
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

These remarks are an example of your rudeness and condescension. They
contribute absolutely nothing to the debate. They are pure ad hominen.


For your information, not that I expect *any* information about my
state of mind will affect what you think of me, I have a life outside
Usenet. I never participate for long--and that has nothing to do with
debates. If you check my posting history you will find that I have not
engaged in debate on *any* newsgroup other than this one, and yet my
interest is always short-lived.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 9 Apr 2005 21:10:25 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Michael Mossey wrote:
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> RAHE is not your personal blog, Michael.
> >
> >Nor is it yours. Nor is it Stewart's. We're all free to do
whatever
> >we want. I'm not the one demanding what other people do.
>
> Oh, really? So, what exactly did you mean by "If you think it's bs, I
> suggest you simply not respond", if you don't consider that a demand
> for the opposition to keep quiet?

Stewart, your replies have gone way beyond debating a point. You are
condescending and hostile, and you know it. I consider my remark to be
the normal response of someone on the receiving end of *you*.

Guess what? Debating with you is uncomfortable. I'm sure you would
like to think that's purely because all the evidence is on your side.
But I don't think anyone wants to be one the receiving end of your
rudeness and condescension and ad hominen remarks. I would be happy to
continue this debate with someone who could calmly discuss the
evidence. Bob is closer to that.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2005 00:41:47 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
> <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> >If you aren't interested in a discussion on philosophical grounds,
or
> >you aren't interested in looking *outside* a field into order to
find
> >links back into it, then don't reply.
>
> Telling others what to do in an open discussion forum isn't
> productive, and tells us more than you'd like us to know about your
> own confidence in your 'hypotheses'.
> --

There are two things going on here. One is the debate, point against
point. The other is your competition for male dominance.

Of course I'm not 100% confident in my own hypothesis! (Putting
"hypothesis" in quotes is condescension.) That's a good thing, the
last I checked. That's called being open-minded.

But an alpha male thinking he sniffs out weakness is the competitor
would see this situation as an opening for a little jab.

-Mike

 

[Guest]

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

On 10 Apr 2005 18:56:29 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 10 Apr 2005 00:41:47 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
>> <michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >If you aren't interested in a discussion on philosophical grounds, or
>> >you aren't interested in looking *outside* a field into order to find
>> >links back into it, then don't reply.
>>
>> Telling others what to do in an open discussion forum isn't
>> productive, and tells us more than you'd like us to know about your
>> own confidence in your 'hypotheses'.

>There are two things going on here. One is the debate, point against
>point. The other is your competition for male dominance.

Please do not flatter yourself, simple evidence in support of your
argument is all that is required. *I* am not the one who is attempting
to stifle this debate.

>Of course I'm not 100% confident in my own hypothesis! (Putting
>"hypothesis" in quotes is condescension.) That's a good thing, the
>last I checked. That's called being open-minded.

When keeping an open mind, it is wise to recognise the possibility
that one's brain may have fallen out. Putting 'hypothesis' in single
quotes (not double as you suggest) is simply an indication of my
opinion of it. You don't like that? Provide *evidence* in support.

>But an alpha male thinking he sniffs out weakness is the competitor
>would see this situation as an opening for a little jab.

Someone defending a hopeless position might perhaps try this tactic to
deflect attention from the real debate. Where's the beef?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

"Steven Sullivan" <ssully@panix.com> wrote in message
news:d3bg5s01pvo@news3.newsguy.com...
> nabob33@hotmail.com wrote:
> > normanstrong@comcast.net wrote:
> > > <nabob33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:d37hor015mu@news1.newsguy.com...
> > > > Michael Mossey wrote:
> > > >> 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.
> > > >
> > > > RAHE is not your personal blog, Michael. You put up your ideas
> > here,
> > > > and grace them with the highfallutin' label "hypothesis," and you
> > can
> > > > expect them to get shot down if you don't know what you are talking
> > > > about.
> > > >
> > > > You have repeatedly made the claim that standard DBTs are somehow
> > > > inadequate. You have also repeatedly made the astounding claim that
> > the
> > > > psychoacoustics literature provides evidence for this conjecture.
> > Do
> > > > you really think statements like that will go unchallenged in a
> > public
> > > > forum?
> > >
> > > I think you're being needlessly rough with Mr. Mossey. Of all the
> > > individuals taking the subjective viewpoint on this board, he is the
> > most
> > > reasonable and open to change. Personally, I'd like him to stay with
> > us,
> > > not be hounded to the point where he feels unwelcome.
>
>
> > I was being rough on him in this particular instance because I just
> > don't take kindly to people telling anyone they shouldn't respond to
> > things they disagree with. That way leads to the Asylum.
>
> > More generally, I think I and others have been mostly measured in our
> > responses to him. When he's asked questions (as opposed to making
> > pronouncements), we've answered them. When he's proposed to conduct
> > listening tests, we've encouraged him and offered advice on how best to
> > do them.
>
> > Once he started using the psychoacoustics literature for his own
> > purposes, things got a little ugly, as they are wont to do around here.
> > Some of his statements I thought really were out of bounds--and
> > especially irksome coming from someone who had seemed so reasonable!
> > Perhaps that explains some of the vehemence.
>
> To answer both yours and Norman's posts in one post --
>
> IMO, I'm not willfully misreading Michael; I realize he knows that sighted
listening
> has serious problems. My question is -- and Stewart appears to have
zeroed
> in on the same bit of rhetorical judo -- Why does he presume that there is
a 'problem'
> with blind testing methods? From where comes this pressing need to 'fix'
blind testing?
> In his own words, he is motivated at least in part by 'intuition' that
tells him
> there's something wrong... at which point the hunt is on in t he
psychoacoustic literature
> to validate that intuition.
>
> I've been reading RAHE for some years now...by no means the longest, but
> long enough to remember that similar arguments have come up before.
> The semi-regular outbreaks of 'philosophical' musings on memory,
> consciousness, and the mind/body problem on RAHE are *always* in the
context of subjectivists
> trying to 'explain' why those pesky blind tests are so often at odds with
> results from sighted evaluation. Even if this is not explicitly
> stated, it is the foundation and subtext of the 'speculation'. Inevitably
, 'normal'
> evaluation (i.e., sighted, uncontrolled), even when admitted to be
intrinsically flawed,
> is clung to as also having some real predictive value that blind testing
> methodology 'misses' or obscures. By this POV there *has* to be something
wrong with standard
> blind testing methods. Michael's arguments rest on this premise, and thus
he
> joins the lineage of Mirabels, Lavos, maybe a half-dozen or so others
whose names
> I can't retrieve right now, who have each in their own ways taken up a
plea for special
> 'modes of consciousness' that might salvage that reputation of sighted
listening.
>

Just to keep the record clear, I have never defended sighted listening as
the ultimate...simply defended that it is not a priori wrong, as some of you
here seem always to assume. Subject to error, and wrong, are two different
things.

I have objected strenuously to quick-switch comparative DBT'ng. I think it
destroys too many of the parameters that go into open-ended evaluation of
audio reproduction. Fine for zeroing in on a know characteristic or
artifact; potentially misleading in finding the differences audiophiles
discover through long-term evaluative listening. I've got more actually
experience running blind tests and controlling variables through my food
development experience than most of you here, and I know how to do it and
its values. I also know that a different kind of test is required to tell
how good a food really is...and my intuitition (as does Michael's as does
some of the research he has quoted) suggest we may be (probably are) right
on this. But blind..using final after-the-session scalars, are fine by me.
I think the monadic testing done by the Japonese is a more useful means of
evaluating audio gear...but it must be done among dozens if not hundreds of
people to achieve significance..as it did in the case of Oohashi, et. al.
You can statistically derive "proof" using testing that is not comparative,
quick-switch, DBT.

 

[Guest]

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

On 7 Apr 2005 01:02:26 GMT, "Michael Mossey" <michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>> On 4 Apr 2005 23:58:00 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
><michaelmossey@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >The whole point of audio is to duplicate a conscious experience.
>>
>> Some would say that it is to reproduce the original sound. You are
>> attempting to overcomplicate what is a simple goal - if difficult to
>> realise.

>It is the conscious experience of music that inspires us to try to
>reproduce that conscious experience. I don't see how you can disagree
>with that statement.

I don't. But the only way to do this is to reproduce the original
soundfield as closely as possible.

>Sure, it is very useful during design to work with an audio system
>isolated from the human experience of it. But you had better check how
>it sounds before you're done, or else you are essentially playing
>tennis without a net. See below.

This is why blind listening tests are *vital*. What's your point here?

>> You accuse others of 'reductionism', I accuse you of sophistry.
>
>It is clear that you use simple reasoning and simple models. I think
>that doesn't cut it, if you wish to know something about audio.

Think what you like - where's your *evidence*?

>> >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.
>>
>> You claim to have graduated from Caltech, majoring in Engineering, and
>> you believe that such amplifiers are possible? Hmmmm
>
>Don't you know what a thought experiment is? Whether those amplifiers
>can be built is not relevant to the point of the thought experiment.

A 'thought experiment' based on an impossibility is an utter waste of
time.

>> Besides, all you argument above shows, is that THD is not the best
>> indicator of audible distortion. We knew that already.
>
>And *how* did we learn that? By listening! What my argument shows is
>that you can't isolate audio engineering from perception.

Who is trying to? Your argument is that there's something *wrong* with
the classic quick-switched DBT *listening* test, and yet you offer
*zero* evidence to support this extraordinary claim.

>Or do you propose to say that a bunch of literally deaf-since-birth
>engineers who never let anyone listen to their designs somehow got the
>idea that THD is not the best indicator of audible distortion?

Strawman.

>> >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
>>
>> Does it? What distortion is that?
>
>Any difference that a very sensitive instrument reports between the
>input and output of a ADC/DAC.

IOW, you have no idea. Such artifacts would be well below -100dB
referred to 0dBFS with modern devices, around -110 to -115dB with
decent 24-bit converters.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[None]

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

On 30 Mar 2005 00:39:09 GMT, "Michael Mossey"
<michaelmossey@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Codifus wrote:
>> Robert Peirce wrote:
>> > In article <d242cf027n0@news4.newsguy.com>,
>> > Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>There is nothing wrong with what you are hearing - this is indeed
>just
>> >>the way vinyl sounds. CD has been around so long that most people
>are
>> >>unaware what a revelation it was - particularly for listeners to
>> >>classical music - when it first came out. At that time, vinyl was
>the
>> >>standard, and I heard not ione single 'serious audiophile' suggest
>> >>that CD was not greatly superior in most respects. It's true that
>some
>> >>early players (and some early CDs) had some treble harshness, but
>that
>> >>had vanished by the early '90s.
>> >
>> >
>> > Generally, but not always, I have preferred works originally done
>in
>> > analog on LP rather than CD. There seems to be something about the
>
>> > transfer to digital that messes them up. However, this is much
>less
>> > true today than it was a number of years ago. In fact, I did not
>buy my
>> > first CD until several years after they first came out because they
>did
>> > not sound right.
>> >
>> > As the technology advanced and works were recorded directly to
>digital,
>> > CD became superior to LP. Nevertheless, if the original was analog
>and
>> > there is any noticeable difference between the LP and the CD, I
>tend to
>> > prefer the LP. However, more and more there is no noticeable
>difference.
>> If there's no difference, then something's wrong with the CD Just
>from
>> a technical standpoint, CD will be more true to the original
>recording
>> than vinyl ever could.
>>
>>
>> > Rather than arbitrarily say to favor CD over LP or vice versa, I
>would
>> > say to listen to see if they sound different and if they do go with
>what
>> > sounds most like a live performance.
>>
>> Or why not just admitt that you love vinyl because it sounds more
>> pleasant, and that does not necessarily, well, not at all really,
>sound
>> more accurate.
>>
>> We can only judge the better format by really being able to compare
>the
>> CD or vinyl to the original master recordings. If we as consumers had
>
>> access to those, we would easily see that CD blows away vinyl.
>
>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.
>Don't get confused between subjective accuracy and objective accuracy.
>It SOUNDS more accurate; 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.
>
>The usual caveats: speaking generally (no dogma here that digital must
>be inferior, always) -- and what is more accurate applies to an
>individual's ears. So you free to experience digital as more accurate.
>
>
>
>>
>> C'mon, now, less than 30 db of separation, 80 db dynamic range if
>you're
>> lucky, etc. Vinyl is inferior, but it's analoge artifiacts make it
>sound
>> "nice"
>
>I think that digital's artifacts make it sound "crummy."
>
>Best,
>Mike

Guess he's never heard of DBX discs. 110dbs of dynamic range, 96 dbs
S/N and the fact that being encoded in a compressed form results in
less excursions in the disc grooves so bass accuracy is greatly
improved.
I still get alot of vinyl(mostly from France) that is far superior in
listening quality that it's CD counterpart.
About all CD's are good for is their portability for sound on the go.

 

[None]

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

On 26 Mar 2005 16:29:25 GMT, michael <mpresley@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Cobain4evr wrote:
>
>> I've heard about Vinyl having more midrange and what not but whenever
>> I hear a vinyl being played on TV or whatever, it sounds muddy,
>> unclear and it sounds like there's no seperation along with too much
>> hiss
>
>What does that mean? Records played on TV, or whatever? Look, under the
>best of circumstances records can sound very good. But the best
>circumstances are hardly ever encountered. In the heyday of records, at
>the time CD was becoming increasingly popular, certain technologies, I'm
>talking about half speed mastering, direct to disc, JVC super-vinyl, Teldec
>DMM recordings, and so on, pushed the state of the art. As CD sound
>(recording technique, really) became more improved there was no reason to
>put up with the imperfections inherent in even the best records.
>
>The best thing that can be said for records, today, in light of the SOA of
>current CD production, is that record album liner notes were easier to read
>than little CD brochures, and with a record album you might sometimes have
>gotten a poster to hang on your wall.
>
>michael

Is everyone forgetting that DBX produced vinyl recordings that
actually were better than CD?
I have several classical recordings from the DBX line that have
superior dynamic range (110dbs) vs. the rather paltry 80-90dbs that
CD's are limited to.
Also digital has one major inherent flaw, quantitization error.
CD's are limited to 16bit encoding, something that the recording
industry has never deemed to correct.(24bit is a must for complex
musical arrangements.)
Vinyl is as strong as ever, at least with those really want natural
sounding hifi.

 

[Guest]

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

No, no one has forgotten DBX-encoded discs. The problem being that
while such discs may have exhibited wide static dynamic range,
they still never achieved any resolution better than the equivalent
of 12 bits, because, among other things, the noise floor was
modulated along with the signal. Further, any such dynamic
compressions/expansion scheme MUST make an imperfect tradeoff
between speed of compression and introduction of distortion
artifacts. If you make the time constants slow enough such that
you're not pumping on low-frequency waveforms, you start getting
into the realm of audible pumping. Make it too fast, and you start
modulating waveforms. It's a compromise, at best.

Further, precisely how many DBX discs are available these days.

Next, your comment about CD's suffering from quantization artifacts:

"Also digital has one major inherent flaw, quantitization error.
CD's are limited to 16 bit encoding"

is simple wrong. You seem to have missed the fact that through
the use of either dither or noise shaping, all signal-correlated
artifacts are simply eliminated. That's eliminated. Further, both
techniques provide signals whose resolution exceeds the single-
sample data width. For example, a properly dithered or noise-
shaped 16-bit CD retains resolution well in excess of 16 bits.
This is hardly news, and I respectfully refer you to tutorial
articles on the topic, for example:

Blesser, B., "Digitization of Audio: A comprehensive
Examination of Thoery, Implementaiton and Current
Practice," J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol 26, no 10, 1978
Oct.

Vanderkooy, J. and Lipshitz, S., "Resolution Below the
Least SIgnificant Bit in DIgital Audio Systems with
Dither," J. Audio Eng Soc., vol 32, no. 3, 1984 March.

Go back significantly further, and you find the understanding of
quantization noise and artifacts well understood and SOLVED LONG
before the introduction of the CD and the general and unfortunately
typical MIS-understanding of these principles in the high-end audio
world, for example:

Schuchman, L., "Dither Signals and Their Effect on Quan-
ization Noise," IEE Trans. Communications Tech., vol
COM-12, 1964 Dec.

The point being is that your statement that CD's suffer from
quantization issues is not supported by the technical facts,
as the above references in addition to a vast realm of technical
references on the topic will demonstrate.

Your statement:

"24bit is a must for complex musical arrangements."

is simply an assertion, one which is testable and can be shown to
be unsupportable. Without getting into the details, Nyquist and
Shannon both provided a rigorous mathematical support that this
assertion, given the known properties of musical waveforms, is
simply not true. The complexity of the waveform is limited, ultimately
by the noise floor, the dynamic range and bandwidth of the signal,
and those limits are definable in terms of sample rate and sample
resolution.

Despite the handwaving of any number of high-end wonks or the
advertising hyperbole of some manufacturers, no one has yet
deomstrated that these claims have any technically supportable
basis.

Again, I would respectfully invite you to research the literature
as a means of understanding these claims.

 

[Guest]

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

I had some DBX discs and a decoder. You couldn't listen to them without
the decoder but with it they were very good - much better than regular
vinyl. I find CDs to be very good - at least some of them. Poor CDs
are the fault of the recording engineer or the mastering.


---MIKE---

 

[Guest]

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

On 15 Apr 2005 20:36:17 GMT, none <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote:

>Is everyone forgetting that DBX produced vinyl recordings that
>actually were better than CD?

We're doing our very best to forget those horrors, and if you think
they were better than CD, then your CD player must be broken! Of
course, if you're the kind who *likes* to hear heavy breathing while
listening to music, then I recommend Ravel's Bolero..........

>I have several classical recordings from the DBX line that have
>superior dynamic range (110dbs) vs. the rather paltry 80-90dbs that
>CD's are limited to.

You are clearly reading the numbers on the box, not actually listening
or measuring. DBX vinyl had no more than 80dB dynamic range at the
very outside, despite manufacturer claims. Properly made CD has a
dynamic range of 93dB. More importantly, there have never been
*master* tapes with a dynamic range greater than 80-85dB, so to refer
to an 80-90 dB dynamic range as 'paltery' shows a pretty severe
gnorance of the subject.

>Also digital has one major inherent flaw, quantitization error.

Why is that a 'flaw'?

>CD's are limited to 16bit encoding, something that the recording
>industry has never deemed to correct.

Given that this gives 93dB dynamic range, comfortably more than any
*master tape*, what's the problem?

>(24bit is a must for complex musical arrangements.)

This is one of the most ludicrous assertions I've ever seen. Not one
single industry professional has *ever* suggested that more than 20
bits would have any audible effect on music. Of course, with DVD, we
get 24/96 by default, but absolutely no one claims that this is
*necessary* in the replay medium, although it's useful when recording.

>Vinyl is as strong as ever, at least with those really want natural
>sounding hifi.

Vinyl is dead, the only movement you see is rigor mortis........

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[Guest]

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

On 16 Apr 2005 15:47:37 GMT, Stewart Pinkerton <patent3@dircon.co.uk>
wrote:

>Vinyl is dead, the only movement you see is rigor mortis........

Stewart Pinkerton, I wish you would stop beating around the bush and
speak your mind. LOL

I disagree! Young kids (16-25yo) are buying vinyl now. Rap Masters are
the reason they became interested. Once they heard LPs then they, the
kids, started listening to other styles of music.

Disclaimer: I did not mean to equate Rap & music.


Sam

 

[Guest]

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

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2005 20:36:17 GMT, none <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote:
>
> >Is everyone forgetting that DBX produced vinyl recordings that
> >actually were better than CD?
>
> We're doing our very best to forget those horrors, and if you think
> they were better than CD, then your CD player must be broken! Of
> course, if you're the kind who *likes* to hear heavy breathing while
> listening to music, then I recommend Ravel's Bolero..........
>
> >I have several classical recordings from the DBX line that have
> >superior dynamic range (110dbs) vs. the rather paltry 80-90dbs that
> >CD's are limited to.
>
> You are clearly reading the numbers on the box, not actually
listening
> or measuring. DBX vinyl had no more than 80dB dynamic range at the
> very outside, despite manufacturer claims. Properly made CD has a
> dynamic range of 93dB. More importantly, there have never been
> *master* tapes with a dynamic range greater than 80-85dB, so to refer
> to an 80-90 dB dynamic range as 'paltery' shows a pretty severe
> gnorance of the subject.
>
> >Also digital has one major inherent flaw, quantitization error.
>
> Why is that a 'flaw'?
>
> >CD's are limited to 16bit encoding, something that the recording
> >industry has never deemed to correct.
>
> Given that this gives 93dB dynamic range, comfortably more than any
> *master tape*, what's the problem?
>
> >(24bit is a must for complex musical arrangements.)
>
> This is one of the most ludicrous assertions I've ever seen. Not one
> single industry professional has *ever* suggested that more than 20
> bits would have any audible effect on music.


Simply not true. Many of the best recording and mastering engineers
have more than suggested as much.



Of course, with DVD, we
> get 24/96 by default, but absolutely no one claims that this is
> *necessary* in the replay medium, although it's useful when
recording.
>
> >Vinyl is as strong as ever, at least with those really want natural
> >sounding hifi.
>
> Vinyl is dead, the only movement you see is rigor mortis........


You are simply out of touch with reality here. Vinyl is alive and well.
There are numerous producers of new vinyl and audiophile reissues.
There are also many manufacturers of high end playback equipment. The
market is far more vital than it was 10 years ago. Hardly the sign of
rigor mortis.



Scott Wheeler