Question for digiphiles
emers...@yahoo.com
If you fit the following description:
- To you, digital recordings generally sound more like the live feed
or "live music"
- You insist that people who claim analog sounds more like music must
"like the sound of analog distortion"
Then I have this question:
Why do you trust your own perceptions but insist that the perceptions
of others are illusory? We all listen to music and make a subjective
judgement of its accuracy (to music in general, or if we've heard the
recording session live, to the live sound). Why are your subjective
judgements right while others who disagree with you must be under the
effect of an illusion? Do you not understand that accuracy is always
relative to the observer?
-Emerson Wood
Gary Eickmeier
> Do you not understand that accuracy is always
> relative to the observer?
Accuracy of what relative to what? You mean like if I ask two people to
stretch their hands apart by their estimate of one foot, they will both
be right? Do you mean if two people estimate the number of marbles in a
jar, they will both be right? Do you mean if two people estimate the
frequency response of a speaker, they will both be right?
Or is there an objective standard for these things?
Gary Eickmeier
Arny Krueger
news:9dl3hu$hp$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> emers...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Do you not understand that accuracy is always
> > relative to the observer?
>
> Accuracy of what relative to what? You mean like if I ask two
people to
> stretch their hands apart by their estimate of one foot, they will
both
> be right? Do you mean if two people estimate the number of marbles
in a
> jar, they will both be right? Do you mean if two people estimate
the
> frequency response of a speaker, they will both be right?
I've got an idea. Let's eliminate all objective measurements from
all of science and engineering. How long would our society as we know
it continue on?
> Or is there an objective standard for these things?
There are a variety of relevant objective standards for sound quality
accuracy. Digital audio storage formats are far more accurate than
analog storage formats with reference to all of them.
That sure takes the fun out of "the game", doesn't it?
;-)
Richard D Pierce
Let's change the question slightly:
To you, analog recordings generally sound more like "live
music"
You insist that people who claim digital sounds more like
music must be "meter reading, soul-less robots."
Then I have this question:
Why do you trust your own perceptions but insist that the
perceptions of others are illusory?
Now, what's the difference?
You go on to say:
"We all listen to music and make a subjective judgement of its
accuracy (to music in general, or if we've heard the
recording session live, to the live sound)."
No, there are those of us that know the difference bewteen
"accuracy," that is, changing the electrical signal in the least
possible manner, and "preference," which is a matter entirely
apart from accuracy.
You continue:
"Why are your subjective judgements right while others who
disagree with you must be under the effect of an illusion?"
Why are are YOURS, or George Graves, or Harry Lavo's right? They
have insisted, verily, they have DEMANED that they are.
"Do you not understand that accuracy is always relative to the
observer?"
Do you have a dictionary handy? Look up the word "accuracy." Is
there ANY notion of "preference" as part of the definition? No?
If I go out and by a tape measure, and it tells me an 8' piece
of wood is actually 9' 7" long, but the DEALER observes that the
tape measure is "accurate," am I stuck with it because HIS
observation is right, simply because it's his observation?
If the local TV weather droid "observes" the temperature as a
"brisk 92 degrees," and I'm freezing because it's really 36, are
both our observations "right?"
Your notion that accuracy and preference are equivalent is
absurd. We are NOT arguing that others' PREFERENCE is wrong,
not in the least. Please read that, please UNDERSTAND that and
PLAES STOP MISREPRESENTING THAT!
We are simply arguing that their preference is their preference,
and that preference is inviolate, unarguable, and THAT'S THAT.
We are also simply saying that any one person's preference is
VALID FOR THAT PERSON AND THAT PERSON ALONE, and needs no
technicla justification. Further, any attempts at nonsense
pseudo science to elevate an individual's preference above
perference to an universal law is absurd, arrogant and selfish.
--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| DPi...@world.std.com |
Harry Lavo
keep implying that electrical measurement = accuracy, while other's of us
argue that "hearing" is an integrated brain phenenomen that has as yet not
been reduced to a simplistic, measurable quantity. It is your stubborn
refusal to acknowledge that "music as experienced" is not measurable that
keeps those of us who feel "something is rotten in Denmark" back arguing the
case. Most of us don't dispute accuracy when their is an objective measure;
we do dispute "accuracy" when their is no objective measure.
"Richard D Pierce" <world!DPi...@uunet.uu.net> wrote in message
news:9dmcge$ct6$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
Will Farrell2
I've wondered this, too...whether, for example, Stewart perceives
when he listens to his own stereo what George hears when he listens
to *his* own...each taking a different route to the same neuro-path.
I've wondered this more about the sense of smell than that of
hearing. Does someone wearing what to me is *way* too much of the
most hideous smell in the world (patchouli, for instance, or Joop),
perceive the same thing I perceive when I smell Eau Sauvage, say, or
Chanel #5?
Maybe the proof, or at least the most logical explanation, of taste
(de gustibus) lies in neuroscience rather than engineering.
Harry Lavo
considered music reproduction that sounds like performed music.
There are of course, objective measurements of lots of physical and
objective properties, but there is as yet no agreement on how these
combine in meaningful ways to the brain to interpret as "great
musical reproduction". So, since their is no absolute measurement
standard, one can only approximate a "scale" by asking people to make
a judgment.
If we had a thousand people listen to an analogue and a digital front
end with reasonably simpatico music on equipment that both camps here
acknowledge as high quality equipment, and in an environment that
both camps agree is a good acoustic environment for home listening,
and then took a vote as to which sounded "most real", we would have
our "measurement". Short of that, we only have measurement of some
things, on the one hand, and a judgment on the other that analog
media and front ends often seem more musically right.
"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9dl3hu$hp$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
Gary Eickmeier
> I've wondered this, too...whether, for example, Stewart perceives
> when he listens to his own stereo what George hears when he listens
> to *his* own...each taking a different route to the same neuro-path.
>
> I've wondered this more about the sense of smell than that of
> hearing. Does someone wearing what to me is *way* too much of the
> most hideous smell in the world (patchouli, for instance, or Joop),
> perceive the same thing I perceive when I smell Eau Sauvage, say, or
> Chanel #5?
>
> Maybe the proof, or at least the most logical explanation, of taste
> (de gustibus) lies in neuroscience rather than engineering.
Your emotional responses may differ, because of your life experiences and
associations, but no, people do not experience different senses differently
from each other. For example, if two technicians (or even regular people)
were to adjust your color TV picture, they would both arrive at the same
adjustments. This is because they are adjusting it to look like what real
life looks like to them, and real life does not change in its colors and
shades from person to person. You learn that an apple is "red", grapes are
"purple", the sky is "blue", and so on, and you can duplicate those colors
on screen if the system works.
In audio, flat is flat in frequency response, no matter who is talking about
it. If you have a certain HRTF that is different from your neighbor's, it
matters not a whit, because you will both perceive the live music the same
way, and you would both want to duplicate that in your reproduction. Both
the original and the reproduction will be processed through those same HRTF
functions the same way (unless, of course, you're doing in-ear binaural,
which we don't need to go into here).
We all get different reactions to a Picasso painting, but we would probably
agree more on whether he got the anatomy correct or not.
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
> Richard, I'm afraid you and others have argued a little more than that. You
> keep implying that electrical measurement = accuracy, while other's of us
> argue that "hearing" is an integrated brain phenenomen that has as yet not
> been reduced to a simplistic, measurable quantity. It is your stubborn
> refusal to acknowledge that "music as experienced" is not measurable that
> keeps those of us who feel "something is rotten in Denmark" back arguing the
> case. Most of us don't dispute accuracy when their is an objective measure;
> we do dispute "accuracy" when their is no objective measure.
As I discussed above in this thread, there is no single measure of "accuracy",
but there are many measurements that you could take or at least talk about when
referring to the live music. Most of them are not employed in hi-fi
reproduction, because there is only a certain distance we can go toward the real
experience, and cost is cost, as they say. So I guess you're both right to a
certain extent.
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
> Right, Gary, but their is NO objective standard for what is
> considered music reproduction that sounds like performed music.
> There are of course, objective measurements of lots of physical and
> objective properties, but there is as yet no agreement on how these
> combine in meaningful ways to the brain to interpret as "great
> musical reproduction". So, since their is no absolute measurement
> standard, one can only approximate a "scale" by asking people to make
> a judgment.
>
> If we had a thousand people listen to an analogue and a digital front
> end with reasonably simpatico music on equipment that both camps here
> acknowledge as high quality equipment, and in an environment that
> both camps agree is a good acoustic environment for home listening,
> and then took a vote as to which sounded "most real", we would have
> our "measurement". Short of that, we only have measurement of some
> things, on the one hand, and a judgment on the other that analog
> media and front ends often seem more musically right.
True, there are many measurements we could take on a live music event, and
commonly understood "hi-fi" makes use of very few of them. But if you combine
a study of architectural acoustics with the electronic facts of life, you can
come up with an understanding of why your puny "hi-fi" can never sound quite
like the original. You can take steps to get closer, but it will never go all
the way there, because you cannot recreate all of the sound patterns the same
way unless you go back to the original venue.
I was just commenting on his philosophical point that accuracy is relative.
Obviously not true.
Nor do I think that a good analogue front end should sound that much
different from a digital front end. There may be an overlay of pops or
surface noise, but the "sound" should be the same if EQ'd the same in
recording. No, I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you're looking for
analogue vs digital to make a difference in realism.
The four fundamental areas which I have observed differ between the real
event and our hi-fi are as follows:
1. Physical size. You can't make a small room sound just like a large concert
hall, so I say the bigger the playback room the closer it is to reality (the
greater the realism).
2. Power. You can't duplicate the dynamics of the real thing with cones and
domes.
3. Spatial characteristics. Number one above falls under temporal
characteristics; spatial refers to the incident angles of the total sound
field and the nature of a reverberant field. It is very difficult to
reproduce a full reverberant field with surround speakers, and the frontal
imaging performed by two or three speakers is only an approximation of the
many point sources of sound found in the real thing.
4. Accuracy in the signal domain. This is just the commonly understood
frequency response, freedom from distortions, and low noise in the signal
path from recording to replay. This one has gotten a lot closer with the
advent of digital.
Gary Eickmeier
George Graves
Farrell2) wrote:
> >emers...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> Do you not understand that accuracy is always
> >> relative to the observer?
>
> >Accuracy of what relative to what? You mean like if I ask two people to
> >stretch their hands apart by their estimate of one foot, they will both
> >be right? Do you mean if two people estimate the number of marbles in a
> >jar, they will both be right? Do you mean if two people estimate the
> >frequency response of a speaker, they will both be right?
> >
> >Or is there an objective standard for these things?
> >
> >Gary Eickmeier
>
> I've wondered this, too...whether, for example, Stewart perceives
> when he listens to his own stereo what George hears when he listens
> to *his* own...each taking a different route to the same neuro-path.
>
> I've wondered this more about the sense of smell than that of
> hearing. Does someone wearing what to me is *way* too much of the
> most hideous smell in the world (patchouli, for instance, or Joop),
> perceive the same thing I perceive when I smell Eau Sauvage, say, or
> Chanel #5?
This is an excellent question. I think that human experience tells us
the answer. A case in point. I was alking down the street the other
day with a friend of mine when we both perceived a strange smell. To
me the smell reminded me instantly of rye bread, but there was
something more "chemicall-y' about it. I mentioned to my friend that
the smell reminded me of rye bread and he immediatly said, "Yeah!
That's it, rye bread!" but then he went on to say, "But not exactly
like rye-bread, there is a chemical-like component to the smell."
Obviously we both smelled exactly the same thing and perceived it the
same way. The smell evoked the same memory (rye-bread) from both of
us, its just that I was able to identify the memory quicker than he
could. We also noticed, independently, that the smell had a
chemical-like artificiality to it. We've all had similar incidents
of smell and of sight (smell seems to be the most powerful memory
stimulant in the human pantheon of senses. We can smell an odor that
can instantly transport us to a place in even early childhood that
we haven't thought of for decades.), where we notice the same thing
as others experiencing the same smell, and we have all been in
situations where we have shared a visual experience with someone and
all noted the same things. So, by extrapolation, I think we can
reasonably assume that every healthy human being hears things more or
less the same way too. What is, of course, open to debate is the
amount of information that we glean from a given experience. Someone
trained in art is going to see the same painting that we see and have
exactly the same image in his mind, be he is likely to observe more
in the painting than does the layman. One can train one's senses to
be more observant, I.E. to take the same tactile, aural, olfactory,
and visual input that everyone else has and make that input reveal
more of itself than it would to one who's observational skills in
that sense haven't been trained. A blind person, for instance can run
his fingers over the braille bumps in an elevator car and READ
information from them. A sighted person, doing the same thing will
likely notice no difference at all between any of the symbols formed
by those raised bumps, much less actually read them. I can smell
brandies all day and not notice anything different about any of them,
but a brandy connoseur can tell the brand, grade and often the year
that a fine brandy was put down with nothing more than a sniff. So
why shouldn't hearing be the same? If I find analog more like real
music than is digital, might that not be because I have trained my
ear to ignor analog's weaknesses and zero-in on its strengths? Might
not digital have other strengths that I don't hear because I'm
focused on things that are important to my listening enjoyment, and
that these are things that digital doesn't do as well as analog? And
finally, might not a digiphile do the same? Might he not ignor
digital's weaknesses and focus on digital's strengths (like lack of
surface noise, etc). And might it not also be the case that digital's
strengths are also analog's weaknesses? Just a thought....
> Maybe the proof, or at least the most logical explanation, of taste
> (de gustibus) lies in neuroscience rather than engineering.
It lies in what we have trained our senses (or had our senses
trained) to focus on as being important to the experience.
George Graves
Jean-Pierre Dussault
>
>
> Do you have a dictionary handy? Look up the word "accuracy." Is
> there ANY notion of "preference" as part of the definition? No?
>
Accurately measuring an inch, a meter, a SPL is trivial: those are
one dimensional beasts, represented by a single number.
In mathematics, closeness is termed "norm". For instance, in our
usual 3 dimensional space the Euclidean norm is simply the distance
between two points and is expressed as the square root of the sum of
the squared differences of each coordinates between both points
(whew, how could I ever write that?!?!). There are other norms, or
distances: for instance, the Manhattan distance is the length of the
path a taxi has to drive to get from point A to point B, much
different from the "direct" distance from A to B.
In finite dimensional spaces (YES, there exists infinite dimensional
spaces), all norms are "equivalent", that is to say that if a point A
comes closer to a point B gradually, eventually reaching point B, the
distance between both points will approach 0, and this will be true
WHATEVER the norm used to measure the distance. Of course, telling
that [two fixed point are at a distance "d" apart] have no sense if
you don't specify the norm used to define distance.
So, accuracy does not depends on preference since it is simply how
close something is to the "real thing". However, the norm used to
define closeness may change the relative measure. This is subtle, I
agree, and is not really intuitive, even for many scientists.
For our situation, things are even more complicated since a musical
signal is best described as belonging to an infinite dimensional
space. In such spaces, the norm equivalence I mentioned above is no
longer true, and the intuition provided by our usual Euclidean 3
dimensional space is really no more reliable! For instance, a point A
approaching another point B (but never reaching it, becoming as close
as you want) in a certain norm (this means the distance between A and
B in that norm closes down to 0) may well stay well apart from point
B in another norm (the distance between A and B in this other norm
stays say above 1).
Thus, measured accuracy has no reason to be related to perceived
accuracy: the norms underlying the distance measure have simply no
reason to be compatible.
To conclude, accuracy is a fuzzy concept, much useless in our case.
Every listener has a built in norm and estimate accuracy using this
personal norm. Engineers' instruments use yet another norm. Why
should we trust somebody else norm? Of course, preference is yet
another phenomenon that complicates the assessment of high fidelity!
JPD
Richard D Pierce
Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
>Richard, I'm afraid you and others have argued a little more than that.
Harry, I'm afraid that whoever charged you all that money for
your reading lessons owes you a serious refund.
>You keep implying that electrical measurement = accuracy, while
>other's of us argue that "hearing" is an integrated brain
>phenenomen that has as yet not been reduced to a simplistic,
>measurable quantity.
When exactly, did I say that, Harry? When, in exactly, did I
imply that, Harry? I have NEVER said, EVER, that it was
reducibale to a simplistic measured quantity. EVER! And I, once
again, object to your gross, obvious and repeated
misrepresentation that I did. I don't want, "you implied," or
any other such nonsense, I want a direct quote now, Harry,
because, in fact, for years I have been saying PRECISELY THE
OPPOSITE.
>It is your stubborn
>refusal to acknowledge that "music as experienced" is not measurable that
>keeps those of us who feel "something is rotten in Denmark" back arguing the
>case.
Harry, it is your stubborn refusal to STOP misrperesenting my
views that is the issue here. You have done it in the past, you
are clearly doing it here. Why? What do you hope to gain by a
dishonest or distorted representations such as this? How does
that serve the discussion?
>Most of us don't dispute accuracy when their is an objective
>measure; we do dispute "accuracy" when their is no objective
>measure.
Sir, you continuously argue that ANY and ALL views contrary to
yours are inherently inferior. And you do so by misrepresenting
the views of, certainly, myself.
Stop it.
emers...@yahoo.com
>
>In article <9da17...@news1.newsguy.com>, <emers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>If you fit the following description:
>>
>>- To you, digital recordings generally sound more like the live feed
>>or "live music"
>>
>>- You insist that people who claim analog sounds more like music must
>>"like the sound of analog distortion"
>>
>>Then I have this question:
>>
>>Why do you trust your own perceptions but insist that the perceptions
>>of others are illusory? We all listen to music and make a subjective
>>judgement of its accuracy (to music in general, or if we've heard the
>>recording session live, to the live sound). Why are your subjective
>>judgements right while others who disagree with you must be under the
>>effect of an illusion? Do you not understand that accuracy is always
>>relative to the observer?
>
>Let's change the question slightly:
>
> To you, analog recordings generally sound more like "live
> music"
Okay.
>
> You insist that people who claim digital sounds more like
> music must be "meter reading, soul-less robots."
But I don't insist that. I'm curious, why would you think that I do
insist that?
>
> Then I have this question:
>
> Why do you trust your own perceptions but insist that the
> perceptions of others are illusory?
I said from my very first post that I don't question anyone else's
choice of digital or analog as closest to live music. However, some
"digiphiles" fit my two criteria above--that is, their subjective
perception of digital is that it is closer to live music, and they
insist that people who like analog like the sound of a distortion.
Do you fit these two criteria? You haven't really said whether you
do or not.
>
>Now, what's the difference?
>
>You go on to say:
>
> "We all listen to music and make a subjective judgement of its
> accuracy (to music in general, or if we've heard the
> recording session live, to the live sound)."
>
>No, there are those of us that know the difference bewteen
>"accuracy," that is, changing the electrical signal in the least
>possible manner, and "preference," which is a matter entirely
>apart from accuracy.
If you think they are entirely apart, then all I can say is we have a
very different understanding of what reproducing music is all about.
Is there no room in your book for comparing the total effect of a
recording to the total effect of live music? Suppose I listen to a
pianist live, then go to the control room, check how easily I can
hear the patterns that made the music, change something in the
recorder, record again, listen again live, listen again to the
recording, and in this way try to create a recording that feels as
close as possible to the original performance? What word would you
use for this if you don't use the word "accurate?"
>
>You continue:
>
> "Why are your subjective judgements right while others who
> disagree with you must be under the effect of an illusion?"
>
>Why are are YOURS, or George Graves, or Harry Lavo's right? They
>have insisted, verily, they have DEMANED that they are.
But I haven't, which apparently you haven't noticed.
>
> "Do you not understand that accuracy is always relative to the
> observer?"
>
>Do you have a dictionary handy? Look up the word "accuracy." Is
>there ANY notion of "preference" as part of the definition? No?
"Accuracy of music" is relative to the person who listens to the
music. I know of no useful definition of music that doesn't involve
a listening being.
Do you ever design some piece of equipment to have great specs, but
listen to it and it sounds bad or unlike the live feed? Has this
never happened to you?
>
>If I go out and by a tape measure, and it tells me an 8' piece
>of wood is actually 9' 7" long, but the DEALER observes that the
>tape measure is "accurate," am I stuck with it because HIS
>observation is right, simply because it's his observation?
>
>If the local TV weather droid "observes" the temperature as a
>"brisk 92 degrees," and I'm freezing because it's really 36, are
>both our observations "right?"
I don't understand how you can give these examples and even think
they are relevant. These examples involve objectively measureable
phenomenon, whereas there is no objective standard for how a signal
will be perceived by a human brain.
>
>Your notion that accuracy and preference are equivalent is
>absurd.
That would be pretty absurd if I were actually arguing that. You are
showing signs of all-or-nothing thinking. You state that they are
entirely apart, then you accuse me of believing they are equivalent.
>We are NOT arguing that others' PREFERENCE is wrong,
>not in the least. Please read that, please UNDERSTAND that and
>PLAES STOP MISREPRESENTING THAT!
I never thought you were arguing that. I still don't know if you fit
my two criteria.
I'm taking issue with the people who state that analog-lovers "like
the sound of a distortion," and asking how they would know this.
-Emerson
Kirk Lindstrom
Haven't checked into this forum in maybe 6 years
Glad to see you are still holding down the fort and I am not
surprised to read some still believe in Santa!
Kirk (used to work at HWP) out
>
> We are also simply saying that any one person's preference is
> VALID FOR THAT PERSON AND THAT PERSON ALONE, and needs no
> technicla justification. Further, any attempts at nonsense
> pseudo science to elevate an individual's preference above
> perference to an universal law is absurd, arrogant and selfish.
--
best regards
Kirk Lindstrom
Editor: "Kirk's Investing & Personal Finance" @ Suite101.com
http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/investing
and "Kirk's Online Newsletter"
http://www.suite101.com/files/topics/270/files/WhatLetter2Buy.html
Richard D Pierce
>I'm taking issue with the people who state that analog-lovers "like
>the sound of a distortion," and asking how they would know this.
Okay, let's examine the basis of the claim:
1. An LP reproduction system consists of a electromechnical
system. It's input is electrical, i.e., the electrical signal
from the microphone, from the master tape, wherever. It's
output is electrical, from the phone preamp. In between you
have the necessary preprocessing, equalization, compression,
mixinfg, the mastering lathe, the stamper, the LP, the
phono cartridge and the RIAA preamp equalization.
2. There ARE elements of the LP reproduction chain that ARE
nonlinear: non-linear in the amplitude, frequency, phase
time domains or combinations of two or more domains.
3. Any of these non-linear elements produce distortion.
Points #2 and #3 are not disputable points: these distortions
exist, they are large enough to be measured, they are present in
all LPs to one extent or another. Whether they are benign or
detrimental is NOT the discussion right now.
4. As a result of these non-linearites and the distortion they
produce, the electrical output of the LP reproduction chain
differs significantly from the electrical input to the
reproduction chain.
Point #4 is NOT a judgement: it is a statement of easily
verifiable fact. If you dispute this, this constitutes, given
the enormous body of technical klnowledge on the medium, and
extraordinary claim. If you dispute this, you are required to
provide extraordinary evidence to the effect that the LP
reproduction change has no effect on the electrical signal it is
designed to store and deliver.
In the absence of such extraordinary proof, it is safe to say
that the LP reproduction system, because it changes the
electrical signal, thus distorts the signal.
5. A significant number of people like, even prefer, the sound
of music reproduced through the LP reproduction chain.
Now, taking points 1 through 4, and point 5, we arrive at a
reasonable conclusion that a significant number of people like
the sound of LP reproduction of music, distorted as it is.
Now, does that mean that these people are warped? Confused?
Deluded? Deaf? Wrong?
No, absolutely not. There is NO judgement inherent or implied in
the logic.
If the LP system, with its attendant departure from linear
operation, which is technically called "distortion," sounds good
to some set of the listening population, then it's reasonable to
suggest that since the departure from non-linearity in the
amplitude, frequency, time and phase domains is the MAJOR
difference in the ability of LP systems to delivert the
electrical signal constituting musical reproduction systems,
these departures sound good to significant numbers of people.
Another term for "nonlinearities which sound good" is:
"euphonic distortions"
To some, these distortions "sound good."
These distortions are, thus, "euphonic."
Does that mean that those that prefer those "euphonic
distortions" are warped? Confused? Deluded? Deaf? Wrong?
Absolutely not.
Why do YOU care why you like what you like?
Just do not claim that LP playback systems are free of
distortions. They absolutely ARE NOT!
And if you prefer an LP playback systems, you prefer it along
with, or even because of, its nonlinearity. It's, well,
distortion.
It's distortion is a technically verifiable, physical
fact. If you care to claim otherwise, be prepared to have to
meet a huge burden of proof.
emers...@yahoo.com
Even if a musical signal belongs to a finite dimensional space, I
think your point about the norm affecting the relative closeness of
points still applies. For example, which point is closer to the
origin? (1, 2 ), or (2, 1) ? If we use simple distance or Manhattan
distance they are the same. But if my perception of closeness is
based on the square of the difference in the x dimension plus the
difference in the y dimension, and your perception of distance is the
straight difference in the x dimension plus the square of the
difference in the y dimension, then we will have different
perceptions of their closeness to the origin.
Of course at this point I see Dick or Stewart saying "the REAL
distance is whatever, the OBJECTIVE difference is.." But in audio,
there is no real or objective standard for how music is perceived.
There may be some objective measurements, but those don't necessarily
correspond with how music is perceived by every listener.
Some equipment measures very well and is also perceived to be
accurate by some people. And that's fine. But that doesn't mean
that everybody else "prefers distortion."
>Thus, measured accuracy has no reason to be related to perceived
>accuracy: the norms underlying the distance measure have simply no
>reason to be compatible.
I think that part of the problem is that Dick, Arny, and Stewart
etc. don't trust people to distinguish between judgements of
accuracy and judgements of preference. I don't want to speak for
them---is that what you think? I would agree that *some* people
would be unable to distinguish these but some people can.
In other words, if some of us think recorder A sounds closer to live
music as compared to recorder B, then I think a good starting
assumption is that A is doing something better than B---that it is
closer in one of the dimensions. Especially if those people who make
the judgement are highly developed musicians.
As a composer, I enjoy music that skillfully avoids monotony. I'm
extremely sensitive to monotony. For example, if a performer uses
exactly the same length of pause between each phrase, I will pick up
on it. So it seems an extraordinary claim that I would "like analog
distortion" considering that the distortion would color the sound in
the same way on everything. The truth is that the merits of analog,
for me, pass the test of time brilliantly---records keep sounding
realistic, and details in the music like contrast of tone colors keep
coming through clearly. In fact, most of my CD's sound monotonous
for having a sense of haze over the music or a sense of distance
between me and the music that affects every moment of the music.
-Emerson
c.l. hardin
> Your emotional responses may differ, because of your life experiences and
> associations, but no, people do not experience different senses differently
> from each other. For example, if two technicians (or even regular people)
> were to adjust your color TV picture, they would both arrive at the same
> adjustments. This is because they are adjusting it to look like what real
> life looks like to them, and real life does not change in its colors and
> shades from person to person. You learn that an apple is "red", grapes are
> "purple", the sky is "blue", and so on, and you can duplicate those colors
> on screen if the system works.
There are in fact small but measurable differences in the color
matches of normal observers when presented with the same stimuli. The
use of broad color categories such as "red," on which all normal
observers can agree, tends to obscure these small variations. As
psychophysicists well know, individual differences in matching are to
be found in all perceptual modalities, including hearing. However,
they are not likely to be of much importance in accounting for the
individual preferences for vinyl or digital media in the reproduction
of sound.
Larry Hardin
(member of the Intersociety Color Council)
Harry Lavo
Well, I'm glad we can agree on that, at least! :-)
I see two problems with this line of reasoning, Dick:
1) You continue to avoid the fact that these "distortions" may in fact make
two channel LP a more reasonable facimilie of live mustic than the so-called
"undistorted" cd sound you favor. And if large numbers of people agree with
this in direct comparison...then this defines musical accuracy even if it
doesn't define electrical accuracy. You continue to describe choice as
"preference"; when it comes to musical accuracy, there is no other way to
define it. I have argued that since last fall; Emerson has put it very
eloquently in another thread in the last 24 hours. There is no objective
measure of "musicality". You SURMISE people are hearing the "distortions"
you have identified, and "PREFER" the sound of that distortion. This may be
true. Or they may be hearing another combination of characteristics
altogether, or reacting to the absence of digital artifacts. You don't
know. But if a significant portion of the population when exposed to the
two side by side "prefer" one medium over another because it sounds more
like music (especially if that medium is "objectively inferior" on the most
commonly used measurements), then it is definitely worth taking note
of...scientifically...and exploring, rather than dismissing it as "already
known".
2) You continue to ignore the fact that CD reproduction has its own set of
limitations and distortions which many people find interfere to one degree
or another with their ability to "get into" the music. If that ain't
distortion, then I don't know what is.
> Why do YOU care why you like what you like?
Because a thoughtful audiophile has a natural curiousity about why he hears
what he hears and prefers. And he doesn't like being told (when it may NOT
be true) that it is only because "he (or she) prefers hearing distortion"
or he (or she) would otherwise prefer this wonderful, objectively more
accurate system called the 16 bit CD.
>
> Just do not claim that LP playback systems are free of
> distortions. They absolutely ARE NOT!
The argument has been that they may be judged more accurate to the sound of
live music, rather than that they are free of electrical distortions. And
that comparison is always mad vis a vis CD playback systems, which also have
their distortions.
>
> And if you prefer an LP playback systems, you prefer it along
> with, or even because of, its nonlinearity. It's, well,
> distortion.
Of perhaps its a combination of euphonic distortions and the absence of
digital artifacts that many people find prevent them from "getting into the
music" emotionally. Or maybe just the latter perhaps?
>
> It's distortion is a technically verifiable, physical
> fact. If you care to claim otherwise, be prepared to have to
> meet a huge burden of proof.
That music is different from sound and recognized and integrated by the
brain in some pretty primal ways, including emotional triggers, is also
scientific fact. And it is an arena far removed from conventional
electronic measurements and not at all thoroughly understood. If you care
to claim otherwise, be prepared to have to meet a huge burden of proof. :-)
> --
> | Dick Pierce |
> | Professional Audio Development |
> | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
> | DPi...@world.std.com |
Harry Lavo
Recordist, Archivist, Audiophile
emers...@yahoo.com
>
>
>Just do not claim that LP playback systems are free of
>distortions. They absolutely ARE NOT!
>
I definitely don't claim that LP playback is free of distortion.
>And if you prefer an LP playback systems, you prefer it along
>with, or even because of, its nonlinearity. It's, well,
>distortion.
Well, part of my interest is in the question of whether I prefer it
*along with* the distortion
or *because of* the distortion, or both.
My favorite signal is a live microphone feed. I am not a recording
engineer so I have limited experience with this, but I have listened
to live microphone feeds several times. I heard things like
"liveliness" and "intimite presence."
My second favorite signal is off a good record. I hear a bit of this
"liveliness" and "initimite presence."
My third favorite signal is off a good CD. I've heard at most the tiniest
bit of liveliness in the very best CD's. But the average CD is way below
the average LP.
So my conclusion is that a live feed is the least distorted signal.
My assumption (which I would need a lot of experience as a recording
engineer to verify) is that both LP and CD are distorted, with CD having
more damaging distortions.
This is not simply an analog-vs-digital argument. Remember, I'm comparing
the average CD to the average LP. They each went through a number of
steps in recording and mastering. Who knows what went wrong along the way?
Or maybe in the digital age, different microphones are being used.
Even if some factor other than digital recorders is what makes the
difference, my arguments to follow are still relevant. What's relevant
is that some people are happy listening to classical music on CD, and
I'm not. Something in the average CD bothers me and other analog-philes
but not other people.
So we have some musical event E. We listen to it live and over a live
microphone feed. We record it with recorder A and
recorder D. Recorder A has much more measureable distortion. Recorder
D has much less. Does it follow that the playback from recorder D will
sound more life-like than the playback from recorder A?
Depends on what patterns the listener uses to perceive liveliness or beauty
or whatever the listener cares about.
I can make this point more easily with a visual analogy.
Suppose that we want to reproduce painting P with camera/print process A and
camera/print process D.
First we look at painting P directly. It is beautiful. Why? Well, I
haven't researched this area, but I feel that a critical aspect of beauty
is that different parts of the painting feel analogous to each other. Say
there's a curvy line. Some ripple near the bottom looks analogous to
some ripple near the top. Our peripheral vision picks this up.
Now both print process A and print process D distort the picture. Let's say
that print process A introduces some spatial mapping, like looking through
glasses that have a slight waviness in the surface. The waviness is low
in frequency, maybe 3 ripples across the side of the painting, but high
in magnitude. The ripples are very obvious in the reproduced image.
Print process D also introduces spatial ripples, but they are high in
frequency, maybe 100 ripples across the edge of the painting, but very low
in magnitude. The distortion in process D is not obvious at all.
So we look at the results of process A and process D. Suppose that A still
looks beautiful but D doesn't. If this happened, my guess would be that
process A preserved more of the relationship between the wavy line at the
top and the wavy line at the bottom, so our eye can still see them as
analogous. They changed a lot, but not in a way that made the analogy
between them invisible. Process D introduced the tiniest bit of distortion,
but it was enough to kill the perceived analogy. Where our eye expects to
see two similar curves triggering similar patterns in the retina, the patterns
that get triggered are quite different because of this tiny ripple of
distortion that is not analogous in each place.
I could extend this example to music, if anyone cares. Hopefully you get
my point. One recorder could add more distortion overall, but also
preserve certain patterns or relationships in the sound.
It is my theory at this point, that the analog process is better than the
digital process, *on average*, at preserving the patterns in sound that
I find meaningful.
-Emerson
Gary Eickmeier
> So
> why shouldn't hearing be the same? If I find analog more like real
> music than is digital, might that not be because I have trained my
> ear to ignor analog's weaknesses and zero-in on its strengths? Might
> not digital have other strengths that I don't hear because I'm
> focused on things that are important to my listening enjoyment, and
> that these are things that digital doesn't do as well as analog? And
> finally, might not a digiphile do the same? Might he not ignor
> digital's weaknesses and focus on digital's strengths (like lack of
> surface noise, etc). And might it not also be the case that digital's
> strengths are also analog's weaknesses? Just a thought....
>
> It lies in what we have trained our senses (or had our senses
> trained) to focus on as being important to the experience.
George,
I understand your point, and what I am about to say may or may not make any
sense, but I just want you to reflect for a moment on the fact that even with
a digital storage medium like CD, what you are hearing is not "digital" but
analogue, the digital having been converted to analogue before output to the
amplifier.
Now, some may say that that is a really dumb observation, but I am just saying
that there should be no difference in a signal that has been digitized and
then re-converted to analogue, unless the theory doesn't work. In other words,
if you take a waveform and record it to tape, or LP, or convert it to digital
and back again, all of the waveforms should look exactly like the original
unless something is very wrong with the process. So we never listen to
"digital" as such, only to analogue, but without the noise, distortion, and
freq response variations associated with LP or tape. So I don't see how you
could get "more" out of listening to "analogue" because the advantages are all
in one direction, that of the digital storage media.
Does that make any sense?
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
> So my conclusion is that a live feed is the least distorted signal.
> My assumption (which I would need a lot of experience as a recording
> engineer to verify) is that both LP and CD are distorted, with CD having
> more damaging distortions.
Emerson, both you and Harry have now said that CD is distorted, or has audible
"digital artifacts." Could you please describe or define the distortions or
artifacts that you hear with digital?
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
> Of course at this point I see Dick or Stewart saying "the REAL
> distance is whatever, the OBJECTIVE difference is.." But in audio,
> there is no real or objective standard for how music is perceived.
> There may be some objective measurements, but those don't necessarily
> correspond with how music is perceived by every listener.
What do you think of Harry Pearson's standard of "the absolute sound" - the
sound of live, unamplified music in the original acoustic space? That, of
course, is not a measurement of any sort, but it is a standard for what we
are trying to reproduce.
Gary Eickmeier
emers...@yahoo.com
>
>Well, I'm glad we can agree on that, at least! :-)
>
>I see two problems with this line of reasoning, Dick:
>
>1) You continue to avoid the fact that these "distortions" may in fact make
>two channel LP a more reasonable facimilie of live mustic than the so-called
>"undistorted" cd sound you favor. And if large numbers of people agree with
>this in direct comparison...then this defines musical accuracy even if it
>doesn't define electrical accuracy.
Yes, my visual analogy for this situation is: suppose we transmit a fax
by a process that blurs it considerably. Then we apply a second process:
edge sharpening. The second process is additional distortion yet might
make the words clearer.
The analogy to music is that the relationships among sound events is the
"message" of the music, and perhaps some type of distortion acts to enhance
the audibility of these relationships.
However, that doesn't explain why every analog-phile I know likes the
sound of a live feed even better than the sound of an analog recording.
If there is someone out there who has heard the sound become more lifelike
AFTER being recorded and played back, please let me know.
It might be that analog has some detrimental distortion and also this
"enhancing" type of distortion, and the one distortion takes away while
the other gives back some, but not quite as much as was taken away.
Note that "enhancing" distortion, if it exists and we have no proof that
it does, would be unlike "euphonic distortion" as usually presented because
it would not become monotonous over time, it would probably enhance contrasts
in the music, and it would not interfere with hearing the relationships
among musical events. Contrast that to something like artificial reverb,
which can sound pleasant, but would probably become monotonous when applied
to every recording, would make things sound more the same, and would
obscure low-level musical detail.
I don't even know if such a thing (enhancing distortion) is possible.
That would be a neat trick of nature if it existed.
>You continue to describe choice as
>"preference"; when it comes to musical accuracy, there is no other way to
>define it.
Yes, a similar point is that I "prefer" the sound of live music the best,
so of course I'm probably going to "prefer" the most accurate recording.
However, if I were the engineer and I were recording a Steinway and
microphone A made it sound like a Yamaha while microphone B made
it sound like a Steinway, I would choose microphone B even if I happened
to like the sound of Yamahas better. And it would be my duty to the
musician to do this because her music would undoubtedly be initimately
related to the sound qualities of the piano and would come through more
clearly with the correct sound. On the other hand, if microphone B
also made her phrasing sound incompetant because it wasn't reproducing
the decay of the notes properly, then we'd have a judgement call.
-Emerson
Harry Lavo
I think this is the correct standard. The problem comes in applying it.
This is what I was suggesting in another post, when I suggested that doing a
comparison test among large groups of people, listening in an environment
and with equipment agreed by all involved to be able to 'sound musical" and
accurate, would be the only way to solve the dilemma of what sounded "more
real".
If say among a thousand people, 70% (just for example) favor vinyl as
sounding most like real music in direct comparison to 16 bit CD digital,
that WOULD be a "measurement" of how close to the remembered "absolute
sound" of music the human mind perceived, measured across enough people for
it to reflect a human reality and not just one person's opinion. And
presumably a medium that "won" 85-15 would be even more "accurate" (compared
to remember live music) and one that "tied" only 50-50 would be "equally
accurate" (compared to remembered live music). Regardless of what the
electrical measurements suggested.
One of the reasons some of us are persistent in raising the analogue issue
is the antidotal evidence that when presented with something approximating
this situation, many of us do find people making an overwhelming choice for
analog. And methodological disputes aside, this happens broadly enough to
raise questions. By contrast, I really haven't heard any "counter"
antidotes where people have set up such a comparison and had CD win.
"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9dqeg6$hb$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
Harry Lavo
recording or playback systems.
One effect is a loss of "dimensionality" to the highs, along with an
unnatural "sharpness" that just doesn't sound like real music. The music
sounds flat and "reproduced". When you apply a "fix" to reduce the jitter
(I've experienced it both with "monster rings" within a one box system and
by a "jitter-buster" inserted between a two-box system) this problem is
greatly ameliorated or even eliminated.
Another is a "grey scrim" that hovers over the reproduction, making the
sound "mechanical" and "lifeless".
May I hasten to add that I managed to get rid of both of these obvious
effects in my system via careful attention to connection and de-jittering.
Once eliminated, I found I could accept 16 bit CD as a musical medium with
no obvious artifacts....just subtraction. In direct comparison to my analog
system the digital system still just doesn't sound as "real" somehow. And
not just to me, but to others as well. It is this "mystery" of how the
human brain "hears" that we have focused on in this discussion.
"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9dqefe$gj$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
Jean-Pierre Dussault
......
>
> Just do not claim that LP playback systems are free of
> distortions. They absolutely ARE NOT!
>
I could not agree more. As a matter of fact, NO playback system is
free of distortions! That's life! A distorsion free system is an
abstraction of the human mind.
JPD
emers...@yahoo.com
Comparing digital to a live feed or analog, what I hear in the
average CD or digitally recorded LP is
(the last time I heard a live feed was a few years ago, so I'm most
familiar with analog as the alternative)
- sounds are weird instead of beautiful---harpsichord sounds
"squidgy," violins sound "edgy," brass sounds "splatty"
- sense of distance between me and music, the same sort of loss you
would get from placing the microphones far away (although the tonal
balance usually does not suggest a far miking)
- lack of startle factor --- when Rostropovich really nails a note in
my EMI CD, I know darn well that in person I would practically jump
backwards, whereas on CD I feel little --- startle factor on LP is
very high in general (I don't have this record though)
- lack of excitement on fast passages
- missing beauty causes the music to fall down -- a lot of Mozart
sounds boring or simplistic, trills sound stupid, etc. --- on records
and in person Mozart proves to be very strong and solid
I don't have a large collection of recordings--- about 250 CD's and
just starting to collect LP's this year, have 60 LP's so far---so it
is possible that I've only heard bad CD's. However I have a couple
dozen audiophile CD's from Sheffield, Reference Recordings,
Performance Recordings, etc. and they have the sense of distance and
the weird non-beautiful sounds, although nowhere near as bad as the
typical CD.
I'm not claiming that digital "has" to have these flaws. I've heard
good reports from people I trust that digital is getting very good
these days, at least when they play back digital on the same machine
that recorded it. I wonder how good the CD's made from these tapes
sound. If they really preserve the merits of a live feed, then I am
sure I would like them as much as analog, or better. But none of my
250 CD's sound like a live feed.
-Emerson
emers...@yahoo.com
That is my standard actually---how it feels to listen in person.
Since we are changing the sound field just by the act of reducing the
music to two channels, never mind what happens to the signal on the
way, all audio is a type of distortion. So mechanisms of perception
come into play. The deviations from the standard will be perceived
as detrimental or benign, and that perception will be different with
different observers. That's what I mean by "no objective standard."
Obviously if we could recreate the sound field of the original
perfectly, that would be the undisputable objective standard.
-Emerson
emers...@yahoo.com
>
>In article <9dov1...@news1.newsguy.com>, <emers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I'm taking issue with the people who state that analog-lovers "like
>>the sound of a distortion," and asking how they would know this.
[quoted text deleted -- deb]
>If the LP system, with its attendant departure from linear
>operation, which is technically called "distortion," sounds good
>to some set of the listening population, then it's reasonable to
>suggest that since the departure from non-linearity in the
>amplitude, frequency, time and phase domains is the MAJOR
>difference in the ability of LP systems to delivert the
>electrical signal constituting musical reproduction systems,
>these departures sound good to significant numbers of people.
One other point:
Since I like a live feed better than LP, it is also quite possible
that I don't like the distortions of LP but just find them less
damaging to the music than the distortions of a typical CD.
>
>Another term for "nonlinearities which sound good" is:
>
> "euphonic distortions"
>
>To some, these distortions "sound good."
>
>These distortions are, thus, "euphonic."
I think it is possible that some people like some distortions. I'm
not saying that is impossible. For myself, I would want to do more
research. See my other post where I talk about monotony.
-Emerson
George Graves
<geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
>
> > So
> > why shouldn't hearing be the same? If I find analog more like real
> > music than is digital, might that not be because I have trained my
> > ear to ignor analog's weaknesses and zero-in on its strengths? Might
> > not digital have other strengths that I don't hear because I'm
> > focused on things that are important to my listening enjoyment, and
> > that these are things that digital doesn't do as well as analog? And
> > finally, might not a digiphile do the same? Might he not ignor
> > digital's weaknesses and focus on digital's strengths (like lack of
> > surface noise, etc). And might it not also be the case that digital's
> > strengths are also analog's weaknesses? Just a thought....
> >
> > It lies in what we have trained our senses (or had our senses
> > trained) to focus on as being important to the experience.
>
> George,
>
> I understand your point, and what I am about to say may or may not
> make any sense, but I just want you to reflect for a moment on the
> fact that even with a digital storage medium like CD, what you are
> hearing is not "digital" but analogue, the digital having been
> converted to analogue before output to the amplifier.
Why are you championing the incredibly obvious? OF COURSE its analog!
It was analog before it was converted to digital and its analog after
it emerges from the R & L audio jacks on the back of one's CD player.
Its the conversion PROCESS, or more accurately, the conversion
STANDARDS that produce the artifacts vinyl afficianados find so
objectionable.
> Now, some may say that that is a really dumb observation, but I am
> just saying that there should be no difference in a signal that has
> been digitized and then re-converted to analogue, unless the theory
> doesn't work. In other words, if you take a waveform and record it
> to tape, or LP, or convert it to digital and back again, all of the
> waveforms should look exactly like the original unless something is
> very wrong with the process.
Well, it DOESN'T. If what you say were correct,then one could use
four bits and sample at 32 KHz, and it would still be a perfect
replica to 15 KHz, but I can assure you that such a digital
representation is even further from being an exact replica of the
original waveform than is current CD. The process isn't flawed, as I
said above, but the chosen standard is simply insuffucient in the
same way that a 4-bit or an 8-bit system is insufficient. If CD had
32-bits, used logarthmic quantization rather than linear and had a
192 KHz sampling rate, I suspect that I would never have to listen to
LPs again (assuming that everything I want became available on this
idealized new format, that is). The current CD standards were chosen
because in the late seventies, 16-bit linear and 44.1KHz was WHAT
THEY COULD DO. If you read some of the papers publised by the Philips
people about the CD standard, even they realized that the system was
not good enough for music and was intended only as a stop-gap system
until something better could be implemented.
> So we never listen to
> "digital" as such, only to analogue, but without the noise,
> distortion, and freq response variations associated with LP or tape.
> So I don't see how you could get "more" out of listening to
> "analogue" because the advantages are all in one direction, that of
> the digital storage media.
>
> Does that make any sense?
It might if the conversion standards were adequate to the task, my
opinion is that they are not. I.E., digital PER SE isn't bad, but the
current 16-bit/44.1KHz IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR MUSIC (IMHO).
Michael R. Clements
> In other words,
> if you take a waveform and record it to tape, or LP, or convert it
> to digital and back again, all of the waveforms should look exactly
> like the original unless something is very wrong with the process.
> So we never listen to "digital" as such, only to analogue, but
> without the noise, distortion, and freq response variations
> associated with LP or tape. So I don't see how you could get "more"
> out of listening to "analogue" because the advantages are all in
> one direction, that of the digital storage media.
>
> Does that make any sense?
>
> Gary Eickmeier
It does make sense. However, distortion can be introduced when
transforming back and forth between the digital and analog domain.
For example, the filters that are essential to cut out frequencies
above the Nyquist limit can introduce distortion below their
passband. Also, the clock signal of the D/A chip can leak into the
audio output. I'm not saying that these are the cause of the issues
that people raise with digital audio. I'm just pointing out that the
process is not as easy as it sounds. Both analog and digital
reproduction have mathematical and engineering limits that present
difficult problems to solve. Neither is perfect, but both can provide
resolution high enough that the limits are in the way the music is
recorded -- the room, the microphones and their placement, etc.
Howard Ferstler
>
> In article <9dq1uc$hi$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>, Harry Lavo says...
> >
> >Well, I'm glad we can agree on that, at least! :-)
> >
> >I see two problems with this line of reasoning, Dick:
> >
> >1) You continue to avoid the fact that these "distortions" may in fact make
> >two channel LP a more reasonable facimilie of live mustic than the so-called
> >"undistorted" cd sound you favor. And if large numbers of people agree with
> >this in direct comparison...then this defines musical accuracy even if it
> >doesn't define electrical accuracy.
> Yes, my visual analogy for this situation is: suppose we transmit a fax
> by a process that blurs it considerably. Then we apply a second process:
> edge sharpening. The second process is additional distortion yet might
> make the words clearer.
But the CD does not blur the original nearly as much as the
LP does. After all, the LP has easily verifiable problems
(surface noise, wow, flutter, inner-groove distortion,
wear-and-tear related distortions), whereas the so-called
distortions you claim the CD has are not pinpointable at all
as being digitally related. Rather, they are the result of a
more accurate reproduction of the original master.
So, why not start with the cleaner original signal that we
get with the CD and then use home-based signal processors
(surround-sound synthesizers, special speakers or speaker
placements) to carefully add euphonic colorations to each
program, as required?
> The analogy to music is that the relationships among sound events is the
> "message" of the music, and perhaps some type of distortion acts to enhance
> the audibility of these relationships.
This involves preference, and nothing more. I prefer the
sound of the CD; you prefer the LP. OK, that is about all
that can be said, with the exception that the LP exhibits
clearly defined negative artifacts (surface noise, wow,
flutter, inner-groove distortion) that can be easily
demonstrated. The supposed negative artifacts the CD has are
not quite to easy to demonstrate, I think, and usually if
they can be pointed out it will validate the ability of the
CD to subjectively reproduce everything, including the
negative artifacts, that was on the master tape.
> It might be that analog has some detrimental distortion and also this
> "enhancing" type of distortion, and the one distortion takes away while
> the other gives back some, but not quite as much as was taken away.
This is speculation, and reduces down to preference. That is
it. You prefer the euphonic colorations of the LP and are
not bothered by problems with surface noise, wow, flutter,
etc. I do not prefer the euphonic colorations, and am
severely annoyed by the negative artifacts I hear with the
LP. Preference is all we can go by, unless we want to start
comparing measurements and genuinely verifiable claims - and
in that case the CD mops up the floor with the LP.
Howard Ferstler
jim andrews
> I see two problems with this line of reasoning, Dick:
>
> 1) You continue to avoid the fact that these "distortions" may in
> fact make two channel LP a more reasonable facimilie of live mustic
> than the so-called "undistorted" cd sound you favor.
I don't have a big problem with this statement, at least
if you are claiming it's true *for some people*. What I
find interesting is that many folks seem to be missing what
may be a far more salient point, and that would be that
there appears to be some pretty good evidence here that
the whole damn recording + reproduction process is flawed.
There can be no more of an amateur psychologist than me.
However, I would at least *like* to believe that both sides
in this debate would agree on the ultimate goal, that being
to reproduce the sound of live music in one's living room.
I would also like to believe that both sides would recognize
the dismal job either LP or CD do in this regard, if they
could actually *hear* the live music going on for comparison.
(I own a recording studio, and although I'm certainly no
George Massenberg, I can tell that there is a staggering
difference between my "pretty good" digital recordings and
the live music going on in the tracking room.) So, if at
least a significant subset of those who care think LP gets
"closer to the sound of live music", and it is verifiable
that an LP playback chain has more distortions and a higher
level of those distortions than a CD playback chain, IF WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT DEVIATION FROM THE ORIGINAL SIGNAL COMING
OUT OF THE MICROPHONES, then it seems to me we either have a
subset that's fooling itself or that some or all of the
process is screwed up. I don't know what to blame -- it
could be the microphone choices, the number of microphones
used, the electronics that in turn amplify the microphone
signals, or quite likely a two-channel archival and delivery
format, but something ain't working too well, AND IT ISN'T
THE DIGITAL STORAGE FORMAT THAT'S THE PROBLEM. CD is in
fact storing the information quite nicely -- it just may be
storing the wrong (or insufficient) information.
jim andrews
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
>1) You continue to avoid the fact that these "distortions" may in fact make
>two channel LP a more reasonable facimilie of live mustic than the so-called
>"undistorted" cd sound you favor.
TO SOME PEOPLE this is true, Harry.
> And if large numbers of people agree with
>this in direct comparison...
No, "large numbers" is not a good choice of words here. "Small
Minority" might even be too strong a statement.
>then this defines musical accuracy even if it
>doesn't define electrical accuracy.
Harry, you're deifying your preference here. What is "accurate"
to you in the preference domain is simply NOT accurate to someone
else.
>You continue to describe choice as "preference";
Because that's what it is, plain and simple.
>when it comes to musical accuracy, there is no other way to
>define it.
"Musical accuracy" is a misnomer to start with, accuracy is an
analytic term, and music is evaluated by preference.
>2) You continue to ignore the fact that CD reproduction has its own set of
>limitations and distortions which many people find interfere to one degree
>or another with their ability to "get into" the music. If that ain't
>distortion, then I don't know what is.
AND JUST WHAT ARE THOSE? Bandwidth limiting and a very VERY low,
unobtrusive noise floor. Are you proposing more?
>Of perhaps its a combination of euphonic distortions and the absence of
>digital artifacts that many people find prevent them from "getting into the
>music" emotionally. Or maybe just the latter perhaps?
WHAT digital artifacts?
The onus here is on you to explain and demonstrate them, ANALYTICIALLY.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 2001, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>Even if a musical signal belongs to a finite dimensional space, I
>think your point about the norm affecting the relative closeness of
>points still applies.
What relevance has this? One can develop many kinds of norm, but
exactly why do they have meaning?
How does this relate to preference? (Hint: It doesn't for the
most part, if at all.)
Given that, why are you arguing with Dick P. about norms?
>But if my perception of closeness is
>based on the square of the difference in the x dimension plus the
>difference in the y dimension, and your perception of distance is the
>straight difference in the x dimension plus the square of the
>difference in the y dimension, then we will have different
>perceptions of their closeness to the origin.
But if, but if, but if! Yes, I realize you chose a fairly ridiculous
case for example, but "what if the moon were made of green cheese"
is all I see here.
>Of course at this point I see Dick or Stewart saying "the REAL
>distance is whatever, the OBJECTIVE difference is.."
Why, pray tell, do you keep building straw men. The LMS norm
is THE common, usually accepted distance metric. Dick is pointing
out that it has little if anything to do with preference, but that
it IS a good mathematical measure of ACCURACY, in the analytic
sense.
You can introduce all the ridiculous norms you want, but you'll
have to explain why you discount the LMS norm. When you suggest
that your perception obeys some other norm, you're going to have
to show me extensive evidence of your extensive testing of that
assertion.
"But if" simply doesn't cut it.
>But in audio,
>there is no real or objective standard for how music is perceived.
Oh, really? What is a DBT comparing two different bits of music,
using ABC/hr and asking for the "difference"? It's a real test,
it has real meaning, and it results in an objective measurement
of how the subjects percieve the music. (Note, this holds JUST as
well for different composition as it does for differently coded
or differently processed versions of the same performance!)
>There may be some objective measurements, but those don't necessarily
>correspond with how music is perceived by every listener.
Yes, Dick just pointed that out, so why are you going on like
he didn't say that?
>Some equipment measures very well and is also perceived to be
>accurate by some people. And that's fine. But that doesn't mean
>that everybody else "prefers distortion."
If I find that someone likes a given analytic inaccuracy,
then yes, they DO prefer distortion. Now that is not a
bad thing, understand, but your statement is simply absurd.
By the usual, well-selected, meaningful analytic measures,
a lot of people prefer distortion, btw, and there is
no reason to assume that this is a bad thing.
>I think that part of the problem is that Dick, Arny, and Stewart
>etc. don't trust people to distinguish between judgements of
>accuracy and judgements of preference.
Given the history of some of the people here, that's a very good
assumption to work on. We've seen a long history here of
people confusing "accuracy" in the analytic sense with their
preference.
>In other words, if some of us think recorder A sounds closer to live
>music as compared to recorder B, then I think a good starting
>assumption is that A is doing something better than B---that it is
>closer in one of the dimensions.
It's closer in your perception. You can't assume or propose anything
else without some analytic evidence. The literature is full of
examples of something "sounding closer" after some processing,
linear or not.
>Especially if those people who make
>the judgement are highly developed musicians.
Musicians judge music, not technology, in general. They may
decide that some technology sounds more musical (but they
don't tend to agree on WHAT, btw), but this again refers directly
back my previous paragraph.
Preference is preference. You can NOT go any farther than that
with preference. Preference does not imply accuracy, or even
desirability outside that individual.
LP's are a wonderful example here. It is indisputable that they
are analytically flawed, however some of those flaws do a good
job of making up for some of what we lose when we reduce soundfields
to two channels, and some people like that. The list of distortions,
etc, is not short, either, and the way that they act euphonically
at low levels is not in dispute, either.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>It is my theory at this point, that the analog process is better than the
>digital process, *on average*, at preserving the patterns in sound that
>I find meaningful.
It is indisputable which system (CD) preserves more "information",
in any sense.
The fact that LP's euphonic distortions create a good illusion is fine,
but your theory is either untestable (if based solely on your
instantaneous perception) or disproven (if based on the idea that
LP preserves the "patterns" better CD in an analytic sense).
Jay Beattie
<9dqeg6$hb$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>...
>emers...@yahoo.com wrote:
<snip>
>What do you think of Harry Pearson's standard of
"the absolute sound" - the
>sound of live, unamplified music in the original
acoustic space? That, of
>course, is not a measurement of any sort, but it
is a standard for what we
>are trying to reproduce.
That apparently is not the goal in the recording
industry either -- even the LP recording industry.
Just look at the latest Analog Corner -- a
direct-to-disc recording with six microphones on a
drum kit? Why put the snare and the tom-tom in
separate states? Emerson's comment about the
Yamaha and the Steinway is also telling since
retaining proper timbre with well-chosen
microphones hardly mitigates the fact that there
are so many microphones and that pianos are
usually rendered way too big and too close. There
is too much editorial comment in the recording
process for any recording to sound all that real,
especially in two channel.
Also, you guys must listen to some pretty bad CDs.
Try the RR recording of "Pictures at an
Exhibition" (sure, it's a war horse) on good
equipment. It does a good job of capturing
ambience, timbre and scale, and the perspective is
better than my usually seat at the symphony by
about $25 a ticket (and no coughing or cramped
seating). -- Jay Beattie.
emers...@yahoo.com
philalethist says...
>
>In article <9dpij...@news2.newsguy.com>, <emers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>In other words, if some of us think recorder A sounds closer to live
>>music as compared to recorder B, then I think a good starting
>>assumption is that A is doing something better than B---that it is
>>closer in one of the dimensions.
>
>It's closer in your perception. You can't assume or propose anything
>else without some analytic evidence. The literature is full of
>examples of something "sounding closer" after some processing,
>linear or not.
So could you give me some references? I mentioned from my first post
that I was interested in this.
>
>LP's are a wonderful example here. It is indisputable that they
>are analytically flawed, however some of those flaws do a good
>job of making up for some of what we lose when we reduce soundfields
>to two channels, and some people like that.
Can you elaborate? What distortion are you talking about? How
does it make up what we lose?
And: are you aware that every analog-phile I know prefers the sound
of a direct feed OVER an LP? How does this fit with the idea that
analog is preferred just for having euphonic distortions?
-Emerson
Harry Lavo
From: "jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist" <j...@research.att.com>
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: Question for digiphiles
> In article <9dq1uc$hi$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
> Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >1) You continue to avoid the fact that these "distortions" may in fact
make
> >two channel LP a more reasonable facimilie of live mustic than the
so-called
> >"undistorted" cd sound you favor.
>
> TO SOME PEOPLE this is true, Harry.
The problem is, JJ, we don't know to HOW many, since this kind of comparison
has not been done on a large scale.
>
> > And if large numbers of people agree with
> >this in direct comparison...
>
> No, "large numbers" is not a good choice of words here. "Small
> Minority" might even be too strong a statement.
I think you look past the word "if" here, JJ. I was postulating, not
declaring.
>
> >then this defines musical accuracy even if it
> >doesn't define electrical accuracy.
>
> Harry, you're deifying your preference here. What is "accurate"
> to you in the preference domain is simply NOT accurate to someone
> else.
I'm talking "preference" across a large number of people. And again, this
is the second part of a postulate, not a declaration.
>
> >You continue to describe choice as "preference";
>
> Because that's what it is, plain and simple.
>
You don't see a difference between "which of these two do you prefer?" and
"which of these, in your opinion, sounds more like live music....like the
musicians were here playing".
> >when it comes to musical accuracy, there is no other way to
> >define it.
>
> "Musical accuracy" is a misnomer to start with, accuracy is an
> analytic term, and music is evaluated by preference.
>
I take it then you are not a suscriber to "the abso!ute sound" magazine?
:-)
> >2) You continue to ignore the fact that CD reproduction has its own set
of
> >limitations and distortions which many people find interfere to one
degree
> >or another with their ability to "get into" the music. If that ain't
> >distortion, then I don't know what is.
>
> AND JUST WHAT ARE THOSE? Bandwidth limiting and a very VERY low,
> unobtrusive noise floor. Are you proposing more?
>
Read my other posts. Yes bandwidth limiting. And jitter, jitter, and more
jitter. And perhaps that very unobtrusive noise floor is more obtrusive
than we think when it contains digital artifacts that rarely occur in
nature.
> >Of perhaps its a combination of euphonic distortions and the absence of
> >digital artifacts that many people find prevent them from "getting into
the
> >music" emotionally. Or maybe just the latter perhaps?
>
> WHAT digital artifacts?
See above.
>
> The onus here is on you to explain and demonstrate them, ANALYTICIALLY.
>
No I think the onus is on me, and others who hear them, to try to describe
them and their effect on the pleasures of listening to recorded music, and
let the engineers figure out exactly what they are and how to minimize or
eliminate them. It was this kind of feedback from the audiophile press in
the mid- and late- '80's that helped focus the industry on jitter, and it
has a made a huge difference in the quality of CD sound. But some remnants
still exits. However, if we suggest we can still hear them or at least
perceive them as a "distancing" us emotionally from the music, we
"messengers" instead get attacked.
> Copyright j...@research.att.com 2001, all rights reserved, except
transmission
> by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included.
Any
> use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by
this
> article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically
prohibited.
Curmudgeonly yours, ;-)
Harry Lavo
Richard D Pierce
>two channel LP a more reasonable facimilie of live mustic than the so-called
>"undistorted" cd sound you favor.
Okay, Harry, let's stop right here, becasue you, in one
sentence, demonstrate what the problem is. It is YOUR problem,
so let's look at it.
First, I DID NOT avoid anything: indeed, I embraced exactly
the point you made.
Secondly, you state that I prefer "undistorted CD sound."
Harry, that's a lie. An outright untruth, and yet another
example of your rampant misrepresentation of my words.
1. I NEVER stated a preference for CD, did I?
(hint: no, I did not.)
2. I NEVER stated that CD was undistorted, did I?
(hint, no I did not.)
You have done this over and obver and over again, and I am
frankly tired of you painting a picture of me that simply does
not exist simply as your strawman to knock down, for what
reason, I do not care,
Please desist.
Harry Lavo
message news:9drtv...@news1.newsguy.com...
> In article <9dpij...@news2.newsguy.com>, <emers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Even if a musical signal belongs to a finite dimensional space, I
> >think your point about the norm affecting the relative closeness of
> >points still applies.
>
> What relevance has this? One can develop many kinds of norm, but
> exactly why do they have meaning?
>
> How does this relate to preference? (Hint: It doesn't for the
> most part, if at all.)
>
> Given that, why are you arguing with Dick P. about norms?
>
> >But if my perception of closeness is
> >based on the square of the difference in the x dimension plus the
> >difference in the y dimension, and your perception of distance is the
> >straight difference in the x dimension plus the square of the
> >difference in the y dimension, then we will have different
> >perceptions of their closeness to the origin.
>
> But if, but if, but if! Yes, I realize you chose a fairly ridiculous
> case for example, but "what if the moon were made of green cheese"
> is all I see here.
>
<snip>
JJ., you of all people I wouldn't have expected to miss his point,
much less deride him for it. He is talking about multidimensional
scaling and "fit"...in "x" dimensions. This is a standard
statistical practice nowadays. I used it 30 years ago in some
pioneering psychologically-oriented marketing research, working with
Professor Yoram Wind of the University of Pennsylavania. And he is
absolutely right.....you can have a perfect "fit" on two dimensions
and still miss the optimal point by a wide margin in such an
integration.
This was the point I was making last fall about my belief that the
brain uses such a multidimensional optimization model to determine
what "sounds real" and that it is even more sophisticated because it
can adjust the model dynamically to fit the circumstances and
perceived and remembered sound. For example, it adjusts its criteria
of what sounds "real" for sounds coming from another room versus
sounds coming from within the same room But of course, you already
know this, so why are you being so hard on him?
Harry
emers...@yahoo.com
philalethist says...
>
>In article <9dq21g$kc$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>, <emers...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>It is my theory at this point, that the analog process is better than the
>>digital process, *on average*, at preserving the patterns in sound that
>>I find meaningful.
>
>It is indisputable which system (CD) preserves more "information",
>in any sense.
>
>The fact that LP's euphonic distortions create a good illusion is fine,
>but your theory is either untestable (if based solely on your
>instantaneous perception) or disproven (if based on the idea that
>LP preserves the "patterns" better CD in an analytic sense).
How can you claim digital is better at preserving the relationships
if you don't even know what those relationships are?
And did you notice that a live feed is better than LP? How does that
fit with your theory?
-Emerson
emers...@yahoo.com
>>Especially if those people who make
>>the judgement are highly developed musicians.
>
>Musicians judge music, not technology, in general.
Something struck me as odd about this statement. I just figured it
out: the sound that comes out of technology IS music.
The fact that you can make this statement shows we have a very
different concept of audio reproduction. Most likely, your
research is good at informing you about audio reproduction
as you view it, but with this kind of deep paradigm division
between us I don't find your knowledge to be of much use to me.
-Emerson
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>And: are you aware that every analog-phile I know prefers the sound
>of a direct feed OVER an LP?
I don't believe that. I don't believe most analog-philes have HEARD
a direct feed.
>How does this fit with the idea that
>analog is preferred just for having euphonic distortions?
Since the issue has been reduced to testing a digital signal vs. a
direct feed, and the direct feed has not been distinguishable in a
good DBT, how do we deal with the contradiction you have introduced?
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>Since I like a live feed better than LP, it is also quite possible
>that I don't like the distortions of LP but just find them less
>damaging to the music than the distortions of a typical CD.
And, since people have compared a live feed to a digitized live
feed and failed to hear the difference in a well-constructed test,
I'd say that you have some work to do here.
Now, modern pop CD's are compressed to death, and even some classical
compressed more than reason would indicate (i.e. any), but that's
not a fault of digital.
The onus is on you, demonstrate the "distortions of a typical CD".
Explain how that relates to your prior argument about all digitized
material.
Arny Krueger
news:9dq1uc$hi$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
>
> 1) You continue to avoid the fact that these "distortions" may in
fact make
so-called
> "undistorted" cd sound you favor.
What is the more reasonable facsimile of a steak. A steak with salt
or a steak without salt?
The "salt" would be the so-called "euphonic distortions" that any
reasonable person knows that the LP process adds to music.
I think that's the essence of the question here.
I happen to have been raised on a very low salt diet, so to me, a
steak without salt tastes more like a steak to me.
I was raised on live music not recordings, and digital sounds more
like live music to me.
>And if large numbers of people agree with
> this in direct comparison...then this defines musical accuracy even
if it
> doesn't define electrical accuracy.
The numbers game belongs to digital. All LP sales amount to being
about 0.5% of CD sales, and that includes the "turntablist" market
which has nothing to do with high fidelity. Indeed, the "turntablist"
market has to do with systematically mechanically abusing vinyl
until it quickly becomes unplayable in the conventional sense.
>You continue to describe choice as
> "preference"; when it comes to musical accuracy, there is no other
way to
> define it.
I have a box over here labeled "LP process". I can hear its effects
on sound quality in a DBT quite easily. Some prefer it, but I don't.
I have a box over here labeled "CD process". It is difficult or
impossible to hear its effects on sound quality in a DBT. Just about
everybody prefers it, and that includes me.
>I have argued that since last fall; Emerson has put it very
> eloquently in another thread in the last 24 hours. There is no
objective
> measure of "musicality".
In order to justify their adherence to a technology that beyond a
doubt technically corrupts audio signals, a tiny noisy minority of
people, many of whom are actually of an age where serious losses of
hearing acuity are the rule, have seized on a word that has no
objective measure, and made it into the measure of the technology
they wish to adhere to and promote.
> You SURMISE people are hearing the "distortions"
> you have identified, and "PREFER" the sound of that distortion.
That the distortions in the vinyl process exist is an objective fact,
there can be no doubt.
That the distortions in the vinyl process are audible is an objective
fact, there can be no doubt.
That a certain tiny noisy minority of people prefer hearing those
distortions with their music seems to be an objective fact, about
which there can be no doubt.
> This may be
> true. Or they may be hearing another combination of
characteristics
> altogether, or reacting to the absence of digital artifacts.
It is well known that digital artifacts in good digital systems are
difficult or impossible to hear.
There is a listening challenge posted at
http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm involving
re-digitizing musical signals 20 times.
Now if you did the same 20 re-recordings using the best examples of
either of the well-known analog program storage technologies (LP or
tape) the results would be easy to identify, if not totally ruinous
to sound quality. IME music is pretty well ruined after being
re-recorded 10-12 times by analog means.
Yet, I have no reports of reliable detection of the audible effects
of this demonstration that involves re-digitizing musical signals 20
times.
>You don't know.
On the one hand I have something that causes clearly audible
degradation of sound quality, whether judged by ear or judged by
technical tests.
On the other hand I have something that causes little or no audible
degradation of sound quality, when judged by ear.
By significantly upgrading our measurement technology (by digital
means!), we can still measure the miniscule degradation caused by
good digital equipment.
Now what is it that I don't know?
> But if a significant portion of the population when exposed to the
> two side by side "prefer" one medium over another because it sounds
more
> like music (especially if that medium is "objectively inferior" on
the most
> commonly used measurements), then it is definitely worth taking
note
> of...scientifically...and exploring, rather than dismissing it as
"already
> known".
I don't think that 0.5% of the population is that significant,
particularly when our statistics can't differentiate between
audiophiles and turntablists.
> 2) You continue to ignore the fact that CD reproduction has its own
set of
> limitations and distortions which many people find interfere to one
degree
> or another with their ability to "get into" the music.
On the one hand we have anecdotes that generally don't stand up to
scientific scrutiny.
On the other hand we have the most robust scientific proof that we
can contrive in the world of audio technology.
Again, what is it that I don't know?
> If that ain't distortion, then I don't know what is.
It could easily be an illusion. It does have this interesting habit
of disappearing when placed under scientific scrutiny.
> > Why do YOU care why you like what you like?
> Because a thoughtful audiophile has a natural curiosity about why
he hears
> what he hears and prefers.
It looks like about 99.5% of all music lovers in the US have
abandoned buying new vinyl recordings. A big chunk of those who still
do buy vinyl, buy it to "scratch" it in dance clubs, not listen to
its innate beauty introspectively.
> And he doesn't like being told (when it may NOT
> be true) that it is only because "he (or she) prefers hearing
distortion"
> or he (or she) would otherwise prefer this wonderful, objectively
more
> accurate system called the 16 bit CD.
The world of science is a very harsh world. Science seems to care
very little about what we like being told.
> > Just do not claim that LP playback systems are free of
> > distortions. They absolutely ARE NOT!
> The argument has been that they may be judged more accurate to the
sound of
> live music, rather than that they are free of electrical
distortions.
Nobody but 0.5% of music lovers in the US seem to be demonstrating
that belief with their pocket books, and of that 0.5% a large
proportion aren't the least bit interested in sonic accuracy.
> And
> that comparison is always made vis a vis CD playback systems, which
also have
> their distortions.
An old technology whose distortions remain difficult or impossible
for just about any adult music lover to reliably hear.
> > And if you prefer an LP playback systems, you prefer it along
> > with, or even because of, its nonlinearity. It's, well,
> > distortion.
> Of perhaps its a combination of euphonic distortions and the
absence of
> digital artifacts that many people find prevent them from "getting
into the
> music" emotionally. Or maybe just the latter perhaps?
LPs are like buggy whips. For those people who prefer to ride in
buggys, buggy whips are still very real. Differences in the err,
stimulating properties of buggy whips are very important to that tiny
segment of our society that still ride around in horse-drawn buggies.
Just visit the Amish!
> > It's distortion is a technically verifiable, physical
> > fact. If you care to claim otherwise, be prepared to have to
> > meet a huge burden of proof.
> That music is different from sound and recognized and integrated by
the
> brain in some pretty primal ways, including emotional triggers, is
also
> scientific fact.
The facts are that good digital is audibly transparent, and that
99.5% of all recordings that are currently sold in the US are
digital.
>And it is an arena far removed from conventional
> electronic measurements and not at all thoroughly understood.
It seems to be understood well enough by the 99.5% or more of all
music lovers who DON't buy vinyl because they don't find it to be
advantageous to their love of music.
>If you care to claim otherwise, be prepared to have to meet a huge
burden of proof. :-)
The proof seems to be overwhelming and convincing in favor of digital
audio.
Howard Ferstler
>
> "Richard D Pierce" <world!DPi...@uunet.uu.net> wrote in message
> news:9dpik...@news2.newsguy.com...
> > Does that mean that those that prefer those "euphonic
> > distortions" are warped? Confused? Deluded? Deaf? Wrong?
> >
> > Absolutely not.
> Well, I'm glad we can agree on that, at least! :-)
>
> I see two problems with this line of reasoning, Dick:
>
> 1) You continue to avoid the fact that these "distortions" may in fact make
> two channel LP a more reasonable facimilie of live mustic than the so-called
> "undistorted" cd sound you favor.
I believe that the assorted phase and frequency-response
anomalies that the LP exhibits can result in a sort of
spacious, floaty effect out in front, at least with some
kinds of speakers, in some kinds of rooms, and at certain
listening positions. Some people equate this with greater
sonic realism. I do not, and I believe that most other
people who listen carefully do not, also.
Any limitations the more electrically accurate compact disc
might exhibit by comparison is a problem with the way the
engineer produced his master tapes. His problem is that
accuracy is his standard, and he gets that better with the
CD than he does with the LP, in spite of the ersatz
embellishments the LP delivers.
> And if large numbers of people agree with
> this in direct comparison...then this defines musical accuracy even if it
> doesn't define electrical accuracy.
I do not believe at all that "large numbers of people agree"
with what you say at all. If they did, the LP would be
cleaning the compact disc's clock, instead of the other way
around.
To be more up to date, the CD is not really cleaning the LP
record's clock. The LP record has been technologically and
economically obliterated by the CD. The clock-cleaning job
happened some time back. The battle is over and the
battlefield is not a national monument.
> You continue to describe choice as
> "preference"; when it comes to musical accuracy, there is no other way to
> define it. I have argued that since last fall; Emerson has put it very
> eloquently in another thread in the last 24 hours. There is no objective
> measure of "musicality".
No, there probably is not, although two things are clear, at
least to me. First, your opinion of "musicality" is no more
valid than the opinions of a lot of other people who prefer
the compact disc. Second, true, live-music "musicality"
requires more than two channels, which puts both the CD and
the LP into positions of inferiority, if we are talking
about the ability to better simulate a live-music
experience.
> You SURMISE people are hearing the "distortions"
> you have identified, and "PREFER" the sound of that distortion. This may be
> true. Or they may be hearing another combination of characteristics
> altogether, or reacting to the absence of digital artifacts.
What digital artifacts? It has been shown that the digital
signal that exists on the CD is much closer to the master
tape than what we get with the LP. So, if there are any
"artifacts" of any kind that are audible, they belong to the
LP and not the CD. Think of surface noise, wow, flutter,
etc. Those are artifacts that you can sink your teeth into.
> You don't
> know. But if a significant portion of the population when exposed to the
> two side by side "prefer" one medium over another because it sounds more
> like music (especially if that medium is "objectively inferior" on the most
> commonly used measurements), then it is definitely worth taking note
> of...scientifically...and exploring, rather than dismissing it as "already
> known".
You say "significant portion of the population." What is
significant in the context of record sales and music
appreciation? Certainly, if we are talking about total
sales, the LP and its supporters are anything but
significant. (This tends to make me wonder why this debate
is taking place at all.) And if we are talking about clearly
audible negative artifacts (continuous surface noise, more
obnoxious surface defects like pops and ticks, distortion
during loud passages, distortion on the inner grooves,
limited deep-bass response, wow, and flutter), the LP is
easily and demonstrably inferior to the CD. Indeed, the only
thing you can say in favor of the LP is that it ads euphonic
colorations that some people think sound more realistic than
the clearly evident, cleaner sound we get from the CD.
However, a large body of people would disagree about the
benefits of those colorations.
> 2) You continue to ignore the fact that CD reproduction has its own set of
> limitations and distortions which many people find interfere to one degree
> or another with their ability to "get into" the music.
You are saying that less distortion and fewer negative
artifacts are some kind of limitation?
> If that ain't
> distortion, then I don't know what is.
Reality has been turned on its head: less distortion has
suddenly become more distortion.
> > Why do YOU care why you like what you like?
> Because a thoughtful audiophile has a natural curiousity about why he hears
> what he hears and prefers. And he doesn't like being told (when it may NOT
> be true)
Even if it is true? Note that nobody here (at least not me)
is denying that certain euphonic colorations might at times
be pleasant to experience. Heck, I add that kind of stuff in
all the time when I listen to two-channel material, although
I do so by synthesizing a center and surround channels.
However, the fact is that the CD does a better job of
reproducing the original master than the LP can. That gives
the user a better starting point than what he would get with
the LP, which applies its unique brand of euphonic
colorations continually, and with no way to adjust the
effect.
> > Just do not claim that LP playback systems are free of
> > distortions. They absolutely ARE NOT!
> The argument has been that they may be judged more accurate to the sound of
> live music, rather than that they are free of electrical distortions.
Well, there are those out there for whom the CD is a much
better reproducer of live music than the LP, and I am not
just talking about teenagers who purchase CDs because they
are easy to play around with. In my opinion, properly done
compact discs, mastered by first-class engineers, do a
considerably better job of simulating the frontal soundstage
than the LP. Remember, if you copy the output of a CD to an
LP (by means of the cutting lathe), the LP copy will not
sound like the CD. It will add those euphonic colorations
that supposedly enhance your sense of playback realism.
However, if you make a CD-R copy of an LP, the CD-R will
sound the same as the LP. The CD can then generate those
euphonic colorations, too, and the copy will even include
the surface noise, wow and flutter, and assorted other
distortions that are inherent with the LP.
> And
> that comparison is always mad vis a vis CD playback systems, which also have
> their distortions.
Distortions that are but a fraction of what we get with the
LP system.
> > And if you prefer an LP playback systems, you prefer it along
> > with, or even because of, its nonlinearity. It's, well,
> > distortion.
> Of perhaps its a combination of euphonic distortions and the absence of
> digital artifacts that many people find prevent them from "getting into the
> music" emotionally.
What digital artifacts? The system has very low levels of
distortion. Certainly, it has no surface noise, inner-groove
distortion, wow, flutter, etc. I consider those artifacts to
be much more obnoxious than anything the CD can deliver.
> > It's distortion is a technically verifiable, physical
> > fact. If you care to claim otherwise, be prepared to have to
> > meet a huge burden of proof.
> That music is different from sound and recognized and integrated by the
> brain in some pretty primal ways, including emotional triggers, is also
> scientific fact.
I do not think that symphonic music or classical music, or
even modern rock music is particularly primal. Our very
distant ancestors probably produced music by hammering on
hollow logs or blowing through reeds. Modern musical sounds
are way, way more formal and probably less primal by a long
shot.
More importantly, to say that the LP somehow clicks better
with our primal nature than the compact disc and works
better with our "emotional triggers" is certainly
speculative at best. There is no way to document that. It
may work for you, but it does not work for me and it does
not work for a lot of other people, either.
> And it is an arena far removed from conventional
> electronic measurements and not at all thoroughly understood.
It still boils down you preferences. You like the euphonic
colorations the LP delivers, and a lot of other people do
not, and they outnumber you by a wide margin. That is about
it.
Howard Ferstler
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>In article <9drtv...@news1.newsguy.com>, jj, curmudgeon and tiring
>philalethist says...
>>>Especially if those people who make
>>>the judgement are highly developed musicians.
>>Musicians judge music, not technology, in general.
>Something struck me as odd about this statement. I just figured it
>out: the sound that comes out of technology IS music.
Yes? And? They judge the whole result in the sense of music.
How is this odd? Technology, technique, the lot, all are judged
as MUSIC.
I think you're laying some of your own assumptions about researchers
in the area on me.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>if you don't even know what those relationships are?
I would suggest that you study human hearing and human hearing
sensitivity for a while, and then you will find that the
study of human hearing restricts such "relationships" to a
rather smallish set of considerations, from the waveform
point of view.
Please do not project your own limitations on me.
>And did you notice that a live feed is better than LP? How does that
>fit with your theory?
I don't accept that statement, having run live feed vs. digital
experiments myself, and to put it bluntly, having had the listener
not be able to recognize one from the other. Think about THAT
in terms of your proposal, please.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> >1) You continue to avoid the fact that these "distortions" may in fact
>make
>> >two channel LP a more reasonable facimilie of live mustic than the
>so-called
>> >"undistorted" cd sound you favor.
>> TO SOME PEOPLE this is true, Harry.
>The problem is, JJ, we don't know to HOW many, since this kind of comparison
>has not been done on a large scale.
Actually, we have a good idea when we look at how many people
use turntables and how many use CD players. Yes, there are other
factors involved, but we can get some idea of the percentages.
>> Harry, you're deifying your preference here. What is "accurate"
>> to you in the preference domain is simply NOT accurate to someone
>> else.
>I'm talking "preference" across a large number of people. And again, this
>is the second part of a postulate, not a declaration.
The numbers I'm aware of simply destroy your postulate, sorry.
>You don't see a difference between "which of these two do you prefer?" and
>"which of these, in your opinion, sounds more like live music....like the
>musicians were here playing".
They are both preference. There IS no difference in 2-channel sound.
Stereo 2-channel sound is so incredibly lossy that there is no chance
of being able to "sound like the original", so what we have is
differing illusions, and which one you like is PREFERENCE, only
preference, and nothing but preference. There's nothing bad about
preference, now, note.
>I take it then you are not a suscriber to "the abso!ute sound" magazine?
>:-)
Why?
>> AND JUST WHAT ARE THOSE? Bandwidth limiting and a very VERY low,
>> unobtrusive noise floor. Are you proposing more?
>Read my other posts. Yes bandwidth limiting. And jitter, jitter, and more
>jitter.
Get a cheap single-box player and you won't have any jitter to speak
of, of course, you'll have rotten output analog electronics :(
>And perhaps that very unobtrusive noise floor is more obtrusive
>than we think when it contains digital artifacts that rarely occur in
>nature.
WHAT are these "digital artifacts"? Do you know what dithering is?
Do you understand what it does?
>No I think the onus is on me, and others who hear them, to try to describe
>them and their effect on the pleasures of listening to recorded music, and
>let the engineers figure out exactly what they are and how to minimize or
>eliminate them.
What you refuse to admit when you say this is that engineers have,
a few times, added some of the LP distortions to CD's, and that
seems to "remove" at least some of the problems. Most of
this work is not, unfortunately, published, people don't seem to
regard it as a first-line research item.
>It was this kind of feedback from the audiophile press in
>the mid- and late- '80's that helped focus the industry on jitter, and it
>has a made a huge difference in the quality of CD sound.
I've seen this huge difference claimed. I've also run DBT's between
early and late CD players. I fail to find the huge difference, too,
in these tests, although I do find some really interesting analog
"oopses" in some of the newer CD players, especially some of the
"better" ones. Interesting, that.
--
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
>JJ., you of all people I wouldn't have expected to miss his point,
>much less deride him for it.
No, I didn't miss his point.
>He is talking about multidimensional scaling and "fit"...in "x" dimensions.
Yes, I know that. I've used INDSCAL, SINDSCAL, and a few other
beasts over the years, as well as worked informally with
Barbara McDermott to separate out kinds of distortion at least
once.
>This is a standard
>statistical practice nowadays.
And it has NO, repeat NO relevance to the subject he was addressing.
>This was the point I was making last fall about my belief that the
>brain uses such a multidimensional optimization model to determine
>what "sounds real" and that it is even more sophisticated because it
>can adjust the model dynamically to fit the circumstances and
>perceived and remembered sound.
HOWEVER the brain can only work on what the auditory system gets
INTO the brain. That's where this whole truckload loses its breaks
on the downhill, Harry.
The pressure at each eardrum is a single-valued function (in terms
of its practical effect) of pressure over time, Harry. When I start
evaluating things, I start there, and work from there. It's very
useful, limiting one's variables.
C. Leeds
> ...the LP exhibits
> clearly defined negative artifacts (surface noise, wow,
> flutter, inner-groove distortion) that can be easily
> demonstrated.
The problems you mention are not easily demonstrated provided you're
using good equipment that's been properly setup. Of course, you will
be able to detect some of these problems with test equipment. But the
things you mentioned will not be readily audible on today's best
playback gear.
Gary Eickmeier
> It might if the conversion standards were adequate to the task, my
> opinion is that they are not. I.E., digital PER SE isn't bad, but the
> current 16-bit/44.1KHz IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR MUSIC (IMHO).
George, disregarding for the moment the technical specs such as noise,
dynamic range, frequency response to beyond human hearing and zero wow and
flutter, there is a very simple test for whether the current standard is good
enough for music. It is called the double blind listening test - have you
heard of this? We could set up a comparison between a live mike feed and the
same feed through an A/D, D/A converter.
But this has, of course, been done many times by now, and the answer is no,
there is no audible difference with a properly functioning digital system.
My first experience with this was when I was stationed in England in the
early 80s, when CD was about to debut. John Atkinson, with the Hi Fi News
magazine, was putting on a demo of a high quality LP system compared with the
same system run through the A/D, D/A converters of the new Sony F-1 digital
recorder. No one could hear any difference when the digital loop was
inserted. I think the point of his demo was to allay the fears of the coming
digital age.
The next time I experienced such a comparison was at an AES convention. David
Clark was demo'ing a live mike feed of a piano (in another room) compared to
the same feed through a digital converter which could vary the number of bits
used. At 4, 5, or 6 bits there was no contest - mainly a noise floor was
audible with the digital inserted. At 7 bits it was dicey, and by 8 bits it
was nearly impossible to tell any difference. Ten bits and above, no
question, no difference was detectable.
I think digiphobia is a curable psychosis. You just need to convince
yourself, ONE TIME, that digital is "OK." I went through the same thing at
first. I had convinced myself that there was "something wrong" with the new
sound of CD. It just couldn't be this clean and be right. What is missing?
But one fine day I got hold of a test CD from Japan that had on the back of
it in the liner notes something about being 99.9% error free (a perfect
pressing, as it were). That note convinced me that this particular disc was
going to represent the system as it should be, in its purest form, so I would
judge it based on this and not all those inferior discs I owned. Well, it was
a terrific recording and it calmed my reservations about the whole system
from then on, and I began to really enjoy digital. I think what really
happened was there were some bad CDs put out in the early days, EQ's for LP
and just straight transferred. The recordings became better quite quickly,
not the system itself.
I think exactly the same phenomenon is happening to people who audition the
new SACD recordings and imagine, or convince themselves, that THIS is now
digital done right. From that point on they may be able to enjoy digital
sound.
Maybe you can deprogram yourself (whoever out there needs to) and begin to
really enjoy more recordings.
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
> One effect is a loss of "dimensionality" to the highs, along with an
> unnatural "sharpness" that just doesn't sound like real music.
What in the devil is "dimensionality" to the highs? This is an imagined fault.
Unnatural sharpness? Music certainly does sound sharp - it can be aggressive,
sharp, searing, sizzling, startling - even scary if you're up close to it.
Another quality that real music has that is difficult to reproduce is a certain
"hardness" to the transients due to the raw power of real instruments.
> The music
> sounds flat and "reproduced".
Those are qualities of your sound system, not the medium.
> When you apply a "fix" to reduce the jitter
> (I've experienced it both with "monster rings" within a one box system and
> by a "jitter-buster" inserted between a two-box system) this problem is
> greatly ameliorated or even eliminated.
You are correct to put "fix" in quotes, because the things you are doing are
nothing more than placebos. This shows that the "problems" you experience with
CD are mostly psychological.
> Another is a "grey scrim" that hovers over the reproduction, making the
> sound "mechanical" and "lifeless".
Come on Harry, this is pure poobah. I think you've been reading too many
magazines.
> May I hasten to add that I managed to get rid of both of these obvious
> effects in my system via careful attention to connection and de-jittering.
> Once eliminated, I found I could accept 16 bit CD as a musical medium with
> no obvious artifacts....just subtraction. In direct comparison to my analog
> system the digital system still just doesn't sound as "real" somehow. And
> not just to me, but to others as well. It is this "mystery" of how the
> human brain "hears" that we have focused on in this discussion.
Your problems with CD are imaginary, and your solutions are imaginary. If you
could put this nonsense behind you, you could enjoy your music so much more!
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
> - sounds are weird instead of beautiful---harpsichord sounds
> "squidgy," violins sound "edgy," brass sounds "splatty"
Yeah - there's a lot of this going around. Emerson, I don't know about
squidginess, but violins ARE edgy, and brass DOES sound splatty. Maybe you're just
not communicating what you mean here.
> - sense of distance between me and music, the same sort of loss you
> would get from placing the microphones far away (although the tonal
> balance usually does not suggest a far miking)
This sounds nonsensical to me - read: imaginary.
> - lack of startle factor --- when Rostropovich really nails a note in
> my EMI CD, I know darn well that in person I would practically jump
> backwards, whereas on CD I feel little --- startle factor on LP is
> very high in general (I don't have this record though)
This one is just the opposite for me, so I guess we cancel out.
>
>
> - lack of excitement on fast passages
>
> - missing beauty causes the music to fall down -- a lot of Mozart
> sounds boring or simplistic, trills sound stupid, etc. --- on records
> and in person Mozart proves to be very strong and solid
Missing beauty, right, there is a lot of that going around too. And stupid trills -
I could tell you stories.
>
> I don't have a large collection of recordings--- about 250 CD's and
> just starting to collect LP's this year, have 60 LP's so far---so it
> is possible that I've only heard bad CD's. However I have a couple
> dozen audiophile CD's from Sheffield, Reference Recordings,
> Performance Recordings, etc. and they have the sense of distance and
> the weird non-beautiful sounds, although nowhere near as bad as the
> typical CD.
>
> I'm not claiming that digital "has" to have these flaws. I've heard
> good reports from people I trust that digital is getting very good
> these days, at least when they play back digital on the same machine
> that recorded it. I wonder how good the CD's made from these tapes
> sound. If they really preserve the merits of a live feed, then I am
> sure I would like them as much as analog, or better. But none of my
> 250 CD's sound like a live feed.
And you should know, right? Come on, Emerson, what kind of nonsense is this?
I'm afraid the only cure for you is going to be the alleged "improvements" in the
new higher bit rate media such as SACD and DVD Audio. If you can convince yourself
that these new media are "all right" you might be able to once again enjoy your
music.
Gary Eickmeier
Harry Lavo
> In article <9dsims$i1$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>, <emers...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> >And: are you aware that every analog-phile I know prefers the sound
> >of a direct feed OVER an LP?
>
> I don't believe that. I don't believe most analog-philes have HEARD
> a direct feed.
While I don't know about "most", this "vinylphile" has heard plenty of live
feeds, and i do prefer them to any type of recorded/reproduced sound. I
have not heard an A/D,D/A conversion independent of media, which is what I
believe you are refering to below, but I have never heard a recorded and
monitored digital transcription of a live feed that I though sounded better
than that coming off a 1/2 track tape at 15 or 30ips. The very best sound
equally good but different. Many IME sound inferior.
>
> >How does this fit with the idea that
> >analog is preferred just for having euphonic distortions?
>
> Since the issue has been reduced to testing a digital signal vs. a
> direct feed, and the direct feed has not been distinguishable in a
> good DBT, how do we deal with the contradiction you have introduced?
Correct me if I am wrong, JJ, but I think you are referring to a direct
A/D,D/A conversion independent of medium. Emerson has been talking about
16/44 CD reproduction.
> --
> Copyright j...@research.att.com 2001, all rights reserved, except
transmission
> by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included.
Any
> use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by
this
> article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically
prohibited.
Harry Lavo
challenging JJ for curmudgeon leadship :-)
Harry Lavo
message news:9dumr...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> In article <9dstqm$f2$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
> Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >> >1) You continue to avoid the fact that these "distortions" may in
fact
> >make
> >> >two channel LP a more reasonable facimilie of live mustic than the
> >so-called
> >> >"undistorted" cd sound you favor.
>
> >> TO SOME PEOPLE this is true, Harry.
>
> >The problem is, JJ, we don't know to HOW many, since this kind of
comparison
> >has not been done on a large scale.
>
> Actually, we have a good idea when we look at how many people
> use turntables and how many use CD players. Yes, there are other
> factors involved, but we can get some idea of the percentages.
Sorry, JJ, we've been over this ground just recently. I'm talking about
putting people, many of whom have never questioned CD's superiority, many of
whom have never knowingly even heard a record played since their youth, if
even then, and all of whom buy CD's because they are the commercial media of
favor for the last 15 years. I'm talking about giving these people a
side-by-side demonstration of an LP and a CD played over a very fine system
in a very fine environment (as agreed to by folks on both sides of the LP vs
CD controversy).
Would LP win over CD. Based on my small sample and the antedotal tales told
by others, I believe so. But i will GUARANTEE YOU that the percentage
chosing LP will be far larger than the percentage of LP sales or the
percentage of turntables in active use vs CD players.
Using this argument, the ubiquitous cassette player must be the best
sounding medium of all.
>
> >> Harry, you're deifying your preference here. What is "accurate"
> >> to you in the preference domain is simply NOT accurate to someone
> >> else.
>
> >I'm talking "preference" across a large number of people. And again,
this
> >is the second part of a postulate, not a declaration.
>
> The numbers I'm aware of simply destroy your postulate, sorry.
See my comment above. The numbers you are aware of are irrelevant to my
argument.
>
> >You don't see a difference between "which of these two do you prefer?"
and
> >"which of these, in your opinion, sounds more like live music....like the
> >musicians were here playing".
>
> They are both preference. There IS no difference in 2-channel sound.
> Stereo 2-channel sound is so incredibly lossy that there is no chance
> of being able to "sound like the original", so what we have is
> differing illusions, and which one you like is PREFERENCE, only
> preference, and nothing but preference. There's nothing bad about
> preference, now, note.
>
And there is nothing wrong which asking "which sounds the most like real
music, is there?". Or are you suggesting that ordinary people simply don't
know what live music sounds like?
> >I take it then you are not a suscriber to "the abso!ute sound" magazine?
> >:-)
>
> Why?
>
If you are serious with this question, we are lost. If you are kidding, a
smiley face would be nice.
> >> AND JUST WHAT ARE THOSE? Bandwidth limiting and a very VERY low,
> >> unobtrusive noise floor. Are you proposing more?
>
> >Read my other posts. Yes bandwidth limiting. And jitter, jitter, and
more
> >jitter.
>
> Get a cheap single-box player and you won't have any jitter to speak
> of, of course, you'll have rotten output analog electronics :(
>
> >And perhaps that very unobtrusive noise floor is more obtrusive
> >than we think when it contains digital artifacts that rarely occur in
> >nature.
>
> WHAT are these "digital artifacts"? Do you know what dithering is?
> Do you understand what it does?
It reduces them, it doesn't eliminate them.
>
> >No I think the onus is on me, and others who hear them, to try to
describe
> >them and their effect on the pleasures of listening to recorded music,
and
> >let the engineers figure out exactly what they are and how to minimize or
> >eliminate them.
>
Hard for me to integrate unpublished research into my thinking.
> What you refuse to admit when you say this is that engineers have,
> a few times, added some of the LP distortions to CD's, and that
> seems to "remove" at least some of the problems. Most of
> this work is not, unfortunately, published, people don't seem to
> regard it as a first-line research item.
>
Why not, if it adds musical pleasure and reduces or removes the perception
of digital problems? Is it perhaps because electrical accuracy is valued
more than emotional response by these engineers?
> >It was this kind of feedback from the audiophile press in
> >the mid- and late- '80's that helped focus the industry on jitter, and
it
> >has a made a huge difference in the quality of CD sound.
>
> I've seen this huge difference claimed. I've also run DBT's between
> early and late CD players. I fail to find the huge difference, too,
> in these tests, although I do find some really interesting analog
> "oopses" in some of the newer CD players, especially some of the
> "better" ones. Interesting, that.
> --
Perhaps some of the engineers have wised up! :-)
> Copyright j...@research.att.com 2001, all rights reserved, except
transmission
> by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included.
Any
> use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by
this
> article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically
prohibited.
Harry Lavo
Harry Lavo
news:9duoqv$7jg$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> Harry Lavo wrote:
> >
> > "Richard D Pierce" <world!DPi...@uunet.uu.net> wrote in message
> > news:9dpik...@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> > > Does that mean that those that prefer those "euphonic
> > > distortions" are warped? Confused? Deluded? Deaf? Wrong?
> > >
> > > Absolutely not.
>
> > Well, I'm glad we can agree on that, at least! :-)
> >
> > I see two problems with this line of reasoning, Dick:
> >
> > 1) You continue to avoid the fact that these "distortions" may in fact
make
> > two channel LP a more reasonable facimilie of live mustic than the
so-called
> > "undistorted" cd sound you favor.
>
> I believe that the assorted phase and frequency-response
> anomalies that the LP exhibits can result in a sort of
> spacious, floaty effect out in front, at least with some
> kinds of speakers, in some kinds of rooms, and at certain
> listening positions. Some people equate this with greater
> sonic realism. I do not, and I believe that most other
> people who listen carefully do not, also.
>
Well, I hear it on all speakers, with all record playing sytems, and instead
of being "floaty", there is a general sense of dimensionality and
palpability to the instruments and voices that make them sound more real.
> Any limitations the more electrically accurate compact disc
> might exhibit by comparison is a problem with the way the
> engineer produced his master tapes. His problem is that
> accuracy is his standard, and he gets that better with the
> CD than he does with the LP, in spite of the ersatz
> embellishments the LP delivers.
>
Well, I've hear "hardness" and "greyness" in enough studios and with enough
different engineers and equipment to suggest that it lies more in the
implementation and use of the technology at the production level. But that
doesn't make it any less real when it comes to interfering with the music.
And it takes a damn good cd player or a damn good anti-jitter device to
reduce it to manageable levels after the fact.
> > And if large numbers of people agree with
> > this in direct comparison...then this defines musical accuracy even if
it
> > doesn't define electrical accuracy.
>
> I do not believe at all that "large numbers of people agree"
> with what you say at all. If they did, the LP would be
> cleaning the compact disc's clock, instead of the other way
> around.
Again, I said "if" in the context of a proposed approach to determining
musical accuracy, so the whole argument is irrelevant.
>
> To be more up to date, the CD is not really cleaning the LP
> record's clock. The LP record has been technologically and
> economically obliterated by the CD. The clock-cleaning job
> happened some time back. The battle is over and the
> battlefield is not a national monument.
>
The commercial battle, not the issue of which sounds most real.
> > You continue to describe choice as
> > "preference"; when it comes to musical accuracy, there is no other way
to
> > define it. I have argued that since last fall; Emerson has put it very
> > eloquently in another thread in the last 24 hours. There is no
objective
> > measure of "musicality".
>
> No, there probably is not, although two things are clear, at
> least to me. First, your opinion of "musicality" is no more
> valid than the opinions of a lot of other people who prefer
> the compact disc. Second, true, live-music "musicality"
> requires more than two channels, which puts both the CD and
> the LP into positions of inferiority, if we are talking
> about the ability to better simulate a live-music
> experience.
>
On this we agree....that's why I proposed a test among lots of people in a
good listening environment, to allow all the elements to generate the best
possible approximation. The question is, remember, which medium....LP or
CD...both inherently flawed and two channel..do the best job of reproducing
live music with "musical accuracy".
> > You SURMISE people are hearing the "distortions"
> > you have identified, and "PREFER" the sound of that distortion. This
may be
> > true. Or they may be hearing another combination of characteristics
> > altogether, or reacting to the absence of digital artifacts.
>
> What digital artifacts? It has been shown that the digital
> signal that exists on the CD is much closer to the master
> tape than what we get with the LP. So, if there are any
> "artifacts" of any kind that are audible, they belong to the
> LP and not the CD. Think of surface noise, wow, flutter,
> etc. Those are artifacts that you can sink your teeth into.
>
Well Howard, just as vinyl noise, wow, and flutter seem to drive you crazy,
jitter and high-frequency hardness and lack of dimensionality seem to drive
others of us crazy. But obviously they don't bother you, or you simply
don't hear them.
Record and CD sales have absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue.
> > 2) You continue to ignore the fact that CD reproduction has its own set
of
> > limitations and distortions which many people find interfere to one
degree
> > or another with their ability to "get into" the music.
>
> You are saying that less distortion and fewer negative
> artifacts are some kind of limitation?
>
> > If that ain't
> > distortion, then I don't know what is.
>
> Reality has been turned on its head: less distortion has
> suddenly become more distortion.
>
Depends on how the distortion affects people, now, doesn't it. Would you
rather take lots of caffein, or a little arsenic?
> > > Why do YOU care why you like what you like?
>
> > Because a thoughtful audiophile has a natural curiousity about why he
hears
> > what he hears and prefers. And he doesn't like being told (when it may
NOT
> > be true)
>
> Even if it is true? Note that nobody here (at least not me)
> is denying that certain euphonic colorations might at times
> be pleasant to experience. Heck, I add that kind of stuff in
> all the time when I listen to two-channel material, although
> I do so by synthesizing a center and surround channels.
> However, the fact is that the CD does a better job of
> reproducing the original master than the LP can. That gives
> the user a better starting point than what he would get with
> the LP, which applies its unique brand of euphonic
> colorations continually, and with no way to adjust the
> effect.
>
You missed my point...your ASSUMPTION is that it is true. Your ASSUMPTION
is that the reason we think it sounds more like real music is the
distortion. And nothing positive inherent in the medium, such as LACK of
digital artifacts. As Emerson points out, if this were true then we would
prefer the LP over a line feed. And we don't.
> > > Just do not claim that LP playback systems are free of
> > > distortions. They absolutely ARE NOT!
>
> > The argument has been that they may be judged more accurate to the sound
of
> > live music, rather than that they are free of electrical distortions.
>
> Well, there are those out there for whom the CD is a much
> better reproducer of live music than the LP, and I am not
> just talking about teenagers who purchase CDs because they
> are easy to play around with. In my opinion, properly done
> compact discs, mastered by first-class engineers, do a
> considerably better job of simulating the frontal soundstage
> than the LP. Remember, if you copy the output of a CD to an
> LP (by means of the cutting lathe), the LP copy will not
> sound like the CD. It will add those euphonic colorations
> that supposedly enhance your sense of playback realism.
> However, if you make a CD-R copy of an LP, the CD-R will
> sound the same as the LP. The CD can then generate those
> euphonic colorations, too, and the copy will even include
> the surface noise, wow and flutter, and assorted other
> distortions that are inherent with the LP.
>
Irrelevant on first generation pressings of both.
> > And
> > that comparison is always mad vis a vis CD playback systems, which also
have
> > their distortions.
>
> Distortions that are but a fraction of what we get with the
> LP system.
>
Arsenic, then? :-)
> > > And if you prefer an LP playback systems, you prefer it along
> > > with, or even because of, its nonlinearity. It's, well,
> > > distortion.
>
> > Of perhaps its a combination of euphonic distortions and the absence of
> > digital artifacts that many people find prevent them from "getting into
the
> > music" emotionally.
>
> What digital artifacts? The system has very low levels of
> distortion. Certainly, it has no surface noise, inner-groove
> distortion, wow, flutter, etc. I consider those artifacts to
> be much more obnoxious than anything the CD can deliver.
>
First you tell us they don't exist. Then when we tell you we hear them, you
tell us they don't exist. Then when we still claim we hear them, you tell
us we can't becuase they are too low to hear. Who determines how low is too
low to hear?
> > > It's distortion is a technically verifiable, physical
> > > fact. If you care to claim otherwise, be prepared to have to
> > > meet a huge burden of proof.
>
> > That music is different from sound and recognized and integrated by the
> > brain in some pretty primal ways, including emotional triggers, is also
> > scientific fact.
>
> I do not think that symphonic music or classical music, or
> even modern rock music is particularly primal. Our very
> distant ancestors probably produced music by hammering on
> hollow logs or blowing through reeds. Modern musical sounds
> are way, way more formal and probably less primal by a long
> shot.
>
> More importantly, to say that the LP somehow clicks better
> with our primal nature than the compact disc and works
> better with our "emotional triggers" is certainly
> speculative at best. There is no way to document that. It
> may work for you, but it does not work for me and it does
> not work for a lot of other people, either.
>
Speculative, yes, of course at this stage. But consistent with the
direction that brain research is headed in. And BTW, your premise that
modern music is any less primal is not born out by some interesting work
being done on the brain, as reported in the NYT magazine last year (sorry,
don't have the specific reference handy).
> > And it is an arena far removed from conventional
> > electronic measurements and not at all thoroughly understood.
>
See above.
> It still boils down you preferences. You like the euphonic
> colorations the LP delivers, and a lot of other people do
> not, and they outnumber you by a wide margin. That is about
> it.
>
> Howard Ferstler
>
Glad to see I've really convinced you, Howard. :-)
Harry Lavo
Harry Lavo
news:9duopr$7ii$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> "Harry Lavo" <harry...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:9dq1uc$hi$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> >
> > 1) You continue to avoid the fact that these "distortions" may in
> fact make
> > two channel LP a more reasonable facsimile of live music than the
> so-called
> > "undistorted" cd sound you favor.
>
> What is the more reasonable facsimile of a steak. A steak with salt
> or a steak without salt?
>
> The "salt" would be the so-called "euphonic distortions" that any
> reasonable person knows that the LP process adds to music.
>
> I think that's the essence of the question here.
>
> I happen to have been raised on a very low salt diet, so to me, a
> steak without salt tastes more like a steak to me.
>
> I was raised on live music not recordings, and digital sounds more
> like live music to me.
>
I would make the comparison to a prime steak, properly done. Then which
would taste more like that steak, a prime steak properly done with a little
salt and pepper added, or a slightly dried and overcooked version of that
excellent prime steak.
> >And if large numbers of people agree with
> > this in direct comparison...then this defines musical accuracy even
> if it
> > doesn't define electrical accuracy.
>
> The numbers game belongs to digital. All LP sales amount to being
> about 0.5% of CD sales, and that includes the "turntablist" market
> which has nothing to do with high fidelity. Indeed, the "turntablist"
> market has to do with systematically mechanically abusing vinyl
> until it quickly becomes unplayable in the conventional sense.
I simply postulated "if" as part of my proposed approach to determining
musical accuracy. I said "for example", I didn't suggest marketplace
numbers. We've gone over before why these aren't valid...and marketplace
numbers have NOTHiNG to do with my proposed test. See my reply to JJ
elsewhere.
>
> >You continue to describe choice as
> > "preference"; when it comes to musical accuracy, there is no other
> way to
> > define it.
>
> I have a box over here labeled "LP process". I can hear its effects
> on sound quality in a DBT quite easily. Some prefer it, but I don't.
>
> I have a box over here labeled "CD process". It is difficult or
> impossible to hear its effects on sound quality in a DBT. Just about
> everybody prefers it, and that includes me.
This is simply an assertion, Arnie, not a fact.
>
> >I have argued that since last fall; Emerson has put it very
> > eloquently in another thread in the last 24 hours. There is no
> objective
> > measure of "musicality".
>
> In order to justify their adherence to a technology that beyond a
> doubt technically corrupts audio signals, a tiny noisy minority of
> people, many of whom are actually of an age where serious losses of
> hearing acuity are the rule, have seized on a word that has no
> objective measure, and made it into the measure of the technology
> they wish to adhere to and promote.
>
There is no objective measure as yet because we don't know how the human
brain works as yet. But we can measure it across large numbers of people as
I have proposed, empirically. Why do the proponents of double-blind testing
have nothing to say at all about my proposal?
> > You SURMISE people are hearing the "distortions"
> > you have identified, and "PREFER" the sound of that distortion.
>
> That the distortions in the vinyl process exist is an objective fact,
> there can be no doubt.
>
> That the distortions in the vinyl process are audible is an objective
> fact, there can be no doubt.
>
> That a certain tiny noisy minority of people prefer hearing those
> distortions with their music seems to be an objective fact, about
> which there can be no doubt.
And whether the larger "silent" majority might also feel they coexist with
more accurate sounding reproduction is as yet unknown.
>
> > This may be
> > true. Or they may be hearing another combination of
> characteristics
> > altogether, or reacting to the absence of digital artifacts.
>
> It is well known that digital artifacts in good digital systems are
> difficult or impossible to hear.
Except to all the people who hear them get in the way of their musical
enjoyment!
>
> There is a listening challenge posted at
> http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm involving
> re-digitizing musical signals 20 times.
>
> Now if you did the same 20 re-recordings using the best examples of
> either of the well-known analog program storage technologies (LP or
> tape) the results would be easy to identify, if not totally ruinous
> to sound quality. IME music is pretty well ruined after being
> re-recorded 10-12 times by analog means.
>
This is totally irrelevant as to whether commercial records or cd's sound
better.
> Yet, I have no reports of reliable detection of the audible effects
> of this demonstration that involves re-digitizing musical signals 20
> times.
>
> >You don't know.
>
> On the one hand I have something that causes clearly audible
> degradation of sound quality, whether judged by ear or judged by
> technical tests.
>
> On the other hand I have something that causes little or no audible
> degradation of sound quality, when judged by ear.
>
> By significantly upgrading our measurement technology (by digital
> means!), we can still measure the miniscule degradation caused by
> good digital equipment.
>
> Now what is it that I don't know?
>
You don't know if ANY of this makes CD the medium best thought to reproduce
music when put to a side-by-side test among large groups of people.
> > But if a significant portion of the population when exposed to the
> > two side by side "prefer" one medium over another because it sounds
> more
> > like music (especially if that medium is "objectively inferior" on
> the most
> > commonly used measurements), then it is definitely worth taking
> note
> > of...scientifically...and exploring, rather than dismissing it as
> "already
> > known".
>
> I don't think that 0.5% of the population is that significant,
> particularly when our statistics can't differentiate between
> audiophiles and turntablists.
>
I guess some of us just prefer our "commercial" strawman to addressing the
proposed test I have outlined.
> > 2) You continue to ignore the fact that CD reproduction has its own
> set of
> > limitations and distortions which many people find interfere to one
> degree
> > or another with their ability to "get into" the music.
>
> On the one hand we have anecdotes that generally don't stand up to
> scientific scrutiny.
>
Basically, because they have not yet been reproduced on a larger scale.
Because nobody has tried. But there have been lots of informal small scale
trials, and they are not in cd's favor.
> On the other hand we have the most robust scientific proof that we
> can contrive in the world of audio technology.
>
> Again, what is it that I don't know?
>
When to give up the commercial straw man argument? :-}
> > If that ain't distortion, then I don't know what is.
>
> It could easily be an illusion. It does have this interesting habit
> of disappearing when placed under scientific scrutiny.
Could be, or could be real and the environment for scientif scrutiny hostile
to determining whether it is or isn't.
>
> > > Why do YOU care why you like what you like?
>
> > Because a thoughtful audiophile has a natural curiosity about why
> he hears
> > what he hears and prefers.
>
> It looks like about 99.5% of all music lovers in the US have
> abandoned buying new vinyl recordings. A big chunk of those who still
> do buy vinyl, buy it to "scratch" it in dance clubs, not listen to
> its innate beauty introspectively.
>
Do I hear the same refrain?
> > And he doesn't like being told (when it may NOT
> > be true) that it is only because "he (or she) prefers hearing
> distortion"
> > or he (or she) would otherwise prefer this wonderful, objectively
> more
> > accurate system called the 16 bit CD.
>
> The world of science is a very harsh world. Science seems to care
> very little about what we like being told.
>
Yup, like CD just doesn't sound as good as it should!
> > > Just do not claim that LP playback systems are free of
> > > distortions. They absolutely ARE NOT!
>
> > The argument has been that they may be judged more accurate to the
> sound of
> > live music, rather than that they are free of electrical
> distortions.
>
> Nobody but 0.5% of music lovers in the US seem to be demonstrating
> that belief with their pocket books, and of that 0.5% a large
> proportion aren't the least bit interested in sonic accuracy.
>
Do you ever give up?
> > And
> > that comparison is always made vis a vis CD playback systems, which
> also have
> > their distortions.
>
> An old technology whose distortions remain difficult or impossible
> for just about any adult music lover to reliably hear.
>
Very easy to assert if you simply ignore the evidence to the contrary. Some
science!
> > > And if you prefer an LP playback systems, you prefer it along
> > > with, or even because of, its nonlinearity. It's, well,
> > > distortion.
>
> > Of perhaps its a combination of euphonic distortions and the
> absence of
> > digital artifacts that many people find prevent them from "getting
> into the
> > music" emotionally. Or maybe just the latter perhaps?
>
> LPs are like buggy whips. For those people who prefer to ride in
> buggys, buggy whips are still very real. Differences in the err,
> stimulating properties of buggy whips are very important to that tiny
> segment of our society that still ride around in horse-drawn buggies.
> Just visit the Amish!
The Amish live that lifestyle because they believe in it, even when it is
unpopular and rediculed. I do see a parallel here. You are asserting that
big, faster two ton automobiles (that also use irreplaceable natural
resources and pollute the environment) are somehow superior to the horse and
buggy, because they are technologically more advanced. To go on a long
trip, maybe....but at the expense of a good public transportation system.
And to go for groceries, or to church....which is best and "truer" to
nature.....and your condescension towards them is palpable. As it is to us.
>
> > > It's distortion is a technically verifiable, physical
> > > fact. If you care to claim otherwise, be prepared to have to
> > > meet a huge burden of proof.
>
> > That music is different from sound and recognized and integrated by
> the
> > brain in some pretty primal ways, including emotional triggers, is
> also
> > scientific fact.
>
> The facts are that good digital is audibly transparent, and that
> 99.5% of all recordings that are currently sold in the US are
> digital.
>
And 250% of eskimos who live north of the Artic circle earn their livlihood
as fishermen. So what?
> >And it is an arena far removed from conventional
> > electronic measurements and not at all thoroughly understood.
>
> It seems to be understood well enough by the 99.5% or more of all
> music lovers who DON't buy vinyl because they don't find it to be
> advantageous to their love of music.
>
They don't buy vinyl because it has been commercially replaced by CD's, and
because many (most?) people in today's hurry up world place convenience
ahead of quality in most areas of their lives. For those of us arguing the
contrary, quality of musical reproduction is one of those areas where we are
unwilling to trade quality (as we see it) for convenience.
> >If you care to claim otherwise, be prepared to have to meet a huge
> burden of proof. :-)
>
> The proof seems to be overwhelming and convincing in favor of digital
> audio.
>
If it was, we wouldn't be having this spirited debate now, would we. :-)
If SACD takes hold, we probably will NOT be having this debate five years in
the future. Oh, I forgot, SACD is a PR stunt since there is nothing audibly
wrong with today's CD's anyhow.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> The numbers I'm aware of simply destroy your postulate, sorry.
>See my comment above. The numbers you are aware of are irrelevant to my
>argument.
LP has lost the battle, on the quality front as well as the convenience
front, for the general public.
All the denial you can foster won't change that.
>And there is nothing wrong which asking "which sounds the most like real
>music, is there?".
And, since neither is anything remotely like real music,
with a real soundfield, the result of your question is preference.
Your point?
>Or are you suggesting that ordinary people simply don't
>know what live music sounds like?
You're fond of misleading straw men. It suggests to me that what
you're doing is trying to waste my time, not engaging in a dialog.
>> >I take it then you are not a suscriber to "the abso!ute sound" magazine?
>> >:-)
>> Why?
>If you are serious with this question, we are lost.
Again, Why? The Absolute Sound (used as they mean it) can not
possible come from any 2-channel system, now or ever. What's
your problem?
>> WHAT are these "digital artifacts"? Do you know what dithering is?
>> Do you understand what it does?
>It reduces them, it doesn't eliminate them.
All of your assertion to the contrary, dither absolutely and
entirely, positively, and completely eliminates low level
"digital artifacts". The noise floor is an independent noise
floor, with no "artifacts".
You seem to have no idea what the technology does.
>> Most of
>> this work is not, unfortunately, published, people don't seem to
>> regard it as a first-line research item.
>>
>
>Why not, if it adds musical pleasure and reduces or removes the perception
>of digital problems?
It has nothing to do with your mythical "digital problems". Please
LEARN how "digital" works, and then argue that. It does add
musical pleasure, and I agree, why?
>Is it perhaps because electrical accuracy is valued
>more than emotional response by these engineers?
You were doing so well for a minute there, and then you had to
go be insulting again. The answer, as far as I can tell, is that
there isn't any substantial MARKET to convince the BUSINESS
TYPES to make the box.
One of the things you may not know is that either 2x or 4x
the sample rate is necessary in such a box, because out-of-band
distortions are created by nonlinear processes, and they will
do awful things if aliased. This costs money. Ooops.
>Perhaps some of the engineers have wised up! :-)
That is, in fact, my suspicion as well. I think some
people have quite conciously added distortion because
it sells. Nothing wrong with that.
--
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
>Correct me if I am wrong, JJ, but I think you are referring to a direct
>A/D,D/A conversion independent of medium. Emerson has been talking about
>16/44 CD reproduction.
With good, functioning equipment, the medium is irrelevant.
Arny Krueger
Mr. Lavo everytime we dilligently seek objective or reliable
subjective evidence of slight drying and overcooking, we find none.
The marketplace numbers I cite are based real RIAA statistics not
assertions. The fact that the CD process is far more sonically
transparent than the LP process is real, readily observable by menas
of both reliable listening tests and technical tests.
> > >I have argued that since last fall; Emerson has put it very
> > > eloquently in another thread in the last 24 hours. There is no
> > objective
> > > measure of "musicality".
>
> > In order to justify their adherence to a technology that beyond a
> > doubt technically corrupts audio signals, a tiny noisy minority
of
> > people, many of whom are actually of an age where serious losses
of
> > hearing acuity are the rule, have seized on a word that has no
> > objective measure, and made it into the measure of the technology
> > they wish to adhere to and promote.
> There is no objective measure as yet because we don't know how the
human
> brain works as yet.
We know a great deal about how the human sensory organs present
information to the brain.
> But we can measure it across large numbers of people as
> I have proposed, empirically. Why do the proponents of
double-blind testing
> have nothing to say at all about my proposal?
Mr. Lavo I simply don't know what your proposal is.
> > > You SURMISE people are hearing the "distortions"
> > > you have identified, and "PREFER" the sound of that distortion.
> > That the distortions in the vinyl process exist is an objective
fact,
> > there can be no doubt.
> > That the distortions in the vinyl process are audible is an
objective
> > fact, there can be no doubt.
> > That a certain tiny noisy minority of people prefer hearing those
> > distortions with their music seems to be an objective fact, about
> > which there can be no doubt.
> And whether the larger "silent" majority might also feel they
coexist with
> more accurate sounding reproduction is as yet unknown.
This claim seems to be demographically naive. The average age of US
residents is now said by the US government to be 35. CDs have been
sold in the US for 18 years. Therefore half of the US population
spent 17 years or more of their lives listening to vinyl.
We know that the US population generally avoids vinyl like the
plague, having driven sales of vinyl from 100% to 0.5% in about 12
years. Since the US population has only a tiny proportion of audio
engineers, we can safely assume that the decision to avoid vinyl was
based on consumer perceptions of suitability of prerecorded media for
the purpose of enjoying music: IOW sound quality.
> > > This may be
> > > true. Or they may be hearing another combination of
> > characteristics
> > > altogether, or reacting to the absence of digital artifacts.
> > It is well known that digital artifacts in good digital systems
are
> > difficult or impossible to hear.
> Except to all the people who hear them get in the way of their
musical enjoyment!
Most vinylphiles who try can't hear the effects of good quality
digital conversion.
>
> > There is a listening challenge posted at
> > http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm involving
> > re-digitizing musical signals 20 times.
> > Now if you did the same 20 re-recordings using the best examples
of
> > either of the well-known analog program storage technologies (LP
or
> > tape) the results would be easy to identify, if not totally
ruinous
> > to sound quality. IME music is pretty well ruined after being
> > re-recorded 10-12 times by analog means.
> This is totally irrelevant as to whether commercial records or cd's
sound better.
All by itself, yes. However it needs to be considered in conjunction
with the reslts of performing the same test with vinyl.
> > Yet, I have no reports of reliable detection of the audible
effects
> > of this demonstration that involves re-digitizing musical signals
20
> > times.
>
> > >You don't know.
> > On the one hand I have something that causes clearly audible
> > degradation of sound quality, whether judged by ear or judged by
> > technical tests.
> > On the other hand I have something that causes little or no
audible
> > degradation of sound quality, when judged by ear.
>
> > By significantly upgrading our measurement technology (by digital
> > means!), we can still measure the miniscule degradation caused by
> > good digital equipment.
> > Now what is it that I don't know?
> You don't know if ANY of this makes CD the medium best thought to
reproduce
> music when put to a side-by-side test among large groups of people.
Mr. Lavo have you heard the consequences of putting music through 10
re-recordings using good analog technology?
Mr. Lavo have you heard the consequences of putting music through 20
re-recordings using good digital technology?
I seriously doubt it because the difference is dramatic!
BTW a large-scale comparison of LP to CD happened roughly from 1982
to 1995 in the US marketplace. It resulted in the market share for
vinyl going from 100% to 0.5%.
> > > But if a significant portion of the population when exposed to
the
> > > two side by side "prefer" one medium over another because it
sounds more
> > > like music (especially if that medium is "objectively inferior"
on the most
> > > commonly used measurements), then it is definitely worth
taking note
> > > of...scientifically...and exploring, rather than dismissing it
as
> > "already
> > > known".
> > I don't think that 0.5% of the population is that significant,
> > particularly when our statistics can't differentiate between
> > audiophiles and turntablists.
> I guess some of us just prefer our "commercial" strawman to
addressing the
> proposed test I have outlined.
I think that anybody who has seriously listened to the audible
degradation inherent in analog recording and playback will look at
the commercial numbers and see them as being an indication that the
general public really does know something about sound quality.
> > > 2) You continue to ignore the fact that CD reproduction has its
own set of
> > > limitations and distortions which many people find interfere to
one degree
> > > or another with their ability to "get into" the music.
> > On the one hand we have anecdotes that generally don't stand up
to
> > scientific scrutiny.
> Basically, because they have not yet been reproduced on a larger
scale.
Mr. Lavo the larger scale existed prior to 1983. It was 100%.
> Because nobody has tried. But there have been lots of informal
small scale
> trials, and they are not in cd's favor.
Lots? On the scale of the size of the US market for recordings? I
don't think so!
> > On the other hand we have the most robust scientific proof that
we
> > can contrive in the world of audio technology.
> > Again, what is it that I don't know?
> When to give up the commercial straw man argument? :-}
Mr. Lavo there is no commercial straw man argument.
> > > If that ain't distortion, then I don't know what is.
> > It could easily be an illusion. It does have this interesting
habit
> > of disappearing when placed under scientific scrutiny.
> Could be, or could be real and the environment for scientif
scrutiny hostile
> to determining whether it is or isn't.
This is an argument that we commonly hear from medical charlatans.
I'm not interested in charlatanry.
> > > > Why do YOU care why you like what you like?
> > > Because a thoughtful audiophile has a natural curiosity about
why he hears
> > > what he hears and prefers.
> > It looks like about 99.5% of all music lovers in the US have
> > abandoned buying new vinyl recordings. A big chunk of those who
still
> > do buy vinyl, buy it to "scratch" it in dance clubs, not listen
to
> > its innate beauty introspectively.
> Do I hear the same refrain?
It's called the observable facts.
The observable facts are:
(1) The vinyl recording process inherently and signficantly changes
the sound quality of music that it records.
(2) The results of the vinyl recording process have been abandoned in
the US marketplace by 99.5% of the marketpalce
(3) The 16/44 digital process changes sound quality very subtly, it
at all perceptably.
(4) The results of the 16/44 digital recording process has been
embrace in the US marketplace by 99.5% of the marketplace.
> > > And he doesn't like being told (when it may NOT
> > > be true) that it is only because "he (or she) prefers hearing
> > distortion"
> > > or he (or she) would otherwise prefer this wonderful,
objectively
> > more
> > > accurate system called the 16 bit CD.
> > The world of science is a very harsh world. Science seems to care
> > very little about what we like being told.
> Yup, like CD just doesn't sound as good as it should!
Mr. Lavo I perceive that to you "sound as good as it should" means
"sound like LPs". Sincve 99.5% of the marketplace has abandoned LPs
why would any reasonable record company want to make a product that
sounds like them?
> > > > Just do not claim that LP playback systems are free of
> > > > distortions. They absolutely ARE NOT!
>
> > > The argument has been that they may be judged more accurate to
the sound of
> > > live music, rather than that they are free of electrical
distortions.
> > Nobody but 0.5% of music lovers in the US seem to be
demonstrating
> > that belief with their pocket books, and of that 0.5% a large
> > proportion aren't the least bit interested in sonic accuracy.
> Do you ever give up?
Mr. Lavo I simply am representing the viewpoint of 99.5% of all music
lovers in the US who avoid vinyl LPs at every opportunity.
> > > And that comparison is always made vis a vis CD playback
systems, which also have
> > > their distortions.
> > An old technology whose distortions remain difficult or
impossible
> > for just about any adult music lover to reliably hear.
> Very easy to assert if you simply ignore the evidence to the
contrary. Some science!
Mr. Lavo where is your scientific evidence that good CD playback
systems have audible distortions of the scale you seem to be
claiming?
> > > > And if you prefer an LP playback systems, you prefer it along
> > > > with, or even because of, its nonlinearity. It's, well,
> > > > distortion.
> > > Of perhaps its a combination of euphonic distortions and the
absence of
> > > digital artifacts that many people find prevent them from
"getting into the
> > > music" emotionally. Or maybe just the latter perhaps?
> > LPs are like buggy whips. For those people who prefer to ride in
> > buggys, buggy whips are still very real. Differences in the err,
> > stimulating properties of buggy whips are very important to that
tiny
> > segment of our society that still ride around in horse-drawn
buggies.
> > Just visit the Amish!
> The Amish live that lifestyle because they believe in it, even when
it is
> unpopular and rediculed. I do see a parallel here.
Very good.
>You are asserting that
> big, faster two ton automobiles (that also use irreplaceable
natural
> resources and pollute the environment) are somehow superior to the
horse and
> buggy, because they are technologically more advanced.
I assert that automobiles are one of the core tools of modern society
and that replacing them with horse-drawn buggies would destroy life
as we know it.
> To go on a long trip, maybe....but at the expense of a good public
transportation system.
I believe that New York New York has one of the finest public
transportation systems in the world, particularly in lower Manhattan.
I know for a fact that there are still 10,000's of cars that are
required to be used in that area. In most of the land area of the US
a viable effective public transportaion system is an engineering and
financial impossiblity.
> And to go for groceries, or to church....which is best and "truer"
to
> nature.....and your condescension towards them is palpable. As it
is to us.
Mr. Lavo the facts in this matter are very clear.
> > > > It's distortion is a technically verifiable, physical
> > > > fact. If you care to claim otherwise, be prepared to have to
> > > > meet a huge burden of proof.
> > > That music is different from sound and recognized and
integrated by the
> > > brain in some pretty primal ways, including emotional triggers,
is also
> > > scientific fact.
> > The facts are that good digital is audibly transparent, and that
> > 99.5% of all recordings that are currently sold in the US are
> > digital.
> And 250% of eskimos who live north of the Artic circle earn their
livlihood as fishermen. So what?
Talk about bringing in irrelevant "facts"....
> > >And it is an arena far removed from conventional
> > > electronic measurements and not at all thoroughly understood.
> > It seems to be understood well enough by the 99.5% or more of
all
> > music lovers who DON't buy vinyl because they don't find it to be
> > advantageous to their love of music.
> They don't buy vinyl because it has been commercially replaced by
CD's, and
> because many (most?) people in today's hurry up world place
convenience
> ahead of quality in most areas of their lives.
Mr. Lavo everybody I know personally participated in the commercial
replacement of LPs by CDs simply because CDs sounded better in their
perceptions. The only way I know to find people who think otherwise
is to surf the web and find forums where a noisy minority holds
forth.
> For those of us arguing the
> contrary, quality of musical reproduction is one of those areas
where we are
> unwilling to trade quality (as we see it) for convenience.
Please enjoy what you want to enjoy Mr. Lavo.
> > >If you care to claim otherwise, be prepared to have to meet a
huge
> > burden of proof. :-)
> > The proof seems to be overwhelming and convincing in favor of
digital
> > audio.
> If it was, we wouldn't be having this spirited debate now, would
we. :-)
No Mr. Lavo you have convinced me that some people will hold forth
indefinately in denail of obvious facts. After all there are some who
still act like they believe that the South did not lose the Civil
War.
> If SACD takes hold, we probably will NOT be having this debate five
years in
> the future. Oh, I forgot, SACD is a PR stunt since there is
nothing audibly
> wrong with today's CD's anyhow.
Mr. Lavo, a year after the introduction of CD there were large
numbers of CDs in virtually every record store. I believe that it is
a year after the introduction of SACD and I've never seen a SACD disc
in any record store anyplace. Given that I live in one of the most
affluent communities in the US, Grosse Pointe Michigan...
Howard Ferstler
> > What digital artifacts? It has been shown that the digital
> > signal that exists on the CD is much closer to the master
> > tape than what we get with the LP. So, if there are any
> > "artifacts" of any kind that are audible, they belong to the
> > LP and not the CD. Think of surface noise, wow, flutter,
> > etc. Those are artifacts that you can sink your teeth into.
> Well Howard, just as vinyl noise, wow, and flutter seem to drive you crazy,
> jitter and high-frequency hardness and lack of dimensionality seem to drive
> others of us crazy. But obviously they don't bother you, or you simply
> don't hear them.
Yes, but "they" are but a small fraction of the music-buying
public these days. The vast bulk of people prefer the sound
of the compact disc. And the jitter you think you hear is a
non issue with me and certainly with them, too. A lot of
very, very serious audio enthusiasts (including some
engineers) think that jitter is a pseudo problem, and if
there is any high-frequency hardness that is digitally
triggered, I would like to know where it is coming from.
Most of the time, the hardness people hear is the result of
microphone choices and the way microphones are located, and
nothing else. If digital had high-frequency hardness it
would show up in the response curves, and it does not.
> > You say "significant portion of the population." What is
> > significant in the context of record sales and music
> > appreciation? Certainly, if we are talking about total
> > sales, the LP and its supporters are anything but
> > significant. (This tends to make me wonder why this debate
> > is taking place at all.) And if we are talking about clearly
> > audible negative artifacts (continuous surface noise, more
> > obnoxious surface defects like pops and ticks, distortion
> > during loud passages, distortion on the inner grooves,
> > limited deep-bass response, wow, and flutter), the LP is
> > easily and demonstrably inferior to the CD. Indeed, the only
> > thing you can say in favor of the LP is that it ads euphonic
> > colorations that some people think sound more realistic than
> > the clearly evident, cleaner sound we get from the CD.
> > However, a large body of people would disagree about the
> > benefits of those colorations.
> Record and CD sales have absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue.
They have a lot to do with it. The buying public had access
to tons of LP recordings when the CD first appeared, and
over the next few years they deserted the analog format in
droves. They were in a position to compare on a grand scale
at that time, and it is ironic that the digital system of
that era was not quite as refined as what we have now
(players are better and so are recorders), and the hardware
cost a lot more than it does now, and people STILL defected
to the compact disc. They deserted, because the CD is not
only more convenient to use, but is also cleaner sounding
and more true to the sound of the master tape and the
intentions of the recording engineer.
> > > Because a thoughtful audiophile has a natural curiousity about why he
> hears
> > > what he hears and prefers. And he doesn't like being told (when it may
> NOT
> > > be true)
> > Even if it is true? Note that nobody here (at least not me)
> > is denying that certain euphonic colorations might at times
> > be pleasant to experience. Heck, I add that kind of stuff in
> > all the time when I listen to two-channel material, although
> > I do so by synthesizing a center and surround channels.
> > However, the fact is that the CD does a better job of
> > reproducing the original master than the LP can. That gives
> > the user a better starting point than what he would get with
> > the LP, which applies its unique brand of euphonic
> > colorations continually, and with no way to adjust the
> > effect.
> You missed my point...your ASSUMPTION is that it is true. Your ASSUMPTION
> is that the reason we think it sounds more like real music is the
> distortion. And nothing positive inherent in the medium, such as LACK of
> digital artifacts.
What digital artifacts? Aside from your and a few others'
gut-level reaction to digital audio as it exists today, and
anecdotal opinions of digiphobes, just what can you offer up
as documented, scientifically repeatable proof that said
digital artifacts are audible?
> As Emerson points out, if this were true then we would
> prefer the LP over a line feed. And we don't.
That is you and he, and have you really compared? And have
you compared a line feed to the digital copy, level matched?
I know for a fact that comparing anything when the source is
musical content is tricky, because music fluctuates to such
an extent that it is impossible to do an absolutely perfect
A/B comparison.
> > Well, there are those out there for whom the CD is a much
> > better reproducer of live music than the LP, and I am not
> > just talking about teenagers who purchase CDs because they
> > are easy to play around with. In my opinion, properly done
> > compact discs, mastered by first-class engineers, do a
> > considerably better job of simulating the frontal soundstage
> > than the LP. Remember, if you copy the output of a CD to an
> > LP (by means of the cutting lathe), the LP copy will not
> > sound like the CD. It will add those euphonic colorations
> > that supposedly enhance your sense of playback realism.
> > However, if you make a CD-R copy of an LP, the CD-R will
> > sound the same as the LP. The CD can then generate those
> > euphonic colorations, too, and the copy will even include
> > the surface noise, wow and flutter, and assorted other
> > distortions that are inherent with the LP.
> Irrelevant on first generation pressings of both.
No it is not. Can a cutting lathe, working with a CD source,
make an LP copy of the CD that sounds identical to the CD? I
do not think that it can, just like the LP will not be an
exact copy of any master tape. The LP has too damned many
inherent distortions for this to be possible.
On the other hand, it has been shown by numerous individuals
that a CD-R copy of an LP will be indistinguishable from the
LP, including the assorted negative artifacts, like surface
noise, distortion, wow, flutter, etc. The fact that the CD
can do this is a sign that the LP is the item that is
limited, and if you like the sound of the LP it is because
of those limitations. Harry, it appears you like the sound
of certain kinds of distortions, even when they do not
contribute a thing in the way of simulating a real,
live-music environment. That is fine. Just do not try to
elevate those distortions to some kind of extra-mystical
level, because they are anything but extra-mystical. They
are distortions.
> > > Of perhaps its a combination of euphonic distortions and the absence of
> > > digital artifacts that many people find prevent them from "getting into
> the
> > > music" emotionally.
> > What digital artifacts? The system has very low levels of
> > distortion. Certainly, it has no surface noise, inner-groove
> > distortion, wow, flutter, etc. I consider those artifacts to
> > be much more obnoxious than anything the CD can deliver.
> First you tell us they don't exist. Then when we tell you we hear them, you
> tell us they don't exist. Then when we still claim we hear them, you tell
> us we can't becuase they are too low to hear. Who determines how low is too
> low to hear?
I think that the artifacts you claim to hear are the result
of the more revealing nature of the CD and not any
limitations. You prefer the way the LP colors the sound.
That is fine. That is preference. However, that does not
change the fact that the CD colors the data far, far less
than the LP can. If the CD has sonic limitations, they are
the result of recording engineers who do not produce master
tapes with the kind of soundstaging and euphonic colorations
you prefer.
> > I do not think that symphonic music or classical music, or
> > even modern rock music is particularly primal. Our very
> > distant ancestors probably produced music by hammering on
> > hollow logs or blowing through reeds. Modern musical sounds
> > are way, way more formal and probably less primal by a long
> > shot.
> >
> > More importantly, to say that the LP somehow clicks better
> > with our primal nature than the compact disc and works
> > better with our "emotional triggers" is certainly
> > speculative at best. There is no way to document that. It
> > may work for you, but it does not work for me and it does
> > not work for a lot of other people, either.
> Speculative, yes, of course at this stage. But consistent with the
> direction that brain research is headed in.
What brain research? Are you saying that there is "brain
research" going on that will determine that the LP record
sounds more real than the compact disc, because of the CD's
supposed jitter anomalies and high-frequency hardness? Who
is doing this research?
> And BTW, your premise that
> modern music is any less primal is not born out by some interesting work
> being done on the brain, as reported in the NYT magazine last year (sorry,
> don't have the specific reference handy).
The reference does not matter, because there is no way to
correlate it with the differences in sound between the
compact disc and the LP. Just what is it with the LP that
you think connects better with our "primal" instincts, and
what are your reasons (other than gut reactions and
anecdotal data) that makes you think this is the case?
Howard Ferstler
Richard D Pierce
Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> WHAT are these "digital artifacts"? Do you know what dithering is?
>> Do you understand what it does?
>It reduces them, it doesn't eliminate them.
Harry, if youb at all mean this seriuously, it is patently,
abjectly, completely, utterly wrong. If that's what you believe,
then it, unfortunately, demonstrates that you really do NOT have
any idea what dithering does. And since dithering is one of the
basic concepts to linear digitization, it's your admission of
the fact that you simply do not understand substantial portions
of how digital audio works.
If you're going to argue against the technology, you might be
better arguing from a position of knowledge, rather than the one
you currently choose to occupy. One suggestion that I would have
is to study, carefully, the following texts, none of which are
so esoteric mathematically as to be unreachabble by most
reaonsably intelligent people:
Shannon, C. E., "A Mathematical Theory of Communication,"
Bell Sys. Tech Journal, vol 27, 1948 Oct.
Blesser, B. A. , "Digitization of Audio: A Comprehensive
Examination of Theory, Implementation and Current
Practice," JAES vol 26, no 10, 1978 Oct.
Vanderkooy, J, and S. P. Lipshitz, "Resolution Below the
Least Significant Bit in DIgital Audio Systems with
Dither," JAES vol 35, no 3 1984 March.
The latter two papers show where your technical assertion about
dithered audio is utterly wrong. Now, if you dispute this, my
suggestion is you first dispute it with Dr. Blesser and
Mr. Vanderkooy and Lipshitz. Be forewarned that others,
substantially more versed in the principles, have tried and NONE
have succeeded in demonstrating incorrectness in the principles.
You, Harry, have made a specific TECHNICAL assertion: that
dither does not eliminate these artifacts, but reduces
them. That' yet another extraordinary claim that you seemingly
toss of as objective fact. WHere's your extraordinary support
for this extraordinary claim?
In fact, other than your continued vigorous assertions, where is
ANY support for ANY of your vigorous assertions?
Howard Ferstler
> Sorry, JJ, we've been over this ground just recently. I'm talking about
> putting people, many of whom have never questioned CD's superiority, many of
> whom have never knowingly even heard a record played since their youth, if
> even then, and all of whom buy CD's because they are the commercial media of
> favor for the last 15 years. I'm talking about giving these people a
> side-by-side demonstration of an LP and a CD played over a very fine system
> in a very fine environment (as agreed to by folks on both sides of the LP vs
> CD controversy).
When the CD first appeared, the LP dominated the
serious-audiophile market, and those who compared at that
time mostly opted for the CD. Sure, the LP systems of that
era were supposedly not as good as what we have now (I
rather doubt that, but I will cut you some slack in that
area), but supposedly the CD systems (players and recorders)
were not as good as what we have now, either.
So, the playing field was as level then as it is now, and
the LP was the dominant force, and it still was clobbered by
the CD.
It was clobbered, because the CD is better than the LP.
Better in every way.
Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
There is more involved than playback gear. The weak point
may be the software itself, involving the limitations of
cutting lathes and of course including the vinyl, which when
you think about it is a really a rather cheaply done piece
of material. (Some audio buffs may rail about plastic-parts
audio gear, and yet why don't they rail about plastic
discs?)
I would imagine that top-tier playback hardware would be
able to highlight any defects in existing pressings better
than inferior gear, and so today's best gear, assuming it
really is better than what we had in the past, should make
disc defects more audible, not less audible.
By definition, more revealing gear would be more able to
reveal defects of all kinds, as well as
musically-significant, positive artifacts. The better the
playback gear, the more disc defects should be audible.
Howard Ferstler
Arny Krueger
news:9dun4...@enews2.newsguy.com...
The best equipment can't fix things that are wrong with the
prerecorded media, just cover it up.
Of course the surface noise, grain noise, tics and pops can be
filtered, but that involves filtering out some of the music.
Wow and flutter are inherent in the media's tendency to be made or
become less than perfectly mechanically flat. Mechanical efforts to
flatten the media only reduce the problems, they don't eliminate
them. Wow and flutter can be readily heard when they are present,
even over speakers and amplifiers of modest technical sophistication.
Inner groove distortion and dynamic range problems at high and low
frequencies are equally impossible to remove with high quality
playback equipment. The problems are in the geometry of the grooves,
the cutter, and the playback stylus.
George Graves
<ar...@pop3free.com> wrote:
<extraneous stuff clipped>
> This claim seems to be demographically naive. The average age of US
> residents is now said by the US government to be 35. CDs have been
> sold in the US for 18 years. Therefore half of the US population
> spent 17 years or more of their lives listening to vinyl.
>
> We know that the US population generally avoids vinyl like the
> plague, having driven sales of vinyl from 100% to 0.5% in about 12
> years. Since the US population has only a tiny proportion of audio
> engineers, we can safely assume that the decision to avoid vinyl was
> based on consumer perceptions of suitability of prerecorded media for
> the purpose of enjoying music: IOW sound quality.
I cannot believe that you actually believe this, Arny. You know as well as
the rest of us, that the decision to stop making records in favor of CDs was
a unilateral decision made by the record companies based on the fact that
CDs cost less to make and could be sold for two to three times the selling
price of vinyl. It was this decision which spurred CD player sales, which in
turn caused more CDs to be sold. Truth to tell, the CD was inevitable. It is
easier and cheaper to manufacture than is a vinyl record. There are fewer
defects in every batch, fewer returns, they take up less sales space, and
they havve more profit 'built-in' for the retailer -and all of these
advantages are on the production and sales end of the equation. On the
consumer side, we have a format which, ON CHEAP EQUIPMENT sounds very good
to the average buyer, is small annd compact, is mostly immune from poor
handling, does not deteriorate with play, has no ticks and pops, and ALL of
the average consumer's music is available on the medium. As soon as the
decision to change over to CD production was made, LPs disapeared from the
record stores in short order and true enough, most people never looked back.
Now as to sound quality. I find that CD is a bit of a paradox. On cheap
equipment, CD sounds better than records. No contest, hands down. But as the
systems and the turntables and the CD players get more expensive, the LP
starts to catch up. A $1500 turntable setup (deck, arm, cartridge) sounds
better than a $1500 CD player. And a $12000 record player (deck, arm
cartridge) sounds MUCH better than a $1500 CD player. through the same
system.
There is no doubt in my mind that if the debate were between two "rack
systems", one with a cheap Japanese DD turntable with a $10 P-mount Japanese
cartridge fitted and one of those terrible, servo straight-line tracking
arms, and the other a cheap rack system with a $100 CD player, the CD would
win -without question- because at that level, the CD player would be able
to retreive all the information on the CD (whether or not the cheap speakers
and amps could reproduce it all), but that cheap turntable would NOT be able
to retreive all of the information from the groove of the turntable- making
the CD sound better. Since most people do not have anything more than $1000
invested in their 'music systems', they find CD to be perfect. If everyone
had a "high-end" system with a GOOD record deck, maybe CD vs LP sales
wouldn't be so one sided.
<more extraneous stuff clipped>
George Graves
Alan Hoyle
> One suggestion that I would have is to study, carefully, the
> following texts, none of which are so esoteric mathematically as to
> be unreachabble by most reaonsably intelligent people:
> Shannon, C. E., "A Mathematical Theory of Communication,"
> Bell Sys. Tech Journal, vol 27, 1948 Oct.
{snipped other reference papers}
For reference, this particular paper is available for free on the web
in several formats including .pdf.
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/paper.html
-alan
--
Alan Hoyle - al...@unc.edu - http://www.alanhoyle.com/
"I don't want the world, I just want your half." -TMBG
Get Horizontal, Play Ultimate: Ring of Fire - Spear
George Graves
wrote:
> Harry Lavo wrote:
> >
> > "Howard Ferstler" <hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote in message
>
> > > What digital artifacts? It has been shown that the digital
> > > signal that exists on the CD is much closer to the master
> > > tape than what we get with the LP. So, if there are any
> > > "artifacts" of any kind that are audible, they belong to the
> > > LP and not the CD. Think of surface noise, wow, flutter,
> > > etc. Those are artifacts that you can sink your teeth into.
>
> > Well Howard, just as vinyl noise, wow, and flutter seem to drive you
> > crazy,
> > jitter and high-frequency hardness and lack of dimensionality seem to
> > drive
> > others of us crazy. But obviously they don't bother you, or you simply
> > don't hear them.
>
> Yes, but "they" are but a small fraction of the music-buying
> public these days. The vast bulk of people prefer the sound
> of the compact disc.
There are many more cockroaches on this earth than there are people, Arny.
Does that make them a higher form of life than human beings? I ask this
because you seem to be impressed by statistics and use sales figures to
back-up your arguments while ignoring other factors. You assume that people
buy CD over vinyl because of the sound. You seem to completely dismiss such
factors as availability - most music is available ONLY on CD, and records
are generally not sold at the places where most people buy their music - so
to get the music they want, even vinyl lovers are forced to buy CDs;
convenience, - CDs are small, easy to handle, portable, don't wear, don't
get scratched (generally) don't build up surface noise with use, don't
require rituals such as stylus cleaning, wiping dust off of the disc,
de-staticizing the disc, washing dirty records, etc; and finally perception.
The average CD user knows only that CD represents new technology and that
vinyl represents old. Therefore CD must sound better, right? Also, most
people CAN'T HEAR. That is not to say that most people have ear defects, but
rather, that most people are not as interested in the minutia of audio
reproduction as are audiophiles and have not trained themselves to hear it.
A case in point. I was watching Tech TV's 'Fresh Gear' program last week,
and the hostess, a young lady named Sumi Das, was talking about a MP3
player. She said categorically that she could hear no difference between the
CD and ANY of the supported compression rates! Now, this is the
'music-buying public' whose numbers you rely upon to back up your assertions
that people buy CDs.
> And the jitter you think you hear is a
> non issue with me and certainly with them, too.
"Them." - A populace that can't tell the difference between highly
compressed and data-rate reduced MP3 and a CD.
A lot of
> very, very serious audio enthusiasts (including some
> engineers) think that jitter is a pseudo problem, and if
> there is any high-frequency hardness that is digitally
> triggered, I would like to know where it is coming from.
Too few samples in the 3 - 10 KHz range, perhaps?
> Most of the time, the hardness people hear is the result of
> microphone choices and the way microphones are located, and
> nothing else.
Oh? Then why don't those problems show up on analog master tapes recorded
with the same microphones?
> If digital had high-frequency hardness it
> would show up in the response curves, and it does not.
And just how would you quantify this hardness using the response curves?
I'm with you up to the part where you say "....more true to the sound of the
master tape and the intentions of the recording engineer." How would the
average consumer know what the master tape sounds like or what the
intentions of the recording engineer were?
The same documented, scientifically repeatable proof that you give for the
preference for vinyl being a product of "euphonic distortions."
> > As Emerson points out, if this were true then we would
> > prefer the LP over a line feed. And we don't.
>
> That is you and he, and have you really compared? And have
> you compared a line feed to the digital copy, level matched?
I have. The line feed sounds better. PERIOD.
<clip>
George Graves
George Graves
wrote:
> Harry Lavo wrote:
> >
> > "Howard Ferstler" <hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote in message
>
> > > What digital artifacts? It has been shown that the digital
> > > signal that exists on the CD is much closer to the master
> > > tape than what we get with the LP. So, if there are any
> > > "artifacts" of any kind that are audible, they belong to the
> > > LP and not the CD. Think of surface noise, wow, flutter,
> > > etc. Those are artifacts that you can sink your teeth into.
>
> > Well Howard, just as vinyl noise, wow, and flutter seem to drive you
> > crazy,
> > jitter and high-frequency hardness and lack of dimensionality seem to
> > drive
> > others of us crazy. But obviously they don't bother you, or you simply
> > don't hear them.
>
> Yes, but "they" are but a small fraction of the music-buying
> public these days. The vast bulk of people prefer the sound
> of the compact disc.
There are many more cockroaches on this earth than there are people,
Arny. Does that make them a higher form of life than human beings? I ask
this because you seem to be impressed by statistics and use sales
figures to back-up your arguments while ignoring other factors. You
assume that people buy CD over vinyl because of the sound. You seem to
completely dismiss such factors as availability - most music is
available ONLY on CD, and records are generally not sold at the places
where most people buy their music - so to get the music they want, even
vinyl lovers are forced to buy CDs; convenience, - CDs are small, easy
to handle, portable, don't wear, don't get scratched (generally) don't
build up surface noise with use, don't require rituals such as stylus
cleaning, wiping dust off of the disc, de-staticizing the disc, washing
dirty records, etc; and finally perception. The average CD user knows
only that CD represents new technology and that vinyl represents old.
Therefore CD must sound better, right? Also, most people CAN'T HEAR.
That is not to say that most people have ear defects, but rather, that
most people are not as interested in the minutia of audio reproduction
as are audiophiles and have not trained themselves to hear it. A case
in point. I was watching Tech TV's 'Fresh Gear' program last week, and
the hostess, a young lady named Sumi Das, was talking about a MP3
player. She said categorically that she could hear no difference between
the CD and ANY of the supported compression rates! Now, this is the
'music-buying public' whose numbers you rely upon to back up your
assertions that people buy CDs.
> And the jitter you think you hear is a
> non issue with me and certainly with them, too.
"Them." - A populace that can't tell the difference between highly
compressed and data-rate reduced MP3 and a CD.
A lot of
> very, very serious audio enthusiasts (including some
> engineers) think that jitter is a pseudo problem, and if
> there is any high-frequency hardness that is digitally
> triggered, I would like to know where it is coming from.
Too few samples in the 3 - 10 KHz range, perhaps?
> Most of the time, the hardness people hear is the result of
> microphone choices and the way microphones are located, and
> nothing else.
Oh? Then why don't those problems show up on analog master tapes
recorded with the same microphones?
> If digital had high-frequency hardness it
> would show up in the response curves, and it does not.
And just how would you quantify this hardness using the response curves?
> > > You say "significant portion of the population." What is
I'm with you up to the part where you say "....more true to the sound of
the master tape and the intentions of the recording engineer." How would
the average consumer know what the master tape sounds like or what the
intentions of the recording engineer were?
The same documented, scientifically repeatable proof that you give for
the preference for vinyl being a product of "euphonic distortions."
> > As Emerson points out, if this were true then we would
> > prefer the LP over a line feed. And we don't.
>
> That is you and he, and have you really compared? And have
> you compared a line feed to the digital copy, level matched?
I have. The line feed sounds better. PERIOD.
<clip>
Jay Beattie
<9dupmp$ks$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>...
>emers...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> - sounds are weird instead of
beautiful---harpsichord sounds
>> "squidgy," violins sound "edgy," brass sounds
"splatty"
>
>Yeah - there's a lot of this going around.
Emerson, I don't know about
>squidginess, but violins ARE edgy, and brass DOES
sound splatty. Maybe you're just
>not communicating what you mean here.
Hey, us brass players take offense! The splattiest
instrument is really the french horn (Q: What is
the difference between a french horn and a '65
Chevy? A: You can tune the Chevy).
Anyway, I haven't heard an LP or CD that perfectly
captures the sound of grouped or solo brass
(putting aside the inherent limitations of two
chanel). I play in a 500+ person marching band
that practices indoors. My ears overload, and I
seriously wonder whether any LP set-up in my price
range could reproduce the dynamic range of that
group. Based on some of my RR brass/organ CDs, I
think CD could do it.
<snip>
>> - lack of startle factor --- when Rostropovich
really nails a note in
>> my EMI CD, I know darn well that in person I
would practically jump
>> backwards, whereas on CD I feel little ---
startle factor on LP is
>> very high in general (I don't have this record
though)
>
>This one is just the opposite for me, so I guess
we cancel out.
If you are startled by an arco cello, there are
serious problems with microphone placement. I
haven't heard Rostropovich live, but I have heard
Yo Yo Ma a few times, and the only startle factor
was the guy next to me coughing. Most of the
emotional passages were also prefaced with an
orchestral wind-up, so I was already past being
emotionally startled. Now, a piccolo at F7 can
startle me most anytime.
>> - lack of excitement on fast passages
>>
>> - missing beauty causes the music to fall
down -- a lot of Mozart
>> sounds boring or simplistic, trills sound
stupid, etc. --- on records
>> and in person Mozart proves to be very strong
and solid
>Missing beauty, right, there is a lot of that
going around too. And stupid trills -
>I could tell you stories.
More bad news: a lot of Mozart is boring. I do
know what Emerson means, though. I heard John
Adams conduct the Oregon Symphony in Chairman
Dances, and it sounded like the chairman was
dancing in lead shoes. I prefered the CD version
done by San Franciso Symphony. All the warmth,
ambience, "air" of a live performance couldn't
bring that piece to life. BTW, Adams is a really
good Mozart conductor, and the OS is really a good
regional group (probably had a bad night).
<snip>
>> I'm not claiming that digital "has" to have
these flaws. I've heard
>> good reports from people I trust that digital
is getting very good
>> these days, at least when they play back
digital on the same machine
>> that recorded it. I wonder how good the CD's
made from these tapes
>> sound. If they really preserve the merits of a
live feed, then I am
>> sure I would like them as much as analog, or
better. But none of my
>> 250 CD's sound like a live feed.
>
>And you should know, right? Come on, Emerson,
what kind of nonsense is this?
Really, who listens to live feeds besides
recording engineers? I have listened to live
feeds of groups performing on a stage where I was
about to perform, but the feed was usually over a
crummy little speaker in a noisy warm-up room. All
of my CDs sound better than that. -- Jay Beattie.
Bob Olhsson
<gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>...the decision to stop making records in favor of CDs was
>a unilateral decision made by the record companies
It was a decision by U.S. record stores to stop buying LPs because they
could sell CDs at full list price while the public was accustomed to
deep discounts on LPs and tapes that left most stores with almost no
margin. Record labels saw around a two dollar per copy increase as the
stores were looking at around a TEN dollar/copy increase in their
margin.
--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery Recording Project Design and Consulting
Box 90412, Nashville TN 37209 Tracking, Mixing and Mastering
615.352.7635 FAX 615.356.2483 Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
40 years of making people sound better than they thought possible!
Harry Lavo
> In article <9dvdk3$1ss$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
> Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >Correct me if I am wrong, JJ, but I think you are referring to a direct
> >A/D,D/A conversion independent of medium. Emerson has been talking about
> >16/44 CD reproduction.
>
> With good, functioning equipment, the medium is irrelevant.
JJ, I can say exactly the same thing about LP equipment, for about 98% of
the music out there, when it comes to sound quality.
But I do beg to differ with you....even professional DAT's of high cost seem
to "thin out" the sound compared to a direct a/d,d/a feed....so do the few
DAW's I've heard under similar circumstance. And the a/d,d/a feed itself
seems to lose a bit of "body" in the midbass/lower midrange, judged on the
two I heard years ago. Perhaps it is just inferior engineering, but it seems
pervasive out there even with the higher bit rate DAW's i've heard.
On the other hand, SONY's SBM does seem subjectively to add "warmth" in this
region....perhaps by increasing the apparent resolution in this area where
the ear is most critical and sensitive. So perhaps my main complaint is
simply of bit rate and will go away if/when everything moves to 192/24 or
SACD recording. But we're still a long way away from that.
I've got a SBM-equipped SONY dat about to be installed now for comparison to
a standard early 90's16 bit DAT....that will allow me do a little more
exploration on my own.
Harry Lavo
> In article <9dvdnn$1vd$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
> Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >> The numbers I'm aware of simply destroy your postulate, sorry.
>
> >See my comment above. The numbers you are aware of are irrelevant to my
> >argument.
>
> LP has lost the battle, on the quality front as well as the convenience
> front, for the general public.
>
> All the denial you can foster won't change that.
George Graves has a reply to Arnie elsewhere that states the case for why
this is a falacious argument. I can't add much to his excellent response,
so I'll just say: read George's reply to Arnie.
>
> >And there is nothing wrong which asking "which sounds the most like real
> >music, is there?".
>
> And, since neither is anything remotely like real music,
> with a real soundfield, the result of your question is preference.
>
> Your point?
My point is, directed preference, to the sound of live music. It is quite
possible for me to prefer the sound of LP, for example, but still prefer
CD's overall for their convenience. And the fact that both fall far short
of any "absolute sound" reproduction doesn't make the standard invalid...it
simply means we've got that much more to go.
>
> >Or are you suggesting that ordinary people simply don't
> >know what live music sounds like?
>
> You're fond of misleading straw men. It suggests to me that what
> you're doing is trying to waste my time, not engaging in a dialog.
It seemed a logical conclusion from you train of thought.
>
> >> >I take it then you are not a suscriber to "the abso!ute sound"
magazine?
> >> >:-)
>
> >> Why?
>
> >If you are serious with this question, we are lost.
>
> Again, Why? The Absolute Sound (used as they mean it) can not
> possible come from any 2-channel system, now or ever. What's
> your problem?
>
Because they are attempting to hold up the proper standard...HP is NOT
wedded to 2 channel...after all, he is providing a forum for Gordon Holt to
muse on exactly what it does mean for music. And his (in my opinion,
disasterous) flirtation with "soundstage uber alles" a while back was at
leat an attempt to deal with what is lacking in two-channel reproduction.
But if you think preference is just preference, and because the standard
cannot be reached ordinary people when directed can't use it as a measuring
stick for "sounds real" -er than the other, whichever they chose, then the
whole focus of "the Abso!ute Sound" is meaningless to you. That's what I
meant when I said we are lost if you are serious with "why".
> >> WHAT are these "digital artifacts"? Do you know what dithering is?
> >> Do you understand what it does?
>
> >It reduces them, it doesn't eliminate them.
>
> All of your assertion to the contrary, dither absolutely and
> entirely, positively, and completely eliminates low level
> "digital artifacts". The noise floor is an independent noise
> floor, with no "artifacts".
>
Perhaps I am using "digital artifacts" in a way at odds with engineering
terminology. It eliminates quantization(sp?) noise...it does nothing to
reduce jitter or high frequency ringing or ripple.
> You seem to have no idea what the technology does.
>
I have a better than layman's understanding, but not an electrical
engineer's understanding!
> >> Most of
> >> this work is not, unfortunately, published, people don't seem to
> >> regard it as a first-line research item.
> >>
> >
> >Why not, if it adds musical pleasure and reduces or removes the
perception
> >of digital problems?
>
> It has nothing to do with your mythical "digital problems". Please
> LEARN how "digital" works, and then argue that. It does add
> musical pleasure, and I agree, why?
>
> >Is it perhaps because electrical accuracy is valued
> >more than emotional response by these engineers?
>
> You were doing so well for a minute there, and then you had to
> go be insulting again. The answer, as far as I can tell, is that
> there isn't any substantial MARKET to convince the BUSINESS
> TYPES to make the box.
I didn't mean to be insulting, certainly not to you. I was simply implying
much the same thing as you are saying below and in another post. If ee's
don't appreciate perceptual mapping, how could they understand something
even more subtle in how we hear?
>
> One of the things you may not know is that either 2x or 4x
> the sample rate is necessary in such a box, because out-of-band
> distortions are created by nonlinear processes, and they will
> do awful things if aliased.
Actually, I do understand this.
>This costs money. Ooops.
>
Since when has high-end audio avoid "cost-no-object" approaches to things?
> >Perhaps some of the engineers have wised up! :-)
>
> That is, in fact, my suspicion as well. I think some
> people have quite conciously added distortion because
> it sells. Nothing wrong with that.
> --
> Copyright j...@research.att.com 2001, all rights reserved, except
transmission
> by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included.
Any
> use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by
this
> article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically
prohibited.
>
Harry Lavo
slowly gaining curmudgeon ground
Harry Lavo
> In article <9dvdk3$1ss$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
> Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >Correct me if I am wrong, JJ, but I think you are referring to a direct
> >A/D,D/A conversion independent of medium. Emerson has been talking about
> >16/44 CD reproduction.
>
> With good, functioning equipment, the medium is irrelevant.
I have yet to hear practical, production or reproduction equipment so clean
that I can agree with this. See my comments in response to another of your
posts.
Harry Lavo
> "Harry Lavo" <harry...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:9dvger$i4$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@pop3free.com> wrote in message
> > news:9duopr$7ii$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> > > "Harry Lavo" <harry...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9dq1uc$hi$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> > > >
>>>>snip<<<<
> > > What is the more reasonable facsimile of a steak. A steak with
> salt
> > > or a steak without salt?
> > >
> > > The "salt" would be the so-called "euphonic distortions" that any
> > > reasonable person knows that the LP process adds to music.
> > >
> > > I think that's the essence of the question here.
>
> > > I happen to have been raised on a very low salt diet, so to me, a
> > > steak without salt tastes more like a steak to me.
>
> > > I was raised on live music not recordings, and digital sounds
> more
> > > like live music to me.
>
> > I would make the comparison to a prime steak, properly done. Then
> which
> > would taste more like that steak, a prime steak properly done with
> a little
> > salt and pepper added, or a slightly dried and overcooked version
> of that
> > excellent prime steak.
>
> Mr. Lavo everytime we dilligently seek objective or reliable
> subjective evidence of slight drying and overcooking, we find none.
>
The fact that you haven't yet found it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
As I've suggested before, neuroscience and neuropsychology is a more likely
fertile ground for exploration than is electrical engineering.
> > > >snip the first part of Arnie's marketplace fact-recitation <<<<
>
> Mr. Lavo I simply don't know what your proposal is.
>
That is a serious admission for somebody attacking my arguments, Arnie! :-)
>>>>snip the last part of Arnie's marketplace fact-recitation<<<<
Harry Lavo
Harry Lavo
> In article <9dvdnn$1vd$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
> Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >> WHAT are these "digital artifacts"? Do you know what dithering is?
> >> Do you understand what it does?
> >It reduces them, it doesn't eliminate them.
>
> Harry, if youb at all mean this seriuously, it is patently,
> abjectly, completely, utterly wrong. If that's what you believe,
> then it, unfortunately, demonstrates that you really do NOT have
> any idea what dithering does. And since dithering is one of the
> basic concepts to linear digitization, it's your admission of
> the fact that you simply do not understand substantial portions
> of how digital audio works.
As I stated in a reply to a post by JJ, Dick, I may have used the terms
"digital artifacts" differently than you do as an engineer, and for that I
apologize. Yes, it eliminates the quantization(sp?) noise but it does
nothing to reduce or eliminate jitter or high frequency ringing or ripple.
I intended to include these in a broader definition of artifacts.
>
> If you're going to argue against the technology, you might be
> better arguing from a position of knowledge, rather than the one
> you currently choose to occupy. One suggestion that I would have
> is to study, carefully, the following texts, none of which are
> so esoteric mathematically as to be unreachabble by most
> reaonsably intelligent people:
>
> Shannon, C. E., "A Mathematical Theory of Communication,"
> Bell Sys. Tech Journal, vol 27, 1948 Oct.
> Blesser, B. A. , "Digitization of Audio: A Comprehensive
> Examination of Theory, Implementation and Current
> Practice," JAES vol 26, no 10, 1978 Oct.
> Vanderkooy, J, and S. P. Lipshitz, "Resolution Below the
> Least Significant Bit in DIgital Audio Systems with
> Dither," JAES vol 35, no 3 1984 March.
>
Thanks for the reference list.
> The latter two papers show where your technical assertion about
> dithered audio is utterly wrong. Now, if you dispute this, my
> suggestion is you first dispute it with Dr. Blesser and
> Mr. Vanderkooy and Lipshitz. Be forewarned that others,
> substantially more versed in the principles, have tried and NONE
> have succeeded in demonstrating incorrectness in the principles.
I'm not going to try. I've already explained my error in the assertion.
See above.
>
> You, Harry, have made a specific TECHNICAL assertion: that
> dither does not eliminate these artifacts, but reduces
> them. That' yet another extraordinary claim that you seemingly
> toss of as objective fact. WHere's your extraordinary support
> for this extraordinary claim?
>
I didn't make a TECHNICAL assertion. You INTERPRETED it as a technical
assertion because I used a phrase ("digital artifacts") in a more "popular"
way than the strict technical definition you associate with it.
> In fact, other than your continued vigorous assertions, where is
> ANY support for ANY of your vigorous assertions?
>
My support is antedotal but shared by others. However, you don't accept it.
That doesn't mean it isn't real.
Frank O'Neill
Can you tell me a little more about the SBM-equiped DAT which you
mentioned? Perhaps a specific model number if it's a current
production model, or if it's a prototype unit still in the development
stages and you're not restricted by NDA, a few comments.
I'm very interested. Thank you.
On Fri, 18 May 2001 02:54:49 GMT, in 'rec.audio.high-end',
in article <Re: Question for digiphiles>,
"Harry Lavo" <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
>I've got a SBM-equipped SONY dat about to be installed now for comparison to
>a standard early 90's16 bit DAT....that will allow me do a little more
>exploration on my own.
--
Frank O'Neill, Independent Consultant
New York, NY
Arny Krueger
news:9e1jgm$k3l$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
Mr. Graves this is known in the trade as the "McDonald's" argument.
The McDonald's argument is irrelevant to market preference for CDs
because unlike McDonalds hamburgers CD's gained market share over LPs
when CDs:
(1) CD took market share from LPs when CDs cost more money.
(2) CD took market share from LPs when CDs were more scarce.
(3) CD took market share from LPs when CDs had far fewer titles
(4) (1) CD took market share from LPs when CDs required investing in
new players that were themselves hard to find and far more expensive.
> You assume that people buy CD over vinyl because of the sound.
You assume you can read my mind.
> You seem to completely dismiss such factors as availability -
most music is
> available ONLY on CD, and records are generally not sold at the
places
> where most people buy their music - so to get the music they want,
even
> vinyl lovers are forced to buy CDs; convenience, - CDs are small,
easy
> to handle, portable, don't wear, don't get scratched (generally)
don't
> build up surface noise with use, don't require rituals such as
stylus
> cleaning, wiping dust off of the disc, de-staticizing the disc,
washing
> dirty records, etc; and finally perception.
Mr. Graves some or all of those things are true now, some 18 years
after the introduction of CDs.
However there are still those of us who remember that there was a
time when most music was available ONLY on LP, and CDs were
generally not sold at the places where most people buy their
music - so to get the music they wanted, even CD lovers were forced
to buy LPs; convenience, - CDs were unfamiliar, hard for unfamiliar
hands to handle, portable CD players did not exist, their useful
life was not known, they could get scratched and if scratched the
CD players of the day couldn't track them, people didn't know how to
clean them wiping dust off of the disc, they didn't know if they need
to destaticize the disc, washing dirty CDs, etc; and finally
perception.
> In those days the average CD user knew only that CD represents new
unfamiliar technology and that vinyl represents reliable, familiar
technology. Therefore LP must sound more familiar, right?
Also, most people CAN'T HEAR.
That is not to say that most people have ear defects, but rather,
that
most people are not as interested in the minutia of audio
reproduction
as are audiophiles and have not trained themselves to hear it.
A case in point. A person I know tells me he was watching Tech TV's
'Fresh Gear' program last week, and
the hostess, a young lady named Sumi Das, was talking about a MP3
player. She said categorically that she could hear no difference
between the CD and ANY of the supported compression rates! Now, this
is the 'music-buying public' whose numbers you rely upon to back up
your assertions that people buy LPs.
> A lot of
> > very, very serious audio enthusiasts (including some
> > engineers) think that jitter is a pseudo problem, and if
> > there is any high-frequency hardness that is digitally
> > triggered, I would like to know where it is coming from.
> Too few samples in the 3 - 10 KHz range, perhaps?
Known not to be true.
> > Most of the time, the hardness people hear is the result of
> > microphone choices and the way microphones are located, and
> > nothing else.
> Oh? Then why don't those problems show up on analog master tapes
recorded with the same microphones?
Where are your double blind listening tests proving that they don't?
> > If digital had high-frequency hardness it
> > would show up in the response curves, and it does not.
> And just how would you quantify this hardness using the response
curves?
Excess response in the 7-12 KHz range.
The absence of wow, flutter, tics, pops, hiss, rumble, incipient
acoustic feedback, tone arm resonances, inner groove distortion,
compression, harshness at high frequencies, truncation of response in
the audible frequency range...
> > > > > Because a thoughtful audiophile has a natural curiosity
That the distortions are there is a simple matter of scientific fact.
It was documented in the engineering/scientific literature devoted to
vinyl through the late 70's and early 80's. That's the distortion is
"euphonic" to some vinyl die-hards is just a matter of observing what
people like Lavo, Graves, etc. write for rec.audio.opinion. Therefore
we have documented, scientifically repeatable proof that the
preference for vinyl being a product of "euphonic distortions".
> > > As Emerson points out, if this were true then we would
> > > prefer the LP over a line feed. And we don't.
>
> > That is you and he, and have you really compared? And have
> > you compared a line feed to the digital copy, level matched?
> I have. The line feed sounds better. PERIOD.
Where are the documented DBTs showing that is true?
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>There are many more cockroaches on this earth than there are people,
>Arny.
Gosh, George, can I quote you?
>Does that make them a higher form of life than human beings?
This relates to LP vs. CD issues how?
I think "not at all", except via your straw man proposal.
>"Them." - A populace that can't tell the difference between highly
>compressed and data-rate reduced MP3 and a CD.
Every test of that population shows that they clearly hear the
difference, but don't care. Would you like to show us your
data to the contrary, George?
(Note, I care, just in case you are headed off that direction,
but in fact nearly anyone, and I mean ANYone who has gotten in
front of an ABC/hr setup with MP3 vs. CD, has been able to
tell the difference at now-current rates, including nearly
untrained listeners.)
>Too few samples in the 3 - 10 KHz range, perhaps?
What does "too few samples" mean, George? You only need two,
that's a fact. At 10kHz you have 4. Please explain where you've
managed to dismiss all of Fourier analysis and linear algebra, sir,
and you'd better make a really extraordinary argument, because
you're making a really extraordinary claim.
>Oh? Then why don't those problems show up on analog master tapes
>recorded with the same microphones?
Because, as we've been telling you, tape (and especially tape)
'warms up' a recording by processes some regard as euphonic.
>And just how would you quantify this hardness using the response curves?
Well, one source of hardness is actually the fact that digital doesn't
drop off early, so you COULD say "digital sounds "hard" because
it doesn't have frequency response error".
>I'm with you up to the part where you say "....more true to the sound of
>the master tape and the intentions of the recording engineer."
What's wrong with that?
>How would
>the average consumer know what the master tape sounds like or what the
>intentions of the recording engineer were?
The CD sounds more like the master, at least in any test I've
ever worked with.
>The same documented, scientifically repeatable proof that you give for
>the preference for vinyl being a product of "euphonic distortions."
Exactly what proof have you of this "digital distortions". The
distortions of vinyl are well documented and have been so for
several decades at the minimum. The AES books on vinyl and LP's
are a good place to start. There's 500 or so pages to
start with.
That's a fact. Now, in fact, I'm NOT aware of the literature
you refer to about "digital artifacts". Would you care to cite
some, please?
>I have. The line feed sounds better. PERIOD.
Was this a DBT? If it wasn't, your statement means nothing, sorry.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
>"jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist" <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
>message news:9dvkhq$v5$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
>> In article <9dvdk3$1ss$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
>> Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> >Correct me if I am wrong, JJ, but I think you are referring to a direct
>> >A/D,D/A conversion independent of medium. Emerson has been talking about
>> >16/44 CD reproduction.
>> With good, functioning equipment, the medium is irrelevant.
>JJ, I can say exactly the same thing about LP equipment, for about 98% of
>the music out there, when it comes to sound quality.
Oh. Really. You can get 95+ dB reproduction accuracy from an LP, then?
Please tell us all how.
>I've got a SBM-equipped SONY dat about to be installed now for comparison to
>a standard early 90's16 bit DAT....that will allow me do a little more
>exploration on my own.
Um, many DAT players are notorious for not having the best convertors
in the business.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
>George Graves has a reply to Arnie elsewhere that states the case for why
>this is a falacious argument.
George can make all the falacious arguments himself he wants, but the
case is clear, the record is clear, and the preference of most of the
population is STILL clear, no matter now far into denial both
of you are.
>> Your point?
>My point is, directed preference, to the sound of live music.
Then, you ADMIT that neither "digital" (which is a sampled,
quantized analog, you DO realize, yes? It's ANALOG, Harry)
nor "analog" (by which you mean an electromechanical analog),
are anything close, and that you can't, then exclude the idea
that euphonic distortion wins the day, and that the issue comes
down entirely to what you PREFER.
>> Again, Why? The Absolute Sound (used as they mean it) can not
>> possible come from any 2-channel system, now or ever. What's
>> your problem?
>Because they are attempting to hold up the proper standard...HP is NOT
>wedded to 2 channel...after all, he is providing a forum for Gordon Holt to
>muse on exactly what it does mean for music.
Unfortunately, how DO you comare this to the "proper standard".
How do you compare to the LIVE PERFORMANCE THAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED
instead of some other something that sounds like a live performance?
>But if you think preference is just preference, and because the standard
>cannot be reached ordinary people when directed can't use it as a measuring
>stick for "sounds real" -er than the other, whichever they chose, then the
>whole focus of "the Abso!ute Sound" is meaningless to you.
And why do you make this conclusion for me? Why would you do that?
Why do you attempt to speak for me? Have you any clue what
I AM working on right now?
>Perhaps I am using "digital artifacts" in a way at odds with engineering
>terminology. It eliminates quantization(sp?) noise...it does nothing to
>reduce jitter or high frequency ringing or ripple.
Jitter is not a real problem with GOOD equipment. No, not all
equipment is good. Further, quite a few things that have been
attributed to dither turn out to be other engineering
"marvels" (well, yes, that last is sarcastic :( ). The
"ringing" you worry about is due to bandlimiting, and while it
is marginally possible in some cases that it could be audible,
you are mistaken to call it an artifact.
The point being, you're really stretching the issue when you
keep referring to digital artifacts, which are easiliy demonstrated
to be at least one order of magnitude smaller than anything from
an analog box even when the digital box isn't working so well...
>I didn't mean to be insulting, certainly not to you. I was simply implying
>much the same thing as you are saying below and in another post. If ee's
>don't appreciate perceptual mapping, how could they understand something
>even more subtle in how we hear?
I'm an ee. I work in perception, mostly. Next question?
>Since when has high-end audio avoid "cost-no-object" approaches to things?
Well, Harry, personally I haven't convinced any business manager to
sell such a box. I know I'm NOT the only one with some experience
of that fashion.
Steven Sullivan
: There are many more cockroaches on this earth than there are people,
If adaptational flexibility and reproductive success are the criteria for
'higher', then definitely yes.
--
-S.
Your lies won't leave me alone.
Howard Ferstler
> > Yes, but "they" are but a small fraction of the music-buying
> > public these days. The vast bulk of people prefer the sound
> > of the compact disc.
> There are many more cockroaches on this earth than there are people,
> Arny.
I should point out her that it was me, Howard Ferstler, who
made that comment, and not Arny. And we are talking about
audio enthusiasts who are looking for good sound and not a
bunch of bugs who evolved.
> Does that make them a higher form of life than human beings? I ask
> this because you seem to be impressed by statistics and use sales
> figures to back-up your arguments while ignoring other factors.
Well, the important factor is that the LP started out with a
HUGE lead in the early 1980s, and still managed to lose out
against the CD in a big way. People were in a position to
compare in a very serious manner back then (they certainly
had turntables and discs, and were familiar with the LP
sound), and they still deserted to the compact disc. And we
are not just talking about the mob, here. We are also
talking about serious enthusiasts.
> You
> assume that people buy CD over vinyl because of the sound.
It stands to reason that sound would play at least some role
in the proceedings. Remember also that the deserters not
only included the mass-market types, but also very serious
audio enthusiasts.
> You seem to
> completely dismiss such factors as availability - most music is
> available ONLY on CD,
Yes, and it is this way, because hardly anybody wanted that
music in LP form. They wanted it in CD form, because the CD
is better in every way, unless you are talking about the
size of the pictures on record jackets.
> and records are generally not sold at the places
> where most people buy their music - so to get the music they want, even
> vinyl lovers are forced to buy CDs;
Because most music lovers, including a lot of serious
enthusiasts, will not buy LP recordings if a CD alternative
is available. And of course, in nearly all cases the CD is
the only version available, because record producers realize
that they would not be able to sell LP versions.
> convenience, - CDs are small, easy
> to handle, portable, don't wear, don't get scratched (generally) don't
> build up surface noise with use, don't require rituals such as stylus
> cleaning, wiping dust off of the disc, de-staticizing the disc, washing
> dirty records, etc;
Yep, these are a lot of the reasons the CD won out. But if
the LP sounded better, you would still have a lot of serious
audio buffs embracing it, and this is just not the case.
Compare the number of high-end stores which sell upscale CD
players with high-end stores that also offer LP players, and
compare the number of upscale CD player choices with the
number of upscale LP turntable choices.
> and finally perception. The average CD user knows
> only that CD represents new technology and that vinyl represents old.
They are indeed that smart.
> Therefore CD must sound better, right?
Well, some people feel that way. However, a lot of really
serious enthusiasts went for the CD because it really did
sound better.
> Also, most people CAN'T HEAR.
> That is not to say that most people have ear defects, but rather, that
> most people are not as interested in the minutia of audio reproduction
> as are audiophiles and have not trained themselves to hear it.
Certainly. However, the number of serious audio buffs who
favor the CD greatly outnumber the number of serious buffs
who still swear by the LP. It was not just the defection of
the know-nothings that sealed the fate of the LP. A lot of
really serious, knowledgeable enthusiasts also defected.
> A case
> in point. I was watching Tech TV's 'Fresh Gear' program last week, and
> the hostess, a young lady named Sumi Das, was talking about a MP3
> player. She said categorically that she could hear no difference between
> the CD and ANY of the supported compression rates! Now, this is the
> 'music-buying public' whose numbers you rely upon to back up your
> assertions that people buy CDs.
Most serious enthusiasts also favor the CD over the LP.
Besides, your assumption appears to be that because people
who are not sophisticated prefer the CD over the LP, the LP
must automatically be superior. However, just because
somebody who is not sonically adept has an opinion about the
sound of something does not automatically mean that the
stuff they like is inferior.
> > And the jitter you think you hear is a
> > non issue with me and certainly with them, too.
> "Them." - A populace that can't tell the difference between highly
> compressed and data-rate reduced MP3 and a CD.
That populace also includes a lot of pretty sharp people,
including some pretty sharp audio enthusiasts and pretty
sharp audio engineers. Have you ever conclusively tested
your ideas about the audibility of jitter by doing some
genuinely exacting comparisons? Level-matched comparisons,
preferably done blind?
> A lot of
> > very, very serious audio enthusiasts (including some
> > engineers) think that jitter is a pseudo problem, and if
> > there is any high-frequency hardness that is digitally
> > triggered, I would like to know where it is coming from.
> Too few samples in the 3 - 10 KHz range, perhaps?
What on earth does this mean?
> > Most of the time, the hardness people hear is the result of
> > microphone choices and the way microphones are located, and
> > nothing else.
> Oh? Then why don't those problems show up on analog master tapes
> recorded with the same microphones?
Well, I suppose I could accuse the analog machines of
problems, but let's face it, we do not know for sure just
what goes on during the remastering work on some (or shall I
say all) recordings. Certainly, a certain kind of
equalization (beyond the RIAA curve) might be applied to the
tapes that actually are used to cut the LP, in order to
compensate for microphone and studio or hall anomalies. Some
phono cartridges also show a midrange sag over the range you
sited, and in contrast to a more accurate CD the reticence
of the LP version might sound pleasant.
Indeed, some time back I did some experimenting with backing
off the midrange response a bit (using an equalizer), and I
felt that in smaller rooms that kind of contouring was often
quite pleasant, and preferable to genuinely flatter
response. I suppose that some LP recording and turntable
combinations would exhibit the same sort of artifact, and
compared to the flatter, more true to the master tape
response of the CD, the result might be preferable.
Just as interestingly, in my larger playback room I found
that adding a bit of sag to the midrange had an opposite
effect, with the flatter response sounding better.
Of course, how this came across varied, depending on what
recording I tried it with.
> > If digital had high-frequency hardness it
> > would show up in the response curves, and it does not.
> And just how would you quantify this hardness using the response curves?
A measurable rise in upper midrange and treble output.
Digital does not exhibit this, and so the hardness you claim
to hear is either the result of microphone or mastering
artifacts, or the result of a sag in the midrange response
of the LP version, which makes the flatter CD seem hard and
forward, by comparison. The fact is that the LP may be
reticent over that frequency range, whereas the CD is
accurate.
> > > Record and CD sales have absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue.
> > They have a lot to do with it. The buying public had access
> > to tons of LP recordings when the CD first appeared, and
> > over the next few years they deserted the analog format in
> > droves. They were in a position to compare on a grand scale
> > at that time, and it is ironic that the digital system of
> > that era was not quite as refined as what we have now
> > (players are better and so are recorders), and the hardware
> > cost a lot more than it does now, and people STILL defected
> > to the compact disc. They deserted, because the CD is not
> > only more convenient to use, but is also cleaner sounding
> > and more true to the sound of the master tape and the
> > intentions of the recording engineer.
> I'm with you up to the part where you say "....more true to the sound of
> the master tape and the intentions of the recording engineer." How would
> the average consumer know what the master tape sounds like or what the
> intentions of the recording engineer were?
And how would the average LP enthusiast? Let's face it, it
is strictly subjective and preference related in some ways.
You and a number of enthusiasts prefer the euphonic
colorations and frequency-response irregularities of the LP.
On the other hand I do not, and a number of other really
serious enthusiasts also do not.
On the other hand, some things are not subjective at all:
the wow and flutter we find with the LP (often warp
related), as well as inner-groove artifacts, subtle surface
noise with even good discs, and obnoxious pops and ticks
with substandard discs.
> > > You missed my point...your ASSUMPTION is that it is true. Your
> > > ASSUMPTION
> > > is that the reason we think it sounds more like real music is the
> > > distortion. And nothing positive inherent in the medium, such as LACK
> > > of
> > > digital artifacts.
> > What digital artifacts? Aside from your and a few others'
> > gut-level reaction to digital audio as it exists today, and
> > anecdotal opinions of digiphobes, just what can you offer up
> > as documented, scientifically repeatable proof that said
> > digital artifacts are audible?
> The same documented, scientifically repeatable proof that you give for
> the preference for vinyl being a product of "euphonic distortions."
The phase and frequency-response anomalies we claim exist
with the LP certainly are measurable. In the old days, the
measurements made on phono cartridges by hobby-magazine
reviewers clearly showed them to be vastly inferior to the
compact-disc players of those same old days. I think this
was pretty common knowledge among regular audio buffs in a
pretty short period of time
Anyway, do you really think that a little stylus tip,
tracking a tiny groove molded into a plastic disc, will be
able to accurately reproduce the sound of two, independent
signals all that cleanly, with minimal artifacts?
> > > As Emerson points out, if this were true then we would
> > > prefer the LP over a line feed. And we don't.
> > That is you and he, and have you really compared? And have
> > you compared a line feed to the digital copy, level matched?
> I have. The line feed sounds better. PERIOD.
Well, a number of audio engineers have emphatically said
that the line feed sounds no better at all. So, we have a
standoff in that area, don't we?
Or do we? When you did your comparison, were you able to do
an exact level match between the feed and the digital copy?
If you did not do that, all bets are off.
Howard Ferstler
George Graves
(jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist) wrote:
> In article <9e1jgm$k3l$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
> George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >There are many more cockroaches on this earth than there are people,
> >Arny.
>
> Gosh, George, can I quote you?
>
> >Does that make them a higher form of life than human beings?
>
> This relates to LP vs. CD issues how?
>
> I think "not at all", except via your straw man proposal.
>
> >"Them." - A populace that can't tell the difference between highly
> >compressed and data-rate reduced MP3 and a CD.
>
> Every test of that population shows that they clearly hear the
> difference, but don't care. Would you like to show us your
> data to the contrary, George?
>
> (Note, I care, just in case you are headed off that direction,
> but in fact nearly anyone, and I mean ANYone who has gotten in
> front of an ABC/hr setup with MP3 vs. CD, has been able to
> tell the difference at now-current rates, including nearly
> untrained listeners.)
>
> >Too few samples in the 3 - 10 KHz range, perhaps?
>
> What does "too few samples" mean, George? You only need two,
> that's a fact. At 10kHz you have 4. Please explain where you've
> managed to dismiss all of Fourier analysis and linear algebra, sir,
> and you'd better make a really extraordinary argument, because
> you're making a really extraordinary claim.
Claim? I made no claim. I asked if perhaps their were too few samples at the
higher frequencies to accurately reproduce them thus giving a the 'hard
sound' that many CD critics hear. BTW, all of the theoretical stuff that I
have read about Nyquist's theory and Fourier transforms use sine waves to
get their mathmetical results showing perfect quantization and
reconstruction of the waveform. But we don't listen to sine waves. I've
NEVER been 100% convinced that the quantization of sine waves which seems so
perfect mathmatically really applies to complex waveforms such as music.
> >Oh? Then why don't those problems show up on analog master tapes
> >recorded with the same microphones?
>
> Because, as we've been telling you, tape (and especially tape)
> 'warms up' a recording by processes some regard as euphonic.
But I've used many of these microphones. They don't sound harsh or hard
through my monitor headphones off of the live feed, either. In fact, they
don't sound bad until they get on a CD!
>
> >And just how would you quantify this hardness using the response curves?
>
> Well, one source of hardness is actually the fact that digital doesn't
> drop off early, so you COULD say "digital sounds "hard" because
> it doesn't have frequency response error".
Possibly, but OTOH, the line feed is pretty flat too and I didn't hear this
hardness through the linefeed from the microphones either (and I used Stax
Earspeakers to monitor when I recorded).
>
> >I'm with you up to the part where you say "....more true to the sound of
> >the master tape and the intentions of the recording engineer."
>
> What's wrong with that?
>
> >How would
> >the average consumer know what the master tape sounds like or what the
> >intentions of the recording engineer were?
>
> The CD sounds more like the master, at least in any test I've
> ever worked with.
You didn't answer the question.
>
> >The same documented, scientifically repeatable proof that you give for
> >the preference for vinyl being a product of "euphonic distortions."
>
> Exactly what proof have you of this "digital distortions". The
> distortions of vinyl are well documented and have been so for
> several decades at the minimum. The AES books on vinyl and LP's
> are a good place to start. There's 500 or so pages to
> start with.
Yet none of this proves that these vinyl distortions (which I agree are
there) are what makes vinyl sound so much more like real music or that they
are the source of a vinyl lover's preferences. That's YOUR spin on the
facts.
>
> That's a fact. Now, in fact, I'm NOT aware of the literature
> you refer to about "digital artifacts". Would you care to cite
> some, please?
The same documented, scientifically repeatable proof that you give for
the preference for vinyl being a product of "euphonic distortions." Please
NOTE: I am not saying that there aren't vinyl distortions. I am saying that
it has never been proved that these Vinyl distortions are the SOURCE for
many people's PREFERENCE for vinyl.
>
> >I have. The line feed sounds better. PERIOD.
>
> Was this a DBT? If it wasn't, your statement means nothing, sorry.
The linefeed was from the stage where a symphony orchestra was playing. I
was recording that symphony orchestra and when I switched my monitor
headphones from 'tape' to 'source', I was listening to the linefeed directly
from the microphones. About as close as you can get.
George Graves
George Graves
(jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist) wrote:
Claim? I made no claim. I asked if perhaps their were too few samples at
the higher frequencies to accurately reproduce them thus giving a the
'hard sound' that many CD critics hear. BTW, all of the theoretical
stuff that I have read about Nyquist's theory and Fourier transforms use
sine waves to get their mathmetical results showing perfect quantization
and reconstruction of the waveform. But we don't listen to sine waves.
I've NEVER been 100% convinced that the quantization of sine waves which
seems so perfect mathmatically really applies to complex waveforms such
as music.
> >Oh? Then why don't those problems show up on analog master tapes
> >recorded with the same microphones?
>
> Because, as we've been telling you, tape (and especially tape)
> 'warms up' a recording by processes some regard as euphonic.
But I've used many of these microphones. They don't sound harsh or hard
through my monitor headphones off of the live feed, either. In fact,
they don't sound bad until they get on a CD!
>
> >And just how would you quantify this hardness using the response curves?
>
> Well, one source of hardness is actually the fact that digital doesn't
> drop off early, so you COULD say "digital sounds "hard" because
> it doesn't have frequency response error".
Possibly, but OTOH, the line feed is pretty flat too and I didn't hear
this hardness through the linefeed from the microphones either (and I
used Stax Earspeakers to monitor when I recorded).
>
> >I'm with you up to the part where you say "....more true to the sound of
> >the master tape and the intentions of the recording engineer."
>
> What's wrong with that?
>
> >How would
> >the average consumer know what the master tape sounds like or what the
> >intentions of the recording engineer were?
>
> The CD sounds more like the master, at least in any test I've
> ever worked with.
You didn't answer the question.
>
> >The same documented, scientifically repeatable proof that you give for
> >the preference for vinyl being a product of "euphonic distortions."
>
> Exactly what proof have you of this "digital distortions". The
> distortions of vinyl are well documented and have been so for
> several decades at the minimum. The AES books on vinyl and LP's
> are a good place to start. There's 500 or so pages to
> start with.
Yet none of this proves that these vinyl distortions (which I agree are
there) are what makes vinyl sound so much more like real music or that
they are the source of a vinyl lover's preferences. That's YOUR spin on
the facts.
>
> That's a fact. Now, in fact, I'm NOT aware of the literature
> you refer to about "digital artifacts". Would you care to cite
> some, please?
The same documented, scientifically repeatable proof that you give for
the preference for vinyl being a product of "euphonic distortions."
Please NOTE: I am not saying that there aren't vinyl distortions. I am
saying that it has never been proved that these Vinyl distortions are
the SOURCE for many people's PREFERENCE for vinyl.
>
> >I have. The line feed sounds better. PERIOD.
>
> Was this a DBT? If it wasn't, your statement means nothing, sorry.
The linefeed was from the stage where a symphony orchestra was playing.
Howard Ferstler
> > Was this a DBT? If it wasn't, your statement means nothing, sorry.
> The linefeed was from the stage where a symphony orchestra was playing. I
> was recording that symphony orchestra and when I switched my monitor
> headphones from 'tape' to 'source', I was listening to the linefeed directly
> from the microphones. About as close as you can get.
It would only be close enough if the levels were precisely
matched. Were they precisely matched?
Howard Ferstler
George Graves
wrote:
Actually, the LP was NOT the dominant force when the CD came on the scene.
The pre-recorded cassette had outsold LP for several years. So I suppose
that the argument should really be between the sound of those two formats.
And on that we can concur. CD is better in every way - to a cassette, that
is.
George Graves
> In article <9e22tl$na$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
> Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >"jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist" <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
> >message news:9dvkhq$v5$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> >> In article <9dvdk3$1ss$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
> >> Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >> >Correct me if I am wrong, JJ, but I think you are referring to a
> >> >direct
> >> >A/D,D/A conversion independent of medium. Emerson has been talking
> >> >about
> >> >16/44 CD reproduction.
>
> >> With good, functioning equipment, the medium is irrelevant.
>
> >JJ, I can say exactly the same thing about LP equipment, for about 98%
> >of
> >the music out there, when it comes to sound quality.
>
> Oh. Really. You can get 95+ dB reproduction accuracy from an LP, then?
>
> Please tell us all how.
>
> >I've got a SBM-equipped SONY dat about to be installed now for
> >comparison to
> >a standard early 90's16 bit DAT....that will allow me do a little more
> >exploration on my own.
>
> Um, many DAT players are notorious for not having the best convertors
> in the business.
I have one that has one of the best A/Ds of any DAT machine - The Otari
DTR-8S. But for DAT playback I use the same Assembledge DAC-3/D2D-1
ensemble that I use for CD playback. I have used the DAT extensively for
mastering. It does a fine job, but not as good as a fine professional
or semi-pro analog recorder like an Otari 5050 (which I also own along
with a Sony 880).
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>BTW, all of the theoretical stuff that I
>have read about Nyquist's theory and Fourier transforms use sine waves to
>get their mathmetical results showing perfect quantization and
>reconstruction of the waveform.
Precisely.
>But we don't listen to sine waves.
WRONG.
You can synthesize ANY signal with finite power and finite derivite
out of sine waves. You can synthesize it EXACTLY (note, I said finite
derivitive, so Gibbs does not apply here), too.
That's what Fourier Analysis shows. Morrison's "Fourier Analysis" by
Wiley might be a good thing for you to pick up here.
>I've NEVER been 100% convinced that the quantization of sine waves which seems so
>perfect mathmatically really applies to complex waveforms such as music.
It does, exactly, precisely, and absolutely. The ONE restriction on sampling
(Not quantization, which involves only noise leve, btw) is that the
signal has to be bandlimited. "Sine waves" are simply not
an issue here.
This may seem like a strong statement on my part, and it is, because
it is a place where the mathematics are not approximate, nor are they
"fuzzy" in any particular fashion. Of course some equipment stinks,
that's a different problem.
>But I've used many of these microphones. They don't sound harsh or hard
>through my monitor headphones off of the live feed, either. In fact, they
>don't sound bad until they get on a CD!
George, if that's what's happening, you need to check what is going on
later in the production chain here.
>> The CD sounds more like the master, at least in any test I've
>> ever worked with.
>You didn't answer the question.
I'm simply relating my experience.
>Yet none of this proves that these vinyl distortions (which I agree are
>there) are what makes vinyl sound so much more like real music or that they
>are the source of a vinyl lover's preferences. That's YOUR spin on the
>facts.
Um, George, now we've established the existance of the various
nonlinearities, go to the psychacoustics books. It's not in one
place.
>NOTE: I am not saying that there aren't vinyl distortions. I am saying that
>it has never been proved that these Vinyl distortions are the SOURCE for
>many people's PREFERENCE for vinyl.
Go to the psychoacoustics books now.
>The linefeed was from the stage where a symphony orchestra was playing. I
>was recording that symphony orchestra and when I switched my monitor
>headphones from 'tape' to 'source', I was listening to the linefeed directly
>from the microphones. About as close as you can get.
But did you know which was which? That matters entirely.
Chel van Gennip
>
> In article <9e3qq8$jk$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
> George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >through my monitor headphones off of the live feed, either. In fact, they
> >don't sound bad until they get on a CD!
>
> George, if that's what's happening, you need to check what is going on
> later in the production chain here.
I recently started recording again, and it is my impression there is a
lot of soundprocessing between a recording and a CD.
One of the most common things is compression. If I put a normalized
unprocessed recording on a CD, the result has about 6dB (or more) lower
sound level than commercial CD's. For non-classical music the
difference is more.
For a commercial CD this is an adventage, the CD sounds louder,
more intrusive, on a radio broadcast. Some radio stations do another
compression on all their output to sound louder between the other
stations.
I don't like all these compressions, if you listen to it you get
tyred and agitated.
I've not noticed any problems with the 44.1khz/16bit sampling,
although I record at 96khz/24bits. Just to be shure I keep my
masters at 96/24, but the difference is not audible for me
(but I am that far over 18, maybe other people do hear the difference)
Chel van Gennip
Listen to http://www.mp3.com/SergvanGennip
George Graves
wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
> >
> > In article <9e3lfv$8pb$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>, j...@research.att.com
>
> > > Was this a DBT? If it wasn't, your statement means nothing, sorry.
>
> > The linefeed was from the stage where a symphony orchestra was playing.
> > I
> > was recording that symphony orchestra and when I switched my monitor
> > headphones from 'tape' to 'source', I was listening to the linefeed
> > directly
> > from the microphones. About as close as you can get.
>
> It would only be close enough if the levels were precisely
> matched. Were they precisely matched?
>
> Howard Ferstler
>
They are EXACTLY matched using an HP-400 Audio voltmeter. If they aren't,
then switching from 'source' to 'tape' would tell the recording engineer
NOTHING about what he's laying down on tape.
George Graves
wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
> >
> > In article <9e10ni$b3u$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>, hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu
>
> > > Yes, but "they" are but a small fraction of the music-buying
> > > public these days. The vast bulk of people prefer the sound
> > > of the compact disc.
>
> > There are many more cockroaches on this earth than there are people,
> > Arny.
>
> I should point out her that it was me, Howard Ferstler, who
> made that comment, and not Arny.
Sorry. My apologies to both you and Arny.
And we are talking about
> audio enthusiasts who are looking for good sound and not a
> bunch of bugs who evolved.
Actually, that's not the point, now, is it?
>
> > Does that make them a higher form of life than human beings? I ask
> > this because you seem to be impressed by statistics and use sales
> > figures to back-up your arguments while ignoring other factors.
>
> Well, the important factor is that the LP started out with a
> HUGE lead in the early 1980s, and still managed to lose out
> against the CD in a big way.
This is wrong for a start. For several years before the CD came along, the
same enlightened consumer that you say "Chose" CD because of its
overwhelming superiority, had bought cassettes to the point that they
outsold records by a significant margin. This margin continued to grow until
CD took over completely in the late 80's.
> People were in a position to
> compare in a very serious manner back then (they certainly
> had turntables and discs, and were familiar with the LP
> sound), and they still deserted to the compact disc.
Er- correction. They deserted the LP for the Cassette for reasons of
convenience.
> And we
> are not just talking about the mob, here. We are also
> talking about serious enthusiasts.
Serious enthusiasts left the LP for the CD, yes. They were not interested in
the cassette for music listening purposes. But the hoi-paloi didn't care
about sound quality, then or now. Cassette was "good enough" for them then
and CD, Mini-Disc, and MP3 are good enough for them now.
> > You
> > assume that people buy CD over vinyl because of the sound.
>
> It stands to reason that sound would play at least some role
> in the proceedings. Remember also that the deserters not
> only included the mass-market types, but also very serious
> audio enthusiasts.
Many of which have changed their minds in the ensuing years. Many
audiophiles bought into solid-state gear in the 60's too. Its not much of a
big deal today, but in those days, soid state was dreck. People talked of
the "transistor sound." It had a sound all right, BAD. But it didn't stop
many audiophiles from buying into it. Even I bought a Stereo 120 and a
PAT-4. Kept it for a couple of years until I heard an old Acrosound tube
preamp and amp. I immediatly sold the Dyna transistor stuff, and stayed with
tubes for many years until solid state actually ironed out its early design
and reliability problems. Now there are good amps in both camps.
> > You seem to
> > completely dismiss such factors as availability - most music is
> > available ONLY on CD,
>
> Yes, and it is this way, because hardly anybody wanted that
> music in LP form. They wanted it in CD form, because the CD
> is better in every way, unless you are talking about the
> size of the pictures on record jackets.
I think its because the INDUSTRY wanted it in CD form for reasons of their
own. Most consumers had switched to cassette from LP by then. At least
that's what the sales figures showed.
> > and records are generally not sold at the places
> > where most people buy their music - so to get the music they want, even
> > vinyl lovers are forced to buy CDs;
>
> Because most music lovers, including a lot of serious
> enthusiasts, will not buy LP recordings if a CD alternative
> is available. And of course, in nearly all cases the CD is
> the only version available, because record producers realize
> that they would not be able to sell LP versions.
I think you are doing a lot of assuming here. Its simply comes down to
money. CDs are very profitable and that's what most people buy (hell, Its
what I buy).
>
> > convenience, - CDs are small, easy
> > to handle, portable, don't wear, don't get scratched (generally) don't
> > build up surface noise with use, don't require rituals such as stylus
> > cleaning, wiping dust off of the disc, de-staticizing the disc, washing
> > dirty records, etc;
>
> Yep, these are a lot of the reasons the CD won out. But if
> the LP sounded better, you would still have a lot of serious
> audio buffs embracing it,
And you do.
> and this is just not the case.
I think it is.
> Compare the number of high-end stores which sell upscale CD
> players with high-end stores that also offer LP players, and
> compare the number of upscale CD player choices with the
> number of upscale LP turntable choices.
Irrelevant when talking about a niche (vinyl users) within a niche
(audiophiles).
> > and finally perception. The average CD user knows
> > only that CD represents new technology and that vinyl represents old.
>
> They are indeed that smart.
Smart? They have been told that.
> > Therefore CD must sound better, right?
>
> Well, some people feel that way. However, a lot of really
> serious enthusiasts went for the CD because it really did
> sound better.
Well, it really doesn't, you know.
> > Also, most people CAN'T HEAR.
> > That is not to say that most people have ear defects, but rather, that
> > most people are not as interested in the minutia of audio reproduction
> > as are audiophiles and have not trained themselves to hear it.
>
> Certainly. However, the number of serious audio buffs who
> favor the CD greatly outnumber the number of serious buffs
> who still swear by the LP.
This has little to do with choice. CD is what WE HAVE.
> It was not just the defection of
> the know-nothings that sealed the fate of the LP. A lot of
> really serious, knowledgeable enthusiasts also defected.
And a lot have come back once they realized that the emporer has no clothes.
> > A case
> > in point. I was watching Tech TV's 'Fresh Gear' program last week, and
> > the hostess, a young lady named Sumi Das, was talking about a MP3
> > player. She said categorically that she could hear no difference
> > between
> > the CD and ANY of the supported compression rates! Now, this is the
> > 'music-buying public' whose numbers you rely upon to back up your
> > assertions that people buy CDs.
>
> Most serious enthusiasts also favor the CD over the LP.
Until they actually hear a demonstration which shows them that they are
wrong. Then, a lot of them agree, that LP is better, BUT CD is what we have.
> Besides, your assumption appears to be that because people
> who are not sophisticated prefer the CD over the LP, the LP
> must automatically be superior. However, just because
> somebody who is not sonically adept has an opinion about the
> sound of something does not automatically mean that the
> stuff they like is inferior.
My assumption is just the opposite. The non-sophisticated buyer buys what he
is given. He doesn't care enough to seek-out what MAY be superior
alternatives.
> > > And the jitter you think you hear is a
> > > non issue with me and certainly with them, too.
>
> > "Them." - A populace that can't tell the difference between highly
> > compressed and data-rate reduced MP3 and a CD.
>
> That populace also includes a lot of pretty sharp people,
> including some pretty sharp audio enthusiasts and pretty
> sharp audio engineers. Have you ever conclusively tested
> your ideas about the audibility of jitter by doing some
> genuinely exacting comparisons? Level-matched comparisons,
> preferably done blind?
I'm not the jitter guy, that's Harry Lavo.
>
> > A lot of
> > > very, very serious audio enthusiasts (including some
> > > engineers) think that jitter is a pseudo problem, and if
> > > there is any high-frequency hardness that is digitally
> > > triggered, I would like to know where it is coming from.
>
> > Too few samples in the 3 - 10 KHz range, perhaps?
>
> What on earth does this mean?
>
> > > Most of the time, the hardness people hear is the result of
> > > microphone choices and the way microphones are located, and
> > > nothing else.
>
> > Oh? Then why don't those problems show up on analog master tapes
> > recorded with the same microphones?
>
> > And just how would you quantify this hardness using the response
> > curves?
>
> A measurable rise in upper midrange and treble output.
> Digital does not exhibit this, and so the hardness you claim
> to hear is either the result of microphone or mastering
> artifacts, or the result of a sag in the midrange response
> of the LP version, which makes the flatter CD seem hard and
> forward, by comparison. The fact is that the LP may be
> reticent over that frequency range, whereas the CD is
> accurate.
>
> > > > Record and CD sales have absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue.
>
> > > They have a lot to do with it. The buying public had access
> > > to tons of LP recordings when the CD first appeared, and
> > > over the next few years they deserted the analog format in
> > > droves. They were in a position to compare on a grand scale
> > > at that time, and it is ironic that the digital system of
> > > that era was not quite as refined as what we have now
> > > (players are better and so are recorders), and the hardware
> > > cost a lot more than it does now, and people STILL defected
> > > to the compact disc. They deserted, because the CD is not
> > > only more convenient to use, but is also cleaner sounding
> > > and more true to the sound of the master tape and the
> > > intentions of the recording engineer.
>
> > I'm with you up to the part where you say "....more true to the sound
> > of
> > the master tape and the intentions of the recording engineer." How
> > would
> > the average consumer know what the master tape sounds like or what the
> > intentions of the recording engineer were?
>
> And how would the average LP enthusiast? Let's face it, it
> is strictly subjective and preference related in some ways.
> You and a number of enthusiasts prefer the euphonic
> colorations and frequency-response irregularities of the LP.
> On the other hand I do not, and a number of other really
> serious enthusiasts also do not.
>
> On the other hand, some things are not subjective at all:
> the wow and flutter we find with the LP (often warp
> related), as well as inner-groove artifacts, subtle surface
> noise with even good discs, and obnoxious pops and ticks
> with substandard discs.
>
> > > > You missed my point...your ASSUMPTION is that it is true. Your
> > > > ASSUMPTION
> > > > is that the reason we think it sounds more like real music is the
> > > > distortion. And nothing positive inherent in the medium, such as
> > > > LACK
> > > > of
> > > > digital artifacts.
>
> > > What digital artifacts? Aside from your and a few others'
> > > gut-level reaction to digital audio as it exists today, and
> > > anecdotal opinions of digiphobes, just what can you offer up
> > > as documented, scientifically repeatable proof that said
> > > digital artifacts are audible?
>
> > The same documented, scientifically repeatable proof that you give for
> > the preference for vinyl being a product of "euphonic distortions."
>
> The phase and frequency-response anomalies we claim exist
> with the LP certainly are measurable. In the old days, the
> measurements made on phono cartridges by hobby-magazine
> reviewers clearly showed them to be vastly inferior to the
> compact-disc players of those same old days. I think this
> was pretty common knowledge among regular audio buffs in a
> pretty short period of time
>
> Anyway, do you really think that a little stylus tip,
> tracking a tiny groove molded into a plastic disc, will be
> able to accurately reproduce the sound of two, independent
> signals all that cleanly, with minimal artifacts?
>
> > > > As Emerson points out, if this were true then we would
> > > > prefer the LP over a line feed. And we don't.
>
> > > That is you and he, and have you really compared? And have
> > > you compared a line feed to the digital copy, level matched?
>
> > I have. The line feed sounds better. PERIOD.
>
> Well, a number of audio engineers have emphatically said
> that the line feed sounds no better at all. So, we have a
> standoff in that area, don't we?
>
> Or do we? When you did your comparison, were you able to do
> an exact level match between the feed and the digital copy?
> If you did not do that, all bets are off.\
I was switching between 'line' and 'tape' while recording. The levels were
as closely matched as humanly possible using an HP-400 audio voltmeter and
an HP audio generator.
--
George Graves
"Nothing handles like an Alfa Romeo"
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Chel van Gennip <ch...@vangennip.nl> wrote:
>I recently started recording again, and it is my impression there is a
>lot of soundprocessing between a recording and a CD.
Certainly true in most "commercial" recordings. There is an
appalling level of compression, EQ to make it "hot", etc,
even where it's not needed or desirable.
>One of the most common things is compression. If I put a normalized
>unprocessed recording on a CD, the result has about 6dB (or more) lower
>sound level than commercial CD's.
You're doing well to only find that much compression.
>For non-classical music the
>difference is more.
Heh. Liike 0dB dynamic range. :( It's appalling.
>I don't like all these compressions, if you listen to it you get
>tyred and agitated.
You're being far too nice in my opinion. Appalling keeps
coming to mind, disgusting, annoying, insulting, irritating, well
lots of terms come to mind.
You notice I'm not disagreeing.
Harry Lavo
news:9e2skm$lu$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
Sony added Super Bit Mapping to at least some of their DAT line around 1995
or 96, I believe. Recently their professional line consists of the PCM-R300
(low end), PCM-R500 (middle) and PCM-R700 (higher) line of basic studio
DAT's, the PCM-7040 time-coded DAT recorder for broadcast and film use, and
the PC-M1 for "stealth" location recording. All but the 7040 feature SBM.
Because for studio work Digital Audio Workstations (DAW's) are becoming
popular, there is an increasing number of recent model used DAT's on the
market. For somebody interested in "purist" or location work, this
represents a bonanza. The DAW's are much more convenient for editing and
special effects, which is largely why they have become so popular so
quickly. The fact that they can offer 24 bit and higher sampling rates at
rather affordable prices is another part of their appeal. As of yet, nobody
has produced a portable computer with the necessary quality level of inputs,
hard drive systems, and digital processing to make computers very practical
for location recording.
Harry Lavo
> In article <9e22tl$na$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
> Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >"jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist" <j...@research.att.com> wrote in
> >message news:9dvkhq$v5$1...@bourbaki.localdomain...
> >> In article <9dvdk3$1ss$1...@bourbaki.localdomain>,
> >> Harry Lavo <harry...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >> >Correct me if I am wrong, JJ, but I think you are referring to a
direct
> >> >A/D,D/A conversion independent of medium. Emerson has been talking
about
> >> >16/44 CD reproduction.
>
> >> With good, functioning equipment, the medium is irrelevant.
>
> >JJ, I can say exactly the same thing about LP equipment, for about 98% of
> >the music out there, when it comes to sound quality.
>
> Oh. Really. You can get 95+ dB reproduction accuracy from an LP, then?
>
> Please tell us all how.
For 98% of the music out there, you don't NEED anything approaching 95+ dB
reproduction so it is irrelevant.
>
> >I've got a SBM-equipped SONY dat about to be installed now for comparison
to
> >a standard early 90's16 bit DAT....that will allow me do a little more
> >exploration on my own.
>
> Um, many DAT players are notorious for not having the best convertors
> in the business.
> --
You are right, but short of a funded scientific endeavor, its all I can
afford right now. I do have a pretty good external processing system that I
plan to experiment with as well...but its audiophile, not studio.
Still, I should not explore because I can't afford the equipment Lucent can?
> Copyright j...@research.att.com 2001, all rights reserved, except
transmission
> by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included.
Any
> use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by
this
> article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically
prohibited.
>
Harry Lavo
Harry Lavo
>snip...large segment, nothing to add>
> Unfortunately, how DO you comare this to the "proper standard".
> How do you compare to the LIVE PERFORMANCE THAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED
> instead of some other something that sounds like a live performance?
>
> >But if you think preference is just preference, and because the standard
> >cannot be reached ordinary people when directed can't use it as a
measuring
> >stick for "sounds real" -er than the other, whichever they chose, then
the
> >whole focus of "the Abso!ute Sound" is meaningless to you.
>
> And why do you make this conclusion for me? Why would you do that?
> Why do you attempt to speak for me? Have you any clue what
> I AM working on right now?
>
Because you are the one who says that directing people to judge (based on
their remembered frame of reference) what live sounds like is a waste of
time, and therefore they simply should judge their preference however they
arrive at it....convenience, indestrucatbilty, etc.
Of course I know what you are working on, and I applaud it, but it doesn't
seem to me to invalidate the standard...simply represents a means of getting
much, much closer.
> >Perhaps I am using "digital artifacts" in a way at odds with engineering
> >terminology. It eliminates quantization(sp?) noise...it does nothing to
> >reduce jitter or high frequency ringing or ripple.
>
> Jitter is not a real problem with GOOD equipment. No, not all
> equipment is good. Further, quite a few things that have been
> attributed to dither turn out to be other engineering
> "marvels" (well, yes, that last is sarcastic :( ). The
> "ringing" you worry about is due to bandlimiting, and while it
> is marginally possible in some cases that it could be audible,
> you are mistaken to call it an artifact.
>
I've already acknowledge this, in the strict technical sense. However it is
an "artifact" of cd playback in the more broadly understood sense.
> The point being, you're really stretching the issue when you
> keep referring to digital artifacts, which are easiliy demonstrated
> to be at least one order of magnitude smaller than anything from
> an analog box even when the digital box isn't working so well...
Electrically smaller perhaps, sure, but psychoacoustically.......... ?
>
> >I didn't mean to be insulting, certainly not to you. I was simply
implying
> >much the same thing as you are saying below and in another post. If ee's
> >don't appreciate perceptual mapping, how could they understand something
> >even more subtle in how we hear?
>
> I'm an ee. I work in perception, mostly. Next question?
And you are also a pretty unique person in your field, are you not?
>
> >Since when has high-end audio avoid "cost-no-object" approaches to
things?
>
> Well, Harry, personally I haven't convinced any business manager to
> sell such a box. I know I'm NOT the only one with some experience
> of that fashion.
> --
Maybe you are talking to the wrong size company?
> Copyright j...@research.att.com 2001, all rights reserved, except
transmission
> by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included.
Any
> use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by
this
> article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically
prohibited.
>
Harry Lavo
Stewart Pinkerton
>Serious enthusiasts left the LP for the CD, yes. They were not interested in
>the cassette for music listening purposes. But the hoi-paloi didn't care
>about sound quality, then or now. Cassette was "good enough" for them then
>and CD, Mini-Disc, and MP3 are good enough for them now.
Thank you for *finally* admitting that audiophiles changed to CD for
reasons of *sound quality*!
>> Certainly. However, the number of serious audio buffs who
>> favor the CD greatly outnumber the number of serious buffs
>> who still swear by the LP.
>
>This has little to do with choice. CD is what WE HAVE.
Note your previous admission. CD is what we have because most serious
audiophiles agree that it sounds better..............
Your comments are reminiscent of people who think that the E-type
Jaguar is *still* one of the best sports cars in the world.
>> It was not just the defection of
>> the know-nothings that sealed the fate of the LP. A lot of
>> really serious, knowledgeable enthusiasts also defected.
>
>And a lot have come back once they realized that the emporer has no clothes.
Nah, it's just nostalgia, and a desire to be 'different' and pretend
that you have superior tastes to the hoi polloi and their CDs. It is
indeed a fine case of shivering Emperor, but not in the way you
think.............
>> Most serious enthusiasts also favor the CD over the LP.
>
>Until they actually hear a demonstration which shows them that they are
>wrong. Then, a lot of them agree, that LP is better, BUT CD is what we have.
Note your previous admission re the situation when LP was what we had,
CD had just been launched, was difficult to find and players were very
expensive.............
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering