View Full Version : CDs help make my life a bore.
Rothchild
18-02-2013, 22:29
Yup 'Digitally remastered' is a bit of a dogwhistle term for me, on CD or vinyl, as it normally translates roughly as 'no more than about 5dB of dynamic range utilised at any point in this recording'.
This is an issue of fashion (and a consequence of ignorance) rather than a realistic commentary on the relative merits of either format.
Probably for another thread but I think folk in general need to get their heads around compression (dynamic range control as opposed to data compression) and understand the difference between the artistic effect created by using it in the recording and mixing process (including by driving level to tape as well as by using discrete 'compressors'), the value of dynamic range present (or otherwise) in a recording media (and its relationship with signal to noise ratios and gain structure) and finally the unfortunate fashion of using clipping, limiters and other 'loudness maximisation' tools in contemporary mastering.
This is akin to arguing over which shade of blue is preferable in a seascape when one is confronted by the most beautiful tropical paradise beach scene imaginable. F*ck that, I'm off to grab a Pina Colada and a sun lounger while you guys argue over a friggin' technicality... :lol:
I don't 'do' sunbathing or girly-man drinks, so I'll be in the shade, on a hammock, sipping an ice-cold beer! ;)
Marco.
Or that of course... *coughs* :lol:
Rare Bird
18-02-2013, 23:12
This is the second time i nodded of reading these threads
Why - please elaborate.
There is a wide opinion that this is the opposite. I would advise paying a visit to the Steve Hoffman forum where music enthusiasts debate over 'remastered' CD reissues. There is a wide consensus that recordings are being ruined by modern mastering. In fact many enthusiasts are actively seeking out the original CDs.
The problem as I'm sure you have noticed is an increased loudness so you cannot turn up the volume without the sound falling apart and becoming a strain. The tendency is to keep turning the volume down to a more comfortable level. This means the wide dynamic range Frank trumpets for CD is rarely realised on modern CD.
The more satisfying reissues are on vinyl. Many of these often use little or no compression in relation to the original vinyl mastering and thus can provide a superior sound to a first pressing and most certainly to any CD transfers of the recording.
Paul.
My observation concerning remastered CDs has been through comparing them with the vinyl originals. In 99% of cases the remastered CD sounded as good as the vinyl, whereas the original CD sounded 'flat' and uninvolving.
Removal, or reduction of compression in relation to the original vinyl mastering is due to the making of a new master tape; a process that can equally be applied to the manufacture of 'remastered' CDs.
The latest tendency for compression has nothing to do with CDs as such, it is simply the fashion for studio engineers to pander to the MP3 generation who, it would seem, prefer a limited dynamic range. A recent comparison of a new remastered CD of the Stones' 'Sticky Fingers' compared with an earlier remaster, shows the new version to have a higher replay volume level. The dynamics are unchanged.
I choose not to buy new vinyl since I am unwilling to pay £25 for an LP.
Can someone please sympathise with me instead of all the Negative posters that won't be on my Christmas card list any longer.
Boo hoo.. :lol:
I thought you wanted a discussion, not just for us to rush to your bed side and pat your hand..
I love digital, sounds great. You're missing out - better learn to love it else always have that negative feeling inside. Or you can hide from it and limit yourself to comfortable vinyl.
It's your choice, you are in control. I'm confident you can take the right path and feel QUIETLY confident about that choice (i.e. no need to start more threads about hating stuff :ner:)
:cool:
Whilst still sounding very enjoyable, to my ears (and I suspect those also of Andre) there is undoubtedly a 'squeaky-clean' falseness to the sound of CD (or any digital music format): a 'processed/glassy' sonic signature superimposed onto the music, if you will, compared with vinyl at its best, which despite its flaws, does not exhibit those characteristics, and the pro-digital crew can quote all the 'scientific facts & figures' or 'logic' they like at us, and it won't alter what others and I can clearly hear with our lugholes....! ;)
'Digital glare' is a very real phenomenon, which Frank says he acknowledges but no longer hears in his system. Well, whilst I don't doubt that both his digital and vinyl sources sound excellent, I would wager that if I were to listen to both in his system, I'd still hear the digital glare from his CDP that experience tells me is inherent in ALL forms of digital music reproduction (which subequently means that CD cannot be genuinely sonically accurate), especially when comparing it with the sound of the best vinyl recordings on his superb turntable - in fact, I'll bring some of my favourite records with me, and perhaps also my T/T.
The effect of digital glare may well be very subtle, as it is in my system, but I'm pretty confident it will still be there in his system, with CD. Frank, are you up for having a visitor, so we can educate each other from our respective viewpoints and experiences? We may still not agree on the matter, but at least we will understand better where each other are coming from. Could be fun! :cool:
Marco.
purite audio
19-02-2013, 09:40
If you slightly roll off the HF ,digital will sound like vinyl, customers generally prefer a slightly rolled off FR, and a slight mid bass hump.
Keith.
Lol - not me, Keith... That's most certainly NOT why I prefer vinyl - perish the thought!! :eek:
I prefer vinyl, because, to my ears, music sounds more believable and real: the complete opposite of euphonic, which is the effect implied by your suggestion.
What you describe is also the last way I'd want *ANY* part of my system to sound! I think your customers need some re-educating... ;)
Marco.
Rare Bird
19-02-2013, 10:11
Boo hoo.. :lol:
I thought you wanted a discussion, not just for us to rush to your bed side and pat your hand..
I love digital, sounds great. You're missing out - better learn to love it else always have that negative feeling inside. Or you can hide from it and limit yourself to comfortable vinyl.
Nat get real, what do you think i am some kind of amateur new comer to Hi-Fi.
:rolleyes:
Marco: 'squeaky-clean' falseness to the sound sounds about right. Im like you i use my ears not specs
If you slightly roll off the HF ,digital will sound like vinyl, customers generally prefer a slightly rolled off FR, and a slight mid bass hump.
Keith.
That's a stereotypical view and one that IME isn't correct nowdays, I feel it was more valid in the days before CD when we didn't have an easily available reference for a fairly flat frequency response (ie DC). The view expressed is somewhat analogous to saying all valve amps sound warm and muddy.
The opposite view is that customers (real people) who listen to music rather than want a background noise, don't want to be pinned to the wall with harsh treble and no bass or lower-mid underpin - this likewise is a sterotypical and inaccurate view of CD.
That's a stereotypical view and one that IME isn't correct nowdays...
Indeed. 'Hackneyed' would be another apt description! ;)
Marco.
Whilst still sounding very enjoyable, to my ears (and I suspect those also of Andre) there is undoubtedly a 'squeaky-clean' falseness to the sound of CD (or any digital music format): a 'processed/glassy' sonic signature superimposed onto the music, if you will, compared with vinyl at its best, which despite its flaws, does not exhibit those characteristics, and the pro-digital crew can quote all the 'scientific facts & figures' or 'logic' they like at us, and it won't alter what others and I can clearly hear with our lugholes....! ;)
'Digital glare' is a very real phenomenon, which Frank says he acknowledges but no longer hears in his system. Well, whilst I don't doubt that both his digital and vinyl sources sound excellent, I would wager that if I were to listen to both in his system, I'd still hear the digital glare from his CDP that experience tells me is inherent in all forms of digital music reproduction (which subequently means that CD cannot be genuinely sonically accurate), especially when comparing it with the sound of the best vinyl recordings on his superb turntable - in fact, I'll bring some of my favourite records with me, and perhaps also my T/T.
The effect of digital glare may well be very subtle, as it is in my system, but I'm pretty confident it will still be there in his system, with CD. Frank, are you up for having a visitor, so we can educate each other from our respective viewpoints and experiences? We may still not agree on the matter, but at least we will understand better where each other are coming from. Could be fun! :cool:
Marco.
Sure, come along any time. You would be most welcome. It would be great to meet you and would indeed be great fun.
I actually pass not far from Wrexham fairly often myself. My daughter lives on Anglesey, and one of the routes I take when visiting them can take me in that direction.
Mind you, whether you personally prefer LP to CD on my system will not change my view. I often/usually prefer the sound of the LP to the CD myself. I have just made a logical set of deductions about why that should be, which differs from that espoused by many on fora.
I am not arguing your point about all parts of the hifi chain having colouration. The thing is the colouration added by CD is tiny, the colouration added by an LP system, even ignoring what (euphonic) mods have to be done to it before the master disc can be cut, is considerable. A bit of extra reverb, a lot of extra crosstalk and so forth.
Whilst that -might- not be the reason LPs sound nice, "musical" etc. no other explanation makes -any- sense whatsoever to me and requires a religious approach to the belief process which I am not capable of.
Anyway, I'm helping look after one of my grandchildren this morning, she has gone upstairs for a map but grandad's attention will be required again soon.
Frank
That's a stereotypical view and one that IME isn't correct nowdays, I feel it was more valid in the days before CD when we didn't have an easily available reference for a fairly flat frequency response (ie DC). The view expressed is somewhat analogous to saying all valve amps sound warm and muddy.
The opposite view is that customers (real people) who listen to music rather than want a background noise, don't want to be pinned to the wall with harsh treble and no bass or lower-mid underpin - this likewise is a sterotypical and inaccurate view of CD.
Oops, DC is the ultimate infra-bass so not very HF :-)
I -do- find that most of my friends, when loading their cartridge, do choose a setting which rolls off the high end if they do it by ear, and I find my cartridge sounds a bit harsh when loaded flat and I too used to load it down a bit myself.
If you look at the in room response of Stereophiles analogue enthusiast Art Dudley's favoured system it is what I would call very rolled off.
The difference in quality between recordings is much greater than the difference between LP and CD [...]
There are so many variables in the equation. The medium is but one of them. Recently I blew some visitors away with near simultaneous playing of Elvis' "Fever". These were non-audiophiles but phrases like 'three dimensional' popped out. But it was all a cheat. (1) The LP was the recently remastered Living Voice version; (2) this was a 45 rpm LP [the vinyl equivalent of hi-res]; (3) the signal paths followed two different directions: one had to go through a phono stage and the other had to go through an outboard DAC.
(Actually there was a 4th variable - the interconnects but these would for sure have favoured the digital version.)
To be honest I am making an assumption that it was the same recording session. However the real point is as originally posted it was a different variable - the remastering - that made the difference.
However this is such a slippery topic. I have Jennifer Warnes "The Hunter" both on CD and Vinyl and I have to say I prefer the CD. Others are the other way around. Stravinsky's 'The Rite of Spring' on DG with Claudio Abbado conducting is the most startling difference ever. The CD is frankly boring but the LP ... well, well, well - It is my single best piece of recorded music.
I think this too goes towards illustrating that while in one sense one format may be better; in any individual case there are other factors at play. These could be (a) The Recording, (b) The mixing / mastering, (c) The transfer to media, (d) the relative quality of the equipment playing the media.
Stravinsky's 'The Rite of Spring' on DG with Claudio Abbado conducting is the most startling difference ever. The CD is frankly boring but the LP ... well, well, well - It is my single best piece of recorded music.
Hi Andrei,
Could I ask what year was the recording made on your LP version of the Stravinsky piece?
Frank, excellent post. I will most certainly take you up on your offer! I shall comment later on the rest of your post. Just about to pop out for a bit... :)
Marco.
Oops, DC is the ultimate infra-bass so not very HF :-)
I didn't make myself clear. I'm talking about what Neil Young and others go on about. The lack of substance to some recordings, it's less so nowadays though. This is about an overly lean upper bass and lower mid. Deep bass does not compensate!
Audioman
19-02-2013, 11:13
If you slightly roll off the HF ,digital will sound like vinyl, customers generally prefer a slightly rolled off FR, and a slight mid bass hump.
Keith.
Rolled of treble in vinyl is a myth and is due to the mastering or deck/arm/cartridge/phono being used. That is typical of certain well known wooden plinth belt drives from the 70s. Also many older recordings have a rolled off treble in the first place. My system can produce extended treble and one comes across the odd DMM/digitally mastered LP that can sound just as hard and bright at the top end as any CD.
Granted digital bass can be dry and extended in comparison to vinyl but appropriate system matching can come close in minimizing that mid bass hump. I certainly don't attempt to roll off the high frequencies playing CD and don't feel a need to. I think the trick with either format is to avoid many modern speaker designs with a rising treble to impress in the showroom.
Paul.
Rolled of treble in vinyl is a myth and is due to the mastering or deck/arm/cartridge/phono being used. That is typical of certain well known wooden plinth belt drives from the 70s. Also many older recordings have a rolled off treble in the first place. My system can produce extended treble and one comes across the odd DMM/digitally mastered LP that can sound just as hard and bright at the top end as any CD.
Granted digital bass can be dry and extended in comparison to vinyl but appropriate system matching can come close in minimizing that mid bass hump. I certainly don't attempt to roll off the high frequencies playing CD and don't feel a need to. I think the trick with either format is to avoid many modern speaker designs with a rising treble to impress in the showroom.
Paul.
Hi Paul,
I think that non-rolled off loudspeakers have only been made in the UK (and the US) in relatively recent years. All the speakers when I started being interested in hifi had a rolled off on axis response, and a very rolled off in room response.
You are quite right. When I asked I was told the customers preferred this on audition.
French and German speakers tended to have an even frequency response and were critiscised as harsh and bright here in the UK, not to our taste.
Big manufacturers even "voiced" their individual products to the tastes of the market in each country they sold into.
In a record player it is all but impossible to roll off the treble with the turntable, would take sophisticated (and pointless!) engineering in an arm is fairly easy in a cartridge and trivial in the phono stage, with MC cartridges at least.
When I used an entirely active phono stage my preference was for a loading on my cartridge which rolled it off slightly. Now I am using a step up transformer into a MM stage I am stuck with whatever I get from the loading...
There shouldn't inherently be a mid-bass hump from vinyl. The low bass is strongly influenced by the arm/cartridge resonance, cartridge (and arm if there is any) damping and phonos stage design. If there is a mid-bass hump it is something being created/exacerbated by the dynamic response of the elements of the system, probably a region where the isolation isn't working effectively and/or structural resonances within the turntable or support.
Now the fashion is for non-suspended decks this quite likely.
purite audio
19-02-2013, 16:03
If you ever get the chance ,try experimenting wit hsomething like the Trinnov DSP boxes, extremely interesting, you can make your speakers almost sound like ther brand altogether .
Keith.
Hi Andrei,
Could I ask what year was the recording made on your LP version of the Stravinsky piece?
Marco.
It is a Japanese pressing at 45 rpm on the Deutche Grammophon label. Claudio Abbado conducting the London Symphony Orchestra. The number on the cover is 28GG 0003. It goes under the French title of Le Sacre du Printemps It does not state the year of the pressing. According to http://www.discogs.com/Igor-Stravinsky-London-Symphony-Orchestra-Claudio-Abbado-Le-Sacre-Du-Printemps/release/3573627 it was originally released in 1976. I would hazard a guess and say this new Japanese pressing was done in the last five years or so.
This was one of a few albums that confused me in the late 80s when I switched to the 'new and improved' media of CD. I could not understand how the CD could not sound better. I now know it was just a BS transfer to CD.
I have about a dozen 'Rites' including the 'Stravinsky Conducts' series but I find it difficult to listen to others because they pale in comparison.
Boo hoo.. :lol:
I thought you wanted a discussion, not just for us to rush to your bed side and pat your hand..
I love digital, sounds great. You're missing out - better learn to love it else always have that negative feeling inside. Or you can hide from it and limit yourself to comfortable vinyl.
It's your choice, you are in control. I'm confident you can take the right path and feel QUIETLY confident about that choice (i.e. no need to start more threads about hating stuff :ner:)
:cool:
Nat get real, what do you think i am some kind of amateur new comer to Hi-Fi.
:rolleyes:
Not sure how your reply is related to my post, but besides that now you mention it if you're finding the need to ask why CDs bore you 30 years after living with it, I'd conclude that you're only now just thinking about things... unless it was a post in the digital section to say how you hate CD just for effect.
My post was saying that your apparent strong reaction to CD after 30 years whilst others enjoy it, is more about psychology, self-awarness etc. That doe"mt come automatically with either age nor hifi experience.
There are so many variables in the equation. The medium is but one of them. Recently I blew some visitors away with near simultaneous playing of Elvis' "Fever". These were non-audiophiles but phrases like 'three dimensional' popped out. But it was all a cheat. (1) The LP was the recently remastered Living Voice version; (2) this was a 45 rpm LP [the vinyl equivalent of hi-res]; (3) the signal paths followed two different directions: one had to go through a phono stage and the other had to go through an outboard DAC.
(Actually there was a 4th variable - the interconnects but these would for sure have favoured the digital version.)
To be honest I am making an assumption that it was the same recording session. However the real point is as originally posted it was a different variable - the remastering - that made the difference.
However this is such a slippery topic. I have Jennifer Warnes "The Hunter" both on CD and Vinyl and I have to say I prefer the CD. Others are the other way around. Stravinsky's 'The Rite of Spring' on DG with Claudio Abbado conducting is the most startling difference ever. The CD is frankly boring but the LP ... well, well, well - It is my single best piece of recorded music.
I think this too goes towards illustrating that while in one sense one format may be better; in any individual case there are other factors at play. These could be (a) The Recording, (b) The mixing / mastering, (c) The transfer to media, (d) the relative quality of the equipment playing the media.
I'd agree with that wholeheartedly. It's people who actually make recordings themselves who seem to be the most amazed with what digital can do in terms of realism. Obviously they can't cut direct to disk but they often report it sounding much better than what they hear with commercial recordings.
Really must get around to scanning and posting up the article I read regarding how vinyl's colourations are perfect for masking common poor recording techniques whilst CD reveals them.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
21-02-2013, 05:48
Nat, please post that. Sounds really interesting.
Rare Bird
21-02-2013, 08:17
Not sure how your reply is related to my post, but besides that now you mention it if you're finding the need to ask why CDs bore you 30 years after living with it, I'd conclude that you're only now just thinking about things... unless it was a post in the digital section to say how you hate CD just for effect.
My post was saying that your apparent strong reaction to CD after 30 years whilst others enjoy it, is more about psychology, self-awarness etc. That doe"mt come automatically with either age nor hifi experience.
Get you facts right. After 30 years!! The music i buy didnt start surfacing on CD till mid-late 90's. prior to that there was very few albums i bought on CD when CDee's came out.. Ive explained why i continued to buy CDee's & that's because i made one very crucial mistake in my life & that was selling my prized vinyl collection in the 90's. This wasnt a switch to CD it's was a personal financial reason.
''not only now just thinking about things'', Ive also explained that ive noticed a hell of a lot of vinyl re-issues lately hence my gateway back into the vinyl domain, i no longer have to live with CDee's because they are the only viable way to get hands on the albums i need. So cut the attitude & start reading my posts properly please.
I was never cut out for CDee's never will be. As the o/p states they helped make my life a bore.
Floyddroid
21-02-2013, 08:17
Right on Mr Bird. I'm with you. :)
Unlike Frank I don't think many need to warm up their TT bearings to get good sound.
Hi Paul,
I realise that I wasn't very clear about this when I mentioned it. My Goldmund Reference turntable has a tiny clearance between the bearing and journal. When the deck was new they supplied 2 oils a thin one for cold rooms and a thicker one for warm rooms. Mine has the thicker oil, and in winter I need to warm the bearing with a 60 watt "spherical heater" (light bulb) before I get good speed stability.
On the subject of CD I haven't been clear enough in trying to reduce confusion over potential and actual performance. There is no doubt that many CDs are being released with a pityful sound quality. This has lead to a belief that there is some inherent fault with CD.
My point is simple, and requires no measurements to illustrate, just listening tests. Forget comparing CD and LP releases of the same album, they will be different.
Record your LP onto CD. Play back the CD.
Does it have "digital glare"?
Does it sound different to the LP?
Has the LP "resolution" been masked?
You will find on audition that as long as a good quality ADC has been used for the recording the answer to all these questions is no.
That is because, as the maths tells us, -all- the output coming from the phono stage can be completely recorded onto a 44/16 file.
Record your LP onto CD. Play back the CD.
Does it have "digital glare"?
Does it sound different to the LP?
Has the LP "resolution" been masked?
You will find on audition that as long as a good quality ADC has been used for the recording the answer to all these questions is no.
That is because, as the maths tells us, -all- the output coming from the phono stage can be completely recorded onto a 44/16 file.
Hi Frank,
Been there, done that. The result was that 'digital glare' was all but removed, compared with the 'bought' CD of the same album, and sound quality was markedly improved. Therefore, the CD produced of the vinyl album, recorded from my T/T, sonically outperformed the same music on CD, bought commercially! :)
One of my mates recorded ('digitised' onto CD) vinyl albums of rock music, from his LP12, and those remain as amongst the finest sounding recordings I own on CD - WAY better than 95% of 'bought' CDs being produced now.
That certainly tells me that involving the use of vinyl (as an analogue input) in the recording process, and thereby making the result 'ADD', as opposed to 'DDD', markedly improves sound quality, which in turn shows that some aspects of the digital recording process are less than optimal, sonically! ;)
Marco.
That is because, as the maths tells us, -all- the output coming from the phono stage can be completely recorded onto a 44/16 file.
That's a little disingenuous, Frank. If it were so, then all hi-res formats would be redundant and we would not be able to hear any improvement whatsoever. However, that's not nearly the case so I would suggest that the maths do not adequately describe the human hearing range.
For instance, I have at least one LP that was known to trigger the CD4 detector on old quadraphonic decoders. I would guess that there are many other similar LPs with an audio range that extends above the 22.05kHz maximum possible in the 44/16 scheme. I put it to you, then, that a 44/16 encoder cannot completely record the output of a phono stage.
That's a little disingenuous, Frank. If it were so, then all hi-res formats would be redundant and we would not be able to hear any improvement whatsoever. However, that's not nearly the case so I would suggest that the maths do not adequately describe the human hearing range.
For instance, I have at least one LP that was known to trigger the CD4 detector on old quadraphonic decoders. I would guess that there are many other similar LPs with an audio range that extends above the 22.05kHz maximum possible in the 44/16 scheme. I put it to you, then, that a 44/16 encoder cannot completely record the output of a phono stage.
Maybe a bit mischevous yes. The fact that LP is capable of carrying >22.05 kHz is not proof that one can hear it. I don't think much music carries such information up there, a few percussive instruments certainly though. Almost all of the microphones used in the "golden age" of analogue recordings roll off above 16kHz. My point is only that in listening tests the CD sounds like the output of the phono stage, so higher resolution, though possible trchnically, is not necessary if one wants CD to sound as nice as LP.
Greater than 16 bit dynamic range is pointless for domestic playback, though useful to avoid mistakes during recording.
32/14 sounded pretty fine to me (BBC radio 3 FM) so 44/16 already is "high res" :)
Hi Frank,
Been there, done that. The result was that 'digital glare' was all but removed, compared with the 'bought' CD of the same album, and sound quality was markedly improved. Therefore, the CD produced of the vinyl album, recorded from my T/T, sonically outperformed the same music on CD, bought commercially! :)
One of my mates recorded ('digitised' onto CD) vinyl albums of rock music, from his LP12, and those remain as amongst the finest sounding recordings I own on CD - WAY better than 95% of 'bought' CDs being produced now.
That certainly tells me that involving the use of vinyl (as an analogue input) in the recording process, and thereby making the result 'ADD', as opposed to 'DDD', markedly improves sound quality, which in turn shows that some aspects of the digital recording process are less than optimal, sonically! ;)
Marco.
Quite so Marco, but the point I was making is that, far from being a flat boring low resolution system with glare CD is capable of recording the output of an LP player complete with all the added euphonic colourations :) ie CD is capable of everything an LP is (and more theoretically though I don't know how to demonstrate this with listening tests only).
Both you and I have experienced it.
Essentially, Frank, I agree with what you're saying. There's no doubt that CD *can* sound stunning...
However, as good as the digitised CD of the vinyl album sounded, recorded from either my T/T or my friend's, the vinyl album itself, played on either turntable, still sounded better than the digitised CD! ;)
Therefore, to my ears, whatever way you cut it, digital at its best, still falls some way short, sonically, of vinyl at its best, but it's nice to have access, in one's system, to both formats performing at the pinnacle of their capabilities :)
Marco.
Maybe a bit mischevous yes.
Thought so :)
I think we've scared Frank off! :eek:
Marco.
I think we've scared Frank off! :eek:
Marco.
Not at all just not got anything else to add on the subject...
I still think 32/14 digital (as used by the BBC) is superb and 44/16 is high res.
GDR!
WOStantonCS100
26-02-2013, 00:50
Not at all just not got anything else to add on the subject...
I still think 32/14 digital (as used by the BBC) is superb and 44/16 is high res.
GDR!
Now, I am scared off. ;)
Quite so Marco, but the point I was making is that, far from being a flat boring low resolution system with glare CD is capable of recording the output of an LP player complete with all the added euphonic colourations :) ie CD is capable of everything an LP is (and more theoretically though I don't know how to demonstrate this with listening tests only).
Both you and I have experienced it.
I've experienced that with a digital pre-amp connected to a good phono stage. All the things I like about vinyl were still there and of course in some ways more enjoyable than CD, as ever it is most often.
There was a little thing written somewhere by Martin Colloms where he recorded his vinyl setup using the Meridian 607 A/D, put on CD (probably with Meridian's CDR machine, maybe with dither via 618 processor) and took it to Meridian to play back on the then current Meridian flagship digital speakers. Alan Boothroyd was said to be stunned by the sound of it. Much better than the CD recordings.
It's the recording process/techniques I tell ya! Often not up to scratch for the attributes of digital but beautified by the attributes of vinyl.
I really must find and scan in that Alan Shaw article..
Listening to a recording of a friend's band the other day, done at a fancy studio in Manchester - pre mastering - quite astonishing SQ with some unbelievable deep bass, very heavily eq'd - I thought he was going to blow his 'speakers up. I am really of the opinion that there is nothing wrong with the medium, it is the recording and production where the problems lie.
Re: hi-res digital - you cannot discount the possibility that the superior sound that some SACD and DVD-A posesss is down to painstaking re-mastering and not the extra bits.
you cannot discount the possibility that the superior sound that some SACD and DVD-A posesss is down to painstaking re-mastering and not the extra bits.
Not discounting it, Martin, but my ears tell me something different. I can compare DVD-A with CD from the same remastering issues. SACD hybrids are even easier to compared as I can switch layers. The hi-res discs have an effortless top end, more pronounced soundstage and just more 'real' feel to them that I don't think is just down to mastering differences.
Just one example: the Japanese SACD of Genesis: Selling England by the Pound is absolutely outstanding, one of the very best 'virtual master tape' sounds I have ever heard. The hear-through nature of it - you can almost feel Gabriel's lips move - is something I have never heard from CD.
That may be the case on your system, I have a few SACD hybrids but I don't have a player capable of high quality SACD replay so all the comparisons I have made have been on other's systems. I might get a decent SACD player now they are cheap s/h and give it another go.
Audioman
26-02-2013, 17:27
Re: hi-res digital - you cannot discount the possibility that the superior sound that some SACD and DVD-A posesss is down to painstaking re-mastering and not the extra bits.
If you have a DVDA player you can check for yourself. Buy one of the Steve Wilson mastered King Crimson titles. One disc is a CD the other is DVD/DVDA. Compare using a universal player for DVDA and a dedicated CD player (with a proper CD transport). Same meticulous mastering but DVDA (24/96) wins.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
26-02-2013, 18:29
If you have a DVDA player you can check for yourself. Buy one of the Steve Wilson mastered King Crimson titles. One disc is a CD the other is DVD/DVDA. Compare using a universal player for DVDA and a dedicated CD player (with a proper CD transport). Same meticulous mastering but DVDA (24/96) wins.
So, you're saying if I hook up my £200 Sony universal player and whack the DVD in, it's going to sound better than the CD played through my CD transport DAC combo. I'm hoping you're right. This could be a game changer.
Audioman
26-02-2013, 18:45
So, you're saying if I hook up my £200 Sony universal player and whack the DVD in, it's going to sound better than the CD played through my CD transport DAC combo. I'm hoping you're right. This could be a game changer.
Does it play DVDA specifically or just audio DVD? I think the discs play 24/48 on a DVD player and 24/96 on a DVDA player. Just asking because Sony usually only play SACD for obvious reasons. Frankly a £200 player is a bit low end to expect a game changing result. My comparisons involved a Denon Universal player that retailed around £1K when new. However my TEAC (£650 new) is far superior at CD replay. Interested to hear what results you get but I can't see it blowing away the Cyrus kit. Results would be more interesting using one of the old Denon universal machines that can now be picked up for around £100 because users bought them for DVD video and are upgrading to Blue Ray.
Compare using a universal player for DVDA and a dedicated CD player
Doesn't necessarily need to be different players if you have a high end universal intended to play all disc types to their best ability.
If you have a DVDA player you can check for yourself. Buy one of the Steve Wilson mastered King Crimson titles. One disc is a CD the other is DVD/DVDA. Compare using a universal player for DVDA and a dedicated CD player (with a proper CD transport). Same meticulous mastering but DVDA (24/96) wins.
Its 30 quid FFS! I have the original LP bought the week it came out. That'll do for me.
BTW there was no mention of the same mix being used for the CD and DVD-A, though there is no reason why it wouldn't be either.
For such comparisons I would favour downsampling the original file 24/96 to 44/16 then comparing the original to the downsampled one, then there is no concern about different mixes, or the differences between players, though some DACs may favour some sample frequencies over others, I suppose.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
26-02-2013, 19:43
Frank. It's money well spent. Anything remixed or remastered by Steven Wilson is superb. The guy is a genius. I'm listening to it this very minute as it happens.
Audioman
26-02-2013, 20:02
Its 30 quid FFS! I have the original LP bought the week it came out. That'll do for me.
BTW there was no mention of the same mix being used for the CD and DVD-A, though there is no reason why it wouldn't be either.
For such comparisons I would favour downsampling the original file 24/96 to 44/16 then comparing the original to the downsampled one, then there is no concern about different mixes, or the differences between players, though some DACs may favour some sample frequencies over others, I suppose.
£12 from Amazon per title! I am talking about SQ - there may be slight differences but they are both new mixes. (Also original mixes included). Does not make a significant difference in showing the superiority of high res. The dac quality probably gave an advantage to 16bit in my system anyway but is a marginal consideration at this price level. The KC is suggested because both CD and DVDA masterings are of the highest quality.
As for downsampling - what's the point in that! Just let this one go for goodness sake Frank. 16/44 is not flawless and no way maintains the resolution of analogue or hi-res digital.
Audioman
26-02-2013, 20:10
Doesn't necessarily need to be different players if you have a high end universal intended to play all disc types to their best ability.
No but yours cost £5K and my universal thingy cost £80 used. The thing is it illustrates that for a small amount of dosh hi-res sources superiority is still very apparant. I'm sure it all sounds even better on your Ayre though Martin.
Good to know that your player cost so little and still reveals the differences, Paul.
Audioman
26-02-2013, 20:41
Good to know that your player cost so little and still reveals the differences, Paul. To be honest I think it was around £900 new. Just there are bargains to be picked up due to home cinema enthusiasts going over to blue ray.
As for downsampling - what's the point in that! Just let this one go for goodness sake Frank. 16/44 is not flawless and no way maintains the resolution of analogue or hi-res digital.
By downsampling it you guarantee that you're only listening to the difference between 24/96 and 16/44 (personally I'd downsample to 48K and burn it to DVD-A so that there are no SRC alogorythm problems nor the machine reading different formats differently).
You remove the possibility that the sound differnce is because CD version has been mastered in a different way to the DVD-A.
You're post suggested comparing the CD and the DVD-A sound. This way would be better.
you can almost feel Gabriel's lips move
Sounds disturbing... where do you almost feel their movement?
...which is suitably soft ;)
Marco.
Well, I am from the South ;)
Not your head, daftee - zoomer boy's from London!
Marco.
16/44 is not flawless and no way maintains the resolution of analogue or hi-res digital.
It does not maintain the resolution of "high res" digital, but neither does any domestic speaker or the vast majority of amps.
It does maintain the resolution of LP and this is demonstrable by listening tests.
I will not give it a rest as long as the "LP has higher resolution" myth continues to be propagated on the 'net.
LP often sounds nicer than CD to many people, including myself.
There is one chance in 100,000,000 that there is some bit of as-yet-discovered-by-man physics which would actually explain this nicer sound as LP's higher resolution, but until then I will stick with the well known colourations inevitably added by the LP manufacturing and playing processes as the likely explanation of the nice sound. We have known about them for decades so no new physics will be necessary.
I am not prone to religeous conviction, and my whole career has been based on finding logical explanations. So far there has been nothing written anywhere which makes any logical case for LP having higher resolution than CD and quite a lot of inaccurate statements from individuals who have swallowed some of the propaganda hook line and sinker.
In the end, to say "I prefer the sound I get from LPs to CDs" is a completely logical and scientifically acceptable statement.
To say "LPs are better because they have higher resolution than CD" is neither.
(personally I'd downsample to 48K and burn it to DVD-A so that there are no SRC alogorythm problems nor the machine reading different formats differently).
You remove the possibility that the sound differnce is because CD version has been mastered in a different way to the DVD-A.
You're post suggested comparing the CD and the DVD-A sound. This way would be better.
Very sensible. I would agree 100%
It could be argued, Frank, that LP has a resolution ultimately only limited by the size of the vinyl molecules in the groove. In all other aspects, since it is an analogue format, it has a higher resolution than 16/44.
Thought experiment for you: in the 1970s, the CD4 quadraphonic format used a high frequency carrier at around 30kHz for the rear channels. This was happily recorded onto vinyl using the cutters of the time (at half speed) and played back by a line contact profile stylus.
Try recording 30kHz digitally using 16/44. Not possible and violates information theory.
Personally I don't care which is higher res, what does seem to be the case is that the scientists haven't worked out what and how to measure to find out why vinyl works so well.
Also there isn't enough science around to demonstrate why jplay works so well, it's pretty much up with good vinyl replay now. Seems like it's to do with ultra low latency.
Was listening to a few cd's on my £10 player yesterday.
Sounded fantastic.
Maybe new science isn't needed, rather checking assumptions. There was a paper published recently where scientists found people can be 10 times better at recalling sequences of notes than had been thought. This isn't new science, it's called getting it right through valid experimentation.
Maybe we hear those steps between samples which cannot be accurate...surely in than respect vinyl has to be more accurate. So a lot depends on how you measure and what assumptions you make.
It could be argued, Frank, that LP has a resolution ultimately only limited by the size of the vinyl molecules in the groove. In all other aspects, since it is an analogue format, it has a higher resolution than 16/44.
Thought experiment for you: in the 1970s, the CD4 quadraphonic format used a high frequency carrier at around 30kHz for the rear channels. This was happily recorded onto vinyl using the cutters of the time (at half speed) and played back by a line contact profile stylus.
Try recording 30kHz digitally using 16/44. Not possible and violates information theory.
That the ultimate resolution is the vinyl molecule is one of the hoary old chestnuts that has been trotted out frequently before, find me a cutter with a cutter edge which is tighter in radius than a vinyl molecule and I'll show you a way to cut with that resolution.
Find me a stylus profile which is tighter in radius than a vinyl molecule and I'll show you a cartridge which may be able to resolve the disc that has been thus cut - whilst shredding it of course.
Certainly 44.1/16 can not record 30kHz, it has to be bandwith limited to 22.05 kHz to work properly. Certainly it is possible to record greater than 30kHz on an LP. IIRC CD4 used a high frequency FM carrier to encode the rear channels. There are several lessons which were learned from this, or were already known and were exploited by this.
Firstly in order to carry the rear channels FM modulated, if the carrier frequency was 30hHz (I don't know but seem to remember it being higher) and the FM bandwidth was DC to 15kHz, then the response would need to be up to 45kHz, which is certainly technically feasible.
Secondly, 30kHz is inaudible, otherwise they would not have chosen it as it would ruin the sound since it has to be at reasonably high level to act as a carrier.
Thirdly, the higher frequency wore quite quickly leading to considerable distortion in the rear channels, the main reason IIRC why CD4 was dropped.
Since the theshold of pain and the threshold of audibility coincide at around 20kHz for a very young person, despite the speculation about the audibility of what have hitherto been considered to be super-sonic frequencies I have not yet heard any listening tests which give evidence that this somewhat old data has been disproved. Certainly the one in which I participated did not.
So 16 bits is more than any LP can contain, dynamic range wise and DC is lower than any LP system could produce and whilst 22.05kHz is less than can technically be recorded on an LP it is, IME, capable of recording all the -audible- high frequencies from an LP.
FYI the 20Hz to 20kHz sweep records Bruel and Kjaer used to produce for record player evaluation were recommended for 5 uses only since the top octave was damaged by then.
Typically cartridges have high distortion at high frequencies. 1% is usually passed between about 2kHz and 5kHz rising to between 5% and >10% at 20kHz, depending on design. So most of the cartridge output >20kHz is likely to be distortion products anyway - just as well we can't hear it...
Maybe we hear those steps between samples which cannot be accurate...surely
The steps between samples are completely removed by the anti-aliasing filter. Something which seems to be either not understood or frequently ignored.
Certainly if the anti-aliasing is not done properly either at the record or decode step digital is not accurate.
Having said that there are several CD players which do not use a filter some of which are popular, despite the artifacts due to the steps.
The steps between samples are completely removed by the anti-aliasing filter. Something which seems to be either not understood or frequently ignored.
Certainly if the anti-aliasing is not done properly either at the record or decode step digital is not accurate.
Having said that there are several CD players which do not use a filter some of which are popular, despite the artifacts due to the steps.
Yes but......unless the anti-aliasing filter has access to an original analogue recording or a higher res digital one then all it's doing is making an educated guess. There must be an argument for digital being a lossy medium in this respect. Not that analogue will record everything either...
So a lot depends on how you measure and what assumptions you make.
I no longer have access to any way of measuring things, and I am quite sceptical as to correlation between measurement and audible effects.
For this reason I base everything I am writing on logic, science and listening tests.
Obviously it depends on the quality of the electronics used but IMHO a high quality digital recording of the output of a record player sounds the same as the record as long as you listen at the same volume. I say this because some of the output added by the record player is environmental vibration which is volume dependant, so the digital recording will be different if taken whilst the record is being played loudly than it would be if taken whilst played quietly.
This experiment conveniently sidesteps the need to know the mix, theoretical bandwidth of the actual kit being used (variable on a record player, fixed on a digital recorder) microphone type, microphone position, compression, reverb etc etc which are -not- known.
All science and measurement is cancelled out, just listening is left :)
Yes but......unless the anti-aliasing filter has access to an original analogue recording or a higher res digital one then all it's doing is making an educated guess. There must be an argument for digital being a lossy medium in this respect. Not that analogue will record everything either...
It seems like lots of people need to have a look at and understand how digital recording works.
Digital recordings are fixed bandwidth systems. They can operate from DC to half the sampling frequency and produce a smooth wave with a dynamic range depending on the bit depth.
That is all.
There is no guesswork whatsoever used or needed.
If the input has not been bandwidth limited to half the sampling frequency there is -no way- to accurately decode the digital file back to analogue, so we're knackered anyway.
If it -has- been correctly thus limited and the digital converter is linear for the bit depth and the anti aliasing filter correctly applied then the output analogue wave is identical to the input one within that envelope. All these criteria are available from the highest quality 44.1/16 systems (but there are plenty of low quality ones too).
It -is- lossy in the sense that all frequencies > half the sampling frequency have been removed and any signal change smaller than the bit depth is lost.
Since DC-22.05 kHz encompasses the entire audible frequency range (in the opinion of the scientific data admittedly) and since 1 bit of data is 96dB less than full level, and 96dB is comfortably wider than the range of any domestic speaker, some amps and all phono systems I am aware of it follows that all the audible output of an LP playing system can be fitted into the 44.1/16 envelope.
If we look at higher resolution systems there are no ADCs or DACs available AFAIK which are linear for 24 bits. There are very few microphones which go supersonic, and almost no nice sounding ones :) which go much above 18kHz.
So, whilst there is a theoretical/ measurement capability of high res digital to record DC to 96kHz and 144dB of dynamic range there is no analogue or digital system yet made with a linear dynamic range of 144dB and music rarely exceeds 20kHz, and when it does conventional data has it that it can't be heard, with our ears anyway. On top of that even the highest quality units have yet to achieve 24 bit linearity, and maybe never will.
So using high res digital for a music recording is like putting a postard in an A4 envelope - it will fit but is far bigger than necessary :)
what does seem to be the case is that the scientists haven't worked out what and how to measure to find out why vinyl works so well.
What aspects?
LPs have been around for a long time. How the system works has been well known by the people who make the records and record players for a long time. If it wasn't they wouldn't have been able to make either the discs or the players.
The strenghths and weaknesses of LP replay have been known for decades.
So 16 bits is more than any LP can contain, dynamic range wise and DC is lower than any LP system could produce and whilst 22.05kHz is less than can technically be recorded on an LP it is, IME, capable of recording all the -audible- high frequencies from an LP.
Slight story change there. You agree, therefore, that LP can record technically more than the 16/44 format due to its upper frequency limit.
Your discussion now hinges on what is audible, which is nothing to do with the formats. There are many supertweeters out there which seem to suggest that human hearing can perceive way higher than 22.05kHz - perhaps not directly, but by affecting soundstage and perception of the performance as a whole. That is outside of the scope of the original discussion.
Slight story change there. You agree, therefore, that LP can record technically more than the 16/44 format due to its upper frequency limit.
Your discussion now hinges on what is audible, which is nothing to do with the formats. There are many supertweeters out there which seem to suggest that human hearing can perceive way higher than 22.05kHz - perhaps not directly, but by affecting soundstage and perception of the performance as a whole. That is outside of the scope of the original discussion.
No story change from me. I have always, in every relevant post, acknowledged that the one area LP has a -potential- to be outside the envelope of 44.1/16 is at frequencies above 22.05 kHz.
The idea was to rely on listening tests to the largest extent possible, and the basic physics, rather than measurements. Based on listening tests my discussion can actually only be based on things which can be heard -by me-, and for you things that can be heard by you.
I participated in a test to evaluate audibility of a supertweeter addition to a system about 10 years ago. I could not tell whether the supertweeter was connected or not.
So I am not prepared to go against the normal hearing test results - ie I am prepared to accept that the threshold of pain and threshold of hearing meet around 20 kHz.
If others can hear the difference in a listening test then fair enough, that is the problem of listening tests.
OTOH I would take a lot of convincing that there are many LP playing systems which output anything much non-spurious above 18kHz, based on my experience of microphones, record player design and record wear.
Fair enough. Good discussion, and thanks for your frank (!) answers.
Rothchild
27-02-2013, 19:20
I thought this horse had been flogged way beyond inclusion in even the most budget of ready meals but imagine my surprise when this video popped up on one of my news channels:
http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
Easily worth 25minutes of anyone with a passing interest in all this digital malarky's time!
There are two points about supertweeters:
1) they crossover in the audible range, this is what people hear, often as a bass change but that's the way the human brain works.
2) more difficult to assess is whether people sense something else due to supertweeters.
One listening test 10 years ago may not be enough experimentation to be statistically valid, unless it was really exhaustive testing many types of supertweeter in varied environments and with many subjects.
This is what I mean about assumptions, I fear you are drawing conclusions that work for you but are not scientifically valid.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
27-02-2013, 19:39
I thought this horse had been flogged way beyond inclusion in even the most budget of ready meals but imagine my surprise when this video popped up on one of my news channels:
http://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml
Easily worth 25minutes of anyone with a passing interest in all this digital malarky's time!
Oh the irony. I have a natty digital device called an iPad. But it won't play that video.
Care to quickly sum it up?
Well that has been a great afternoon. I'm too thick to participate, but can I say thank you to both sides of this discussion.
There are two points about supertweeters:
1) they crossover in the audible range, this is what people hear, often as a bass change but that's the way the human brain works.
2) more difficult to assess is whether people sense something else due to supertweeters.
One listening test 10 years ago may not be enough experimentation to be statistically valid, unless it was really exhaustive testing many types of supertweeter in varied environments and with many subjects.
This is what I mean about assumptions, I fear you are drawing conclusions that work for you but are not scientifically valid.
I absolutely understand that 1 test 10 years ago is not stastistically valid. It is quite probable no statistically valid listening test has ever been done, I think over 500 participants would be required as a start IIRC.
My point is that using listening tests I have ascertained to my own satisfaction that for me there is nothing audible on an LP that can not be completely recorded by an excellent 44.1/16 system.
If CD was inherently the boring harsh unemotional medium so many forum members seem to believe, that could not be the case. A 44.1/16 recording of the output of a turntable would sound harsh, flat, lacking emotion, choose you favourite complaint, etc..
But it doesn't it sounds fabulous - just like the record player in fact.
My other, IMHO logically following from this, conclusion is that the sound preferences many of us have for LP are entirely explained by the known "features" of LP manufacture and playback, which have been known for decades, not some mystical as-yet-to-be-understood-by-humans factor.
Rothchild
27-02-2013, 20:11
Oh the irony. I have a natty digital device called an iPad. But it won't play that video.
Care to quickly sum it up?
In summary, completely worth buying a proper computer for! :lol:
Seriously though,
Intelligent and funny bloke busts myths about digital audio (in particular the 'stairstep' representation issue) and demonstrates that even bordeline obsolete domestic digital equipment is perfectly capable, shows why digital PCM is not lossy (notwithstanding the borderline esoteric discussion we're moving in to here about the potential recreate /usefully use >20Khz signals) and a bunch of other stuff that folks taking views on digital in this thread ought to avail themselves of to inform a more intelligent debate.
Honestly a very good and informative video, can you not download and watch one of the dl versions? They're all in open source formats.
Rothchild
27-02-2013, 20:19
Oh the irony. I have a natty digital device called an iPad. But it won't play that video.
Care to quickly sum it up?
https://wiki.xiph.org/Videos/Digital_Show_and_Tell
Video troubleshooting guide and full text of the contents for those inhibited by their choice of consumer electronics.
Although a manufacturer's paper, this explanation of the Minimum Phase digital replay filter by Charles Hansen of Ayre adds to the proceedings, especially when talking about correctly handling transients.
www.ayre.com/pdf/Ayre_MP_White_Paper.pdf
Daaad, I'm bored, can I go and play with my toys? ;)
Daaad, I'm bored, can I go and play with my toys? ;)
Lucky you if you can, I'm in a hotel with no toys.
:(
Although a manufacturer's paper, this explanation of the Minimum Phase digital replay filter by Charles Hansen of Ayre adds to the proceedings, especially when talking about correctly handling transients.
www.ayre.com/pdf/Ayre_MP_White_Paper.pdf
I like Charles Hanson and enjoy reading what he writes. If I had found that a 44.1/16 recording of an LP -didn't- sound like the record this may well be the sort of sales propaganda I may be susceptible to. But it does.
A couple of things on my mind.....
I can understand that the anti-alias filter can provide a smooth waveform. What I was concerned about is what if the wave is not supposed to be smooth? Music is very complex and not always predictable.
As for new science....it strikes me that current science is not well tested.
If CD is so well understood then how come many players are poor whereas most record decks are far more acceptable?
My position is that redbook really can be very good indeed but one of the examples (Jplay) gets poo poo'd by some. There is little understanding about why this is the case aside from low latency of data delivered to the dac, dac buffers don't seem to be able to deliver real quality without some assistance, science doesn't today tell us why.
Rothchild
27-02-2013, 21:21
Skootching around on the back of that excellent video reveals this also excellent article (which apparently informed the production of the video to answer some of the questions people raised in response to it)
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
A couple of things on my mind.....
I can understand that the anti-alias filter can provide a smooth waveform. What I was concerned about is what if the wave is not supposed to be smooth? Music is very complex and not always predictable.
As for new science....it strikes me that current science is not well tested.
If CD is so well understood then how come many players are poor whereas most record decks are far more acceptable?
My position is that redbook really can be very good indeed but one of the examples (Jplay) gets poo poo'd by some. There is little understanding about why this is the case aside from low latency of data delivered to the dac, dac buffers don't seem to be able to deliver real quality without some assistance, science doesn't today tell us why.
A sharp, angular waveform is smooth anyway, smoothed by the real physical limits of whatever material is making the sound. Then that sound is going to be smoothed further by the inertia of the microphone diaphragm and all the impedances and resistances along the way, down the recording chain.
For a squarewave to exist in a real square form, for example, you would need infinite energy and infinite frequency of resonance of the material. So the best you can get in real life is a rounded off squarewave.
CD players might be well understood but electronic engineering doesn't often cover the psychology of human enjoyment of music and sound.
But should one pander to that or just concentrate on getting the sound output as close the recorded input as possible and leave the psychological, artistic choices to the artist and recording 'engineers' (who are also part of the artistic chain, even if they don't think identify with it)?
Personally I'd say the former but others think the latter, including hifi manufacturers who attempt to engineer a certain sound from the equipment.
Those xiph.org links are excellent! Thanks for posting them.
It's quite amazing how well even the 20kHz sinewave output is preserved through the ADC/DAC. Mind you, that's steady state and does NOT represent music.
Hi Frank,
LP often sounds nicer than CD to many people, including myself.
There is one chance in 100,000,000 that there is some bit of as-yet-discovered-by-man physics which would actually explain this nicer sound as LP's higher resolution, but until then I will stick with the well known colourations inevitably added by the LP manufacturing and playing processes as the likely explanation of the nice sound.
Me too, but I see it somewhat differently, so allow me to turn that statement on its head... The problem is that you treat all colorations negatively, rather than them perhaps being necessary to make recorded music, to the ear, sound natural and believable. Have you ever entertained the notion that the digital recording process, and replay of such, may in fact be removing elements of the music that should actually exist: harmonic information, for example, that doesn't show up on our current test apparatus, which vinyl and/or analogue replay retains?
Here's the thing: real voices and instruments (the very things we're trying to accurately reproduce with a hi-fi system) intrinsically have their own colorations, so if we accept this and also that everything involved (hardware and software) in the music reproduction process is coloured *to some degree* (produces distortions of one type or other), then could it be that the "nice sound" of vinyl is due to it retaining better the natural distortions/colorations present in real voices and instruments, and therefore our ears are telling us that this sound (and end product) is more faithful to reality??
Try measuring for that...! ;) I believe that what I’m suggesting is a distinct possibility. It is certainly my hypothesis of the situation, based on a not inconsiderable amount of experience of listening to live acoustic music and comparing it to the results achieved of reproducing recordings of such through high-end hi-fi systems.
I simply don't buy the theory propagated in audio by the scientifically-minded fraternity that digital music reproduction is somehow more 'perfect' or 'accurate' than vinyl replay at its best, other than the former simply conforming more accurately to our currently known measurement parameters. That, however, does not make the data produced conclusive and beyond scrutiny!
At the end of the day, the most important thing, surely, in the pursuit of achieving high-fidelity music from our systems, is what OUR EARS tell us is 'accurate' and best resembles the sound of real voices and instruments, with all the natural harmonics and distortions they contain being present, in order to sound real, not the readout on a oscilloscope, spectrum analyser, or some other man-made device, the effectiveness of such is ultimately governed only by what we *currently* know in terms of science.
If we're fallible human beings (which undoubtedly we are) then that fallibility works both ways, in terms of it not only influencing our susceptibility to being fooled, but also our ability to research new phenomena, in order that the accuracy of the data produced is conclusive - and therefore also how much we can genuinely know AS FACT at any one time.
The problem is that our measurement parameters in audio, and what current science tells us in that respect, is treated as some form of 'undisputable bible' by those whose mindset is driven by 'logic' and the belief that scientific evidence is somehow written in stone. Well, I'm afraid it isn't: science is in fact a constantly evolving entity, where valid new information discovered influences our current thinking - or at least it *should* do!
The trouble is, however, that not everything we can genuinely hear in audio can currently be measured, and so what can't be measured is automatically dismissed as 'imagined', or as some kind of artefact of the mind (or 'religion'), rather than the possibility of it being relevant new information, by pseudo-scientists seeking the existence of certainty, and who consider that everything in audio is 'black or white', refusing to acknowledge the shades of grey - and so we end up with a rather blinkered and flawed system of analysis...
Therefore, until the scientifically-minded fraternity in audio accept that the data provided by current science is not infallible and learn to use the sides of their brains that facilitate lateral thinking, we'll get no further forward to genuinely understanding why many people find that listening to music on vinyl, at its best, is not only a more pleasurable experience than it is with digital replay, but also a more musically faithful one, too.....
Marco.
It's quite amazing how well even the 20kHz sinewave output is preserved through the ADC/DAC. Mind you, that's steady state and does NOT represent music.
Makes no difference Martin as the audio bandwidth is limited (Nyquist) you can re-create any signal within that bandwidth, complex or otherwise.
Really? What about pre-echo and post-echo on transients?
If the pre/post echo is within the bandwidth limited signal then you can recreate it.....you did watch the video? :D
Really? What about pre-echo and post-echo on transients?
Yes, I dream about those all the time... {Yawn} :eyebrows:
If the pre/post echo is within the bandwidth limited signal then you can recreate it.....you did watch the video?
I'll be sure to do that if I'm looking for a cure for insomnia!
Can we drop the boring techy chat, please, before most of us fall asleep? ;)
Marco.
No, I'm talking about pre/post echo not in the original bandwidth limited signal but created by the decoding process itself. This is what Minimum Phase DACs try to reduce by modifying the characteristics of the echo produced by the transient.
Science - I remember being told in the early days of BSE that beef was safe to eat, then the advice changed when they improved testing. So can we please stop saying that scientific tests are axiomatically valid.
Hear, hear! :clap:
The problem is that some people need the crutch of 'certainty' to survive: there can be no 'grey areas' - and science gives them such reassurance... Their inflexible interpretation of scientific data is also misguidedly referred to as 'logic' ;)
Marco.
Sound and electronics are physics, that bit has been well understood for ages.
Otherwise dimwitted non-techies wouldn't have tellys, cars, hifis computers etc to completely fail to understand but have strong opinions about.
Disease is not similar in any way.
Psycho-acoustics may be similar, but that is not relevant to this.
I will try to find the link to a recent paper where it was found that humans can be 10x better at recalling sequences of notes than had been thought possible. This is an example of scientists concluding something, then better experimenation changes the science. The physics hasn't altered but the science has. Linking science (scientific experimentation) with physics is dangerous, physics shouldn't change (except in extreme environments) but science involves humans and therefore is far more fallible.
Btw I would describe myself as more techie than not. I've built a lot of kit and designed some.
Lol... Looks like Clive managed to quote you before you deleted your post! ;)
I'll ignore the "dim-witted" remark and concentrate on this:
Sound and electronics are physics, that bit has been well understood for ages.
Yes, but we're not just talking about sound or electronics, are we? We're talking about the human ear and brain's appreciation/interpretation of recorded music, on a digital or vinyl format, as reproduced by a hi-fi system. *That* process has most certainly not yet been well understood by science....
Therefore, if to someone's ears, music sounds more believable (or real) on vinyl than it does on CD, and years of experience of comparing both at a high standard has convinced them that they're right, then all the physics under the sun, which apparently proves the contrary, isn't going to convince that person that what they're hearing is wrong!
Frank, I like you, and so don't want to fall out. Furthermore, your input here is much valued, but you should realise that attempting to 'educate' people of an entirely different mindset that your way of thinking is 'correct' or 'logical', is unlikely to happen, and so as I said a while back on this thread, I think that we should both drop that part of the discussion and simply agree to disagree :)
Marco.
Really? What about pre-echo and post-echo on transients?
Yes Martin, you are absolutely right here. This aspect of the effect of the bandwidth limitation is a valid concern over whether the input analogue signal and output analogue signal are identical.
I do believe that the "transient" in these tests has a rise time way in excess of the audible bandwidth, so the anti-aliasing filter is being battered against - for want of a better term. How often this happens with real music, and with which type of instruments? May cymbals, for example, produce transients like this?
I wonder if this sort of transient could be cut by an LP cutting lathe??? In which case this one could speculate that pre-ringing would not be excited whilst recording the output of a phono stage??? Don't know.
There have been quite a few discussions and papers about this over the years. I think the first attempt to change this pre-ringing has been the Meridian apodising filter, though maybe another pre-dates it.
dCS have a choice of different anti-aliasing filters too, as well as Ayre and, increasingly, others.
Ayre recently produced an ADC with high sampling rate but a lower gentle filter, on the basis that a gentle filter may be less audible than a steep one and the 96 and 192 have lots of un-needed margin for high frequencies.
This sounds very logical to me, and I would love to try one myself.
I have not tried auditioning the Meridian apodising filter against a standard one.
Since I am sticking to listening tests I have done, and one of my key references is recording and comparing the "off tape" monitor with the original in my own recordings, I have only used whatever filters are in the digital recorders I have used, which are mainly the Stelladat but also Metric Halo with a borrowed dummy head.
On these I find the off tape to be identical, as far as I can hear, to the original.
Obviously there may be others who can hear differences, but I can't.
So for the sort of music I have recorded - all unamplified classical - I am happy with the kit I have used. Much closer to the original sound than the reel-to-reel Revox I use. OTOH this music may not have contained any of the type of transients mentioned in the paper - so I would not have heard them and maybe I would have been less happy with my kit with different sorts of music.
That is one of the problems of evaluating using listening tests...
There is a difference between the filters in the dCS P8i I own, but since I have no way to compare input and output I can only say which I prefer the sound of, not which is the more accurate representation of the input!
So whilst I completely accept the validity of what you have raised and have read about this myself, I still believe, based on listening during my own recordings, and the closeness of the digital recording of an LP to the LP itself, that it is highly likely that everything audible coming off an LP can be contained within the 44.1/16 envelope.
Lol... Looks like Clive managed to quote you before you deleted your post! ;)
I'll ignore the "dim-witted" remark and concentrate on this:
Yes, but we're not just talking about sound or electronics, are we? We're talking about the human ear and brain's appreciation/interpretation of recorded music, on a digital or vinyl format, as reproduced by a hi-fi system. *That* process has most certainly not yet been well understood by science....
Therefore, if to someone's ears, music sounds more believable (or real) on vinyl than it does on CD, and years of experience of comparing both at a high standard has convinced them that they're right, then all the physics under the sun, which apparently proves the contrary, isn't going to convince that person that what they're hearing is wrong!
Frank, I like you, and so don't want to fall out. Furthermore, your input here is much valued, but you should realise that attempting to 'educate' people of an entirely different mindset that your way of thinking is 'correct' or 'logical', is unlikely to happen, and so as I said a while back on this thread, I think that we should both drop that part of the discussion and simply agree to disagree :)
Marco.
We agreed to disagree ages ago Marco - and still disagree :)
Nothing I have written convinces you and vice versa.
See you at Scalford.
Indeed, Frank. Look forward to it, matey! :cool:
Marco.
This is an example of scientists concluding something, then better experimenation changes the science. The physics hasn't altered but the science has. Linking science (scientific experimentation) with physics is dangerous, physics shouldn't change (except in extreme environments) but science involves humans and therefore is far more fallible.
Spot on again, Clive - you're on a roll!! ;)
Marco.
.....
So whilst I completely accept the validity of what you have raised and have read about this myself, I still believe, based on listening during my own recordings, and the closeness of the digital recording of an LP to the LP itself, that it is highly likely that everything audible coming off an LP can be contained within the 44.1/16 envelope.
I believe this to be true as well, especially with shaped dither applied, I find the transfer captures the LP including the turntable character to such a degree I find them almost indistinguishable...of course the DAC / Streaming device has some influence and will sound subtly different but apart from that, no difference.
Science - I remember being told in the early days of BSE that beef was safe to eat, then the advice changed when they improved testing. So can we please stop saying that scientific tests are axiomatically valid.
It's the fault of the non-scientists, especially in that particular case.
A scientist would tell you the results of their test and they would openly express the limits of that test.
The heath minister will then take that test result and smudge it completely so that it roughly means what they want it to mean. Even the journalists reporting on such a thing will turn the result into an absolute and certain outcome from it's first public outing.
It's the audiophiles who take science and try to claim the knowledge as absolute and complete. Basically it is the religious type mind of the masses who can't stand any kind of uncertainty or lack of knowledge and instead fill the gaps with fairy stories.
I will try to find the link to a recent paper where it was found that humans can be 10x better at recalling sequences of notes than had been thought possible. This is an example of scientists concluding something, then better experimenation changes the science. The physics hasn't altered but the science has. Linking science (scientific experimentation) with physics is dangerous, physics shouldn't change (except in extreme environments) but science involves humans and therefore is far more fallible.
They conclude things so that they can build upon that knowledge, using that assumption gleaned from the results to make other judgements later.
That's not to say they believe that what the results of the test were the absolute, un-refutable truth, else they wouldn't do the futher experiment would they (who ever this homogeneous group of human 'they' are..).
To be a pedant, physics is really the study. The workings of the universe is the thing being studied.
I'm sure I'm repeating myself but the fallibility of humans as a collective doesn't prevent the individual from making their own decisions. I would also suggest that the fallibility of humans is more prevalent in those interpreting the science for their own use than in the scientists themselves - simply because they are experienced and well trained in human error and take much of it into account.
Lastly, the study you mention sounds more like a sociology or psychology experiment.. studying humans who are part of the system doing the testing and responding to the experiment too is much harder than studying a cold, un-emotional universe.
Hi Frank,
Me too, but I see it somewhat differently, so allow me to turn that statement on its head... The problem is that you treat all colorations negatively, rather than them perhaps being necessary to make recorded music, to the ear, sound natural and believable. Have you ever entertained the notion that the digital recording process, and replay of such, may in fact be removing elements of the music that should actually exist: harmonic information, for example, that doesn't show up on our current test apparatus, which vinyl and/or analogue replay retains?
Here's the thing: real voices and instruments (the very things we're trying to accurately reproduce with a hi-fi system) intrinsically have their own colorations, so if we accept this and also that everything involved (hardware and software) in the music reproduction process is coloured *to some degree* (produces distortions of one type or other), then could it be that the "nice sound" of vinyl is due to it retaining better the natural distortions/colorations present in real voices and instruments, and therefore our ears are telling us that this sound (and end product) is more faithful to reality??
....
Therefore, until the scientifically-minded fraternity in audio accept that the data provided by current science is not infallible and learn to use the sides of their brains that facilitate lateral thinking, we'll get no further forward to genuinely understanding why many people find that listening to music on vinyl, at its best, is not only a more pleasurable experience than it is with digital replay, but also a more musically faithful one, too.....
Marco.
I'd say that what the brain interprets as realism can be had in audio of relatively low detail and resolution. I mean, do people with mild hearing loss then fail to interpret sound as being real or do they sound just as real as ever if a little filtered?
What digital engineering tries to do IMO is make sure all the detail and resolution is there with the hope (or belief) that all the things that the brain likes as cues to realism will be automatically included with that without really having to understand what they are..
I think often much of the realism part is destroyed in the making of the music in the studio or mixing etc. I then think that vinyl does things that then helps to recover that realism by hook or by crook. I mean, you even have a real thing making sound (the needle) by bouncing over grooves.
Even if the realism is only of a real needle responding to real grooves, then it is still imparting some realism on top of the music... if you see what I mean.
Some good points there, Nat, for a change! ;)
Especially this bit:
I would also suggest that the fallibility of humans is more prevalent in those interpreting the science for their own use than in the scientists themselves...
Yes indeed, which is why I have no time whatsoever for the 'consumer saviours', posing as scientists, who populate forums simply to ram home their prejudices :rolleyes:
REAL scientists are a very different breed!!
Btw, Frank, just in case there's any confusion, I'm not talking about you! :)
Marco.
This has been a most fascinating thread, but is in danger of both camps becoming entrenched in their views. Marco has tried to present a balanced view in which the objective view, based on measurement, can only tell half the story, with the other half lying in the realm of psychoacoustics. And here lies the difficulty: psychoacoustics is, as a science, still in its infancy. How the brain responds and interprets the information fed to it by the nerves from the cochlea and basil membrane is not well understood, and worse, cannot be identical for everyone. Similarly, how the brain responds and interprets visual information provided by the retina of the eye - just think of how the brain can be fooled by optical illusions. We all hear and see differently.
All the senses we possess, were developed over some a very long period of time (about 300,000 years in the case of homo sapiens) as help in survival. The range of frequencies that the ear is able to detect and analyze is likely the result of evolutionary pressure to decode complex speech sounds. Similarly, the amplitude range probably evolved in response to the loudest sounds in the natural environment. This would include the cracks and booms of a thunderstorm at close range, as well as the loud roar of predatory animals. These sounds tend to rise slowly rather than abruptly. And this may explain why the ear has no defence against extremely loud sounds that occur suddenly, without warning (such as industrial noise and gunshots). The modern cochlea, with its power to recognize the separate vibrations of each sound, has an obvious survival advantage. Since any sound, which has been analyzed and transmitted to the brain can be remembered; those sounds, which are associated with danger or with a promise of fulfilment, can be acted upon immediately when heard again.
The human hearing as an example of an acoustic detector is remarkable. It is as sensitive as it can be, any increase in sensitivity would result in the brain having to constantly ignore a background 'noise' caused by the ear responding the impact of individual air molecules hitting the eardrum. Pitch is the perceptual interpretation of frequency, ideal human hearing ranges from 20 to 20,000 Hz, yet we have our greatest sensitivity to frequencies, which lie within 200 to 2000 Hz, which takes up two-thirds of the distance on the basilar membrane. One proof of this is the “just noticeable difference” or JND. The JND is the smallest change in frequency of a single sine tone that is perceptible by the average listener. Most studies place it around 3% in the 100 Hz range, but only 0.5% in the 2000 Hz range. In general, we perceive pitch logarithmically in relations to frequency. Every doubling in Hz is perceived as an equivalent octave. It is thought that because a doublings of frequency causes a response at equal distance on the basilar membrane, we hear octaves as related. In fact, because of the logarithmic spacing of pitch placement on the membrane it can be extrapolated that we perceive differences in pitches not as differences frequency, but as the ratio of pitches separating them or musical intervals (which are ratios of frequencies and not linear differences). So A220 to A440 is perceived as the “same” interval as A440 to A880, even though one pair has a difference of 220 Hz and the other a difference of 440 Hz.
In the range of 20 to 2000 Hz, the ear has the ability to fuse harmonically related frequencies into a single entity (i.e. a single note with a particular timbre) with a fundamental frequency, even if the fundamental is missing. When we listen to a violin section, we are hopefully hearing numerous instruments playing approximately the same pitch, with some very slight differences in frequency (called chorusing) that give the sound a depth and richness beyond what a single instrument would produce. A slight difference in frequency will lead to the phenomenon of beating. We perceive the mistuned notes as a single chorused pitch up to the limit of discrimination, a difference of approximately 10 to 15 Hz, beyond which we hear two separate tones. At the very point of such a perceptual separation lies an area of tonal roughness. While a single pitch may maximally stimulate a specific spot on the basilar membrane, it also stimulates some adjacent hair cells as well. These lie within what is called the critical band. Other pitches which are close in frequency may also share some hair cells in common, which is thought to cause tones that are close in interval to sound more complex that more widely separated tones. The interval width of the critical band varies with register, being a large percentage of the frequencies of two low tones, and a smaller percentage of the frequencies at a higher register (it is about a minor 3rd above A440). This may account for the penchant for using wider intervals in lower registers. Another applicable phenomenon is that when two sounds of equal loudness are close in pitch, thereby in the critical band, their combined loudness will be only slightly greater than one of them alone.
It is clear that the complete and exact mechanism for our extraordinary pitch resolution and discrimination is not completely understood and is still being investigated. The placement theory coupled with the critical band does not completely explain our ability to detect the minute frequency changes we are capable of.
Our perception of pitch is also effected by the duration and intensity of a sound. Sustained sounds above 2 kHz may be perceived as rising in pitch as their intensity increases, whereas sounds below 2 kHz may be perceived as dropping in pitch.
But the human hearing is not perfect, as the above phenomenon suggests, and its imperfection may lie in the fact that the system is non-linear.
There is an idea in acoustics, called the Fourier Uncertainty Principle. Fourier Analysis, a commonly used mathematical method of deconstructing complex waves into their components, is the basis of this uncertainty principle. It represents not an intrinsic property of the source, but a limit on the capabilities of linear algorithms to analyze it. It deals with two properties of sound: frequency (or pitch) and timing. If you read music, you know that pitch is the vertical axis and timing the horizontal axis. According to the Fourier Uncertainty Principle, these two properties cannot be simultaneously determined above a limit, called the Gabor limit. This implies that the better two pitches can be distinguished, the less accurately the time between them can be known, and vice versa.
The time-frequency uncertainty principle states that the product of the temporal and frequency extents of a signal cannot be smaller than 1/(4π). This is the Gabor limit. Studies of human ability to simultaneously judge the frequency and the timing of a sound show subjects often exceeded the uncertainty limit, sometimes by more than tenfold, mostly through remarkable timing acuity. Published results establish a lower bound for the nonlinearity and complexity of the algorithms employed by our brains in parsing transient sounds, rule out simple "linear filter" models of early auditory processing, and highlight timing acuity as a central feature in auditory object processing.
Oppenheim and Magnasco discovered that the accuracy with which the volunteers determined pitch and timing simultaneously was usually much better, on average, than the Gabor limit. In one case, subjects beat the Gabor limit for the product of frequency and time uncertainty by a factor of 50, clearly implying their brains were using a nonlinear algorithm. That algorithm is encoded in the ear and the brain. Since musicians performed especially well on the tests, it implies that this ability can be improved with training. The research is "a nice demonstration that our perceptual system is doing complex things - which, of course, people have always known - but this is a nice quantitative demonstration by which, even at the most basic level, using the most straightforward stimuli, you can demonstrate that the auditory system is doing something quite remarkable".
The ability of the human auditory system to beat the Gabor limit was first discovered in 1970, but was not picked up by the broader scientific community, partly because cochlear processes were not then understood. As scientists have learned more in the interim, they are beginning to piece together the mechanisms by which the ear and brain achieve such "hyper acuity.”
Researchers think that this superior human listening ability is partly due to the spiral structure and nonlinearities in the cochlea. Previously, scientists have proven that linear systems cannot exceed the time-frequency uncertainty limit. Although most nonlinear systems do not perform any better, any system that exceeds the uncertainty limit must be nonlinear. For this reason, the nonlinearities in the cochlea are likely integral to the precision of human auditory processing.
So the human hearing is (a) non-linear and (b) fallible. This might explain why the ear can tolerate and even prefer euphonic colourations (errors of commission), but be intolerant of errors of omission. It may well be that the quality of the signal from source to speakers is purer, or more “accurate” when a digital source is used, but that does not imply the ear will think it so. Listening to music is an emotional affair and is supposed to be enjoyable. If for whatever reason a listener dislikes what they hear from a digital source and cannot engage with the music, finding it “unrealistic”, then that is their experience and their experience alone, and preferring an analogue source is perfectly understandable and sensible.
I am happy to embrace both technologies. Neither is perfect and neither gets close to reproducing the experience of live speech and music.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
28-02-2013, 21:11
This thread has been interesting and enlightening but it's actually hilarious to go back to the original post.
Great post, Barry!
Listening to music is an emotional affair and is supposed to be enjoyable.
Indeed, although some people insist on it becoming a cerebral one, and turning their listening room into a science lab, to facilitate blind ABX testing, but only when it suits their agenda...
The problem in much of this argument is that 'objectivists' (for want of a better description) need nice neat, scientifically acceptable, boxes to pigeonhole their audio experiences into, and so anything which doesn't quite fit is viewed with some suspicion and more than a little anxiety! ;)
The rest of us mere mortals are happy to trust our senses (which although not infallible, their acuteness and finely honed nature, over centuries, you've so eloquently outlined) allow them to indicate what noises emitting from our hi-fi systems best approximate those created by real voices and instruments, and worry not one jot about what science or measurements say to the contrary... :eyebrows:
Marco.
RobbieGong
28-02-2013, 22:28
Great post, Barry!
Indeed, although some people insist on it becoming a cerebral one, and turning their listening room into a science lab, to facilitate blind ABX testing, but only when it suits their agenda...
The problem in much of this argument is that 'objectivists' (for want of a better description) need nice neat, scientifically acceptable, boxes to pigeonhole their audio experiences into, and so anything which doesn't quite fit is viewed with some suspicion and more than a little anxiety! ;)
The rest of us mere mortals are happy to trust our senses (which although not infallible, their acuteness and finely honed nature, over centuries, you've so eloquently outlined) allow them to indicate what noises emitting from our hi-fi systems best approximate those created by real voices and instruments, and worry not one jot about what science or measurements say to the contrary... :eyebrows:
Marco.
Amen to that :)
Audioman
28-02-2013, 22:40
Great post, Barry!
Indeed, although some people insist on it becoming a cerebral one, and turning their listening room into a science lab, to facilitate blind ABX testing, but only when it suits their agenda...
The problem in much of this argument is that 'objectivists' (for want of a better description) need nice neat, scientifically acceptable, boxes to pigeonhole their audio experiences into, and so anything which doesn't quite fit is viewed with some suspicion and more than a little anxiety! ;)
The rest of us mere mortals are happy to trust our senses (which although not infallible, their acuteness and finely honed nature, over centuries, you've so eloquently outlined) allow them to indicate what noises emitting from our hi-fi systems best approximate those created by real voices and instruments, and worry not one jot about what science or measurements say to the contrary... :eyebrows:
Marco.
The problem with most of those articles and videos is that they are based on the assumption that anything above 20khz has no effect on what we hear. The assumption is that there is no effect on how the sounds within audible frequencies are heard. Also all lab experiments that 'prove' the theory that hi-res is pointless appear to be based on a test sine wave rather than real music. I've seen no satisfactory explanation as to how the gaps between digital samples are adequately 'filled' in to form a continuous sound wave.
I don't think what we hear with analogue or hi-res is Psycho Acoustic but a real change in the presentation of the sound even if this is merely the result of removing digital distortion or interference. If my ears tell me different from the available scientific theory then I will trust my ears every time.
Rothchild
28-02-2013, 22:59
I've seen no satisfactory explanation as to how the gaps between digital samples are adequately 'filled' in to form a continuous sound wave.
So you didn't watch the video or read the article either then.....:rolleyes:
No, I'm talking about pre/post echo not in the original bandwidth limited signal but created by the decoding process itself. This is what Minimum Phase DACs try to reduce by modifying the characteristics of the echo produced by the transient.
Yes, there are people who think that the digital filter is more of a culprit to 'digital sound' than the DACs themselves. DACs with 'ringy' digital filters will sound more smeared and artificial with worse attack and decays.
I don't think what we hear with analogue or hi-res is Psycho Acoustic but a real change in the presentation of the sound even if this is merely the result of removing digital distortion or interference.
Exactly. I never mentioned psychoacoustics - Barry did. My view is that one of the reasons why digital music replay, although excellent in many ways, sounds less 'real' than analogue music replay, at its best, is because of what you referred to earlier in your post and also the nature of the distortion/interference you mention above.
There is no switching noise in the analogue domain, unlike in the digital one, where with DACs, the signal is being converted, and that noise, IMO, is the prime culprit of the 'glare' I referred to earlier, which imparts an unnatural quality onto music reproduced that is completely absent with analogue equipment.
It is also the reason why I obtain great success with the use of a Tube Distinctions filter (a creation of Anthony Matthews) on my CD transport and DAC, which very effectively removes the majority of digital switching noise (and associated distortion) without 'sitting' on the music signal, yet when connected to my turntable has no effect whatsoever.
Go figure! ;)
If my ears tell me different from the available scientific theory then I will trust my ears every time.
Damn tootin', bro.... :exactly:
Marco.
purite audio
01-03-2013, 00:38
Is the switching noise the digits turning,on off on off on off?
Keith.
Some good points there, Nat, for a change! ;)
HA ! They are always good points, and sometimes made over and over ..
The problem in much of this argument is that 'objectivists' (for want of a better description) need nice neat, scientifically acceptable, boxes to pigeonhole their audio experiences into, and so anything which doesn't quite fit is viewed with some suspicion and more than a little anxiety! ;)
Oddly, personally not feeling part of either camp, I see both sides as equally pigeonholing and both sides seeing anything which doesn't fit into their entrenched opinion is viewed with suspicion and causes them more than a little anxiety! To the point even that they can no longer listen to things that don't fit into their world, take old Serge for example who just hears colouration after he's measured it. Talk about the mind controlling the senses.
I read André's OP and that is EXACTLY what I see ...
I see both sides as equally pigeonholing and both sides seeing anything which doesn't fit into their entrenched opinion is viewed with suspicion and causes them more than a little anxiety! To the point even that they can no longer listen to things that don't fit into their world, take old Serge for example who just hears colouration after he's measured it. Talk about the mind controlling the senses.
I feel differently, finding both analogue and digital equally capable of reproducing exciting performances. I am happy to swap formats as I go through an evening's listening, hardly worrying about the media and thinking more about the connectivity between the different pieces. Yes, I will buy LP or SACD in preference if I can, but it never affects my enjoyment of the music.
+1 Martin.
Whats this digital switching thing Marco?
When one questions why one is enjoying the music then one is merely listening to it rather than feeling it...
A little pompous maybe but true nevertheless... :cool:
Yes, I will buy LP or SACD in preference if I can, but it never affects my enjoyment of the music.
This begs the question of why then you buy what will usually be more expensive product for the same enjoyment. I'm not be funny as I probably do the same.
Only recently has my digital playing setup got within a whisker of my vinyl setups and still even if it's equal at times I wouldn't say it's better as some theorists say it should be. Previously it was very close but still lacking in one area. I will buy CDs for more modern music but the older stuff that really moves me, often 50s/60 Bebop just screams out to be owned and played on vinyl.
I'll not bother returning to some of the discussion from yesterday as the thread has moved on with Barry's excellent post.
What has been bugging me (it may not have been meant this way) is that I feel we're being told what we are hearing. Because it's possible in theory to make redbook sound so good then that's job done. Well it's not as so many players don't achieve anywhere near what's possible. This is where the scientists have to meet the real world. Instead of beating people up saying what they measure tells them redbook is better than vinyl, a good scientist would then look for the reasons why some of us disagree. Yes it's probably a mix of human emotion and physics but that's life.
Audioman
01-03-2013, 08:45
So you didn't watch the video or read the article either then.....:rolleyes:
Yes and it still isn't a valid explanation to me. Merely the points on a graph being joined together. Music is continuous and sampling is just what it says. The advantage of 24 bit in taking more samples and therefore bridging smaller gaps is ignored as 16 bit is theoretically good enough to capture everything. The fact that converting back to analogue forms a continuous wave is misleading. Nothing there to show how real musical information is changed. It would be more relevant conducting an experiment were an original analogue tape is converted to 16 bit digital and back again and then assessing any differences between the original sound and the sound after the conversion.
Paul, there are no 'gaps' the input signal is bandwidth limited, theres no information in the original signal after limiting and filtering that 'fits' into the gaps. The pre-filter may add artifacts but thats another discussion. 24bit doesn't increase the sampling, it increases the SNR a higher sampling frequency increases the number of samples.
I feel differently, finding both analogue and digital equally capable of reproducing exciting performances. I am happy to swap formats as I go through an evening's listening, hardly worrying about the media and thinking more about the connectivity between the different pieces. Yes, I will buy LP or SACD in preference if I can, but it never affects my enjoyment of the music.
I too am happy to play the format which the next bit of music I want to listen to is on.
I would rather listen to Schubert over the 'phone than Bruce Springsteen on a half million pound stereo, but that is just my taste in music.
I regularly play LP and CD, sometimes SACD, sometimes one of my own DAT recordings. I haven't played one of my older reel-to-reel recordings for many years, and when I did it was a recording of a long dead relative for the interest of my children...
The very best sound quality -to my ears- I have exists on my DATs, CD and LP.
I have a CD from the dawn of CD which sounds fabulous, old and new LPs (mainly old) which sound fabulous and just last week bought a CD which had such a good recording of one of my most loved pieces that after listening to it silence was the only option...
I have only bought a handful of new LPs in the last year, all pop music I like where the CD mix suffers from ridiculous over-recording and compression.
I only have a few SACDs and don't listen to them much.
I am rarely disappointed by the sound quality of classical CDs which is probably 95%+ of what I buy, so I am a happy bunny.
This begs the question of why then you buy what will usually be more expensive product for the same enjoyment.
I buy them, Clive, because both formats sound better than CD, whatever the arguments and discussions we have covered here. It's my ears that are the final arbiter.
I buy them, Clive, because both formats sound better than CD, whatever the arguments and discussions we have covered here. It's my ears that are the final arbiter.
I need to assess whether a better sound gives me greater enjoyment. In general for me it does I believe it does but I can enjoy great music that's poor quality too.
Yes....other aspects being equal I would say that a higher quality playback will increase my enjoyment but the music has come first. You're finding that higher quality sound doesn't increase your enjoyment of music? Maybe just the cerebral appreciation vs the heart instead?
Sorry to split hairs.....I'm only trying to understand to think through my feelings on this.
This begs the question of why then you buy what will usually be more expensive product for the same enjoyment. I'm not be funny as I probably do the same.
Only recently has my digital playing setup got within a whisker of my vinyl setups and still even if it's equal at times I wouldn't say it's better as some theorists say it should be. Previously it was very close but still lacking in one area. I will buy CDs for more modern music but the older stuff that really moves me, often 50s/60 Bebop just screams out to be owned and played on vinyl.
I'll not bother returning to some of the discussion from yesterday as the thread has moved on with Barry's excellent post.
What has been bugging me (it may not have been meant this way) is that I feel we're being told what we are hearing. Because it's possible in theory to make redbook sound so good then that's job done. Well it's not as so many players don't achieve anywhere near what's possible. This is where the scientists have to meet the real world. Instead of beating people up saying what they measure tells them redbook is better than vinyl, a good scientist would then look for the reasons why some of us disagree. Yes it's probably a mix of human emotion and physics but that's life.
I hope it is not me you think is telling you what you are hearing Clive.
If you look at -any- of my posts you will find I am revealing what -I- am hearing.
Because one of my few aptitudes is technical problem solving, I have tried to explain my experience, based on my own recording experience, my own knowledge of record players - admittedly old - I worked for Garrard whilst the 401 was in production and selling for seventy odd quid new.
Some people are able to follow this, some are not, some change the subject to psyco-acoustic aspects.
I can not help those who don't understand but still retain a strong belief. I am not in any way knowledgeable enough to discuss any of the psyco-acoustics aspects of anything to do with music reproduction.
Analogue recording and playback can be excellent. A 1" reel to reel tape is capable, in skilled hands, of containing a superb recording.
1/4" 1/2 track reel-to-reel is pretty damned good, 1/4 track a bit worse.
LP is -much- worse than any of these, in terms of manufacture or playback.
I was going to list the ways in which LP is degraded relative to the original, but have already done so and several people have chosen to ignore or gloss over it.
So lets just consider one of the many.
A tape recorded signal possibly has a separation of around 60dB.
The -very- best pickup cartridge - perfectly aligned - claim to achieve 35dB in the mid band, and a tiny azimuth error will make it much less. Ortofon, my favourite maker, never claims greater than 25dB, AFAIK.
Now Clive I am not telling you what to hear I am asking you what you think about that level of deterioration?
I can think of 2 possibilities.
The first is that the -25dB of left channel that my Ortofon Jubilee mixes into the right channel (and right to left too) is masked by the loudness of the music in that channel, so it sounds just as good as the original tape. This is the basis on which lossy compression is justified and "perpetrated" (I am not a fan...)
The second is that the extra bit of left channel mixed into the right has a subtle but pleasant effect on the sound, which I and others like.
If you have another plausible suggestion to add to the list I should be interested and grateful.
My favoured explanation is number 2.
It is but one of the longish list of reasons that I consider the pleasant sound of LP to be generated by the medium rather than revealed by it.
This, I presume, is the conclusion that is unacceptable to those who have believed something very different for many years.
I am not telling anybody what to believe, just trying to explain a small part of a music reproduction system in a, hopefully, simple way. Some people will never understand that sort of thing, which is fine, but I would love to know what, out of the small section of the whole music reproduction process I have discussed, anybody finds illogical and incorrect.
So far the only person who has addressed any concerns sensibly has been MartinT.
I certainly never have written that all CD players sound good. What I -have- said is that in my experience and my ears 44.1/16 is indeed capable of containing everything audible that comes out of a phono stage. I have demonstrated that to myself to my own satisfaction. Can you -demonstrate- that it can't? Spending a fortune on other formats seems barmy to me when we haven't been getting the best out of what is already there.
I like to think I am a good scientist, I have been judged thus by my peers, so am content. What I -have- been doing -is- trying to explain some of the reasons "some of us disagree".
The problem is, IMHO, it is not an explanation that matches some people's long held belief, so is rejected by them out of hand.
Personally I am always prepared to change my view if new information becomes available.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
01-03-2013, 12:22
Still loving your work Frank. Hard for a techno thicko like me to digest it but I'm trying. Thanks for taking the time. It's good stuff.
I hope it is not me you think is telling you what you are hearing Clive.
I can't help feeling that I'm being told what I should be hearing. Earlier this thread I recall you said something about you wanting to show people the realities - it came across as a bit of crusade. I'm all for stimulating discussion and thought but just because you only deal in your chosen science and not psyco-acoustics you are missing a vital piece of the picture.
It is but one of the longish list of reasons that I consider the pleasant sound of LP to be generated by the medium rather than revealed by it.
An emotional response to this is that you are damning LP with faint praise...pleasant or nice but it's not really good is it? That's how I read this.
Of course the mainly subjectivist views on this forum can and should be challenged but for me if there is any "truth" it has to account for people+technology. Neither should be taken in isolation. Barry's post tells us lot about we hear sounds differently and that the "truth" has to be personal to individuals.
Ultimately in a domestic setting with good equipment I don't correlate your science with what I hear. I'm not saying we are miles apart, I don't think we are. I can't help feeling there's something that's not being measured which has an influence. Saying that long understood colourations of LP make LP sound pleasant is little to different to someone saying the long known about harshness of CD makes it tiring to listen to. Neither statement is true.
The problem is, IMHO, it is not an explanation that matches some people's long held belief, so is rejected by them out of hand.
That's certainly not the case, Frank, as far as I'm concerned.
The problem is that none of the 'technical gobbledygook' you've quoted, which apparently 'proves' why digital replay is superior to vinyl replay, is confirmed by my listening experience, which suggests to me that current science is still incapable of explaining ALL that we can genuinely hear in audio.
Therefore, in my case, it's got bugger all to do with belief, and everything to do with what my lugholes tell me when I listen!! ;)
Trust me, if what you're explaining was backed up by my listening experience, then I'd very quickly change my views. I'm an open-minded person who is always willing to embrace new ideas that increase my enjoyment of music. However, for me, science will never be the final arbiter in anything audio related - my ears always will be.
Therefore, until the science aligns with my listening experiences, the former will always be the 'poor relation'.
Marco.
P.S Neal, I'll come back to you later about the switching noise - just about to pop out :cool:
You're finding that higher quality sound doesn't increase your enjoyment of music? Maybe just the cerebral appreciation vs the heart instead?
I would say that higher quality sound does increase my enjoyment of music (after all, I wouldn't own a hi-fi system otherwise) but that the four formats I'm capable of playing: LP, CD, SACD, DVD-A, all give me such high quality replay that I need not worry about SQ over the music. There is still a pecking order but it's pretty immaterial if I have the music on any of these formats.
Saying that, if I have a CD of a truly great performance (two examples: Steely Dan - Gaucho and Grieg - Piano Concerto / Radu Lupu) and I can find them on a format higher up the pecking order (I bought the Steely Dan on LP and the Grieg on SACD) then I will do so. Listening to them both, I can confirm that the SQ is even better and I have greater insight into the performances than before.
What's interesting when comparing with CD, the classic 16/44 format, is that both LP and SACD overcome their technical issues* and manage to give far more insight into a performance. I'm not talking about colourations or any added euphony, I'm talking about the reality of the music, the soundstage, placement of instruments, fine detail and microdynamics etc., that are quite obviously better. In fact, tonally, all my sources sound very close to each other.
*Frank has stated LP's technical issues well, SACD with its 1-bit 2.8Mbps scheme requires a lot of noise shaping and pushes it all up into the ultrasonics and out of supposed harm's way.
Audioman
01-03-2013, 13:19
Paul, there are no 'gaps' the input signal is bandwidth limited, theres no information in the original signal after limiting and filtering that 'fits' into the gaps. The pre-filter may add artifacts but thats another discussion. 24bit doesn't increase the sampling, it increases the SNR a higher sampling frequency increases the number of samples.
Of course your right. My original intention was to write 24/96 Khz as I was thinking of extra bits in that context. There is however more information with each sample and 24 bit is supposed to be much closer to analogue in terms of the amount of data. Frankly this technical gobbledygook does get my head spinning at times. I also read of an experiment a while back (conducted by DCS) which showed 16/96 to be superior to 24/44.1 suggesting sampling frequency is more important. Conversely the people at EMI doing the new Beatles remasters think bit depth is more important. So no agreement among so called experts then.
In the end I agree with Marco that whatever the technical process or measurements it's what we hear that counts. It all depends how significant these measurements really are in explaining what we hear. If a cartridge has less separation than a digital signal is that all that important? It is obviously more than adequate given the level of performance from the likes of Ortofon. I suppose that's the same as saying that 16 bits is more than adequate but such assumptions do not necessarily relate to perceived performance.
I would say that there is little colouration in LP sound given a suitable pressing and high end turntable. You probably could say the same for CD in terms of distortion given a great mastering and megabucks player. In both cases the relevant quality of the software (in terms of mastering and manufacturing) makes a bigger difference than variations in the playback equipment. I think one point in alternative formats (DVDA and SACD) is that in practice they provide an improvement in digital playback at real world prices. Having briefly heard some megabucks digital playback systems they gave the impression of flawless reproduction but could not entirely shake of that digital signature. Just do not have the listenability of good analogue playback.
I can't help feeling that I'm being told what I should be hearing.
Me too, and it's starting to become rather patronising! :rolleyes:
However, that's the problem with these types of discussions: the objectivists, simply because they are often technically knowledgeable, feel that their views carry more weight than those of someone simply trusting their ears (who in fact may have other skills that are equally as important), and so they feel justified to 'preach' to their subjectivist 'opponents', which irks the latter beyond belief, and that's when the discussion often degenerates into personal conflict.
An emotional response to this is that you are damning LP with faint praise...pleasant or nice but it's not really good is it? That's how I read this.
Indeed... "Pleasant" is definitely not the first word that pops into my mind when I listen to music reproduced by my T/T! 'Shockingly vivid sounding' or 'musically infectious', perhaps, but "pleasant", in the sense that Frank means it - NEVER! I don't do "pleasant" with any aspect of my system - for me, it's all about creating maximum realism with music, by ensuring that my system is as 'wide open a window', as possible :exactly:
In fact, the more that Frank goes on about vinyl sounding "pleasant", the more I suspect that he's never heard a decent turntable!!! ;) ;) [Note the double wink smiley to stress the tongue-in-cheekness of my comment].
Marco.
Indeed... "Pleasant" is definitely not the first word that pops into my mind when I listen to music reproduced by my T/T! 'Shockingly vivid sounding' or 'musically infectious', perhaps, but "pleasant", in the sense that Frank means it - NEVER! I don't do pleasant with any aspect of my system - for me, it's all about creating maximum realism :exactly:Marco.
Spot on. I've just finished listening to Stella Delete on vinyl at an indecent sound level (:D) and there was nothing [nice] about it, in fact it was bloody incredible... :cool:
Marco, we couldn't be more in agreement.
However, that's the problem with these types of discussions: the objectivists ... blah blah
"They, the objectivists" etc etc
What's with all this pigeonholing and "us and them" business?
If you're responding to Frank, referring to Frank as the objectivist.. well, he's just said outright that his ears are his final arbiter.
The very best sound quality -to my ears- I have exists on my DATs, CD and LP.
for example..
Get's a bit tiring seeing people try to find a way to divide and put themselves in the camp they feel is superior.
Could probably just divide down the lines of who liked science as a kid at school and who hated it. The rejection of all technical explanation of what the ears hear seems more like a phobia than anything else. If one was neutral, one would read it and be interested yet still trust your own ears.
Do we fear that if we try to understand anything the magic will disappear?
In the end I agree with Marco that whatever the technical process or measurements it's what we hear that counts.
Indeed - take all the other bullshit away, and that is ultimately what HAS to matter most!! It's also why the discussion essentially revolves around 'psycho-acoustic aspects', as Frank calls it, because all of us here are human (I think!) and so possess a brain and two ears. Therefore, if we're talking about listening to music, as opposed to wanking over graphs or "pre-echo and post-echo on transients", then what they tell us ultimately must override all other considerations!
I would say that there is little colouration in LP sound given a suitable pressing and high end turntable. You probably could say the same for CD in terms of distortion given a great mastering and megabucks player.
Again I agree. There is not a big discrepancy in SQ between my turntable and CD player - both sound superb. Therefore, you can see why I don't buy the argument perpetrated by the 'techies', that vinyl is much more coloured sounding, as that is NOT what I hear when I listen! :nono:
What exactly am I supposed to do: dismiss what my ears are clearly telling me, and believe the science instead, which apparently proves that what I'm hearing is wrong, even though I consider the science as ultimately flawed? Never. The day that I become a 'logic'-driven robot is the day I stick my head inside a gas oven.
Marco.
I don't understand where Frank sits......his ears tell him that 3 different source sound best and that technically he knows that one of them is poorer than the rest. Doesn't that suggest there's a breakdown in logic? Or at least inconsistency? My suspicion is that the science isn't totally rigorous.
"They, the objectivists" etc etc
What's with all this pigeonholing and "us and them" business?
If you're responding to Frank, referring to Frank as the objectivist.. well, he's just said outright that his ears are his final arbiter.
Because, Nat, he keeps banging on about science and logic, or 'the maths', which is usually the mantra of 'objectivists'. However, if Frank is saying that he's not one, then I'm happy to stand corrected :)
The rejection of all technical explanation of what the ears hear seems more like a phobia than anything else.
Now you're putting labels on the situation that are completely wrong. The only reason I'm rejecting the technical explanations is because they don't back up my listening experiences - not because of any kind of "phobia". When the technical explanations confirm what I hear, then I will accept, rather than dismiss, them. Simples!!
Marco.
I enjoy all three formats a great deal.
Which one do I prefer the most, genuine high resolution native formats simply because if you have the ability to genuinely reproduce them correctly it will bring you closer to the original recoding imho.
I have around 380Tb worth of red book masters and above, no ripped files at all.
5000+ CD's
200 pieces of vinyl
Biggest issue for me is the transfer of data from the original master to which every format is being used pure and simple.
I do agree with Frank on DAT a very under rated format.
I wonder if perhaps, in these disputes, disagreement stems, at least in part, from a failure to mark distinctions between the different notions of 'accuracy' that are being used.
There is, on the one hand, a notion on which 'accuracy' denotes a kind of matching between an input and an output. So, one can think of a mechanism, the function of which is to produce, on being given a specific input, a specific output, which either matches the input with respect to its properties, within a certain range, or bears properties, within a certain range, that are systemically isomorphic with those belonging to the input. So, for any particular output from the mechanism, we can assess both it, and the mechanism, for accuracy, by comparing that output, in terms of the properties within the relevant range, with those of the particular input, which was causally relevant to its production by the mechanism. The output (and, accordingly, the mechanism) will be accurate only to the extent that its properties, within the relevant range, correlate with those of the input, either by matching them, or by being systematically isomorphic with them.
A recording (regardless of the medium) is an output of a mechanism – a recording device – which takes sound as its input. An individual recording will be 'accurate', on this notion of accuracy, to the extent that it bears properties, within the relevant range peculiar to the medium, that correlate in the appropriate way, with the properties of the sounds that supplied the input to the recording mechanism, on the occasion that that recording was produced.
Likewise, the sounds produced by our speakers are the output of a mechanism – a playback device – which takes a recording (regardless of the medium) as its input. A set of such sounds will be accurate, to the extent that its members bear properties, within the relevant range, that correlate, in the appropriate way, with the properties of the the recording that supplied the input to the playback mechanism, on the occasion that those sounds were produced.
Issues of accuracy with respect to each of these cases have been raised in this thread.
If I've understood Frank correctly, he's suggested that an analogue recording mechanism, which yields a vinyl record as its output, performs unfavourably when compared to a digital recording mechanism, with respect to it's capacity to produce a maximally accurate output. This is not, from what I've understood of excellent Frank's posts, necessarily a matter of the recording's misrepresenting elements of the input, but of simply its representing less than its digital counterpart.
Further, if I've understood Frank correctly, he's suggested that a vinyl playback mechanism, which takes records as its input, and yields sounds as its output, is hampered – in contrast to a digital playback system – with respect to its capacity to produce a maximally accurate output. This is due to the 'colourations' that are introduced by the playback mechanism itself, the upshot of which is that the output – the sound – will bear properties that are not correlated in the appropriate way with the properties of input – the record. And so, to the extent that this occurs, the output will be inaccurate with respect to the input.
However, one might grant all of this and still hold that there is another notion of 'accuracy' of interest to us, in respect of which vinyl does not compare unfavourably with digital. This is the notion of accuracy which, if I've understood him correctly, seems to be at work in Marco's posts.
So, the sounds that are produced by our hi-fis are, in many cases (though, certainly not all) intended to resemble sounds of the sort that are, paradigmatically, produced by people and instruments. Moreover, the sounds that are produced by our hi-fis are intended to resemble sounds of the sort that are, paradigmatically, produced by people and instruments, in such a way that the experience undergone by the listener, on hearing them, resembles an experience of the sort that they might undergo, were they to be present at an event, on which sounds of the relevant sort where being produced by people and instruments.
We can consider the 'accuracy' of these sounds then, insofar as we can consider the extent to which they resemble sounds of the sort that are, paradigmatically, produced by people instruments, and the extent to which our experiences of those sounds resemble experiences of the sort that we might undergo, were we present at event on which sounds of the relevant sort were being produced by people and instruments.
This notion of accuracy has absolutely nothing to do with the extent to which the sounds, considered as an output, correlate with the record, considered as an input, and absolutely nothing to do with the extent to which the record, considered as an output, correlates with the original sounds, that were causally relevant to its production. The notion of accuracy that's involved in these cases pertains to one specific thing's matching, or failing to match, another specific thing, rather than – as with the second notion of accuracy – a specific thing's resembling something of a certain sort – a relation of resemblance to something generic.
So, it's perfectly possible that those recording mechanisms that yield records as their output, and those playback mechanisms that take records as their input, will – when compared to their digital counterparts – always yield results that compare unfavourably with respect to accuracy in the first sense.
This leaves open which, if either, yields results that are more accurate in the second sense – that is, which produces experiences that more closely resemble, from the point of view of the subject, experiences of sounds produced by people and instruments (of course, I have my view :)).
Oddly, personally not feeling part of either camp, I see both sides as equally pigeonholing and both sides seeing anything which doesn't fit into their entrenched opinion is viewed with suspicion and causes them more than a little anxiety! To the point even that they can no longer listen to things that don't fit into their world, take old Serge for example who just hears colouration after he's measured it. Talk about the mind controlling the senses.
Ha - indeed... It'll be interesting if he's exhibiting this year and to have a listen again to his system. I've got nothing against Serge, as he's always a perfectly pleasant chap in person, and I don't mean to cause any offence, but he really hasn't got a clue as to what constitutes as a good sound (or one that resembles real music)! :doh:
Guy Sergeant once said that the best way to judge someone's, let's call it 'audio abilities', is to listen to their system and judge the sound that they've achieved with it. Now, to my ears, Serge hasn't once, in all the times he's exhibited at Scalford, put together a decent sounding system, therefore how can I place any credence on his staunchly science-first way of system building??
It's also been the same with other systems I've heard belonging to people of a similar mentality - they've always sounded dire! Therefore, you'll excuse me if instead I trust my own ears and experience, and those of other subjectivists whose systems I've heard that have sounded outstanding, and shun the validity of a solely science-first approach to audio.
The only way that will change is when an a member of the science-first fraternity can demonstrate to me the 'error of my ways' by proving that their way produces better sounding systems!! :exactly:
Marco.
Rothchild
01-03-2013, 15:33
The only way that will change is when an a member of the science-first fraternity can demonstrate to me the 'error of my ways' by proving that their way produces better sounding systems!! :exactly:
Marco.
I'd give it a go but you need to supply clearly delineated and measurable criteria for 'better'
:lol:
Sorry couldn't really help myself!
I'd give it a go but you need to supply clearly delineated and measurable criteria for 'better'
:lol:
Sorry couldn't really help myself!
Probably something close to "I prefer that sound" or "there's more emotion with this setup".
Measurable - yes I'll score it for you.
I couldn't help myself either! ;)
Rothchild
01-03-2013, 16:00
Probably something close to "I prefer that sound" or "there's more emotion with this setup".
Measurable - yes I'll score it for you.
I couldn't help myself either! ;)
That's not 'better' though it it? It's 'better for me' (not per se a bad thing) which isn't what was offered, opinions are like .... anatomy, everyone's got some.
The loops are getting shorter in this thread, damn I'm looking forward to :cool:tonight come on 1700hrs!
That's not 'better' though it it? It's 'better for me' (not per se a bad thing) which isn't what was offered, opinions are like .... anatomy, everyone's got some.
The loops are getting shorter in this thread, damn I'm looking forward to :cool:tonight come on 1700hrs!
It can only be "better for me". The alternative it to play music without an audience and let the measuring equipment record results. The printout showing the "best" results may give the scientist an orgasm but is that better? It is for him I suppose.
Rothchild
01-03-2013, 16:19
but is that better? It is for him I suppose.
By the standard as defined then yes and, moreover, his judgement has equal value with the one formed by someone who listened with their ears, rather than their test equipment.
Hooray! Everyone is always right all the time.
If its toe tapping and makes you listen to the early hours with a smile on your face then its a good sound - period. Ears are there for a purpose use them ha ha
The problem is that none of the 'technical gobbledygook' you've quoted, which apparently 'proves' why digital replay is superior to vinyl replay
I thought we agreed to disagree!
The fact that a few individuals don't seem to be able to understand what I wrote does not make it gobbledygook, Marco. The vast majority of people with whom I have discussed this are as intrigued as I am, and seem to have no trouble understanding it. Mind you most are doctors, scientists and engineers since they are the people I know through work.
I have never tried to -prove- that digital replay is superior to vinyl, though I do -believe- it is more accurate, from my experience of recording. I have tried to describe both why flawed LP playback sounds so good and to see if there is a reason why a CD and LP releases don't (usually) sound the same but an LP and a digital recording of the LP do.
You respond as if I am questioning somethig important!
I can assure you, back in the day, everybody involved was surprised and delighted how much better LPs sounded than expected... but nowhere near the master tape.
On top of all the LP manufacture/playback additions and subtractions there are a gazillion other things not least microphone type and position, influencing the sound.
If you believe the convincing illusion you get from listening to an LP to be anything other than fortunate happenstance, lucky you, life is simple.
Mind you most are doctors, scientists and engineers since they are the people I know through work.
Most of the people I know through work are high achieving professionals, some running multi-million $ businesses. Are your colleagues better than mine?
We have two groups of people here separated by a common language methinks.
I don't understand where Frank sits......his ears tell him that 3 different source sound best and that technically he knows that one of them is poorer than the rest. Doesn't that suggest there's a breakdown in logic? Or at least inconsistency? My suspicion is that the science isn't totally rigorous.
I would say Clive that all this shows is that the actual recording makes very much more difference than the medium, as I think most enthusiasts accept.
Get it?
I would say Clive that all this shows is that the actual recording makes very much more difference than the medium, as I think most enthusiasts accept.
Get it?
I totally accept that. I'm pleased you get it.
I assumed when we compare sources we would use recordings / mastering of equivalent quality. Anyone with good experience and subjective capabilities should be able to assess recording / mastering quality near enough to select a playlist to make judgements with. Do I do that? Not really, only when I'm reviewing, mostly I just enjoy music.
I can't help feeling that I'm being told what I should be hearing. Earlier this thread I recall you said something about you wanting to show people the realities - it came across as a bit of crusade. I'm all for stimulating discussion and thought but just because you only deal in your chosen science and not psyco-acoustics you are missing a vital piece of the picture.
An emotional response to this is that you are damning LP with faint praise...pleasant or nice but it's not really good is it? That's how I read this.
Of course the mainly subjectivist views on this forum can and should be challenged but for me if there is any "truth" it has to account for people+technology. Neither should be taken in isolation. Barry's post tells us lot about we hear sounds differently and that the "truth" has to be personal to individuals.
Ultimately in a domestic setting with good equipment I don't correlate your science with what I hear. I'm not saying we are miles apart, I don't think we are. I can't help feeling there's something that's not being measured which has an influence. Saying that long understood colourations of LP make LP sound pleasant is little to different to someone saying the long known about harshness of CD makes it tiring to listen to. Neither statement is true.
Hi Clive, I get the fact that you like the sound of LPs and feel that that must be because it is more accurate but I would very much appreciate it if you would be so kind as to answer the simple question I asked earlier about the poorer crosstalk on LP than the originating tape.
Do you vote for it being because 25dB is enough separation due to masking by the louder music and therefore an inaudible loss, or do you thing the extra little bit of left channel added to the right and vice versa sounds nicer?
Or do you know of something else salient?
This is a very simple question, ignore any other effects, I am genuinely intrigued by what you believe is going on here.
I thought we agreed to disagree!
Yes, but you continue to make preaching statements which come across as you telling us how we should listen - even Clive has picked you up on this. Perhaps you don't realise that? It's probably not your intention, but unfortunately it's how you're coming across.
Until this stops, I have no option but to challenge what, I'm sorry, I see as patronising and rather demeaning remarks regarding my views on this debate. Even your last reply was somewhat belittling.
Hi Clive, I get the fact that you like the sound of LPs and feel that that must be because it is more accurate..
Perhaps you would be so kind as to extend the same courtesy to me? What you've written certainly also applies to my situation :)
Therefore, if you want to agree to disagree, Frank, then don't give me further cause to challenge you on that type of behaviour. Remember that we don't all think like scientists, doctors or engineers! ;)
Marco.
Hi Clive, I get the fact that you like the sound of LPs and feel that that must be because it is more accurate
I've not said that. Indeed I use 2 records decks and a computer audio setup. I don't use words such as accurate, I'm more concerned about connection to music and emotion.
I would very much appreciate it if you would be so kind as to answer the simple question I asked earlier about the poorer crosstalk on LP than the originating tape.
Do you vote for it being because 25dB is enough separation due to masking by the louder music and therefore an inaudible loss, or do you thing the extra little bit of left channel added to the right and vice versa sounds nicer?
Or do you know of something else salient?
This is a very simple question, ignore any other effects, I am genuinely intrigued by what you believe is going on here.
Why should I care? The only measuring equipment I listen with are my ears. If the masking you describe is so important but the sound of an LP is still as good or maybe better than a CD then there's something even more important happening to make the crosstalk irrelevent. You sometimes find LP acceptable, doesn't the crosstalk issue bother you? How can you accept it? Do you listen in mono?
isuckedmandelsonslemons
01-03-2013, 16:55
I must admit I find this thread rather amusing. I just can't get rid of the mental picture of the person who started the thread sitting in a darkened room listening to old prog records hammering out his original post and having no idea where it would lead.
I don't use words such as accurate, I'm more concerned about connection to music and emotion.
Indeed; as should any genuine music lover.
Marco.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
01-03-2013, 17:00
Indeed; as should any genuine music lover.
Marco.
See, I'm a fanatical music lover of almost 50 years standing snd i agree eith that but I'm also searching for accuracy among many other things. I want my system to reproduce the music as closely as possible to what I would hear in a studio on a master tape.
I must admit I find this thread rather amusing. I just can't get rid of the mental picture of the person who started the thread sitting in a darkened room listening to old prog records hammering out his original post and having no idea where it would lead.
It is amusing how a common language can be such a barrier! Maybe we should discuss religion and politics. :lol:
You sometimes find LP acceptable, doesn't the crosstalk issue bother you?
I am sorry you don't care, but hey!
I often find LP fabulous sounding, not just acceptable, as I have written often.
The thing is -I- think one of the things that make LP sound so good is the ethereal additions given by things like the mixing due to the poor crosstalk. It certainly doesn't bother me!
I certainly don't believe that there is some yet-to-be-discovered-by-humans reason.
See, I'm a fanatical music lover of almost 50 years standing snd i agree eith that but I'm also searching for accuracy among many other things. I want my system to reproduce the music as closely as possible to what I would hear in a studio on a master tape.
I'm the same, Harry, but the key words in Clive's post were "more concerned about". Ultimately, I'm more concerned about connection to music and emotion, than (in my opinion) some flawed notion of 'accuracy'.
However, in reality, if the sound of a hi-fi system is genuinely 'accurate' (as in it reproduces recordings with minimal deviation from the information that exists on said recordings), then connection to the music, and emotion derived from that, should follow automatically :)
Marco.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
01-03-2013, 17:12
Agree 100% Marco.
Yes, but you continue to make preaching statements which come across as you telling us how we should listen - even Clive has picked you up on this. Perhaps you don't realise that? It's probably not your intention, but unfortunately it's how you're coming across.
Until this stops, I have no option but to challenge what, I'm sorry, I see as patronising and rather demeaning remarks regarding my views on this debate. Even your last reply was somewhat belittling.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to extend the same courtesy to me? What you've written certainly also applies to my situation :)
Therefore, if you want to agree to disagree, Frank, then don't give me further cause to challenge you on that type of behaviour. Remember that we don't all think like scientists, doctors or engineers! ;)
Marco.
Sorry if I have offended you Marco, it was not my intention!
I do feel rather under attack on this forum though, so I think I'll give it a rest for a while,
all the best,
Frank
Well put.
Thanks!
FWIW Frank, I've found your contributions to this debate really interesting :)
I would say Clive that all this shows is that the actual recording makes very much more difference than the medium, as I think most enthusiasts accept.
Get it?
I'd totally agree with that.
Hi Frank,
Sorry if I have offended you Marco, it was not my intention!
I do feel rather under attack on this forum though, so I think I'll give it a rest for a while,
No problem. I certainly don't want to fall out over this, or scare you away. However, you must remember that AoS is primarily populated by subjectivists who are unlikely to relate naturally to your science/'logic'-first way of thinking or the rather brusque way that, no disrespect, people from your profession tend to communicate with others.
It's not your 'fault' (or indeed anyone's), but simply a clash of cultures/mindsets.
Hopefully see you at Scalford. Don't be afraid to say hello! :cool:
Marco.
isuckedmandelsonslemons
01-03-2013, 17:57
Sorry if I have offended you Marco, it was not my intention!
I do feel rather under attack on this forum though, so I think I'll give it a rest for a while,
all the best,
Frank
I think you have more admirers than detractors Frank.
Frank, I won't be at Scalford whether you are or not enjoy a pint. I'm sure we'd get on fine face-2-face.
Cheers,
Clive
Whats this digital switching thing Marco?
Hi Neal,
Sorry for taking a while getting back to you, but I thought it best to ask Anthony to explain, as he can do so, from a technical point of view, far better than me. Also, it was him who designed the filter I have which is extremely effective when used with my CDP and DAC.
Here's what he had to say on the matter:
the inherent problem with anything that has to switch rapidly on and off is that it will ultimately produce some form of high frequency hash which can be a combination of the switching process itself and the filtering effect used to try and control/suppress it, obviously and ultimately the outcome has to be controlled in some form or another, or you will end up with it all over anything else connected to it, or the localized equipment within its vicinity.
therefore, if you cannot stop the switching noise or its associated [complicated] harmonics [a natural function of digital signal] then the best you can do is to prevent it getting back into anything associated with it, be it power supplies, or other forms of amplification etc. well designed mains filters can be very effective in preventing this hash from getting back into localized mains systems.
however, passive filters in their very nature will always have a slight negative effect of raising the mains impedance, although, the positives depending on where and how the filter is used will usually outweigh the negative.
Having used Anthony's digital noise filter now for a few years, I can confirm its efficacy, especially in terms of preventing said noise from 'infecting' other equipment connected to the same mains supply. This is a crucial part of its function.
Honestly, there is a very significant difference with my system, sonically, when the filter is taken in or out of the digital loop. However, the same filter has no effect whatsoever when connected in-line with my turntable, quite simply because it is not generating any such noise! ;)
It is my opinion, therefore, that this noise is partly responsible for causing the 'digital glare' mentioned earlier on this thread, and why I find vinyl music reproduction, at its best, despite its limitations, ultimately gives a more lifelike portrayal of real instruments and voices compared with any digital equipment, regardless of cost, simply because the switching noise in question is inherent in all forms of digital music replay.
Marco.
By the standard as defined then yes and, moreover, his judgement has equal value with the one formed by someone who listened with their ears, rather than their test equipment.
Hooray! Everyone is always right all the time.
Yes, but only robots, posing as human beings, use test equipment to judge the sound of their stereos!
'Objectivists' also only champion that mantra when it suits them... ;)
Btw, as an aside, could anyone tell me why it's ok to trust/rely on your senses whilst making 100s of decisions every day, during the course of living your life, but when it comes to analysing aspects of sound involving hi-fi equipment, those previously trusted senses all of a sudden become untrustworthy and unreliable?
How does that work exactly? :scratch:
Marco.
Btw, as an aside, could anyone tell me why it's ok to trust/rely on your senses whilst making 100s of decisions every day, during the course of living your life, but when it comes to analysing aspects of sound involving hi-fi equipment, those previously trusted senses all of a sudden become untrustworthy and unreliable?
Hi Marco,
I suspect it has something to do with the confusion, that I tried to highlight in my earlier post, between – on the one hand – thinking of 'accuracy' in terms of (1) a matching relation between the output of a playback mechanism, and the specific input that's causally relevant to the mechanism's producing that output, and – on the other hand – thinking of 'accuracy' in terms of (2) a resemblance relation between the sounds produced by our hi-fis, and sounds of the sort that are, paradigmatically, produced by people and instruments, and – in turn – a resemblance between our experiences of the sounds produced by our hi-fis, and experiences of sounds of the sort that are, paradigmatically, produced by people and instruments.
My impression is that, amongst some participants to these disputes, there's an assumption that if we can ensure that our playback mechanisms produce sounds that are maximally accurate in terms of (1), then we thereby ensure that they will produce sounds that are accurate in terms of (2) (for the record, I suspect this assumption is probably false, and – at the very least – I have not seen it argued for anywhere, since people don't tend to distinguish between these two notions of accuracy).
Anyway, if you're of the view that the goal is to ensure that the output of a playback mechanism is maximally accurate in terms of (1), then it makes perfect sense that our auditory experiences will have little role to play when it comes to assessing the accuracy of that output, since auditory experience is simply not the sort of thing that can either confirm or deny that an output – a set of sounds – bears the appropriate matching relation to an input. This is a matter, at least, of determining that properties of the sounds, within a certain range, are structurally isomorphic with properties of the input – the surface of the record, or the wax cylinder, or the CD, etc. – within a certain range. And the extent to which this matching relation obtains between output – the sounds – and the input, is simply not the sort of thing that auditory experience can, on its own, divulge, since all we have is the sounds; our ears are not sensitive to the properties of the input, in a way that would allow us to determine, just by listening, that the appropriate matching relation obtained. Here then, it makes sense to appeal to measurements collected by devices that – unlike our auditory systems – are designed to determine the extent of this matching between input and output.
So, if – on the one hand – you assume that all that matters is accuracy in the sense of (1), or if – one the other hand – you assume accuracy in terms of (1) guarantees accuracy in terms of (2), then you'll be disinclined to cite your experience as evidence for your accuracy judgements.
However, if you are also interested in ensuring that your hi-fi is accurate in terms of (2) – that is, that it produces sounds which most closely resemble those of the sort paradigmatically produced by people and instruments, and that it gives rise to experiences which most closely resemble, from the subject's perspective, experiences of sounds produced by people and instruments – then reflection on how those experiences are for us will be hugely important when it comes to determining the accuracy, in this sense, of any particular set of sounds, or playback mechanism.
The relations of similarity and difference between the experiences that we undergo when we use our hi-fis, and experiences of the sort that we're trying to illicit by using our hi-fis, is something that, to an impressive extent, we're able to determine, just by introspective reflection on those experiences. This contrasts with accuracy in terms of (1), which – plausibly – we are not in a position to determine just by introspective reflection.
I think that the mistake made the 'objectivists' that you cite, is to either mistake accuracy in terms of (1) for accuracy in terms of (2), or to assume that accuracy in terms of (1) ensures accuracy in terms of (2). With those assumptions in play, it makes sense to downplay the role that experience can play in settling disputes about accuracy.
But, these assumptions are – so far as I can tell – highly dubious.
Once we allow for a distinction between the two notions of accuracy, and once we note that accuracy in terms of (2) is something that's important to us, then reflection on experience must be allowed to play a major role in settling questions of accuracy, since precisely what we're trying to elicit are experiences of a certain sort, and whether the experiences that we undergo on using our hi-fis are experiences of the right sort, is something to which introspective reflection is an invaluable guide.
I'll try to state thoughts from a non-scientific perspective.
Musical reproduction exists for people to enjoy. If we only focus on a set of measurements with electronic instruments we'd better ensure we take all the required measurements and assign the correct priorities to what we find. We absolutely have to understand how different people perceive music as there are many differences and preferences. We need to look at sensing music, not just hearing it. Even deaf people perceive music so it's not 100% about our ears. To omit or fail to understand the human perception side misses out a massive part of working out how to draw conclusions about what is measured.
Imagine if with an F1 car we measured BHP, torque, downforce, braking ability, traction and max cornering G. We then conclude from this data which is the best car. If we do this we wouldn't need the to hold the F1 season at all. However....there are many more variables the above does take into account, especially how the cars react to different circuit layouts and tarmac quality. What about how a car behaves on the entrance to a corner, in the middle and on the exit? Then we have the drivers, yes they are human and not all the same! We could ask which is the best F1 engine? Is it the most powerful? Is it the best combination of power and fuel efficiency taken into account (ie Renault). What about spread of power (driveability) because a human has to control the engine (drive the car).
I think understanding musical reproduction from a measurement point of view and related to human perception is still very much in its infancy.
Rothchild
02-03-2013, 09:45
Yes, but only robots, posing as human beings, use test equipment to judge the sound of their stereos!
'Objectivists' also only champion that mantra when it suits them... ;)
Btw, as an aside, could anyone tell me why it's ok to trust/rely on your senses whilst making 100s of decisions every day, during the course of living your life, but when it comes to analysing aspects of sound involving hi-fi equipment, those previously trusted senses all of a sudden become untrustworthy and unreliable?
How does that work exactly? :scratch:
Marco.
I think yet again you're misinterpreting those of us who are interested in the technical discussion and (wrongly, it would appear to me) painting us as 'objectivists'.
The ability to hear a difference subjectively is one thing. The desire to then develop a valid test to help understand why one hears the difference (or indeed if the difference is in the pressure wave reaching the ear or in the somewhat suceptable grey matter between those ears) doesn't IMO an objectivist make.
Hence my post you quoted. It's in part a question: Does believing I'm right always make me right? (and my suggestion is that when the question is entirely subjective like 'does it sound better to me by my own criteria' then the only answer can be yes.
If it wasn't part of the human condidtion to mis-read, mis-hear or mis-interpret information there would be a lot less on the telly, they're the keys to classic drama. Are you suggesting that you've never made a subjective decision (of the hundreds), based on your senses, which you latterly realised was wrong because you'd mis-heard/mis-read/got caught out cos it looked different in the certain light (or what ever) etc and then when the information is presented again and you took it in differently you made a different decsion?
Do you never use any other point of information /knowledge to make a judgement beyond your gut instinct? (to be clear the point I'm making here isn't that gut instinct is neccesarily wrong, but that if it wasn't right there are normally measurable reasons as to why ie. mis-read, mis-heard, mis-understood inputs caused incorrect/inaccurate outputs)
I sympathise with Frank here, the repeated suggestion that those of us who also like to use additional methods to aid our subjective understanding / enjoyment are not listening, or are somehow only out to demean the experience of those who (for whatever reasons) are not willing to engage with additional data to help understand and interpret their subjective experience is a bit rude. I'm not advocating using test equipment to test a hifi setup I'm suggesting using it to test the quality of (and potentially improve) my own subjective judgements!
I sympathise with Frank here, the repeated suggestion that those of us who also like to use additional methods to aid our subjective understanding / enjoyment are not listening, or are somehow only out to demean the experience of those who (for whatever reasons) are not willing to engage with additional data to help understand and interpret their subjective experience is a bit rude. I'm not advocating using test equipment to test a hifi setup I'm suggesting using it to test the quality of (and potentially improve) my own subjective judgements!
I agree. Nothing wrong with trying to understand how it all works - knowledge is power, after all. And that doesn't for me in any way conflict with the 'if it sounds good it is good and screw the measurements' point of view which is the one I hold personally.
I sympathise with Frank here, the repeated suggestion that those of us who also like to use additional methods to aid our subjective understanding / enjoyment are not listening, or are somehow only out to demean the experience of those who (for whatever reasons) are not willing to engage with additional data to help understand and interpret their subjective experience is a bit rude. I'm not advocating using test equipment to test a hifi setup I'm suggesting using it to test the quality of (and potentially improve) my own subjective judgements!
Take the example of cartridge crosstalk....the specs are far worse than for digital formats. Yet LP can sound really good according to Frank. This suggests to me that:
1) crosstalk is not that vital a parameter
2) other parameters take priority
3) when other more critical parameters maximized then crosstalk can be thought about
Let's put details such as these into the bigger picture, not view them in isolation.
I'm sorry but Frank did set himself up as a missionary coming here to convert us.
I'm sorry but Frank did set himself up as a missionary coming here to convert us.
Not fair. I think Frank originaly posted to correct some factual inaccuracies in the claims some were making about digital recording and replay. The discussion just went on from there.
Not fair. I think Frank originaly posted to correct some factual inaccuracies in the claims some were making about digital recording and replay. The discussion just went on from there.
I'm not going to trawl the thread for the quote be somewhere in it he stated that he goes onto forums to set people straight about technical issues and the context in which this was said was to point out the error of our ways. Maybe it's a communication issue.
Rothchild
02-03-2013, 10:25
I'm sorry but Frank did set himself up as a missionary coming here to convert us.
I disagree and I believe that it's these repeated assertions about his intentions (which he repeatedly and articulately rebutted) that have caused him to leave the thread. I assert that those who have an agenda in rejecting any method of verification have set him up as a missionary but I see nothing in his posting which insists that anyone ought to change their fundamental beliefs.
How about:
4. A technically 'worse' crosstalk performance creates a subjectively nicer sound because folk like the subtle 'out of phaseness' it creates (?) (this, I think is kinda like .mus's point)
Theres nothing wrong with correcting factual errors - If I have a fact wrong I like to be told. It may matter. What is wrong is telling someone their subjective opinion is incorrect. I don't think Frank has done that anywhere on this thread.
I disagree and I believe that it's these repeated assertions about his intentions (which he repeatedly and articulately rebutted) that have caused him to leave the thread. I assert that those who have an agenda in rejecting any method of verification have set him up as a missionary but I see nothing in his posting which insists that anyone ought to change their fundamental beliefs.
How about:
4. A technically 'worse' crosstalk performance creates a subjectively nicer sound because folk like the subtle 'out of phaseness' it creates (?) (this, I think is kinda like .mus's point)
I have an Acutex cartridge with is several db better in terms of crosstalk than the Ortofon quoted by Frank. I can't say I noticed a step change in the lack of "niceness".
And as for the use of the word "nice", it smacks of demeaning what some of us listen for. Nice doesn't cut it, not one iota. :ner:
I've seen someone on AoS yesterday suggest that all ones needs from an amplifier is enough power. Peter Walker may have thought that but times have moved on. Sorry, I'm ranting now!
Rothchild
02-03-2013, 10:45
And as for the use of the word "nice", it smacks of demeaning what some of us listen for. Nice doesn't cut it, not one iota. :ner:
Lol, I suspect this thread will finally extinguish itself when we've disbarred enough words!
Currently taboo (not exhaustive)
Accurate
Nice
...
....
Have a great weekend.
Lol, is suspect this thread will finally extinguish itself when we've disbarred enough words!
Currently taboo (not exhaustive)
Accurate
Nice
...
....
Have a great weekend.
Agreed they can both all too easily be pejorative!
I think that there's an element of truth in what Martin and Marc are saying, and I do like Frank, but I did get the feeling that I was being preached at, and I'm afraid that this, eventually, is always liable to irk.
It was the preachy/patronising nature of the way that Frank presented his argument (especially latterly), which for me ultimately irritated. I'm afraid that this has always been something which rubs me up the wrong way. I've never responded well to being lectured or made to feel 'inferior', simply because I'm a 'non-techie', and I'm afraid that engineering/science types, on forums, do tend to have that side to their personalities.
It's not just about WHAT you say, but HOW you say it....!
As I've seen many times before here and on other forums, over the years, whenever someone like Frank (with a rather rigid engineering/scientific background) joins in a discussion essentially to 'educate the non-believers', things are hunky-dory in the beginning when people are absorbing the information, but as soon as others of an opposite mentality/viewpoint robustly challenge their argument, things start to deteriorate, as the 'teacher' becomes frustrated that the 'pupils' aren't 'getting' what they want them to 'get' - and in fact have the audacity to suggest that the 'teacher' might be, in certain areas, wrong! :eek: ;)
The 'teacher' then gets annoyed and perceives that he's being 'attacked', rather than simply challenged, and at that point, out of frustration, depending on the personality of the 'teacher', he or she will either start insulting the 'pupils' for being too 'dim-witted' to understand the argument (as we seen a little from Frank) or mostly in Frank's case, realise that rather than educate anyone, they are starting to become offensive (simply out of frustration, due to a clash of mindsets/personalities), and so take a break from the discussion/forum concerned, temporarily or permanently.
However, I have to say that Frank is essentially a polite person, who doesn't want to upset/offend anyone, which unfortunately was starting to happen, and to his credit, that is probably why he bowed out of the discussion. I do hope that he joins us again in due course, because the fact is, we can all learn from each other :)
Marco.
P.S Marc, I'll get to your post later, as you've made some good points!
Take the example of cartridge crosstalk....the specs are far worse than for digital formats. Yet LP can sound really good according to Frank. This suggests to me that:
1) crosstalk is not that vital a parameter
2) other parameters take priority
3) when other more critical parameters maximized then crosstalk can be thought about
Absolutely spot-on, Clive. If all we think is that LP is an inferior format because the measurements are poor, then we're not measuring the right things.
Absolutely - and that theory (you need to measure for the right things, not just automatically dismiss the seemingly un-measurable as 'imagined') applies throughout audio, especially when it comes to stands and cables! ;)
Marco.
purite audio
02-03-2013, 13:04
Everything Frank wrote is absolutely correct, I am always amazed that vinyl can sound so good despite its technical flaws.
Keith.
Everything Frank wrote is absolutely correct, I am always amazed that vinyl can sound so good despite its technical flaws.
Keith.
If vinyl is well understood and all the correct measurements are taken then you should not be amazed, it should be totally logical. If not then something magical is happening, oh and before I'm jumped on, I'm not suggesting that anything magical is happening.
Everything Frank wrote is absolutely correct, I am always amazed that vinyl can sound so good despite its technical flaws.
Keith.
Yes, everything that Frank wrote was correct, except that his 'correct' is not what many of us hear in the real world... ;)
Marco.
Hi Marc,
Sorry for my late response to this.
I think yet again you're misinterpreting those of us who are interested in the technical discussion and (wrongly, it would appear to me) painting us as 'objectivists'.
That's a fair point, and I accept it. However, I can only comment on what I see written in front of me, based on my previous experience of observing this type of behaviour, and as far as Frank goes, all the usual signs were there of a typical 'objectivist', bearing in mind that many self-proclaimed objectivists also use their ears, in the final analysis, to form their opinions in audio.
However, as I said earlier, if Frank rejects the label of an 'objectivist', I'm more than happy to stand corrected, and that also applies to you :)
Are you suggesting that you've never made a subjective decision (of the hundreds), based on your senses, which you latterly realised was wrong because you'd mis-heard/mis-read/got caught out cos it looked different in the certain light (or what ever) etc and then when the information is presented again and you took it in differently you made a different decsion?
Of course not! I've made plenty of misjudgements and mistakes, over the years, in audio. I'm human the same as anyone else. However, I've learned from those mistakes and so don't repeat them, and instead use the information gained to strengthen the skills of my subjective analysis. Ultimately, for me, the practical experience gained from listening to 100s of different types of equipment, in many different contexts, over many years, is worth much more than the contents of any technical textbooks!
Do you never use any other point of information /knowledge to make a judgement beyond your gut instinct?
Yes, occasionally I look at the technical specifications of some equipment, which I may have to buy blind, and those often give me an inkling of what to expect, sonically. Cartridges are a good example here. I will also take into consideration information given by those whose ears I trust. There are a few people on this forum and in 'real life' whose opinions would influence my prospective buying of equipment.
I tend to shun the opinions of so-called 'experts', whether they are media-based or otherwise, as often their ego is greater than their actual knowledge of the subject in question. Unfortunately, we're predisposed to follow the opinion of 'experts', especially when said 'experts' come from a scientific background and have great technical knowledge.
Well, I'm afraid that that doesn't impress me one iota. Those who impress me are people who can demonstrate that they have good ears, through what they write on the subject of audio and music, and ultimately, from demonstrating that they have superb sounding systems and a good grasp of how real instruments and voices sound, un-amplified, in order to use this as an effective benchmark from which to judge how they are reproduced through a hi-fi system.
Science and measurements will only ever tell us so much about audio. I'm a free-thinker who follows my own path, and ultimately will always trust my ears.
I'm not advocating using test equipment to test a hifi setup I'm suggesting using it to test the quality of (and potentially improve) my own subjective judgements!
That's fine - I understand that. However, I rarely find that necessary. The only test equipment I use on a regular basis is a stylus pressure gauge and an alignment protractor - my ears are plenty good enough to judge anything else I may need to know! ;)
Marco.
Musical reproduction exists for people to enjoy. If we only focus on a set of measurements with electronic instruments we'd better ensure we take all the required measurements and assign the correct priorities to what we find. We absolutely have to understand how different people perceive music as there are many differences and preferences. We need to look at sensing music, not just hearing it.
Spot on, Clive. That is the very point the scientific fraternity in audio, who obsess over technicalities, fail to grasp, or try to avoid - take your pick! ;)
Marco.
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w63/greatgig/image_zps5cbc021b.jpg
:rfl::rfl::rfl::rfl:
:youtheman:
WOStantonCS100
04-03-2013, 06:51
...Two comments/observations. On was the post where the concept of science was discredited because research changes over time and may change conclusions. Without the discipline of scientific questioning and continuous testing of theories, progress would eventually stall. In all areas of scientific endeavour. You can't throw out science just because conclusions evolve. Conclusions evolve because new information comes to light which changes or forces the theory being examined to be altered. Then it is tested again...
I think you were referring to my comments, although I believe you misunderstood them. Yet somehow you've managed to state exactly what I was getting at. And, I can't state that any better than you just have for that was my point.
Of course, we don't just throw out science. A whole boat load of science went into analogue playback before anyone ever thought about using A/D/A for the purpose of recording and playing back consumer music.
But, as you said "conclusions evolve because new information comes to light". So, it seems to me we have a choice. Do we really accept that, essentially, science stopped at 16/44.1 ??? Do we really accept that just because we don't have a glaringly obvious equation for what scores of folks are obviously hearing in analogue playback, we should regard it as euphony? Or does it make more sense to assume that there just might be something to that. Something that requires "more scientific questioning and continuos testing...." The most unscientific stance to take is to plant one's feet so deeply in the ground as to say there is nothing more science needs to or can tell us about this matter. That's what I'm getting from some of the posts here about the "completeness" of 16/44.1 and supposed inabilities of analogue playback. I can't agree with such statements "because research changes over time and may change conclusions" and often does.
WOStantonCS100
04-03-2013, 06:53
http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w63/greatgig/image_zps5cbc021b.jpg
:rfl::rfl::rfl::rfl:
:youtheman:
I guess I've been around here for a bit now... but, yikes... that's disturbing. :D
:rfl::rfl::rfl::rfl:
:youtheman:
Glad you like! Thank Dave (Synsei) who found it, although strappy high heels are normally my favs, not courts... :D
Marco.
anthonyTD
04-03-2013, 09:31
Glad you like! Thank Dave (Synsei) who found it, although strappy high heels are normally my favs, not courts... :D
Marco.
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Brilliant!
A...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.