Dynamic range of vinyl recordings

[Marco]

I'd certainly agree that reading up on the science and then gaining personal experience to reach your own conclusions is sensible. The gaining of personal experience being the more important factor...

Yes, it helps to do both, but *ultimately* all that matters is the latter, and the results of your own perception.

For me, too many people are too easily 'impressed' and/or influenced by the views of supposed 'experts', simply because it appeals to their technical/scientific mentality, especially when you don't know exactly what those views are founded upon, or the reasons that they might have for expressing them, publicly.

Too often, in my experience, it's simply to further an agenda, rather than actually educate anyone on the subject concerned.

Marco.

[dave2010]

I'd certainly agree that reading up on the science and then gaining personal experience to reach your own conclusions is sensible. The gaining of personal experience being the more important factor...

I agree - up to a point. Some of the claimed improvements with tweaks, and new ways of doing things, are almost unmeasurable using equipment most of us have. Maths and science theories help a lot, and indicate possible ways forward. Also, psychology and knowledge of adaptive systems is important - we are all pretty much highly adaptive, and our behaviour and perceptions are continuously changing.

There are many examples of how our perception is adaptive in the field of visual perception, which pretty much prove how our vision adapts to what it "sees", and I feel sure that hearing is similar.

Here is a page which deals with visual illusions - though I've not checked that any of the illusions on the page are actually correct. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ece0950334e6

I have, however, seen similar illusions which I did check - and there are printed books with this sort of thing.

Where I am with Martin (Macca) is when very expensive tweaks and kit are put forward, with big claims on the improvements, and hardly any credible scientific basis and no good theory, or misapplied theory.

Some people may have "money to burn", or different levels of possible budgets, but we shouldn't be supporting those who seem to be offering the audio equivalent of the Emperor's new clothes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Em...7s_New_Clothes

Danny Kaye - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t80UDdbV3Mk

[Marco]

I agree - up to a point. Some of the claimed improvements with tweaks, and new ways of doing things, are almost unmeasurable using equipment most of us have. Maths and science theories help a lot, and indicate possible ways forward. Also, psychology and knowledge of adaptive systems is important - we are all pretty much highly adaptive, and our behaviour and perceptions are continuously changing.

There are many examples of how our perception is adaptive in the field of visual perception, which pretty much prove how our vision adapts to what it "sees", and I feel sure that hearing is similar.

Here is a page which deals with visual illusions - though I've not checked that any of the illusions on the page are actually correct. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ece0950334e6

I have, however, seen similar illusions which I did check - and there are printed books with this sort of thing.

That's a very good and valid point, Dave. And no doubt we're all susceptible to such. However, here's the thing:

*At what point*, after you've measured away until the cow's come home, and tested things to buggery, objectively, YET your ears repeatedly contradict those results and tell you that what you're hearing is real, do you simply relax and just enjoy the benefits you perceive...?

For me, if you're unable to do that *at some point*, and continue to trust your oscilloscope more than your ears, then you've got a problem! You simply can't spend your whole life denying the existence of something that may be real, simply for fear of being 'fooled'.

Where I am with Martin (Macca) is when very expensive tweaks and kit are put forward, with big claims on the improvements, and hardly any credible scientific basis and no good theory, or misapplied theory.

I completely agree. And if such tweaks are to be promoted here, then they should be accompanied by credible explanations for their efficacy. Trouble is, I'm not sure that those responsible for creating them always know for sure exactly what they're doing.

Marco.

[Clive]

I agree - up to a point. Some of the claimed improvements with tweaks, and new ways of doing things, are almost unmeasurable using equipment most of us have. Maths and science theories help a lot, and indicate possible ways forward. Also, psychology and knowledge of adaptive systems is important - we are all pretty much highly adaptive, and our behaviour and perceptions are continuously changing.

There are many examples of how our perception is adaptive in the field of visual perception, which pretty much prove how our vision adapts to what it "sees", and I feel sure that hearing is similar.

Here is a page which deals with visual illusions - though I've not checked that any of the illusions on the page are actually correct. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ece0950334e6

I have, however, seen similar illusions which I did check - and there are printed books with this sort of thing.

Where I am with Martin (Macca) is when very expensive tweaks and kit are put forward, with big claims on the improvements, and hardly any credible scientific basis and no good theory, or misapplied theory.

Some people may have "money to burn", or different levels of possible budgets, but we shouldn't be supporting those who seem to be offering the audio equivalent of the Emperor's new clothes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Em...7s_New_Clothes

Danny Kaye - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t80UDdbV3Mk

When reaching one's own conclusions it's important that we're self aware of our own fallibilities and prejudices. I tend not to make snap judgments. I listen over time to different setups and reach conclusion often over several days or weeks of living with a without a particular change. There are some experts on the internet I'll take more notice of than others but there are few, many just trot out their own agenda. In the end it's a good idea to apply common sense to the process too.

As for hi-res, I've heard it be great and so-so but I've not spent time weeding out which hi-res recordings are genuine, not simply upscaled redbook and then you have the issue of whether recordings are remastered. As I don't have my own experience of thoroughly structured listening to hi-res I don't feel I can pass judgment or reach conclusions.

[Marco]

As I don't have my own experience of thoroughly structured listening to hi-res I don't feel I can pass judgment or reach conclusions.

Indeed! And I can think of someone here who would do well to consider that!



Marco.

[Macca]

Indeed! And I can think of someone here who would do well to consider that!



Marco.

I do have though. I was an early adopter of hi res (2001). I've done the structured comparisons (192 vs 44.1, mp3 at various rates vs 44.1) years ago now. The reason I don't bother with it now is because the only point of it is to get a different master and I found that whilst some of the re-masters do sound more 'hi-fi' that something about the 'character' of the original is lost.

Likewise I have no interest in streaming since I already have all the albums I want on CD or SACD. So it would be of no benefit to me whatsoever.

Marco the reason your comparisons are invalid has nothing to do with what you are hearing. You are hearing differences because there are differences. It is just that the reason they are sounding different is not because one recording has frequencies over 22Khz and the other doesn't. There are many ways to make audible changes to how a recording sounds.

[Pigmy Pony]

Lol - it's a merely a (passionate) slightly heated debate, the type of which Martin and I often have on these subjects, not a fight. He has strong views and conviction in his opinions, and so do I, but we're all big boys here, so there's no need for anyone to fall out.



In terms of the bit in bold, I'd suggest that it's at least a possibility. I know what I'm hearing though, so I don't give a tinker's cuss what anyone in a science coat says, if I have grounds to believe there is an agenda behind it, but that's just a general point, not in relation to the stated video, which I haven't watched yet.

We're in complete agreement with the rest, which is why I simply won't have anyone's valid perceptions/experiences here dismissed as invalid/imagined or whatever, no matter how that message has been wrapped up, as the premise I've stated above is fundamental, not only to my own views on audio, but also the AoS ethos; indeed it forms its very core, and all members here must respect that.

Marco.

I know you're not fighting really, I'm just putting a bit of silliness into the debate, and I really shouldn't do that when the grown ups are talking.

Completely agree with your point about not letting science tell you what is right - if you're going to do this you may as well put on a CD for your oscilloscope to enjoy while you go down the pub.

[Marco]

Marco the reason your comparisons are invalid has nothing to do with what you are hearing. You are hearing differences because there are differences. It is just that the reason they are sounding different is not because one recording has frequencies over 22Khz and the other doesn't. There are many ways to make audible changes to how a recording sounds.

Ok that's fair enough, but we'll probably have to agree to disagree on some of the reasons for those differences.

Likewise I have no interest in streaming since I already have all the albums I want on CD or SACD. So it would be of no benefit to me whatsoever

Well, at the very least, it would facilitate quick and easy comparisons between hi-res and CD quality digital recordings, which would all add to your experiences in that area.

I'll wholeheartedly say that since embracing file-based audio, I've never been more aware of the genuine differences in those recordings, and more importantly, it's also enhanced my enjoyment of music in general, as well as introducing me to some great stuff I'd simply never have encountered otherwise

Marco.

[Marco]

I know you're not fighting really, I'm just putting a bit of silliness into the debate, and I really shouldn't do that when the grown ups are talking.

Completely agree with your point about not letting science tell you what is right - if you're going to do this you may as well put on a CD for your oscilloscope to enjoy while you go down the pub.

Lol, and yes, in terms of the last bit, that's why I refuse to get a hard-on over measurements, or what the 'white lab-coat brigade' have to say... Although, I'm sure it'd be a different matter, shweety, if you wear to shlip one on and do that wee dance of yours

Is that an oscilloscope in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me?

Marco.

[Pigmy Pony]

Lol, and yes, in terms of the last bit, that's why I refuse to get a hard-on over measurements, or what the 'white lab-coat brigade' have to say... Although, I'm sure it'd be a different matter, shweety, if you wear to shlip one on and do that wee dance of yours

Is that an oscilloscope in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me?

Marco.

It certainly oscillates a fair bit whenever I'm near Wrexham (although that may be due to the sheep). Sorry, I don't own a lab coat. I do however have a lav coat, it's waterproof, stain-resistant AND completely see through. But Mrs. Pony thinks I look a right perv in it. No accounting for taste