Michael Fremer said :-

[dave2010]

But I can probably find that Porcupine Tree track so you can hear it directly. It will make you smile. Everytime I hear it it makes me smile. It sounds excellent. It's injected into the track at quite high levels but you don't realise it. Then it stops. But the dither plays on. And there's truck loads of it. And you realise you've been 'had'.

Audiophiles need to realise how limited their perceptions are in certain respects. This gives a true example of what you thought you knew must be a good thing, like low noise, quite simply is not under certain circumstances.

That sounds like an interesting demo, if you can find the link, or the file.

If I understand you correctly about this example, there is a section of dither+signal - which sounds amazing. Then a section of dither alone - which is very obviously audible and not good.

For a comparison it would be useful to have the first section without the dither - to hear if that also sounds amazing.

If all this does hold up, as you suggest, then it would make sense for recordings to have the dither adjusted in some way to the volume of the wanted signal - to give the "amazing" effects where that would be most wanted/desirable.

I wonder if this shows a physical/psychological effect in human hearing similar in some ways to visual optical illusions, which demonstrate the odd way in which our brains/visual systems actually interpret the world.

[jandl100]

I've been following this interesting thread up until now, but hadn't watched the Fremer video.
I'm watching it now.

I only 'know' Fremer from his Stereophile reviews over a period of about 15 years, up until about 5 years ago when I stopped subscribing.
I always enjoyed his prose, very entertaining, informative and often insightful.

OK, the video.
Firstly, he's laying heavy emphasis on what he actually owns, and yes some of it is really expensive. But you need to be aware of the back story here. He came in for truckloads of criticism on Stereophile and social media for what I might call 'permanent loans' of gear he had from manufacturers whose gear he reviewed. So he's laying heavy emphasis on the gear he has paid for himself, he's not boasting but is defending himself against his critics and explaining the actual facts of the matter.

I was enjoying the talk and the banter, and then my brain reeled and turned off in shock at his immitation of the LP seller who'd had a stroke. I had to pause the video for a while. He's not the most sensitive of people, that could have been done with a whole lot more empathy.

But yes, apart from that, I enjoyed the vid. Interesting guy and he presents well. Although our views differ on streaming, personally I just don't relate to all that emotional ties with physical media stuff.

[User211]

That sounds like an interesting demo, if you can find the link, or the file.

If I understand you correctly about this example, there is a section of dither+signal - which sounds amazing. Then a section of dither alone - which is very obviously audible and not good.

For a comparison it would be useful to have the first section without the dither - to hear if that also sounds amazing.

If all this does hold up, as you suggest, then it would make sense for recordings to have the dither adjusted in some way to the volume of the wanted signal - to give the "amazing" effects where that would be most wanted/desirable.

I wonder if this shows a physical/psychological effect in human hearing similar in some ways to visual optical illusions, which demonstrate the odd way in which our brains/visual systems actually interpret the world.

Slave Called Shiver from Stupid Dreams. Listen to it on the best gear you have.

[Macca]

The alleged technical superiority of CD is an interesting point as, if you make the right measurements, which are actually more relevant to the levels generally recorded onto CD or vinyl , it is quite possible to obtain distortion measurements from CD that are far worse than vinyl. I’ve done it myself and it’s quite an eye-opener!

..

You mean using a signal without dither? Not exactly a real world test. or can you explain some more?

Some distortion measurements here of a 1991 Technics player, nowt wrong with it.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...d-player.9964/

Interestingly the owner says he was not impressed by it back in '91 but now thinks it sounds pretty good. I expect his amplification has got better over the years.

[dave2010]

Slave Called Shiver from Stupid Dreams. Listen to it on the best gear you have.

Found it on Qobuz - should be able to get higher quality. Where in the track do you detect the shifts you mention? Maybe you have inside knowledge!

https://www.qobuz.com/gb-en/album/st.../0802644401867

[User211]

Found it on Qobuz - should be able to get higher quality. Where in the track do you detect the shifts you mention? Maybe you have inside knowledge!

https://www.qobuz.com/gb-en/album/st.../0802644401867

I need to listen to it again not via my phone which I did to find it.

But from memory there's huge applied dither towards the end. Then the music stops and they carry it on way into the next track and turn it off.

[dave2010]

Some distortion measurements here of a 1991 Technics player, nowt wrong with it.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...d-player.9964/

Interestingly the owner says he was not impressed by it back in '91 but now thinks it sounds pretty good. I expect his amplification has got better over the years.

Or maybe his hearig has changed. I was amused at the "digital rubbish" - which I suspect were totally inaudible, and also the plots showing the noise levels up to 10 MHz - way above human hearing. I'm not suggesting it's not worth trying to measure kit, and explain the behaviour in terms of "objective" measures, such as noise, frequency response etc., but interpreting the measurements may be tricky.

Noise in digital systems may be hard to express in qualitative terms. I once tried to deliberately compress audio down to very low bit rates, and did a few more experiments - some of which surprised me - assuming I did them correctly. I had some audio samples down to 1 bit per sample or less, and they sounded OK to me. Some of them were of birdsong. One of my friends suggested that perhaps birds of the same species would be complaining about the 'orrible distortion! if they heard them.

Actually he was probably incorrect. It seems that the hearing of birds is possibly less good than many humans over a wide frequency range, but may be more acute for some signals. Owls may be able to use hearing to located small mammals at night - e.g.a mouse moving among leaves. See https://ornithology.com/the-hearing-of-birds/

The hearing range of most birds varies from 1000-4000 Hz; humans hear between 20-20,000 Hz (Hertz, a measure of frequency).

from the link above.

[Marco]

I'm only making two points.

Well let's start with dither my point is a proven fact. How is that simplistic?

I'll admit it was years ago I read it and I have no link, though I could possibly find one. I think it was in Hi-Fi News.

But I can probably find that Porcupine Tree track so you can hear it directly. It will make you smile. Everytime I hear it it makes me smile. It sounds excellent. It's injected into the track at quite high levels but you don't realise it. Then it stops. But the dither plays on. And there's truck loads of it. And you realise you've been 'had'.

Audiophiles need to realise how limited their perceptions are in certain respects. This gives a true example of what you thought you knew must be a good thing, like low noise, quite simply is not under certain circumstances.

I'm not disputing anything you've written above or previously, as much of it is fact. However, the "simplistic" bit I'm referring to, is the age-old chestnut of 'vinyl only sounds good to the human ear because of it's pleasing colourations', or that we're somehow being 'seduced' by the effects if acoustic feedback.

I'm sorry, I don't buy that as a definitive explanation of its merits, as the thinking is too simplistic. The fact is, there's a lot more going on. Yes, what you're saying I believe is partly true, depending on how appealing said colourations are to an individual listener, but that's certainly not why some others and I enjoy how, when done well, vinyl records treat recorded music.

When you listen to well-produced audiophile recordings on vinyl of live music performances which you've actually attended, and subsequently playing the vinyl of that recording on your system succeeds to transport you back to that gig, as the sound is so shockingly vivid and real, as I have on many occasions, you realise that what you're listening to is not some cosy, coloured sound, imbued with pleasing distortions, but rather, musically, a very accurate representation of the real thing.

And I could cite numerous examples of that, especially acoustic performances by solo musicians/instrumentalists, where every subtle nuance of the sound of his or her voice and the instrument they're playing is laid bare for inspection, such is the LIFELIKE nature of the resulting sound, so no, getting off on 'pleasing coloration' is *not* why I love vinyl, or what I derive from the experience - and I don't care what tests you refer me to that supposedly disprove that, as I *know* what I'm hearing.

Oh, and the BEST [and I mean majorly GOOD] valve phonostages, in my experience [containing the best NOS valves, pre-1960s], succeed to make the vinyl music experience the most real!

Marco.

[User211]

I haven't used my vinyl rig for a while, but when I do I am amazed for about an hour. I empathise with your thoughts.

Then I start to realise what's going on. Because I can hear it. All the flaws become evident and especially so when you move away from the 20% of the pressings you have that sound great. Especially those 45 rpm 12 inchers.

That sense of dimensionality and realness is really there to the ear, though. But it is a product of the medium and it's flaws I am afraid. Feel free to believe otherwise as you do.

[Marco]

Feel free to believe otherwise as you do.

Lol, don't patronise me! I do believe otherwise, because I think you're absolutely and fundamentally wrong!

Yes, of course it's flawed, SO IS DIGITAL, and I could wax lyrical about its problems, which I can patently hear, and most of all so are any of our speakers, or any of our equipment], but not in the way you describe. Probably best if we just agree to disagree, as neither of us will change our mind.

Marco.

P.S Virtually all of my vinyl pressings sound great, not just 20%!