[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

I think it is pointless to use information
reduction for high end audio as long we don't have an audio system that
can produce a sound which is indistinguishable from live performances.

??????????

Doesn't it seem logical that as long as we can't get accurate reproduction
anyway, that when useful we use information reduction for convenience sake?

[Arny Krueger]

"isw" wrote in message
...
In article ,

If you can hear artifacts, you're using a poor encoder algorithm, or too
low a bit rate, or both.

Agreed. Finally an opinion from an informed source!

[jwvm]

On Sep 30, 2:26=A0pm, Doug McDonald wrote:

It is exceedingly easy to match the levels to calculate distortion_plus_n=
oise.

What you say is very true but that is not the objective with
perceptual encoding. What is sought with this class of encoders is to
maximize transparency at given bit rates using human listeners as the
means of evaluation. The problem with simply using mean squared error
measures between the original and compressed recording is that
frequencies are either removed or coarsely quantized resulting in
noticeable degradation. In addition, perceptual coders use coarse
quantization for components that are weakly perceived by listeners so
will be unlikely to be heard which will be different from results
using MSE

Once can also, if one wishes, correct the phase. However, in my experienc=
e
doing computerized MP3 tests, using LAME, neither is necessary. If one
tells LAME to use 320 kbps, the difference between files is very small
and mostly noise. If one uses 96 kbps fixed bitrate, the distortion
is fairly large and not all noise. The only question is "at what bitrate
does it actually become audible in double blind tests?". At 96 kbps
I can hear the difference. The difference signal is substantially
nonlinear distortion.

The residual (removed) components of compressed audio at low bit rates
actually may be relatively linear since it consists of sounds that are
largely masked in the original signal. At higher data rates, much more
audio information is preserved and the residual components are likely
to be much more nonlinear and contain significant amounts of
quantization errors.

You do indeed ask the 64,000,000 dollar question here. Clearly the
vast majority of listeners outside of this newsgroup have little
problem with lossy compression given sufficiently high data rates.
Published results from properly conducted trials available on the web
indicate that AAC compression at 128 kbps is close to or completely
transparent in most cases. Obviously, this is heresy to some here.

[jwvm]

On Sep 30, 2:14=A0pm, isw wrote:

snip

How do you feel about hugely inefficient encoding methods which require
vastly more data than is necessary for "transparent" reproduction? A lot
of folks think *those* are "something to avoid when practicable".

Isaac

Agreed! Clearly, streaming services like Pandora will need to continue
to use lossy compression for the foreseeable future since many ISP
provide limited date rates and some put monthly caps on service. Many
locations actually have slower internet speeds than what was available
four or five years ago so there is no guarantee that things will be
improving. Of particular note here is the mobile web since there is
only a finite amount of spectrum available.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 30, 12:50=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"vlad" wrote in message

...

On Sep 27, 7:35=3DA0am, Scott wrote:
Scott is copying here an article of Steve Hoffman about comparison
between master tape, acetate lacquer and digitized copy:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...php?t=3D133328

We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to
the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.
=A0 =A0Why do they need mastering moves? I guess, because final LP soun=
ds
different from original master tape. So they introduce distortion in a
sound of master tape expecting these distortions to be compensated by
specific distortions of LP.

This is exactly right. In a high volume environment, tapes were produced
that incorporated these compensating distortions. They were called "cutti=
ng
masters".

Not sure what that would have to do with this situation. They weren't
using a "cutting" master and Steve Hoffman explained in the article
why he did the comparison with the "moves" in place.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...ghlight=3Dmas=
ter+tape
"We had the master tape of the Riverside stereo LP Bill Evans Trio/
WALTZ FOR DEBBY at AcousTech and decided to do this little comparison.
Since the actual master needs a bunch of "mastering" to make it sound
the best, I set the title track up as if it was going to be mastered
(which in a sense it was, being cut on to an acetate record).'
The "moves" were the same ones he used to master the LP and SACD for
Analog Productions. The "moves" were already designed to make the best
sounding final product both for LP and SACD. They were not designed to
obscure the differences between the fresh cut laquer and the feed from
the master tape.




=A0 =A0They digitized tape "with mastering moves". So I would expect th=
at
digital copy and LP should sound different. And what copy would have
more "pleasing" sound? You guessed it - analog LP.

Was the listening evaluation unbiased?

It was blind and it was level matched and it was a comaprison between
the feed from the master tape with the "moves" in place and the laquer
that was cut with the "moves" in place. So I fail to see the issue
with the "moves."



Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels.
Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I
listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I
noticed:
The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the same. We couldn't tell one
from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the
tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The
acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the
SME arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in
so many pictures posted here of AcousTech)."

I seriously doubt that an ABX of this same comparison would have failed. =
The
listeners wouldn't be reduced to random guessing.

I'm not really sure what you are saying here Arny. This was in essence
and AB/HR blind test.



=A0 =A0So, their statement is that master tape "with moves" sounded
identical to acetate lacquer. Why then "moves" were needed at all?

The mastering moves are well-known and are required to obtain the most
accurate-sounding LP.

They were not needed. They were there because Hoffman felt the tape
sounded better with the moves. Please see the quote and link to the
original article above. The "moves" were not a factor since the
signal fed to the cutting lathe and the signal used to do the
comparison were the *same* signal. The "moves" are not an issue.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:50:43 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"vlad" wrote in message
...
On Sep 27, 7:35=A0am, Scott wrote:

Scott is copying here an article of Steve Hoffman about comparison
between master tape, acetate lacquer and digitized copy:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...d.php?t=133328

We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping to
the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.

Why do they need mastering moves? I guess, because final LP sounds
different from original master tape. So they introduce distortion in a
sound of master tape expecting these distortions to be compensated by
specific distortions of LP.

This is exactly right. In a high volume environment, tapes were produced
that incorporated these compensating distortions. They were called "cutting
masters".

They digitized tape "with mastering moves". So I would expect that
digital copy and LP should sound different. And what copy would have
more "pleasing" sound? You guessed it - analog LP.

Was the listening evaluation unbiased?

Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels.
Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I
listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I
noticed:

The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the same. We couldn't tell one
from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the
tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The
acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the
SME arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in
so many pictures posted here of AcousTech)."

I seriously doubt that an ABX of this same comparison would have failed. The
listeners wouldn't be reduced to random guessing.

So, their statement is that master tape "with moves" sounded
identical to acetate lacquer. Why then "moves" were needed at all?

The mastering moves are well-known and are required to obtain the most
accurate-sounding LP.




Also, saying that the acetate lacquer sounds just like the cutting master is
no great feat. Now, if he had said that the acetate lacquer sounded exactly
like the RECORDING SESSION masters. now that would be saying something. BTW,
with digital, that claim CAN be truthfully made all of the time from a
technical standpoint. The fact that it is rarely true in commercial release
practice is not due to any shortcoming or flaw in the technology. IOW, anyone
can make a CD of a 44.1 KHz/16-bit master recording that would be, in any
DBT, indistinguishable from that master recording. An SACD can be made from a
DSD master recording that would be indistinguishable from that master, and
ditto with either a 24/96KHz or 24/192 KHz DVD-A or Blu-Ray LPCM, Dolby
TrueHD, or DTS-HD disc made from 24/96 KHz or 24/192 masters.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:50:59 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"isw" wrote in message
...
In article ,

If you can hear artifacts, you're using a poor encoder algorithm, or too
low a bit rate, or both.

Agreed. Finally an opinion from an informed source!

Sorry, that's not my experience with MP3. Increasing the data rate merely
makes it more difficult to hear the artifacts, they are still there. If one
knows what one is listening for, compression artifacts can be heard on MP3's
made with bit-rates as high as 320 bps - I doubt if they could be heard on
speakers at that rate, but can be clearly heard on decent quality headphones.
So, if this is a result of a "poor encoder algorithm", then that's what the
entire industry is using - poor encoder algorithms, because these artifacts
exist on every MP3 that I have ever tried to listen to on headphones. Most
people don't seem to mind them, but I find them very annoying. Much, much
more so than the occasional tick or pop on an LP.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:14:40 -0700, isw wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 06:39:46 -0700, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:00:45 -0700, Romy the Cat wrote
(in article ):

What I found the most amassing in this story is that presentation was
made for Audio Engineering Society and it looks like they were
AMAZED!!!


I think that they were amazed by the sound of the difference signal
between
the unaltered master and the compressed copy. It was that so much
"extraneous" info was removed from the master that it was apparently
possible
to still tell what the music was supposed to be and who was singing it.
That's a lot of loss.


But that's the whole point of psychoacustic compression! Remove what
psychoacustic model deems unhearable (because it's masked by the other
parts of the signal, and our brain could not preceive it).

Wether that psychoacustic model is right or wrong is another story,
though. And that's why telling that you hear artifacts with 320bps mp3's
without disclosing encoder used is pretty useless. In lossy compression
world 320bps does not necessarily equal 320bps (from another encoder).

rgds
\SK


I'm not withholding the encoder used, Other than the fact that it's the one
used in Audacity, and the one used in Apple iTunes, I don't know what
encoder
it is. I assume that since audio that's encoded with these plays back on
any
MP3 player, that these encoders follow the MP3 standard (whatever that
might
be).

To be in compliance with the standard, an encoder must (1) produce data
which is in compliance with the proper syntax, and (2) not break a
"reference" decoder when played through it. That's all. Note that there
is nothing there about how good it sounds...

Yes, that would, of course, make sense.

Since I eschew MP3 as much as possible, and do not rip music using it, I
haven't spent any time learning anything other than a cursory amount about
the subject. Lossy compression simply doesn't interest me except as
something
to avoid when practicable.

How do you feel about hugely inefficient encoding methods which require
vastly more data than is necessary for "transparent" reproduction? A lot
of folks think *those* are "something to avoid when practicable".

Isaac

I think that this is more a "horses for courses" question. I record in Direct
Stream Digital (SACD format) and make 24-bit/192 KHz DVD-A copies of those
DSD recordings for myself (the software to burn "home-brew" SACDs is not
available to the "enthusiast market (the cheapest, Sonic Studios' 'SACD
Creator' is $5000!). The "client" usually gets regular "Redbook" CD copies
unless he asks for something better.

Having said that, I don't feel, in the least, that there is any such thing as
a recording method that "requires vastly more data than is necessary for
'transparent' reproduction."

BTW, I have no beef with using data compression schemes such as FLAC or ALC
to save bandwidth or storage space, my bugaboo is with compression schemes
that throw program material away in order to reduce file size. Also not all
lossy compression schemes yield the same quality results. While MP3 sounds
terrible to me, I find that Sony's ATRAC, the compression scheme they came up
with for Minidisc, to be much more benign than MP3. To my knowledge, I have
no experience with AAC and cannot comment on that.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 30, 6:22=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:50:43 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):





"vlad" wrote in message
...
On Sep 27, 7:35=3DA0am, Scott wrote:

Scott is copying here an article of Steve Hoffman about comparison
between master tape, acetate lacquer and digitized copy:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...php?t=3D133328

We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping t=
o
the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.

Why do they need mastering moves? I guess, because final LP sounds
different from original master tape. So they introduce distortion in a
sound of master tape expecting these distortions to be compensated by
specific distortions of LP.

This is exactly right. In a high volume environment, tapes were produce=
d
that incorporated these compensating distortions. They were called "cut=
ting
masters".

They digitized tape "with mastering moves". So I would expect that
digital copy and LP should sound different. And what copy would have
more "pleasing" sound? You guessed it - analog LP.

Was the listening evaluation unbiased?

Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels.
Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I
listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I
noticed:

The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the same. We couldn't tell one
from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the
tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The
acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the
SME arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in
so many pictures posted here of AcousTech)."

I seriously doubt that an ABX of this same comparison would have failed=
.. The
listeners wouldn't be reduced to random guessing.

So, their statement is that master tape "with moves" sounded
identical to acetate lacquer. Why then "moves" were needed at all?

The mastering moves are well-known and are required to obtain the most
accurate-sounding LP.

Also, saying that the acetate lacquer sounds just like the cutting master=
is
no great feat. Now, if he had said that the acetate lacquer sounded exact=
ly
like the RECORDING SESSION masters. now that would be saying something.

Indeed it would be, given he altered that sound. But he did have the
"recording session" or original master tape. So what is it you think
would make a difference if Steve Hoffman's mastering "moves" were not
in play? He is not compressing the signal. He is not summing the bass
to mono and he is not rolling the deep bass. So what difference would
it make?

BTW,
with digital, that claim CAN be truthfully made all of the time from a
technical standpoint. The fact that it is rarely true in commercial relea=
se
practice is not due to any shortcoming or flaw in the technology.

Well that depends on what you mean by technology.

IOW, anyone
can make a CD of a 44.1 KHz/16-bit master recording that would be, in any
DBT, indistinguishable from that master recording.

And yet under blind conditions both Hoffman and Gray were able to
detect a difference. their protocols and equipment are presented in
Hoffman's original article.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...3328&highlight...


An SACD can be made from a
DSD master recording that would be indistinguishable from that master,

And yet they heard a difference with that as well.

and
ditto with either a 24/96KHz or 24/192 KHz DVD-A or Blu-Ray LPCM, Dolby
TrueHD, or DTS-HD disc made from 24/96 KHz or 24/192 masters.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:50:54 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

I think it is pointless to use information
reduction for high end audio as long we don't have an audio system that
can produce a sound which is indistinguishable from live performances.

??????????

Doesn't it seem logical that as long as we can't get accurate reproduction
anyway, that when useful we use information reduction for convenience sake?



You have misattributed the above quote. Audio_Empire didn't write that.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Sep 30, 8:47=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

...

On Sep 27, 7:51=3DA0am, Dick Pierce wrote:
Scott wrote:

"Gross distortions?"
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/...

Any mention of Steve Hoffman is incomplete without

=3DA0 =3DA0http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm

to put his views in a somewhat more complete perspective.
Very interesting argument Dick. So is it your position that the
results of *blind listening tests* are invalid if the listener has
ever been swayed by bias effects under *sighted* conditions?

I think you've missed the point, Scott.

The point I see is that Mr Hoffman's credibility as an evaluator of hardw=
are
is suspect to many of us because he has so clearly thrown his personal
support and reputation behind what most of us find to be obviously bogus
hardware.

The argument goes something like this: "If he'd stake his reputation on s=
ome
crazy piece of hardware like that, what good is his reputation for hardwa=
re
evaluation?"

Note that I'm not addressing Mr. Hoffman's reputation for mastering
recordings. I consider mastering recordings to be a vastly different
technology and art than listening room acoustics or more generally, hardw=
are
evaluation.

Yeah that pretty much is the nice way of saying what I said. The
problem is the argument fails miserably. Nothing a person reports from
listening under sighted conditions in any way has any bearing on what
they report under blind conditions. It's a bizzarre form of guilt by
association. It doesn't matter what Steve Hoffman believes or doesn't
believe. It doesn't matter what he heard somewhere else under sighted
conditions. What matters are the protocols. And other than a lack of
double blindness the protocols that are spelled out look to work
pretty well. If one feels that both Steve Hoffman and Kevin Gray were
failing to hear differences that were present then the logical thing
to do would be to repete the test. This is something that could be
done and probably with little trouble. RTI is still there and still
using the same hardware. Rmemeber we are talking about an assertion of
"gross" distortion. I think it is pretty obvious that the laquer cut
at RTI by Hoffman and Gray used to compare with the master tape feed
was "grossly" distorting the original signal in any audible way. I
also think it is pretty obvious that the difference between the laquer
and the vinyl that would come from it would introduce any other
"gross" audible distortions. It's kind of sad that some would take
cheap shots at Hoffman because they don't like the results of his
comparison.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:26:43 -0700, Doug McDonald wrote
(in article ):

On 9/30/2010 10:28 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:


This is so bad to me that it hurts my head when I read it. If you mismatch
the amplitude of two signals by 1 dB, the difference signal is 10%. Yet
neither signal need have any added nonlinear distortion at all. You just got
the levels a bit wrong. And this is aside from the inaudible phase shift
issue that I raised above. So now *the grat man* would be appear to be
talking trash on two levels. Ouch!

I gotta stop, this sort of gross technical ignorance in high places makes my
head hurt. Hopefully a verbatim report would be more reasonable.



It is exceedingly easy to match the levels to calculate
distortion_plus_noise.
Once can also, if one wishes, correct the phase. However, in my experience
doing computerized MP3 tests, using LAME, neither is necessary. If one
tells LAME to use 320 kbps, the difference between files is very small
and mostly noise. If one uses 96 kbps fixed bitrate, the distortion
is fairly large and not all noise. The only question is "at what bitrate
does it actually become audible in double blind tests?". At 96 kbps
I can hear the difference. The difference signal is substantially
nonlinear distortion.

Doug McDonald


I agree, On speakers, I find that I can listen to 128 Kbps and above and
MOSTLY not notice anything untoward (of course, the higher the bit-rate, the
less I notice) but on headphones I can hear artifacts clear out to 320 Kbps,
and yes it is mostly noise. That wouldn't bother me if the noise didn't
"ride" the music like it does. I listen to a lot of Internet radio via my
AppleTV box (the old one, not the new one) and several "stations" that I
listen to regularly sound very good (as background music while I'm reading).
Invariably the ones I find myself listening to are 128 Kbps or higher. Fancy
that.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:12:25 -0700, jwvm wrote
(in article ):

On Sep 30, 2:26=A0pm, Doug McDonald wrote:

It is exceedingly easy to match the levels to calculate distortion_plus_n=
oise.

What you say is very true but that is not the objective with
perceptual encoding. What is sought with this class of encoders is to
maximize transparency at given bit rates using human listeners as the
means of evaluation. The problem with simply using mean squared error
measures between the original and compressed recording is that
frequencies are either removed or coarsely quantized resulting in
noticeable degradation. In addition, perceptual coders use coarse
quantization for components that are weakly perceived by listeners so
will be unlikely to be heard which will be different from results
using MSE

Once can also, if one wishes, correct the phase. However, in my experienc=
e
doing computerized MP3 tests, using LAME, neither is necessary. If one
tells LAME to use 320 kbps, the difference between files is very small
and mostly noise. If one uses 96 kbps fixed bitrate, the distortion
is fairly large and not all noise. The only question is "at what bitrate
does it actually become audible in double blind tests?". At 96 kbps
I can hear the difference. The difference signal is substantially
nonlinear distortion.

The residual (removed) components of compressed audio at low bit rates
actually may be relatively linear since it consists of sounds that are
largely masked in the original signal. At higher data rates, much more
audio information is preserved and the residual components are likely
to be much more nonlinear and contain significant amounts of
quantization errors.

You do indeed ask the 64,000,000 dollar question here. Clearly the
vast majority of listeners outside of this newsgroup have little
problem with lossy compression given sufficiently high data rates.
Published results from properly conducted trials available on the web
indicate that AAC compression at 128 kbps is close to or completely
transparent in most cases. Obviously, this is heresy to some here.

What you are overlooking, Mr. Kruger, is that most people are very
unsophisticated listeners. This is not an attempt by me to in any way
belittle anyone, it's just fact (and always has been) that the average person
who listens to music doesn't care that much about sound quality. Simply being
able to hear the music they like is usually good enough for most. This can be
easily seen. Very few CD or MP3 buyers have fancy stereo systems. Most listen
on iPod -like devices or bedside CD players or perhaps a set of computer
speakers or even a so-called boom-box (I believe that I read somewhere that a
recent study showed that most people do the majority of their music listening
in their CARS on the way to and from work - 'nuff said). The fact that these
devices don't sound very good is of little consequence to these music buyers.
They can hear the tunes they like and that's enough. Therefore it is not at
all surprising or unusual for these same people have little problem with
lossy compression systems. As long as the music isn't grossly distorted, the
vast majority of listeners will be fine with any format that comes down the
pike. OTOH, people who would have the interest to post on a NG like this one,
would, ostensibly, be more inclined to be serious about the quality of their
audio. Luckily, there is room in the world for both types. I have nothing
against others embracing lossy compression schemes. If that's all they need
to satisfy their listening "jones", so be it. As long as I still have the
CHOICE to eschew such formats, I could care less. What I am a little afraid
of, though, is that at some point, the recording industry is going to decide
that since most people are fine with low bit-rate lossy compression schemes,
that's really all the record industry needs to produce. That would be sad.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:59:35 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

On Sep 30, 6:22=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:50:43 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):





"vlad" wrote in message
...
On Sep 27, 7:35=3DA0am, Scott wrote:

Scott is copying here an article of Steve Hoffman about comparison
between master tape, acetate lacquer and digitized copy:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...php?t=3D133328

We cut a lacquer ref of the tune with mastering moves while dumping t=
o
the digital computer at the same time with the same moves.

Why do they need mastering moves? I guess, because final LP sounds
different from original master tape. So they introduce distortion in a
sound of master tape expecting these distortions to be compensated by
specific distortions of LP.

This is exactly right. In a high volume environment, tapes were produce=
d
that incorporated these compensating distortions. They were called "cut=
ting
masters".

They digitized tape "with mastering moves". So I would expect that
digital copy and LP should sound different. And what copy would have
more "pleasing" sound? You guessed it - analog LP.

Was the listening evaluation unbiased?

Then, after a break, we sync'd up all three, first matching levels.
Simultaneous playback of all three commenced and as Kevin switched, I
listened. (We took turns switching and listening). First thing I
noticed:

The MASTER TAPE and the RECORD sounded the same. We couldn't tell one
from the other during playback. This was of course playing back the
tape on the master recorder with the mastering "moves" turned on. The
acetate record was played back flat on the AcousTech lathe with the
SME arm and Shure V15 through the Neumann playback preamp (as seen in
so many pictures posted here of AcousTech)."

I seriously doubt that an ABX of this same comparison would have failed=
. The
listeners wouldn't be reduced to random guessing.

So, their statement is that master tape "with moves" sounded
identical to acetate lacquer. Why then "moves" were needed at all?

The mastering moves are well-known and are required to obtain the most
accurate-sounding LP.

Also, saying that the acetate lacquer sounds just like the cutting master=
is
no great feat. Now, if he had said that the acetate lacquer sounded exact=
ly
like the RECORDING SESSION masters. now that would be saying something.

Indeed it would be, given he altered that sound. But he did have the
"recording session" or original master tape. So what is it you think
would make a difference if Steve Hoffman's mastering "moves" were not
in play? He is not compressing the signal. He is not summing the bass
to mono and he is not rolling the deep bass. So what difference would
it make?




Not sure I understand where you are going with this, but just off the top of
my head, there would be a number differences, not the least of which would be
generational degradation from the original master tape (assuming that more
than just the original recording master is analog). When I worked for Century
Records. "mastering moves" were different for different master tapes. In
those days, we did sum all the bass to the left channel to make the discs
"mono compatible", but it wouldn't surprise me to find that some compression
was used or that some EQ (other than RIAA) was applied.


BTW,
with digital, that claim CAN be truthfully made all of the time from a
technical standpoint. The fact that it is rarely true in commercial relea=
se
practice is not due to any shortcoming or flaw in the technology.

Well that depends on what you mean by technology.

Not at all. What it means is exactly what I described. An unaltered transfer
from digital recording master to consumer medium (CD, DVD-A, SACD, Blu-Ray
high-res download) can be identical to the master in every way. The key
phrase here is "unaltered". It's rarely done.

IOW, anyone
can make a CD of a 44.1 KHz/16-bit master recording that would be, in any
DBT, indistinguishable from that master recording.

And yet under blind conditions both Hoffman and Gray were able to
detect a difference. their protocols and equipment are presented in
Hoffman's original article.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...3328&highlight...

Well, all I can say is that they have introduced another step, The original
Bill Evans master was two-channel (or perhaps three channel) analog stereo.
They had to quantize the analog master to make a CD of it. Now an original
digital master straight from microphones, and a CD made from that master
should be identical UNLESS somebody fiddled with the sound between the actual
performance capture and the mastering of the CD.


An SACD can be made from a
DSD master recording that would be indistinguishable from that master,

And yet they heard a difference with that as well.

See above.


But given what record companies routinely do with performance capture
masters, I have no doubt that they heard a difference. I recently bought a
new Chandos CD of a recent performance of Vaughn Williams score for the 1940
British film "The 49th Parallel". The CD cover has the words "recorded in
24-bit/96 KHz" emblazoned across it. It should sound very good. It doesn't.
Reason? Some mix engineer thought that he could "improve" it. How do I know
this? Because no modern recording company could possibly employ microphones
and mixers and recording devices that sound this bad. The recording has no
deep bass, the highs sound restricted and grainy, and the recording has
little dynamic range and actually sounds thick vieled. Whoever did this
should be banned from the industry. But this is the norm rather than the
exception in the recording industry. That's why I got back into recording
after a hiatus of many years. I have said this before and will say it again.
I can routinely make better sounding recordings than 80% of the commercial
product on the market and do so with a very modest complement of modern
equipment. If I can do it on a shoestring, then the fact that the industry
can't (or rather doesn't) even come close must be on purpose.

[isw]

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:14:40 -0700, isw wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 06:39:46 -0700, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:00:45 -0700, Romy the Cat wrote
(in article ):

What I found the most amassing in this story is that presentation was
made for Audio Engineering Society and it looks like they were
AMAZED!!!


I think that they were amazed by the sound of the difference signal
between
the unaltered master and the compressed copy. It was that so much
"extraneous" info was removed from the master that it was apparently
possible
to still tell what the music was supposed to be and who was singing it.
That's a lot of loss.


But that's the whole point of psychoacustic compression! Remove what
psychoacustic model deems unhearable (because it's masked by the other
parts of the signal, and our brain could not preceive it).

Wether that psychoacustic model is right or wrong is another story,
though. And that's why telling that you hear artifacts with 320bps mp3's
without disclosing encoder used is pretty useless. In lossy compression
world 320bps does not necessarily equal 320bps (from another encoder).

rgds
\SK


I'm not withholding the encoder used, Other than the fact that it's the
one
used in Audacity, and the one used in Apple iTunes, I don't know what
encoder
it is. I assume that since audio that's encoded with these plays back on
any
MP3 player, that these encoders follow the MP3 standard (whatever that
might
be).

To be in compliance with the standard, an encoder must (1) produce data
which is in compliance with the proper syntax, and (2) not break a
"reference" decoder when played through it. That's all. Note that there
is nothing there about how good it sounds...

Yes, that would, of course, make sense.

Since I eschew MP3 as much as possible, and do not rip music using it, I
haven't spent any time learning anything other than a cursory amount about
the subject. Lossy compression simply doesn't interest me except as
something
to avoid when practicable.

How do you feel about hugely inefficient encoding methods which require
vastly more data than is necessary for "transparent" reproduction? A lot
of folks think *those* are "something to avoid when practicable".

Isaac

I think that this is more a "horses for courses" question. I record in Direct
Stream Digital (SACD format) and make 24-bit/192 KHz DVD-A copies of those
DSD recordings for myself (the software to burn "home-brew" SACDs is not
available to the "enthusiast market (the cheapest, Sonic Studios' 'SACD
Creator' is $5000!). The "client" usually gets regular "Redbook" CD copies
unless he asks for something better.

Having said that, I don't feel, in the least, that there is any such thing as
a recording method that "requires vastly more data than is necessary for
'transparent' reproduction."

I think a lot of folks would say that you described just such a method
above.

Isaac

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:50:54 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

I think it is pointless to use information
reduction for high end audio as long we don't have an audio system that
can produce a sound which is indistinguishable from live performances.

??????????

Doesn't it seem logical that as long as we can't get accurate
reproduction
anyway, that when useful we use information reduction for convenience
sake?



You have misattributed the above quote. Audio_Empire didn't write that.

My apologies. You are right about this error of mine and of course I was
wrong. The author was "Edmund".

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:50:59 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"isw" wrote in message
...
In article ,

If you can hear artifacts, you're using a poor encoder algorithm, or too
low a bit rate, or both.

Agreed. Finally an opinion from an informed source!

Sorry, that's not my experience with MP3.

Please get back when you have some experiences with DBTs done to the
standards that encoder designers and many of the more savvy consumers use.
You can find out more about the practices and experiencs of these people on
the Hydrogen Audio forum, where you may also contribute.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message
...
On Sep 30, 8:47=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

...

On Sep 27, 7:51=3DA0am, Dick Pierce wrote:
Scott wrote:

"Gross distortions?"
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/...

Any mention of Steve Hoffman is incomplete without

=3DA0 =3DA0http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm

to put his views in a somewhat more complete perspective.
Very interesting argument Dick. So is it your position that the
results of *blind listening tests* are invalid if the listener has
ever been swayed by bias effects under *sighted* conditions?

I think you've missed the point, Scott.

The point I see is that Mr Hoffman's credibility as an evaluator of
hardw=
are
is suspect to many of us because he has so clearly thrown his personal
support and reputation behind what most of us find to be obviously bogus
hardware.

The argument goes something like this: "If he'd stake his reputation on
s=
ome
crazy piece of hardware like that, what good is his reputation for
hardwa=
re
evaluation?"

Note that I'm not addressing Mr. Hoffman's reputation for mastering
recordings. I consider mastering recordings to be a vastly different
technology and art than listening room acoustics or more generally,
hardw=
are
evaluation.

Yeah that pretty much is the nice way of saying what I said. The
problem is the argument fails miserably.

If that argument truely fails then life as we know it should totally
collapse instantly. Most of what we know about the reliability of
information sources is based on their past history, IOW their reputation.


Nothing a person reports from
listening under sighted conditions in any way has any bearing on what
they report under blind conditions.

This is of course totally false. As long as the audible effect can be
reliably demonstrated to be generally non-subtle, there's no need for blind
tests to prove yet again that it is generally non-subtle.

For example, mastering involves changes to levels and spectral balance that
are widely known and easily demonstrable to be reliably audible, at least
for reasonably well-trained listeners. That's the whole purpose of
mastering - to introduce audible changes.

I would liken mastering to the art of furniture making. Most casual
observers will perceive something to be flat and square when in fact it
contains easily measurable deviations that true craftman with his skilled
eye would notice and dismiss as being characteristic of mediocre work.
Skilled workers know that if something appears to the casual observer to be
flat and square by eye, then that means that with careful observation it
will appear to be non-flat and non-square. Therefore skilled workers craft
their work to a higher standard that includes safety margins so that those
things which need to be flat and square will always be seen as being such.

The problem here is that many non-technical people seem to be unable to
know, based on experience, perceptions, measurements and calculations, which
differences are subtle and which are non-subtle.

[C. Leeds]

On 10/1/2010 7:07 AM, Scott wrote (in


nothing a person reports from
listening under sighted conditions in any way has any bearing on what
they report under blind conditions. It's a bizzarre form of guilt by
association.

That's absurd. It strains credibility to suggest that result of every
sighted test, by any listener, under all conditions, of any combination
of equipment, is inherently and always unrelated to the result obtained
under blind conditions.

It's one thing to suggest that you don't accept the result of any
sighted test. But because some sighted listening test results can be
validated under blind conditions, your claim is simply mistaken.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Oct 1, 4:52=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:59:35 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):

Indeed it would be, given he altered that sound. But he did have the
"recording session" or original master tape. So what is it you think
would make a difference if Steve Hoffman's mastering "moves" were not
in play? He is not compressing the signal. He is not summing the bass
to mono and he is not rolling the deep bass. So what difference would
it make?

Not sure I understand where you are going with this, but just off the top=
of
my head, there would be a number differences, not the least of which woul=
d be
generational degradation from the original master tape (assuming that mor=
e
than just the original recording master is analog).


I would disagree. IME when Hoffman makes mastering "moves" the result
is improved sound. he is very respectful of what is on a master tape
and has no problem making no changes if what is on the tape is ideal.
Where I am going with this is that i don't see how the "moves" would
affect the comparison.

When I worked for Century
Records. "mastering moves" were different for different master tapes. In
those days, we did sum all the bass to the left channel to make the discs
"mono compatible", but it wouldn't surprise me to find that some compress=
ion
was used or that some EQ (other than RIAA) was applied.

But we are not talking about what happened at Century we are talking
about the "moves" Steve Hoffman made with this particular tape. He did
not use compression. he did not sum the bass to mono.


Well that depends on what you mean by technology.

Not at all.

Oh yes absolutely. My old 14 bit CD player was and still is if it
exists and is working somewhere, "technology." It is not transparent.

What it means is exactly what I described. An unaltered transfer
from digital recording master to consumer medium (CD, DVD-A, SACD, Blu-Ra=
y
high-res download) can be identical to the master in every way. =A0The ke=
y
phrase here is "unaltered". It's rarely done. =A0

That isn't technology that is a description of the ideal process. The
"technology" is the stuff used to actually do it. And as you have
pointed out that rarely gives us the ideal. In the case of the Hoffman/
Gray comparisons the results suggest that the transfer was not
completely transparent. The equipment used is listed in the original
article and at RTI's website. So if anyone feels the equipment was
wanting feel free to check it out and tell us what was wrong with the
gear.



And yet under blind conditions both Hoffman and Gray were able to
detect a difference. their protocols and equipment are presented in
Hoffman's original article.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...3328&highligh=
t...

Well, all I can say is that they have introduced another step, The origin=
al
Bill Evans master was two-channel (or perhaps three channel) analog stere=
o.
They had to quantize the analog master to make a CD of it.

Yes of course. How else does one make a commercial CD?


Now an original
digital master straight from microphones, and a CD made from that master
should be identical UNLESS somebody fiddled with the sound between the ac=
tual
performance capture and the mastering of the CD. =A0


Well, we are not talking about that and that will never ever happen
with a Bill Evans recording. So not much point in talking about
something so irrelevant to the comparisons I posted.






But given what record companies routinely do with performance capture
masters, I have no doubt that they heard a difference. I recently bought =
a
new Chandos CD of a recent performance of Vaughn Williams score for the 1=
940
British film "The 49th Parallel". The CD cover has the words "recorded in
24-bit/96 KHz" emblazoned across it. It should sound very good. It doesn'=
t.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Oct 1, 8:02=A0am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
On 10/1/2010 7:07 AM, Scott wrote (in


nothing a person reports from
listening under sighted conditions in any way has any bearing on what
they report under blind conditions. It's a bizzarre form of guilt by
association.

That's absurd. It strains credibility to suggest that result of every
sighted test, by any listener, under all conditions, of any combination
of equipment, is inherently and always unrelated to the result obtained
under blind conditions.

It's one thing to suggest that you don't accept the result of any
sighted test. But because some sighted listening test results can be
validated under blind conditions, your claim is simply mistaken.

The arguement you make is a classic logical fallacy of confusing
association with causation. Here is a simple question. If you really
believe that previous experiences under sighted conditions will affect
the results of completely new listening tests under blind conditions
please explain how. We need causation here. More specifically how
would Steve Hoffman's previous experiences with a device claimed to
affect the room acoustics under sighted conditions affect his
percpetions when comparing a fresh cut laquer to a feed from the
master tape that was used to cut that same laquer under blind
conditions?

[Scott[_6_]]

On Oct 1, 7:10=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

...





On Sep 30, 8:47=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

...

On Sep 27, 7:51=3D3DA0am, Dick Pierce wrote:
Scott wrote:

"Gross distortions?"
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/...

Any mention of Steve Hoffman is incomplete without

=3D3DA0 =3D3DA0http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm

to put his views in a somewhat more complete perspective.
Very interesting argument Dick. So is it your position that the
results of *blind listening tests* are invalid if the listener has
ever been swayed by bias effects under *sighted* conditions?

I think you've missed the point, Scott.

The point I see is that Mr Hoffman's credibility as an evaluator of
hardw=3D
are
is suspect to many of us because he has so clearly thrown his personal
support and reputation behind what most of us find to be obviously bog=
us
hardware.

The argument goes something like this: "If he'd stake his reputation o=
n
s=3D
ome
crazy piece of hardware like that, what good is his reputation for
hardwa=3D
re
evaluation?"

Note that I'm not addressing Mr. Hoffman's reputation for mastering
recordings. I consider mastering recordings to be a vastly different
technology and art than listening room acoustics or more generally,
hardw=3D
are
evaluation.
Yeah that pretty much is the nice way of saying what I said. The
problem is the argument fails miserably.

If that argument truely fails then life as we know it should totally
collapse instantly. Most of what we know about the reliability of
information sources is based on their past history, IOW their reputation.

As you so aptly pointed out we all have different levels of
"reliability." As a listener under blind conditions Steve Hoffman's
abilities are not in any way dependent on his beliefs about any room
treatment. do you disagree? That is why the argument fails


Nothing a person reports from
listening under sighted conditions in any way has any bearing on what
they report under blind conditions.

This is of course totally false.

No Arny it is totally true. It is absurd to think that prejudices from
previous sighted listening experiences will affect the results of
blind listening tests.

As long as the audible effect can be
reliably demonstrated to be generally non-subtle, there's no need for bli=
nd
tests to prove yet again that it is generally non-subtle.

You can use this argument when you have demonstrated that is the case
with the feresh cut laquer from RTI played back on their lathe. Since
the equipment is still there you can always repete the test.
Dismissing the test simply because you don't like the conclusion is
hardly "scientific" or "objective." If you think the results were
eroneous prove it buy repeting the test and getting a positive result.
Anything else is just hand waving.



For example, mastering involves changes to levels and spectral balance th=
at
are widely known and easily demonstrable to be reliably audible, at least
for reasonably well-trained listeners. =A0That's the whole purpose of
mastering - to introduce audible changes.

Irrelevant to this case since the mastering moves were implimented on
both the laquer and the feed from the master tape to which it was
compared.



I would liken mastering to the art of furniture making. Most casual
observers will perceive something to be flat and square when in fact it
contains easily measurable deviations that true craftman with his skilled
eye would notice and dismiss as being characteristic of mediocre work.
Skilled workers know that if something appears to the casual observer to =
be
flat and square by eye, then that means that with careful observation it
will appear to be non-flat and non-square. Therefore skilled workers craf=
t
their work to a higher standard that includes safety margins so that thos=
e
things which need to be flat and square will always be seen as being such=

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 07:10:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Scott" wrote in message
...
On Sep 30, 8:47=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

...

On Sep 27, 7:51=3DA0am, Dick Pierce wrote:
Scott wrote:

"Gross distortions?"
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/...

Any mention of Steve Hoffman is incomplete without

=3DA0 =3DA0http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm

to put his views in a somewhat more complete perspective.
Very interesting argument Dick. So is it your position that the
results of *blind listening tests* are invalid if the listener has
ever been swayed by bias effects under *sighted* conditions?

I think you've missed the point, Scott.

The point I see is that Mr Hoffman's credibility as an evaluator of
hardw=
are
is suspect to many of us because he has so clearly thrown his personal
support and reputation behind what most of us find to be obviously bogus
hardware.

The argument goes something like this: "If he'd stake his reputation on
s=
ome
crazy piece of hardware like that, what good is his reputation for
hardwa=
re
evaluation?"

Note that I'm not addressing Mr. Hoffman's reputation for mastering
recordings. I consider mastering recordings to be a vastly different
technology and art than listening room acoustics or more generally,
hardw=
are
evaluation.

Yeah that pretty much is the nice way of saying what I said. The
problem is the argument fails miserably.

If that argument truely fails then life as we know it should totally
collapse instantly. Most of what we know about the reliability of
information sources is based on their past history, IOW their reputation.


Nothing a person reports from
listening under sighted conditions in any way has any bearing on what
they report under blind conditions.

This is of course totally false. As long as the audible effect can be
reliably demonstrated to be generally non-subtle, there's no need for blind
tests to prove yet again that it is generally non-subtle.

For example, mastering involves changes to levels and spectral balance that
are widely known and easily demonstrable to be reliably audible, at least
for reasonably well-trained listeners. That's the whole purpose of
mastering - to introduce audible changes.


That's interesting. And here I always thought that the purpose of mastering
was to transfer a "master tape" into another format which can be easily and
economically distributed to customers via mass production.

I would liken mastering to the art of furniture making. Most casual
observers will perceive something to be flat and square when in fact it
contains easily measurable deviations that true craftman with his skilled
eye would notice and dismiss as being characteristic of mediocre work.
Skilled workers know that if something appears to the casual observer to be
flat and square by eye, then that means that with careful observation it
will appear to be non-flat and non-square. Therefore skilled workers craft
their work to a higher standard that includes safety margins so that those
things which need to be flat and square will always be seen as being such.

????

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Oct 1, 7:10=A0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

If that argument truely fails then life as we know it
should totally collapse instantly. Most of what we know
about the reliability of information sources is based on
their past history, IOW their reputation.

As you so aptly pointed out we all have different levels
of "reliability."

Furthermore our reliability varies depending on circumstance. For example
much of the so-called evidence that circulates in audio's high end is
basically eyewitness accounts. It is well known in law enforcment that
eyewitness accounts are the most unreliable kind of evidence.

As a listener under blind conditions
Steve Hoffman's abilities are not in any way dependent on
his beliefs about any room treatment. do you disagree?

Since "Blind test" is generally used by you Scott to mean single blind
evaluation, and since single blind evaluations are just defective DBTs, I
don't need to comment further.


That is why the argument fails

Once again Scott your statements demonstrate how to combine inscrutable
logic with made up facts, misunderstandings and other highly unreliable
so-called evidence to reach dubious conclusions.

Nothing a person reports from
listening under sighted conditions in any way has any
bearing on what they report under blind conditions.

This is of course totally false.

No Arny it is totally true. It is absurd to think that
prejudices from previous sighted listening experiences
will affect the results of blind listening tests.

Please see my former comments about your seemingly habitual abuse of the
phrase "blind test", and why that eliminates any need for me to comment
further.

As long as the audible effect can be
reliably demonstrated to be generally non-subtle,
there's no need for bli nd tests to prove yet again
that it is generally non-subtle.

You can use this argument when you have demonstrated that
is the case with the feresh cut laquer from RTI played
back on their lathe.

I can use this argument today and wait for you to refute it for the first
time, Scott.

Since the equipment is still there
you can always repete the test. Dismissing the test
simply because you don't like the conclusion is hardly
"scientific" or "objective." If you think the results
were eroneous prove it buy repeting the test and getting
a positive result. Anything else is just hand waving.

I feel no need to refute purported tests that fail to meet basic standards
for good subjective testing.

For example, mastering involves changes to levels and
spectral balance th= at are widely known and easily
demonstrable to be reliably audible, at least for
reasonably well-trained listeners. =A0That's the whole
purpose of mastering - to introduce audible changes.

Irrelevant to this case since the mastering moves were
implimented on both the laquer and the feed from the
master tape to which it was compared.

I don't see any evidence to support this contention. We've got a clear case
Scott where the document you cited does not support your claim(s).

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 06:56:55 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:50:59 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"isw" wrote in message
...
In article ,

If you can hear artifacts, you're using a poor encoder algorithm, or too
low a bit rate, or both.

Agreed. Finally an opinion from an informed source!

Sorry, that's not my experience with MP3.

Please get back when you have some experiences with DBTs done to the
standards that encoder designers and many of the more savvy consumers use.
You can find out more about the practices and experiencs of these people on
the Hydrogen Audio forum, where you may also contribute.




No need. I can hear the artifacts. They are there and NOT subtle. When I play
the original non-compressed version, those same artifacts are NOT present. To
make an analogy, do you have to have a DBT to tell you that a phonograph
record has ticks, pops and "vinyl rush" that are not present on the master
tape? Of course not.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 06:56:01 -0700, isw wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:14:40 -0700, isw wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 06:39:46 -0700, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:00:45 -0700, Romy the Cat wrote
(in article ):

What I found the most amassing in this story is that presentation was
made for Audio Engineering Society and it looks like they were
AMAZED!!!


I think that they were amazed by the sound of the difference signal
between
the unaltered master and the compressed copy. It was that so much
"extraneous" info was removed from the master that it was apparently
possible
to still tell what the music was supposed to be and who was singing it.

That's a lot of loss.


But that's the whole point of psychoacustic compression! Remove what
psychoacustic model deems unhearable (because it's masked by the other
parts of the signal, and our brain could not preceive it).

Wether that psychoacustic model is right or wrong is another story,
though. And that's why telling that you hear artifacts with 320bps mp3's
without disclosing encoder used is pretty useless. In lossy compression
world 320bps does not necessarily equal 320bps (from another encoder).

rgds
\SK


I'm not withholding the encoder used, Other than the fact that it's the
one
used in Audacity, and the one used in Apple iTunes, I don't know what
encoder
it is. I assume that since audio that's encoded with these plays back on
any
MP3 player, that these encoders follow the MP3 standard (whatever that
might
be).

To be in compliance with the standard, an encoder must (1) produce data
which is in compliance with the proper syntax, and (2) not break a
"reference" decoder when played through it. That's all. Note that there
is nothing there about how good it sounds...

Yes, that would, of course, make sense.

Since I eschew MP3 as much as possible, and do not rip music using it, I
haven't spent any time learning anything other than a cursory amount
about
the subject. Lossy compression simply doesn't interest me except as
something
to avoid when practicable.

How do you feel about hugely inefficient encoding methods which require
vastly more data than is necessary for "transparent" reproduction? A lot
of folks think *those* are "something to avoid when practicable".

Isaac

I think that this is more a "horses for courses" question. I record in
Direct
Stream Digital (SACD format) and make 24-bit/192 KHz DVD-A copies of those
DSD recordings for myself (the software to burn "home-brew" SACDs is not
available to the "enthusiast market (the cheapest, Sonic Studios' 'SACD
Creator' is $5000!). The "client" usually gets regular "Redbook" CD copies
unless he asks for something better.

Having said that, I don't feel, in the least, that there is any such thing
as
a recording method that "requires vastly more data than is necessary for
'transparent' reproduction."

I think a lot of folks would say that you described just such a method
above.

No, I described a high-resolution recording method that produces superior
results to CD - quality recording methods. That a "lot of folks" can't hear
the difference, or, don't think the improvement worth the extra trouble, is
not my problem.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Oct 1, 11:34=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message



On Oct 1, 7:10=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
If that argument truely fails then life as we know it
should totally collapse instantly. Most of what we know
about the reliability of information sources is based on
their past history, IOW their reputation.
As you so aptly pointed out we all have different levels
of "reliability."

Furthermore our reliability varies depending on circumstance. For example
much of the so-called evidence that circulates in audio's high end is
basically eyewitness accounts. It is well known in law enforcment that
eyewitness accounts are the most unreliable kind of evidence.

As a listener under blind conditions
Steve Hoffman's abilities are not in any way dependent on
his beliefs about any room treatment. do you disagree?

Since "Blind test" is generally used by you Scott to mean single blind
evaluation, and since single blind evaluations are just defective DBTs, I
don't need to comment further.

I suppose you need not. That is plainly incorrect. they are simply
single blind tests. While they are not *as* reliable as DBTs and for
that matter DBT are not as reliable as triple blind tests. and no
blind test is perfectly reliable or unreliable. But maybe if you care
to discuss it further you can explain how single blindedness would
give us a false negative?

[Scott[_6_]]

On Oct 1, 12:25=A0pm, Dick Pierce wrote:
Scott wrote:
It's a bizzarre form of guilt by association.

And, once again, that would be YOUR association.

No. It belongs to the person who made the association. That was not
me.



It doesn't matter what Steve Hoffman believes or doesn't
believe. It doesn't matter what he heard somewhere else under sighted
conditions. What matters are the protocols. And other than a lack of
double blindness the protocols that are spelled out look to work
pretty well.

No, they are not.

They are not what?

A description of the blinding process, the number
of trials, the results of the trials and a whole raft of information
about the protocols is simply not in his description.

That is true it was a pretty informal description of what took place.
But that is not the same as poor protocols.


In fact, the
word "blind" or "db" (as in double-blind) isn't even to be found
in his post. (http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...hp?t=3D133328=
)

That is odd. But if you check the thread you will find in post #94
Hoffman confirms that it was a blind comparison.
"These were Blind as I mentioned in my first post. Kevin did the knobs
and then I did..."
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...33328&page=3D5


But some subset of the poseters are assuming it was a blind test,
and a subset of that is assuming that it is a valid blind test.

Where's the actual data to support that?

No not an assumption. It is stated in the thread that it is blind. as
for it's validity...that seems to depend on a persons prejudices more
than anything else. The article was posted by me in response to the
assertion that vinyl "gorssly" distorts the sound we hear. I think it
highly unlikely that the inherent distortions are so gross that Steve
Hoffman and Kevin Gray would fail to hear any differences between the
fresh cut laquer and the feed from the master tape. Nothing more
nothing less. IMO we have learned more about how people react to
undesirable results than anything else from this thread.

[isw]

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 06:56:01 -0700, isw wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:14:40 -0700, isw wrote
(in article ):


[ excess quotation snipped -- dsr ]


How do you feel about hugely inefficient encoding methods which require
vastly more data than is necessary for "transparent" reproduction? A lot
of folks think *those* are "something to avoid when practicable".

Isaac

I think that this is more a "horses for courses" question. I record in
Direct
Stream Digital (SACD format) and make 24-bit/192 KHz DVD-A copies of
those
DSD recordings for myself (the software to burn "home-brew" SACDs is not
available to the "enthusiast market (the cheapest, Sonic Studios' 'SACD
Creator' is $5000!). The "client" usually gets regular "Redbook" CD copies
unless he asks for something better.

Having said that, I don't feel, in the least, that there is any such thing
as
a recording method that "requires vastly more data than is necessary for
'transparent' reproduction."

I think a lot of folks would say that you described just such a method
above.

No, I described a high-resolution recording method that produces superior
results to CD - quality recording methods. That a "lot of folks" can't hear
the difference, or, don't think the improvement worth the extra trouble, is
not my problem.

My point (evidently lost) was that you are, undoubtedly, dealing with
considerably more data than necessary. Or to put it another way, it is
undoubtedly the case that some of the data you've recorded could be
removed without your being able to detect that it had been.

Isaac

[C. Leeds]

On 10/1/2010 11:32 AM, Scott wrote:

nothing a person reports from
listening under sighted conditions in any way has any bearing on what
they report under blind conditions. It's a bizzarre form of guilt by
association.

I answered (in full):
That's absurd. It strains credibility to suggest that result of every
sighted test, by any listener, under all conditions, of any combination
of equipment, is inherently and always unrelated to the result obtained
under blind conditions.

It's one thing to suggest that you don't accept the result of any
sighted test. But because some sighted listening test results can be
validated under blind conditions, your claim is simply mistaken.

Scott now says:
The arguement you make is a classic logical fallacy of confusing
association with causation. Here is a simple question. If you really
believe that previous experiences under sighted conditions will affect
the results of completely new listening tests under blind conditions
please explain how...

Don't be silly. I never expressed that "belief." Neither has anyone else
in this group who disputes your original claim.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 19:11:01 -0700, isw wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 06:56:01 -0700, isw wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:14:40 -0700, isw wrote
(in article ):


[ excess quotation snipped -- dsr ]


How do you feel about hugely inefficient encoding methods which require
vastly more data than is necessary for "transparent" reproduction? A lot
of folks think *those* are "something to avoid when practicable".

Isaac

I think that this is more a "horses for courses" question. I record in
Direct
Stream Digital (SACD format) and make 24-bit/192 KHz DVD-A copies of
those
DSD recordings for myself (the software to burn "home-brew" SACDs is not
available to the "enthusiast market (the cheapest, Sonic Studios' 'SACD
Creator' is $5000!). The "client" usually gets regular "Redbook" CD
copies
unless he asks for something better.

Having said that, I don't feel, in the least, that there is any such
thing
as
a recording method that "requires vastly more data than is necessary for
'transparent' reproduction."

I think a lot of folks would say that you described just such a method
above.

No, I described a high-resolution recording method that produces superior
results to CD - quality recording methods. That a "lot of folks" can't hear
the difference, or, don't think the improvement worth the extra trouble, is
not my problem.

My point (evidently lost) was that you are, undoubtedly, dealing with
considerably more data than necessary. Or to put it another way, it is
undoubtedly the case that some of the data you've recorded could be
removed without your being able to detect that it had been.

Isaac


If you are trying to say that shorter word length (say, 20 or 16-bit instead
of 24-bit) and lower sampling rates (say, 96, 88.2, 48, or 44.1 KHz) will
yield sound indistinguishable from 24-bit/192 Khz, you are incorrect.
high-res audio sounds much more alive, with much better localization cues,
more "air" around the instruments, and much better low-level detail and
ambience than is possible with 16/44.1 or 48 Khz. Granted, normal CD
resolution is very good, but the higher bit-rates and longer word lengths are
much better yet. They gild the lily in such a way as to make the argument of
analog vs digital sound completely moot and will disarm the digital skeptics
completely.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 07:10:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):


This is of course totally false. As long as the audible
effect can be reliably demonstrated to be generally
non-subtle, there's no need for blind tests to prove yet
again that it is generally non-subtle.

For example, mastering involves changes to levels and
spectral balance that are widely known and easily
demonstrable to be reliably audible, at least for
reasonably well-trained listeners. That's the whole
purpose of mastering - to introduce audible changes.


That's interesting. And here I always thought that the
purpose of mastering was to transfer a "master tape" into
another format which can be easily and economically
distributed to customers via mass production.

That's the purpose, but that is not a detailed description of what the
process we know as mastering involves.

Here's an independent description of some of the details of mastering from
an independent source:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/AudioFAQ/pro-audio-faq/

Q6.3 - What is mastering?

" Mastering is a multifaceted term that is often misunderstood. Back in
the days of vinyl records, mastering involved the actual cutting of
the master that would be used for pressing. This often involved a
variety of sonic adjustments so that the mixed tape would ultimately
be properly rendered on vinyl.

The age of the CD has changed the meaning of the term quite a bit.
There are now two elements often called mastering. The first is the
eminently straightforward process of preparing a master for pressing.
As most mixdowns now occur on DAT, this often involves the relatively
simple tasks of generating the PQ subcode necessary for CD replication.
PQ subcode is the data stream that contains information such as the
number of tracks on a disc, the location of the start points of each
track, the clock display information, and the like. This information
is created during mastering and prepared as a PQ data burst which the
pressing plant uses to make the glass pressing master.

Mastering's more common meaning, however, is the art of making a
recording sound "commercial." Is is the last chance one has to get
the recording sounding the way it ought to. Tasks often done in
mastering include: adjustment of time between pieces, quality of
fade-in/out, relation of levels between tracks (such that the listener
doesn't have to go swinging the volume control all over the place),
program EQ to achieve a desired consistency, compression to make one's
disc sound LOUDER than others on the market, the list goes on.

A good mastering engineer can often take a poorly-produced recording
and make it suitable for the market. A bad one can make a good
recording sound terrible. Some recordings are so well produced,
mixed, and edited that all they need is to be given PQ subcode and
sent right out. Other recordings are made by people on ego trips, who
think they know everything about recording, and who make recordings
that are, technically speaking, wretched trash.

Good mastering professionals are acquainted with many styles of music,
and know what it is that their clients hope to achieve. They then use
their tools either lightly or severely to accomplish all the multiple
steps involved in preparing a disc for pressing. [Gabe]
"

Particularly:

"Mastering's more common meaning, however, is the art of making a
recording sound "commercial." Is is the last chance one has to get
the recording sounding the way it ought to. Tasks often done in
mastering include: ...

....(adjustment of the) relation of levels between tracks...

....(adjustment of) program EQ to achieve a desired consistency..

IOW:

....mastering involves changes to levels and spectral balance...

"Program Eq" and "changes to spectral balance" are two ways to describe the
identical same processing.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Oct 2, 7:28=A0am, "C. Leeds" wrote:
On 10/1/2010 11:32 AM, Scott wrote:

nothing a person reports from
listening under sighted conditions in any way has any bearing on what
they report under blind conditions. It's a bizzarre form of guilt by
association.

I answered (in full):

That's absurd. It strains credibility to suggest that result of every
sighted test, by any listener, under all conditions, of any combinatio=
n
of equipment, is inherently and always unrelated to the result obtaine=
d
under blind conditions.

It's one thing to suggest that you don't accept the result of any
sighted test. But because some sighted listening test results can be
validated under blind conditions, your claim is simply mistaken.

Scott now says:

The arguement you make is a classic logical fallacy of confusing
association with causation. Here is a simple question. If you really
believe that previous experiences under sighted conditions will affect
the results of completely new listening tests under blind conditions
please explain how...

Don't be silly. I never expressed that "belief." Neither has anyone else
in this group who disputes your original claim.

I said

1, "nothing a person reports from listening under sighted conditions
in any way has any bearing on what they report under blind
conditions." That means previous experiences under sighted conditions
will not give direction to or affect the results of new tests under
blind conditions. Nothing more nothing less. That is all *I* (the
author) meant.

which you say is "absurd." If you think that is absurd then you must
by logical deduction "believe that previous experiences under sighted
conditions will affect or give direction to the results of completely
new listening tests under blind conditions."


To which you say you never "expressed that 'belief'" ..



Do you or do you not think that Steve Hoffman's results of his blind
comparisons were affected by his previous experiences with room
acoustic treatments of a subious nature under sighted conditions? I am
saying they were not. Nothing more nothing less.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


If you are trying to say that shorter word length (say,
20 or 16-bit instead of 24-bit) and lower sampling rates
(say, 96, 88.2, 48, or 44.1 KHz) will yield sound
indistinguishable from 24-bit/192 Khz, you are incorrect.

This is a clear case of someone trying to establish their opinon by fiat as
being the only valid opinion, in the face of a world of evidence that is
seemingly far more compelling than the limited and questionable data which
he himself has presented.

Just to repeat the obvious, there is considerable evidence, gathered under
highly controlled circumstances by a large number of independent qualified
and amateur observers that says that shorter word length (say, 20 or 16-bit
instead of 24-bit) and lower sampling rates (say, 96, 88.2, 48, or 44.1
KHz) will yield sound
indistinguishable from 24-bit/192 Khz.

Understanding this puts you are in total agreement with the best information
that is currently available, both theoretical and real-world.

Reliable and up-to-date knowlege of the real world performance of recording
setups and psychoacoutics, predicts this result. IOW, if you know how
listeners perform and you know what kind of results you obtain when you
actually record acoustic music, the above real-world results are no surprise
to you at all.


high-res audio sounds much more alive, with much better
localization cues, more "air" around the instruments, and
much better low-level detail and ambience than is
possible with 16/44.1 or 48 Khz.

This is one of those effects, like the benefits of talking to plants, that
disappers under reasonble experimental controls.

Granted, normal CD
resolution is very good, but the higher bit-rates and
longer word lengths are much better yet. They gild the
lily in such a way as to make the argument of analog vs
digital sound completely moot and will disarm the digital
skeptics completely.

Intreresting that so many (probably thousands) have done comparisons like
this and been reduced to random guessing, once the statistical results are
known.

Unfortunately our correspondent's approach to this problem has seemingly
been to simply avoid gathering enough data for a proper statistical
analysis.

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 08:18:28 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 07:10:23 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):


This is of course totally false. As long as the audible
effect can be reliably demonstrated to be generally
non-subtle, there's no need for blind tests to prove yet
again that it is generally non-subtle.

For example, mastering involves changes to levels and
spectral balance that are widely known and easily
demonstrable to be reliably audible, at least for
reasonably well-trained listeners. That's the whole
purpose of mastering - to introduce audible changes.


That's interesting. And here I always thought that the
purpose of mastering was to transfer a "master tape" into
another format which can be easily and economically
distributed to customers via mass production.

That's the purpose, but that is not a detailed description of what the
process we know as mastering involves.
Here's an independent description of some of the details of mastering from
an independent source:

I was being sarcastic. Of course I know the process. I used to do it for a
living. 8^)

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/AudioFAQ/pro-audio-faq/

Q6.3 - What is mastering?

" Mastering is a multifaceted term that is often misunderstood. Back in
the days of vinyl records, mastering involved the actual cutting of
the master that would be used for pressing. This often involved a
variety of sonic adjustments so that the mixed tape would ultimately
be properly rendered on vinyl.

The age of the CD has changed the meaning of the term quite a bit.
There are now two elements often called mastering. The first is the
eminently straightforward process of preparing a master for pressing.
As most mixdowns now occur on DAT, this often involves the relatively
simple tasks of generating the PQ subcode necessary for CD replication.
PQ subcode is the data stream that contains information such as the
number of tracks on a disc, the location of the start points of each
track, the clock display information, and the like. This information
is created during mastering and prepared as a PQ data burst which the
pressing plant uses to make the glass pressing master.

Mastering's more common meaning, however, is the art of making a
recording sound "commercial." Is is the last chance one has to get
the recording sounding the way it ought to.

Interesting that the phrase "...make it sound like it ought to..." More
often than not, means "screw it up out of all recognition so that it has
little in common with the actual recording capture master".

Tasks often done in
mastering include: adjustment of time between pieces, quality of
fade-in/out, relation of levels between tracks (such that the listener
doesn't have to go swinging the volume control all over the place),
program EQ to achieve a desired consistency, compression to make one's
disc sound LOUDER than others on the market, the list goes on.

A good mastering engineer can often take a poorly-produced recording
and make it suitable for the market. A bad one can make a good
recording sound terrible.

Bingo! There seem to be a lot more bad ones these days than there are good
ones.


Some recordings are so well produced,
mixed, and edited that all they need is to be given PQ subcode and
sent right out. Other recordings are made by people on ego trips, who
think they know everything about recording, and who make recordings
that are, technically speaking, wretched trash.


And some recordings are excellent and the commercial mastering process turns
them into "wretched trash".

[KH]

On 10/2/2010 10:47 AM, Dick Pierce wrote:
Scott wrote:
Do you or do you not think that Steve Hoffman's results of his blind
comparisons were affected by his previous experiences with room
acoustic treatments of a subious nature under sighted conditions?

Your question is irrelevant because we have no definitive evidence,
that is, we have no description of the protocol, no statement of
blinding conditions, no mention of controls, no revelation of the
number of trials, no listing of the statistics, NOTHING, other
than a casual, off the cuff comment which is contradictory, that
there was ANY truly blind, objective test that Mr. Hoffman engaged
in and reported.

Clearly any test without adequate controls can, and likely will be
affected by *any and all* prior experiences - i.e. such prior
experiences are the basis for any extant biases.

But, that aside, I think what Dick had in mind in his original post to
which you're objecting (and if not, it's in *my* mind)is that a man who
believes the "hallograph" hogwash that Steve has endorsed, is either
ignorant of physics and engineering in the specific, or scientific rigor
in general, assuming his veracity is not in question. That he believes
in such snake oil raises significant doubt about his technical ability
to design, proctor, or execute a valid controlled test. Lacking any
evidence to indicate a proper test was conducted, one should be very
skeptical of his unusual results. And no, just letting someone else
"fiddle with the knobs" doesn't indicate "blinding" conditions were
utilized. Nor does being a mastering wizard, should you be of that
opinion, in any way demonstrate possession of technical expertise in
test design.

Keith

[jwvm]

On Oct 2, 11:17=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:

snip

If you are trying to say that shorter word length (say, 20 or 16-bit inst=
ead
of =A024-bit) and lower sampling rates (say, 96, 88.2, 48, or 44.1 KHz) w=
ill
yield sound indistinguishable from 24-bit/192 Khz, you are incorrect.
high-res audio sounds much more alive, with much better localization cues=
,
more "air" around the instruments, and much better low-level detail and
ambience than is possible with 16/44.1 or 48 Khz. Granted, normal CD
resolution is very good, but the higher bit-rates and longer word lengths=
are
much better yet. They gild the lily in such a way as to make the argument=
of
analog vs digital sound completely moot and will disarm the digital skept=
ics
completely. =A0

This is a remarkable claim. Can you cite any credible unbiased tests
that have been published in reputable publications to back this up?

[Scott[_6_]]

On Oct 2, 1:39=A0pm, KH wrote:
On 10/2/2010 10:47 AM, Dick Pierce wrote: Scott wrote:
Do you or do you not think that Steve Hoffman's results of his blind
comparisons were affected by his previous experiences with room
acoustic treatments of a subious nature under sighted conditions?

Your question is irrelevant because we have no definitive evidence,
that is, we have no description of the protocol, no statement of
blinding conditions, no mention of controls, no revelation of the
number of trials, no listing of the statistics, NOTHING, other
than a casual, off the cuff comment which is contradictory, that
there was ANY truly blind, objective test that Mr. Hoffman engaged
in and reported.

Clearly any test without adequate controls can, and likely will be
affected by *any and all* prior experiences - i.e. such prior
experiences are the basis for any extant biases.

How do you know the controls were inadequate? And how would one get a
false negative from that?


But, that aside, I think what Dick had in mind in his original post


Dick has chosen not to explain what he had in mind in his original
post. You can ask him. I did. Got no answer.

[KH]

On 10/2/2010 5:43 PM, Scott wrote:
On Oct 2, 1:39=A0pm, wrote:
On 10/2/2010 10:47 AM, Dick Pierce wrote: Scott wrote:
Do you or do you not think that Steve Hoffman's results of his blind
comparisons were affected by his previous experiences with room
acoustic treatments of a subious nature under sighted conditions?

snip

Clearly any test without adequate controls can, and likely will be
affected by *any and all* prior experiences - i.e. such prior
experiences are the basis for any extant biases.

How do you know the controls were inadequate? And how would one get a
false negative from that?

I don't *know* that the controls were inadequate, and I made no such
claim, nor has any evidence of adequacy been provided or cited. But
that point is irrelevant to the question you asked, i.e. did Steve's
previous experiences with room treatments affect his "blind"
comparisons. The answer is, clearly they *can*, in the absence of
adequate controls. And a false negative is absolutely trivial to
achieve with inadequate controls, e.g. all I need to know is that a
switch has taken place (A/B etc.), and as long as I am convinced that
there is no difference, then it is likely that I will perceive none,
despite it being above the audible threshold.

Hence the need for "X" in the ABX test. As long as you know that a
binary switch is in use (i.e. *either* A or B), and as long as that
switching function is perceivable, you *know* a change has been made,
and your biases are given free range to predetermine the outcome -
either positive or negative - relative to *difference* discrimination.

Such a test is not even close to blind, and based on all the information
provided for the cited test, nothing suggests that it was indeed "blind"
other than one assertion, sans definition.


But, that aside, I think what Dick had in mind in his original post


Dick has chosen not to explain what he had in mind in his original
post. You can ask him. I did. Got no answer.

Nor was one needed, in that I clearly stated that the argument that
followed the snipped disclaimer was mine, irrespective of Dick's
concurrence. Although from his followup post he certainly appears to
agree with the premise.

Keith

[Scott[_6_]]

On Oct 2, 10:47=A0am, Dick Pierce wrote:
Scott wrote:
Do you or do you not think that Steve Hoffman's results of his blind
comparisons were affected by his previous experiences with room
acoustic treatments of a subious nature under sighted conditions?

Your question is irrelevant because we have no definitive evidence,

No the question is relevant since you chose to make an issue out of
it. One need not have any "evidence" of anything other than what is
already presented to answer the question. Do you or do you not think
Steve Hoffman's comparisons
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/sh...ghlight=3Dmas=
ter+tape
were affected by his previous experiences with room acoustic
treatments of a dubious nature under sighted conditions.
http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm

I can understand why at this point you would like to avoid this
question but you are wrong about what is needed to answer it.
Everything one needs to answer this specific question is in this
thread already.

Heck I'll answer it. NO. Why? Because there is no cause and effect
here. Impressions formed under sighted conditions in a previous
experience like the one Steve Hoffman had with said room treatments
will not affect one's aural perceptions in a blind comparison between
a fresh cut laquer and the feed from the master tape with which the
laquer was cut. They are mutually independent events.