On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:37:43 GMT, (Ben
Hoadley) wrote:

Its not just my opinion that says cd
format is stressful to listen to over long periods (even when done to
an optimum quality).

Yes, it is.

I have heard (2nd hand) of a japanese study that
concluded that music reproduced from cds causes a chemical release in
the brain that is associated with stress, it also found that vinyl
caused relaxation and happiness (i'm repeating from memory so thats
just the vibe). If someone has access to this study I would like to
read it first hand.

I have read of studies that prove the existence of Bigfoot. I give
this nonsense similar credence. What does the study say about CD-R
copies of vinyl? If not included, why not?

Also many other people share my observations of cd audio including the
venerable George Massenberg.

And many more share my observations of CD, including the venerable
Andre Previn. Please note that when CD was launched in the mid '80s,
the first widespread acceptance of the medium was in classical music.
Are you saying that classical music lovers are less critical than the
rock/pop market?

A well done CD is plesurable to listn to but when the lowres artifacts
are absent its such a relief!

Shame for your argument that vinyl has at least ten times *less*
resolution than CD............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 04:12:49 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

Elementary logic tells
that a "test" with invariably null results either tests invariably
identical components or is not a "test".

We agree!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 04:15:08 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

Funny Stewart, you didn't list two different SACD players when you responded
to my earlier question.

Why would I, when I already said that you don't *need* two SACD
players?

So how did you mask sound, get quick switching, or
do any of the other things required to get a truly blind test. You yourself
indicated your tests weren't all that rigorous. Now you imply that they
were.

I said they were inconclusive. They were however quick-switched
between the two players used (hardly a challenge with a preamp having
a source selector switch!), and used conventional DBT protocols.

And how did you determine *which* disks had an identical mix between
CD and SACD layer, since you are one of the most vociferous to say the CD
layers are doctored and you used mostly SONY disks for the comparison (which
is the company you continually assert does this).

Impossible to say, which is perhaps one reason why the results were
inconclusive. Note however that it wasn't always the SACD which was
preferred. Harry, this is going nowhere. It is a plain *fact* that the
jury is out among the pros, hence any differences are clearly subtle
at best, so let's just wait and see what falls out commercially. I'll
be happy when the market moves to multichannel 24/96, which looks the
most likely result.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Andre Yew wrote:
FWIW, I think the most interesting recent test on the audibility of
ultrasonics is David Griesinger's informal tests found he

http://world.std.com/~griesngr/intermod.ppt

The experimental method seems sound, and Griesinger provides a
reference to what sounds like a credible paper for ultrasonic
perception which has experimental and solid theoretical reasons for
the audibility of ultrasonics. What may be surprising to some is the
mechanism by which they become audible. I won't give the ending away
:-).

There are lots of other interesting stuff on his website, including
many things on surround sound.

--Andre


Thanks for the link to a very interesting paper. It's pretty amazing
that human perception is inherently asymmetric, and can result in the
apparent "harshness" of some musical material.

I noticed that the John Eargle SACD has much higher ultrasonic noise
than the Sting SACD. Does anyone know why some discs have so much more
shaped noise?

BTW, Creative Labs has a new soundcard, the Audigy 2 Platinum Pro ZS,
that can sample at 96kHz/24bit now.

Thanks for making a fine source of information available.

"Andre Yew" wrote in message
news:tY6Ib.693033$Tr4.1733745@attbi_s03...
FWIW, I think the most interesting recent test on the audibility of
ultrasonics is David Griesinger's informal tests found he

http://world.std.com/~griesngr/intermod.ppt

The experimental method seems sound, and Griesinger provides a
reference to what sounds like a credible paper for ultrasonic
perception which has experimental and solid theoretical reasons for
the audibility of ultrasonics. What may be surprising to some is the
mechanism by which they become audible. I won't give the ending away
:-).

There are lots of other interesting stuff on his website, including
many things on surround sound.

--Andre

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:37:43 GMT, (Ben
Hoadley) wrote:

Its not just my opinion that says cd
format is stressful to listen to over long periods (even when done to
an optimum quality).

Yes, it is.
no its not. just because you and a couple of other very experienced
people don't have this issue doesn't mean no-one does

I have heard (2nd hand) of a japanese study that
concluded that music reproduced from cds causes a chemical release in
the brain that is associated with stress, it also found that vinyl
caused relaxation and happiness (i'm repeating from memory so thats
just the vibe). If someone has access to this study I would like to
read it first hand.

I have read of studies that prove the existence of Bigfoot. I give
this nonsense similar credence. What does the study say about CD-R
copies of vinyl? If not included, why not?
this is true and why i don't considder it proof. Just interesting to
consider. I did hear about it from Neve so I gave it some credit
unseen

Also many other people share my observations of cd audio including the
venerable George Massenberg.

And many more share my observations of CD, including the venerable
Andre Previn. Please note that when CD was launched in the mid '80s,
the first widespread acceptance of the medium was in classical music.
Are you saying that classical music lovers are less critical than the
rock/pop market?

A well done CD is plesurable to listn to but when the lowres artifacts
are absent its such a relief!

Shame for your argument that vinyl has at least ten times *less*
resolution than CD............

vinyl? yes vinyl is a very nonlinear inconsistent unreliable difficult
medium.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:11:23 GMT, (Ben
Hoadley) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:37:43 GMT, (Ben
Hoadley) wrote:

Its not just my opinion that says cd
format is stressful to listen to over long periods (even when done to
an optimum quality).

Yes, it is.
no its not. just because you and a couple of other very experienced
people don't have this issue doesn't mean no-one does

Some people can't stand the sound of a live viloin. This doesn't mean
that it is stressful per se. You are claiming that this is a CD
problem, not your personal problem, while I claim that there's no
sucyh thing as 'CD sound', it sounds just the same as an analogue
master tape fed to it - and no one claims that analogue master tapes
are 'stressful'. You can *not* find any artifacts in a properly made
CD which would demonstrate otherwise.

A well done CD is plesurable to listn to but when the lowres artifacts
are absent its such a relief!

Shame for your argument that vinyl has at least ten times *less*
resolution than CD............

vinyl? yes vinyl is a very nonlinear inconsistent unreliable difficult
medium.

As is any analogue medium. So what exactly do you mean by 'low res
artifacts'?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:11:23 GMT, (Ben
Hoadley) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 20:37:43 GMT, (Ben
Hoadley) wrote:

Its not just my opinion that says cd
format is stressful to listen to over long periods (even when done to
an optimum quality).

Yes, it is.
no its not. just because you and a couple of other very experienced
people don't have this issue doesn't mean no-one does

Some people can't stand the sound of a live viloin. This doesn't mean
that it is stressful per se. You are claiming that this is a CD
problem, not your personal problem, while I claim that there's no
sucyh thing as 'CD sound', it sounds just the same as an analogue
master tape fed to it - and no one claims that analogue master tapes
are 'stressful'. You can *not* find any artifacts in a properly made
CD which would demonstrate otherwise.

A well done CD is plesurable to listn to but when the lowres artifacts
are absent its such a relief!

Shame for your argument that vinyl has at least ten times *less*
resolution than CD............

vinyl? yes vinyl is a very nonlinear inconsistent unreliable difficult
medium.

As is any analogue medium. So what exactly do you mean by 'low res
artifacts'?
--
I'm starting to think it doesn't matter. CD audio is dead, because its
original developers have wrung out any profit they will make from this
technology a decade ago. Physics, science, engineering doesn't enter into
it. The marketers are quite successful convincing the non-technical that
they need a system that uses over twice the necessary bandwidth so they
won't miss the mystical overtones lost to "bandwidth limited CD audio".
Brute force wins out over elegance and optimal design. Just follow the
money. About the only thing we can hope for is multi-mode players that will
continue to provide decent CD audio performance.

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:29:21 GMT, (Ben
Hoadley) wrote:

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message ...
"Ben Hoadley" wrote in message
...

[snip]
I did have it demonstrated to me once. you get a analog tone
generator. set a sine wave to 15khz then switch it to triangle wave.
you gan clearly hear the change even though the first harmonic
difference is at 30khz. I don't know if this is a good demonstration
though since its more the distortion within the signal that is the
problem with cd
This can be a misleading demonstration. Switching between sine and triangle
(or sine and square) is only valid if the fundamental tone is *exactly* the
same in all cases. Setting equal RMS values using a meter, or equal peak
values using an oscilloscope will both give erroneous results.

even if there is slight variation in frequency and amplitude you can
still hear that it is no longer a sine wave and now a triangle wave. A
triangular wave has a very different tone to a sine. Nevertheless, if
you could do it so that they are exactly the same I guarantee you
would hear the difference, even on equipment that supposedly doesn't
have good responce above 20k

You can *not* hear any difference when the fundamental tone is higher
than 8kHz or so, providing that the level of the *fundamental* is
matched. This is also true of a square wave, which has even higher
velues of harmonic content than a triangle wave.

Can you explain what you mean by "distortion within the signal"? What
problem does CD audio (done right) have with distortion?

The ultrasonic quantising noise or "switching transients" are not
harmoically related to the signal.

Further, they don't *exist* in a properly dithered recording......

the fequencies that these reside in
are perceivable (don't ask me how, i'm not that smart).

No, they are not, unless at massive SPLs, which don't exist in music.

If they are
moved beyond 100 khz they are no longer percievable.

The *only* differences between CD and SACD are that SACD has extended
bandwidth, and it has a horrifically high RF noise floor. Since CD
extends to 22kHz, beyond human hearing for more than 99.9% of the
population, there's no need for all that extended bandwidth, and the
high ultrasonic noise level causes intermodulation distortion in many
amplifiers. Now *that* you *can* hear!

On really good da
converters it sounds somewhat better but higher fs sounds better
easier.

This has never been proven, and is *still* a hot point of contention
among audio professionals.

This is shown now by people who are saying their $150 sacd
sounds better than their $2000 cd.

Urban legend is no substitute for reality!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:29:21 GMT, (Ben
Hoadley) wrote:

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
...
"Ben Hoadley" wrote in message
...

[snip]
I did have it demonstrated to me once. you get a analog tone
generator. set a sine wave to 15khz then switch it to triangle wave.
you gan clearly hear the change even though the first harmonic
difference is at 30khz. I don't know if this is a good demonstration
though since its more the distortion within the signal that is the
problem with cd
This can be a misleading demonstration. Switching between sine and triangle
(or sine and square) is only valid if the fundamental tone is *exactly* the
same in all cases. Setting equal RMS values using a meter, or equal peak
values using an oscilloscope will both give erroneous results.


You can *not* hear any difference when the fundamental tone is higher
than 8kHz or so, providing that the level of the *fundamental* is
matched. This is also true of a square wave, which has even higher
velues of harmonic content than a triangle wave.

This is assuming that the amplifier handles frequencies above 20Khz
properly, which a lot of solid state designs ca 1975 didn't. I
assume that at this point a LP filter at the input is standard, but
wouldn't be surprised to find middle-brow equipment which assumes
that the input is from a device that doesn't have output above 20Khz.

(A number of preamps ca 1975 had very high IM distortion at frequencies
over 20Khz, and the IM products in the audible range were quite audible
when the preamp was driven by inputs with a lot of energy over 20Khz.
There are a lot of moving magnet and moving coil designs which produce
a lot of (distortion) energy above 20Khz.)

Much of the sonic difference I heard between amps at that time was
due to differences in clipping and output current clamping behavior
driving full range ESL's; amplifiers that could drive my ESLs without
being driven in to clipping (tube and solid-state) or having their
current limiting clamp down (solid-state) were far too expensive for
my budget.

The tone generator might also have bizarre problems, such as differing
hum levels with different switch positions (probably not true for
professional equipment, but not impossible with hobbyist equipment).

I'm not disagreeing with your point, but since I am constrained by a finite
budget I had to choose between imperfect alternatives. I'm quite certain
I heard sonic differences between preamps and amps ca 1975, but every
time I put the equipment on the bench I found a measurable difference.

Mike Squires
--

Mike Squires (mikes at cs.indiana.edu) 317 233 9456 (w) 812 333 6564 (h)
mikes at siralan.org 546 N Park Ridge Rd., Bloomington, IN 47408

"Michael Squires" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:29:21 GMT, (Ben
Hoadley) wrote:

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
...
"Ben Hoadley" wrote in message
...

[snip]
I did have it demonstrated to me once. you get a analog tone
generator. set a sine wave to 15khz then switch it to triangle wave.
you gan clearly hear the change even though the first harmonic
difference is at 30khz. I don't know if this is a good demonstration
though since its more the distortion within the signal that is the
problem with cd
This can be a misleading demonstration. Switching between sine and
triangle
(or sine and square) is only valid if the fundamental tone is
*exactly* the
same in all cases. Setting equal RMS values using a meter, or equal
peak
values using an oscilloscope will both give erroneous results.


You can *not* hear any difference when the fundamental tone is higher
than 8kHz or so, providing that the level of the *fundamental* is
matched. This is also true of a square wave, which has even higher
velues of harmonic content than a triangle wave.

This is assuming that the amplifier handles frequencies above 20Khz
properly, which a lot of solid state designs ca 1975 didn't. I
assume that at this point a LP filter at the input is standard, but
wouldn't be surprised to find middle-brow equipment which assumes
that the input is from a device that doesn't have output above 20Khz.

(A number of preamps ca 1975 had very high IM distortion at frequencies
over 20Khz, and the IM products in the audible range were quite audible
when the preamp was driven by inputs with a lot of energy over 20Khz.
There are a lot of moving magnet and moving coil designs which produce
a lot of (distortion) energy above 20Khz.)

Much of the sonic difference I heard between amps at that time was
due to differences in clipping and output current clamping behavior
driving full range ESL's; amplifiers that could drive my ESLs without
being driven in to clipping (tube and solid-state) or having their
current limiting clamp down (solid-state) were far too expensive for
my budget.

The tone generator might also have bizarre problems, such as differing
hum levels with different switch positions (probably not true for
professional equipment, but not impossible with hobbyist equipment).

I'm not disagreeing with your point, but since I am constrained by a
finite
budget I had to choose between imperfect alternatives. I'm quite certain
I heard sonic differences between preamps and amps ca 1975, but every
time I put the equipment on the bench I found a measurable difference.

Mike Squires
--

Mike Squires (mikes at cs.indiana.edu) 317 233 9456 (w) 812 333 6564
(h)
mikes at siralan.org 546 N Park Ridge Rd., Bloomington, IN
47408

This would be a good argument for CD audio, since any halfway decent CD
player will strongly attenuate everything above 22kHz. So a mid-fi amplifier
would be well-behaved in this regard. From what I gather, SACD emits a lot
of ultrasonic garbage, which would be a clear indication of a very poor
implementation. That's not *necessarily* a poor reflection on the SACD
specification (although the specification could dictate a poor design).

On 3 Jan 2004 19:46:42 GMT, (Michael Squires)
wrote:

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:29:21 GMT, (Ben
Hoadley) wrote:

"Karl Uppiano" wrote in message
...
"Ben Hoadley" wrote in message
...

[snip]
I did have it demonstrated to me once. you get a analog tone
generator. set a sine wave to 15khz then switch it to triangle wave.
you gan clearly hear the change even though the first harmonic
difference is at 30khz. I don't know if this is a good demonstration
though since its more the distortion within the signal that is the
problem with cd
This can be a misleading demonstration. Switching between sine and triangle
(or sine and square) is only valid if the fundamental tone is *exactly* the
same in all cases. Setting equal RMS values using a meter, or equal peak
values using an oscilloscope will both give erroneous results.


You can *not* hear any difference when the fundamental tone is higher
than 8kHz or so, providing that the level of the *fundamental* is
matched. This is also true of a square wave, which has even higher
velues of harmonic content than a triangle wave.

This is assuming that the amplifier handles frequencies above 20Khz
properly, which a lot of solid state designs ca 1975 didn't. I
assume that at this point a LP filter at the input is standard, but
wouldn't be surprised to find middle-brow equipment which assumes
that the input is from a device that doesn't have output above 20Khz.

Yes, I am assuming that the amp does not produce any IMD products
which image into the audible baseband. This debate was supposed to be
about the audibility of tones above 22kHz, not baseband distortion
products!

(A number of preamps ca 1975 had very high IM distortion at frequencies
over 20Khz, and the IM products in the audible range were quite audible
when the preamp was driven by inputs with a lot of energy over 20Khz.
There are a lot of moving magnet and moving coil designs which produce
a lot of (distortion) energy above 20Khz.)

Hence my concern about the very high levels of wideband ultrasonic
hash delivered by SACD.

I'm not disagreeing with your point, but since I am constrained by a finite
budget I had to choose between imperfect alternatives. I'm quite certain
I heard sonic differences between preamps and amps ca 1975, but every
time I put the equipment on the bench I found a measurable difference.

Agreed. There is no mystery about audible differences among
amplifiers, IME this *always* shows up as a very easily measured
defect.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering