[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message


OK so for the record you beleive that there is so little
commonality of the perceptions of people who have
extensive experience with live music that the results of
tests gauging realism of various versions of the same
recording will wrought random results and no patterns
will emerge

Right. In short, not all concert halls sound the same.'

Do you really beleive
that there is so little commonality of the perceptions
of people who have extensive experience with live music
that the results of tests gauging realism of various
versions of the same recording will wrought random
results and no patterns will emerge?

I really believe that remastering is a simple trick that
has been a prove= n revenue generator. Occasionally the
first mastering of a commercial recording is suboptimal
and a re-issue might be in order. The rest of the time,
we're talking about making a recording sound different
for the sake= of making it sound different and using
trivial changes to generate non-trivi= al amounts of
money.

But you base this belief on willful ignorance on the
subject.

??????????

When you tried to demonstrate just little bit of
knowledge you resorted to cutting and pasting a woefully
inadequate history of the mastering of one popular
title.

The standard reference that I cited and quoted from was adequate to support
my point which was that certain works get remastered a relatively large
number of times.

In the process of rushing to judgement, you've missed the point and become
obsessed with one-upping a standard reference. If you think that wkwipedia
article needs updating then you should post your updates so that everybody
can benefit from your knowlege of DSTM trivia.

You only made my argument stronger, and I thank you for making my argument
stronger.

Sorry Arny but I'd sooner accept the opinions on
biology from the ICR than your opinions on the state of
the art of mastering.

You should not congratuate yourself or criticize me when you miss a pretty
clear point.

If you want to talk about mastering we can go down a list
of titles and discuss what went into the various versions
of many great titles but I just don't see any reason to
do so if your source for such information is wikipedia.

Scott, you are again missing my point, which is that remastering is often
just a means for reselling slightly different versions of the same basic
musical work to the same people over and over again.

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 04:58:33 -0800, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote
(in article ):

Yet, if you want to actually demonstrate what you claim and not just win
the debate, you could just demonstrate by putting some files on the net
and ask to determine by ear which comes from a vinyl and which from
digital source. I could then listen, judge for myself and make my mind.
Others would too. And there could be additional benefits for some -- If
for example someone owns a turntable and while (s)he could hear the
distortions on her/his setup, while could not on your provied files, one
could get to know, that their setup could see some improvement, that the
audible distotrions are not inherent in the medium, but just an effect
of their setup.

Or, conversely, he could just cut a CD with excerpts from some of the LPs
he's talking about, and send it to Arny. If Scott is right and Arny is
honest, he will certainly admit that the LPs sound as good as Scott says they
are. What I should do is make a CD of part of the "Firebird" LP and follow it
with the same excerpt from the "Firebird" CD. I'm sure that the differences
between the LP and CD are great enough to easily be revealed by a CD copy.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 9, 4:58=A0am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Feb 8, 10:12=3DA0am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:

=3DA0 On Feb 7, 11:14=3D3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" wro=
te:
=3DA0 "Scott" wrote in message

=3DA0 "Scott" wrote in message
[snip]
=3DA0 Then why should we all be happy with the single set of
=3DA0 distortion artifacts that vinyl imposes on us?
=3DA0 A single set? really? All vinyl playback equipment sounds
=3DA0 the same?
=3DA0 The audible distortion that is inherent in vinyl comes from th=
e sam=3D
e
laws=3D3D
=3DA0 =3DA0of
=3DA0 physics as applied to a very narrow implementation. =3D3DA0IME=
vinyl
playback
=3DA0 equipment has a very narrowly-defined set of colorations and
distortions.
=3DA0
=3DA0 Unfortunately your experience is painfully limited and colored =
with =3D
an
=3DA0 obvious bias. I have offered to put these and other such claims=
to t=3D
he
=3DA0 test under blind conditions but you refuse. That says it all.

Nope. The offer must be reasonable to begin with.

The offer is reasonable.

I could come with an offer to all the group as well. Lets perform t=
he
whole test somewhere in Siberia -- it would be about equally hard to g=
et
there for all the participants so this should make things even
All the expenses and visas and customs permits for the equpment are up
to participants

I guess you missed the part where I stated we could find a location
near enough to Arny's home that the travel woould not inconvenient
him. So is this a matter of the offer being unreasonable by me or
misunderstood by you?

But then, what is that *exact* location?

Don't know yet. We would have to see what is available. The logistics
have to be worked out for such a test. Not going to do that when Arny
clearly isn't willing to subject his claims to such a test.

And who would be the
'moderator'? How'd you trust her/him?

Don't know yet. But it would have to be someone I feel I can trust. I
doubt this would be a big problem.


Are you willing to travel near
Arny's to check if moderator is not cheating?

I would not settle for a moderator that I think would be likely to
cheat. Would I travel? No but my work takes me all over the world and
there is actually a lot of filming going on these days in Detroit. It
would not be unreasonable at all for me to proctr the test myself
should a get a movie that is shooting in Detroit. But Arny has made it
clear that I would not be welcome so...



Then, this is just a discussion on a newsgroup. It's perfectly
conceivable for me, that for at least some participants arranging some
physical place for a test, attending the test, bringing up equipment,
it's simply too much hassle just for a great glory of winning an usenet
discussion.

Your conclusion is predicated on false assumptions. I think these
tests are quite doable. certainly there must be some high end audio
shops left in Detroit and at least on person interested in proctoring
such a test. I'm just not going to work out the logistics until
someone actually agrees to subjecting their assertions to a test.



[...]

=3DA0 That is especially true when you remain willfully
=3DA0 ignorant on the subject as shown in your description of the var=
ious
=3DA0 masterings of Pink Floyd's DSOTM which was something you cut an=
d
=3DA0 pasted from wickipedia.
=3DA0

But what has the origin of quote to the discussed matters? And how it
shows someone's ignorance?

If one were not ignorant on the subject I suspect they would not cut
and paste a whoafully inadequate list of masterings. One would know
better if they were well versed on the subject

I see that simply as an case example of existence of many remasterings
of some title.

Which would indicate your lack of knowledge on the mastering of that
particular title along with Arny's.

Besides, this would be just an ignorance about details of
Pink Floyd discography, not about general matters of mastering to begin
with.

And logic follows if one is trying to demonstrate their knowledge on a
subject they would not use a particular example of which they are
ignorant via cut and paste from a quick google search. If one is
trying to use such a list as evidence of a point they are trying to
make about mastering it kills one's credibility on the subject. Arny
took a completely inadequate list and drew all kinds of eroneous
conclusions about it's content. It was plainly a clear display of
ignorance on the subject.








=3DA0
=3DA0 I know I don't have the technical
=3DA0 chops to mimic the euphonic colorations of my vinyl rig
=3DA0 Well, that's because those euphonic colorations are primarily =
a
creation =3D3D
=3DA0 of
=3DA0 your preferences.
=3DA0
=3DA0 Prove it. I've challenged you to do so under blind conditions a=
nd yo=3D
u
=3DA0 continue to be a no show.

You still did not show in Siberia. And I've challenged you! (Well, jus=
t
few paragraphs ago, but if you're serious you should be already in a
plane to Irkutsk )

Do you know the difference between a convenient location and Siberia?
It is much like the difference between a reasonable offer such as the
one I made and an unreasonable offer such as the one you are mockingly
making here. Perhaps you should read my offers more carefully before
equating a location that would not cause Arny any inconvenience with
Siberia.

Well, to nitpick, your offer is incomplete as you didn't propose who and
where (near somebody's home is a bit nebulous) would supervise the test.

Well to nitpick I did clearly say we could chose a place that is
convenient for Arny so your comparison to Siberia was a
misrepresntation of my offer.


Especially that I couldn't see any other active participant of this
newsgroup (there are not too many) who lives close to Arny.

Who said that it had to be proctored by an active participant of this
thread?


So "some
place near his home" and "some moderator" are, for now, rather
theoretical, abstract things/beings.

No they are logistics that have to be worked out. This is normal. It
is normal to work out logistics *after* it is agreed that a test will
happen.



but on the same note you might want to learn more about the
body of masterings out there before asking why Arny's cut and paste
from wikipedia was evidence of his ignorance on the subject.

I still don't see how using convinient quotation from wikipedia as an
example has anything to do to knowledge about mastering.


The fact that Arny's cut and paste of a convenient and inadequate
list and following eroneous analysis of said list used to generalize
about the nature of mastering doesn't clearly demonstrate his
ignorance on the subject to you doesn't mean it doesn't demonstrate it
to others like me who have educated themselves on the subject.

How not knowing
some Japaneese releases of some particular album shows anyting about
mastering knowledge. It might just show that that particular somebody is
not an expert in 70-ties rock discography.

You are missing the big picture here. Let me make an analogy. If a
chemestry teacher is making a point about how chemestry in general
works and then finds some specific example online that happens to be
whoafully incomplete, uses it with no awareness of it's inadeqacy and
then draws eroneous broad conclusions about how chemstry works from
that poor choice of an example what would that tell you about that
chemestry teacher's credibility on the subject of chemestry?



Back to being serious, Arny proposed much more realistic way to perfor=
m
the test. Yet you declined (and accused him of dishonesty as an excuse=
).

His proposition was not in any way more realistic. any meaningful test
needs moderation. I would think anyone with the most basic of
knowledge on such tests would understand this. The test was supposed
to be by ear only. Without moderation we would have no way of knowing
this was what happened. Sorry but no, I don't trust Arny to do the
test on his own by ear alone.

But the same test, if done as I sketeched it, would allow to many other
people to listen for themselves. Are you assuming that all the
participants here are dishonest?

I think in cases like this where there clearly is an easy opportunity
to use other means than by ear to make a determination it is necessary
to proctor such a test. Let's face it double blind tests are
considered better than single blind tests and that is not just because
of cheating. If we want to do this fairly it should be proctored. It
should be double blind or even triple blind. all of which could be
done with reasonable effort. One thing there is a history of in these
sorts of things. Losers crying foul after the fact. We do it the right
way and crying foul loses credibility. Why not do it right? Putting
files on line that could easily be analysed by other means than by ear
is hardly a controlled test for what is audible and not audible. i
would think anyone who believes they could identify these colorations
by ear would want the test proctored so they could not ever be accused
of cheating. The fact that Arny refuses to take a proctored test but
was quick to volunteer for one in which he could easily do by means
other than by ear just raises my guard on the matter. No the test has
to be proctored. If I am going to go through the trouble of preparing
the material it is my perogative to insist on a better test. A test
that is double or even triple blind and is proctored by someone I
trust will insure the test is done by ear alone.



Doing the test at a convenient location
for Arny under moderation is not an unreasonable test.

See few paragraphs above.

I have and I am still right about that





But his proposal could be quite easily modified, so none of his allege=
d
by you dishonesty could play a role. Just put audio samples on the net=
,
and allow all the interested people to listen for themselves.

Sorry but this doe not force people to make a determination by ear
alone. Your ideas simply do not offer reasonable controls under the
circumstances of the debate.

But it allows the participants to check for themselves. It would help
them to make their own mind about the subject.

Oh so everyone here is sitting on the fence on the subject including
Arny? C'mon.

Of course, it wouldn't be
a formal test, good for publishing results in a form of some journal
paper, but come on, this is just an usenet dicussion not scientific debat=
e.


What you propose would not be any use in settling any debate.






If the
samples are not whole tunes, but just fragments it would certailnly be=
a
fair use and would not violate copyrights.

Copyright is not my concern. Insuring the test is done by ear alone
is.

And it'd be really interesting to see who is right.

Would you like to do the test?

Yes. But to see for myself I could just click some tunes in
Firefox/Chrome/Internet Expoler.

Would you be interested in doing it with a proctor?



Certainly there must be a location near
you that is convenient. not going to ask you to travel to Siberia.
Heck, given the opportunity I'd come visit you and we could do it on
your system. Would that be too unreasonable?

I'm no sure if thraveling to "the other side of the pond" (aka Atlantic
Ocean) and then some would be reasonable to you

You might be surprised. There are several productions over there that
I may end up working on.



Well, its porpably a bit better than Siberia, as there are more
connections here and at least stuff like need to obtain an entry visa is
not an issue (but custom controls still could).


If you are genuinely interested I'll keep it in mind when my next show
in Europe happens.





=3DA0 It's easy to talk the talk. let's see you
=3DA0 walk the walk.

So, will you do the walk (as described above)?

I will happily participate in the test so long as there is a control
that prevents the testee from using any means other than his or her
own listening abilities to make a determination. so now the offer goes
out to you. Are you going to wlak or talk?

So, are you willing to travel 5-7 thousand miles, thake the records and
equipment via customs, and handle all the expenses?

I am willing to do it if it works out with whatever job I may have. We
don't need to do this tomorrow. The equipment is not an issue. All
samples will be digital files. You would be able to listen to them
back and forth over and over.




Yet, if you want to actually demonstrate what you claim and not just win
the debate, you could just demonstrate by putting some files on the net
and ask to determine by ear which comes from a vinyl and which from
digital source. I could then listen, judge for myself and make my mind.
Others would too. And there could be additional benefits for some -- If
for example someone owns a turntable and while (s)he could hear the
distortions on her/his setup, while could not on your provied files, one
could get to know, that their setup could see some improvement, that the
audible distotrions are not inherent in the medium, but just an effect
of their setup.

Arny and the others could do this for themsleves and I believe would
have already had they been genuinely interested. This is about winning
the debate. This is about challenging what are, in my opinion, bogus
assertions about the subject at hand.

[bob]

On Feb 9, 7:58=A0am, Sebastian Kaliszewski
wrote:
Scott wrote:

Do you know the difference between a convenient location and Siberia?
It is much like the difference between a reasonable offer such as the
one I made and an unreasonable offer such as the one you are mockingly
making here. Perhaps you should read my offers more carefully before
equating a location that would not cause Arny any inconvenience with
Siberia.

Well, to nitpick, your offer is incomplete as you didn't propose who and
where (near somebody's home is a bit nebulous) would supervise the test.
Especially that I couldn't see any other active participant of this
newsgroup (there are not too many) who lives close to Arny. So "some
place near his home" and "some moderator" are, for now, rather
theoretical, abstract things/beings.

This really is nitpicking. The who and where of a test are solvable
problems.

The real problem with Scott's "challenges" is that he has neither
stated clearly the propositions he proposes to test nor explained
clearly the methodology he would use to test them. It's all been some
vague handwaving about how some sort of DBT would refute something
someone else said, often without even being clear about which of his
interlocutors' assertions he means to test. It's as if his years of
experience here have taught him that the way to win an argument about
audio is simply to mutter "DBT."

Until he does better, we shouldn't take his "challenges" seriously.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


This is not some subtle differences
that amount to counting angels dancing on the head of a
pin. These are substantial differences in content. These
are cases where the CD doesn't ever turn-on my
self-powered subwoofers, but the LP does - and at exactly
the same volume via my HP 400E audio VTVM. This indicates
that the low frequency content of the CD is not
sufficient to trigger the auto-on circuitry in the subs.

It is highly probable that the source of LF material that you observe while
playing the LPs is the playback system as opposed to the original
performance. LPs are generally recorded with the LF rolled off and/or
summed to mono because of the well-known dynamic range issues that are
inherent in the LP format and absent from digital recordings.

This kind of extraneous LF noise being added during the playback process
almost always happens, and often becomes an easy way to distinguish
transcriptions of LPs from CDs. It is inherent in the tonearm/cartridge
system. One way to hear it more clearly is to listen with certain IEMs and
benefit from their ability reproduce awesome bass.

[Arny Krueger]

"Andrew Haley" wrote in
message

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Audio Empire wrote:

There's one sure way to reproduce the quality of the
Lp on CD: record the output from your preamp with a
good ADC.

Been there, done that. It works fine. It's even better
when the LP is transferred to 24/96 or higher.

It shouldn't be. 16 bits already suffices for the
dynamic range of LPs; 22 kHz suffices for their
frequency range, unless your hearing, and the recording,
are both *quite* remarkable.

Our ability to hear musical sounds above 16 KHz is highly dependent on the
specific characteristics of the music itself. In general it is masking, not
any high frequency cutoff that is audible with pure tones, that limits our
ability to hear these sounds. Sounds above 16 KHz strongly tend to be masked
by related musical sounds in the octave from 8 to 16 KHz. There are a few
rarely used musical instruments that produce their strongest output above 12
KHz but they are highly esoteric and they are not used by either
contemporary or traditional western music.

Or you're a 12-year-old child. I guess that's unlikely.
:-)

Masking works for everybody, even young children.

Brian Moore says "young children can often hear tones as
high as 20 kHz." Zwicker and Fastl reckon that even by
the age of 20 the limit above which no sensation is
produced is between 16 and 18 kHz, provided that the
subject has not already been exposed to sounds with
levels that produce a hearing loss. I wonder how often
that happens these days...

If sounds above 16 Khz are pure tones and played at really intense levels,
then they might be reliably perceived by adults. Ringtones that are designed
to not be heard by adults exploit this. High frequencies do not propigate
well. They are absorbed by most architectural materials so they decay
rapidly when they bounce around the room. They are severely attenuated by
passage through the air, particularly air that is not chilly and dry. A room
that is confortably warm and not desert-dry soaks up high frequency sound
like a sponge.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


Now how the heck can an LP transfered to CD sound better
on the CD than the source record? This I've gotta see!

Playing digital transcriptions made under controlled conditions avoids a
potential source of acoustic feedback during the playback of the LP. It
also provides an opportunity to encapsulate a precisely set up LP playback
system before the inevitable drift of its mechanical adjustments and
degradation of the stylus and media takes place. Digital transcriptions also
provide the opportunity to remove extraneous noises by various well-known
means such as editing and declicking.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


Or, conversely, he could just cut a CD with excerpts from
some of the LPs he's talking about, and send it to Arny.

That was what I offered to do.

If Scott is right and Arny is honest, he will certainly
admit that the LPs sound as good as Scott says they are.

That's not what I promised. What I promised is correct identification.

The whole business of "sounds good" is a matter of perceptions and
preferences, which are very personal to each listener.

I've never said that LPs are incapable of sounding good enough for many
people. What I said is that unlike the CD format, the LP format imposes a
sonic signature, actually a suite of sonic signatures, that are possible to
hear.

What I should do is make a CD of part of the "Firebird"
LP and follow it with the same excerpt from the
"Firebird" CD. I'm sure that the differences between the
LP and CD are great enough to easily be revealed by a CD
copy.

I'm sure the differences are easily revealed by a comparison that is
delivered on a CD.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 10, 6:53=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in message



This is not some subtle differences
that amount to counting angels dancing on the head of a
pin. These are substantial differences in content. These
are cases where the CD doesn't ever turn-on my
self-powered subwoofers, but the LP does - and at exactly
the same volume via my HP 400E audio VTVM. This indicates
that the low frequency content of the CD is not
sufficient to trigger the auto-on circuitry in the subs.

It is highly probable that the source of LF material that you observe whi=
le
playing the LPs is the playback system as opposed to the original
performance.

Actually it isn't. Not only is it not probable it is pretty much
impossible.

=A0LPs are generally recorded with the LF rolled off and/or
summed to mono because of the well-known dynamic range issues that are
inherent in the LP format and absent from digital recordings.

First of all, unless we are talking direct to disc LPs are not
recorded. They are cut from recordings. Secondly there is no reason to
discuss what 'generally" happens since we are talking about a specific
title here and the mastering of that LP was done by Bernie Grundman
for Classics and it is well documented that no such rolling or summing
was done. There is plenty of bass energy derived from the recording to
engage a subwoofer. If the CD counterpart is not engaging the
subwoofer there is a big problem with the CD.



This kind of extraneous LF noise being added during the playback process
almost always happens, and often becomes an easy way to distinguish
transcriptions of LPs from CDs. =A0It is inherent in the tonearm/cartridg=
e
system. One way to hear it more clearly is to listen with certain IEMs an=
d
benefit from their ability reproduce awesome bass.

And yet you still won't put these claims to the test. The offer
stands.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 06:55:12 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


Or, conversely, he could just cut a CD with excerpts from
some of the LPs he's talking about, and send it to Arny.

That was what I offered to do.

If Scott is right and Arny is honest, he will certainly
admit that the LPs sound as good as Scott says they are.

That's not what I promised. What I promised is correct identification.

I don't really care what you promised to do, Arny. Scott maintains that his
vinyl playback setup with some of his records sounds as good as a CD. It
seems to me that's the crux of the debate. If he sent you some excerpts from
LPs that he thinks are superior, then it would seem to me that if they are,
indeed, superior sounding that you would at least be honest enough, and man
enough to admit it. A lot of people with your biases would be loathe to admit
such a thing even if proved wrong by such a demonstration, but I would hope
that the regulars who post here wouldn't be among those.

The whole business of "sounds good" is a matter of perceptions and
preferences, which are very personal to each listener.

In some cases, of course. But I have some LPs that are so clearly superior
and more lifelike in their sound than the CD of the same performance, that
anyone who would disagree would do so for only one reason - they are lying.
I've never said that LPs are incapable of sounding good enough for many
people. What I said is that unlike the CD format, the LP format imposes a
sonic signature, actually a suite of sonic signatures, that are possible to
hear.

I don't disagree with that at all. Sometimes the LPs sound better than the
CDs IN SPITE of that sonic signature, simply because they are better
mastered.

What I should do is make a CD of part of the "Firebird"
LP and follow it with the same excerpt from the
"Firebird" CD. I'm sure that the differences between the
LP and CD are great enough to easily be revealed by a CD
copy.

I'm sure the differences are easily revealed by a comparison that is
delivered on a CD.

Me too.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 06:55:01 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


Now how the heck can an LP transfered to CD sound better
on the CD than the source record? This I've gotta see!

Playing digital transcriptions made under controlled conditions avoids a
potential source of acoustic feedback during the playback of the LP. It
also provides an opportunity to encapsulate a precisely set up LP playback
system before the inevitable drift of its mechanical adjustments and
degradation of the stylus and media takes place. Digital transcriptions also
provide the opportunity to remove extraneous noises by various well-known
means such as editing and declicking.



Yes, that's true, but I don't think it's what the OP had in mind when he made
that statement (and certainly not what I had in mind when I answered it).

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 06:54:49 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Andrew Haley" wrote in
message

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Audio Empire wrote:

There's one sure way to reproduce the quality of the
Lp on CD: record the output from your preamp with a
good ADC.

Been there, done that. It works fine. It's even better
when the LP is transferred to 24/96 or higher.

It shouldn't be. 16 bits already suffices for the
dynamic range of LPs; 22 kHz suffices for their
frequency range, unless your hearing, and the recording,
are both *quite* remarkable.

Our ability to hear musical sounds above 16 KHz is highly dependent on the
specific characteristics of the music itself. In general it is masking, not
any high frequency cutoff that is audible with pure tones, that limits our
ability to hear these sounds. Sounds above 16 KHz strongly tend to be masked
by related musical sounds in the octave from 8 to 16 KHz. There are a few
rarely used musical instruments that produce their strongest output above 12
KHz but they are highly esoteric and they are not used by either
contemporary or traditional western music.

Or you're a 12-year-old child. I guess that's unlikely.
-)

Masking works for everybody, even young children.

Brian Moore says "young children can often hear tones as
high as 20 kHz." Zwicker and Fastl reckon that even by
the age of 20 the limit above which no sensation is
produced is between 16 and 18 kHz, provided that the
subject has not already been exposed to sounds with
levels that produce a hearing loss. I wonder how often
that happens these days...

If sounds above 16 Khz are pure tones and played at really intense levels,
then they might be reliably perceived by adults. Ringtones that are designed
to not be heard by adults exploit this. High frequencies do not propigate
well. They are absorbed by most architectural materials so they decay
rapidly when they bounce around the room. They are severely attenuated by
passage through the air, particularly air that is not chilly and dry. A room
that is confortably warm and not desert-dry soaks up high frequency sound
like a sponge.



Yet electronics and speakers that do not reproduce high frequencies above 12
KHz well can easily be detected as being "deficient in highs", even though
audiometry says that a large portion of the population has little auditory
response above 10-12 KHz. It's been obvious to me for some years that there
is something going on here that needs further study.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 06:53:04 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


This is not some subtle differences
that amount to counting angels dancing on the head of a
pin. These are substantial differences in content. These
are cases where the CD doesn't ever turn-on my
self-powered subwoofers, but the LP does - and at exactly
the same volume via my HP 400E audio VTVM. This indicates
that the low frequency content of the CD is not
sufficient to trigger the auto-on circuitry in the subs.

It is highly probable that the source of LF material that you observe while
playing the LPs is the playback system as opposed to the original
performance.

Nope. Were that the case, it would be true of all recordings, not just a
couple and it isn't. The LP in this case has tight, thunderous bass, the CD
is very thing sounding.

LPs are generally recorded with the LF rolled off and/or
summed to mono because of the well-known dynamic range issues that are
inherent in the LP format and absent from digital recordings.

This is a recent re-mastering (45 RPM, 200 Gram, single-sided vinyl). while
it was pretty standard procedure for the bass to be summed into the left
channel in the early days of stereo, that's not done any more.

This kind of extraneous LF noise being added during the playback process
almost always happens, and often becomes an easy way to distinguish
transcriptions of LPs from CDs. It is inherent in the tonearm/cartridge
system. One way to hear it more clearly is to listen with certain IEMs and
benefit from their ability reproduce awesome bass.

Again, were this the answer it would be apparent on all LP playback, not just
this one particular one particular Mercury re-mastering. You seem to be going
to an awful lot of trouble here to hold on to your prejudices, grasping at
every technological straw you can find. Why not just admit that what I'm
saying here is POSSIBLE and let it go at that? Is your bias so exorbitant
that you would sacrifice your credibility to it? IOW, methinks the man doth
protest too much.

[bob]

On Feb 10, 4:14=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

I don't really care what you promised to do, Arny. Scott maintains that h=
is
vinyl playback setup with some of his records sounds as good as a CD.

To him. (Which is all that matters.)

It
seems to me that's the crux of the debate. If he sent you some excerpts f=
rom
LPs that he thinks are superior, then it would seem to me that if they ar=
e,
indeed, superior sounding that you would at least be honest enough, and m=
an
enough to admit it. A lot of people with your biases would be loathe to a=
dmit
such a thing even if proved wrong by such a demonstration, but I would ho=
pe
that the regulars who post here wouldn't be among those. =A0

The problem is that we have no agreed-upon objective standard for
"superior sounding." It's quite possible that the LP selections could
be superior along some dimensions. It is absolutely certain that the
digital versions will be superior along other dimensions. If you think
a few extra dB of dynamic range is all-important, and I think too much
phase distortion makes music unlistenable, we are going to come to
different conclusions about things. And neither of us is wrong.

The whole business of "sounds good" is a matter of perceptions and
preferences, which are very personal to each listener.

In some cases, of course. But I have some LPs that are so clearly superio=
r
and more lifelike in their sound than the CD of the same performance, tha=
t
anyone who would disagree would do so for only one reason - =A0they are l=
ying.

Given that your standard is "one man's opinion," this is an overreach.
You either don't mind audible phase distortion or actively prefer it.
Others might differ. That's preference, and you can't argue about it.

That's not to say there aren't CDs out there that are so bad even Arny
would agree that the vinyl version is an improvement. But I'm not sure
what you would prove by identifying an example.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 06:53:04 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

This is not some subtle differences
that amount to counting angels dancing on the head of a
pin. These are substantial differences in content. These
are cases where the CD doesn't ever turn-on my
self-powered subwoofers, but the LP does - and at
exactly the same volume via my HP 400E audio VTVM. This
indicates that the low frequency content of the CD is
not sufficient to trigger the auto-on circuitry in the
subs.

It is highly probable that the source of LF material
that you observe while playing the LPs is the playback
system as opposed to the original performance.

Nope. Were that the case, it would be true of all
recordings, not just a couple and it isn't.

There can be other variables. For example if a LP is cut at a lower level,
the gain might be turned up to play it, which would increase the propensity
for LF noise.

Another explanation is that there may be some program material in this LP at
low frequencies, which combines with the general tendency for LF feedback
during LP playback in such a way that it is stimulated.

The LP in this case has tight, thunderous bass, the CD is very
thin sounding.

This could be a situation where the comparison is unintentionally
cherry-picked, and not generally characteristic of LPs and CDs. There's
little to be learned from a few exceptional cases that are not
generalizable.

LPs are generally recorded with the LF rolled off and/or
summed to mono because of the well-known dynamic range
issues that are inherent in the LP format and absent
from digital recordings.

This is a recent re-mastering (45 RPM, 200 Gram,
single-sided vinyl). while it was pretty standard
procedure for the bass to be summed into the left channel
in the early days of stereo, that's not done any more.

That appears to be an unsupported assertion. Neither remastering, nor
operation at 45 rpm, nor being single-sided vinyl has other than marginal
effects on the LPs inherent dynamic range limiations, particularly at bass
frequencies.


This kind of extraneous LF noise being added during the
playback process almost always happens, and often
becomes an easy way to distinguish transcriptions of LPs
from CDs. It is inherent in the tonearm/cartridge
system. One way to hear it more clearly is to listen
with certain IEMs and benefit from their ability
reproduce awesome bass.

Again, were this the answer it would be apparent on all
LP playback, not just this one particular one particular
Mercury re-mastering.

If we're talking about one and only one Mercury remastering, then there is
little to be learned from studying such an exceptional case.

You seem to be going to an awful
lot of trouble here to hold on to your prejudices,

What prejudices?

grasping at every technological straw you can find.

The issues I raise are not "technological straws" but are rather why the LP
format is generally considered to be totally obsolete.

Why
not just admit that what I'm saying here is POSSIBLE and
let it go at that? Is your bias so exorbitant that you
would sacrifice your credibility to it? IOW, methinks the
man doth protest too much.

Please Send me a digitized copy of some samples of it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


Yet electronics and speakers that do not reproduce high
frequencies above 12 KHz well can easily be detected as
being "deficient in highs", even though audiometry says
that a large portion of the population has little
auditory response above 10-12 KHz. It's been obvious to
me for some years that there is something going on here
that needs further study.

Most (actually just about all) electronics and speakers that roll off the
frequencies above 12 KHz aren't brick wall filters. They almost always have
far gentler slopes. This means that if 12 KHz is 3 db down, then 6 Khz is
maybe about 1 dB down and KHz is close to 2 dB down. Those are pretty
audible effects.

Many people are pretty irritated by things like a fairly narrow peak around
9-10 KHz if listening to program material with substantial output there.
The majority of the energy in cymbals is around 7-8 KHz. People notice
fairly small changes in that realm, and its usually significantly affected
by typical roll-offs above 12 KHz.

I frequently adjust my SR systems in this realm and I include other people
in my evaluations of the results.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 06:55:12 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

Or, conversely, he could just cut a CD with excerpts
from some of the LPs he's talking about, and send it to
Arny.

That was what I offered to do.

If Scott is right and Arny is honest, he will certainly
admit that the LPs sound as good as Scott says they are.

That's not what I promised. What I promised is correct
identification.

I don't really care what you promised to do, Arny.

That seems very disrespectful.

Scott maintains that his vinyl playback setup with some of his
records sounds as good as a CD.

Since there is no generally-agreed-upon definition of "sounds as good", that
seems to be a fool's mission.

It seems to me that's the crux of the debate.

Then the debate is foolish because you've turned it into a duel of personal
preferences.


If he sent you some excerpts from LPs
that he thinks are superior, then it would seem to me
that if they are, indeed, superior sounding that you
would at least be honest enough, and man enough to admit
it.

You mean that you haven't noticed that the perception of superior sound is
largely subjective once sound quality is at a respectible level?

A lot of people with your biases would be loathe to
admit such a thing even if proved wrong by such a
demonstration, but I would hope that the regulars who
post here wouldn't be among those.

As long as this is an event involving dueling preferences, the outcome
favors the person with the loudest voice.

The whole business of "sounds good" is a matter of
perceptions and preferences, which are very personal to
each listener.

In some cases, of course.

Well, if this is true only part of the time, how do we a priori determine
which kind of time this is?

But I have some LPs that are so
clearly superior and more lifelike in their sound than
the CD of the same performance, that anyone who would
disagree would do so for only one reason - they are
lying.

Lets say that there are a few exceptional cases where this is the situation.
What global rule can we form from this knowlege? I say: none.

I've never said that LPs are incapable of sounding good
enough for many people. What I said is that unlike the
CD format, the LP format imposes a sonic signature,
actually a suite of sonic signatures, that are possible
to hear.

I don't disagree with that at all. Sometimes the LPs
sound better than the CDs IN SPITE of that sonic
signature, simply because they are better mastered.

Mistakes are made, but trying to make a general rule out of a few random
mistakes seems like a waste of time.

What I should do is make a CD of part of the "Firebird"
LP and follow it with the same excerpt from the
"Firebird" CD. I'm sure that the differences between the
LP and CD are great enough to easily be revealed by a CD
copy.

I'm sure the differences are easily revealed by a
comparison that is delivered on a CD.

Me too.

There are so many different versions of the Firebird that there are no doubt
any number of them on CD that sound great.

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message


That's not to say there aren't CDs out there that are so
bad even Arny would agree that the vinyl version is an
improvement. But I'm not sure what you would prove by
identifying an example.

I'll go further than that. I'll stipulate that there are CDs that are so
flawed that at least for a while the LPs were preferable, to me.

One example is the origional CD version of Billy Joel's Nylon Curtain. It
was originally issued in 1982 and the CD sounded very harsh. The LP was OK.
It was reissued on CD in 1990, 1998, and 2008. I believe that the 1990
version sounded at least OK.

Another example was if memorys serves Sheffield's I've got the Music in me.
The LP sounded great. The first CD transcription had a yellow cover and
sounded very substandard. The second transcription had a brown cover and
sounded at least as good as the LP.

Both of these are tales of questionable mastering, not the limitatiions of
the CD format.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 10, 6:55=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in message



Or, conversely, he could just cut a CD with excerpts from
some of the LPs he's talking about, and send it to Arny.

That was what I offered to do.

Interesting. You are happy to do an unproctored test but refuse to do
a proctored test.


If Scott is right and Arny is honest, he will certainly
admit that the LPs sound as good as Scott says they are.

That's not what I promised. What I promised is correct identification.


You didn't "promise" anything. you made specific assertions about the
audible effects of vinyl playback and I challenged you to prove it
under blind conditions. You chose not to subject your assertions to
such a test. This was the assertion. "No LP can truely be great
sounding except in the imaginations of those very few people who look
on a medium that is hobbled by relatively massive amounts of audible
noise and distoriton as being beneficial." Under blind conditions I
would ask you to rate the sound quality of each sample as well as
identify it as being sourced from vinyl or not. Your claim is that no
LP can truly be great sounding. rating each sample would put that
claim to the test. Your ability to identify whether or not each sample
was sourced from vinyl or not would put your broader claims about the
audible colorations of vinyl to the test. So the test would include
identification, which you seem to believe you promised to do and sound
quality apraisal.

Post number ninety from this thread
" More options Jan 30, 7:22 am
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 30 Jan 2011 15:22:17 GMT
Local: Sun, Jan 30 2011 7:22 am
Subject: LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
"Rockinghorse Winner"
wrote in message

That says it all. No LP can truely be great sounding except in the
imaginations of those very few people who look on a medium that is
hobbled
by relatively massive amounts of audible noise and distoriton as
being
beneficial."

The whole business of "sounds good" is a matter of perceptions and
preferences, which are very personal to each listener.

And you have made your clear. "no LP can truly be great sounding."
Lets put that assertion to the test under blind conditions.


I've never said that LPs are incapable of sounding good enough for many
people. What I said is that unlike the CD format, =A0the LP format impose=
s a
sonic signature, actually a suite of sonic signatures, that are possible =
to
hear.

And let's put that to the test as well. Under blind conditions by ear
only. after all they are possible to "hear" and you "promised" correct
identification.


What I should do is make a CD of part of the "Firebird"
LP and follow it with the same excerpt from the
"Firebird" CD. I'm sure that the differences between the
LP and CD are great enough to easily be revealed by a CD
copy.

I'm sure the differences are easily revealed by a comparison that is
delivered on a CD.

Of course the differences are easy to identify. but that isn't the
issue. The colorations of vinyl per se are what you are claiming you
can identify by ear. And you are claiming that no LP can truly sound
great. Those are the assertions I want to put to the test under blind
conditions by ear alone.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 10, 4:08=A0pm, bob wrote:
On Feb 10, 4:14=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

I don't really care what you promised to do, Arny. Scott maintains that=
his
vinyl playback setup with some of his records sounds as good as a CD.

To him. (Which is all that matters.)

It
seems to me that's the crux of the debate. If he sent you some excerpts=
from
LPs that he thinks are superior, then it would seem to me that if they =
are,
indeed, superior sounding that you would at least be honest enough, and=
man
enough to admit it. A lot of people with your biases would be loathe to=
admit
such a thing even if proved wrong by such a demonstration, but I would =
hope
that the regulars who post here wouldn't be among those. =A0

The problem is that we have no agreed-upon objective standard for
"superior sounding."

You don't need an objective standard. what I am seeking is a bias
controlled test. If you or Arny or anyone else consistantly point out
the samples that you feel are audibly degraded by vinyl colorations
and consistantly grade them as low in sound quality then the point is
proven.

It's quite possible that the LP selections could
be superior along some dimensions. It is absolutely certain that the
digital versions will be superior along other dimensions.

If that is the case then it should be reflected in bias controlled
tests of various LPs and CDs

If you think
a few extra dB of dynamic range is all-important, and I think too much
phase distortion makes music unlistenable, we are going to come to
different conclusions about things. And neither of us is wrong.

That is true. But if you find phase distortion inherent in LP playback
unlistenable it should be really easy to identify such distortions and
pick out the vinyl samples form the CD samples under blind conditions.
No?


The whole business of "sounds good" is a matter of perceptions and
preferences, which are very personal to each listener.

In some cases, of course. But I have some LPs that are so clearly super=
ior
and more lifelike in their sound than the CD of the same performance, t=
hat
anyone who would disagree would do so for only one reason - =A0they are=
lying.

Given that your standard is "one man's opinion," this is an overreach.
You either don't mind audible phase distortion or actively prefer it.
Others might differ. That's preference, and you can't argue about it.

Indeed we can't argue about preferences. but we can test to see if
those are the actual preferences under blind conditions.



That's not to say there aren't CDs out there that are so bad even Arny
would agree that the vinyl version is an improvement. But I'm not sure
what you would prove by identifying an example.


How about we use top quality recordings with CD masterings that are
actually quite good? That was what I was palnning anyway.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:08:59 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 10, 4:14=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

I don't really care what you promised to do, Arny. Scott maintains that h=
is
vinyl playback setup with some of his records sounds as good as a CD.

To him. (Which is all that matters.)

It
seems to me that's the crux of the debate. If he sent you some excerpts f=
rom
LPs that he thinks are superior, then it would seem to me that if they ar=
e,
indeed, superior sounding that you would at least be honest enough, and m=
an
enough to admit it. A lot of people with your biases would be loathe to a=
dmit
such a thing even if proved wrong by such a demonstration, but I would ho=
pe
that the regulars who post here wouldn't be among those. =A0

The problem is that we have no agreed-upon objective standard for
"superior sounding."

Not needed. It either sounds like a real orchestra playing in real space or
it doesn't. If the LP sounds like a modern recording, made with good
microphones that have decent frequency response and the CD sounds more like
an early electrical transcription from the late 1920's, then it doesn't take
a recording expert or someone with a season ticket to the NY Philharmonic to
be able to decide which sounds best. That's the level of difference we're
talking about here.


It's quite possible that the LP selections could
be superior along some dimensions. It is absolutely certain that the
digital versions will be superior along other dimensions. If you think
a few extra dB of dynamic range is all-important, and I think too much
phase distortion makes music unlistenable, we are going to come to
different conclusions about things. And neither of us is wrong.

Not in this particular case. It's unambiguous.

The whole business of "sounds good" is a matter of perceptions and
preferences, which are very personal to each listener.

In some cases, of course. But I have some LPs that are so clearly superio=
r
and more lifelike in their sound than the CD of the same performance, tha=
t
anyone who would disagree would do so for only one reason - =A0they are l=
ying.

Given that your standard is "one man's opinion," this is an overreach.
You either don't mind audible phase distortion or actively prefer it.
Others might differ. That's preference, and you can't argue about it.

Again, not in this case. You haven't heard the comparison. the CD is really
BAD.

That's not to say there aren't CDs out there that are so bad even Arny
would agree that the vinyl version is an improvement. But I'm not sure
what you would prove by identifying an example.

Nothing really. It just seems that Arny doth protest too much.




bob

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:10:07 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 06:53:04 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):



[ Excessive quotation deleted. -- dsr ]



Why
not just admit that what I'm saying here is POSSIBLE and
let it go at that? Is your bias so exorbitant that you
would sacrifice your credibility to it? IOW, methinks the
man doth protest too much.

Please Send me a digitized copy of some samples of it.


OK. send me an E-mail with your mailing address.

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:59:57 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 06:55:12 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

Or, conversely, he could just cut a CD with excerpts
from some of the LPs he's talking about, and send it to
Arny.

That was what I offered to do.

If Scott is right and Arny is honest, he will certainly
admit that the LPs sound as good as Scott says they are.

That's not what I promised. What I promised is correct
identification.

I don't really care what you promised to do, Arny.

That seems very disrespectful.

Scott maintains that his vinyl playback setup with some of his
records sounds as good as a CD.

Since there is no generally-agreed-upon definition of "sounds as good", that
seems to be a fool's mission.

It seems to me that's the crux of the debate.

Then the debate is foolish because you've turned it into a duel of personal
preferences.


If he sent you some excerpts from LPs
that he thinks are superior, then it would seem to me
that if they are, indeed, superior sounding that you
would at least be honest enough, and man enough to admit
it.

You mean that you haven't noticed that the perception of superior sound is
largely subjective once sound quality is at a respectible level?

Of course, but what you don't seem to get is that in this particular case,
the sound level of the CD hasn't reached that "respectable level"

There are so many different versions of the Firebird that there are no doubt
any number of them on CD that sound great.

No doubt. This one isn't one of them, however.

[Edward Morris]

Hello Scott,
I've been following this thread in it's entirety. I'm a music major. I am
music director at a church and play piano and organ. I've have numerous
recordings from LP's, CD's, reel-to-reel, 8-track and cassette. I have a
Cambridge Audio Azur 840C cd player and a Music Hall MMR 7.1 turntable with
a McIntosh C22 preamp, Quicksilver monoblocks and Klipsch La Scalas. I bet
you if there's a difference, I can hear it. If you want me to take part in
this "test", let me know.

Thanks,
Eddie


[ Please don't top-post. -- dsr ]




"Scott" wrote in message
...
On Feb 10, 6:55=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in message



Or, conversely, he could just cut a CD with excerpts from
some of the LPs he's talking about, and send it to Arny.

That was what I offered to do.

Interesting. You are happy to do an unproctored test but refuse to do
a proctored test.


If Scott is right and Arny is honest, he will certainly
admit that the LPs sound as good as Scott says they are.

That's not what I promised. What I promised is correct identification.


You didn't "promise" anything. you made specific assertions about the
audible effects of vinyl playback and I challenged you to prove it
under blind conditions. You chose not to subject your assertions to
such a test. This was the assertion. "No LP can truely be great
sounding except in the imaginations of those very few people who look
on a medium that is hobbled by relatively massive amounts of audible
noise and distoriton as being beneficial." Under blind conditions I
would ask you to rate the sound quality of each sample as well as
identify it as being sourced from vinyl or not. Your claim is that no
LP can truly be great sounding. rating each sample would put that
claim to the test. Your ability to identify whether or not each sample
was sourced from vinyl or not would put your broader claims about the
audible colorations of vinyl to the test. So the test would include
identification, which you seem to believe you promised to do and sound
quality apraisal.

Post number ninety from this thread
" More options Jan 30, 7:22 am
Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end
From: "Arny Krueger"
Date: 30 Jan 2011 15:22:17 GMT
Local: Sun, Jan 30 2011 7:22 am
Subject: LP vs CD - Again. Another Perspective
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
"Rockinghorse Winner"
wrote in message

That says it all. No LP can truely be great sounding except in the
imaginations of those very few people who look on a medium that is
hobbled
by relatively massive amounts of audible noise and distoriton as
being
beneficial."

The whole business of "sounds good" is a matter of perceptions and
preferences, which are very personal to each listener.

And you have made your clear. "no LP can truly be great sounding."
Lets put that assertion to the test under blind conditions.


I've never said that LPs are incapable of sounding good enough for many
people. What I said is that unlike the CD format, =A0the LP format impose=
s a
sonic signature, actually a suite of sonic signatures, that are possible =
to
hear.

And let's put that to the test as well. Under blind conditions by ear
only. after all they are possible to "hear" and you "promised" correct
identification.


What I should do is make a CD of part of the "Firebird"
LP and follow it with the same excerpt from the
"Firebird" CD. I'm sure that the differences between the
LP and CD are great enough to easily be revealed by a CD
copy.

I'm sure the differences are easily revealed by a comparison that is
delivered on a CD.

Of course the differences are easy to identify. but that isn't the
issue. The colorations of vinyl per se are what you are claiming you
can identify by ear. And you are claiming that no LP can truly sound
great. Those are the assertions I want to put to the test under blind
conditions by ear alone.

[bob]

On Feb 11, 9:46=A0am, Scott wrote:
On Feb 10, 4:08=3DA0pm, bob wrote:

The problem is that we have no agreed-upon objective standard for
"superior sounding."

You don't need an objective standard. what I am seeking is a bias
controlled test. If you or Arny or anyone else consistantly point out
the samples that you feel are audibly degraded by vinyl colorations
and consistantly grade them as low in sound quality then the point is
proven.

But all we have to do in that case is identify which are the vinyl
samples. That's trivially easy to do. And once we've done that, the
question of which sounds better isn't even a blind test anymore. Vinyl
fans will say the vinyl samples sound better, digital fans the
opposite. You've proven nothing.

bob

[bob]

On Feb 11, 9:46=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:08:59 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

The problem is that we have no agreed-upon objective standard for
"superior sounding."

Not needed. It either sounds like a real orchestra playing in real space =
or
it doesn't.

Well then that's your standard. Except that it's not a standard,
because you and Arny almost certainly disagree about what "a real
orchestra playing in a real space" sounds like. You think it includes
audible phase distortion. He does not. So all your "test" will show is
that you and he have different preferences.

If the LP sounds like a modern recording, made with good
microphones that have decent frequency response and the CD sounds more li=
ke
an early electrical transcription from the late 1920's, then it doesn't t=
ake
a recording expert or someone with a season ticket to the NY Philharmonic=
to
be able to decide which sounds best.

Exactly--"decide which sounds best." That's preference, and it's not a
standard.

snip

That's not to say there aren't CDs out there that are so bad even Arny
would agree that the vinyl version is an improvement. But I'm not sure
what you would prove by identifying an example.

Nothing really. It just seems that Arny doth protest too much.

So Arny doesn't share your preferences. Big deal.

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 11, 7:46=A0am, bob wrote:
On Feb 11, 9:46=3DA0am, Scott wrote:

On Feb 10, 4:08=3D3DA0pm, bob wrote:

The problem is that we have no agreed-upon objective standard for
"superior sounding."

You don't need an objective standard. what I am seeking is a bias
controlled test. If you or Arny or anyone else consistantly point out
the samples that you feel are audibly degraded by vinyl colorations
and consistantly grade them as low in sound quality then the point is
proven.

But all we have to do in that case is identify which are the vinyl
samples. That's trivially easy to do.

That is what you say. It is my opinion that it will be pretty close to
impossible.

And once we've done that, the
question of which sounds better isn't even a blind test anymore. Vinyl
fans will say the vinyl samples sound better, digital fans the
opposite. You've proven nothing.

I agree that *if* it were so easy to make that ID by ear the rest
would follow as you say. But I don't believe the ID will be the least
bit easy. And that will keep the testee honest or catch him or her if
they are not. That is the primary part of the challenge. i'm saying
Arny and you and others will fail at reliably identifying the LP
samples as LP samples by ear alone.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 11, 7:46=A0am, bob wrote:
On Feb 11, 9:46=3DA0am, Audio Empire wrote:



On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:08:59 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):
The problem is that we have no agreed-upon objective standard for
"superior sounding."

Not needed. It either sounds like a real orchestra playing in real spac=
e =3D
or
it doesn't.

Well then that's your standard. Except that it's not a standard,
because you and Arny almost certainly disagree about what "a real
orchestra playing in a real space" sounds like. You think it includes
audible phase distortion. He does not.

That is not what he thinks. Jeez. Neither of them think a real
orchestra playing in a real space comes from two speakers in a
relatively small room either. Stereo recording and playback is an
attmept at an *aural illusion* That certain colorations improve that
*illusion* does not mean one believes that the same colorations need
to be present in the original acoustic event. My god I can prove to
you that *even you* prefer certain distortions and think they sound
more realistic when it comes to stereo recording and playback than
distortion free stereo recording and playback. I can prove that to you
on this thread.


So all your "test" will show is
that you and he have different preferences.

It actually could show they have the same preferences and different
biases.

[Andrew Haley]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 06:54:49 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Andrew Haley" wrote in
message

Zwicker and Fastl reckon that even by the age of 20 the limit
above which no sensation is produced is between 16 and 18 kHz,
provided that the subject has not already been exposed to sounds
with levels that produce a hearing loss. I wonder how often that
happens these days...

If sounds above 16 Khz are pure tones and played at really intense
levels, then they might be reliably perceived by adults. Ringtones
that are designed to not be heard by adults exploit this. High
frequencies do not propigate well. They are absorbed by most
architectural materials so they decay rapidly when they bounce
around the room. They are severely attenuated by passage through
the air, particularly air that is not chilly and dry. A room that
is confortably warm and not desert-dry soaks up high frequency
sound like a sponge.

Yet electronics and speakers that do not reproduce high frequencies
above 12 KHz well can easily be detected as being "deficient in
highs", even though audiometry says that a large portion of the
population has little auditory response above 10-12 KHz. It's been
obvious to me for some years that there is something going on here
that needs further study.

Maybe, but there may well be confounding variables: for example, a
speaker with a rolloff above 12 KHz may well have problems lower down.

It wouldn't be hugely difficult to find out if such an effect is real:
design an experiment (using a DSP and a known good speaker) that
reduces the frequency range of a signal until a difference is
perceived. (For all I know, Arny has already been there, done that,
and got the T-shirt...)

Andrew.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 11, 7:24=A0am, "Edward Morris" wrote:
Hello Scott,
I've been following this thread in it's entirety. =A0I'm a music major. =
=A0I am
music director at a church and play piano and organ. =A0I've have numerou=
s
recordings from LP's, CD's, reel-to-reel, 8-track and cassette. =A0I have=
a
Cambridge Audio Azur 840C cd player and a Music Hall MMR 7.1 turntable wi=
th
a McIntosh C22 preamp, Quicksilver monoblocks and Klipsch La Scalas. =A0I=
bet
you if there's a difference, I can hear it. =A0If you want me to take par=
t in
this "test", let me know.

I just want to be clear what it it I want to test and how. The
assertions being tested would that No Lp can truly sound great because
of the large amount of audible distortion inherent in LP playback. To
test this assertion I propose that I gather and transfer a substantial
number of samples from classical and acoustic recordings from LP and
CD. The testees will have to listent ot each sample, rate their sonci
excellence and try to identify the sample as LP sourced or not LP
sourced.

This is not a test of whether or not an LP and CD of the same title
sound the same. We are not testing for difference per se. We are
testing for audibly identifiable distortions of vinyl playback that
prevent any LP from truly sounding great.

[bob]

On Feb 11, 11:43=A0am, Scott wrote:
On Feb 11, 7:46=3DA0am, bob wrote:

But all we have to do in that case is identify which are the vinyl
samples. That's trivially easy to do.

That is what you say. It is my opinion that it will be pretty close to
impossible.

So it is your claim that vinyl reproduction does not have
characteristic audible distortion artifacts.

I think that would fall into the "extraordinary" category.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" wrote in message

On Feb 11, 7:46=A0am, bob wrote:
On Feb 11, 9:46=3DA0am, Scott wrote:

On Feb 10, 4:08=3D3DA0pm, bob
wrote:

The problem is that we have no agreed-upon objective
standard for "superior sounding."

You don't need an objective standard. what I am seeking
is a bias controlled test. If you or Arny or anyone
else consistantly point out the samples that you feel
are audibly degraded by vinyl colorations and
consistantly grade them as low in sound quality then
the point is proven.

But all we have to do in that case is identify which are
the vinyl samples. That's trivially easy to do.

That is what you say. It is my opinion that it will be
pretty close to impossible.

The challenge is up to you, Scott. Provide us a CD with a mixture of
well-mastered tracks that come from CDs and LPs. Your choice. Of course you
don't have to tell us which are which. We believe that we can sort the
tracks based on LP artifacts that will be clear to us. We'll tell you which
tracks we think are which, and you can match that up with the information
about their provenance, that only you know for sure.

[bob]

On Feb 11, 11:43=A0am, Scott wrote:
On Feb 11, 7:46=3DA0am, bob wrote:

Well then that's your standard. Except that it's not a standard,
because you and Arny almost certainly disagree about what "a real
orchestra playing in a real space" sounds like. You think it includes
audible phase distortion. He does not.

That is not what he thinks. Jeez. Neither of them think a real
orchestra playing in a real space comes from two speakers in a
relatively small room either. Stereo recording and playback is an
attmept at an *aural illusion*

If your "standard" is an illusion, I'd say that's game, set and match.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


Not needed. It either sounds like a real orchestra
playing in real space or it doesn't.

That's where we differ. I've never heard a recording that sounds exactly
like that orchestra playing in the place it was playing when the recording
was made.

If the LP sounds
like a modern recording, made with good microphones that
have decent frequency response and the CD sounds more
like an early electrical transcription from the late
1920's, then it doesn't take a recording expert or
someone with a season ticket to the NY Philharmonic to be
able to decide which sounds best. That's the level of
difference we're talking about here.

The only reason why a CD would sound like an early electrical transcription
from the late1920's would be the intention of the production crew to make it
sound that way.

The artifacts of electrical transcriptions from the late 1920s are so
characteristic that even poor engineering done with contemporary equipment
and methods can't duplicate it. Odds are high that the SQ of the modern
recording on CD would be better, despite the lack of skills or sloppiness.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 07:46:57 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 11, 9:46=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:08:59 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

The problem is that we have no agreed-upon objective standard for
"superior sounding."

Not needed. It either sounds like a real orchestra playing in real space =
or
it doesn't.

Well then that's your standard. Except that it's not a standard,
because you and Arny almost certainly disagree about what "a real
orchestra playing in a real space" sounds like. You think it includes
audible phase distortion. He does not. So all your "test" will show is
that you and he have different preferences.

If the LP sounds like a modern recording, made with good
microphones that have decent frequency response and the CD sounds more li=
ke
an early electrical transcription from the late 1920's, then it doesn't t=
ake
a recording expert or someone with a season ticket to the NY Philharmonic=
to
be able to decide which sounds best.

Exactly--"decide which sounds best." That's preference, and it's not a
standard.

snip

That's not to say there aren't CDs out there that are so bad even Arny
would agree that the vinyl version is an improvement. But I'm not sure
what you would prove by identifying an example.

Nothing really. It just seems that Arny doth protest too much.

So Arny doesn't share your preferences. Big deal.

bob


That's not it. Arny has made up his mind about this (and offering reason
(excuse?) after reason why the LP simply cannot sound as good as I say it
does) before he's even heard it. Once again, this isn't about preferences.
This is about a an excellent transfer of this material to LP and a lousy
transfer of the same performance to CD.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 07:46:57 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

On Feb 11, 9:46=A0am, Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:08:59 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):

The problem is that we have no agreed-upon objective standard for
"superior sounding."

Not needed. It either sounds like a real orchestra playing in real space =
or
it doesn't.

Well then that's your standard. Except that it's not a standard,
because you and Arny almost certainly disagree about what "a real
orchestra playing in a real space" sounds like. You think it includes
audible phase distortion. He does not. So all your "test" will show is
that you and he have different preferences.

So Arny is going to pick the CD because he thinks that a real orchestra
sounds like a an acoustic recording made back in Edison's day, with no bass
no highs and an exaggerated midrange? Is that what Arny likes? Are you saying
that people's taste vary so much that some will pick a recording that has no
bass, no real highs, has no dynamic range and sounds more like a telephone
than a high-fidelity recording? If that's true, then we have no common
ground here.

If the LP sounds like a modern recording, made with good
microphones that have decent frequency response and the CD sounds more li=
ke
an early electrical transcription from the late 1920's, then it doesn't t=
ake
a recording expert or someone with a season ticket to the NY Philharmonic=
to
be able to decide which sounds best.

Exactly--"decide which sounds best." That's preference, and it's not a
standard.

I give up!

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 10:32:33 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


Not needed. It either sounds like a real orchestra
playing in real space or it doesn't.

That's where we differ. I've never heard a recording that sounds exactly
like that orchestra playing in the place it was playing when the recording
was made.

If the LP sounds
like a modern recording, made with good microphones that
have decent frequency response and the CD sounds more
like an early electrical transcription from the late
1920's, then it doesn't take a recording expert or
someone with a season ticket to the NY Philharmonic to be
able to decide which sounds best. That's the level of
difference we're talking about here.

The only reason why a CD would sound like an early electrical transcription
from the late1920's would be the intention of the production crew to make it
sound that way.

OK I'm exaggerating a wee bit, but I'm trying to get across to ye doubting
thomases here the fact that difference between these two masterings of this
same performance are so different, and that CD sounds so bad that it's NOT
subtle, not trivial, and that nobody who doesn't wear two hearing aids would
possibly pick the CD over the LP in THIS case.

[bob]

On Feb 11, 2:59=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

So Arny is going to pick the CD because he thinks that a real orchestra
sounds like a an acoustic recording made back in Edison's day, with no ba=
ss
no highs and an exaggerated midrange? Is that what Arny likes? Are you sa=
ying
that people's taste vary so much that some will pick a recording that has=
no
bass, no real highs, has no dynamic range and sounds more like a telephon=
e
than a high-fidelity recording? =A0If that's =A0true, then we have no com=
mon
ground here.

I have no idea what Arny's going to pick, because I don't know Arny
and I don't know the recording in question. But Arny's already said
there are cases where he prefers a vinyl release--despite his obvious
antipathy to vinyl in general. So what is left to prove here?

And yes, it's quite possible that we have no--or at least very little--
common ground here. Despite all the handwaving, you are talking about
preferences, and other people may just have very, very different
preferences from yours.

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On Feb 11, 10:32=A0am, bob wrote:
On Feb 11, 11:43=3DA0am, Scott wrote:

On Feb 11, 7:46=3D3DA0am, bob wrote:
Well then that's your standard. Except that it's not a standard,
because you and Arny almost certainly disagree about what "a real
orchestra playing in a real space" sounds like. You think it includes
audible phase distortion. He does not.

That is not what he thinks. Jeez. Neither of them think a real
orchestra playing in a real space comes from two speakers in a
relatively small room either. Stereo recording and playback is an
attmept at an *aural illusion*

If your "standard" is an illusion, I'd say that's game, set and match.


Um Bob, You do understand that stereophonics and imaging of any sort
is an aural illusion no?
The standard is world class live music in a world class concert hall.
*But* the playback is only an attempt at an aural illusion of this
standard. Follow?

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message

On Feb 11, 11:43=A0am, Scott wrote:
On Feb 11, 7:46=3DA0am, bob wrote:

But all we have to do in that case is identify which
are the vinyl samples. That's trivially easy to do.

That is what you say. It is my opinion that it will be
pretty close to impossible.

So it is your claim that vinyl reproduction does not have
characteristic audible distortion artifacts.

I think that would fall into the "extraordinary" category.

Definately true. The unavoidable existence of these audible failings, and
the universal perception that these artifacts were indeed severe failings
was why future development of the LP format was terminated and a
multi-million-dollar search was initiated for a sequel format. Several
alternative formats were nearly brought to market but the current optical
digital format (CD) was the final outcome.