To me, SACD is also the best signal source. Maybe, just maybe, the nature of DSD noise helps? Plus very fast, not ringing step response.
That's right. I mean that LP, which is not perfect at all, may bring 'something' that is more acceptable to human ear than technically clinically reproduced sound. Both are far away from original sound, but LP may have imperfections that are more tolerable (for human perception) than plain technically correct reproduction.
Edit: wow, the post I answered disappeared
Edit: wow, the post I answered disappeared
Emotional Context
Certainly the last few posts show that when dealing with anything surrounding 'emotion,' context is God.
If the context is 'emotion' referring to an artists deliberate emotional intent, then the accuracy of the transmission media, be it AM radio, Shortwave, or cell phone cannot keep the emotion from conveying, especially if the emotion is encoded in words. Spoken language is a code which to a native speaker has high intelligibility at poor signal to noise ratios.
If the context of 'emotion' refers to that emotion a listener attaches to a specific song due to their history with it, you don't even need the work of art to be playing anywhere but in the persons head!
For the most part in these contexts, High Fidelity is not a prerequisite. So what emotional context does depend on the accuracy or some other attribute of the transmission media?
I contend that melodic emotion is not nearly as efficient an encoding and requires a higher signal to noise ratio to convey with the same degree of accuracy. Therefore instrumental music in general, and even sung melodies, and thier inherent emotional content is far more dependent on 'fidelity'...what ever that may mean.
However, I have a feeling that what is being probed around for here is none of the above, it is more some 'emotion' or feeling attached to a specific sonic attribute, not anything specific to the actual program content. In this context personal preference would seem to be a factor as well, so I don't think all of us will ever agree on what the 'best sound quality' is.
Wow, and I always wondered what Pandora's Box looked like...
Howard Hoyt
CE - WXYC-FM 89.3
UNC Chapel Hill
www.wxyc.org
1st on the Internet
Certainly the last few posts show that when dealing with anything surrounding 'emotion,' context is God.
If the context is 'emotion' referring to an artists deliberate emotional intent, then the accuracy of the transmission media, be it AM radio, Shortwave, or cell phone cannot keep the emotion from conveying, especially if the emotion is encoded in words. Spoken language is a code which to a native speaker has high intelligibility at poor signal to noise ratios.
If the context of 'emotion' refers to that emotion a listener attaches to a specific song due to their history with it, you don't even need the work of art to be playing anywhere but in the persons head!
For the most part in these contexts, High Fidelity is not a prerequisite. So what emotional context does depend on the accuracy or some other attribute of the transmission media?
I contend that melodic emotion is not nearly as efficient an encoding and requires a higher signal to noise ratio to convey with the same degree of accuracy. Therefore instrumental music in general, and even sung melodies, and thier inherent emotional content is far more dependent on 'fidelity'...what ever that may mean.
However, I have a feeling that what is being probed around for here is none of the above, it is more some 'emotion' or feeling attached to a specific sonic attribute, not anything specific to the actual program content. In this context personal preference would seem to be a factor as well, so I don't think all of us will ever agree on what the 'best sound quality' is.
Wow, and I always wondered what Pandora's Box looked like...
Howard Hoyt
CE - WXYC-FM 89.3
UNC Chapel Hill
www.wxyc.org
1st on the Internet
A couple of months ago, I posted about one researchers explanation for the difference between CD and vinyl. Since this subject keeps coming back around, that post appears to be on point again:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analog-line-level/146693-john-curls-blowtorch-preamplifier-part-ii-181.html#post2392562
The simple circuitry is shown for anyone who wants to try it. The output needs to be buffered into an input impedance >100kohms. The output impedance of the previous stage should be as low as possible, or the 10k resistors lowered in value by the same amount as the output impedance of the preceding stage.
It supplies an argument for vinyl adding "pleasing distortions".
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analog-line-level/146693-john-curls-blowtorch-preamplifier-part-ii-181.html#post2392562
The simple circuitry is shown for anyone who wants to try it. The output needs to be buffered into an input impedance >100kohms. The output impedance of the previous stage should be as low as possible, or the 10k resistors lowered in value by the same amount as the output impedance of the preceding stage.
It supplies an argument for vinyl adding "pleasing distortions".
Indeed, some people say that those people who prefer vinyl prefer it because it adds pleasant distortion.
My view is more like PM's and JC's view, that the faults of vinyl are more tolerable by the human ear than those of digital media. This isn't a general rule, since some people seem to actually like digital media, they hear no fault in it.
As for capturing emotions. There are few different phenomena.
One is the emotions that certain peace of music stirs in us, sometimes. Generally speaking, this has nothing to do with the sound quality of the reproduction system.
The second is the feeling that the reproduced sound sounds closer to live performance. For some people it definitely has an impact on the listening experience.
The third is an emotional experience that is present sometimes in live performance, but is never there when listening to reproduced music. Sometimes the conductor may be elated by the music, sweeping with him the orchestra and the audience. That elation, those emotions aren't expressed in sound waves and cannot be reproduced by electronic gear. At least not at present.
My view is more like PM's and JC's view, that the faults of vinyl are more tolerable by the human ear than those of digital media. This isn't a general rule, since some people seem to actually like digital media, they hear no fault in it.
As for capturing emotions. There are few different phenomena.
One is the emotions that certain peace of music stirs in us, sometimes. Generally speaking, this has nothing to do with the sound quality of the reproduction system.
The second is the feeling that the reproduced sound sounds closer to live performance. For some people it definitely has an impact on the listening experience.
The third is an emotional experience that is present sometimes in live performance, but is never there when listening to reproduced music. Sometimes the conductor may be elated by the music, sweeping with him the orchestra and the audience. That elation, those emotions aren't expressed in sound waves and cannot be reproduced by electronic gear. At least not at present.
Yeah, I agree with you. My analog system isn't the best - a vintage Thorens TD25mkII with a modified Rabco SL-8E linear tracking tonearm. I use the tape outs on tube phono preamp in an old Counterpoint SA-3 peamp for my phono preamp which sounds nice.
But, there is an easiness and musicality to the sound on good LP's that I don't get from any digital. Maybe it's distortion but don't know. With some tweeks, a better cart and phono preamp it could sound a lot better, I'm sure. But my SACD playback sounds cleaner and overall better at the present. I also hate messing with my LP rig - a tweakers dream and my nightmare. I can never leave the VTA, tracking weight or azimuth alone.
I'm waiting for the next analog format to come out ... Ha, Ha
Edit: wow, the post I answered disappeared
Sorry, I deleted that cause your two posts above answered my question. I wasn't quit sure what we were discussing here when I first tuned in this morning.
Last edited:
It is NOT distortion, it is in spite of some audible distortion. This can be proven by listening to a test record with the SAME music on both channels, BUT one side is digitized before being cut on the record. This has been done, and demonstrated at CES, decades ago. The same problem can be found even better by listening to the 30ips full track master tape vs a digitized version of the same master tape by just adding the AD-DA converter to the output of the master tape recorder. You know, A or B. Here, ONLY the digital problems are ADDED. Please everyone, try before you decide.
It's hard for me now to repeat the experiment, I carefully lined up the same passage from side A and side B and there were simple amplitude differences at some frequencies of more than 3dB. This is not simply interposing and A/D D/A in the chain. BTW I still couldn't tell a difference between the two.
Last edited:
I am sure that if you had the problem you would have solved it. I believe the way you use switches and relays you do not have the problems, the difference may show up with specific preconditioning and measurement techniques. I suspect there are quite a few conditions required to make the problem show up, except for the obviously broken cases. I am currently working on improving my test setup. If I get interesting repeatable data I will share it.
My last try at an A/B test used a 6 position switch with positions 1 & 2 known as A & B the other four were mixed and neither the operator of the switch or the listeners knew if they were connected to A or B. The results showed certain switch positions stood out not the devices under test. Measurements done after the listening tests showed the distortion change was due to the switch not the devices under test.
I have now found this limiting problem two ways. Once when I was testing cables I put in a forward reverse switch and found flipping the switch showed differences that stayed the same even when the cable under test was flipped. The conclusion was the switch added more distortion than the cable. (Not too unreasonable I think). The second time was doing the A/B test just mentioned. So it seems reasonable to devise a switch specific test.
There are two ways I am trying. One is using a Wheatstone bridge with a single switch in one leg. I expect to try 100 ohm to 10k both sides with an excitation voltage of 100mv. Then I may play with resistor values in the bridge. The second method is to apply 100nv or less from a 1khz triangle or sine wave to the device under test. The load will be the non-inverting input of 4 opamps in parallel. The first stage feedback resistors will be 1K into 10 ohms. This will be high passed around 100 and low passed around 10k to try and limit the noise a bit. This is the same test I plan to use for testing resistors under 1k for similar issues.
Your expectation is I will find nothing. Mine is I will find something and it often will not be what I am looking for. I presume you find nothing upsetting about the experiment.
Last edited:
I think that digital technology has improved since the decades ago that your CES demonstration was performed.
I think Richard Brice's test was better designed; i.e., comparing each of the vinyl and CD results to the ORIGINAL master tape. The CD sounded more like the ORIGINAL. However, he liked the vinyl copy better than the original. It is very easy to audition his processing by copying his demo files to a USB flash drive and playing through a Blu-ray player capable of playing such files.
I downloaded the music samples from his site, and did prefer the one using his process that "conformed" his recordings to Blumlein's recommendations. Even though they were in MP3 format, I found the processed files to be more natural sounding. They relieved a bit of that digital stress factor.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.