We have had topics on
the sometimes (many times) bad and compressed quality
of CD mastering of old vinyl recordings.
So, comparing the perceived quality of same album on
vinyl LP, CD, SACD can give false impressions/results
depeding on several other issues
than
because of the potential quality of the media.
My own thinking is that CD and SACD should be considerably better than Vinyl LPs.
When remastered from the original tapes.
Another thing is that there are LP recordings productions of many different kinds.
There are excellent, good and not so good ...
Same goes for CD, of course.
the sometimes (many times) bad and compressed quality
of CD mastering of old vinyl recordings.
So, comparing the perceived quality of same album on
vinyl LP, CD, SACD can give false impressions/results
depeding on several other issues
than
because of the potential quality of the media. My own thinking is that CD and SACD should be considerably better than Vinyl LPs.
When remastered from the original tapes.
Another thing is that there are LP recordings productions of many different kinds.
There are excellent, good and not so good ...
Same goes for CD, of course.
syn08 said:
SY, I know that much
I was about to ask why is high end audio the only industry (that I am aware of) not accepting double blind testing as an objective evaluation method?
I can't speak for anyone but myself on this...
THE main problem that I have with the published ABX or other "double blind" audio tests that I have thus far seen is that they have weak, poor, or non-existent controls and/or baseline technical parameters.
In particular one could not replicate the tests as published, since insufficient data is supplied.
Please feel free to email me actual tests that do not have this sort of flaw, or provide a link (free ones only please - I don't feel like paying to read something that is only more of the same again) or send an excerpt of said link if it is a pay link or otherwise convincing?
I think this is the main problem with these tests thus far - they are valid only for the specific test conditions, not generalizable.
Btw, Earl Geddes' Metric may provide more insights into this issue...
scott wurcer said:
That's because if you hear the orginal analog tapes of this, Hendrix's guitar is squealing like a stuck pig most of the time - it's in full bore oscillation, who knows why, but it is. They went in and cleaned it up using some fancy DSP I guess, and makes it palitable without the icky squeals throughout, but ruins the ambience...
_-_-bear
I have done this as well. I don't have Golden Ears (so far) and cannot hear many of the differences others can, but the CDs from vinyl do sound better than the same commercial CD. I presume this is more a mastering issue than anything else since my set up for recording CDs (Phillips CD Recorder) is not high end at all.
Lindsay
scott wurcer said:
scott,
best of both worlds
What exactly does this mean?
In this case?
Personally, I think, the expression 'best of both worlds'
is often used, in order to:
be able to sit on 2 different chairs at the same time.
We see this sometimes in politic and elsewhere.
Trying to be opportunistic and please several opinions
and not dare to take a personal stand in a matter, to stand up for one opinion of your own,
can turn out to make you just look a fool.
Might be as laughable and ridiculous as to see a person try to sit on 2 chairs
LHMAudio said:
Exactly the same setup for some of my transfers, Phillips CD recorder. I have also used a 24/96 Roland external box with about the same results dithered by Audition down to 16/44.1 but now I don't have to get the level right. I actually found it hard to get the dynamic range of the best LP's onto 16 bits.
Folks can say stuff like SACD sounds good but 16/44.1 sends them screaming out of the room, fine that's their experience. And usually questioning or testing these exagerated opinions is insulting and absurd.
bear said:
a) The whole drug development industry is based on double blind testing. If you don't believe in double blind testing, then stop taking pills, it's to dangerous for you.
b) A double blind test can be (by design or in error) flawed. But then usually you need to be a qualified mathematician/statistician to be able to make estimates regarding e.g. the error margins and the null hypothesis verifications. Gut feelings are not good enough.
c) Ultimately, any such test is providing a hypothesis associated with a certain degree of probability. If one expects to verify a hypothesis as 100% true, then that's beyond the scope of any statistical data analysis.
d) Work published in a peer reviewed journal is usually considered trustful and good quality. I know some people around (in particular JC) are debating the peer reviewing process, in particular for AES, see e) below.
e) Some people around seem to have an irrepressible urge to deny any process that would render statistically significant results (double blind, peer review, measurements, etc...), without providing any alternative. As I've said, if anybody has a better and generally accepted alternative to double blind testing, speak up.
Please don't confuse the issue. Just thinking that something is correct is not necessarily reality. MY reality is that CD is generally a disappointment, that super quality electronics can make many CD's OK but somewhat boring, and that SACD and DVD audio can sound better, all else being equal. This is from my PERSONAL experience with quality reproduction equipment, not some thought pattern.
bear said:
So true! Luckily enough, there are many good-willing souls that sit down at their fireplace, exchnage some cables in splendid isolation (the souls, not the cables) and, being free from all those shortcomings, can give us the objective (i.e. valid for all of us), uncolored, trustworthy trvth (tm)
Jan Didden
- Status
- Not open for further replies.