Ok, I will do that test with a new record. with a unknowing audience. It will take me 2 weeks at least to find the CD's, new vinyl, and software to see the high frequency info. Keep in mind my speakers + turntable cost between 5k - 10k. I bet the results will vary on a 1K$ turntable.
You misunderstand the proposed test. It doesn't involve any CDs. Also, it is an extremely difficult test to do in a way that ensures 100% non-knowledge of which is playing, an LP or a rip of an LP So, you won't succeed at home.
Jay, there are no simple answers - I either just take what's there, as in a consumer item, and try and wring the best out of it; or, if it's effectively something from scratch, like building a brand new beast based on a design by somebody else, or a variation of a standard concept I would analyse it beforehand and pinpoint where the intrinsic weaknesses are, and work out theoretically where it has to be beefed up. Things like, that the power supply interference rejection would be extremely good, and that the distortion behaviour would have a 10x safety margin, that is, clean waveforms throughout the circuit at 200kHz.
I wasn't serious, because I knew from the start that skeptics would not find the conclusion valid for a quantum number of reasons.
Point is, common digital interfaces have more dynamic range, more frequency range, straight up more resolution than vinyl. Good rip of LP will sound just like LP.
Here is a concept...
I have mentioned previously about how something can modify a sound into something that is not ear-friendly...
So I want to familiarize a concept, such that people will take it into consideration when they compare or argue about sound...
It is not just about how far it is modified from reality, but it is also about what it is modified into.
In positive-feedback someone is reviewing a Leben CS600 (tube integrated) with another much more expensive class-D integrated amplifier. In general the review is that Leben has more "resolution" but it adds it's own "spice" while the class-D is more like the real thing, it is closer to live performance...
Now I want people to think this way...
Any reproduction systems WILL modify the sound. We know that tube amps tend to add it's own sound. We also know that digital amps tend to sound "natural" or adding a little (but we also know about HF filtering). But the question is not just how much but WHAT it changes the original sound into. Something that is ear-friendly, or something that is not...
"Upsampling", whether in CDP or in "digital" amplifier have the same issues. There is this HF residue that "modulates" the sound. If this has been addresses seriously, there would be a question regarding "audibility threshold": is it good enough* now?
*Unfortunately, only ears can give the answer to above question. Even ears are not sufficient. It requires "mind" I believe.
I have mentioned previously about how something can modify a sound into something that is not ear-friendly...
So I want to familiarize a concept, such that people will take it into consideration when they compare or argue about sound...
It is not just about how far it is modified from reality, but it is also about what it is modified into.
In positive-feedback someone is reviewing a Leben CS600 (tube integrated) with another much more expensive class-D integrated amplifier. In general the review is that Leben has more "resolution" but it adds it's own "spice" while the class-D is more like the real thing, it is closer to live performance...
Now I want people to think this way...
Any reproduction systems WILL modify the sound. We know that tube amps tend to add it's own sound. We also know that digital amps tend to sound "natural" or adding a little (but we also know about HF filtering). But the question is not just how much but WHAT it changes the original sound into. Something that is ear-friendly, or something that is not...
"Upsampling", whether in CDP or in "digital" amplifier have the same issues. There is this HF residue that "modulates" the sound. If this has been addresses seriously, there would be a question regarding "audibility threshold": is it good enough* now?
*Unfortunately, only ears can give the answer to above question. Even ears are not sufficient. It requires "mind" I believe.
Totally agree. I was concerned that a home-made test of this fact will all-too-easily produce a converse finding, due to the difficulty of the test requirement.
A simple analogy is an amplifier system. THD is one measure of how much a signal is modified (and this is related to sinewave input signal, not the actual recorded sound).
I think I know where you came from, your expertise.
Most of us cannot reproduce live music in his sound system, no matter how good it is and how bad our ears are... And that's not arrogance, may be the opposite is...?
Exactly, friends told me my system can reproduce a single instrument or small jazz bands. I didn't say that but musicians who just arrived from some concerts and listened.
Does it reproduce piano well, no. church-organs, no. Complex opera, no.
I prefer to practice piano, compose music, play music with friends and attend concerts with the money not spend on this:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I said it. Signal represents sound (you change the signal, you change the sound). We're soon talking about audibility threshold again here 😀
Okay, let's discuss about sound. But I have a feeling that you underestimate human ears, no?
True. But does it sound EXACTLY like LP? May be not. (It is about what is "added", not about what is lost).
Again, no. And for the reason you give: audibility thresholds. It is like you know your statement is wrong while you post it. Try it like this: "You change the signal, you maybe change the sound." Better. But not so much fun. You cannot make fun statements like "a tube amp changes the signal differently from a solid state amp, therefore they all sound imperfect in different ways." Wrong. "Therefore just pick the nicest sound." Wrong again.
I don't overestimate them. From your posts, that's exactly what you do.
And I don't underestimate the mind's ability to fabricate changed perceptions of sound independently from changes in sensation. That ability is huge, ongoing, unstoppable, and below awareness, yet the typical audiophile will assume it is zero. And then develop huge theories about the merits and problems of various technologies, based on that assumption. Then he will insist it is up to his detractors to disprove him, hah!
Last edited:
Think Mathematics. You're not an engineer??
Sound changes, regardless if we were deaf or not. There exist an ultrasonic sound regardless human audibility threshold.
Okay, so your point is, there exist a reproduction system which didn't change the sound (below audibility threshold) such that you cannot differentiate whether it is a live event or a reproduction system.
Wrong in term of what? (Note I haven't mentioned about tube versus SS).
You can design an amp with specific spectrum distribution. You can increase 2nd order distortion considerably so the sound will be "sweeet" or you can level low order distortions with the trade-off of increased 7th order and above.
If you can make a perfect sound system, then what I said is irrelevant. But if you believe that we live in an imperfect world, we need to choose and make priority.
Exactly, yes. I overestimate human's ears. And unless you know exactly about the issue, you either have to underestimate or overestimate.
My overestimation is seen from my hypothesis: "Even if you cannot hear distortion (such as in a blind test) it doesn't mean that you are not affected by it".
Exactly. Later we will see if you really don't underestimate that mind's ability.
I don't understand above statement (may be you can be more specific).
I said something about the effect of "intermodulation" in digital oversampling, or in digital amplifier. It is not something that I read. Remember this: I don't read books and then share what I have read. I only share what I have experienced first hand..
And naturally because I believe I have good ears, that is what I mainly like to share with others. Because, even if I knew a lot about a certain subject, I would highly prefer people to learn from somewhere else and not from me (I'm a professional, I'm paid for sharing my knowledge).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.