Is it a fact that this thread is becoming more like another, and that one more like this? Or is it my perception?
I mean: Yes, they should be saying "I" think it sounds better, or it comes across as a fact that it is better (closer to the original) , not an opinion, which it is. And again a vote should settle it.
Then so is your opinion that LPs "sound better".
Your making my point. So if they think they hear a fire flare up when its actually a lion roar, its a fact that the sound is a fire? No its their opinion that its a fire, the fact is its a roar.Your logic dosnt add up.
My opinion that LPs sound better is just a figment of your imagination 😀 Does rather destroy your point no?
Amusingly enough, for a large part thanks to 'digital'.
Back when, i had parts for a DIY Verdier turntable made at a specialist machine shop, use of megabuck CNC machinery at inter-corporate rate, fifty bucks for cigs and beer.
Nowadays, high accuracy sensors and CNC have become so affordable that top notch turntables can be manufactured at much reduced cost.
Not to mention the calculating wonders a $500 desktop can do, compared to 15-20 years ago and a thousand or so more (even an idiot can write in visual-b).
Last edited:
What doesn't add up to me is your continued mis-use of language. You haven't understood so I have no more to say on this particular topic 🙂 I take it you didn't seek out the vid.
This is a arguement? Running out of intelligent things to say? If your the only one who dosnt understand me thats your problem, if anyone else would like moer detail or clarification, I will be happy to give it.
Yes. I saw it. Ive been designing and editing sound effects for video for almost 20 years, its one of the first things you learn. The fire example. Very little to do with this discussion. Its mumbo jumbo introduced to side track, and then you leave? Thanks for adding nothing to this discussion. And again your opinion like mine is irelavant, thats why I try to stay away from opinions.
Be careful about using the term "reality". Have a look at this article on the brain & it's perception of reality - it seems to be time-delayed!
"In the early days of television, Eagleman told me, broadcasters noticed a similar phenomenon. Their engineers went to a great deal of trouble to synchronize sound and image, but it soon became clear that perfectionism was pointless. As long as the delay was less than a hundred milliseconds, no one noticed it"
Because of differences in the speed of signals reaching the brain from various senses & the different processing paths that the signals must undergo, The brain seems to do a holding type operation (& editorialising) before presenting it or as he says "Reality is a tape-delayed broadcast, carefully censored before it reaches us."
"“Living in the past may seem like a disadvantage, but it’s a cost that the brain is willing to pay,” Eagleman said. “It’s trying to put together the best possible story about what’s going on in the world, and that takes time.”
"In the early days of television, Eagleman told me, broadcasters noticed a similar phenomenon. Their engineers went to a great deal of trouble to synchronize sound and image, but it soon became clear that perfectionism was pointless. As long as the delay was less than a hundred milliseconds, no one noticed it"
Because of differences in the speed of signals reaching the brain from various senses & the different processing paths that the signals must undergo, The brain seems to do a holding type operation (& editorialising) before presenting it or as he says "Reality is a tape-delayed broadcast, carefully censored before it reaches us."
"“Living in the past may seem like a disadvantage, but it’s a cost that the brain is willing to pay,” Eagleman said. “It’s trying to put together the best possible story about what’s going on in the world, and that takes time.”
Last edited:
Thats what Ive been trying to say. But thats very hard to test so what you get is opinions that its more real: "the soundstage is wider on the LP so its more real" but they have no idea how wide the real soundstage was.
OK, I'm willing to give it another go. Why do you continue to say 'if they think they hear' when I'm talking about what people hear, not what people think they hear?
There is no try - either do, or do not. You've been doing the latter 😀 If I've introduced an opinion somewhere I agree it would be irrelevant. Now why did you introduce an imaginary opinion of mine in an earlier post?
Of course you object to it because you see its 'just opinion'. But that perception of yours that its 'just opinion' is a mis-perception. Hence why I mentioned the McGurk effect.
Dont know if I agree with that one. People are used to a delay in real life ( 1ms per foot) but 100ms is about 3 frames and thats getting up there. People are very in tune to dialogue and that much delay gets noticeable (we hear "somethings funny" with the sync from even green TV show producers). And if the sound is slightly before the picture (a frame or two) the brain gets confused, we use this sometimes to increase tension. Maybe in the early days people weren't as intune to this as now. Most trained people can tell when dialogue or hard effects are out 1 frame (24 to 30 ms) and we move sounds a frame or two all the time. Try it yourself sometimes. And as far as the perception delay, the brain must time align sight and hearing so they seem together, but it must be a constant delay so stuff that comes in out of sync stays out of sync when hits the brain.
Can you tell me how you know what they hear, you can only know what they think they hear. (again if they tell you they heard dad when the person was saying bad the real sound was bad, what they heard isnt real, even if they think its real. Some people think they hear Jesus talking to them, so then its real?)
Sorry I'm not trying to single any one out. The "Then so is your opinion that LPs "sound better". was supposed to be generic response.
Show me one opinion that Ive had.
What part exactly is opinion? If you have no idea what the original sound was like how can you know which reproduction is closer to it. Thats not an opinion.
Well of course I don't know at the start - that's the process of science, to reach knowledge. So its reasonable as a working hypothesis that they do indeed hear what they say they hear. The alternative would be that they're lying and we'd need strong evidence to go with that.
Sorry I can't see how 'you can only know what they think they hear' - please explain that claim and what you're basing it on.
If they don't offer a description for the sound they hear then its opinion yes. So saying 'this sounds bad' is most certainly opinion and I would agree with you.
To them, yes. So then if you're a therapist you accept it as real in the first instance and see where it leads. I take it you've not done any therapeutic training yourself?
You replied to something I wrote - you quoted my words. You claimed to rebut it based on your opinion that my opinion is that LPs sound better. How is that generic?
That is the best post in this thread for a while. 😀 Yes, you are among the minority. In general, the current definition of an audiophile is someone who wants the luxury of self indulgence that goes with the freedom to interchange components at home and genuinely believe that their listening impressions from such uncontrolled tests are caused by (and form a reasonable judgement of) the sound waves reaching their ears.
Very nice, agree totally. I always say it is a miracle of engineering that good LP sounds as great as it does, given that it is based on dragging a rock along a plastic gutter. Its failings are instantly audible and do detract from the musical enjoyment, but not nearly as much as problems in the studio. LP plus good studio work far surpasses CD plus ordinary studio work.
If there was the slightest evidence that people in controlled tests can distinguish a digital copy from an analogue master, this would be worth pursuing. But there isn't, so it isn't. 🙂
It's the opposite argument that I find most fun to read: that LP is adding magic goo to the sound that makes it sound better than digital, better than analog or digital masters, possibly even better than live music (although most LP fanatics stop short of this final claim unless they get particularly excited).
Thoroughly tested. Answer is no.
Primarily illusion. The arguments about measuring the wrong things these days are mainly focused on loudspeakers, not electronica.
<edit> ooops, replied to wrong poster originally 😀
Do you perchance have evidence for this opinion?
Last edited:
Let's see then - the list is ticked off
- digital is "blameless" & is indistinguishable from the master - check
- electronics are pretty much perfect - only speakers left to investigate - check
- everything else is just an illusion - check
- analogue's failings are instantly recognisable & therefore must be distinguishable from the master - check
Can I come over to your house for some of that perfect sound - I would love to experience it or else I could get some of that absolute surety potion that you have drunk of deeply?
- digital is "blameless" & is indistinguishable from the master - check
- electronics are pretty much perfect - only speakers left to investigate - check
- everything else is just an illusion - check
- analogue's failings are instantly recognisable & therefore must be distinguishable from the master - check
Can I come over to your house for some of that perfect sound - I would love to experience it or else I could get some of that absolute surety potion that you have drunk of deeply?
Neo, you've been down that road, you know where it leads. Its brand is 'Koolaid'.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.