Thanks! I take this as a compliment but it is not something I realized in the first place. I have no merits in it. I have just learnt it and used it.
There is a little bit of confusion here between time evolution and time invariance! Time invariance means that the measurement is indipendent of the exact time you do it or if you like the transfer function of system does not explicitly depend on time.
A time variant system cannot give unique responses you can only guess a number in best case?
It this a way to retire? I am not here to win or lose. It's just a discussion. Several people where asking for something more than a simple "this is better and that is worse". It is a discussion on the principles which you derive everything from.
You wrote you have an issue with the logic. I have simply confirmed that there is an issue because you can detect it but it will never be the same. So, again, what do you do with it???
The question is about which medium gives the most accurate rendition of the original material. A scientist would say CD because it has less noise and distortion than vinyl. But a surprising number of people say vinyl without giving any justification for it. The debate is about why they say this and whether there is any scientific justification for it.
It is not the same as saying that you personally prefer the sound of vinyl to CD. I have no issue with that. Personal preferences are definitely not "invariant", you can change them any time you want for no reason at all. But personal preferences have nothing to do with science.
It is not the same as saying that you personally prefer the sound of vinyl to CD. I have no issue with that. Personal preferences are definitely not "invariant", you can change them any time you want for no reason at all. But personal preferences have nothing to do with science.
OMG ! They put the plastic cover upon the TT!
And...that's a tangential arm!
Beastie Boys - Sounds of Science Demo- Paul's Boutique Box Set - YouTube
And...that's a tangential arm!
Beastie Boys - Sounds of Science Demo- Paul's Boutique Box Set - YouTube
Yes and by definition the original material is invariant, at least in principle! The only non-invariance I can think of is deterioration but this doesn't happen from today to tomorrow and you can always replace it.
A scientist could say that BUT referring to the physical sound only, if that is the case!
The science of musical sound exists. That is the science that explains the music not the physics.
Personal preferences are only part of the non-invariance. It is the way our brain works that makes a listener non-invarinant independently from the others. Also one should not forget that our body is full of receptors connetcted more or less directly to the brain and the emotional state in presence of music, in this specific discussion, does not just depend on what goes through the ears.
Last edited:
Not really. I can get emotionally pretty excited by just the looks of a new, bright and shiny, expensive amp, even while it is still OFF! 😉
Jan
This is very true, I imagine every hi-fi enthusiast feels the same, otherwise they wouldn't be much of a hi-fi enthusiast. 🙂
On the other hand, if you want to design hi-fi equipment, it is good to separate the emotional responses caused by the sound waves, from the ones caused by the shininess of the front panel or the feel of the volume knob.
When you try to do this you run into the problem described by 45, you can present the same sound waves twice and get two completely different emotional responses because of factors that have nothing to do with the sound waves. Blind testing is an attempt to address this by removing as many extraneous factors as possible.
But again, the mere fact of the listener being tested in a lab could lead to a quite different set of emotional responses than listening to music for pleasure, so you have to tread very carefully indeed. I believe it is still possible to make progress by presenting tests in a relaxed and unchallenging atmosphere. We are not having a golden ear contest, we are testing how good the hi-fi equipment is at pleasing our ears. The equipment is not allowed to cheat by looking big and impressive, it has to stand and fall purely on the quality of its sound.
When I worked at BBC Scotland, some radio producers had two separate systems in their offices. A digital audio workstation with quality nearfield monitors for "critical listening", and a mid-priced consumer hi-fi for just plain listening. I wouldn't go so far as owning separate systems for each function, but they are two quite different modes of listening.
Last edited:
"QUOTE" Pure hogwash, unless you/he were using the term 'kinetic energy' with some new non-scientific meaning. In LP it is velocity which is turned into sound (assuming MM or MC cartridge) not energy.
"QUOTE" That is the naive "it is simpler so it must be better" approach. If you needed heart surgery would you prefer a simple, old-fashioned surgeon with a set of knives and saws (and no anaesthetist) or the complications of a modern hospital?
DF96, if you had actually taken the time to properly read my post, you would have realised that the assertions you have such a problem with are not mine! I did mention that there are some interesting notions floating around about the supposed advantages of vinyl over digital. I then went on to list those two claims which you appear to have taken exception to.
I see no relevance in your bizarre comparison between either claim and modern surgery however!
I did not, AT ANY POINT, state that these were my opinions or claims.
"QUOTE" That is the naive "it is simpler so it must be better" approach. If you needed heart surgery would you prefer a simple, old-fashioned surgeon with a set of knives and saws (and no anaesthetist) or the complications of a modern hospital?
DF96, if you had actually taken the time to properly read my post, you would have realised that the assertions you have such a problem with are not mine! I did mention that there are some interesting notions floating around about the supposed advantages of vinyl over digital. I then went on to list those two claims which you appear to have taken exception to.
I see no relevance in your bizarre comparison between either claim and modern surgery however!
I did not, AT ANY POINT, state that these were my opinions or claims.
Last edited:
Yes, I agree with you on this. But I also believe that if we want to make progress in hi-fi, it can't be done by just listening for pleasure in the living room. The results of this kind of "test" mean nothing. You might feel that the system sounded bad, so you changed something and it got better. But because you aren't doing a properly controlled test, you can't be sure that the thing you changed was the cause of the improvement! It could have been one of the extraneous factors we discussed earlier.
We have to go about it in a scientific manner, discover how hi-fi equipment distorts the sound, and out of the different kinds of distortion we come across, we need to figure out which ones might spoil the listener's enjoyment of the music.
We have to go about it in a scientific manner, discover how hi-fi equipment distorts the sound, and out of the different kinds of distortion we come across, we need to figure out which ones might spoil the listener's enjoyment of the music.
I was commenting on the opinions, not who held them. You quoted them with the implication that they were at least worthy of consideration. They are not.davym said:
My comparison with modern surgery was in respect of the second opinion. 'Simpler is better' may be fine in some situations, but in others it can lead people seriously astray.
I still don't see how this last statement is in any way relevant to this discussion.
To clear up any further confusion. I am what could be considered bi-format (I like both vinyl AND digital) Although I am quick to acknowledge that both have their good and bad points.
It could be worse, I used to be tri-format. I used to like analogue tape too but I have now been cured of that particular malaise (tape that is) I once was very fond of reel to reel tape but not so keen on cassette (except in the car or Walkman where a reel to reel machine was not a very practical proposition).
I hope my poor attempt at humour here causes no further issues or confusion.
It could be worse, I used to be tri-format. I used to like analogue tape too but I have now been cured of that particular malaise (tape that is) I once was very fond of reel to reel tape but not so keen on cassette (except in the car or Walkman where a reel to reel machine was not a very practical proposition).
I hope my poor attempt at humour here causes no further issues or confusion.
Of course, that's a clear prerequisite if you are interested in audible differences only.
Why? Of course the response are differennt, but why is that an issue? In one case you look for some repeatable, reliable and statistically significant results, while in the other case you listen for pleaure. Two different things, and I would think that if I listen for pleasure I am allowed to prefer whatever I like, even the most horrible amp in the world!
Now you're mixing up things again. We are not testing how good the equipment is in pleasing our ears - that not a 'test'. Its that differentiation starts with proving that there is an audible, ears-only difference in the first place. This is a technical/scientific process.
Listening and deciding what you like best (for instance by laying out cash for a purchase) is a personal and largely emotional activity. A lot of the continuing discussion here comes from the fact that lots of participants fail to keep the two apart.
Jan
- Status
- Not open for further replies.