😉(
Hi Pete (and Hans),
Agreed. I was thinking of the pre ringing in the impulse response rather than the time response of the square wave. In the impulse response you actually see the preringing visually ahead of the impulse. Realise now that in the time response of the square wave it looks different but of course is the same phenomenon.
Have I got it right this time?��
Jan
Hi Pete (and Hans),
Agreed. I was thinking of the pre ringing in the impulse response rather than the time response of the square wave. In the impulse response you actually see the preringing visually ahead of the impulse. Realise now that in the time response of the square wave it looks different but of course is the same phenomenon.
Have I got it right this time?��
Jan
As I mentioned in my earlier posting, Kind of Blue is from 1959 , the other LP's for this experiment are from the early sixtees.
Hans
Last edited:
Was it something I said?Hans Polak said:
A conversation will not lead anywhere if one participant seems unwilling to clarify what he says or does, or regards any attempt at clarification as some sort of criticism.
You inserted an A/D-D/A chain (presumably, plus appropriate filters) in an LP replay system, and to your surprise perceived a reduction in sound quality. It wasn't a blind test. It might not have been accurately level-matched. You might not have sat down in the same place. We don't know the details of your system. Therefore, we can deduce nothing of much value from your experience.
I believe SY did something similar a few years ago, but his was double-blind and level-matched etc.? He found that people could not tell whether the digital chain was in play or not, so could not express a preference. I realise that at this point some DBT-denier will pop up and claim that it is the DBT itself which wipes out the 'clearly audible' change 'heard' in less well-controlled tests.
No outcome of any experiment in science is ever accepted as a fact before being reproduced and confirmed by an independant investigator.
So be my guest and try to reproduce my test. That would be much more positive than asking all sorts of questions, only distraction from the real subject.
Hans
You haven't actually done an experiment yet. When you do, there will be interest in replication if your results differ from reported experiments to date.
How was that arrogant? From a scientific perspective SY is right, and he is a fully carded piled high and deep.
The only relevant experiment to test the hypothesis "I can hear something" is an experiment involving hearing alone. Such an experiment may not be needed if what is heard can be measured and hearing it is in accordance with existing electrical and psychoacoustic knowledge.
+1 to that. Everyone has their own methods.
Probably not a good analogy but think of vehicle manufacturers. Millions spent researching and developing, thousands of hours spent testing. And what happens ? The punters that buy them find all the real problems in very short order.
The only listening tests that work for me (beside the ones where differences are immediately apparent) is to actually live with and listen to the equipment for days/weeks/months and then years. When you have reached the last two and are still satisfied then you know something is being done correctly.
You are asking now specific questions that can be simply answered not just words as forwarded by others like methods, controls and procedures which are nothing but empty containers until filled with definitions.
After having experimented and setup the system for myself, I heard important differences, so as a next step I invited a (non technical) experienced listener to do a blind test, asking him to listen to the difference between 2 settings, to be controlled by him with a remote control, without the knowledge what setting 1 or setting 2 meant.
Levels where perfectly matched as you can see in posting 1006, where output voltage equals input voltage for the A/D-D/A. So his listening position was the same all the time.
I was not in the room when he was listening and in no way could he see what was happening while he made notes of his experiences.
All he could see was a record player that was playing.
Suffice to say that his experiences almost matched mine.
I haven't proven anything at all, except for my self, and just brought my experiences in the open, to stimulate others to do their part.
And when others can do better, with more listeners, double blind or whatever, fine. That will bring the discussion further, and not by beating every attempt to death.
To my surprise, nobody has asked for the equipment that I used, which I think is just or even more vital than the way the test was performed.
A mediocre installation will probably not result in the same sound experience, no matter how much care was invested in the way of testing.
Hans
Exactly. If you do a good, well-documented experiment, then you will have actually accomplished something.
Maybe some of you remember Mike Uwins' test in Linear Audio, where he managed to do double blind testing of vinyl versus digital. To cut a long story short: if people were playing a turntable but the sound was from a digital rendering, they STILL extolled the virtues of that fantastic vinyl sound.
Conversely, when cueing up a digital track but were served up a vinyl replay, they commented on the lifeless sound of digital....
That's how harsh double blind can be for your ego. 😎
Jan
OK. My apologies.Hans Polak said:
Is this old information that I missed earlier in the thread, or new information being offered for the first time?
Poor equipment is more likely to be a cause when something which is expected to be heard is not heard. This may be why nobody asked; they thought it irrelevant.
What is the audio frequency response of the digital chain? Small differences in frequency response can be surprisingly audible.
We still know little of the methodology e.g. could the listener switch back and forth whenever he wanted while the music was playing?
DF, as a rule, when someone sets up a valid listening test, they will specify up front what the controls were, test formats, how the procedure was done, how the scoring was done, that sort of dull detail.
What I often find is that under detailed questioning, the controls and methods get better and better. 😀 This is why I ask things in an open ended way, to help get to the actual validity. Hans is a smart guy (I'll resist the clever joke) who has written some really excellent LA articles, but his expertise is in the digital end of things, not setting up valid listening tests. That's OK, I'm always willing to help conscientious experimenters design good tests, since my expertise is more in that direction.
What I often find is that under detailed questioning, the controls and methods get better and better. 😀 This is why I ask things in an open ended way, to help get to the actual validity. Hans is a smart guy (I'll resist the clever joke) who has written some really excellent LA articles, but his expertise is in the digital end of things, not setting up valid listening tests. That's OK, I'm always willing to help conscientious experimenters design good tests, since my expertise is more in that direction.
Years of effort and all you can say is "something is being done correctly." Wish I had the time to waste... 🙂
I would suggest another explanation why LPs sound better than CDs to many listeners. My explanation should not replace explanation from post 1. It is intended as addition to perfectly plausible explanation from post no.1.
Popular music LPs are usually pressed from so called EQ tape, which is itself made from the so called "master" tape. Master tapes are usually suboptimal sounding (in spite of all "mixing" efforts) - dull and lifeless. Therefore mastering engineers use graphic equilizers to make EQ tape. It's similar to using tone controls by the listeners. Mastering engineer turned "treble" and "bass" instead of the listener. In some way mastering engineer gave the LP sound that we know: full of character and lush. The best reissues of older music are made from EQ tape, if it is preserved. Otherwise it's necessary to "remaster" the "master" tape which means that somebody should again turn the tone controls to make music useful again - this time it is done in digital domain (for less noise). Mastering engineers are heroes of recording industry business; depending on their taste and knowledge we have that LP sound that we like so much.
Popular music LPs are usually pressed from so called EQ tape, which is itself made from the so called "master" tape. Master tapes are usually suboptimal sounding (in spite of all "mixing" efforts) - dull and lifeless. Therefore mastering engineers use graphic equilizers to make EQ tape. It's similar to using tone controls by the listeners. Mastering engineer turned "treble" and "bass" instead of the listener. In some way mastering engineer gave the LP sound that we know: full of character and lush. The best reissues of older music are made from EQ tape, if it is preserved. Otherwise it's necessary to "remaster" the "master" tape which means that somebody should again turn the tone controls to make music useful again - this time it is done in digital domain (for less noise). Mastering engineers are heroes of recording industry business; depending on their taste and knowledge we have that LP sound that we like so much.
Strange.
My thingie is quiet there. Really quiet.
This means, the mechanical energy transfer into electrical energy is close to 100 %. Only the Arm/Cart resonance around 8 Hz is visible with warped records and when very strong, i can hear some *rumble* trough the woofers.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.