Subjectivists vs Objectivists. Again.

[planet10]

Re: Analog distortion vs digital recording distortion

Some vinyl playback does sound different , and better, than the equivalent digital CD recording . It's not just frequency response or the mix. It sounds better to the ear .

It sounds better (at least a good LP vrs a good CD -- there are a lot of BAD recordings), because there is more information on an LP.

A CD at 16 bits/44 kHz is a seriously flawed representation of the analog signal, and i actually find it amazing that some CD players can sound as good as they do.

CDs are way more convienient than LPs. That there is literally more than a 100 times as much choice today in decent turntables than there was when the LP was declared dead in the early 80s is a testament to something. Surely not all those buying TTs are deluded, but are buying them -- and putting up with the hassle -- because they are getting more musical enjoyment from vinyl than CD.

dave

 

[planet10]

Could you reference some of those? It was a fairly strong claim, so I'd be interested in reading about these discoveries.

I've not time to go looking, but as they show up i'll point them out. I do know that a very good engineering-type buddy of mine spent many years coming up with some test methodology so that he could measure what he and his cohorts were hearing.

My point is that I do wonder if there's much else - that would make a major audible difference - that we cannot already measure with available gear. Is it a case that he'd missed something in a measurement, or found something completely new - i.e. some phenomena that would either not have been measured, or would have been measured but wasn't known (by that I mean nobody would have spotted the issue by simply looking at the measurements)?

There is certainly situations where we are doing the measurements & missing important stuff.

The way the information is displayed also makes a big difference in communicating what we are measuring.

A couple good examples are in speaker measurement.

1/the classic waterfall. This is fairly difficult to interpret when the time scale is msec, but switch that scale to periods and problems will just pop right out.

2/ frequency response and impedance response. There is a lot more information accessible if these can be viewed as a rotatable 3-D graph.

Further. a lot of the measures we now use have FFTs in them. These, by the very assumptions made to use them are approximations, can hide important data, or leave it open to interpretation. This does not mean FFT is not a useful tool... but i have run into people that treat it as gospel.

Whilst it's true that you're not just sitting back and listening to the music, human perception means that doing this isn't a sufficiently controlled way of identifying differences.

If a blind test is not conducted under the same conditions as normal listening then its validity is brought into question. And certainly the whole premise of the ABX puts the listener into a different mental state so its results are immediately brought into question.

If two sources can be tested under blind conditions, and no audible differences can be found, then surely that does answer the question as to whether they would sound different when 'just sitting back and listening'.

Certainly not IMHO. The brain when not concentrating is able to pick up on subtle detail that gets ignored when we concentrate. Real research is confirming this with visual stimulus (work by some guy at McGill?), and it is believed (but not rigoursly studied) that this is true also with audio stimulus.

It does strike me that there's not much that's scientific or statistical about 'kicking back and absorb the musical gestalt'.

We just don't have tech yet that can easily measure this (we probably have the tech -- it is just not innocuous enuff to use in a listening test). Until we can directly observe the brain's audio cortex -- either with small MRIs or CTs or a direct connection into the brain -- in a real world listening state we are only getting information filtered thru a human's memory/verbal reiteration cababilities and even in a trained listener that can be quite variable.

Could you give examples of what apparatus you are referring to that would degrade the samples under test? Bearing in mind the number of parts of electrical and electronic 'stuff' that's usually in the chain of any audio system - such as the many meters of cheap wire usually found in a crossover inductor.

Switches, extra solder joints (some of those boxes have more solder joints than the DUTs), extra connections (and usually RCAs -- one of the worst connecters foisted on the audio buying public), extra wire.

My speakers have no inductors in them.

Agreed. Numbers without sufficient context are rarely useful. But then numbers can be useful, whereas I would argue that subjective and perceptive information is almost always not useful.

These can be a useful tool. But to rely on them alone is a BIG mistake.

dave

 

[Bas Horneman]

Personally, I’ll stick to CD with its accuracy, repeatability, and longevity. A $250 CD player will give me near flawless performance for decades and let me hear exactly (99% +) of what famous musicians want their audience to hear.

One of the reasons SACD was developed is exactly because a cd is not accurate. Transferring a mastertape to CD as a means of archiving amounts to sacrilige. You are throwing away so much musical information that it would be a disaster to do so.
I believe the story goes something like this:
Sony owns many of the biggest recording companies in the world. These companies were faced with the growing problem of deteriorating master tapes. How to save them. CD is out of the question..what to do ...what to do.. so SACD was developed. Unfortunately the masses were happy with CD and MP3 and music lovers had LP's. Hence the failure of SACD as a commercial product. Because commercial succes has NOTHING to do with good sound quality. Commercial succes is determined by marketing, cost, size of the medium and easy of use. Why else would the compact cassette beat open reel. Early solid state sounded way worse than tubes but still became a commercial succes. Early CD was way worse than LP but became a commercial succes. MP3 sounds worse than CD's...but only subjectively 🙄 . Because objective testing in double blind test show that humans cannot hear the difference between 192kHz MP3 and CD.

About longevity. I reckon an lp would outlive a CD...😀 but that is a different discussion altogether.

As to a CD letting you hear what famous musicians want their audiences to hear....I would say that that is a very subjective remark.

 

[planet10]

The few musicians I know emphatically prefer CD to vinyl and in fact, were disgusted with what had to be done to their music (see below) in order to put it on vinyl.

That is the opposite of what my musician buddies say... they use digital because it is easily accessible, but they'd all like to get their hands on a 2" tape deck.

And a couple very famous musicians have been very vocal -- Dylan & Neil Young for a couple.

Digital won't be ready to compete until it is at least 24/192 and 24/384 would be better. (actually 21-22 bits is deep enuff, it is the sampling rate that has been the big holdback)

Do keep in mind that the CD is computer tech from a time when the Apple II was king of the hill...

dave

 

[Bas Horneman]

There is very little subjectivist vs objectivists in this thread I reckon. It has become more of a format war. CD vs LP. Hollowstate versus Solid state.

To me it is very apparent that every type of technology has its pro's and con's.

And us DIY types should not have discussions like this because we can make our own stuff or go to diy meets and decide for ourselves. I'm not going to let objectivists or subjectivists stop me from persuing my personal audio goals.

 

[SY]

Sub versus ob is a false dichotomy anyway. As soon as the "debate" is framed that way, it goes nowhere.

 

[DCPreamp]

That is the opposite of what my musician buddies say... they use digital because it is easily accessible, but they'd all like to get their hands on a 2" tape deck.

You’re talking the master side of the process. I’m talking the finished product for sale.

And a couple very famous musicians have been very vocal -- Dylan & Neil Young for a couple.

Dylan and Neal Young? Like those guys can hear above 5KHz. . .

Digital won't be ready to compete until it is at least 24/192 and 24/384 would be better. (actually 21-22 bits is deep enuff, it is the sampling rate that has been the big holdback)

Do keep in mind that the CD is computer tech from a time when the Apple II was king of the hill...

dave

So CDs are old tech? And just how old are tubes and vinyl? That’s like saying AM radio is superior to FM. And satellite radio is garbage because it’s digital, so AM must be the best radio format. Does anyone agree that AM is worse than satellite radio both subjectively and objectively? Or am I nuts here too?

 

[Bas Horneman]

So CDs are old tech?

It's not about age. But about maturity and the limits in terms of the information that is stored. If the CD concept was to be implemented today it would not be red book standard (16/44). But something much much better. If LP was invented today...you pretty much could not do it better.

Ofcourse satellite radio sounds better than AM. At least it does to me.

 

[jlsem]

Sony owns many of the biggest recording companies in the world. These companies were faced with the growing problem of deteriorating master tapes. How to save them.

Sony has converted all of their master tapes, 78's, and 16" acetate disks to hard drives, which is where new recordings are put as well. Having done that, they are now in the process of closing down the recording studio in NYC.

If Sony cared anything about what serious listener's desires were, they would make available for sale the files on those master hard drives. Now THAT would be something. There is little or nothing wrong with digitalized masters, it's the conversion to the crude and obsolete CD that screws up digital. Ultimately, the laptop could become the best source for home listening ever.

John

 

[GK]

Apparently your experience is somewhat limited. Not only is it aguable, it is competely wrong. The CD playback system cannot, and probably will never, match the quality of playback that a modern first-rate vinyl front end is capable of providing. The main drawback of such an analogue system is that it is pricey, so there is a certain amount of jealousy among people who are stuck with relatively cheap digital hardware and software. Of course, these types are in the majority. Read Stuart's signature and you can see where this leads.

You really ought not be so presumptuous. Also, something I said in my previous post clearly needs to be said again - please do not conflate “how a system sounds” with “better sound”.
My personal assessment on the “sound” of record players was subjective also.
I’ve heard some very good turntables (some touted as the “best”) and the medium is still inferior to the CD player, IMO.
From an objective, technical point of view, the CD player is unarguably superior, overall.


There is really no reason for a Hi-Fi publication to test their review samples because they have already been tested by the maufacturer.


Nonsense. If nobody double-checked the manufacturers claims, they would be at even greater liberty to make all kinds of wild and dishonest claims with respect to their technical achievements. They already advertise with enough pseudo-technical baloney as it is.


The accusations flying about this thread and in this forum touting objectivity over subjectivity only amount to polemic.


Actually, I wasn’t touting one over the other. That’s what you’ve been doing. I think they both have their place, and was arguing along those lines. I thought that I was doing that quite obviously……………

Cheers,
Glen

 

[GK]

In your example I'm pretty sure that 0.001% THD will sound better than 50% THD.

But depending on the distribution of the harmonics. A particular amp with 9% THD can sound better than an amp with 1% THD.

I agree, to a degree, but I think that contrasting 9%THD with 1% THD is still pushing it a bit.
THD isn’t the whole story, and there are inter-related distortion mechanisms to consider as well.
9% THD is a lot, and amplifier with high THD will also have high IMD - and IMD isn’t “musically pleasing”, regardless of how ideal the spectrum of the THD, as revealed by typical measuring procedures may be.

Designing for low THD throughout the audio band is a means to an end which avoids such problems. I think Williamson was on the right track when he shook up the audio world with his famous amplifier all those years ago.

Cheers,
Glen

 

[jlsem]

From an objective, technical point of view, the CD player is unarguably superior, overall.

Not even from from a technical point of view is CD superior. It represents a crude analog playback system that harkens back to the player piano. The digital processing system is interesting in how it struggles to make a CD sound good.

Nonsense. If nobody double-checked the manufacturers claims, they would be at even greater liberty to make all kinds of wild and dishonest claims with respect to their technical achievements. They already advertise with enough pseudo-technical baloney as it is.

Who out there is making phoney claims about their equipment? Almost everyone involved in high end manufacturing of playback equipment is reputable and honest and takes pride in their own technical expertise.

In the end, it is only good-sounding equipment that gain a good reputation and sell well in the high-end market. There are a lot of sour grapes out there from unsuccessful digital-freak technowizards because no one wants their harsh sounding stuff.

John

 

[MJL21193]

"Subjectivists vs Objectivists. Again."


Snore.....

 

[GK]

Not even from from a technical point of view is CD superior. It represents a crude analog playback system that harkens back to the player piano. The digital processing system is interesting in how it struggles to make a CD sound good.

Who out there is making phoney claims about their equipment? Almost everyone involved in high end manufacturing of playback equipment is reputable and honest and takes pride in their own technical expertise.

In the end, it is only good-sounding equipment that gain a good reputation and sell well in the high-end market. There are a lot of sour grapes out there from unsuccessful digital-freak technowizards because no one wants their harsh sounding stuff.

John

That emotional rant would have to contain some of the most ridiculous claims I read here for a long time.

My ignore list is growing.
Good bye!

 

[jlsem]

That emotional rant would have to contain some of the most ridiculous claims I read here for a long time.

If you are uable to elaborate or provide anything useful, go ahead and put me on your ignore list. I don't need any grief from someone who makes the kind of remarks you do then runs away from the debate.

John

 

[Cal Weldon]

The intent of this thread has been lost.

Closed.