Are most Audiophiles hard of hearing?

[PYP]

My point is the only way to really evaluate film vs digital is to look at the two photos in person. And the only way to evaluate vinyl vs digital is to hear the two sources in person. I don’t see the reasoning of critically listening to a file of a file or a file of a vinyl record playback to make a comparison.

In my mind I am seeing that painting of the painter painting, of the painter painting and so on into infinity.

Great post! This applies to in-person too. Have you ever had the opportunity to hold and examine an original painting (no frame, no glass, and an arm's length - gloves on, of course) by a well-respected painter? NOW, you can see it. The brush strokes, the colors as you move it through the light. The very feeling of holding a treasure.

Versus, seeing the Mona Lisa from about 50 ft away through protective glass that can take a bullet. But, of course you want to see that painting. No doubt. Yet, the reproductions you have seen are far superior in detail, of course. Except is it a reproduction.

 

[Al M.]

Great post! This applies to in-person too. Have you ever had the opportunity to hold and examine an original painting (no frame, no glass, and an arm's length - gloves on, of course) by a well-respected painter? NOW, you can see it. The brush strokes, the colors as you move it through the light. The very feeling of holding a treasure.

Versus, seeing the Mona Lisa from about 50 ft away through protective glass that can take a bullet. But, of course you want to see that painting. No doubt. Yet, the reproductions you have seen are far superior in detail, of course. Except is it a reproduction.

Recently I visited friends in Denver and we went to the Clyfford Still Museum there:

Clyfford Still Museum

Immerse yourself in color at the Clyfford Still Museum. Explore nine beautiful galleries of Clyfford Still’s art and learn more about an artist who created his own style of painting. Glimpse behind the scenes into painting conservation areas; make your own creation in a hands-on art studio for...

www.denver.org

While photos of the paintings can give some impression, being there in person is unbeatable. Being able to see the actual brush strokes and shades of color is indeed such a different experience! Also, just the sheer size of the paintings, some covering an entire large wall, must be experienced in person.

Visiting the Clyfford Still Museum was one of the greatest art experiences of my life.

The photos that I took there are a nice memory but just don't compare.

 

[PYP]

Recently I visited friends in Denver and we went to the Clyfford Still Museum there:

Clyfford Still Museum

Immerse yourself in color at the Clyfford Still Museum. Explore nine beautiful galleries of Clyfford Still’s art and learn more about an artist who created his own style of painting. Glimpse behind the scenes into painting conservation areas; make your own creation in a hands-on art studio for...

www.denver.org

While photos of the paintings can give some impression, being there in person is unbeatable. Being able to see the actual brush strokes and shades of color is indeed such a different experience! Also, just the sheer size of the paintings, some covering an entire large wall, must be experienced in person.

Visiting the Clyfford Still Museum was one of the greatest art experiences of my life.

The photos that I took there are a nice memory but just don't compare.

the picture of the kids reacting to the painting says it all. THAT is art. The ability to move people. I once stood in front of an enormous painting and it felt like wind was blowing towards me. Otherworldly feeling. Completely bypasses the rational mind.

 

[TonyW]

The Mona Lisa is cool to see. She is looking right at you no matter where you stand. I found another painting like that at Schloss Lichtenstein just south of Stuttgart. The painting is life sized and it is called, „The Archer“. He is standing poised to shoot his arrow. His eye and the arrow point right at you no matter where you are standing. I took a photo and the effect works in the photo too. Not great resolution compared to digital pictures these days, I know.

 

[PYP]

The Mona Lisa is cool to see. She is looking right at you no matter where you stand. I found another painting like that at Schloss Lichtenstein just south of Stuttgart. The painting is life sized and it is called, „The Hunter“. He is standing poised to shoot his arrow. His eye and the arrow point right at you no matter where you are standing. I took a photo and the effect works in the photo too, of course.

da Vinci was a master of perspective (among other things). He was a keen observer of how light changed over different surfaces and how the techniques a painter might use to achieve subtle difference in the perception of light.

Perhaps his greatest accomplishment regarding perspective was the Last Supper:

"When Leonardo was commissioned to paint a picture of the Last Supper on a chapel wall, he decided to break artistic conventions of the time and try new techniques and compositions. In addition to choosing to paint in tempura , rather than traditional fresco, Leonardo also focused on the facial expressions of each of the 12 disciples, at the exact moment when Christ announced that one of them would betray him, to depict Judas.

Leonardo used one point perspective, which involves all the lines in the painting converging in one place, known as the vanishing point. This strategy was used to emphasize the importance and central position of Christ. The lines all converge in his right eye, drawing the viewers gaze to this place."

Oh, OK back to the bad hearing of audiophiles...

 

[hopkins]

The Mona Lisa is cool to see. She is looking right at you no matter where you stand. I found another painting like that at Schloss Lichtenstein just south of Stuttgart. The painting is life sized and it is called, „The Archer“. He is standing poised to shoot his arrow. His eye and the arrow point right at you no matter where you are standing. I took a photo and the effect works in the photo too. Not great resolution compared to digital pictures these days, I know.



View attachment 144800

In Kyoto's Myoshinji temple there is a famous painting on the ceiling of a dragon who's eyes will follow you around as well. Spooky!

 

[PYP]

The Mona Lisa is cool to see. She is looking right at you no matter where you stand. I found another painting like that at Schloss Lichtenstein just south of Stuttgart. The painting is life sized and it is called, „The Archer“. He is standing poised to shoot his arrow. His eye and the arrow point right at you no matter where you are standing. I took a photo and the effect works in the photo too. Not great resolution compared to digital pictures these days, I know.



View attachment 144800

not to make light of this painting, but it reminded me of seeing a kung fu movie in three D. Folks in the audience ducked the flying lances and the decapitated heads. A good time was had by all.

 

[tony22]

da Vinci was a master of perspective (among other things). He was a keen observer of how light changed over different surfaces and how the techniques a painter might use to achieve subtle difference in the perception of light.

Perhaps his greatest accomplishment regarding perspective was the Last Supper:

"When Leonardo was commissioned to paint a picture of the Last Supper on a chapel wall, he decided to break artistic conventions of the time and try new techniques and compositions. In addition to choosing to paint in tempura , rather than traditional fresco, Leonardo also focused on the facial expressions of each of the 12 disciples, at the exact moment when Christ announced that one of them would betray him, to depict Judas.

Leonardo used one point perspective, which involves all the lines in the painting converging in one place, known as the vanishing point. This strategy was used to emphasize the importance and central position of Christ. The lines all converge in his right eye, drawing the viewers gaze to this place."

Oh, OK back to the bad hearing of audiophiles...

I’ve seen both the Last Supper and the Mona Lisa in person. Truly wondrous.

 

[tima]

I appreciate what you are trying to do but this is still a digital representation of an analog vinyl playback- an edited/modified analog playback actually, because the record noise has been removed.

Yet given all that, isn't it amazing that despite the masking some can tell the difference?

 

[ecwl]

In this comparison, 70% mistakenly thought the vinyl playback was digital playback.

I just watched this on my iPad speakers (instead of feeding it through my stereo). I was just listening for more distortions in the playback
I have to admit I got it wrong. But I also didn’t realize the DAC is an NOS R2R DAC. And it only uses one R2R DAC chip. I was expecting a modern sigma-delta multi-element DAC chip DAC. Even with most modern R2R implementations, to lower distortions, they would usually have multiple R2R DACs to average out the small signal linearity errors or use upsampling to reduce the distortions. I also personally don’t listen to vinyl.
I think most people think vinyl has more distortions than digital. But single chip NOS R2R DAC’s has more distortions than vinyl is what the video shows?
And that may explain why so many people thought the vinyl is digital and digital is vinyl? Because they were expecting digital to have less distortions?

 

[theflattire]

This should have been a poll.
I definitely wish I had my current set up back when I was in my thirties.

 

[Rexp]

I appreciate what you are trying to do but this is still a digital representation of an analog vinyl playback- an edited/modified analog playback actually, because the record noise has been removed.

Think of it like this. Suppose I take a picture using the film back on a Hasselblad camera. Then I take the same picture with the same camera using a digital back. I develop the film and make a photograph. I also print out the digital version of the picture with an ink jet printer. Next I place both pictures side by side on a wall and I go say, 50 feet away and take a photo of the two pictures using a digital camera with a long telephoto lens. I send out that digital file to see if people can tell which picture is film and which is digital. After some discussion, I decide to use a much more expensive telephoto lens and retake the photo of the two pictures. I send that digital file of the two pictures out to let everyone decide which is the film shot and which is digital. It is still a digital representation of a film photograph. Maybe enough difference exists between the two prints to say which is made from film by looking at the digital file or perhaps too much information is lost or transformed by the second generation output- ie, I am looking at a picture of a picture. I already know that the information transferred is something less than 100%.

My point is the only way to really evaluate film vs digital is to look at the two photos in person. And the only way to evaluate vinyl vs digital is to hear the two sources in person. I don’t see the reasoning of critically listening to a file of a file or a file of a vinyl record playback to make a comparison.

In my mind I am seeing that painting of the painter painting, of the painter painting and so on into infinity.

A good digital recorder captures two analog sounds recorded in exactly the ssme way and you don't think it's legitimate to compare the sounds?

 

[TonyW]

Yet given all that, isn't it amazing that despite the masking some can tell the difference?

The claim is only 30% got it right from watching the video. Random guessing would be closer to 50/50.

 

[TonyW]

A good digital recorder captures two analog sounds recorded in exactly the ssme way and you don't think it's legitimate to compare the sounds?

It’s not about format. It has been discussed and agreed that even the best audio systems do not fully and accurately reproduce the live event- close, just not the same as being there. How then could critically listening to a recording of a recording played back on an audio system produce accurate or meaningful results? I‘d venture to say that the differences heard have more to do with the recording process.

 

[Rexp]

I just watched this on my iPad speakers (instead of feeding it through my stereo). I was just listening for more distortions in the playback
I have to admit I got it wrong. But I also didn’t realize the DAC is an NOS R2R DAC. And it only uses one R2R DAC chip. I was expecting a modern sigma-delta multi-element DAC chip DAC. Even with most modern R2R implementations, to lower distortions, they would usually have multiple R2R DACs to average out the small signal linearity errors or use upsampling to reduce the distortions. I also personally don’t listen to vinyl.
I think most people think vinyl has more distortions than digital. But single chip NOS R2R DAC’s has more distortions than vinyl is what the video shows?
And that may explain why so many people thought the vinyl is digital and digital is vinyl? Because they were expecting digital to have less distortions?

Could be, I tend to think folks preferred the vinyl sample and assumed it was digital because digital is their format of choice, which means Audiophiles aren't deaf, just confused.

 

[Rexp]

It’s not about format. It has been discussed and agreed that even the best audio systems do not fully and accurately reproduce the live event- close, just not the same as being there. How then could critically listening to a recording of a recording played back on an audio system produce accurate or meaningful results? I‘d venture to say that the differences heard have more to do with the recording process.

I'll take that as a no...

In future I suggest you steer clear of sound clip comparison threads unless you want to be known as a miserable troll spoiling the enjoyment for others.

 

[TonyW]

Music is Art. Just like a photograph is Art. It is not meant to perfectly reproduce life, it is meant to give an editorial on life.

The performers perform and the producer recreates the scene using his monitors and mixing console. In some cases the sounds we think we hear are fabrications made by the producer- just as can be done with a photograph to cause us to see a fabrication.

So much remastering going on these days. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Ars Gratia Artis. Like I said in a post before, I bought the Cowboy Junkies Trinity Session on vinyl when it came out in the early 80s. I love hearing that album. When the remastered version was released, I stubbornly refused to buy it. I know the original album has problems. The producer or engineer was rushed. So one day at Hifi Buys they played the remastered vinyl for me. I bought the new version in vinyl afterwards- and I love the sound of it. It is a two record set so now I have to get up and flip the record every 12-13 minutes.

 

[TonyW]

I'll take that as a no...

In future I suggest you steer clear of sound clip comparison threads unless you want to be known as a miserable troll spoiling the enjoyment for others.

Just trying to be a voice of reason.

If the ship was sinking I would feel compelled to break up the party.

And I am not trolling. I am providing a counterpoint.

 

[Ted Denney III]

Or just hard headed.

 

[Rexp]

Here's the reveal of which sample was which: