Two unresolved issues

[Phelonious Ponk]

Yes, HDtracks asked us if we could rip SACD's about 3 years ago. When we started, we did a lot of testing and such to see the best way to do it and what sounded the best. Then they started shipping boxes and boxes of SACD's, sometimes hundreds at a time. All of us assumed that that SACD meant hi-rez. Until we got to the BIS titles that someone had said these were not hi-rez. By that time we had ripped probably 6-8 hundred discs! Then you see all of these people back tracking on their comments that the discs didn't sound good... like a bunch of lemmings. Then they started blaming us because we didn't catch it. We didn't think to check because we had trusted the labels. Now reports pop up now and then bashing HDtracks when it's the users that don't know how to use FFT/Spectragram software and everything gets blown out of proportion. To rip a 1hr. disc in real time, render, seperate tracks and check to see it they are hi-rez takes about 2hr. You can guarantee we are checking everything now!

I'm sorry you got caught up in the middle of all of that. I saw some pretty ugly stuff on the internet over the whole debacle. The point was that all of these audiophile end users who swore on the superiority of hi-res had redbook in their hi-res collections and didn't even notice until it was pointed out to them. Does that prove that there is no audible difference? Of course not. But it sure points to how dramatic the differences aren't and how easily we can talk ourselves into hearing what is not there.

Back to Myer and Moran: Do you have any idea how much of the material used in that study was bogus hi-res?

Tim

 

[JackD201]

I disagree with Mep on the statement "We can't measure everything we hear". My view is we can't measure everything we hear YET. I say so because at this time we have yet to know what is to be measured that could correlate with what is observed and the tools required to do so may or may not yet exist much less be ready for use. To box everything we hear into Winer's Four is no different from taking the position that the elements are only Fire, Air, Earth and Water.

I throw the question back at you Winer. How can you prove your declarations are 100% correct given the inadequacies of present day tools?

I've as much a right to be skeptical of you as you have to be skeptical of anybody else. Step up to the plate and do what you demand of others that don't share your views. Prove yourself.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I disagree with Mep on the statement "We can't measure everything we hear". My view is we can't measure everything we hear YET. I say so because at this time we have yet to know what is to be measured that could correlate with what is observed and the tools required to do so may or may not yet exist much less be ready for use. To box everything we hear into Winer's Four is no different from taking the position that the elements are only Fire, Air, Earth and Water.

I throw the question back at you Winer. How can you prove your declarations are 100% correct given the inadequacies of present day tools?

I've as much a right to be skeptical of you as you have to be skeptical of anybody else. Step up to the plate and do what you demand of others that don't share your views. Prove yourself.

It's very different, Jack. Ethan is asking people to supply some substantive support for their claims from the available and accepted science of a very mature field. You're asking him to prove that those claims will not someday be substantiated by some science that has not as of yet been discovered. Really, the only thing they have in common is that you both know the other one cannot meet the challenge. Well, actually, that's not true. Audible differences between digital and analog are very measurable, and one could point to them as evidence. But I can understand why audiophiles wouldn't want to attribute the expanded soundstage, inner detail and more natural sound they hear in vinyl to the high noise floor, distortion, limited dynamic range, and poor channel separation that digital overcame, so you're waiting for another explanation. Fair enough.

Tim

 

[RBFC]

Is there really any point to be made in this thread, other than providing a platform for folks to say things that drive us apart as music lovers?

Lee

 

[Gregadd]

Lee agreed. Especially since Ethan says it all the time.

 

[mep]

I agree that this thread should have never been started.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Is there really any point to be made in this thread, other than providing a platform for folks to say things that drive us apart as music lovers?

Lee

Probably not. But we're not in the music forum, we're in the audio forum. We could just all agree that none of this matters if you enjoy what you're hearing, and nothing is more accurate or more natural than anything else, until it hits your ear-brain continuum, were it's all pretty personal. I don't know if that is really true, but it would settle everything, and close down everything but the music section.

Lee agreed. Especially since Ethan says it all the time.

Yes, Ethan has said all of this before. So have I. So has everyone who regularly participates on the other side of the debate. Here, I'll start: I like what I like, you like what you like, and if they measure differently, so what? Have you heard Robert Plant's new album? I think the songs are good, but I'm not crazy about the production. There doesn't seem to be enough space in it, too much is filled with grungy, distorted guitars. Still, it beats the heck out of Justin Bieber.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Yes, Ethan has said all of this before. So have I. So has everyone who regularly participates on the other side of the debate. Here, I'll start: I like what I like, you like what you like, and if they measure differently, so what? Have you heard Robert Plant's new album? I think the songs are good, but I'm not crazy about the production. There doesn't seem to be enough space in it, too much is filled with grungy, distorted guitars. Still, it beats the heck out of Justin Bieber.

Tim

This type of ambiguous "I said what I said" does not clarify what you are debating. Ethan has made some strong objective claims, that are now very clear - I am now quoting his post "You measure the four parameters that affect fidelity.
If all of them are within the bounds of what is not audible - for example, distortion and noise to soft to hear at -80 dB or more, and frequency response within 0.1 dB - then a device will not audibly change the sound passing through it. It is not necessary for zero change (perfect null)"
Late he explained that his view of the -80dB THD means THD less than .01% at any frequency.

Do you also accept them fully?

 

[microstrip]

Is there really any point to be made in this thread, other than providing a platform for folks to say things that drive us apart as music lovers?

Lee

Lee,

IMHO, in any project you should have an analysis period and only later, a synthesis phase. Unless the analysis is fully and properly carried, you will never be able to learn something valid.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

This type of ambiguous "I said what I said" does not clarify what you are debating. Ethan has made some strong objective claims, that are now very clear - I am now quoting his post "You measure the four parameters that affect fidelity.
If all of them are within the bounds of what is not audible - for example, distortion and noise to soft to hear at -80 dB or more, and frequency response within 0.1 dB - then a device will not audibly change the sound passing through it. It is not necessary for zero change (perfect null)"
Late he explained that his view of the -80dB THD means THD less than .01% at any frequency.

Do you also accept them fully?

I accept them practically, while remaining open to the possibility that science may someday discover some audio parameter that is currently unmeasured. But I leave that door open while remaining very doubtful that such a parameter will be discovered that will reveal vinyl to somehow be more "natural" in spite of all of its currently quite measurable distortions. Clear enough?

Tim

 

[microstrip]

I accept them practically, while remaining open to the possibility that science may someday discover some audio parameter that is currently unmeasured. But I leave that door open while remaining very doubtful that such a parameter will be discovered that will reveal vinyl to somehow be more "natural" in spite of all of its currently quite measurable distortions. Clear enough?

Tim

Sorry, but I can not understand what means "accepting practically" . It seems you are not accepting them, as the exception you seem to accept completely violates Ethan postulate.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Sorry, but I can not understand what means "accepting practically" . It seems you are not accepting them, as the exception you seem to accept completely violates Ethan postulate.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be obtuse. I accept Ethan's positions for all practical purposes, while understanding that science moves forward and I cannot anticipate everything that might someday be discovered. I know it isn't black and white, and I'm sorry. I believe that vinyl has been bettered. I believe in with my ears and with my eyes. I don't think there's any real chance that science will discover some unmeasured ingredient that makes it more real than digital. But I'm unwilling to conclude that we can now measure everything that will ever be measured in audio. Clear yet?

Tim

 

[DaveyF]

Tim, you say you believe that vinyl has been 'bettered'. That is your opinion and you have a right to say that. OTOH, I ask you this question... Do you believe that people hear things differently and that one persons perception of what sounds like real music in an unamplified space is different to another persons perception of the same thing? To my ears, vinyl sounds more 'lifelike' than digital. You did say to your way of thinking, which makes perfect sense...however, I think that each of us could be wrong if an event occurs that changes our mind on this issue ...I will try and listen to the very best digital I can find, with the hope that I am proven wrong...I suggest you try and do the same with analog

 

[JackD201]

It's very different, Jack. Ethan is asking people to supply some substantive support for their claims from the available and accepted science of a very mature field. You're asking him to prove that those claims will not someday be substantiated by some science that has not as of yet been discovered. Really, the only thing they have in common is that you both know the other one cannot meet the challenge. Well, actually, that's not true. Audible differences between digital and analog are very measurable, and one could point to them as evidence. But I can understand why audiophiles wouldn't want to attribute the expanded soundstage, inner detail and more natural sound they hear in vinyl to the high noise floor, distortion, limited dynamic range, and poor channel separation that digital overcame, so you're waiting for another explanation. Fair enough.

Tim

Come on Tim. I'm not talking about Digital and Analog. Mep gave an example of recorded perspective, something present in both. Let's see Winer or anybody else demonstrate how through measurement alone, one can deduce even just these four things by analyzing nothing but the composited audio signal.

a) distance from mic to subject

b) angles of microphone

c) height of microphones

d) number of microphones

We know this is what gives the sense of perspective because this is how they were recorded. Engineers purposely used these parameters. You can hear it with headphones, FR limited loudspeakers, full range speakers, passive or active.

I'm not after another explanation on why analog is better than digital or vice versa. I can't recall how many times I've made it clear I enjoy both.

What burns my butt is when someone is arrogant enough to pass off his theory as a law. You don't do this by attempting to bust up every single antithesis. You PROVE it. Until you can, it's just another theory. Having a lot of believers proves nothing. Citing the length of time spent in a profession proves nothing.

What I AM after is for the OP to hold himself under the same standards he demands from his detractors. Is THAT not fair enough?

The guy issues challenges left and right and has a pattern of outrightly dismissing any evidence shown that doesn't fit his model and dismissing anything not using his own vocabulary.

Time he got one in return.

 

[DaveyF]

To add to my post above, if you do believe that people hear things differently in regards to what they consider 'lifelike'...which BTW, I do. Then how can scientific measurement be that valuable when we are now talking about human emotion?
Which is why, IMHO,as an example-- when i read Stereophile reviews , I give some weight to the reviewer and some( But not more) weight to JA's scientific measurements. Each cannot stand on its own due to what I said above. Therefore, it would appear to me, that Ethan's 'scientific only' approach is faulty in this field. Just IMHO.

 

[mep]

Come on Tim. I'm not talking about Digital and Analog. Mep gave an example of recorded perspective, something present in both. Let's see Winer or anybody else demonstrate how through measurement alone, one can deduce even just these four things by analyzing nothing but the composited audio signal.

a) distance from mic to subject

b) angles of microphone

c) height of microphones

d) number of microphones

We know this is what gives the sense of perspective because this is how they were recorded. Engineers purposely used these parameters. You can hear it with headphones, FR limited loudspeakers, full range speakers, passive or active.

I'm not after another explanation on why analog is better than digital or vice versa. I can't recall how many times I've made it clear I enjoy both.

What burns my butt is when someone is arrogant enough to pass off his theory as a law. You don't do this by attempting to bust up every single antithesis. You PROVE it. Until you can, it's just another theory. Having a lot of believers proves nothing. Citing the length of time spent in a profession proves nothing.

What I AM after is for the OP to hold himself under the same standards he demands from his detractors. Is THAT not fair enough?

The guy issues challenges left and right and has a pattern of outrightly dismissing any evidence shown that doesn't fit his model and dismissing anything not using his own vocabulary.

Time he got one in return.

 

[Gregadd]

Lee agreed. Especially since Ethan says it all the time.

Yes, Ethan has said all of this before. So have I. So has everyone who regularly participates on the other side of the debate. Here, I'll start: I like what I like, you like what you like, and if they measure differently, so what? Have you heard Robert Plant's new album? I think the songs are good, but I'm not crazy about the production. There doesn't seem to be enough space in it, too much is filled with grungy, distorted guitars. Still, it beats the heck out of Justin Bieber.

Tim

Nobody needs permission to indulge thier preferences. The point I find untenable is the notion that when scientific theory conflicts with real world expereince we are being invited "to keep it to ourselves" unitl we have proved it scientifcally. I see no reason to follow that advice. Indeed real world expereince is vital to scientific advancement.

 

[mep]

Tim, you say you believe that vinyl has been 'bettered'. That is your opinion and you have a right to say that. OTOH, I ask you this question... Do you believe that people hear things differently and that one persons perception of what sounds like real music in an unamplified space is different to another persons perception of the same thing? To my ears, vinyl sounds more 'lifelike' than digital. You did say to your way of thinking, which makes perfect sense...however, I think that each of us could be wrong if an event occurs that changes our mind on this issue ...I will try and listen to the very best digital I can find, with the hope that I am proven wrong...I suggest you try and do the same with analog

Davey-Time to raise the white flag on this argument. I for one am over it. Tim is right in the sense that vinyl/analog has been bettered by digital with regards to measurements. The common measurements that digital lovers love to beat us over the head with are all true. Noise, cross talk, dynamic range, distortion to name just a few measure better with digital. You can't tell people to unhear the things they hear or to not like that which they like. You also can't tell people that have already made up their mind to go and listen to analog or digital or whatever else they hate (tubes, transistors) and see if they can change their mind. You might as well go outside and talk to your car and ask it to wash itself. That ain't going to happen either.

 

[RBFC]

I posted this reply on another thread, but it seems appropriate here too:

In my opinion, the foundational science of audio is solid. The problems come in when we have virtually infinite permutations of causative factors in playback. I'm sure we've all heard systems that are in seemingly terrible rooms (by dimensions, furnishings, etc.), yet sound fantastic. I'm also sure that we've heard systems that should sound great (on paper)that disappointed. Is it not reasonable to believe that science is continually progressive in its understanding of phenomena, where current dogma explains things to a point, then a new breakthrough allows far deeper understanding of the subject?

If we attempt to use fluid dynamics to explain quantum mechanics, we come up short. The science of fluid dynamics is pretty well understood, but just not really applicable to the other. The same is true IMO with audio reproduction in constantly-different rooms/systems. There just seems to be a missing piece to the puzzle. Rather than be a flat-earther, I'll use the current science to my avail as much as possible and realize that there may indeed exist some "breakthrough" concepts which will assist us in understanding much of what we currently label under "snake oil" and other "non-scientific" terms.

Lee

 

[JackD201]

Lee,

I think your view is a pragmatic one.

Jack