Two unresolved issues

[JackD201]

Right you are, Jack. This was not about vinyl vs. digital. My apologies. It was about "what's missing from digital," and "what we hear that can't be measured," and I guess I slipped into that old familiar groove too easily. Sorry.



I've been gone all day and there are a couple of pages below this post, so if this has already been covered, I'm sorry for the repetition, but I don't think Ethan wasn't talking about being able to identify the number of mics in a recording with a scope, or look at a chart and see a Tele instead of a Strat. Can you identify the number of mics in a recording by listening? I don't think that's the kind of thing we're talking about. What we're talking about measuring is the effect that Tele or Strat or those microphones have on the recorded signal. That is what is measurable.



I'm lost. What theory? I thought he was asking for some data to support the notion that digital removes something from analog recordings, some evidence of the extra "natural" that people claim they hear. Did I miss something? It wouldn't be the first time.

Tim

Please, no need for apologies my friend. No need at all.

The theory I refer to is that everything heard can be measured using four parameters. Here is where I think Winer and I differ. Perhaps Winer is referring to ears. In that context, I would agree pretty much with the theory. I think of "hear" from the context of total sensory inputs all the way to mental processing. In this context I would not agree. This is the area where the science of sound is not yet solid most especially the science of psychoacoustics which is maybe not quite in its infancy but perhaps in it's pre-teen Justin Bieber phase If one were to walk into an audiologist's office for a hearing test like I did when I accompanied my Father in Law, go and take a look at how many bands are measured and what the frequency extremes of the tests are. Don't be surprised if you see a 5-band test even if the hearing aids being sold are 15 band units. Does that make the 15 band hearing aid "snake-oil"? I just think we went to the wrong audiologist!

Like Mr. Lazy Audiologist, current measuring suites are limited in resolution. The current standard is 1/3rd octave. We know that that is insufficient for measuring and evaluating bass response so suites have come out 1/30th octave resolution or better. This is just one concrete example. So when I hear someone saying that everything can be measured, someone else here said "everything" is a BIG word, I believe that was Lee. Now we have Mike Levigne who has observations that may or may not be valid. My fundamental disagreement is not about their validity but on why on earth they should be dismissed outright? The burns my butt part is that proof is being demanded of him as though he claimed to see a UFO or a religious figure on a piece of toast. If fairness is what Winer is after, he should subject himself to the same scrutiny and not be surprised if people are raising eyebrows or rolling their eyes the way he does, he even wants more smilies to do just that.

Going on to a Telecaster and a Strat I'm pretty sure it can be measured and even emulated. Plug-in emulators for guitar amps have been on the market for over a decade. Synths have been using samples of real instruments for even longer. Time will make such products ever closer to the real things, the introduction of multi-voiced polyphony on synths are an example. It's just that right now, it is premature to say that "everything" is in the bag.

 

[DaveyF]

"Going on to a Telecaster and a Strat I'm pretty sure it can be measured and even emulated. Plug-in emulators for guitar amps have been on the market for over a decade. Synths have been using samples of real instruments for even longer. Time will make such products ever closer to the real things, the introduction of multi-voiced polyphony on synths are an example. It's just that right now, it is premature to say that "everything" is in the bag."
That is correct Jack, I use a tube based emulator with both my Strat and my Tele and in many cases can fool even the most experienced player with what they are listening to.( everything nearly is in the bag).
Not only can the modeler ( that is what they are called in pro-audio) emulate different guitars, but also different amps, cabinets, effects and rooms/venues!! When I first joined this forum, I explained about how in the not too distant future, we well could have modelers that will emulate maybe the SET sound, the ss sound, big tube amps, planars, horns, stats etc..Get the picture

 

[Gregadd]

Here is the problem.
You state that everything relavent in audio can be measured.
Someone says I can hear something.
No you can't hear it because my measurements says that either you can't hear it or it does not exist.
Yes but I hear it.
Prove it to me. But the only proof I will accept is measurement.

You can see the dilemma.

Heck not only do we not not know how to perfectly recreate sound, we can't even design a medium that if executed perfectly would recreate perfect reproduction. Certainly not stereo. Humans are imperfect and that means our undersatnding of the world is imperfect. If you doubt what I am saying take a stick and break it in half. Now take all of mans abilitiy and try to put it back they way it was.

 

[microstrip]

Indeed Tom, we could delete virtually every single post in this thread except for Bruce's, notwithstanding my pleas that people address Ethan's questions. As such, posts not on topic henceforth will be deleted. Take the high road folks.

Ron,
One of the claims of Ethan is about a null test.

Ethan said > Mike, as I explained above, it is trivial to prove that competent digital recording captures everything you give it using a null test.

Most of my postings and many from others are relevant to debate what is and the validity of a null test.

Please inform if this line of argumentation is welcome.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The theory I refer to is that everything heard can be measured using four parameters.

Ah... that one. I can't quite get there, though in practice, particularly with judging electronics, I think we're very, very close.

So when I hear someone saying that everything can be measured, someone else here said "everything" is a BIG word, I believe that was Lee.

Actually, that was me, though Lee may have said it too. We may have a similar grasp of the obvious .

Now we have Mike Levigne who has observations that may or may not be valid. My fundamental disagreement is not about their validity but on why on earth they should be dismissed outright? The burns my butt part is that proof is being demanded of him as though he claimed to see a UFO or a religious figure on a piece of toast.

Is it really so different? Audiophiles claim to hear that which the existing science does not acknowledge. More than that, they claim it as evidence of their scientifically unsupportable "truth." The virgin Mary in a piece of toast. It should be very easy to understand why it is so suspect to those who don't hear it.

Going on to a Telecaster and a Strat I'm pretty sure it can be measured and even emulated. Plug-in emulators for guitar amps have been on the market for over a decade.

I own a 1965 Fender Deluxe Reverb. I also own a digital amp simulator. The simulation is remarkably close, but not right on. The simulator sounds more like a really good recording of my Deluxe, than my Deluxe. "Everything" is a really big word.

Back on topic so we don't get deleted: The argument against measurement is a bit of a stretch, I think, but I'll take it; truly comprehensive measurements are pretty rare and there might be something there that we can't yet measure. I won't get into AB/X because it's difficult and expensive to do them well and no matter how well they're done, they're complex enough that those who don't want to believe the results can deny them; they always do.

But that leaves us with one of Ethan's questions that I don't think anyone has an answer for: The null test. Those things that digital leaves behind, those extra unmeasurable goodies that analog preserves -- in a proper null test, would they not be the only thing left? And if audiophiles hear them, would they not clearly be audible? And shouldn't that address the question whether we're talking about the audible difference between a Pioneer and a Krell, or the musicality gap between 80 g vinyl on a $20k tt vs. lossless files from my MacBook? Couldn't, shouldn't that be an end to the conflict, an answer to the questions? If not...why not? how is that audible something that makes it through digital to analog conversion, pre amplification, amplification, cabling and transducers disappearing in the null test?

Tim

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Guys,

I am trying hard not to be pushy or a jerk, but I think it's important to resolve two outstanding issues. It bothers me greatly when someone makes a claim, then that claim is refuted with logic and evidence, or requests opposing evidence, but the claimant never follows through. Actually, that doesn't bother me as much as when a claimant can't defend his position, but continues to make the same claim a week later anyway. This is the antithesis to progress, suppressing the chance for everyone to learn and grow (me included).

So with this explanation of my motive, and again making clear I'm trying hard not to be a pushy jerk, I'd like to see the following two outstanding issues resolved. I'm starting a new thread rather than take the LP demagnetizing thread even further off topic.

In this post Mike Lavigne said digital does not capture audio completely:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...he-Furutec-Demag&p=38449&viewfull=1#post38449

In this post I asked Mike to state what specific physical property is not captured by digital recording:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...he-Furutec-Demag&p=38536&viewfull=1#post38536

In this post I explained that a null test will show exactly what is missed in a digital recording, and asked Mike if he disagrees that a null test is adequate proof:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...he-Furutec-Demag&p=38664&viewfull=1#post38664

In this post I asked Mike to provide concise and clear definitions for the various audiophile type terms he used such as "tonal texture," "transparency in the mid-range," "substance," "organic signature of instruments," and "bloom and openness:"

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...he-Furutec-Demag&p=38864&viewfull=1#post38864

Finally, in this post I asked Bruce Brown to point me to a credible debunking of Meyer & Moran's AES paper detailing the extensive blind testing they did over the course of a year, leading to their conclusion that 44.1 / 16 is not an audible bottleneck:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...he-Furutec-Demag&p=38919&viewfull=1#post38919

Guys, if you can prove my statements wrong I will gladly admit it. Further, I promise to change what I post at audio forums in the future. But if you can't prove your case, is it too much to ask for an acknowledgement, and also ask for a change in what you post in the future? Let's please resolve this for the benefit of everyone. Thanks.

--Ethan

Ethan,

when you asked me;

So my question to Mike is what specifically does digital not capture?

i answered.

what digital misses to varying degrees when compared to better vinyl pressing is;

--low-level detail
--decay in notes
--space, sense of hall
--tonal texture and transparency in the mid-range
--fullness and substance
--organic signature of instruments
--chestiness of vocals
--bloom and openness
--bass energy and flow.
--focus and precision

added note; a couple other areas where vinyl does better.

--resolving musical threads and detail during complicated passages
--vividness of presentation--digital is 'muted' in comparison.

again; PCM digital has all these attributes, just not to the degree that i hear them in good vinyl pressings.

now if you feel my answer does not prove anything, that is your problem. i answered your question, you just did not like it.

i do not, have never, and will never, have any need to prove anything. and i promise i will never ask you or anyone to prove what they hear. i'll ask you about what you heard. i may also ask about the specifics of the context of what you heard. it is interesting that many 'provers' are less than forthright (or have memory loss) when asked about listening specifics.

i learn when i hear about what someone has heard that i have not. there is nothing wrong with technical investigations; just that they don't have much attraction to me.

proving stuff is not a part of my 'audiophile/music lover' passion.

i resolve my personal audio/music questions mostly by listening. i use measurements when they serve me; and ignore them when they don't. if this forum is not interested in my opinions about what i hear (and it seems more and more that is likely the case) then i'll just withdraw.

so if you ask me a question you are going to get an answer that reflects my perceptions. when i read the term 'null' in a question directed to me i will shut my laptop and go listen to music. i could care less about it.

i'm happy to respond to a question if you can deal with that.

 

[Ethan Winer]

I still hear what I hear.

Sure, but when differences are subtle it's important to have someone else switch while you listen blind. This may not seem obvious, but it's the truth.

you may conclude that all speaker cables should sound the same.

Not necessarily. I've seen cables so lame they actually did change the sound - for the worse. And that degradation is easy to measure and also easy to understand (excess capacitance).

Am I hearing things that don't exist or is the science at this point in time, not able to tell me what is the cause of the differences.

Anything you can hear absolutely can be identified and measured.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

I know you can read spectral analysis... stop trying to avoid the obvious. You can clearly see information above 20k in the 2 files... just not much! Thats why I included a decent SACD player's output.

Again, I'm really not trying to be dense. But you need to spell out what you're showing. Did you record from your own SACD player? Do we know which of the SACD players used for the M&M tests can and cannot output above 20 KHz? I honestly don't understand what you're showing.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

Because I have heard notorious sound differences between DACs and CD players that have less than -90 dB.

How did you establish -90 dB? What specific method did you use?

Because I have owned amplifiers that sounded much better after one hour warm-up and measure the same either cold or warm.

How do you know they sound better after warming up? Did you A/B a cold amp versus a warm amp blind? How do you know it's not your ears that acclimated? And let's say the amp really did change. Are you suggesting the sound changed but that change cannot be measured?

Because I hear differences between cables - and their distortion is much less than -100 dB.

Again all the same questions. As far as I can tell you are arguing from belief, because you offered no verification for any of your dB figures.

most people in this forum or other forums who have systems with higher resolution than yours

Now I know you're making it up as you go. You have no idea how much resolution either of my two systems have.

Because people who are in the business of recording and have produced excellent recordings also do not accept your views about electronics equality.

Ah, the old Argument From Authority. I've in the business of recording and mastering professionally for 40+ years.

When you can explain how you arrived at your dB figures, please let me know. More to the point, when you can explain what specific physical properties digital audio is unable to capture, let me know that too.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

[science] knows what to measure, what for me is the big culprit, distortion, but it doesn't or is not willing to go further with developing of test procedure, to accurately find out what is really happening when people hear differences

A null test reveals all differences between two signals in its residual which can easily be analyzed. Problem solved, all is revealed, no more mystery.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

So if it doesn't measure better, it couldn't possibly sound better right?

Why are you still trotting out this same tired old straw man? Everyone agrees that some people prefer the sound of slight distortion as happens with tubes and vinyl and analog tape. That is not the issue and never has been. Why do I have to explain this again and again and again?

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

if you feel my answer does not prove anything, that is your problem.

Actually Mike, it's your problem because you know that "organic signature of instruments" is not a physical property, and so does almost everyone else here. But okay, we'll leave it at that. I'm satisfied since that's the best you can come up with. I won't beat you up about this any more. But I sure hope you'll stop claiming that digital somehow misses capturing stuff in the future.

i'm happy to respond to a question if you can deal with that.

Here's a simple and direct question: Since a null test can prove that digital output = digital input to at least 40 dB better than vinyl, how can you continue to claim that something is missed?

--Ethan

 

[mep]

Why are you still trotting out this same tired old straw man? Everyone agrees that some people prefer the sound of slight distortion as happens with tubes and vinyl and analog tape. That is not the issue and never has been. Why do I have to explain this again and again and again?

--Ethan

The question wasn't addressed to you Ethan-it was for Tom. Therefore you have no need to explain this "again and again and again." I personally wouldn't ask you for the time of day so please feel no need to respond to anything I say on this forum and act like I personally asked you a question.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Actually Mike, it's your problem because you know that "organic signature of instruments" is not a physical property, and so does almost everyone else here. But okay, we'll leave it at that. I'm satisfied since that's the best you can come up with. I won't beat you up about this any more. But I sure hope you'll stop claiming that digital somehow misses capturing stuff in the future.



Here's a simple and direct question: Since a null test can prove that digital output = digital input to at least 40 dB better than vinyl, how can you continue to claim that something is missed?

--Ethan

to be clear;

i will continue to make my claims based on what i hear. period.

i will post responses to claims made about things important to me based on my experience.

my system and history of perspectives is out there for anyone to inspect. they can reject or accept what i post as they wish based on their perception of my credibility.

as they will with yours.

have a nice day.

 

[jazdoc]

Anything you can hear absolutely can be identified and measured.

--Ethan

It then follows that we can identify and measure everything we hear.

Perhaps this is where the measurers and the listeners diverge. [Note I previously dubbed measurers 'objectivists' and listeners 'subjectivists' in the audiophile and not the philosophic sense.]

Listeners are more likely to believe that we can't measure everything we hear. Moreover, I believe it would be pointless to try.

IMO, if you believe we can ascribe a measurement to everything we hear, then we should be able to assemble a satisfying musical system based on measurements alone.

I think it would be interesting to compare and contrast the methods in a blinded fashion. In two identical rooms i.e. RMAF, have the measurers assemble a system blinded to everything except measurements while the listeners assemble their system blinded to everything except how it sounds. Then have the attendees indicate their preference in a blind manner. I"ll bet it would be easy to get sponsorship for such an event....

 

[amirm]

A null test reveals all differences between two signals in its residual which can easily be analyzed. Problem solved, all is revealed, no more mystery.

--Ethan

What do you mean by "analyzed?" A sum difference of two signals gives you *data*. It does not give you analysis. Here are two difference sets:

1 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 3 1 8 0 0 0 0
0 0 9 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 7 0 0 0 0

Please analyze these two sets and tell me what you know about the *fidelity* two systems. You can't other than some generalized analysis of their spectrum and such which would tell you very little.

Null tests are very revealing when there is no difference and you arrive nothing. That is proof positive and nothing can be debated after that. If you can show me such a null test between all amps and DACs, I would be highly interested. But I know that none of them will null out at absolute level to say nothing of the difficulty of the capture device being 100% transparent itself.

Null tests can also be used to detect gross differences such as one unit filtering high frequencies and another not. As differences get subtle, looking at nulling data can be very challenging. You will be trying to decipher meaning out of what looks like a set of random data.

 

[Stereoeditor]

Debunking Meyer and Moran

Meyer Moran result debunked - again

TITLE: Sampling Rate Discrimination: 44.1 kHz vs. 88.2 kHz
AUTHORS: Pras and Guastavino, McGill University

Ethan... for every Meyer Moran and Lavry paper you can raise like a flag, I can show you others that are against. This has been going on for years. The main reason it was not a good study is that some of the material used in the study was just upsamped redbook SACD's and I have the FFT to prove it when I ripeed the DSD layer for HDtracks.

As far as I'm concerned, this case is closed and we need to move on to something more productive.

Thanks for the link Bruce. BTW, yesterday at the CSA store in NJ, Peter McGrath played me the 24-bit/96kHz files of some of his analog Audiofon piano recordings that you had restored and transferred to DSD. Excellent job! I am looking forward to these recordings being available from HDTracks.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[Stereoeditor]

So far only Bruce has put forth anything of substance, which I'll address separately. I haven't seen any of my core questions addressed. Not even a little. So far nobody has explained what specific physical property is not captured digitially. And nobody has so far acknowledged that a null test shows all differences even if there are things "science" doesn't yet know about. Which is why I'm confident that science does indeed know what to measure.

You refer very often to measurements and measured data to support your arguments, Ethan. But to satisfy my curiosity, speaking as someone who has devoted a large part of his life to trying to find what measurements correlate perceptions with sound quality, would you mind listing the test equipment you use, please.

No matter how many times I explain that "imaging" is perception that happens outside of the gear. . .

Of course. I made this same point in the presentations at Seattle's Definitive Audio store last week. But it is indisputable that there are measurable properties that affect the quality of the perceived imaging.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[microstrip]

How did you establish -90 dB? What specific method did you use?

I just looked at the measurements published by Paul Miller at HFNRR and John Atkinson at Stereophile. If you have access and use better sources for measurements please let us know.

How do you know they sound better after warming up? Did you A/B a cold amp versus a warm amp blind? How do you know it's not your ears that acclimated? And let's say the amp really did change. Are you suggesting the sound changed but that change cannot be measured?

No I am saying that no difference was seen in the distortion measurements .
Yes, I used two amplifiers from Electrocompaniet and I measured them using the system I listed (and you ignored) with 24 bit 192kHz resolution.
* THD:
0.004 % (16 bit)
0.0005% (24 bit)
* Frequency Response:
20Hz - 20kHz (0.00/-0.01dB)
5Hz - 85kHz (0.00/-1.00dB)

see
http://www.spectraplus.com/Downloads/EMU Tracker Pre test report.pdf

BTW, we already have the placebo, the expectation and now the acclimated hears. What is next?

Again all the same questions. As far as I can tell you are arguing from belief, because you offered no verification for any of your dB figures.

Curious, my measuring system was listed in the post.

Now I know you're making it up as you go. You have no idea how much resolution either of my two systems have.

No, but for the good of the debate we all would like to know. BTW, why do you always forget to list factual equipments in your answers?

Ah, the old Argument From Authority. I've in the business of recording and mastering professionally for 40+ years.

I have been subjected to the force of gravity for 53 and it does not make me a expert in gravitational forces.

 

[mep]

You refer very often to measurements and measured data to support your arguments, Ethan. But to satisfy my curiosity, speaking as someone who has devoted a large part of his life to trying to find what measurements correlate perceptions with sound quality, would you mind listing the test equipment you use, please.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile



John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

This ought to be interesting. If you only need to measure four things in order to understand everything there is know in audio, does that mean you only need four pieces of test equipment?