WBF: How Much Science Talk Do You Want to See?
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Some people claim that our musical memory is mono. Quoting from The Psychoacoustics of Mono by Robert Poss http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/lmj/summary/v012/12.1poss.html
For me, this helps explain why music that I first heard monophonically retains a place in my memory with such immense clarity: the actual experience could be more closely approximated in mental playback.
End of quote.
Most audio studies relate preference with immediate gratification and instant enjoyment. But IMHO full cognition needs time.
L
Yes, there is servo speed control of the CD drive motor, but the really key difference from an analog turntable is the fact that the CD data is read into a memory buffer. It is then clocked out of the buffer with no moving parts and extremely high, if not perfect, speed accuracy. So, even if the mechanical motor drive is not timing perfect, as long as it stays within tolerances to deliver data into the buffer, the resulting speed stability issues are minimized. Analog, of course, has no ability to buffer the signal in the analog domain without getting into delay lines and their artifacts, which is not a good idea.
Yes, there can still be timing jitter in the digital signal path, but that has been minimized by continued engineering refinement over the years. With PC hard drive playback and asynchronous USB transmission to my DAC, jitter is effectively zero, except for any residual jitter inside the DAC itself. That is usually quite low in a well designed DAC.
Yes, there is servo speed control of the CD drive motor, but the really key difference from an analog turntable is the fact that the CD data is read into a memory buffer. It is then clocked out of the buffer with no moving parts and extremely high, if not perfect, speed accuracy. So, even if the mechanical motor drive is not timing perfect, as long as it stays within tolerances to deliver data into the buffer, the resulting speed stability issues are minimized. Analog, of course, has no ability to buffer the signal in the analog domain without getting into delay lines and their artifacts, which is not a good idea.
Yes, there can still be timing jitter in the digital signal path, but that has been minimized by continued engineering refinement over the years. With PC hard drive playback and asynchronous USB transmission to my DAC, jitter is effectively zero, except for any residual jitter inside the DAC itself. That is usually quite low in a well designed DAC.
This subject is far from the intent of this thread. It would be interesting to discuss in its own thread.
I can't say I know how accurate TT servo loops are, but based upon what I do know of both technologies, yes. That is, CD speed/read control is far more accurate. There's simply no need for the same level of control on a TT and it would be prohibitively expensive. Furthermore, CD's have extensive error correction and LPs do not.
As noted above most CD players buffer the data so there is no (or very, very little) correlation of output noise and jitter to the disk reading mechanism.
It is really apples and oranges, nay apples and watermelons, or maybe oak trees, or whatever. Two very different technologies; about the only things in common are that both employ a spinning disk and both provide music.
I also agree with Caelin (note the date) in that the subject is far from the objective of this thread.
Sorry, the question was asked, and I tried to answer it succinctly. I do not feel there is a need to go further with that particular diversion.
No problem at all, Fitz! A quick look at most any thread on WBF will reveal a lot of wandering from the original topic. Besides you didn't start it... 
I agree with not going further and will stop.
I agree with not going further and will stop.
The thread is a poll; about science (measurements) @ the service of improved music listening performance/reproduction, versus only listening/hearing.
...And some variables between.
It encompasses all we are talking about right now, IMHO. It is related to the behind and beyond the scenes...objectivity, subjectivity, analog and digital domain, the music recordings, the tools used to improved...speaker's positioning, room's acoustics, our hearing, tweaks, microphones, cables, ...everything that measures differently and that sounds differently, and what percentage level we accord to one, to the other, or to both.
We learn more in life when we allow ourselves to explore further than being restricted by the confinement of conventionality. ...Way of speech.
We are aware of the ultimate purpose from this thread, and it is to live in a better world all of us together with all we can bring; audio/music recordings/sound reproduction from science through measurements/analyses/comparisons and from various listening tests (double blinded and non-blinded), and in real life music listening from various audio gear in our own rooms (2-channel stereo with two loudspeakers). ...Multichannel too.
For me, after the recent volatility and exit of some well respected and highly professional experienced members, plus their strong caliber in hi-end audio, with their backgrounds and energetic passion in music reproduction, the things we talk about is relevant to us all. I put myself in their shoes, and in Amir's shoes, ...I open my eyes wider, I look @ the full broader picture, and search for the right balance that unite us all under the best light possible with all the right ingredients.
This is not the absolute audio bible here we're after, but the day-to-day search to make today the best day over yesterday. The best science, the best set of ears, the best experiences in the best music recordings from the best audio gear and best loudspeakers...are only as best as the people themselves communicating/sharing their findings.
...Not convincing others but adding to other's findings, and questioning their finds. ...That's a fair balance between science and listening...in my book. They go together.
I'm here to learn first, not to be restricted, not to be rejected, not to be disrespected, not to be stressed out...but to learn first. ...I share my thoughts honestly, and I read other's thoughts with all I got and not. I actively participate in discussions that interest me passionately and with the best accommodation possible with all the other members who share similar audio//music interests during their journey.
We're all here because we love music, we love listening to music, we love to be transported and deeply moved...and we're here because we're looking for the best ways to improve it. We all have our own unique musical/auditory/visual/sensory experience...they're all valid, because they exist, they're there. ...It's only that we evolve and changes are made for the better...we hope, we believe, we ask, we explore, we're freeing ourselves a little bit more day after day, we expand our visions looking for new horizons, better ones.
We're not @ an ice cream age yet.
...And some variables between.
It encompasses all we are talking about right now, IMHO. It is related to the behind and beyond the scenes...objectivity, subjectivity, analog and digital domain, the music recordings, the tools used to improved...speaker's positioning, room's acoustics, our hearing, tweaks, microphones, cables, ...everything that measures differently and that sounds differently, and what percentage level we accord to one, to the other, or to both.
We learn more in life when we allow ourselves to explore further than being restricted by the confinement of conventionality. ...Way of speech.
We are aware of the ultimate purpose from this thread, and it is to live in a better world all of us together with all we can bring; audio/music recordings/sound reproduction from science through measurements/analyses/comparisons and from various listening tests (double blinded and non-blinded), and in real life music listening from various audio gear in our own rooms (2-channel stereo with two loudspeakers). ...Multichannel too.
For me, after the recent volatility and exit of some well respected and highly professional experienced members, plus their strong caliber in hi-end audio, with their backgrounds and energetic passion in music reproduction, the things we talk about is relevant to us all. I put myself in their shoes, and in Amir's shoes, ...I open my eyes wider, I look @ the full broader picture, and search for the right balance that unite us all under the best light possible with all the right ingredients.
This is not the absolute audio bible here we're after, but the day-to-day search to make today the best day over yesterday. The best science, the best set of ears, the best experiences in the best music recordings from the best audio gear and best loudspeakers...are only as best as the people themselves communicating/sharing their findings.
...Not convincing others but adding to other's findings, and questioning their finds. ...That's a fair balance between science and listening...in my book. They go together.
I'm here to learn first, not to be restricted, not to be rejected, not to be disrespected, not to be stressed out...but to learn first. ...I share my thoughts honestly, and I read other's thoughts with all I got and not. I actively participate in discussions that interest me passionately and with the best accommodation possible with all the other members who share similar audio//music interests during their journey.
We're all here because we love music, we love listening to music, we love to be transported and deeply moved...and we're here because we're looking for the best ways to improve it. We all have our own unique musical/auditory/visual/sensory experience...they're all valid, because they exist, they're there. ...It's only that we evolve and changes are made for the better...we hope, we believe, we ask, we explore, we're freeing ourselves a little bit more day after day, we expand our visions looking for new horizons, better ones.
We're not @ an ice cream age yet.
Last edited:
The objective of this thread/poll? ...Amir simply wants to reunite all the great minds...to give them all an equal voice that contributes to the totality of an audio best forum.
That is interesting. Have you compared the SME 3012 to the current SME V-12? Is it really better? I've not read a direct comparison.
Is the original SME Model 30 better than the current Model 30/3 or the Model 30/12? If so, why have there been something like eight changes to the SME motor controller over the years?
Love, just LOVE, the Myles vs. Puff comparison.
Sorry if this strays a bit from the OP. These questions are another reason I would like to see more measurements along with listening comparisons of these old and current designs.
K
If you are satisfied with sighted, uncontrolled listening testimonials in prose, that is about all you are likely to see with regard to vinyl playback gear these days. It may be a fair assessment that vinyl lovers are not at all oriented to audio science, particularly not with attempts to measure tone arms, turntables cartridges and such. So, we just do not see such measurements anywhere today, though that was not always true back in the day when vinyl was truly king.
By the way, it is Miles Davis, not Myles.
My parents, at least, could not tolerate Miles in the 50's, feeling that Bennie Goodman or many others from the 30's and 40's were much better. So, some things never change about newer vs. older music with each succeeding generation. I'll take Miles any day myself over Puff. But, my daughter has her own set of music preferences that are different, fortunately not including Puff, either.
If you are satisfied with sighted, uncontrolled listening testimonials in prose, that is about all you are likely to see with regard to vinyl playback gear these days. It may be a fair assessment that vinyl lovers are not at all oriented to audio science, particularly not with attempts to measure tone arms, turntables cartridges and such. So, we just do not see such measurements anywhere today, though that was not always true back in the day when vinyl was truly king.
By the way, it is Miles Davis, not Myles.
My parents, at least, could not tolerate Miles in the 50's, feeling that Bennie Goodman or many others from the 30's and 40's were much better. So, some things never change about newer vs. older music with each succeeding generation. I'll take Miles any day myself over Puff. But, my daughter has her own set of music preferences that are different, fortunately not including Puff, either.
I never tried the V-12, for me its basically the same arm only longer. SME V's problem wasn't tracking its the way it sounds, specially in the bass.
Motors have changed since the 80's you can't get many of the same ones any longer so manufacturers have to also change their controllers to match the new motors. Unless there was something drastically wrong with the earlier versions or they changed something major there shouldn't be any difference between the different generations.
…. Fitzcaraldo is right, its Miles, damn autocorrect gets me every time!david
You can have as many measurements as you want, if not grossly incompetent they're not going to tell you much about the sound quality of a turntable, tonearm and cartridge. There's a lot of art in addition to the engineering and that's were the genius lies hidden, just ask Win (Mosin).
Auto correct!
Count yourself lucky, mine is getting to Biebert liking age!
david
I voted, "I hate all the talk about science.The only thing that matters are my ears.”. Sure science has its place in nearly every facet of of the universe. I think it would help the audio industry immensely if we kept that in mind. There’s an interesting article about this by Dr Rupert Sheldrake entitled, "Why Bad Science Is Like Bad Religion”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-ru...d-science-is-like-bad-religion_b_2200597.html
My thoughts about science and high-end audio discussions include:
I suspect due to the internet it seems that many audio enthusiasts are so enthralled with the science behind reproduced music as if that somehow validates their level of enthusiasm for music and/or validates their playback system’s performance level when nothing could be further from the truth. If per chance my claim that of all the music info embedded in a given recording (regardless of format) that even though read and processed but only 40 – 60% remains audible at the speakers due to universal distortions inducing a much raised noise floor in every last playback system contains any truth, then that should imply much of the audio science discussed is to a good extent either wrong, irrelevant, or half-baked.
Take cryo-treated cables for example. Many enthusiasts who think cryo-treating cables has no performance benefit believe so because it can’t be scientifically proven. Hence, they won’t even try it for themselves, yet they’ll spend the rest of their lives in the forums defending why cryo-treating cables can't improve the sonics. How can I possibly share with these types the sonic differences between single and double-vapor cryo’ing vs full immersion cryo’ing if they refuse to even entertain the possibility that cryo’ing has any affect in the first place?
Now I’m not the loser in such endless debates, but the industry at large is because this type of ever growing closed-mindedness keeps the industry at large from moving forward performance-wise. Even though there are some bright scientists who've been cryo'ing audio parts for 30 years or more. And there are a number of other controversial performance-related subjects just like cryo-treating that seem to likewise keep the industry from advancing. All because science says it’s not possible.
Again I reference Tesla’s thoughts about modern scientists (or science-minded types) because I think it’s so applicable with today’s high-end audio:
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-ru...d-science-is-like-bad-religion_b_2200597.html
My thoughts about science and high-end audio discussions include:
I suspect due to the internet it seems that many audio enthusiasts are so enthralled with the science behind reproduced music as if that somehow validates their level of enthusiasm for music and/or validates their playback system’s performance level when nothing could be further from the truth. If per chance my claim that of all the music info embedded in a given recording (regardless of format) that even though read and processed but only 40 – 60% remains audible at the speakers due to universal distortions inducing a much raised noise floor in every last playback system contains any truth, then that should imply much of the audio science discussed is to a good extent either wrong, irrelevant, or half-baked.
Take cryo-treated cables for example. Many enthusiasts who think cryo-treating cables has no performance benefit believe so because it can’t be scientifically proven. Hence, they won’t even try it for themselves, yet they’ll spend the rest of their lives in the forums defending why cryo-treating cables can't improve the sonics. How can I possibly share with these types the sonic differences between single and double-vapor cryo’ing vs full immersion cryo’ing if they refuse to even entertain the possibility that cryo’ing has any affect in the first place?
Now I’m not the loser in such endless debates, but the industry at large is because this type of ever growing closed-mindedness keeps the industry at large from moving forward performance-wise. Even though there are some bright scientists who've been cryo'ing audio parts for 30 years or more. And there are a number of other controversial performance-related subjects just like cryo-treating that seem to likewise keep the industry from advancing. All because science says it’s not possible.
Again I reference Tesla’s thoughts about modern scientists (or science-minded types) because I think it’s so applicable with today’s high-end audio:
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”
Well if anyone knows about bad science it should be Rupert Sheldrake.
And if per chance there is not much behind what you claim? Then the rest of the claim becomes rather without meaning or value.
Perhaps another Tesla quote is fitting right about here:
“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.”
How do you use terms like "noise" and specific percentages while avoiding discussion of science??? Those are engineering and scientific notions, no?
This again is the discussion of science, specifically material science. How is science avoided when it is part of the argument?
I see no issues with audiophiles believing all manner of tweaks like this. Every possible type of cable for example is built and has devotees. If people are closed minded, how is this happening?
I don't think that statement is your friend. He says nothing about presumption of value of certain properties but rather proof through experimentation. Saying this and that wire treatment has value is a claim, not an experiment or verification of said property.
Again, we must separate audio technology from audio science. We find audio technology everywhere and very little audio science, as most consumers are not prepared or interested in debating audio science.
Wire is a good example. There are known technical reasons to use OCC pure copper or silver plated wires for ICs and speaker cables - military and audio engineers know them. But there is no proved known audio science in cables for the audio band.
The best speakers designers, do they use science (all measurements) in designing their excellent sounding loudspeakers? ...Crossovers, drivers, speaker's enclosures, braces, phase tuning, materials employed, geometry, quality parts with best margin tolerances, matching pairs, etc.
You bet they do.
You bet they do.
Of course they do. Somewhere in the design process, however, they also listen. The interesting question, to me, is this: How much does the listening influence the final design? I think this varies from designer to designer and, in part, this is why there are so many different sounding speaker systems.
How did Magico arrive at the different "sounds" of the Q and S lines? Simply measurements, or various combinations of measurements, listening, cost constraints and target customers' subjective preferences in sound?
Similarly, Pass Labs still markets two distinct lines, the X.8 and the XA.8 (excluding the XS line).
It's a balancing act; between science, listening, and magic powder (business plan/strategy). :b
