Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article . com,

Absolutely they are different issues. unfortunately for we the
audiophile public they are not seperate issues in practice. If an LP
sounds better than it's CD counterpart it doesn't matter to us why.
It should. The point being that if you know *why* the two may "sound
different" then you may be able to shine a light onto those who make
them "different" as a result of ignorance or idiocy.


This thread is becoming a pain :-)

Should?!

If they wish to participate in trying to improve the recordings that are
being made/sold.


This point has been debated at length here and elsewhere.
Nobody knows why the inherent sound of LPs can sound better than CD.
Unless you've been keeping something to yourself...

Alas, the above statement is confused by including both "inherent" and
"can". If something is inherent then it would be inescapable for that
format. Thus it would not be "can" which indicates variability depending on
the details.


I'm getting quite used to being told how to use English :-)

Something that's inherent is *an* essential attribute. It's not the
*only* attribute. Other attributes in this context include the turntable
and cartridge. I was pointing to something inherent to LP playback (I
don't pretend to know what) that can result in CD-superior sound.

Doubtless Don will correct my English. I'll just ask you to consider my
point.

Nor need it be true that "Nobody know" if you are talking about "can" since
in specific cases the reasons may be known.


Indeed - I don't know that 'nobody knows', I just think they can't prove
it. The specific case being - an LP and CD from the same master. The LP
sounds better to some people. Why?

This, for me, is one of the key problems with the situation we have
had in (UK at least) audio for decades. The magazines tend to publish
subjective views which show no sign of the writers having even the
desire to test or understand what the real reasons might be for what
they talk about. This then is communicated to readers as being, "all
magic and a matter of opinion". As if it were like the weather,
something to observe and comment upon, but not expect to be able to
control or do anything about.


I'd agree - but they do throw in technostuff to support claims.

Sometimes. Alas, this can be technobabble at times, or simply nonsense.
Varies.


I find it difficult to make *any* sense of it. I used to read Noel
Keywood's reviews/technical notes on reviews with some interest, but
they often appeared to contradict the subjective report. Just plain
confusing.

They do often state a control element - whether it's right or wrong I
couldn't say.

Yes, they do often comment that they compared with something else, or had
previously used something else, and had that in mind as a reference. But I
can't recall them routinely giving details of their test protocol and
results so anyone else can assess if what they are doing is sensible and
their conclusions reliable.

The few exceptions being examples like the attempts many years ago to do
systematic and controlled comparisons to resolve the arguments about "do
amps sound different" - which produced results that showed little sign that
the reviewers could actually discriminate as they claim.

And the best we get from the technically inclined on this
NG is that technical specification as a guide to sound quality is simply
a dependent variable. Advice, quite rightly, tends towards 'have a
listen'.

Have you missed my trying to explain that there are comparison methods
which can produce results which others can assess for themselves for
reliability, etc? :-)



No I haven't missed them, and yes you have tried :-)

There's no end of products that vinylise and valvify sound. Explanations
for their existence exist: the 'distortion'; the processing involved in
converting analogue to digital and then back to analogue; the CD
standard cannot capture all the sound, sub-LP standard transfer of
master recordings to CD, and a fifth - I'd bundle perception, the aural
experience (lack of understanding/appreciation), marketing, association
and a number of other intangibles that don't spring to mind.

it is true that many people make many claims. :-)

Some of them will be correct. Others may not. Alas, we often have claims,
but no basis of evidence we can assess. Just take-it-or-leave-it claims by
reviewers who claim to have the ability to discriminate.

I am afraid that I am biassed by my own time in the biz, and by many later
occasions. Too often I found by personal experience that what people
claimed didn't stand up when I tried listening or testing for myself, or
when I was involved in comparisions or tests with others. Thus I have
become rather doubtful of what is published in the UK magazines with no
basis in evidence being given.


We're all biased, and you're right I think to try and carve out a
reliable and replicable method that removes bias. But this is also a
methodological point, and relates to beliefs (biases) that all that
exists can be expressed in a 'scientifically rigorous' way.


IMO we the consumes need to support companies that make an effort to
master their releases with due care be it on CD SACD DVD-A and/or LP.
I would agree. But that process isn't help by blanket and unspecific
praise/complaints on the level of general assertions about the
"inherent" properties of the formats. It can be done by more specific
understanding, based on understanding the engineering of them, and how
specific instances fall short of what is possible.


OK, but I'd prefer to work back from the experience of listening, rather
than forward from the electronic and mechanical components.

I am quite happy to do both in a suitable combination. Indeed, that is the
way I have personally approach this area over the years. The point being
that when these are combined the results may be more reliable and helpful
than when they are not. Certainly that is my experience.


Absolutely, agreed. I do mean the social context (structural,
categorical and personal) of listening though.

Rob