Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
factor, either.
"

Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has
managed two maxims from anecdote.

No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

This is a problem
because it still doesn't explain *why* some people prefer
a similar/same recording on vinyl.

That wasn't the point.

It's just another attampt at closure of the point: 'They can not, they
must
not'.

Completely missed the point.

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Nick Gorham" wrote in message


Richard Crowley wrote:

"Nick Gorham" wrote ...


Richard Crowley wrote:


Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.


Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year.

"Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before
posting it? Or are they using a different definintion
of "real" than the rest of us?

No, but you do seem to be using a different method of
clipping a post to make the point you want, and
attempting to acredit the author of a statement to the
wrong group in this case.


Huh? If you look closely, you will see that I
"accredited" it to NO specific author. I neither know nor care who said
it.


I'm questioning the concept of "adding realism" quite
apart from whether this applies to vinyl or digital, or
even to audio as such.

I did look closely, I see two "they"'s and a "us". To me
that involves at least two groups, and you are placing
yourself in the not "them" one.


Note that Nick is picking at words to avoid dealing with the important
issues that were raised.

Nick has effectively conceeded the points raised to Richard, but lacks the
candor to come out and say it.



Actually I don't give a toss if you think I am one one side or the other
in this, it just seemed to be rather sad, that Dave created a comment
that he tried to put in the mouths of the pro-vinyl group, then Richard
seems to have taken this point out of context and tried to make it the
subject of a strawman argument. Then following this several people
(including yourself Arni) has then jumped on this as a excuse to wheel
out the normal old stuff.

As it happens, I doubt you have ever head me claim that I believe that
vinyl has anywhere near the SN of CD, anywhere the low level of
distortion or anywhere near the convienence.

But what seems to be interesting, is that given I know all the above, I
(and it seems many others) still generally get greater pleasure from
listening to vinyl than I do CD.

I would have thought that would have been a interesting thing to
investigate, but you seem to prefer to disregard the fact that there are
people that prefer vinyl, and just insult them with a religious ferver
as far as I can see.

Oh, and by the way, last time I looked many of the training files on
your ABX site were missing or broken. And I have doubts about the
validity of some of them, For instance I would have expecetd 1% 2nd
harmonic distortion to be harder to spot, I seem to get a 100% result
given the files that are there at the moment.

--
Nick

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely, and
the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't a
factor, either.
"

Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has
managed two maxims from anecdote.

No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire LP music recording.
Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording captures in entirety any variance
in sources.

These assumptions aren't facts.


This is a problem
because it still doesn't explain *why* some people prefer
a similar/same recording on vinyl.

That wasn't the point.


Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no attempt is made
to explain cause. If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.

It's just another attampt at closure of the point: 'They can not, they
must
not'.

Completely missed the point.


I don't think so. Perhaps I could have rephrased to: "It's another
attempt by Arny to achieve closure ...". Why else would you have posted?

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message


As it happens, I doubt you have ever head me claim that I
believe that vinyl has anywhere near the SN of CD,
anywhere the low level of distortion or anywhere near the
convienence.

Good.

But what seems to be interesting, is that given I know
all the above, I (and it seems many others) still
generally get greater pleasure from listening to vinyl
than I do CD.

I don't have any problems with that. I was just watching a TV program called
"Car Crazy". The particular show talked about a guy who restored a 1964
Corvair which happened to be the first car he ever drove regularly, and
found that driving it around gave him greater pleasure than driving any
other car. Pretty much the same thing.

I would have thought that would have been a interesting
thing to investigate, but you seem to prefer to disregard
the fact that there are people that prefer vinyl, and
just insult them with a religious ferver as far as I can
see.

I think that if you review the facts, you will find that by the time I
started posting to the "Vinyl To CD on a PC" thread that things were not the
same as you have started out here.

Oh, and by the way, last time I looked many of the
training files on your ABX site were missing or broken.

Got any particulars?

And I have doubts about the validity of some of them, For
instance I would have expecetd 1% 2nd harmonic distortion
to be harder to spot, I seem to get a 100% result given
the files that are there at the moment.

Blind or sighted?

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely,
and the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't
a factor, either.
"

Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has
managed two maxims from anecdote.

No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire
LP music recording.

Not all of the recording, just all of the audible parts, and with a very
considerable safety magin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It can be verified with
both listening tests and measurements.

Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording
captures in entirety any variance in sources.

Not all of the sources, just all of the audible parts, and with a
considerable margin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It can be verified with
both listening tests and measurements. The measurements need to be
coordinated with what is known about human perception of sound. This has
been done.

These assumptions aren't facts.

Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used. Properly stated they are
findings of science that have been verified by just about anybody who has
bothered to take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or even
collect their own data. There are no known adverse findings that are
anywhere as near unbiased.

This is a problem
because it still doesn't explain *why* some people
prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl.

That wasn't the point.

Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no
attempt is made to explain cause.

The cause is pretty easy to figure out. Preference is based on stimulus and
perception. Perception is based on the body's sensory reaction to stimulus
and how the brain processes those reactions. If you trace through the steps,
you find the most variations in how different people's brains work.

If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.

The reason why can be easily understood if you are well-informed about
sensation and perception.

It's just another attampt at closure of the point:
'They can not, they must
not'.

Completely missed the point.


I don't think so. Perhaps I could have rephrased to:
"It's another attempt by Arny to achieve closure ...". Why else would
you have posted?

Error correction. Education.

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Nick Gorham" wrote ...
I did look closely, I see two "they"'s and a "us". To me that involves
at least two groups, and you are placing yourself in the not "them"
one.

And your point is what?
No opinion on the actual question?

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in its
audible sound quality than CD playback equipment does.
But your method eliminates that variable completely,
and the mastering decisions of a commercial CD aren't
a factor, either.
"
Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer has
managed two maxims from anecdote.
No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.
Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire
LP music recording.

Not all of the recording, just all of the audible parts, and with a very
considerable safety magin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It can be verified with
both listening tests and measurements.

Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording
captures in entirety any variance in sources.

Not all of the sources, just all of the audible parts, and with a
considerable margin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It can be verified with
both listening tests and measurements. The measurements need to be
coordinated with what is known about human perception of sound. This has
been done.


That's fine - I didn't know that. Reading lots of waffle about
supertweeters you can't hear, and subwoofers you shouldn't hear, makes
the notion of 'audible' a problem for dunces like me :-)

These assumptions aren't facts.

Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used. Properly stated they are
findings of science that have been verified by just about anybody who has
bothered to take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or even
collect their own data. There are no known adverse findings that are
anywhere as near unbiased.


Okeydokey. I'm probably expecting too much, but do you have a reference
to a (preferably peer reviewed) source to substantiate this?

This is a problem
because it still doesn't explain *why* some people
prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl.

That wasn't the point.

Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no
attempt is made to explain cause.

The cause is pretty easy to figure out. Preference is based on stimulus and
perception. Perception is based on the body's sensory reaction to stimulus
and how the brain processes those reactions. If you trace through the steps,
you find the most variations in how different people's brains work.


Is this your opinion or another robust fact?

If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.

The reason why can be easily understood if you are well-informed about
sensation and perception.


I think you're steering towards a rational/'nature'/positivist
explanation. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but you do understand
there are different ways of thinking about things?!

It's just another attampt at closure of the point:
'They can not, they must
not'.

Completely missed the point.


I don't think so. Perhaps I could have rephrased to:
"It's another attempt by Arny to achieve closure ...". Why else would
you have posted?

Error correction. Education.


Is that some sort of crossword clue?

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

"
Of course LP playback equipment varies far more in
its audible sound quality than CD playback
equipment does. But your method eliminates that
variable completely, and the mastering decisions of
a commercial CD aren't a factor, either.
"
Leaping assumptions there - the independent observer
has managed two maxims from anecdote.
No assumptions there at all. Just the facts.

Assumption 1 - CD-standard recording captures the entire
LP music recording.

Not all of the recording, just all of the audible parts,
and with a very considerable safety magin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It
can be verified with both listening tests and
measurements.

Assumption 2 - CD-standard recording
captures in entirety any variance in sources.

Not all of the sources, just all of the audible parts,
and with a considerable margin.

But this is not an assumption, it is a proven fact. It
can be verified with both listening tests and
measurements. The measurements need to be coordinated
with what is known about human perception of sound. This
has been done.

That's fine - I didn't know that. Reading lots of waffle
about supertweeters you can't hear, and subwoofers you
shouldn't hear, makes the notion of 'audible' a problem
for dunces like me :-)

These assumptions aren't facts.

Sure they are, as the word fact is commonly used.
Properly stated they are findings of science that have
been verified by just about anybody who has bothered to
take an unbiased look at the relevant empircal data, or
even collect their own data. There are no known adverse
findings that are anywhere as near unbiased.

Okeydokey. I'm probably expecting too much, but do you
have a reference to a (preferably peer reviewed) source
to substantiate this?

Here's an example of some people who tried to collect their own data:

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_digi.htm

The digital delay device being tested used the identical same data format as
audio CDs and was of professional grade. It acted like a CD recorder and CD
player back-to-back. Similar tests have been rerun from time to time in more
modern contexts with identical results.


This is a problem
because it still doesn't explain *why* some people
prefer a similar/same recording on vinyl.

That wasn't the point.

Mmm. To clarify - the 'point' is problematic because no
attempt is made to explain cause.

The cause is pretty easy to figure out. Preference is
based on stimulus and perception. Perception is based on
the body's sensory reaction to stimulus and how the
brain processes those reactions. If you trace through
the steps, you find the most variations in how different
people's brains work.

Is this your opinion or another robust fact?

Robust fact.

If you're not interested in 'why' then fine.

The reason why can be easily understood if you are
well-informed about sensation and perception.

I think you're steering towards a
rational/'nature'/positivist explanation. Nothing wrong
with that in itself, but you do understand there are
different ways of thinking about things?!

It seems to me that when a bunch of audiophiles and recording engineers
listen to high quality live and recorded analog sources and find that they
can't tell the difference between a short piece of wire and relatively
complex digital encoding and decoding in the signal path, a lot of heavy
philosophical thinking can be bypassed.

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:


I perhaps do not agree with everything I've read, but (as ukra's leading
'vinyl bigot') I would just like to say how refreshing it is to see an
intelligent rationale like this one - the digital bigots in ukra can't
do anything like it without getting all twisted out of shape!!

If you think the above is 'new',


No, not 'new' - the refreshing bit is the lack of the usual (and strange)
'digital bile' in the whole post!


then you may find

http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioM.../feedback.html

interesting. :-)

The above page was put onto the web in Jan 2003 and summarises work by
Noel Keywood and others back in the late 1970's and early 1980's.



Yes that it interesting - thank you! (I believe I have seen it before some
time back!)

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Nick Gorham" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Nick Gorham" wrote in message


Richard Crowley wrote:

"Nick Gorham" wrote ...


Richard Crowley wrote:


Vinyl *adds* realism to anything. Magic it
may be but how and why they don't care.


Nominated for r.a.t ridiculous statement of the year.

"Adds realism"? Do they read this stuff before
posting it? Or are they using a different definintion
of "real" than the rest of us?

No, but you do seem to be using a different method of
clipping a post to make the point you want, and
attempting to acredit the author of a statement to the
wrong group in this case.


Huh? If you look closely, you will see that I
"accredited" it to NO specific author. I neither know nor care who said
it.


I'm questioning the concept of "adding realism" quite
apart from whether this applies to vinyl or digital, or
even to audio as such.

I did look closely, I see two "they"'s and a "us". To me
that involves at least two groups, and you are placing
yourself in the not "them" one.


Note that Nick is picking at words to avoid dealing with the important
issues that were raised.

Nick has effectively conceeded the points raised to Richard, but lacks
the candor to come out and say it.

Actually I don't give a toss if you think I am one one side or the other
in this, it just seemed to be rather sad, that Dave created a comment that
he tried to put in the mouths of the pro-vinyl group, then Richard seems
to have taken this point out of context and tried to make it the subject
of a strawman argument. Then following this several people (including
yourself Arni) has then jumped on this as a excuse to wheel out the normal
old stuff.

As it happens, I doubt you have ever head me claim that I believe that
vinyl has anywhere near the SN of CD, anywhere the low level of distortion
or anywhere near the convienence.



No-one has ever claimed any of that - it's only in the heads of the twisty
people who are *terrified* by vinyl....