Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message

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

What exactly is the ontological and epistemological
basis of the 'virtual reality' methodology? I have
to be absolutely clear on these points to accept
what you say.
Nice job of raising the bar to impossible heights.
I've seen this technique used many times before and
I'm not playing.

Well, it's your ball :-)
Out of curiosity: Perhaps you could explain your
question to me in plain English? I'm afraid that when I
read it the jargon and context passed me by. :-)

Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or
patronising -
No such motives or hidden intents. I asked for the
reasons given. I didn't know what you were asking, or why.

you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind
to me on more than one occasion. But here we go:
Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to
be explained ('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists,
how do you propose to set about knowing this reality
(your epistemology)? Given what exists and the approach
you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the
logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity
methodology)? Your method I know, roughly, thank you.
Are you asking about something specific (see below)? Or
are you asking Arny to explain the general basis of the
scientific method and the design and use of experimental
protocols and/or the analysis of experimental results?

None of the above. He's simply obfuscating.

When audiophiles reach for ontological/epistomological arguments
to defend why they 'trust what they hear', you know they're in
desperate straits -- nothing less than an attack on scientific
method remains to them. And I know it it's time to reach for my
killfile, because what is the point with arguing with solipsists
('what I hear is real to me, and that's enough')?


OK. I'm *fairly* sure I can hear a difference between LP-CD recordings
and LP-original. Not absolutely sure mind, no rigorous test, just mild
and recreational observation. Then I'm told there can't be any
difference. The reasoning, I gather, is based on something called
"Virtual Reality" methodology, which involves double-blind testing
amongst other things. And I asked what that was all about in an
admittedly precise way. Nothing to do with solipsism - at least from my end.

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

In article ,
Rob wrote:
OK. I'm *fairly* sure I can hear a difference between LP-CD recordings
and LP-original. Not absolutely sure mind, no rigorous test, just mild
and recreational observation.

The CD made using the same pickup etc as you're using for the playback -
and a high quality sound card on the computer, etc? And how did you match
levels exactly for the comparison?

--
*Modulation in all things *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

In rec.audio.tech Rob wrote:

OK. I'm *fairly* sure I can hear a difference between LP-CD recordings
and LP-original. Not absolutely sure mind, no rigorous test, just mild
and recreational observation

Then, simply put, your 'fair surety' is not warranted.


Then I'm told there can't be any
difference.

Bull****. NO ONE said there CAN'T be any difference. It's possible
to make a suboptimal transfer.

The reasoning, I gather, is based on something called
"Virtual Reality" methodology, which involves double-blind testing
amongst other things.

'Double blind testing' existed long before 'virtual reality' technology.

And I asked what that was all about in an
admittedly precise way. Nothing to do with solipsism - at least from my end.

You are laboring under at least several misconceptions.

There is NO known technical or physiological reason why a good digital
transfer of LP playback shouldn't capture ALL of the audible information
available.

Proceed from there.



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

Arny Krueger wrote:

Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the CD of the
same album, play them both and compare the results, they weren't
really comparing the two media. Instead, they were comparing the
(generally quite separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
their LP and CD playback equipment.

So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been
compressed to within an inch of its life?

(Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...)

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

In article ,
Glenn Richards wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the CD of the
same album, play them both and compare the results, they weren't
really comparing the two media. Instead, they were comparing the
(generally quite separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
their LP and CD playback equipment.

So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been
compressed to within an inch of its life?

You can't generalise. Indeed in my experience this isn't the case - but
then I stopped buying LPs when I got my first CD player. This 'loudness
wars' thingie with CD mastering is relatively recent and mainly applies to
some pop releases.

(Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...)

But then there are the inherent problems with vinyl which no mastering can
get round. So you're not starting from an even playing field.

--
*Marriage changes passion - suddenly you're in bed with a relative*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
. uk...
So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better?

That of course can be the case, but the reverse is also true, far more
often.

(Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...)

Obviously.

MrT.

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

[snip]


Mmm - I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or patronising -

No such motives or hidden intents. I asked for the reasons given. I
didn't know what you were asking, or why.


Fair enough - sorry if my opening was a little offhand.

Ok. :-)

you've explained the meaning of questions of this kind to me on more
than one occasion. But here we go:

Arny - what view do you hold relating to what exists to be explained
('your' ontology)? Then, given what exists, how do you propose to set
about knowing this reality (your epistemology)? Given what exists and
the approach you consider worthwhile to uncover it, what then is the
logic of your inquiry (your virtual relaity methodology)? Your method
I know, roughly, thank you.

Are you asking about something specific (see below)? Or are you asking
Arny to explain the general basis of the scientific method and the
design and use of experimental protocols and/or the analysis of
experimental results?


Arny has reached certain conclusions from a test. That test relied on a
certain method. And that method - whether he or anyone else like it or
not - arose from a particular methodology. In very plain terms I was
asking for the reasoning behind the method.

Is this specific to the individual test(s) he has described? Or are you
asking about the method generally called 'ABX' whenever it is employed? My
impression is that you are directing your questions just to a specific
instance, but I am not entirely sure of that.

[snip]

However whatever his view, it may not alter the actual methods or
results he and others refer to.

I can only assume that he doesn't have a view.

FWIW In my experience many academic scientists and engineers employ the
scientific method and various experimental protocols because they are the
usual techniques they are taught and find useful. Many seem not to concern
themselves with the arguments for or against them. Just use the tools from
the toolbox. I doubt most of my ex-colleagues would know what
'epistimology' or 'ontology' means without looking it up. They would
suspect they have encountered a theologian, or a philosopher who walked
into the wrong dept by mistake. :-)

If you are asking for a more general
explanation of something anyone might give, then perhaps someone else
can help. None of this was/is clear to me, hence my question.


No, nothing general - just why he would choose a method for a test. I
wasn't asking for general answers - it's by belief that there is no
'correct' methodology.

Can you explain what you mean here by "correct"? Your wording implies a
unique methodology. The reality is that various techniques may be applied,
and are chosen on the basis of what idea(s) an observation or experiment is
aimed at testing, and what forms of problems may be significant in the
specific context.

The context was several 'facts' Arny laid out earlier in this thread.

Again, as in my previous posting re 'context' - I don't know what
'facts' you are referring to here. If your point is specific, can you
please explain?


The specific point, and where this thread started, was an assertion that
CD-standard recording captures the whole LP audio recording for all
practical purposes. I had certain issues with the source of that
assertion which went unanswered; no matter. Arny then associated that
assertion with certain facts:

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

As you inserted yourself, the above need to be qualified in some way to
mean they refer to what is 'audible' in terms of being distinguishable
since all real systems will have limitations. Ditto for the circumstances
of use. However I would take such qualifiers to be read into the statements
in this context.

That said, the above seem simply to re-state the assertion you questioned.
However is this not on the basis that controlled tests return results that
support these "assumptions"? So your point is to question the nature of
those controlled tests?

When a statement has been subject to controlled experimental tests,
designed to cope with the relevant experimental problems, and found to be
supported, then the conclusions should only be called "assumptions" with
care as this term might me misunderstood. Do you do this because you don't
know the details of the experiments or the results?

I could easily say that if I hold a pen and then let it go it is my
"assumption" that it will accellerate downwards and fall to the ground.
However most people in most normal circumstances would not feel that
calling this an "assumption" means it is a mistake or in any serious doubt.
Of course, I can find circumstances where it won't apply, and in general,
we can expect any conclusions to only apply within a range of
circumstances, etc.

In general, also, if you have doubts about a given experimental design,
etc, and regard the results as doubtful, the normal recourse in science is
to propose better controlled experiments and judge on the basis of their
results.

I felt these were assumptions,

I obviously can't speak for Arny, but my understanding is that suitable
tests do support what you call assumptions. Also that descriptions of the
experimental designs and the control conditions, etc, have been dicussed on
many occasions over the years. Given this, is it suprising if Arny decides
he can't be bothered to cover old ground yet again? Is this not already
covered on his website or elsewhere?


and Arny then led me to a test carried
out which I think he feels was a good example of data collection in this
context:

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

[snip]

Digging a little deeper, there's a reference on the ABX site to
something called "Virtual Reality Methodology". I wondered what that
methodology was all about. Arny wouldn't tell me.

Afraid I don't know off-hand what it means, so can't comment on that. :-)
If I have seen the phrase in the past, then I am afraid I have forgotten
about it. But when I get a chance I'll check the above reference.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
. uk...
Arny Krueger wrote:

Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the CD of the
same album, play them both and compare the results, they weren't
really comparing the two media. Instead, they were comparing the
(generally quite separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
their LP and CD playback equipment.

So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been
compressed to within an inch of its life?

(Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...)



Me too, but what puzzles me is that instead of *demanding* that people
concede 'CD is better' for any particular reason (??) none of the digital
bigots ever seem to want to know why anyone might *prefer* to play vinyl?
(Outside this ng, in the real world, plenty of people do it seems....??)

Almost within touching distance of where I'm sitting, there are two CD racks
full of the sort stuff I like to (and do) play. It is though they do not
exist - I *never* think to play them! I just looked, there is even a 'boxed
set' called 'Smooth Classics FM, do not disturb' and it hasn't been - it's
still sealed in a cellophane wrapper!!

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/cellophane.jpg

It must have been there some years now and one of the *few* things I like on
Carsick FM is the 'Smooth Classics at Seven' prog..!!??

In fact, I suspect over half of them have never been played even once since
they were bought - why is that...??

(I think it's a 'natural selection' based on a genuine preference that has
bugger-all to do with technical differences!)

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Rob" wrote


OK. I'm *fairly* sure I can hear a difference between LP-CD recordings and
LP-original. Not absolutely sure mind, no rigorous test, just mild and
recreational observation. Then I'm told there can't be any difference. The
reasoning, I gather, is based on something called "Virtual Reality"
methodology, which involves double-blind testing amongst other things. And
I asked what that was all about in an admittedly precise way. Nothing to
do with solipsism - at least from my end.



No idea what that's all about, but I would say the one good use of a CDR is
to make a pretty close (depending on the equipment used) copy of an LP for
various purposes, but it's no use comparing the two - they fulfil a similar
purpose in vastly different ways, in my book....

Same with MP3s - why bother with CDs when it's pretty much impossible to
tell the difference between a CD and, say, a 256K MP3...???

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:38:17 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:

Me too, but what puzzles me is that instead of *demanding* that people
concede 'CD is better' for any particular reason (??) none of the digital
bigots ever seem to want to know why anyone might *prefer* to play vinyl?
(Outside this ng, in the real world, plenty of people do it seems....??)

In my experience, very few. Except kids who want to scratch.