Arny Krueger wrote:
"Rob" wrote in
message

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.

I felt these were assumptions, 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

I cuoldn't see any explanation of method, variables,
respondents.

Didn't find any of that anywhere on that whole web site?

Then you didn't look.

A bunch of people - probably highly skilled
in their field - concluding that they couldn't reliably
hear any difference given two modes of playback. I would
add an important part of context - the thread is about
*audible* difference.

Does that require discussion of all those things you questioned?

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.

I would, if I thought that you weren't trolling.


Trolling?! Not playing to the rules???
I can guess the background (in methodological terms) to the test you
cite, and I'd happily it with you here or elsewhere. I also have a few
issues with method mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

Walt wrote:

Or to put a finer point on it, imagine the third generation cassette
copy of "Abba's greatest hits" that spent the summer on the back
dashboard of my car. Transfer it to CD, and you'll find that the CD
sounds just like the third-generation sun-damaged Sweedish crooning on
the tape. What conclusions would you draw from that fact?

That "So Long" was basically a re-hash of Waterloo, and that ABBA didn't
get really really good until 1981's "The Visitors"? ;-)

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

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

Jim Lesurf wrote:


[snip]


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.


It *shouldn't* matter - methodology and method can and in many cases
should change in successive stages of experimentation. But one method
draws on one methodological approach - so in that sense I'm interested
in the methodological basis of ABX.

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. :-)


You're experience is probably quite representative. I was relaying this
episode to a friend - a polymer scientist - and he was with me up until
we started to work back to discuss ontological 'realities'. I don't
pretend to understand this whole issue - more of a working familiarity.
The difference between 'lab science' and the situation we're discussing
is human interaction on a far from basic level (hearing/listening for
example) with physical 'facts', and I think there may be methodological
anomalies.

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.

Correct is something that can be applied consistently. If a theory is a
way of explaining the world's workings (social, political and physical),
the methodology is the basis of theory. The problem - and hence no
'correct - is that people can arrive at the same theory from different
methodological positions.

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?


They do - I wouldn't call them facts by the way - hypotheses. I could
count them as facts if I knew the methodology and method.

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?


The method is, I'd guess, pretty well thought through in many
significant respects. I questioned the sample, but Arny didn't respond.

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.


No, I'd let that go so to speak :-)

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.

I'm sure they do - even I wouldn't count my experience (to the contrary)
as valid data. It just got me thinking, that's all.

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?


It's not the conditions etc relating to method that I'm bothered about
until I can establish the methodology. I mentioned elsewhere that I
guess it's positivist or empiricist - but I can't be sure. As I said
earlier, different methodologies can lead to similar methods.


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.


Arny did say there was a fuller explanation on the site, but I haven't
been able to find it.

Rob

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Stephen Worth wrote:
It can't be that 'great' if it's not been released on CD.

78s and LPs were produced for over 8 decades. The 20th century
represents a vast ocean of music- and one of the richest periods
of musicmaking of all time. Simply cataloguing the discography
of the 20th century is a Herculean task that continues to this day.

To assume that if something hasn't been released on CD, it must
be inferior is profoundly ignorant.

Is it? What is great to you may be rubbish to others. If there was a
commercial opening for this 'great' music it would have been released on
CD, in the main.


A friend recently gave me a bunch of LPs to put on to CD - women singers
and musicians of the 1920-40s (Victoria Spivey, Trixie Smith, Hociel
Thomas and many more). Alas there doesn't seem to be a commercial
opening for this type of music - so if you're reliant on CD you'd never
hear it. Unless you bump into a nice chap like me :-)

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
"Fleetie" wrote:

Unfortunately a stylus from the seventies will rarely be usable either, and
a new cartridge of reasonable quality costs more than a CD player and wears
out quicker.
Sad but true. And MC cartridges can be killed very easily. I know. I'm
on my THIRD Sumiko BPS (EIII version now).

A good cartridge can be bought for $50.
Erm... That's about 25 or 30 pounds. Sorry, but NO. I'm sure the AT-95E is
good value, but I'm not even sure you could buy one for that money these
days, if they're even still being made.

I'd hate to hear what it would do to female vocals.

I like my cartridge, but it was 220 pounds, which I guess is about $400.

Not necessarily the last word in high fidelity but in the US one can get
the Sumiko Oyster, Grado Green or various Ortofon, Audio-Technica and
Shure models.


.... and considerably cheaper in the the US. I got my last two AT OC9s
from the US for well under half UK prices - one got caught by customs
which cost me about 40UKP ot top, the other slipped through unnoticed.

In article ,
Rob wrote:
Is it? What is great to you may be rubbish to others. If there was a
commercial opening for this 'great' music it would have been released on
CD, in the main.


A friend recently gave me a bunch of LPs to put on to CD - women singers
and musicians of the 1920-40s (Victoria Spivey, Trixie Smith, Hociel
Thomas and many more). Alas there doesn't seem to be a commercial
opening for this type of music - so if you're reliant on CD you'd never
hear it. Unless you bump into a nice chap like me :-)

I'm sure there is material never released on LP too - 78 rpm only. Talking
book material on cassette, 16rpm, etc.

--
*Why isn't 11 pronounced onety one? *

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

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Stephen Worth" wrote in message
...
In article , Mr.T
MrT@home wrote:

Possibly good enough for those $1 LP's I guess, but I wouldn't play
*mine*
on a crap box. Hell a new stylus costs me that much!
You can get higher end turntables from the 70s used for much
less than the cost of low end new turntables. You just have to
look. Dual, Thorens, Rega... they're all out there and they're far
from being crap boxes.

Trouble is, $250 isn't what it costs to put together a credible vinyl
setup, following the instructions above.

snip bits about 250USD

I recently bought a pretty decent TT/cart for 35UKP plus p&p:

http://patchoulian.googlepages.com/jvcjl-a40


That looks better each time I see a pic of it!

(The Victor Company Of Japan didn't make much over the years that I wouldn't
have been very pleased to own....!! ;-)

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

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.

No, you've been told that there shouldn't be a difference, and that
others have achieved that result.

And I haven't been told the basis of that reasoning.

It's simple. It is well known and fairly easy to show that the CD format
does not alter musical signals taken off of a LP in any audible way.

Think of it as a plumbing problem. Think of music as being water. Think of
the LP as being a 1/2" pipe. Think of the CD as being a 4" pipe. If there's
a smooth coupling from the 1/2" pipe to the 4" pipe, how much is the 4" pipe
going to cut back on the flow of the water? Obviously, the 1/2" pipe is the
weakest link and will set the pace for the flow of water.

"Rob" wrote in message
...

I can guess the background (in methodological terms) to the test you cite,
and I'd happily it with you here or elsewhere.

It's pretty simple. We lined up the highest quality live and recorded analog
audibo sources we could in one of top recording studios in the region, and
compared a short piece of wire with a device that put the audio signal into
CD format and then conveted it back to a regular audio signal. We found no
audible difference, using a variety of musicians, audio engineers and
experienced audiophiles as our listeners.

I also have a few issues with method mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

What are they?

In article , Arny
Krueger
wrote:
[snip]

We can see that just the turntable + arm alone is very likely to blow
the $250 stated budget. Eyeball average is about $350

Most people don't have good preamps of sufficient grade, so I'll throw
in a $75 allowance for a good used preamp. Some of the turntables above
included a cartrdge, some didn't, I'll throw in a $50 allowance for
half a good cartrdige.

Another point which may be worth bearing in mind is that '78' recordings
may:

A) have been made using various non-RIAA pre-emphasis curves. So requiring
a rather flexible correct network for replay, and some suitable knowledge
or judgement on the part of the user. On this basis a normal 'good preamp'
may not suffice. (Unless the aim is to sample the results and then correct
them in the digital domain.)

B) may not actually be '78 rpm'. So may also require the replay speed to be
alterable, by ear. (Or, as above, be corrected once sampled.)

This also ignores questions like the choice of stylus size and tracking
angle... :-)

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