In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:

[Snip]

Add BBC FM to that from about the 1970s.


yes, it ws interesting to note the reaction from those who complained about
"digital sound" when CDs first were broadcast when they were told that
they'd been getting digital sound for years via the BBC's PCVM distribution
system.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

On 08/11/2011 16:44, Bill Wright wrote:
Rob wrote:

There is a 'fact remains': some people prefer analogue reproduction of
a musical event. And the explanation as 'distortion' is not helpful, IMO.

Not helpful to a particular belief system, or faith?


Hardly a system, or indeed faith - just listening to and enjoying music!

Rob

In article om,
Rob wrote:
On 08/11/2011 16:44, Bill Wright wrote:
Rob wrote:

There is a 'fact remains': some people prefer analogue reproduction of
a musical event. And the explanation as 'distortion' is not helpful,
IMO.

Not helpful to a particular belief system, or faith?


Hardly a system, or indeed faith - just listening to and enjoying music!

"Still, I never did care for the music much, it's the high fidelity."
Flanders & Swan c1960.

nothing (or everything) changes

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

"Rob" wrote

I think it captures what's necessary. Which makes it all the more weird.
I've got a good deal of my music on a computer nowadays. I've long
forgotten which are from CD, which digitised from LP. And while at first
listen they both sound 'hifi', it's pretty obvious which is preferable.
And not just to me.


Is this another thing that could have been worded better? because it looks
like another bit of self-contradiction to me.

You've forgotten which are which, yet its obvious which is preferable? Are
you saying that you have both (commercial) CD and digitised vinyl versions
of the same original recording on your computer and that, although you've
forgotten which is which you know which you prefer? If you've forgotten
which is which how do you know which version you prefer?


David.

Bob Latham wrote:

If so, then you have to agree that pleasing your ears is an important
part of listening to Hi-Fi / music. That being the case, why is it not
valid to say that, for what ever reason, I enjoy the sound of LP rather
more than anything digital?

It is valid! But that is NOT what most of those people say. They say
"analogue is better".

Spot the difference? There's a massive difference between "I prefer
analogue" and "analogue is better".

The latter is an assertion that can be subject to objective testing.
Set the criteria; make the measurements; compare and contrast.

By almost all OBJECTIVE criteria analogue audio recordings are NOT
better than digital ones.

Which, of course, has nothing to do with what you, or I, might
personally prefer. That is a SUBJECTIVE assessment, and thus entirely
different.

--
SteveT

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Before you can do any subjective comparisons, you would need to hear a
single live instrument in a room and record it with a mic close to your
ear - then reproduce with a loudspeaker in the same room.

Even that is questionable. Assuming your electrical bits are
"perfect", then you want the microphones to be placed where the
loudspeakers will be during playback. Thus the loudspeakers can
reproduce exactly what the microphones heard, at exactly the same
place.

I suppose microphones placed at your ears would require loudspeakers
placed at your ears - open-backed headphones, maybe?

--
SteveT

Bob Latham wrote:

Yes, I've just remembered why I don't partake here much . You
(collective) think CD players all sound the same don't you?

They have differences in their analogue circuitry. Also, D-A
converters are not all perfect - their conversions may have
non-linearities or inaccuracies.

Having said all that, I bet you'd be damn hard pressed to hear the
difference between most cheap and expensive CD players, assuming
everything else in the chain is identical. Fancy doing a statistically
valid blind hearing test?

--
SteveT

Bob Latham wrote:

I've recently had an
identical mp3 file on my synology NAS box and on a data stick. Both of
these files are accessible from my blu-ray player which outputs the data
as spdif to my AV8. They sound quite different. Thinking this must be
something to do with the way the BD is retrieving the data I thought try
another nas. So I downloaded some server software for a PC and got my PC
'doing a NAS' with the same file. Different again. The synology as far as
I know is serving in the same way as the PC UPNP? Something like that.
The
Synology has quite a bit more bass than either of the other two. Not
better but different and I don't know why.

Bob, I don't believe you! I am NOT suggesting you are lying, but I AM
suggesting you are mistaken.

I'd bet a week's wages that you could not hear any difference when the
tests were done scientifically - double-blinded, randomised, a
statistically valid sample size.

Of course, we'll never actually do that test, so my bet is moot. But I
am so confident in the laws of physics that I simply don't believe
there is any difference in the reproduced sound depending on whether
it's coming out of a NAS or a data stick. It's simply absurd.

--
SteveT

In article , Steve Thackery
wrote:
Bob Latham wrote:

I've recently had an identical mp3 file on my synology NAS box and on a
data stick. Both of these files are accessible from my blu-ray player
which outputs the data as spdif to my AV8. They sound quite different.
Thinking this must be something to do with the way the BD is retrieving
the data I thought try another nas. So I downloaded some server
software for a PC and got my PC 'doing a NAS' with the same file.
Different again. The synology as far as I know is serving in the same
way as the PC UPNP? Something like that. The Synology has quite a bit
more bass than either of the other two. Not better but different and I
don't know why.

Bob, I don't believe you! I am NOT suggesting you are lying, but I AM
suggesting you are mistaken.


but he might have a gold plated oxygen-free cable in one of the signal
paths. Or a Russ Andrews' special somewhere.


I'd bet a week's wages that you could not hear any difference when the
tests were done scientifically - double-blinded, randomised, a
statistically valid sample size.

Of course, we'll never actually do that test, so my bet is moot. But I
am so confident in the laws of physics that I simply don't believe there
is any difference in the reproduced sound depending on whether it's
coming out of a NAS or a data stick. It's simply absurd.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

Rob wrote:

One way
to explain what that experience is might be the influence of distortion.
Other ways might be harmonics, or the possible a variable that science
has yet to consider/uncover.

Harmonics IS distortion. If anything sounds different from the
original, in any way, then it is a distorted version of the original.

How else can it be made different without distorting it?

There is a 'fact remains': some people prefer analogue reproduction of a
musical event.

Yes, yes, but that isn't in dispute! The argument is not whether some
people prefer analogue recordings, it's whether analogue recordings are
better. The latter is objectively measureable. The former isn't, nor
can it be disputed.

--
SteveT