If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Nospam has provided a link in the past. I think an organisation called the American Acoustic Society carried out a series of tests and then reported the inability of people to discriminate between various standards of highness of fi. Unfortunately, although full descriptions were not given, there appeared to have been various standards of everything including environment, source, amplifier and speakers. The people carrying out the tests were well meaning but I think they were wasting their time. translated: they didn't get the results you wanted. Translated: they were a bunch of amatuers. I would pay much more attention to them if the tests were conducted by a good experimental psychologist. feel free to cite a double-blind test that shows that people can reliably tell the difference between 24/192k and 16/44k from the same source. also feel free to cite a double-blind test that shows that people can reliably tell the difference between analog and digital from the same source. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
On 01/08/2015 17:01, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote: do your own tests. i guarantee that you'll find that people do no better than chance (unless you rig the test). I know of one double blind test conducted years ago by Peter Walker of Quad. The question was whether the Quad amplifier sounded different from the Naim and whether or not that difference could be detected. This arose from a long discussion amongst reviewers over which sounded better, the Quad or the Naim. Peter thought that most of the reviewers were bull**** artists and couldn't actually distinguish Quads from Naims. So he set up the double blind test. The results of this would have pleased nospam. On the average, no reviewer could tell which amplifier they had been listening to. You can be sure that Peter Walker rubbed their nose in these results in no uncertain fashion. But then ... Peter Walker shocked everybody by, in spite of the results of the double blind test, going on to claim that Quads DID sound different from Naims. He went on to use a signal generator and an oscilloscope to show the difference in output. He explained that this difference was due to the way the respective amplifiers did something or other (I've long since forgotten exactly what) with a capacitor in the output stage of the respective amplifiers. Finally, he showed that if wired up a Quad like a Naim and vice versa, the Quad behaved like a Naim and the Naim behaved like a Quad. From this it is apparent that there are measurable differences in sound output which cannot be detected by a simple double-blind test. I expect that nospam would no doubt say these differences are not important and should be ignored. Nevertheless it is apparent that reviewers _could_ hear differences in the course of ordinary listening even though they could not hear them in the course of a double blind test. in other words, two systems where a difference can be seen on a test bench also has an audible difference. imagine that! Some argue that differences outside audible range ('the senses') don't matter. I'd intuitively disagree - sound is experienced in ways other than hearing (vibration, say), plus psychoacoustic variables. I've always felt these two factors contribute the the 'vinyl sounds better' line of thinking. For which there need be no proof - which some of the more technically minded don't seem to get. -- Cheers, Rob |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
In article , RJH wrote:
Some argue that differences outside audible range ('the senses') don't matter. I'd intuitively disagree - sound is experienced in ways other than hearing (vibration, say), plus psychoacoustic variables. I've always felt these two factors contribute the the 'vinyl sounds better' line of thinking. For which there need be no proof - which some of the more technically minded don't seem to get. the 'vinyl sounds better' claim is nothing more than the distortion inherent in vinyl, something which can easily be added back. same for vacuum tube amps. meanwhile, the rest of the world is enjoying more accurate reproduction that digital provides. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
On 2015-08-01 16:11:50 +0000, RJH said:
On 01/08/2015 17:01, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: do your own tests. i guarantee that you'll find that people do no better than chance (unless you rig the test). I know of one double blind test conducted years ago by Peter Walker of Quad. The question was whether the Quad amplifier sounded different from the Naim and whether or not that difference could be detected. This arose from a long discussion amongst reviewers over which sounded better, the Quad or the Naim. Peter thought that most of the reviewers were bull**** artists and couldn't actually distinguish Quads from Naims. So he set up the double blind test. The results of this would have pleased nospam. On the average, no reviewer could tell which amplifier they had been listening to. You can be sure that Peter Walker rubbed their nose in these results in no uncertain fashion. But then ... Peter Walker shocked everybody by, in spite of the results of the double blind test, going on to claim that Quads DID sound different from Naims. He went on to use a signal generator and an oscilloscope to show the difference in output. He explained that this difference was due to the way the respective amplifiers did something or other (I've long since forgotten exactly what) with a capacitor in the output stage of the respective amplifiers. Finally, he showed that if wired up a Quad like a Naim and vice versa, the Quad behaved like a Naim and the Naim behaved like a Quad. From this it is apparent that there are measurable differences in sound output which cannot be detected by a simple double-blind test. I expect that nospam would no doubt say these differences are not important and should be ignored. Nevertheless it is apparent that reviewers _could_ hear differences in the course of ordinary listening even though they could not hear them in the course of a double blind test. in other words, two systems where a difference can be seen on a test bench also has an audible difference. imagine that! Some argue that differences outside audible range ('the senses') don't matter. I'd intuitively disagree - sound is experienced in ways other than hearing (vibration, say), plus psychoacoustic variables. There are very big differences between experiencing music in a concert hall, a live amplified performance, recorded music (digital or analog) in a well balanced room with high end audio equipment, and using just high end head phones. Head phones are certainly going to provide a sense of audio environment isolation, but will not provide the listener with any visceral physical experience. To truly understand this experience it is worth sitting in a concert hall or church where there is a performnce of Bach organ music on a great pipe organ. Those low tones are seldom replicated in recorded music, though I have heard some systems which come close. Earbuds should not even be included in this discussion, though there are some high end in-ear phones such as the Etymotic ER4 MicroPro which provide accurate frequency response. I've always felt these two factors contribute the the 'vinyl sounds better' line of thinking. For which there need be no proof - which some of the more technically minded don't seem to get. Personally, I have quite an eclectic collection of music, vinyl and CD, and ultimately the more enjoyable listening experience for me is a well mastered CD. I have the Von Karajan, Berliner Symphony, Beethoven symphonies in original vinyl which I bought sometime in the early 70's, then added some CDs which were OK, but didn't seem well mastered, and then I got a fresh Deutsche Grammaphone ADD remastered CD set which is an astonishing eye-opener which blows away many of the ideas that I might have held that vinyl was better. The same can be said for a DDD CD Polydor Archive recording of Handel's "Water Music" by The English Concert Orchestra lead by Trevor Pinnock. I don't have a vinyl edition of that, but I am not missing anything. That is an amazing performance and recording. In terms of jazz I have vinyl editions of the Dave Brubeck Quartet's "Time Out" and Art Pepper's "Art Pepper Meets the Rhythm Section", both ADD remastered, and there is no comparison, the remastered CDs are better than the vinyl. The bigger argument comes with ripped MP3s where the sampling rate and other compression can lead to less than pleasing results when palyed over a quality system, but might seem just fine to the earbud crowd. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 12:01:23 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: do your own tests. i guarantee that you'll find that people do no better than chance (unless you rig the test). I know of one double blind test conducted years ago by Peter Walker of Quad. The question was whether the Quad amplifier sounded different from the Naim and whether or not that difference could be detected. This arose from a long discussion amongst reviewers over which sounded better, the Quad or the Naim. Peter thought that most of the reviewers were bull**** artists and couldn't actually distinguish Quads from Naims. So he set up the double blind test. The results of this would have pleased nospam. On the average, no reviewer could tell which amplifier they had been listening to. You can be sure that Peter Walker rubbed their nose in these results in no uncertain fashion. But then ... Peter Walker shocked everybody by, in spite of the results of the double blind test, going on to claim that Quads DID sound different from Naims. He went on to use a signal generator and an oscilloscope to show the difference in output. He explained that this difference was due to the way the respective amplifiers did something or other (I've long since forgotten exactly what) with a capacitor in the output stage of the respective amplifiers. Finally, he showed that if wired up a Quad like a Naim and vice versa, the Quad behaved like a Naim and the Naim behaved like a Quad. From this it is apparent that there are measurable differences in sound output which cannot be detected by a simple double-blind test. I expect that nospam would no doubt say these differences are not important and should be ignored. Nevertheless it is apparent that reviewers _could_ hear differences in the course of ordinary listening even though they could not hear them in the course of a double blind test. in other words, two systems where a difference can be seen on a test bench also has an audible difference. imagine that! But that audible difference could not be confirmed by a double-blind test. the issue with digital versus analog is that there *isn't* a difference on a test bench and nobody can tell the difference. As confirmed by the shonky double-blind test you like falling back upon. monster cable and lamp cord are both exactly the same thing electrically (just wire), with one having thick insulation and a high price tag, which is why nobody can tell the difference. Rather than let you change the subject I will reinsert the text you omitted (no doubt accidentally) when quoting my article to which you purport to be resonding: I have already cited http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm which in turn cited "AES preprint 3207 by Oohashi et al. claims that reproduced sound above 26 kHz "induces activation of alpha-EEG (electroencephalogram) rhythms that persist in the absence of high frequency stimulation, and can affect perception of sound quality." -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: monster cable and lamp cord are both exactly the same thing electrically (just wire), with one having thick insulation and a high price tag, which is why nobody can tell the difference. Rather than let you change the subject I will reinsert the text you omitted (no doubt accidentally) when quoting my article to which you purport to be resonding: i'm not changing the subject and was not commenting on your link. that's why i snipped it. my point about monster cable is that if two cables are electrically identical, there won't be an audible difference. getting back to digital, if it can be be proven that sampling at 44.1k can reproduce everything up to 22k (and it can) then there won't be an audible difference between an analog source and a reconstructed source. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 10:40:38 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On 2015-08-01 16:11:50 +0000, RJH said: On 01/08/2015 17:01, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: do your own tests. i guarantee that you'll find that people do no better than chance (unless you rig the test). I know of one double blind test conducted years ago by Peter Walker of Quad. The question was whether the Quad amplifier sounded different from the Naim and whether or not that difference could be detected. This arose from a long discussion amongst reviewers over which sounded better, the Quad or the Naim. Peter thought that most of the reviewers were bull**** artists and couldn't actually distinguish Quads from Naims. So he set up the double blind test. The results of this would have pleased nospam. On the average, no reviewer could tell which amplifier they had been listening to. You can be sure that Peter Walker rubbed their nose in these results in no uncertain fashion. But then ... Peter Walker shocked everybody by, in spite of the results of the double blind test, going on to claim that Quads DID sound different from Naims. He went on to use a signal generator and an oscilloscope to show the difference in output. He explained that this difference was due to the way the respective amplifiers did something or other (I've long since forgotten exactly what) with a capacitor in the output stage of the respective amplifiers. Finally, he showed that if wired up a Quad like a Naim and vice versa, the Quad behaved like a Naim and the Naim behaved like a Quad. From this it is apparent that there are measurable differences in sound output which cannot be detected by a simple double-blind test. I expect that nospam would no doubt say these differences are not important and should be ignored. Nevertheless it is apparent that reviewers _could_ hear differences in the course of ordinary listening even though they could not hear them in the course of a double blind test. in other words, two systems where a difference can be seen on a test bench also has an audible difference. imagine that! Some argue that differences outside audible range ('the senses') don't matter. I'd intuitively disagree - sound is experienced in ways other than hearing (vibration, say), plus psychoacoustic variables. There are very big differences between experiencing music in a concert hall, a live amplified performance, recorded music (digital or analog) in a well balanced room with high end audio equipment, and using just high end head phones. Head phones are certainly going to provide a sense of audio environment isolation, but will not provide the listener with any visceral physical experience. To truly understand this experience it is worth sitting in a concert hall or church where there is a performnce of Bach organ music on a great pipe organ. Those low tones are seldom replicated in recorded music, though I have heard some systems which come close. If you are into organ music (as I am) these are what you want. http://www.ultrahighendreview.com/up...802diamond.pdf Frpm base to highest treble they are magnificent. Unfortunately, so is their price. Earbuds should not even be included in this discussion, though there are some high end in-ear phones such as the Etymotic ER4 MicroPro which provide accurate frequency response. I've always felt these two factors contribute the the 'vinyl sounds better' line of thinking. For which there need be no proof - which some of the more technically minded don't seem to get. Personally, I have quite an eclectic collection of music, vinyl and CD, and ultimately the more enjoyable listening experience for me is a well mastered CD. I have the Von Karajan, Berliner Symphony, Beethoven symphonies in original vinyl which I bought sometime in the early 70's, then added some CDs which were OK, but didn't seem well mastered, and then I got a fresh Deutsche Grammaphone ADD remastered CD set which is an astonishing eye-opener which blows away many of the ideas that I might have held that vinyl was better. The same can be said for a DDD CD Polydor Archive recording of Handel's "Water Music" by The English Concert Orchestra lead by Trevor Pinnock. I don't have a vinyl edition of that, but I am not missing anything. That is an amazing performance and recording. In terms of jazz I have vinyl editions of the Dave Brubeck Quartet's "Time Out" and Art Pepper's "Art Pepper Meets the Rhythm Section", both ADD remastered, and there is no comparison, the remastered CDs are better than the vinyl. The bigger argument comes with ripped MP3s where the sampling rate and other compression can lead to less than pleasing results when palyed over a quality system, but might seem just fine to the earbud crowd. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 12:01:24 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Nospam has provided a link in the past. I think an organisation called the American Acoustic Society carried out a series of tests and then reported the inability of people to discriminate between various standards of highness of fi. Unfortunately, although full descriptions were not given, there appeared to have been various standards of everything including environment, source, amplifier and speakers. The people carrying out the tests were well meaning but I think they were wasting their time. translated: they didn't get the results you wanted. Translated: they were a bunch of amatuers. I would pay much more attention to them if the tests were conducted by a good experimental psychologist. feel free to cite a double-blind test that shows that people can reliably tell the difference between 24/192k and 16/44k from the same source. also feel free to cite a double-blind test that shows that people can reliably tell the difference between analog and digital from the same source. I know of no satisfactory double-blind tests -period. http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...l_thinking.htm There have been some AXB tests which are open to interpretation. See for example https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-m...t-audible.html or http://tinyurl.com/o63vybl Not a double-blind test - but: I have a set of vinyl records of the complete organ works of Bach recorded by Peter Hurford. I have a set of CDs of the same records recorded from the original masters used for the vinyls. There is no doubt of which set I prefer. There is an audible difference in ambience and the vinyls win every time. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
On 8/1/2015 1:40 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-08-01 16:11:50 +0000, RJH said: On 01/08/2015 17:01, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: do your own tests. i guarantee that you'll find that people do no better than chance (unless you rig the test). I know of one double blind test conducted years ago by Peter Walker of Quad. The question was whether the Quad amplifier sounded different from the Naim and whether or not that difference could be detected. This arose from a long discussion amongst reviewers over which sounded better, the Quad or the Naim. Peter thought that most of the reviewers were bull**** artists and couldn't actually distinguish Quads from Naims. So he set up the double blind test. The results of this would have pleased nospam. On the average, no reviewer could tell which amplifier they had been listening to. You can be sure that Peter Walker rubbed their nose in these results in no uncertain fashion. But then ... Peter Walker shocked everybody by, in spite of the results of the double blind test, going on to claim that Quads DID sound different from Naims. He went on to use a signal generator and an oscilloscope to show the difference in output. He explained that this difference was due to the way the respective amplifiers did something or other (I've long since forgotten exactly what) with a capacitor in the output stage of the respective amplifiers. Finally, he showed that if wired up a Quad like a Naim and vice versa, the Quad behaved like a Naim and the Naim behaved like a Quad. From this it is apparent that there are measurable differences in sound output which cannot be detected by a simple double-blind test. I expect that nospam would no doubt say these differences are not important and should be ignored. Nevertheless it is apparent that reviewers _could_ hear differences in the course of ordinary listening even though they could not hear them in the course of a double blind test. in other words, two systems where a difference can be seen on a test bench also has an audible difference. imagine that! Some argue that differences outside audible range ('the senses') don't matter. I'd intuitively disagree - sound is experienced in ways other than hearing (vibration, say), plus psychoacoustic variables. There are very big differences between experiencing music in a concert hall, a live amplified performance, recorded music (digital or analog) in a well balanced room with high end audio equipment, and using just high end head phones. Head phones are certainly going to provide a sense of audio environment isolation, but will not provide the listener with any visceral physical experience. To truly understand this experience it is worth sitting in a concert hall or church where there is a performnce of Bach organ music on a great pipe organ. Those low tones are seldom replicated in recorded music, though I have heard some systems which come close. Earbuds should not even be included in this discussion, though there are some high end in-ear phones such as the Etymotic ER4 MicroPro which provide accurate frequency response. I've always felt these two factors contribute the the 'vinyl sounds better' line of thinking. For which there need be no proof - which some of the more technically minded don't seem to get. Personally, I have quite an eclectic collection of music, vinyl and CD, and ultimately the more enjoyable listening experience for me is a well mastered CD. I have the Von Karajan, Berliner Symphony, Beethoven symphonies in original vinyl which I bought sometime in the early 70's, then added some CDs which were OK, but didn't seem well mastered, and then I got a fresh Deutsche Grammaphone ADD remastered CD set which is an astonishing eye-opener which blows away many of the ideas that I might have held that vinyl was better. The same can be said for a DDD CD Polydor Archive recording of Handel's "Water Music" by The English Concert Orchestra lead by Trevor Pinnock. I don'while I have enjoyed t have a vinyl edition of that, but I am not missing anything. That is an amazing performance and recording. In terms of jazz I have vinyl editions of the Dave Brubeck Quartet's "Time Out" and Art Pepper's "Art Pepper Meets the Rhythm Section", both ADD remastered, and there is no comparison, the remastered CDs are better than the vinyl. The bigger argument comes with ripped MP3s where the sampling rate and other compression can lead to less than pleasing results when palyed over a quality system, but might seem just fine to the earbud crowd. If a digital recording is properly mastered, or remastered, it is far superior to vinyl. As to live vs. any recording, I can't agree more. I enjoy listening to a recording of Mahler's First, but when I heard a live performance, it was an emotional experience. -- PeterN |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR sales. Only two ways they can go
On 8/1/2015 10:19 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 12:01:24 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Nospam has provided a link in the past. I think an organisation called the American Acoustic Society carried out a series of tests and then reported the inability of people to discriminate between various standards of highness of fi. Unfortunately, although full descriptions were not given, there appeared to have been various standards of everything including environment, source, amplifier and speakers. The people carrying out the tests were well meaning but I think they were wasting their time. translated: they didn't get the results you wanted. Translated: they were a bunch of amatuers. I would pay much more attention to them if the tests were conducted by a good experimental psychologist. feel free to cite a double-blind test that shows that people can reliably tell the difference between 24/192k and 16/44k from the same source. also feel free to cite a double-blind test that shows that people can reliably tell the difference between analog and digital from the same source. I know of no satisfactory double-blind tests -period. http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ba...l_thinking.htm There have been some AXB tests which are open to interpretation. See for example https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-m...t-audible.html or http://tinyurl.com/o63vybl Not a double-blind test - but: I have a set of vinyl records of the complete organ works of Bach recorded by Peter Hurford. I have a set of CDs of the same records recorded from the original masters used for the vinyls. There is no doubt of which set I prefer. There is an audible difference in ambience and the vinyls win every time. Compare a live performance of Pachelbel's Canon, or Tchaikovsky's 1812, with any recording. Though digital recordings of the 1812 have been known to blow out speakers. -- PeterN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
P&S sales continue to tank while DSLR sales thrive | bugbear | Digital Photography | 33 | July 13th 09 08:08 AM |
P&S sales continue to tank while DSLR sales thrive | Bob Williams | Digital Photography | 3 | July 4th 09 03:18 PM |
P&S sales continue to tank while DSLR sales thrive | ray | Digital Photography | 16 | July 3rd 09 11:16 PM |