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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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