I guess I'm an objectivist

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I've been lurking RAHE for about 2 weeks now. And much to my
surprise, the side of science is well represented here.

After "Audio" magazine went out of business and "Stereo Review"changed
into another Home Theater big book (and Julian Hersh passed away), I
have not been able to find any common sense approaches to audio on the
magazine rack. I buy Sterophile or TAS ever once in a while, but I
find the approach too touchy-feely: I get the impression the reviewers
could be fooling themselves. I know from my own experience the
folowing things: My own ears are not reliable. I could have a cold,
allergies, be tired. I first discovered this when I would wake up to
music on my CD player in the late 80s and the music sounded too fast.
There was no pitch control on the player, and at no other time did the
music sound rushed. So I realized back then that my ears are not
reliable tools *everytime*. And, sometimes, I'm not really in the
mood to listen to music, no matter how hard I force the issue. I get
too critical and can drive myself crazy tweaking. Time to put the
remote down and go for a walk.

I got ahold of Laura Dearborn's "Good Sound" about 12 years ago from
my local library. In the book, if my memory serves, she poo-pooed
everything modern (for the late 80s): Digital, Dolby C NR, transistors
and microprocessors. All bad. And EQ? Even worse. All changed the
'sound'. All got in the 'way.' Hiss and noise were 'Good', especially
if said noise and hiss were from vintage tube gear, because the sound
was somehow more 'pure'. Vinyl better because analog doesn't leave
out anything "between the samples."

She lost me when she went off on Dolby NR. I'd been fighting tape hiss
for a few years by this time, and Dolby C was a godsend. Even
(horrors!) undecoded in my car, the hiss level was lowerable with
treble cut. On the deck at home, tapes were close to the original.
Closer than I'd ever had, anyway.

Double blind does work. Not that I've ran full-bore ABX tests, but I
have recorded room noise on a DAT tape (I mix audio for a TV station,
and yeah, TV News sound is the McDonalds fry vat of audio, but I gotta
pay the bills!) from a lav mic, level matched the live and playback,
and quickly scrambled the switching between the two sources by not
looking at the board. After a few rapid swithces, I soon can't tell
which is live mic and which is DAT. Everything is the same, the
'notes' from the air conditioner(s), the popping sound the lights make
as they cool, chatter leaking from the newsroom. Only when enough
time has passed and new 'notes' emerge can I tell the switch is taking
place. And the level is way down, peaking at -20db or so. And the DAT
is going through the Harrison a second time, twice the op-amps, twice
the noise from the board (and it is there, belive me). But I can't
tell.

I'm not opposed to the High End. I love audio and sound and any time
someone does it right, with a flair of art, they are to be celebrated.
I just recently got a pair of mid-line Grados and my mind has been
blown again. Such great sound from headphones!

But so much in the press is just...hooey to me. So for the
objectivists on this group, thanks. You guys are a breath of fresh
air.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

I agree with your sentiments.

I first started in the audio hobby in the late 60's, the golden era of
audio. Subscribed to Absolute Sound, Stereo Review, High Fidelity, Audio and
Stereophile and simply devoured them, especially TAS. Then, along with most
of America, dropped out of audio when computers came along. Came back maybe
five years ago and was utterly shocked at the level of snake oil in the high
end. Where did all the utter nonsense come from? And the aversion to
double-blind-testing by the so-called subjectivist camp and the "reasoning"
used to justify why it does not work (because it does not confirm
pre-conceived notions), is just amazing in its creativity.

And then I stumbled on REC.AUDIO.OPINION in the time when "Zip" was still
alive and posting. Boy, was that ever a snake-pit you fell into if you ever
dared post ANYTHING favorable about the concept of DBT.

I kept a subscription to Stereophile for a while, but finally even the
near-free subscription rates could not keep me subscribing. The stomach
churning that came with checking your common sense in at page 1 of each
issue for the duration was just too much. Boy, does it ever feel good to not
go through that ordeal each month.

--

- GRL

"It's good to want things."

Steve Barr (philosopher, poet, humorist, chemist,
Visual Basic programmer)
"cjc" <cjcarpent@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8bfr00f77@news3.newsguy.com...
> I've been lurking RAHE for about 2 weeks now. And much to my
> surprise, the side of science is well represented here.
>
> After "Audio" magazine went out of business and "Stereo Review"changed
> into another Home Theater big book (and Julian Hersh passed away), I
> have not been able to find any common sense approaches to audio on the
> magazine rack. I buy Sterophile or TAS ever once in a while, but I
> find the approach too touchy-feely: I get the impression the reviewers
> could be fooling themselves. I know from my own experience the
> folowing things: My own ears are not reliable. I could have a cold,
> allergies, be tired. I first discovered this when I would wake up to
> music on my CD player in the late 80s and the music sounded too fast.
> There was no pitch control on the player, and at no other time did the
> music sound rushed. So I realized back then that my ears are not
> reliable tools *everytime*. And, sometimes, I'm not really in the
> mood to listen to music, no matter how hard I force the issue. I get
> too critical and can drive myself crazy tweaking. Time to put the
> remote down and go for a walk.
>
> I got ahold of Laura Dearborn's "Good Sound" about 12 years ago from
> my local library. In the book, if my memory serves, she poo-pooed
> everything modern (for the late 80s): Digital, Dolby C NR, transistors
> and microprocessors. All bad. And EQ? Even worse. All changed the
> 'sound'. All got in the 'way.' Hiss and noise were 'Good', especially
> if said noise and hiss were from vintage tube gear, because the sound
> was somehow more 'pure'. Vinyl better because analog doesn't leave
> out anything "between the samples."
>
> She lost me when she went off on Dolby NR. I'd been fighting tape hiss
> for a few years by this time, and Dolby C was a godsend. Even
> (horrors!) undecoded in my car, the hiss level was lowerable with
> treble cut. On the deck at home, tapes were close to the original.
> Closer than I'd ever had, anyway.
>
> Double blind does work. Not that I've ran full-bore ABX tests, but I
> have recorded room noise on a DAT tape (I mix audio for a TV station,
> and yeah, TV News sound is the McDonalds fry vat of audio, but I gotta
> pay the bills!) from a lav mic, level matched the live and playback,
> and quickly scrambled the switching between the two sources by not
> looking at the board. After a few rapid swithces, I soon can't tell
> which is live mic and which is DAT. Everything is the same, the
> 'notes' from the air conditioner(s), the popping sound the lights make
> as they cool, chatter leaking from the newsroom. Only when enough
> time has passed and new 'notes' emerge can I tell the switch is taking
> place. And the level is way down, peaking at -20db or so. And the DAT
> is going through the Harrison a second time, twice the op-amps, twice
> the noise from the board (and it is there, belive me). But I can't
> tell.
>
> I'm not opposed to the High End. I love audio and sound and any time
> someone does it right, with a flair of art, they are to be celebrated.
> I just recently got a pair of mid-line Grados and my mind has been
> blown again. Such great sound from headphones!
>
> But so much in the press is just...hooey to me. So for the
> objectivists on this group, thanks. You guys are a breath of fresh
> air.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"cjc" <cjcarpent@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8bfr00f77@news3.newsguy.com...

>snip<

> Double blind does work. Not that I've ran full-bore ABX tests, but I
> have recorded room noise on a DAT tape (I mix audio for a TV station,
> and yeah, TV News sound is the McDonalds fry vat of audio, but I gotta
> pay the bills!) from a lav mic, level matched the live and playback,
> and quickly scrambled the switching between the two sources by not
> looking at the board. After a few rapid swithces, I soon can't tell
> which is live mic and which is DAT. Everything is the same, the
> 'notes' from the air conditioner(s), the popping sound the lights make
> as they cool, chatter leaking from the newsroom. Only when enough
> time has passed and new 'notes' emerge can I tell the switch is taking
> place. And the level is way down, peaking at -20db or so. And the DAT
> is going through the Harrison a second time, twice the op-amps, twice
> the noise from the board (and it is there, belive me). But I can't
> tell.

Doesn't the above suggest the test technique itself is a problem? Why do
you conclude the "it works"?

> I'm not opposed to the High End. I love audio and sound and any time
> someone does it right, with a flair of art, they are to be celebrated.
> I just recently got a pair of mid-line Grados and my mind has been
> blown again. Such great sound from headphones!
>
> But so much in the press is just...hooey to me. So for the
> objectivists on this group, thanks. You guys are a breath of fresh
> air.

I'm sure they'll appreciate that. :-)

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 17 May 2004 22:54:24 GMT
cjcarpent@yahoo.com (cjc) wrote:

> I've been lurking RAHE for about 2 weeks now. And much to my
> surprise, the side of science is well represented here.
>
> After "Audio" magazine went out of business and "Stereo Review"changed
> into another Home Theater big book (and Julian Hersh passed away), I
> have not been able to find any common sense approaches to audio on the
> magazine rack. I buy Sterophile or TAS ever once in a while, but I
> find the approach too touchy-feely: I get the impression the reviewers
> could be fooling themselves. [stuff deleted]

Then maybe you will prefer John Atkinson's test reports in Stereophile, and Joseph D'Appolito's writeups in Audio Xpress. What makes these especially relevant is that you have objective results, but with commentary on what aspects may be having particular sonics effects. Julian Hirsch's test reports were never helpful to me in this regard, because he never really related his finding into sonic terms that I could use, and his conclusions were almost always blandly upbeat: I think this sort of unhelpful test report, coupled with an air of authority, dealt a big setback to objectivity in the audiophile world.

True A-B testing is kind of a strange beast, because aside from gross differences in speakers, it can lead a person to conclude that hifi components sound 99.9% alike, but it's sometimes those small differences which make the difference between loving, and merely liking, a component. I once did A-B tests between a McIntosh MR71 tuner and Kenwood KT-8300, and wonder of wonders, they do indeed seem nearly indistinguishable when switching back and forth. And yet, in more extended listening, I definitely preferred the Mac.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"four_season_photo" <four_season_photo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
newscqqc.72513$536.11770318@attbi_s03...
> On 17 May 2004 22:54:24 GMT
> cjcarpent@yahoo.com (cjc) wrote:
>
> > I've been lurking RAHE for about 2 weeks now. And much to my
> > surprise, the side of science is well represented here.
> >
> > After "Audio" magazine went out of business and "Stereo Review"changed
> > into another Home Theater big book (and Julian Hersh passed away), I
> > have not been able to find any common sense approaches to audio on the
> > magazine rack. I buy Sterophile or TAS ever once in a while, but I
> > find the approach too touchy-feely: I get the impression the reviewers
> > could be fooling themselves. [stuff deleted]
>
> Then maybe you will prefer John Atkinson's test reports in
> Stereophile, and Joseph D'Appolito's writeups in Audio Xpress. What
> makes these especially relevant is that you have objective results,
> but with commentary on what aspects may be having particular sonics
> effects. Julian Hirsch's test reports were never helpful to me in
> this regard, because he never really related his finding into sonic
> terms that I could use, and his conclusions were almost always
> blandly upbeat: I think this sort of unhelpful test report, coupled
> with an air of authority, dealt a big setback to objectivity in the
> audiophile world.


As a matter of fact, it was Julian more than anybody else that spurred Harry
Pearson to start The Abso!ute Sound, and for people like myself to help get
the magazine off the ground. We simply knew better and couldn't stand it
any longer.

> True A-B testing is kind of a strange beast, because aside from
> gross differences in speakers, it can lead a person to conclude that
> hifi components sound 99.9% alike, but it's sometimes those small
> differences which make the difference between loving, and merely
> liking, a component. I once did A-B tests between a McIntosh MR71
> tuner and Kenwood KT-8300, and wonder of wonders, they do indeed
> seem nearly indistinguishable when switching back and forth. And
> yet, in more extended listening, I definitely preferred the Mac.
>

Exactly why I have proposed a definitive control test to separate out
comparative versus evaluative listening from blind vs. sighted. They are
two different things, and in my not-so-humble opinion it is the comparative
(vs. evaluative) rather than blinding (vs. sighted) that is the culprit in
providing what I believe to be false nulls in many cases, when doing open
ended evaluation of audio components.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

cjcarpent@yahoo.com (cjc) wrote in message news:<c8bfr00f77@news3.newsguy.com>...
TV News sound is the McDonalds fry vat of audio, but I gotta
> pay the bills!) from a lav mic, level matched the live and playback,
> and quickly scrambled the switching between the two sources by not
> looking at the board.

Why does TV audio of people sound so horrible, typically? It's all so
muddy. Is there no EQ capability? Often the words are unintelligible,
because they're interviewing some 85 year-old about what he did in the
war, and the mix is so poor that you can't understand anything! Even
on high-quality shows, this happens.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <6%tqc.75080$iF6.6305889@attbi_s02>,
codifus <codifus@optonline.net> wrote:

>Me too! I can't stand any type of NR, even on the computer! I'd rather
>live with tape hiss and the occasiional crackle on vinyl rather than
>subject my audio to life-sapping, soul-hollowing filtering of most sorts
>and NR. When I make a CD from a tape or Vinyl, I apply the absolute
>minimum of filtering.

Same here. I will often go in with a low-level waveform correction
tool, and patch the worst of the pops and ticks, but the occasional
low-level ones I just leave alone. I'll use more extensive NR only to
clean up really badly damaged LPs and 45s.

--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry Lavo <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote:

> Exactly why I have proposed a definitive control test to separate out
> comparative versus evaluative listening from blind vs. sighted. They are
> two different things, and in my not-so-humble opinion it is the comparative
> (vs. evaluative) rather than blinding (vs. sighted) that is the culprit in
> providing what I believe to be false nulls in many cases, when doing open
> ended evaluation of audio components.

You say an experiment that has yet to be done is 'definitive?'

!!!

No additional comment seems to be necessary.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Dolby Cassette NR is a joke. Just burn the signal to the tape and be
done with it. The only one that works fairly good is DBX and it has its
problems.

- Dyslexics of America Untie! keithw...

"Tim Anderson" <timjand@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ycqqc.74164$iF6.6238678@attbi_s02...
> "cjc" <cjcarpent@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c8bfr00f77@news3.newsguy.com...
> >
> > I'd been fighting tape hiss
> > for a few years by this time, and Dolby C was a godsend.
>
> I had the opposite experience. I had an early Dolby C deck and used to
make
> recordings using it. One day I discovered that the recordings sounded
> substantially better without it. After that I did all my cassette
recordings
> without NR and never regretted it.
>
> Tim

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Keithw <keithw@kc.rr.com> wrote:
> Dolby Cassette NR is a joke.

If the deck was calibrated properly it worked rather well, IME.

--

-S.

"They've got God on their side. All we've got is science and reason."
-- Dawn Hulsey, Talent Director

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

> On 18 May 2004 23:24:21 GMT, bjrichman@aol.com (Bruce J. Richman)
> wrote:
>
>
>>codifus wrote"
>>
>>
>>
>>>Tim Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"cjc" <cjcarpent@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:c8bfr00f77@news3.newsguy.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I'd been fighting tape hiss
>>>>>for a few years by this time, and Dolby C was a godsend.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I had the opposite experience. I had an early Dolby C deck and used to make
>>>>recordings using it. One day I discovered that the recordings sounded
>>>>substantially better without it. After that I did all my cassette recordings
>>>>without NR and never regretted it.
>>>>
>>>>Tim
>>>>
>>>
>>>Me too! I can't stand any type of NR, even on the computer! I'd rather
>>>live with tape hiss and the occasiional crackle on vinyl rather than
>>>subject my audio to life-sapping, soul-hollowing filtering of most sorts
>>>and NR. When I make a CD from a tape or Vinyl, I apply the absolute
>>>minimum of filtering.
>
>
> Presumably then, you have no music in your collection dating from the
> '60s or '70s, when more than 90% of studio master tapes used Dolby SR
> noise reduction?
>
> Also, please note that Dolby noise reduction is *not* mere filtering.
>
>
>>My experience has been quite different. I routinely make metal cassette tapes
>>using Dolby C for playback in an automobile head unit that also has Dolby C
>>available. (not too many have this capability). Prior experience,
>>particularly with music having relatively large dynamic range (e.g. classical)
>>has shown me that compared to either using no Dolby or only Dolby B, the use of
>>Dolby C totally eliminates tape hiss in the car environment, whereas the other
>>2 modes do not. I should add that I pay careful attention to recording levels
>>and no doubt the higher headroom of metal tape, along with the use of
>>relatively high-end tape decks on both ends (Nakamichi) helps matters.
>
>
> Properly applied, Dolby NR should not produce any audible artifacts,
> unlike the notorious 'breathing' of some compansion system. It does
> have implications regarding maximum recording levels at high
> frequencies, but that's largely a matter of what kind of music you
> prefer.
From what I had heard about Dolby S, I think I would have liked it. And
you're right, I don't have music from the 60s, but maybe some 70s. I'm
perfectly aware that Dolby NR is not a filter. I just can't tolerate the
way that Dolby and most filtering take some of the life out of music. If
applied correctly Dolby should have worked well. The big problem is,
applying it correctly had so many constraints: perfect azimuth, a killer
high frequency response (in the case of Dolby B), maximum input levels
at 0 db etc. Using metal tape and a dual capstan 3 head tape deck still
gave me artifacts, probably due to azimuth, which is the fault of the
cassette itslef, and Nakamichi was the only company that solved that
problem completely.

CD

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Stewart Pinkerton" <patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uALqc.116421$Ik.9696611@attbi_s53...
> On 18 May 2004 23:24:21 GMT, bjrichman@aol.com (Bruce J. Richman)
> wrote:
>
> >codifus wrote"
> >
> >
> >>Tim Anderson wrote:
> >>
> >>> "cjc" <cjcarpent@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:c8bfr00f77@news3.newsguy.com...
> >>>
> >>>>I'd been fighting tape hiss
> >>>>for a few years by this time, and Dolby C was a godsend.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I had the opposite experience. I had an early Dolby C deck and used to
make
> >>> recordings using it. One day I discovered that the recordings sounded
> >>> substantially better without it. After that I did all my cassette
recordings
> >>> without NR and never regretted it.
> >>>
> >>> Tim
> >>>
> >>Me too! I can't stand any type of NR, even on the computer! I'd rather
> >>live with tape hiss and the occasiional crackle on vinyl rather than
> >>subject my audio to life-sapping, soul-hollowing filtering of most sorts
> >>and NR. When I make a CD from a tape or Vinyl, I apply the absolute
> >>minimum of filtering.
>
> Presumably then, you have no music in your collection dating from the
> '60s or '70s, when more than 90% of studio master tapes used Dolby SR
> noise reduction?
>
> Also, please note that Dolby noise reduction is *not* mere filtering.
>

Actually Stewart is correct, except that the Dolby used was Dolby A, not
Dolby S, a much later variant that I believe was backward compatible.

Dolby A broke the audible spectrum into four parts, and applied dynamic
compression and equalization to each based on that portion of the music it
was designed to handle. Since professional tape gear was/is carefully
calibrated before each major recording session, it was possible to hold to
the tight tolerances to make this work.

Virtually all those great sounding late '60 and '70 multitracks were
recorded through 8-16 channels of "A" and then mixed down to two channel
1/4" "A" processed masters. Only later, in the eighties after digital set
in did 1/2" 2 track mastering become the prevalent technique, and
professional Dolby became largely redundant.

I still use my "A"s to transcribe old session tapes recorded from that era.
Built like a brick sh-th--se, they will last forever.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Steven Sullivan wrote:

> Keithw <keithw@kc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Dolby Cassette NR is a joke.
>
>
> If the deck was calibrated properly it worked rather well, IME.
>
===========================

That was what I found, back when cassettes were more popular. Deck
calibration for level, equalization and record bias, and adjustment of
the Dolby circuits themselves, if such adjustment was provided for, were
critical. The use of Dolby B, and Dolby C even more, made errors in
levels and equalization more audible. It was a finicky job to calibrate
a three-head Dolby C cassette deck with sufficient accuracy, and an
extremely tedious job to do a good job on a two-head deck. Once you had
the record bias, EQ, and level sets all correct...and for acceptable
audible results with Dolby C, you had to get them correct, hopefully
within less than 1 dB...you could throw the whole Record/Play
calibration off by changing tape brands. Or the tape manufacturer could
throw it off for you by changing the formulation of the tape, even if
the name remained the same.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:c8e5lp0sl2@news3.newsguy.com...
> "four_season_photo" <four_season_photo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> newscqqc.72513$536.11770318@attbi_s03...
> > On 17 May 2004 22:54:24 GMT
> > cjcarpent@yahoo.com (cjc) wrote:
> >
> > > I've been lurking RAHE for about 2 weeks now. And much to my
> > > surprise, the side of science is well represented here.
> > >
> > > After "Audio" magazine went out of business and "Stereo Review"changed
> > > into another Home Theater big book (and Julian Hersh passed away), I
> > > have not been able to find any common sense approaches to audio on the
> > > magazine rack. I buy Sterophile or TAS ever once in a while, but I
> > > find the approach too touchy-feely: I get the impression the reviewers
> > > could be fooling themselves. [stuff deleted]
> >
> > Then maybe you will prefer John Atkinson's test reports in
> > Stereophile, and Joseph D'Appolito's writeups in Audio Xpress. What
> > makes these especially relevant is that you have objective results,
> > but with commentary on what aspects may be having particular sonics
> > effects. Julian Hirsch's test reports were never helpful to me in
> > this regard, because he never really related his finding into sonic
> > terms that I could use, and his conclusions were almost always
> > blandly upbeat: I think this sort of unhelpful test report, coupled
> > with an air of authority, dealt a big setback to objectivity in the
> > audiophile world.
>
>
> As a matter of fact, it was Julian more than anybody else that spurred
Harry
> Pearson to start The Abso!ute Sound, and for people like myself to help
get
> the magazine off the ground. We simply knew better and couldn't stand it
> any longer.
>

Couldn't stand what? That your opinions weren't borne out by the science?

> > True A-B testing is kind of a strange beast, because aside from
> > gross differences in speakers, it can lead a person to conclude that
> > hifi components sound 99.9% alike,

Is it impoissible that 99.9% of components DO sound alike?
This is not rocket science and hasn't been for decades.

but it's sometimes those small
> > differences which make the difference between loving, and merely
> > liking, a component.

If you can't hear them in a properly conducted comparison, effectively, they
don't exist.

I once did A-B tests between a McIntosh MR71
> > tuner and Kenwood KT-8300, and wonder of wonders, they do indeed
> > seem nearly indistinguishable when switching back and forth. And
> > yet, in more extended listening, I definitely preferred the Mac.
> >
>
Were the levels matched properly?
Were you always aware of which device you were listening to?

> Exactly why I have proposed a definitive control test to separate out
> comparative versus evaluative listening from blind vs. sighted.

For most of the scientific communit that deals with audio, that test is
here, it's an ABX comparison.

They are
> two different things, and in my not-so-humble opinion it is the
comparative
> (vs. evaluative) rather than blinding (vs. sighted) that is the culprit in
> providing what I believe to be false nulls in many cases, when doing open
> ended evaluation of audio components.
>
Unfortunately, there is no evidence to support your claim.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:hqeqc.27146$6f5.2631081@attbi_s54...
> "cjc" <cjcarpent@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c8bfr00f77@news3.newsguy.com...
>
> >snip<
>
> > Double blind does work. Not that I've ran full-bore ABX tests, but I
> > have recorded room noise on a DAT tape (I mix audio for a TV station,
> > and yeah, TV News sound is the McDonalds fry vat of audio, but I gotta
> > pay the bills!) from a lav mic, level matched the live and playback,
> > and quickly scrambled the switching between the two sources by not
> > looking at the board. After a few rapid swithces, I soon can't tell
> > which is live mic and which is DAT. Everything is the same, the
> > 'notes' from the air conditioner(s), the popping sound the lights make
> > as they cool, chatter leaking from the newsroom. Only when enough
> > time has passed and new 'notes' emerge can I tell the switch is taking
> > place. And the level is way down, peaking at -20db or so. And the DAT
> > is going through the Harrison a second time, twice the op-amps, twice
> > the noise from the board (and it is there, belive me). But I can't
> > tell.
>
> Doesn't the above suggest the test technique itself is a problem?

No. It suggests that there is less difference than many "high end" people
believe.

Why do
> you conclude the "it works"?
>

I conclude it works, because it has been adopted as the standard for most of
the world that deals with audio.

> > I'm not opposed to the High End. I love audio and sound and any time
> > someone does it right, with a flair of art, they are to be celebrated.
> > I just recently got a pair of mid-line Grados and my mind has been
> > blown again. Such great sound from headphones!
> >
> > But so much in the press is just...hooey to me. So for the
> > objectivists on this group, thanks. You guys are a breath of fresh
> > air.
>
> I'm sure they'll appreciate that. :-)
>

It helps to have discernible facts on your side.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 5/22/04 12:25 AM, in article c8mknu02pf8@news1.newsguy.com, "Michael
McKelvy" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>> Doesn't the above suggest the test technique itself is a problem?
>
> No. It suggests that there is less difference than many "high end" people
> believe.

Hrm. Not sure. As I upgraded my components the last go-around (more
powerful amp, stand alone CD player) - the sound got better (more accurate
and more pleasing) but the change from the first iteration was still pretty
expensive, and the absolute improvement was smaller. However, it meant as
much to me as the first iteration.

I do believe that most "high end" people know about the law of diminishing
returns and its impact on their sound system - and in fact a very revealing
system will render some recordings less listenable. I think the central
item is that while the change per increment of money spent is smaller, its
meaning to a "high ender" is nearly as important as the first or second
increment of spending ...

When I hear some people say that certain components have a "huge" impact -
when in absolute measurement terms it does not (amplifier, speaker wire come
to mind) - it means the minor absolute impact on the system means as much to
them as the items handled earlier - such as a good turntable or CD player.
I don't think you will find many people outside the marketing departments
that would think that a good cable can make a lousy CD player sound better -
and even a good high end dealer would not make that claim.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Bromo" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:c8nnev013qj@news4.newsguy.com...
> On 5/22/04 12:25 AM, in article c8mknu02pf8@news1.newsguy.com, "Michael
> McKelvy" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> >> Doesn't the above suggest the test technique itself is a problem?
> >
> > No. It suggests that there is less difference than many "high end"
people
> > believe.
>
> Hrm. Not sure. As I upgraded my components the last go-around (more
> powerful amp, stand alone CD player) - the sound got better (more accurate
> and more pleasing) but the change from the first iteration was still
pretty
> expensive, and the absolute improvement was smaller. However, it meant as
> much to me as the first iteration.
>
IME the improvements most people cite are more wishfull thinking than real,
with the exception of speakers.

> I do believe that most "high end" people know about the law of diminishing
> returns and its impact on their sound system - and in fact a very
revealing
> system will render some recordings less listenable.

If the sum total of the system is inaudible distortion, the only thing that
can be more revealing is the speakers.

I think the central
> item is that while the change per increment of money spent is smaller, its
> meaning to a "high ender" is nearly as important as the first or second
> increment of spending ...
>
> When I hear some people say that certain components have a "huge" impact -
> when in absolute measurement terms it does not (amplifier, speaker wire
come
> to mind) - it means the minor absolute impact on the system means as much
to
> them as the items handled earlier - such as a good turntable or CD player.
> I don't think you will find many people outside the marketing departments
> that would think that a good cable can make a lousy CD player sound
better -
> and even a good high end dealer would not make that claim.

I've never encountered a lousy CD player, at least not in terms of it's
audio output. I've seen some that weren't built to last and had mechanical
problems, but beyond that, it's so trivial to build a player that is flat in
its response that it hardly seems worthwhile to make it so.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Bromo" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:c8qg3l01qaa@news2.newsguy.com...
> On 5/22/04 11:17 PM, in article 7JUrc.98302$xw3.5806699@attbi_s04,
"Michael
> McKelvy" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> > "Bromo" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:c8nnev013qj@news4.newsguy.com...
> >> On 5/22/04 12:25 AM, in article c8mknu02pf8@news1.newsguy.com, "Michael
> >> McKelvy" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I do believe that most "high end" people know about the law of
diminishing
> >> returns and its impact on their sound system - and in fact a very
> > revealing
> >> system will render some recordings less listenable.
> >
> > If the sum total of the system is inaudible distortion, the only thing
that
> > can be more revealing is the speakers.
>
> Exactly - speakers are the primary source of distortion. If you buy
really
> good (i.e. Linear/transparent) speakers - you will find a number of your
> recordings do not sound good. I have found that good recordings sound
> excellent - and less than good - well, the system reveals all the flaws.
>
> Since my speakers tend to want a lot of current at 3-4 Ohms in the upper
and
> mid bass, the amplifier has to have a lot of beef in order to drive them,
> and the speaker wire needs to have sufficient gage for the 10 feet or so
> they are required to run - once that was sorted out, I found out about 1/3
> of my CD collection didn't sound so good - the other 2/3 were decent to
> exceptional.
>

From what I've read about speaker wire 10 feet is an inconsequential length
for any wire from 22 AWG up. 50 feet and up start to make a difference.

> >> I think the central
> >> item is that while the change per increment of money spent is smaller,
its
> >> meaning to a "high ender" is nearly as important as the first or second
> >> increment of spending ...
> >>
> >> When I hear some people say that certain components have a "huge"
impact -
> >> when in absolute measurement terms it does not (amplifier, speaker wire
come
> >> to mind) - it means the minor absolute impact on the system means as
much to
> >> them as the items handled earlier - such as a good turntable or CD
player.
> >> I don't think you will find many people outside the marketing
departments
> >> that would think that a good cable can make a lousy CD player sound
better -
> >> and even a good high end dealer would not make that claim.
> >
> > I've never encountered a lousy CD player, at least not in terms of it's
> > audio output. I've seen some that weren't built to last and had
mechanical
> > problems, but beyond that, it's so trivial to build a player that is
flat in
> > its response that it hardly seems worthwhile to not make it so.
>
> That was an example. But I have found differences in source components -
> CD, and turntables - albeit not as large as speaker differences.

For turntables the differences can be quite daunting, since nearly
everything about them is flawed in comparison to a CD player.

There's speed variations, tonearms, cartridges and their styli, not to
mention the LP's themselves.

I got my first CD player as a wedding gift and have hardly ever played an LP
since. The ones I do play are things I don't have on CD.

There is some loss of mysticism that came about with the dawn of the digital
age. Used to be a lot more ceremony in playing and keeping an LP vs. what
one does with CD's.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 5/23/04 5:31 PM, in article jL8sc.12568$af3.694469@attbi_s51, "Michael
McKelvy" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> From what I've read about speaker wire 10 feet is an inconsequential length
> for any wire from 22 AWG up. 50 feet and up start to make a difference.

Might be good to pick some speakers and some amplifiers and give it a try
with some measurements - hearsay is not facts.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Bromo" <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:c8ri9u02a1g@news4.newsguy.com...
> On 5/23/04 5:31 PM, in article jL8sc.12568$af3.694469@attbi_s51, "Michael
> McKelvy" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>
> > From what I've read about speaker wire 10 feet is an inconsequential
length
> > for any wire from 22 AWG up. 50 feet and up start to make a difference.
>
> Might be good to pick some speakers and some amplifiers and give it a try
> with some measurements - hearsay is not facts.

While there are some exceptions, speakers with difficult loads, most
speakers do not have a problem with runs of wire less than 50 feet.

I'm not relying on hearsay, I'm relying on my own experience and that of
other professionals.

If you know of examples of speakers that present a typical load to an amp
that have problems with runs less than 50 feet and within the range of say
18 AWG-12 AWG wire, please provide it. I'm always willing to learn.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 5/24/04 6:47 PM, in article c8tu1401u62@news1.newsguy.com, "Michael
McKelvy" <deskst49@peoplepc.com> wrote:

> If you know of examples of speakers that present a typical load to an amp
> that have problems with runs less than 50 feet and within the range of say
> 18 AWG-12 AWG wire, please provide it. I'm always willing to learn.

I suppose it depends upon the resolution of the speaker and how one defines
a "typical load"

Matrin Logans and some Apogees are notoriously hard to drive.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 5/24/04 9:11 PM, in article I2xsc.38198$zw.15564@attbi_s01, "Nousaine"
<nousaine@aol.com> wrote:

>> So those were "the last models" twenty + years ago? So much for vinyl being
>> obsolete.
>
> Actually there often remains a residual-use phase of the technology life cycle
> where new off-beat applications (turntablist recordings where record players
> are used as musical instruments), nostalgia and collectors cherish days gone
> by.

I do know about that hardcore base - but I wonder if there are some figures
that would show how many new-to-vinyl (such as people that came of age
starting in the 80's when CD was on the rise) people would take the plunge.

Meaning - those not nostalgic, nor experienced with the medium.

Anyone know?

>
> Sometime ago I read that more than 85% of all Corvettes ever sold are still
> registered . This is because they are highly valued by collectors and
> generally
> do not (aside from frame rust) self-decompose with time. But not even the most
> ardent collector and enthusiast will argue that a 53 vette is "not obsolete"
> in
> performance terms.

Good analogy about Corvettes - and very apt! Having had the pleasure of
riding in an '53 Corvette once - I would tend to agree that they aren't
obsolete the way a Model A or T might be! :-)

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

From: nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine)
>Date: 5/24/2004 6:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <I2xsc.38198$zw.15564@attbi_s01>
>
>s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>
>>>From: nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine)
>>>Date: 5/23/2004 3:35 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <4H9sc.102341$xw3.6074920@attbi_s04>
>>>
>>>Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 5/22/04 10:18 AM, in article c8nnfp013r9@news4.newsguy.com, "cjc"
>>>><cjcarpent@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I did miss the boat on Dolby S. From what I read it made metal tape
>>>>> sound about as clean as one could want (well, lets not get crazy,
>>>>> there's always *cleaner* I guess). To me, that would be digital
>>>>> clean. But it got replaced by the MD and CD-R, kinda like the big-iron
>>>>> steam trains right at the cusp of diesel.
>>>>
>>>>I figure as the CD players are getting really good as DVD-A/SACD, MP3,
>AAC,
>>>>AIFF are all taking off - doesn't it seem like the best innvations and
>>>>equipment ends up as they are challenged by new technologies that will
>>>>eventually replace them?
>>>
>>>It is often true that the soon-to-be-replaced technology gets much better
>in
>>>its final days as it tries to hold on. For example, it was known for at
>>least
>>>a
>>>decade prior to cd that radial tracking tone arms were superior to pivoted
>>>arms.
>>>
>>>While there were a few very expensive radial trackers available from time
>to
>>>time they never really were implemented UNTIL cd came on the scene and
>>almost
>>>overnight even close-n-play turntables sprouted linear tracking arms.
>>>
>>>So, quite typically, the last models of obsolete technolgy are the very
>best
>>>ever made.
>>>
>
>>So those were "the last models" twenty + years ago? So much for vinyl being
>>obsolete.
>
>Actually there often remains a residual-use phase of the technology life
>cycle
>where new off-beat applications (turntablist recordings where record players
>are used as musical instruments), nostalgia and collectors cherish days gone
>by.
>

Which has nothing to do with the multitude of highend turntables arms and
cartridges that followed since twenty years ago. Let's not forget the audiofile
original recordings and reissues that also came well after twenty years ago.
The fact is high end vinyl playback equipment is still being designed and
produced today and will likely for the long term future. Same for the music on
vinyl as well.

>Sometime ago I read that more than 85% of all Corvettes ever sold are still
>registered . This is because they are highly valued by collectors and
>generally
>do not (aside from frame rust) self-decompose with time. But not even the
>most
>ardent collector and enthusiast will argue that a 53 vette is "not obsolete"
>in
>performance terms.

Your analogy simply does not apply. I'm noty talking about equipment from the
fifties.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>On 5/24/04 9:11 PM, in article I2xsc.38198$zw.15564@attbi_s01, "Nousaine"
><nousaine@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> So those were "the last models" twenty + years ago? So much for vinyl
>being
>>> obsolete.
>>
>> Actually there often remains a residual-use phase of the technology life
>cycle
>> where new off-beat applications (turntablist recordings where record
>players
>> are used as musical instruments), nostalgia and collectors cherish days
>gone
>> by.
>
>I do know about that hardcore base - but I wonder if there are some figures
>that would show how many new-to-vinyl (such as people that came of age
>starting in the 80's when CD was on the rise) people would take the plunge.
>
>Meaning - those not nostalgic, nor experienced with the medium.
>
>Anyone know?

Actually I don't. And I don't think that I know anyone who does. About the
closest person who comes close to that idea was a young fellow who bought a
cardboard carton full of Motown 45s (he'd been hearing the songs on oldies
stations) at a garage sale and was looking for a record player to play them. As
far as I know he never acquired same.

The big users of vinyl known to me are a surf-band musicologist and older
hardcore jazz fans (who also use wax cylinders, 78s, 45s, 33.3s, 4-track,
8-track, cassettes, DAT, open reel, cds, laser discs and even dvd.)

.....Remainder snipped.....