Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Testing audiophile claims and myths - Page 180

post #2686 of 3732
Quote:
Originally Posted by analogsurviver View Post
 

Both yes and no. Depends how far  the mastering engineers dare/are allowed to go.

 

Back in the LP era, I produced a record and worked with the mastering and cutting engineers. The rolloff started at about 15kHz and tapered off smoothly. I made a point of asking about it because back then, I didn't know as much and I thought maybe the rolloff wasn't necessary. They explained that it was to prevent premature record wear (which equated with returns). The roll off was applied automatically when the disk was cut, it wasn't done as part of the mastering.

 

Today's audiophile pressings may be different. But I don't know why anyone would want an LP of a digital recording when they could get full master quality with no compromises on CD.

post #2687 of 3732
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

 

Back in the LP era, I produced a record and worked with the mastering and cutting engineers. The rolloff started at about 15kHz and tapered off smoothly. I made a point of asking about it because back then, I didn't know as much and I thought maybe the rolloff wasn't necessary. They explained that it was to prevent premature record wear (which equated with returns). The roll off was applied automatically when the disk was cut, it wasn't done as part of the mastering.

 

Today's audiophile pressings may be different. But I don't know why anyone would want an LP of a digital recording when they could get full master quality with no compromises on CD.

Cutting the high frequency content in an unlimited fashion into the lacquer master is anything but easy. Due to numerous factors, the prime being the necessity for the RIAA curve to be applied during mastering - which by the 20 kHz has +20 dB boost. Only the very last models of cutting heads and associated electronics could take and supply the power required - and in the region of approx 5-10 kHz, where the requirements for cutting the groove are the highest, that can meet or even exceed 500 W/channel, meaning that cutting chip is powered by one killowatt at peaks ! That is at the very limit of cutterheads, even if and when helium cooled - therefore before this last possible improvements have been made, each and every measure possible to reduce the requirements for the cutting system have been necesarilly made - including rolling off of the treble.  Automatic - impossible to switch off, for a good reason - not to fry the cutter head.

 

Pro audio uses quite some filtering in order to remain "safe" - I am not familiar with record cutting myself , but remember spending quite some time with Telefunken's High Com ( and Nakamichi's development thereoff, High Com II ) before the thing did not  start sounding transparent. The culprit was the MPX filter, necessary for recording to tape from FM tuner; even if the button for the MPX filter was in the off position, still some filtering has been occuring. For recording music live, with no constant 19 kHz FM carrier present, there is no need to use any filtering - and the only remedy was to phisically remove the coils in the series with the signal and shortcutting the signal path. This finally worked without "closing down/shrinking the soundstage" - in conjunction with one of the few decks that also eschews any filtering from the playback head. This filtering the output from the playback head is necessary during monitoring the recording just being recorded - meaning the full quality of the recording is only available during consequent playback that does allow the filter to be removed. I can only wonder if there is not similarly *hidden* filtering going on in the record cutting system(s) as well - the opportunity to check this out has not presented itself yet.

 

I certainly agree there is little point of recording vinyl release of basically CD quality recording - effectively giving one the worst of both worlds.

 

There are still genuine analog recordings being made, even modern day direct to disk. One of the possibilities to produce a vinyl recording that should exceed the redbook CD could also be made from analog tapes or  hirez digital, preferably DSD, cut at less than real time speed, thus allowing frequency response to approx 50 kHz - something redbook is not capable of. Half speed record mastering does have one problem - the necessity to remain utterly flat down to at least 10 Hz, which in most commercially available systems simply was not the case.

 

Most cutting systems still in use today have been modified to a lesser or greater degree - in order to be able to make better recordings than originally anticipated.

post #2688 of 3732
Since this is sound science it would be lovely with some proofs or studies suggesting ultrasonic frequencies to be perceivable, else I don't see why we are even discussing this matter!
post #2689 of 3732

analogsurviver it certainly "feels" like you prefer vinyl and dsd, and you're just randomly fishing for anything available to make us admit vinyl is hires, and hires is better. I give it to you, you have lots of ideas.

 

it went from hires being warm and low res cold(when the only thing hires could bring is actually high freqs.. go figure), to fragmented disc space and jitter( vinyl's jitter explodes whatever digital jitter can be), to pono and A&K saving us all from mp3 in portable when just before you said that hirez was too much for some systems to stream without lags. A&K and pono using the very same components you find in other systems, they should lag more and thus not being an improvement over mp3. you contradicting yourself all the time.

then we went to soldering usb, hey why not try that(I actually think that usb plugs are fragile craps but they're not supposed to move much and the contact surface is actually often larger than on a jack).

then ultrasonic sounds are important because we hear them, oh we don't hear them, well ok they're important because they interfere with audible frequencies and thus become audible.

in my book this is a very bad thing, but hey some like harmonic distortion, why not have some who like intermodulation distortion. still this is distortion so not the real sound recorded by the mics, so not real and not natural.

 

and now you try to convince us that vinyls are better than redbook, something possible in some very rare situations and probably only for the first 3 listening of said hyper vinyl. and probably not on all the prints as the mold doesn't make stuff 100% identical on all items.

the only way to get the needle to go back down fast enough after passing the upper period of a very high frequency, is to have more pressure put on the needle, meaning the surface will wear out faster =roll off. there is no other way of doing it. and if the pressure is not good enough to follow the groove, then you will get variations in the amplitude as the needle will either jump above the groove, or not have time to go at the bottom before hitting another bump. = volume increase or roll off depending on choices that have nothing to do with the pressing. super reliable high quality ... that is one of the reasons why trebles are very much rolled off on vinyls. others would be to reduce contact noises, have a vinyl that sounds the same longer ...

I searched for all this when I never had any interest for vinyl in the first place. for someone passionate as you are, I would expect you to have looked at those problems by yourself.

 

 to you having unreliable high freqs at a volume level that could change drastically is real sound. but at the same time you need dsd because redbook is not precise enough. your feelings are peculiar to say the least. be it DSD or vinyl, you're pretty much advocating for how the master is done. we all know that some masters are only available in vinyl or dsd, but that has nothing to do with the quality of dsd or vinyl. wearing the same underwear as a famous soccer player doesn't make me a good soccer player. a master is a master, DSD is DSD, and vinyl is mostly obsolete as a high fidelity support.

 

a human when presented with solutions will first pick the one that goes with his own opinion. and if that option doesn't exist, he will then pick the easiest path to positive resolution for himself. call it survival instinct at a debate level, or just a need for the easy way out. still it mostly works like that in all situations(people handling other human lives often have to relearn some behaviors for that very reason, because if left as they are, they will take the first indication that everything is ok, and take that info as the well needed and anticipated relief instead of looking further). and that's how we have in here people denying science and measurements when it doesn't fit their own opinion, but who will still gladly pick science and measurements as soon as it goes where they want it to. you have clearly shown that you're one of those who accepts science only when it "feels right". that's simply not how it works.

either you accept what defines sound in science and digital systems or you don't. a lot of things are still up for debate, the fact the you yourself can't hear 20khz isn't. the fact that redbook have overall better fidelity than vinyls isn't. the fact that up to this day we still haven't clearly demonstrated that people could tell dsd appart from redbook isn't.

facts are not opinions, you can't just decide to desagree with facts on a whim.

 

when my own experiments didn't go as repeatable science predicted, instead of deciding that I knew better, or that my super special audio system was better than the one of poor mislead people, I went to look for a reason why I was wrong. and sure enough I always found that I was wrong. when 2 same stuff sounded clearly different to me, I went and bought a 20$ switch. it's not even close to a DBT, yet 99% of the obvious differences I was hearing just disappeared with the switch. that's how it is and how feelings are mostly just feelings, based on experience tastes and other senses. making them often different from reality and why we try to live everyday following reason and not just feelings.

 

you can keep bringing up different subjects until the moment you'll find one where you're right and shout "ahah told ya!". but up till now you've said a lot of misleading or plain wrong stuff as if they were certainty. and the rest gets the "I feel" certificate(I prefer that by the way, at least we can read it as being just an opinion). very few conclusive arguments overall.

post #2690 of 3732
Quote:
Originally Posted by castleofargh View Post

analogsurviver it certainly "feels" like you prefer vinyl and dsd, and you're just randomly fishing for anything available to make us admit vinyl is hires, and hires is better. I give it to you, you have lots of ideas.

it went from hires being warm and low res cold(when the only thing hires could bring is actually high freqs.. go figure), to fragmented disc space and jitter( vinyl's jitter explodes whatever digital jitter can be), to pono and A&K saving us all from mp3 in portable when just before you said that hirez was too much for some systems to stream without lags. A&K and pono using the very same components you find in other systems, they should lag more and thus not being an improvement over mp3. you contradicting yourself all the time.
then we went to soldering usb, hey why not try that(I actually think that usb plugs are fragile craps but they're not supposed to move much and the contact surface is actually often larger than on a jack).
then ultrasonic sounds are important because we hear them, oh we don't hear them, well ok they're important because they interfere with audible frequencies and thus become audible.
in my book this is a very bad thing, but hey some like harmonic distortion, why not have some who like intermodulation distortion. still this is distortion so not the real sound recorded by the mics, so not real and not natural.

and now you try to convince us that vinyls are better than redbook, something possible in some very rare situations and probably only for the first 3 listening of said hyper vinyl. and probably not on all the prints as the mold doesn't make stuff 100% identical on all items.
the only way to get the needle to go back down fast enough after passing the upper period of a very high frequency, is to have more pressure put on the needle, meaning the surface will wear out faster =roll off. there is no other way of doing it. and if the pressure is not good enough to follow the groove, then you will get variations in the amplitude as the needle will either jump above the groove, or not have time to go at the bottom before hitting another bump. = volume increase or roll off depending on choices that have nothing to do with the pressing. super reliable high quality ... that is one of the reasons why trebles are very much rolled off on vinyls. others would be to reduce contact noises, have a vinyl that sounds the same longer ...
I searched for all this when I never had any interest for vinyl in the first place. for someone passionate as you are, I would expect you to have looked at those problems by yourself.

 to you having unreliable high freqs at a volume level that could change drastically is real sound. but at the same time you need dsd because redbook is not precise enough. your feelings are peculiar to say the least. be it DSD or vinyl, you're pretty much advocating for how the master is done. we all know that some masters are only available in vinyl or dsd, but that has nothing to do with the quality of dsd or vinyl. wearing the same underwear as a famous soccer player doesn't make me a good soccer player. a master is a master, DSD is DSD, and vinyl is mostly obsolete as a high fidelity support.

a human when presented with solutions will first pick the one that goes with his own opinion. and if that option doesn't exist, he will then pick the easiest path to positive resolution for himself. call it survival instinct at a debate level, or just a need for the easy way out. still it mostly works like that in all situations(people handling other human lives often have to relearn some behaviors for that very reason, because if left as they are, they will take the first indication that everything is ok, and take that info as the well needed and anticipated relief instead of looking further). and that's how we have in here people denying science and measurements when it doesn't fit their own opinion, but who will still gladly pick science and measurements as soon as it goes where they want it to. you have clearly shown that you're one of those who accepts science only when it "feels right". that's simply not how it works.
either you accept what defines sound in science and digital systems or you don't. a lot of things are still up for debate, the fact the you yourself can't hear 20khz isn't. the fact that redbook have overall better fidelity than vinyls isn't. the fact that up to this day we still haven't clearly demonstrated that people could tell dsd appart from redbook isn't.
facts are not opinions, you can't just decide to desagree with facts on a whim.

when my own experiments didn't go as repeatable science predicted, instead of deciding that I knew better, or that my super special audio system was better than the one of poor mislead people, I went to look for a reason why I was wrong. and sure enough I always found that I was wrong. when 2 same stuff sounded clearly different to me, I went and bought a 20$ switch. it's not even close to a DBT, yet 99% of the obvious differences I was hearing just disappeared with the switch. that's how it is and how feelings are mostly just feelings, based on experience tastes and other senses. making them often different from reality and why we try to live everyday following reason and not just feelings.

you can keep bringing up different subjects until the moment you'll find one where you're right and shout "ahah told ya!". but up till now you've said a lot of misleading or plain wrong stuff as if they were certainty. and the rest gets the "I feel" certificate(I prefer that by the way, at least we can read it as being just an opinion). very few conclusive arguments overall.
I couldn't agree more.
post #2691 of 3732
When someone does their own tests a writes in such length about his knowledge we should not say "no way, you are wrong." We should leave it at that. Maybe someone else would benefit from that information in the future. Because many of the posts here say nothing and nobody bashes them. They waste a lot more space saying "prove it" than actually disproving anything. So, if someone wants to try to explain the myth of red book cd and how we regressed then we should let them and not waste space pointing to other studies. Most people here seem to be happy with red book cd and will continue to bash every other option no matter what information is set before them. It's similar to the dark ages, when science was not improved because of another type of book, but I don't have to tell you the story. Red book was once considered a audiophile excess, with people spending loads on players and having limited access to artists. At this point DSD is not really audiophile anymore as it can be replaced by downloads on many high end setups. Agree or disagree, let the man pass on his information without being predictable and pointing out stuff you learned on the 24bit vs 16 bit thread.
Edited by JamesHuntington - 6/20/14 at 5:24am
post #2692 of 3732
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesHuntington View Post

When someone does their own tests a writes in such length about his knowledge we should not say "no way, you are wrong." We should leave it at that. Maybe someone else would benefit from that information in the future. Because many of the posts here say nothing and nobody bashes them. They waste a lot more space saying "prove it" than actually disproving anything. So, if someone wants to try to explain the myth of red book cd and how we regressed then we should let them and not waste space pointing to other studies. Most people here seem to be happy with red book cd and will continue to bash every other option no matter what information is set before them. It's similar to the dark ages, when science was not improved because of another type of book, but I don't have to tell you the story.

 

-In this case, I'm afraid analogsurvivor's writings is the closest analogy to 'that other type of book', if you like. Online forums are full of opinion presented as fact which flies in the face of established science. If someone reads these opinions and accept them as fact, knowledge in sound science has, in fact, regressed.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that to analogsurvivor, what he describes in his posts appears to be real; that is not to say, however, that his -ehem- findings should be lent the same weight as peer-reviewed papers; not unless they are backed by the extraordinary evidence which extraordinary claims demand.

post #2693 of 3732

College education helps.  :P

post #2694 of 3732
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesHuntington View Post

When someone does their own tests a writes in such length about his knowledge we should not say "no way, you are wrong."
When he is claiming things, without objective evidence, that go against the evidences we DO have, we say "you are wrong." With the caveat, perhaps unspoken - that good evidence and methods may change our minds. 
Maybe someone else would benefit from that information in the future. Because many of the posts here say nothing and nobody bashes them. They waste a lot more space saying "prove it" than actually disproving anything.
Because that's how science works. You don't get to just say something is so without proving it. At the very least, you provide what you did - your data, your methods, your experiment from which you derived your observations. Others can then run the same experiments to test your results. It's not a fact just by saying so. 
It's similar to the dark ages, when science was not improved because of another type of book, but I don't have to tell you the story. 
Unlike that situation - our understanding and opinions will change, provided actual evidence is presented. Again - that's how science works - demonstrate your position so that others can evaluate it, and move the science forward. Tests without controls, and bad methodology lead to personal subjective opinions presented as fact because you "heard it" - and that doesn't cut it. That's no different than the fairy tales in "that other book." 
post #2695 of 3732
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesHuntington View Post
They waste a lot more space saying "prove it" than actually disproving anything.

The burden of proof is always upon the person making the claim that goes against current scientific understanding.

post #2696 of 3732
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesHuntington View Post

When someone does their own tests a writes in such length about his knowledge we should not say "no way, you are wrong."

 

What if they actually *are* wrong?

post #2697 of 3732
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

 

What if they actually *are* wrong?


Well saying they are wrong would indicate the possibility they are wrong.  Obviously for some people, in some minds, that is not a possibility.  I mean any well meaning audiophile will always tell the truth about what they perceive.  While scientific types only wish to crush the human spirit and curiosity.  Science is about crushing curiosity is it not?:wink_face:

post #2698 of 3732

post #2699 of 3732

Aren't audiophiles classified as a cult following, so any claims made are redundant of science proving either way?

 

OBEY FREQUENCY RESPONSE CHARTS, BURN IN NEW HEADPHONES, BEWARE OF MUDDY BASS, CABLES COUNT SO UPGRADE FROM STOCK ETC :rolleyes:

 

lol :D 

post #2700 of 3732
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

What if they actually *are* wrong?
What if you're wrong?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths