1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Audio Quality Rankings

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by freakydrew, Feb 3, 2010.
First
 
Back
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
12 13
Next
 
Last
  1. TwoTrack
    I think Grokit has a point. We are in a typical web stalemate with both sides holding their views in a religious fashion.

    **Steve cannot show any DBTs that prove that LPs cannot be magnetized.

    **I cannot show any DBTs that prove that LPs can be magnetized. I can show some scientific measurements but of course these are rejected by Steve as being "not rigorous".

    So we can do either of two things:

    1. Create a DBT to prove either Steve's or my point. This requires money, time and a faith in DBTs that I simply do not have.

    2. Accept that subjective evaluations do hold value and experiment with non-magnetized and magnetized LPs.

    For me, I think #2 is a valid path if less scientifically "rigorous" than some here want.

    If we go with #1, then we will have very little content to legitimately discuss here.
     
  2. wnmnkh Contributor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    I think Grokit has a point. We are in a typical web stalemate with both sides holding their views in a religious fashion.

    **Steve cannot show any DBTs that prove that LPs cannot be magnetized.

    **I cannot show any DBTs that prove that LPs can be magnetized. I can show some scientific measurements but of course these are rejected by Steve as being "not rigorous".

    So we can do either of two things:

    1. Create a DBT to prove either Steve's or my point. This requires money, time and a faith in DBTs that I simply do not have.

    2. Accept that subjective evaluations do hold value and experiment with non-magnetized and magnetized LPs.

    For me, I think #2 is a valid path if less scientifically "rigorous" than some here want.

    If we go with #1, then we will have very little content to legitimately discuss here.




    There is no need of doing DBT in the first place, since even basic high school physics can easily show that such claim is at best utter nonsense in the first place.

    I am still waiting to hear a proper explanation that how magnetic field from a thin carbon coating (if that coating really is conductive) can outcome much stronger field from nearby motor of a LP player and affect the sound.
     
  3. Steve Eddy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    I think Grokit has a point. We are in a typical web stalemate with both sides holding their views in a religious fashion.



    Um, no. There is only one side holding their views in a religious fashion. The side which holds them in an irrational, faith-based fashion. And that side is yours.

    My believes are not based on blind faith, but on that which is objectively demonstrable.

    Quote:

    **Steve cannot show any DBTs that prove that LPs cannot be magnetized.

    **I cannot show any DBTs that prove that LPs can be magnetized.



    DBTs? What are you talking about? First, a DBT does not prove a negative. It can only prove a positive, else all you have is a null result which proves nothing either way.

    Second, a DBT wouldn't be used to prove that LPs can be magnetized. That would require some form of direct, objective measurement. Not a DBT. A DBT would only come into play if it could be shown that LPs can be magnetized and to determine if demagnetizing results in an actual audible difference.

    Quote:

    I can show some scientific measurements but of course these are rejected by Steve as being "not rigorous".



    Yes. Because they weren't rigorous. No control was used to rule out factors other than those which may have resulted from the Furutech. Because of that, what was presented was too ambiguous, requiring a blind leap of faith for acceptance. I don't take blind leaps of faith. That's your side's job.

    Quote:

    So we can do either of two things:

    1. Create a DBT to prove either Steve's or my point.



    Again, a DBT wouldn't be used to prove whether or not LPs can be magnetized.

    Quote:

    This requires money, time and a faith in DBTs that I simply do not have.



    Funny the things you have faith in and those you don't.

    Quote:

    2. Accept that subjective evaluations do hold value and experiment with non-magnetized and magnetized LPs.



    They do hold value. But for subjective purposes only. They do not, on their own, have any objective value.

    Quote:

    For me, I think #2 is a valid path if less scientifically "rigorous" than some here want.



    And that path leads out of the Sound Science forum.

    Quote:

    If we go with #1, then we will have very little content to legitimately discuss here.



    Yes, because yet again, a DBT wouldn't be used to prove whether or not LPs can be magnetized.

    By the way, how do LPs come to be magnetized in the first place?

    Even if LPs were to contain some amount of magnetic material, a material being magnetic and it being magnetized are not one and the same.

    How do they become magnetized in the first place?

    se
     
  4. TwoTrack
    Steve,

    You seem to want it both ways here. I present scientific evidence of demagging working on LPs in the Furutech/Tokyo Nanotech piece and yet you and W don't accept the evidence. If a device measuring and showing decreases in magnetic fields is not acceptable then what is?

    You are just reluctant to concede the point. Who's really holding onto faith here now?

    I used DBTs for the purpose of showing sound improvement since when I presented data on cable metrics improving electrically some people here said "yes, but can you hear that difference?"

    I could devise a test that show magnetism or not on an LP. Let's assume it shows an LP can be magnetized (essentially replicating the work the Nanotech center did for Furutech). What then? I think Steve and W would say okay but can you hear that? Then we are back to DBT again.

    Another example is jitter. I can show lower jitter when one uses a master clock. But it won't convince people if we go from 20 nanoseconds to 200 picoseconds. People will want to know what level is audible...

    As for subjectivity, I can be more clear. Measurements tell maybe 70% of the audio story, the other 30% cannot be measured currently. So subjective evaluations stand in for the 30% by augmenting the measurements.

    One can have legitimate concerns about ownership biases, etc. but still that does not negate the value of critical listening for the subjective component.
     
  5. Steve Eddy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    You seem to want it both ways here. I present scientific evidence of demagging working on LPs in the Furutech/Tokyo Nanotech piece and yet you and W don't accept the evidence.



    Not at face value I don't. At least not the way it was presented. They left too much unknown and unaccounted for.

    Quote:

    If a device measuring and showing decreases in magnetic fields is not acceptable then what is?



    It's not as simple as that.

    As I said previously, I can make an FFT distortion spectra measurement on a piece of equipment, go smoke a cigarette, come back and do the same measurement on the same piece of equipment and find that there are differences between the two measurements.

    This is simply due to normal variations inherent in test and measurement equipment.

    So now, if I say I've got a magic wand tweak where I say that by waving my magic wand over a piece of equipment, I can make it sound better, and then I present the two measurements I took of that piece of equipment, what have I proven?

    Quote:

    You are just reluctant to concede the point. Who's really holding onto faith here now?



    I'm not going to concede a point with which there is as much ambiguity as there is here.

    Quote:

    I used DBTs for the purpose of showing sound improvement since when I presented data on cable metrics improving electrically some people here said "yes, but can you hear that difference?"



    Sure. Because if you can't hear it, then it's just an academic exercise. This is the Sound Science forum after all.

    Quote:

    I could devise a test that show magnetism or not on an LP. Let's assume it shows an LP can be magnetized (essentially replicating the work the Nanotech center did for Furutech). What then? I think Steve and W would say okay but can you hear that? Then we are back to DBT again.



    Ultimately, yes. But the claim under discussion wasn't whether or not you could hear it, but whether or not an LP could be magnetized.

    Quote:

    As for subjectivity, I can be more clear. Measurements tell maybe 70% of the audio story, the other 30% cannot be measured currently.



    And your proof for this statement is what exactly?

    Quote:

    One can have legitimate concerns about ownership biases, etc. but still that does not negate the value of critical listening for the subjective component.



    The value of critical listening for the subjective component is indeed negated if all we're left with is the subjective component. At least within the context of this particular forum.

    se
     
  6. Steve Eddy
    Let's back up here.

    Many of the snake oilish products being offered out there are ultimately cures in search of diseases.

    So let's first ask the question, if we allow that LPs can be magnetized to some microscopically small degree, is it even a problem to begin with?

    It seems to me that a very simple test can be done to assess this.

    Take a magnetized LP and place it on the turntable. Use a 'table with an arm lift that will allow you to bring the cartridge down over the record until the needle is just shy of touching it.

    Spin up the turntable and listen.

    Can you hear anything?

    If not, then how can it be a problem which is in need of a solution?

    se
     
  7. nick_charles Contributor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Koyaan I. Sqatsi /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    It seems to me that a very simple test can be done to assess this.

    Take a magnetized LP and place it on the turntable. Use a 'table with an arm lift that will allow you to bring the cartridge down over the record until the needle is just shy of touching it.




    or......

    Take an LP, record the analog output using 24/96 to a wav file. "demagnetize" the LP and repeat the recording - use 10 samples of each to get around random variation. Load the 20 wav files in Audacity or CEP and plot the spectra, export the spectra to text files and load up in Excel or some other spreadsheet program. Average the results for both conditions and look at the differences, plot them in a line chart, then see if there are any fr or amplitude differences. Then select the most average of wav files from both conditions and do DBTs on them.

    I have done this with cable tests and while tedious it does provide reasonable data for comparisons...
     
  8. Steve Eddy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    Take an LP, record the analog output using 24/96 to a wav file. "demagnetize" the LP and repeat the recording - use 10 samples of each to get around random variation. Load the 20 wav files in Audacity or CEP and plot the spectra, export the spectra to text files and load up in Excel or some other spreadsheet program. Average the results for both conditions and look at the differences, plot them in a line chart, then see if there are any fr or amplitude differences. Then select the most average of wav files from both conditions and do DBTs on them.



    Yeah, one could do that. Though I'm not such a glutton for punishment. [​IMG]

    se
     
  9. TwoTrack
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    or......

    Take an LP, record the analog output using 24/96 to a wav file. "demagnetize" the LP and repeat the recording - use 10 samples of each to get around random variation. Load the 20 wav files in Audacity or CEP and plot the spectra, export the spectra to text files and load up in Excel or some other spreadsheet program. Average the results for both conditions and look at the differences, plot them in a line chart, then see if there are any fr or amplitude differences. Then select the most average of wav files from both conditions and do DBTs on them.

    I have done this with cable tests and while tedious it does provide reasonable data for comparisons...




    Nick,

    Why not just get a Clarity vinyl pressing and its equivalent non-Clarity issue and do DBTs based on that?

    It would be more direct and the sound differences would not be subject to the digital two-step of A/D and D/A.

    For the DBT you would want a very resolving playback system and an audience of people with critical listening skills.
     
  10. Steve Eddy
    Why not cut out the middleman and the DBT and just do what I suggested and simply tell us if you hear anything?

    se
     
  11. nick_charles Contributor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    Nick,

    Why not just get a Clarity vinyl pressing and its equivalent non-Clarity issue and do DBTs based on that?

    It would be more direct and the sound differences would not be subject to the digital two-step of A/D and D/A.

    For the DBT you would want a very resolving playback system and an audience of people with critical listening skills.




    If you could be absolutely sure that the only difference between two copies was the formula, i.e that they were from the same place in the run, then you have to have two identical turntables identically set-up and synchronized perfectly and properly level matched pre-amps and so on.

    As for the AD/DA, any difference that would be masked by the "loss" incurred by a good AD/DA process at 24 bits and 96K is , in my humble opinion not a difference to get worried about [​IMG]
     
  12. TwoTrack
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    As for the AD/DA, any difference that would be masked by the "loss" incurred by a good AD/DA process at 24 bits and 96K is , in my humble opinion not a difference to get worried about [​IMG]



    It depends on the converters. Some are quite bad.
     
  13. wnmnkh Contributor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nick_charles /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    If you could be absolutely sure that the only difference between two copies was the formula, i.e that they were from the same place in the run, then you have to have two identical turntables identically set-up and synchronized perfectly and properly level matched pre-amps and so on.

    As for the AD/DA, any difference that would be masked by the "loss" incurred by a good AD/DA process at 24 bits and 96K is , in my humble opinion not a difference to get worried about [​IMG]




    Due to nature of analog, such thing is not possible even with finest, most expensive turntable because law of physics just does not allow such comparison.

    Good chance is, regardless of second run is magnetized or not, you are not going to get same result. Another reason analog such as LP being "accurate" is nothing but laughable.
     
  14. wnmnkh Contributor
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif
    It depends on the converters. Some are quite bad.



    Even cheapy sound blaster will do job, as Ethan Winer (and many others before) already showed how today's jellybean hardwares are quite good enough. And not-so-jellybean ones are even much better.
     
  15. grokit
    It's like Steven Hawking vs. the Pope around here!

    Can't we all just agree to co-exist?

    That would be no fun, though [​IMG]
     
First
 
Back
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
12 13
Next
 
Last

Share This Page