[watchnerd]

  OK, which part of "insufficient finances to generate data" you do not understand ?
 
You can agree or disagree with my decision - but whatever finances available, I prefer to use them to make as good recording as I possibly can, using equipment I think can best cater to the need of recording - instead of pouring ( waay insufficient) finances into proving something much larger organizations do not dare to tackle. 
 
I do not care particularly much if - eventually - there will be inscription on my tombstone, reading :
 
He was right.

 
There are many sources on there internets where data can be found.
 
Try AES.

 

[watchnerd]

  OK, which part of "insufficient finances to generate data" you do not understand ?
 
You can agree or disagree with my decision - but whatever finances available, I prefer to use them to make as good recording as I possibly can, using equipment I think can best cater to the need of recording - instead of pouring ( waay insufficient) finances into proving something much larger organizations do not dare to tackle. 
 
I do not care particularly much if - eventually - there will be inscription on my tombstone, reading :
 
He was right.

 
It's awesome you have a hobby. 
 
I love recording, too.
 
But you seem to be conflating preferences with evidence.

 

[analogsurviver]

   
to show that people can notice a difference, you need to show that people can notice a difference. duh. everything else is just admitting an inability to show actual evidence of hearing. first show that people can really discriminate ultrasounds under control at the levels usually found in music, then show that they can still do it with actual music at normal listening level, and only then then try to guess why and test for it.
instead you go out of your way to explain why people hear a difference, without a shred of evidence that they can. it's a logical fallacy not an argument. we don't care about how aliens kidnap people if we don't have evidence that aliens exist.
 
and so far blind tests about higher resolution have critically failed to show that ultrasounds matter for audibility.
 
 
 
 
@analogsurviver.  the inability to demonstrate something does provide an answer, and that answer is:  we don't actually know yet.
it's not "I know but I can't prove it yet".

Well, "people" ...
 
I can only vouch for myself. And would like to share my observations about my own perception of sound/music - as it evolved in say, last 10 or so years I am recording mainly choirs.
 
I do not possess an absolute pitch - yet, I grew FAR more sensitive to pitch variations than I used to have prior to my "choir" period. The same goes for the minute amplitude variations - both of which are the essential tools of choir singing.
 
Like it or not; recording a choir to analog cassette tape does simply not work - even provided the "perfect" tape transport ( Eumig FL-1000 ?) and "zero" wow and flutter ( an impossibility in real life , but "assume" it is possible ) will still not be good enough - because of tape amplitude variation(s) of any "normal" tape. The tapes that used to be really good/acceptable in this regard ( Sony Metal Master ) are long gone; the remnants ocasionally available trough ebay etc are not sufficient for any consistent work - and look at the PRICES ...  
 
The same cassette recorder and tape used for recording percussion produces flying colours result - putting any reel to reel recorder, ever - be it home/amateur or professional - marketed to shame . The last/latest cassette recorders featured amorphous playback heads - no low frequency "head bumps", theorethically capable of DC performance; if there were any amorphous head reel to reel decks, for sure they can be counted on fingers of less than one hand. The solidity of bass provided by amorphous equipped tape decks has to be heard to be believed; forget listening to bass deficiencies in usual original vs tape copy comparisons in order to most easily tell copy from an original. Even the best studio reel to reels are most easily caugt this way - but not a really good cassette.
 
This is just "one, single" experience - that most people will never reach sensitivity high enough for them to be audible/objectionable. And an individual, even if and when he/she would score perfect ABX, would get "outvoted" by the less experienced/sensitive listeners in a larger group of people, as required by the statistics . Leading to the type of conclusion " we do not know yet".

 

[Joe Bloggs]

 

to show that people can notice a difference, you need to show that people can notice a difference. duh. everything else is just admitting an inability to show actual evidence of hearing. first show that people can really discriminate ultrasounds under control at the levels usually found in music, then show that they can still do it with actual music at normal listening level, and only then then try to guess why and test for it.
instead you go out of your way to explain why people hear a difference, without a shred of evidence that they can. it's a logical fallacy not an argument. we don't care about how aliens kidnap people if we don't have evidence that aliens exist.

and so far blind tests about higher resolution have critically failed to show that ultrasounds matter for audibility.




@analogsurviver.  the inability to demonstrate something does provide an answer, and that answer is:  we don't actually know yet.
it's not "I know but I can't prove it yet".

Well, "people" ...

I can only vouch for myself. And would like to share my observations about my own perception of sound/music - as it evolved in say, last 10 or so years I am recording mainly choirs.

I do not possess an absolute pitch - yet, I grew FAR more sensitive to pitch variations than I used to have prior to my "choir" period. The same goes for the minute amplitude variations - both of which are the essential tools of choir singing.

Like it or not; recording a choir to analog cassette tape does simply not work - even provided the "perfect" tape transport ( Eumig FL-1000 ?) and "zero" wow and flutter ( an impossibility in real life , but "assume" it is possible ) will still not be good enough - because of tape amplitude variation(s) of any "normal" tape. The tapes that used to be really good/acceptable in this regard ( Sony Metal Master ) are long gone; the remnants ocasionally available trough ebay etc are not sufficient for any consistent work - and look at the PRICES ...  

The same cassette recorder and tape used for recording percussion produces flying colours result - putting any reel to reel recorder, ever - be it home/amateur or professional - marketed to shame . The last/latest cassette recorders featured amorphous playback heads - no low frequency "head bumps", theorethically capable of DC performance; if there were any amorphous head reel to reel decks, for sure they can be counted on fingers of less than one hand. The solidity of bass provided by amorphous equipped tape decks has to be heard to be believed; forget listening to bass deficiencies in usual original vs tape copy comparisons in order to most easily tell copy from an original. Even the best studio reel to reels are most easily caugt this way - but not a really good cassette.

This is just "one, single" experience - that most people will never reach sensitivity high enough for them to be audible/objectionable. And an individual, even if and when he/she would score perfect ABX, would get "outvoted" by the less experienced/sensitive listeners in a larger group of people, as required by the statistics . Leading to the type of conclusion " we do not know yet".

And yet, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you never proved to anybody that your rejecting such tapes was because of an objectively perceived tone problem. You don't even need to prove it to anybody but yourself; record a known frequency sine tone on 20 tapes, reject half of them for tone deficiency, measure reproduced tones to see if that half consistently scores further off the reference frequency compared to those you gave a pass for.

 

[gregorio]

  Two ears, two mics and ...

 
No brain?
 

  1. Simple. There is no other better way of proving DSD superiority over PCM than binaural - because binaural it is the simplest miking technique possible.  
 
2. Where else - or using anything else - can you LISTEN for yourself ; both to sound heard live and subsequently the reproduction - if not when using binaural mics on your own head/ears ? At the EXACT spot in any given venue, not even one single milimeter removed from it ? 
 
3. Or, put another way, the deficiencies of all other miking techniques can well, from partly to almost completely,  mask the difference between the DSD and PCM.
 
4. If you look at the ACTUAL results from using either the DSD or PCM from the REAL WORLD equipment ( A/D conversion and D/A conversion = recorder ) and observe the sqare wave response on FAST ENOUGH oscilloscope ( be it analogue or digital ), you are going to find SLIGHT advantage of DSD over PCM.
 
5. It is this audible immediacy that wins for me - and is nowhere as easily audible as with binaural recordings.
 
6. Bear in mind that we are not  measuring electrical signals ? We hear pressure differentials.

 
1. Firstly, there are of course simpler mic'ing techniques than binaural. Secondly, binaural or indeed any other mic'ing technique does not of course prove DSD superiority over PCM. If you wish to claim something contrary to this accepted fact, provide your "proof", this is the science forum, remember?
 
2. Thanks for highlighting one of the potential deficiencies of binaural. At such a small scale (the distance between the drivers and between the driver and the ear) a "single millimeter" can have an impact. Is your head the same size as mine, to the millimeter? Also, you mentioned that you actually wear the binaural mics, how do you stop your head from moving a millimeter during an entire performance, do you bolt it to something?
 
3. When you say "put another way" what do you mean exactly? Put in a way that you've just made up, put in a way for which there's absolutely no reliable evidence, put in a way which contradicts the known science, put in a way which is completely ridiculous?
 
4. Your apparently "REAL WORLD" but not anyone else's! You said you record choirs, does the choir you record commonly sing square waves? Even if they were a choir of aliens and could sing square waves, can you provide evidence that you can hear the sine wave components of a square wave above 20kHz, that you can even differentiate say a 12kHz square wave from a 12kHz sine wave?
 
5. "Audible immediacy"? What you're seem to be talking about is neither audible nor any more immediate! Yet again, all you're doing is providing more and more support for my post (#121) which you set out to refute!? You're also convincingly supporting the predicted irrational circular logic. AND, you still don't seem capable of recognising this fact! For hopefully the last time; yes, binaural is relatively simple, relatively cheap and can, under certain circumstances, work reasonably well or even better than reasonably well on occasion, providing one doesn't compare it too closely to what would actually be heard during the performance, because it (particularly with DSD) does not account for human perception. This doesn't seem to bother you personally because you seem perfectly content to ignore and/or remain completely ignorant of human perception, despite your protestations to the contrary and despite the fact that you're demonstrating susceptibility to some/many of the flaws of human perception. However, real pros do not dismiss or choose to remain completely ignorant of perception and more importantly, all but a tiny minority of consumers have voted for it with their wallets!
 
6. Huh, how much more irrational are you willing to get? It is not possible to record air pressure differentials, only convert them into an (analogous) electrical signal with microphones, a particular arrangement of which you've been arguing for??! Also (AGAIN!!!), we DO NOT "hear" pressure differentials, we "hear" the brain's interpretation of electrical signals generated/transduced by the ears, this is called a PERCEPTION!!! And lastly, neither DSD, PCM nor any other digital audio format can measure (record or reproduce) anything other than an electrical signal. Come on, please employ at least a basic (>grade school level) understanding of science and human physiology and a modicum of rationality, this is (AGAIN!!!) the SCIENCE FORUM!
 
You don't, as you stated, "get it" and you will continue not to "get it" and continue coming up with ridiculous, illogical, unsubstantiable claims/rationale until you factor human perception into your equation! If you're not willing to do that, that's your choice but (AGAIN!!!) do yourself a favour and don't respond further, you're just making yourself look ever more foolish/ignorant.
 

  There is a lot of ignorance on the topic of high frequency audio. First of all, real instruments produce frequencies up to and above 100 kHz. The inconvenient truth is, non-lineararities matter. The other, 5 billion ton Godzilla in the listening room is that human beings DO receive high frequency sound, which our brains react to even though we don't consciously perceive it as sound.

 
Yet another typical audiophile confusion of scale/context. It's not a 5 ton godzilla in the listening room, it's a bacteria in an arena! Which real instruments produce frequencies up to 100kHz, what frequencies exactly and how much of those frequencies? Virtually all the instruments in the orchestra produce only tiny amounts (or none whatsoever) of frequencies up to 100kHz and those tiny amounts are only recordable (assuming a mic which has that capability) if the mic is extremely close to the instrument. Otherwise, what little is being produced up there is absorbed by the air, human bodies and concert hall wall/surfaces. When listening to say a trumpet during a symphony performance, are you sitting just 4 inches away from the trumpet? There are some exceptions, cymbals for example do produce significant content up at 100kHz but what content? It's essentially white noise, and of course we've still got the problem of high freq absoption so there's not much of that white noise, certainly nowhere near as much noise as the massive amounts of shaped dither noise in DSD. So even if you were not a human being and could actually hear that high, you still wouldn't be able to detect the noise of the cymbal under the dither noise!!
 
Non-linearities do matter, why is that an inconvenient truth and what has it to do with the topic under discussion?
 
Our brains have been shown to react to ultrasonic content, through bone conductance, though not consciously, as you mentioned. When you go to a symphony concert, do you bolt the orchestra directly to your skull? And even if you could, what difference would you expect to hear? What do you do if you go to a rock/pop gig?
 
As is so often the case with audiophile discussions, the explanations/rationale becomes more and more ridiculous as you try to explain/defend a view of how audio is heard which is irrational to start with. Your post did a great job of supporting the irrational circular logic post to which you were responding. That's either very (too) subtle sarcasm or, rather sad that you've accomplished the exact opposite of your intention!
 
G

 

[analogsurviver]

And yet, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you never proved to anybody that your rejecting such tapes was because of an objectively perceived tone problem. You don't even need to prove it to anybody but yourself; record a known frequency sine tone on 20 tapes, reject half of them for tone deficiency, measure reproduced tones to see if that half consistently scores further off the reference frequency compared to those you gave a pass for.

You can keep your money; no need to do that. And - it was NOT primarily mine rejecting such tapes.
 
In some music ( choirs, piano, etc ) even the minute tone problems are perceived as objectionable - all it took was to observe the ever grimer looking face of any of the members of the choir listening to what was just recorded. And I can well understand; they did not practice untold amount of time to be sabotaged on the recording by the analog  tape problems.
 
You have missed entirely to comment on the amplitude part of the analog tape remarks. Combined with pitch instability, it is a no-no.
 
I do not care for the statistical result one single iota in such a case - it simply must not happen. You are, of course, right as far as scintific/statistical methods are concerned. But, they are not applicable/required/useful universally.
 
As noted above, same tape recording works for other kind(s) of music perfectly fine.

 

[watchnerd]

In other news, cassettes are a low fidelity medium for recording.
 
Back to you, Bob, for more things people already knew.

 

[castleofargh]

Well, "people" ...  
I can only vouch for myself. And would like to share my observations about my own perception of sound/music - as it evolved in say, last 10 or so years I am recording mainly choirs.
 
I do not possess an absolute pitch - yet, I grew FAR more sensitive to pitch variations than I used to have prior to my "choir" period. The same goes for the minute amplitude variations - both of which are the essential tools of choir singing.
 
Like it or not; recording a choir to analog cassette tape does simply not work - even provided the "perfect" tape transport ( Eumig FL-1000 ?) and "zero" wow and flutter ( an impossibility in real life , but "assume" it is possible ) will still not be good enough - because of tape amplitude variation(s) of any "normal" tape. The tapes that used to be really good/acceptable in this regard ( Sony Metal Master ) are long gone; the remnants ocasionally available trough ebay etc are not sufficient for any consistent work - and look at the PRICES ...  
 
The same cassette recorder and tape used for recording percussion produces flying colours result - putting any reel to reel recorder, ever - be it home/amateur or professional - marketed to shame . The last/latest cassette recorders featured amorphous playback heads - no low frequency "head bumps", theorethically capable of DC performance; if there were any amorphous head reel to reel decks, for sure they can be counted on fingers of less than one hand. The solidity of bass provided by amorphous equipped tape decks has to be heard to be believed; forget listening to bass deficiencies in usual original vs tape copy comparisons in order to most easily tell copy from an original. Even the best studio reel to reels are most easily caugt this way - but not a really good cassette.
 
This is just "one, single" experience - that most people will never reach sensitivity high enough for them to be audible/objectionable. And an individual, even if and when he/she would score perfect ABX, would get "outvoted" by the less experienced/sensitive listeners in a larger group of people, as required by the statistics . Leading to the type of conclusion " we do not know yet".

but it's the same for me and for everybody else.
when we're not average, average stats don't always work for us. I'm too tall, lefty with blue eyes, just that insignificant combo makes me a statistical freak in most countries compared to the average citizen. it's the side effect of diversity. I'm sure that different people have different hearing and different sensitivities to things. subjectivity isn't in doubt here, on the contrary. indeed even if you passed a few controlled tests and could show clear discrimination, that would still only show that it has an audible impact to you. but it would at least open on the possibility that for some people it matters.
 
in serious trials, you always have one or 2 guys with extremely good results, could be statistical chance, or it could be more. but somehow there is always some BS reason as to why those guys couldn't participate in more trials or be included in a sub study. I've never seen, yet, a guy known for recognizing DSD over CD who passed controlled tests of all sorts not just on his gears that could have cues for some reason. if someone claims to have such ability, test failing to disprove the ability would be a clear statement. same thing for highres in general. I'd be thrilled to be shown like 10dudes who can pass and then see them in a replicated study done by people without the obvious motive to get positive result. and if such a day comes, I would immediately change my opinion on the subject. compelling evidence always take precedence over my own beliefs.
 
anyway we talk about humans in general and agree with statistical results over a significant group of people, or we talk about one person and the conclusions applies to that person in that specific test.
if there was a clear enough quantity of people hearing the benefits of ultrasonic content under control, we could then move on to try and find out if there are common denominators within those individuals, and try to study what percentage of the population they represent, and so on. it would open on a all lot of new researches. but none of it can exist when we're still looking for clear evidence that it really makes an audible difference for people.

 

[gregorio]

  OK, which part of "insufficient finances to generate data" you do not understand ?He was right.

 
You're joking right? Think about what you're saying for a second, the dire consequences if this defence were actually acceptable. Anyone could state anything as fact without any supporting data, on the grounds that they can't afford to generate supporting data. This would throw science back to the dark ages, and medicine ... I shudder to think! The solution is simple, either quote supporting, already existing, scientific data or DO NOT state your ideas/hypothesis/conclusions as fact in the first place!
 
Quote:

  1. I can only vouch for myself.
2. And would like to share my observations about my own perception of sound/music ...
3. Like it or not; recording a choir to analog cassette tape does simply not work ...
4. And an individual, even if and when he/she would score perfect ABX, would get "outvoted" by the less experienced/sensitive listeners in a larger group of people, as required by the statistics . Leading to the type of conclusion " we do not know yet".

 
1. Of course you can't, nobody can. This is precisely why science evolved, why checks and balances exist and are required by science: Peer reviewing, reliable, repeatable data/evidence, etc.!
 
2. Firstly, that's a lie! You are not just sharing your "observations about your own perception"! You are posting your conclusions/hypotheses AND what's really annoying everyone, stating those conclusions/hypotheses as fact. Secondly, why on earth would you think the science forum is the right place to "share your observations on your perception"? Observations are perfectly fine here on the science forum, in the context of a question and even in the context of conclusions and stated facts, PROVIDED they are supported with acceptable evidence/data. Otherwise, observations are virtually worthless, or EVEN WORSE than worthless, in the case of someone contradicting the known science and/or actively demonstrating highly biased/flawed observation AND little/no understanding of what they're observing (perception in this case). This is not your personal blog, this is the science forum! The only logical conclusion I can think of, is that either you're trolling or you simply have no idea what science is. And, giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming the latter, why would you post in a forum when you have no idea what the forum is about?
 
3. Obviously analogue cassette tape does work for choirs, just not very well. And also obviously, cassette tape works equally poorly for anything else one cares to record (including percussion). What are you saying, that the tape somehow knows when your trying to record a choir and deliberately stops working? This would obviously be a ridiculous statement, far more likely is that your observation is flawed, that you simply have not developed your hearing acuity for percussion as much as you have for choirs. Your rationale (and that of apparently all extreme audiophiles) is that if you observe it (and are being truthful), then that observation is fact. To defend that "fact" is ultimately going to require some bizarre, illogical, explanation, such as; the tape must know what it's recording and respond accordingly. What's amazing to me, is that such bizarre, illogical and ridiculous explanations are apparently more acceptable (to extreme audiophiles) than the actual demonstrated and accepted fact that; observation is not fact/truth, observation is a product of PERCEPTION which is highly fallible! Most importantly though, regardless of whether there is any truth/fact to your cassette tape assertions, the whole thing is bizarre/illogical to start with because it's just a deflection! It has no relevance to the points you were trying to make/support, the points you're apparently trying to refute or indeed the topic of this thread!
 
4. We're getting quite the gamut of audiophile nonsense in that post: Observation (flawed) stated as fact, Self-validation and Deflection, to name a few. And now, in this particular point, another audiophile favourite; misrepresentation! You are misrepresenting statistics and science itself. Do you think that due to statistics, science really is stating/concluding that, for example, families actually have 2.4 children, that science believes 2.4 children is even possible? Of course it isn't, as castleofargh has explained about averages. Furthermore, the case of a highly atypical individual result would NOT simply get "out voted", sure it would be averaged lower by statistics but that's not the end of the science, just as a 2.4 children is not the scientific conclusion applicable to all families (or indeed any individual family). A diligent scientist would investigate that highly atypical result further to ascertain whether it was just the highly improbable result of random guessing (as predicted by statistics) or whether some ability was actually demonstrated. And, if further investigation were not practical at the time, include that atypical result in the conclusion, rather than just making a conclusion and ignoring that result, as you are stating! Of course, not all scientists are sufficiently diligent, they are human beings and therefore prone to unintentional biases or in some cases, even deliberate misrepresentation/lying for personal gain. Which, going back to #1 above, is why science does not allow vouching for oneself and has evolved a raft of requirements to remove (or at least least reduce as much as possible) the accidental or deliberate perversion of science/the facts.
 
How can you not see that with every one of your responses all you are achieving is digging a deeper hole for yourself? Are you really so convinced that your observations (and resultant conclusions) are the truth that it simply doesn't matter that they fly in the face of: A huge body of demonstrated science, A huge body of professional practitioners and, the knowledge/experience of that science which pretty much everyone to whom you're responding already has? Or do you simply think that we're sufficiently ignorant/gullible/inexperienced that we can eventually be convinced by your unsupported (and frequently unsupportable/nonsensical) arguments?
 
G

 

[EmPathWalker]

No brain ?
 
Intellectual ego gone mad in this forum, me thinks.

 

[gregorio]

  No brain ? Intellectual ego gone mad in this forum, me thinks.

 
The brain is the most important/dominant organ in the human perception of sound, yet you completely eliminated from your equation (2 ears, 2 mics)? Ignorance gone mad, and in the science forum of all places, me thinks!
 
G

 

[EmPathWalker]

 

  No brain ? Intellectual ego gone mad in this forum, me thinks.

 
The brain is the most important/dominant organ in the human perception of sound, yet you completely eliminated from your equation (2 ears, 2 mics)? Ignorance gone mad, and in the science forum of all places, me thinks!
 
G

 
I didn't present an equation.
 
But even if I had, it turns up on both sides of it, so it can be eliminated.
 
Your offensive completion of thoughts fails my smell test anyway, so I'll depart this cloister. I'll see myself out.

 

[gregorio]

  1. I didn't present an equation.
 
2. But even if I had, it turns up on both sides of it, so it can be eliminated.
 
3. Your offensive completion of thoughts fails my smell test anyway, so I'll depart this cloister. I'll see myself out.

 
1. "Two ears, two mics and nothing more than topping and tailing each episode." - Your words!
 
2. You may not want to accept what most people learn at or shortly after grade school but the fact is: It's two ears + a brain. On the other side of the equation, I've conducted and been at countless recording sessions, I've never seen anything other than a mic and occasionally a pop-filter mounted on a mic stand, or are you saying the other side of the equation is a rack-mounted brain?
 
3. You're the one being offensive, to this whole forum, so good riddance!
 
G

 

[analogsurviver]

  but it's the same for me and for everybody else.
when we're not average, average stats don't always work for us. I'm too tall, lefty with blue eyes, just that insignificant combo makes me a statistical freak in most countries compared to the average citizen. it's the side effect of diversity. I'm sure that different people have different hearing and different sensitivities to things. subjectivity isn't in doubt here, on the contrary. indeed even if you passed a few controlled tests and could show clear discrimination, that would still only show that it has an audible impact to you. but it would at least open on the possibility that for some people it matters.
 
in serious trials, you always have one or 2 guys with extremely good results, could be statistical chance, or it could be more. but somehow there is always some BS reason as to why those guys couldn't participate in more trials or be included in a sub study. I've never seen, yet, a guy known for recognizing DSD over CD who passed controlled tests of all sorts not just on his gears that could have cues for some reason. if someone claims to have such ability, test failing to disprove the ability would be a clear statement. same thing for highres in general. I'd be thrilled to be shown like 10dudes who can pass and then see them in a replicated study done by people without the obvious motive to get positive result. and if such a day comes, I would immediately change my opinion on the subject. compelling evidence always take precedence over my own beliefs.
 
anyway we talk about humans in general and agree with statistical results over a significant group of people, or we talk about one person and the conclusions applies to that person in that specific test.
if there was a clear enough quantity of people hearing the benefits of ultrasonic content under control, we could then move on to try and find out if there are common denominators within those individuals, and try to study what percentage of the population they represent, and so on. it would open on a all lot of new researches. but none of it can exist when we're still looking for clear evidence that it really makes an audible difference for people.

OK,I agree with most of the above - save one , unfortunately very important point.
 
And that would be "not just on his gears". I am in this game now for about 40 years - 30 of them as an audiophile, analogue oriented to the max possible - I even worked for the Benz Switzerland at one time. And at least from that time on , I can no longer be considered an amateur - I DO know what an analog rig makes to tick or not, and I have developed a battery of objective tests no manufactuer would be willing to subjet his/hers creation to in full measure - if it was to be made public. I can tell from the measurements whether an analog front end is going to sound, basically, good - or not. Without the need to use any musical record and plugging it into the system for listening. It takes LOTS of prior listening to know what to measure for. 
 
I have been LISTENING to many recordings, many records, many turntables, tone arms, phono cartridges, phono preamps - for all of this time. After setting up and measuring litterally hundreds of analog front ends ( turntable/arm/cartridge ), listening to these front ends on selected electronics and mainly using electrostatic headphones for the purpose, I am perfectly sure I suceeded in establishing what is important in order to have great sound - and what are detrimental no-nos I try to avoid whenever possible.  And, yes, it IS unfortunate "many hells over average" equipment is required for this purpose; I did find it pretty disheartening when listening to an analog front end I have just completed - in the customer*s home, in his/hers rig on the speakers - why, on earth, did I put so much experience/time in it, if the rig sound as it does, conveying so much less than I heard  from it at home ? Make no mistake, it was never low quality rigs - I do not want to operate with any names, but usually it was above the level of equipment audio science holds for adequate - usually MUCH above that. But, clearly, not enough to show off what the front end was really capable of. For that, even better equipment is required.
 
Just for the clarification - CD was never my main source. I did not even possess a CD player until about 10 or so years ago; and based on the sound quality alone, I would still not have any in the system. 
 
And, similarly, I did learn what leads to better sound quality in electronics, speakers, headphones - and what to avoid. Fast forward to present, I am applying all  the , for some anecdotal, knowledge gained to my recording. A few years ago it was also a question of the absolute phase on head-fi - and "science" side was, once again, against the notion that anything of the sort could be audible. I did provide a short piece of trumpet recording for the purpose - and, as you might have guessed, statistically it could not be proven that it matters. TO THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE TEST - at least. On their gears, using their own two ears and - in case it has to be stressed - using their own mind within those two ears.
 
One does not get to produce the results wanted the instant one thinks of it; usually, some time is required to, like it or not, to more or less "stumble" upon the result desired. And so, I did get to record a, most probably, definite musical example of importance of the absolute phase in recording/reproducing the sound. A trombone quartet - which shocked even myself by how much the captured waveform is actually asymmetric. To produce this, almost complete asymmetry, the electronics have to pass, if not exactly DC, then almost there about; certainly equal or better than -3dB at 5 Hz - FROM MIROPHONE TO THE FINAL AMP DRIVING SPEAKERS OR HEADPHONES.
 
Add to this the requirement to cover the range above 20 kHz ( recording is good/usable to 45-50 kHz ) - and ask yourself the following;
 
- how many people have the system capable of playing back completely uncompressed recording ?
 
- how many people have a system that is actually capable of TWICE the voltage output - than required for the same RMS power into load, but without the capability to play low enough in frequency - in order to support the asymmetry produced by some, mainly brass instruments ?
In this exteme case, there is approx only 10 % (if not less...) of the negative going signal, with the full positive swing. Please note - DO NOT confuse this with the usual DC offset all digital recordings produce to some level other than zero - this is the actual sound signal, in comparison making any real world digital recoding DC offset minuscule.
 
- how many people have equipment that supports at least 40 kHz bandwidth - up to the final transducer ? 
 
The resulting playback - using equipment that does fulfill the above criteria - is sure to astound and bring the real vs repoduced sound at lest one notch closer. 
 
And I made not only one, but three recordings of this piece used as introductory fanfare for the entire evening concert of trombone quartet - two parallel recordings with Jecklin Disk, one DSD128, another  PCM192/24 - plus the binaural-natural DSD128. During the applause following this intro, I quickly returned to my "booth" - I could not afford to leave the two recoders recoding from Jecklin Disk unattended for the entire duration of the concert, so there is only intro recorded in binaural. 
 
After this kind of realism, any RBCD feels like a semi-decent watermarked version - at very, very best. 
 
Let me ask - how would you feel about posting, say, a 30 second part of the recording desribed above - to the (pro) crowd generally working in the diametrally opposite direction, acustomed (or forced  ? ) to (ab)using each and every trick (PCM DSD) science has made available to, basically, squeeze something palatable out of pre-limited end product ? On gear that is basically forseen for approximately that level , not supporting more ?
 
It is quite good if that limitation is to RBCD, but much worse still if the end produt is to be MP3 .
 
Please note that the above only begins to describe the visible part of the iceberg - and we all know the vast bulk of an iceberg is underwater ...

 

[Joe Bloggs]

Two words for you analogsurviver, "blind test" your findings.