[skwoodwiva]

This is my weapon of choice in cassette tape world : https://www.hifiengine.com/manual_library/technics/rs-az7.shtml

You can gogle all day - and you won't be able to find a negative review. Its Aichille's heel is the tape transport - wow & flutter figures could ( and for otherwise superb quality, should ) have been better. Otherwise, I prefer it to any other cassette machine I have heard - that unfortunately excludes Nakamichi Dragon and Eumig FL-1000. None of them featured the playback heads used in RS-AZ 7 - which are also better than any proffessional R2R tape recorder ever got. There was a TEAC prosumer R2R deck equipped with said heads - but it was only spec'd down to 40 Hz. Rs-AZ 6/7 can record and play back 20 Hz at 0 dB VU level with approx - 1 dB @20 Hz. My modded "7" extends that to 15 Hz @ -3dB. These heads also feature greater channel separation than practically any proffessional R2R deck - IIRC around 45 dB across the most important midband. There are reviews and measurements floating online. I could confirm these claims - using just an oscilloscope and signal generator, could not document it back then.

http://www.hifi-review.com/150205-technics-rs-az7.html

http://www.tapeheads.net/showthread.php?t=8817

The said 1988 tape was recorded with Dolby B - and that was used for the playback - on a stock, non modified "7".

Another hunk of evidence in favor of the stance that most posters on SS are simply ignorant of the artifacts and missing data as a result of the acceptance of PCM as mainstream.

The pure DSD method with 2 mikes makes such a stunning contrast to PCM that I never needed any evidence other than my own hearing ability as proof for me.

I have enjoyed all your presentation of these many examples of esoteric and marvelously detailed ”what not”.

Thank you very much for all these deep details I could never have found on my own. They are very satisfying as an avid audiophile, I will simply stick with the DSDs as my economical standard.

As maybe my final word here,
If I am any kind of audiophile, I have read many kinds of testimony here that supports my opinion that true audiophiles are rare. Many are indeed here in the main forum and far more experienced and learned than I.
However, it seems obvious that in concidering a practicing audio engineer In the role as an audiophile leads me to conclude nothing but ”oxymoron”.

 

[pinnahertz]

Another hunk of evidence in favor of the stance that most posters on SS are simply ignorant of the artifacts and missing data as a result of the acceptance of PCM as mainstream.

The pure DSD method with 2 mikes makes such a stunning contrast to PCM that I never needed any evidence other than my own hearing ability as proof for me.

Just pointing out, the above is about as far from Sound Science as anyone can get, on so many levels it's silly.

However, it seems obvious that in concidering a practicing audio engineer In the role as an audiophile leads me to conclude nothing but ”oxymoron”.

Well, "oxymoron" would be the wrong term (check the definition), but I think what you're trying to say is you can't be both an audiophile and an audio engineer. I don't know many (ok, any)audio engineers who identify themselves as audiophiles, or the reverse. I'm amused by the fact that one depends completely on the other, but not the reverse. There would be nothing for audiophiles to, well, phile, without engineers making recordings. But engineers exist quite happily without much concern for the audiophile.

The reason you won't find many engineers who claim to be audiophiles is that to be a successful engineer you must actually understand physics, electronics, acoustics, hearing, and information theory. To be an audiophile you must ignore physics, electronics, acoustics, hearing and information theory. Yup, those two aren't going to mix well. In discussions between the two, it inevitably gets down to the engineer saying, It's science" and the audiophile claiming "Science is (wrong, inadequate, incomplete) and cannot possibly explain everything we hear!" These are mutually exclusive belief systems. And scientific testing, ABX testing, heck ANY testing is out! And that's because it just might throw a bucket of ice water on a beloved belief.

It's also odd that, thinking of Engineers and Audiophiles, one is just a few people making recordings that are consumed and enjoyed by millions, the other leads to the expenditure of millions to enjoy just a few recordings (the hate most of the recordings made today, right?). Though I really believe that audiophiles get some sick pleasure out of taking shots and the very technology that makes their passion possible. For if not for the main stream, there would be no audiophile either, as there would be in gateway drug to get started, no mass market to sustain products, and thus no audiophiles. You guys owe your opposition a bit of gratitude even if you hate the tools and records.

 

[Steve999]

I'm sitting here thinking (not always a good thing) while I listen to some really nice music (always a good thing).

The title to this thread is really loaded, and it limits the scope of what we talk about.

Maybe something like "Testing Audio Claims and Hypotheses" would be a better title. Otherwise we are just showing "audiophiles" (and I do think you could have a rational audiophile, by the way) the door over and over again, and begging for an argument. We could be broader in scope and more innovative. The first post covers the standard-issue disputes between the subjectivist and objectivist camps. These standard arguments over many many years are very tired and worn ground. We stand largely in opposition to the general subjectivist tilt of head-fi. I'm all for that. But we need other things to do.

Just pointing out, the above is about as far from Sound Science as anyone can get, on so many levels it's silly.

Well, "oxymoron" would be the wrong term (check the definition), but I think what you're trying to say is you can't be both an audiophile and an audio engineer. I don't know many (ok, any)audio engineers who identify themselves as audiophiles, or the reverse. I'm amused by the fact that one depends completely on the other, but not the reverse. There would be nothing for audiophiles to, well, phile, without engineers making recordings. But engineers exist quite happily without much concern for the audiophile.

The reason you won't find many engineers who claim to be audiophiles is that to be a successful engineer you must actually understand physics, electronics, acoustics, hearing, and information theory. To be an audiophile you must ignore physics, electronics, acoustics, hearing and information theory. Yup, those two aren't going to mix well. In discussions between the two, it inevitably gets down to the engineer saying, It's science" and the audiophile claiming "Science is (wrong, inadequate, incomplete) and cannot possibly explain everything we hear!" These are mutually exclusive belief systems. And scientific testing, ABX testing, heck ANY testing is out! And that's because it just might throw a bucket of ice water on a beloved belief.

It's also odd that, thinking of Engineers and Audiophiles, one is just a few people making recordings that are consumed and enjoyed by millions, the other leads to the expenditure of millions to enjoy just a few recordings (the hate most of the recordings made today, right?). Though I really believe that audiophiles get some sick pleasure out of taking shots and the very technology that makes their passion possible. For if not for the main stream, there would be no audiophile either, as there would be in gateway drug to get started, no mass market to sustain products, and thus no audiophiles. You guys owe your opposition a bit of gratitude even if you hate the tools and records.

 

[old tech]

Another hunk of evidence in favor of the stance that most posters on SS are simply ignorant of the artifacts and missing data as a result of the acceptance of PCM as mainstream.

The pure DSD method with 2 mikes makes such a stunning contrast to PCM that I never needed any evidence other than my own hearing ability as proof for me.

I have enjoyed all your presentation of these many examples of esoteric and marvelously detailed ”what not”.

Thank you very much for all these deep details I could never have found on my own. They are very satisfying as an avid audiophile, I will simply stick with the DSDs as my economical standard.

As maybe my final word here,
If I am any kind of audiophile, I have read many kinds of testimony here that supports my opinion that true audiophiles are rare. Many are indeed here in the main forum and far more experienced and learned than I.
However, it seems obvious that in concidering a practicing audio engineer In the role as an audiophile leads me to conclude nothing but ”oxymoron”.

Right, so end listener is more skilled than the guy or gal that produced it? That is almost as daft as pretending to know more about PCM than its inventors, or those that understand the math and implementation. The reason why most producers and engineers don't think themselves as audiophiles is because that term has been sullied by audiophools - you know, the ones that believe less fidelity is more, that they know more about the subject than the real scientists and engineers that deliver the music and design playback equipment, substitute mostly mis-informed opinions and pseudo-science as facts and evidence. It is a it like expecting an astronomists to associate with astrologists or medical practitioners with homoeopaths.

The real question is why would you still post here? I mean there are other forums like Steve Hoffman that welcome audio woo.

 

[skwoodwiva]

I am here for A.S. I do not post much in SS anymore

Now that Amirm is fed up and gone. I am following AS and a few more.
Will review the DAP and fini up my wire thread as well as acquire a good DSD player.

If Sony could not change commercial recording what can anyone do. It is all the bottom line.
The masses love PCM , CD or less.
There are tons of DSDs for free

 

[analogsurviver]

Should translate just fine. 192/24 PCM has theoretically double the dynamic range and 3-4 times wider frequency range so why wouldn't it translate well?

[/QUOTE]

You got that RIGHT - boy, did you get this one right. Correct.

Theorethically.

Theorethically.Should.Translate.Just.Fine.

And I have been expecting just that. That does NOT necessary mean it will be so in a real world practical case.

Sometimes, the higher eduacted people one has to deal with, the more down to earth means od delivering the message have to be used - IF the meassage is to sucessfully penetrate their "scientific- peer approved" position - which, in a perfect world, with perfect everything, would be perfectly adequate and irrefutably correct.

Trouble is - there is NO such thing as perfect.

I do have an anecdote about the "difference between theorhetical and real" - in the best tradition of Radio Yerevan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Yerevan_jokes
that can - and DOES, tried and proven - penetrate the mind of even the most rabid scientific theorheticitian . Trouble is, it is against the policy of Head-fi.org .

Question for our subforum moderator @castleofargh : Would it be appropiate for me to send you the anecdote in question via PM and you can then send it to any member that asks you for it ?
I think ( to think is to know nothing in Slovenian ) - NO, I am CERTAIN that the knowledge/common sense gained from this anecdote would help this thread towards far less "back and forth" bickering between the two camps - and more co-operation and learning - in BOTH directions - for the benefit of


MUSIC

 

[castleofargh]

Another hunk of evidence in favor of the stance that most posters on SS are simply ignorant of the artifacts and missing data as a result of the acceptance of PCM as mainstream.

The pure DSD method with 2 mikes makes such a stunning contrast to PCM that I never needed any evidence other than my own hearing ability as proof for me.

I have enjoyed all your presentation of these many examples of esoteric and marvelously detailed ”what not”.

Thank you very much for all these deep details I could never have found on my own. They are very satisfying as an avid audiophile, I will simply stick with the DSDs as my economical standard.

As maybe my final word here,
If I am any kind of audiophile, I have read many kinds of testimony here that supports my opinion that true audiophiles are rare. Many are indeed here in the main forum and far more experienced and learned than I.
However, it seems obvious that in concidering a practicing audio engineer In the role as an audiophile leads me to conclude nothing but ”oxymoron”.

no wonder you like his posts. what you both do is mix all the unrelated stuff you like together and consider you liking them as evidence of similitude and superior fidelity. if I like pizza and licking rocks, but I don't like salmon, have I demonstrated that rocks are superior food?
when you guys associate DSD with tapes and vinyl, then put that team against CD, it makes just as little sense to me. first, they couldn't have less in common, whatever marketing you saw about DSD being close to analog really got you good. second, your personal preferences are not how you measure fidelity! never was, never will be.
enjoy what you enjoy, praise what you like for being what you like instead of claiming objective superiority you haven't and cannot demonstrate. this need to disguise anything you guys like as objectively superior, I don't know if it's motivated by your own insecurity? or maybe a form of sunk-cost fallacy where after years of investing in analog gears, you just can't stop to agree that they're now inferior techs? but your behavior and "arguments" are those of fanaticism, not those of men who give a crap about science and facts.

 

[castleofargh]

You got that RIGHT - boy, did you get this one right. Correct.

Theorethically.

Theorethically.Should.Translate.Just.Fine.

And I have been expecting just that. That does NOT necessary mean it will be so in a real world practical case.

Sometimes, the higher eduacted people one has to deal with, the more down to earth means od delivering the message have to be used - IF the meassage is to sucessfully penetrate their "scientific- peer approved" position - which, in a perfect world, with perfect everything, would be perfectly adequate and irrefutably correct.

Trouble is - there is NO such thing as perfect.

I do have an anecdote about the "difference between theorhetical and real" - in the best tradition of Radio Yerevan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Yerevan_jokes
that can - and DOES, tried and proven - penetrate the mind of even the most rabid scientific theorheticitian . Trouble is, it is against the policy of Head-fi.org .

Question for our subforum moderator @castleofargh : Would it be appropiate for me to send you the anecdote in question via PM and you can then send it to any member that asks you for it ?
I think ( to think is to know nothing in Slovenian ) - NO, I am CERTAIN that the knowledge/common sense gained from this anecdote would help this thread towards far less "back and forth" bickering between the two camps - and more co-operation and learning - in BOTH directions - for the benefit of


MUSIC

if your material goes against the rules, don't post it. but sure you can PM a member to provide something he requested. I fear that an anecdote is never going to be more than that to the parties of interest, but you can try and see.

 

[castleofargh]

I'm sitting here thinking (not always a good thing) while I listen to some really nice music (always a good thing).

The title to this thread is really loaded, and it limits the scope of what we talk about.

Maybe something like "Testing Audio Claims and Hypotheses" would be a better title. Otherwise we are just showing "audiophiles" (and I do think you could have a rational audiophile, by the way) the door over and over again, and begging for an argument. We could be broader in scope and more innovative. The first post covers the standard-issue disputes between the subjectivist and objectivist camps. These standard arguments over many many years are very tired and worn ground. We stand largely in opposition to the general subjectivist tilt of head-fi. I'm all for that. But we need other things to do.

don't worry, those who take objective and subjective as if they were political parties, have already all the biases they can muster about the entire section.

 

[analogsurviver]

[QUOTE="pinnahertz, post: 14321208, member: 447

You guys owe your opposition a bit of gratitude even if you hate the tools and records.[/QUOTE]

Yes, we do.

With the very same remark as audiophile analog record users have to be grateful to their vinyl DJ counterparts - who actually kept enough demand for records in order for the record mastering facilities and vinyl press facilities to survive the digital onslaught.

Or like classical and jazz musicians owe gratitude to Madonnas, Beyonces, Lady Ga Gas etc of this world - because record companies can only trough mega sales of poular music recording afford the luxury of actually losing money ( at least initially/short term ) on some lavish new classical recordings. True, pop music expiration date ( and mega sale period ) is as short as possible, but record labels can not survive on low volume/constant troughout years/decades sales of classical. They can't receive payment for recordings sold after they went belly up ...

And what that remark is - in analogue record vs vinyls world ? Well, the styli for audiophile use and DJ use have in common only two things - they are made to play the same media and they can be - in many cases - used with the very same cartridge. There, all similarities end. An audiophile stylus would be a minimum possible mass affair, designed to track superbly at a minimum reasonable tracking force, with a relatively high compliance, with a stylus tip profile that would allow for perfect signal retrieval of even the highest frequencies that can be put on analogue record even at the innermost record grooves, all resulting in a minimal possible record wear - while being utterly incapable of back cueing / scratching . A DJ "needle" has to withstand back cueing / scratching, for that it has got to have low compliance, accompanied by a MUCH more robust cantilever, to which most usually a bushed (more mass than naked ) stylus is mounted, with almostnever any stylus tip profile better than elliptical, tracking at high tracking force, with frequency response sometimes not extended even to 20 kHz - and wearing the records FAST .
And most - but not all - proffesionals with analogue records tend to use cartridge/styli closer to DJ than to audiophile version. Radios even closer to DJ version.

Similar analogies ( far too numerous to list thewm all here ) apply in
Sound Science PCM ( and particularly RBCD ) "MINIMUM COMMON DENOMINATOR" principle vs audiophile analogue whatever & HR ( and particularly DSD ) .

I cringe whenever I hear or read " IN A STUDIO" . For a reason.

Beacause, except in those very few exceptions confirming the rule, "in a studio" is almost a guarantee for a sub-standard sound quality.

 

[old tech]

You got that RIGHT - boy, did you get this one right. Correct.

Theorethically.

Theorethically.Should.Translate.Just.Fine.

And I have been expecting just that. That does NOT necessary mean it will be so in a real world practical case.

Sometimes, the higher eduacted people one has to deal with, the more down to earth means od delivering the message have to be used - IF the meassage is to sucessfully penetrate their "scientific- peer approved" position - which, in a perfect world, with perfect everything, would be perfectly adequate and irrefutably correct.

Trouble is - there is NO such thing as perfect.

I do have an anecdote about the "difference between theorhetical and real" - in the best tradition of Radio Yerevan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Yerevan_jokes
that can - and DOES, tried and proven - penetrate the mind of even the most rabid scientific theorheticitian . Trouble is, it is against the policy of Head-fi.org .[/QUOTE]

Question for you AS, seriously. Don't you ever wonder why is it that you cannot get perfect or even excellent results when transferring vinyl or cassette tape to 16/44 or even 24/192? Are you not curious given a/ in both cases you are going from a lower resolution to a higher one so while there will be no improvement it should not result in any degradation (bit like transferring analog vhs to digital dvd)? Even if your beliefs that measurements lie or whatever, and so answer no to a/ are you not even the slightest bit curious how so many others are able to achieve a perfect transfer consistent with the measurements and validated through double blind tests?

 

[bfreedma]

You got that RIGHT - boy, did you get this one right. Correct.

Theorethically.

Theorethically.Should.Translate.Just.Fine.

And I have been expecting just that. That does NOT necessary mean it will be so in a real world practical case.

Sometimes, the higher eduacted people one has to deal with, the more down to earth means od delivering the message have to be used - IF the meassage is to sucessfully penetrate their "scientific- peer approved" position - which, in a perfect world, with perfect everything, would be perfectly adequate and irrefutably correct.

Trouble is - there is NO such thing as perfect.

I do have an anecdote about the "difference between theorhetical and real" - in the best tradition of Radio Yerevan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Yerevan_jokes
that can - and DOES, tried and proven - penetrate the mind of even the most rabid scientific theorheticitian . Trouble is, it is against the policy of Head-fi.org .

Question for our subforum moderator @castleofargh : Would it be appropiate for me to send you the anecdote in question via PM and you can then send it to any member that asks you for it ?
I think ( to think is to know nothing in Slovenian ) - NO, I am CERTAIN that the knowledge/common sense gained from this anecdote would help this thread towards far less "back and forth" bickering between the two camps - and more co-operation and learning - in BOTH directions - for the benefit of


MUSIC

Theoretically, you should realize the most rational reason for the difference in the two items in question is the failure of the person who made the transfer to do it correctly. Likely a PEBKAC problem.

Theoretically, you should know by now that your continued failure to produce evidence of your claims over the years doesn't lead many to believe your claims. At all. Where is the evidence? Either post it or explains the specifics of your situation that prevent you from using the multitude of storage options offered on the internet when you seem to be able to Google, get to sites located from your searching, and post here without issue.

Theoretically, this repeated word salad model of posting should be done with.

I do some work with advanced chatbots - I'm starting to wonder....

 

[castleofargh]

you guys need to remove the extra [/QUOTE] at the end of @analogsurviver's first line

 

[71 dB]

You got that RIGHT - boy, did you get this one right. Correct.

Theorethically.

Theorethically.Should.Translate.Just.Fine.

And I have been expecting just that. That does NOT necessary mean it will be so in a real world practical case.

Sometimes, the higher eduacted people one has to deal with, the more down to earth means od delivering the message have to be used - IF the meassage is to sucessfully penetrate their "scientific- peer approved" position - which, in a perfect world, with perfect everything, would be perfectly adequate and irrefutably correct.

Trouble is - there is NO such thing as perfect.

I do have an anecdote about the "difference between theorhetical and real" - in the best tradition of Radio Yerevan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Yerevan_jokes
that can - and DOES, tried and proven - penetrate the mind of even the most rabid scientific theorheticitian . Trouble is, it is against the policy of Head-fi.org .

Question for our subforum moderator @castleofargh : Would it be appropiate for me to send you the anecdote in question via PM and you can then send it to any member that asks you for it ?
I think ( to think is to know nothing in Slovenian ) - NO, I am CERTAIN that the knowledge/common sense gained from this anecdote would help this thread towards far less "back and forth" bickering between the two camps - and more co-operation and learning - in BOTH directions - for the benefit of


MUSIC

Theorethically you should hear that digitazed analog recordings sound the same, but you don't because of bias and placebo.

 

[analogsurviver]

You got that RIGHT - boy, did you get this one right. Correct.

Theorethically.

Theorethically.Should.Translate.Just.Fine.

And I have been expecting just that. That does NOT necessary mean it will be so in a real world practical case.

Sometimes, the higher eduacted people one has to deal with, the more down to earth means od delivering the message have to be used - IF the meassage is to sucessfully penetrate their "scientific- peer approved" position - which, in a perfect world, with perfect everything, would be perfectly adequate and irrefutably correct.

Trouble is - there is NO such thing as perfect.

I do have an anecdote about the "difference between theorhetical and real" - in the best tradition of Radio Yerevan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Yerevan_jokes
that can - and DOES, tried and proven - penetrate the mind of even the most rabid scientific theorheticitian . Trouble is, it is against the policy of Head-fi.org .

Question for you AS, seriously. Don't you ever wonder why is it that you cannot get perfect or even excellent results when transferring vinyl or cassette tape to 16/44 or even 24/192? Are you not curious given a/ in both cases you are going from a lower resolution to a higher one so while there will be no improvement it should not result in any degradation (bit like transferring analog vhs to digital dvd)? Even if your beliefs that measurements lie or whatever, and so answer no to a/ are you not even the slightest bit curious how so many others are able to achieve a perfect transfer consistent with the measurements and validated through double blind tests?[/QUOTE]

Yes, I am seriously aware of all you have stated.

Curiously, you mention analog vhs transferto digital dvd. I am not a videophile, I have cancelled TV completely over a decade ago - yet, last time I did check the "pancake" TV s ( plasma, LED, whatever ) some say 5 years ago, it was ONLY the highest of high end models that did not bother me in a casual viewing test - just looking at picture of say a footbal match - or any other sport not practicing how much time one can be perfectly still. Likewise, a good S-VHS tape played on a GOOD
( that means modified TOTL ... - there never were such units available for sale, made possible only some 2 decades - or more, up to present time - after these units originally appeared on the market; only after electronic components of sufficint quality became available )
S-VHS player/recorder gives - to me - a better picture quality than most DVD players.

And, judging by your reply ( absolutely nothing wrong with it, it is perfectly in line with the current state of science and acceptance of pratices in the industry ) , you really should hear that anecdote...