IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
People showing how great their turntables sound, ...on YouTube!
2Bdecided
post Oct 14 2010, 11:59
Post #51


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5108
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Oct 14 2010, 11:42) *
What I come up with, based on decades of experience trying to do such things, is that the odds of random influences actually compensating for some nonlienar distortion are pretty much slim and none. and mostly none Even when you know what you are doring and you are desperately trying, compensating for distortion by adding other distortion is a tricky business. This is particularly true for nonlinear distortion because nonlinear distortion has so many parameters that you have to hit square on.
It's not so random though, is it?

I mean, a recording is generally cleaner (in a lot of ways!) than a live event. Vinyl is generally less clean than a CD.

Anyway, to make it better in a subjective sense, you don't have to reverse the mathematical effect of the change - you only have to make another change that brings the emotional response of the listener closer to what it would have been, and (for the practical purposes of listening to music), you've got closer to the original experience, even if in pure signal processing terms you could be even further off.

Think of the tricks film makers use to create emotion in cinema - which make the (until recently) 2D 24fps presentation even more distorted from reality, but in a way that certain feelings and expressions are conveyed better through the limited medium available.

I'm sure sound can and is manipulated in the same way.

The only disagreement is probably that most of us think that manipulation should stop when it leaves the studio, while others are happy to let their playback equipment manipulate it a bit more!

I have to be bluntly honest here and say that I have several thousands recordings on various formats, and I can't think of one where the audible or barely audible distortions of vinyl conclusively improve it without also degrading it in some way - the only positive examples I have are of recordings where the CD master is clearly inferior to the vinyl master for some reason which has nothing to do with format.

But I do have plenty of recordings which I can intentionally change myself to sound better to me - and in some of those cases, I think the changes would generally be appreciated as an improvement by most listeners. So I don't agree with the general implied rule that a recording mustn't change after it leaves the studio.

So I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that very subtle vinyl characteristics can improve some recordings - which is why I'd love to hear some examples.

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DonP
post Oct 14 2010, 13:31
Post #52





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1471
Joined: 11-February 03
From: Vermont
Member No.: 4955



QUOTE (ramicio @ Oct 12 2010, 15:56) *
I made a wave of high frequency (a sine of 10 khz and one of 15 khz) and mixed them in a 192 khz file, then downsampled to 44.1 and then back up to 192. It did not look the same as the original. That's just my own observations. A simple single sine wave will be unharmed in the process, though.


If you mix 10 and 15 khz sine waves, one of the products is 25 khz. That won't survive your resampling 20 44.1 and back, so no surprise that the end result looks different. Unless you can hear 25 khz though, it shouldn't sound different.


Generally when people put out scenarios to "prove" that 44.1 kHz sampling can't fully represent 20 kHz they are either pointing at some artifact >20 khz, or they don't understand that the very few points per cycle at frequencies near the limit get turned back to smooth waves with the low pass filtering.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Oct 14 2010, 13:39
Post #53


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5108
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (DonP @ Oct 14 2010, 13:31) *
If you mix 10 and 15 khz sine waves, one of the products is 25 khz.
Only if you multiply them. Not if you simply add them.

Cheers,
David.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Squeller
post Oct 14 2010, 14:05
Post #54





Group: Members
Posts: 2351
Joined: 28-August 02
Member No.: 3218



QUOTE
Dieses Video enthält Content von UMG. Es ist in deinem Land nicht verfügbar.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Oct 14 2010, 16:59
Post #55


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5108
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



QUOTE (Squeller @ Oct 14 2010, 14:05) *
QUOTE
Dieses Video enthält Content von UMG. Es ist in deinem Land nicht verfügbar.

"This video contains content from UMG. It is not available in your country"?

Yes, YouTube is quite good at spotting copyrighted music in videos. What they're licensed to play varies from country to country.

It's identified on the UK version too, but it plays OK - with a "buy at iTunes" link at the bottom.

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Oct 14 2010, 18:35
Post #56





Group: Members
Posts: 3701
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (DonP @ Oct 14 2010, 08:31) *
QUOTE (ramicio @ Oct 12 2010, 15:56) *
I made a wave of high frequency (a sine of 10 khz and one of 15 khz) and mixed them in a 192 khz file, then downsampled to 44.1 and then back up to 192. It did not look the same as the original. That's just my own observations. A simple single sine wave will be unharmed in the process, though.


If you mix 10 and 15 khz sine waves, one of the products is 25 khz.


As David points out, no!

If the mixing is linear which is the usual case, then there are simply no products at all.

If resampling from 192 to 44.1 changes a file with just 10 and 15 KHz tones in it in any way, even the slightest amount, then something is very wrong.

I've done this sort of thing many times over the years because I favor 2-tone testing. 10 and 15 KHz is one test I've done fairly often, but I favor 19 and 20 KHz.

If listening is involved I like 16 and 20 KHz, which if intermodulated will produce a tone at 4 KHz where the ear is most sensitive. 19 and 20 KHz is also good for listening tests for intermodulation, because if reproduced clearnly, there is very little that is audible. If there is the slightest intermodulation, then it is pretty obvioius. Music lhigh pass filtered at 10 KHz is an excellent test for clipping.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Oct 14 2010, 18:42
Post #57





Group: Members
Posts: 3701
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Oct 14 2010, 06:59) *
Anyway, to make it better in a subjective sense, you don't have to reverse the mathematical effect of the change - you only have to make another change that brings the emotional response of the listener closer to what it would have been, and (for the practical purposes of listening to music), you've got closer to the original experience, even if in pure signal processing terms you could be even further off.


We're talking about two different things. I'm talking about an actual technical improvement, and you seem to be talking about putting in some even greater flaw.


For example i've heard some people speculate that second order nonlinear distortion in a LP would actually compensate for a similar distortin due to the passage of music through the air. So again my question is "what are the odds that a LP would happen to have only second order nonlinear distoriton and have it in the narrow band of amounts that would actually audibly improve sound quality." The obvious answer is that you'd have to be very lucky for that to happen. So much so that if you actually were that lucky some day you should probably stop listening to your stereo and run right out and spend all or your your paycheck and your savings on lottery tickets! ;-)
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Woodinville
post Oct 14 2010, 20:11
Post #58





Group: Members
Posts: 1402
Joined: 9-January 05
From: JJ's office.
Member No.: 18957



Well, I'm about to go home sick, but I should say the following:

LP's have different distortion mechanisms for M and S, as well as different frequency responses, generally, for M and S (rather than L and R).

Some of the distortion mechanisms, applied in small amounts, can create a sensation of more "space", "width" and such. If you like this, you like it. So be it.

Also, the rising distortion with level in an LP does, and pretty clearly, create a sense of an increased dynamic range in LOUDNESS (i.e. sensation level) with less increase in INTENSITY. This can be seen from first principles. Again, a small or moderate amount can seem "better" to some folks.

What's amusing is that you can do all of these distortions digitally by being smart, and make your CD sound like the amount of euphony you want from your LP. The problem is that then the result is (gasp!) DIGITAL, and the LP dudes for the most part want nothing to do with it. There is also the problem that many of the "purists" (those are scare quotes indeed) rail at the idea of DISTORTION, GASP CHOKE WHINE, rather than admit they like it. Finally, there are some folks on the "skeptical" side who are unwilling to accept that folks may prefer something that is less accurate.

But none of the preferences are ubiquitous, even though the "loudness enhancement" seems to be close.

Ok, going back to sleep now.

This post has been edited by Woodinville: Oct 14 2010, 20:12


--------------------
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Oct 14 2010, 21:10
Post #59





Group: Members
Posts: 3394
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



QUOTE (Woodinville @ Oct 14 2010, 15:11) *
LP's have different distortion mechanisms for M and S, as well as different frequency responses, generally, for M and S (rather than L and R).

Wouldn't it be amusing if the same people who refuse to use joint stereo were also big fans of vinyl? laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mixminus1
post Oct 14 2010, 22:21
Post #60





Group: Members
Posts: 688
Joined: 23-February 05
Member No.: 20097



QUOTE (Woodinville @ Oct 14 2010, 12:11) *
Also, the rising distortion with level in an LP does, and pretty clearly, create a sense of an increased dynamic range in LOUDNESS (i.e. sensation level) with less increase in INTENSITY. This can be seen from first principles. Again, a small or moderate amount can seem "better" to some folks.

<snip>

But none of the preferences are ubiquitous, even though the "loudness enhancement" seems to be close.

This is also one of the key components of the "tube sound" in tube amps, whether from actual tube overdrive or from transformer saturation (load-dependent frequency response variations due to high output impedance is another), and in particular the "flea-power" single-ended triode amps that are so fashionable these days.


--------------------
"Not sure what the question is, but the answer is probably no."
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Oct 14 2010, 22:27
Post #61





Group: Members
Posts: 2241
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 13 2010, 16:18) *
I love the use of weasel words (which I have put in bold):



I love that you think that I was *weaseling* about anything, when I was actually trying be *careful*.


Let me spell it out for you. Steve Sullivan is me. Krabapple = Steven Sullivan. IOW *I* made that Usenet post,as I said already. I dug up and copied it here to show smug old Scott that the idea of 'euphonic' distortions being, you know, EUPHONIC... to SOME listeners ...as not new to HA.

For some reason you chose to respond to Scott's trollish *re-posting*, which was meant obviously and only to get a rise out of Arny..


So, read it again with a different *predisposition*, please.




QUOTE (analog scott @ Oct 13 2010, 10:44) *
He does seem to have done measurements , too, to confirm something about LP playback that can
make certain kinds of recording (e.g., from cardioids) 'sound better' in terms of imaging, to
him, than even the master tapes, due to addition of what he calls 'beneficial distortion', a
synonym for 'euphonic distortion'.


Yes, 'seems', because if you read Brice's report, he writes about them. They weren't published formally though, AFAIR. I was also careful to note that the records sounded better TO HIM, than the master tapes.




QUOTE
Btw, there's a quote on that HA thread from Brice's book that mirrors a hypothesis I have put
forward before -- and one that JJ has also hinted at on some posts on other forums --


I suppose I could track down those posts, or I could just ask JJ to comment here. Which would you prefer?


QUOTE
to explain the 'vinyl sound's' fanbase, namely, that some kinds of distortion might happen to
compensate for deficiencies of some recording:



Yes 'might'. The alternatives are 'never' and 'always' . Both of those strike me as TOS violations, at the very least.

Btw, you missed two other 'somes' in that thought, that I put there for a reason.



QUOTE
QUOTE

(p. 313):
'Interestingly investigations reveal that distortion mechanisms in reproduction form vinyl and
other analogue media may indeed be just those required to bring about an improvement in the
realism of the reproduced stereo image. This suggests that ther may be something in the hi-fi
cognoscenti's preference for vinyl over CD and for many recording musicians' preference for
analogue over the, apparently better, digital alternative -- though not, as they invariably
suppose, due to digital mysteriously taking something away but due to the analogue equipment
adding beneficial distortion.'"

A far more reasonable explanation is that these people are predisposed to the distortions that are borne out of the use of vinyl.


Why is that 'far more reasonable' than the idea that some listeners experience what are widely called EUPHONIC distortions as 'compensatory'?


QUOTE
I find it odd that people so desperately want to believe that things can be made more pure and clean by introducing dirt and grime.


There will always be Luddites grasping at the hope (however faint) that they are justified in their beliefs.



Look, this concept is not bizarre. I like to play all 2-channel material through DPL II. That's 'coloration' -- 'dirt and grime' to you, I guess' -- up the wazoo, and I find it 'euphonic' and that it typically 'compensates for deficiencies' (namely, the lack of ambience/envelopment) in many recordings. It's totally subjective. You're saying this CANNOT be the case for LPs, that preference *must* be due to prejudice?


(Btw, synthetic ambience 'enhancement' is one of the predicted effects of the vinyl beast's crosstalk characteristics...personally I prefer Dolby's more well-thought-out implementation.)

This post has been edited by krabapple: Oct 14 2010, 22:35
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 14 2010, 22:41
Post #62





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 14 2010, 14:27) *
I love that you think that I was *weaseling* about anything, when I was actually trying be *careful*. Steve Sullivan is me. Now read it again.
Great, thanks. Seems analog scott still can't figure out how to craft a proper reply, but has instead chosen to go the lazy route and still managed to botch it, or he tried to be careful but couldn't get it right and then couldn't be arsed to fix it, IDK. Either way not much has changed from my point of view.

QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 14 2010, 14:27) *
I could just ask JJ to comment here.
Already done. Launching a reply before reading the rest of the thread, perhaps? If so then I guess we made the same mistake.

QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 14 2010, 14:27) *
Why is that 'far more reasonable' than the idea that some listeners experience what are widely called EUPHONIC distortions as 'compensatory'?
I don't care if you like the way they sound. Suggesting that they get you closer to reality would be claim sorely lacking in evidence. While you may not hold this opinion, it is my belief that the person I addressed in my reply does.

QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 14 2010, 14:27) *
'compensates for deficiencies' (namely, the lack of ambience/envelopment) in many recordings. It's totally subjective. You're saying this CANNOT be the case for LPs, that preference *must* be due to prejudice?
I'm saying that your conditioned preferences from experience with a certain sound are more reasonable than the format magically fixing something.

This post has been edited by greynol: Oct 14 2010, 22:52


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Oct 14 2010, 22:46
Post #63





Group: Members
Posts: 2241
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



JJ didn't write anything in that quote.

That quote is me, writing on RAHE, referring RAHE readers back to HA, where there was a thread about Mr. Brice's ideas and product (he also contributed to the HA thread).

(The HA thread link to I gave RAHE , btw, appears to be wrong. The right one is

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....howtopic=66445)

I mentioned JJ in passing because JJ has, indeed, in the past written about euphonic distortions of LP being , you know, EUPHONIC to *some* listeners,
and discussed reasons why, on various forums.





QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Oct 14 2010, 06:42) *
QUOTE (analog scott @ Oct 13 2010, 16:34) *
QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 13 2010, 21:18) *
I love the use of weasel words (which I have put in bold):
QUOTE

BTW, there's a quote on that HA thread from Brice's book that mirrors a hypothesis I have put
forward before -- and one that JJ has also hinted at on some posts on other forums --
to explain the 'vinyl sound's' fanbase, namely, that some kinds of distortion might happen to
compensate for deficiencies of some recording:

(p. 313):
'Interestingly investigations reveal that distortion mechanisms in reproduction form vinyl and
other analogue media may indeed be just those required to bring about an improvement in the
realism of the reproduced stereo image. This suggests that there may be something in the hi-fi
cognoscenti's preference for vinyl over CD and for many recording musicians' preference for
analogue over the, apparently better, digital alternative -- though not, as they invariably
suppose, due to digital mysteriously taking something away but due to the analogue equipment
adding beneficial distortion.'"

A far more reasonable explanation is that these people are predisposed to the distortions that are borne out of the use of vinyl.


What makes it "far more reasonable?' And how does such reason supersede actual research done by folks such as JJ?


My Scott, how quickly you blow an offhand comment by JJ about something he says that "may be", into "actual research".


This post has been edited by krabapple: Oct 14 2010, 22:48
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 14 2010, 22:53
Post #64





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....st&p=726941

*sigh*


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Oct 14 2010, 23:05
Post #65





Group: Members
Posts: 2241
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 14 2010, 17:41) *
Great, thanks. Seems analog scott still can't figure out how to craft a proper reply, but has instead chosen to go the lazy route and still managed to botch it, or he tried to be careful but couldn't get it right and then couldn't be arsed to fix it, IDK. Either way not much has changed from my point of view.
.
.
.
Already done. Launching a reply before reading the rest of the thread, perhaps? If so then I guess we made the same mistake.



I didn't read the rest of the thread. But you apparently didn't read the post *I* made *before* Scott's, which would have informed you that *I* wrote what was quoted, and why it was posted here, nor do you seem to have actually read the quote itself in anything but a prejudicial manner from a stance of TEH VINYLZ IS RONG.

Quite different mistakes. And funnily enough , now that JJ has here reiterated here the 'hints' I referred to in '08, in as un-weaselly a fashion as one could hope, expessing the same idea that euphonic distortion can indeed be euphonic to some listeners, as I have, I don't see you getting up in his grille.

You also didn't read the HA thread I pointed to in the quote, where the issue of 'beneficial' distortion is discussed by HA folk, but that one's on me, because the link I gave RAHE really was RONG. The right one is:

Francinstien audio proccessing, is this acoustically valid?, Examination of the Francinstien process claim.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=66445





QUOTE
I don't care if you like the way they sound. Suggesting that they get you closer to reality would be claim sorely lacking in evidence.


That's indeed a different claim. I said NOTHING about 'accuracy'. But it also gets into the question of 'what reality are you referring to'? The sound of the music as played in the original space and time, heard from some specified seat? The sound the mastering engineer heard at the console when he was done? Some preconceived idea of what 'real' music 'should' sound like?

QUOTE
I'm saying that your conditioned preferences from experience with a certain sound are more reasonable than the format magically fixing something.



'magically fixing something'? Nice straw man you've built there.

This post has been edited by krabapple: Oct 14 2010, 23:15
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 14 2010, 23:12
Post #66





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 14 2010, 15:05) *
Quite different mistakes.
Nonsense. You didn't see JJ's reply before going nonlinear on me just as I didn't see that you wrote what analog scott failed to properly quote. So I didn't check the links, BFD. Even if I had I probably wouldn't have noticed scott's mistake, still.

QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 14 2010, 15:05) *
But it also gets into the question of 'what reality are you referring to'? The sound of the music as played in the original space and time, heard from some specified seat? The sound the mastering engineer heard at the console when he was done? Some preconceived idea of what 'real' music 'should' sound like?
Good, I'm glad you see the point.

QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 14 2010, 15:05) *
'magically fixing something'? Nice straw man you've built there.
So you're now telling me that no one in this thread is suggesting that the distortions resulting out of vinyl aren't getting us closer to reality? Seems you should read analog scott's replies again. No, there is no straw man.

I owned up to my misquote already. You can simmer down at any time now.

This post has been edited by greynol: Oct 14 2010, 23:31


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Oct 14 2010, 23:31
Post #67





Group: Members
Posts: 2241
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 14 2010, 18:12) *
QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 14 2010, 15:05) *
Quite different mistakes.
Nonsense. You didn't see JJ's reply before going nonlinear on me.



LOL. So, if I had read JJ's post, which *vindicated* me, I'd have been *less* scornful of your reflex reaction to my RAHE post? Interesting hypothesis. In the meantime, while you were writing this, I was revising what you were replying to, on that very point.


QUOTE
QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 14 2010, 15:05) *
But it also gets into the question of 'what reality are you referring to'? The sound of the music as played in the original space and time, heard from some specified seat? The sound the mastering engineer heard at the console when he was done? Some preconceived idea of what 'real' music 'should' sound like?
Good, I'm glad you see the point.


The point was to show that HA and 'some people here' have grappled with issues and ideas Scott claims are 'taboo' here, before. That's all.

QUOTE
So you're now telling me that no one in this thread is suggesting that the distortions resulting out of vinyl aren't getting us closer to reality? Seems you should read analog scott's replies again. No, there is no straw man.
I owned up to my misquote already. You can simmer down at any time now.


No one is positing a 'magical' process, nor is it at all clear that you and Scott mean the same thing by 'closer to reality'. Feel free to hash that out with him, if you enjoy playing a tedious game he's played many times already.

This post has been edited by krabapple: Oct 14 2010, 23:38
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 15 2010, 00:08
Post #68





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 14 2010, 15:31) *
LOL. So, if I had read JJ's post, which *vindicated* me, I'd have been *less* scornful of your reflex reaction to my RAHE post? Interesting hypothesis. In the meantime, while you were writing this, I was revising what you were replying to, on that very point.

We each missed something that was posted by someone else. Is there some reason why you wish to make it into something more than it is?

QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 14 2010, 15:05) *
QUOTE
I don't care if you like the way they sound. Suggesting that they get you closer to reality would be claim sorely lacking in evidence.

That's indeed a different claim. I said NOTHING about 'accuracy'. But it also gets into the question of 'what reality are you referring to'? The sound of the music as played in the original space and time, heard from some specified seat? The sound the mastering engineer heard at the console when he was done? Some preconceived idea of what 'real' music 'should' sound like?

Perhaps you have said nothing about accuracy, though the quote you pulled from Brice smells of it, to me at least.

Let's have another look at the quote...
QUOTE (krabapple)
Btw, there's a quote on that HA thread from Brice's book that mirrors a hypothesis I have put
forward before -- and one that JJ has also hinted at on some posts on other forums --
to explain the 'vinyl sound's' fanbase, namely, that some kinds of distortion might happen to
compensate for deficiencies of some recording:


(p. 313):
"Interestingly investigations reveal that distortion mechanisms in reproduction form vinyl and
other analogue media may indeed be just those required to bring about an improvement in the
realism of the reproduced stereo image. This suggests that ther may be something in the hi-fi
cognoscenti's preference for vinyl over CD and for many recording musicians' preference for
analogue over the, apparently better, digital alternative -- though not, as they invariably
suppose, due to digital mysteriously taking something away but due to the analogue equipment
adding beneficial distortion."

Are you or are you not equating "compensate for deficiencies" to "improvement in the
realism of the reproduced stereo image"

If so, then I call bullshit.

If you're talking about a subjective position then please explain how this can't be described by a preconditioned response and/or expectation bias based on being accustomed to listening to things on vinyl.

Regarding the term "compensate for deficiencies" I'm still looking for where JJ has "vindicated" your choice in words. Oh, yes, he only "hinted" based on what appears to be your subjective point of view.

Perhaps I'm simply hung up on the use of the word realism, just as many of us were recently hung up on the word truth being used in a subjective way in a different thread.

This post has been edited by greynol: Oct 15 2010, 00:46


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 15 2010, 00:30
Post #69





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (Woodinville @ Oct 14 2010, 12:11) *
create a sense of an increased dynamic range in LOUDNESS (i.e. sensation level) with less increase in INTENSITY.

I'm hoping you can explain what you mean by an increased dynamic range in loudness. It sounds to me like you're describing something that would decrease dynamic range.


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Woodinville
post Oct 15 2010, 06:45
Post #70





Group: Members
Posts: 1402
Joined: 9-January 05
From: JJ's office.
Member No.: 18957



QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 14 2010, 16:30) *
QUOTE (Woodinville @ Oct 14 2010, 12:11) *
create a sense of an increased dynamic range in LOUDNESS (i.e. sensation level) with less increase in INTENSITY.

I'm hoping you can explain what you mean by an increased dynamic range in loudness. It sounds to me like you're describing something that would decrease dynamic range.


Look at www.aes.org/sections/pnw/ppt.htm Look at the difference between loudness (sensoria) and intensity (measured power).

changing the bandwidth of a signal changes the relationship of loudness to intensity. A lot, sometimes.


--------------------
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Oct 15 2010, 13:24
Post #71





Group: Members
Posts: 3701
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 14 2010, 19:30) *
QUOTE (Woodinville @ Oct 14 2010, 12:11) *
create a sense of an increased dynamic range in LOUDNESS (i.e. sensation level) with less increase in INTENSITY.

I'm hoping you can explain what you mean by an increased dynamic range in loudness. It sounds to me like you're describing something that would decrease dynamic range.


It's pretty well known among experienced production people that the same music at the same actual SPL will often sound "louder" when certain kinds of linear and nonlinear distortion are added.

For example, mild clipping can make the high end sound zippier and louder. Some people tend to unconsciously equate more irritating with the sound appearing to be louder. So, throw in some nonlinear distortion. You can be subtle about it and add the distortion with nonlinear function generators programmed to apply polynomials, or you can be less subtle and just clip the !@#!! out of it.

Linear distortion in the spectral domain applied in such a way as to shift the energy into the octaves where the ear is more sensitive works very well.

Linear distortion in the amplitude domain in the form of compression can increase the apparent loudness of music with the same peak levels.

Here's a practical example of how spectral processing applied for other reasons can have this outcome. We all know that the LP format has pretty severe dynamic range issues at the extremes of the audible spectrum, especially with suboptimal playback equipment. So for decades mastering engineers have summarily reduced the response of LPs in the deep bass and extreme highs. Once you do that, the peak level of the music has probably decreased a lot, so you can just turn up the gain. You end up with music with the same peak levels (and that's what shows up on Vu meters) but is subjectively louder. Eventually people came up with specialized processors that did this sort of thing dynamically and auto-magically. See studio and broadcasting products of the day by Orban and CBS labs, for example.

I personally know the senior tech staff who worked at Motown in their best days in Detroit. Motown's console's channel strips, per top management command, had hard wired high pass filters with steep slopes, corner frequency about 85 Hz. One reason why this was done was because they all knew what their target audience's playback equipment was probably like. Their record players were very often $19.95 2-tube, crystal cartridge mono record players with a cheap-cheap 4" speaker in a paperboard box covered with cheap-cheap simulated leather. No sense putting deep bass on LPs that are going to be played that way. It just makes the playback equipment unhappy and contributes zero to listener enjoyment. So, the Motown records of that era were quite intentionally monitored, mixed, and mastered all the way through the production process with *all* deep and medium bass gone. This helped ensure that they played louder both on the radio and at home.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Oct 15 2010, 15:29
Post #72





Group: Members
Posts: 2241
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 14 2010, 19:08) *
Perhaps I'm simply hung up on the use of the word realism, just as many of us were recently hung up on the word truth being used in a subjective way in a different thread.


In a typical report, including Mr. Brice's, where the recorded audio is not being directly compared to the actual originating performance in real space, what the subject calls 'realism' is nothing more or less than the subject's notion of what 'real' *should* sound like. The notion is (presumably) derived from general experience of sounds in real space -- a sense memory -- but that doesn't make the notion an accurate guide to what the particular performance *really* sounded like. Whether a subject's notion of 'realism' is accurate is a matter for testing. And this is all leaving aside the fact that recordings typically fall far short of being ABLE to accurately capture all facets of sound in real space. And leaving aside what it means to 'realism', that a recording can be made to sound 'better' than the original reality (e.g, distracting noise edited out).

To suggest that vinylphiles' notion of realism is more likely to come from vinyl sound itself, begs the question of what vinlyphiles mean when they report that one recording on LP sounds 'more realistic' than another.

In any case I *don't* believe that vinylphiles' notion of 'realism' is necessarily accurate, any more than a digiphiles' is. But we all get to like what we like.

This post has been edited by krabapple: Oct 15 2010, 15:50
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
analog scott
post Oct 15 2010, 16:53
Post #73





Group: Members
Posts: 332
Joined: 26-July 09
Member No.: 71796



QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 14 2010, 08:43) *
Dither adds noise at the least significant bit.


Your assertion was "I find it odd that people so desperately want to believe that things can be made more pure and clean by introducing dirt and grime." Dither *is* noise. It is "dirt and grime" it does improve resolution which is "more pure and clean" in effect.

QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 14 2010, 08:43) *
Are you suggesting that this mystical vinyl transform that supposedly restores reality to recorded music only operates at the threshold of silence?



I was suggesting that your implied assertion that things can't "be made more pure and clean by introducing dirt and grime." was quite ironic and eroneous in light of the fact that dither does just that.


QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 14 2010, 08:43) *
Any and all accounts I've read about the coloration caused from vinyl works a levels far higher than that.



It would seem that prior to this thread you have not read JJ's accounts.


QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 14 2010, 08:43) *
Perhaps dither at the 13th or 14th bit might have energy that approaches the surface noise of vinyl, but surface noise is just *one* aspect of reproduction of vinyl that introduces degradation.



"degredation" is subjective when we are talking about perceptions in audio. And we *are* talking about perceptions here.


QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 14 2010, 08:43) *
Concerning what investigations reveal, you make it sound black and white.



I do? Lets check to see what I actually worte on the subject in this thread as it relates to being "black and white."

From post #6

"I believe JJ has done some research on ::gasp:: "euphonic colorations" from vinyl and tubed electronics and has even come up with a digital simulation for tube euphonic colorations."

From post#18

"The question is are there euphonic colorations that are universally preferable/compensatory when in play with a wide range of recordings. It is pretty hard to answer that question definitively. There are many variables involved."

Does that really sound "black and white" to you?

QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 14 2010, 08:43) *
Nothing that you've quoted or alluded contains any of the definitive language that you've just purported.


Just what "definitive language" have I purported?



QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 14 2010, 08:43) *
I'll gladly hear what JJ has to say about it himself. I certainly don't trust what you have to say about it in his stead.


What I have said was a quote from JJ provided by Steve Sullivan. So you have already heard what he had to say about it and you found it unreasonable. I will leave that to you and JJ.

QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 14 2010, 08:43) *
We can sit here and may and might and possibly and seems as if all night long but at the end of it all no one can sit back and assure me that they have evidence that can rule out the conditioning resulting from having listened to vinyl for years if not decades prior to the digital age.



I have confidence that JJ's research on the subject actually does rule that out. As does the research of Richard Brice. If you have any reason to believe otherwise then please make the argument.




QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 14 2010, 08:43) *
This is pretty much characteristic of just about every post by you related to this topic has only served to reinforce my point: these tepid conclusions are fraught with expectation bias. It should not come as a surprise to anyone here that you would hold it up as your latest champion for subjectivity! emot-toot.gif


I'm not sure what you have been reading but it does not appear to be what I am actually writing. It looks to me that you have drawn your conclusions about me regardless of the content of my posts. Now if you have any research that you have been sitting on suggesting euphonic colorations are all a bunch of bullshit then maybe you should consider the possibility that your position on the subject is based on your biases.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Arnold B. Kruege...
post Oct 15 2010, 17:19
Post #74





Group: Members
Posts: 3701
Joined: 29-October 08
From: USA, 48236
Member No.: 61311



QUOTE (analog scott @ Oct 15 2010, 11:53) *
QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 14 2010, 08:43) *
Dither adds noise at the least significant bit.


Your assertion was "I find it odd that people so desperately want to believe that things can be made more pure and clean by introducing dirt and grime." Dither *is* noise. It is "dirt and grime" it does improve resolution which is "more pure and clean" in effect.



This is just another audiophile urban myth. Not that dither isn't noise, becauase it is. But, in the context Scott is confusing analog noise that is typically 66 dB down with digital noise that is typically more like 96 dB down. 30 dB is a *huge* difference. It's the difference between a 1 watt amplifier and a 1,000 watt amplifier. Apparently, Scott doesn't think that the difference between 1 watt and 1,000 watts can make a difference.

Furthermore, the shape of the spectrum of the noise floor of a LP is dictated by the mechanics of the medium and therefore cast in concrete, The noise floor due to dither can be shaped in accordance with our preferences. The benefits of this ability to shape the spectrum of the noise floor of digital formats bears real fruit in terms of reducing its subjective impact even further.

So, don't buy Scott's anti-digital propaganda. I'm prett\y sure that he's been corrected about this very point in the past, but he likes to attract unfavorable atttention to himself by repeating his misapprehensions about digital again and again.

BTW, the same kind of difference relates to nonlinear distortion as well, only the difference is far greater than it is for dither noise. For openers, there is no inherent nonlinear distortion in the digital domain. None at all.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
analog scott
post Oct 15 2010, 17:51
Post #75





Group: Members
Posts: 332
Joined: 26-July 09
Member No.: 71796



QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Oct 15 2010, 17:19) *
QUOTE (analog scott @ Oct 15 2010, 11:53) *
QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 14 2010, 08:43) *
Dither adds noise at the least significant bit.


Your assertion was "I find it odd that people so desperately want to believe that things can be made more pure and clean by introducing dirt and grime." Dither *is* noise. It is "dirt and grime" it does improve resolution which is "more pure and clean" in effect.



This is just another audiophile urban myth. Not that dither isn't noise, becauase it is. But, in the context Scott is confusing analog noise that is typically 66 dB down with digital noise that is typically more like 96 dB down. 30 dB is a *huge* difference.



How am I confusing dither with any other sort of noise when I make no mention of any other sort of noise? I am only talking about dither here. Nothing more nothing less. I think I made that very clear. No confusion on *my* end of it. cool.gif



QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Oct 15 2010, 17:19) *
So, don't buy Scott's anti-digital propaganda.



huh.gif asserting that dither is added noise/added distortion but actually improves resolution is anti-digital propaganda? Really? blink.gif


QUOTE (Arnold B. Krueger @ Oct 15 2010, 17:19) *
I'm prett\y sure that he's been corrected about this very point in the past, but he likes to attract unfavorable atttention to himself by repeating his misapprehensions about digital again and again.



I doubt that I have been "corrected" on this point since it is a fact that dither is added noise that does improve resolution. If you have evidence to the contrary please present it. laugh.gif



Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th August 2014 - 21:58