| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
March 25, 2007 - 3:29pm
#1
Lotsa good points, denouncing much of the nonsense.
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Leave it you to bring up The Audio Crank as your authority; are you sure you and he aren't one and the same??
I HEAR that LPs sound better than even SACD, in most cases, and you can't change what I, and the entire Stereophile staff, clearly HEAR; sorry! I guess we are ALL deluded lunatics and you are the Oracle, according to your warped view of the world according to DUP!
More dynamic, more realistic bass and better dynamics are just THERE on good LPs, and you can't change it by denying it (I CAN accept that your ears do not hear these things in YOUR system, but that inevitably says volumes about the low quality of YOUR system; it doesn't prove that the rest of the audio world, listening to higher-quality equipment, is delusional.)
Same goes for cables; no, they don't always make a difference, but for some connections between certain gear, some cables clearly change the sound. It's clearly audible to me, and most others, and as much as you would like to think it's only mass hysteria, it just ain't so. It's what we clearly and definitely HEAR, and you can't make that go away by the stubborn denial of one or two lonely cranks and a slightly bizarre newsletter.
If one only listens to pop and blues, the differences are truly minimal, as far as I am concerned, but classical and jazz recordings that are well done really bring out those differences. I don't know whether your problem is in what you are listening TO, or the equipment you are listening WITH, but you are simply missing the boat, and are firmly in DENIAL of the truth as thousands of others experience it.
The fact that you choose denial, when respected people universally observe things that you cannot or will not accept, is a pretty good indication that you, too, are just a crank. It must be pretty lonely to still think the earth is flat, and that the holocaust never happened; I'm sure you believe those things too!
hahahaha, It must be what I use to listen on. Yupper. An LP has greater dynamics than an SACD? Hmmmm, not here. Nope. My lack of hearing the sound of a piece of wire is which one now, the "type" of music? hmmm, now wire is getting more than "directional" it's able to sound different on different kinds of music?!!! Or my limited system abiltys? Is this one of them "generally accepted" facts amongst audio people? There is a "generally accepted" fact amongst a different group of audio people that it's a lotta BS. Which group then has the acceptance thing right? The "critic" made a good point about how those who can't hear teh improvment when using one of them good sounding AC line cords, or interconnect, is because there are so many other connectors in the chain masking it;'s improvment....But how come If I say changed from an SACD back to the Cd version only of it, I can readily hear the SACD/DSD improved clairty, bass smoothness, everything sounds BETTER. No having to be a trained listener, or have to know what to listen for. But these dramatic improvments reviewers claim to hear when they switch out a connect or AC line cord, one needs to know what to hear and listen to? that's like RETARDED or something ain't it? Vinyl has more sidotrion, limited dynamic range, limited frequency response, higher background nosie, etc etc. This is what makes LP's sound better than SACD? hmmm. So analog tv looks better than HDTV since analog has all teh video noise, limited bandwidth, etc etc. Maybe you like the colored sound of distrotions? Maybe it's your system that is limited in it's abilty to resolve things, and teh masking nature of limited dynamics and more distrtion is what you think is more musical. You know that's a gernerally accepted facts amongst those who can't hear wires too. I changed out my 27 year old AR-XA TT years ago, to a newer, more expensive TT, improvment was instntly noticeable, for the better. No magic wires needed. It doesn't sound better than SACD, I tried 3 different phone leads, all sounded teh same, So i kept the $2 nice flexible ones with the generic grey non magical plastic insulation. But I did hear an improvemnt over teh 2 TT's. How can that be? With my limited musical types and limited system resoution? Maybe cus' I can only hear things that really happen?
Do you hear the sound of demagnetized PLASTIC? that one wipes out all credibily for that reviewer. Pooooof, no amount of verbage, creative writing, is ever gonna come up with MF science to cover that one. I can only hear things that actually happen, not imaginary ones, at least while I'm awake.
I'm a CRANK, that's it!!! But how come during live events i can hear differences in places when they do it right or do it WRONG with the sound? How come I can hear the difference between the sound of a Stratocaster, a Gretsch and a Les Paul, played by the same guy? Plugged into the same amp. How can I hear the difference in sound between a Komet , Fuchs or Marshall or other maps. And he uses the same cord all the time? Cus' there is a difference. Lot use the same tubes too. Hmmmm. Never heard what AC line cord he used though, beyond my abiltys there. Couldan't tell which shoes he was wearing either without looking at em. Generally accepted facts by those in teh know.
I'll agree with you that I never heard a line cord or a pair of shoes make any difference in sound quality, or a demagnetizer (except for tape heads, that is), but if you came to my house and listened to Brubeck's Take 5, for example, you would hear that the drums sound distant and muted on the CD, fairly good on the SACD, and absolutely frigging REAL on the LP; and you KNOW that my SACD player is 4 times more expensive (and much higher rated) than my modest LP playback gear. And this is a "stock" cheap old LP, by the way...40 years old.
And that is just one example. My pipe organ recordings sound very nice from CD or SACD; nothing obviously wrong at all...and then you hear the LP...on the LP the bass is so much more realistic and every voice of the organ has the exact pitch and timbre as hearing it live, and you hear the reverberations in the church realistically... just no comparison. It is just so much more REALISTIC; you feel so much closer to being AT that performance venue!!!
I have many recordings where I have the LP and CD and maybe the SACD, and the LP sounds better every time; the degree varies from recording to recording but the LP comes out on top every time; always more realistic sound.
I did not hear this kind of sound quality from my old turntable, but with the Music Hall MMF-7 and the Micro Benz Ace cartridge, I get it. The first cartridge I had on this turntable, the Clearaudio Aurum, did not have good bass at all; very anemic. The Benz is superb; I recommend it highly. I don't know what cartridge you are using, but this one sure makes a world of difference.
Another thing; with my old Audio Research PH-1 phono stage the LPs sounded very bland and the sound was 3rd-rate. it was not very good. With the Audio Research PH-5, all this good stuff started coming through. Without a top-quality phono stage, you are going to be limited in what you will hear; no question about that.
It's all really quite simple, and down to harmonics. With digital they lop off the top/bottom of the sine wave to save space...that takes out the natural harmonics which some ears are more sensitive to than others. With vinyl this does not happen. Like I said, simple!
This may also explain quite a few other irregularities in audio??
This isn't even vaguely correct. Where did you get this?
DSD ain't lopping off nutin' honey. Neither is CD PCM. DSD goes so far out into the stratosphere beyond what any analog recorder can do. Any other absurd guesses?
Let me explain:
Digital format cuts off any frequencies outside of human hearing, the thinking being if it can't be heard, why have it there?
If you think hearing takes place in your ears, think again. The cochlea structure has fairly limited receptors and the brain in neo-natal development learns to fill in for the missing auditory nervous stimulii it receives from the cochlea. Like sight, we develop the ability to hear sounds during this stage of our development. The brain relies on certain clues to help it do this, one of these being harmonics, there are others but the actual process is still not fully understood. It is the brain which interprets these auditory signals and defines what we hear.
Ever wondered why two identical acoustic guitars sound different? Same note, strings etc., or why a tuba sounds different than a double bass playing same note? It's all down to the harmonics of the sound which are produced which our ears/brain are able to detect and interpret, according to how discriminatory and educated they are. Take away some of these harmonics and the sound changes eg. digital/analogue. It is remarkable really.
Ears are also extemely sensitive to phase, which the brain learns to interpret as distance. A person talking in a room moves 2 foot away and the brain can detect this irrespective of relative volumes, even when using only one ear! The higher the frequencies involved the more accurate it can be done. Explain that!
p.s.
If you want your partner to have the best possible orgasm, stimulate their brain as well as the obvious !!!!!!!! that's where it all takes place folks!!!!!!!
DSD/SACD goes out to 100K and down to about DC. What part is outside my ears? Only MF has hearing outside of that. DSD ain't cutting off no harmonics or anything surrounding the notes. The harmonics are just out at another freqeuncy that is all on the DSD recordings. Most analog recordings too. How come i can hear if teh guitar being played is a Les Paul or Strat on a recording since those harmonics you speak of are alos happening on teh recording ain't it? Same for CD. Something missing in your analysis of the situation.
Your getting yourself confused, and inadvertently agreeing with me!
It is possible to hear the difference between 2 types of guitars precisely because of those fundamental harmonics being present in either format.If those essential harmonics were removed believe me, you would not be able to do that. They are within hearing range.
The only instrument which does not produce harmonics ie a pure note is a flute.......or a synthesiser designed to produce pure sound hence the significance of this development in the 1960's. I am not talking of a sampler, please don't get yourself confused again.
It is Medical Science, not my analysis. It is extremely complex and I, even in a professional capacity, cannot provide all the answers unfortunately, which I find humbling. I can only give you a credential opinion as a Physician and musician.
As I have little more to add to this discussion, I will withdraw; but poise an interesting point before I do.
If you took 2 identical guitars and struck the same note, most people would hear a difference. If you recorded the same process, most people would still hear a difference, yet the differences would be ...different again? As I have opined, a very complex issue that appers to defy empirical explanation!!!
I have long suspected that harmonics were at the root of CD sounding less convincing than analogue formats. What I've speculated being the missing key is how the lopped off frequencies of CD cannot interact naturally with ones in the audible spectrum to create additive and cancelled frequencies we would get in analogue or nature. There are probably some pulsed beat harmonic artifacts we don't get as a result that work on a subtle level.
Jfef, you mkae a good obvrseoiatn terhe and no one colud porve you wonrg
Jffe,ouy keam a ogdo bvsoentiaro heert dna on eon uldoc orvevp oyu grwno
How much easier is it to make sense of the first line?
Your brain is picking up on visual clues to make it easier to read, the more astute mind will see why..
Not quite the same with hearing, but I hope you see the possibilities the brain is capable of.
My advice, don't analyse too much... it works and that's enough to enjoy music, however well your ear has been trained. The fact you are not able to hear something does not preclude someone else from hearing it.
Another of life's un-solveable mysteries I fear!!!!!!!!
There is potentially some truth in stating that there is a limitation to best possible sound reproduction if sound source frequency response is limited to 20kHz, for example. On the other hand, we don't have many speakers that will produce those frequencies in any event.
My objection to your statement was to the statement that cutting off the top of the sine wave is the issue. This isn't where harmonics reside. High frequencies are not at the top of a waveform; they reside where the waveform "wiggles" the fastest in relation to time. In fact, cutting off the top of a sine wave would add lots of harmonics - although they wouldn't necessarily be related to the original frequency in any musical way.
Finally, the harmonics that we hear which distinguish one instrument from another all fall well below 20kHz. One can easily distinguish the difference between even harmonically related instrumental sounds (such as an oboe and a trumpet with a straight mute) with a very limited frequency response of only up to 5kHz or so. The harmonic energy above these frequencies is small, although critical for the full richness of an instrument to be heard.
Finally, remember that only low sampling rate digital is frequency "limited". 88.2kHz happily reproduces up to 44.1kHz for example. As DUP points out, DSD is remarkable in its frequency response, although the necessary noise filters limit this quite a bit.
I personally believe the difference between analog and digital is in the "sampling" rate, not frequency response. Analog high speed master tape doesn't extend all that high in frequency in absolute terms, but the sound is amazing. I think this is because it replicates the waveform in a continuous manner. DSD, with its exceptionally high sampling rate, sounds similar. Both still sound wonderful even if their high frequency content is filtered quite a bit.
You are absolute right that the human brain is astounding and stunningly fascinating, as are our sense. We are remarkable critters.
Well put, if you don't mind me saying so.
I concede on reflection my first post was over simplistic and un-qualified, if not misleading, to the more informed.
There are many theories and explanations but each one raises yet further questions. We cannot truthfully talk in empirical terms. As well you know, your enjoyment in music and listening pleasure changes, even though everything else remains constant, according to emotions, time of day, ambience etc. One's culture influences what we hear as musical, supportive evidence to learned hearing. It's really not what we hear, I believe it is more of a case of how we interpret what we perceive we hear and what our brain does to fill in what we don't hear, based on certain cues, which is subjective. That is the magic of music and may even explain why, paradoxically, in musical context, silence can be very emotive and intensely musical. Neither science nor art can fully explain it or is it a true synergy.............? At the end of a long day who really cares, so long as all is in healthy working order. Enjoy the experience.
Exactly.
And thank you for your contributions; thoughtful and interesting!
Speaking of cultural differences, how did Rap and Hip Hop ever get to be called music anyway? It started out as the BEST soulful emotional stuff out there BLUES, MoTown, Blues from teh soul influencing everything after it, without Blues there is no Cream, Eric Clapton, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin (who appears to have ripped off every song they did from the orignators, without so much as a friggin' credit on a lot of their albums) Blues was the real thing, emotion and SOUL....then the HOP CAME ALONG HIT THE CRAPPER. What kind of cultural DECAY was that all about!!! Talk about devolutioning, holy moly. I think it took music back to pre dinosaur ages. Bring back Berry Gordy and Albert King, Guitar slim and Muddy Watters, Willie Dixon and others. Dr. Drey and P diddy is an insult to the mind.
Harmonics, speaking of such, can't we all just getalong? In perfect Harmony. Is that what you mean, or is it being clipped somewhere, but not where you think, since amplitude ain't gots nothing to do with teh sideband frequencys that is Harmonics. So how be digital clippin' di harmaonics like a buzz cut semper fi hair do, when it ain't happening on top it's out on teh sides. If you is really a doctor, I hopes you ain't not doctor of harmonics, cus' I think your patience is all be dead. Culturaly speakin' don't ya see?
According to DUP's Law, Hip Hop is superior to those other types of music.
Via DUP: "Newer is always better."
Hip Hop is NEWER, therefore better.
Via DUP: The marketplace determines better. CD has supplanted LP, proving CD's sonic superiority.
Therefore, since Hip Hop has supplanted the Blues and Dinosaur Rock in the marketplace, Hip Hop is better.
An extension of DUP's law: A 100,000 dollar turntable cannot be worth its price.
To modern "civilian" listeners, 14,000 dollar speakers cannot be worth their price, nor can a stack of amplifiers be worth almost 10 grand. Therefore, listening to that gear and making claims about its sound while flogging the world on behalf of the makers of that gear proves you have suspect motives. If you claim Blues and Dino-Rock are superior, it must be based on some hidden motive that only serves your own purposes, proving that Hip Hop is superior by extrapolation.
Thankfully retired now!
Difference tones do indeed exist, but we do not want the reproduction chain to create them. In fact, this is what intermodulation distortion is.
If they exist in the original performance they should be captured in the recording. If they are of low enough frequency for us to hear them, they can be captured by any of our recording techniques. I doubt their existence or non-existence is the source of a perceivable difference between digital and analog playback.
I know we don't want these difference tones during playback, as they've been captured in the recording. However, the natural occurrence is unavoidable. What I'm thinking is that with CD and its cut off point, we're only getting a portion of the difference tones stacked on top of playback and with analogue, we're getting a fuller set overlaid, which might come across as being a bit more natural.
Actually nothing is really worth the asking price. Just that some are worth much less than the asking price. I'd love to see a parts list and design quotes for a $100K TT. There is no way it could justify such absurdity. Think about what is in a $100K automobil........if prcise parts and fit and finish matter. A Porsche an Audi S6 or RS4 or so many incredible works of art with 4 wheels, with lotsa balanced precise parts. a TT is a spinning platter on a single bearing surface!!!! Meant to spin a $10 piece of plastic!!! a $10K VPI is out there in absurdity land, but maybe the best thing to sell a VPI is the $100K nonsense.
Since DSD recording transcends any analog recording abiltys, the SACD versus the LP has to be better. The grinding mechanical stylus tearing at the soft vinyl during each playback, now that's technology and 21st century reproduction of music. DSD lass less noise, less of everything to hamper the original sound. DSD/SACD has frequency response so far out over a limited LP playback, that LP playback is such a dionsaur, yet there are some who cling to the concept it somehow sounds better. Maybe they just love teh sound of distortion background noise and all it's limits. Probably prfer 1969 chevy Nova over curret modern vehicles too?
Sorry, late again, because I didn't get to this topic until today.
If anyone in audio is interested, there is some historical research on human hearing such as Helmholtz. Another man is von Bekesy (sp?), who has performed experiments on the mechanism of the ear from the eardrum (tympanic membrane) through the middle ear bones and in to the cochlea, and if I'm not mistaken, has been considered an authority in this subject. Recent research, I've read, has differed somewhat from his, because many experiments in the past were performed on dead specimens. When the ear is alive, the conditions can differ, and the ear may work in ways not known from those classic experiments.
Unfortunately, I cannot remember the reference, otherwise, I would offer it for others to read, critique, comment or otherwise discuss. Perhaps you may be familiar with the literature?