The Miracle of Analog Sound

[mep]

I could live on digital alone. I'm just glad I don't have to.

Well said Jack, and that includes the entire post and not just the sentence I quoted.

 

[FrantzM]

The driver input is checked regularly by the instrumentation. If the faith was blind in the drivers input there would be no need for instrumentation .. which remains after the arbiter these instruments and the clock.. The person who crosses the line wins and that is not subjective.

That we don't know everything there is to measure is to me a given. I do not suggest and it would not make sense either perfect knowledge. We know a lot, maybe not even enough about our hearing but the little that we know tells us with a humbling consistency that we can be fooled in hearing things that are not there or that we should relyon our ears. A point that will raise the ire of so many here.. It is very difficult to discern 320 Kb/s mp3 from lossless on even the best systems. if the piece is not known, I insist on the term "difficult" it is not impossible but the odds are very small. Yet mp3 320 removes about 80% of the information in a music piece... In another post two people posted how the sight of a TT had people commenting how good analog is when it was a CD playing.. So ... Our ears can be fooled .. instrumentation measuring the output in such instances would not have been. So we do need instrumentation and yes, what can't be yet measured, require that we use ur ears... It remains that relying exclusively on our ears (especially associated with knowledge and sight of gears) is not the best way to design a gear ... For enjoyment of music or of a gear whatever float their boats ...

Now back to the magic of analog

You, Greg has to pull me out of my lurking

 

[FrantzM]

Frantz-Here is my question, and it's not soley directed to you. Bruce talked about fooling people and Gary talked about fooling people and other people have talked about fooling other people, but how many people have been fooled in their own home over their own system playing material they know well? I think it would be less likely to happen than under show conditions in an unfamiliar room with unfamiliar gear playing unfamiliar music.

You have foobar? Download the ABX Comparator HERE, then encode a piece of music in 320 and test yourself with the ABX component/add-on. Report to us ...

 

[microstrip]

(...) It seems like a lost case. I cannot begin to understand how we continue to believe that our ears cannot be fooled when all of us can be (and many of us have been) fooled on a consistent and repetitive basis.

Oh Well!! Time to go back lurking on the issue

Frantz,

I remember than when I was still a teenager in secondary school I studied similar maters when we debated Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy . Sense information could be wrong, our life could be part of a dream of an evil creature and similar issues. I do not remember it anymore how, but Rene Descartes could deal with it. Do you think we need a good philosopher to help us in this issue?

 

[Gregadd]

Only love is blind and we kiow hoiw that comes out.(Smile)

Yes the person who crosses the line first wins. What of the race where all the drivers have the same car? If measurements rule all the survivors would cross the line in the same place they started.

Our ears can be fooled? (actually it was their interpretation(brain) that was in error.)Thank goodness. How else would this illusion Tomelex refers to work?

As for drawing you from the shadows. Always a pleasure

 

[FrantzM]

Frantz,

I remember than when I was still a teenager in secondary school I studied similar maters when we debated Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy . Sense information could be wrong, our life could be part of a dream of an evil creature and similar issues. I do not remember it anymore how, but Rene Descartes could deal with it. Do you think we need a good philosopher to help us in this issue?

No need to delve in to such .. We don't need a philosopher. We do not need a little of honesty and humility. Our senses are limited but we have develop devices to help us. Call them instrumentation. We have devised tools that supplements our abilities. THose tools oftenhave limitations and we also havelearned to supplement them through our , now tained by them senses.
We need to keep the discussion level and not to go too much in one unsustainable , except maybe by bad faith and pbfuscation, position. We know a lot , we don't know it all. Our ears fool us and many of our interpretations of stimuli are based on well-known and well-studied psychological factors.. Not all many and in a number sufficiently great to make one ponder about our senses.
Yet our measurement do not tell us all. Not because the act of measuring cannot tell us, our tools to measure can't entirely describe our reality or allow us to perceive it entirely. So we do need our senses and we need to supplement the tools we have devised. To me that is very straightforward and requires no discussion.
let's go for a second on the metaphysical tangent you invited (bad you !! ). We hear and perceive differently .. Fair and honest and likely true but a violin remains for most of us, trained to recognize it a violin, which would suggest that n our deality however immaterial and illusory it might be that the violin is the same and our reactions toit biological, physical or mental however different at the individual level coalesce into for all of us a violin. Then to reproduce a violin we need to reproduce the stimuli as perfectly as possible independently from the observer once we editorialize in function of the observer we no longer have fidelity, we are no longer reproducing a violin .. This is not Hi-Fi .. This shouldn'tbe High End ...
Ok no more philosophy!! ... We need instruments and we will supplement when they are insufficient to form a conclusion, we will use our senses...

 

[Keith_W]

Well if we are to move forward - perhaps we can describe what we hear in vinyl, and the measurement brigade can propose a measurement that will demonstrate the difference? If there is no such measurement, then perhaps the measurement brigade could permanently shut up and admit that they don't have the tools to do it.

 

[microstrip]

(...) Ok no more philosophy!! ... We need instruments and we will supplement when they are insufficient to form a conclusion, we will use our senses...

As you accepted to go in philosophy - I expressly tried to avoid any reference to metaphysics, but you could not resist , I suggest an alternative formulation. We use our senses, and after we reach conclusions (using the adequate perceptual methods) we then take the instruments and try to establish a metric to reproduce with reliability and consistency what we have established using our senses. As the instruments are not completely able to re-create such system, we still need our senses.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Well if we are to move forward - perhaps we can describe what we hear in vinyl, and the measurement brigade can propose a measurement that will demonstrate the difference? If there is no such measurement, then perhaps the measurement brigade could permanently shut up and admit that they don't have the tools to do it.

Well I think one question is what are the positive measurements? All we seem to hear are the negative ones here!

 

[JackD201]

Well if we are to move forward - perhaps we can describe what we hear in vinyl, and the measurement brigade can propose a measurement that will demonstrate the difference? If there is no such measurement, then perhaps the measurement brigade could permanently shut up and admit that they don't have the tools to do it.

....yet.

I honestly look forward to that day.

 

[FrantzM]

As you accepted to go in philosophy - I expressly tried to avoid any reference to metaphysics, but you could not resist , I suggest an alternative formulation. We use our senses, and after we reach conclusions (using the adequate perceptual methods) we then take the instruments and try to establish a metric to reproduce with reliability and consistency what we have established using our senses. As the instruments are not completely able to re-create such system, we still need our senses.

Never implied the contrary. I implied that we can not rely on our ears only and the examples of people claiming how great analog is when they are in fact listening to digital, is to me telling.

Of course there will be those who do not want discussion and are not willing to debate in good faith maybe because they cannot produce solid arguments to sustain their position ... Asking people to shut up is rude, yet not (to me) offensive per se, but rude nonetheless. The WBF is a polite discussion forum not an echo chamber.

 

[mep]

You have foobar? Download the ABX Comparator HERE, then encode a piece of music in 320 and test yourself with the ABX component/add-on. Report to us ...

Frantz-No disrespect, but I'll pass. I would rather spend my time listening to music that I want to hear and not something below redbook to see if I can hear a difference. I would never buy digital music recorded at less than redbook. I just finished checking/adjusting the bias on my VS115 and tweaking my cartridge set up. I just received the first version of the LP that Mike recommended tonight and that is what I plan on listening too. The 5 LP version will be here next week.

 

[JackD201]

Lemme see. I use a protractor, alignment jig, VTF scale, test discs and strobes. I would love to be able to do all these things by ear with consistency but that is beyond me.

 

[FrantzM]

Well I think one question is what are the positive measurements? All we seem to hear are the negative ones here!

Lemme see. I use a protractor, alignment jig, VTF scale, test discs and strobes. I would love to be able to do all these things by ear with consistency but that is beyond me.

There you go!!

 

[jazdoc]

Ralph Karsten of Atmasphere has been participating in a similar thread on Audiogon and had some interesting observations. I have taken the liberty of quoting him. (Moderators, you can take this down if it's not kosher!) Here is the thread http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1340176293&openfrom&1&4#1

From June 27th:

I have an LP mastering system and a CD mastering system. I'm probably arguing nuances, but FWIW here are my experiences. The biggest limitation in CD is indeed in the media itself and not the mastering.

The same is not true of the LP. Here, the limitation has to do with the arm and cartridge. The mastering side of the LP is by any comparison the most unlimited thing in audio. LP cutters can do things in terms of dynamic range that are simply not possible with any other part of the audio system except for perhaps a microphone.

It is the limitations of playback that define how the LP is to be cut, not the limitations of the cutter. And the limitation of the LP has to do with the ability of the arm/cartridge to reproduce what is in the groove. The cutter itself, and the resulting vinyl, has abilities way beyond any digital system. But the cartridges and tone arms do have limitations and it is those limitations that the mastering engineer has to be cognizant of; this is the difference between a good LP and an excellent one.

From June 28th:

The lathe can cut anything! It has dynamic range that must be very much in the range of the human ear itself- certainly far beyond that of any digital. It is this unlimited quality about them that makes them tricky to work with, as the cartridges and tone arms are the area where you have severe limited imposed- bandwidth, dynamic range, distortion and the like. The ability of the engineer to understand what can be reproduced is the mark of a good engineer.

But in general, the processing done by an LP mastering machine is minuscule compared to the damage done by an analog to digital converter, and all the digital process that follows.

There are those that say its a miracle that the LP system works, but its not a miracle, its simple engineering and an understanding of the nuances.

From June 29th:

I had arguably the best digital system made (Stahltek, $72,000) in our room at RMAF. The designer was there. I played him a cut on both the digital (192KHz 24-bit) and LP. He simply turned to me and said 'Digital has such a long way to go...' He was not mad- he loves analog, and I think its that pragmatic approach that is why he makes the best digital.

 

[flez007]

The best thing that could happen to us analog-lovers is that digital improves faster enough to really point to a single format someday...I have six sources now in my system and..it is non-sense!

 

[mep]

Ralph Karsten of Atmasphere has been participating in a similar thread on Audiogon and had some interesting observations. I have taken the liberty of quoting him. (Moderators, you can take this down if it's not kosher!) Here is the thread http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1340176293&openfrom&1&4#1

From June 27th:


From June 28th:


From June 29th:

Interesting Doc. This will have the digital lovers/analog haters frothing at the mouth. Where are the measurements? Prove it! The usual blah, blah, blah.

 

[FrantzM]

No disrespect to Ralph Karsten he knows hings about Audio than I can't even imagine exist but telling me that:

The lathe can cut anything! It has dynamic range that must be very much in the range of the human ear itself- certainly far beyond that of any digital. It is this unlimited quality about them that makes them tricky to work with, as the cartridges and tone arms are the area where you have severe limited imposed- bandwidth, dynamic range, distortion and the like. The ability of the engineer to understand what can be reproduced is the mark of a good engineer.

is at lest comical and so wrong that there is no more need to discuss it. I would like him to point some objective fact about such assertion. Especially his point about the dynamic range of a cutting lathe: 120 dB ! Not much I can say that if you assert it you must prove it with numbers. I will not go any further .. need to see the proof here .. Assertion such as this which fly in the face of things we know must be proven ..
If you're a believer and want to believe then fine .. anything goes including non-science and impossible to prove things but there .. man .. I have heard a lot this is onenew finding ...

That is not blah ...blah mep .. Dynamic range is a measurable quantity and that repeatably. it is not an impression, It is a clear parameter to which you can assign a number to, very reliably and for LP this number CANNOT be 120 dB. You can't measure how much I like bach, beethoven or Rachmaminoff ( a lot) or the conducting style of Adrian Boult or Fritz Reiner (then again if you implant some electrodes in my brain maybe you can) but Dynamic range is measurable and if measured for an LP you shall no you CANNOT find 120 dB...
If in a discussion we allow a person to say ANYTHING without any modicum of proof then the WBF or any forum degenerates quickly ..it will lose its balance. I don't care that the person be the eminent Ralph Karsten such a serious assertion must be proven ..I won't take his word or Jazdoc's for it.

 

[microstrip]

No disrespect to Ralph Karsten he knows hings about Audio than I can't even imagine exist but telling me that: (...)

Frantz,

Can I ask if you have read the original thread at Audiogon? It seems to me that the quotes of Ralph Karsten are being misinterpreted because they are being read out of the full context (answer to specific question). IMHO Ralph was addressing just the cutter tool performance, not the dynamic range of the LP.

 

[garylkoh]

When I was discussing direct-cutting LP's with Steve McCormack, he was telling me that the cutter tool was capable of huge dynamic range, and that most of the time, compressors and limiters are used. With the M&K direct cut LPs, they removed the compressors and limiters and were worried about "blowing the tool", but it seems that the lathe they used survived.