OK, Bruce, so I take this as a "no" to Jerry's offer? 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bruce Kinch" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex ATR-102 opinion (was MD5 Hash Generators


> Hi Tom-
> On Jan 23, 2008, at 6:09 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
> 
>> Hi Bruce:
>>
>>> The logical fallacy here is to equate "disc quality" with the 
>>> perception of music.
>>
>> Ah, yeah, that's the point for those of us who must make a living 
>> dealing in facts.
> 
> Well, I'm retired, but I made my living dealing with ideas, as a 
> college professor for 30 years. Does tend to force the mind open.
> 
>>  I think most of us operate under the assumption that the higher the 
>> disc quality (ie lack of digital errors and mechanical stability), the 
>> more output = input.
> 
> Ah, an assumption is an idea. You have my attention.
> 
>> As I've said repeatedly, if the input is of bad sonic quality, digital 
>> media and digital conversion will certainly preserve and not mask 
>> those flaws as much as older analog technologies, which add 
>> distortions (some apparently very euphonic to some people) and mask or 
>> "soften" some flaws at the input end (again, this is found to be 
>> euphonic by some people).
> 
> Ah, but the same is true of bad input to analog, so no points there. 
> Please look up euphonic in a dictionary. It is not a swear. True, 
> distortions can sound good to some people, there's a whole guitar 
> effects industry to prove it.  And as I noted at the last CES, a lot of 
> digital demos relied on euphonic female vocal recordings that my dad 
> would have filed under easy listening. I live in a Diana Krall-free 
> zone now.
> 
>>  So I again submit that many of the "digital sucks" crowd are 
>> igorantly confusing bad human craft and bad human decisions on the 
>> input end with what they hear on the output end and blaming the 
>> machine.
> 
> I have never said digital sucks (is sucks a swear?), nor even bought 
> the tee shirt. Can you refer me to someone in that crowd who has? If 
> not, please promise to stop using swears to color an argument.
>>
>> But, let's see if we can put these different world-views to some 
>> quantifiable testing.
> 
> How does one quantify ideas like world-views? My students couldn't, but 
> they were just students.
> 
> Hitler's idea (or world-view if you please) killed 6 million, Kevorkian 
> maybe a dozen who asked him to, but kindly. The winner is...?
> 
> Does a woman have a right to choose, or is abortion murder? Big Bang or 
> Genesis? Coke or Pepsi?
> 
> Tom, the objective becomes subjective because everyone has 
> preconceptions and biases. Makes the species argumentative. You too.
> 
>> Bruce, I really want you to take Jerry's offer. What's to be afraid of 
>> -- I think some very interesting things could be learned by everyone 
>> involved and Jerry has made a very generous offer of his time and 
>> equipment. I suggest we can use test gears and test ears.
> 
> Tom, it might make more sense if you took the test. You are probably 
> more used to the methodology, and would be more surprised by anything 
> other than a null result. I might be bored, or confused, but hardly 
> afraid.
> 
>>  You guys buy two copies of a few commercial CD's -- choose a couple 
>> of titles each, and I think the tests would be best if you chose 
>> something you're familiar with and consider a decent-sounding 
>> recording.
> 
> Why? What does decent-sounding mean? Can you quantify that, or are we 
> back in the realm of perception?
> 
>>  Keep one copy wrapped up or have it dropped-shipped to Jerry (in 
>> other words, Jerry should test it right out of the shrink-wrap, so it 
>> goes into his machines just like it came out of the store). Take the 
>> other copies and apply these various treatments, keeping careful notes 
>> as to what treatments were applied. I think you'd want to stick to one 
>> type of treatment per disc but maybe not? Let Jerry submit both discs 
>> to his rigorous tests (please research Jerry's lab if you don't 
>> believe me that his tests are rigorous).
> 
> Will Jerry's tests confirm the recordings are decent-sounding? That was 
> the basis on which you would choose them, so he must be able to 
> validate something that simple. Does the machine export the results to 
> Amazon.coms review pages? Man would that be cool!
> 
>> Then I would let a third party take possession of the discs (trust and 
>> verify, ya know) and all of you make your way to the ABX comparison 
>> setup of your choosing (there was a very good one designed by the 
>> Boston Acoustic Society described in a recent JAES article).
> 
> It's trust but verify, I think.
> 
> I am actually a past dues-paying member of the BAS. Not without 
> preconceptions in my day, at least. Actually, the decline in membership 
> back then correlated nicely with the ascent of digital recordings. 
> Never figured that out until now. Numbers don't lie, I guess.
> 
> 
>> Listen and find out first of all if there IS an audible difference 
>> between treated and untreated discs. And if there is, let everyone 
>> keep careful notes as to what they prefer. Then let's compare the 
>> results with Jerry's scientific analysis of things like error rates 
>> and mechanical stability. Perhaps we can learn a few useful facts:
>>
>> 1. what variances in laser-disc interactions are effected by 
>> polishing? Do they create higher or lower error rates? Do they effect 
>> laser mechanics at all, and if so positively or negatively vis-a-vis 
>> error rates? Is there an audible difference in ABX testing between 
>> polished and unpolished discs?
> 
> I'm mostly interested in whether something gets more decent-sounding or 
> not. Wasn't that part of the hypothesis, that the discs were decent 
> sounding? There should be room for improvement there.
>>
>> 2. does shaving the edge of a disc improve stability? Does it effect 
>> error rates or laser-disc interactions? Is there an audible difference 
>> in ABX testing?
> 
> Who knows, but does it sound better than decent?
>>
>> 3. I guess we should ask if degaussing outright ruins a disc -- 
>> Scott's experience seems to indicate yes but I suspect the kind of 
>> degaussing sold as a "treatment" uses a much less intense magnetic 
>> field. So, if the disc isn't outright ruined, is the error rate or 
>> mechanical stability effected? Is there an audible difference in ABX 
>> testing?
> 
> Scott seems to have one of the Dharma Initiative degaussers that 
> imploded the hatch on Lost. But he heard a difference, and you'd have 
> to bounce him off the panel as biased because of it. Me too, I'm 
> afraid. Oops, I was afraid after all.
> 
> My law student daughter says most trials are won/lost at voir dire. 
> True of ABX trials, too?
>>
>> 4. finally, and this would be the most interesting factor to examine 
>> -- I dare say it fringes on a "perception" study -- was there much 
>> agreement about any differences in sound? This would be particularly 
>> interesting and I'll certainly admit surprise if there IS a 
>> statistically relevant perceived differences in sound but no 
>> statistically relevant differences from Jerry's tests. I doubt that 
>> will happen but I'm never saying never.
> 
> Wow, Tom, I've gotten you interested in PERCEPTION! You are no longer 
> speaking in MEANINGLESS ABSOLUTES!  Like BARNUMESQUE HOKUM!
>>
>> 5. this one is also very interesting, at least to me -- are discs 
>> found to have higher error rates or less mechanical stability in 
>> Jerry's tests preferred sonically in the ABX tests? This gets into the 
>> question, are there euphonic "problems" in digital systems akin to the 
>> harmonic distortion in tube gear that some find euphonic? Again, I 
>> doubt this but again I'm never saying never.
> 
> I think the word you are looking for we can invent together right here 
> and now. You have suggested that digital might be "dysphonic", if I 
> have the Greek right. Sure, probably not, couldn't be, but maybe we can 
> at least copyright it. I can see the new Sony ad: Perfect sound 
> forever, and now less Dysphonic (TM) than ever, too! Royalties beyond 
> comprehension!
>>
>> So, what do you say guys? Let's see if we can get the laboratory and 
>> the listening room to meet in the middle here. I bet if someone 
>> forwards this thread to the BAS guys who wrote that JAES article 
>> they'd be game to get a crowd together for ABX testing. The only way 
>> we'll get answers is to do some testing. Jerry's opened the door, 
>> Bruce you should walk through it.
> 
> Actually, Aldous Huxley opened the Doors of Perception, I think. I just 
> can't remember if I actually walked through them, must have been back 
> in the sixties, all a blur now. Worked for Jim Morrison, though.
> 
> But obviously, we just want to ask different questions. We are looking 
> for different answers. That is bias.
>>
>> Extra gravey -- this might make a very good ARSC convention 
>> presentation.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> How about From Euphonic Analog to Dysphonic Digital: A new approach to 
> evaluating musical reproduction. Authors Fine and Kinch demonstrate 
> their technique of dual-dimensional audio testing. Plotting measured 
> results on the X axis (Accuracy to Distortion) and subjective musical 
> pleasurability (Euphonic to Dysphonic) on the Y axis, the researchers 
> create a scatter plot revealing fundamental differences between 
> technologies, recordings, and playback equipment. When correlated to 
> individual biases, greater understanding of both audiophillic and 
> meter-mania disorders can be derived.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
>>
>