LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  January 2008

ARSCLIST January 2008

Subject:

Re: Ampex ATR-102 opinion (was MD5 Hash Generators

From:

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:09:41 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (134 lines)

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. 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. 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). 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.

But, let's see if we can put these different world-views to some quantifiable testing. 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.  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. 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). 
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). 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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Extra gravey -- this might make a very good ARSC convention presentation.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bruce Kinch" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex ATR-102 opinion (was MD5 Hash Generators


> On Jan 23, 2008, at 6:28 AM, Jerry Hartke wrote:
>
>> Some writers have technical skills, while others spin out profitable junk
>> for acceptance by gullible editors and readers.
>
> Full disclosure, I have been an a occasional reviewer for both print and on-line audio journals. 
> It is not a profitable avocation, and I have never claimed technical expertise beyond that 
> available to any informed consumer. I don't consider anyone who investigates any issue gullible 
> per se, which is unfortunately the frequent opinion of many who claim special knowledge in any 
> field. That seems arrogant to me. However, having access to CES and other venues, I have not 
> infrequently heard effects I cannot easily explain. Not all such changes seemed to be 
> improvements, and some that were hardly seemed worth the cost. But then I drive a Mazda, not a 
> Porsche for the same reason. I have friends who disagree and preferred to pay the difference. Are 
> they gullible, or just happy?
>
>>  De-gaussing (there are no
>> ferromagnetic materials in a disc), polishing (introduces millions of
>> microscratches that distort the laser beam), and trimming (can worsen track
>> eccentricity or unbalance), have the potential to degrade, but not improve,
>> CD or DVD disc quality.
>
> The underlying assumption here is that a class of objects produced by multiple agents at the 
> lowest possible cost will have no functional flaws that can be remediated after market. The only 
> other consumer category I can think of that makes such claims would be the purveyors of religious 
> texts - the Bible, the Qur'an, and whatever the Scientologists keep by bedside and toilet.
>
>
>> If this remains an issue, Media Sciences would be
>> glad to participate in a controlled test on a few discs, both before and
>> after the "improvements", at no charge and then publish the results online.
>> Please contact me if you wish to participate.
>
> The logical fallacy here is to equate "disc quality" with the perception of music. I switched from 
> physics to psychology as an undergrad because the girls in class were prettier. But I quickly 
> realized that while the physics lab experiments were straightforward, experimental psych projects 
> in perception had a lot of independent variables that could not be controlled. I appreciate that 
> in itself can drive some people crazy.
>
> Again, there is ample documentation that some but not all auditioners can and will hear a change 
> from a variety of treatments, tweaks, and widgets. Some perceive the change as a worthwhile 
> improvement, others don't. That is normal, not something to get huffy about. If you are curious 
> about such things, please do look into them.
>
> That this topic keeps re-surfacing, I suspect, is the result of a certain lingering 
> dissatisfaction among listeners familiar with the sound of acoustic music in real space with the 
> electronic and and particularly digital reproduction of that music. The response is essentially a 
> desire to find something - anything -  that will ease that disappointment. Tom Fine started the 
> discussion by blaming the engineering, not the technology, for the the problem. I take a broader 
> view, as I believe the limitations of CD reproduction are obvious in comparison to higher 
> definition digital as well as analog, to say nothing of the real thing.
>
> Conversely, many folks (like my kids) who grew up listening to amplified instruments and entirely 
> digital media have different criteria. They prize the loud, the clean, and the convenient. Here 
> the iPod trumps even the CD. The logical extension of a "bits iz bits"  definition of  perfect 
> sound is to have the marketplace decide how much more data can be thrown out and still fool a 
> listener into thinking it is music.
>
>
> Bruce
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager