When I listen to the two samples, I hear a "freshness" and clarity in the laser sample compared to the needle one. For example, the cymbals have more sparkle. I am realistic enough to acknowledge that this could simply be down to different frequency responses.
I think an important and relevant personal facility for ignoring tics and pops is being afflicted by one or more common hearing disorders affecting the ability to hear high frequencies. I know for sure that some older friends who are "rediscovering vinyl" fit this profile.
Sorry Arny, are you saying that I'm able to ignore tics and pops because I have some kind of hearing disorder?
Since you decided to make a general comment personal by owning it, well that's interesting!
I have no idea, and I wouldn't expect you to admit it in public were it true.
You might not even be aware of it.
I am frankly staggered that any time anyone ever disagrees with you, your response is to let rip with both barrels.
You have no clue what both barrels look like.
And in this case I wasn't even disagreeing with you!
Really? Looked like the first round of personal comments didn't get the effect you seem to desire, so you came back with more.
What's also interesting is that you choose to target one small part of what I posted - even though my very next sentence points out that it isn't the main thrust of what I was getting at.
Really? It was only one of the several points I brought up.
. Do you want to debate the core hypothesis I put forward, or do you just want to pick a fight?
Please do tell what the core hypothesis was without being personal and attacking.
Ever hear of TOS8?
Yes, and if you like I could post a FB2K ABX log showing 100% ability to distinguish the two samples.
I'm not sure what that would prove. If you don't remove the tics and pops then the difference in that area is a slam dunk tell. Remember, I did ABX them. FWIW it was positive. I just didn't post a log.
I also made a specific claim that my hearing is damaged by age and chemotherapy to the extent that any failure of mine to reliably detect a difference is meaningless by the standard of anything like normal hearing.
If you remove the tics and pops, it is easy enough to do that in such a way to generate enough artifacts to obtain another round of slam-dunk differences.
But you had already stated they are obviously different, so I assumed that wasn't necessary.
Fair enough.
The trick is to remove the tics and pops without creating any tells.
It is easy to show how your answer is dismissive and non-responsive, not to mention in violation of forum rules.
Frankly, I expected nothing better. I get it. In your mind you are right because you think you are right, science and forum rules be damned.
How many times have you berated people for arguing against things that you never said in the first place?
Fair amount. In other words what you described is a Straw Man argument, and if I had a nickel for every Straw Man argument that I've been pelted with, I'd run right out and buy a brand new ELP just for grins... ;-)
And yet that's exactly what you're doing now.
Prove it.
What is it that you believe I think I'm right about?
Maybe, that you can pummel me with personal attacks until I let you get away with the obvious TOS8 infraction. BTW you onus on you is not to show that there is an audible difference but that it is due to a certain audible difference other than the obvious one.
Actually, the fault you described was not stated in a unique scientific way, and therefore it is probably not falsifiable. Since you did it twice in a row, it must be intentional. What is your point - that you can turn HA into another typical audiophile site with meaningless claims about audibility?
There's a better way to at least attempt to collect reliable and relevant evidence related to this question. Make the tics go away without affecting the remaining properties of the recording. I think that is is doable. But there's no reason to do so because of the anti-science posturing.
Making the tics go away and doing a DBT would be umm like scientific...
As it happens, audio restoration of vinyl LPs is one of my hobbies, and as you say, removing the tics is eminently doable.
[/quote]
I know that very well, and so all the trips and stumbles surprised me. I expected better.
Merely making the tics go away is too easy, for reasons given. For a valid test it has to be done without introducing audible changes that are not audible to the point of masking any other audible difference, and also not cause differences in audible artifacts from the noise reduction steps itself.
Saying that an actual test is Mission Impossible is acceptable, but saying that and claiming that an audible difference surely exists seems to violate TOS8. If you can't prove it with a good DBT don't say it, seems to be the gist of TOS8. Sometimes Science demands a bit of personal discipline.
So let me make sure I understand. Do you think that if the tics and pops weren't there, then an ABX comparison wouldn't find any differences?
I think that isn't a good statement of the problem. First, you (or someone who can do it) need to clean up your description of your claimed fault(s) a way that is like good science.
Then you(or someone who can do it) have to remove the tics without creating any artifacts that would be tells.
Because if that's what you're saying, and if you're prepared to take the test, I will de-tic these samples so you can ABX them for yourself.
I think the first thing I would do is ABX one of the de-ticked files with a de-ticked version of the file with the fewer tics, tics removed by a means that meets my standard for not adding artifacts. If that is successful, then I'd compare the two files you de-ticked.
On the other hand, you've already stated that the tics and pops are not the only audible difference - just the most obvious.
Thank you! But you misquoted me.
I'll admit to saying that the tics and pops might not be the only audible difference
So presumably you will expect the de-tic'd samples to still sound different.
That is an hypothesis that I was alluding to. I don't know whether it can be supported well enough or not, but there seems to be something that might be gained by giving it the old Science Try.
In which case, what exactly are you attacking me for?
Bad science.
Gratuitous subjectivity
Two infractions of TOS 8
Failure to do the right thing on your own, with out all of this needless drama.
I mean, your posts on this topic are probably good enough for AVS, one of the Stereophile forums, Computer Audiophile or some place like that...