When reading other discussions around the web, people have mentioned the following tests/studies, but I haven't been able to find them (and the discussions where I had seen them mentioned where often old, so the participants didn't respond). I also looked in the sticky topic with links to blind tests as well as the sticky topic with FAQs, but with no luck. Many of the links in those two topics are also more than ten years old and have since been removed.
So, here are my requests:
* Master tape vs. CD and/or hi-res (failure/success - I assume failure. I know of Bruce Botnik doing such a blind test (at 24/192) with other people present, and I know of mastering engineer Dave Collins doing it as well (at 24/88.2). I've also heard of someone in the 90s who offered a million dollars if someone could tell a master tape apart from a CD (Michael Fremer should be a millionare by now ;) ), but if you know of any "proper" studies, then please share a link :) )
* Master tape vs. vinyl (probably where vinylphiles preferred the vinyl transfer and/or succesful/unsuccesful blind tests between the two)
- less important sub-request: vinyl vs. digital recording of the LP. I know of two good cases: One is the Spanish website Matrix Hi-fi, which actually also exists in English (the page with links to blind tests says Spanish only) as well as the one from Audio Asylum conducted by Mike Lavigne and John Elison. The latter was a blind test, but I don't know if everything (e.g. volume level) was controlled. The former didn't say if it was blind, but everybody agreed that the two sounded the same.)
* Null-test between digital audio with and "without" ringing (I found this on Archimago's Musings. Someone said this in a comment: "There is also little evidence of this ringing being present in the audio signal with null tests using actual music signals. The only eveidence you will find is a small 'peak' at the filter's cut-off frequency in the 'difference file' in this case. Any (small) differences in the audible band will be caused by phase or amplitude (FR) differences or distortion. Small FR and phase differences are not audible BUT very measurable by the way and caused by the filter or coupling capacitors in the chain." According to Archimago's images, a higher sample rate removes ringing in the audible spectrum, although Archimago himself seems to downplay any audible effects of this ringing)
I might ask for a few more studies, but this was all I could think of now. Thanks for your help :-).
* Master tape vs. CD and/or hi-res (failure/success - I assume failure. I know of Bruce Botnik doing such a blind test (at 24/192) with other people present, and I know of mastering engineer Dave Collins doing it as well (at 24/88.2). I've also heard of someone in the 90s who offered a million dollars if someone could tell a master tape apart from a CD (Michael Fremer should be a millionare by now ;) ), but if you know of any "proper" studies, then please share a link :) )
This looks like a mixup of several different issues.
The first one seems to revolve around what a master tape actually is. Back in the old days when actual tape machines were still used, there were master tapes coming out of the mixing phase. They were then passed to the mastering engineer, where the material was processed according to the distribution medium. This was particularly important for vinyl, which has its idiosyncrasies that requires some specialised processing to make it suitable for being pressed onto a vinyl disk. The CD is simpler in this respect, but mastering still uses processing to optimise the perceived loudness, and make sure that the track sequence is presenting itself as a coherent whole. The output of this also used to be called a master tape, but in the case of a CD it would use the same format as the CD, namely 44.1/16. Nowadays, there typically is no tape involved anymore, it's all files on a data storage medium.
There was an offer of the well-known magician James Randi to pay anyone a million dollars who can prove his paranormal abilities in a properly controlled experiment. At one time it seemed that this was being taken up for a hifi cable test, but it didn't happen, and the parties then accused each other of foul play. I am not aware of a similar attempt involving master tapes, but perhaps someone else does.
So you should state more clearly what you are referring to.
* Master tape vs. vinyl (probably where vinylphiles preferred the vinyl transfer and/or succesful/unsuccesful blind tests between the two)
Are you looking for a preference test? The fact that vinyl playback produces quite characteristic noises, means it is usually quite easy to distinguish between vinyl playback and tape playback. It is not that easy to remove this factor from the equation.
* Null-test between digital audio with and "without" ringing (I found this on Archimago's Musings. Someone said this in a comment: "There is also little evidence of this ringing being present in the audio signal with null tests using actual music signals. The only eveidence you will find is a small 'peak' at the filter's cut-off frequency in the 'difference file' in this case. Any (small) differences in the audible band will be caused by phase or amplitude (FR) differences or distortion. Small FR and phase differences are not audible BUT very measurable by the way and caused by the filter or coupling capacitors in the chain." According to Archimago's images, a higher sample rate removes ringing in the audible spectrum, although Archimago himself seems to downplay any audible effects of this ringing)
Such a null test is a measurement exercise rather than a listening test. It involves subtracting two signals from each other which are supposed to differ very slightly. Are you interested in such a test, or are you trying to find evidence for the audibility of the difference? If it is the latter, the null test itself won't help you.
* Master tape vs. CD and/or hi-res (failure/success - I assume failure. I know of Bruce Botnik doing such a blind test (at 24/192) with other people present, and I know of mastering engineer Dave Collins doing it as well (at 24/88.2). I've also heard of someone in the 90s who offered a million dollars if someone could tell a master tape apart from a CD (Michael Fremer should be a millionare by now ;) ), but if you know of any "proper" studies, then please share a link :) )
The far more relevant test is a test of a CD format file that was downsampled from a true high rez source. Since excellent resampling freeware, high rez audio files and ABX testing freeware is so widely available, this test is one that nobody who is interested in the issue shouldn't do for themselves.
* Master tape vs. vinyl (probably where vinylphiles preferred the vinyl transfer and/or succesful/unsuccesful blind tests between the two)
This difference is so audibly clear to this day that in the days when vinyl was all we had, there were literally 100's of people, more commonly known as Vinyl Mastering Engineers who usually had busy, well paid positions trying their best to minimize the obvious difference.
Everybody who worked in production knew many from copious personal experience, that audible perfection was impossible and that if you could eliminate vinyl and just listen to the analog master tape, you were generally a much happier listener.
The only thing wrong with master tapes was they were impossible make perfect copies of, and when you tried to make copies at costs that were still many multiples of the incredibly low cost of making a LP (on the order of a dime for a LP), they were then way off the mark.
In the days when vinyl was all we had, the audible deficiencies were well known and already known to be impossible to totally audibly mitigate. They are also trivial to measure and the measurements easily exceed known audible thresholds. The idea that people would try to make a good master tape sound as bad as vinyl would make just about anybody who was engaged in LP production back in the day, puke.
In short there are no studies of this because they are about as interesting as studies of whether or not festering manure piles have an odor.
- less important sub-request: vinyl vs. digital recording of the LP. I know of two good cases: One is the Spanish website Matrix Hi-fi, which actually also exists in English (the page with links to blind tests says Spanish only) as well as the one from Audio Asylum conducted by Mike Lavigne and John Elison. The latter was a blind test, but I don't know if everything (e.g. volume level) was controlled. The former didn't say if it was blind, but everybody agreed that the two sounded the same.)
The request is very vague and trivial. What constitutes a comparison of vinyl versus digital recording? We already know that good CD-format or better digital is sonically transparent and undetectable, and we also know that it is impossible for vinyl or analog tape to be sonically transparent. You can arrange these factoids in such ways as to cover just about all of the possible meanings, so the tests are all trivial.
* Null-test between digital audio with and "without" ringing (I found this on Archimago's Musings. Someone said this in a comment: "There is also little evidence of this ringing being present in the audio signal with null tests using actual music signals. The only eveidence you will find is a small 'peak' at the filter's cut-off frequency in the 'difference file' in this case. Any (small) differences in the audible band will be caused by phase or amplitude (FR) differences or distortion. Small FR and phase differences are not audible BUT very measurable by the way and caused by the filter or coupling capacitors in the chain." According to Archimago's images, a higher sample rate removes ringing in the audible spectrum, although Archimago himself seems to downplay any audible effects of this ringing)
Can anybody point out a good set of DBTs that were done by Archimalgo?
In short, the only really interesting questions relate to whether or not CD-quality digital is really as good as many find it to be. This whole business of preference for vinyl is a meme that was created and widely speread once people realized how much better digital audio really was and how disastrous this was for people who a big investment in analog. Once this took hold, additional promulgators of the meme joined in to capitalize on the potential profits from promoting The Big Lie. The final stage was when people figured out that they could use The Big Lie to sell just about anything audio, which led to the current situation where there are anong other stupid things about 400 different DACs on the market, the vast majority of which actually can't be sonically distinguished from each in a good listening test, but there is now so much money to be made convincing people that they all sound different and better than each other.
Sorry, I see now that I was being a bit vague in some of my requests. But thanks for your help, Arny and Pelmazo :-).
As for CD vs. master tape, what I meant was a blind test of a CD made from the analogue master tape, be it "mastered" or not. I am aware that back in the 80s (as well as now) there were albums that were mastered differently for vinyl and CD, so what I meant was just an analogue master tape (preferably commercially avaible material) transferred directly to CD with no further processing, EQ etc.
As for James Randi, this is not the challenge I was thinking of above. Although I have also seen similar tests like the following mentioned elsewhere, I read this on speaker manufacturer Harbeth's forum posted by a forum member:
"In 1997, TDK did offer 1 million dollar during a consumer show to anyone who could correctly identify the master tape, tape and CD in 10 successive trials. No one could. You can read about it in the Soundstage magazines."
As for the vinyl vs. master tape studies, yes I was looking for a preference test – as you say, hearing a difference between a master tape and a vinyl is usually easy, although I suppose tests where test subjects couldn't hear a difference might be interesting to read as well.
I'm okay with "lie" tests, such as the people conducting the test saying "one is vinyl, one is digital, what do you prefer?" when in fact one is an analogue master tape. Tests where they don't tell the test subjects which is which, but where the test subjects would then assume one must be vinyl and one must be CD would also be great - if they exist. For me this would be the proof you mention, Arny, that CD quality is really transparent.
As for vinyl vs. needle drop, then I would be happy to hear about more tests - especially academic papers, if such papers exists.
The comment from Archimago's website is not by Archimago himself but by a reader of his blog. Anyway, the null test I asked for would probably be a measurement to show if the result was actually null or not (probably not), and then perhaps a discussion or listening test as to find out if the ringing was actually audible – I assume it's not. The commenter said this measurement had been done, but I haven't been able to find this anywhere. As mentioned, Archimago actually showed with some pictures of measurements in that post that ringing was absent in the audible spectrum (he used 10 kHz tones) in hi-res, while present in CD quality. I took this to mean that oversampling hadn't been able to solve this issue in CD quality, although I personally don't think it's of very high importance (and Archimago seems to say the same). After all, if blind tests of hi-res vs. CD quality still shows nobody is able to hear the difference, then the ringing shouldn't/can't be audible either.
I'm convinced that CD quality is good enough, and I don't see any use for hi-res except perhaps for a few theoretical reasons (as above) that might be completely inaudible, but it would be nice to see some properly conducted studies that back up these things.
Still no suggestions?
The blind test of analogue master tape vs. digitized copy is the one I'm the most interested in. Mark Waldrep told me he had done a test like that as well.
The ringing part we touched upon in the other topic I started, called "Is this digital bashing true or false?", so I suppose we can leave that, although I still don't fully understand this subject.
Please link directly to Archimago's measurements and comments you refer to.
You could just search for the text string, but here's a link:
http://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/06/measurements-pulse-response-5khz-10khz.html
You have the ringing at Nyquist. What is the news?
If you post here things about what he said, she said i have the feeling it is what YOU say trying to dance round our TOS.
You have the ringing at Nyquist. What is the news?
If you post here things about what he said, she said i have the feeling it is what YOU say trying to dance round our TOS.
I don't understand what you're trying to get at?
Do you think I'm an audiophile trying to persuade everybody that analogue tapes are closer to what is being played in the studio, or that $25,000 speaker cables will sound lightyears better than Monster cables?
If so, think again. I'm genuinely confused about the matter and I'm trying to learn from people who know more about the issue than I do - nothing else. I read the silly audiophiles' monstrous claims, and therefore I would like a technical explanation to what is actually facts.
As for ringing, I was asking for links to null-tests and subsequent listening tests to show if actually music contained ringing, and if it did, if the ringing was only present at the Nyquist frequency, and if so/if not if it was at all audible, or if it created audible effects. That's all. I haven't been able to find these studies on my own.
Personally I don't think it's audible, but it's nice to be able to read proper studies on the matter.
I don't understand what you're trying to get at?
He recognizes fishing expeditions, negative proof, feigned innocent curiosity, burden of proof, etc.
Can be problematic
You have the ringing at Nyquist. What is the news?
If you post here things about what he said, she said i have the feeling it is what YOU say trying to dance round our TOS.
I don't understand what you're trying to get at?
Do you think I'm an audiophile trying to persuade everybody that analogue tapes are closer to what is being played in the studio, or that $25,000 speaker cables will sound lightyears better than Monster cables?
If so, think again. I'm genuinely confused about the matter and I'm trying to learn from people who know more about the issue than I do - nothing else. I read the silly audiophiles' monstrous claims, and therefore I would like a technical explanation to what is actually facts.
As for ringing, I was asking for links to null-tests and subsequent listening tests to show if actually music contained ringing, and if it did, if the ringing was only present at the Nyquist frequency, and if so/if not if it was at all audible, or if it created audible effects. That's all. I haven't been able to find these studies on my own.
Personally I don't think it's audible, but it's nice to be able to read proper studies on the matter.
There's so much of this on the web that your tool of choice is Google. This is so true that many have a hard time taking requests like this seriously. It is like you never tried! One you get a "Live One" you can chase footnotes and Bibliographies to that larger world. Here's a
good starting place.
https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html (https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html)
Come on! Now you guys are jumping to conclusions. I said in my original post that I hadn't been able to find any studies, and in my last post I, again, wrote "I haven't been able to find these studies on my own."
I'm asking you guys because you can usually point people towards these things. I've already searched around with your best friend, Google, to no avail. If it is so incredibly easy to find these things I would be happy if you could post a link.
That's all I'm asking :-).
I already read the xiph article two years ago, and there's nothing in that one about my specific requests. The Meridian link contained in there is not available anymore (nor on Meridian's webpage), and the Dan Lavry paper I tried to read two years ago, but found it to complex + when I search now ringing is mentioned several times but not explained further.
As mentioned, I find this matter very complex, which is why I'm asking for people who know more about than I do. So if you can explain the matter to me rather than link to research that would be very welcome too.
And Ajinfla, if you think I'm faking my interest, then you're wrong. I don't think ringing is a problem, but it would be nice to see actual studies saying the same thing, so my suspicion turns into certainty. I'm not an analogue fan boy who thinks ringing is why digital audio sounds so "wrong", if that's what you're trying to get at.
If you can't explain these issues to me, or you don't have any links, then there's no harm done in simply saying "I don't know" :-).
Edit: I fairly easily found a forum post that enlightened me a bit:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/audibility-digital-reconstruction-filters-19921/
As for the preference test of vinyl vs. master tape, a guy in an old discussion on another platform said that blind tests between the two had shown that the vinylphiles preferred the vinyl disc. I suppose that's not surprising, but I would like to read it if proper studies have been done.
Come on! Now you guys are jumping to conclusions. I said in my original post that I hadn't been able to find any studies, and in my last post I, again, wrote "I haven't been able to find these studies on my own."
I'm asking you guys because you can usually point people towards these things. I've already searched around with your best friend, Google, to no avail. If it is so incredibly easy to find these things I would be happy if you could post a link.
That's all I'm asking :-).
I already read the xiph article two years ago, and there's nothing in that one about my specific requests. The Meridian link contained in there is not available anymore (nor on Meridian's webpage), and the Dan Lavry paper I tried to read two years ago, but found it to complex + when I search now ringing is mentioned several times but not explained further.
As mentioned, I find this matter very complex, which is why I'm asking for people who know more about than I do. So if you can explain the matter to me rather than link to research that would be very welcome too.
And Ajinfla, if you think I'm faking my interest, then you're wrong. I don't think ringing is a problem, but it would be nice to see actual studies saying the same thing, so my suspicion turns into certainty. I'm not an analogue fan boy who thinks ringing is why digital audio sounds so "wrong", if that's what you're trying to get at.
If you can't explain these issues to me, or you don't have any links, then there's no harm done in simply saying "I don't know" :-).
Edit: I fairly easily found a forum post that enlightened me a bit:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/audibility-digital-reconstruction-filters-19921/
As for the preference test of vinyl vs. master tape, a guy in an old discussion on another platform said that blind tests between the two had shown that the vinylphiles preferred the vinyl disc. I suppose that's not surprising, but I would like to read it if proper studies have been done.
Looking at your first request, I googled ABX (from the Xiph article) combined that with tape (pretty obvious, and came up with:
http://djcarlst.provide.net/abx_tapg.htm (http://djcarlst.provide.net/abx_tapg.htm)
as the 5th hit.
Pretty simple, eh?
I also cribbed this potentially helpful link from the xiph paper:
http://www.davidgriesinger.com/intermod.ppt (http://www.davidgriesinger.com/intermod.ppt)
as far as analog master tape versus vinyl comparisons go, the problem will be in finding the physical pieces because actual tape masters are like hen's teeth these days. Moving mastering from analog tape to digital was an accomplished fact before the CD hit the market in 1983. The real killer with analog tape is that it is very labor intensive. If you work with analog tape and want the best possible performance you have to set the tape machine up for every blank tape you record, and do more set up every tme you play it. Every playback of vinyl is subject to the performance of the playback equipment and unless you cherry pick your cartridges to test with, and set them up to minimize any remaining differences they all sound a little different.
One of the largest semi-relevant bibliographies you might want to study is here:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296 (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296)
I'm responding late here, as I've been absent for a while.
Anyway, thanks for your suggestions and links, Arny. The link you provided to Carlstrom's site I already knew of. Unfortunately that's analogue tape vs. an analogue tape copy ABX, and not analogue tape vs. digital ABX.
In the Meyer and Moran paper of SACD vs. CD they also mentioned blind tests vs. CD, but if none of you here know of any such studies, I suppose I will either have to keep searching or give up searching :-).
As for vinyl vs. master tape, maybe the person mentioning those tests was just repeating a rumour, or maybe the tests were just done privately and not put into print. In any case, I think I will have to give up searching for this test.
I'm responding late here, as I've been absent for a while.
Anyway, thanks for your suggestions and links, Arny. The link you provided to Carlstrom's site I already knew of. Unfortunately that's analogue tape vs. an analogue tape copy ABX, and not analogue tape vs. digital ABX.
Since a good digital copy of a tape is indistinguishable from the tape itself, Carlstrom's test would have been the same whether he compared the tape copy to the origional tape,, or a digital copy of the original tape.
In the Meyer and Moran paper of SACD vs. CD they also mentioned blind tests vs. CD, but if none of you here know of any such studies, I suppose I will either have to keep searching or give up searching :-).
SACD is no less transparent then good 44/16 digital, unfortunately it is also no more transparent. So from a testing standpoint, pick either as your source, and the results of copying it some way will generally be the same. In theory the SACD could have ultrasonic noise, and the means of transcription you use to test could have audible IM, and then there would be a difference. However, if the means of transcription is something like linear PCM that is free of audible distortioin no matter what (except being abused such as overloading it) no problems.
As for vinyl vs. master tape, maybe the person mentioning those tests was just repeating a rumour, or maybe the tests were just done privately and not put into print. In any case, I think I will have to give up searching for this test.
I think that everybody with a reasonable technical background knows that vinyl is a heavily colored medium, and therefore doing a test to prove that it is colored will always be positive, and there is no news value in that.
Here's some details from one of the horse's mouths: Why vinyl sounds different than the source its cut from (http://www.gottagrooverecords.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/GGR-Manufacturing-Guide-web.pdf)
It costs well over $1,000 to cut a vinyl master, and produce a small run of copies. I don't want to waste that much money to prove what is already well known. Here's a representative priciing guide: get a quote for a minimum number of vinyl recorords (http://www.urpressing.com/quotegen12.php) Minimum change $1,650.
For #1:
http://djcarlst.provide.net/abx_digi.htm (wire vs A/D/A, with an analog master tape source)
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm (wire vs A/D/A, with a vinyl source)
Arny, I might have been a bit unclear in my last message. It was supposed to say this:
"In the Meyer and Moran paper of SACD vs. CD they also mentioned blind tests of analogue tape vs. CD, but if none of you here know of any such studies, I suppose I will either have to keep searching or give up searching :-)."
Maybe it appeared as if I was talking about blind tests of CD vs. SACD, which I'm not interested in, as I have already seen many studies about it. Sorry for any confusion.
As for your remark "Since a good digital copy of a tape is indistinguishable from the tape itself, Carlstrom's test would have been the same whether he compared the tape copy to the origional tape, or a digital copy of the original tape", this is EXACTLY what I'm looking for: A proper study with many blind tests that SHOWS that a digital copy is audibly indistinguishable from the analogue tape it was copied from. I don't dispute what you say per se, because I do really believe that the two would be audibly indistinguishable, but what you're saying in statement form is simply an assumption, that might be completely correct but still an assumption. I'm asking for a paper to move it from assumptions to proof. And as you can probably tell, I have the exact same assumption as you :-).
So far I simply haven't been able to find a proper study that concluded this, although I have seen "private experiments" that included this, including Ethan Winer's loop-back test on his website (and my own tests as you will see if you go to the section about blind tests on HA, as I will now post a blind test result about this) .
I'll say a bit more about this further down, and you might be able to help me there.
As for the vinyl vs. master tape, as mentioned earlier, it's simply a preference test that I'm interested in - basically showing that in some cases the vinyl edition might be so close to the tape that it's audibly indistinguishable, but in other (most) cases, the difference is so great that the difference is easy to hear, but the vinylphiles would then choose the vinyl edition as their preference, perhaps because they assumed that the master "tape" must be digital, which would go to show it's really the sound of the vinyl material and the playback chain they enjoyed. Of course, we all basically "know" this, but again, it's an assumption, and as mentioned in my last post, such studies might not exist, as it might simply be a rumour or something done in private.
All in all, we can leave this to rest, as I don't think we can find what I'm looking for, and it might be pointless as well. It was simply "ammunition" for the constant debates with vinylphiles.
Eric.w, I've known of the Lipshitz/Tiefenbrun "digital challenge" for a couple of years. I considered this "a private experiment", which is why I hoped there would be larger scale studies made.
Secondly, I knew of the Carlstrom one as well, but I didn't understand exactly what this experiment was (which is where you might be able to help me, Arny). Was this done with actual music, or was it only white/pink noise tests? If it was with music, then it was essentially the same as with the Lipshitz/Tiefenbrun one, just on a larger scale.
As this test had 160 trials, I would consider this a great example of what I'm looking for :-).
I sense a strong misunderstanding of the concepts of null hypothesis and burdon of proof.
I sense a strong misunderstanding of the concepts of null hypothesis and burdon of proof.
What do you mean?
If I understand you correctly, then yes, the people who claim that a digital copy of an analogue master tape will sound different than the master tape itself are the ones who need to prove what they claim - not me/us. I completely agree about that, so I figured there must be studies done that showed that these people couldn't tell them apart in a blind test. I don't think they could ever prove it, unless using poor A/D converters, but it would be nice to see any studies that confirm this :-).
Besides the Lipshitz/Tiefenbrun example, I have seen a couple of experiments where people couldn't tell apart the vinyl record vs. the digital recording of it, and, as mentioned, Ethan Winer has the loop-back test on his website that, as far as I know, shows the same.
So, I also see the burden of proof being placed with the people who claim that there's an audible difference.
this is EXACTLY what I'm looking for: A proper study with many blind tests that SHOWS that a digital copy is audibly indistinguishable from the analogue tape it was copied from.
Apparently no one has felt burdened to run your pointless wild goose chase.
So run your own analogue tape output simultaneously through an ADA and compare switched level matched outputs in real time as the tape degrades. Post the results under Unicorn found.
Maybe it's too nuanced and also bothersome to those out to paint everything black or white, but absence of proof is not proof of absence. Still, my assessment of a misunderstanding on the concept of burden of proof was incorrect, thankfully.
this is EXACTLY what I'm looking for: A proper study with many blind tests that SHOWS that a digital copy is audibly indistinguishable from the analogue tape it was copied from.
Apparently no one has felt burdened to run your pointless wild goose chase.
So run your own analogue tape output simultaneously through an ADA and compare switched level matched outputs in real time as the tape degrades. Post the results under Unicorn found.
Your attitude is starting to tire me. You have nothing to add, no answers to concrete questions, so you post arrogant insults instead of spending your time on something else, or, if you insist on commenting on every thread on this site, simply say "I haven't come across what you ask for and I think it's likely that it doesn't exist".
So run your own analogue tape output simultaneously through an ADA and compare switched level matched outputs in real time as the tape degrades. Post the results under Unicorn found.
Your attitude is starting to tire me. You have nothing to add, no answers to concrete questions
You don't like my answers to your fishing expedition :'(
Just to clarify in case my post further up was a bit unclear:
If the Carlstrom one was done with music rather than white/pink noise (or test signals for that matter), then that would be exactly what I was looking for, and we can consider my request fulfilled :-).
Looking at this does make it seem like it could only be music:
"The audio source was a master 2-track 15 IPS tape on a Scully 280. This master tape had been mixed from a 24-track master tape on an Ampex MM-1000. The mixdown and playback was through an API console."
What I was essentially asking for was the material transferred to a digital file or a physical CD, but an A/D/A chain like the one here should be the same I suppose.
I know I might seem dim, but I just wanted to make sure I fully understand what this test was :-).
Just to clarify in case my post further up was a bit unclear:
If the Carlstrom one was done with music rather than white/pink noise (or test signals for that matter), then that would be exactly what I was looking for, and we can consider my request fulfilled :-).
Looking at this does make it seem like it could only be music:
"The audio source was a master 2-track 15 IPS tape on a Scully 280. This master tape had been mixed from a 24-track master tape on an Ampex MM-1000. The mixdown and playback was through an API console."
What I was essentially asking for was the material transferred to a digital file or a physical CD, but an A/D/A chain like the one here should be the same I suppose.
I know I might seem dim, but I just wanted to make sure I fully understand what this test was :-).
My impression from an ancient conversation with Carlstrom from back when he did the tests is that this test was done exactly as stated, entirely in the analog domain.
The goal of the test was to determine the audibility of tape generations, and the starting point was a mixdown of other tapes, performed on the console indicated and recorded to tape on the machine stated.
That became the starting point for the experiments. I think there was some surprise that the first generation copy of that was audibly different.
So, Arny, just to make sure we don't mix things up:
This is the link that eric.w linked to:
http://djcarlst.provide.net/abx_digi.htm
... which is, if I understand it correctly, what I was essentially asking for: an analogue tape with actual music vs. an A/D/A loop (in this case a delay line).
The one you linked to originally was the blind test between analogue tape generations:
http://djcarlst.provide.net/abx_tapg.htm
It seemed to me like your last post was about the analogue tape generations, rather than the analogue tape vs. an A/D/A loop.
Do you recall/know if the analogue tape vs. the A/D/A loop was with actual music?
I'll try e-mailing Carlstrom as well and see if he responds - then we know for sure (I'll update here if he responds) :-).
In any case, thanks for your help - it seems like my request has been fulfilled.
A very big thanks to eric.w for linking to this. It's actually a little bit funny: He linked to a site that I had known about for a couple of years and that Arny had already linked to, albeit a different page, but both of us had overlooked that specific page, ha ha ha :-)! Well, that's how it is sometimes.
I was a bit surprised that I found that Computer Audiophile article about ringing recently (which has a new link now, due to an update of the site: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/19347-audibility-of-digital-reconstruction-filters/ ), as I had searched for the same concern for a while before even starting this topic. I suppose I must have included some search terms that excluded that specific site.
So, Arny, just to make sure we don't mix things up:
This is the link that eric.w linked to:
http://djcarlst.provide.net/abx_digi.htm
... which is, if I understand it correctly, what I was essentially asking for: an analogue tape with actual music vs. an A/D/A loop (in this case a delay line).
I missed that significant change. Mea Culpa.
The one you linked to originally was the blind test between analogue tape generations:
http://djcarlst.provide.net/abx_tapg.htm
It seemed to me like your last post was about the analogue tape generations, rather than the analogue tape vs. an A/D/A loop.
You are correct, which means that my post was in error. I'll try to do better. ;-)
Do you recall/know if the analogue tape vs. the A/D/A loop was with actual music?
For sure. I participated in it. The analog tape sources were mixdowns that were thought to be among the best and most diagnostic work. There was also some non-music listening. The source for that was the classic Keys Jangling test.
I'll try e-mailing Carlstrom as well and see if he responds - then we know for sure (I'll update here if he responds) :-).
In any case, thanks for your help - it seems like my request has been fulfilled.
Glad to hear that despite my screw-up, it all worked out in the end.
A very big thanks to eric.w for linking to this. It's actually a little bit funny: He linked to a site that I had known about for a couple of years and that Arny had already linked to, albeit a different page, but both of us had overlooked that specific page, ha ha ha :-)! Well, that's how it is sometimes.
I was a bit surprised that I found that Computer Audiophile article about ringing recently (which has a new link now, due to an update of the site: https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/19347-audibility-of-digital-reconstruction-filters/ ), as I had searched for the same concern for a while before even starting this topic. I suppose I must have included some search terms that excluded that specific site.
That thread seems to lack any credible information about actual listening tests that any of the participants actually did. The following passage tells why:
example of www.computeraudiophile.com "objectivity" ;-( (https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/19347-audibility-of-digital-reconstruction-filters/?do=findComment&comment=306902)
"You 're at CA, not HA (hydrogenaudio), and are talkin' Greek to THIS crowd. So go to that place for your query ... and don't come back "
David Carlstrom already responded to my e-mail and also confirmed that actual music was used for this test, so mission accomplished! I caught a big fish, ajinfla!
Carlstrom also changed the content of the website a bit to show that music was used for this test, and he added what microphones were used, etc.
If anybody comes across any other tests at some point, they're welcome to add them, but otherwise we can consider the query solved.
As for the Computer Audiophile website, Arny, to me the first post seemed good and just what I was after in my original request. The reference to HA I saw as a joke, meaning they felt the topic was too technical. But maybe you were joking as well.
By the way, Arny, do you recall more or less what year the analogue tape vs. A/D/A test was?
I ask, as early converters are slammed by many, even people like Lipshitz and Vanderkooy, but lately I have started to think mastering has been a much bigger factor in why certain CDs from the 80s sound poor.
Again, thanks to everybody who added valuable info, and especially thanks to eric.w for posting the link that solved it all :-).
By the way, Arny, do you recall more or less what year the analogue tape vs. A/D/A test was?
Good question. I can't remember the year, but I'm thinking it was this millenium.
You could find out by looking at the web site ib various dates using the Wayback Machine. I do remember that Carlstrom posted his results shortly after he did the work.
I ask, as early converters are slammed by many, even people like Lipshitz and Vanderkooy,
What do you mean by
early? The delay line tests on Carlstrom's web site proved sonic transparency before the days of the CD - This link says 1973: Ampex Delay Line Mention (http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/when-was-the-digital-delay-in-record-cutting-first-introduced.266485/#post-7071640)
lately I have started to think mastering has been a much bigger factor in why certain CDs from the 80s sound poor.
That has been my understanding all along because of my favorable experiences with the equipment of the day in the day.
For example, consider the sound quality of the early Telarc releases which are still considered to be good by many, and those were done with early, pre-CD converters.
I caught a big fish, ajinfla!
Plenty more in the sea for your next "curiosity" expedition
Arny, "early" is of course not very precise, but personally I was thinking throughout the 80s. That's of course just an assumption. For various reasons I now believe mastering was more to blame when CDs sounded bad.
Although he also just says "in the early days", which could be the 1970s or the 1980s, the Lipshitz video is this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tjm2PBfivo
He does, however, mention "mid 80s" about using dithering.
A video with John Vanderkooy will probably also appear in the sidebar, where he expresses similar opinions about early converters not being very good (but again just "early").
Although this is more subjective, mastering engineer Bob Ludwig, who's also pro-digital, said that the early albums he mastered didn't sound great on CD, as early converters had an "industrial" sound. But I understand that this is mainly an anecdote.
In any case, this is not very important. We've now seen a good test that showed the transparancy of digital to back up what we already "knew" (assumed). Whatever the year, the test proved a point. I'm just not a fan of 80s CDs, and I had mostly believed mastering was to blame, but also partly the technology (converters). The only CD from the 80s I have truly liked the sound of, so far, is Michael Hedges "Aerial Boundaries", which doesn't sound harsh in any way. But then, I'm not a fan of 80s music at all, so I have only listened to around 30-40 80s CDs, but they almost all had that sound I didn't like. But again, that's probably more due to mastering than to conversion.
I now believe mastering was more to blame when CDs sounded bad.
A video with John Vanderkooy will probably also appear in the sidebar, where he expresses similar opinions about early converters not being very good (but again just "early").
Although this is more subjective, mastering engineer Bob Ludwig, who's also pro-digital, said that the early albums he mastered didn't sound great on CD, as early converters had an "industrial" sound. But I understand that this is mainly an anecdote.
And a way to navigate the boat around TOS...3rd party authority claims about "sounded bad". Wait, isn't that you in the first line?
Look Bob, that's still no justification for MQA, ok?
Arny, David Carlstrom responded to my e-mail, as I had asked him about the date of the test as well. He said March 1980! So maybe you and him are thinking about two different tests...?
In any case, as I said before, this is not very important, so don't wreck your brain over what test and what year.
As I also mentioned, I have moved more and more towards thinking that mastering must have been the culprit when I haven't liked 80s CDs, and Carlstrom's test just goes to show this, as it was a very early test, and other tests have done the same: A Steely Dan anecdote (yes, only an anecdote) about an A/B/C test between analogue and digital recordings and the band themselves playing along (1980s), the Lipshitz/Tiefenbrun example that eric.w linked to (1984), and probably others from the same era as well that I can't think of at the top of my head.