Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: [TOS #5] From: LPs that actually do sound better? (Read 11849 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[TOS #5] From: LPs that actually do sound better?

Reply #25 –
And this response somehow justifies your evasive attitude towards to the questions posed to you?

Did you miss the part in TOS #5 about "they must continue in the vein of discussion that the thread has already manifested"???
Since you're looking over our rules, I urge you familiarize yourself with #7.

Regarding the part about unfair/uneven moderation, my criticism of you in one of your credibility and standing on this forum.  A key difference between you and others you've mentioned is that only a small portion (if any) of their posts are spent in escalating flame wars.

If you wish to help turn your reputation around, why not in a good faith effort provide us with samples?

[TOS #5] From: LPs that actually do sound better?

Reply #26 –
Here is one reason LP vs CD preference tests are onerous:

An LP can sound different from a CD due to its mastering, or due to artifacts of the format (euphonic and not), or a combination of both -- those are real sonic differences.  Reported preference can also be heavily influenced by listener bias.  At a minimum the latter has to be guarded against.  That means removing cues that would tell the listener it's an LP -- again at a minimum this means the sample should be free of audible  tics, pops, warping -- i.e., obvious 'noneuphonic' giveaways.  That is, theoretically at least, possible to do.  But there's still the possibility of audible euphonic distortion associated with LP.  How do you prevent 'pro'- (or  'anti' for that matter)-LP listener bias from affecting the preference report,  if there are cues present that say to the subject, 'this one is the LP'? 

This is perhaps not an issue with 'naive' subjects, who might not be expected to have formed a bias one way or another, or who could not identify LPs by sound. 

But for a subject who has been a vigorous participant in the highly emotional 'LP vs CD' debates as Scott and Arny have for decades on various fora, I would think preliminarily, a blind test set up along the lines of  'for each trial, one of these samples is LP and one is CD. Try to identify which is which' would be of interest, if not an absolute requirement.

This would indicate listeners who could tell the format by sound alone.  If there is any reason to suspect what I'll call 'format bias' in such subjects, it would be very hard to control for it, in a blind preference test supposedly of  *sound*.  A statistical preference pro- or anti-LP in the results would be especially problematic...is it measuring preference for sound , or emotional attachment/aversion to the technology?  And if it's really a preference for the *sound*, is it due to the mastering, the euphonic distortion, or both?

[TOS #5] From: LPs that actually do sound better?

Reply #27 –
Quote from: greynol on
And this response somehow justifies your evasive attitude towards to the questions posed to you?


What questions did I evade? Unlike others, I have answered every question asked of me. If I missed a pressing question please feel free to point it out. OTOH what of the questions that I have asked that have been evaded? The big one, the dead moose in the room so to speak is how does one level match different masterings of the same piece of music when there are substantial differences in the EQ, dynamic range and noise floor? Further more how does one set levels for the best comparison done for the sake of choosing a preference? So far the only thing close to an answer has been "Matching RMS energy is a good start" When I asked "based on what?" the answer given was "I can't really do much more if you can't read." So I'm the bad guy here? If my methodologies are criticized as follows "To not get skewed results you need at least a match better than 0.1 dB between both sources." "And without those measures - it doesn't matter how thoroughly and insightful those sessions have been for you - the results are worthless here."
Then my question, how does one level match, in this case to within 0.1 dB different masterings that have substantially different EQ, dynamics and noise floor is a fair question is it not? But the question remains largely unanswered on how to properly level match different masterings that have substantially different EQ, dynamics and noise floor. And yet the demand for such level matching remains unchallenged by anyone but me. I think it is only fair to get an answer on How to do such level matching if the demand is sustained by the moderation for level matching. It would be unreasonable to demand level matching and then fail to say what constitutes level matching in the case of different masterings that have substantial differences in EQ, dynamics and noise. But that is where we stand and by pointing that out my reputation is in jepordy and I am escalating flame wars?

Quote from: greynol on
Did you miss the part in TOS #5 about "they must continue in the vein of discussion that the thread has already manifested"???


No I didn't. It did veer early (not right away) with a nice big fat thread crap. I didn't interpret "they must continue in the vein of the discussion that has already manifested" as meaning that if you thread crap early enough you can hijack a thread.


Quote from: greynol on
Since you're looking over our rules, I urge you familiarize yourself with #7.


Yes I have read it. "7. All members must acknowledge the authority of the staff insofar as administrative actions are concerned. These issues are no longer open for discussion once the staff member has indicated that the matter is closed. Further concerns regarding an action should be communicated via a private message to the staff member, and not repeatedly discussed publicly. Furthermore, once a thread on a particular topic has been closed or removed and indicated as being unacceptable by a staff member, starting a new discussion on the exact same topic will result in administrative action being taken against the poster."

What "action" have you taken that I have not "acknowledged" that I need to acknowledge? What matter have you deemed closed? Maybe I am breaking some rule here without knowing it....



Quote from: greynol on
Regarding the part about unfair/uneven moderation, my criticism of you in one of your credibility and standing on this forum.  A key difference between you and others you've mentioned is that only a small portion (if any) of their posts are spent in escalating flame wars.


I don't follow. Does this mean that the rules change for each individual based on your perception of their reputation? Your criticism specifically stated "Your expressed preference of the mastering of Yes - Fragile does not pass the required criteria to be posted on this forum. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from continuing posting about your subjective experiences."
And I simply pointed out that this has been done by others and gave you several examples on this thread that have gone uncriticized by youy or any other moderator. You followed that with "I was right in putting quotes around the word blind earlier. Your tests are not blind, you have no business calling them blind; doing so undermines what little credibility you actually have here." To which I replied with a factual correction of your assertion that my tests were not blind with an overview of the meaning of "blind" as it pertains to audio, listening comparisons and science. Is it a violation of any TOS to correct a moderator when they make an assertion about audio or science or bias controls that is factually incorrect?

As for escalating flame wars...I did not start in with the ad hominem in this thread. Yeah I called people out on it and maybe I didn't always respond by turning the other cheek but..... maybe if others don't start in with the ad hominem there would be nothing to escalate. Why do others get a free ride on this? I mean really, I ask someone what their assertion is based on and they respond by saying I can't read and I'm to blame for the flames?

I really would like to know if, as forum policy, the interpretation and enforcement of the rules varies based on the moderators' personal percpetions of the "reputation" of the individuals posting on these forums. That is an honest question. Right now it looks to me like this is what is at least being directly infered by you. I'm not questioning your authority here just inquiring about how the TOS are interpretated and enforced.


Quote from: greynol on
If you wish to help turn your reputation around, why not in a good faith effort provide us with samples?



I'm not really worried about my "reputation" with just a few people on one forum. I would have been happy to provide the forum with some samples but there is a hitch. I don't have any rips from the various Fragile masterings and my system is in storage awaiting the sale of my current home and the purchase of my next home. I hope you understand that there is no bad faith here in my failure to provide samples.

[TOS #5] From: LPs that actually do sound better?

Reply #28 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Here is one reason LP vs CD preference tests are onerous:

An LP can sound different from a CD due to its mastering, or due to artifacts of the format (euphonic and not), or a combination of both -- those are real sonic differences.  Reported preference can also be heavily influenced by listener bias.  At a minimum the latter has to be guarded against.  That means removing cues that would tell the listener it's an LP -- again at a minimum this means the sample should be free of audible  tics, pops, warping -- i.e., obvious 'noneuphonic' giveaways.  That is, theoretically at least, possible to do.  But there's still the possibility of audible euphonic distortion associated with LP.  How do you prevent 'pro'- (or  'anti' for that matter)-LP listener bias from affecting the preference report,  if there are cues present that say to the subject, 'this one is the LP'? 

This is perhaps not an issue with 'naive' subjects, who might not be expected to have formed a bias one way or another, or who could not identify LPs by sound. 

But for a subject who has been a vigorous participant in the highly emotional 'LP vs CD' debates as Scott and Arny have for decades on various fora, I would think preliminarily, a blind test set up along the lines of  'for each trial, one of these samples is LP and one is CD. Try to identify which is which' would be of interest, if not an absolute requirement.

This would indicate listeners who could tell the format by sound alone.  If there is any reason to suspect what I'll call 'format bias' in such subjects, it would be very hard to control for it, in a blind preference test supposedly of  *sound*.  A statistical preference pro- or anti-LP in the results would be especially problematic...is it measuring preference for sound , or emotional attachment/aversion to the technology?  And if it's really a preference for the *sound*, is it due to the mastering, the euphonic distortion, or both?



You point out a very legitimate issue in any comparison of one LP to one CD. But there were four of each in the case of Fragile. And just to be clear, I could ID two of the LPs as vinyl in couple instances because of some pops and ticks and surface noise. But I couldn't ID *which* specific LPs had given themselves away and neither of those LPs were the AP version which was chosen by both listeners as the favored version. Frankly the MoFi actually sounded a bit noisier than the AP. Go figure.

OTOH in a three way sighted comparison between a U.S. Sterling mastering of Supertramp, Crime of the Century, the Speaker's Corner reissue and a MoFi CD I prefered the MoFi over both highly praised LP versions. Sooo was that a pro CD bias at work? Is that preference meaningless due to my biases and my failure to control for them in that comparison? Am I in trouble for talking about it? sad thing is the danged MoFi was borrowed! I own the two LPs.

[TOS #5] From: LPs that actually do sound better?

Reply #29 –
Quote from: analog scott on
What "action" have you taken that I have not "acknowledged" that I need to acknowledge? What matter have you deemed closed? Maybe I am breaking some rule here without knowing it....

The gist of it is that the discussion of moderation decisions are supposed to be handled privately.  I hold myself to blame for engaging you publicly and should have taken the higher road.

Quote from: analog scott on
I don't follow. Does this mean that the rules change for each individual based on your perception of their reputation?

No, it's that the majority of your posts (if not all of them) have to do with subjective audiophilia, skirting TOS 8 whereas other members have demonstrated respect for the rule.

Quote from: analog scott on
Is it a violation of any TOS to correct a moderator when they make an assertion about audio or science or bias controls that is factually incorrect?

Let's just say that I do not believe you've actually performed unbiased testing to the best of your ability.

Quote from: analog scott on
I hope you understand that there is no bad faith here in my failure to provide samples.

Perhaps you will in the future.  I certainly hope you will.  You talk big talk, AS; I'd like to see you back it up sometime.

[TOS #5] From: LPs that actually do sound better?

Reply #30 –
Quote from: greynol on
The gist of it is that the discussion of moderation decisions are supposed to be handled privately.  I hold myself to blame for engaging you publicly and should have taken the higher road.


OK fair enough.  I took your cirticisms as opinions that were open for discussion as opposed to being an "action" so to speak. I will try to be more discerning in the future

Quote from: greynol on
it's that the majority of your posts (if not all of them) have to do with subjective audiophilia, skirting TOS 8 whereas other members have demonstrated respect for the rule.


I guess I'm just not totally clear on the rule. It seems to me a thread titled "LPs that really do sound better" kinda begs for subjectivity.  My understanding was that TOS #8 was aimed at certain things which are often debated as to whether or not they actually sound different or not. Since it was my understanding that no such debate exists when it comes to mastering differences being audible I did not see a problem. It would seem that on this thread several others failed to see a problem as well.


Quote from: greynol on
Let's just say that I do not believe you've actually performed unbiased testing to the best of your ability.


OK.... Heck that is a kind of compliment really. You at least think I have the "ability" to do better. Maybe we can have a constructive informative exchange here. How would you do them differently than how I did them?



Quote from: greynol on
You talk big talk, AS; I'd like to see you back it up sometime.



I thought I did back it up in my exchange with Arny in regards to suspension systems. It's going to be a while before I have my system up and running. Such is life these days. I spend more time out of the country than in it due to work. I am more than happy to pick up any tips on how to do better comparisons of various masterings.

[TOS #5] From: LPs that actually do sound better?

Reply #31 –
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: googlebot on
Matching RMS energy is a good start and probably already better than subjective matching.



Based on what?


Two things that you repeatedly demonstrate absolute ignorance of and disrespect for Scott:

1. Science

2. Practical experience of the well-experienced practitioners of audio.

One of the ironies of life is that I just bought a Sansa Clip, which includes a facility for removing some of the effects of mastering. The Clip is a technically excellent digital music player that can be had for about $30 and is a little bigger than a couple of matchbooks or a couple of packages of gum. With the right transducers it is probably more sonically accurate than your best audio system. I'm going campling in the back woods!

Quote
The reasons for careful level matching for ABX is well documented and quite simple, the purpose of ABX is to detect actual audible differences and eliminate bias effects in the perception of audible differences.


There is a major problem with that principle when you are comparing different remasterings of recordings. In that context level matching can *never* be  exact. When you are comparing typical audio gear or lossy encoders, exact level matching is possible. When you are comparing different mastering jobs, exact level matching is not always possible. In fact it is likely to be impossible The reason is simple - much mastering involves intential dynamics modification and spectral rebalancing.

Quote
Level differences can give us a false positive.


When processing such as is done with mastering is done, positive results for differences in ABX tests should always be expected. If there aren't positive results in ABX comparisons of two mastering jobs, its an indication that something is awry or at least very strange. It would show that the mastering that was done was trivial - all someone did it change the levels. Most mastering involves non-trivial changes.

Quote
What is the purpose of matching RMS energy?


Simulate part of the natural process of hearing. One of the strong determiners of the perception of loudness is RMS energy. Parts of the ear respond to it. Also, just about everybody who tries to match subjective levels finds that matching RMS levels is a good first cut on the problem, if they know enough to try it.  You might want to read up on the technology behind *Replaygain*.

Quote
What scientific literature supports it?


Oh, Zwicker and Fastl and just about every other piece of scientific literature from the past 20 years that is relevant.

Scott I've referenced some relevant literature that covers this very topic in front of you or to you many times in the past decade. Obviously, you disrespect me so much you never ever even cracked the covers of any of it. IME for you the question "What scientific literature supports it" is just a debating trade trick that you may have even learned from me over on RAO or RAHE. One difference between me and you Scott is that I did read the references I cited. Unlike you Scott, I am actually pretty serious about audio.

[TOS #5] From: LPs that actually do sound better?

Reply #32 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Two things that you repeatedly demonstrate absolute ignorance of and disrespect for Scott:

1. Science

2. Practical experience of the well-experienced practitioners of audio.


Bullshit.

Oh and still waiting for your analysis of the attenuation of any passive suspension circa 1983 or older v. the active suspensions cited, sir Issac er um I mean Arny. While you are at it you could tell us about your "practical experience" in mastering. You say I ignore and disrespect such things. So what commercial titles have you mastered that I have overlooked? Arny, it would appear that you are having trouble distinguishing the difference between actual "well experienced practitioners of audio," particularly in the world of mastering with neophytes. I very much respect and learn about the work of actual "well experienced" mastering engineers, often times through direct contact. Ironically you have regularly shown gross disrespect for those same "well experienced practitioners" and have demonstrated gross ignorance of their work and mastering in general.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
One of the ironies of life is that I just bought a Sansa Clip, which includes a facility for removing some of the effects of mastering. The Clip is a technically excellent digital music player that can be had for about $30 and is a little bigger than a couple of matchbooks or a couple of packages of gum. With the right transducers it is probably more sonically accurate than your best audio system. I'm going campling in the back woods!


"removes the effects of mastering?" Really? What effects of mastering would it remove? Why would you want to do that anyway?

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
There is a major problem with that principle when you are comparing different remasterings of recordings. In that context level matching can *never* be  exact. When you are comparing typical audio gear or lossy encoders, exact level matching is possible. When you are comparing different mastering jobs, exact level matching is not always possible. In fact it is likely to be impossible The reason is simple - much mastering involves intential dynamics modification and spectral rebalancing.



Really? No kidding! Gosh thanks for telling me what I have been telling everyone else in this thread who are insisting on level matching for comparisons of different masterings. Um, you might want to inform the folks who don't already know this Arny. I've tried. The response I get is that I am anti-bias controls.



Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
When processing such as is done with mastering is done, positive results for differences in ABX tests should always be expected.



Really? Thanks again for telling me something I already knew and already basically said in this thread. 

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
"What is the purpose of matching RMS energy?"

Simulate part of the natural process of hearing.


We are talking about comparing different mastering here. There is nothing to "simulate."

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
One of the strong determiners of the perception of loudness is RMS energy. Parts of the ear respond to it. Also, just about everybody who tries to match subjective levels finds that matching RMS levels is a good first cut on the problem, if they know enough to try it.  You might want to read up on the technology behind *Replaygain*.



But it still doesn't work. As you have pointed out and as I have pointed out. You can't really level match when there are differences in EQ, dynamics and noise.  The question is why would you want to "match subjective levels" when comparing differnt masterings? Why would you assume that the mastering engineers had the same levels in mind when mastering? Why would you not want to optimize each version? This is a serious and important question so I hope you actually think about it rather than giving some snarky bullshit answer. The point of comparing different masterings *IS ONLY* to find the prefered version. The prefered version will (at least in my case) be listened to at a level that sounds best to the listener. *If* those levels are different for different masterings then why would you not just listen to both at their optimum levels? Again, the point is to find which one sounds better to the listener.


Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
"What scientific literature supports it?"

Oh, Zwicker and Fastl and just about every other piece of scientific literature from the past 20 years that is relevant.


How does it support RMS matching when comparing different masterings with substantial differences in EQ, dynamic range and noise levels? Please cite a passage that discusses how one *should* compare things in audio that have disticntly different dynamic ranges, EQ and noise levels for the sole purpose of picking a preference? Sorry but just naming a 400+ page book hardly is a meaningful answer.


Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Scott I've referenced some relevant literature that covers this very topic in front of you or to you many times in the past decade. Obviously, you disrespect me so much you never ever even cracked the covers of any of it. IME for you the question "What scientific literature supports it" is just a debating trade trick that you may have even learned from me over on RAO or RAHE. One difference between me and you Scott is that I did read the references I cited. Unlike you Scott, I am actually pretty serious about audio.



Yeah Arny you have referenced a lot of things that did not support your positions in the past. Given that, I would like to see some quotes that shows your references are even relevant much less supportive of your assertions. Naming books and papers doesn't mean anything in and of itself.

[TOS #5] From: LPs that actually do sound better?

Reply #33 –
Do we want to talk about audio technology related topics here or is this also a place to live out and treat mental disorders?

When looking at the thread's progression I do consider this question to be in full spirit of TOS #5.

Seriously, this may hit as but is not meant as an insult. I'm really asking this myself. The answer seems easy. But it also implies the question of enforcement, and that isn't. Personally I would vote for less tolerance. That would probably imply me having to adjust some of my own bad habits, but I could live with that for not seeing threads being drowned in shit like this.

[TOS #5] From: LPs that actually do sound better?

Reply #34 –
This thread sucks.

Nobody wants to read a stupid 'Scott vs Arnold' debate.

[TOS #5] From: LPs that actually do sound better?

Reply #35 –
Quote from: googlebot on
Do we want to talk about audio technology related topics here or is this also a place to live out and treat mental disorders?



    So is this supposed to be of some help? I mean really? Mental disorders? The thread, among other things, is supposed to be about "LPs that really do sound better" and we were discussing how to set levels for comparisons. Not sure how a disagreement over audio related topics that are in line with the thread amount to mental disorders. Why not just discuss the topic? Does our disagreement over the best way to set levels for preference comparisons of substantially different sounding masterings really have to lead to you saying I can't read and have a mental disorder?

[TOS #5] From: LPs that actually do sound better?

Reply #36 –
Quote from: Batman321 on
This thread sucks.

Nobody wants to read a stupid 'Scott vs Arnold' debate.



I am geniunely sorry about that. I can't really help about Arny's insistance of mixing a personal vendetta with the topic being discussed. I would avoid his posts altogether were it not for points on audio that I think are worth addressing.


Lost in all this is something worth thinking about (IMO) which is choosing levels for a comparison between substantially different samples that can't really be level matched. Apparently my methodology is one that some here feel is problematic. But I think it is perfectly logical. If you have two different masterings that are inarguably substantially different how do you go about comparing them? How do you choose a level? IMO any given recording/mastering has an ideal level on any given playback system. A level at which it sounds it's very best. *If* two different versions of the same title have different ideal levels is it better to handicap one or the other or both in order to do a sort of "sloppy" level match (since you really can't level match) or is it better to live with a mismatch and not handicap either sample?
 

[TOS #5] From: LPs that actually do sound better?

Reply #38 –
Quote from: Batman321 on
Nobody wants to read a stupid 'Scott vs Arnold' debate.

...or an off-topic debate with a moderator who has gotten pretty frustrated with off-topic debates.

I apologize for my part in dragging this thread down.  When I get time I'll try to clean it up.  In the meantime I'm open to recommendations delivered by PM.

The fact of the matter is that there are situations where it is not unreasonable to assume things do indeed sound different, in which case preferences will be subjective.  We already deal with this in discussions about speakers and headphones.  I'm on the fence as to whether this forum benefits from them.  Any decision as to whether they are allowed, disallowed, or merely tolerated is simply not up to me.