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 11758 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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

Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Name a generally recognized and implemented advance to vinyl production/playback technology that came after 1982. I know of none.


Active suspension systems.

Name a record that IYO sounds better than any of it's CD counterparts.
I'll start the list with one entry and we can go from there.
1. Yes, Fragile. Released by Analog Productions. In blind comparisons it beat out every CD version I own including the latest Mofi CD.

your turn....



Truly blind comparison of TT to CDP is rather onerous to set up.  How'd you do it?



This was a comparison between different issues of Yes Fragile on CD and LP (multiple of each). That is not so difficult to do blind. We listened to each version to optimize levels and then took turns comparing blind.


The statement that doing this is "not so difficult" makes me suspect the claim rather highly. I've been there and done that and there are a number of issues to handle, some of which are truely difficult. Perhaps Scott will help validate his claim by mentioning what the issues are, and how they were dealt with.

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

Reply #1 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Name a generally recognized and implemented advance to vinyl production/playback technology that came after 1982. I know of none.


Active suspension systems.

Name a record that IYO sounds better than any of it's CD counterparts.
I'll start the list with one entry and we can go from there.
1. Yes, Fragile. Released by Analog Productions. In blind comparisons it beat out every CD version I own including the latest Mofi CD.

your turn....



Truly blind comparison of TT to CDP is rather onerous to set up.  How'd you do it?



This was a comparison between different issues of Yes Fragile on CD and LP (multiple of each). That is not so difficult to do blind. We listened to each version to optimize levels and then took turns comparing blind.


The statement that doing this is "not so difficult" makes me suspect the claim rather highly. I've been there and done that and there are a number of issues to handle, some of which are truely difficult. Perhaps Scott will help validate his claim by mentioning what the issues are, and how they were dealt with.



Not really interested in your quiz Arny. If you feel there are particular difficulties in comparing various masterings of a given title for preference under blind conditions that I may have missed feel free to cite them and we can talk about it.

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

Reply #2 –
He feels you may have missed? 

I don't think I've ever seen you post a single detail about any of these "blind" experiments on our forum.

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

Reply #3 –
Quote from: greynol on
He feels you may have missed? 

I don't think I've ever seen you post a single detail about any of these "blind" experiments on our forum.


A lot of the details are long forgotten. I do a lot of comparisons between various masterings. Some I do sighted when I don't have my one interested friend available to help and others I do blind when I do have his help. We generally compare an entire track at a time A v. B or a segment of a track if it is longer than a couple minutes. We first level optimize each A and B seperately then compare each one at a time going back and forth until the listener is satisfied with his preference. For the Fragile shoot out we were using 4 CDs and 4 LPs. It wasn't the marathon that we expected since the AP was so clearly superior. We picked two titles at random for the other person to listen to and the winner would stay and the next version would challenge it. In both cases once the AP came up the comparisons went very quickly. It still took a while since we used 4 different tracks. The winner was quite definitive though. The results were not revealed until the end. We could have very easily had different clear favorites. What other details would you like?

P.S. they are not "experiments." They are merely comparisons for preference.

P.P.S. Arny took issue with my claim that such comparisons are "not so difficult." so regardless of my lack of details Arny can certainly fill us in on the "difficulties" of doing blind comparisons of different masterings. I am certainly not opposed to improving my methodologies.

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

Reply #4 –
Specify "volume optimize".

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

Reply #5 –
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: greynol on
He feels you may have missed? 

I don't think I've ever seen you post a single detail about any of these "blind" experiments on our forum.


A lot of the details are long forgotten. I do a lot of comparisons between various masterings. Some I do sighted when I don't have my one interested friend available to help and others I do blind when I do have his help. We generally compare an entire track at a time A v. B or a segment of a track if it is longer than a couple minutes. We first level optimize each A and B seperately then compare each one at a time going back and forth until the listener is satisfied with his preference. For the Fragile shoot out we were using 4 CDs and 4 LPs. It wasn't the marathon that we expected since the AP was so clearly superior. We picked two titles at random for the other person to listen to and the winner would stay and the next version would challenge it. In both cases once the AP came up the comparisons went very quickly. It still took a while since we used 4 different tracks. The winner was quite definitive though. The results were not revealed until the end. We could have very easily had different clear favorites. What other details would you like?

P.S. they are not "experiments." They are merely comparisons for preference.

P.P.S. Arny took issue with my claim that such comparisons are "not so difficult." so regardless of my lack of details Arny can certainly fill us in on the "difficulties" of doing blind comparisons of different masterings. I am certainly not opposed to improving my methodologies.


The last time I did any ABXing realated to directly working with LPs was over 20 years ago, and it was stressful to do right that I think I can remember all the details of it do this day.  Similar pitfalls apply to direct comparisons of CD players. So anybody who says they did comparisons and it was easy and forgot the details of the expereince is automatically suspect for me.

Part of avoiding pitfalls in an experiment is being able to see them. When someone tells me that it was so easy that they've forgotten all of the details, I strongly suspect that they were blind to the clear pitfalls and simply fell into them and didn't even notice it. 

BTW there are invariably unbelieable conclusions that seem to be the results of these *easy* tests.

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

Reply #6 –
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Name a generally recognized and implemented advance to vinyl production/playback technology that came after 1982. I know of none.


Active suspension systems.


Fails on the grounds of not being a generally recognized and implemented advance to vinyl production/playback technology. How many implementations and where's the objective proof that they audibly improved sound quality.


"Generally recognized?" Since when have you been the arbitrator of this?


Common sense is the arbitrator of this. If the purported advantages of active turntable suspension actually existed, they would be all over the place.

Quote
Sorry Arny but I don't recognize your authority on what is and is not "generally recognized."


Nothing new there Scott. You don't seem to recognize Isaac Newton's authority in the relevant realms of engineering and physics either. So, I don't take your disrespect personally. ;-)

Quote
If you do a little research you will find the objective proof that active suspensions such as the one used on the Rockport Sirius III do in fact do a better job of isolation from structural bourne vibrations than any of the passive systems used on rigs prior to 1983. So unless you are going to dispute the effects of structural bourne vibrations on vinyl playback.....


I read all of the  purported resarch you posted Scott and see no relaible evidence at all that active suspensions provide any audible advantages at all. I even found a few obvious false claims among them. You missed them, right?

This stuff might impress you Scott, but since you have provided zero professional credentials in engineering, and make no claims about OJT or self-study, your fascination with what most smart second year engineering students know even better is understandable.  Its old news tha doesn't really support your apparent hypothesis.


To this day virtualy all vibration management is accomplished by passive means. There are a few active systems around, but they exist to solve specific problems.  The beauty of an active suspension is that it can be easily adapted to changing workloads. For example, a classic application of active suspensions on automobiles is to allow the alteration of the vehicle's dynamics for agressive driving as opposed to casual driving.

Thing is, there is no corresponding applicaiton for playing LPs.  Virtually evey turntable platter is so massive that differences in the weight of LPs is moot. They all rotate at the same 33 1/3 rpm so the optimum dynamics are always the same.

In fact most turntable suspensions are very poorly and casually designed. Anybody with a bicycle tube and a patio slab can usually obtain vastly improved vibration isolation for his turntable.

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

Reply #8 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Name a generally recognized and implemented advance to vinyl production/playback technology that came after 1982. I know of none.


Active suspension systems.


Fails on the grounds of not being a generally recognized and implemented advance to vinyl production/playback technology. How many implementations and where's the objective proof that they audibly improved sound quality.


"Generally recognized?" Since when have you been the arbitrator of this?


Common sense is the arbitrator of this. If the purported advantages of active turntable suspension actually existed, they would be all over the place.

Quote
Sorry Arny but I don't recognize your authority on what is and is not "generally recognized."


Nothing new there Scott. You don't seem to recognize Isaac Newton's authority in the relevant realms of engineering and physics either. So, I don't take your disrespect personally. ;-)

Quote
If you do a little research you will find the objective proof that active suspensions such as the one used on the Rockport Sirius III do in fact do a better job of isolation from structural bourne vibrations than any of the passive systems used on rigs prior to 1983. So unless you are going to dispute the effects of structural bourne vibrations on vinyl playback.....


I read all of the  purported resarch you posted Scott and see no relaible evidence at all that active suspensions provide any audible advantages at all. I even found a few obvious false claims among them. You missed them, right?

This stuff might impress you Scott, but since you have provided zero professional credentials in engineering, and make no claims about OJT or self-study, your fascination with what most smart second year engineering students know even better is understandable.  Its old news tha doesn't really support your apparent hypothesis.


To this day virtualy all vibration management is accomplished by passive means. There are a few active systems around, but they exist to solve specific problems.  The beauty of an active suspension is that it can be easily adapted to changing workloads. For example, a classic application of active suspensions on automobiles is to allow the alteration of the vehicle's dynamics for agressive driving as opposed to casual driving.

Thing is, there is no corresponding applicaiton for playing LPs.  Virtually evey turntable platter is so massive that differences in the weight of LPs is moot. They all rotate at the same 33 1/3 rpm so the optimum dynamics are always the same.

In fact most turntable suspensions are very poorly and casually designed. Anybody with a bicycle tube and a patio slab can usually obtain vastly improved vibration isolation for his turntable.


1. Your arguement that "If the purported advantages of active turntable suspension actually existed, they would be all over the place." fails to consider the cost factor. One could make the same argument that Kobe beef would be in every McDonalds if it really offered any advantages if one were to make the same mistake and ignore the costs.

2. Your argument that I  "don't seem to recognize Isaac Newton's authority in the relevant realms of engineering and physics either. So, I don't take your disrespect personally. " fails miserably due to complete lack of any support. It is funny that you would equate yourself to Newton. What is even funnier is that I am the one who presented Newtonian physics to support my argument along with actual data on active suspensions and passive ones. You just posture and offer ad hominem. c'mon Arny give us an actual argument here that is based in physics and supported by data.

3. Your argument that you "read all of the purported resarch posted  and see no relaible evidence at all that active suspensions provide any audible advantages at all. I even found a few obvious false claims among them. You missed them, right?" fails quite miserably due to the logical fallacy of argument by authority. You are using yourself as a reference for physics. Sorry that doesn't work. You need to actually demonstrate that you read the material and understand it by dealing witrh the actual content. Show us the math that demonstrates my arguments are incorrect or data. Use meaningful references, real data and actual math to argue. Hint, because you say so isn't a meaningful reference, actual dat or real math.

4. Your argument that "This stuff might impress you Scott, but since you have provided zero professional credentials in engineering, and make no claims about OJT or self-study, your fascination with what most smart second year engineering students know even better is understandable. Its old news tha doesn't really support your apparent hypothesis."
Is just another silly logical fallacy Arny. The fact is the data does support my assertion. My not having an engineering degree does not affect that. Neither does your lack of a degree in civil or mechanical engineering affect that.  Looks to me that you simply don't understand the data presented to you or you are just being argumentative. But hey, if I'm so dumb and you're so smart do tell us what would be the attenuation of the best suspension system on any Turntable cira 1982 or early and compare it to the figures presented for the active suspension systems. That is the jist of this argument. I have presented the meaningful data needed to do the comparison. I see an obvious difference in performance between the suspension system of say teh SOTA Star (which for all we know was better than anything available prior to 1983) and the suspension systems used on the Rockport Sirius II and III. If you think there is an error then simply show us the data and corisponding mathimatical analysis that supports your beliefs.

5. Your arguments that "To this day virtualy all vibration management is accomplished by passive means. There are a few active systems around, but they exist to solve specific problems. The beauty of an active suspension is that it can be easily adapted to changing workloads. For example, a classic application of active suspensions on automobiles is to allow the alteration of the vehicle's dynamics for agressive driving as opposed to casual driving' fails due to a lack of relevance.


P.S. Another LP I would add to the list would be Jimi Hendrix, Band of Gypsies on Classic.

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

Reply #9 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: analog scott on
Quote from: greynol on
He feels you may have missed? 

I don't think I've ever seen you post a single detail about any of these "blind" experiments on our forum.


A lot of the details are long forgotten. I do a lot of comparisons between various masterings. Some I do sighted when I don't have my one interested friend available to help and others I do blind when I do have his help. We generally compare an entire track at a time A v. B or a segment of a track if it is longer than a couple minutes. We first level optimize each A and B seperately then compare each one at a time going back and forth until the listener is satisfied with his preference. For the Fragile shoot out we were using 4 CDs and 4 LPs. It wasn't the marathon that we expected since the AP was so clearly superior. We picked two titles at random for the other person to listen to and the winner would stay and the next version would challenge it. In both cases once the AP came up the comparisons went very quickly. It still took a while since we used 4 different tracks. The winner was quite definitive though. The results were not revealed until the end. We could have very easily had different clear favorites. What other details would you like?

P.S. they are not "experiments." They are merely comparisons for preference.

P.P.S. Arny took issue with my claim that such comparisons are "not so difficult." so regardless of my lack of details Arny can certainly fill us in on the "difficulties" of doing blind comparisons of different masterings. I am certainly not opposed to improving my methodologies.


The last time I did any ABXing realated to directly working with LPs was over 20 years ago, and it was stressful to do right that I think I can remember all the details of it do this day.  Similar pitfalls apply to direct comparisons of CD players. So anybody who says they did comparisons and it was easy and forgot the details of the expereince is automatically suspect for me.

Part of avoiding pitfalls in an experiment is being able to see them. When someone tells me that it was so easy that they've forgotten all of the details, I strongly suspect that they were blind to the clear pitfalls and simply fell into them and didn't even notice it. 

BTW there are invariably unbelieable conclusions that seem to be the results of these *easy* tests.


Since my comparisons between different masterings was neither ABX nor a direct comparison of CDPs it would seem that your attempt to make yet another argument (one that suffers from the logical fallacy of agument from authority to begin with) fails on grounds of irrelevance. That you would fail to see the irrelevance kind of underminds your "authority" when you make your argument from authority. That's funny.

Do tell us what is so "unbelievable" about my conclusions Arny? Have you ever done comparisons between the many different versions of Yes, Fragile? Do you have different results to offer based on what you would consider better methodologies? I would assert that your conclusion that my conclusions are "unbelievable" is based purely on your irrational prejudices agianst me personally.

Another LP to add to the list would be the Hoffman/Gray remaster of Van Morrison, Moondance on Rhino/Warner bros.

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

Reply #10 –
Quote from: analog scott on
We would listen to a selection and find the level at which it sounded best.


Ok, I do not read that as volume matching. To not get skewed results you need at least a match better than 0.1 dB between both sources. For non identical tracks matching by ears is not sufficient. Since you don't even mention all those details, that would have taken quite some time to do properly, it was just natural to suppose that nothing of what's required to get objective results has actually happened.

And without those measures - it doesn't matter how thoroughly and insightful those sessions have been for you - the results are worthless here. You could also have compared four identical shades of blue and found that you like the 4th one over the others by a good margin. The result would have had about the same relevance.

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

Reply #11 –
Quote from: googlebot on
Quote from: analog scott on
We would listen to a selection and find the level at which it sounded best.


Ok, I do not read that as volume matching. To not get skewed results you need at least a match better than 0.1 dB between both sources. For non identical tracks matching by ears is not sufficient. Since you don't even mention all those details, that would have taken quite some time to do properly, it was just natural to suppose that nothing of what's required to get objective results has actually happened.

And without those measures - it doesn't matter how thoroughly and insightful those sessions have been for you - the results are worthless here. You could also have compared four identical shades of blue and found that you like the 4th one over the others by a good margin. The result would have had about the same amount of relevance here.



Please do tell me how one can do such a level match when you have gross differences in EQ, dynamic range and noise floors of various masterings?

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

Reply #12 –
Arny is the specialist to answer that question. By just ignoring the issue results are likely to get skewed towards the loudest piece. One doesn't even have to notice. Usual attributes are "sharper bass", "more detail", etc.

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

Reply #13 –
Quote from: googlebot on
Arny is the specialist to answer that question. By just ignoring the issue results are likely to get skewed towards the loudest piece. One doesn't even have to notice. Usual attributes are "sharper bass", "more detail", etc.


I don't think Arny has much meaningful experience in doing blind preference comparisons of various masterings. The reuslts of a preference comparison are likely to be skewed to the loudest piece *only* when one is comparing otherwise audibly identical samples and the difference in level is so slight as to not be identifiable as a difference in level. When you have gross differences in EQ and dynamic range those differences are far more noticable than the sort of small level mismatches that would cause the effect you are refering to when comparing otherwise audibly identical samples.

I certainly am not ignoring the importance of level in how it affects percieved quality. That is the point of level optimization. When we are talking about significant differences in EQ and dynamics, optimum levels will vary. In any preference comparison it only makes sense to listen to the different samples at their best. For instance is not not pretty obvious that a highly compressed sample will in fact be prefered to a fully dynamic sample if the levels are set so low that the quite parts of the uncompressed sample are inaudible? *This is not ABX* Please don't assume that all the rules are the same for preference comparisons.

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

Reply #14 –
Quote from: analog scott on
That is the point of level optimization. When we are talking about significant differences in EQ and dynamics, optimum levels will vary. In any preference comparison it only makes sense to listen to the different samples at their best. For instance is not not pretty obvious that a highly compressed sample will in fact be prefered to a fully dynamic sample if the levels are set so low that the quite parts of the uncompressed sample are inaudible?


It is no problem to search fo an optimal volume for a pair of tracks. But without proper matching between those tracks the results are still worthless, whether the test is ABX or not. Proper matching isn't peak matching! So a dynamic track will get the boost it needs vs. a compressed track just by following proper procedure. There is no need for subjective mumbo jumbo "optimization". I really don't understand why you oppose proper protocol, if not for pure ignorance. Objective volume matching does not have any disadvantages vs. subjective adjustment, but not vice versa.

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

Reply #15 –
Quote from: googlebot on
Quote from: analog scott on
That is the point of level optimization. When we are talking about significant differences in EQ and dynamics, optimum levels will vary. In any preference comparison it only makes sense to listen to the different samples at their best. For instance is not not pretty obvious that a highly compressed sample will in fact be prefered to a fully dynamic sample if the levels are set so low that the quite parts of the uncompressed sample are inaudible?


It is no problem to search fo an optimal volume for a pair of tracks. But without proper matching between those tracks the results are still worthless, whether the test is ABX or not. Proper matching isn't peak matching! So a dynamic track will get the boost it needs vs. a compressed track just by following proper procedure. There is no need for subjective mumbo jumbo "optimization". I really don't understand why you oppose proper protocol, if not for pure ignorance. Objective volume matching does not have any disadvantages vs. subjective adjustment, but not vice versa.

This is twice that you have refered to "propper" level matching. So I have to ask again how does one level match two different masterings with grossly different EQ, dynamic range and noise floors? You can hardly insist that I do something you can't describe. If "propper matching isn't peak matching" (which I agree wih) then what *is* "propper matching" with two samples that have gross differences in dynamics and EQ? You say I oppose a "propper tool." Do describe in detail this "propper tool" as it applies to masterings that are grossly different in dynamics and EQ.

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

Reply #16 –
Matching RMS energy is a good start and probably already better than subjective matching. This could further be optimized by weighting frequency distribution as a function of equal loudness contour curves. If it is possible to measure the RMS energy of the noise floor alone, e. g. during silent passages, that information could be used for even finer adjustment. But as said, I'm no expert on this. Ask Arny or others, if you have questions.

And please don't extend the argument until we come to apples and oranges. What's are the specific examples and value ranges of your "grossly different" comparisons?

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

Reply #17 –
Quote from: googlebot on
Matching RMS energy is a good start and probably already better than subjective matching.



Based on what? 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. Level differences can give us a false positive. What is the purpose of matching RMS energy? What scientific literature supports it? By the way I never said anything about "subjective matching." I said "level optimization." In ABX levels are or should be set for maximum sensitivity for differences since that is the prupose of the test, to detect differences. The purpose of a preference test is to find what one prefers. Pretty obvious but how does one choose a level to determine what one prefers without first finding the "prefered level?"

Quote from: googlebot on
This could further be optimized by weighting frequency distribution as a function of equal loudness contour curves. If it is possible to measure the RMS energy of the noise floor alone, e. g. during silent passages, that information could be used for even finer adjustment. But as said, I'm no expert on this. Ask Arny or others, if you have questions.


Here is the problem though, you are saying I am doing something wrong but you can't tell me what is right. That is rather useless. Do you ever make comaprisons for the sake of finding your own preferences? Do you match RMS?

Quote from: googlebot on
You may claim that this still isn't suitable for comparing a -30 dB to a -90 dB noise floor track with heavily variable EQ over the whole track. If would tell yo then that I have compared an orange and an apple this morning and I liked the orange better.



Well jeez without propper matching that just isn't valid is it? 
The differences in mastering tend to be pretty gross. The fact is you simply can't "level match" samples when the differences in EQ and dynamics and noise floors are substantial which is quite often the case. So then what? We aren't allowed to have a preference?

I'll ask again if I am doing it wrong, what is the "right' way to set levels for a preference comparison of different masterings? If you can't answer that then how can yo be critical of how I do it?

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

Reply #18 –
Quote from: analog scott on
I'll ask again if I am doing it wrong, what is the "right' way to set levels for a preference comparison of different masterings? If you can't answer that then how can yo be critical of how I do it?


I can't really do much more if you can't read. Sorry!

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

Reply #19 –
Quote from: googlebot on
Quote from: analog scott on
I'll ask again if I am doing it wrong, what is the "right' way to set levels for a preference comparison of different masterings? If you can't answer that then how can yo be critical of how I do it?


I can't really do much more if you can't read. Sorry!


Ah good ole ad hominem. Didn't take long for that to happen. I can read just fine. Your answers have been

"Arny is the specialist to answer that question."

Which suggests you are taking a position out of ignorance

"Proper matching isn't peak matching!"

Which I agreed with but it doesn't answer the question of what *is* proper level matching.

The you offered "Matching RMS energy is a good start and probably already better than subjective matching."

to which I responded by asking how you came to this conclusion and pointed out that I have never made any mention of "subjective matching" which makes that a strawman or an indicator that it is you, not me that is failing to read.

Soooo in lew of answering my questions regarding your assertions you choose to claim I can't read.     


next......

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

Reply #20 –
Quote from: analog scott on
I don't think Arny has much meaningful experience in doing blind preference comparisons of various masterings.

It's clear that you don't either.

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.

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.

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

Reply #21 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: analog scott on
I don't think Arny has much meaningful experience in doing blind preference comparisons of various masterings.

It's clear that you don't either.

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.

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.



This calls for a primer in the meaning of the term "blind" as it applies to testing, audio and science. A "blind" test or comparison can be either single blind, double blind or even triple blind. the purpose of blindness in such tests is to remove bias effects. Each stage is more reliable at removing bias effects than the previous one. Double blind is better than single blind for reasons that have been thoroughly discussed and in fact triple blind is even betetr than double blind. None of them are perfect. But...they do *all* fall into the broad catagory of "blind testing." Since my comparisons were single blind they do fall into the catagory of "blind." To say otherwise would simply be an explicit error in fact.

So in fact I do actually have a lot of experience in doing blind comparisons of different mastering where as Arny has little or none. That they have been single blind does not mean that they have not been blind. The criteria on this forum is that one should present evidence in the form of an ABX or ABC/HR test to demonstrate that one can hear *differences.* Neither ABX nor ABC/HR are used for the purposes of determining preferences. So it seems that this particular issue is a non issue as per TOS #8 and the expression of subjective preferences where audible differences have been either established or not questioned have been allowed quite regularly on this forum without any ABX or ABC/HR tests to show there was an audible difference. That would include such preferences expressed by the OP on this very thread and apparently allowed by the moderators including yourself. Is it your position that the 8 different samples of Fragile that were mastered by different mastering engineers for different producers between 1971 and 2008 on three different continents played back on my vinyl rig and CDP might actually all sound identical except for level mismatches? if not then why would I be singled out in not being allowed to express preferences when it comes to samples that are not being questioned as whether or not they sound the same or different?

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

Reply #22 –
With no way to account for expectation bias and the attitude that you shouldn't have to, your credibility is quickly approaching zero.

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

Reply #23 –
Deleted

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

Reply #24 –
Quote from: greynol on
With no way to account for expectation bias and the attitude that you shouldn't have to, your credibility is quickly approaching zero.


There were 8 different masterings and they were unidentified both in my case in in the case of my friend who helps me do these comparisons. Unless we were both able to identify the actual individual CD or LP by ear how can you make an argument for expectation bias being completely unaccounted for? How on earth did we both pick the same mastering out of 8 , 4 of which were CD and 4 of which were LP unless we were both readily able to ID that title by it's sound? You might make the argument that they were so distinctive in their sonic signatures that *I* was able to ID the AP version and was swayed by a pro AP bias. You certainly can't make that argument for my friend who had never heard the AP version or the MoFi CD prior to doing the blind comparison.

The following posts on this thread by others have expressed preferences with no accounting for their expectation biases.

tonybelding
"So, I dug out some other old LPs. One that particularly pleases me is Blue Oyster Cult's The Revolution By Night. It sounds way better than the CD. The CD is one of those early releases that were. . . messed up. I don't know exactly what the explanation is, but it seems around 1984-86 there were a fair number of CDs that came out sounding thin, harsh and bright. I suspect it had something to do with the mad rush to convert whole back catalogs ASAP while engineers were still getting used to the new format and equipment."

Light-fire
"Have you considered remastered CDs?

I kinda like the Legacy remasters from Sony/CBS, etc."

clivb
"Example 1. My vinyl copy of 10cc's "Sheet Music" sounds better than my CD copy, but that's probably because I have an original British pressing (on the UK label) on heavyweight vinyl, and the CD version I have is an old Castle Communications version. If you were to go out and buy a vinyl copy of this album, chances are you'd get a reissue that would sound worse than a CD.

Example 2. I bought a copy of Yes's "Going for the One" on CD back in the 1980's and it sounded *so* bad compared to my beaten up vinyl that I returned it. I suspect it was mastered from an LP cutting tape. A few years later, it was remastered for CD and this time sounds OK. If you were to buy a CD of this album today, you almost certainly wouldn't get the dodgy version.

Example 3: Adrian Belew's first two albums "Lone Rhino" and "Twang Bar King". Original Island Records vinyl sounds pretty damn good. If you get the Japanese CDs, they are fine. If you happen to buy the 2-on-1 Gott CD version, you're hosed. (There's a new remaster on BGO that I've never heard). "

tonybelding
"This brings to mind the first six ZZ Top albums. . . Early on there were generic CD releases that seemed to suffer from the thin-harsh-bright effect I described earlier. Then they decided to redo all six albums to take advantage of the CD format -- but mere remastering wasn't enough! They decided to re-mix them, so that became the ZZ Top Six Pack set. (It was actually a three-CD set with two LPs per CD, but they were also released as six stand-alone CDs.) The problem is, the remix really changed the sound in ways that a lot of ZZ Top old timers didn't like. So that was strike two. Recently they came out with new remasters (from the original mix) of Tres Hombres and Fandango. These are the best-sounding CD versions of those two albums, but they're pretty compressed. They aren't totally brick-walled (the way Mescalero was!), but. . . It's still more compression than I really care for."


That is just page 1.

Then of course you have a whole series of completely off topic posts about inner groove distortion.
Isn't that a violation of TOS
"5. All members that post to the Hydrogenaudio community must acknowledge and discuss only acceptable topics when starting a new thread. If posting to an already existing thread, they must continue in the vein of discussion that the thread has already manifested; if they wish to change topics, they must start a new thread." ???

IMO consistancy in the enforcement of forum rules is a good thing. Do you disagree?