Hi Tom-
Of course not.
It is a discussion of your proposal. I find that
flawed in many ways,
some of which I addressed. However, you also had a
nice suggestion,
that there might be -just might be, of course- an
inverse in digital to
what you call analog euphony. I suggest we agree to
call that effect
"dysphony", and share the credit. If you are willing
to acknowledge
that perception as well as technical measurement
plays a role in the
experience of recorded music, I'm willing to join
you in a
presentation.
I quite well understand that error correction,
rotational stability,
etc. have roles in assessing disc quality, even
sound quality per se. I
don't see how that correlates with a perception like
"decent-sounding"
unless there is also a continuum from euphony to
dysphony to place such
a concept as a midpoint. As you note, some
distortions sound (i.e., are
perceived as) more euphonic than others (odd vs.
even harmonic, for
example), so it is no stretch to now say some sound
more dysphonic. If
you are old enough to have endured .00001% THD 70's
Japanese
transistor electronics as well as SET tube amps, you
know what I mean.
Let me suggest we start a book club. Go to Amazon,
and buy any of these
titles:
Music, The Brain, And Ecstasy: How Music Captures
Our Imagination-
Robert Jourdain
Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain- Oliver
Sacks
This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human
Obsession-Levitin
We'll read it together and compare notes. I'm sure
they are all decent
reads. Maybe some others on the list could join us?
In fact, if Jerry is willing to make sure the pages
are in the correct
order and count the typos, I'll buy him a copy too,
just so we can
trust but verify that what we read is not corrupted
by errors or
distortions of the original Word .doc.
Bruce
On Jan 24, 2008, at 4:56 AM, Tom Fine wrote:
OK, Bruce, so I take this as a "no" to Jerry's
offer?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Kinch"
<bckinch@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex ATR-102 opinion (was
MD5 Hash Generators
Hi Tom-
On Jan 23, 2008, at 6:09 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
Hi Bruce:
The logical fallacy here is to equate "disc
quality" with the
perception of music.
Ah, yeah, that's the point for those of us who
must make a living
dealing in facts.
Well, I'm retired, but I made my living dealing
with ideas, as a
college professor for 30 years. Does tend to
force the mind open.
I think most of us operate under the assumption
that the higher the
disc quality (ie lack of digital errors and
mechanical stability),
the more output = input.
Ah, an assumption is an idea. You have my
attention.
As I've said repeatedly, if the input is of bad
sonic quality,
digital media and digital conversion will
certainly preserve and not
mask those flaws as much as older analog
technologies, which add
distortions (some apparently very euphonic to
some people) and mask
or "soften" some flaws at the input end (again,
this is found to be
euphonic by some people).
Ah, but the same is true of bad input to analog,
so no points there.
Please look up euphonic in a dictionary. It is
not a swear. True,
distortions can sound good to some people,
there's a whole guitar
effects industry to prove it. And as I noted at
the last CES, a lot
of digital demos relied on euphonic female vocal
recordings that my
dad would have filed under easy listening. I live
in a Diana
Krall-free zone now.
So I again submit that many of the "digital
sucks" crowd are
igorantly confusing bad human craft and bad
human decisions on the
input end with what they hear on the output end
and blaming the
machine.
I have never said digital sucks (is sucks a
swear?), nor even bought
the tee shirt. Can you refer me to someone in
that crowd who has? If
not, please promise to stop using swears to color
an argument.
But, let's see if we can put these different
world-views to some
quantifiable testing.
How does one quantify ideas like world-views? My
students couldn't,
but they were just students.
Hitler's idea (or world-view if you please)
killed 6 million,
Kevorkian maybe a dozen who asked him to, but
kindly. The winner
is...?
Does a woman have a right to choose, or is
abortion murder? Big Bang
or Genesis? Coke or Pepsi?
Tom, the objective becomes subjective because
everyone has
preconceptions and biases. Makes the species
argumentative. You too.
Bruce, I really want you to take Jerry's offer.
What's to be afraid
of -- I think some very interesting things could
be learned by
everyone involved and Jerry has made a very
generous offer of his
time and equipment. I suggest we can use test
gears and test ears.
Tom, it might make more sense if you took the
test. You are probably
more used to the methodology, and would be more
surprised by anything
other than a null result. I might be bored, or
confused, but hardly
afraid.
You guys buy two copies of a few commercial
CD's -- choose a couple
of titles each, and I think the tests would be
best if you chose
something you're familiar with and consider a
decent-sounding
recording.
Why? What does decent-sounding mean? Can you
quantify that, or are we
back in the realm of perception?
Keep one copy wrapped up or have it
dropped-shipped to Jerry (in
other words, Jerry should test it right out of
the shrink-wrap, so
it goes into his machines just like it came out
of the store). Take
the other copies and apply these various
treatments, keeping careful
notes as to what treatments were applied. I
think you'd want to
stick to one type of treatment per disc but
maybe not? Let Jerry
submit both discs to his rigorous tests (please
research Jerry's lab
if you don't believe me that his tests are
rigorous).
Will Jerry's tests confirm the recordings are
decent-sounding? That
was the basis on which you would choose them, so
he must be able to
validate something that simple. Does the machine
export the results
to Amazon.coms review pages? Man would that be
cool!
Then I would let a third party take possession
of the discs (trust
and verify, ya know) and all of you make your
way to the ABX
comparison setup of your choosing (there was a
very good one
designed by the Boston Acoustic Society
described in a recent JAES
article).
It's trust but verify, I think.
I am actually a past dues-paying member of the
BAS. Not without
preconceptions in my day, at least. Actually, the
decline in
membership back then correlated nicely with the
ascent of digital
recordings. Never figured that out until now.
Numbers don't lie, I
guess.
Listen and find out first of all if there IS an
audible difference
between treated and untreated discs. And if
there is, let everyone
keep careful notes as to what they prefer. Then
let's compare the
results with Jerry's scientific analysis of
things like error rates
and mechanical stability. Perhaps we can learn a
few useful facts:
1. what variances in laser-disc interactions are
effected by
polishing? Do they create higher or lower error
rates? Do they
effect laser mechanics at all, and if so
positively or negatively
vis-a-vis error rates? Is there an audible
difference in ABX testing
between polished and unpolished discs?
I'm mostly interested in whether something gets
more decent-sounding
or not. Wasn't that part of the hypothesis, that
the discs were
decent sounding? There should be room for
improvement there.
2. does shaving the edge of a disc improve
stability? Does it effect
error rates or laser-disc interactions? Is there
an audible
difference in ABX testing?
Who knows, but does it sound better than decent?
3. I guess we should ask if degaussing outright
ruins a disc --
Scott's experience seems to indicate yes but I
suspect the kind of
degaussing sold as a "treatment" uses a much
less intense magnetic
field. So, if the disc isn't outright ruined, is
the error rate or
mechanical stability effected? Is there an
audible difference in ABX
testing?
Scott seems to have one of the Dharma Initiative
degaussers that
imploded the hatch on Lost. But he heard a
difference, and you'd have
to bounce him off the panel as biased because of
it. Me too, I'm
afraid. Oops, I was afraid after all.
My law student daughter says most trials are
won/lost at voir dire.
True of ABX trials, too?
4. finally, and this would be the most
interesting factor to examine
-- I dare say it fringes on a "perception" study
-- was there much
agreement about any differences in sound? This
would be particularly
interesting and I'll certainly admit surprise if
there IS a
statistically relevant perceived differences in
sound but no
statistically relevant differences from Jerry's
tests. I doubt that
will happen but I'm never saying never.
Wow, Tom, I've gotten you interested in
PERCEPTION! You are no longer
speaking in MEANINGLESS ABSOLUTES! Like
BARNUMESQUE HOKUM!
5. this one is also very interesting, at least
to me -- are discs
found to have higher error rates or less
mechanical stability in
Jerry's tests preferred sonically in the ABX
tests? This gets into
the question, are there euphonic "problems" in
digital systems akin
to the harmonic distortion in tube gear that
some find euphonic?
Again, I doubt this but again I'm never saying
never.
I think the word you are looking for we can
invent together right
here and now. You have suggested that digital
might be "dysphonic",
if I have the Greek right. Sure, probably not,
couldn't be, but maybe
we can at least copyright it. I can see the new
Sony ad: Perfect
sound forever, and now less Dysphonic (TM) than
ever, too! Royalties
beyond comprehension!
So, what do you say guys? Let's see if we can
get the laboratory and
the listening room to meet in the middle here. I
bet if someone
forwards this thread to the BAS guys who wrote
that JAES article
they'd be game to get a crowd together for ABX
testing. The only way
we'll get answers is to do some testing. Jerry's
opened the door,
Bruce you should walk through it.
Actually, Aldous Huxley opened the Doors of
Perception, I think. I
just can't remember if I actually walked through
them, must have been
back in the sixties, all a blur now. Worked for
Jim Morrison, though.
But obviously, we just want to ask different
questions. We are
looking for different answers. That is bias.
Extra gravey -- this might make a very good ARSC
convention
presentation.
Agreed.
How about From Euphonic Analog to Dysphonic
Digital: A new approach
to evaluating musical reproduction. Authors Fine
and Kinch
demonstrate their technique of dual-dimensional
audio testing.
Plotting measured results on the X axis (Accuracy
to Distortion) and
subjective musical pleasurability (Euphonic to
Dysphonic) on the Y
axis, the researchers create a scatter plot
revealing fundamental
differences between technologies, recordings, and
playback equipment.
When correlated to individual biases, greater
understanding of both
audiophillic and meter-mania disorders can be
derived.
Bruce