tlz@druxu.UUCP (ZrustTL) (09/18/85)
Heh, heh! Ear training? Flat frequency response with mid-fi or lo-fi results? What has happened here? Let me try the question again with clarification . What is meant by tigntening bass and taking edges off of piano as it relates to things that happen to the specifications of audio equipment? Since something must happen (changes can be heard by the "finest and most sensitive instruments -- OUR EARS") then this obviously MUST be measurable by any reasonable test equipment (which clearly is less subjective and EVEN MORE SENSITIVE then our ears. Is there another domain of sound reproduction that has escaped detection by electronic instruments but is be obvious to the ear? Don't give me this "you can hear it but I don't know why" stuff. I hear that from stereo store sales people and its garbage. Everything happens for a reason and anything that can be heard can be measured. I'm all for using ears to judge quality. That's not the issue here. If someone does know what is happening with the CD 1040 mods and can offer a rational explanation of why, fine. I want to learn. Maybe we can all learn. Maybe even some of us can develop less costly and equally useful methods for accomplishing the same results. We owe it to thousands of CD 1040 owners who might well be sending their machines to fix it places and spending lots of money on things that can be had in other ways. I challenge someone with a modified machine to characterize their machine and compare it with measured specs before modification. If changes occur to externally modifiable performance (freq response for example) I would argue that an equalizer can produce reasonable results. If S/N ratio or phase tracking or some other "only internally correctable" characteristic is affected we've got something going. druxu!tlz _ Terry L. Zrust (_) /~\ A.T.&T. Information Systems /~\ / \/\ 11900 North Pecos Street / \ /\ / | \ \ Denver, Colorado 80234 /\ / \ \/ /|\ \ \ Mail Stop 30J15 / \ / \ / //|\\ \ \ (303) 538-4547 ___ \_/ ___ \ ///|\\\ _\ Cornet 374-4547 _________________ _______ | ______
hachong@watmath.UUCP (Herb Chong) (09/19/85)
In article <1636@druxu.UUCP> tlz@druxu.UUCP (ZrustTL) writes: >Heh, heh! Ear training? Flat frequency response with mid-fi or >lo-fi results? What has happened here? > >Let me try the question again with clarification . What is >meant by tigntening bass and taking edges off of piano as it relates >to things that happen to the specifications of audio equipment? >Since something must happen (changes can be heard by the "finest >and most sensitive instruments -- OUR EARS") then this obviously >MUST be measurable by any reasonable test equipment (which clearly is >less subjective and EVEN MORE SENSITIVE then our ears. tightening the bass can refer to how well damped the low frequency driver is. this is seldom specified by manufacturers and interactions with the power amplifier can change it. it can also refer to frequency response in the lower 3 or 4 octaves audible to the human ear. i'm sure that there are other definitions too. edginess can refer to a couple of things: a peak in the response such that several of the upper harmonics of a note are excessively emphasized; distortion of the signal reproduced, particularly intermodulation distortion, and unwanted resonances in the mid and high frequency drivers of speakers. again, i'm sure there are other circumstances that are loosely described by this term. >Is there another domain of sound reproduction that has escaped >detection by electronic instruments but is be obvious to the ear? >Don't give me this "you can hear it but I don't know why" stuff. >I hear that from stereo store sales people and its garbage. >Everything happens for a reason and anything that can be heard >can be measured. probably an infinite number. all these specifications printed are known to correlate with listening quality, but there is nothing that says that we've measured all there is to measure. >Everything happens for a reason and anything that can be heard >can be measured. but there is more than just measurement going on here; there is interpretation. a parallel can be drawn with the current research in computer vision. a camera can record and measure far more than the human eye can, but all existing computer vision systems fall far short of the human visual system because there is an immense amount of both information processing and knowledge being utilized to interpret an image. the human hearing system is also doing the same type of processing and is also using a huge knowledge base. we cannot help but interpret everything we see and everything we hear. our senses are not objective in the sense that instruments are. we bring too much of our own experiences into the listening. it maps sounds back to something that we have experienced before. that is the reason why the human hearing system is poor at differentiation between signals that are extremely similar. it tries to adapt to something recognizable and previously experienced. suppose that you have never heard a musical instrument before and have never had anyone describe it to you either, for instance, a flute. how would you determine if the reproduction of it is correct purely by listening to the recording. yet someone who has heard it being played live may be able to tell you that the person is blowing it from the wrong end. that is the crux, that the person has heard it before. ever notice how different music is when you're at a concert when compared to a recording of the same concert being made under the same conditions (i.e. same microphone location as yourself and audience). the differences are not in the sound so much as the experience, and that cannot yet be reproduced. >I'm all for using ears to judge quality. That's not the issue here. ears can only detect gross differences. quality is a based upon experience as much as specifications. the threshhold is different for different people depending on training, musical exposure, experiences, and physical differences. for the most subtle differences, only double-blind testing under rigidly controlled conditions can reliably differentiate between them. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... (will disappear Spetember 30) UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!hachong CSNET: hachong%watmath@waterloo.csnet ARPA: hachong%watmath%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
kaepplein@amber.DEC (09/20/85)
>Is there another domain of sound reproduction that has escaped >detection by electronic instruments but is be obvious to the ear? >Everything happens for a reason and anything that can be heard >can be measured. Yes. Julian Hersh and the manufacturers measure mostly static performance with sine waves. There are two problems here. The first is that sine waves poorly represent typical source material, and that the only test instrument that counts in the end is the ear. Music is very transient and ears are very sensitive to signal attacks among other things ( I don't have my psycoacoustics and computer music texts handy). If you are lucky, some reviews will publish a picture of a sine wave or impulse but they won't tell you the numbers for overshoot or the period/frequency/ cycles of ringing. Designers would love a subjective and quicker way of assessing performance than listening. There exists circuits for measuring distortion caused by capacitors. John Curl published one in the letters section of August's HiFi News and Record Review. >If someone does know what is happening with the CD 1040 mods >and can offer a rational explanation of why, fine. I want to >learn. Maybe we can all learn. Maybe even some of us can develop >less costly and equally useful methods for accomplishing the same results. First of all, a modified 1040 is much cheaper than a Nakamichi or a Mission or a Meridian. $330 is about what most players cost. I suggested the modification places for those not willing or handy with an iron. For under $10 you can replace the electrolytic DC filtering capacitors with film capacitors. Most CD players/VCRs/laser disk players/receivers could use this too. Electrolytic caps smear transients. For another $5, you could replace the opamps. The problem is that I don't know much about opamps and could not tell you which ones will have lower distortion than the NE5532's Phillips uses. Besides parts and labor, you are paying mod houses for their intelectual property. The two most important changes can be made for the cost of a disk. The most expensive change, a good audio cable, might come next. These are problems that are not solved with equalizers or ambience recovery modules. Fixing it amounts to the manufacturer spending an extra $10 but charging consumers an extra $500+ The Magnavox is not a bad unit. I'm sure Julian Hersh would say that its sounds just as perfect as any other player and would laud its immunity to shocks. It's a bargain in a market filled with outrageous hype. >Terry L. Zrust Mark Kaepplein
manheimer@nbs-amrf.UUCP (Ken Manheimer) (09/22/85)
> In article <1636@druxu.UUCP> tlz@druxu.UUCP (ZrustTL) writes: > >Heh, heh! Ear training? Flat frequency response with mid-fi or > >lo-fi results? What has happened here? > > [...] > >Is there another domain of sound reproduction that has escaped > >detection by electronic instruments but is be obvious to the ear? > >Don't give me this "you can hear it but I don't know why" stuff. > >I hear that from stereo store sales people and its garbage. > >Everything happens for a reason and anything that can be heard > >can be measured. > > probably an infinite number. all these specifications printed are > known to correlate with listening quality, but there is nothing that > says that we've measured all there is to measure. > > >Everything happens for a reason and anything that can be heard > >can be measured. > > but there is more than just measurement going on here; there is > interpretation. a parallel can be drawn with the current research in > computer vision. a camera can record and measure far more than the > human eye can, but all existing computer vision systems fall far short > of the human visual system because there is an immense amount of both > information processing and knowledge being utilized to interpret an > image. > > the human hearing system is also doing the same type of processing and > is also using a huge knowledge base. we cannot help but interpret > everything we see and everything we hear. our senses are not objective > in the sense that instruments are. we bring too much of our own > experiences into the listening. it maps sounds back to something that > we have experienced before. that is the reason why the human hearing > system is poor at differentiation between signals that are extremely > similar. it tries to adapt to something recognizable and previously > experienced. > > suppose that you have never heard a musical instrument before and have > never had anyone describe it to you either, for instance, a flute. how > would you determine if the reproduction of it is correct purely by > listening to the recording. yet someone who has heard it being played > live may be able to tell you that the person is blowing it from the > wrong end. that is the crux, that the person has heard it before. I feel that the above is a very fine response to the issue raised in the original article. However, it seems to me to verge on clearly expressing a crucial point about the difficulties in parameterizing real world events, but then the issue seems to become a bit clouded: > > ever notice how different music is when you're at a concert when compared > to a recording of the same concert being made under the same conditions > (i.e. same microphone location as yourself and audience). the differences > are not in the sound so much as the experience, and that cannot yet be > reproduced. > [...] > > Herb Chong... > > I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... > > (will disappear Spetember 30) > UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!hachong > CSNET: hachong%watmath@waterloo.csnet > ARPA: hachong%watmath%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa I think the clouding may be in my interpretation of the notion of the distinction between experience and facsimile. This could implies a few things, among them one that i'd like to emphasize (as briefly as i can) as my candidate for the guts of the measurability issue. First, i consider the misleading interpretation of 'actual experience' vs. facsimile to be in the incidental, non-sound components of in person musical experiences - e.g. the nostalgic odor of perfume/pot wafting gently in the breeze, the depth of emotion in the performers/audiences/ hot dog vendors expression, etc. I hope this wasn't the intended idea of the article - it's too peripheral an argument, there's enough to consider in the fact that any facsimile is bound to have lost to *some* degree the sound content of a musical envent without being diverted by the incidentals (pleasant though they may be). The issue that holds so much interest for me is the difficulties in parameterizing, not experience, but the underlaying events. I make this distinction because i think that the way people apprehend events is limited at the onset by parameterization that is a necessary component of human experiencing. The catch is that we have the capacity to extend the finess of our ability to apprehend in this way, meaning that we're constantly being let down by growing out of previously useful ways of parameterizations. This doesn't only happen for individuals; the refinement and revolution of science represents the same process of resolution. What does this have to do with analyzing the accuracy of sound reproduction, where sound can be entirely captured in terms of varying sound pressure waves? Even getting a close aproximation to a 'simple' event using mathematical function introduces complicated, never entirely resolved issues of accuracy. Given that any facsimile is bound to differ from the original event it represents to some degree, we have to decide on ways to compare the merits of different variations from the original, and that's where the difficulties come in. The frequency content of the signal does *not* constitute the whole story. The example herb gave (above) for the misplayed flute comes near to expressing my point - rather than considering the difference between players who blows on different (right and wrong ends) of the flute, consider the difference between an talented intermediate player's and a talented master's rendition of some specific piece of music - both of their performances will vary from the piece as intended by the composer, yet there will usually be a clear consensus in the audience as to preference for the renditions. Furthermore, the master's presentation may, on occasion, diverge more dramatically from what is embodied in the strict interpretation of the written tablature, yet could still be apprehended to be closer to the intentions of the composer. The imperfection lies in the narrowness of the analytic expression of the music (the tablature), not in the interpretation of the master. This argument may be more metaphoric than analogous to the characterization of sound by mathematical analysis, but i think it is important. Easuring the pure tones that a flute player is able to produce is not sufficient to decide how good the player is. Furthermore, measuring the frequency content of the performances isn't going to tell you much about the relative merits of the performances, because we *don't know how to characterize the quality of a piece of music in terms of it's harmonic content*, or even harmonic/ melodic/etc. progress. SIMILARLY, we're limited in our analytic grasp on the cogent features crucial to sounds. I feel it's in the course of experience that we engage our intuitive sense to guide us in tuning our analytic sense of what's important, not the other way around; that increased resolution can be gained by profiting on the knowledge encoded in the analytic representation, but the analytic representation generally (always?) has room for extension. (Pre P.S. You may notice that this article indicates something about the meaning of the silly little epithet i always have after my signiture line.) (and cheers) Ken Manheimer ...!seismo!nbs-amrf!manheimer or manheimer@nbs-amrf.uucp (Everything leaks.)
etan@tellab1.UUCP (Nate Stelton) (09/23/85)
In article <1636@druxu.UUCP> tlz@druxu.UUCP (ZrustTL) writes: > What is >meant by tigntening bass and taking edges off of piano as it relates >to things that happen to the specifications of audio equipment? >Since something must happen (changes can be heard by the "finest >and most sensitive instruments -- OUR EARS") then this obviously >MUST be measurable by any reasonable test equipment (which clearly is >less subjective and EVEN MORE SENSITIVE then our ears. tightening the bass: To me this refers to damping. When the bass player mutes his string, the speaker cone, due to inertia, does not come to a complete stop, like the bass string did. It tries to, though. There are damping specs on speakers and power amplifiers that reflect this. (Perhaps some kind expert could post some guidelines as to what the ranges to shop for are.) Poor damping results in mushy (i.e. "not tight") bass sound. No EQ in the world can correct this. taking the edge off the piano: Now this sounds to me like an EQ function. Doing this usually requires a thin notch filter set to the "edgy" frequency. Here's a different one for you: Can you hear the stick hit the cymbal? This is not always answered the same for every 20-20k system. I have 2 cassette decks that have the same freq ranges, but a cymbal hit by a stick sounds like a "tick" as recorded by one and "sshh" by the other. This is transient response, and can be illustrated by inputting a 20kHz square wave into the equipment in question and observing the output's rise time. Look for slew rate specs; a high number means that, among other things, a piano will sound more like the real thing. I could continue with phase, TIM, and harmonic distortion, and then on to room acoustics and still only scratch the surface concerning the measurable virtues of a good-sounding sound system that have nothing to do with frequency response. All can be measured with today's test equipment and be attributed to such things as mushy or smeary sound, or poor imaging or detail. >Is there another domain of sound reproduction that has escaped >detection by electronic instruments but is be obvious to the ear? I doubt it. Some people (including myself) are just not always able to relate these measurable parameters to what they hear. -etan
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (09/24/85)
> Here's a different one for you: Can you hear the stick hit the cymbal? > This is not always answered the same for every 20-20k system. I have 2 > cassette decks that have the same freq ranges, but a cymbal hit by a stick > sounds like a "tick" as recorded by one and "sshh" by the other. This is > transient response, and can be illustrated by inputting a 20kHz square wave > into the equipment in question and observing the output's rise time. Look > for slew rate specs; a high number means that, among other things, a piano > will sound more like the real thing. Nah, it's probably that your two decks differ in azimuth setting.
terry2@ihlpm.UUCP (t. nelson) (09/25/85)
> > Here's a different one for you: Can you hear the stick hit the cymbal? > > This is not always answered the same for every 20-20k system. I have 2 > > cassette decks that have the same freq ranges, but a cymbal hit by a stick > > sounds like a "tick" as recorded by one and "sshh" by the other. .... > > .... > Nah, it's probably that your two decks differ in azimuth setting. And/or the normal evils associated with noise reduction circuits ..... -- ..ihnp4!ihlpm!terry2 ************************** "All this is * Terry Nelson * because of me Keep * AT&T Bell Laboratories * and not my It * Naperville, Illinois * employer!" Warm **************************
dca@edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) (09/26/85)
> For another $5, you could replace the opamps. The problem is that I > don't know much about opamps and could not tell you which ones will > have lower distortion than the NE5532's Phillips uses. Besides parts > and labor, you are paying mod houses for their intelectual property. > The NE5532 is a 8 pin version of the NE5534 which is internally compensated to unity gain. The NE5532 is a relatively recent ultra low noise (5nV/((Hz)^1/2)) high slew rate (9V/us) op-amp. While it is certainly possible that there are better op amps the NE5534 is a quite good one. THD of a RIAA preamp using a single 5532 showed less than .01% across the audio spectrum with 10V P-P into 600 ohms. With a 10K ohm load THD is less than .005%. Either .01% or .005% are so down that improvements are likely moot excercises. Sources for the data were the SIGNETICS ANALOG APPLICATIONS MANUAL and the SIGNETICS ANALOG DATA MANUAL. David Albrecht
hachong@watmath.UUCP (Herb Chong) (09/26/85)
In article <19@nbs-amrf.UUCP> manheimer@nbs-amrf.UUCP (Ken Manheimer) writes: >> ever notice how different music is when you're at a concert when compared >> to a recording of the same concert being made under the same conditions >> (i.e. same microphone location as yourself and audience). the differences >> are not in the sound so much as the experience, and that cannot yet be >> reproduced. >I think the clouding may be in my interpretation of the notion of the >distinction between experience and facsimile. This could implies a few >things, among them one that i'd like to emphasize (as briefly as i can) >as my candidate for the guts of the measurability issue. >First, i consider the misleading interpretation of 'actual experience' >vs. facsimile to be in the incidental, non-sound components of in person >musical experiences - e.g. the nostalgic odor of perfume/pot wafting >gently in the breeze, the depth of emotion in the performers/audiences/ >hot dog vendors expression, etc. I hope this wasn't the intended idea of >the article - it's too peripheral an argument, there's enough to consider >in the fact that any facsimile is bound to have lost to *some* degree the >sound content of a musical envent without being diverted by the >incidentals (pleasant though they may be). i think that some psychologists may disagree with you. the expectations of the experience combined with the reactions of the people around you can provide a strong influence on your perception of the concert as a whole and has some influence on your preception of the musical quality. the degree of training you have and the initial approach to listening at the concert can negate most of the effects of the incidental aspects of a concert. it would be far different if you were grading a piano recital than going to a Springsteen concert. (BTW, i'm mostly talking classical concerts here in a more restrained atmosphere.) however, there are very few of us who would feel that the music were lousy if everyone else around us were standing and cheering after a particularly rousing performance unless we approached it with the conviction that it was going to be lousy not matter what anyone else says.. what is it that makes it a 'rousing' performance? is it the purely technical aspects of reproducing the music? how much of that translates into our perception of the quality of reproduction of music? hopefully none when evaluating. does having heard a live performance influence hearing the same piece played by the same people being reproduced by a stereo? well, that depends. i'm not sure i have an answer to that question. i do know that preconcieved notions of the quality of different pieces of stereo equipment can mask all but the largest of differences except to a trained ear, and training that ear requires a lot of listening under unbiased circumstances. >The issue that holds so much interest for me is the difficulties in >parameterizing, not experience, but the underlaying events. I make >this distinction because i think that the way people apprehend events is >limited at the onset by parameterization that is a necessary component of >human experiencing. The catch is that we have the capacity to extend the >finess of our ability to apprehend in this way, meaning that we're >constantly being let down by growing out of previously useful ways of >parameterizations. This doesn't only happen for individuals; the >refinement and revolution of science represents the same process of >resolution. the more you listen, training the ear, the more you are able to detect before the purely psychological confuses the issue. this, of course, is a gross generalization, but you get the idea. and better equipment helps, but, we can only vaguely define better. lower THD, less IMD, higher slew rates, better SNR, more power, flatter frequency response, these are all indications of better, but only indications. these happen to be some of the more easily measured things. >What does this have to do with analyzing the accuracy of sound >reproduction, where sound can be entirely captured in terms of varying >sound pressure waves? Even getting a close aproximation to a 'simple' >event using mathematical function introduces complicated, never entirely >resolved issues of accuracy. Given that any facsimile is bound to differ >from the original event it represents to some degree, we have to decide >on ways to compare the merits of different variations from the original, >and that's where the difficulties come in. The frequency content of the >signal does *not* constitute the whole story. even when using a complex circuit to model a speaker load to an amplifier, many simplifications are made because of complexity of calculation (no longer a valid excuse in this day of the computer) or we simply don't understand the process. given that we are approximating, the design people are simpy saying that, at some point, this is close enough to perfection that the vast majority of our customers will not notice, and even we're not sure we will either >The example herb gave (above) for the misplayed flute comes near to >expressing my point - rather than considering the difference between >players who blows on different (right and wrong ends) of the flute, >consider the difference between an talented intermediate player's and a >talented master's rendition of some specific piece of music - both of >their performances will vary from the piece as intended by the composer, >yet there will usually be a clear consensus in the audience as to >preference for the renditions. Furthermore, the master's presentation >may, on occasion, diverge more dramatically from what is embodied in the >strict interpretation of the written tablature, yet could still be >apprehended to be closer to the intentions of the composer. The >imperfection lies in the narrowness of the analytic expression of the >music (the tablature), not in the interpretation of the master. This >argument may be more metaphoric than analogous to the characterization of >sound by mathematical analysis, but i think it is important. again, people who are call the person the master are basing their evaluation upon experience. they have listened to enough works to know not only what the instrument should sound like, but also what nuances that only a master can coax from his instrument. recognizing those nuances requires experience, and along with that experience, a knowledge base to compare to. i was at a concert of amateur chamber players and the person playing the cello part turned the page at the wrong time. since it was an unfamiliar piece to me, i didn't notice anything until the quartet stopped and burst out laughing and apologized to the audience. it sounded okay to me, but i was hardly in a position to tell. incidentally, i was going to use a dhigeridu as an example, but i forget whether it is played through the nose or the mouth. can anyone enlighten me? >Easuring the pure tones that a flute player is able to produce is not >sufficient to decide how good the player is. Furthermore, measuring the >frequency content of the performances isn't going to tell you much about >the relative merits of the performances, because we *don't know how to >characterize the quality of a piece of music in terms of it's harmonic >content*, or even harmonic/ melodic/etc. progress. SIMILARLY, we're >limited in our analytic grasp on the cogent features crucial to sounds. >I feel it's in the course of experience that we engage our intuitive >sense to guide us in tuning our analytic sense of what's important, not >the other way around; that increased resolution can be gained by >profiting on the knowledge encoded in the analytic representation, but >the analytic representation generally (always?) has room for extension. like an airline pilot, we ignore the unimportant gauges until something looks wrong, then we look to see what is wrong. music reproduction is this way in a sense. if the sound is like what we have heard before then we are hardly going to notice anything wrong. so we are satisfied with our stereo system. then we go listen to our friend with the $25,000 sound system and we hear what it should sound like, and then we go back to our little system at home, and it doesn't sound nearly as good anymore. some of it is psychological (a system that expensive HAS to sound good) but a lot of it is also because it it better and allows us to hear what it should be like without flaws. however, there is still great disagreement over what is an acceptable level of flaws and how do we measure it. the specs you see published are the best we can do today. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... (will disappear September 30) UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!hachong CSNET: hachong%watmath@waterloo.csnet ARPA: hachong%watmath%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
keithe@tekgvs.UUCP (Keith Ericson) (09/28/85)
>Here's a different one for you: Can you hear the stick hit the cymbal? >This is not always answered the same for every 20-20k system. I have 2 >cassette decks that have the same freq ranges, but a cymbal hit by a >stick sounds like a "tick" as recorded by one and "sshh" by the other. Any chance one is hit with a drumstick, the other with a brush? -- Keith Ericson at TekLabs (resident factious factotum) Tektronix, PO 500, MS 58-383 Beaverton OR 97077 (503)627-6042 uucp: [ucbvax|decvax|ihnp4|(and_many_others)]!tektronix!tekgvs!keithe CSnet: keithe@tek ARPAnet: keithe.tek@rand-relay
bob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) (10/01/85)
Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ Keywords: In article <16600@watmath.UUCP> hachong@watmath.UUCP (Herb Chong) writes: { a lot about psychological effects } >an answer to that question. i do know that preconcieved notions of >the quality of different pieces of stereo equipment can mask all but the >largest of differences except to a trained ear, and training that ear requires >a lot of listening under unbiased circumstances. { more about such effects } I suspect Herb is dangerously close to the truth w/r/t how we percieve quality of music/equipment. In my own case, the mechanical noise made by my Technics SLP-8 CD player was driving me crazy - not because it was all that obtrusive when music was playing, but because I *knew* it was making noise. I finally solved the problem by lining my stereo cabinet with Sonex. Whether this acutally eliminated the noise or merely changed my perception I do not know - but it doesnt matter; the net result is the same. I suspect it is a little of both. BTW my standard advice for buying CD players is to ignore hype, specs, etc. Instead, turn the volume off, and stick your ear down next to the player and see how much noise it makes while playing, changing programs, or whatever. After you have rejected any player which is mechanically noisy you can start evaluating more etherial criteria. In general, I believe that if someone thinks a given piece of equipment sounds better then another, for whatever reason including price and appearance, then it really does sound better to them. And thats what they should buy. However, if that person is going attempt to convince someone else of the superiority of a particular piece of equipment then they ought to clearly label their views as opinion or present measurable differences and/or the results of double-blind testing. It is the reluctance of 'golden-ears' to embrace double-blind testing which arouses my suspicion about audible differences such as 'tighter bass'. Given that it is fairly easy to objectively demonstrate such effects, why not do so? Bob Weiler.
dca@edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) (10/05/85)
> it really does sound better to them. And thats what they should buy. > However, if that person is going attempt to convince someone else of the > superiority of a particular piece of equipment then they ought to clearly > label their views as opinion or present measurable differences and/or the > results of double-blind testing. > > It is the reluctance of 'golden-ears' to embrace double-blind testing > which arouses my suspicion about audible differences such as > 'tighter bass'. Given that it is fairly easy to objectively demonstrate > such effects, why not do so? > Add to the soup that differences that may be distinguishable even under double blind tests that are not supplemented by measurements and not equalized so much as possible to eliminate known differences a given audiophile or group may find equipment more pleasing which is actually a preference for a less accurate piece of equipment because they find the inaccuracies pleasing (frequency response deviations et. al.). Then you have to trust that you will like the same 'inaccuracies'. David Albrecht
etan@tellab1.UUCP (Nate Stelton) (10/07/85)
In article <4361@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >> Here's a different one for you: Can you hear the stick hit the cymbal? >> This is not always answered the same for every 20-20k system. I have 2 >> cassette decks that have the same freq ranges, but a cymbal hit by a stick >> sounds like a "tick" as recorded by one and "sshh" by the other. This is >> transient response, and can be illustrated by inputting a 20kHz square wave >> into the equipment in question and observing the output's rise time. Look >> for slew rate specs; a high number means that, among other things, a piano >> will sound more like the real thing. > >Nah, it's probably that your two decks differ in azimuth setting. Theoretically, I guess no two decks will have *exactly* the same azimuth adjustment. The interesting thing in my 2-deck experiment was that a recording on deck #1 sounded better being played back on deck #2 than the recording from deck #2. Deck #1 is a Teac A-105 from 1979, and #2 is a newer Akai CF-14 (I think that's the right number). I have found that the old Teac at $130 records better than other, more recent machines in this price range. -etan
rdp@teddy.UUCP (10/08/85)
In article <613@tellab1.UUCP> etan@tellab1.UUCP (Nate Stelton) writes: >In article <4361@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >>> Here's a different one for you: Can you hear the stick hit the cymbal? >>> This is not always answered the same for every 20-20k system. I have 2 >>> cassette decks that have the same freq ranges, but a cymbal hit by a stick >>> sounds like a "tick" as recorded by one and "sshh" by the other. This is >> >>Nah, it's probably that your two decks differ in azimuth setting. > >Theoretically, I guess no two decks will have *exactly* the same azimuth >adjustment. The interesting thing in my 2-deck experiment was that a >recording on deck #1 sounded better being played back on deck #2 than the >recording from deck #2. Deck #1 is a Teac A-105 from 1979, and #2 is a newer >Akai CF-14 (I think that's the right number). I have found that the old Teac >at $130 records better than other, more recent machines in this price range. > In my travels, one of the things I discovered is that most cassette decks are so dismally set up as to be laughable. The two brands mentioned above I found to be amongst the biggest offenders. I recall that somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% of the machines failed, by a wide margin, to meet manufacturers specifications out of the box, when used with the manufacturer- recommended tape. Certainly I have found Akai to be among the worst in this respect. The deck may or may not be well designed, etc., but whatever its inherent advantages are, they are lost by this sort of slipshod set-up. Setting up a cassette deck properly (most especially two-head varieties) is a pain, and takes someone resonably competent on the order of 20 minutes. Consider that someone a manufacturer might make 100,000 such units, and that there are only some 25,000 or so 20 minute periods in a year, it is not surprising that they aren't set up right at the factory. The result is that a cassette deck that claims to be able to do 20-20,000Hz at -20VU might actually be doing 20-8,000 Hz! (this is no exaggeration, but rather typical!) Dick Pierce