ebh@hou4b.UUCP (10/24/84)
There has been a lot of vehement discussion lately on the subject of
CD's versus LP's, with no real results. But one thing I see repeatedly
from both sides, and the neutral articles, is a suggestion of a single-
or double-blind test between your favorite LP and the corresponding CD.
Consider a situation which I beleive is analogous to this issue:
We've all heard of, and some of us have taken, the infamous Pepsi
Challenge, where the subject is handed two small cups of cola and asked
which is preferred, tastewise. This is not double-blind, since the
Pepsi employee knew which cola went into which cup, but since there was
no apparent difference in cup, color, etc., the test did qualify as
single-blind. However, it did seem to postulate one thing that was not
true - that the subject was evaluating each taste with the same set of
criteria.
When I took the test, I took one sip out of each cup, pointed to one of
them, and said, correctly, "This one is the Pepsi, and I prefer it."
(Which I do, BTW.) The test was not objective, since I recognized the
tastes of Pepsi and Coca-Cola. Knowing which was which, I could no
longer apply the ame criteria to each cola.
I believe the same holds true with audio tests. Were I to take a
similar test comparing an LP and a CD, I'd know which was which as soon
as I heard or did not hear the low hiss of the needle in the groove, or
some other telltale sign that has nothing to do with the music. At that
point, regardless of any other factors, the test would be corrupted.
My question then, to the people engaged in this debate is: Is it
possible at all to objectively compare the two media on the basis of
musical reproduction and nothing else? My position is: It is not.
The medium will make itself apparent, allowing the subject's
preconceived notions to cloud the necessary objectivity.
Meanwhile, my LP's and CD's peacefully coexist on their shelves, and
their numbers grow at roughly the same rate.
-Ed Horch {ihnp4,akgua,houxm}!hou4b!ebhdcm@drux3.UUCP (MengesDC) (10/24/84)
Munch!
Perhaps the way to take the Digital Chalange is to take an arbitrary source
(perhaps the finest pressings on the finest playback equipment all the way
down to really skuzzed up pressings with cunge in the grooves) digitize it,
reconvert to analog, then through any arbitrary amplifier speaker combination.
Maybe the best way to do the conversion to analog would be to canabalize a
CD player (or inject the bit stream into the correct point in the circuit).
All this probably ought to be under control of a microprocessor, let it
"choose" whether the digital chain is inserted in the circuit. Then
compare the scores of listeners to the sequnce actually chosen by the
microprocessor.
Obviously, this is a simplistic approach. Much consideration would have
to be given to the whole process. Specifically, the volume levels would have
to be the same (choose your favorite tollerance .5 dB, .05dB, .005 dB or
whatever). One would, I think, want to have as ideal an environment as
possible so that the reproduced "analog" sound stage is good (broad, deep,
clear, insert your favorite adjective at this point). Then look to see
what the digital process does to this sound stage. There's obviously much
more to consider but I think its doable. Anybody out there in net land
got the skill, resources, and inclination to under take such "live vs
didgital" Challange.
If anyone cares to undertake such an endevor please consult the net for
input on how to "do it" (as in the way the AT&T ISL Denver Audio Club sought
recomendations for their speaker wire Challenge). If this doesn't bring
about tons of discussion I don't know what will.
Larry Cler
AT&T ISL
!ihnp4!drux2!ljc
(303)-538-14285121cdd@houxm.UUCP (C.DORY) (10/24/84)
Once upon a time (and that time was not too long ago), I described a digital vs. analog challenge comparing master recordings. By carrying out the process to the end product (i.e., comparing the CD vs. the LP record) the conclusions can be, at best, inconclusive. There are too many variables to hope too control in trying to comparing the end products. At the master tape level, you are really comparing the two technologies, and not their commercial realizations which have passed though many hands (most of them dirty). Telarc is the only company that I know of that actually says that their LPs and CDs are made from the same master digital tapes. You could, therefore if you wanted, compare what the LP mastering, matrixing and pressing process vs. the CD mastering and stamping(?!) process does to the music. However this will NOT be a comparison of digital vs. analog! Craig Dory
karn@mouton.UUCP (10/24/84)
Gee, it seems to me that if you say you can't conduct a "proper" comparison between LPs and CDs because the high surface noise of the former makes the difference obvious, then maybe there's not much point in running the test, is there? Next thing we know, we'll be hearing terms like the "shyness effect" and "bad vibes" to explain why the golden ears can't perform as well in controlled situations as they say they can. Perhaps an article in the Skeptical Inquirer is in order here. Phil
rtf@ihuxw.UUCP (sparrow) (10/25/84)
I propose a new Pepsi challenge of LP vs. CD: 1. spill a Pepsi on both LP and a CD. 2. wipe off. 3. play. Conclusion: The CD sounds better. :-) sparrow
haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (10/25/84)
> Munch! > > Perhaps the way to take the Digital Chalange is to take an arbitrary source > (perhaps the finest pressings on the finest playback equipment all the way > down to really skuzzed up pressings with cunge in the grooves) digitize it, > reconvert to analog, then through any arbitrary amplifier speaker combination. > > Larry Cler NO NO NO NO NO!!! In fact, what such a comparison would reveal is whether CD technology introduces any degradation in the sound. It would not, however, allow any valid A/B comparison between the detrimental effects of CD and LPs (boy, there are some here!). There is no way a digitization of a (very fine, even) LP pressing will sound any better than the original. How could this be called a valid test? My personal opinion is that valid double-blind CD/LP comparison tests are impossible, due to mainly the two following points, which make it easy to distinguish LPs and CDs: (1) CDs do not have surface noise. (2) LPs have to use compression (or more than CDs at least) Therefore, the listener will know what he/she is listening to, and the test no longer is double-blind, or even single-blind! I'd say that every person can have his/her personal opinion about CDs versus LPs, but it is impossible to conduct a comparison test between the two. For me, the lack of surface noise is incentive enough to get a CD player... Tom Haapanen University of Waterloo (519) 744-2468 allegra \ clyde \ \ decvax ---- watmath --- watdcsu --- haapanen ihnp4 / / linus / The opinions herein are not those of my employers, of the University of Waterloo, and probably not of anybody else either.
greg@olivej.UUCP (Greg Paley) (10/25/84)
I think Ed Horch's points are valid and well stated. I'd feel myself ruled out on such a test for precisely the same reasons he states. I personally have found that, for my perceptions, the mediocre CD is better than the mediocre LP but that the best LP's (on correspondingly high quality record playing equipment) are able to capture a realism that exceeds the best I have yet heard from CD, including Telarcs. I feel quite honestly that this is not based on preconceived notions, since I have no desire to see the situation remain this way. I also feel that much of the vehemence which has come into the arguments is a counterreaction to the press barrage that accompanied the introduction of digital recording and then the CD. It's as though I were looking at what I see as a red wall and being told at gunpoint that I'd better see blue. If the CD had been introduced as a product that still has certain sonic anomalies but which offers a convenience and durability which go a long way toward compensating for these, as well as a confirmation that these anomalies will only be audible or disturbing on a very small percentage of the equipment likely to be found in people's homes, I would have easily accepted this. It has, however, been introduced as a major sonic upgrade with a perfection that far eludes the best analogue recordings in addition to the convenience and durability. This attitude has been reinforced by a demeanor, on the part of the majority of press, audio dealers, and a number of net contributors, that is, to put it mildly, insulting to anyone who, listening with his own ears and perceptions, has come to a different conclusion. - Greg Paley
dep@allegra.UUCP (Dewayne E. Perry) (10/26/84)
<line eaters prefer lps because they really groove on them> NO! NO! you all are wrong on the double blind test. The only fair way to both kinds of recordings is to listen to them both blind-folded (ie, the first blind) and ear-muffed (the second blind). Waiting for lower prices on mono cds - Dewayne
greg@olivej.UUCP (Greg Paley) (10/27/84)
I feel, quite frankly, that analogue vs. digital comparisons are now ultimately irrelevant. The LP as a distribution media may not be dead but analogue master recording seems, like it or not, to be a thing of the past. If you accept this as true, the real concern should be with tracking down and eliminating what anomalies remain in the current digital technology. Where comparisons are used as a basis for doing this, they should be with the object being recorded (live vs. Memorex) - even using an analogue master tape to measure what deviances a digital copy produces won't ultimately suffice. A major first step will be the development of a set of genuinely appropriate measuring techniques for generating specifications for digital recordings and equipment. The fact that, by the standard measurement processes which have been previously applied to analogue recordings, digital recordings seem to be flawless is only a confirmation of the inadequacy of those measurements. Claiming that there are no problems remaining in digital recordings and sneering contemptuously at those "golden ears" who claim to hear them is going to help nobody. - Greg Paley
jlg@lanl.ARPA (11/02/84)
> > Munch! > > > > Perhaps the way to take the Digital Chalange is to take an arbitrary source > > (perhaps the finest pressings on the finest playback equipment all the way > > down to really skuzzed up pressings with cunge in the grooves) digitize it, > > reconvert to analog, then through any arbitrary amplifier speaker combination. > > > > Larry Cler > > NO NO NO NO NO!!! > > In fact, what such a comparison would reveal is whether CD technology > introduces any degradation in the sound. It would not, however, > allow any valid A/B comparison between the detrimental effects of CD > and LPs (boy, there are some here!). There is no way a digitization > of a (very fine, even) LP pressing will sound any better than the > original. How could this be called a valid test? > Simple! It's not an A/B comparison in the conventional sense, but your first statement is correct - it would reveal whether CD introduces any audible degradation. If the 'golden ears' can't hear the difference between their favorite direct-to-disk LP and a CD copy of it, that clearly implies that CD is AT LEAST as good at sound reproduction as the best LPs. It seems to me that this is the principle issue involved in the comparison of the two technologies.