lauck@bergil.DEC (10/26/84)
>>A fair comparison of LP and CD is now possible. Yesterday I bought the >>digitally mastered CD and the direct disk analog LP of Sheffield lab's >>"West of Oz". My wife and I listened to the CD first than began the >>LP. We got as far as "Somewhere" before my wife stopped me and suggested >>there was no further need for comparison. We didn't need to go >>"over the rainbow", the LP was so obviously superior. /* ---------- */ >Saying something is "obviously superior" doesn't help. When I listen to >CDs, I tend to think them "obviously superior" to LPs; what does that >prove? Or more precisely, it proves nothing until I say *why* I think >them thus (no random grunge, pops, and clicks, with the assurance that >it will *stay* that way, as opposed to gradually destroying the medium >each time I play it; improved dynamic range; etc.). > >Please tell us *in what way* you think the LP superior. If it is something >that can be reliably detected in a double blind test, then perhaps there >are grounds for discussion. When I mean something is obviously superior, I mean just that. My wife and I had no doubts that the LP sounded more like live music. We both liked the sound of the LP better, by that I mean we would play the LP and not the CD if we listen to the album again. Who would question that Chateau Margaux is obviously superior to "Chateau Ripple"? Double blind testing has its place. As I reported in a subsequent article, it may be an appropriate technique for determining if subtle differences at the edge of perception are real. However, the differences between the LP and CD were not at all subtle. The LP had much more air and presence. The tonal balance was significantly different, perhaps by as much as 4-6 db in the upper octave. The current standards of scientific proof demand double blind testing for psychological results. However, proof is not needed for intelligent discussion. Double-blind testing is expensive and time-consuming. It should be done selectively, after intelligent discussion has led to intelligent choice of experiments. The current standards of art do not demand double blind testing. If audio is at least partly an art, then the choice of methodology is not clear. Rather than debating methodolgy, let's discuss substance. Has anyone else on net.audio repeated this or another similar comparison? I'd be interested in learning their results, how they conducted their tests, etc.
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (10/29/84)
Of course, you could tell us what you were using for a CD player. I can hear substantial differences between my $300 Technics and my Golden Ear next door neigbors system. All CD players are not equal (as has been discussed here before) and I'd hate to see the format condemned as a result of inferior playback decks. -Ron