This is getting exciting! I enjoy this debate, and I sure hope nobody takes anything personally. This if fun.
Now let's get one thing straight- I claim that I can hear a difference, and I have no obligation to back it up. William, you're the one on the sidelines telling me that I can't do something. I am perfectly happy listening to my SACDs and vinly, and I will continue doing so. You don't have to believe me. I can also play a high C. Should I send you a recording to prove that? Better make it a video so you'll know it's really me. On the other hand, maybe we should do a double-blind study... It seems that for many audiophiles, SACDs and DVD-audio represent the first digital medium that rivals vinyl, and I have personally found that to be the case. Both SACD and vinyl seem to have better resolution than CD, but I can't really say if SACD or vinyl has more. They just sound different. William has talked about comparing CD recordings to live performance, which is interesting. For me, and several other professional musician/audiophiles with whom I associate, the primary difference in listening to a CD vs. SACD or vinyl is that the CD lacks certain "live performance" qualities. In particular, I think it largely comes down to capturing overtones and resonance in the performance space. When switching from CD to SACD, I become far less aware of the two speakers in front of me, and I hear more of the resonance in the original performance space. Now, to say that any recording is as good as a live performance is silly. A substantial and important part of enjoying a live performance is the venue. When orchestras come through New York City on tour, they generally don't play in Madison Square Gardens or Yankee Stadium. They primarily play in Carnegie Hall, and to a lesser extent Avery Fisher Hall. This is because those halls sound good. The sound produced by the orchestra interacts with the hall before it hits my ears, and that makes a big difference. Similarly, my living room will never sound like Carnegie Hall. My audio equipment might do a superb job of reproducing sound that was recorded in Carnegie Hall, but that is not a substitute for actual resonance within my space. Furthermore, there are certain sounds that are very difficult to reproduce accurately. Bass drum is a great example. There is far more to a bass drum note than the initial strike. Capturing and reproducing the resonance of a bass drum is a huge challenge. I once had the good fortune to hear a system that did a passable job, even by the judge of a professional percussionist who had accompanied me, but this was a top-top-top-of-the-line 4-channel system worth well over $200k. I dare say that anyone who claims that a recording's sound quality is as good as that of a live performance should listen more closely to both! (editing a recording to remove mistakes from live performance is a whole separate issue) Michael -------------- "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." - Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943 "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." - Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977 "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication." - Western Union internal memo, 1876 "Nobody can hear a difference between a CD, vinyl, or live performance." - William, 2010 On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:17 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would love to have an experiment like this - but it would probably take me > 6 months to a year to fully assemble a good way to do it so that I can make > sure that you are listening to the recording and not the medium. Plus, I > would need a good sample group and two people isn't enough. One sample group > could be audiophiles, and the other could be a random selection of people for > a control. > > But, you could not be privy to what the methods for testing and utilization > were because it would skew the results. > > I'd also have to consult with psychologists, medical researchers, etc. in > order to make sure the test was done adequately. > > A versus B (16 or 24 bit versus vinyl) would be simpler than A versus B > versus C (16 bit, 24 bit, and vinyl). > > If anybody wants to help out just let me know - but a fair warning, if I > devote a lot of time to this I'd want someone in the field of medical > research to ensure that this could be submitted for peer-review. If it's > going to be done, it has to be done right. > > -William > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Aleks Ozolins <[email protected]> > To: The Horn List <[email protected]> > Sent: Wed, Sep 1, 2010 12:09 am > Subject: Re: [Hornlist] survey: digital download vs CD release > > > Vinyl doesn't have an infinite resolution, but it is certainly far greater > than > a CDs. No need for a double blind experiment to prove my point. If you have > access to an SACD player, go and buy a properly produced hybrid disc that > plays > in both an SACD player, and a standard CD player, and you'll hear in seconds > the > difference the extra resolution affords. > > And yes, some newly produced audiophile discs are pressed to both vinyl and CD > and are initially recorded in far greater resolution that the vinyl can take > advantage of. > > I'll be happy to participate in said experiment to prove my point, as long as > Mr. Hrivniak is included in the test group as well. > > APO > > > > > _______________________________________________ > post: [email protected] > unsubscribe or set options at > https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/mhrivnak%40hrivnak.org > _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
