Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
--- Dan Frakes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Two speakers that are measured by equipment to have the exact same specifications can sound remarkably different to human ears, even in controlled, double-blind testing. I'd be astonished if you could ever find two speakers (even a supposedly 'matched' stereo pair with adjacent serial numbers) that measure identically. The point is that it's almost *always* possible to measure differences - it's establishing at what point those differences become immaterial from an audibility point-of-view that's the tricky bit. Now, if a listener really does observe differences between components which measure so alike as to be predictably (from all we know about hearing thresholds) identical *to the human ear*, we should look for alternative explanations. Perhaps we haven't measured the right thing. Perhaps this observation has highlighted an electrical phenomenon not previously considered important in audio reproduction. Or (and this is usually the most likely explanation), the listener's observations are not entirely based up acoustic stimulus (i.e. it's a sighted observation, the listener knows the identity of the unit under test, the listener has been told that they're now listening to something different, etc). Double-blind tests aren't generally considered necessary for speakers, btw - the difference between different models are usually pretty gross. See also vinyl sources... That's why audio magazines don't just publish measurements, and why we don't buy stereos by spec sheets. Absolutely - we *audition* them. Of course this typically involves straying away from the dictionary definition of that term and using our *eyes* as well as ears, so we may perceive differences where none (in the audible realm) exist. Those audio magazines do indeed include plenty more copy than just spec sheets - but how useful is any of their prose? How many of those conduct *proper* critical listening tests, free from non-aural bias? How many just seek to obfuscate and confuse with flowery subjective assessment (often riddled with a healthy dose of audiophile mythology), free from meaningful references? The British mag Hi-Fi Choice were in the habit of conducting some form of blind panel test for comparative reviews, but this practice would appear to have been dropped recently (frustratingly - just as they get their hands on some affordable DVD-A and SACD hardware!). So, yes - it's certainly not just about specs. If only for the reason that, contrary to what you say, specs show up differences between *everything*, while our ears are not nearly so sensitive (but are prone to other influences, unless we take steps to minimise their effect). Believe your ears - but your ears *alone*. Mike. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
Michael Jones wrote: Those audio magazines do indeed include plenty more copy than just spec sheets - but how useful is any of their prose? How many of those conduct *proper* critical listening tests, free from non-aural bias? How many just seek to obfuscate and confuse with flowery subjective assessment (often riddled with a healthy dose of audiophile mythology), free from meaningful references? An audio magazine printed and article about a guy that went out and bought several different brands of minidisc and swore he and even his wife could tell the difference between them. He proceeded to rate them for warmth, brightness, etc. Any magazine that would publish crap like that would publish anything, just like the supermarket tabloids. -- Jim Coon Not just another pretty mandolin picker. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
From: "Dan Frakes" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yeah, I don't like the blue ones very much -- they just add too much, er, color to my music g Yeah, I find the blue disks muffle the treble, probably cos the higher wavelength light which is used for higher pitch sound gets reflected off the case instead of the disk. The reverse is true with the red disks which are terrible for bass response. And if any newbies are reading this, please don't take it seriously! Yours, PrinceGaz. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
Dan Frakes wrote: BTW , we both agree yellow MDs are better than blue too, right?? But I think the clear ones give the clearest sound, LOL.. Yeah, I don't like the blue ones very much -- they just add too much, er, color to my music g It all depends on the type of music you are listening to. Blue sure makes the blues sound good. Red is for the the hot tunes, and Russian . "Mellow, Yellow, That's right Slick" Anyone old enough to recognize what tune that line is from? Green, Irish. and the list goes on G -- Jim Coon Not just another pretty mandolin picker. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
"Even the most expensive test equipment doesn't measure subtle differences well. The human ear is more sensitive than the most expensive "equipment" in the world." This is a very important point. Although there are some quantitative tests that are of value, when you are talking about things like audio or video, everyone is going to hear and see things slightly differently. I think that you reach a point where you begin paying for air when it comes to so called high end. If you want to you can go crazy with theories and think that you are 100% sure that the $10,000 power amp is much better then the $1500.00 receiver. Where do you draw the line? Bi amps? Tri amplification?? There are limitations to human hearing. At some point you will reach a point where you are not hearing "better" sound only different sound. Take the Sub woofer for example. The theory is always thrown out that very low frequencies are not directional and therefore you do not need separate right and left subwoofers. But has anyone actually tried using a separate subwoofer for each channel? There is a difference in the sound and feel. Yes I say feel because at some point frequencies are so low that you feel them as much as hear them. Just my 2 cents plain (joke for any old timers like me-No I'm not going to start the Historical Bum song again don't worry) Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
las wrote: "Even the most expensive test equipment doesn't measure subtle differences well. The human ear is more sensitive than the most expensive "equipment" in the world." I am an engineer, and I think that if we can hear something, there has to be a way to measure it. THis is science , not hokus pokus. This is a very important point. Although there are some quantitative tests that are of value, when you are talking about things like audio or video, everyone is going to hear and see things slightly differently. But instrumentation won't. I think that you reach a point where you begin paying for air when it comes to so called high end. If you want to you can go crazy with theories and think that you are 100% sure that the $10,000 power amp is much better then the $1500.00 receiver. Where do you draw the line? Bi amps? Tri amplification?? Yup, and a year later, there will be a newer model to whet your EAS..(Equipment Acquisition Syndrome) There are limitations to human hearing. At some point you will reach a point where you are not hearing "better" sound only different sound. I think you hit the nail on the head, Larry -- Jim Coon Not just another pretty mandolin picker. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
"J. Coon" wrote: lI am an engineer, and I think that if we can hear something, there has to be a way to measure it. THis is science , not hokus pokus. Jim, I have been corresponding with you on the list for several years. I almost always agree with what you have to say, because I think you are right. This reply is not an exception, but rather a clarification. I think that you are missing my point when you say, "there has to be a way to measure it". I'm not saying that if the sound is clearly noticeable to the majority of normal hearing persons that it can't be measured. That's a fact. Anyone who would argue with you about that is simply mistaken. What I am says is a) there are measurements that an instrument can record that have no significance in the real world because they are beyond the realm of human hearing. b) Just because some people "hear" something (remember, it is important to use the term some people) that does not mean there is a measurable, quantitative difference. Only that some people "hear' something. How many times have you been all excited about some new piece of equipment or "improved" CD (by improved I mean that the CD had been out for some time and in order to generate new sales, the record company makes a vague reference to improvements on the "new version". But when you have other people listen to what you are all excited about, they do not notice any difference. There are two main reasons for this that I can think of. One is that the excited person is hearing what he/she wants to hear. The other is just the opposite. The person being asked to listen just doesn't have the ability to distinguish between certain variations in sound (or video for that matter). What is also important for me to make clear is that the person that can not tell the difference doesn't have to have poorer hearing then the excited person (by the standard means use to test a persons hearing). He/she hears perfectly fine. Maybe even better then the exited person, as far as testing goes. But their thought processes are not able to comprehend the difference. I'm NOT speaking of a psychoacoustic or (and I am using this term only to avoid another stupid thread) psychosomatic effect. Two people have good eyesight. In fact one of the person's is even better then the other. Both read something. Both understand each individual word. But when placed in a specific order, the person with the "just good" eyesight might fully understand what he/she has read and the person with the better eyesight has trouble understanding the exact meaning. This has nothing to do with intelligence either!! The person that can't quite "get it" (btw, I hope that everyone on the list is getting it and as often as they wantG) may be "rated" with a super intelligence. It's just that there are areas where very bright people excel and at the same time this brilliant people may just not be "good" in certain areas. So why can't the same be said for what one hears?? Yup, and a year later, there will be a newer model to whet your EAS..(Equipment Acquisition Syndrome) I think you hit the nail on the head, Larry I like that EAS!!! It is so true. Each year most equipment manufactures make "changes" and "improvements" to their products. But often these "improvements" are actually only things that make the product look a little different and in many cases are done because it is cheaper for the manufacture to produce (even though they may charge a premium for the newer model. I'm not going to touch planned obsolesce. We could start a thread there that would never end and probably spend months just talking about Sony. Enjoy your weekend, Larry -- Jim Coon Not just another pretty mandolin picker. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
"Les" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now I am confused cause I do not remember who wrote what anymore, LOL I'm sure you're not the only one g I never said ATRAC degraded anything people can hear You never said that, but it's true (at least for some people). I will never believe this until someone proves it and more than a few have tried, come on over to Oak Harbor WA and try I'll offer 100.00 to anyone who can come tell me the difference in my studio; but if you loose we go to the Outback (A HIGH END restuarant, LOL) on your bill. If I lived a little closer, Larry ;-) Most serious audio people would not consider Onkyo or HK to be "high end" -- there is little difference in audio quality between a good JVC CD player and a good HK CD player. Anyone who knows audio equipment or who has ever sold audio equipment knows better than this. While not the highest end Onkyo HK are high end consumer versions whereas JVC is NOT.. But you are right, there is little difference in the sound quality which is what I tried to explain all along. SO little and subtle you can only notice it at very low volume. I would disagree, Larry, about HK vs. Onkyo vs. JVC, and I would consider myself someone who "knows audio" pretty well. Harmon-Kardon and Onkyo are *marketed* as "high-end consumer" but in reality (as you yourself wrote) they don't really sound any better than JVC. In fact, if I recall correctly, neither Onkyo nor HK ever had a CD player listed in Stereophile's recommended components, while JVC has had at least two -- one of their consumer CD players was listed as a Class C transport for several years. While some people don't give Stereophile much credence (I personally admit that I think a lot of their "tweaks" are hokey and some of their "subtle differences" are there because they want them to be there), I think that more than any of the other audio magazines, Stereophile at least does a good job of differentiating between what does and doesn't reproduce good sound. What do you consider high end by the way?? I think for CD players you have to at least get up to NAD, Adcom and the like before you can really say you're approaching "high-end." That said, there are CD players from "high-end" manufacturers that aren't that good, and CD players from "consumer" companies (like the JVC unit mentioned above) that are. And as I've said before, many people don't have "high end" components, and are perfectly happy with them -- I know you and I agree here, Larry, but I just want to reiterate that there is nothing that says you have to have "high-end" stuff to enjoy your music. That's where I disagree. While the average consumer doesn't care, you don't have to spend obscene amounts of money just to get a "high-end" system that can reveal the differences. I can agree on most of what you are saying but Again, I am very curious what you consider "high end"; if JVC decks are equal to Onkyo then are radio shack speakers in the same group as Klipsch?? Well, not anywhere near usually, but Radio Shack distributes an Optimus-branded speaker made by Linnaeus that is probably in that range. The rest of Radio Shack's stuff is pretty poor ;-) Along those lines, for years, many people in audio considered the Optimus 3400 to be the best portable CD player on the market, but who would have guessed. Kind of what I mentioned above -- even the bad companies get it right on occasion g How about +/- .0001 db; think you can hear that difference?? Or how about 5hz, think you can hear that? Have you ever had a hearing test? If equipment can't outperform the human ear then how would we ever measure human hearing? We do it every 3 months in the aviation world. This statement is simply not true but it does "sound" good, LOL. and, similarly, "J. Coon" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am an engineer, and I think that if we can hear something, there has to be a way to measure it. THis is science , not hokus pokus. If you're talking about measuring test tones, dB, frequency response, you (and Jim) are entirely correct. However, my point was that musical reproduction isn't about simply reproducing test tones, certain sound levels, and the "best" flat frequency response. If it was, we would have had perfect audio reproduction years and years ago. While equipment can measure those things, it can't tell you whether or not a certain stereo system sounds more (or less) like the original performance. In terms of hearing music and the spacial, directional, and, some argue, emotional cues within it, the human ear is much more sensitive than any equipment. Two speakers that are measured by equipment to have the exact same specifications can sound remarkably different to human ears, even in controlled, double-blind testing. That's why audio magazines don't just publish measurements, and why we don't buy stereos by spec sheets. I actually think we're on the same page here, Larry, no? And finally,
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === I never said ATRAC degraded anything people can hear You never said that, but it's true (at least for some people). I will never believe this until someone proves it and more than a few have tried, come on over to Oak Harbor WA and try I'll offer 100.00 to anyone who can come tell me the difference in my studio; but if you loose we go to the Outback (A HIGH END restuarant, LOL) on your bill. If I lived a little closer, Larry ;-) If your speaking about me, Larry Sherry, I never made any statement about ATRAC causing very noticeable (if any) dedication in sound quality. I'm still the schmuck that thinks that even the original sony ATRAC version one isn't bad (STOP I know that everyone thinks I'm deaf for saying this but you have to understand that I never play MD through a, what you'd you call it (Pioneer 100 watt per channel dolby prologic etc.-I'll discuss my front speakers at a later time) medium end?? system. I consider low end something like a 400.00 + Aiwa system. although, even with their plastic speakers, some of them have "not that poor" sound quality. Most serious audio people would not consider Onkyo or HK to be "high end" -- there is little difference in audio quality between a good JVC CD player and a good HK CD player. Anyone who knows audio equipment or who has ever sold audio equipment knows better than this. While not the highest end Onkyo HK are high end consumer versions whereas JVC is NOT.. But you are right, there is little difference in the sound quality which is what I tried to explain all along. SO little and subtle you can only notice it at very low volume. I would disagree, Larry, Wow!! again, this isn't my statement!!! I think that you may have take a thread from a previous e mail and confused it with me!!! I really don't think that I wrote that. I don't agree with the statements, so i don't think I wrote them. about HK vs. Onkyo vs. JVC, and I would consider myself someone who "knows audio" pretty well. Harmon-Kardon and Onkyo are *marketed* as "high-end consumer" but in reality (as you yourself wrote) they don't really sound any better than JVC. In fact, if I recall correctly, neither Onkyo nor HK ever had a CD player listed in Stereophile's recommended components, while JVC has had at least two -- one of their consumer CD players was listed as a Class C transport for several years. While some people don't give Stereophile much credence (I personally admit that I think a lot of their "tweaks" are hokey and some of their "subtle differences" are there because they want them to be there), I think that more than any of the other audio magazines, Stereophile at least does a good job of differentiating between what does and doesn't reproduce good sound. What do you consider high end by the way?? I think for CD players you have to at least get up to NAD, Adcom and the like before you can really say you're approaching "high-end." That said, there are CD players from "high-end" manufacturers that aren't that good, and CD players from "consumer" companies (like the JVC unit mentioned above) that are. And as I've said before, many people don't have "high end" components, and are perfectly happy with them -- I know you and I agree here, Larry, but I just want to reiterate that there is nothing that says you have to have "high-end" stuff to enjoy your music. That's where I disagree. While the average consumer doesn't care, you don't have to spend obscene amounts of money just to get a "high-end" system that can reveal the differences. this is NOT Larry Sherry!! I can agree on most of what you are saying but Again, I am very curious what you consider "high end"; if JVC decks are equal to Onkyo then are radio shack speakers in the same group as Klipsch?? Not me. I usually don't even consider jvc when I think of any kind of quality audio! Well, not anywhere near usually, but Radio Shack distributes an Optimus-branded speaker made by Linnaeus that is probably in that range. The rest of Radio Shack's stuff is pretty poor ;-) Along those lines, for years, many people in audio considered the Optimus 3400 to be the best portable CD player on the market, but who would have guessed. Kind of what I mentioned above -- even the bad companies get it right on occasion g How about +/- .0001 db; think you can hear that difference?? Or how about 5hz, think you can hear that? Have you ever had a hearing test? If equipment can't outperform the human ear then how would we ever measure human hearing? We do it every 3 months in the aviation world. This statement is simply not true but it does "sound" good, LOL. and, similarly, "J. Coon" [EMAIL
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
las [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If your speaking about me, Larry Sherry, [and] I would disagree, Larry, Wow!! again, this isn't my statement!!! I think that you may have take a thread from a previous e mail and confused it with me!!! My apologies to Larry and Les for mixing up their posts. I saw "las" and "les" and got confused g that IS Larry!! Well, at least I got one attribution right ;-) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
On 8/26/00 7:05 PM, Les wrote: Actually I wrote most of what you attribute to Larry, LOL I just realized that from reading Larry's comments in the last digest ;-) You are correct about most and our disagreements are so little I'm giving up on principle! I think we had a very good discussion. Thanks to everyone for being civil -- not that you wouldn't be, but we've all seen some of the other "discussions!" - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
How RIGHT you are on this one DAN! It was FUN, and my partner and I get into some real good ones sometimes too, LOL BTW , we both agree yellow MDs are better than blue too, right?? But I think the clear ones give the clearest sound, LOL.. Les - Original Message - From: "Dan Frakes" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Les" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "MDList" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2000 9:13 PM Subject: Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality On 8/26/00 7:05 PM, Les wrote: Actually I wrote most of what you attribute to Larry, LOL I just realized that from reading Larry's comments in the last digest ;-) You are correct about most and our disagreements are so little I'm giving up on principle! I think we had a very good discussion. Thanks to everyone for being civil -- not that you wouldn't be, but we've all seen some of the other "discussions!" - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
On 8/26/00 9:20 PM, Les wrote: How RIGHT you are on this one DAN! It was FUN, and my partner and I get into some real good ones sometimes too, LOL BTW , we both agree yellow MDs are better than blue too, right?? But I think the clear ones give the clearest sound, LOL.. Yeah, I don't like the blue ones very much -- they just add too much, er, color to my music g - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
"J. Coon" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have one customer that pays double the price to get his CDRs colored red because he KNOWS they sound better Wow, he sure is a fool. Everyone knows you need to use the GREEN MARKER. G LOL... good one. And don't forget to litter your listening room with those little black discs ;-) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
"Les" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not believe Mike is confused but sounds like someone is I am assuming you are referring to me ;-) ...and the last direct reply to my explanation "rested my case" for me whether you knew it or not, LOL How so? I never said ATRAC degraded anything people can hear You never said that, but it's true (at least for some people). Next time you are in a hi fi shop ask for a demo and compare the same cd on a high end Onkyo or HK unit with high end speakers... Most serious audio people would not consider Onkyo or HK to be "high end" -- there is little difference in audio quality between a good JVC CD player and a good HK CD player. The guys jumping on the volume issue and claiming they never listen to theirs "that loud..." By the way, that wouldn't be me... Consumer reports and others who do honest evaluations will claim there is zero sound difference in CD players. I believed this for a long time but now realize their tests were flawed because they were listening to average speakers which are not capable of producing the differences. Agreed. Consumer Reports is great for some things. But when it comes to "high-end" audio, they aren't very useful. They are good for people on very limited budgets trying to buy the "most reliable" unit out of a few inexpensive units that are all of pretty much equal quality. In any case, nothing should ever be noticed on an average system Completely true, and that's what I've been saying from the beginning ;-) ...and only those of us willing to spend the bucks on speakers alone that most would flinch at for an entire home theater including a large screen tv would (or should) even care about such minute differences. That's where I disagree. While the average consumer doesn't care, you don't have to spend obscene amounts of money just to get a "high-end" system that can reveal the differences. Anyone who thinks they can hear a difference ...or who actually can... would not believe anything other than what they hear anyway. No, the issue isn't that people *think* they can hear a difference. The issue is that there *is* an empirical difference, and some people with some systems *can* hear the difference. If you can't, more power to you -- you enjoy the sound more than those people ;-) ...never mind that very expensive test equipment can't measure a lot of what we "think" we hear Even the most expensive test equipment doesn't measure subtle differences well. The human ear is more sensitive than the most expensive "equipment" in the world. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
"J. Coon" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have one customer that pays double the price to get his CDRs colored red because he KNOWS they sound better Wow, he sure is a fool. Everyone knows you need to use the GREEN MARKER. G LOL... good one. And don't forget to litter your listening room with those little black discs ;-) You fools, the green marker improves playback when applied around the edge of CD's, whereas the red CDs provide superior S/N ratio (the noise being light) with the red discs as it comes through the red layer. It seems obvious to me that a combination of red discs and green marker pens will make as much of a difference to CD sound as erm, errr, Oh no, what have I been saying, I'm mad I need help etc (the same applies to other marker pen disc color believers). Heheheh. PrinceGaz. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
--- PrinceGaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless [a] I've completely misunderstood the principles of
'masking'
or [b] you're using an amp which really struggles to drive your
speakers at high volume, and fidelity decreases anyway.
Maybe more like your ears being beaten into submission at high
volume
levels, I would have thought!
Perhaps, yes. The more I read the responses from Dan and Les (hi
guys!), the more I think we're just at cross-purposes regarding
working definitions of 'quiet' and 'loud'. I think of a system
playing "very softly" as one providing background music (at these
levels, I'm sure I'd struggle to distinguish cassette, LP and CD,
never mind MiniDisc), whereas "loud" to me is not PA levels, but more
like 85-90dB SPL ('C'-weighted) at the listening position. This is
loud as I ever dare play my system (yes, I know - what a shameful
waste of 125W Audiolab monoblocs...;). The SPLs I experience wearing
headphones are probably a lot higher - but, again, analytical
listening just isn't conducted at 'cranked' levels - it's more of a
visceral thing at that point. So, in that sense, perhaps Dan and Les
are right.
[I'm moving to a new flat in the next few weeks... good point: it's
away from the incessant traffic noise I've had to endure for the last
18 months; bad point: I'll have neighbours above and below. Back to
those headphones...]
Mike.
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
Les wrote: I have one customer that pays double the price to get his CDRs colored red because he KNOWS they sound better Wow, he sure is a fool. Everyone knows you need to use the GREEN MARKER. G -- Jim Coon Not just another pretty mandolin picker. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
--- Les [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Try hooking up a JVC CD player in your system and compare that to your NAD.. As I said earlier - all bets are off unless you compare like with like. In other words, the digital feeds from CD source and MD copy routed through the *same* DAC (and one that is good enough to be relatively immune to cable loading, jitter, etc). Without doing that we just can't say with any degree of confidence that the apparent degradation in sound quality is due to ATRACing alone (or even at all). there is near zero difference when listening at any real volume at all. I'm still trying to get my head around this. If there are audible artefacts associated with ATRAC, how come they show up at low volumes, but all but vanish at high volumes? This seems pretty counter-intuitive. Mike. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 10:39:46 -0700, "Les" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Guess what, any music in the hands of a consumer is in the end converted to analog since standard speakers can not convert digital information. This means each piece in the system used to reproduce sound has an effect and you have almost proved my point. You are asking a standard JVC deck to compete with your NAD. It aint gonna happen. Try hooking up a JVC CD player in your system and compare that to your NAD.. While HDCD units themselves should not make a difference on non HDCD CD they usually do for all the same reasons; the internal circuits are usually far superior on these decks than a standard one. Not necessarily true. JVC has a reputation for having some of the best "consumer-grade" CD and MD players on the market. In fact, for years JVC was the only mass-market company to have one of their players listed in Stereophile's "Recommended Components." My NAD CD player isn't top-of-the-line by any means. Is there a difference in quality? Sure. Is it the *real* reason I can hear differences? Not solely, and possibly not at all. I do have a receiver that has its own D/A converter. Maybe sometime I'll plug my MD player and my CD player into that, then run that line to my "main" stereo, just so that both will be using the same D/A converter. But back to the real topic of this discussion, as I mentioned in my initial message, the comparison I outlined was just *one* example of situations where I can tell the difference between CD and MD. It's not the only one. My CD portable sounds better than my MD portable (even though the MD portable has a better headphone amp). Even on our JVC 9000 mini-system with PSB speakers (which uses the *same* D/A converter for CD and MD), I can tell the difference. I was simply trying to provide one example that would, to some extent, be a bit more methodologically sound The single largest difference folks are going to hear from MD to the next is the deck that was used to record it. This is not necessarily the ONLY difference but it is the largest difference. So, you can also try someone else's MD recorded on at least an ES machine to listen to the difference. As I've said, I disagree. Simply because of the compression involved, the CD and MD are going to be different. And as I've already mentioned, as long as there *is* a difference, there are going to be some people who can hear it. But (also as I've said before), this is really a silly argument, because we all agree that the sound quality is excellent ;-) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
Michael Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: there is near zero difference when listening at any real volume at all. I'm still trying to get my head around this. If there are audible artefacts associated with ATRAC, how come they show up at low volumes, but all but vanish at high volumes? This seems pretty counter-intuitive. While I disagree with the previous poster that "there is near zero difference when listening at any real volume," he's correct to some extent that differences are often more "muted" the louder the volume. The human ear becomes less sensitive the louder the surrounding environment. You can easily hear a whisper in a quiet room, or even in a room with a bunch of people talking softly, but in a noisy room you can't at all. Not the best analogy, but similar -- if the artifacts of ATRAC compression are subtle, you may be able to hear them at low volumes but as the music gets louder it masks them. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
--- Dan Frakes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can easily hear a whisper in a quiet room, or even in a room with a bunch of people talking softly, but in a noisy room you can't at all. Not the best analogy Well, not really an analogy at all. The whisper remains a whisper while the noise-level in the room goes up and swamps it. But here, we're talking about some kind of change in the character of the signal due to ATRAC (whether it's weird artefacts accompanying low bass, HF hash, loss of stereo imaging, whatever) - surely the louder the playback volume, the more apparent the deviation from the original reference? if the artifacts of ATRAC compression are subtle, you may be able to hear them at low volumes but as the music gets louder it masks them. But you're raising the volume of the *whole* thing - surely the artefacts are preserved (rather than obscured) in this process. Unless [a] I've completely misunderstood the principles of 'masking' or [b] you're using an amp which really struggles to drive your speakers at high volume, and fidelity decreases anyway. I'm confused now. Mike. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
Well I do not believe Mike is confused but sounds like someone is and the last direct reply to my explanation "rested my case" for me whether you knew it or not, LOL... I never said ATRAC degraded anything people can hear and do not believe the modern versions do to any extent that a human ear can hear it. Next time you are in a hi fi shop ask for a demo and compare the same cd on a high end Onkyo or HK unit with high end speakers then listen via the same amp and speakers to a Technics or JVC and you will see (hear) EXACTLY what I have been talking about. The differences are so subtle you will only notice it at a very low volume...The guys jumping on the volume issue and claiming they never listen to theirs "that loud" have no idea what I tried to explain because anyone will listen past the 10% level unless they are perhaps pushing thousands of watts.. Consumer reports and others who do honest evaluations will claim there is zero sound difference in CD players. I believed this for a long time but now realize their tests were flawed because they were listening to average speakers which are not capable of producing the differences. The same should be reasonably expected from MD decks if such high end units even exist. I have 26 years experience in this stuff and some of the "analogies" just floor me. I have one customer that pays double the price to get his CDRs colored red because he KNOWS they sound better when they are the same disc and dye; just a different reflective coating (which the red color reduces reflectivity by the way) so if they sounded different at all (they do not) he has the quality backwards, LOL... In any case, nothing should ever be noticed on an average system and only those of us willing to spend the bucks on speakers alone that most would flinch at for an entire home theater including a large screen tv would (or should) even care about such minute differences.. Now I am resting my own case because I am tired of trying to explain this and think I gave it my best shot anyway...Anyone who thinks they can hear a difference would not believe anything other than what they hear anyway; never mind that very expensive test equipment can't measure a lot of what we "think" we hear, LOL.. Les Music Mixers www.musicmixers.com - Original Message - From: "Dan Frakes" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 7:34 AM Subject: Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 10:39:46 -0700, "Les" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Guess what, any music in the hands of a consumer is in the end converted to analog since standard speakers can not convert digital information. This means each piece in the system used to reproduce sound has an effect and you have almost proved my point. You are asking a standard JVC deck to compete with your NAD. It aint gonna happen. Try hooking up a JVC CD player in your system and compare that to your NAD.. While HDCD units themselves should not make a difference on non HDCD CD they usually do for all the same reasons; the internal circuits are usually far superior on these decks than a standard one. Not necessarily true. JVC has a reputation for having some of the best "consumer-grade" CD and MD players on the market. In fact, for years JVC was the only mass-market company to have one of their players listed in Stereophile's "Recommended Components." My NAD CD player isn't top-of-the-line by any means. Is there a difference in quality? Sure. Is it the *real* reason I can hear differences? Not solely, and possibly not at all. I do have a receiver that has its own D/A converter. Maybe sometime I'll plug my MD player and my CD player into that, then run that line to my "main" stereo, just so that both will be using the same D/A converter. But back to the real topic of this discussion, as I mentioned in my initial message, the comparison I outlined was just *one* example of situations where I can tell the difference between CD and MD. It's not the only one. My CD portable sounds better than my MD portable (even though the MD portable has a better headphone amp). Even on our JVC 9000 mini-system with PSB speakers (which uses the *same* D/A converter for CD and MD), I can tell the difference. I was simply trying to provide one example that would, to some extent, be a bit more methodologically sound The single largest difference folks are going to hear from MD to the next is the deck that was used to record it. This is not necessarily the ONLY difference but it is the largest difference. So, you can also try someone else's MD recorded on at least an ES machine to listen to the difference. As I've said, I disagree. Simply because of the compression involved, the CD and MD are going to be different. And as I've already mentioned, as long as there *is* a difference, there are going to be some people who can
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
Michael Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, not really an analogy at all. The whisper remains a whisper while the noise-level in the room goes up and swamps it. But here, we're talking about some kind of change in the character of the signal due to ATRAC (whether it's weird artefacts accompanying low bass, HF hash, loss of stereo imaging, whatever) - surely the louder the playback volume, the more apparent the deviation from the original reference? That's what I meant by "bad analogy" ;-) Yes, the louder the volume, the louder the artifacts, but what I was trying to say was that the human ear lowers its sensitivity the louder the "noise" it hears. The louder the music, the less sensitive your ears are to "subtle artifacts." - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
Hello Guess what, any music in the hands of a consumer is in the end converted to analog since standard speakers can not convert digital information. This means each piece in the system used to reproduce sound has an effect and you have almost proved my point. You are asking a standard JVC deck to compete with your NAD. It aint gonna happen.. Try hooking up a JVC CD player in your system and compare that to your NAD.. While HDCD units themselves should not make a difference on non HDCD CD they usually do for all the same reasons; the internal circuits are usually far superior on these decks than a standard one. I used Rock and Roll for an example ONLY, cause that's just me. And I am not talking about very loud volumes for the subtle differences to disappear, perhaps 10-15% of your systems power is usually enough for this to happen. I will normally use some soft jazz or classical to demonstrate as it is easier to hear differences (still can't hear any after a certain point) The single largest difference folks are going to hear from MD to the next is the deck that was used to record it. This is not necessarily the ONLY difference but it is the largest difference. So, you can also try someone else's MD recorded on at least an ES machine to listen to the difference. In any case, as I mentioned I have sold a lot of folks, including more than a few pro DJs on MD by proving to them in my own studio that there is near zero difference when listening at any real volume at all. Now if background elevator music played very softly is your forte then I make no such claim. Les www.musicmixers.com - Original Message - From: "Dan Frakes" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 11:55 PM Subject: Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality "Les" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A lot of truth here but you might want to consider component quality and not just system quality. There are cd players and there are HDCD players of considerable quality difference. I have yet to see any of the so called really high end gear companies produce MD decks. I would venture to say that if you had a Sony ES CD deck and A Sony ES MD deck you should not be able to so readily hear a difference. From the sounds of your system I would bet your CD deck is either a pro model or very high end HDCD. Perhaps if you had a pro model or super high end MD deck (if indeed they are available) the comparison would be more fair. After all a Technics is not going to sound like a Harman Kardon or Onkyo, much less something better like a NAD! So, it is my firm opinion that your cd deck MUST be far superior to your MD deck if you can so easily tell a difference. My CD player is an NAD 502. A very good standalone player, but not a "pro" model (not sure what you mean by "pro"), nor is it a "very high end HDCD" (which won't make a difference on non-HDCDs). I don't have a Sony ES MD component for playback -- I use the line out on my JVC home unit or on my MZ-R50 -- but I personally think that in my system the limiting factor is the quality of the MD recording, not the playback unit. Except, I say again; when you turn the volume up to a normal rock and roll level its going to take Superman to hear any difference at all; not just between formats but between any decent gear as well (providing the same quality speakers are being used, speakers being the most crucial of all audio components). True, but I don't listen to my rock music that loud ;-) And while turning up the volume on rock music can "drown out" the differences in sound quality, turning up the volume on classical pieces doesn't quite have the same effect. In fact, it often "shows" differences. Also, until about 3 months ago I would have agreed with you totally on MP3. Since audio is my profession I took another look and have found there are now extremely high quality MP3s on the net. When converted to waves and burned to CD they are about as good as anything, which is why there is now such a fuss about themn I guess. I have yet to find an MP3 that has quality good enough to compete with CD or MD, but that's just me ;-) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === - Original Message - From: "Dan Frakes" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2000 12:51 PM Subject: Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 02:24:16 -0400, las [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am a little confused and disappointed by some of the things that I have read recently here on the list. I have always felt that the quality of an MD copied from a CD (digitally) is almost indistinguishable on equipment manufactured within the last year or 2. Now I am finding multiple comments from long time list members stating that there is on obvious difference in the quality between the original CD and the MD copy. [snip] I am interested in all opinions regarding lower end decks and portables. Also, the difference that people have noticed between CD and it's MD copy. OK, Larry, I'm game grin It all depends on your equipment. For the majority of people who use MiniDiscs, there is no audible difference. Most equipment that you buy at Circuit City or Best Buy just doesn't produce the differences. This is not intended to be "elitest" nor am I saying that you can't get good, satisfying sound from Circuit City or Best Buy. Millions of people are ecstatically happy with their Circuit City stereos, and I have absolutely no problem with that. I am simply stating an objective fact: you can only produce a certain level of audio quality within the constraints of mass-market audio components. And MD is good enough that within that market, it's difficult to tell the difference. However, on higher-end systems (or even with very good headphones) the difference in sound quality between CD and MD is often immediately audible. Let's put this discussion in perspective. My friends and I often debate whether or not MP3 is "CD-quality." They'll argue for hours that it is -- then I go to their place and see that they're listening to CDs and MP3s on their computer with $30 Labtec speakers. Of course they sound the same! grin There exists a level of "system quality" below which they sound the same, and above which there is an audible difference in quality. Our discussion here is simply raising everything up to a higher level: even on a decent system, CD and MD may sound the same. However, there is still a threshold of system quality above which you will be able to hear the difference. Have to give my 2 cents worth (again) on this one. A lot of truth here but you might want to consider component quality and not just system quality. There are cd players and there are HDCD players of considerable quality difference. I have yet to see any of the so called really high end gear companies produce MD decks. I would venture to say that if you had a Sony ES CD deck and A Sony ES MD deck you should not be able to so readily hear a difference. From the sounds of your system I would bet your CD deck is either a pro model or very high end HDCD. Perhaps if you had a pro model or super high end MD deck (if indeed they are available) the comparison would be more fair. After all a Technics is not going to sound like a Harman Kardon or Onkyo, much less something better like a NAD! So, it is my firm opinion that your cd deck MUST be far superior to your MD deck if you can so easily tell a difference. Except, I say again; when you turn the volume up to a normal rock and roll level its going to take Superman to hear any difference at all; not just between formats but between any decent gear as well (providing the same quality speakers are being used, speakers being the most crucial of all audio components).. Like I said before, you would need more bucks than you spent on your gear for test equipment good enough to measure the differences being discussed here. Also, until about 3 months ago I would have agreed with you totally on MP3. Since audio is my profession I took another look and have found there are now extremely high quality MP3s on the net. When converted to waves and burned to CD they are about as good as anything, which is why there is now such a fuss about themn I guess. I would not give 2 cents for an MP3 player, however.. Les www.musicmixers.com Our system at home consists of NAD separates and NHT and PSB speakers. I'm not even close to being wealthy, but audio quality is very important to me. I'm willing to spend a lot of time shopping so that I can get the best possible sound for my money. I'll make due with fewer features if it means better sound. So I spend quite a bit of time shopping for my system (and saving for it!), listening in audio shops, reading reviews, newsgroups, etc. In my opinion, I have the best system I could get for the money
MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
I am a little confused and disappointed by some of the things that I have read recently here on the list. I have always felt that the quality of an MD copied from a CD (digitally) is almost indistinguishable on equipment manufactured within the last year or 2. Now I am finding multiple comments from long time list members stating that there is on obvious difference in the quality between the original CD and the MD copy. I no longer own a deck. My 510 sat around collecting dust while I constantly used my portables and with the advent of ATRAC3, I jumped at the chance to sell mine of $150.00. This price included the balance of a Circuit City ESP (which cost $89 itself). So if there is a noticeable difference between the 510 and my Denon R70 or my never Aiwa F70 portable recorder, I'm screwed. I am interested in all opinions regarding lower end decks and portables. Also, the difference that people have noticed between CD and it's MD copy. I don't have the time to properly try and conduct A/B tests and since they would not be blind, let alone double blind, psychoacoustics becomes a problem. Thanks, Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
* las [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, 20 Aug 2000 | I have always felt that the quality of an MD copied from a CD (digitally) is | almost indistinguishable on equipment manufactured within the last year or 2. Extend that back about to about 4 years, with the introduction of Sony ATRAC 4. Generally speaking, it is, modulo the quality of the playback equipment. | Now I am finding multiple comments from long time list members stating | that there is on obvious difference in the quality between the original | CD and the MD copy. Who the hell cares? MiniDisc is not about top-level audio quality (neither is CD-DA, for that matter), it is about portability. Any differences you might hear out of your PSB Alphas is going to be irreproducible on the best headphones that a portable unit can drive. And even if they were, you are going to be outside, in your car, in the gym, whatever, where external noise is going to be worse than any "obviously" perceptible quality loss in the encoding algorithm. MiniDisc is superior to compact cassette in every way imagineable. If you agree then to hell with the "long-time list members" spurrious statements about MD's audio quality. If you do not, then stay the hell away from MD. Simple as that, really. -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ unknown glowing substance which fell to PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ Earth, presumably from outer space. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: CD quality compared to MD quality
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 02:24:16 -0400, las [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am a little confused and disappointed by some of the things that I have read recently here on the list. I have always felt that the quality of an MD copied from a CD (digitally) is almost indistinguishable on equipment manufactured within the last year or 2. Now I am finding multiple comments from long time list members stating that there is on obvious difference in the quality between the original CD and the MD copy. [snip] I am interested in all opinions regarding lower end decks and portables. Also, the difference that people have noticed between CD and it's MD copy. OK, Larry, I'm game grin It all depends on your equipment. For the majority of people who use MiniDiscs, there is no audible difference. Most equipment that you buy at Circuit City or Best Buy just doesn't produce the differences. This is not intended to be "elitest" nor am I saying that you can't get good, satisfying sound from Circuit City or Best Buy. Millions of people are ecstatically happy with their Circuit City stereos, and I have absolutely no problem with that. I am simply stating an objective fact: you can only produce a certain level of audio quality within the constraints of mass-market audio components. And MD is good enough that within that market, it's difficult to tell the difference. However, on higher-end systems (or even with very good headphones) the difference in sound quality between CD and MD is often immediately audible. Let's put this discussion in perspective. My friends and I often debate whether or not MP3 is "CD-quality." They'll argue for hours that it is -- then I go to their place and see that they're listening to CDs and MP3s on their computer with $30 Labtec speakers. Of course they sound the same! grin There exists a level of "system quality" below which they sound the same, and above which there is an audible difference in quality. Our discussion here is simply raising everything up to a higher level: even on a decent system, CD and MD may sound the same. However, there is still a threshold of system quality above which you will be able to hear the difference. Our system at home consists of NAD separates and NHT and PSB speakers. I'm not even close to being wealthy, but audio quality is very important to me. I'm willing to spend a lot of time shopping so that I can get the best possible sound for my money. I'll make due with fewer features if it means better sound. So I spend quite a bit of time shopping for my system (and saving for it!), listening in audio shops, reading reviews, newsgroups, etc. In my opinion, I have the best system I could get for the money I spent (interestingly enough, my system actually cost less than some of the "super-systems" I see at Good Guys or Circuit City, but that's another discussion g). On *this* system, there is an audible difference between MDs and CDs. I don't have the time to properly try and conduct A/B tests and since they would not be blind, let alone double blind, psychoacoustics becomes a problem. I know you're a stickler for proper test methodology, Larry; as a researcher, I am, too. But here's an example that's better than most non-scientific comparisons. My girlfriend and I make MD copies of CDs that we listen to frequently so that we can take them with us. Our home system has both CD and MD. If we're at home and she wants to listen to an album we've recorded to MD, sometimes she uses the CD, sometimes she uses the MD. If I walk into the room, I can tell which one she is playing without knowing which one she inserted, without looking at the stereo, etc. In other words, I can tell by the way it sounds. It doesn't get much more "blind" than that. The only time I'm not sure is if I have never heard the original CD (which makes sense -- you need to have heard the original to tell if the copy is inferior). However, even then there are times when the music just "doesn't sound right" -- meaning the sound isn't as good as I would expect. There have been a number of times that I've pegged an MD even though I'd never heard the original CD. MD has a certain sound that I can often pick out on our home system. All that said, I think we're making a big deal out of nothing here. The fact is that MD is a very good compressed copy of an original. It's good enough that most people won't be able to hear the difference. But as long as there *is* a difference, some people, because of better playback systems, better ears, whatever, will objectively be able to discern that difference. This phenomenon is not constrained to audio. People who test drive cars for a living can detect the sublest differences in the way two cars handle, while I can't feel much difference between a Civic and a Jeep g. I marvel at how much better the picture is when playing a DVD vs. an older VHS tape, but I have friends who claim they look exactly the same. In
