Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex ATR-102 opinion (was MD5 Hash Generators

[Roderic G Stephens <savecal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It strikes me that this has become a debate between
two gentlemen who might better serve us by continuing
off list until something concrete (like the music)
occurs.  WMO,
Rod Stephens
--- Bruce Kinch <bckinch@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Tom-
> 
> Of course not.
> 
> It is a discussion of your proposal. I find that
> flawed in many ways, 
> some of which I addressed. However, you also had a
> nice suggestion, 
> that there might be -just might be, of course- an
> inverse in digital to 
> what you call analog euphony. I suggest we agree to
> call that effect 
> "dysphony", and share the credit. If you are willing
> to acknowledge 
> that perception as well as technical measurement
> plays a role in the 
> experience of recorded music, I'm willing to join
> you in a 
> presentation.
> 
> I quite well understand that error correction,
> rotational stability, 
> etc. have roles in assessing disc quality, even
> sound quality per se. I 
> don't see how that correlates with a perception like
>  "decent-sounding" 
> unless there is also a continuum from euphony to
> dysphony to place such 
> a concept as a midpoint. As you note, some
> distortions sound (i.e., are 
> perceived as) more euphonic than others (odd vs.
> even harmonic, for 
> example), so it is no stretch to now say some sound
> more dysphonic. If 
> you are old enough to have endured .00001% THD  70's
> Japanese 
> transistor electronics as well as SET tube amps, you
> know what I mean.
> 
> Let me suggest we start a book club. Go to Amazon,
> and buy any of these 
> titles:
> 
> Music, The Brain, And Ecstasy: How Music Captures
> Our Imagination- 
> Robert Jourdain
> Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain- Oliver
> Sacks
> This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human
> Obsession-Levitin
> 
> We'll read it together and compare notes. I'm sure
> they are all decent 
> reads. Maybe some others on the list could join us?
> 
> In fact, if Jerry is willing to make sure the pages
> are in the correct 
> order and count the typos, I'll buy him a copy too,
> just so we can 
> trust but verify that what we read is not corrupted
> by errors or 
> distortions of the original Word .doc.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 24, 2008, at 4:56 AM, Tom Fine wrote:
> 
> > OK, Bruce, so I take this as a "no" to Jerry's
> offer?
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Kinch"
> <bckinch@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:10 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Ampex ATR-102 opinion (was
> MD5 Hash Generators
> >
> >
> >> Hi Tom-
> >> On Jan 23, 2008, at 6:09 PM, Tom Fine wrote:
> >>> Hi Bruce:
> >>>
> >>>> The logical fallacy here is to equate "disc
> quality" with the 
> >>>> perception of music.
> >>>
> >>> Ah, yeah, that's the point for those of us who
> must make a living 
> >>> dealing in facts.
> >> Well, I'm retired, but I made my living dealing
> with ideas, as a 
> >> college professor for 30 years. Does tend to
> force the mind open.
> >>>  I think most of us operate under the assumption
> that the higher the 
> >>> disc quality (ie lack of digital errors and
> mechanical stability), 
> >>> the more output = input.
> >> Ah, an assumption is an idea. You have my
> attention.
> >>> As I've said repeatedly, if the input is of bad
> sonic quality, 
> >>> digital media and digital conversion will
> certainly preserve and not 
> >>> mask those flaws as much as older analog
> technologies, which add 
> >>> distortions (some apparently very euphonic to
> some people) and mask 
> >>> or "soften" some flaws at the input end (again,
> this is found to be 
> >>> euphonic by some people).
> >> Ah, but the same is true of bad input to analog,
> so no points there. 
> >> Please look up euphonic in a dictionary. It is
> not a swear. True, 
> >> distortions can sound good to some people,
> there's a whole guitar 
> >> effects industry to prove it.  And as I noted at
> the last CES, a lot 
> >> of digital demos relied on euphonic female vocal
> recordings that my 
> >> dad would have filed under easy listening. I live
> in a Diana 
> >> Krall-free zone now.
> >>>  So I again submit that many of the "digital
> sucks" crowd are 
> >>> igorantly confusing bad human craft and bad
> human decisions on the 
> >>> input end with what they hear on the output end
> and blaming the 
> >>> machine.
> >> I have never said digital sucks (is sucks a
> swear?), nor even bought 
> >> the tee shirt. Can you refer me to someone in
> that crowd who has? If 
> >> not, please promise to stop using swears to color
> an argument.
> >>>
> >>> But, let's see if we can put these different
> world-views to some 
> >>> quantifiable testing.
> >> How does one quantify ideas like world-views? My
> students couldn't, 
> >> but they were just students.
> >> Hitler's idea (or world-view if you please)
> killed 6 million, 
> >> Kevorkian maybe a dozen who asked him to, but
> kindly. The winner 
> >> is...?
> >> Does a woman have a right to choose, or is
> abortion murder? Big Bang 
> >> or Genesis? Coke or Pepsi?
> >> Tom, the objective becomes subjective because
> everyone has 
> >> preconceptions and biases. Makes the species
> argumentative. You too.
> >>> Bruce, I really want you to take Jerry's offer.
> What's to be afraid 
> >>> of -- I think some very interesting things could
> be learned by 
> >>> everyone involved and Jerry has made a very
> generous offer of his 
> >>> time and equipment. I suggest we can use test
> gears and test ears.
> >> Tom, it might make more sense if you took the
> test. You are probably 
> >> more used to the methodology, and would be more
> surprised by anything 
> >> other than a null result. I might be bored, or
> confused, but hardly 
> >> afraid.
> >>>  You guys buy two copies of a few commercial
> CD's -- choose a couple 
> >>> of titles each, and I think the tests would be
> best if you chose 
> >>> something you're familiar with and consider a
> decent-sounding 
> >>> recording.
> >> Why? What does decent-sounding mean? Can you
> quantify that, or are we 
> >> back in the realm of perception?
> >>>  Keep one copy wrapped up or have it
> dropped-shipped to Jerry (in 
> >>> other words, Jerry should test it right out of
> the shrink-wrap, so 
> >>> it goes into his machines just like it came out
> of the store). Take 
> >>> the other copies and apply these various
> treatments, keeping careful 
> >>> notes as to what treatments were applied. I
> think you'd want to 
> >>> stick to one type of treatment per disc but
> maybe not? Let Jerry 
> >>> submit both discs to his rigorous tests (please
> research Jerry's lab 
> >>> if you don't believe me that his tests are
> rigorous).
> >> Will Jerry's tests confirm the recordings are
> decent-sounding? That 
> >> was the basis on which you would choose them, so
> he must be able to 
> >> validate something that simple. Does the machine
> export the results 
> >> to Amazon.coms review pages? Man would that be
> cool!
> >>> Then I would let a third party take possession
> of the discs (trust 
> >>> and verify, ya know) and all of you make your
> way to the ABX 
> >>> comparison setup of your choosing (there was a
> very good one 
> >>> designed by the Boston Acoustic Society
> described in a recent JAES 
> >>> article).
> >> It's trust but verify, I think.
> >> I am actually a past dues-paying member of the
> BAS. Not without 
> >> preconceptions in my day, at least. Actually, the
> decline in 
> >> membership back then correlated nicely with the
> ascent of digital 
> >> recordings. Never figured that out until now.
> Numbers don't lie, I 
> >> guess.
> >>> Listen and find out first of all if there IS an
> audible difference 
> >>> between treated and untreated discs. And if
> there is, let everyone 
> >>> keep careful notes as to what they prefer. Then
> let's compare the 
> >>> results with Jerry's scientific analysis of
> things like error rates 
> >>> and mechanical stability. Perhaps we can learn a
> few useful facts:
> >>>
> >>> 1. what variances in laser-disc interactions are
> effected by 
> >>> polishing? Do they create higher or lower error
> rates? Do they 
> >>> effect laser mechanics at all, and if so
> positively or negatively 
> >>> vis-a-vis error rates? Is there an audible
> difference in ABX testing 
> >>> between polished and unpolished discs?
> >> I'm mostly interested in whether something gets
> more decent-sounding 
> >> or not. Wasn't that part of the hypothesis, that
> the discs were 
> >> decent sounding? There should be room for
> improvement there.
> >>>
> >>> 2. does shaving the edge of a disc improve
> stability? Does it effect 
> >>> error rates or laser-disc interactions? Is there
> an audible 
> >>> difference in ABX testing?
> >> Who knows, but does it sound better than decent?
> >>>
> >>> 3. I guess we should ask if degaussing outright
> ruins a disc -- 
> >>> Scott's experience seems to indicate yes but I
> suspect the kind of 
> >>> degaussing sold as a "treatment" uses a much
> less intense magnetic 
> >>> field. So, if the disc isn't outright ruined, is
> the error rate or 
> >>> mechanical stability effected? Is there an
> audible difference in ABX 
> >>> testing?
> >> Scott seems to have one of the Dharma Initiative
> degaussers that 
> >> imploded the hatch on Lost. But he heard a
> difference, and you'd have 
> >> to bounce him off the panel as biased because of
> it. Me too, I'm 
> >> afraid. Oops, I was afraid after all.
> >> My law student daughter says most trials are
> won/lost at voir dire. 
> >> True of ABX trials, too?
> >>>
> >>> 4. finally, and this would be the most
> interesting factor to examine 
> >>> -- I dare say it fringes on a "perception" study
> -- was there much 
> >>> agreement about any differences in sound? This
> would be particularly 
> >>> interesting and I'll certainly admit surprise if
> there IS a 
> >>> statistically relevant perceived differences in
> sound but no 
> >>> statistically relevant differences from Jerry's
> tests. I doubt that 
> >>> will happen but I'm never saying never.
> >> Wow, Tom, I've gotten you interested in
> PERCEPTION! You are no longer 
> >> speaking in MEANINGLESS ABSOLUTES!  Like
> BARNUMESQUE HOKUM!
> >>>
> >>> 5. this one is also very interesting, at least
> to me -- are discs 
> >>> found to have higher error rates or less
> mechanical stability in 
> >>> Jerry's tests preferred sonically in the ABX
> tests? This gets into 
> >>> the question, are there euphonic "problems" in
> digital systems akin 
> >>> to the harmonic distortion in tube gear that
> some find euphonic? 
> >>> Again, I doubt this but again I'm never saying
> never.
> >> I think the word you are looking for we can
> invent together right 
> >> here and now. You have suggested that digital
> might be "dysphonic", 
> >> if I have the Greek right. Sure, probably not,
> couldn't be, but maybe 
> >> we can at least copyright it. I can see the new
> Sony ad: Perfect 
> >> sound forever, and now less Dysphonic (TM) than
> ever, too! Royalties 
> >> beyond comprehension!
> >>>
> >>> So, what do you say guys? Let's see if we can
> get the laboratory and 
> >>> the listening room to meet in the middle here. I
> bet if someone 
> >>> forwards this thread to the BAS guys who wrote
> that JAES article 
> >>> they'd be game to get a crowd together for ABX
> testing. The only way 
> >>> we'll get answers is to do some testing. Jerry's
> opened the door, 
> >>> Bruce you should walk through it.
> >> Actually, Aldous Huxley opened the Doors of
> Perception, I think. I 
> >> just can't remember if I actually walked through
> them, must have been 
> >> back in the sixties, all a blur now. Worked for
> Jim Morrison, though.
> >> But obviously, we just want to ask different
> questions. We are 
> >> looking for different answers. That is bias.
> >>>
> >>> Extra gravey -- this might make a very good ARSC
> convention 
> >>> presentation.
> >> Agreed.
> >> How about From Euphonic Analog to Dysphonic
> Digital: A new approach 
> >> to evaluating musical reproduction. Authors Fine
> and Kinch 
> >> demonstrate their technique of dual-dimensional
> audio testing. 
> >> Plotting measured results on the X axis (Accuracy
> to Distortion) and 
> >> subjective musical pleasurability (Euphonic to
> Dysphonic) on the Y 
> >> axis, the researchers create a scatter plot
> revealing fundamental 
> >> differences between technologies, recordings, and
> playback equipment. 
> >> When correlated to individual biases, greater
> understanding of both 
> >> audiophillic and meter-mania disorders can be
> derived.
> >> Bruce
> >>>
> >>
> >
>