From: larry@csccat.cs.com (Larry Spence)
Newsgroups: rec.audio
Subject: Re: Analog vs. Digital / Recording vs. Consumer
Date: 17 Apr 92 20:21:24 GMT
Organization: Computer Support Corporation,  Dallas,Texas

In article <1190711@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com> kurts@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Kurt Strain) writes:
>
>Oh, come on.  Anytime Larry has something to say to me indicates I have done
>something right.

Well, let's see, this makes the second Kurt-related post from me in the last
few months...  So I guess that means you've "done something right" in about 
1 out of 50 or so postings, right? %)  

OK, let's get down to nuts and bolts so jj the moderator doesn't tell me
to "can it."  Here's a little quiz for Kurt (and anyone else who'd like to 
respond):

   1) Do you admit the possibility of self-deception, bias, and/or audio
      "illusions" (e.g., something loud sounds quieter after you've been
      listening to it for a long time;  EQ changes can appear to "alter
      the soundstage")?  Have you ever caught yourself being "fooled"?

   2) If you answered yes to (1), how do you eliminate these factors when
      doing subtle comparisons of systems and media?

   3) Has anyone determined any objective, reproducible measurement that 
      supports the claim that a state-of-the-art LP system is a better
      reproducer of the sound of the master tape than a state-of-the-art
      CD system?  What I'm looking for is some measurement that is better
      for LP, and a tentative explanation of why this correlates with
      perceived "betterness." %)  E.g., don't claim that LPs sound better
      due to extended high end if your hearing only goes out to 18 kHz.

   4) How many dB does a well-made LP lose at, say, 20 kHz, after being
      played, say, 25 times on a state-of-the-art LP system?

   5) Can you tell the difference between LP playback and playback of a
      44.1 kHz DAT tape recorded off the same LP, without knowing in 
      advance which you're listening to (even better, double-blind)?
    
   6) If, as per discussions in this group, an analog tape recorder cannot
      reproduce more than 10 - 10 1/2 octaves, how can 44.1 kHz digital
      recordings be inferior (with respect to frequency response) to analog
      tape?

   7) How do double-blind tests obscure differences, assuming that the
      subject can perform them at leisure in his own home?  Under these
      conditions, is the main objection to such tests the use of an
      extra switch in the signal path? 
      
These are serious questions; please assume the best currently available
mastering, recording, A/D, D/A, DAT, analog tape, cartridge, pressing, etc.
Rambling evasions like "you've never heard a real high-end system, you
think all CD players sound identical, blah blah" will be ignored (by me,
at least).

Note that the question of preferences is a whole 'nother thing which I have
no interest in arguing, as I think we know what preferences most of the
regular posters here have. %)  I'm just interested in answers to the above
questions.  I am particularly interested in whether Kurt or anyone else
here has done (5) under double-blind conditions.

I am sincerely interested in getting straight answers to these questions 
(from anyone, not just Kurt).  OK, that's all I have to say.  Thank you.

-- 
Larry Spence
larry@csccat.cs.com
...!{uunet|texsun|cs.utexas.edu|decwrl|decvax}!csccat!larry
Newsgroups: rec.audio