Re: Vinyl quality vs. digital sound


Subject: Re: Vinyl quality vs. digital sound
From: Rick Nance (rnance@dmu.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Oct 21 2004 - 17:45:05 EDT


yeah, well generally I don't worry about things above 15KHz, but

The problem with high-end audiophile recordings and playback, as far as
I can tell, is price.
I've heard analog playback that I still swear is better than the same
publication on CD.

Elvis, the Sun Years(?)
half-speed master disc vs 16/44.1

The confound in the little experiment was price.

Goldman turntable $15,000 US, Thrush tonearm another grand. vs CD player

It mattered. It was obvious. no placebo effect margin for error.
==============================
Also, I've been probably reading too much on the auditory and now the
cochlea list but just to remind; the ear isn't analog, and it doesn't
make fourier transforms. It probably doesn't do "spectral analysis". It
measures differences.
=============================

 From another list in its entirety here:
http://iesk.et.uni-magdeburg.de/~blumsche/M20.html
(Comment by Eckard Blumschein: M20 contains just a very interesting
question by Zatorre and two pertaining reflections of mine. As soon as
the promised summary is available, I will add it to the archive.)
================
The interesting data follows, but the rest of the letter(s) aren't a loss.

"As a corollary, audition includes features which are not appropriately
or even not at all reflected within the traditional signal analysis.
Already the fundamental properties of each neuron provide an explanation
for that. Nonetheless, beware of ascribing auditory perception to single
neurons. The tradeoff between bandwidth and temporal resolution holds
for the mechanics of cochlea with exceptions of foveae in bats. The
smallest perceptible phase difference detectable by humans, 2,
corresponds with a temporal disparity of 4 microseconds at 100 Hz. Bats
were reported to even perceive much shorter disparities. The relation of
uncertainty would limit temporal resolution at that frequency to 10
milliseconds. With different words, hearing outperforms the spectrogram
in that case by more then two orders..."
===========================================

John Nowak wrote:
>
> On Oct 21, 2004, at 5:15 PM, Rick Nance wrote:
>
>> It's not an issue if you believe that 20KHz is a number that matters.
>> There is some evidence that differences up to 100KHz are detectable.
>
>
> There is also "evidence" that we never landed on the moon and that
> Stalin was truly a man of the people. I say rubbish!
>
> Hesitantly.
>
> - John



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:04 EST