The problem with subjective impressions

[Kimo]

11 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

What "specific examples" are lost, with Doors and CCR recordings?

 

 

S/N is actually highly irrelevant  - a rig may blast you with theoretically low noise sound, but if it's contaminated with disturbing distortion anomalies, then your hearing will give it a big thumbs down.

 

The best I've heard from a living room type system used Bryston monoblocks, and close to the best Dynaudio speakers - this had clarity, and all the nuances that matter - I've heard plenty of lower grade pro monitors, and they're basically pure shite; so many things wrong with the SQ they're laughable. The Bryston combo showed how it should be done - could do standing a couple of feet away from a drum kit being given a full workout, with ease - you know, your head is almost exploding from the intensity of the sound type of thing, 😊.

 

I don't do this loud, but the quality is at that level.

1. CCR: The drums at the beginning of Fortunate Son on the AP SACD.  On the the high resolution area, the reverb and decay is obvious.  On the CD layer it is truncated, changing the presentation significantly.  Hoffman has offered this as an example of how 16 bit alters the sound of the original recording, due to the loss of low level information.  It is a striking example.

 

2. The Doors: The beginning of Moonlight Drive is marked by some rolling light piano in the right channel.  On the DCC CD, the 16 bit standard, the decay is once again altered, as compared with all other high resolution versions, both download and disc.  This results in a thicker, less delicate presentation, which is not so true to the recording.  Another example of how the sound is changed by the loss of low level information.

 

3. You are correct about the pro systems offering up a bit too much high order distortion for many people's liking.  I am guessing that the emphasis on low overall distortion exaggerates this problem, but playing the AB and D amps closer to their limits helps with results. 

 

4. Lower grade pro stuff really has gotten pretty low grade.  This stuff I was referencing is actually rather pricey.  The other problem is that you have to buy amps, crossovers, and speakers all at the same time with the active stuff, which makes it feel even pricier.  

[davide256]

My mind was made up in the 1980's when "objectivists" tried to argue that Denon turntables were better than Linn Sondek because they measured better... I have

no respect for any opinion that doesn't use actual listening experience  to determine whether measurements have useful correlation to results. Misuse of science

is common when we don't understand the underlying phenomena, don't verify the measurement is targeted to what we are trying to prove. Eventually science improved to where it was recognized that the direct drive motors of the time suffered from step "cogging" from too few steps

[John Dyson]

2 hours ago, davide256 said:

My mind was made up in the 1980's when "objectivists" tried to argue that Denon turntables were better than Linn Sondek because they measured better... I have

no respect for any opinion that doesn't use actual listening experience  to determine whether measurements have useful correlation to results. Misuse of science

is common when we don't understand the underlying phenomena, don't verify the measurement is targeted to what we are trying to prove. Eventually science improved to where it was recognized that the direct drive motors of the time suffered from step "cogging" from too few steps

Remember -- it takes both, however without objective measurments, then hearing often gets fooled, ending up in a rabbit hole.  I have very perceptive hearing, but also very INTELLIGENT hearing that adapts quickly.  Playing 'listening' games without careful measurments and objective criteria and thinking will very often end up with eccentric results.

 

The problems with previous errors in objective opinion are a matter of competency, which iteratively improves over time.  On the other hand, subjective results tend to drift into nonsense without a strong objective base.

 

Note, I do this listening thing all of the time, moreso than most 'subjectivsts', even though I don't trust subjective results alone. I am super-mega well aware of the failings of human hearing and the weakness of living in the subjectivist metaphysical world.

 

As an existence proof of my opinon:  audio 'experts' tolerating the DolbyA compression in digital material since CDs became available.  No-one on the consumer side undestood the problem with 'digital sound' until about 2012 when I started recognizing what was going on.

 

Many subjectivists fell into the DolbyA compression rabbit hole back in the middle 80s, yet the objectivists didn't have the tools to recognize what the problem was with digital sound.  I know that the problem was understood in the industry, but likely kept a secret.

 

So, we can say that the 'investigative' press giving nonsense pure subjective opinions weren't doing very good, the subjectivsts eventually learning to tolerate the compressed sound AS NORMAL (the rabbit hole), and the objectivists clueless while trying to improve pre-amps, amplifiers and all kinds of other electronic devices, but the digital material could never sound quite like the original vinyl.

 

The EVENTUALLY, the vinyl is now being distributed with the originally unintended DolbyA compression.   The mess, without strong, basic standards is spreading like a cancer.

 

My research required both rock solid objective evaluation AND subjective learning -- but NEVER loosing a direct connection to objectivity and some form of a scientifc analysis.

 

If I had the subjectivist religion, we'd still be clueless about the corruption of DolbyA compression leakage into the comsumer material, where as designed, DolbyA was NEVER EVER intended to end up in consumer hands.

 

John

 

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, John Dyson said:

If I had the subjectivist religion, we'd still be clueless about the corruption of DolbyA compression leakage into the comsumer material, where as designed, DolbyA was NEVER EVER intended to end up in consumer hands.

 John

 That's not quite fair , in my case, as well as quite a few others in Au. ,we complained to HMV Records at Homebush in  Sydney, by letter (which they ignored) about the excessive brightness with some CD releases, especially with compilations. We just didn't realise until you pointed it out , that it wasn't from using perhaps similar  EQ as Vinyl, but it was a Dolby A problem.

Quote

yet the objectivists didn't have the tools to recognize what the problem was with digital sound. 

 

You are correct about that, even the highly qualified Editor of Electronics Australia magazine ( the late Neville Williams) who did mention the problem.

 

Kind Regards

Alex

 P.S.

Not all those who make Subjective reports are completely clueless technically. Many come from a technical background, not necessarily to E.E. qualifications though, but in some cases a broader, but  less in depth background.

[fas42]

Again, there is an obvious reference to use ... a recording. Listen to it on the very best, most 'magical' setup you can find - if you want do this really properly listen to the same recording on about half a dozen of the best performing rigs you can access. If at least some of them are half decent it should start to be obvious that there is a signature, a character to the recording, which comes out each time, to varying degrees. That's what you've got, to compare different situations with - how much does a particular system bring out that 'personality' of the recording; how much does changing some component bring out more of that 'signature' - or make it more elusive?

 

Of course, if you are only interested in varying the depth and shading of applied makeup, this is irrelevant - whatever is most pleasing to you is all that matters, 😊.

[STC]

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/12/result-archimagos-lp-needle-drop-blind.html?m=1

[fas42]

7 hours ago, Kimo said:

1. CCR: The drums at the beginning of Fortunate Son on the AP SACD.  On the the high resolution area, the reverb and decay is obvious.  On the CD layer it is truncated, changing the presentation significantly.  Hoffman has offered this as an example of how 16 bit alters the sound of the original recording, due to the loss of low level information.  It is a striking example.

 

 

Just had a listen to a few versions of this on YouTube - some have lots of reverb on the drums, others don't. So, there are obviously different masterings of this track out there ... since the quality of data compression of YouTube clips is not going to do the SQ any favours, as heard over tiny laptop speakers, 😉 I can't see how 16 bit vs.high res comes into the equation ,,, 🙂.

[sandyk]

28 minutes ago, STC said:

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2014/12/result-archimagos-lp-needle-drop-blind.html?m=1

 

 And all that from the fatally flawed use of Stereo recording and Playback according to some.

 Perhaps they should have used SQ encoded records with a Parabolic/Shibata Stylus instead ?

 

 

Been there, done that !

[gmgraves]

7 hours ago, davide256 said:

My mind was made up in the 1980's when "objectivists" tried to argue that Denon turntables were better than Linn Sondek because they measured better... I have

no respect for any opinion that doesn't use actual listening experience  to determine whether measurements have useful correlation to results. Misuse of science

is common when we don't understand the underlying phenomena, don't verify the measurement is targeted to what we are trying to prove. Eventually science improved to where it was recognized that the direct drive motors of the time suffered from step "cogging" from too few steps

I thought that was what heavy, rim-weighted platters were for; to smooth out the cogs? Of course, my vintage Thorens TD-160, MK-II, doesn’t cog, because it’s belt-drive, but I’ve a friend with a JVC high-end direct drive ‘table, and it sounds very good with its SME 3009 arm and Koetsu cartridge, thank you.

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 John

 That's not quite fair , in my case, as well as quite a few others in Au. ,we complained to HMV Records at Homebush in  Sydney, by letter (which they ignored) about the excessive brightness with some CD releases, especially with compilations. We just didn't realise until you pointed it out , that it wasn't from using perhaps similar  EQ as Vinyl, but it was a Dolby A problem.

 

You are correct about that, even the highly qualified Editor of Electronics Australia magazine ( the late Neville Williams) who did mention the problem.

 

Kind Regards

Alex

 P.S.

Not all those who make Subjective reports are completely clueless technically. Many come from a technical background, not necessarily to E.E. qualifications though, but in some cases a broader, but  less in depth background.

I noticed it also, and the reason why I really quit the audiophile hobby back in the early 1990s, but what I was referring to was the 'frog in boiling water' as the termperature was being increased.  The 'frog' doesn't notice it, and then diies.  For all practical purposes, the functional audiophile based *HIGH FIDELITY* hobby has diminished, and now is more of a *FRUSTRATED AUDIOPHILE* hobby.  Something like, maybe the problem will be solved by 0.0001% distortion instead of 0.001% distortion, or +-0.01dB freq response instead of +-0.05dB...  (+-0.1dB in the 100-10k range can be very noticeable.)

 

Over time, the relatively nasty (admittedly, sometimes compression IS good) EQed DolbyA sound became the norm.  Without the 'group' being adequately objective, the sound had become the 'new normal'.  Relativism that subjectivsm allows, can help us tolerate a bad thing  a little more easily, but it really swallowed everything (note my generalized comment about the audiophi.le press).   Now, we have 'loudness wars' with only a little pushback -- geesh loudness-wars started at full force in the late 1990s/early 2000s, and now has become totally mad.  They have created some reallly ingenious compressors and signal processors where the development SHOULD have been towards FIXING THE ACTUAL PROBLEM -- which was the latent compression that persisted since the middle 1980s.

 

If only the problem would have been stopped in its tracks (see, *I was also too subjective/inadequately objective back in early 1990s*), but the result in my case was quitting the hobby in disgust.  I had ZERO tools to figure out the problem, but as technology had improved -- and my knowedge base had expanded far beyond what it was in my Bell Labs heyday (and I was no slouch back then) - I could figure the problem out in these recent years.  I was doing OS programming back then -- gave up on audio, too much 'wine tasting' language for me -- the world became too subjective, and inadquate objective tools.

 

Without being strongly objective in my thinking and technique, I would NEVER have figured out the actual problem.  I might have known that there IS a problem, but not the actual solution.  I was getting STRONG subjective pushback, and hearing from 'mastering engineers' that I was insane.  We all know what was going on now, right?  (A** covering.)

 

PLEASE -- I am not condemning anyone for being too subjective & inadequately objective , because that had been my affliction those many years ago.  Instead, I am complaining that being stuck in the subjective world primarily, without being strongly objective, then we have lots of frogs in boiling water.  I happened to jump out, but I lost my hobby.  THIS IS A GROUP EFFORT.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

8 hours ago, Kimo said:

1. CCR: The drums at the beginning of Fortunate Son on the AP SACD.  On the the high resolution area, the reverb and decay is obvious.  On the CD layer it is truncated, changing the presentation significantly.  Hoffman has offered this as an example of how 16 bit alters the sound of the original recording, due to the loss of low level information.  It is a striking example.

 

2. The Doors: The beginning of Moonlight Drive is marked by some rolling light piano in the right channel.  On the DCC CD, the 16 bit standard, the decay is once again altered, as compared with all other high resolution versions, both download and disc.  This results in a thicker, less delicate presentation, which is not so true to the recording.  Another example of how the sound is changed by the loss of low level information.

 

3. You are correct about the pro systems offering up a bit too much high order distortion for many people's liking.  I am guessing that the emphasis on low overall distortion exaggerates this problem, but playing the AB and D amps closer to their limits helps with results. 

 

4. Lower grade pro stuff really has gotten pretty low grade.  This stuff I was referencing is actually rather pricey.  The other problem is that you have to buy amps, crossovers, and speakers all at the same time with the active stuff, which makes it feel even pricier.  

I called on some friends elsewhere in the audio world, and found approx 3 (not sure -- haven't compared them all) versions of Moonlight drive) -- I was curious, never listened ot the Doors...  Which one are you writing about?  Everything available on original digital distribution  apppears to be DolbyA encoded -- I might be able to decode the section that you are talking about...  I don't have any sources for analog rips- so have no references.

 

John

 

[sandyk]

26 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Now, we have 'loudness wars' with only a little pushback -- geesh loudness-wars started at full force in the late 1990s/early 2000s, and now has become totally mad.  They have created some reallly ingenious compressors and signal processors where the development SHOULD have been towards FIXING THE ACTUAL PROBLEM -- which was the latent compression that persisted since the middle 1980s.

That was the main reason that I originally purchased Graham Wilkinson's See DeClip Duo Pro S/W,  However,  as more ingenious (Evil?) compressors became available it became less effective with most modern releases.

Quote

Something like, maybe the problem will be solved by 0.0001% distortion instead of 0.001% distortion, or +-0.01dB freq response instead of +-0.05dB...  (+-0.1dB in the 100-10k range can be very noticeable.)

 

Yes, but try telling that to most of your fellow suitably qualified members .

[fas42]

52 minutes ago, sandyk said:

That was the main reason that I originally purchased Graham Wilkinson's See DeClip Duo Pro S/W,  However,  as more ingenious (Evil?) compressors became available it became less effective with most modern releases.

 

Yes, but try telling that to most of your fellow suitably qualified members .

 

Yes, the compressors can be very skillfully used; which means that if one wishes to reverse that processing it requires far more than trivial analysis. It certainly can be done, and I'm sure a product will come at some stage which will be sophisticated enough to "undo the damage". John's algorithm, whether you agree or not with what he's doing in remastering the track, is showing how careful treatment can make a recording more palatable - an variation of it that directly addresses the uber compression syndrome would be mighty welcome, I'm sure ... 🙂

[John Dyson]

14 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, the compressors can be very skillfully used; which means that if one wishes to reverse that processing it requires far more than trivial analysis. It certainly can be done, and I'm sure a product will come at some stage which will be sophisticated enough to "undo the damage". John's algorithm, whether you agree or not with what he's doing in remastering the track, is showing how careful treatment can make a recording more palatable - an variation of it that directly addresses the uber compression syndrome would be mighty welcome, I'm sure ... 🙂

About 'remastering' -- I very very strongly avoid 'mastering', but mostly simply deocde.  However, we have found (with Alex's assistance) that some material IS significanlty modified after decoding and before distribtuion.  Alex handed me my a** on some Carpenters stuff, where he said something similar to 'not correct', and showing me an example.  However, I would answer past him "I don't do mastering", because that involves artists intent.  Any change that would approach what Alex claimed the target was would have required some EQ that is tantamount to 'mastering'.

 

As a compromise, I will now do mastering if provided with an example of the desired results.  For example, I have come close to the 'Carpenters' examples as demoed by Alex...  There are TOO MANY variables and TOO MANY aspects of personal preference for me to do artistic or blind 'mastering' also.

 

If *my* 'mastering' results in something that sounds more like a bona-fide decoded ACTUAL release (that is, closer to artist's intent), then I'll do it.  Along with that, my results will often end up having lower distortion.

 

The problem is that *quality* reference material is difficult to find nowadays.   I do have rock-solid references for ABBA -- so I can either match or improve that stuff.  Regarding the recent 'Crime of the Century' stuff -- I got detailed feedback from several audiophiles and also used some of my deep memory from the past.  The 'Crime' stuff is probably light-years beyond what had been previously available -- and there might even be some serious public exposure in the future.

 

Once I heard Alex's Carpenters snippet, and recognized what they did post-mastering, I could replicate the results and perhaps do a little better (Alex hasn't heard the results yet -- but he will be offered soon.)  We won't know until we get Alex's approval (other people are also involved on a voluntary basis, but Alex has been consistently helpful.)

 

SO -- generally I do not do mastering per.se., but instead take the feral-EQ DolbyA, and do the reverse/compensating EQ needed to produce a true DolbyA input for the decoder.  Afterwards, i'll sometimes do a very mild bass/treble balance because of the need for sub-dB accuracy, and there is *no way* that a DolbyA encode/decode is sub-dB accurate, even with true HW.  The dynamics are too complex to be dynamically accurate.

 

Just trying to clarify -- my mastering skills and practice is VERY limited, and I mostly do it only under duress.

 

John

 

[Kimo]

3 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Just had a listen to a few versions of this on YouTube - some have lots of reverb on the drums, others don't. So, there are obviously different masterings of this track out there ... since the quality of data compression of YouTube clips is not going to do the SQ any favours, as heard over tiny laptop speakers, 😉 I can't see how 16 bit vs.high res comes into the equation ,,, 🙂.

 

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/steve-i-conducted-your-creedence-ccr-fortunate-son-cd-vs-sacd-test.170124/

 

[Kimo]

3 hours ago, John Dyson said:

I called on some friends elsewhere in the audio world, and found approx 3 (not sure -- haven't compared them all) versions of Moonlight drive) -- I was curious, never listened ot the Doors...  Which one are you writing about?  Everything available on original digital distribution  apppears to be DolbyA encoded -- I might be able to decode the section that you are talking about...  I don't have any sources for analog rips- so have no references.

 

John

 

 

There are two versions of Strange Days on HDtracks.  The original high resolution master, and a deluxe mono/stereo version featuring a new high resolution master.  As well, there is a DSD transfer available from Acoustic Sounds in download and SACD.  The CD I used was the DCC Gold Disc, the 16 bit digital standard according to most.

[fas42]

12 hours ago, Kimo said:

 

2. The Doors: The beginning of Moonlight Drive is marked by some rolling light piano in the right channel.  On the DCC CD, the 16 bit standard, the decay is once again altered, as compared with all other high resolution versions, both download and disc.  This results in a thicker, less delicate presentation, which is not so true to the recording.  Another example of how the sound is changed by the loss of low level information.

 

 

That's nifty! I have the CD, a German 1985 release - the YouTube versions were too downgrade - I tried playing from the CD-ROM drive, still not good enough, ripped to the hard drive - niice!!

 

Which piano, again? There are 2 acoustics, with separate pianos, on the left and the right ... nice cymbal work in the middle of the track, good vocals - I wouldn't call it a "thick" presentation ....

[fas42]

37 minutes ago, Kimo said:

 

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/steve-i-conducted-your-creedence-ccr-fortunate-son-cd-vs-sacd-test.170124/

 

 

Which deals quite a bit with the quality, and setup, of the ADC used ... a post,

 

Quote

My point was that (apparently) a 16/44 dub of the SACD layer sounded more like the SACD layer than the original 16/44 mastering. Hence the issue.

 

This, to me, is another "everything matters!" - extrapolating from a situation where a whole variety of factors may have impacted, to then say this "proves" that something is true is going waaaay out on a limb...

[John Dyson]

27 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

That's nifty! I have the CD, a German 1985 release - the YouTube versions were too downgrade - I tried playing from the CD-ROM drive, still not good enough, ripped to the hard drive - niice!!

 

Which piano, again? There are 2 acoustics, with separate pianos, on the left and the right ... nice cymbal work in the middle of the track, good vocals - I wouldn't call it a "thick" presentation ....

Very interestingly -- you probably have a DolbyA copy.  I don't have full information on the heritage on the snippets provided by others, but I have indeed decoded all 3 versions in my posession.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

56 minutes ago, Kimo said:

 

There are two versions of Strange Days on HDtracks.  The original high resolution master, and a deluxe mono/stereo version featuring a new high resolution master.  As well, there is a DSD transfer available from Acoustic Sounds in download and SACD.  The CD I used was the DCC Gold Disc, the 16 bit digital standard according to most.

I probably cannot get the HDtracks version without $$$ (my friends gave me snippets of what they have.)  Perhaps the best approach would be for me to provide the first 55 seconds of each version in my possession (they are probably different than what you have -- these releases of recordings are sometimes all over the place!!!)

 

Give me a few hours, still cleaning up the Carpenters stuff with a couple of re-decodes of a few of their albums, and then I'll try for the three copies that I have.  You can evaluate, and I'd GREATLY appreciate feedback -- I take this seriously, and want to do the best possible.

 

John

 

[Kimo]

29 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Which deals quite a bit with the quality, and setup, of the ADC used ... a post,

 

 

This, to me, is another "everything matters!" - extrapolating from a situation where a whole variety of factors may have impacted, to then say this "proves" that something is true is going waaaay out on a limb...

 

It is not going way out on the limb.  Quite literally everyone who bothers with this stuff knows that more bits is better for AD mastering, or even necessary for proper AD mastering, and that a final downsampled copy can often come quite close to a penultimate 24 bit copy.  That latter has nothing to do with what is lost during transfer from the analog source.  

 

Are you suggesting that the SACD process adds ambiance?

 

 

[Kimo]

48 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

That's nifty! I have the CD, a German 1985 release - the YouTube versions were too downgrade - I tried playing from the CD-ROM drive, still not good enough, ripped to the hard drive - niice!!

 

Which piano, again? There are 2 acoustics, with separate pianos, on the left and the right ... nice cymbal work in the middle of the track, good vocals - I wouldn't call it a "thick" presentation ....

 

The opening piano riffs in the right channel, you know da dum, dum, dum...

 

Do you have a high rez sourece to compare with?  I wonder what the original vinyl sounds like.  I have never seen a clean copy of Strange Days on original vinyl.

[Rexp]

13 hours ago, Kimo said:

1. CCR: The drums at the beginning of Fortunate Son on the AP SACD.  On the the high resolution area, the reverb and decay is obvious.  On the CD layer it is truncated, changing the presentation significantly.  Hoffman has offered this as an example of how 16 bit alters the sound of the original recording, due to the loss of low level information.  It is a striking example.

 

2. The Doors: The beginning of Moonlight Drive is marked by some rolling light piano in the right channel.  On the DCC CD, the 16 bit standard, the decay is once again altered, as compared with all other high resolution versions, both download and disc.  This results in a thicker, less delicate presentation, which is not so true to the recording.  Another example of how the sound is changed by the loss of low level information.

 

3. You are correct about the pro systems offering up a bit too much high order distortion for many people's liking.  I am guessing that the emphasis on low overall distortion exaggerates this problem, but playing the AB and D amps closer to their limits helps with results. 

 

4. Lower grade pro stuff really has gotten pretty low grade.  This stuff I was referencing is actually rather pricey.  The other problem is that you have to buy amps, crossovers, and speakers all at the same time with the active stuff, which makes it feel even pricier.  

Some well described subjective difference there that current measuring devices wont pick up. OT but I wouldn't necessarily blame 16 bit. 

[Kimo]

1 minute ago, Rexp said:

Some well described subjective difference there that current measuring devices wont pick up. OT but I wouldn't necessarily blame 16 bit. 

 

Well, it was the guy who mastered it who called out the loss at 16 bits. 

 

The alternative is that someone added reverb to the SACD, which would make Mr. Hoffman, or some audio sneak, a bit of a mischief maker at best.

[fas42]

23 minutes ago, Kimo said:

 

The opening piano riffs in the right channel, you know da dum, dum, dum...

 

Do you have a high rez sourece to compare with?  I wonder what the original vinyl sounds like.  I have never seen a clean copy of Strange Days on original vinyl.

 

Getting confusing ... it's a call and response pattern - the left piano calls, "da dum", the right one responds "dum, dum" - subjectively it's two tracks, in the mix ...