billfitzmaurice
Commercial User
- Sep 15, 2004
- 16,860
- 278
- 76
- Disclosures
- Owner, Bill Fitzmaurice Loudspeaker Design
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Good read on "The Great Debate"
- Thread starter bryan.worley
- Start date
Interesting and it makes sense.
When you think about it, only a few get the chance to compare either the test pressing or an actual production pressing of an LP or CD to the studio master. Especially when you listen on the same speakers you spent weeks tracking and mixing on. For a recording engineer, that's where the rubber meets the road.
Back in the day, we had to trust guys like Bob Ludwig at Masterdisc or Jack Skinner at Sterling to help us get what we wanted on disc as we were not familiar with their monitoring systems (or the Revox or GAS amps that Jack liked to use).
...and this is the distinction and I'm in the same boat, or as the old adages states: "whatever floats your boat!"
this is what happens when engineers make music.
I think it is a silly idea that by using a 1/3 oct eq and limiting the amplifier gain to prevent clipping you can make a tube and solid state amp play on an even playing field.
A great metaphor for this would be evaluating a Toyota Supra vs a same year Ford mustang. Of course you would have to compensate the handling of the Toyota so that it leaned around corners and could not stop reliably. Also pull out the fuel injection and replace it with carbueration, and so on.
I also find it highly weird every time I read this so called paper that it is allegedly the IEEE that was doing these tests and not AES?
I think it is a silly idea that by using a 1/3 oct eq and limiting the amplifier gain to prevent clipping you can make a tube and solid state amp play on an even playing field.
A great metaphor for this would be evaluating a Toyota Supra vs a same year Ford mustang. Of course you would have to compensate the handling of the Toyota so that it leaned around corners and could not stop reliably. Also pull out the fuel injection and replace it with carbueration, and so on.
I also find it highly weird every time I read this so called paper that it is allegedly the IEEE that was doing these tests and not AES?
Look at the response curve charts in the first page of this thread.
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f15/swr-aural-enhancer-bypass-643201/
The "before the mod- from the factory-knobs at noon" curve is baked in EQ. Nearly all bass amps have it to some degree. That's the response curve the preamp is putting out, before it hits the speakers and gets altered even further by the speaker voicing.
One of johnk's streamliner threads has measured curves for that amp and a GK 1001rb where you can see their baked in EQ on a chart too. BGM magazine amp reviews also have these charts showing you the baked in EQ of the amps tested. "Voicing" is another word for it.
Somewhat minor point; but, there is essentially zero use of the scientific method at all in this paper.
The scientific method is a process whereby a hypothesis is proposed and data are collected in an effort to DISPROVE the hypothesis. I emphasize the word "disprove," because the human behavior naturally tends toward trying to prove a point. The scientific method intentionally accepts the basis that no theory can be absolutely proven and instead works with a logic of contradiction, whereby the attempt is the disprove the concept; which is possible. Concepts which can not be dis-proven after "a while" are simply accepted. (BTW, this is NOT the way our legal system works; but whole other can of worms)
Anyhow, the paper makes some attempt to be objective and quantitative (necessary, but not sufficient); but, please don't confuse that with scientific method.
Here is Wikipedia on SM:
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As far as tubes vs transistors: you can actually observe the scientific method in the natural selection process that is taking place. The engineers are using every means at their disposal to create useful amplification tools of both types. Musicians are using their ears to determine what actually works. The amplifiers which remain will work for the purpose that is needed. The ones that do not work will be dis-proven. After that becomes established, data can be examined to explain what happened.
I know this sounds backwards, but the wheels of science grind slowly. Every now and then enough gets learned about some phenomenon that a useful prediction can be made. But, predictions are actually not a huge part of practical science (though it is fun when it happens).
bucephylus said:Somewhat minor point; but, there is essentially zero use of the scientific method at all in this paper.
The scientific method is a process whereby a hypothesis is proposed and data are collected in an effort to DISPROVE the hypothesis. I emphasize the word "disprove," because the human behavior naturally tends toward trying to prove a point. The scientific method intentionally accepts the basis that no theory can be absolutely proven and instead works with a logic of contradiction, whereby the attempt is the disprove the concept; which is possible. Concepts which can not be dis-proven after "a while" are simply accepted. (BTW, this is NOT the way our legal system works; but whole other can of worms)
Anyhow, the paper makes some attempt to be objective and quantitative (necessary, but not sufficient); but, please don't confuse that with scientific method.
Here is Wikipedia on SM:
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As far as tubes vs transistors: you can actually observe the scientific method in the natural selection process that is taking place. The engineers are using every means at their disposal to create useful amplification tools of both types. Musicians are using their ears to determine what actually works. The amplifiers which remain will work for the purpose that is needed. The ones that do not work will be dis-proven. After that becomes established, data can be examined to explain what happened.
I know this sounds backwards, but the wheels of science grind slowly. Every now and then enough gets learned about some phenomenon that a useful prediction can be made. But, predictions are actually not a huge part of practical science (though it is fun when it happens).
Thanks for that! It's always good to put out the right info.
If speakers really needed 16 days and 16 hours break-in, some high-end vendors would offer them already broken-in for an extra charge. Do any of them do this?
Nah, this is just what happens when engineers try to understand how music gear works. In my view, the work is outdated, and not particularly applicable to bass amplification.
The IEEE did not do the tests. They merely published the paper in their journal.
Ya, I know engineers that can make some excellent music when they want to. I know some that make lousy music, too, but I also know plenty of non-engineers who make lousy music. Can't blame the engineering for that. It's engineering without taking art into the consideration that gets you into trouble. You think Ampeg and Fender cares that some more modern engineers consider the technology of the SVT and Twin Reverb outdated and obsolete? I can assure you that they don't. Engineering + art is a beautiful thing.
Most engineers who have been involved with sales and marketing know that consumer demand and acceptance of technology is not a purely technological problem.
The SVT is certainly not obsolete -- people are still buying them. But I would call it a "mature" technology.
The SVT is certainly not obsolete -- people are still buying them. But I would call it a "mature" technology.
The paper was on what it was in 1981, an accurate study and DBT, but lets see a new DBT. I don't expect any different results, even though SS has come a long way since 1981.
While the rest of your post has good points of the Carnap/Popper type, I think the above is completely wrong. Confusing actual consumption data with some kind of natural selection must be a new record attempt in disregarding relevant factors
. Factors such as marketing, trends, availability, price, consumer ideology in all its various shades, historical changes in actual preferences, technological advancements and ideological oppositions to these, visual aesthetics, brand loyalty/enmity, reliability, nostalgia and so on and so forth. Further comparing this 'natural selection' to the scientific method... well... Really?
I am not trying to be overly rude here, and apologize for sounding harsh
, but what I see happening here is so very typical for many of the more heated subjects on TB. Even though this is not a tubes vs solid state debate, those same lines are obviously drawn around one's stance on the scientific method of paper in question. Then, the discussion evolves into a battle between 'this test is valid, all else is delusion' vs 'no tests are really valid, science should g.t.f.o. and let us play what we like', with the OP trying to remain impartial. Or am I reading the thread wrong?I know I am exaggerating, but I think these kinds of positional debates are less fruitful than what the OP initially intended.
Martin
I respectfully disagree. It might have ping ponged around but it's all relevant, I think. The OP seems cool with the responses he's gotten and learned a little bit about why the general public tends to disregard testing of the nature he set forth to discuss.
An "engineer's" typical response......... "knowing" that a CD MUST be better in all ways, from examining the specifications................
There are issues with any digital medium that do not occur with analog, WHETHER OR NOT you can detect them in "standardized" DBT tests, many of which may be so designed as to REMOVE those easily identified characteristics....... because "anyone" can determine which is what when they are present.
(The whole thing is moot with the common use of forms such as MP3, which has gross distortion and other errors created, tolerated, and encouraged by the data compression involved.)
Now, most of these characteristics have NO relevance to any generic "rock" music, which tends NOT to use a large dynamic range.... It becomes more relevant for symphonic recordings or the like.
A couple obvious ones
1) The tape mastering process is inherently capable of recording signals which technically exceed the maximum capabilities of the medium, simply because the tape recording process adds some compression, along with some distortion. The ear/brain "expects" a certain amount and type of distortion at loud levels, it is one way "loudness" is detected psychoacoustically.
A CD or other digital rendering with a similar amount of over-drive would just sound very bad. So a significant amount of the upper end of teh CD S/N range must be allowed to avoid any clipping. Maybe 15 to 25 dB more than the usual allowance.
This is not often done, because the resulting CD will not have an over all level "competitive" with other CDs..... but if not done, a lot of compression must be done.
To be fair, the cut tracks have to not cut into the adjacent tracks on a "record", but that is already discounted here.
2) The "overall" S/N of a CD "can" if decently made (which many CD recordings are not) at least technically exceed the S/N of an analog recording.
However, the S/N of a CD has added limits.... at the low end of the scale, the CD with levels at only 10 dB of S/N, is 10 dB above the level of 100% crossover distortion, due to the lowest bit being inherently either on or off..... To disguise that you must add "dither", which is essentially a significant amount of noise in the least significant bits of the range. So, to USE the S/N, you actually have to *reduce* it.
Not at all relevant with the compressed sound of most CDs, which have an S/N far less than the medium.... but if you start off with average levels at least 25 or 35 dB below max, the lowest end of the range becomes significant..... You begin to get to "only" 80 dB or so S/N below average levels, which is in the audible area.
With an analog recording, the actual signal can be heard "down into" the noise...... this is tolerated in the same way as a symphony performance, where the audience noises can be equal to or significantly louder than very soft passages. Recording "hiss" noise may be less annoying than people noises.
billfitzmaurice
Commercial User
- Sep 15, 2004
- 16,860
- 278
- 76
- Disclosures
- Owner, Bill Fitzmaurice Loudspeaker Design
Nowhere did I say a CD is better from a subjective standpoint. I only explained why one might prefer the sound of the analog medium over digital. And how one can get exactly the same result from a digital recording as one can get from an analog recording: record it in analog first, then re-record it to CD. In blind testing one would not be able to tell which was which. For that matter one would not be able to tell with eyes wide open. If one saw a turntable running while the actual source was a CD recording of a record there's no way they'd know the difference. Feel free to again criticize my post based on those words that you decide to see and those which you decide not to, which is also not the least bit irrelevant to the discussion.
Faderoktopus said:I am not trying to be overly rude here, and apologize for sounding harsh
I know I am exaggerating, but I think these kinds of positional debates are less fruitful than what the OP initially intended.
Martin
No rude intent taken at all, so no worries there. & thanks for your opinions!
I'm still with the thread following closely & learning. There are some stereotypical TB debate procedures that I've noticed over the years, for sure. Discussions & debates here are a bit of a black art when it comes to seeing both sides clearly & steering things in a fruitful direction. Yes, I've tried my best to stay impartial. An open mind is a receptive one. I've learned quite a bit & have been giving Google a workout. My intent was to discuss the test. Naturally, I hoped that we would go down different wormholes, too. A debate is a debate. If there weren't discussions with sound points & evidence, it would be fruitless. Granted,I'm the one reaping the most rewards from all the discussion here. I'm cool with that
I think the paper & test from the initial post has spawned good crosstalk & a couple of new topics that have bearing. I'm happy with where it has gone & all the heavyweights dropping some crumbs from the table of knowledge.
