High Resolution Audio Comparison (3 Viewers)

[Steve_AS]

The ears are the most precise instrument. What sounds best to your ears?

Ears can do a good job of accurately detecting difference, if your frequency range is good, and if you don't bias their input. Of course, we have measuring instruments that are far more sensitive than any human ear, if you know what to measure. You certainly couldn't hear a sound at 100 kHz, but an instrument could detect it.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Of course, we have measuring instruments that are far more sensitive than any human ear, if you know what to measure.

I disagree. The ear can filter many ongoing audio phenomena at once and discern patterns using the brain's neural network. No test equipment can presently do this. See the recent HiFi news discussion on the shortcomings of audio test equipment.

 

[Steve_AS]

I disagree. The ear can filter many ongoing audio phenomena at once and discern patterns using the brain's neural network. No test equipment can presently do this. See the recent HiFi news discussion on the shortcomings of audio test equipment.

Please. Whatever 'pattern' the ear is discerning, is related to measurable events. What patterns in particular are you referring to? Which 'patterns' lie behind the supposed audible superiority of hi-rez to redbook?

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Which 'patterns' lie behind the supposed audible superiority of hi-rez to redbook?

The most notable are note transients which exhibit an attack-sustain-decay pattern. It has been well established that the extra musical information from higher sampling rates pick these transients up better than the relatively slow redbook spec.
It's really simple: Higher Sampling Rate = More Information = More Musical Detail = More Realism.

 

[Carlo_M]

Why is it so hard to believe that the human ear can detect things test gear can't? There are many simultaneous processes at work in audio. Test gear is generally built to measure one thing or fewer things at a time

I'm a techie but I agree with this. How can you tell, via a waveform pattern on a screen, when something sounds more "spatial" or "open" - I have clearly heard that type of sound in the real world during A/B tests of SACD vs. CD, but how would that look in a graphical representation?

I've met a lot of audio engineers and I tend to trust their opinions. They are really passionate and caring about the music they work on (at least the half-dozen or so that I personally know).

 

[Brian L]

I'm not saying the new mix is awful -- but it's certainly got its good an bad points. One thing it did was make me reappreciate what a genius Eddie Offord was.

FWIW, I think the MC mix of Fragile is outstanding. I don't know what was or was not on the master tape, and evaluated the new mix independently of any comparison to any other version (other than the one burned into my memory from the hours of practice).

It IS a killer mix, to my ears. As I am not a band historian, I really don't know if there are bits and pieces from the original missing.

And I don't really care.

To my ear, it is a great representation (maybe the right word is INTERPRETATION???) of the original, that brought a shit-eatin' grin to my face from the moment I popped the disc into my player.

But, to each his own. I personally find the MC pretty much faultless. Oh, alright, I concede that they could have brought Squire up a bit higher in the mix, but then again, I am a bass fiend!

BGL

 

[Steve_AS]

Why is it so hard to believe that the human ear can detect things test gear can? There are many simultaneous processes at work in audio. Test gear is generally built to measure one thing or fewer things at a time.

We can demonstrate easily that instruments can measure things that are inaudible...tiny changes in resistance, level, extremes of frequency, etc.

Now, please *demonstrate* to a comparable degree that these 'simultaneous processes' you write of actually generate differences in the sound that *cannot* be measured. If, as you assert, there are no instruments that can measure them, then the only scientific way to demonstrate that they exist is through some sort of controlled comparisons protocol, which you *also* seem to abhor.

Audiophiles seems to like a hermetic way of 'knowing', in which *believing* you hear something is entirely sufficient proof that it exists.

 

[Steve_AS]

FWIW, I think the MC mix of Fragile is outstanding. I don't know what was or was not on the master tape, and evaluated the new mix independently of any comparison to any other version (other than the one burned into my memory from the hours of practice).

It would be highly unlikely, if not impossible, for reverb to be on the multitrack masters, but NOT on the two-track mixdown of same.

Later you mention hours of practice. Hours of practice on the bass parts of this album is one reason I can spot the differences... like, that one of my favorite bass riffs on 'Roundabout' has been buried. (But I think Squire is *plenty* high up in the mix already, btw).

 

[Brian L]

Audiophiles seems to like a hermetic way of 'knowing', in which *believing* you hear something is entirely sufficient proof that it exists.

You do know that you are beating a very dead horse here, don't you, Steve?
I tend to agree with your view that if it can be heard it can be measured, but that is of course completely counter to the subjective credo. And I sure as hell would not try to bring anyone around to my point of view.
Funny how you don't see this kind of debate in the video world. When there is an artifact, you can point to it. Hard to say you see of don't see something when someone grabs you by the nose and shows it to you.
BGL

 

[Steve_AS]

I've met a lot of audio engineers and I tend to trust their opinions. They are really passionate and caring about the music they work on (at least the half-dozen or so that I personally know).

My limited experience of audio engineers is that they are no less susceptible to fallacies of belief than anyone else. They're all human, and therefore all subject to the same perceptual biases as the rest of us. Few if any I've read about seem to be familiar with the literature and findings of psychacoustics. Few I've seen are trained in physics or electrical engineering either. They make their livings by creating 'differences' in sound sources (e.g., taking a performance and recording, mixing and mastering it to media). The vast majority of those differences are real and easily verifiable....but some claims are suspect and haven't been verified. So when they deny the utility of blind comparisons, I get very suspicious.

 

[Steve_AS]

It's really simple: Higher Sampling Rate = More Information = More Musical Detail = More Realism.

It's really simple. Desire to believe in difference = perception of difference, regardless of actual likelihood of audible difference. Add in a dollop of pseudoscience for seasoning.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I tend to agree with your view that if it can be heard it can be measured, but that is of course completely counter to the subjective credo.

This is correct in that there are two prevailing philosophies, the objective and subjective. It is virtually impossible to prove either one is correct in a fashion that the other accepts.
We best leave this to an honest disagreement in philosophy, audio religion, whatever you desire to call it.
I sometimes wish only the things that measured well sounded good, then my life would be less difficult.
On the other hand, I enjoy a vocation (part-time for me that engineering is) where there is still an element of both art and science.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I never said that hirez sonic differences could not be measured.

Also, I don't appreciate your use of "LOL" and other terms in your replies. I will quit debating here unless the tone changes from one of negativity.

Okay?

 

[Justin Lane]

As a recording engineer, I have been involved with several audio events where sound differences could not be measured or explained by scientific instruments.

Lee,

What albums have you been the lead engineer either recently or in the past? I am interested in picking up a couple of the recordings you were lead engineer, to better understand your philosophy as lead engineer.

J

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Justin,
No problem. We did not have "lead engineer" titles at Chesky, only a small number of us worked together and shared duties. Admittedly my early albums I just laid cables and built mic trees, but as I was trained the role grew.
In the 90s the usual suspects were:
Bob Katz, primary credited engineer
Jeremy Kipnis, second engineer and a lot of primary work and mastering
Lee Scoggins, little bit of everything engineering to producing
Steve Guttenberg, producing (usually Assistant Producer title)
David Chesky, talent management, main producer
Lisa H., all things related to above
Jeremy is a very talented engineer and is quite bright and Bob is a very well recognized digital media expert at Digital Domain in Florida. Steve Guttenberg often writes insightful audio reviews and critiques and knows a lot about music and movies. He is a music lover first and audiophile second but quite good at both.
One of my better recordings was McCoy Tyner New York Reunion, a session we did with jazz greats in 1991. Also you can check out Badi Assas Solo from the 90s for some cool guitar work. For orchestral, the Orquesta Nova work with Carlos Franzetti was a high point.
The All Music Guide has some of the other albums listed below:
http://www.allmusic.com
Search under "Lee Scoggins"
I recommend you pick up the SACDs of the Tyner album. David is thinking about the Badi album for hirez but no definite date yet.
The recent 88.2K projects here in Atlanta have been local distribution only, but I may be able to include some tracks on the upcoming jitter test CD.
Some background may be in order:
Chesky is responsible solely for my training. They use an audiophile, often live to 2 track approach, whereby minimal number of mikes are used and often a central mic on a big "tree" is put in the middle of the ensemble. I may be able to digitize some studio photos to post here to show as its somewhat elaborate. I need to get David Chesky's permission first, though, and perhaps David King the photographer.
We use little mixing, only enough to capture a stereo or MC image and often record to both PCM and analog. I am not involved on recent sessions so I am not sure what Barry is doing these days. I do stop by from time to time in NYC and listen to new work and I can tell you the quality is very high.
I am working on a new session idea for David but that is confidential at this point.
I recommend Acoustic Sounds or Chesky direct for the best selection.

 

[Justin Lane]

Thanks for the information Lee.

Next time I swing by Tower, I will have my eyes open for the McCoy Tyner disc.

J

 

[Steve_AS]

I sometimes wish only the things that measured well sounded good, then my life would be less difficult.

One thing that audiophilia has demonstrated conclusively, is that technical accuracy is not necessary for subjectively pleasing audio reproduction. Lots of 'audiophiles' prefer vinyl, after all.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

One form of knowledge is contingent on the reality-testing, and can be falsified; the other isn't and can't be.

I don't fully agree with this. For instance, you might have a audio event with six critical dimensions. You can measure each of the six dimensions alone accurately, but combining them in a way that mimics how the brain processes information (I own and operate an AI software firm for my day job) is not possible. So you can say that science allowed the measurement along each dimension, but was not able to fully capture the whole event.
With human ears on the other hand, you may miss some precision along each of the six dimensions, but the combination is such that the ear can find such phenomena as transients and soudstage recreation quite readily.
I would say in that case, the ear wins for judgment.
This has all been well debated and each side will be reluctant to change their mind until confronted with real evidence one way or another. There is a bias among scientists to take the objective view since many audio mags used to be all about test gear metrics (Stereo Review) comes to mind.
Think about jitter, science in the early to mid 90s could not measure time based distortion, yet audiophiles using their ears could detect differences in transport quality. Finally after Bob Katz and others explored this phenomena, scientists created jitter analyzers.
This is one of many areas where the audiophile was there early because they used subjective, ear-based judgment.
Another example is the LP which you derided above. Many of us (even in my case who really enjoys Super Audio) have come to realize that good quality vinyl may be the best source when done right. If you have never heard a good comparison between the Sony SCD-1 SACD player and a good TT like a VPI with a good cartridge and phono preamp, you don't know what you are missing.

 

[Carlo_M]

My limited experience of audio engineers is that they are no less susceptible to fallacies of belief than anyone else.

Right. They're human, we're human. But you know what? A brain surgeon is human too. Yet I'd rather have him working on my brain (if heaven forbid something happened to me) than you. No offense, but I just go with people who are trained in their field of expertise.

 

[Steve_AS]

Another example is the LP which you derided above. Many of us (even in my case who really enjoys Super Audio) have come to realize that good quality vinyl may be the best source when done right. If you have never heard a good comparison between the Sony SCD-1 SACD player and a good TT like a VPI with a good cartridge and phono preamp, you don't know what you are missing.

Which is amusing, because even the best TT rigs have 'jitter' numbers far in excess of CD.