Page 1 of 2

The "high frequency transients" fallacy

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:13 am
by thomh
I have been skimming the "Why does vinyl (analog) sound better?" thread over on SHtv and WRT transients there is a great thread over on the Dan Lavry forum where he lays this audiophool myth to rest.

http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index. ... 097/0/0/0/

I dunno, some SHtv members might learn something from it.

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:27 am
by Crummy Old Label Avatar
danlavry wrote:I do not like a lot of data compression, but I’ll give those guys credit for concentrating on what is most important: the frequency region we hear. How does the pro community counter that? By talking about 384KHz sampling at 32 bit? By fantasizing about hearing high frequency transients? I am all for great sound, and there is a lot of work to be done, yet the resources follow the marketing BS, and the results are clear! Studios are closing down real fast and the advancement of good quality sound is loosing steam. The “customers” sense what is going on. The audio industry has too much BS. The only way to promote good sound, good art, good equipment, is to concentrate on good sound, good art, good gear. It is way past the time for us put an end to the sick fantasies.

We do not need to re test how high the ear can hear. We need to concentrate on what we DO hear.


http://recforums.prosoundweb.com/index. ... g/52162/0/

I love it!

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:31 pm
by Andreas
I usually do not bitch in one forum about threads in another forum...

...but that thread is horrible.

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:11 pm
by lukpac
Andreas wrote:I usually do not bitch in one forum about threads in another forum...

...but that thread is horrible.


Tell me about it.

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:37 pm
by Rspaight
Which one, the Lavry thread or the SHtv thread?

Ryan

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:39 pm
by Crummy Old Label Avatar
What's the problem with the Lavry thread? Other than the idiot who just doesn't understand the topic at hand and insists on going on about "I feel that digital needs to be improved" no matter how many times he's smacked down, I think it's very informative.

Or maybe you mean the SHtv thread, which I don't even have to read to know it's horrible. (With a title like "Why vinyl sounds better," I already know what to expect.)

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:36 pm
by Crummy Old Label Avatar
Steve Hoffman wrote:Thing is: A recording is just an illusion; it's not real. The fantasy of a live person singing or playing in your listening room rather than a recording of a person is (or should be) the goal of any recording and playback system. Whatever recreates FOR YOU the "illusion of life" is a system not to be sneezed at. That's quite a goal to accomplish and whatever it takes to fool the ear is what it takes, simple as that. Analog usually fools us more, therefore, for music playback, it's better. Doesn't mean it's more accurate or more this or more that, but if it takes some tubey harmonics, etc. to fool our little ears, well, that's the way to go. One false step in the chain will shatter the illusion.


http://stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost. ... tcount=221

Hoffman is even stupider than I thought he was to write something like this. I don't care how many channels and millions of dollars worth of equipment you're listening to, you'd have to be either retarded or deaf to mistake any recording for "a live person singing or playing in your living room." Misguided Steely Dan-type productions notwithstanding, the pie in the sky "live person in the living room" IS NOT and HAS NEVER BEEN the goal of recording.

As for the rest of it, well, just because HE thinks that live music sounds like tube distortion with "tubey harmonics" doesn't make it so. And I would think that anyone with functioning ears could tell you that. Has this man ever heard live music at all?!

Truly, this is the most succinctly asinine thing I've ever read from Hoffman. How can anyone take him seriously?

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:25 pm
by lukpac
Take it to SC.

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:36 pm
by Crummy Old Label Avatar
You're saying that you agree with Hoffman, then?

Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:47 pm
by lukpac
I'm not even touching the Hoffman statement. I'm saying I closed the Snakepit for a reason.

Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 4:32 am
by Andreas
lukpac wrote:
Andreas wrote:I usually do not bitch in one forum about threads in another forum...

...but that thread is horrible.


Tell me about it.


Sorry, I meant the SH.tv thread. Wasn't that obvious? :)

Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 8:17 am
by krabapple
Andreas wrote:
lukpac wrote:
Andreas wrote:I usually do not bitch in one forum about threads in another forum...

...but that thread is horrible.


Tell me about it.


Sorry, I meant the SH.tv thread. Wasn't that obvious? :)


I love how if anyone persistently points people towards the actual technical details, the work of people like Lavry, and suggests that they withold speculation on matters that are actually *known*, they are called 'religious' about debunking myths...as if that were a bad thing.

Every such thread on SHtv's a clusterfuck for sure. But I think at least some good refs and facts are getting through...

Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 9:19 am
by krabapple
From the Lavry thread, this gem

Johnny "I don't know nuthin' and I'm proud if it" B wrote:

So, was Mr. Blackmer right about everything? Right about some parts and not others?

Lavry:
He spelled his name right, and said other things that I agree with.


Classic.

:D

Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 11:04 am
by Andreas
What I really don't like are meta-discussions that distort the claimed theories and arguments. Several posters claim that other posters claim that it can be proven that digital sounds indistinguishable from analog, which is completely false (both the claim and the meta-claim).

And that analog is used as a synonym for vinyl.

And the ridiculous logic in arguing of some people...e.g. you can't prove that my theory is wrong, therefore you have to accept it.

(I am talking about the SH thread again.)

PS: Yes, I am aware that this is also that kind of meta-discussion that I am complaining about.

Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:12 pm
by Xenu
Just checked it out...yeesh. And because I CAN make inappropriate political comparisons here: isn't the argument of "well, you may not like OUR way of doing things, but instead of debunking try to think up your own idea!" basically the Iraq argument all over again?

Just because you think Nyquist is insufficient doesn't mean I have to come up with a new theory to explain your perception.

Vinyl=analog bothers me, too. What does "analog" sound like, exactly? And whenever I hear people start waxing rhapsodic about how "silken" cymbols sound on their preferred medium, I have to wonder whether they've actually ever heard someone thwack a cymbol.