Can anyone explain the vinyl renaissance?

[antcollinet]

If I had written ‘cannot’, I would stand condemned, right?

There is nothing wrong with "cannot be trusted"

But you seem to have translated that as "are always wrong" ("this is all driven by cognitive biases" - my bold)

Now you have since stated that this is an incorrect interpretation of your phrase, but I'm not the only one who interpreted it that way, and I've gone back to the original post, and there is nothing there to indicate an alternative interpretation.

Perhaps the problem is one of "nuance" - in that your posts don't seem to contain any. Your posts do come across as dogmatic, with no acknowledgement that there can be variation in the human response, and that it is possible for people to vary in their preferences. As you quoted above: "There is remarkably little variation from person to person..."

"little variation" does not mean "no variation" - see: nuance.

 

[Newman]

But you seem to have translated that as "are always wrong" ("this is all driven by cognitive biases" - my bold)

But you agree that they cannot be trusted, then? Unlike Axo, you don’t want to pretend that I cherry-picked Dr Toole, and that Dr Toole actually thinks they can be trusted?

When I said, “this is all driven by cognitive biases”, what do you think I meant by “this?” I was responding to board’s words that some people like a certain colouration more than they like the sound of accuracy. That whole argument is “all” driven by cognitive biases and the mechanism behind cognitive biases whereby people wrongly ascribe perceptions to the sound waves themselves. That claim is the “this” that I said is driven by cognitive biases. Toole has thoroughly examined the notion that some people prefer colourations of some sort, and concluded that it’s a myth.

This is what I mean by vinyl defenders being too defensive, which leads to them grabbing any possible single word by someone they have mis-labelled as a ‘hater’ and then pouncing on it and going on and on for pages about it, as if the guy who wrote that one word has finally gone too far and it’s ‘gotcha time’. At no point does my statement even look like I am saying that a sighted listening impression cannot possibly correlate with a controlled listening impression, because I wasn’t talking about whether it can or cannot: I was talking about where the idea that some people prefer coloured sound has come from. That idea is “all driven by cognitive biases”, wherein people wrongly trust sighted listening tests to be all about the sound waves.

cheers

 

[MattHooper]

When I said, “this is all driven by cognitive biases”, what do you think I meant by “this?” I was responding to board’s words that some people like a certain colouration more than they like the sound of accuracy. That whole argument is “all” driven by cognitive biases and the mechanism behind cognitive biases whereby people wrongly ascribe perceptions to the sound waves themselves. That claim is the “this” that I said is driven by cognitive biases. Toole has thoroughly examined the notion that some people prefer colourations of some sort, and concluded that it’s a myth.

There you go again, over-extending your conclusions.

There still exist, in fact, variations in preferences in regards to neutrality/frequency response. For instance, documented by Harman themselves in testing preferences for headphone sound:

SoundStage! Solo | SoundStageSolo.com - Where Are We At With The Harman Curve?

Reviews of headphones, earphones, and headphone amplifiers

www.soundstagesolo.com

Harman’s first effort involved a blind test of six over-ear headphones, followed by measurements of those response curves to see which response pleased the most listeners. Subsequent projects solicited the judgment of hundreds of listeners around the world and measurements of hundreds of different headphones.

The results of all that effort were Harman curves for earphones and over-ear headphones. But as Olive suggested in his above comment about JBL headphones, it’s not a “one size fits all” target. His presentation identified three potential groups to which manufacturers can target their headphones.

“Harman curve Lovers”: This group, which constitutes 64% of listeners, includes mostly a broad spectrum of people, although they’re generally under age 50. They prefer headphones tuned close to the Harman curve.

“More Bass Is Better”: This next group, which makes up 15% of listeners, prefers headphones with 3 to 6dB more bass than Harman curve below 300Hz, and 1dB more output above 1kHz. This group is predominantly male and younger -- the listeners JBL is targeting with its headphones.

“Less Bass Is Better”: This group, 21% of listeners, prefers 2 to 3dB less bass than the Harman curve and 1dB more output above 1kHz. This group is disproportionately female and older than 50.


As for vinyl vs digital blind comparisons, the only study I'm aware of is the often cited "Vinyl As Fine Wine" study. To gauge people's impression of sound quality between vinyl/digital, that study used a single song example (Frank Sinatra), played on a lower priced turntable (bottom of the line Project table), no mention of the cartridge. A science-minded person should be very cautious in extrapolating those results too widely. (And the study itself reminds us they were testing regular consumers with cheaper consumer gear, and the authors suggest that "High-end equipment will most certainly produce a different listening experience between vinyl and compressed music formats.")

 

[Axo1989]

But you agree that they cannot be trusted, then? Unlike Axo, you don’t want to pretend that I cherry-picked Dr Toole, and that Dr Toole actually thinks they can be trusted?

When I say "cherry-picked" of course I'm being polite. I guess that is "pretending" in a way.

Toole has thoroughly examined the notion that some people prefer colourations of some sort, and concluded that it’s a myth.

Less politely, you either don't understand what you read, or are deliberately misrepresenting it.

Referring to the well-known graph of different subjectively-preferred steady-state room curves from Olive's 2009/2013 experiment, Toole says "More data would be enlightening, but this amount is sufficient to indicate that a single target curve is not likely to satisfy all listeners all the time."

Your argument in studies like these when people prefer more or less bass and/or treble using the same speakers and program material—that it's all a result of cognitive bias and not a revealed preference—is either an inaccurate over-simplification, misunderstanding the methodology or outright mendacity.

Maybe somehow in your mind a series of lines converge into an ideal line, and that becomes the one truth? Then you lock in. Or maybe it's a problem with language. Prior to that conclusion Toole says "Over the years, using a wide variety of recorded material, it has been found that loud-speakers with a flattish on-axis frequency response have been favored by most listeners in the double-blind, multiple-comparison tests." This is probably what you are referring to, but somehow qualifiers like "ish" and "most" fall out of your analysis, and you render an absolutist, dogmatic version instead.

Edit: both quotes at p.350 of Toole's 3rd edition, the graphic (on the next page) is Figure 12.7

 

[MattHooper]

Maybe somehow in your mind a series of lines converge into an ideal line, and that becomes the one truth? Then you lock in. Or maybe it's a problem with language. Prior to that conclusion Toole says "Over the years, using a wide variety of recorded material, it has been found that loud- speakers with a flattish on-axis frequency response have been favored by most listeners in the double-blind, multiple-comparison tests." This is probably what you are referring to, but somehow qualifiers like "ish" and "most" fall out of your analysis, and you render an absolutist, dogmatic version instead.

If someone enjoys trying to pop subjectivist's balloons, they might not want to dull their needle with "nuance." Takes the fun out of it.

 

[MattHooper]

Incoming anecdotes...(for those that care to read such things...)

I had some fun today doing a vinyl vs digital comparison at a friend's place. He finally put a DAC in to his "all vinyl" system.

He has two systems, one upstairs with solid state amplification and a digital source (logitech server). Downstairs has been all vinyl for years (various amps, mostly SS, tube preamps, today was all solid state amp and pre). He's using a VPI Prime Signature turntable, and one o' them fancy new DS Audio optical cartridges/phono stage.
He's trying out ROON and just got a new DAC to use in his downstairs until-now vinyl system (we were listening to big Estelon XB Mk 2 speakers...)

This was the first time we directly compared digital music to vinyl in the same system, his main system, so it was more eye-opening for him (less so for me as I do it all the time in my system).

I brought over some LPs, and we played some of his, and found the tidal versions of each (making sure we weren't choosing re-masters).

First: overall the difference between the vinyl playback and the digital in this particular system was so obvious not a single person on this forum could have missed it. (Unless maybe your hearing cuts off below 5K or something). To generalize, it was basically what I hear at my place though more exaggerated: the vinyl very vivid and present sounding, but a bit more dry and forward sounding, digital smoother, more resolved, more sedate and relaxed, and a more continuous sense of the fine ambience/reverb tying everything together.

As to preferences, it depended on the album we were playing. I started off playing my vinyl copy of Robohands Green album. It's sort of trippy, mellow, jazzy R&B album, sparsely played, distant horns, drums very forward. Like many indie recordings, I find it a bit of an awkward mix, very kick drum heavy and a thick bass sound. Sonically the album provides a few vivid moments, such as track two, when the drums come in doing some rim shots playing-off-high-hat beat. It can be really damned clean and clear sounding, like the drummer is "right there" in an intimate acoustic, behind your speakers. I encourage anyone interested to check it out streaming if you have it, otherwise here's the youtube link to the full album (2nd track starts at 3:48):

On the digital version everything was clean, clear and smooth. But...more laid back, less "real" than I'm used to. We spun the vinyl and what a difference! It was much more vivid, crisp, forward, the highs were clearly hyped a bit and the effect was the drums were "right there" in the room! It broke that boundary, from sounding a bit "canned" to "almost could be real" on the vinyl. So there was clearly some coloration going on with the vinyl, whether it was a combination of vinyl distortion/artifacts/mastering with maybe a frequency peak on the cartridge or whatever. But the sonic effect was, to our ears, a jump in solidity and tonal realism.

I also spun that LP of Sitar and Synths, shown on the previous page, and amazingly enough we found it on Tidal too. Again, same type of differences: more texture and forward character on the vinyl, making the Sitar pop, on the digital smoother more laid back, and a bit richer sounding on the digital. I liked both.

We compared a Massive Attack track with Tracy Thorn, Protection, (1994). First the digital version: smooth, spacious, rich sounding, deep bass, very nicely balanced, clean. Then the vinyl: Whoah! Totally different! The sound pulled forward, once again more vivid highs/upper mids, went from slightly canned sounding to "in the room" type of presence, and her voice became more corporeal with more body. Bass seemed equally deep on both. However this was a "could go with either one" for me: the digital seemed to resolve the very fine reverb holding all the elements together, making it sound very cohesive. The vinyl popped the elements out of the mix more, but dried up the reverb/ambience a bit between the instruments and vocals, making it feel a bit more like there was "blank sonic space" between the instruments. Again, it made things pop out of the mix more, but the more subtle ambience on the digital felt more cohesive and richer. I might prefer the digital here.

Another was...just because I was playing it earlier on my system, Jermaine Jackson's self titled early 1984 LP. It has very punchy clear 80's production, lots of syncopated synth lines/drum machine, deep bass. Well this was by far the biggest difference between the vinyl and digital version...and not in the vinyl's favour. The vinyl WAS more vivid in a hyped upper frequency way, but also with a more crude slightly chalky, crusty highs. The digital was much smoother and more sonically informative, and MUCH richer sounding. There was a large difference in the depth and richness of the bass and upper bass, sounding huge and powerful. This was the first comparison where we heard an obvious difference in bass depth/quality: It made the vinyl version sound quite anemic in comparison. Though I liked the vinyl's vividness, everything else went to the digital and I prefer the digital version.

Though back home on my system, which is perhaps a little more forgiving, it's more of a toss-up because there wasn't quite the bit in the highs, so I could enjoy the vinyl. But both sound good.

 

[Newman]

Less politely, you either don't understand what you read, or are deliberately misrepresenting it.

Referring to the well-known graph of different subjectively-preferred steady-state room curves from Olive's 2009/2013 experiment, Toole says "More data would be enlightening, but this amount is sufficient to indicate that a single target curve is not likely to satisfy all listeners all the time."

You have made things very difficult by bringing steady state room curves into this, but I'll try to wade through it.

Your argument in studies like these when people prefer more or less bass and/or treble using the same speakers and program material—that it's all a result of cognitive bias and not a revealed preference—is either an inaccurate over-simplification, misunderstanding the methodology or outright mendacity.

Misrepresentation by you, pure and simple.

1. I have stated many times that research shows the preferred summed bass response curve tends to vary in level between individual listeners, 'to taste'. (I have also repeatedly stated (from Toole) that listeners are much more uniform in their preference for extended bass and smooth bass response...the variation relates to preferred level.)
2. All the studies on room curves, including the one you mention above, are controlled listening tests. Not once, ever, have I said or implied that controlled listening tests are "all a result of cognitive bias". What were you thinking when you wrote the bolded part above? It's a ridiculous misrepresentation of my argument.
3. As you will see below, that graph is not interpreted by Toole the same way as you do.

Maybe somehow in your mind a series of lines converge into an ideal line, and that becomes the one truth? Then you lock in. Or maybe it's a problem with language.

Don't be condescending. You really should cut that sort of crap out.

Prior to that conclusion Toole says "Over the years, using a wide variety of recorded material, it has been found that loud-speakers with a flattish on-axis frequency response have been favored by most listeners in the double-blind, multiple-comparison tests." This is probably what you are referring to, but somehow qualifiers like "ish" and "most" fall out of your analysis, and you render an absolutist, dogmatic version instead.

Edit: both quotes at p.350 of Toole's 3rd edition, the graphic (on the next page) is Figure 12.7

The only person doing any misrepresenting here is you, but I assume it is accidental.

You do understand that Toole's explanation of Fig 12.7 was that listeners are using different listening levels in the experiments, so they are compensating for Fletcher-Munson equal-loudness contours? That's not what you seem to think 12.7 is saying...

I'm talking about colouration, and so was board. We both wrote the word, clear as day. See what Toole and Olive say about preferences for coloured vs uncoloured sound... it won't be any different to what I say. Uncoloured is preferred.

And the curves you are referencing are not the frequency response of the direct sound ie first-arrival sound. You mention this, yet ignore the ramifications:-

Humans can separate the direct - first arrival - sound from later arrivals - reflections. In terms of sound quality and image localization the direct sound is dominant. That is why it is important to have flat and smooth - i.e. neutral timbre - on-axis and listening window frequency responses. Two ears and a brain are much smarter than a 1/4-inch microphone that simply adds things together.

- Floyd Toole on ASR, link​

Axo, let's bring your excursion into room curves back to a discussion of cartridge response variations. Let's say you have a nice hifi system and you have got it to sound right to you with neutral sources, ie digital or a neutral cartridge. (The room curve is whatever it is.) Now throw in a highly-rated exotic cartridge that costs 10x either your neutral cartridge or your digital player's value, but just happens to have a clearly audibly non-neutral frequency response. What are the chances that you will prefer the exotic in a controlled listening test with a good range of program material? Very low obviously, because it is screwing up your good sound. But in sighted listening tests? Well, I assure you, that's completely different! And the difference is, dare I say it, driven by cognitive bias. Oops, I said it again.

This has been my whole point the whole time.

Any counter-argument along the lines of, "what about when the original system is deficient in FR in a way that the non-flat cartridge compensates?", is kind of trite. A cheap cart could be found that would do that too, but I bet the Koetsu or Kleos lover isn't hunting them down, and I bet in a sighted test they wouldn't say it sounds the same. Plus, there are plenty of exotic carts with an essentially flat FR...what then?

Guys, there is an elephant in the room, and when I say the elephant smell in the room is driven by the presence of an elephant, you are poo-pooing my argument and saying maybe someone is wearing elephant-smell deodorant!

 

[Andysu]

i like the vinyl of original star wars 1977 LSO , yes original not the remixed ones of later decades
technics SL1210GR

 

[Robin L]

A suggestion for Matt Hooper---compare Analog LP and digital versions of "The Chain" and "Go Your Own Way" from Fleetwood Mac's "Rumours". I've always heard congestion and overload on my various LPs of Rumours but a recent remaster on CD just barely dodged that distortion.

 

[drewdawg999]

A suggestion for Matt Hooper---compare Analog LP and digital versions of "The Chain" and "Go Your Own Way" from Fleetwood Mac's "Rumours". I've always heard congestion and overload on my various LPs of Rumours but a recent remaster on CD just barely dodged that distortion.

I did this the other day, my LP is an old Super Saver that I got sealed. It's a horrible pressing, congested, muddy, flat. Then I played the SACD rip, and it sounded wonderful, detailed and smooth. For Rumours, my LP copy was thoroughly trounced by digital. A Pallas pressing is supposed to be best, but taking a look at prices on Discogs, I don't think I'll go through all the bother and cost of obtaining a copy.

 

[Andysu]

star wars 1977 vinyl is what its all about technics SL1210GR

 

[Robin L]

I did this the other day, my LP is an old Super Saver that I got sealed. It's a horrible pressing, congested, muddy, flat. Then I played the SACD rip, and it sounded wonderful, detailed and smooth. For Rumours, my LP copy was thoroughly trounced by digital. A Pallas pressing is supposed to be best, but taking a look at prices on Discogs, I don't think I'll go through all the bother and cost of obtaining a copy.

I managed to own many different LP copies of Rumours, including early pressings (pre-Super Saver). While the overall sound quality of those pressings were above average, those two tracks always fell apart at the end. I had the CD remaster of Rumours along with the 2-CD greatest hits package. One requires above average playback gear in order to get the most out of the two tracks in question. They can fall apart on substandard gear on account of the dense mix. On good playback gear the distortion of the LP is quite audible. I was not aware of a SACD of Rumours, recall seeing a DVD audio issue.

 

[MattHooper]

A suggestion for Matt Hooper---compare Analog LP and digital versions of "The Chain" and "Go Your Own Way" from Fleetwood Mac's "Rumours". I've always heard congestion and overload on my various LPs of Rumours but a recent remaster on CD just barely dodged that distortion.

A few years ago I picked up the 2009 re-release of Rumours (at a record shop I think).

I'd echo what @drewdawg999 wrote: I was surprised and disappointed at how bad it sounded. Sounded flat and muffled. I haven't played it since and had, funny enough, just recently thought I should give it another try. But I already know the digital version trounced it.

 

[Robin L]

A few years ago I picked up the 2009 re-release of Rumours (at a record shop I think).

I'd echo what @drewdawg999 wrote: I was surprised and disappointed at how bad it sounded. Sounded flat and muffled. I haven't played it since and had, funny enough, just recently thought I should give it another try. But I already know the digital version trounced it.

I lived in Berkeley for about twenty years, working at record/CD stores near Telegraph Avenue for most of that time. Worked at Tower Records for a few years, spent a lot of time shopping at Amoeba and Rasputin's. So I was buying and trading records all the time when it was a cheap and easy hobby. Particularly when working a record store and getting promos all the time. I'm surprised that clean, early copies of Rumours have become collectible. It was one of those records that went for $2 to $5 back then. I'm pretty sure I had a clean, early copy ten years ago.

 

[MattHooper]

What are the chances that you will prefer the exotic in a controlled listening test with a good range of program material? Very low obviously, because it is screwing up your good sound. But in sighted listening tests? Well, I assure you, that's completely different! And the difference is, dare I say it, driven by cognitive bias. Oops, I said it again.

This has been my whole point the whole time.

And what you continually fail to address is the point we are making. Whenever sighted listening is invoked, you keep using phrases like "driven by cognitive bias."

What precisely do you mean by DRIVEN by cognitive bias?

Because what you continually imply is that what we perceive in sighted listening WILL BE, inevitably, a cognitive bias effect. That's what "driven" suggests (and you've been explicit about this before, assuring people they are falling for bias effect IF they are using sighted listening).

So I've been trying to get you to be clear on this. Is it your position that, in sighted conditions (whatever audio comparisons we are talking about) cognitive bias WILL inevitably cause one to misperceive the sound?

If that is your position, then it is problematic in the ways we keep pointing out.

Or, do you mean that "In sighted conditions cognitive biases CAN cause you to mispercieve the sound, in which case if you want high confidence levels you can look to objective data for confirmation, and/or employ listening tests controlling for biases."

If you mean the latter, then we are in agreement. So ...which is it? And if it's the latter, then we have to allow for when it is reasonable to to accept (even if provisionally and with caveats) our sighted impressions as being "accurate enough."

For instance, in the vinyl vs digital comparisons I gave above, I compared and described the sonic differences I heard, along with my preferences. My reaction varied, sometimes preferring the vinyl, other times finding the digital sounded decidedly superior and preferable. Which cognitive bias was most plausibly driving these varied reactions?

My view is that there certainly may have been some level of "noise" in terms of bias effect. And that I hold out it's still possible that even in the specific instances where I distinctly preferred the vinyl, that could change in a blind test. But holding all that in mind, it's also the case that vinyl can and often does sound different from digital.
It's entirely plausible, and not unusual at all, that the cartridge could have had a frequency curve that accentuated certain high frequencies, and that this combined with the variability of pressing/mastering/distortions of each individual record, caused the records to audibly depart from the digital versions in various (and more random) ways.

And that this is quite plausibly what I was hearing and describing. (I'd put lots of money on anyone here immediately noticing the difference in high frequency emphasis with the vinyl in that set up). Unless someone can propose a bias effect that more plausibly explains my varied perception with each record, I'd say taking my perception as "generally correct," as to the sonic characteristics of the vinyl vs digital, more tightly explains my impressions than some more vague "bias effect."
Could be wrong. But under the circumstances I think this is reasonable.

Moving from whether I was perceiving real sonic characteristics to my preferences: Again, if I was hearing the sonic differences I thought, then it's not unreasonable to think my preferences were based on those real sonic differences, preferring vinyl here, digital there. Again, I simultaneously hold that it could still could be a bias, and that even when I preferred the vinyl in blind testing I may have switched and preferred the digital. That COULD be the case. But I don't KNOW it to be the case without doing blind listening in that specific set up with those specific records, so in this situation I'm left to go on my impressions, provisional as they are, given the non-scientific circumstances.

 

[levimax]

I managed to own many different LP copies of Rumours, including early pressings (pre-Super Saver). While the overall sound quality of those pressings were above average, those two tracks always fell apart at the end. I had the CD remaster of Rumours along with the 2-CD greatest hits package. One requires above average playback gear in order to get the most out of the two tracks in question. They can fall apart on substandard gear on account of the dense mix. On good playback gear the distortion of the LP is quite audible. I was not aware of a SACD of Rumours, recall seeing a DVD audio issue.

I have multiple copies of Rumours including early LP and "Hi-Res" and early (but not earliest CD). I recently picked up a Target CD for a few dollars (I think they are supposed to be more expensive but it was mixed in with a bunch of other cheap CD's). This version is by far my favorite. You get the "fade up" on Gold Dust Woman (which is lost on most digital versions) and a very nice EQ similar to the LP but quieter and cleaner. You can read about Rumours over on SH forums and if can believe their account the original Target CD's were mastered from the original master tapes by Ken Perry (Same engineer that mastered the original pressings on LP) but then it was "re-mastered" louder with no fade up on "Gold Dust Woman" and to me really wonky EQ shortly after and this has been the basis of most / all digital version since.

I like to chase around masterings and I have original LP's and CD's of a lot of my favorite music and while I can usually ABX reliably between the different versions the differences are usually subtle and preference is often hard to say. In the case of Rumours the differences are large and I have a very strong preference for the Target version. I am really surprised that such an Iconic release has been changed so much from the original. If you are fan of this album I would recommend picking up one of the early Target CD's, I would be surprised if you were disappointed.

 

[tmtomh]

And what you continually fail to address is the point we are making. Whenever sighted listening is invoked, you keep using phrases like "driven by cognitive bias."

What precisely do you mean by DRIVEN by cognitive bias?

Because what you continually imply is that what we perceive in sighted listening WILL BE, inevitably, a cognitive bias effect. That's what "driven" suggests (and you've been explicit about this before, assuring people they are falling for bias effect IF they are using sighted listening).

So I've been trying to get you to be clear on this. Is it your position that, in sighted conditions (whatever audio comparisons we are talking about) cognitive bias WILL inevitably cause one to misperceive the sound?

If that is your position, then it is problematic in the ways we keep pointing out.

Or, do you mean that "In sighted conditions cognitive biases CAN cause you to mispercieve the sound, in which case if you want high confidence levels you can look to objective data for confirmation, and/or employ listening tests controlling for biases."

If you mean the latter, then we are in agreement. So ...which is it? And if it's the latter, then we have to allow for when it is reasonable to to accept (even if provisionally and with caveats) our sighted impressions as being "accurate enough."

For instance, in the vinyl vs digital comparisons I gave above, I compared and described the sonic differences I heard, along with my preferences. My reaction varied, sometimes preferring the vinyl, other times finding the digital sounded decidedly superior and preferable. Which cognitive bias was most plausibly driving these varied reactions?

My view is that there certainly may have been some level of "noise" in terms of bias effect. And that I hold out it's still possible that even in the specific instances where I distinctly preferred the vinyl, that could change in a blind test. But holding all that in mind, it's also the case that vinyl can and often does sound different from digital.
It's entirely plausible, and not unusual at all, that the cartridge could have had a frequency curve that accentuated certain high frequencies, and that this combined with the variability of pressing/mastering/distortions of each individual record, caused the records to audibly depart from the digital versions in various (and more random) ways.

And that this is quite plausibly what I was hearing and describing. (I'd put lots of money on anyone here immediately noticing the difference in high frequency emphasis with the vinyl in that set up). Unless someone can propose a bias effect that more plausibly explains my varied perception with each record, I'd say taking my perception as "generally correct," as to the sonic characteristics of the vinyl vs digital, more tightly explains my impressions than some more vague "bias effect."
Could be wrong. But under the circumstances I think this is reasonable.

Moving from whether I was perceiving real sonic characteristics to my preferences: Again, if I was hearing the sonic differences I thought, then it's not unreasonable to think my preferences were based on those real sonic differences, preferring vinyl here, digital there. Again, I simultaneously hold that it could still could be a bias, and that even when I preferred the vinyl in blind testing I may have switched and preferred the digital. That COULD be the case. But I don't KNOW it to be the case without doing blind listening in that specific set up with those specific records, so in this situation I'm left to go on my impressions, provisional as they are, given the non-scientific circumstances.

Perhaps there's an opportunity here to clear up a miscommunication, or at least to more clearly define the disagreement you and @Newman (and some others) are having about this particular point.

As far as I can tell, Newman is saying that people's preferences tend to change depending on whether they're listening sighted or blind (which I think is something most of us would agree with as a real phenomenon even if we disagree about how often that happens, yes?). He's saying that preferences for gear that audibly colors the sound tend to disappear or reverse themselves when that gear becomes part of a blind comparison with more neutral/linear gear.

But he's not, as far as I can tell, claiming the converse: he's not claiming that we will always prefer less neutral gear when we do sighted comparisons. And therefore he is not claiming that sighted comparisons will always misidentify the most linear/neutral gear or will always misidentify sonic characteristics. In other words, he's not claiming sighted comparisons will always be wrong.

So is he saying we're unable to use sighted comparisons to detect a speaker that has significant bass rolloff or a major treble peak? No, I don't think he's saying that - because he's not saying we always prefer nonlinear gear in sighted listening. But he's saying that in those cases when we do prefer less linear gear in sighted listening, the literature suggests that it's unlikely that preference would survive a blind comparison with more linear gear.

I'm just the messenger here and the above is written in the spirit of trying to parse the argument and identify where you might be talking past each other.

 

[levimax]

Perhaps there's an opportunity hear to clear up a miscommunication, or at least to more clearly define the disagreement you and @Newman (and some others) are having about this particular point.

As far as I can tell, Newman is saying that people's preferences tend to change depending on whether they're listening sighted or blind (which I think is someone most of us would agree with as a real phenomenon even if we disagree about how often that happens, yes?). He's saying that preferences for gear that audibly colors the sound tend to disappear or reverse themselves when that gear becomes part of a blind comparison with more neutral/linear gear.

But he's not, as far as I can tell, claiming the converse: he's not claiming that we will always prefer less neutral gear when we do sighted comparisons. And therefore he is not claiming that sighted comparisons will always misidentify the most linear/neutral gear or will always misidentify sonic characteristics. In other words, he's not claiming sighted comparisons will always be wrong.

So is he saying we're unable to use sighted comparisons to detect a speaker that has significant bass rolloff or a major treble peak? No, I don't think he's saying that - because he's not saying we always prefer nonlinear gear in sighted listening. But he's saying that in those cases when we do prefer less linear gear in sighted listening, the literature suggests that it's unlikely that preference would survive a blind comparison with more linear gear.

I'm just the messenger here and the above is written in the spirit of trying to parse the argument and identify where you might be talking past each other.

Sighted vs Blind can certainly cause bias but even more important in my experience is level matched. I have heard what seems to be large differences between sources that completely disappeared when level matched. That is why whenever I compare vinyl to digital I always use needle drops that can easily be level matched with quick switching in addition to being blinded. It is certainly possible that the differences between sources are large enough that they can be identified sighted and not level matched but if there are only subtle differences then listening without controls is going to be dominated by sighted bias and the louder source sounding better.

 

[Robin L]

I have multiple copies of Rumours including early LP and "Hi-Res" and early (but not earliest CD). I recently picked up a Target CD for a few dollars (I think they are supposed to be more expensive but it was mixed in with a bunch of other cheap CD's). This version is by far my favorite. You get the "fade up" on Gold Dust Woman (which is lost on most digital versions) and a very nice EQ similar to the LP but quieter and cleaner. You can read about Rumours over on SH forums and if can believe their account the original Target CD's were mastered from the original master tapes by Ken Perry (Same engineer that mastered the original pressings on LP) but then it was "re-mastered" louder with no fade up on "Gold Dust Woman" and to me really wonky EQ shortly after and this has been the basis of most / all digital version since.

I like to chase around masterings and I have original LP's and CD's of a lot of my favorite music and while I can usually ABX reliably between the different versions the differences are usually subtle and preference is often hard to say. In the case of Rumours the differences are large and I have a very strong preference for the Target version. I am really surprised that such an Iconic release has been changed so much from the original. If you are fan of this album I would recommend picking up one of the early Target CD's, I would be surprised if you were disappointed.

I think my days of chasing after alternate masterings has passed. If I find a CD of something I like for sale at the local library, I can pick it up for a $1 a pop. Dosen't happen too often. A good thing as I'm out of shelf space. And I've probably heard Rumours enough by now.

I was a recording engineer in Berkeley in the 1990s and did a number of recordings at Zellerbach hall, mostly the Berkeley Symphony Orchestra for radio rebroadcast. Not my favorite venue, acoustically speaking. Whenever I heard "Songbird", I would hear the room.

 

[tmtomh]

Sighted vs Blind can certainly cause bias but even more important in my experience is level matched. I have heard what seems to be large differences between sources that completely disappeared when level matched. That is why whenever I compare vinyl to digital I always use needle drops that can easily be level matched with quick switching in addition to being blinded. It is certainly possible that the differences between sources are large enough that they can be identified sighted and not level matched but if there are only subtle differences then listening without controls is going to be dominated by sighted bias and the louder source sounding better.

Definitely agree about level matching. As you say, the biggest issue with mismatched levels is that we don't always perceive the volume difference as a volume difference - we often perceive it as a sound-quality difference. In fact, I suspect small mismatches in level might be the most common problem with uncontrolled listening comparisons.