[bob]

On Mar 22, 6:27 pm, "MC" wrote:
Pardon me, I see no logical fallacy. Two possible biases are being
considered and someone wants to determine which one is stronger, a bias
toward false negatives or a bias toward false positives. This is a very
straightforward, common, and troublesome question in all types of
experiments that involve human perception.

"Which bias is stronger?" is a pointless question. Both biases exist
to some extent. It doesn't matter which is stronger; it matters that
you account for them. A good test design will and does deal with both.

You control for false positives through such means as blinding and
level matching. You control for false negatives through training the
subject and allowing him to control switching, among other things.

And how do you know you've controlled for them enough? When you get
results that are repeatable and consistent with other sorts of tests.
Which professional psychoacousticians do, which is why they use the
tests. Only Denialists argue otherwise.

bob

[Peter Wieck]

On Mar 22, 5:27 pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 22 Mar 2007 03:20:10 GMT, "Peter Wieck" wrote:

Attempting to prove the negative is a logical fallacy.

Not only isn't it a fallacy, it is commonly done, especially in
Mathematics and occasionally in physics. In audio it is easily proven
that there are no loudspeakers with an efficiency of greater than 100%,
for example. This follows trivially from the laws of physics as do many
other negatives.

Those who
require such proof simply do not understand that very most basic
concept.

So the Greeks, who proved millenea ago that there are exactly no pairs
of whole numbers whose ratio, multiplied by itself, equals two, were all
hallucinating I suppose? As are all the modern textbooks that repeat
their proof!



Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

God help you both (MC is the 'other half').

a) Mathematical proofs show what 'is', not what 'is not'. That there
are a class of conditions that are excluded because of a proof is not
that they are proven... it is that the positive is proven, so the
negative is excluded. NOT PROVEN... EXCLUDED.

Note Clarke's First law as it applies to this condition as well.

Additionally: that something is proven-by-exclusion may only be
accepted with the following codicil: To-Date. Anything further,
Clarke's third law applies. The second is purely gratuitous.

b) The operative statement here is "Prove that this bias did not
affect the results of all your tests. That is the ONLY thing that
matters." Theporky is requiring proof of the negative.

The saddest part of all this is that there is a significant number of
individuals (in this case as it applies to Audio) who require that the
world be divided into two necessarily warring camps: THE
SUBJECTIVISTS: Those who believe that hearing is all, sighted or
otherwise and that all honest brokers amongst us automagically choose
the ideal case if we are only sufficiently unburdened by prejudice to
admit it. THE OBJECTIVISTS: those who believe that numbers coupled
with rigidly designed (relatively) short-term blind tests under
carefully controlled conditions will necessarily and always come up
with the ideal result for all listeners.

It

Ain't

Necessarily

So!

You all need to refer yourselves to William of Occam. He put paid to
this crap something like 700 years ago. If any of you would define the
opposite of "Black" as "White", remind me not to take _ANY_ advice
from you when it comes to audio, or any other thing of note or
import.

Perhaps we can all agree that cables after a certain pretty basic
threshold deliver unmeasurable or irrelevantly measurable differences.
So what? That is not significant to either side of the argument. There
are those who will believe that there are differences and that they
can discern them. There are those that believe that a correctly
designed test will prove otherwise. So what? That is not significant
to either side of the argument either.

Ladies and gentlemen, and children of all ages, this is better
understood as 'revealed religion'. It ain't nohow gonna change.
Occasionally, an outlyer will flip from one sect to the other, but in
the main, the body of each sect is invincibly immune to the lures and
blandishments of the other side. The sooner this is accepted by both
sides, the sooner we can get on with the meat of the matter... those
things that make real differences that we all can discuss as 'equal'
true believers... A few to cast out on the waters:

a) Speaker Quality, type and style: Advantages and disadvantages

b) Headroom: Its potential for making a difference.

c) Compare/contrast "headroom" with "speaker quality, type and style":
Discuss

Keeerist..... We are busy separating fly-crap from pepper... a
difficult activity of dubious utility.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:

The saddest part of all this is that there is a significant number of
individuals (in this case as it applies to Audio) who require that the
world be divided into two necessarily warring camps: THE
SUBJECTIVISTS: Those who believe that hearing is all, sighted or
otherwise and that all honest brokers amongst us automagically choose
the ideal case if we are only sufficiently unburdened by prejudice to
admit it. THE OBJECTIVISTS: those who believe that numbers coupled
with rigidly designed (relatively) short-term blind tests under
carefully controlled conditions will necessarily and always come up
with the ideal result for all listeners.

That's not the 'objectivist' position, and you do your argument no
credit by propping up such a straw man.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[[email protected]]

On Mar 23, 3:08?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message







On Mar 21, 3:42?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message



On Mar 19, 2:42?pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
is merely a restatement of the attitude that pretty
well lies behind all of science. Some of us know
how easily we can be fooled, and therefore take
precautions against that.
Hmmm, OK. So what precautions do you take against
being fooled when you make purchase choices in
audio?
I base my purchases on both technical and subjective
evaluations. Wherever possible, I use bias controls
in my subjective evaluations.
They are possible for every component in audio. But
tell me, do you use controls against a possible bias
that components sound the same?

As you say, possible bias. Prove that bias is anywhere
near as strong as the bias to hear differences when
there can't be any, and you'll have a logical leg to
stand on.

What? You are waiting for me to prove bias exists?

Not at all.

I asked for a comparison of the strength of two
different kinds of bias:
Prove that the bias towards not hearing differences is
anywhere as strong as the bias towards hearing
differences when there are none.

no relevant answer

No relevant question to answer.


Prove that this bias did not affect the results of all
your tests.

First off, I didn't do all the tests that I reference.

Actually you haven't really referenced any tests thus far. We were
talking about how *you* eliminate bias effects in *your* auditions. So
other peoples' tests are not relevant unless you are relying on them
instead of doing your own.

Some of them were
done by people with a strong bias towards hearing differences.

So you say. How do you know what their biases really are?

For example,
consider the many tests that John Atkinson that failed to have a positive
outcome for audible differences. Consider the tests that were done by Larry
Greenhill. Consider the fact that when I started doing tests, I had a stong
bias for audible differences.

Consider that none of them seemed to test for the possibility oif a
bias of no difference heard. Consider also that none of them actually
tested their test for sensitivity to known barely audible differences.
Cinsider that all of them are anecdotal in the end. But mostly
consider that they have nothing to do with my question to you about
how *you* eliminate bias from *your* auditions.

Scott

[Peter Wieck]

On Mar 23, 6:53 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:
The saddest part of all this is that there is a significant number of
individuals (in this case as it applies to Audio) who require that the
world be divided into two necessarily warring camps: THE
SUBJECTIVISTS: Those who believe that hearing is all, sighted or
otherwise and that all honest brokers amongst us automagically choose
the ideal case if we are only sufficiently unburdened by prejudice to
admit it. THE OBJECTIVISTS: those who believe that numbers coupled
with rigidly designed (relatively) short-term blind tests under
carefully controlled conditions will necessarily and always come up
with the ideal result for all listeners.

That's not the 'objectivist' position, and you do your argument no
credit by propping up such a straw man.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

I ain't nohow arguing. I am pointing out the general silliness of the
arguments here to-date. Straw or otherwise.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[[email protected]]

On Mar 23, 3:09?pm, "bob" wrote:

You control for false positives through such means as blinding and
level matching. You control for false negatives through training the
subject and allowing him to control switching, among other things.

Wow, didn't know you could "train" away any biases. I would think the
logical way to prevent false negatives is to introduce known barely
audible differences into the test. If they go undetected then we have
evidence of false negatives.

Scott

[Harry Lavo]

"bob" wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 6:27 pm, "MC" wrote:
Pardon me, I see no logical fallacy. Two possible biases are being
considered and someone wants to determine which one is stronger, a bias
toward false negatives or a bias toward false positives. This is a very
straightforward, common, and troublesome question in all types of
experiments that involve human perception.

"Which bias is stronger?" is a pointless question. Both biases exist
to some extent. It doesn't matter which is stronger; it matters that
you account for them. A good test design will and does deal with both.

I agree, but the average newbie on usenet was only going to hear about the
bias towards false positives if it was up to the objectivists on usenet. I
suspect that in the last few years we subjectivists have made some inroads
in showing the possibility of negative bias and the general lack of control
for this that the proponents of abx testing showed in urging it as a home
audio, open-ended evaluation procedure.

You control for false positives through such means as blinding and
level matching. You control for false negatives through training the
subject and allowing him to control switching, among other things.

Training of course which never is/never can be done when it comes to
open-ended evaluation of audio components. One of the main reasons why I
believe other forms of testing are preferable to abx and abc/hr for this
purpose.

And how do you know you've controlled for them enough? When you get
results that are repeatable and consistent with other sorts of tests.
Which professional psychoacousticians do, which is why they use the
tests. Only Denialists argue otherwise.

In other words, when you get the results you want consistent with your going
in biases? Or is that being a bit unfair? Well then tell me, why did you
fight me so hard on validation testing if you believe that a test for
"controlling them enough" is consistency with other sorts of tests? Seems
at odds on the face, to me.

[Ed Seedhouse]

On 23 Mar 2007 22:11:50 GMT, "Peter Wieck" wrote:

a) Mathematical proofs show what 'is', not what 'is not'. That there
are a class of conditions that are excluded because of a proof is not
that they are proven... it is that the positive is proven, so the
negative is excluded. NOT PROVEN... EXCLUDED.

Well you can say it a thousand times, but you will still be just as
wrong. The proof that there are no two integers whose ratio is the
square root of two is actually a reducio ad absurdum, where we assume a
positive and show that it involves a contradiction. Disproving a
positive is logically equivalent to proving a negative as a simple truth
table will show.

And similarly we can know and prove the negative conclusion that no
unpowered loudspeaker can ever be 100% efficient, because we know from
the laws of physics that this must be true if the laws of thermodynamics
are correct.

Of course it is trivially true that every negative can also be stated as
a positive, but often the negative version is the best and simplest way
to express a conclusion.

Note Clarke's First law as it applies to this condition as well.

Clarke's "First Law" is not a "law" at all. It is a clever and often
appropriate aphorism that "proves" nothing nor was ever intended to.

b) The operative statement here is "Prove that this bias did not
affect the results of all your tests. That is the ONLY thing that
matters." Theporky is requiring proof of the negative.

"Theporky" is, based on my observations of his posts in this group and
in my opinion, often wrong and also often illogical. That he is
doesn't make you right. In this case you are wrong. We can indeed
prove various negative things. See
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/%22You_Can't_Prove_a_Negative%22
for a decent discussion. As Steve Martin points out, "It's impossible
to put a Cadillac up your nose".

I think we've beaten this to death, don't you?

[bob]

On Mar 23, 11:44 pm, wrote:
On Mar 23, 3:09?pm, "bob" wrote:

You control for false positives through such means as blinding and
level matching. You control for false negatives through training the
subject and allowing him to control switching, among other things.

Wow, didn't know you could "train" away any biases.

Who said you could? Please read what I wrote, for once. Do you see the
word "bias" in the previous paragraph?

I would think the
logical way to prevent false negatives is to introduce known barely
audible differences into the test. If they go undetected then we have
evidence of false negatives.

No, we don't. We have evidence that those subjects couldn't hear those
differences under those conditions. That is all.

bob

[Chung]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:

The saddest part of all this is that there is a significant number of
individuals (in this case as it applies to Audio) who require that the
world be divided into two necessarily warring camps: THE
SUBJECTIVISTS: Those who believe that hearing is all, sighted or
otherwise and that all honest brokers amongst us automagically choose
the ideal case if we are only sufficiently unburdened by prejudice to
admit it. THE OBJECTIVISTS: those who believe that numbers coupled
with rigidly designed (relatively) short-term blind tests under
carefully controlled conditions will necessarily and always come up
with the ideal result for all listeners.

That's not the 'objectivist' position, and you do your argument no
credit by propping up such a straw man.

___

It's hard to find any accepted definition of objectivism. OTOH, I think
Doug Self has a good definition of subjectivism, as expressed on his
website:

***
A short definition of the Subjectivist position on power amplifiers
might read as follows:

* Objective measurements of an amplifier's performance are
unimportant compared with the subjective impressions received in
informal listening tests. Should the two contradict the objective
results may be dismissed out of hand.
* Degradation effects exist in amplifiers that are unknown to
engineering science, and are not revealed by the usual measurements.
* Considerable latitude may be used in suggesting hypothetical
mechanisms of audio impairment, such as mysterious capacitor
shortcomings and subtle cable defects, without reference to the
plausibility of the concept, or gathering any evidence to support it .
***

A definition of the subjectivist position on cables/power-cords then is
simply the above with the word amplifier replaced by cables/power-cords.

Perhaps an objectivist is simply one who disagrees with any of the
subjectivist positions listed above. Or perhaps "non-subjectivist" is a
more accurate term to describe those of us who opposes subjectivism in
this newsgroup.

[bob]

On Mar 24, 10:40 am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"bob" wrote in message

...

On Mar 22, 6:27 pm, "MC" wrote:
Pardon me, I see no logical fallacy. Two possible biases are being
considered and someone wants to determine which one is stronger, a bias
toward false negatives or a bias toward false positives. This is a very
straightforward, common, and troublesome question in all types of
experiments that involve human perception.

"Which bias is stronger?" is a pointless question. Both biases exist
to some extent. It doesn't matter which is stronger; it matters that
you account for them. A good test design will and does deal with both.

I agree, but the average newbie on usenet was only going to hear about the
bias towards false positives if it was up to the objectivists on usenet.

No, the reason we spend so much time discussing false positives is
that Denialists like you keep bring up "evidence" based on "tests"
that fail to control for false positives. We don't discuss false
negatives so much because nobody is citing tests that fail to control
for them.

I
suspect that in the last few years we subjectivists have made some inroads
in showing the possibility of negative bias and the general lack of control
for this that the proponents of abx testing showed in urging it as a home
audio, open-ended evaluation procedure.

You're joking, right? You Denialists haven't shown ANYTHING. You've
not offered a shred of real evidence that what you call "negative
bias" even exists. In fact, you haven't shown that you even understand
the difference between "negative bias," as you call it, and false
negatives.

You control for false positives through such means as blinding and
level matching. You control for false negatives through training the
subject and allowing him to control switching, among other things.

Training of course which never is/never can be done when it comes to
open-ended evaluation of audio components.

Any training that's necessary would be easily doable. What training do
you think is necessary for an audiophile to determine which of two
components he prefers?

One of the main reasons why I
believe other forms of testing are preferable to abx and abc/hr for this
purpose.

And given your previous answer, why would training not be necessary
for any other form of "testing"?

And how do you know you've controlled for them enough? When you get
results that are repeatable and consistent with other sorts of tests.
Which professional psychoacousticians do, which is why they use the
tests. Only Denialists argue otherwise.

In other words, when you get the results you want consistent with your going
in biases? Or is that being a bit unfair?

Well, you've just libeled the entire scientific community, for
starters.

Well then tell me, why did you
fight me so hard on validation testing if you believe that a test for
"controlling them enough" is consistency with other sorts of tests? Seems
at odds on the face, to me.

What are you talking about? I argued with you about validation because
the only thing you're qualified to validate is a parking ticket.
Whereas the people who use these tests for a living have already
validated them by producing results that are repeatable and consistent
with other sorts of tests. As opposed to Denialists like you, who've
never done a test in your life, let alone one that produced useful
data.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message


On Mar 22, 6:27 pm, "MC" wrote:

Pardon me, I see no logical fallacy. Two possible
biases are being considered and someone wants to
determine which one is stronger, a bias toward false
negatives or a bias toward false positives. This is a
very straightforward, common, and troublesome question
in all types of experiments that involve human
perception.

"Which bias is stronger?" is a pointless question. Both
biases exist to some extent. It doesn't matter which is
stronger; it matters that you account for them. A good
test design will and does deal with both.

One approach that we've used is to simply use people who are advocates for
the difference being listened for, as listeners. I alluded to that in my
earlier post when I mentioned the name of an editor who seems to be a strong
advocate for the existence of a wide variety of audible differences.

Another approach that we've used is to provide tangible and/or intangible
rewards for listeners who reliably detect a certain audible difference. Both
cash awards and titles of honor have been tried.

Just Noticable Differences (JND) for many audible effects are known by
various means. Listeners can be tested and listeners who do not approach
JNDs can be removed from the final analysis of tests involving other
differences for which JNDs are not known.

A certain systematic approach has been used to detect listeners who are less
sensitive for whatever reason. In many cases the difference being listened
for can enhanced by various technical means. Listeners are presented with
the difference enhanced to the point where the listener would have to be
narturally unusually insensitive (i.e., poor hearing or not responding to
training) or be biasing his responses towards reporting no differences, in
order for the particular test to be negative for audible differences. The
future responses from these listeners are ignored.

The size of the difference is systematically decreased in steps until
reliable detection ceases. Analysis of the data can provide a good estimate
of the point of a just noticable difference.

You control for false positives through such means as
blinding and level matching.

Agreed.

You control for false
negatives through training the subject and allowing him
to control switching, among other things.

Doesn't really deal with the golden-ear's boogey-man, the listener who
either doesn't try hard enough or falsifies his responses because he
believes that the difference involved is not audible.

And how do you know you've controlled for them enough?
When you get results that are repeatable and consistent
with other sorts of tests. Which professional
psychoacousticians do, which is why they use the tests.

In fact, even the most jaded listener will often put forth an exceptional
effort, simply because people tend to be optimistic, and don't want to be
the only person who can't hear a certain difference.

Only Denialists argue otherwise.

Denialists can be detected by simply offering them an opportunity to
participate in a well-designed listening test, and then waiting for the
litany of excuses for them not participating.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


I agree, but the average newbie on usenet was only going
to hear about the bias towards false positives if it was
up to the objectivists on usenet.

This is a claim that can be tested.

It turns out that this is to the best of my knowlege the first post that
mentioned both false positives and false negatives on any rec.* audio group:

Date: Sat, 26 Nov 94 18:31:00

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...249424154aaa13

"A good test that will be a possible safeguard against a 'false
positive' or 'false negative' conclusion from the statistical evaluation
would of
couse be to first make a testrun with both CD's of each recording
unpainted."

I can't find any evidence of anyone with the name lavo posting prior to
2002, about 8 years later. Therefore we can conclude that the claim has zero
validity.

[Steven Sullivan]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Mar 23, 6:53 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:
The saddest part of all this is that there is a significant number of
individuals (in this case as it applies to Audio) who require that the
world be divided into two necessarily warring camps: THE
SUBJECTIVISTS: Those who believe that hearing is all, sighted or
otherwise and that all honest brokers amongst us automagically choose
the ideal case if we are only sufficiently unburdened by prejudice to
admit it. THE OBJECTIVISTS: those who believe that numbers coupled
with rigidly designed (relatively) short-term blind tests under
carefully controlled conditions will necessarily and always come up
with the ideal result for all listeners.

That's not the 'objectivist' position, and you do your argument no
credit by propping up such a straw man.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

I ain't nohow arguing. I am pointing out the general silliness of the
arguments here to-date. Straw or otherwise.

It's easy to point to a 'silly' argument when you've made it up yourself.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"bob" wrote in message


On Mar 22, 6:27 pm, "MC" wrote:

Pardon me, I see no logical fallacy. Two possible
biases are being considered and someone wants to
determine which one is stronger, a bias toward false
negatives or a bias toward false positives. This is a
very straightforward, common, and troublesome question
in all types of experiments that involve human
perception.

"Which bias is stronger?" is a pointless question. Both
biases exist to some extent. It doesn't matter which is
stronger; it matters that you account for them. A good
test design will and does deal with both.

One approach that we've used is to simply use people who are advocates for
the difference being listened for, as listeners. I alluded to that in my
earlier post when I mentioned the name of an editor who seems to be a
strong
advocate for the existence of a wide variety of audible differences.

Another approach that we've used is to provide tangible and/or intangible
rewards for listeners who reliably detect a certain audible difference.
Both
cash awards and titles of honor have been tried.

Just Noticable Differences (JND) for many audible effects are known by
various means. Listeners can be tested and listeners who do not approach
JNDs can be removed from the final analysis of tests involving other
differences for which JNDs are not known.

A certain systematic approach has been used to detect listeners who are
less
sensitive for whatever reason. In many cases the difference being listened
for can enhanced by various technical means. Listeners are presented with
the difference enhanced to the point where the listener would have to be
narturally unusually insensitive (i.e., poor hearing or not responding to
training) or be biasing his responses towards reporting no differences, in
order for the particular test to be negative for audible differences. The
future responses from these listeners are ignored.

The size of the difference is systematically decreased in steps until
reliable detection ceases. Analysis of the data can provide a good
estimate
of the point of a just noticable difference.

This may work when it comes to identifiable artifacts, such as the codec
artifacts for which such test techniques were designed. It is totally
meaningless when it comes to the open-ended evaluation of audio components.

Moreover, "training" the listener is not the same thing as designing a test
with built-in bias controls. This is no different (but in reverse) than
sighted tests, where the test design if anything favors hearing differences,
and we subjectivists argue that the way to prevent that is through a strong
motivation for impartial analysis. You know how well you and other
objectivists accept that argument.


You control for false positives through such means as
blinding and level matching.

Agreed.

You control for false
negatives through training the subject and allowing him
to control switching, among other things.

Doesn't really deal with the golden-ear's boogey-man, the listener who
either doesn't try hard enough or falsifies his responses because he
believes that the difference involved is not audible.

Finally we agree on something (although not the inflamatory phrasing). You
are right and Bob is wrong...."training" is not a control; controls are
built into the testing itself.


And how do you know you've controlled for them enough?
When you get results that are repeatable and consistent
with other sorts of tests. Which professional
psychoacousticians do, which is why they use the tests.

In fact, even the most jaded listener will often put forth an exceptional
effort, simply because people tend to be optimistic, and don't want to be
the only person who can't hear a certain difference.

Sorry, Arny, "depending on the (jaded) kindness of others" is not a control,
as you seem to recognize above.


Only Denialists argue otherwise.

Then you contradict yourseld.


Denialists can be detected by simply offering them an opportunity to
participate in a well-designed listening test, and then waiting for the
litany of excuses for them not participating.

Others would see them as highly rational, refusing to give credit to tests
with obvious (and several unobvious) design flaws.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


I agree, but the average newbie on usenet was only going
to hear about the bias towards false positives if it was
up to the objectivists on usenet.

This is a claim that can be tested.

It turns out that this is to the best of my knowlege the first post that
mentioned both false positives and false negatives on any rec.* audio
group:

Date: Sat, 26 Nov 94 18:31:00

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...249424154aaa13

"A good test that will be a possible safeguard against a 'false
positive' or 'false negative' conclusion from the statistical evaluation
would of
couse be to first make a testrun with both CD's of each recording
unpainted."

I can't find any evidence of anyone with the name lavo posting prior to
2002, about 8 years later. Therefore we can conclude that the claim has
zero
validity.

Let's see:

I agree, but the average newbie on usenet was only going
to hear about the bias towards false positives if it was
up to the objectivists on usenet.

This seems to imply "quantity" of posts, Arny....since the visits of Newbies
to usenet is spread over time. What on earth does the date of "first post"
that you can find have to do with it. And what does my name have to do with
it?

Back to school to logic class, Arny.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On Mar 18, 7:15?am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
wrote in message

Do tell. What exactly do you mean by "measurably
similar"?

Have similar effective series L, C, and R, equivalent
quality factors for the L and C, and similar
frequency-dependence of L, C, and R. Have effective
shielding. Be capable of maintaining a good grounding
system.

and how does that mean one would have to
believe physicists understanding of how electrical
signals pass through wire is fundamentally wrong?

The theory of passage of audio signals through short
cables is thought to be well-understood. The performance
of a short audio cable is essentially described by the
parameters I listed above.

Sorry but that does not answer the question about how we
would have to believe physicists' are wrong about how a
cable passes a signal to believe that a cable can distort
a signal.

???

I'm willing to stipulate that cables do distort signals (in trivial ways).

Are you saying that physicists believe that cables pass
audio signals with no measurable distortion?

No, it is well known that audio signals can undergo all
kinds of measurable changes when they pass through
cables.

BINGO. Correct answer.

But as a rule, they are trivial.

So all the hand waving about the
"laws of physics" and the fact that we have ways of
measuring signal that are far more sensitive than uman
hearing is a burning straw man

No, that is true - that we have ways of measuring signal that are far more
sensitive than human addresses the claim that we don't.

and plainly misleading
because in fact the laws of physics dictates that a cable
should distort an audio signal and the measurements
confirm that.

Not misleading because cables generally have trivial amounts of nonnlinear
distortion that are not audible.

Measurements are more sensitive than the ears, so the presence of
measureable changes does not prove the existence of audible changes.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message


You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best
possible science, well legitimate science period has
not chimed in on the topics most often debated by
audiophiles.

Actually it has. Being science, it often doesn't tell
audiophiles what they want to hear.

I suspect he is now going to ask which independent
research labs have tested X particular brand of high end
audio gear against X brand of 'midgrade' gear or
somesuch, as if that was the sort of thing scientists
did, and as if *basic* research findings, such as tends
to published in the JAES had no bearing on such
questions.

In a sense, that's been going on for some time.

One of the problems is that the persons in question
aren't degreed engineers
and AFAIK don't even want to be assciated with the
enginering profession in
any way.

For example, some of the worst figurative hellfire and
damnation that has ever been leveled at the LP format
can be found in the JAES archives, written the chief
scientists of companies that were leading producers of LP
media or playback equipment. Of course, the writing
lacks specfics that lay
people have been quick to demand, and it is written up
in such a way that it
generates minimal excitment.

Then it is hardly "hellfire and damnataion" is it?

It is if you understand the meaning of it.

The JAES paper laying out the lack of need for higher
sample rates than 44 KHz was old when the SACD was new,
but remains unrebutted.

And did it deal with poor impulse response, pre-ripple,
and other transiant, dynamic factors involved in *audio*
reproduction?

There's no evidence that those are audible factors, when within the limits
found in good modern audio gear.

Or did it just deal with frequency response?

Frequency response and transient response tend to define each other.

Not too many audiophiles will claim we can
physically hear beyond 20khz.

Really?

http://www.tonmeister.ca/main/textbook/node637.html

"Another group relies on the idea that our common understanding of human
limits of hearing is incorrect. For many years, many people have argued that
our hearing does not stop at 20 kHz, regardless of what the tests and
textbooks tell us. These folks say that we are actually able to perceive
spectral content above 20 kHz in one way or another. When it proved to be
impossible to get people to identify such things in standard listening tests
(i.e. can you hear the difference between two sounds, one band-limited and
one not) people resorted to looking at EKG's to see if high-frequency
content changed Alpha-waves[Yamamoto et al., 1994][Yoshikawa et al.,
1995][Yoshikawa et al., 1997].

http://www.iar-80.com/page128.html

" Note by the way that we could hear the degradation of this 100 kHz filter
in spite of the fact that other previous filters in the
recording/reproduction chain (e.g. the microphone and master tape or vinyl
disc) themselves were already rolling off the music signal's response above
20 kHz. Countering this rolloff above 20 kHz was the fact, proven
independently by our other research measurements, that the spectral energy
content of many musical transient sounds was actually rising above 20 kHz
(such as that gentle cymbal kiss, which we measured as peaking at 40 kHz).
Of course, if these other links in the chain had had wider bandwidth, then
the introduction of our 100 kHz filter would surely have been even more
audible as a more severe degradation. Thus, our research experiment
demonstrates that extending the bandwidth of the medium to 80 kHz (as with a
24/192 DVD-A), instead of restricting it to being an additional filter in
the chain at 20 kHz (as with a 16/44 redbook CD), is sonically important.
Note too that, as mastering equipment continues to improve its bandwidth
beyond 20 kHz, it becomes even more sonically important that the playback
medium bringing this extended bandwidth signal into our listening room have
bandwidth that extends far beyond 20 kHz."

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/forum...php/t-261.html

"But it doesn't really matter because speakers can do 20 Hz - 20 kHz and
microphone can record up to 20 kHz. the 96 kHz sampling have the edge of
reducing the errors and stuff like versus the 48 kHz sampling that if i am
not mistaken."

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
...

But "I hear it so it must be so" is certainly not a
scientific scientific attitude, and last I saw it was
the scientists and engineers who have given us the
ability we have to bring a pretty good approximation
of live musical performances into our living rooms.

Very true. But it needs also to be pointed out that
it was the audiophiles and audio reveiwers who
pointed out the audible flaws in the audio technology
that promised "perfect sound forever", first in early
transistor amplifiers, and later in early CD players.

Straw man arguments. There was never a claim that early
SS amps had "perfect
sound forever", and their audible flaws were widely
discussed. However, their audible flaws were minor
compared to their lack of reliablity.

Reliability may have been the main issue to engineers.
To audiophiles, it was vile sound.

The vile sound often involved amplifiers that had become
defective in use due to their relatively fragility.

Their vile sound was because it was a new technology that
engineers hadn't yet figured out how to make sound good.

This comment doesn't necessarily disagree with what I just said. Was it
intended to?

The claim that the CD format offered "perfect sound
forever" was part of an
advertising pitch. Anybody who confuses advertising
pitches with adequate technical statements of equipment
performance deserves what they get.

Except of course for the engineers (Sony and otherwise)
who were all over the audio magazines, arguing that CD's
indeed did offer "perfect sound'.

The CD format has always and continues to prvoide
sonically transparent recording and reproduction of
music.

And some continue to this day. :-(

If its not true, it should be easy to show that it isn't. For example, take
a 24/192 track off of a DVD-A tracks and downsample it to 16/44 and then
compare it to the origional recording in a level-matched, time-synched,
bias-controlled test.

You continue to take
very much that same position today, arguing that they
are the ultimate in transparency (what else is "perfect
sound").

It is well known that the ear is oblivious to many
changes that are easy to
measure. Therefore a format that is far from perfect can
be sonically transparent.

That avoids the claim you made earlier, viz the above.

Not at all.

However, I have a working sample of a CDP 101 that
appears to be well-maintained. This was one of the two
original CD players. I defy anybody
to detect its insertion into an audio system playing
back typical recordings.

But of course none of us have access to that machine,
and you don't have access to our systems.

It would be a simple matter to provide high sample rate,
high bit depth recordings before and after passage
through the CDP 101 any reasonble number
of times.

Once again, Arny prefers a PC simulation to testing the
"real thing".

This response is just another way that the alleged sonic benefits of high
sample rates are debunked by supposed proponents of high sample rates. High
sample rates aren't generally good things, it seems. They can't reproduce
what are purported to be obvious sonic problems with certain pieces of
equipment.

Thus adding layers of potentially obscuring
digitalitus.

Whatever that means.

So that is a bit
of a piece of fluff, unless you want to offer to send it
(or bring it) to some of us for audition.

Depends on whether or not the listener can cathect with
a highly accurate recording of the equipment's output as
being representative of its performance.

I have no idea what this means. Can you repeat please,
with correct spelling of whatever you meant?

There are no misspelled words in that paragraph.

And it was
audio reveiwers who developed a subjective language to
describe what they heard, so that audio engineers knew
where to focus their attention.

Actually, the audio reviewers were just aping a
descriptive language that was first developed by
recording engineers and sound system installation
engineers.

In twenty years of discussion, this is the first time I
have ever heard this claim.

It would be ludicrous to think that recording engineers
and sound system installation engineers couldn't
articulate their perceptions using a descriptive
language to describe what they heard, until some
reviewers made
it up.

So, you admit you made the claim up. Not very nice, Arny.

?????????????

And why is it so ludicrous, when you and others still
have trouble talking about "sound" as opposed to
measurements?

??????????????

For one thing, actual development and limited use of
equipment, historically
proceeded offering up equipment for review in some
publication. The egg comes before the review of the egg.

An iterative process...eggs lead to chickens lead to more
eggs lead to more chickens. Did I say that some engineer
somewhere did not come up with an improvement on their
own without the benefit of a special language. Straw man
argument in the extreme.

????????????????

All these ???? mean that the claims don't make any sense to me, Harry. You
just make a number of unsupported claims.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message


You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best
possible science, well legitimate science period has
not chimed in on the topics most often debated by
audiophiles.

Actually it has. Being science, it often doesn't tell
audiophiles what they want to hear.

I suspect he is now going to ask which independent
research labs have tested X particular brand of high end
audio gear against X brand of 'midgrade' gear or
somesuch, as if that was the sort of thing scientists
did, and as if *basic* research findings, such as tends
to published in the JAES had no bearing on such
questions.

In a sense, that's been going on for some time.

One of the problems is that the persons in question
aren't degreed engineers
and AFAIK don't even want to be assciated with the
enginering profession in
any way.

For example, some of the worst figurative hellfire and
damnation that has ever been leveled at the LP format
can be found in the JAES archives, written the chief
scientists of companies that were leading producers of LP
media or playback equipment. Of course, the writing
lacks specfics that lay
people have been quick to demand, and it is written up
in such a way that it
generates minimal excitment.

Then it is hardly "hellfire and damnataion" is it?

It is if you understand the meaning of it.

I see. A damnation known only to EE's, is that it?


The JAES paper laying out the lack of need for higher
sample rates than 44 KHz was old when the SACD was new,
but remains unrebutted.

And did it deal with poor impulse response, pre-ripple,
and other transiant, dynamic factors involved in *audio*
reproduction?

There's no evidence that those are audible factors, when within the limits
found in good modern audio gear.

Or did it just deal with frequency response?

Frequency response and transient response tend to define each other.

Yeah, except it is the transient response we hear when the frequency
response gets beyond a certain point.


Not too many audiophiles will claim we can
physically hear beyond 20khz.

Really?

http://www.tonmeister.ca/main/textbook/node637.html

"Another group relies on the idea that our common understanding of human
limits of hearing is incorrect. For many years, many people have argued
that
our hearing does not stop at 20 kHz, regardless of what the tests and
textbooks tell us. These folks say that we are actually able to perceive
spectral content above 20 kHz in one way or another. When it proved to be
impossible to get people to identify such things in standard listening
tests
(i.e. can you hear the difference between two sounds, one band-limited and
one not) people resorted to looking at EKG's to see if high-frequency
content changed Alpha-waves[Yamamoto et al., 1994][Yoshikawa et al.,
1995][Yoshikawa et al., 1997].

http://www.iar-80.com/page128.html

" Note by the way that we could hear the degradation of this 100 kHz
filter
in spite of the fact that other previous filters in the
recording/reproduction chain (e.g. the microphone and master tape or vinyl
disc) themselves were already rolling off the music signal's response
above
20 kHz. Countering this rolloff above 20 kHz was the fact, proven
independently by our other research measurements, that the spectral energy
content of many musical transient sounds was actually rising above 20 kHz
(such as that gentle cymbal kiss, which we measured as peaking at 40 kHz).
Of course, if these other links in the chain had had wider bandwidth, then
the introduction of our 100 kHz filter would surely have been even more
audible as a more severe degradation. Thus, our research experiment
demonstrates that extending the bandwidth of the medium to 80 kHz (as with
a
24/192 DVD-A), instead of restricting it to being an additional filter in
the chain at 20 kHz (as with a 16/44 redbook CD), is sonically important.
Note too that, as mastering equipment continues to improve its bandwidth
beyond 20 kHz, it becomes even more sonically important that the playback
medium bringing this extended bandwidth signal into our listening room
have
bandwidth that extends far beyond 20 kHz."

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/forum...php/t-261.html

"But it doesn't really matter because speakers can do 20 Hz - 20 kHz and
microphone can record up to 20 kHz. the 96 kHz sampling have the edge of
reducing the errors and stuff like versus the 48 kHz sampling that if i am
not mistaken."

Absolutely no claim here of being able to "hear" beyond 20khz. Much here to
suggest that response outside of this bandwidth affects what we hear in
it....which was my point about transient response, especially as it is
impacted in the 2khz range of high audio sensitivity.

[[email protected]]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message


You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best
possible science, well legitimate science period has
not chimed in on the topics most often debated by
audiophiles.

Actually it has. Being science, it often doesn't tell
audiophiles what they want to hear.

I suspect he is now going to ask which independent
research labs have tested X particular brand of high end
audio gear against X brand of 'midgrade' gear or
somesuch, as if that was the sort of thing scientists
did, and as if *basic* research findings, such as tends
to published in the JAES had no bearing on such
questions.

In a sense, that's been going on for some time.

One of the problems is that the persons in question
aren't degreed engineers
and AFAIK don't even want to be assciated with the
enginering profession in
any way.

For example, some of the worst figurative hellfire and
damnation that has ever been leveled at the LP format
can be found in the JAES archives, written the chief
scientists of companies that were leading producers of LP
media or playback equipment. Of course, the writing
lacks specfics that lay
people have been quick to demand, and it is written up
in such a way that it
generates minimal excitment.

Then it is hardly "hellfire and damnataion" is it?

It is if you understand the meaning of it.

I see. A damnation known only to EE's, is that it?


The JAES paper laying out the lack of need for higher
sample rates than 44 KHz was old when the SACD was new,
but remains unrebutted.

And did it deal with poor impulse response, pre-ripple,
and other transiant, dynamic factors involved in *audio*
reproduction?

There's no evidence that those are audible factors, when within the limits
found in good modern audio gear.

Or did it just deal with frequency response?

Frequency response and transient response tend to define each other.

Yeah, except it is the transient response we hear when the frequency
response gets beyond a certain point.


Not too many audiophiles will claim we can
physically hear beyond 20khz.

Really?

http://www.tonmeister.ca/main/textbook/node637.html

"Another group relies on the idea that our common understanding of human
limits of hearing is incorrect. For many years, many people have argued
that
our hearing does not stop at 20 kHz, regardless of what the tests and
textbooks tell us. These folks say that we are actually able to perceive
spectral content above 20 kHz in one way or another. When it proved to be
impossible to get people to identify such things in standard listening
tests
(i.e. can you hear the difference between two sounds, one band-limited and
one not) people resorted to looking at EKG's to see if high-frequency
content changed Alpha-waves[Yamamoto et al., 1994][Yoshikawa et al.,
1995][Yoshikawa et al., 1997].

http://www.iar-80.com/page128.html

" Note by the way that we could hear the degradation of this 100 kHz
filter
in spite of the fact that other previous filters in the
recording/reproduction chain (e.g. the microphone and master tape or vinyl
disc) themselves were already rolling off the music signal's response
above
20 kHz. Countering this rolloff above 20 kHz was the fact, proven
independently by our other research measurements, that the spectral energy
content of many musical transient sounds was actually rising above 20 kHz
(such as that gentle cymbal kiss, which we measured as peaking at 40 kHz).
Of course, if these other links in the chain had had wider bandwidth, then
the introduction of our 100 kHz filter would surely have been even more
audible as a more severe degradation. Thus, our research experiment
demonstrates that extending the bandwidth of the medium to 80 kHz (as with
a
24/192 DVD-A), instead of restricting it to being an additional filter in
the chain at 20 kHz (as with a 16/44 redbook CD), is sonically important.
Note too that, as mastering equipment continues to improve its bandwidth
beyond 20 kHz, it becomes even more sonically important that the playback
medium bringing this extended bandwidth signal into our listening room
have
bandwidth that extends far beyond 20 kHz."

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/forum...php/t-261.html

"But it doesn't really matter because speakers can do 20 Hz - 20 kHz and
microphone can record up to 20 kHz. the 96 kHz sampling have the edge of
reducing the errors and stuff like versus the 48 kHz sampling that if i am
not mistaken."

Absolutely no claim here of being able to "hear" beyond 20khz. Much here to
suggest that response outside of this bandwidth affects what we hear in
it....which was my point about transient response, especially as it is
impacted in the 2khz range of high audio sensitivity.

Harry,

There is currently a fairly interesting discussion on the Pro Audio Digest
(PGM) mailing list about pre-ringing of digital filters. You would be well
advised to take a look at it. But you will have to discard some of your
misbegotten notions about blind testing for it to have any value for you.

- John

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message


You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The
best possible science, well legitimate science
period has not chimed in on the topics most often
debated by audiophiles.

Actually it has. Being science, it often doesn't tell
audiophiles what they want to hear.

I suspect he is now going to ask which independent
research labs have tested X particular brand of high
end audio gear against X brand of 'midgrade' gear or
somesuch, as if that was the sort of thing scientists
did, and as if *basic* research findings, such as
tends to published in the JAES had no bearing on such
questions.

In a sense, that's been going on for some time.

One of the problems is that the persons in question
aren't degreed engineers
and AFAIK don't even want to be assciated with the
enginering profession in
any way.

For example, some of the worst figurative hellfire and
damnation that has ever been leveled at the LP format
can be found in the JAES archives, written the chief
scientists of companies that were leading producers of
LP media or playback equipment. Of course, the writing
lacks specfics that lay
people have been quick to demand, and it is written up
in such a way that it
generates minimal excitment.

Then it is hardly "hellfire and damnataion" is it?

It is if you understand the meaning of it.

I see. A damnation known only to EE's, is that it?

Something like that.

The JAES paper laying out the lack of need for higher
sample rates than 44 KHz was old when the SACD was
new, but remains unrebutted.

And did it deal with poor impulse response, pre-ripple,
and other transiant, dynamic factors involved in *audio*
reproduction?

There's no evidence that those are audible factors, when
within the limits found in good modern audio gear.

Or did it just deal with frequency response?

Frequency response and transient response tend to define
each other.

Yeah, except it is the transient response we hear when
the frequency response gets beyond a certain point.

That is so wrong. The truth is the exact opposite - the ear is deaf to
transient response above about 500 Hz.

I posted this here several weeks ago - why didn't you take exception to it
then?

"The ear works like a pectrum analyzer above 500 Hz - 1 KHz. Incoming
sounds are processed by the
ear as if they were broken down by a FFT analyser. All sounds are processed
in terms of their harmonic and inharmonic component frequencies."


Not too many audiophiles will claim we can
physically hear beyond 20khz.

Really?

http://www.tonmeister.ca/main/textbook/node637.html

"Another group relies on the idea that our common
understanding of human limits of hearing is incorrect.
For many years, many people have argued that
our hearing does not stop at 20 kHz, regardless of what
the tests and textbooks tell us. These folks say that we
are actually able to perceive spectral content above 20
kHz in one way or another. When it proved to be
impossible to get people to identify such things in
standard listening tests (i.e. can you hear the
difference between two sounds, one band-limited and one
not) people resorted to looking at EKG's to see if
high-frequency content changed Alpha-waves[Yamamoto et
al., 1994][Yoshikawa et al., 1995][Yoshikawa et al.,
1997].

http://www.iar-80.com/page128.html

" Note by the way that we could hear the degradation of
this 100 kHz filter
in spite of the fact that other previous filters in the
recording/reproduction chain (e.g. the microphone and
master tape or vinyl disc) themselves were already
rolling off the music signal's response above
20 kHz. Countering this rolloff above 20 kHz was the
fact, proven independently by our other research
measurements, that the spectral energy content of many
musical transient sounds was actually rising above 20
kHz (such as that gentle cymbal kiss, which we measured
as peaking at 40 kHz). Of course, if these other links
in the chain had had wider bandwidth, then the
introduction of our 100 kHz filter would surely have
been even more audible as a more severe degradation.
Thus, our research experiment demonstrates that
extending the bandwidth of the medium to 80 kHz (as with
a 24/192 DVD-A), instead of restricting it to being an
additional filter in the chain at 20 kHz (as with a
16/44 redbook CD), is sonically important. Note too
that, as mastering equipment continues to improve its
bandwidth beyond 20 kHz, it becomes even more sonically
important that the playback medium bringing this
extended bandwidth signal into our listening room have
bandwidth that extends far beyond 20 kHz."

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/forum...php/t-261.html

"But it doesn't really matter because speakers can do 20
Hz - 20 kHz and microphone can record up to 20 kHz. the
96 kHz sampling have the edge of reducing the errors and
stuff like versus the 48 kHz sampling that if i am not
mistaken."

Absolutely no claim here of being able to "hear" beyond
20khz.

??????????????????????

Much here to suggest that response outside of
this bandwidth affects what we hear in it....which was my
point about transient response, especially as it is
impacted in the 2khz range of high audio sensitivity.

By 2 KHz the ear is so deaf to transient response, your comment isn't even
funny.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


snip, not relevant to following, and to shorten

And it was
audio reveiwers who developed a subjective language to
describe what they heard, so that audio engineers knew
where to focus their attention.

Actually, the audio reviewers were just aping a
descriptive language that was first developed by
recording engineers and sound system installation
engineers.

In twenty years of discussion, this is the first time I
have ever heard this claim.

It would be ludicrous to think that recording engineers
and sound system installation engineers couldn't
articulate their perceptions using a descriptive
language to describe what they heard, until some
reviewers made
it up.

So, you admit you made the claim up. Not very nice, Arny.

?????????????

And why is it so ludicrous, when you and others still
have trouble talking about "sound" as opposed to
measurements?

??????????????

For one thing, actual development and limited use of
equipment, historically
proceeded offering up equipment for review in some
publication. The egg comes before the review of the egg.

An iterative process...eggs lead to chickens lead to more
eggs lead to more chickens. Did I say that some engineer
somewhere did not come up with an improvement on their
own without the benefit of a special language. Straw man
argument in the extreme.

????????????????

All these ???? mean that the claims don't make any sense to me, Harry.
You
just make a number of unsupported claims.

By the way Arny, you just happened to snip out, without attribution,
the entire following section:

HFL:
It takes both good
engineering knowledge and good listening skills to
create superior audio equipment, even if the
engineering alone is sufficient in some other fields.

AK:
As a rule audio journalists do not use proper
descriptive teminology. They tend to write poetry, not
usuable descriptive reports. There is an AES standard,
AES22 that lays out a usable set of descriptive terms.

HFL:
Let's see. Stereophile was formed in, when, 1965? And
TAS was formed in 1974. Let's see when the AES Standards
Committee started to work. The following is extracted
from the AES web page on standards:

"AES Standards - a short history
"Standards activity in the AES started shortly after the
Society was founded. In the early days, the AES Standards
Committee (AESSC) mainly acted as a reporting agency to
the membership through the Journal on the activities of
IEC TC 29 and audio-related activities of other standards
organisations such as EIA, SMPTE, IEEE, and the
Acoustical Society of America (ASA). Even though the AES
at this time was not producing documents, many AES
members contributed to standards through these other
organisations. "In 1977, stimulated by the growing need
for standards in digital audio, the AES Digital Audio
Standards Committee was formed. It was responsible for
creating some fundamental standards such as the AES3
digital audio interface - sometimes known as the AES/EBU
interface - and standards for sampling frequency and
synchronisation which are still in use today.

"In 1980, a full-time secretary (Dan Queen) was
appointed. At about the same time, the AES became the
secretariat of ANSI S4 (which continued until 2001). In
1984, the procedures of the AESSC were revised to improve
the openness and consensus of our due process, modelled
on IEC directives and drawing from the examples of the
ASA, IEEE and SMPTE"

So the earlierst the AES standards could exist was 1977,
more than ten years after J. Gordon Holt started defining
terms, and three years after Harry Pearson turned them
into a glossary. And since the above suggests that the
AES/EBU interface was the group's initial focus, and
since they have only developed 43 standards (of which #22
falls somewhere in the middle), it is almost impossible
to accept that the AES definitions preceded the
audiophile editors work.

AK:
Formal use generally follows informal use, sometimes by many years.

HFL:
Failure to establish support for claim noted.

AK:
I know for sure that much of the terminology in AES22 was used by audio
technical persons for many years before the AES started work on
formalizing it.

HFL:
I see...a specific claim is now replaced with "trust me....". Sorry,
no reason to.

AK:
As far back as he goes, Gordon Holt didn't invent audio reviewing.
For example, there were audio reviews in High Fidelity Magazine,
which was founded in 1951. Holt didn't sell his first article to
them until about 2 years later.


HFL:
Did I say Gordon Holt invented audio reviewing. No such thing. I
did say he started developing the Lexicon that Harry Pearson later
furthered and codified, putting a descriptive language on audio
phenomen. Look at the flames coming from that burning scarecrow.

AK:
I've talked to people who were installing audio systems in the
1930s, and they had a descriptive language to describe what they
heard back then. I first encountered it when I started reading
audio articles in 1953. I heard it when I started working
professionally in audio, in 1962. It was already well-developed
way back then.


HFL:
I was the son of a father who was in that business, Arny. And who
worked alongside him in the store and studio. And who accompanied him
as he installed Magnacorders in radio stations and studios all over
the Northeast. And so far as I can remember, in the 50's there were
few descriptive words for the sound of music reproduced by audio
gear. It was simply too new, and just reaching hi-fi status. I can
read the jackets of Cook's "Sound of Our Times" records in my
collection, or the red vinyl "Audiophile" 78rpm microgroove
recordings. There is not a single descriptive audiophile word on
them about their sound. But these were produced by knowledgeable
engineers specializing in the best sound quality of the day.

I believe my firsthand experience with "people in the field" trumps
your secondhand knowledge of same.

[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message
om...
Harry Lavo wrote:

snip to shorten

Harry,

There is currently a fairly interesting discussion on the Pro Audio Digest
(PGM) mailing list about pre-ringing of digital filters. You would be
well
advised to take a look at it. But you will have to discard some of your
misbegotten notions about blind testing for it to have any value for you.

- John

Thanks for the referral, John. I'll take a look at it.

Harry

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
om...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


snip to shorten

Absolutely no claim here of being able to "hear" beyond
20khz.

??????????????????????

Much here to suggest that response outside of
this bandwidth affects what we hear in it....which was my
point about transient response, especially as it is
impacted in the 2khz range of high audio sensitivity.

By 2 KHz the ear is so deaf to transient response, your comment isn't even
funny.

Sounds very much like my friend at CBS Labs until he and his friends
actually listened.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
om...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


snip to shorten

Absolutely no claim here of being able to "hear" beyond
20khz.

??????????????????????

Much here to suggest that response outside of
this bandwidth affects what we hear in it....which was
my point about transient response, especially as it is
impacted in the 2khz range of high audio sensitivity.

By 2 KHz the ear is so deaf to transient response, your
comment isn't even funny.

Sounds very much like my friend at CBS Labs until he and
his friends actually listened.

Details?

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
om...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


snip to shorten

Absolutely no claim here of being able to "hear" beyond
20khz.

??????????????????????

Much here to suggest that response outside of
this bandwidth affects what we hear in it....which was
my point about transient response, especially as it is
impacted in the 2khz range of high audio sensitivity.

By 2 KHz the ear is so deaf to transient response, your
comment isn't even funny.

Sounds very much like my friend at CBS Labs until he and
his friends actually listened.

Details?

I've already posted just a few days ago. Pay attention. :-).