[bob]

On May 21, 6:27=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

I say that for speakers, it's not necessary or even desirable to evaluate
speakers that way. Our own individual likes and dislikes will do that for=
us
very nicely, thank you.

Then it appears that you really don't understand the point of blind
comparisons.

The point of blind comparisons is to eliminate from the comparison the
influence of factors other than the sound quality of the items being
compared.

If you *want* those other factors (price, appearance, reputation,
etc.) to weigh in your decision-making, then by all means go ahead and
do your comparisons sighted. But then you really ought to ask yourself
whether sound quality is your paramount concern.

bob

[Audio Empire]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 02:15:27 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On May 21, 6:27=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:

I say that for speakers, it's not necessary or even desirable to evaluate
speakers that way. Our own individual likes and dislikes will do that for=
us
very nicely, thank you.

Then it appears that you really don't understand the point of blind
comparisons.

That's an unfounded and unsubstantiated assumption on your part. I kow very
well the point of bling comparisons.

The point of blind comparisons is to eliminate from the comparison the
influence of factors other than the sound quality of the items being
compared.

I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact (and I assume that you don't,
won't, or can't see it) that for speakers it's almost impossible to set-up
such a test, and that ultimately it will tell the listeners nothing that a
long term evaluation of one's shortlist of speaker models won't do just as
well.

If you *want* those other factors (price, appearance, reputation,
etc.) to weigh in your decision-making, then by all means go ahead and
do your comparisons sighted. But then you really ought to ask yourself
whether sound quality is your paramount concern.

It is my paramount concern. But those other things do come into play and are
almost as important to me as they would be to anyone else. For instance, I
MIGHT think that a pair of Wilson WAMM speakers is the most accurate, best
sounding speakers on the planet (I don't, BTW, it's just an example*), but I
find that they are (A) much too big to fit in my listening environment and
(2) way out of my price range. That being the case finding out that they are
the speakers of choice in a DBT would be of little practical use.

*The same is true of the speakers that I DO find to be the best speakers on
the planet - Martin Logan's CLX. Too big for my room and at $30K (with subs)
far outside of my budget.

[bob]

On May 22, 9:00=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 02:15:27 -0700, bob wrote

Then it appears that you really don't understand the point of blind
comparisons.

That's an unfounded and unsubstantiated assumption on your part. I kow ve=
ry
well the point of bling comparisons.

You seem to substantiate it anew with every post. Including this one.
See below.

The point of blind comparisons is to eliminate from the comparison the
influence of factors other than the sound quality of the items being
compared.

I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact (and I assume that you don'=
t,
won't, or can't see it) that for speakers it's almost impossible to set-u=
p
such a test,

I will grant you that it is rather difficult for an amateur to conduct
a such a comparison. You'd need a fair bit of help, and you still
couldn't do it as well as Olive does it. But a cooperative dealer (if
such a beast exists) could help.

and that ultimately it will tell the listeners nothing that a
long term evaluation of one's shortlist of speaker models won't do just a=
s
well.

If you really understood the point of blind comparisons, you couldn't
have written this. There is no way that a sighted "long term
evaluation of one's shortlist of speaker models" could possibly tell
you very much about their sound quality, precisely because your
judgment will be so clouded by other factors that a blind comparison
would de-emphasize if not eliminate.

If you *want* those other factors (price, appearance, reputation,
etc.) to weigh in your decision-making, then by all means go ahead and
do your comparisons sighted. But then you really ought to ask yourself
whether sound quality is your paramount concern.

It is my paramount concern.

Then you need to accept the fact that the methods you use to evaluate
speakers are highly flawed.

It sounds to me like you've talked yourself into a logical fallacy--
that because an objective comparison is difficult-to-impossible, a
subjective comparison must therefore be just as good. I'm afraid life
doesn't work that way.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Now we know that apparently the speakers were modified
(equalized?) by something called the "Perceptual Transfer
Function" so perhaps the little guys had some bass added
(or the big guys had some bass subtracted)? A bit of mud
in the water, that.

The big speakers were the reference that the little speakers were equalized
to match.

The big speakers had a *dip* in their bass that the little speakers lacked
until they were equalized to be similar.

The little speakers started with *more bass* because they had smoother
response in the bass range. No bass was removed from the big speakers and no
bass was added to the little speakers.

Again Harry, your speculations are false, this time at least twice.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message

On Fri, 21 May 2010 06:46:02 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message
On Thu, 20 May 2010 08:25:56 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in
message

This is certainly part of my contention. DBT and ABX
tests are methodologically daunting even for
electronics where, ostensibly, the electronics have
ruler-flat frequency response and the same speakers
are used for each unit being compared.

Methodologically daunting?

Does this mean that you are unable to properly
level-match electronic components?

No it means that one has to have a comparator and
someone to operate it in a manner that this operator
doesn't know which DUT he/she is selecting.

I guess you are unaware of the fact that one of the
purposes of any of the DBT comparators is to eliminate
the need for a separate operator.

The only ones I've seen have been home-made and use a
switch and an operator.

That means that you've never bothered to read any of the many articles about
the origional ABX Comparator, some of which are freely downloadable from the
web and many of which have been referenced on RAHE.

I can't overcome self-induced lack of knowlege. :-(

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message

On May 21, 1:14=A0pm, Audio Empire
wrote:

On Thu, 20 May 2010 19:45:39 -0700, bob wrote

I'll thank you not to twist my words. I said no such
thing. In fact, it is quite possible to level-match
between two speakers. Sean Olive does it all the time.
His research would be pointless if he did not.

I say that it cannot ordinarily be done.

I arguably did the first level-matched ABX of loudspeakers over 35 years
ago. What I discovered then has AFAIK not really changed a lot. It is rarely
if ever possible to level-match loudspeakers at all relevant frequencies so
well that they are totally indistinguishable in the sense that we do it for
amplifiers. However it is possible to do it to such an extent that the
residual differences are very small, and that reliable opinions about sound
quality can be obtained.

Speakers vary too much in frequency response characteristics.

By what authority do you say this?

Match a pair at, say 400 Hz and at 60 Hz, or 5,000 Hz one or
the other may as much as 6 dB different from the other
one.

You seem to be unaware of the fact that we have rather sophisticated devices
called equalizers. FYI, they faciliate frequency-dependent level matching.

Well, of course you don't want to level-match at every
point on the frequency spectrum.

Why not?

That would defeat the
purpose, since the subjective effect of audible FR
differences is one of the key things you want to identify.

Not so fast, there.

This is like power amplifiers all over again. There was a widely-held opinon
that amplifiers in general sounded vastly different and that certain
amplifiers had mystereious non-measurable properties (i.e., properties other
than linear and nonlinear distoriton) that made them sound better. The
ABXer's hypothesis was that if you at most matched the frequency response
reasonbly well, very many would sound the same and that there no mysteious
non-measurable differences. In general, we proved our hypothesis.

Equalizing the FR of speakers is relatively easy to do. There's no rational
reason to spend a lot of money on speakers to get a certain tailored
frequency response characteristic. Unless a speaker is so poor that it is
not economically feasible to buy an equalizer to obtain a desired frequency
response characteristic, it is reasonble to use an equalizer to get that
desired frequency response characteristic. With advances in DSP technology,
really powerful equalizers can have a reasonble cost. The skill level
required to equalize a speaker system have dropped considerably, and there
are even automated systems that can do the job credibly, according to many
audiophiles and music-lovers.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 23 May 2010 03:08:49 -0700, bob wrote
(in article ):

On May 22, 9:00=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2010 02:15:27 -0700, bob wrote

Then it appears that you really don't understand the point of blind
comparisons.

That's an unfounded and unsubstantiated assumption on your part. I kow ve=
ry
well the point of bling comparisons.

You seem to substantiate it anew with every post. Including this one.
See below.

The point of blind comparisons is to eliminate from the comparison the
influence of factors other than the sound quality of the items being
compared.

I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact (and I assume that you don'=
t,
won't, or can't see it) that for speakers it's almost impossible to set-u=
p
such a test,

I will grant you that it is rather difficult for an amateur to conduct
a such a comparison. You'd need a fair bit of help, and you still
couldn't do it as well as Olive does it. But a cooperative dealer (if
such a beast exists) could help.

and that ultimately it will tell the listeners nothing that a
long term evaluation of one's shortlist of speaker models won't do just a=
s
well.

If you really understood the point of blind comparisons, you couldn't
have written this. There is no way that a sighted "long term
evaluation of one's shortlist of speaker models" could possibly tell
you very much about their sound quality, precisely because your
judgment will be so clouded by other factors that a blind comparison
would de-emphasize if not eliminate.

If you *want* those other factors (price, appearance, reputation,
etc.) to weigh in your decision-making, then by all means go ahead and
do your comparisons sighted. But then you really ought to ask yourself
whether sound quality is your paramount concern.

It is my paramount concern.

Then you need to accept the fact that the methods you use to evaluate
speakers are highly flawed.

It sounds to me like you've talked yourself into a logical fallacy--
that because an objective comparison is difficult-to-impossible, a
subjective comparison must therefore be just as good. I'm afraid life
doesn't work that way.

bob


That's your opinion. You're entitled to it. Mine is otherwise. As you
concede, it is rather difficult for an amateur to conduct such a comparison.
Which is just one of my objections to it. I also see that you have neatly
snipped the practical considerations that I mentioned out of your response.
You know those considerations which weaken your argument that DBT is de
riguer and which reinforce mine that says that DBT for speakers is
impractical, and tells only part of the story? But that's OK and expected.

[Arny Krueger]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message



This is my contention as well.

In the final analysis the logical rejoinder is bluntly: "So what".

Same questions as I gave to Scott.

Are your opinions about test signals that much better-informed than those of
the scientists and technicans who developed and produced the PTF? They are
well-educated and highly experienced.
Should they bow to you and worship your opinons, or should
they do what they, in their probable far higher state of technical knowlege
and
experience think is right?

Are your opinions about designing speakers that much better-informed than
those of the scientists and technicans who developed and produced the PTF?
Some of them have advanced degrees and one has a PhD. They have designed
commercially sucessful loudspeakers at various price points from low to
high, some of which have sold 100,000s of units. Do you have chops in the
area of loudspeaker design that are that much better than theirs?

Some people here seem so
enamored with bias-controlled tests that they fail to see
those instances where such tests won't work.

I regret to have to recall that I am speaking to somone whose knowlege of
bias-controlled tests is so poor that they don't understand that virtually
all DBT comparators do not require an operator during the test. One of the
most important of virtually every DBT comparator is that it functions as a
test administrator.

I. myself,
fully believe that bias-controlled tests for things like
CD decks, preamplifiers, amplifiers, even vinyl playing
setups and microphones are THE gold-standard; useful and
very revealing.

Unfortunately you have recently demonstrated that you don't understand even
the basics of how most DBTs are performed and have been performed for the
past 35 years. You have revealed that you have not taken advantage of the
online literature about DBTs that has been posted here for over a decade.

I also know that such tests ruthlessly
uncover the mythology in (most) so-called audiophile
"tweaks" and, of course in speaker cables and
interconnects.

Why wouldn't they work for speakers, especially given the decade or more of
sucess that people like Toole and Olive have experienced? Again, you have
recently revealed that you have not taken advantage of the online literature
about DBTs of loudspeakers that has been posted on the web for over a
decade.

[Harry Lavo]

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


Now we know that apparently the speakers were modified
(equalized?) by something called the "Perceptual Transfer
Function" so perhaps the little guys had some bass added
(or the big guys had some bass subtracted)? A bit of mud
in the water, that.

The big speakers were the reference that the little speakers were
equalized
to match.

The big speakers had a *dip* in their bass that the little speakers lacked
until they were equalized to be similar.

The little speakers started with *more bass* because they had smoother
response in the bass range. No bass was removed from the big speakers and
no
bass was added to the little speakers.

Again Harry, your speculations are false, this time at least twice.

Since you choose to purport that this was an impressive test of the little
speakes, and failed to accurately represent that the little speakers had
been "doctored," I will rest my case. Had you accurately and fully reported
the test, I and Audio Empire and I am sure others would have lost interest
immediately and all this huffing and puffing could have been eliminated.

[bob]

On May 23, 5:42=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"bob" wrote in message

That would defeat the
purpose, since the subjective effect of audible FR
differences is one of the key things you want to identify.

Not so fast, there.

This is like power amplifiers all over again. There was a widely-held opi=
non
that amplifiers in general sounded vastly different and that certain
amplifiers had mystereious non-measurable properties (i.e., properties ot=
her
than linear and nonlinear distoriton) that made them sound better. The
ABXer's hypothesis was that if you at most matched the frequency response
reasonbly well, very many would sound the same and that there no mysteiou=
s
non-measurable differences. In general, we proved our hypothesis.

Granted. But my understanding is that FR differences between
amplifiers tend to be rather small, except for the case of impedance-
caused differences (which is largely a function of certain tube
designs). By contrast, audible FR differences between speakers can be
substantial and so common as to represent the norm.

You are about to make the argument that every system should include an
equalizer to correct any FR irregularities in the speakers. I think
you would agree that using an equalizer to correct FR irregularities
in an amplifier makes far less sense than simply buying a good
amplifier in the first place. And a good amplifier, as defined by FR,
comes very cheap these days.

Equalizing the FR of speakers is relatively easy to do. There's no ration=
al
reason to spend a lot of money on speakers to get a certain tailored
frequency response characteristic. Unless a speaker is so poor that it is
not economically feasible to buy an equalizer to obtain a desired frequen=
cy
response characteristic, =A0it is reasonble to use an equalizer to get th=
at
desired frequency response characteristic. With advances in DSP technolog=
y,
really powerful equalizers can have a reasonble cost. The skill level
required to equalize a speaker system have dropped considerably, and ther=
e
are even automated systems that can do the job credibly, according to man=
y
audiophiles and music-lovers.

Granted. But I would not banish from the Audiophile Guild anyone who
chose not to employ an equalizer, and chose instead to seek out a
speaker with excellent FR. If that is their choice (and I suspect that
IS the choice of everyone who is arguing the other side of the
question here), then equalizing speakers for a blind comparison would
be counterproductive.

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On May 23, 2:43=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Audio Empire" wrote in message



This is my contention as well.

In the final analysis the logical rejoinder is bluntly: "So what".

Same questions as I gave to Scott.


Which I answered. You have yet to offer a resonponse to my answer. How
does one level match when the effective dynamic range of two speakers
are different or the audible frequency extension is greater in one
than the other? How does one account for things like comb filtering
effects or room interatcion during the decay? I'm not entirely
convinced that EQ can account for the sort of frequency response
differences one finds in speakers either. The sort of spikes and dips
you get are hardly something your garden variety equalizer can
accurately compensate for. Besides, if you start EQing the speakers
you are no longer comparing the speakers as they were designed. You
are comparing them and whatever EQ is applied. You are in effect
altering the design and intentions of the designer at that point. IMO
you just killed the test. If either speaker is found better with EQ in
play the designer of the losing speaker has every right to cry foul.
And what of placement and room treatment? Optimise for one speaker and
you may be screwing up the other. The radiation patterns and the room
itself will affect the levels when you have transients and decays.
Ultimately the speakers have to be compared with consideration of how
they would actually be used by a consumer.

IMO a more fair and better way to set levels is to optimise the room
and placement of speakers in the room for each competing design using
whatever program material will be used for any comparisons.

[Arny Krueger]

"bob" wrote in message

On May 23, 5:42 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"bob" wrote in message

That would defeat the
purpose, since the subjective effect of audible FR
differences is one of the key things you want to
identify.

Not so fast, there.

This is like power amplifiers all over again. There was
a widely-held opinon that amplifiers in general sounded
vastly different and that certain amplifiers had
mystereious non-measurable properties (i.e., properties
other than linear and nonlinear distoriton) that made
them sound better. The ABXer's hypothesis was that if
you at most matched the frequency response reasonbly
well, very many would sound the same and that there no
mysteious non-measurable differences. In general, we
proved our hypothesis.

Granted. But my understanding is that FR differences
between amplifiers tend to be rather small, except for
the case of impedance- caused differences (which is
largely a function of certain tube designs). By contrast,
audible FR differences between speakers can be
substantial and so common as to represent the norm.

In either case, equipment to deal with differences of this kind have long
been on the market and are now being sold for very reasonable prices.

You are about to make the argument that every system
should include an equalizer to correct any FR
irregularities in the speakers.

I didn't know that reliable mind-reading was one of the things that you
claim!

If you would phrase that as follows:

"You are not adverse to systems that include an equalizers to correct any FR
irregularities in the speakers."

I would agree.

If you would phrase that as follows:

"You believe that where economically feasiible, the use of equalizers to
correct any FR
irregularities in the speaker/room combination should be considered"

I would agree.

I think you would agree
that using an equalizer to correct FR irregularities in
an amplifier makes far less sense than simply buying a
good amplifier in the first place.

Yes, for economic reasons.

And a good amplifier,
as defined by FR, comes very cheap these days.

Exactly.

Equalizing the FR of speakers is relatively easy to do.
There's no rational reason to spend a lot of money on
speakers to get a certain tailored frequency response
characteristic. Unless a speaker is so poor that it is
not economically feasible to buy an equalizer to obtain
a desired frequency response characteristic, it is
reasonble to use an equalizer to get that desired
frequency response characteristic. With advances in DSP
technology, really powerful equalizers can have a
reasonble cost. The skill level required to equalize a
speaker system have dropped considerably, and there are
even automated systems that can do the job credibly,
according to many audiophiles and music-lovers.

Granted. But I would not banish from the Audiophile Guild
anyone who chose not to employ an equalizer, and chose
instead to seek out a speaker with excellent FR.

It's their money to use or abuse. However, there's no evidence that even a
speaker with excellent FR might not benefit from some equalization. Lots of
good speakers in bad rooms. And while equalizers aren't always the best way
to fix up a room, people do a lot of things for reasons of appearance and
other practical considerations.


If that
is their choice (and I suspect that IS the choice of
everyone who is arguing the other side of the question
here), then equalizing speakers for a blind comparison
would be counterproductive.

I would not presume to know the preferences of everybody who posts here,
even if I cared about it. ;-)

[Sebastian Kaliszewski]

Hello,

This is problably my first post here, but I'm a long time lurker in this
newsgroup

Audio Empire wrote:
[...]
Not at all. Human perception will always bias toward the louder of two
sources, that makes level matching de riguer for eliminating bias.

But then either we know how (we) humans preceive sound levels at various
parts of the audbile spectrum so one good curve could be used for level
matching, or we don't know but in a such case a test could include
varius kinds of level matching (like pink noise matching, 2kHz tone
matching, 1/3 octave noise matching around 2KHz or maybe 1KHz, or maybe
averaged at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz, or more complex ones). That later
option makes the test larger and longer but it does not make it impossible.

I don't get your point. These ARE all bias control issues.

Well, they could be as well the (one of) measured quantity.

They are NOT
sighted bias issues or even expectational bias issues, but they are audible
bias issues. The human brain will always pick out the loudest source as the
best.

It's not universally true. But what we know about it comes from DBT
testing for that (such a test is pretty easy to setup -- just use the
very same system and just switch levels a bit and test when people see
any difference and how they preceive it).

It may be that the louder speaker is NOT the better of the two, but in
an ABX or DBT, the louder speaker will always predominate. Seems to me that
in order for such a test to be relevant, that both speakers must be level
matched just as an amplifier or a CD player must be level matched and for the
same reason.

Or just do tests at various types of level matching (if you don't know
which one to choose).

I don't agree at all. Level matching across the audible spectrum is just as
necessary in a speaker DBT as it would be when comparing electronic
components. If you can't do that, then a speaker DBT where the levels aren't
precisely matched would be just as worthless as an amplifier DBT where the
levels weren't precisely matched.


Unless you included in your test the evaluation of what kind of level
matching works best.

regards
Sebastian Kaliszewski
--
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang
--
http://www.tajga.org -- (some photos from my travels)

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 23 May 2010 14:42:02 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message


The only ones I've seen have been home-made and use a
switch and an operator.

That means that you've never bothered to read any of the many articles about
the origional ABX Comparator, some of which are freely downloadable from the
web and many of which have been referenced on RAHE.

I can't overcome self-induced lack of knowlege. :-(



No. What that means is that I have been party to many DBT tests, but since I
was a participant and not the instigator, I had no control over what kind of
comparator was used. Since I was not running the test (and had no intention
of starting any), articles about the original ABX comparator were (and
largely remain) irrelevant to me.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 11, 7:17=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I find it ironic that the entirety of the previous comments could be put
into a vastly different perspective if unbiased listening techniques were
used by the writer.

In this regard an article at the PCWorld web site dated May 24 may be
of interest. It is titled "Audio Compression May Not Be as Bad as You
Think" and adds "Our tests with a jury of music professionals found
that they had a hard time distinguishing between compressed and
uncompressed song". The whole article may be found at:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/19596...t_be_as_bad_a=
s_you_think.html

The test methodology is described and the article contains hyperlinks
to the actual samples used, so you can make the comparison yourself.

I found the link to this article today at
"www.marginalrevolution.com", which I generally read daily. It is not
a site about audio and the link rather surprised me.

[Andrew Haley]

Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On May 11, 7:17=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I find it ironic that the entirety of the previous comments could be put
into a vastly different perspective if unbiased listening techniques were
used by the writer.

In this regard an article at the PCWorld web site dated May 24 may be
of interest. It is titled "Audio Compression May Not Be as Bad as You
Think" and adds "Our tests with a jury of music professionals found
that they had a hard time distinguishing between compressed and
uncompressed song". The whole article may be found at:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/19596...t_be_as_bad_a=
s_you_think.html

The test methodology is described and the article contains hyperlinks
to the actual samples used, so you can make the comparison yourself.

Their methodology isn't that great, but the result isn't very
surprising. The classic paper [1], now twenty years old, did the test
double-blind, and was much more thorough.

Encoders have improved since that paper. I don't know if anyone has
redone the tests more recently.

Andrew.

[1] Soulodre, G., Grusec, T. & Lavoie, M., Thibault, L. (1998)
Subjective Evaluation of State-of-the-Art 2- Channel Audio Codecs,
Journal of the Audio Engineering Soc., pp. 164-177
http://audiopages.googlepages.com/Co...ationtests.pdf

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 26 May 2010 02:07:03 -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On May 11, 7:17=A0am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I find it ironic that the entirety of the previous comments could be put
into a vastly different perspective if unbiased listening techniques were
used by the writer.

In this regard an article at the PCWorld web site dated May 24 may be
of interest. It is titled "Audio Compression May Not Be as Bad as You
Think" and adds "Our tests with a jury of music professionals found
that they had a hard time distinguishing between compressed and
uncompressed song". The whole article may be found at:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/19596...t_be_as_bad_a=
s_you_think.html

The test methodology is described and the article contains hyperlinks
to the actual samples used, so you can make the comparison yourself.

I found the link to this article today at
"www.marginalrevolution.com", which I generally read daily. It is not
a site about audio and the link rather surprised me.


I don't doubt these findings at all - especially since the "jury" was a group
of musicians. It is my experience that most musicians don't listen to music
in the same way as do audio enthusiasts. We listen for sound quality, they
listen for such things as intonation, pacing, playing technique, etc. I had a
well known symphony conductor (and world-class cellist) tell me one time that
he didn't even have a stereo (and wasn't interested in getting one) and that
he could hear what he was listening for on an AM table radio! I've heard
similar stories from other musicians.

IOW, I'd be more willing to accept the results of this test, if the "jury"
had been experienced audio enthusiasts rather than "music professionals" for
the simple reason that audio enthusiasts train their "ears" to hear the SOUND
of music as opposed to strictly it's substance.

One result that I do agree with, however is that WMA sounds better than MP3.
It does. So does Sony's ATRAC compression scheme.

[Greg Wormald]

When the new version of iTunes arrived with it's ability to
automatically convert to 128 kbps from lossloss for music transferred to
a mobile player, I set up a blind test of some tracks. I would love to
have the ability to throw out my reduced bit duplicates.

I compared the 128k versions to the lossless that I have saved, using a
couple of tracks with which I am very familiar and which I consider
'challenging' for a reduced bit system to manage. I linked random
versions to my living room stereo, and had the computer decide which
version to play and build a playlist for reference.

I got each tracks' bit rate correct, easily, and I disliked the 128k
versions.

I have been using 192k versions for my mobile listening, and do find
that OK for the purpose, but given the results I won't be going to 128k
for mobile use, and certainly won't be converting my 160 GB of music
from lossless.

Greg

[bob]

On May 26, 2:13=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
IOW, I'd be more willing to accept the results of this test, if the "jury=
"
had been experienced audio enthusiasts rather than "music professionals" =
for
the simple reason that audio enthusiasts train their "ears" to hear the S=
OUND
of music as opposed to strictly it's substance.

I've seen precious little evidence that most audio enthusiasts "train
their ears" at all--or would have a clue about how to go about doing
so.

Many of them seem to think that attending concerts is the way to do
it. :-(

bob

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Audio Empire wrote:

I don't doubt these findings at all - especially since the "jury" was a group
of musicians. It is my experience that most musicians don't listen to music
in the same way as do audio enthusiasts. We listen for sound quality, they
listen for such things as intonation, pacing, playing technique, etc. I had a
well known symphony conductor (and world-class cellist) tell me one time that
he didn't even have a stereo (and wasn't interested in getting one) and that
he could hear what he was listening for on an AM table radio! I've heard
similar stories from other musicians.

My reaction to the above is, as usual, "it depends". I know many
conductors and performing musicians who are "audiophiles". For example,
Michael Tilson Thomas has a fine home audio system (Oracle, Audio
Research, Quad, etc.). In each of my musical performance
"worlds"...conductor, guitarist, trombonist... fine details of the
quality of sound, especially instrumental and vocal timbres, are among
the highest priorities, and it's this area that drives me nuts with so
much home audio and so many recordings.

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 28 May 2010 07:20:01 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
IOW, I'd be more willing to accept the results of this test, if the "jury"
had been experienced audio enthusiasts rather than "music professionals"
for
the simple reason that audio enthusiasts train their "ears" to hear the
SOUND
of music as opposed to strictly it's substance.

Let me relate two anecdotes, one that I was personally witness
to, that indicates that the "training" you refer to can be
often little more than uneducated and unrealistic expectations.

That's fine but I *know* better. Besides, it's irrelevant. Musicians who
don't care about reproduced sound are an old story, one that is fairly widely
reported. Sure, there are exceptions, but my point still stands. People who
do not care about sound aren't very critical of it.

First was a review published in, I believe, Absolute Sound,
involving a recording of harpsichird. The reviewer stated
that the recording was presented with such clarity that it
was easy to perceive the vertical imaging of the two layers of
strings, apparently corresponding to the upper and lower manual.

Like much "audiophilia" this is nonsense. You can't even hear that when
you're standing next to a harpsichord, much less from a recording of it
(assuming, for a moment that a harpsichord had two layers of strings, which
they don't). It's like saying that you can tell from a recording that some
valves on a saxophone are near the top of the sax and some are at the bottom.

Well, no harpsichord has such a physical arrangement. one manual
or two, there's but a single soundboard which emits the sound.

Even if it did what comes out of the harpsichord's sounding box is the
"image" of the instrument, not how the strings might be arranged!
snip

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 28 May 2010 13:20:27 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2010 07:20:01 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):


Audio Empire wrote:

IOW, I'd be more willing to accept the results of this test, if the
"jury"
had been experienced audio enthusiasts rather than "music professionals"
for
the simple reason that audio enthusiasts train their "ears" to hear the
SOUND
of music as opposed to strictly it's substance.

Let me relate two anecdotes, one that I was personally witness
to, that indicates that the "training" you refer to can be
often little more than uneducated and unrealistic expectations.

That's fine but I *know* better. Besides, it's irrelevant. Musicians who
don't care about reproduced sound are an old story, one that is fairly
widely
reported. Sure, there are exceptions, but my point still stands. People who
do not care about sound aren't very critical of it.

Ansd you seemed to have missed my point: the notion of a
"trained" audio enthusiast is a myth.

I suspect that my use of the word "trained" was inappropriate in this
context. I know what I meant, and I suspect that there are many other
audiophiles who will know what I'm talking about too, still, in the name of
accuracy, let me rephrase. Audio enthusiasts tend to listen for those audible
characteristics in reproduced music, that differentiate it from each person's
memory of real thing. I.E., this speaker is too bright - the live ensemble
wouldn't sound like that, or, this preamp lacks bass, or, this phono
cartridge is distorted in the midrange, etc. Audio enthusiasts hear these
things and notice them because they CARE about them. Some characteristics,
like pin-point imaging, are desirable, some, such as tracing distortion in
phono playback or digital artifacts in compression schemes, are not
desirable. Non-enthusiasts generally do not notice these things because they
do not care about them, and often do not even know to what to attribute
anything that they DO hear because they aren't familiar with the processes
involved.

The term "trained ears" merely indicates that someone cares enough about the
differences between the sound of live music and the sound of reproduced music
to have forced themselves into a state of heightened awareness of those
characteristics and are able to identify and, in some instances, even
quantify them. And, of course, to recognize those characteristics which
constitute the difference between real music, well reproduced music and badly
reproduced music.

What sort of
"training" do they get? Which acknowledged qualified and
vetted experts in the field of "audio enthusiasts" provides
them their training? Who is in charge of overseeing this
training program and ensuring it's maintained at the highest
possible consistent reliable quality? What "audio enthusiast"
acreditation program is there?

I'm not talking about musicians. I'm talking about your
assertion of "trained audio enthusiasts."

The questions are meaningless because I made no assertion about "Trained
audio enthusiasts." I said that "...audio enthusiasts train their "ears" to
hear the SOUND of music ..." I made no reference to any sort of formal
training. In fact, the phrase "audio enthusiasts train their "ears" should,
to most people who speak, read and write English proficiently, infer a self
discipline rather than an externally provided one.


I'd be so bold
to suggest that what you refer to as "trained" could be
indistinguishable from "uneducated bias" in many cases, two
of which I prpvided anecdotal evidence for.

Your two examples are non sequiturs which have nothing whatsoever to do with
what I was talking about.

First was a review published in, I believe, Absolute Sound,
involving a recording of harpsichird. The reviewer stated
that the recording was presented with such clarity that it
was easy to perceive the vertical imaging of the two layers of
strings, apparently corresponding to the upper and lower manual.

Like much "audiophilia" this is nonsense.

Well, if much audiophilia is nonsense, as you state, what
separates the nonsensical audiophile from the "audio
enthusiast" with the "trained ears?" Trained by whom? How?
To do what?

Again, you have inferred much into my statement that simply is not there.
There is no "training", per se. it is a self induced awareness of what real
music should sound like. My assertion was simple. Audiophiles CARE about
sound and are therefore more likely to hear anomalies in reproduced sound
than are people to whom sound, in and of itself, has little importance. Were
I a violinist, for instance, instead of an audio enthusiast, how good am I
going to be at hearing compression artifacts when I'm listening, not to the
sound of the violin being played, but rather to the player's technique,
intonation and 'tone'? The answer is that I wouldn't, because I'm not
listening to that. My interest is in the violinist (or flautist, or horn
player, whatever). All I care about is that the recording lets me hear the
musician. I can listen around poor sound, and in fact, most likely, don't
even notice it.

[Steven Sullivan]

Audio Empire wrote:

I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact (and I assume that you don't,
won't, or can't see it) that for speakers it's almost impossible to set-up
such a test,

for consumers, true.

and that ultimately it will tell the listeners nothing that a
long term evaluation of one's shortlist of speaker models won't do just as
well.

...and that's a contention that you cannot support. You are
making a faulty assumption that 'long term' evaluation mitigates
'sighted' bias.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Audio Empire]

On Mon, 31 May 2010 07:28:53 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:

I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact (and I assume that you don't,
won't, or can't see it) that for speakers it's almost impossible to set-up
such a test,

for consumers, true.

And that's really all I'm saying about the practicality of such a test. In a
professional setting, it certainly should be able to set-up such a test, even
though it would be elaborate, require expensive test equipment and a
comparator of some type - among other things. but it would be doable. But
Consumers and even dedicated hobbyists would find it a daunting, and perhaps
even a Herculean task.

and that ultimately it will tell the listeners nothing that a
long term evaluation of one's shortlist of speaker models won't do just as
well.

..and that's a contention that you cannot support. You are
making a faulty assumption that 'long term' evaluation mitigates
'sighted' bias.

No I'm not assuming that. For speakers, "sighted" and "expectational" bias is
an important component in the selection process. There are things like price
and physical size to consider as well as sound (not to mention wife
acceptance factor). Speakers are not like amplifiers, which can be hidden in
a cabinet somewhere, They are usually large, imposing furniture structures,
and price /performance don't really track. If one likes how speakers sound,
look, and find the price acceptable, then buy 'em. It's about the best one
can hope for.

Of course, if one has the facilities, one can select several speakers that
pass the visual and cost tests and then do a DBT on those, but again, we're
back in impractical-land again.

[Steven Sullivan]

Audio Empire wrote:
On Mon, 31 May 2010 07:28:53 -0700, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ):

Audio Empire wrote:

I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact (and I assume that you don't,
won't, or can't see it) that for speakers it's almost impossible to set-up
such a test,

for consumers, true.

And that's really all I'm saying about the practicality of such a test. In a
professional setting, it certainly should be able to set-up such a test, even
though it would be elaborate, require expensive test equipment and a
comparator of some type - among other things. but it would be doable. But
Consumers and even dedicated hobbyists would find it a daunting, and perhaps
even a Herculean task.

But it was not impossible for Harman to set up such tests. And they
have produced data from them that can be useful to consumers. So all is not
lost.


and that ultimately it will tell the listeners nothing that a
long term evaluation of one's shortlist of speaker models won't do just as
well.

..and that's a contention that you cannot support. You are
making a faulty assumption that 'long term' evaluation mitigates
'sighted' bias.

No I'm not assuming that. For speakers, "sighted" and "expectational" bias is
an important component in the selection process. There are things like price
and physical size to consider as well as sound (not to mention wife
acceptance factor).

Of course. But I thought we were talking about about long-term evaluation
of the *sound*. That remains subject to bias from the very factors
that you mention , and others.

and price /performance don't really track. If one likes how speakers sound,
look, and find the price acceptable, then buy 'em. It's about the best one
can hope for.

True, though I would add that one can seek loudspeakers with good
objective performance too.

But all along I thought we had been talking about judging the *sound*
of loudspeakers. If judgement of sound quality typically is infused with
various biases that have nothing to do with the sound, then
that should inform claims you make about the sound quality.

If you agree with that, there's not much to debate (with me, at least)


Of course, if one has the facilities, one can select several speakers that
pass the visual and cost tests and then do a DBT on those, but again, we're
back in impractical-land again.


But, again, the work that *has* been done in this area, using
impractical means, is useful too. The key finding, which should
be gladsome tidings to true audiophiles, is that speakers that
'measure' good in certain known ways, tend to *sound* good to listeners
too.

Logically, audiophiles should push for the industry to standardize
loudspeaker testing and test reporting. Then at least there is an
*objective* basis for comparison.


--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[XYLOPHONE]

On May 10, 11:50=A0am, wrote:
There is mention of a download page where full fidelity recordings can be
had for $2.49.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/bu...ml?ref=3Dbusin

=A0 =A0"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological.=
For
=A0 =A0decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
=A0 =A0symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like=
a
=A0 =A0new flat-screen TV today.

=A0 =A0But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com=
,
=A0 =A0which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an obj=
ect
=A0 =A0of scorn.""

I am truly convinced that the highest quality audio is from analog
records,
recorded from professional studio tapes. as follows:

First half of century: 78 rpm was the only spread technology. From
listening
experience, they got better as years went by. Especially as they went
from
non-electrical technology to the arrival of master tapes. Of course
the real
challenge is to find 78s in EX or Mint condition and use the right
stylus to
benefit.

1950s: Vinyl 45s and LPs arrived from 1949 on. A media war began.
With the RIAA standards adopted in 1953 or so, the recordings then had
to
have a standard balance between bass and treble. From listening
experience, late 78s in pristine condition played with good stylus
really
make your body vibrate and fell "live in the studio", really! The
other day I
listened to "Slow Train Blues" from Leathernecks on Mercury 78 from
1955,
and I really felt that, because I cleaned the record and I evaluated
it as EX or
better. The downside of 78s is truly wear, and the loss in quality is
more significant due to them playing on vintage equipment, with heavy
styli
or not always the right one. Second top would be of course the 45,
then the
LPs. Still analog with truly high fidelity if record is clean and
played with a
good stylus. The advantage is that vinyl is less fragile than 78s. I
find the
higher the speed the better the quality, because you cover more
material
per unit of time. CDs reissus of 50s performances will sound clearer,
yes,
but I feel I can't feel the vibrations, like I do with LPs or higher
speed
playbacks.

1960s: 78s stopped in 1960, so the top is now 45s, then LPs. Vinyl
continues to provide high fidelity and makes you vibrate. 60's records
have
deep grooves, more distant, probably because the songs are shorter
(average 2 to 3 minutes). Therefore they play loud and imperfections
or
defects are much less noticeable. Still getting copies in good or
better,
new condition, will give you the top in high fidelity. Original
pressings are the
way to go. If impossible, I would get a re-issue, provided it's been
manufactured no later than 1980s, to make sure it's analog throughout
the whole recording process from master tapes.
An example: I preferred spending $325 on an original pressing of a
45rpm
from Underworld "Go Away"/"Bound" on Regency R-979 than getting the
2007 re-issue from Garage Greats at $15. They pretend it's the same,
but no. I listened to both, and the original truly makes me vibrate.
The grooves
on the reissue are not as deep, and I have never been able to
determine what
is their source and if digitalisation was involved. And my original
pressing is
only VG-, many clicks, but main thing is the overall quality is there!

1970s: From mid 70s on, technology permitted to enhance sound
clearness.
Grooves are less deep, but I feel a wide range of sound effects can be
detected, especially if I use headphones. Some record companies are
better
than others, but in general, all records allow me to enjoy a
continuous
analog signal I can feel with my body. I use a $50 Shure stylus, but I
can
imagine if someone uses a more high-end one he can get even more from
his vinyl!

1980s: As for synthetizers, computer-assisted studio sound effects,
robotic
voices, etc... 1980s is the STATE OF THE ART decade, and I think it
will
remain 1st on the High Scores forever! Yes, simply because everything
has
been pressed on vinyl. I still find 45s are unbeatable because more
material
is covered per time unit, still LPs continue to bypass CD, even more
MP3 by
far. For example, I find Vertigo records make really good products.
Listening
to a Tears for Fears 45 is really a fantastic experience, I feel
people who
don't have vinyl are missing.

1990s to today: If processing is analog right from studio tapes to
record
pressing, consider it's the TOP like 80's. Otherwise, if any digital
process is
involved, you will probably won't feel the listening experience even
if they
try to make you believe it will by pressing it to vinyl.

Portability: The real disadvantage of analog records is it's not
portable. The
solution I use is to record my vinyl onto Metal or CrO2 tapes and
listening
with my good'ole Walkman! Yes I lose a bit of quality with respect to
the
original records, but I find it's still way ahead iPods :-)

Luc

[Audio Empire]

On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:54:12 -0700, XYLOPHONE wrote
(in article ):

On May 10, 11:50=A0am, wrote:
There is mention of a download page where full fidelity recordings can be
had for $2.49.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/10/bu...ml?ref=3Dbusin

=A0 =A0"The change in sound quality is as much cultural as technological.=
For
=A0 =A0decades, starting around the 1950s, high-end stereos were a status
=A0 =A0symbol. A high-quality system was something to show off, much like=
a
=A0 =A0new flat-screen TV today.

=A0 =A0But Michael Fremer, a professed audiophile who runs musicangle.com=
,
=A0 =A0which reviews albums, said that today, "a stereo has become an obj=
ect
=A0 =A0of scorn.""

I am truly convinced that the highest quality audio is from analog
records,
recorded from professional studio tapes. as follows:

Subjectively and generally speaking, I tend to agree. Although, from a
technical standpoint, I do not pretend to understand why this should be so.
OTOH, the most palpably real audio recording I've ever heard, is one of my
own making and on a 44.1 KHz/16 bit CD, it sounds almost as good as it does
the 24-bit/192KHz master! Both sound better than ANY commercial recording
that I've ever heard irrespective of source or media or technology used.

First half of century: 78 rpm was the only spread technology. From
listening
experience, they got better as years went by. Especially as they went
from
non-electrical technology to the arrival of master tapes. Of course
the real
challenge is to find 78s in EX or Mint condition and use the right
stylus to
benefit.

I have a bunch of British Decca (London) "ffrr" classical 78s that sound
stupendous. Highs to roughly 15 KHz, good bass, and fairly quiet surfaces.
These are all from the late 1940s (post WWII).

1950s: Vinyl 45s and LPs arrived from 1949 on. A media war began.
With the RIAA standards adopted in 1953 or so, the recordings then had
to
have a standard balance between bass and treble. From listening
experience, late 78s in pristine condition played with good stylus
really
make your body vibrate and fell "live in the studio", really! The
other day I
listened to "Slow Train Blues" from Leathernecks on Mercury 78 from
1955,
and I really felt that, because I cleaned the record and I evaluated
it as EX or
better. The downside of 78s is truly wear, and the loss in quality is
more significant due to them playing on vintage equipment, with heavy
styli
or not always the right one.

More usual for 78's was being played with a WORN stylus. Most record players
in the 78 days used steel needles. They were meant to be replaced after each
play, but usually weren't. Often they weren't changed until the worn needle
started to change the color of the record from shiny black to a dull brown.
By then it was too late.

Second top would be of course the 45,
then the
LPs. Still analog with truly high fidelity if record is clean and
played with a
good stylus. The advantage is that vinyl is less fragile than 78s. I
find the
higher the speed the better the quality, because you cover more
material
per unit of time. CDs reissus of 50s performances will sound clearer,
yes,
but I feel I can't feel the vibrations, like I do with LPs or higher
speed
playbacks.

Can't feel the VIBRATIONS??????!!!!! I don't follow you. All sound is
"vibrations".

1960s: 78s stopped in 1960, so the top is now 45s, then LPs. Vinyl
continues to provide high fidelity and makes you vibrate. 60's records
have
deep grooves, more distant, probably because the songs are shorter
(average 2 to 3 minutes). Therefore they play loud and imperfections
or
defects are much less noticeable. Still getting copies in good or
better,
new condition, will give you the top in high fidelity.

??????????

Original
pressings are the
way to go. If impossible, I would get a re-issue, provided it's been
manufactured no later than 1980s, to make sure it's analog throughout
the whole recording process from master tapes.
An example: I preferred spending $325 on an original pressing of a
45rpm
from Underworld "Go Away"/"Bound" on Regency R-979 than getting the
2007 re-issue from Garage Greats at $15. They pretend it's the same,
but no. I listened to both, and the original truly makes me vibrate.

I still don't understand what you mean by "makes me vibrate"?

The grooves
on the reissue are not as deep, and I have never been able to
determine what
is their source and if digitalisation was involved. And my original
pressing is
only VG-, many clicks, but main thing is the overall quality is there!

Groove depth is irrelevant because it's the same for all stereo LPs, In fact,
the standard 45/45 system of cutting LPs dictates the depth of the groove
which is determined by the standard LP groove width and the isosceles
triangle formed by the groove width and the 90 degree angle of the two groove
walls. Groove PITCH (number of grooves per centimeter) is variable on LP
cutting, groove width and depth are not. All stereo records have the same
groove width and depth.

1970s: From mid 70s on, technology permitted to enhance sound
clearness.
Grooves are less deep, but I feel a wide range of sound effects can be
detected, especially if I use headphones. Some record companies are
better
than others, but in general, all records allow me to enjoy a
continuous
analog signal I can feel with my body. I use a $50 Shure stylus, but I
can
imagine if someone uses a more high-end one he can get even more from
his vinyl!

Again all stereo grooves are the same depth.

1980s: As for synthetizers, computer-assisted studio sound effects,
robotic
voices, etc... 1980s is the STATE OF THE ART decade, and I think it
will
remain 1st on the High Scores forever! Yes, simply because everything
has
been pressed on vinyl. I still find 45s are unbeatable because more
material
is covered per time unit, still LPs continue to bypass CD, even more
MP3 by
far. For example, I find Vertigo records make really good products.
Listening
to a Tears for Fears 45 is really a fantastic experience, I feel
people who
don't have vinyl are missing.

1990s to today: If processing is analog right from studio tapes to
record
pressing, consider it's the TOP like 80's. Otherwise, if any digital
process is
involved, you will probably won't feel the listening experience even
if they
try to make you believe it will by pressing it to vinyl.

Portability: The real disadvantage of analog records is it's not
portable. The
solution I use is to record my vinyl onto Metal or CrO2 tapes and
listening
with my good'ole Walkman! Yes I lose a bit of quality with respect to
the
original records, but I find it's still way ahead iPods :-)

Luc

Much of this seems to be nonsense. I'll give the poster the benefit of the
doubt here because his first language is obviously NOT English.