Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 19, 5:39?am, Steven Sullivan wrote: No, it isn't. And as this has been explained dozens, if not hundreds, if times here, I'm going to suggest you do some more research on DBT before making such claims. Now, the problem with non-blind test is that it is necessarily subject to bias. How would you design a long-term DBT test in the testee's residence? How would you protect it from curiosity? Put another way, unless the test is based on the permanent location & actual set-up of the equipment it is invalid on its face. These are issues of practicality and dedication to research, not impossibility. That something is difficult to do correctly, doesn't make it *impossible*. Someone truly dedicated to researching the matter could, for example, use an ABX apparatus, or they could recruit a helper to do a more traditional DBT. There actually have been DBTs done where the subject was allowed to, and encouraged to, listen to the two sources for weeks before the actual blind part of the test -- for the purpose of building confidence that they could tell them apart. Thus they go into the DBT believing firmly that they can audibly distinguish the two. (Of course, that doesn't mean they really can -- that's what a blind test tests) As for testing whether one source is more 'fatiguing' over the long term than another, it would be a matter of first identifying, sighted, at what point the fatiguing source becomes 'fatiguing', then doing a set of double blind A/B listening tests each of which lasts for at least that amount of time. Short of physiologically measuring fatigue, there would be no other way to scientifically test this. Meanwhile, you have not addressed the fact that sighted listening, while easy, is simply not by itself reliable enough to assume dependable accurate evaluation and identification of sonic differences, especially small or nonexistent ones. If sighted bias didn't exist, there would be NO REASON FOR BLIND CONTROLS TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE and scientific research itself would be vastly simplified. -- -S I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy |
#122
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... This assumes of course, that you've actually done the blind tests...it seems most of the anti-MP3 brigade never even takes that first step. I did a brief blind test a few years ago and then some extended sighted listening, which I've already mentioned at some point, of 256 MP3 downloaded via Real Audio and played back via my high-end system. It put me firmly in Sonnova's "ear-bleeding" camp. I haven't been tempted since. I have to really shake my head at the recent examples of totally unfair and false comments about my biases related to my opinions of the LP. It is an undisputed fact that I am just about 62 years old, and thus had nothing but analog sources to listen to with any regularity until 1983 and the advent of the CD. That makes 37 years of forced listening to the LP. My first memories of listening to a record player go back to when I was about 5, so that still leaves 32 years of conscious memories of listening to essentially nothing but LPs and a few open reel tapes. From when I was about 16 until I was 39, (23 years) I had a growing LP collection that topped out over 1,000 discs, both domestic and import, and far better than average equipment to play it. From when I was 21 onward, my cartridge of choice was the current model of V-15, but I had other fine cartrdiges on hand such as the ADC XLM. I was an early adopter of the AR turntable owned 3 different ones when I upgraded to something else, and it failed me. I eventually moved up to the then best-available Thorens turntable and SME tonearm which had owned for about 15 years when I obtained my first CD player. I sold my analog equipment about 3 years after I started using my Sony CDP 101, on the grounds of my perceptions of tremendously improved sound quality with digital. Shortly after Y2K I reinvested in LP playback equipment, which I use to this day for transcribing vinyl to CD for friends and clients. AFAIK, my LP playback equipment has the best measured performance posted anyplace on the internet. I have accepted many invitations to listen to the high end vinyl playback setups, on many occasions, and visited and auditioned dozens of high end vinyl playback setups at HE2005. With all that said, the very people who disparage my biases have been admitting that the basis for their tightly-held negative opinions of MP3s is a literal handful of ad hoc listening experiences. None seem to be able to balance that with my vastly greater experience listening to LPs. It should be very clear that balance, reason, honesty and fairness play no perceptible role in the highly negative things that have been said about the experiential basis for my opinions of the sound quality of the LP. I gave it a heck of a chance and it failed me. I moved on, just like several billion other music lovers. Perhaps it doesn't take some of us so long. I had no problem moving quickly to SACD and to a slightly lesser degree, DVD-Audio based on superior audio quality. But why should I listen to what were clearly inferior reproductions? And why should I invest in equipment to continue to do so? |
#123
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 19, 4:29�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message On Nov 18, 8:43?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message On Nov 17, 8:20 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Sonnova" wrote in message When I say GOOD, it is in the context of high-end audio, IOW it has superior sound quality in that it sounds more like real, live music, played in a real space and has a you-are-there palpability that the average recording (even digital) lacks. Superior sound quality is impossible when a great deal of audible noise and distortion can be heard. In fact there is a widespread belief that freedom from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for superior sound. IOW it is necessary, but not sufficient. That is quite an interesting claim. Do you feel that you are actually getting distortion free sound from your playback system? Non-responsive. Responsive to what? I see no question asked there. I said "a great deal of audible noise and distortion can be heard" You say " distortion free sound from your playback system?" Can't you see the difference?- This is what you said. "there is a widespread belief that freedom from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for superior sound." That's not the same as distortion-free sound from a playback system. Can you see why? Nope. Feel free to explain the difference between "freedom from audible distortion" and... "audible distortion free." I'm just not seeing the difference. My question is based on thay assertion by you. Do you feel you ar anyone else for that matter are getting "audible distortion free" playback from their systems? In the case of digital media like the CD, the playback of the media is generally distortion free. �However, the speakers and the room aren't distortion free. Thank you for making my point. Then it stands to reason that no one is listening to any playback that is free of audible distortions. Looks like you set the bar for excellence above that which is possible in the real world. After all you seem to be saying it is a prerequisit for superior sound. I'm saying that playback of the media that is free of audible distortion and noise is a prerequisite for superior sound. In addition, the speakers and room have to be relatively free of audible noise and distoriton, as well. But speakers, rooms and microphones never are free of audible noise and distortion. So you have set an unattainable standard for superior sound. I suppose in the purest sense that is fair. But for practical purposes it makes the term "superior sound" in playback unusable. So why bother using it? Since the LP format, like cassette tape, and low-bitrate MP3 has inherent noise and distortion that is greater than high quality room+speakers, it is automatically disqualified as a means to obtain superior sound That is a purely semantical argument that is ultimately self defeating. You are really engaging in the classic logical fallacy known as the moving goal posts. You are moving the standards of excellence merely to support your prejudices against vinyl. Unfortunately those specific standards betray your attempt to make nothing more than a semantic argument against vinyl playback in that those standards that suit your semantic argument ultimately also exclude all transducers. You can't have any recording or playback without transducers. So by your own axioms and logical arguments superior sound is unattainable. You have painted yourself into a corner with this argument. |
#124
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
wrote in message
On Nov 19, 6:28?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message What I'm saying is that there's really only one logical explanation for people who need certain very characteristic and unnatural kinds of audible noise and distortion to be added to their recordings so that they sound real to them, and that is a triumph of bias over reason. This is a study in logical fallacies. First logical fallacy is the reduction of many possibile explinations to just one. Prove that there are other fallacious reasons to prefer the sound of vinyl. Be my guest. If you can't prove that there any other fallacious reasons for preferring vinyl, then you cannot dispute my point. Next you use a false premise that people *need* audible noise and distortion to be added to recordings so they sound real to them. Well, at this point it has been conclsively proven that the essence of recording something on vinyl is adding noise and distortion to it. We have people who say that a given recording, not even its master tape or digital master sound right to them until it is re-recorded on vinyl. Therefore we have proof by analysis of the process that is required for them to perceive maximum realism from the recording. And you end with a false dichotomy. Bias or reason. Are you saying that it is false to characterize them as being different or relevant? You miss the obvious possible explination that it is a result of pure audible perception. If it is the result of truely pure audible perception, then there is actually no need to bother to play the recording. No, sensation and the nature of the sound coming out of the speakers are relevant, no matter how you may posture. |
#125
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
"Sonnova" wrote in message
Its pretty much the same with me. I can listen to satellite radio in the car or as background at home, Interesting. I can't tolerate Sirrius/XM at all. Though not as bad as streaming radio or iTunes downloads, the lossy compression used by XM/Sirius is still audible. iTunes downloads must be really bad, because XM/Sirius is just horrible. I prefer good analog AM radio to it. |
#126
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
wrote in message
On Nov 19, 4:29�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message On Nov 18, 8:43?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message On Nov 17, 8:20 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Sonnova" wrote in message When I say GOOD, it is in the context of high-end audio, IOW it has superior sound quality in that it sounds more like real, live music, played in a real space and has a you-are-there palpability that the average recording (even digital) lacks. Superior sound quality is impossible when a great deal of audible noise and distortion can be heard. In fact there is a widespread belief that freedom from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for superior sound. IOW it is necessary, but not sufficient. That is quite an interesting claim. Do you feel that you are actually getting distortion free sound from your playback system? Non-responsive. Responsive to what? I see no question asked there. I said "a great deal of audible noise and distortion can be heard" You say " distortion free sound from your playback system?" Can't you see the difference?- This is what you said. "there is a widespread belief that freedom from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for superior sound." That's not the same as distortion-free sound from a playback system. Can you see why? Nope. Feel free to explain the difference between "freedom from audible distortion" and... "audible distortion free." I'm just not seeing the difference. To repeat: I said "a great deal of audible noise and distortion can be heard" You say " distortion free sound from your playback system?" Now, without interjecting anything else, explain why the two are the same. My question is based on they assertion by you. Do you feel you are anyone else for that matter are getting "audible distortion free" playback from their systems? In the case of digital media like the CD, the playback of the media is generally distortion free. �However, the speakers and the room aren't distortion free. Thank you for making my point. You have a funny way of agreeing with me. Then it stands to reason that no one is listening to any playback that is free of audible distortions. However, the audible distortions of the LP playback system are audible through speakers, often just about any speakers, even the 3" speakers on an AC-DC player. In contrast, the distortions in a representative CD system are not audible, even on the very best speakers. Big different. After all you seem to be saying it is a prerequisite for superior sound. I'm saying that playback of the media that is free of audible distortion and noise is a prerequisite for superior sound. In addition, the speakers and room have to be relatively free of audible noise and distortion, as well. But speakers, rooms and microphones never are free of audible noise and distortion. However, they generally have less distortion than is inherent in the LP format. Since the LP format, like cassette tape, and low-bitrate MP3 has inherent noise and distortion that is greater than high quality room+speakers, it is automatically disqualified as a means to obtain superior sound That is a purely semantical argument that is ultimately self defeating. No its not. It's a very practical real-world argument. In fact no discussion of word meanings are contained in it. Semantics is the study of the meaning of words, as you apparently don't seem to know. Semantics and that paragraph are irrelevant. You are really engaging in the classic logical fallacy known as the moving goal posts Again you are wrong because a fixed reference, being the distortion of "high quality room+speakers," was referenced. The goal posts are fixed for the duration of the discussion, for all practical purposes. |
#127
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... This assumes of course, that you've actually done the blind tests...it seems most of the anti-MP3 brigade never even takes that first step. I did a brief blind test a few years ago and then some extended sighted listening, which I've already mentioned at some point, of 256 MP3 downloaded via Real Audio and played back via my high-end system. It put me firmly in Sonnova's "ear-bleeding" camp. I haven't been tempted since. I have to really shake my head at the recent examples of totally unfair and false comments about my biases related to my opinions of the LP. It is an undisputed fact that I am just about 62 years old, and thus had nothing but analog sources to listen to with any regularity until 1983 and the advent of the CD. That makes 37 years of forced listening to the LP. My first memories of listening to a record player go back to when I was about 5, so that still leaves 32 years of conscious memories of listening to essentially nothing but LPs and a few open reel tapes. From when I was about 16 until I was 39, (23 years) I had a growing LP collection that topped out over 1,000 discs, both domestic and import, and far better than average equipment to play it. From when I was 21 onward, my cartridge of choice was the current model of V-15, but I had other fine cartrdiges on hand such as the ADC XLM. I was an early adopter of the AR turntable owned 3 different ones when I upgraded to something else, and it failed me. I eventually moved up to the then best-available Thorens turntable and SME tonearm which had owned for about 15 years when I obtained my first CD player. I sold my analog equipment about 3 years after I started using my Sony CDP 101, on the grounds of my perceptions of tremendously improved sound quality with digital. Shortly after Y2K I reinvested in LP playback equipment, which I use to this day for transcribing vinyl to CD for friends and clients. AFAIK, my LP playback equipment has the best measured performance posted anyplace on the internet. I have accepted many invitations to listen to the high end vinyl playback setups, on many occasions, and visited and auditioned dozens of high end vinyl playback setups at HE2005. With all that said, the very people who disparage my biases have been admitting that the basis for their tightly-held negative opinions of MP3s is a literal handful of ad hoc listening experiences. None seem to be able to balance that with my vastly greater experience listening to LPs. It should be very clear that balance, reason, honesty and fairness play no perceptible role in the highly negative things that have been said about the experiential basis for my opinions of the sound quality of the LP. I gave it a heck of a chance and it failed me. I moved on, just like several billion other music lovers. Perhaps it doesn't take some of us so long. Actually, it took you far longer. Or have you finally scrapped your LP playback system? I had no problem moving quickly to SACD and to a slightly lesser degree, Harry, you seem to be very confused, This is not about giving CD a chance, this is about me giving the LP a chance. DVD-Audio based on superior audio quality. Now Harry, you are massively confused, because DVD-A is not relevant to the discussion at all. |
#128
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Streaming internet is generally *not* a demonstration of high MP3 quality. To say the least. It looks like people are changing their stories again and again. A lot of internet streaming audio is not MP3 at all. No, but it is one of the more practical uses of it, and as a sound source it sucks. Interesting how people are wandering (backpedaling?) away from actually discussion reasonble-bitrate MP3s. |
#129
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 19, 7:52�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message On Nov 19, 6:28?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message What I'm saying is that there's really only one logical explanation for people who need certain very characteristic and unnatural kinds of audible noise and distortion to be added to their recordings so that they sound real to them, and that is a triumph of bias over reason. This is a study in logical fallacies. First logical fallacy is the reduction of many possibile explinations to just one. Prove that there are other fallacious reasons to prefer the sound of vinyl. Be my guest. If you can't prove that there any other fallacious reasons for preferring vinyl, then you cannot dispute my point. That makes no sense. I simply pointed out the logical fallacies of your argument. I have no idea what you mean by demanding I prove "that there are other fallacious reasons to prefer the sound of vinyl." Nor do I see how it follows that if I fail to do so then I can not dispute your point. I already have disputed your point based on it's logical fallacies. Next you use a false premise that people *need* audible noise and distortion to be added to recordings so they sound real to them. Well, at this point it has been conclsively proven that the essence of recording something on vinyl is adding noise and distortion to it. No it has not. Nor has it been proven that those of us who often prefer any given recording on vinyl cannot also enjoy music played back on CD. You seem to choose to ignore this fundamental problem with your premise. So your argument is simply based on a false premise. Given that everybody on this thread who has argued in favor of the excellence of vinyl playback has also expressed clearly that they can and do actually enjoy many recordings on CD pretty much proves that you are arguing from a false premise that some of us "need" audible noise and distortion to be added to recordings to sound "real" to us. You are also completely ignoring the fact that the differences between CDs and LPs of any given title are mostly mastering based differences. We have people who say that a given recording, not even its master tape or digital master sound right to them until it is re-recorded on vinyl. Where do we have these people? Certainly we don't have them participating in this thread. Therefore we have proof by analysis of the process that is required for them to perceive maximum realism from the recording. What is the relevance of the beliefs of these unnamed unknown people who are not here to express these alleged extreme view points? And you end with a false dichotomy. Bias or reason. Are you saying that it is false to characterize them as being different or relevant? I am saying that you have created a false dichotomy. Here is an explination of a false dichotomy. "Arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two. For example, evolution is not possible, therefore we must have been created (assumes these are the only two possibilities). This fallacy can also be used to oversimplify a continuum of variation to two black and white choices. For example, science and pseudoscience are not two discrete entities, but rather the methods and claims of all those who attempt to explain reality fall along a continuum from one extreme to the other. " http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp You miss the obvious possible explination that it is a result of pure audible perception. If it is the result of truely pure audible perception, then there is actually no need to bother to play the recording. No, sensation and the nature of the sound coming out of the speakers are relevant, no matter how you may posture. That makes no sense. We are talking about *audible* perceptions. I really should have said *aural* perceptions. Anyway one must have sound for that. |
#130
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 19, 8:46�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message On Nov 19, 4:29 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message On Nov 18, 8:43?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message On Nov 17, 8:20 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Sonnova" wrote in message When I say GOOD, it is in the context of high-end audio, IOW it has superior sound quality in that it sounds more like real, live music, played in a real space and has a you-are-there palpability that the average recording (even digital) lacks. Superior sound quality is impossible when a great deal of audible noise and distortion can be heard. In fact there is a widespread belief that freedom from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for superior sound. IOW it is necessary, but not sufficient. That is quite an interesting claim. Do you feel that you are actually getting distortion free sound from your playback system? Non-responsive. Responsive to what? I see no question asked there. I said "a great deal of audible noise and distortion can be heard" You say " distortion free sound from your playback system?" Can't you see the difference?- This is what you said. "there is a widespread belief that freedom from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for superior sound." That's not the same as distortion-free sound from a playback system. Can you see why? Nope. Feel free to explain the difference between "freedom from audible distortion" and... "audible distortion free." �I'm just not seeing the difference. To repeat: I said "a great deal of audible noise and distortion �can be heard" You say " distortion free sound from your playback �system?" Now, without interjecting anything else, explain why the two are the same. Sorry but you don't have that level of control over the converstaion. The fact is you said "In fact there is a widespread belief that freedom from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for superior sound." It's right here on this thread. Scroll up and read your own words for yourself. My comments were based on *that* assertion. I have simply pointed out obvious problems with that assertion. There is no playback that enjoys "freedom from audible noise and distortion." So, based on your premise and logic, no one actually is enjoying "superior sound" at home and your argument does nothing more than make the term 'superior sound" useless when we talk about home audio. My question is based on they assertion by you. Do you feel you are anyone else for that matter are getting "audible distortion free" playback from their systems? In the case of digital media like the CD, the playback of the media is generally distortion free. However, the speakers and the room aren't distortion free. Thank you for making my point. Then it stands to reason that no one is listening to any playback that is free of audible distortions. However, the audible distortions of the LP playback system are audible through speakers, often just about any speakers, even the 3" speakers on an AC-DC player. I think you are grossly mischaracterizing the nature of the audible distortion that can be found in state of the art vinyl playback. I am quite confident that in many many cases no one would be able to identify a source as vinyl just by listening. I am also quite confident that with the right rig, for example my rig, under blind conditions listeners would,in many instances, actually percieve my rig playing back vinyl as the more life like playback and the master tape as less life like playback. That is what is called a euphonic distortion. A kind of audible distortion that could not be easily or readily identified as a distortion without a reference for direct comparison, a distortion that causes the listener to percieve an improvement in the sound. In contrast, the distortions in a representative CD system are not audible, even on the very best speakers. Big different. Not everyone agrees with that assertion either but that is a topic for another thread. After all you seem to be saying it is a prerequisite for superior sound. I'm saying that playback of the media that is free of audible distortion and noise is a prerequisite for superior sound. In addition, the speakers and room have to be relatively free of audible noise and distortion, as well. But speakers, rooms and microphones never are free of audible noise and distortion. However, they generally have less distortion than is inherent in the LP format. Once again you try to move the goal posts to fit your position. The fact is all rooms, speakers and mics are audibly distorted. You asserted that "In fact there is a widespread belief that freedom from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for superior sound." in an obvious attempt to make a semantical argument against vinyl playback. Now that you painted yourself into a corner by setting the goal posts in a self defeating location you are once again trying to move them. This is yet another form of logical fallacy. "Special pleading, or ad-hoc reasoning This is a subtle fallacy which is often difficult to recognize. In essence, it is the arbitrary introduction of new elements into an argument in order to fix them so that they appear valid." http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp Since the LP format, like cassette tape, and low-bitrate MP3 has inherent noise and distortion that is greater than high quality room+speakers, it is automatically disqualified as a means to obtain superior sound That is a purely semantical argument that is ultimately self defeating. No its not. It's a very practical real-world argument. In fact no discussion of word meanings are contained in it. Semantics is the study of the meaning of words, as you apparently don't seem to know. Semantics and that paragraph are irrelevant. It certainly is a semantical argument. You have tried to redefine the meaning of "superior sound" and now you have tried to redefine it once again since it has been pointed out that your first attempt to redefine the term went too far and was self defeating. So not only is it a semantical argument but it is one that suffers from ad-hoc reasoning. You are really engaging in the classic logical fallacy known as the moving goal posts Again you are wrong because a fixed reference, being the distortion of "high quality room+speakers," was referenced. The goal posts are fixed for the duration of the discussion, for all practical purposes Then explain this earlier assertion. "Superior sound quality is impossible when a great deal of audible noise and distortion can be heard. In fact there is a widespread belief that free from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for superior sound." Your words Arny. scroll up and read them for yourself in their original context. Your arguments clearly suffer from moving goal posts and Special pleading, or ad-hoc reasoning. Protest all you want. The content of the thread speaks for itself. Let's also not forget that you have failed to show that any of your characterizations of the sound of vinyl playback are not poisoned with extreme anti-vinyl bias. |
#131
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... Peter Wieck wrote: On Nov 19, 5:39?am, Steven Sullivan wrote: No, it isn't. And as this has been explained dozens, if not hundreds, if times here, I'm going to suggest you do some more research on DBT before making such claims. Now, the problem with non-blind test is that it is necessarily subject to bias. How would you design a long-term DBT test in the testee's residence? How would you protect it from curiosity? Put another way, unless the test is based on the permanent location & actual set-up of the equipment it is invalid on its face. These are issues of practicality and dedication to research, not impossibility. That something is difficult to do correctly, doesn't make it *impossible*. Someone truly dedicated to researching the matter could, for example, use an ABX apparatus, or they could recruit a helper to do a more traditional DBT. There actually have been DBTs done where the subject was allowed to, and encouraged to, listen to the two sources for weeks before the actual blind part of the test -- for the purpose of building confidence that they could tell them apart. Thus they go into the DBT believing firmly that they can audibly distinguish the two. (Of course, that doesn't mean they really can -- that's what a blind test tests) Here's the crux of the matter. It doesn't MATTER how long one has listened or thinks they can identify the differences in sighted listening, if in fact the TEST INTERVENES with extraneous variables....such as shifting from listening to differentiating, from relaxed consciousness to attentive self-consciouness, from a time-frame aceepting of fleeting moments of insight, to one of forced choice and the need to switch back and forth to make that choice, and where "don't know at this time" is not an option. Keep in mind we are not just hearing differences, we are trying to identify if there are differences and "matching up" three variables, at least in the ABX test. The only blind test that can come close to this is simply a preference test with three choices: think I prefer A, think I prefer B, or Can't Decide or Don't Prefer One over the Other at this Time. And this has to be holistic and unforced. Neither ABX or ABC/hr as practiced meets this criteria....neither is a preferene test and both in their own way require a structured response and a definite identification or choice. And as practiced, both use short snippets. So conclusions drawn from them, no matter how many times they are used, must be viewed with suspicion. As I pointed out yesterday.....THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN VALIDATED as to intrusiveness and its effect on validity in catching musical nuance. As for testing whether one source is more 'fatiguing' over the long term than another, it would be a matter of first identifying, sighted, at what point the fatiguing source becomes 'fatiguing', then doing a set of double blind A/B listening tests each of which lasts for at least that amount of time. Short of physiologically measuring fatigue, there would be no other way to scientifically test this. Meanwhile, you have not addressed the fact that sighted listening, while easy, is simply not by itself reliable enough to assume dependable accurate evaluation and identification of sonic differences, especially small or nonexistent ones. If sighted bias didn't exist, there would be NO REASON FOR BLIND CONTROLS TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE and scientific research itself would be vastly simplified. That doesn't make it essential or practical for an audiophile to enjoy his hobby and make choices. |
#132
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
wrote in message
... On Nov 19, 7:52�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message snip We have people who say that a given recording, not even its master tape or digital master sound right to them until it is re-recorded on vinyl. Where do we have these people? Certainly we don't have them participating in this thread. Therefore we have proof by analysis of the process that is required for them to perceive maximum realism from the recording. What is the relevance of the beliefs of these unnamed unknown people who are not here to express these alleged extreme view points? They do have a name.....they are called "strawmen". And their relevance is that they support whatever point the poster wishes to make. :-) |
#133
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
Here's the crux of the matter. It doesn't MATTER how long one has listened or thinks they can identify the differences in sighted listening, if in fact the TEST INTERVENES with extraneous variables....such as shifting from listening to differentiating, from relaxed consciousness to attentive self-consciousness, from a time-frame accepting of fleeting moments of insight, to one of forced choice and the need to switch back and forth to make that choice, and where "don't know at this time" is not an option. These false claims have been refuted oh, so many times. Keep in mind we are not just hearing differences, we are trying to identify if there are differences and "matching up" three variables, at least in the ABX test. There are only two actual different variables, or if you will two different states, in an ABX test. The state of X is different from A and B, only as an illusion. Veridical perceptions conclude that X is either A or B. The only blind test that can come close to this is simply a preference test with three choices: think I prefer A, think I prefer B, or Can't Decide or Don't Prefer One over the Other at this Time. Again Harry you are totally confused. ABX testing is not of itself a preference test. And this has to be holistic and unforced. Neither ABX or ABC/hr as practiced meets this criteria....neither is a preference test and both in their own way require a structured response and a definite identification or choice. And as practiced, both use short snippets. More false claims that have been refuted many times. Interestingly enough because of a comment that Harry made some weeks back, I obtained and started reading three books that I named at the time. They are about the perception of music. I believe that the one that Harry named was actually about pathological perceptions. I started reading Jourdain's book the most intensively, which is about normal perceptions with a fair amount of discussion about common pathologies. One of the interesting things that Jourdain mentions is that the normal time window through which we sense music is about 2 seconds, maybe 10 seconds at the very most. Anything that is outside of this window may be perceived, but it is really outside the realm of current sensation. Our ability to perceive details falls off rapidly outside the window. This exactly agrees with the observation we make with ABX where displacing sounds outside of a similar time window makes them very indistinct and difficult or impossible to compare to each other. I think that Harry's biggest mistake is ignoring the fact that equipment does not know about music, and audible equipment faults don't necessarily change music as it is perceived over a long term listening experience. By the time music has been listened to for long periods of time, it exists in our brain only in a highly distilled form that removes humongous amounts of detail. Small details like barely audible timbre shifts are long gone. So conclusions drawn from them, no matter how many times they are used, must be viewed with suspicion. As I pointed out yesterday.....THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN VALIDATED as to intrusiveness and its effect on validity in catching musical nuance. Again Harry confuses the perception of music with the perception of audible faults in equipment. As for testing whether one source is more 'fatiguing' over the long term than another, it would be a matter of first identifying, sighted, at what point the fatiguing source becomes 'fatiguing', then doing a set of double blind A/B listening tests each of which lasts for at least that amount of time. Short of physiologically measuring fatigue, there would be no other way to scientifically test this. Meanwhile, you have not addressed the fact that sighted listening, while easy, is simply not by itself reliable enough to assume dependable accurate evaluation and identification of sonic differences, especially small or nonexistent ones. If sighted bias didn't exist, there would be NO REASON FOR BLIND CONTROLS TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE and scientific research itself would be vastly simplified. That doesn't make it essential or practical for an audiophile to enjoy his hobby and make choices. Resolved, let's choose audio gear by the least reliable and representative means possible. Let's bias every evaluation so that the only seemingly logical outcome is to spend more time and money on audio gear, and by logical extension, less time just listening. ;-) |
#134
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
|
#135
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 19, 12:28*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Drop off an ABX comparator, set up the levels, etc, train the person how to do the test, and provide tech and emotional support as they request it. How would you protect it from curiosity? Meaning what? Bottom line, you have to trust people to not be fraudulent. I can cheat on virtually any test, given a little time and preparation. Put another way, unless the test is based on the permanent location & actual set-up of the equipment it is invalid on its face. It's a given that anybody who wants to be hypercritical can do so. Anybody who wants something to be invalid will find it that way. If reasonable good faith is demonstrated, the results are going to be at the very worst, interesting and educational for the participant. Amazing. You are in someone's residence. Complicated equipment and some means by which the equipment under test cannot be distinguished as to which-is-which, yet leaving the testee with full freedom to adjust volume, tone, balance and so forth. And then not have the testee intimidated by the set-up such that they are listening as they normally would. This ain't nohow hypercritical. This is just recognizing a pretty simple reality - that a test of that nature will be incredibly hard to set up in a way satisfactory to all parties, most especially its victim. And also that the actual chances of such tests actually taking place are vanishingly small due to that difficulty. So, that something is possible does not make it practical in the real world. Are any of its advocates here able to cite the last-most-recent such tests that they have observed or is this all purely theoretical? And, what part of 'curiosity' do you not understand? If I am told that some sort of "comparator" unit - necessarily a layer of something between me and the equipment in question - has the means to defeat my natural curiosity and/or prejudice, I am going to do my level-best to determine how it does that - and hopefully defeat it. Not through fraud or breaking the rules - necessarily. I am NOT a passive listener when I am listening for content rather than background. So, testing the test would certainly be part of the challenge. Again, Long-term DBT advocates seem to miss the point - or be super- glued to their point such that they do not recognize the inherent problems at hand. DBT works great as a screen to separate wheat from chaff. Much as a tube-tester works great for determining whether at tube is "good" or "bad" within certain parameters. If, in a short-term DBT test in whatever venue - as long as the conditions are identical for all items-under-test - a listener cannot discern differences between A or B or A or C or B or C, then it is likely that they may choose A or B or C for a long-term, at-home test with equal chance for long-term approval. If they can (consistently) discern between A or B or C, then they must make a much harder choice based on what they take home as noted above. Cumulative annoyances and petty difficulties just might not manifest sufficiently to color a (relatively) short-term test in an artificial venue. OR, or, or, sufficiently broad differences may drive someone towards the evil of several lessers. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#136
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 20, 6:52*am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Peter Wieck wrote: On Nov 19, 5:39?am, Steven Sullivan wrote: No, it isn't. And as this has been explained dozens, if not hundreds, if times here, I'm going to suggest you do some more research on DBT before making such claims. Now, the problem with non-blind test is that it is necessarily subject to bias. How would you design a long-term DBT test in the testee's residence? How would you protect it from curiosity? Put another way, unless the test is based on the permanent location & actual set-up of the equipment it is invalid on its face. These are issues of practicality and dedication to research, not impossibility. *That something is difficult to do correctly, doesn't make it *impossible*. Someone truly dedicated to researching the matter could, for example, use an ABX apparatus, or they could recruit a helper to do a more traditional DBT. There actually have been DBTs done where the subject was allowed to, and encouraged to, listen to the two sources for weeks before the actual blind part of the test -- * for the purpose of building confidence that they could tell them apart. *Thus they go into the DBT believing firmly that they can audibly distinguish the two. (Of course, that doesn't mean they really can -- that's what a blind test tests) Here's the crux of the matter. *It doesn't MATTER how long one has listened or thinks they can identify the differences in sighted listening, if in fact the TEST INTERVENES with extraneous variables....such as shifting from listening to differentiating, from relaxed consciousness to attentive self-consciouness, from a time-frame aceepting of fleeting moments of insight, to one of forced choice and the need to switch back and forth to make that choice, and where "don't know at this time" is not an option. Keep in mind we are not just hearing differences, we are trying to identify if there are differences and "matching up" three variables, at least in the ABX test. The only blind test that can come close to this is simply a preference test with three choices: *think I prefer A, think I prefer B, or Can't Decide or Don't Prefer One over the Other at this Time. * And this has to be holistic and unforced. *Neither ABX or ABC/hr as practiced meets this criteria....neither is a preferene test and both in their own way require a structured response and a definite identification or choice. *And as practiced, both use short snippets. *So conclusions drawn from them, no matter how many times they are used, must be viewed with suspicion. *As I pointed out yesterday.....THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN VALIDATED as to intrusiveness and its effect on validity in catching musical nuance. As for testing whether one source is more 'fatiguing' over the long term than another, it would be a matter of first identifying, sighted, at what point the fatiguing source becomes 'fatiguing', then doing a set of double blind A/B listening tests each of which lasts for at least that amount of time. Short of physiologically measuring fatigue, there would be no other way to scientifically test this. Meanwhile, you have not addressed the fact that sighted listening, while easy, is simply not by itself reliable enough to assume dependable accurate evaluation and identification of sonic differences, especially small or nonexistent ones. If sighted bias didn't exist, there would be NO REASON FOR BLIND CONTROLS TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE and scientific research itself would be vastly simplified. That doesn't make it essential or practical for an audiophile to enjoy his hobby and make choices. Harry, you repeat again and again that DBT should be validated before we can use it. Is this the standard that we should apply to any test procedure? In this case, haw do you suggest to validate your "holistic" test procedure? Inquiring minds want to know. vova |
#137
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
wrote in message
On Nov 19, 8:46�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message On Nov 19, 4:29 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message On Nov 18, 8:43?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message On Nov 17, 8:20 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Sonnova" wrote in message When I say GOOD, it is in the context of high-end audio, IOW it has superior sound quality in that it sounds more like real, live music, played in a real space and has a you-are-there palpability that the average recording (even digital) lacks. Superior sound quality is impossible when a great deal of audible noise and distortion can be heard. In fact there is a widespread belief that freedom from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for superior sound. IOW it is necessary, but not sufficient. That is quite an interesting claim. Do you feel that you are actually getting distortion free sound from your playback system? Non-responsive. Responsive to what? I see no question asked there. I said "a great deal of audible noise and distortion can be heard" You say " distortion free sound from your playback system?" Can't you see the difference?- This is what you said. "there is a widespread belief that freedom from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for superior sound." That's not the same as distortion-free sound from a playback system. Can you see why? Nope. Feel free to explain the difference between "freedom from audible distortion" and... "audible distortion free." �I'm just not seeing the difference. To repeat: I said "a great deal of audible noise and distortion �can be heard" You say " distortion free sound from your playback �system?" Now, without interjecting anything else, explain why the two are the same. Sorry but you don't have that level of control over the converstaion. Sure I do. I don't have to justify things I never said in the given context. However, the audible distortions of the LP playback system are audible through speakers, often just about any speakers, even the 3" speakers on an AC-DC player. I think you are grossly mischaracterizing the nature of the audible distortion that can be found in state of the art vinyl playback. I see no reliable evidence that SOTA playback has lower or less audible distortion than sub-SOTA LP playback. The weak link in both cases is the process, which is inherently flawed. Furthermore, I can see how vinylphiles may prefer playback equipment that has more, not less of the distortions that they seem to prefer to have added to the music they listen to. I am quite confident that in many many cases no one would be able to identify a source as vinyl just by listening. That's an unsupported assertion until to prove it. It's also a vague assertion as worded. I am also quite confident that with the right rig, for example my rig, under blind conditions listeners would,in many instances, actually perceive my rig playing back vinyl as the more life like playback and the master tape as less life like playback. That would support my theory that some vinylphiles confuse music with added audible noise and distortion with more accurate reproduction. It's a moot point, because there are no extant examples of *anybody* confusing a vinyl reproduction of any representative piece of music with the same music from a source that is closer to the original, in something like an ABX test. It has been tried. That is what is called a euphonic distortion. The formal definition of euphonic, is "agreeable" and it is not "superior or more accurate". I can imagine that some people have conditioned themselves to find the inherent noise and distortion that is inherent in the LP format to be agreeable. For example my mother preferred her 5-tube AC/DC radio built in 1946 with worn-out tubes, a humming power supply, and a buzzing speaker to any audio system I ever had, "because it didn't sound so clear". People's preferences are their privilege as long as they don't confuse their peculiar preferences with something that represents what most music lovers find preferable, or believe that it is due to some inaccuracy in some other form of that recording in a medium that is in all known relevant ways, technically more accurate. A kind of audible distortion that could not be easily or readily identified as a distortion without a reference for direct comparison, a distortion that causes the listener to perceive an improvement in the sound. Right, its a matter of how people chose to habituate themselves. For example, if I camp outdoors in the fall for a few days, I acclimatize myself to ambient temperatures that are far lower than the ones in my house. When I first return home, I find the house to be too warm. In this case the acclimatization passes away pretty quickly. Of course unlike some vinylphiles, I have no investment in keeping my house that cold, so I have no emotional stake in the Fall weather temperatures. In contrast, the distortions in a representative CD system are not audible, even on the very best speakers. Big different. Not everyone agrees with that assertion That's not an assertion, but a often demonstrated fact. In fact it can be demonstrated to vinylphiles, who will often continue to prefer vinyl even after they hear that the CD format is actually far more accurate to the original recording. Some people just love those tics, pops, noise, and distortion. On occasion I find that sound to strike a sentimental chord, but it passes pretty quickly when I realize that I'm listening to the medium, not the message. I love music, and I've heard too much of it unstained by any artifacts of reproduction (e.g. live music) to be distracted by curious noises and distortions for long. After all you seem to be saying it is a prerequisite for superior sound. I'm saying that playback of the media that is free of audible distortion and noise is a prerequisite for superior sound. In addition, the speakers and room have to be relatively free of audible noise and distortion, as well. But speakers, rooms and microphones never are free of audible noise and distortion. However, they generally have less distortion than is inherent in the LP format. Once again you try to move the goal posts to fit your position. Nope, the goal posts don't move that fast and I have no control over them, anyhow. The fact is all rooms, speakers and mics are audibly distorted. The largest of those distortions are due to the room, and they are basically as the ones in which we listen to live music in. There is no natural circumstance that has noise and distortion on the monumental scale and with all of the exact types of noise and distortion that are endemic in reproduction of music via Vinyl. Listening to music that has been contaminated by vinyl's inherent noise and distortion is a relatively unique experience. Not even computer programs that do a fair job of simulating it seem to be able to satisfy vinylphiles. It seems to be a holistic experience for them. Let them enjoy it, debating personal preferences is silly. The debate comes when poorly-informed people confuse urban legend with scientific fact, and think that enjoying vinyl is *anything* but the sort of odd personal preference of a tiny, shrinking, minority. You asserted that "In fact there is a widespread belief that freedom from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for superior sound." That is a truism, and even embedded in the phrase "High Fidelity". Do you think that we prize "High Fidelity" because it is actually the lowest accuracy that we can stand to listen to? in an obvious attempt to make a semantically argument against vinyl playback. It is only a coincidence that vinyl has so much noise and distortion. The definitions of words has nothing to do with it. In fact about 100 years were spent trying to remove as much noise and distortion from the playback of mechanical recording techniques such as vinyl. Perhaps 50 years were spent trying to remove as much noise and distortion from the playback of magnetic recording techniques such as analog tape. At some point scientists realized that mechanical-based and magnetic-based reproduction was about as good as it practically was going to get. Aided by the fact that digital was getting cheap and plentiful, almost everybody moved on. If you will, the problems with mechanical and magnetic recording were coincidences. They were natural events playing out in ways that nobody ever planned. A great deal of effort was put into polishing those pieces of soil, and the shine never held. |
#138
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
"vlad" wrote in message
... On Nov 20, 6:52 am, "Harry Lavo" wrote: .snip Harry, you repeat again and again that DBT should be validated before we can use it. Is this the standard that we should apply to any test procedure? In this case, haw do you suggest to validate your "holistic" test procedure? Inquiring minds want to know. Inquiring minds can start by reading one of my posts from yesterday or day before, where I laid out in general terms the procedure. If you want more detail than that go back a few years looking for "validation test" and read some of the exchanges between others and myself. I dealt much more in test specifics in those posts, and I am not wont to repeat them. |
#139
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 20, 8:23�am, wrote:
wrote: On Nov 19, 7:52 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: snip We have people who say that a given recording, not even its master tape or digital master sound right to them until it is re-recorded on vinyl. Where do we have these people? Certainly we don't have them participating in this thread. Uhmmm....how about you yourself? �In your very next post, you stated: "...I am also quite confident that with the right rig, for example my rig, under blind conditions listeners would,in many instances, actually percieve my rig playing back vinyl as the more life like playback and the master tape as less life like playback." Now, unless you're will to stipulate that "sound right" is qualitatively different than "more lifelike", then you are one of "these people". �If they are qualitatively different in your lexicon, then how do recordings that sound "more lifelike" to you sound "less right"? Several points. "Sounds right" is a term that implies a false dichotomy. We are talking about aesthetic experiences not mathematical equations. The term "sounds right" inherently implies that any other sound sounds wrong. False dichotomy. Sound quality is a matter of degree. More lifelike sound from playback does not mean actual lifelike sound or "right sound" as though all other sounds are wrong. The fact that my rig adds euphonic colorations that make many recordingss sound more life like does not mean that I am incapable of enjoying excellent sound from CDs. Please also not that I said "in many instances." And also note that I made the assertion that it isn't just me. If we could set up some propper listening tests I would bet that most listeners would have the same impression as I have about the vinyl sounding more life like than the master tape in many instances. You go on, in that post, to say: "That is what is called a euphonic distortion. A kind of audible distortion that could not be easily or readily identified as a distortion without a reference for direct comparison, a distortion that causes the listener to percieve an improvement in the sound." Interesting. �After your having spent a great deal of time and bandwidth lately arguing against the "inherent" distortions of vinyl, you now openly admit that vinyl has a euphonic distortion that often results in your preference for it. I suggest you go back and read what I actually wrote. Here I will make it easy and quote myself from the first post of the thread about inherent euphonic colorations. "Inherent colorations: Yep, they do exist." "Euphonic colorations: Yep, they do exist as well. I should know, I paid about 15K for them in my TT rig." Does that look to you like I am arguing against the existance of "inherent colorations" in vinyl playback? Does it look like I am just now admitting that my rig (not vinyl in general but *my rig*) enjoys euphonic colorations? Do you think that if a euphonic coloration is, as I describe it, a coloration "that could not be easily or readily identified as a distortion without a reference for direct comparison, a distortion that causes the listener to percieve an improvement in the sound" that it is a bad thing? �So, either the distortion is inherent in the medium itself, There are clearly some inherent audible distortions in the medium. Not sure if any of them are euphonic. Maybe maybe not. That has been my position throughout these threads. or you're using your "rig" as a distortion generator. I firmly believe my rig does have a unique sonic signature that is euphonically colored and I bought it for that sound. �In either case, you have explicitly agreed that "vinyl playback", as a front end *system*, is not accurate relative to the master recording. Yes I have. If a master tape can be improved upon, it ought to be improved upon. Whatever sounds better is better. End of story. |
#140
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message I did a brief blind test a few years ago and then some extended sighted listening, which I've already mentioned at some point, of 256 MP3 downloaded via Real Audio and played back via my high-end system. It put me firmly in Sonnova's "ear-bleeding" camp. I haven't been tempted since. How about making your OWN MP3s, where you can control which codec is used, and control what is encoded, rather than judging the format on a download that you did a 'brief blind test' of a few years ago. How many years ago? what score? what codec? what sample? -- all of these things can have an audible impact on how transparent an MP3 is to source. Because I see no advantage in it. Yet you feel free to pronounce on the capabalities of MP3. I'm not suggesting you convert your collection to MP3. I'm suggesting that if you want to make claims about the 'format', then you can't rely just on the sample you had. This would be like me making sweeping claims about cassette tapes or LPs based on one I bought at a flea market. I will repeat: the fact is, that it is easy for someone to *make* MP3s today that are likely to be indistinguishable to them in a blind test. (It would also be easy to make MP3s that aren't.) What interests me is what the general public is willing to buy, because that is what will be available. Just as with CD's. I don't enjoy CD's as much as LP's, SACD, and DVD-A for the most part. And I don't enjoy what I've heard of compressed audio much at all. One makes choices as to where one puts one's intererst and energy. What's interesting psychologically is how much, or little , 'enjoyment' has to do with preconceptions about formats, rather than actual sound. Streaming internet is generally *not* a demonstration of high MP3 quality. .. No, but it is one of the more practical uses of it, and as a sound source it sucks. Again, this is a sweeping statement. Streaming media sound can be made as good, or as bad, as the streamer is willing to make it (and pay for it). -- -S I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy |
#141
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message Its pretty much the same with me. I can listen to satellite radio in the car or as background at home, Interesting. I can't tolerate Sirrius/XM at all. It can vary with channels, but it's often massively lossy compressed, though the details of the codecs and settings are kept 'secret'. Doubtless it's compressed in dynamic range too, as is typical for radio broadcast. And of course the more channels, the less bandwidth is avaialble (XM or Sirius license gives them a specified amount), so the amount of lossy compression has to go up on some channels if other channels are to be kept at the original quality. Though not as bad as streaming radio or iTunes downloads, the lossy compression used by XM/Sirius is still audible. iTunes downloads must be really bad, because XM/Sirius is just horrible. I prefer good analog AM radio to it. Again, while the audio quality can vary from channel to channel within a service (I would HOPE that classical channels on Sirius/XM were given more bandwidth than others) satellite radio audio is typically of *worse* quality with more audible artifacting than a decent AAC encode from iTunes. Whihc makes Sonnova's experience all the more peculiar. Bottom line is that a good MP3 can easily be mistaken for CD, while that would be rare for satellite radio audio. -- -S I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy |
#142
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
On Nov 19, 12:28 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Drop off an ABX comparator, set up the levels, etc, train the person how to do the test, and provide tech and emotional support as they request it. How would you protect it from curiosity? Meaning what? Bottom line, you have to trust people to not be fraudulent. I can cheat on virtually any test, given a little time and preparation. Put another way, unless the test is based on the permanent location & actual set-up of the equipment it is invalid on its face. It's a given that anybody who wants to be hypercritical can do so. Anybody who wants something to be invalid will find it that way. If reasonable good faith is demonstrated, the results are going to be at the very worst, interesting and educational for the participant. Amazing. You are in someone's residence. Complicated equipment and some means by which the equipment under test cannot be distinguished as to which-is-which, yet leaving the testee with full freedom to adjust volume, tone, balance and so forth. Actually, that's allowable if it affects both alternatives equally. And then not have the testee intimidated by the set-up such that they are listening as they normally would. In some cases the test has been packaged up into a sealed box with two signal cables coming in, two signal cables going out, and a control line. The box is the secure area, and it can be plugged into the system or bypassed without affecting it. This ain't nohow hypercritical. Oh no? The tone and use of words like "victim" tell a different story. This is just recognizing a pretty simple reality - that a test of that nature will be incredibly hard to set up in a way satisfactory to all parties, most especially its victim. Simply not true, because people are inherently curious, and comparing many components just isn't that hard. And also that the actual chances of such tests actually taking place are vanishingly small due to that difficulty. It is true that millions of listening expereinces happen every day, but the number of lisetning tests is fairly small. But that's true for testing in general, other than testing for production and maintenance. However that all makes sense, as you don't have to test things nearly as much as you just use them. So, that something is possible does not make it practical in the real world. Are any of its advocates here able to cite the last-most-recent such tests that they have observed or is this all purely theoretical? When the PCABX web site was running, the rate of downloads suggested that several 100 new tests were being started up every week. And, what part of 'curiosity' do you not understand? That's the point. If someone cheats on a test that they are doing to satisfy their own curiosity, then they are wasting their own time. If I am told that some sort of "comparator" unit - necessarily a layer of something between me and the equipment in question - has the means to defeat my natural curiosity and/or prejudice, I am going to do my level-best to determine how it does that - and hopefully defeat it. Defeating it is trivial - waste your time and effort as you will. However, its all pretty simple and pretty easy to explain. Your curiousity about the process and the gear gets satisifed pretty quickly. through fraud or breaking the rules - necessarily. I am NOT a passive listener when I am listening for content rather than background. So, testing the test would certainly be part of the challenge. No its not. Breaking the test is self-defeating if you are at all curiouis about the results. Again, Long-term DBT advocates seem to miss the point - or be super- glued to their point such that they do not recognize the inherent problems at hand. Oh, its the logical whipsaw - now that we've debunked the "no long term DBT" fable, suddenly they are bad, well because... DBT works great as a screen to separate wheat from chaff. Much as a tube-tester works great for determining whether at tube is "good" or "bad" within certain parameters. If, in a short-term DBT test in whatever venue - as long as the conditions are identical for all items-under-test That is easy to maintain, and its one of the benefits of allowing people to switch alternatives at will. a listener cannot discern differences between A or B or A or C or B or C, then it is likely that they may choose A or B or C for a long-term, at-home test with equal chance for long-term approval. If they can (consistently) discern between A or B or C, then they must make a much harder choice based on what they take home as noted above. That's outside the test. The test is pretty simple - is X going to be A or B? Cumulative annoyances and petty difficulties just might not manifest sufficiently to color a (relatively) short-term test in an artificial venue. OR, or, or, sufficiently broad differences may drive someone towards the evil of several lessers. It isn't that hard or strange, once you actually are doing it. It's probably harder to think about than actually do. |
#143
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 19, 12:28?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Drop off an ABX comparator, set up the levels, etc, train the person how to do the test, and provide tech and emotional support as they request it. How would you protect it from curiosity? Meaning what? Bottom line, you have to trust people to not be fraudulent. I can cheat on virtually any test, given a little time and preparation. Put another way, unless the test is based on the permanent location & actual set-up of the equipment it is invalid on its face. It's a given that anybody who wants to be hypercritical can do so. Anybody who wants something to be invalid will find it that way. If reasonable good faith is demonstrated, the results are going to be at the very worst, interesting and educational for the participant. Amazing. You are in someone's residence. Complicated equipment and some means by which the equipment under test cannot be distinguished as to which-is-which, yet leaving the testee with full freedom to adjust volume, tone, balance and so forth. And then not have the testee intimidated by the set-up such that they are listening as they normally would. The 'equipment' need be no more complicated than an ABX box, actually, for some comparisons. This ain't nohow hypercritical. This is just recognizing a pretty simple reality - that a test of that nature will be incredibly hard to set up in a way satisfactory to all parties, most especially its victim. Ah, well, that's a different thing from 'impossible' -- especially that stipulation about satisfying *everyone*, since even scientists don't feel the need to address *unreasonable* criticisms. And also that the actual chances of such tests actually taking place are vanishingly small due to that difficulty. So, that something is possible does not make it practical in the real world. Are any of its advocates here able to cite the last-most-recent such tests that they have observed or is this all purely theoretical? Before I point you to one, can you explain what the objection is to having a period where the listener WAS free to compare both DUTs at length, under no restraints, sighted, followed by a blind test? And, what part of 'curiosity' do you not understand? If I am told that some sort of "comparator" unit - necessarily a layer of something between me and the equipment in question - has the means to defeat my natural curiosity and/or prejudice, I am going to do my level-best to determine how it does that - and hopefully defeat it. Not through fraud or breaking the rules - necessarily. I am NOT a passive listener when I am listening for content rather than background. So, testing the test would certainly be part of the challenge. So, you're totally unfamiliar with teh ABX technology that DOES exist, I take it? Again, Long-term DBT advocates seem to miss the point - or be super- glued to their point such that they do not recognize the inherent problems at hand. DBT works great as a screen to separate wheat from chaff. Much as a tube-tester works great for determining whether at tube is "good" or "bad" within certain parameters. If, in a short-term DBT test in whatever venue - as long as the conditions are identical for all items-under-test - a listener cannot discern differences between A or B or A or C or B or C, then it is likely that they may choose A or B or C for a long-term, at-home test with equal chance for long-term approval. ? This is pretty much what DBT advocates (there is no subspecies of long term DBT advocates' AFAIK) If they can (consistently) discern between A or B or C, then they must make a much harder choice based on what they take home as noted above. The crucial point is that other from DBT, there IS no comparative listening method that adequately controls for the biases that are inherent in sighted listening... even long term listening. So if DBT is 'only' good for short term wheat/chaff (which isn't true, but let's allow it) what is 'sighted' listening good for? -- -S I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy |
#144
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:00:01 -0800, Steven Sullivan wrote
(in article ): Arny Krueger wrote: "Sonnova" wrote in message Its pretty much the same with me. I can listen to satellite radio in the car or as background at home, Interesting. I can't tolerate Sirrius/XM at all. It can vary with channels, but it's often massively lossy compressed, though the details of the codecs and settings are kept 'secret'. Doubtless it's compressed in dynamic range too, as is typical for radio broadcast. And of course the more channels, the less bandwidth is avaialble (XM or Sirius license gives them a specified amount), so the amount of lossy compression has to go up on some channels if other channels are to be kept at the original quality. Basically, all I listen to is the classical channels and "they" say that these are given more bandwidth than the pop and talk channels. Anyway, as long as I don't try to listen critically at home or as long as I'm listening to XM/Sirius in the car, I don't notice any artifacts on the classical channels. At home, if I turn the music up and listen attentively I can hear compression artifacts sometimes, but since I only use XM/Sirius as background music at home, its not a problem. Though not as bad as streaming radio or iTunes downloads, the lossy compression used by XM/Sirius is still audible. iTunes downloads must be really bad, because XM/Sirius is just horrible. I prefer good analog AM radio to it. Again, while the audio quality can vary from channel to channel within a service (I would HOPE that classical channels on Sirius/XM were given more bandwidth than others) satellite radio audio is typically of *worse* quality with more audible artifacting than a decent AAC encode from iTunes. Whihc makes Sonnova's experience all the more peculiar. Bottom line is that a good MP3 can easily be mistaken for CD, while that would be rare for satellite radio audio. |
#145
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 20, 2:57*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"vlad" wrote in message ... On Nov 20, 6:52 am, "Harry Lavo" wrote: .snip Harry, you repeat again and again that DBT should be validated before we can use it. Is this the standard that we should apply to any test procedure? In this case, haw do you suggest to validate your "holistic" test procedure? Inquiring minds want to know. Inquiring minds can start by reading one of my posts from yesterday or day before, where I laid out in general terms the procedure. *If you want more detail than that go back a few years looking for "validation test" and read some of the exchanges between others and myself. *I dealt much more in test specifics in those posts, and I am not wont to repeat them. Harry, I have read most (if not all of your posts) and do not remember any kind of 'validation' procedure for your proposed 'holistic' test. So will you be so kind to re post it here? I must confess that I am not keeping my breath for this :-) vova |
#146
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message I did a brief blind test a few years ago and then some extended sighted listening, which I've already mentioned at some point, of 256 MP3 downloaded via Real Audio and played back via my high-end system. It put me firmly in Sonnova's "ear-bleeding" camp. I haven't been tempted since. How about making your OWN MP3s, where you can control which codec is used, and control what is encoded, rather than judging the format on a download that you did a 'brief blind test' of a few years ago. How many years ago? what score? what codec? what sample? -- all of these things can have an audible impact on how transparent an MP3 is to source. Because I see no advantage in it. Yet you feel free to pronounce on the capabalities of MP3. I'm not suggesting you convert your collection to MP3. I'm suggesting that if you want to make claims about the 'format', then you can't rely just on the sample you had. This would be like me making sweeping claims about cassette tapes or LPs based on one I bought at a flea market. Could you point out to me where in the above few paragraphs I made any sweeping statements about anything. I described a test I did and my reaction to it, in response to your suggestion that I had perhaps never done a test of MP3s. No sweeping statements! I will repeat: the fact is, that it is easy for someone to *make* MP3s today that are likely to be indistinguishable to them in a blind test. (It would also be easy to make MP3s that aren't.) What interests me is what the general public is willing to buy, because that is what will be available. Just as with CD's. I don't enjoy CD's as much as LP's, SACD, and DVD-A for the most part. And I don't enjoy what I've heard of compressed audio much at all. One makes choices as to where one puts one's intererst and energy. What's interesting psychologically is how much, or little , 'enjoyment' has to do with preconceptions about formats, rather than actual sound. Streaming internet is generally *not* a demonstration of high MP3 quality. .. No, but it is one of the more practical uses of it, and as a sound source it sucks. Again, this is a sweeping statement. Streaming media sound can be made as good, or as bad, as the streamer is willing to make it (and pay for it). Yes, this is a sweeping statement, and I stand behind it so far as internet radio is concerned -- which is WHAT I MADE MY STATEMENT ABOUT -- not streaming media as a technology done in the home between a music server and an audio system. Do you ever really READ what I write? I don't listen long, but over the years I have listened often off and on many times to internet radio. I have listened to low-bandwidth stations and to high-bandwidth stations and to music of all types, and it doesn't even measure up to am radio through a decent system. It is purely a low-fi convenience medium, IMO. |
#147
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message I did a brief blind test a few years ago and then some extended sighted listening, which I've already mentioned at some point, of 256 MP3 downloaded via Real Audio and played back via my high-end system. It put me firmly in Sonnova's "ear-bleeding" camp. I haven't been tempted since. How about making your OWN MP3s, where you can control which codec is used, and control what is encoded, rather than judging the format on a download that you did a 'brief blind test' of a few years ago. How many years ago? what score? what codec? what sample? -- all of these things can have an audible impact on how transparent an MP3 is to source. Because I see no advantage in it. Yet you feel free to pronounce on the capabalities of MP3. I'm not suggesting you convert your collection to MP3. I'm suggesting that if you want to make claims about the 'format', then you can't rely just on the sample you had. This would be like me making sweeping claims about cassette tapes or LPs based on one I bought at a flea market. Could you point out to me where in the above few paragraphs I made any sweeping statements about anything. I described a test I did and my reaction to it, in response to your suggestion that I had perhaps never done a test of MP3s. No sweeping statements! I will repeat: the fact is, that it is easy for someone to *make* MP3s today that are likely to be indistinguishable to them in a blind test. (It would also be easy to make MP3s that aren't.) What interests me is what the general public is willing to buy, because that is what will be available. Just as with CD's. I don't enjoy CD's as much as LP's, SACD, and DVD-A for the most part. And I don't enjoy what I've heard of compressed audio much at all. One makes choices as to where one puts one's intererst and energy. What's interesting psychologically is how much, or little , 'enjoyment' has to do with preconceptions about formats, rather than actual sound. Streaming internet is generally *not* a demonstration of high MP3 quality. .. No, but it is one of the more practical uses of it, and as a sound source it sucks. Again, this is a sweeping statement. Streaming media sound can be made as good, or as bad, as the streamer is willing to make it (and pay for it). Yes, this is a sweeping statement, and I stand behind it so far as internet radio is concerned -- which is WHAT I MADE MY STATEMENT ABOUT -- not streaming media as a technology done in the home between a music server and an audio system. Harry, I meant streaming media over the *Internet*. I wasn't moving the goalposts as some here so often do. Your statement still stands as too sweeping. It's possible to stream high-quality audio over the internet. It's a matter of bandwidth and cost. Do you ever really READ what I write? I don't listen long, but over the years I have listened often off and on many times to internet radio. I have listened to low-bandwidth stations and to high-bandwidth stations and to music of all types, and it doesn't even measure up to am radio through a decent system. It is purely a low-fi convenience medium, IMO. And what I'm saying again is, there, you're wrong. It is most certainly not *purely* a low-fi convenience medium, any more than MP3 itself is. -- -S I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy |
#148
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Again, while the audio quality can vary from channel to channel within a service (I would HOPE that classical channels on Sirius/XM were given more bandwidth than others) satellite radio audio is typically of *worse* quality with more audible artifacting than a decent AAC encode from iTunes. Whihc makes Sonnova's experience all the more peculiar. Bottom line is that a good MP3 can easily be mistaken for CD, while that would be rare for satellite radio audio. As I understand it Sirius/XM uses just 40 kbps 'AAC+' audio per channel. For anything resembling FMradio that would have to be more like 64 kbps. gr, hwh |
#149
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message I did a brief blind test a few years ago and then some extended sighted listening, which I've already mentioned at some point, of 256 MP3 downloaded via Real Audio and played back via my high-end system. It put me firmly in Sonnova's "ear-bleeding" camp. I haven't been tempted since. How about making your OWN MP3s, where you can control which codec is used, and control what is encoded, rather than judging the format on a download that you did a 'brief blind test' of a few years ago. How many years ago? what score? what codec? what sample? -- all of these things can have an audible impact on how transparent an MP3 is to source. Because I see no advantage in it. Yet you feel free to pronounce on the capabalities of MP3. I'm not suggesting you convert your collection to MP3. I'm suggesting that if you want to make claims about the 'format', then you can't rely just on the sample you had. This would be like me making sweeping claims about cassette tapes or LPs based on one I bought at a flea market. Could you point out to me where in the above few paragraphs I made any sweeping statements about anything. I described a test I did and my reaction to it, in response to your suggestion that I had perhaps never done a test of MP3s. No sweeping statements! I will repeat: the fact is, that it is easy for someone to *make* MP3s today that are likely to be indistinguishable to them in a blind test. (It would also be easy to make MP3s that aren't.) What interests me is what the general public is willing to buy, because that is what will be available. Just as with CD's. I don't enjoy CD's as much as LP's, SACD, and DVD-A for the most part. And I don't enjoy what I've heard of compressed audio much at all. One makes choices as to where one puts one's intererst and energy. What's interesting psychologically is how much, or little , 'enjoyment' has to do with preconceptions about formats, rather than actual sound. Streaming internet is generally *not* a demonstration of high MP3 quality. .. No, but it is one of the more practical uses of it, and as a sound source it sucks. Again, this is a sweeping statement. Streaming media sound can be made as good, or as bad, as the streamer is willing to make it (and pay for it). Yes, this is a sweeping statement, and I stand behind it so far as internet radio is concerned -- which is WHAT I MADE MY STATEMENT ABOUT -- not streaming media as a technology done in the home between a music server and an audio system. Harry, I meant streaming media over the *Internet*. I wasn't moving the goalposts as some here so often do. Your statement still stands as too sweeping. It's possible to stream high-quality audio over the internet. It's a matter of bandwidth and cost. Okay, let's put it into a practical framework. Can you name me a station that is playing classical music or jazz, that when fed over a true high-end home audio system qualifies as high-end sound? If not, then for all intents and purposes what you are arguing is simply a meaningless technical achievement, of not use to a practical audiophile. Do you ever really READ what I write? I don't listen long, but over the years I have listened often off and on many times to internet radio. I have listened to low-bandwidth stations and to high-bandwidth stations and to music of all types, and it doesn't even measure up to am radio through a decent system. It is purely a low-fi convenience medium, IMO. And what I'm saying again is, there, you're wrong. It is most certainly not *purely* a low-fi convenience medium, any more than MP3 itself is. Isn't it like saying if we reduced the compression ratio on mp3's enough, we eventually would have High-End Sound....but if we do so it will no longer have much size advantage over lossless? Is it really relevant in any practical sense? |
#150
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 21, 12:42*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message I did a brief blind test a few years ago and then some extended sighted listening, which I've already mentioned at some point, of 256 MP3 downloaded via Real Audio and played back via my high-end system. *It put me firmly in Sonnova's "ear-bleeding" camp. *I haven't been tempted since. How about making your OWN MP3s, where you can control which codec is used, and control what is encoded, rather than judging the format on a download that you did a 'brief blind test' of a few years ago. *How many years ago? what score? what codec? what sample? -- all of these things can have an audible impact on how transparent an MP3 is to source. Because I see no advantage in it. Yet you feel free to pronounce on the capabalities of MP3. I'm not suggesting you convert your collection to MP3. *I'm suggesting that if you want to make claims about the 'format', then you can't rely just on the sample you had. *This would be like me making sweeping claims about cassette tapes or LPs based on one I bought at a flea market. Could you point out to me where in the above few paragraphs I made any sweeping statements about anything. *I described a test I did and my reaction to it, in response to your suggestion that I had perhaps never done a test of MP3s. *No sweeping statements! I will repeat: the fact is, that it is easy for someone to *make* MP3s today that are likely to be indistinguishable to them in a blind test. *(It would also be easy to make MP3s that aren't.) What interests me is what the general public is willing to buy, because that is what will be available. *Just as with CD's. *I don't enjoy CD's as much as LP's, SACD, and DVD-A for the most part. *And I don't enjoy what I've heard of compressed audio much at all. *One makes choices as to where one puts one's intererst and energy. What's interesting psychologically is how much, or little , 'enjoyment' has to do with preconceptions about formats, rather than actual sound. Streaming internet is generally *not* a demonstration of high MP3 quality. .. No, but it is one of the more practical uses of it, and as a sound source it sucks. Again, this is a sweeping statement. *Streaming media sound can be made as good, or as bad, as the streamer is willing to make it (and pay for it). Yes, this is a sweeping statement, and I stand behind it so far as internet radio is concerned -- which is WHAT I MADE MY STATEMENT ABOUT -- not streaming media as a technology done in the home between a music server and an audio system. Harry, I meant streaming media over the *Internet*. *I wasn't moving the goalposts as some here so often do. Your statement still stands as too sweeping. *It's possible to stream high-quality audio over the internet. *It's a matter of bandwidth and cost. * Do you ever really READ what I write? * I don't listen long, but over the years I have listened often off and on many times to internet radio. *I have listened to low-bandwidth stations and to high-bandwidth stations and to music of all types, and it doesn't even measure up to am radio through a decent system. *It is purely a low-fi convenience medium, IMO. And what I'm saying again is, there, you're wrong. *It is most certainly not *purely* a low-fi convenience medium, any more than MP3 itself is. * No, not purely. But as practiced it is mostly. Not every vehicle is a Ferrari, nor is every vehicle a Yugo. But internet streaming is far more often the latter rather than the former. Get real now. How many of you *here* use a streamed source for serious high-fidelity listenening? Sure, absolute statements are absolutely wrong most of the time. However, neither should one reason that the possible requires it to be the probable. Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
#151
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 20, 2:53�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message On Nov 19, 8:46 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message On Nov 19, 4:29 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message On Nov 18, 8:43?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message On Nov 17, 8:20 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Sonnova" wrote in message When I say GOOD, it is in the context of high-end audio, IOW it has superior sound quality in that it sounds more like real, live music, played in a real space and has a you-are-there palpability that the average recording (even digital) lacks. Superior sound quality is impossible when a great deal of audible noise and distortion can be heard. In fact there is a widespread belief that freedom from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for superior sound. IOW it is necessary, but not sufficient. That is quite an interesting claim. Do you feel that you are actually getting distortion free sound from your playback system? Non-responsive. Responsive to what? I see no question asked there. I said "a great deal of audible noise and distortion can be heard" You say " distortion free sound from your playback system?" Can't you see the difference?- This is what you said. "there is a widespread belief that freedom from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for superior sound." That's not the same as distortion-free sound from a playback system. Can you see why? Nope. Feel free to explain the difference between "freedom from audible distortion" and... "audible distortion free." I'm just not seeing the difference. To repeat: I said "a great deal of audible noise and distortion can be heard" You say " distortion free sound from your playback system?" Now, without interjecting anything else, explain why the two are the same. Sorry but you don't have that level of control over the converstaion. (You snipped the context of my post here so I am resoting the snipped material as I believe it is relevant to the converstaion.) The fact is you said "In fact there is a widespread belief that freedom from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for superior sound." It's right here on this thread. Scroll up and read your own words for yourself. My comments were based on *that* assertion. I have simply pointed out obvious problems with that assertion. There is no playback that enjoys "freedom from audible noise and distortion." So, based on your premise and logic, no one actually is enjoying "superior sound" at home and your argument does nothing more than make the term 'superior sound" useless when we talk about home audio. However, the audible distortions of the LP playback system are audible through speakers, often just about any speakers, even the 3" speakers on an AC-DC player. I think you are grossly mischaracterizing the nature of the audible distortion that can be found in state of the art vinyl playback. I see no reliable evidence that SOTA playback has lower or less audible distortion than sub-SOTA LP playback. This is yet another subtle twist on the logical fallacy of arguing from authority, You are not the arbitrator of truth. The reality of my assertion does not hinge on your ability or willingness to see or understand the support for my assertion. I am quite confident that in many many cases no one would be able to identify a source as vinyl just by listening. That's an unsupported assertion until to prove it. It's also a vague assertion as worded. Actually it is well supported by my own blind listening tests and there is nothing vague about the assertion. I am asserting that in many instances listeners have not been able to identify an LP as an LP by hearing inherent ninyl distortions. IOW the listeners could not say that they were listening to an LP or a CD because there were no obvious audible indicators. I am also quite confident that with the right rig, for example my rig, under blind conditions listeners would,in many instances, actually perceive my rig playing back vinyl as the more life like playback and the master tape as less life like playback. It's a moot point, because there are no extant examples of *anybody* confusing a vinyl reproduction of any representative piece of music with the same music from a source that is closer to the original, in something like an ABX test. �It has been tried. Actually there have been many such bias controlled tests. I have done many of them myself. That is what is called a euphonic distortion. The formal definition of euphonic, is "agreeable" and it is not "superior or more accurate". You are making another semantic argument. I stated in no uncertain terms the nature of the euphonic colorations I am specifically refering to. Euphonic colorations that sound more life like. It may be the case that many of us find more life like sound to be more agreeable but I did not say these euphonic colorations sound more agreeable. I said they sound more life like. I can imagine that some people have conditioned themselves to find the inherent noise and distortion that is inherent in the LP format to be agreeable. For example my mother preferred her 5-tube AC/DC radio built in 1946 with worn-out tubes, a humming power supply, and a buzzing speaker to any audio system I ever had, "because it didn't sound so clear". I will take you at your word that you can imagine it. But in many cases we are talking about the aural perceptions of people who are intimately familiar with the sound of live music. Those people are largely conditioned by that. That fact cannot be imagined away. A kind of audible distortion that could not be easily or readily identified as a distortion without a reference for direct comparison, a distortion that causes the listener to perceive an improvement in the sound. Right, its a matter of how people chose to habituate themselves. I am talking in large part about listeners who chose to habituate themselves in concert halls listening to live acoustic music After all you seem to be saying it is a prerequisite for superior sound. I'm saying that playback of the media that is free of audible distortion and noise is a prerequisite for superior sound. In addition, the speakers and room have to be relatively free of audible noise and distortion, as well. But speakers, rooms and microphones never are free of audible noise and distortion. However, they generally have less distortion than is inherent in the LP format. Once again you try to move the goal posts to fit your position. The fact is all rooms, speakers and mics are audibly distorted. The largest of those distortions are due to the room, and they are basically as the ones in which we listen to live music in. You are making a huge mistake here. One that should not ever be made by any experienced recordist or audiophile. You are confusing the ambient sound present with live acoustic music with the distortion created by room sound during playback. Anybody with any experience in recording or even listening to live music and dealing with playback should know that the rules of acoustics are completely different for live music and playback because their effects on each are completely different. Room sound during a live acoustic performance is an intregal and important part of the original sound. Room sound during playback is purely a distortion since it is sound that is added during playback and was not present during the original acoustic event. You asserted that "In fact there is a widespread belief that freedom from audible noise and distortion is prerequisite for superior sound." That is a truism, and even embedded in the phrase "High Fidelity". �Do you think that we prize "High Fidelity" because it is actually the lowest accuracy that we can stand to listen to? It is not a truism. It is an unattainable self-defeating standard suggested by you in an attempt to semantically argue against the excellence of vinyl playback. |
#152
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 21, 2:39*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message I did a brief blind test a few years ago and then some extended sighted listening, which I've already mentioned at some point, of 256 MP3 downloaded via Real Audio and played back via my high-end system. *It put me firmly in Sonnova's "ear-bleeding" camp. *I haven't been tempted since. How about making your OWN MP3s, where you can control which codec is used, and control what is encoded, rather than judging the format on a download that you did a 'brief blind test' of a few years ago. *How many years ago? what score? what codec? what sample? -- all of these things can have an audible impact on how transparent an MP3 is to source. Because I see no advantage in it. Yet you feel free to pronounce on the capabalities of MP3. I'm not suggesting you convert your collection to MP3. *I'm suggesting that if you want to make claims about the 'format', then you can't rely just on the sample you had. *This would be like me making sweeping claims about cassette tapes or LPs based on one I bought at a flea market. Could you point out to me where in the above few paragraphs I made any sweeping statements about anything. *I described a test I did and my reaction to it, in response to your suggestion that I had perhaps never done a test of MP3s. *No sweeping statements! I will repeat: the fact is, that it is easy for someone to *make* MP3s today that are likely to be indistinguishable to them in a blind test. *(It would also be easy to make MP3s that aren't.) What interests me is what the general public is willing to buy, because that is what will be available. *Just as with CD's. *I don't enjoy CD's as much as LP's, SACD, and DVD-A for the most part. *And I don't enjoy what I've heard of compressed audio much at all. *One makes choices as to where one puts one's intererst and energy. What's interesting psychologically is how much, or little , 'enjoyment' has to do with preconceptions about formats, rather than actual sound. Streaming internet is generally *not* a demonstration of high MP3 quality. .. No, but it is one of the more practical uses of it, and as a sound source it sucks. Again, this is a sweeping statement. *Streaming media sound can be made as good, or as bad, as the streamer is willing to make it (and pay for it). Yes, this is a sweeping statement, and I stand behind it so far as internet radio is concerned -- which is WHAT I MADE MY STATEMENT ABOUT -- not streaming media as a technology done in the home between a music server and an audio system. Harry, I meant streaming media over the *Internet*. *I wasn't moving the goalposts as some here so often do. Your statement still stands as too sweeping. *It's possible to stream high-quality audio over the internet. *It's a matter of bandwidth and cost. Okay, let's put it into a practical framework. *Can you name me a station that is playing classical music or jazz, that when fed over a true high-end home audio system qualifies as high-end sound? *If not, then for all intents and purposes what you are arguing is simply a meaningless technical achievement, of not use to a practical audiophile. Do you ever really READ what I write? * I don't listen long, but over the years I have listened often off and on many times to internet radio. *I have listened to low-bandwidth stations and to high-bandwidth stations and to music of all types, and it doesn't even measure up to am radio through a decent system. *It is purely a low-fi convenience medium, IMO. And what I'm saying again is, there, you're wrong. *It is most certainly not *purely* a low-fi convenience medium, any more than MP3 itself is. Isn't it like saying if we reduced the compression ratio on mp3's enough, we eventually would have High-End Sound....but if we do so it will no longer have much size advantage over lossless? *Is it really relevant in any practical sense? Harry, I am still waiting answer from your about validation of your monadic holistic test procedure. Is the absence of answer from you means that there is none? vova |
#153
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
wrote in message
On Nov 20, 2:53�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: I see no reliable evidence that SOTA playback has lower or less audible distortion than sub-SOTA LP playback. This is yet another subtle twist on the logical fallacy of arguing from authority, The logical fallacy here is that arguing from authority is a fallacy. Resolved that nobody can make a valid argument from authority. That means that every wheel has to be re-invented from scratch. You are not the arbitrator of truth. If there are no authorities, then every truth has to be invented from scratch. I am quite confident that in many many cases no one would be able to identify a source as vinyl just by listening. That's an unsupported assertion until to prove it. It's also a vague assertion as worded. Actually it is well supported by my own blind listening tests and there is nothing vague about the assertion. We've already invalidated your single-blind listening tests on the grounds that it is very easy for a single-blind listening test to be biased. Ever hear of Clever Hans the talking horse. That was a single-blind test. I am asserting that in many instances listeners have not been able to identify an LP as an LP by hearing inherent ninyl distortions. IOW the listeners could not say that they were listening to an LP or a CD because there were no obvious audible indicators. Proof by an assertion supported only by highly flawed experimental evidence is not reliable proof at all. Besides, you are using yourself as an authority, and you already claimed that proof by authority is invalid. |
#154
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
Isn't it like saying if we reduced the compression ratio on mp3's enough, we eventually would have High-End Sound....but if we do so it will no longer have much size advantage over lossless? 320 kbps still has a 2:1 advantage over lossless. |
#155
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:36:03 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Harry Lavo" wrote in message Isn't it like saying if we reduced the compression ratio on mp3's enough, we eventually would have High-End Sound....but if we do so it will no longer have much size advantage over lossless? 320 kbps still has a 2:1 advantage over lossless. Depends on your definition of "advantage". If you mean it has a 2:1 packing density advantage over lossless, I might agree, but if you mean quality-wise, then no. |
#156
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message Isn't it like saying if we reduced the compression ratio on mp3's enough, we eventually would have High-End Sound....but if we do so it will no longer have much size advantage over lossless? 320 kbps still has a 2:1 advantage over lossless. Except that many people do not agree 320kps is sufficient. Even you and/or Steven report that some people/some-of-the-time can hear a difference. So if you increase it 50% again, you are so close to lossless it doesn't matter. |
#157
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
On Nov 21, 8:56�pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message On Nov 20, 2:53 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: I see no reliable evidence that SOTA playback has lower or less audible distortion than sub-SOTA LP playback. This is yet another subtle twist on the logical fallacy of arguing from authority, The logical fallacy here is that arguing from authority is a fallacy. You might want to check this out. http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp "Argument from authority Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. It is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for which they cannot demonstrate expertise. But the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it." Resolved that nobody can make a valid argument from authority. That means that every wheel has to be re-invented from scratch. You are not the arbitrator of truth. If there are no authorities, then every truth has to be invented from scratch. No, it just has to be supported by arguments that don't suffer from logical fallacies such as arguing from authority. Imagine for a moment a scientific research paper that uses such an argument. would it pass peer review? No chance. Once again you snipped the jist of my point. My point still stands. The reality of my assertion does not hinge on your ability or willingness to see or understand the support for my assertion. I am quite confident that in many many cases no one would be able to identify a source as vinyl just by listening. That's an unsupported assertion until to prove it. It's also a vague assertion as worded. Actually it is well supported by my own blind listening tests and there is nothing vague about the assertion. We've already invalidated your single-blind listening tests on the grounds that it is very easy for a single-blind listening test to be biased. Ever hear of Clever Hans the talking horse. That was a single-blind test. You are just making the same old argument with the same old logical fallacy. False Continuum The idea that because there is no definitive demarcation line between two extremes, that the distinction between the extremes is not real or meaningful: There is a big difference between a single blins test and a sighted test. If a single blind test is done well enough it will be free of biases that it is trying to control. Clever Hans was not any sort of single blind test. As explained to you before. There are no perfect listening tests. double blind protocols are certainly better than single blind if all else is equal. That does not invalidate the results of single blind tests. It only reduces their reliability to a degree. Single blind tests done with reasonable care are quite sufficient for the purpose of controlling biases for the purposes of the audiophile. even the ones that don't agree with your prejudices. I am asserting that in many instances listeners have not been able to identify an LP as an LP by hearing inherent ninyl distortions. IOW the listeners could not say that they were listening to an LP or a CD because there were no obvious audible indicators. Proof by an assertion supported only by highly flawed experimental evidence is not reliable proof at all. Just because you don't like the results does not mean the results are not valid. You have no meaningful evidence that would suggest any of my bias controlled tests are highly flawed. Besides, you are using yourself as an authority, and you already claimed that proof by authority is invalid. No. I am simply stating the fact that I have done bias controlled listening tests that support my assertions. Just because you don't like the results does not invalidate them. |
#158
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
Harry Lavo wrote:
Isn't it like saying if we reduced the compression ratio on mp3's enough, we eventually would have High-End Sound....but if we do so it will no longer have much size advantage over lossless? Is it really relevant in any practical sense? Interestingly, one could even argue that taking a high-end source like 24/192 kHz and making a 'reduced compression' MP3 from that could sound better than 16/44,1 uncompressed, because there would be no 'unused' bits taking up space or bandwidth. Of course this would only increase the quality vs. bandwidth ratio, if that would be an issue. gr, hwh |
#159
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Nov 21, 12:42?pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: No, not purely. But as practiced it is mostly. Not every vehicle is a Ferrari, nor is every vehicle a Yugo. But internet streaming is far more often the latter rather than the former. Get real now. How many of you *here* use a streamed source for serious high-fidelity listenening? Yes, and if I was asked, is it *likely* that streamed audio over the internet will sound as good a CD, I'd say, no, not likely. But what Harry originally said was the equivalent of going to a Yugo lot and claiming, there can be no Ferraris. Sure, absolute statements are absolutely wrong most of the time. However, neither should one reason that the possible requires it to be the probable. And I didn't say *probable*...nor is it *probable* the the next car you see will be a Ferrari. My objection is to those who tend to dismiss a technology in terms that imply it *can't* be 'high fi', based on a 'typical' internet download or stream. That's just sloppy and ignorant. MP3 *can* sound 'hi fi', for example, yet commonly 'audiophiles' dismiss them, having never made good ones of their own, and never tested them against source in their own ABX trials. I can and do make mp3s that I would stake against .wavs in a blind test, and I *could* set up a 320 kbps streaming audio service, for example, if I so desired to spend my time and money that way, and I highly doubt Harry would be able to tell it from source, in a blind test. (If internet radio stations are simply streaming their OTA radio broadcast, of course it's not going to sound more 'hi fi' than the radio content does.) -- -S I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy |
#160
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophilia in the 21st Century
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message Isn't it like saying if we reduced the compression ratio on mp3's enough, we eventually would have High-End Sound....but if we do so it will no longer have much size advantage over lossless? 320 kbps still has a 2:1 advantage over lossless. Except that many people do not agree 320kps is sufficient. Those people usually havn't got a leg to stand on. Even you and/or Steven report that some people/some-of-the-time can hear a difference. That;s misreporting what I;ve written, Harry. I reported that *extremely* few people -- as in a literal handful -- of the many who actually done blind ABX, have *ever* provided good evidence for having detected audible differences on anything but 'killer' samples. They were typically people involved *developing* and *tuning* the LAME codec, and so highly attuned to its artifacts....and even THEY report that it's hard to do. So your concerns are vastly overblown. I can practically guarantee that you, and 'many people', would simply FAIL to distinguish high waulity MP3 from source, in a fair test. So if you increase it 50% again, you are so close to lossless it doesn't matter. Actually, most people begin failing to differentiate MP3 from source well BELOW 320 kbps, in a fair test..and again, I predict you would be one of them. -- -S I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their life -- Leo Tolstoy |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Klipschorns in the 21st Century? | Tech | |||
21st Century E-Business Money Making Formula | Vacuum Tubes | |||
21st Century E-Business Money Making Formula | Audio Opinions | |||
21st Century E-Commerce Money Making Formula | Audio Opinions | |||
21st Century E-Commerce Money Making Formula | Pro Audio |