[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
On May 19, 10:07?am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
On May 16, 9:56?am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

Are double blind tests only as good as many are claiming
here on RAHE when they wrought the desired result?

No, but a remarkable result requires remarkable evidence, don't you agree?
It seems to me that some are calling results remarkable because they
personally have some sort of prejudicial issue with them.

No, I am calling the a bility to reliably tell high-bitrate mp3 from source with musical
tracks, in a blind test, remarkable, because from all credible reports to day, it is.

Credible based on what? again it would appear to be your prejudices.
Do we have a body of peer reviewed published evidence?

Based a priori on how mp3s are designed to work, and a posteriori in ABX results reported to
date.



I don't see
anything remarkable about Sonova's results.

Which may reflect more your inexperience with mp3s and mp3 DBT reports, if not your own bias.

Indeed it may.

So, how much experience DO you have with mp3s and mp3 DBT reports?



Who is the arbitrator of
remarkable?

In the case of mp3s, I'd say Hydrogenaudio records are.

That would be a bit of a problem then.

For you. Since HA reports include both postitive and negative ABX results, I'm not
too worried.

?Then, too, the actual operation of
mp3s -- how they work -- also would be a predictor that high-bitrate mp3s would be hard to
identify from source, on most musical material. ?And that predictionm has been born out in
practice..


That would also be a bit of a problem. many things work one way on
paper and yet another in the field.


So, it's you against Hydrogenaudio and James Johnston. I know where I'd put my money.




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

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 20, 6:21*pm, wrote:
On May 20, 7:06*pm, wrote:

What "critical aspects" were known by either the subject or
adminstrator that would prevent Sonova's test from being considered
double blind?

The test administrator's knowledge of where the switch was. That's all
it would take.

Bingo!

That said, I think people are nitpicking this whole question too much.
There are dozens of ways to screw up a DBT (in both directions). How
Sonnova did it, if he did it, we'll never know because none of us were
there. What we do know is that people who perform these tests more
carefully and rigorously then he did, including the developers of MP3,
invariably get a very different result than he did. Now maybe his test
is right and everyone else's is wrong. But I doubt it.

I agree totally with this last bit as well. It is quite hard to do
science well. Even scientists who have spend decades doing science
still muck it up quite frequently. That's what peer review is for.

It doesn't make it any easier if you go in not knowing just what kinds
of mistakes to avoid.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 20 May 2009 18:21:31 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

On May 20, 7:06*pm, wrote:

What "critical aspects" were known by either the subject or
adminstrator that would prevent Sonova's test from being considered
double blind?

The test administrator's knowledge of where the switch was. That's all
it would take.

There is no "switch". The CD player was set to "shuffle" among the cuts. All
she knew was what cut NUMBER was playing, she had NO IDEA which sample the
cut represented. The player played the cuts in random order. She wrote the
number down on a pad and noted beside it which of the possible samples the
listener thought he was listening to. He had no way of knowing which cut
equaled which sample, and neither did she.

[Steven Sullivan]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On May 16, 9:56?am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:

Are double blind tests only as good as many are claiming
here on RAHE when they wrought the desired result?

No, but a remarkable result requires remarkable evidence, don't you
agree?


It seems to me that some are calling results remarkable because they
personally have some sort of prejudicial issue with them.

No, I am calling the a bility to reliably tell high-bitrate mp3 from
source with musical
tracks, in a blind test, remarkable, because from all credible reports to
day, it is.

I don't see
anything remarkable about Sonova's results.

Which may reflect more your inexperience with mp3s and mp3 DBT reports, if
not your own bias.

Who is the arbitrator of
remarkable?

In the case of mp3s, I'd say Hydrogenaudio records are. Then, too, the
actual operation of
mp3s -- how they work -- also would be a predictor that high-bitrate mp3s
would be hard to
identify from source, on most musical material. And that predictionm has
been born out in
practice..

Except that is a group made up of skeptics, using a test with no safeguards
against biased "null" results. Why is that so credible?

They're not skeptics to the idea that mp3s can be distinguished from source. In fact, the few
credible reports of 320kbps ABX I've seen, have been there. There are plenty of 'positive'
ABX results for lower bitrates.

Really, do you have any idea what you are talking about, HA? I've never seen you post
there. I've been there for years and post regularly.

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

[Steven Sullivan]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:13:52 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

On May 17, 11:30?am, wrote:
On May 16, 9:56?am, Steven Sullivan wrote:

wrote:

Are double blind tests only as good as many are claiming
here on RAHE when they wrought the desired result?

No, but a remarkable result requires remarkable evidence, don't you
agree?

It seems to me that some are calling results remarkable because they
personally have some sort of prejudicial issue with them. I don't see
anything remarkable about Sonova's results. Who is the arbitrator of
remarkable? But, no, I don't believe in a moving goal post for
evidence based on prejudice. I think the standards should be, well,
standard.

Whenever you get an outlier result?and Sonnova's result is certainly
an outlier?the first thing you need to do is take a close look at the
method, and probably repeat the experiment. Any good scientist will
tell you that when you get an unexpected result, you probably screwed
up the experiment.

bob

Why should such a result be unexpected? Lossy compression schemes THROW
INFORMATION AWAY based on somebody's definition of what's not important.

THis is a misleading use of language. "Somebody" in this case happens to
be the body of
psychoacoustic data concerning masking and thresholds. It's not arbitrary.

It's also not automatic, Steven. Folks worked for years to get compression
schemes that were even acceptable to a large majority of trained listeners.
There is no guarantee that an especially acute listener and one who has
trained himself in the artifacts to hear them even when most people cannot.

Yes, there is no guarantee. But it's not predicted to be common. Therefore it's expected to
be unusual. Therefore really good evidence is required.

I haven't seen a lick of evidence that Sonnova has *trained* himself or is an especially
acute listener. He seems rather uninformed about mp3s generally, in fact.

Once one throws info away, its gone - forever. Why is the fact that some
people can detect, in double-blind tests, the results of throwing this
info
away, or as by-products of the process, an unexpected result? Because YOU
don't hear it?

No one is saying it's impossible to detect. That is not the same as
saying it is routeinly
detectable under all circumstances. Certainly for high-bitrate mp3, a
rigorous DBT method is
required to demonstrate that detection has occurred, and conditions need
to be specified. It
would not be unusual for many to detect a difference if a 'killer' sample
is used, or a poor
encoder is used, or if the conversion of mp3s to WAVs for testing produced
clipping, for
example.

Or that the listener is well trained, has very fine equipment, and listen's
mostly to the kinds of music (as in Sonnova's case) where artifacts are most
likely to be heard.

Who says Sonnova's music's the type where artifacts are most likely to be heard?
Do you know what types of music are?

Who says 'fine equipment' makes mp3 artifacst more audible?

Really, Harry, where have you gotten your information about mp3s from?

It is one thing to be skeptical...it is another to automatically say
somebody is an "outlier" and not to be believed because they report results
that are not the norm.

It is utterly proper to call a rare result -- both predicted to be rare, and rare in
practice -- an 'outlier'.

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Wed, 20 May 2009 09:35:36 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


Others tell me that MP3 works.

Compared to the LP format, it works brilliantly.

Your prejudice is showing again, Arny.

Prejudice?

So you're saying that the 35+ years that I spent listening to little but LPs
is not a valid way to evaluate the sound quality of the LP format?

Of course, LP
quality varies all over the map, but I have LPs that
sound much more appealing and less fatiguing than do any
MP3 I've ever heard.

That's a choice you get to make, but you don't have to impugn my motives and
attack my character to exercise it.

My ears tell me that it doesn't.

So you're saying that your brain has nothing to do with
it?

Trying to be funny?

Making a point. The brain has a lot to do with what you hear.

I didn't listen to those who's tests were, in your
words, "properly conducted" and found that they were
wrong.

Given how easy they are to do, this speaks to a closed
mind.

Not closed. Just not interested in revisiting a subject
that I have already investigated and made up my mind about

Absolutely symptomatic of a closed mind. BTW, I still listen to LPs.

[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message ...
On May 20, 11:57 am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On May 20, 8:33 am, Sonnova wrote:

On Tue, 19 May 2009 16:49:37 -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote
Well, yes you did, sorry. There are well known mechanisms that allow
that which your experimental protocol didn't rule out.
List them, please.

I have already given some applicable search terms in my previous
posts, which you don't seem to have checked into.

The mechanisms are well known and widely documented. If you don't
want to research them that's your right. It is, however, rather
worrying that you don't already know about them yet are making claims
to have done a "double blind" test.

"Noun 1. double-blind experiment - an experimental procedure in which
neither the subjects of the experiment nor the persons administering
the experiment know the critical aspects of the experiment; "a double-
blind procedure is used to guard against both experimenter bias and
placebo effects" "

What "critical aspects" were known by either the subject or
adminstrator that would prevent Sonova's test from being considered
double blind?

The results, obviously.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 21, 7:56*am, Sonnova wrote:

The test administrator's knowledge of where the switch was. That's all
it would take.

There is no "switch".

Certainly there was, given that your description of the process is
accurate.

The CD player was set to "shuffle" among the cuts.

And there it is.

All she knew was what cut NUMBER was playing,

There's the knowledge of the switch.

If a track number was repeated then she also had knowledge of your
previous reaction to that particular track, which could have
influenced you when the track repeated since she would have
expectations based on your previous reaction which could have affected
her. She might easily have given a facial or body language clue to
you that might easily have influenced you. Even if you did not see
her you could still, given the description she gave, have heard any
slight reactions she might have involuntarily made, such as a slight
cougn, or movement in her chair.

Given that you could not observe her reactions, that's still single
blind because she could observe your reactions. If you could see or
hear her reactions to the track number then it would just be a busted
test.

[Harry Lavo]

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


It's also not automatic, Steven. Folks worked for years
to get compression schemes that were even acceptable to a
large majority of trained listeners.

"large majority of trained listeners" - an undefined group if there ever
was
one.

I have no idea who he is even talking about. There aren't that many
trained listeners for
mp3 artifacts.

JJ and others have indicated that listeners are first screened for basic
accuity, and then must be specifically trained to recognize and
differentiate the artifact under question before a valid test can be done.
That's what a trained listener is/was. In the early days, this led to more
tests getting confirmed as different than did tests that indicated "no
difference".



Mostly irrelevant because it doesn't take very fine equipment to hear
most
artifacts.

In fact, most LAME codec tweaking has been done using computer speakers
and headphones.

So perhaps they missed the kind that Sonnova picked up? How to you test
"air" on a headphone? When phase is largely taken out of the picture?

[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Sonnova wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:13:52 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

On May 17, 11:30?am, wrote:
On May 16, 9:56?am, Steven Sullivan wrote:

wrote:

Are double blind tests only as good as many are claiming
here on RAHE when they wrought the desired result?

No, but a remarkable result requires remarkable evidence, don't
you
agree?

It seems to me that some are calling results remarkable because
they
personally have some sort of prejudicial issue with them. I don't
see
anything remarkable about Sonova's results. Who is the arbitrator
of
remarkable? But, no, I don't believe in a moving goal post for
evidence based on prejudice. I think the standards should be, well,
standard.

Whenever you get an outlier result?and Sonnova's result is certainly
an outlier?the first thing you need to do is take a close look at
the
method, and probably repeat the experiment. Any good scientist will
tell you that when you get an unexpected result, you probably
screwed
up the experiment.

bob

Why should such a result be unexpected? Lossy compression schemes
THROW
INFORMATION AWAY based on somebody's definition of what's not
important.

THis is a misleading use of language. "Somebody" in this case happens
to
be the body of
psychoacoustic data concerning masking and thresholds. It's not
arbitrary.

It's also not automatic, Steven. Folks worked for years to get
compression
schemes that were even acceptable to a large majority of trained
listeners.
There is no guarantee that an especially acute listener and one who has
trained himself in the artifacts to hear them even when most people
cannot.

Yes, there is no guarantee. But it's not predicted to be common.
Therefore it's expected to
be unusual. Therefore really good evidence is required.

I haven't seen a lick of evidence that Sonnova has *trained* himself or
is an especially
acute listener. He seems rather uninformed about mp3s generally, in fact.

That's his claim; you can be skeptical but that doesn't make you correct.


Once one throws info away, its gone - forever. Why is the fact that
some
people can detect, in double-blind tests, the results of throwing
this
info
away, or as by-products of the process, an unexpected result? Because
YOU
don't hear it?

No one is saying it's impossible to detect. That is not the same as
saying it is routeinly
detectable under all circumstances. Certainly for high-bitrate mp3, a
rigorous DBT method is
required to demonstrate that detection has occurred, and conditions
need
to be specified. It
would not be unusual for many to detect a difference if a 'killer'
sample
is used, or a poor
encoder is used, or if the conversion of mp3s to WAVs for testing
produced
clipping, for
example.

Or that the listener is well trained, has very fine equipment, and
listen's
mostly to the kinds of music (as in Sonnova's case) where artifacts are
most
likely to be heard.

Who says Sonnova's music's the type where artifacts are most likely to be
heard?
Do you know what types of music are?

Who says 'fine equipment' makes mp3 artifacst more audible?

Really, Harry, where have you gotten your information about mp3s from?

Well, I listened myself for as long as I could stand it on my "very fine"
equipment. So I tend to support those who hear a difference on their "very
fine" equipment, among other things. But there is certainly lots of
antecdotal evidence around. An in-room stereo of good quality reveals much
more than headphones, especially ones bathed in digital noise from a PC,
when it comes to imaging, image depth, the "realism" of the sound. I'm not
arguing that headphones can't demonstrate certain distortions...just that
they have never been tested to show that they can demonstrate ALL
distortions.


It is one thing to be skeptical...it is another to automatically say
somebody is an "outlier" and not to be believed because they report
results
that are not the norm.

It is utterly proper to call a rare result -- both predicted to be rare,
and rare in
practice -- an 'outlier'.

If you are a scientist. Which you are not.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 21 May 2009 11:56:44 -0700, Ed Seedhouse wrote
(in article ):

On May 21, 7:56*am, Sonnova wrote:

The test administrator's knowledge of where the switch was. That's all
it would take.

There is no "switch".

Certainly there was, given that your description of the process is
accurate.

The CD player was set to "shuffle" among the cuts.

And there it is.

All she knew was what cut NUMBER was playing,

There's the knowledge of the switch.

If a track number was repeated then she also had knowledge of your
previous reaction to that particular track, which could have
influenced you when the track repeated since she would have
expectations based on your previous reaction which could have affected
her. She might easily have given a facial or body language clue to
you that might easily have influenced you. Even if you did not see
her you could still, given the description she gave, have heard any
slight reactions she might have involuntarily made, such as a slight
cougn, or movement in her chair.

So, even though I could not see her facial expressions or body language. Even
though she uttered NOT a sound, she could still communicate to the listener
what they were hearing. I wasn't aware that mental telepathy was a human
characteristic.

Given that you could not observe her reactions, that's still single
blind because she could observe your reactions. If you could see or
hear her reactions to the track number then it would just be a busted
test.

Obviously, she telepathically transmitted this data.

IMHO, you are grasping straws here.

[Harry Lavo]

"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
...
On May 21, 7:56 am, Sonnova wrote:

The test administrator's knowledge of where the switch was. That's all
it would take.

There is no "switch".

Certainly there was, given that your description of the process is
accurate.

The CD player was set to "shuffle" among the cuts.

And there it is.

All she knew was what cut NUMBER was playing,

There's the knowledge of the switch.

If a track number was repeated then she also had knowledge of your
previous reaction to that particular track, which could have
influenced you when the track repeated since she would have
expectations based on your previous reaction which could have affected
her. She might easily have given a facial or body language clue to
you that might easily have influenced you. Even if you did not see
her you could still, given the description she gave, have heard any
slight reactions she might have involuntarily made, such as a slight
cougn, or movement in her chair.

Given that you could not observe her reactions, that's still single
blind because she could observe your reactions. If you could see or
hear her reactions to the track number then it would just be a busted
test.

This is the farce of the "objectivists"....this kind of grasping at straws,
substituting the "possible" for the "probably". We've been over this here
many times befor....that fact that it is remotely possible does not make it
probable and invalidate the test. No more so than the fact that ANYTIME
somebody wants to get "null" results with such a test they can just randomly
guess. You say it won't happen. I say it is possible. In your world that
invalidates the test ain a. This is at least, if not moreso, possibility
than the a disinterested woman standing behind him and recording tracks and
comments would be.

[vlad]

On May 21, 11:58*am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

...



It is one thing to be skeptical...it is another to automatically say
somebody is an "outlier" and not to be believed because they report
results
that are not the norm.

It is utterly proper to call a rare result -- both predicted to be rare,
and rare in
practice -- an 'outlier'.

If you are a scientist. *Which you are not.

I find it interesting that no Sonnova, no Harry Lavo give any
information about mp3 files that they use in their arguments. I
happened to listen 32kbps tracks from Internet radio (classical music)
and can assure you that you don't need any training or high quality
system to hear artifacts of compression. At the same time I think that
320kbps mp3 encoded by iTunes is very hard if possible at all to
distinguish from original CD.

So, it is possible that Sonnova and Harry intentionally use low bit
coded mp3 to make their point and people on another side argue merits
of high bit competently encoded mp3's. Both sides are right in their
domain and argument does not make sense at all.

At the same time if Sonnova and Harry will tell us what they mean by
mp3 then argument about encoding artifacts will become real.

We can substitute DBT by the following experiment. Take a track from
classical CD and make few files out of it: original, lossless, 320kbps
and 256kbps. There is an issue, of course, of file size. But if we
will restore each of compressed files to straight CD encoding then
they will be pretty much of the same size. Make few copies of each,
end send them to Sonnova. I wonder if he will be able to pinpoint
compressed files reliably above simple guessing.

Thc

vlad

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 21, 3:01*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

This is the farce of the "objectivists"....this kind of grasping at straws,
substituting the "possible" for the "probably". *We've been over this here
many times befor....that fact that it is remotely possible does not make it
probable and invalidate the test. *No more so than the fact that ANYTIME
somebody wants to get "null" results with such a test they can just randomly
guess. *You say it won't happen. *I say it is possible. *In your world that
invalidates the test ain a. *This is at least, if not moreso, possibility
than the a disinterested woman standing behind him and recording tracks and
comments would be.

Actually the only claim I have ever made about the test under
discussion was that so far as I am concerned it was not double blind,
as the tester claimed. Your response of attributing thoughts,
attitudes, beliefs and ideas to me that I do not have and have never
expressed here or elsewhere is, alas, not surprising I am sorry to
say.

I am sad, however, that the moderator apparently thought your response
was not a personal attack. I must say that it certainly strikes me as
that.

[mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH [email protected]]

vlad wrote:

We can substitute DBT by the following experiment. Take a track from
classical CD and make few files out of it: original, lossless, 320kbps
and 256kbps. There is an issue, of course, of file size. But if we
will restore each of compressed files to straight CD encoding then
they will be pretty much of the same size. Make few copies of each,
end send them to Sonnova. I wonder if he will be able to pinpoint
compressed files reliably above simple guessing.



You also have to carefully time-align them and make sure they
are equal length.

Finally, even with th greatest of care, loading into Audacity
and looking at the spectrum is almost always a dead giveaway.

I've stupefied two people who tried what you described
by telling them perfectly in which order (of bitrate)
their re-.wavified MP3s were coded, just using the length
and Audacity-done spectrum. It was pathetically easy.

Of course, I could not tell what the actual MP3 bitrates were,
just which was higher and which lower.

Doug McDonald

[[email protected]]

On May 22, 8:43*am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On May 21, 3:01*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

This is the farce of the "objectivists"....this kind of grasping at straws,
substituting the "possible" for the "probably". *We've been over this here
many times befor....that fact that it is remotely possible does not make it
probable and invalidate the test. *No more so than the fact that ANYTIME
somebody wants to get "null" results with such a test they can just randomly
guess. *You say it won't happen. *I say it is possible. *In your world that
invalidates the test ain a. *This is at least, if not moreso, possibility
than the a disinterested woman standing behind him and recording tracks and
comments would be.

Actually the only claim I have ever made about the test under
discussion was that so far as I am concerned it was not double blind,
as the tester claimed. *Your response of attributing thoughts,
attitudes, beliefs and ideas to me that I do not have and have never
expressed here or elsewhere is, alas, not surprising I am sorry to
say.

actually you went much further than *just* claiming that the test was
not double blind. You used that point as a means of trying to
discredit the results.
Here is the post an what you actually said
On May 17, 11:39 am, Sonnova wrote:



"If I took part in that test and had the same results described it
would not convince me that a difference actually existed. Too many
procedural problems. "

So it would appear that Harry's comments do strike at the heart of
this particular disagreement. It does seem that some how that which is
Possible yet very unlikely has been used as probable cause for
dismisal of results.

[vlad]

On May 22, 8:45*am, "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH
wrote:
vlad wrote:
We can substitute DBT by the following experiment. Take a track from
classical CD and make few files out of it: original, lossless, 320kbps
and 256kbps. There is an issue, of course, of file size. But if we
will restore each of compressed files to straight CD encoding then
they will be pretty much of the same size. Make few copies of each,
end send them to Sonnova. I wonder if he will be able to pinpoint
compressed files reliably above simple guessing.

You also have to carefully time-align them and make sure they
are equal length.

Finally, even with th greatest of care, loading into Audacity
and looking at the spectrum is almost always a dead giveaway.

I've stupefied two people who tried what you described
by telling them perfectly in which order (of bitrate)
their re-.wavified MP3s were coded, just using the length
and Audacity-done spectrum. It was pathetically easy.

Of course, I could not tell what the actual MP3 bitrates were,
just which was higher and which lower.

Doug McDonald

Totally agree with you.

With usage of special tools/programs you can distinguish files given.
But in DBT we all assume that the listener relies on his ears and only
his ears. If somebody would go into a hassle of preparing these files
and Sonnova would agree to this kind of test then there would be a
gentlemanly agreement that no tools of any kind would be used except
his ears. He would listen tracks on the system of his choice and then
report to us his findings.

BTW, I would expect that Sonnova and/or Harry would provide data about
mp3 files that they mentioned in this forum. If it was 16kbps
compressed mp3's then there is no argument indeed :-)

Thx

vlad

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 22, 10:19*am, wrote:
On May 22, 8:43*am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:

Actually the only claim I have ever made about the test under
discussion was that so far as I am concerned it was not double blind,
as the tester claimed. *

actually you went much further than *just* claiming that the test was
not double blind. You used that point as a means of trying to
discredit the results.

That it was not in fact double blind and you claimed is what
discredits (in my opinion) the results in the sense that the test
referred to gives no evidence to the dispute one way or the other.

Here is the post an what you actually said
On May 17, 11:39 am, Sonnova wrote:

"If I took part in that test and had the same results described it
would not convince me that a difference actually existed. *Too many
procedural problems. "

Which is perfectly true and remains so. I have no idea why that
should strike you as being a personal attack.

So it would appear that Harry's comments do strike at the heart of
this particular disagreement.

To the contrary I would say. They seem to me to miss it entirely.
Nowhere did I do any of the things that Harry attributed to
"objectivists" in the guise, I believe, of attacking me.

That you think it did gives evidence that we are talking past one
another and should probably just shut up. I have made my point now
and will not go further.

[Harry Lavo]

"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message
...
On May 21, 3:01 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

This is the farce of the "objectivists"....this kind of grasping at
straws,
substituting the "possible" for the "probably". We've been over this here
many times befor....that fact that it is remotely possible does not make
it
probable and invalidate the test. No more so than the fact that ANYTIME
somebody wants to get "null" results with such a test they can just
randomly
guess. You say it won't happen. I say it is possible. In your world that
invalidates the test ain a. This is at least, if not moreso, possibility
than the a disinterested woman standing behind him and recording tracks
and
comments would be.

Actually the only claim I have ever made about the test under
discussion was that so far as I am concerned it was not double blind,
as the tester claimed. Your response of attributing thoughts,
attitudes, beliefs and ideas to me that I do not have and have never
expressed here or elsewhere is, alas, not surprising I am sorry to
say.

I am sad, however, that the moderator apparently thought your response
was not a personal attack. I must say that it certainly strikes me as
that.

You also said, I believe, that it failed to be a proper test due to many
possible objections, but indicated probable transmission of "cues" as the
reason for the result. These were not disinterested observations, but
direct challenges to Sonnova and his claimed results. If I am ascribing a
second person's opinions to you, I apologize. But the preceding is what I
recall from thie beginning of the thread.

[Ed Seedhouse[_2_]]

On May 22, 6:56*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message

...



On May 21, 3:01 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

This is the farce of the "objectivists"....this kind of grasping at
straws,
substituting the "possible" for the "probably". We've been over this here
many times befor....that fact that it is remotely possible does not make
it
probable and invalidate the test. No more so than the fact that ANYTIME
somebody wants to get "null" results with such a test they can just
randomly
guess. You say it won't happen. I say it is possible. In your world that
invalidates the test ain a. This is at least, if not moreso, possibility
than the a disinterested woman standing behind him and recording tracks
and
comments would be.

Actually the only claim I have ever made about the test under
discussion was that so far as I am concerned it was not double blind,
as the tester claimed. *Your response of attributing thoughts,
attitudes, beliefs and ideas to me that I do not have and have never
expressed here or elsewhere is, alas, not surprising I am sorry to
say.

I am sad, however, that the moderator apparently thought your response
was not a personal attack. *I must say that it certainly strikes me as
that.

You also said, I believe, that it failed to be a proper test due to many
possible objections, but indicated probable transmission of "cues" as the
reason for the result. *These were not disinterested observations, but
direct challenges to Sonnova and his claimed results. *If I am ascribing a
second person's opinions to you, I apologize. *But the preceding is what I
recall from thie beginning of the thread.

Then perhaps you will read more closely in future. For one thing, the
word "probable" is not the same as "possible", which is the one I
used.

Nor did I dispute the results recorded, merely their status as a
"double blind" test. I took Sonnova's description at his word and
still do.

Since it was not, in my opinion, a double blind test it has, to me, no
evidenciary value, and does not change my opinion.
Whether or not it changes any one else's is up to them.

I think it highly likely that my opinion would be shared by a reviewer
in a peer reviewed journal, but I cannot prove that of course.

None of this was to denigrate anyone - to believe that someone is
wrong is not to believe that they are bad. I am quite sure that both
you and Sonnova hold perfectly sincere opinions on this matter. I
think yours is, in this case, mistaken and you think mine is
mistaken. Surely adults can disagree without being disagreeable.

[Harry Lavo]

"vlad" wrote in message
...
On May 22, 8:45 am, "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH
wrote:
vlad wrote:
We can substitute DBT by the following experiment. Take a track from
classical CD and make few files out of it: original, lossless, 320kbps
and 256kbps. There is an issue, of course, of file size. But if we
will restore each of compressed files to straight CD encoding then
they will be pretty much of the same size. Make few copies of each,
end send them to Sonnova. I wonder if he will be able to pinpoint
compressed files reliably above simple guessing.

You also have to carefully time-align them and make sure they
are equal length.

Finally, even with th greatest of care, loading into Audacity
and looking at the spectrum is almost always a dead giveaway.

I've stupefied two people who tried what you described
by telling them perfectly in which order (of bitrate)
their re-.wavified MP3s were coded, just using the length
and Audacity-done spectrum. It was pathetically easy.

Of course, I could not tell what the actual MP3 bitrates were,
just which was higher and which lower.

Doug McDonald

Totally agree with you.

With usage of special tools/programs you can distinguish files given.
But in DBT we all assume that the listener relies on his ears and only
his ears. If somebody would go into a hassle of preparing these files
and Sonnova would agree to this kind of test then there would be a
gentlemanly agreement that no tools of any kind would be used except
his ears. He would listen tracks on the system of his choice and then
report to us his findings.

BTW, I would expect that Sonnova and/or Harry would provide data about
mp3 files that they mentioned in this forum. If it was 16kbps
compressed mp3's then there is no argument indeed :-)

For the record let it be said here that I have reported no listening test
nor mentioned any specific mp3 bitrates or codecs in this discussion. The
only thing I have done is come to Sonnava's defense in terms of the
insinuation that his test was woefully inadequate. It was not; it may not
have been perfect, but as he described it is was more "perfect" (i.e. double
blind) than most such tests done in the home.

[mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH [email protected]]

I tried a test designed to allow me to hear MP3 artifacts
clearly. It succeeded.

But it required a truly ghastly set of kludges.

What I did was take some music (a Mozart piano concerto excerpt)
and high-pass filter it at 4 kHz. This was done in Audacity
with several passes the the equalizer, to lower the level
by 90 dB (using 32 bit float numbers). The peaks were normalized
to 30% full scale.

Then I created a 440 Hz tone at also 30% full scale. I added
the tracks together and saved as a wave file. That was converted to
fixed bitrate 128bps using LAME. I then reloaded the
MP3 and was barely able to hear a difference when the high frequency
peaks occurred (mostly, of course, during the soft parts, there
was no content above 4 kHz. Low pass filtering this at 3 kHz made
things more obvious since there now were no high frequencies there at all.
Finally, I subtracted off the sine wave to get it down some 30 dB,
and the artifacts were perfectly blatant, sounding exactly like
what I had expected.

This was about the toughest possible test, and at 128 kbps the
errors were obvious. But is is clear why it is so hard for me to
tell on real music.

Doug McDonald

[mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH [email protected]]

"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH wrote:
I tried a test designed to allow me to hear MP3 artifacts
clearly. It succeeded.

But it required a truly ghastly set of kludges.

What I did was take some music (a Mozart piano concerto excerpt)
and high-pass filter it at 4 kHz. This was done in Audacity
with several passes the the equalizer, to lower the level
by 90 dB (using 32 bit float numbers). The peaks were normalized
to 30% full scale.

Then I created a 440 Hz tone at also 30% full scale. I added
the tracks together and saved as a wave file. That was converted to
fixed bitrate 128bps using LAME. I then reloaded the
MP3 and was barely able to hear a difference when the high frequency
peaks occurred (mostly, of course, during the soft parts, there
was no content above 4 kHz. Low pass filtering this at 3 kHz made
things more obvious since there now were no high frequencies there at all.
Finally, I subtracted off the sine wave to get it down some 30 dB,
and the artifacts were perfectly blatant, sounding exactly like
what I had expected.



Then I redid using LAME at VBR 3, which averages about 190 kbps.
The sine wave was essentially perfect. No difference between
the original and the reconstruction was audible TO ME no matter
how I filtered.

Doug McDonald

[Steven Sullivan]

"mcdonaldREMOVE wrote:
I tried a test designed to allow me to hear MP3 artifacts
clearly. It succeeded.

But it required a truly ghastly set of kludges.

why not just encode at a low bitrate? Or try the various sets of 'killer' samples
for mp3 tuning, eg:

http://lame.sourceforge.net/quality.php

http://ff123.net/samples.html

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

[Steven Sullivan]

Harry Lavo wrote:
Who says 'fine equipment' makes mp3 artifacst more audible?

Really, Harry, where have you gotten your information about mp3s from?

Well, I listened myself for as long as I could stand it on my "very fine"
equipment.

Not good enough (your 'education',not your audio gear)

antSo I tend to support those who hear a difference on their "very
fine" equipment, among other things. But there is certainly lots of
anecdotal evidence around.

Not good enough.

An in-room stereo of good quality reveals much
more than headphones, especially ones bathed in digital noise from a PC,
when it comes to imaging, image depth, the "realism" of the sound.

Nonsense, Harry. What 'digital noise from a PC' are you referring to and why do
you insist it's both common and audible?


I'm not
arguing that headphones can't demonstrate certain distortions...just that
they have never been tested to show that they can demonstrate ALL
distortions.

They can certainly demonsrate low-level differences that would not usually be apparent
in 'open air' listening...one typical reasonn being the higher S/N .


It is one thing to be skeptical...it is another to automatically say
somebody is an "outlier" and not to be believed because they report
results
that are not the norm.

It is utterly proper to call a rare result -- both predicted to be rare,
and rare in
practice -- an 'outlier'.

If you are a scientist. Which you are not.


Actually, I am, with a PhD and publications and everything, Harry. A biologist,
to be precise.

So I'm going to have to ask you to retract that claim.


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

[Steven Sullivan]

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


It's also not automatic, Steven. Folks worked for years
to get compression schemes that were even acceptable to a
large majority of trained listeners.

"large majority of trained listeners" - an undefined group if there ever
was
one.

I have no idea who he is even talking about. There aren't that many
trained listeners for
mp3 artifacts.

JJ and others have indicated that listeners are first screened for basic
accuity, and then must be specifically trained to recognize and
differentiate the artifact under question before a valid test can be done.
That's what a trained listener is/was. In the early days, this led to more
tests getting confirmed as different than did tests that indicated "no
difference".

True, but we are *well* past the early days.

In fact, most LAME codec tweaking has been done using computer speakers
and headphones.

So perhaps they missed the kind that Sonnova picked up? How to you test
"air" on a headphone? When phase is largely taken out of the picture?

It wasn't just headohones,'largely' does not mean 'all', and "perhaps" is not strong enough. And why *would* phase
artifacts be any more audible than others, in high-bitrate mps --which Sonnova says he can ALWAYS identify.

If you have good ABX test results,feel free to report them.

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

[Steven Sullivan]

vlad wrote:
On May 21, 11:58?am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

...



It is one thing to be skeptical...it is another to automatically say
somebody is an "outlier" and not to be believed because they report
results
that are not the norm.

It is utterly proper to call a rare result -- both predicted to be rare,
and rare in
practice -- an 'outlier'.

If you are a scientist. ?Which you are not.

I find it interesting that no Sonnova, no Harry Lavo give any
information about mp3 files that they use in their arguments. I
happened to listen 32kbps tracks from Internet radio (classical music)
and can assure you that you don't need any training or high quality
system to hear artifacts of compression. At the same time I think that
320kbps mp3 encoded by iTunes is very hard if possible at all to
distinguish from original CD.

That's rather odd. What encoder was uses for the 320 kbps downloads
you can hear the compression artifacts in?

We can substitute DBT by the following experiment. Take a track from
classical CD and make few files out of it: original, lossless, 320kbps
and 256kbps.

Or, use variable bitrate with a ~190 average. Just be sure to use
the current LAME (or AAC , 256) encoder, as recommended by the people who,
uinlike Harry or Sonnova, actually work with and test mp3s regularly..

There is an issue, of course, of file size. But if we
will restore each of compressed files to straight CD encoding then
they will be pretty much of the same size. Make few copies of each,
end send them to Sonnova. I wonder if he will be able to pinpoint
compressed files reliably above simple guessing.

Which is the test I did with a handful of skeptics, and none of those
who reported back performed better than chance.

The only thing beaware of is the possibility of the mp3--wav introducing
clipping, if the peaks were already near 0 dBFS. So check the wavs for that.

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

[mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH [email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:


There is an issue, of course, of file size. But if we
will restore each of compressed files to straight CD encoding then
they will be pretty much of the same size. Make few copies of each,
end send them to Sonnova. I wonder if he will be able to pinpoint
compressed files reliably above simple guessing.

Which is the test I did with a handful of skeptics, and none of those
who reported back performed better than chance.



You have to be careful of cheating. I'm very good at that with these
"send me the files" tests. It's a pain to do, much more time consuming than
listening, but it usually works and tells which of the encode-decode-send-the-
decoded-one files used more, and which fewer, bits. I just load into Audaciy,
subtract the original, and look at the spectrum.

Doug McDonald

[[email protected]]

On May 21, 2:58*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

snip

Well, I listened myself for as long as I could stand it on my "very fine"
equipment. *So I tend to support those who hear a difference on their "very
fine" equipment, among other things. *But there is certainly lots of
antecdotal evidence around. *An in-room stereo of good quality reveals much
more than headphones, especially ones bathed in digital noise from a PC,
when it comes to imaging, image depth, the "realism" of the sound. *

Please explain what you mean about "bathed in digital noise from a
PC". How does such noise sound? Many commercial recordings are made
using PCs and Macs. Do they suffer from being bathed in digital noise?


If you are a scientist. *Which you are not.

IIRC, Dr. Sullivan has a Ph.D. in biochemistry. Most people would
disagree with you here Harry.

[Harry Lavo]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
Who says 'fine equipment' makes mp3 artifacst more audible?

Really, Harry, where have you gotten your information about mp3s from?

Well, I listened myself for as long as I could stand it on my "very fine"
equipment.

Not good enough (your 'education',not your audio gear)

antSo I tend to support those who hear a difference on their "very
fine" equipment, among other things. But there is certainly lots of
anecdotal evidence around.

Not good enough.

An in-room stereo of good quality reveals much
more than headphones, especially ones bathed in digital noise from a PC,
when it comes to imaging, image depth, the "realism" of the sound.

Nonsense, Harry. What 'digital noise from a PC' are you referring to and
why do
you insist it's both common and audible?

You ever hear the effect of a PC on a good audio system when it is operating
nearby? Do you think that same low level noise does not invade the analog
circuitry in the PC itself, feeding the audio/headphones out on the typlical
cheap analog circuitry built into most pcs. Even if at a very low,
subliminal-like level, it still affects the audio signal. Not exactly
high-fidelity.

I'm not
arguing that headphones can't demonstrate certain distortions...just that
they have never been tested to show that they can demonstrate ALL
distortions.

They can certainly demonsrate low-level differences that would not usually
be apparent
in 'open air' listening...one typical reasonn being the higher S/N .

Yep, which is why I presume the developers of codecs found them useful. But
as I said, that still doesn't mean that headphones revewal all the subtle
imaging effects that we are used to as audiophiles. And there is no reason
to not believe that codecs can't effect that as well.


It is one thing to be skeptical...it is another to automatically say
somebody is an "outlier" and not to be believed because they report
results
that are not the norm.

It is utterly proper to call a rare result -- both predicted to be
rare,
and rare in
practice -- an 'outlier'.

If you are a scientist. Which you are not.


Actually, I am, with a PhD and publications and everything, Harry. A
biologist,
to be precise.

So I'm going to have to ask you to retract that claim.

I certainly will retract that....for all the years that you and I have
posted here, I somehow missed that. I apologize.

[[email protected]]

On May 25, 8:15*pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

snip

You ever hear the effect of a PC on a good audio system when it is operating
nearby? *Do you think that same low level noise does not invade the analog
circuitry in the PC itself, feeding the audio/headphones out on the typlical
cheap analog circuitry built into most pcs. *Even if at a very low,
subliminal-like level, it still affects the audio signal. *Not exactly
high-fidelity.

One might suggest that such an audio system is actually quite
deficient if a nearby PC degrades the performance. Take a look at the
Lynx 22 converter with a dynamic range of 115 dB. This is a PCI card
so it resides in this supposedly horrible environment but being well
designed it works quite well. Even some low-cost sound cards can have
a dynamic range greater than 80 dB which is well below the background
noise of typical recording environments. As noted elsewhere, many
commercial recordings are made using PCs and Macs without any apparent
deficiencies.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


You ever hear the effect of a PC on a good audio system
when it is operating nearby?

Of course, but how much depends on the PC.

Do you think that same low
level noise does not invade the analog circuitry in the
PC itself, feeding the audio/headphones out on the
typical cheap analog circuitry built into most pcs.

Sometimes yes, often no.

Even if at a very low, subliminal-like level, it still
affects the audio signal. Not exactly high-fidelity.

Here we have someone who clearly is propounding the myths that:

(1) All PCs sound the same. (bad)

(2) There's no way to manage any of the problems that some PCs have.

I'm not
arguing that headphones can't demonstrate certain
distortions...just that they have never been tested to
show that they can demonstrate ALL distortions.

They can certainly demonstrate low-level differences that
would not usually be apparent
in 'open air' listening...one typical reason being the
higher S/N .

Yep, which is why I presume the developers of codecs
found them useful. But as I said, that still doesn't
mean that headphones reveal all the subtle imaging
effects that we are used to as audiophiles.

More to the point, loudspeakers can't possibly reveal all of the subtle
imaging effects that are audible via headphones, because of all the
extraneous garbage that loudspeakers and rooms bring into the listening
situation.

And there is no reason to not believe that codecs can't effect that as
well.

Indeed, that's why people do careful listening tests to see exactly what
given codecs are doing.

At this point it is arguable that codecs are among to most
carefully-listened-to audio components around. Certainly, codecs have been
more carefully listened to than say power amplifiers, since almost nobody
does good DBTs of amplifiers.

[[email protected]]

Harry Lavo wrote:

You ever hear the effect of a PC on a good audio system when it is operating
nearby? Do you think that same low level noise does not invade the analog
circuitry in the PC itself, feeding the audio/headphones out on the typlical
cheap analog circuitry built into most pcs. Even if at a very low,
subliminal-like level, it still affects the audio signal. Not exactly
high-fidelity.

You REALLY need to get out more. The Lynx 2 is one of the quietest
audio interfaces that there is. A LOT more quiet than most so-called
stuff that's labeled "high-end" which is often pretty noisy in
comparison. I know - I've tested a lot of it and this is provable, both
objectively and empirically.

Funny (in the strange sense) that you don't mention the acoustic noise
from the fans, which IS a real problem, but solvable. I get around it
by using a fanless power supply, an efficient low speed fan for the CPU
and putting the machine in a nearby closet.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message

On May 21, 2:58 pm, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

snip

Well, I listened myself for as long as I could stand it
on my "very fine" equipment. So I tend to support those
who hear a difference on their "very fine" equipment,
among other things. But there is certainly lots of
antecdotal evidence around. An in-room stereo of good
quality reveals much more than headphones, especially
ones bathed in digital noise from a PC, when it comes to
imaging, image depth, the "realism" of the sound.

Please explain what you mean about "bathed in digital
noise from a PC". How does such noise sound? Many
commercial recordings are made using PCs and Macs. Do
they suffer from being bathed in digital noise?

The myth is that PCs are somehow uniquely bathed in digital noise. Many
kinds of modern audio components are bathed in digital noise, such as DACs,
optical disc players, and surround decoders and receivers, but nobody seems
to be very worried about them.

There is a science and art called "mixed signal design". Executed well, it
can make modern digital/analog equipment effectively noise free.

[Harry Lavo]

wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:

You ever hear the effect of a PC on a good audio system when it is
operating nearby? Do you think that same low level noise does not invade
the analog circuitry in the PC itself, feeding the audio/headphones out
on the typlical cheap analog circuitry built into most pcs. Even if at a
very low, subliminal-like level, it still affects the audio signal. Not
exactly high-fidelity.

You REALLY need to get out more. The Lynx 2 is one of the quietest audio
interfaces that there is. A LOT more quiet than most so-called stuff
that's labeled "high-end" which is often pretty noisy in comparison. I
know - I've tested a lot of it and this is provable, both objectively and
empirically.

Funny (in the strange sense) that you don't mention the acoustic noise
from the fans, which IS a real problem, but solvable. I get around it by
using a fanless power supply, an efficient low speed fan for the CPU and
putting the machine in a nearby closet.

And how many audiophiles with very good main systems have a computer with a
Lynx sound card? If they record live, maybe. Otherwise, probably not.
I'm talking about ordinary people with ordinary computers doing a
computerized ABX or ABC/hr test as per the POV expressed here that that is
somehow superior to listening on one's main high-end system.

[[email protected]]

Harry Lavo wrote:

And how many audiophiles with very good main systems have a computer with a
Lynx sound card? If they record live, maybe. Otherwise, probably not.
I'm talking about ordinary people with ordinary computers doing a
computerized ABX or ABC/hr test as per the POV expressed here that that is
somehow superior to listening on one's main high-end system.

You mentioned "high fidelity" in your post, so I was responding to that.

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


And how many audiophiles with very good main systems have
a computer with a Lynx sound card?

Easily thousands.

If they record live, maybe.

I owned a LynxOne and a Lynxtwo for a number of years before I did any
serious recording. And before that, a CardDeluxe.

Otherwise, probably not. I'm talking about
ordinary people with ordinary computers doing a
computerized ABX or ABC/hr test as per the POV expressed
here that that is somehow superior to listening on one's
main high-end system.

The point is Harry that all it takes is about $100 for an Audiophile 2496,
and you've got a PC playback system that will equal or beat any CD player.

Due to the continuing drop in the price of good converter chips, for than
$200 you can get one several interfaces from eMu that will match the
performance of a LynxTwo.

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 25 May 2009 17:15:05 -0700, Harry Lavo wrote
(in article ):

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
Who says 'fine equipment' makes mp3 artifacst more audible?

Really, Harry, where have you gotten your information about mp3s from?

Well, I listened myself for as long as I could stand it on my "very fine"
equipment.

Not good enough (your 'education',not your audio gear)

antSo I tend to support those who hear a difference on their "very
fine" equipment, among other things. But there is certainly lots of
anecdotal evidence around.

Not good enough.

An in-room stereo of good quality reveals much
more than headphones, especially ones bathed in digital noise from a PC,
when it comes to imaging, image depth, the "realism" of the sound.

Nonsense, Harry. What 'digital noise from a PC' are you referring to and
why do
you insist it's both common and audible?

You ever hear the effect of a PC on a good audio system when it is operating
nearby? Do you think that same low level noise does not invade the analog
circuitry in the PC itself, feeding the audio/headphones out on the typlical
cheap analog circuitry built into most pcs. Even if at a very low,
subliminal-like level, it still affects the audio signal. Not exactly
high-fidelity.

My understanding is that on well designed sound-cards it's not a problem.
Sensitive components are well shielded. I have an Apple TV box which is a
complete computer with sound components and it is connected to my video
system and even with fairly decent speakers connected and with the volume
pretty loud, I hear NOTHING but the program. Even with nothing playing there
is no discernable noise.

snip

[Steven Sullivan]

"mcdonaldREMOVE wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:


There is an issue, of course, of file size. But if we
will restore each of compressed files to straight CD encoding then
they will be pretty much of the same size. Make few copies of each,
end send them to Sonnova. I wonder if he will be able to pinpoint
compressed files reliably above simple guessing.

Which is the test I did with a handful of skeptics, and none of those
who reported back performed better than chance.



You have to be careful of cheating.

Indeed, and they *could* have cheated by analysing the file spectra...but apparently
none did.

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

[Steven Sullivan]

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:
Who says 'fine equipment' makes mp3 artifacst more audible?

Really, Harry, where have you gotten your information about mp3s from?

Well, I listened myself for as long as I could stand it on my "very fine"
equipment.

Not good enough (your 'education',not your audio gear)

antSo I tend to support those who hear a difference on their "very
fine" equipment, among other things. But there is certainly lots of
anecdotal evidence around.

Not good enough.

An in-room stereo of good quality reveals much
more than headphones, especially ones bathed in digital noise from a PC,
when it comes to imaging, image depth, the "realism" of the sound.

Nonsense, Harry. What 'digital noise from a PC' are you referring to and
why do
you insist it's both common and audible?

You ever hear the effect of a PC on a good audio system when it is operating
nearby?

No. In fact, I play much of my music library *through* a PC (a laptop) feeding
digital out via USB to an AVR with USB input.

Do you think that same low level noise does not invade the analog
circuitry in the PC itself, feeding the audio/headphones out on the typlical
cheap analog circuitry built into most pcs. Even if at a very low,
subliminal-like level, it still affects the audio signal. Not exactly
high-fidelity.

I think you need to prove that what you claim to be a common audible problem,
is.

be apparent
in 'open air' listening...one typical reasonn being the higher S/N .

Yep, which is why I presume the developers of codecs found them useful. But
as I said, that still doesn't mean that headphones revewal all the subtle
imaging effects that we are used to as audiophiles. And there is no reason
to not believe that codecs can't effect that as well.

Of course codecs *can* affect lots of things. The issue is whether they
audibly DO, and under what conditiosn. You haven't even begun to show that
you've investigated the issue enough to make a claim one way or the other.

Actually, I am, with a PhD and publications and everything, Harry. A
biologist,
to be precise.

So I'm going to have to ask you to retract that claim.

I certainly will retract that....for all the years that you and I have
posted here, I somehow missed that. I apologize.

Accepted.

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