| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#202
|
|||
|
|||
tweaks and proof
Bromo wrote:
On 6/27/04 1:18 PM, in article wjDDc.118970$HG.109026@attbi_s53, "chung" wrote: Despite, or in addition to, what the designers may (or may not) tell you, the consumer should try to think independently and use his/her own reasoning skills. Well some often do. They get smacked around in RAHE for doing so sometimes. Care to cite examples? A quick perusal of the archives ought to do it - something you should be very capable of doing. A google search of "smacked around" in RAHE did not return any examples. So obviously this is figurative speech. I want to ask for examples since I am interested in knowing what you and your friends consider as being "smacked around". A few times I posted some items (some right some wrong) people were quick to point out that I was incorrect, but very few took the time to try to set the record straight and do a decent job of correction. So being "smacked around" means being pointed out you were wrong? Is it our obligation to provide a decent job of correction? What do you consider a decent job of correction? IIRC, when I corrected your use of "Taylor series", when you should have said "Fourier analysis", you got really defensive. I tried to explain what is a Taylor series and what is a Fourier transform, and you accused me of jumping on to correct your errors and berating you. Of course you later admitted that I was correct and you were wrong after all, but I guess it would have been too much for me to ask for an apology. Or ask you to thank me for the "decent job" of correction  . |
|
#203
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
From: chung
Date: 6/27/2004 10:18 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: wjDDc.118970$HG.109026@attbi_s53 S888Wheel wrote: From: chung Date: 6/25/2004 11:32 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: (Nousaine) Date: 6/23/2004 4:10 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Bromo wrote: On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case here on both sides. Let me ask again. If I'm not mistaken you have said that anything that can be heard can be measured or perhaps that was more like 'if you can't measure a difference than there would be nothing to hear' or something similar. I then asked exactly what measureable differences would explain amp/cable sound ..... and I don't recall a response. Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we haven't already done? It might be that no one knows. If you notice something - even if 10 people were to denounce you - it does not mean you know the mechanism, nor are you the expert on what measurements to make. So how do they "design" products then .... by making random choices? Are some people just lucky? Why would you ask the consumer how the designer opperates? I suggest you pose those questions to actual designers and let them speak for themselves. Uh, Tom's intent of asking those questions is to make the consumer think about the questions. It seems that when many consumers do so the objectivists get very upset with any eroneous conclusions they may draw. Really? It seems like some of the people who came up with the erroneous conclusions get unhappy when it was pointed out to them why those conclusions were erroneous. I did not sense any objectivists getting upset over these erroneous conclusions at all. The question is better answered by the designers and the consumer is better served if the answers come form the designers. If you would say they "listen" to them for validation then I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public? Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of debate you should have already considered this. Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the consumer, think. And question. I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game played on consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issues. Wait a minute. Tom was asking some very general questions on the design process. I would think that someone not being very technical can still give an educated guess. What is the point of guessing? I think such guesses are nothing more than shark food. Or start thinking about an answer. Why? Some of us would really prefer to get at the best sound we can get without becoming EEs. I think Tom is just waiting for one subjectivbist to give a technically inept answer so he can pounce on that person. Can you give some examples of Tom's "pouncing"? I'm sure I could if I wanted to do the search. If you want to think this is of no interest to Tom fine. If it were truly a technically inept answer, would you object strongly if someone points that out? Hey if you guys enjoy subjectivist hunting on RAHE that's fine. We all have our hobbies. If one asks for an opinion and then attacks the opinion asked for that is simply baiting a sure win debate. May be great for the ego but it does nothing to advance the hobby of audio. I noticed nobody took the bait. The fact is it doesn't matter what answer he gets from the consumer. The question is one that should be posed to the designer. Why? Because they aren't guessing. It could lead to a discussion that would be relevant. Maybe you think discussions on someone's mistaken beliefs about another designers work and intentions is interesting. I don't. The consumer should be thinking about those questions, too. They "should'? Where is this rule of audiophilia written? Despite, or in addition to, what the designers may (or may not) tell you, the consumer should try to think independently and use his/her own reasoning skills. Well some often do. They get smacked around in RAHE for doing so sometimes. Care to cite examples? Not really. If you don't think it actually happens I'm not going to try to persuade you otherwise. People see what they want to see. I think it has been pretty obvious. |
|
#204
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
From: chung
Date: 6/27/2004 10:18 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: wjDDc.118970$HG.109026@attbi_s53 S888Wheel wrote: From: chung Date: 6/25/2004 11:32 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: (Nousaine) Date: 6/23/2004 4:10 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Bromo wrote: On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case here on both sides. Let me ask again. If I'm not mistaken you have said that anything that can be heard can be measured or perhaps that was more like 'if you can't measure a difference than there would be nothing to hear' or something similar. I then asked exactly what measureable differences would explain amp/cable sound ..... and I don't recall a response. Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we haven't already done? It might be that no one knows. If you notice something - even if 10 people were to denounce you - it does not mean you know the mechanism, nor are you the expert on what measurements to make. So how do they "design" products then .... by making random choices? Are some people just lucky? Why would you ask the consumer how the designer opperates? I suggest you pose those questions to actual designers and let them speak for themselves. Uh, Tom's intent of asking those questions is to make the consumer think about the questions. It seems that when many consumers do so the objectivists get very upset with any eroneous conclusions they may draw. Really? It seems like some of the people who came up with the erroneous conclusions get unhappy when it was pointed out to them why those conclusions were erroneous. I did not sense any objectivists getting upset over these erroneous conclusions at all. The question is better answered by the designers and the consumer is better served if the answers come form the designers. If you would say they "listen" to them for validation then I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public? Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of debate you should have already considered this. Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the consumer, think. And question. I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game played on consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issues. Wait a minute. Tom was asking some very general questions on the design process. I would think that someone not being very technical can still give an educated guess. What is the point of guessing? I think such guesses are nothing more than shark food. Or start thinking about an answer. Why? Some of us would really prefer to get at the best sound we can get without becoming EEs. I think Tom is just waiting for one subjectivbist to give a technically inept answer so he can pounce on that person. Can you give some examples of Tom's "pouncing"? I'm sure I could if I wanted to do the search. If you want to think this is of no interest to Tom fine. If it were truly a technically inept answer, would you object strongly if someone points that out? Hey if you guys enjoy subjectivist hunting on RAHE that's fine. We all have our hobbies. If one asks for an opinion and then attacks the opinion asked for that is simply baiting a sure win debate. May be great for the ego but it does nothing to advance the hobby of audio. I noticed nobody took the bait. The fact is it doesn't matter what answer he gets from the consumer. The question is one that should be posed to the designer. Why? Because they aren't guessing. It could lead to a discussion that would be relevant. Maybe you think discussions on someone's mistaken beliefs about another designers work and intentions is interesting. I don't. The consumer should be thinking about those questions, too. They "should'? Where is this rule of audiophilia written? Despite, or in addition to, what the designers may (or may not) tell you, the consumer should try to think independently and use his/her own reasoning skills. Well some often do. They get smacked around in RAHE for doing so sometimes. Care to cite examples? Not really. If you don't think it actually happens I'm not going to try to persuade you otherwise. People see what they want to see. I think it has been pretty obvious. |
|
#206
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
|
|
#207
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
"chung" wrote in message
... Bromo wrote: On 6/27/04 1:51 AM, in article FftDc.99337$2i5.10037@attbi_s52, "S888Wheel" wrote: Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of debate you should have already considered this. Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the consumer, think. And question. I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game played on consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issues. I think Tom is just waiting for one subjectivbist to give a technically inept answer so he can pounce on that person. The fact is it doesn't matter what answer he gets from the consumer. The question is one that should be posed to the designer I believe that it is a mistake for someone who hears a difference, scientist, consumer or designer, unless really skilled in the art, to offer and "explanation" - because invariably a debunker will be able to refute the explanation (only proving the someone in question didn't know why the difference was noted) and avoid the more difficult and intellectually important task of proving or disproving the observation. Now let's give a counter example to illustrate how you are wrong. SACD and CD versions of the same recording were sometimes assumed to be mastered identically and any superiority of the sound clearly due to the better technical specs of DSD. Recently people noticed that on some Telarc recording, the two versions sound different. Careful inspection of the CD wave files shows digital clipping. This clearly indicates an intentional compression on the CD by the mastering engineer. Follow-up emails to Telarc confirm this. So here is an example that shows people hear differences, and were able to provide an explanation that runs counter to the popular notion that the two versions are mastered the same way, or that DSD has to be superior. Now, Mr. Bromo, why don't you try to refute this explanation? By the way, Norm Strong provided a link to this incident a few days ago. Yes, but you conveniently overlook two things: 1) You and the other objectivists used to argue that the SA-CD layer sounded better than the CD layer because the SA-CD layer had been artificially boosted in volume. Exactly the opposite is true, which all else being equal, would give the advantage to the CD layer. 2) Of course, all else is not equal since there is compression and clipping. Which should lead you to ponder that these artifacts were heard without dbt as an inferior sound from the CD layer by those of us who thought the SACD sound superior. 3) None of this necessarily establishes that CD will sound as good as SACD even if they are exactly level matched and uncompressed. Sometimes things don't fit conveniently into the boxes you wish to put them in. |
|
#208
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
On 6/27/04 4:17 PM, in article rXFDc.125025$Sw.22327@attbi_s51, "chung"
wrote: And you feel that lumping the fools and the geniuses together as designers is fair to the geniuses? Are you going to be the arbitrator of who the fools and geniuses are? Are you so brilliant that you can make that determination for the world? Gee, when did I ever say that? You were the one who said that there were fools and geniuses... Of course, what you call geniuses I may disagree, so how could there be an arbitrator in this case? Hey guys - didn't you know is it I who arbitrate who is called genius and fool? :-) |
|
#209
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
|
|
#211
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
|
|
#212
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:vJFDc.118769$eu.79790@attbi_s02... snip...snip.. During this time exactly NO High-End manufacturer, distributor or journalist has ever demonstrated a single experiment that shows that amp/wire sound exists when subjects are asked to "hear" it with listening bias controlled. Not ONE. High-end is where rigor is lacking. I can vouche for that.My humble experience, I was not able to distinguish Conrad Johnson, Gryphon and one another. But I would say Air Tight sounded more pleasing ( I loved the sound) but I am not going to bet on it under DBT. |
|
#213
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
In article , Bromo
wrote: Reminds me of the debunkers that debunk astrology - they gather a bunch of people in a room and hand out the same "horoscope" or "personality profile" to everyone - and everyone agrees it was spot-on at which point it is revealed they were duped. The TV show this appears on concludes with a "well, that about washes it up for astrology." They sometimes go on to an astrologer and ask them how it works - the astrologer mumbles something about gravitational influence or something - cut back to the debunker who on a whiteboard or display shows how that couldn't possible be true with further conclusions "well, astrology mustn't work then." What have they proven? That people are gullible, and astrologers have no clue as to why what they do could possibly work. Now, whether you think astrology works or not is immaterial - the rigor by the people debunking it does no service to the cause of light and science - because all the astrologers have to say then is "we don't know why it works but it does" - and "people are gullible, but it doesn't mean we are cheating them." They would be correct, and the debunker has to begin all over again - and would be counting on the lasting impression on the same 'gullible people' exposed during the show. The above is hardly the only method used to debunk astrology, though you seem to be acting as if it is. There have been formal and rigorous experiments. I am not aware of any whose results indicated that astrology had any useful predictive value. But you don't hear about them because the simple demonstrations are better for the TV camera. Aside from which, you've left out countless other types of informal demonstrations with different emphasis. The point of the exercise you mentioned is not to prove that astrology doesn't work. It's designed to raise public consciousness about the reasons why it appears to work. Such self-knowledge (if sufficiently generalized and internalized) can protect people from countless other scams. Including some of those which infest "high end" audio... Why all this garbage about the thoroughly debunked and disproven waste o' time, Astrology? Because A similar level of non-rigor is shown by the high end debunkers - and it begs the question if the debunkers are holding "a position" every bit as stubbornly by insisting that "nothing matters" as those that insist that "everything matters." Your characterization of high end audio debunking seems just as suspect as your characterization of astrology debunking. -- Tim |
|
#214
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
On 27 Jun 2004 14:03:38 GMT, Bromo wrote:
On 6/27/04 1:50 AM, in article uetDc.103189$Hg2.562@attbi_s04, "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote: The so called inferior High End products had their slow death. Seen any belt driven CD Player lately? The good products survived. Unfortunately Wadia, Audio Note et al do still exist............ Why is it unfortunate that Wadia and Audio Note exist? Because they use belt driven transports (I didn't think they did - at least Wadia) or that they are not popular amongst the people with less means? They do not use belt-driven transports, but they definitely qualify as inferior high end products. Audio Note because they use tubes, and because they unbelievably leave out an essential part of the CD replay system - the reconstruction filter. Wadia because they use a form of reconstruction filter which introduces false images in the audio band. As noted by the 'et al', they are of course not the only guilty parties in the so-called 'high end', they are just examples of the grossly overpriced and yet technically incompetent rubbish which pervades domestic audio. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#215
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
On 27 Jun 2004 14:05:11 GMT, Bromo wrote:
Why all this garbage about the thoroughly debunked and disproven waste o' time, Astrology? Because A similar level of non-rigor is shown by the high end debunkers - and it begs the question if the debunkers are holding "a position" every bit as stubbornly by insisting that "nothing matters" as those that insist that "everything matters." Utter rubbish. The 'high end' debunkers do no such thing. What we *do* do, is ask for the claimants to provide proof of their extraordinary claims - which is a first principle of scientific investigation. This has *never* been forthcoming, so we hold the proposition that 'wire is wire' until someone *proves* otherwise. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#216
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:17:48 GMT, Bromo wrote:
On 6/27/04 1:50 AM, in article QetDc.99332$2i5.90921@attbi_s52, "Steven Sullivan" wrote: No, sir, the 'urban myth' is that scientists ever believed that bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly, or 'couldn't fly'. NO ONE has ever claimed that insect flight has been completely understood. Of course everyone knows the bumblebees *can* fly - just that our theory is inadequate to explain as you said. The original, broader implications, are that it might be possible that there are other things that happen that are contrary to our thoeries - i.e. All the theories say there should be no difference sonically between 20' of 16ga zipcord and 8' of Kimber 16 conductor woven cable - yet there seems to be one. No, there doesn't. You are erecting a strawman here, as the whole point of the bumblebee tale is that bumblebees can be repeatably and reliably observed to fly, therefore it's worth while investigating how they do this. OTOH, not one single person has ever reliably and repeatably demonstrated that zipcord sounds different from Kimber (or any other 'audiophile' brand) cable, so there is *nothing* to investigate. In the precise example you give, there will be a gross resistance mismatch, which is likely to disqualify the cable on grounds of simple level difference. Easily fixed by using 12AWG zipcord. The inductive mismatch is less likely to cause a problem, but would remain in the realm of obvious electrical difference, rather than audiophile 'magic'. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#217
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
TChelvam wrote:
"Rich.Andrews" wrote in message ... snip..snip... The short version is that many years ago (1930's) the then current model for flight didn't fit the bumblebee and other insects. A sciencephobe stated that science is a crock since it proved (with their then current model of aerodynamics) that it can't. So, there was a time in history the knowledgeable community lacked the knowledge to explain many of the day to day events. Of course. I don't think there has ever been a time when any scientist said that science has all the answers. |
|
#218
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Bromo wrote:
On 6/27/04 1:09 PM, in article , "chung" wrote: I believe that it is a mistake for someone who hears a difference, scientist, consumer or designer, unless really skilled in the art, to offer and "explanation" - because invariably a debunker will be able to refute the explanation (only proving the someone in question didn't know why the difference was noted) and avoid the more difficult and intellectually important task of proving or disproving the observation. Now let's give a counter example to illustrate how you are wrong. SACD and CD versions of the same recording were sometimes assumed to be mastered identically and any superiority of the sound clearly due to the better technical specs of DSD. Recently people noticed that on some Telarc recording, the two versions sound different. Careful inspection of the CD wave files shows digital clipping. This clearly indicates an intentional compression on the CD by the mastering engineer. Follow-up emails to Telarc confirm this. So here is an example that shows people hear differences, and were able to provide an explanation that runs counter to the popular notion that the two versions are mastered the same way, or that DSD has to be superior. Now, Mr. Bromo, why don't you try to refute this explanation? Okay - someone not skilled in the art could pose a number of "explanations" for the different sounds - many of which would be wrong. If this person were to claim that they heard a difference and it was because they had bathed their CD player in warm milk (your particular favorite example) - again an explanation that would be a wild guess - so a debunker could easily refute the warm milk theory and be no closer to the root cause. There. You seem to have missed the whole point. There is no way to come up with an irrefutable explanation for invalid claims. In the warm milk example, of course any explanation can easily be shot down. The root cause is that there is no difference in sound. Once you understand that there is no way to explain the difference, you should be closer to the root cause: there is no detectible audible difference. The process of shooting down explanations is one way of getting closer to the root cause. |
|
#219
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
TChelvam wrote:
"Rich.Andrews" wrote in message ... snip..snip... The short version is that many years ago (1930's) the then current model for flight didn't fit the bumblebee and other insects. A sciencephobe stated that science is a crock since it proved (with their then current model of aerodynamics) that it can't. So, there was a time in history the knowledgeable community lacked the knowledge to explain many of the day to day events. So, complete the analogy -- which 'day to day event' related to cables, tweaks etc., do we currently lack the knowledge to explain? -- -S. Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. -- spiffy |
|
#220
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Bromo wrote:
On 6/27/04 5:56 PM, in article , "chung" wrote: My anecdote about engineers laughing was simply intended to show you how engineers look at some of these claims. No proof was attempted. Given that you have misunderstood, no sense in responding to what you wrote below. I mentioned my wife observed something - and got piled on by others on this group for that being a cop-out. I would bring to the group's attention that regardless of the qualifications of his friends - he is saying his "wife" thought that it was ridiculous. Did I mention my wife has a PhD in particle physics? No? It's because she doesn't - but you see how the qualifications shouldn't validate the "my friends bust out laughing" or "my wife noticed it from the other room" are the *same* explanation and should have no bearing. Actually using laughter of people who were alleged engineers is not more convincing that using other anecdotes of other friends, wives and so on. Uhh, in case you have not noticed, I was not trying to convince anyone of anything. I was merely bring up an anecdote to show how some of the audio myths are perceived by EE's. After all, your friends might be audio engineers, train engineers, plumber engineers (as in England), mechanical engineers, and so on - or not engineers at all - and you made it all up in order to make a convincing post (though I do not believe *that*). If you need any clarification, they are EE's. You are welcome to try some of the claims Dick mentioned on your EE colleagues. What would that laughter prove - they could have been laughing at you for asking the question because they firmly believed that Shatki Stones worked miracles? Again, I was not trying to prove or disprove anything. The point I was making is that you cannot deny the use of friends and spouses of others as "proof" without removing the same anecdotal evidence from your posts... Again... |
|
#221
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
Bromo wrote in news:9LCDc.124484$Sw.18408@attbi_s51:
On 6/27/04 9:54 AM, in article , "Rich.Andrews" wrote: The whole issue about the bumblebee and aerodynamics is explained at http://www.keelynet.com/interact/archive/00001691.htm The short version is that many years ago (1930's) the then current model for flight didn't fit the bumblebee and other insects. A sciencephobe stated that science is a crock since it proved (with their then current model of aerodynamics) that it can't. At any rate, when the truth was exposed that there are many different ways to predict flight and many models, that wasn't newsworthy and as such, did not get the attention it deserved, so the myth continues to this day. It illustrates though, at any point, it is possible to apply the wrong theory, or to not be open to see if a dearly held belief is incorrect. A belief may be wrong but I have yet to see Ohm's laws fail. As a matter of fact, I have yet to see any law regarding electronics be in error. I have seen laws misapplied, errors in computation, etc., but the laws are true and sound and have been for many years. Now if you want to try and wrap your head around bizarre happenings, try quantum physics where things are never quite what you would expect. (:) r -- Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes. |
|
#222
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
(S888Wheel) wrote:
From: (Nousaine) Date: 6/27/2004 10:18 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: OjDDc.118971$HG.29498@attbi_s53 (S888Wheel) wrote: ...snips.... So how do they "design" products then .... by making random choices? Are some people just lucky? Why would you ask the consumer how the designer opperates? I suggest you pose those questions to actual designers and let them speak for themselves. Uh, Tom's intent of asking those questions is to make the consumer think about the questions. And it assumes that I have not asked designers of high-end tweak products how they design products. Not entirely an assumption. This isn't the first time I have asked you about this. So far you have never described any such dialogues with designers that fit the picture or even acknowledged having had any such discussions. After a while it is reasonable to deduct that no such dialogues have taken place. Sure thats a reasonable assumption; but its wrong. It's like all the expriments that have never been conducted to 'prove' wire/amp sound. The answers have been basically obfuscation. None has defined a process. I guess this means you have hads such discussions. care to name names and tell us more precisely what these designers actually said? I'll play the Atkinson card and say that it's not a good idea for me to mention names publicly. But what has been said is exactly what you profess later in this post. The "lab"at a wire company was a conference room a single "piece" of electronic equipment that was idle and the room was empty during my visity. Of course all by itself that means nothing.... but so do uncontrolled listening "tests." Which company was this? Transparent Audio Marketing. It seems that when many consumers do so the objectivists get very upset with any eroneous conclusions they may draw. The question is better answered by the designers and the consumer is better served if the answers come form the designers. And how many has Mr Wheeler asked? Several actually. And what were the answers he received? Bill Johnson said the design proccess was one of intuitive ideas followed with a lot of listening with some trial and error and a lot more listening. The trial and error part was usually in finding the best components and materials. Peter Forsell said his design wrok was mostly trial and error. His turntable went through over fifty different incarnations, All decisions were based on listening tests. Trial and error. OK so they just randomly substitute parts/circuits and "hope" for improvement. With the several hundred "parts" inside an amplifier exactly how do they ever hone-in on an optimized design? Don't they have to perform listening tests on "every" part and on "every" change in value? Actually that is exactly what I've heard from high-end manufacturers ...... they just guess and have no systematic process for optimization. Andy Payor claims his aproach was quite the opposite. The work was done very much on paper with little trial and error. Which would be exactly right .... but where are his controlled listening test validation tests of the improvements in sound of his turntables? If you would say they "listen" to them for validation then I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public? Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of debate you should have already considered this. Mr Wheeler thinks that I haven't? Up until now I doubted it due to your failure to ever give a specific answer when ever asked about it. You still haven't named any names of designers who have discussed their design proccess with you. Why would you expect that I would make them look like fools? They do a good enough job by themselves by NOT providing evidence that shows their products provide the benefits they claim. Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the consumer, think. And question. I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game played on consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issues. I think Tom is just waiting for one subjectivbist to give a technically inept answer so he can pounce on that person. The fact is it doesn't matter what answer he gets from the consumer. The question is one that should be posed to the designer. And as an enthusiast Mr Wheeler hasn't asked these questions himself? Not of other consumers. I don't expect them to speak for the designers. Some of them are very happy to speak out on practically everything. But again I hear so much "talk" about the sound of amps/wires but no evidence of its existance from the high-end community it has to make one wonder why their customers argue so hard when the makers leave them strung out on the evidentiary line. Despite, or in addition to, what the designers may (or may not) tell you, the consumer should try to think independently and use his/her own reasoning skills. Well some often do. They get smacked around in RAHE for doing so sometimes. "Smacked around?" Of whom do you speak? I guess Bromo hasn't been "smacked around" lately has he? No he hasn't. He's been treated fairly and at arms' length. |
|
#223
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... Bromo wrote: On 6/27/04 1:51 AM, in article FftDc.99337$2i5.10037@attbi_s52, "S888Wheel" wrote: Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of debate you should have already considered this. Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the consumer, think. And question. I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game played on consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issues. I think Tom is just waiting for one subjectivbist to give a technically inept answer so he can pounce on that person. The fact is it doesn't matter what answer he gets from the consumer. The question is one that should be posed to the designer I believe that it is a mistake for someone who hears a difference, scientist, consumer or designer, unless really skilled in the art, to offer and "explanation" - because invariably a debunker will be able to refute the explanation (only proving the someone in question didn't know why the difference was noted) and avoid the more difficult and intellectually important task of proving or disproving the observation. Now let's give a counter example to illustrate how you are wrong. SACD and CD versions of the same recording were sometimes assumed to be mastered identically and any superiority of the sound clearly due to the better technical specs of DSD. Recently people noticed that on some Telarc recording, the two versions sound different. Careful inspection of the CD wave files shows digital clipping. This clearly indicates an intentional compression on the CD by the mastering engineer. Follow-up emails to Telarc confirm this. So here is an example that shows people hear differences, and were able to provide an explanation that runs counter to the popular notion that the two versions are mastered the same way, or that DSD has to be superior. Now, Mr. Bromo, why don't you try to refute this explanation? By the way, Norm Strong provided a link to this incident a few days ago. Yes, but you conveniently overlook two things: Not really, unless you can refute that explanation. 1) You and the other objectivists used to argue that the SA-CD layer sounded better than the CD layer because the SA-CD layer had been artificially boosted in volume. Exactly the opposite is true, which all else being equal, would give the advantage to the CD layer. Not when the boost is so much that distortion is audible. Furthermore, some of us claimed that the *players* themselves boost up the level a notch when playing the SACD layer. See the difference? 2) Of course, all else is not equal since there is compression and clipping. Which should lead you to ponder that these artifacts were heard without dbt as an inferior sound from the CD layer by those of us who thought the SACD sound superior. The point however is that the superiority may not lie in the DSD technology, but is the result of mastering differences. Which is what we have always suspected as to why the two layers may sound different. And there are CD's that are mastered correctly, too. 3) None of this necessarily establishes that CD will sound as good as SACD even if they are exactly level matched and uncompressed. But it explains why some people believe that SACD's sound different or better. Other experiments appear to indicate that no one has detected a difference when two were mastered the same way. Like carefully recording the output of a SACD player on redbook CD. Sometimes things don't fit conveniently into the boxes you wish to put them in. I would say that this is true. Now, what boxes do you wish to put them into? . |
|
#224
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
Bromo wrote:
On 6/27/04 5:55 PM, in article , "chung" wrote: How do you explain why people believe that green pens, or Shatki stones, makes a difference? People are gullible. Because some people believe wrongly, does not extend to everyone you disagree with. But the fact is that if people are gullible like you said, then there is the possibility that that gullibility could lead to them perceiving audio differences where there aren't. No one said that everyone you disagree with is gullible. If I think that pigs can fly - does not mean that airplanes won't. Not sure about the relevance of that remark. The point is that you can believe whatever you want - but your beliefs will never change physical reality. I might believe that both pigs and airplane might fly - my rightness or wrongness has no influence on the reality that airplanes only will fly. OK, so you are paraphrasing a point that is commonly made by objectivists. But what is the relevance in the context of the present discussion? (further simplified - you can refute a person's belief that cables might have different sounds, but it does not preclude them from being right about *other* things.) (Further simplfied? It seems like they are two totally different points.) I would think that this is common knowledge. I know of an accountant who really believes in cable sound. He is one hell of a good accountant, and he can do my taxes any time. |
|
#225
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 6/27/2004 10:18 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: wjDDc.118970$HG.109026@attbi_s53 S888Wheel wrote: From: chung Date: 6/25/2004 11:32 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: (Nousaine) Date: 6/23/2004 4:10 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Bromo wrote: On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case here on both sides. Let me ask again. If I'm not mistaken you have said that anything that can be heard can be measured or perhaps that was more like 'if you can't measure a difference than there would be nothing to hear' or something similar. I then asked exactly what measureable differences would explain amp/cable sound ..... and I don't recall a response. Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we haven't already done? It might be that no one knows. If you notice something - even if 10 people were to denounce you - it does not mean you know the mechanism, nor are you the expert on what measurements to make. So how do they "design" products then .... by making random choices? Are some people just lucky? Why would you ask the consumer how the designer opperates? I suggest you pose those questions to actual designers and let them speak for themselves. Uh, Tom's intent of asking those questions is to make the consumer think about the questions. It seems that when many consumers do so the objectivists get very upset with any eroneous conclusions they may draw. Really? It seems like some of the people who came up with the erroneous conclusions get unhappy when it was pointed out to them why those conclusions were erroneous. I did not sense any objectivists getting upset over these erroneous conclusions at all. The question is better answered by the designers and the consumer is better served if the answers come form the designers. If you would say they "listen" to them for validation then I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public? Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of debate you should have already considered this. Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the consumer, think. And question. I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game played on consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issues. Wait a minute. Tom was asking some very general questions on the design process. I would think that someone not being very technical can still give an educated guess. What is the point of guessing? I think such guesses are nothing more than shark food. Or start thinking about an answer. Why? Some of us would really prefer to get at the best sound we can get without becoming EEs. In that case, you probably don't want to know the answer anyway. So why are you even interested in Tom's question? In case you have forgotten, Tom's question was how did the designers design those products, if, as Mr Bromo suggested, no one knows how to make measurements that show those products work. Seems like a legitimate and fair question to ask on this forum. And it can be considered a good rhetorical question, too. I think Tom is just waiting for one subjectivbist to give a technically inept answer so he can pounce on that person. Can you give some examples of Tom's "pouncing"? I'm sure I could if I wanted to do the search. If you want to think this is of no interest to Tom fine. Actually I believe that Tom would want to see some examples, too. Didn't Tom asked you for some similar examples? If it were truly a technically inept answer, would you object strongly if someone points that out? Hey if you guys enjoy subjectivist hunting on RAHE that's fine. We all have our hobbies. If one asks for an opinion and then attacks the opinion asked for that is simply baiting a sure win debate. Would you equate pointing out a technically wrong explanation as attacking the opinion? May be great for the ego but it does nothing to advance the hobby of audio. You think asking the proper questions, or refuting the technically wrong opinions, does nothing to advance the understanding of audio among hobbyists? Just today, Mr. Bromo learned that there are 16 information bits in CD samples, because people corrected him. I would say that his understanding of audio has been advanced tremendously. I noticed nobody took the bait. I noticed nobody else complained about Tom's questions either. The fact is it doesn't matter what answer he gets from the consumer. The question is one that should be posed to the designer. Why? Because they aren't guessing. It could lead to a discussion that would be relevant. Maybe you think discussions on someone's mistaken beliefs about another designers work and intentions is interesting. I don't. The consumer should be thinking about those questions, too. They "should'? Where is this rule of audiophilia written? Why would you interpret it as a rule? I am making a suggestion, and somehow you read that as me imposing a rule? Despite, or in addition to, what the designers may (or may not) tell you, the consumer should try to think independently and use his/her own reasoning skills. Well some often do. They get smacked around in RAHE for doing so sometimes. Care to cite examples? Not really. If you don't think it actually happens I'm not going to try to persuade you otherwise. People see what they want to see. That part is clear to me. I think it has been pretty obvious. Then examples would be easy to cite, no? |
|
#226
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
"TChelvam" wrote in message
news:ciLDc.164378$3x.92471@attbi_s54... "Rich.Andrews" wrote in message ... snip..snip... The short version is that many years ago (1930's) the then current model for flight didn't fit the bumblebee and other insects. A sciencephobe stated that science is a crock since it proved (with their then current model of aerodynamics) that it can't. So, there was a time in history the knowledgeable community lacked the knowledge to explain many of the day to day events. It still does. But this does not invalidate science. It's pretty much a given in philosophy that lack of knowledge in one area does not invalidate knowledge in others. I may not know how a bumblebee flies [1] but I'm sure that it can and I certainly know why and how electrons move in a CRT tube or in a wire. But "knowledge" should never presume "complete knowledge" because we can never know what we haven't observed yet. That's how most of the fundamental discoveries in science and technology come to be. It should be remembered, however, that almost all scientists now accept Karl Popper's thesis that science isn't provable, only disprovable. The best a scientist can do is to demonstrate that his theories predict the results of real experiments and claim that there are no experiments that discredit them. Nevertheless, electronics is a mature science which pretty much explains the results of all "objective" measurements -- psychology should be used to evaluate subjective ones. Norm NOTES: [1] I'm pretty sure that current entomology and aerodynamics has progressed to the point that we now can safely say that bumblebees should be able to fly. |
|
#227
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
From: Glenn Booth
Date: 6/27/2004 2:57 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Hi, In message TgDDc.104735$Hg2.80780@attbi_s04, S888Wheel writes From: Glenn Booth Date: 6/25/2004 3:04 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Pj1Dc.109631$eu.33807@attbi_s02 Hi, In message g5_Cc.116604$Sw.51156@attbi_s51, S888Wheel writes Well for kicks I asked a couple grader school kids if they saw anything wrong with 1+1=2.1. They did, eeach and every one of them. Did you ask them if they could design a proof that 1+1 does not equal 2.1? That, in my mind, would be closer to equivalence. Irrelevent. I don't think so. The question wasn't whether or not they could design a proof the question was whether or not debunking the cited tweaks was as simple as doing the math for 1+1 Indeed, but all that is required to debunk the tweaks is to take part in a test, not to design it. An altogether different level of competence and skill is involved. Designing a proof that "1+1 is not equal to 2.1" is more akin to designing a test to debunk a tweak, no? And if our grade school kids are going to thoroughly 'debunk' the notion that 1+1 is not equal to 2.1, shouldn't they prove it? Simple assertion isn't going to cut it in either case. Grade school kids know that 1+1 = 2 intuitively; they don't need proof to know the truth of it. In a similar way, a competent physicist, armed with knowledge of how CDs work, could debunk (e.g.) the 'green pen' tweak without needing to design a proof; they would simply know that it could not work by the stated method. I then asked them if they could debunk the green pen CD myth using ABX DBTs. They looked at me like I was from Mars. Truth. Did you ask them if they would be capable of listening to two pieces of music and then commenting on any differences they heard? Again, that seems to me to be a closer equivalent. It may seem closer to you but one has to be able to set up and proctor the test to debunk the tweak. No, all that is required is the ability to take part in a test. As has already been pointed out, young people can make very good test subjects, and the required tests have already been designed. *I* made the claim that grade school kids could not debunk green pen and the other cited tweaks. *I* did so with the idea that for *someone* to debunk a myth *someone* must conduct the test not merely be a subject in the test. It is rather pointless to argue with *me* about what *I* meant. Your questions were loaded. Loaded only with the comparison being made between the difficulty of debunking tweaks compared to the difficulty of doing extremely simple math. What's difficult about taking part in a DBT? Children start learning to differentiate between sounds *way* before they ever learn any maths, even at the 1+1 level. What is difficult about accepting my clarification about my claim? It was not about grade school students being testees. They have the advantage of minimal preconceptions and the associated lack of expectation bias, so they can be great subjects. Their superior hearing is an added bonus. That's nice. Lab rats work well for many studies too. The Lab Rats aren't the ones conducting the studies. By choosing to employ specific, specialised language in your questions (ABX DBTs), you were deliberately biasing the outcome, were you not? I was making a very specific point. That simple math is something we can expect grade school kids to be able to do. Debunking audio tweaks is not something we can expect the average grade school kid to be able to do. It is not as simple as solving 1+1. That was the point. It's possible to phrase a question that asks "Does 1+1 = 2.1?" in such a manner that most sixteen year old maths students would fail to understand it, but it doesn't prove anything. It also has nothing to do with what I said. |
|
#228
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 6/27/2004 1:17 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: rXFDc.125025$Sw.22327@attbi_s51 And you feel that lumping the fools and the geniuses together as designers is fair to the geniuses? Are you going to be the arbitrator of who the fools and geniuses are? Are you so brilliant that you can make that determination for the world? Gee, when did I ever say that? It was a question not a statement. Assuming you are asking real questions and not rhetorical ones, the answers are no to each. I sense your strong sarcasm in the question regarding making determination for the world. Wonder how you arrive at that. You were the one who said that there were fools and geniuses... And you seemed to agree. You then asked if I were going to lump them together as designers. If you feel you can make the definitive distinction then you have more confidence in your opinions than I do. If you don't then why ask the question about lumping them together as designers? Since you said that there are fools and geniuses, you must have some idea about how to tell them apart, no? How is it that I can make the *definitive distinction*? I am sure you will not agree with some of my distinctions. The fact that I cannot make the *definitve* distinction does not mean that I have no opinion on who the fools are. Of course, what you call geniuses I may disagree, so how could there be an arbitrator in this case? That was my point. So why ask if I am going to lump designers together as designers without distinguishing the geniuses from the fools? Here is the question in more detail. Using your own definition of fools and geniuses, do you think it's fair to lump them together as designers? What part was designed in shatki stones? Or cable-lifters? You seriously think that there are designers designing these things? I think you have to ask the designers. I really don't know anything about Shatki stones or cable filters. I cannot tell you if there was any design involved. So there may not be any designers to ask, no? There certainly is someone to ask. Even if there were no designs involved there was an idea that saw the light of day as a consumer product. Well, that's not the same as asking the designers, then. You mean to say we should ask the marketeers in that case? |
|
#229
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Bromo wrote:
On 6/27/04 5:57 PM, in article , "Glenn Booth" wrote: Grade school kids know that 1+1 = 2 intuitively; Well, if they pay attention to their lessons, yes! :-) they don't need proof to know the truth of it. In a similar way, a competent physicist, armed with knowledge of how CDs work, could debunk (e.g.) the 'green pen' tweak without needing to design a proof; they would simply know that it could not work by the stated method. Yup, they could. But also keep in mind that many people on this group would prefer to lump a lot of things (green pens and so on) in the same category as people who observe that some amplifiers may sound differently than others. It is an attempt to confuse the issue and through that, "win" the argument. While always read these threads, I very seldom respond. However, I must respond to this statement, as it is not factually accurate. I have NEVER seen any objectivist say that amplifiers cannot sound different. The statement is and always has been something like; "any two competently designed amplifiers with similar power and distortion characteristics when properly level matched within .1db of each other will sound essentially the same." Note that no one ever even said that they must measure exactly the same; just "sound" the same. You claim to be an engineer but you have made some very surprising statements for someone in that profession. The folks that I know that are involved in electronics (even amateur radio) laugh at the very same tweaks in which you _seem_ to believe. Are you certain that you are not a spin-doctor for some conservative politician? Just kidding Bromo! (BIG smile) Richard |
|
#230
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Bromo wrote in message news:%MMDc.103969$2i5.12913@attbi_s52...
On 6/27/04 5:57 PM, in article , "Glenn Booth" wrote: Grade school kids know that 1+1 = 2 intuitively; Well, if they pay attention to their lessons, yes! :-) they don't need proof to know the truth of it. In a similar way, a competent physicist, armed with knowledge of how CDs work, could debunk (e.g.) the 'green pen' tweak without needing to design a proof; they would simply know that it could not work by the stated method. Then let one do it. I DID hear differences in discs so treated, and I am super-skeptical. Knowledge is never exhaustive. Ther could well be mechanisms that have been overlooked. |
|
#231
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
On 6/28/04 12:51 PM, in article 50YDc.130210$Sw.1855@attbi_s51, "Timothy A.
Seufert" wrote: The above is hardly the only method used to debunk astrology, though you seem to be acting as if it is. It certainly is the most visible one, and is decidedly non rigorous. I *did* mention it was on the television. I do recall an issue of Skpetic where a reporter went to a "psychic fair" and asked people why it "worked" - hence the second part of my post on it. |
|
#232
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
On 6/27/04 10:37 PM, in article 1wLDc.127052$Sw.29280@attbi_s51, "chung"
wrote: Care to cite examples? A quick perusal of the archives ought to do it - something you should be very capable of doing. A google search of "smacked around" in RAHE did not return any examples. So obviously this is figurative speech. I want to ask for examples since I am interested in knowing what you and your friends consider as being "smacked around". If you do not believe that you and others do this - there is no point pointing it out to you further - you will not pick it up. |
|
#233
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
On 6/28/04 6:44 PM, in article , "Rich.Andrews"
wrote: Bromo wrote in news:9LCDc.124484$Sw.18408@attbi_s51: On 6/27/04 9:54 AM, in article , "Rich.Andrews" wrote: The whole issue about the bumblebee and aerodynamics is explained at http://www.keelynet.com/interact/archive/00001691.htm The short version is that many years ago (1930's) the then current model for flight didn't fit the bumblebee and other insects. A sciencephobe stated that science is a crock since it proved (with their then current model of aerodynamics) that it can't. At any rate, when the truth was exposed that there are many different ways to predict flight and many models, that wasn't newsworthy and as such, did not get the attention it deserved, so the myth continues to this day. It illustrates though, at any point, it is possible to apply the wrong theory, or to not be open to see if a dearly held belief is incorrect. A belief may be wrong but I have yet to see Ohm's laws fail. As a matter of fact, I have yet to see any law regarding electronics be in error. I have seen laws misapplied, errors in computation, etc., but the laws are true and sound and have been for many years. Absolutely! But in many cases the items we discuss do not directly relate to those laws since the rather subjective and difficult subject of "perception" is in the mix. We have some really excellent software between the ears. Now if you want to try and wrap your head around bizarre happenings, try quantum physics where things are never quite what you would expect. (:) I hear ya! (pun intended) - Quantum theory is a very, very intteresting subject. Funnily enough the math for the physics is very much like the math for EM (Maxwell's equations) in the mechanics of their computation and form. This simple understanding save me and my roomies (I was the EM guy and they were Quantum Physicists) a lot of time in being able to heal each other with homework! :-) |
|
#234
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
"chung" wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... Bromo wrote: On 6/27/04 1:51 AM, in article FftDc.99337$2i5.10037@attbi_s52, "S888Wheel" wrote: Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of debate you should have already considered this. Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the consumer, think. And question. I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game played on consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issues. I think Tom is just waiting for one subjectivbist to give a technically inept answer so he can pounce on that person. The fact is it doesn't matter what answer he gets from the consumer. The question is one that should be posed to the designer I believe that it is a mistake for someone who hears a difference, scientist, consumer or designer, unless really skilled in the art, to offer and "explanation" - because invariably a debunker will be able to refute the explanation (only proving the someone in question didn't know why the difference was noted) and avoid the more difficult and intellectually important task of proving or disproving the observation. Now let's give a counter example to illustrate how you are wrong. SACD and CD versions of the same recording were sometimes assumed to be mastered identically and any superiority of the sound clearly due to the better technical specs of DSD. Recently people noticed that on some Telarc recording, the two versions sound different. Careful inspection of the CD wave files shows digital clipping. This clearly indicates an intentional compression on the CD by the mastering engineer. Follow-up emails to Telarc confirm this. So here is an example that shows people hear differences, and were able to provide an explanation that runs counter to the popular notion that the two versions are mastered the same way, or that DSD has to be superior. Now, Mr. Bromo, why don't you try to refute this explanation? By the way, Norm Strong provided a link to this incident a few days ago. Yes, but you conveniently overlook two things: Not really, unless you can refute that explanation. 1) You and the other objectivists used to argue that the SA-CD layer sounded better than the CD layer because the SA-CD layer had been artificially boosted in volume. Exactly the opposite is true, which all else being equal, would give the advantage to the CD layer. Not when the boost is so much that distortion is audible. Never even mentioned as a possibility in prior discussion with relation to SA-CD. Furthermore, some of us claimed that the *players* themselves boost up the level a notch when playing the SACD layer. See the difference? See the interesting work done by Christine Tham illustrating that CD technology under some circumstances produces levels 1 to 3 db higher than odbf when reconstructing redbook material. This work duplicated work presented in an AES paper entitled "0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering" by Søren H. Nielsen and Thomas Lund of T.C. Electronic A/S. Perhaps the SACD people, if they are doing what you claim, are simply trying to equalize average levels. But you have also not *proven* your claim...as far as I can remember, it is simply an assertion that this *may* be true...an excuse generated for the general audiophile preference for SA-CD in informal AB's. 2) Of course, all else is not equal since there is compression and clipping. Which should lead you to ponder that these artifacts were heard without dbt as an inferior sound from the CD layer by those of us who thought the SACD sound superior. The point however is that the superiority may not lie in the DSD technology, but is the result of mastering differences. Which is what we have always suspected as to why the two layers may sound different. Still, did not require dbt's to hear. And the argument was usually made that the CD's were deliberately downgraded, whereas in the case of the Telarc disks we have state of the art masters following industry-standard practice. And there are CD's that are mastered correctly, too. Yep..but there is no proof one way or the other that completely controlled DSD masters with no compression will sound the same on CD as on SA-CD. It is still a hypothesis until proven...and it hasn't been proven. 3) None of this necessarily establishes that CD will sound as good as SACD even if they are exactly level matched and uncompressed. But it explains why some people believe that SACD's sound different or better. It may in some cases. But not in all necessarily. The assertion that there is no difference in sound has not been proven in practice. Other experiments appear to indicate that no one has detected a difference when two were mastered the same way. Like carefully recording the output of a SACD player on redbook CD. Please show me the peer-reviewed study done on an extremely high-quality home system (not a PC) that shows this? Sometimes things don't fit conveniently into the boxes you wish to put them in. I would say that this is true. Now, what boxes do you wish to put them into? .None. No need for boxes. An inquisitive attitude and an open mind...combined with a real familiarity with live acoustic (non-amplified) music is all that is required. |
|
#236
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Bromo wrote:
On 6/27/04 10:37 PM, in article 1wLDc.127052$Sw.29280@attbi_s51, "chung" wrote: Care to cite examples? A quick perusal of the archives ought to do it - something you should be very capable of doing. A google search of "smacked around" in RAHE did not return any examples. So obviously this is figurative speech. I want to ask for examples since I am interested in knowing what you and your friends consider as being "smacked around". If you do not believe that you and others do this - there is no point pointing it out to you further - you will not pick it up. If you do not give examples, then we just don't know what you consider as being "smacked around". The risk then is that we would keep doing that, and someone would keep feeling "smacked around". We don't want that to happen. If you give us examples, perhaps we can try to explain how we are *not* trying to smack someone around. That might help that person feel better. |
|
#237
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
news:Op1Ec.131324$Sw.102641@attbi_s51... snip...snip.. Then let one do it. I DID hear differences in discs so treated, and I am super-skeptical. Knowledge is never exhaustive. Ther could well be mechanisms that have been overlooked. Would appreciate if you could indicate the type of the player and do you place your player in a brightly lit room. I have not heard any difference but my friends claim they do. One thing in common with them was the placement of the CD player under direct lighting. |
|
#238
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Forgot to post the link to Tham's site. Here it is:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/christie/0dBFS/index.html Harry "Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:TM3Ec.124296$eu.23157@attbi_s02... "chung" wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: "chung" wrote in message ... Bromo wrote: On 6/27/04 1:51 AM, in article FftDc.99337$2i5.10037@attbi_s52, "S888Wheel" wrote: Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of debate you should have already considered this. Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the consumer, think. And question. I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game played on consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issues. I think Tom is just waiting for one subjectivbist to give a technically inept answer so he can pounce on that person. The fact is it doesn't matter what answer he gets from the consumer. The question is one that should be posed to the designer I believe that it is a mistake for someone who hears a difference, scientist, consumer or designer, unless really skilled in the art, to offer and "explanation" - because invariably a debunker will be able to refute the explanation (only proving the someone in question didn't know why the difference was noted) and avoid the more difficult and intellectually important task of proving or disproving the observation. Now let's give a counter example to illustrate how you are wrong. SACD and CD versions of the same recording were sometimes assumed to be mastered identically and any superiority of the sound clearly due to the better technical specs of DSD. Recently people noticed that on some Telarc recording, the two versions sound different. Careful inspection of the CD wave files shows digital clipping. This clearly indicates an intentional compression on the CD by the mastering engineer. Follow-up emails to Telarc confirm this. So here is an example that shows people hear differences, and were able to provide an explanation that runs counter to the popular notion that the two versions are mastered the same way, or that DSD has to be superior. Now, Mr. Bromo, why don't you try to refute this explanation? By the way, Norm Strong provided a link to this incident a few days ago. Yes, but you conveniently overlook two things: Not really, unless you can refute that explanation. 1) You and the other objectivists used to argue that the SA-CD layer sounded better than the CD layer because the SA-CD layer had been artificially boosted in volume. Exactly the opposite is true, which all else being equal, would give the advantage to the CD layer. Not when the boost is so much that distortion is audible. Never even mentioned as a possibility in prior discussion with relation to SA-CD. Furthermore, some of us claimed that the *players* themselves boost up the level a notch when playing the SACD layer. See the difference? See the interesting work done by Christine Tham illustrating that CD technology under some circumstances produces levels 1 to 3 db higher than odbf when reconstructing redbook material. This work duplicated work presented in an AES paper entitled "0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering" by Søren H. Nielsen and Thomas Lund of T.C. Electronic A/S. Perhaps the SACD people, if they are doing what you claim, are simply trying to equalize average levels. But you have also not *proven* your claim...as far as I can remember, it is simply an assertion that this *may* be true...an excuse generated for the general audiophile preference for SA-CD in informal AB's. 2) Of course, all else is not equal since there is compression and clipping. Which should lead you to ponder that these artifacts were heard without dbt as an inferior sound from the CD layer by those of us who thought the SACD sound superior. The point however is that the superiority may not lie in the DSD technology, but is the result of mastering differences. Which is what we have always suspected as to why the two layers may sound different. Still, did not require dbt's to hear. And the argument was usually made that the CD's were deliberately downgraded, whereas in the case of the Telarc disks we have state of the art masters following industry-standard practice. And there are CD's that are mastered correctly, too. Yep..but there is no proof one way or the other that completely controlled DSD masters with no compression will sound the same on CD as on SA-CD. It is still a hypothesis until proven...and it hasn't been proven. 3) None of this necessarily establishes that CD will sound as good as SACD even if they are exactly level matched and uncompressed. But it explains why some people believe that SACD's sound different or better. It may in some cases. But not in all necessarily. The assertion that there is no difference in sound has not been proven in practice. Other experiments appear to indicate that no one has detected a difference when two were mastered the same way. Like carefully recording the output of a SACD player on redbook CD. Please show me the peer-reviewed study done on an extremely high-quality home system (not a PC) that shows this? Sometimes things don't fit conveniently into the boxes you wish to put them in. I would say that this is true. Now, what boxes do you wish to put them into? .None. No need for boxes. An inquisitive attitude and an open mind...combined with a real familiarity with live acoustic (non-amplified) music is all that is required. |
|
#239
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Bromo wrote:
On 6/28/04 6:46 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: Peter Forsell said his design wrok was mostly trial and error. His turntable went through over fifty different incarnations, All decisions were based on listening tests. Trial and error. OK so they just randomly substitute parts/circuits and "hope" for improvement. With the several hundred "parts" inside an amplifier exactly how do they ever hone-in on an optimized design? Don't they have to perform listening tests on "every" part and on "every" change in value? Armstrong, the father of FM, and a large force in modern communications, was an empiricist in design. Not doing audiophile stuff (RF pays a lot better) surely, but don't denigrate the empiricists - theory gets you to the bench and can even help you around it a bit, but sometimes in design a bit of empirical sweating is what it required (I would follow it up with explanations of what you found that were sound which I suspect was not the case here, but still ... ) And your point is......exactly what? Armstrong worked in a distant past .... but you are suggesting that he did not have a working theory and that he didn't employ that in development? Otherwise how could he move forward? Was it "all" luck? If not how could we believe that cable companies "get better." And how have branded companies just"each" happened on a different way to maximize quality with "different: wire topology? |
|
#240
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 16:52:16 GMT, chung wrote:
TChelvam wrote: "Rich.Andrews" wrote in message ... snip..snip... The short version is that many years ago (1930's) the then current model for flight didn't fit the bumblebee and other insects. A sciencephobe stated that science is a crock since it proved (with their then current model of aerodynamics) that it can't. So, there was a time in history the knowledgeable community lacked the knowledge to explain many of the day to day events. Of course. I don't think there has ever been a time when any scientist said that science has all the answers. Well, the notorious Lord Kelvin came close to closing the books, as did the US Patent Office................ :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Linear Mode
