Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
"Scott" wrote in message
they were not current for sure. These tests were done in service of the production of his 1994 remasters of the Mercury classical catalog. This particular anomly was discovered when he was testing the physical product from various manufacturers. He discovered that with certain CDPs the CDs from some manufaturers were quite less than transparent compared to the masters. This observation was later confirmed in a number of other tests conducted by other parties. There is an extant AES paper that was presented by Dennis Drake in 1992 presented in its entirety at this URL: http://www.themusiclab.net/aespaper.pdf It says: "As Mrs. Cozart Fine and I began our evaluation sessions in April 1989, it became very clear to us that the A/D conversion process was a very critical step in our production work. As the producer once described it, the sounds from different converters were all different "bowls of soup". We began auditioning every A/D converter that we could obtain. Our test methodology was simple: while playing an original master as source, we would switch between the direct output of our console and the output of the digital chain. The digital chain consisted of the converter under test feeding a Sony 1630 PCM Processor. The final link in the chain was the Apogee filter modified D/A section of the Sony 1630. At times, we would substitute different D/A converters for listening evaluations, but we always returned to the Sony converters or the D/A's of our Panasonic 3500 DAT machine for reference purposes. "Our monitoring set-up consisted of a Cello Audio Suite feeding balanced lines to Cello Performance Amplifiers, which in turn were driving B & W 808 Monitor Loudspeakers. As we compared the various digital converters to the playback of the actual analog source, we found that the soundstage of the orchestra was always reduced in width when listening to the digital chain. We also found that many A/D converters exhibited a strident string sound, unnatural sounding midrange, and a loss of air or ambience around the instruments" This above formal presentation of the relevant so-called Denni Drake tests includes many details that are different from what we have seen presented on RAHE. For one thing, the evaluation was not of CD players, and for another, there is no evidence of level matching, time synching, or bias controls. |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: wrote in message snip snip I pointed out to you several times that in fact tests of statistical "difference" are routinely applied to the scalars in using such tests. For "preference" yes. Showing that the results of group A are or are not statistically different is not at all the same as a *difference* (i.e. a/b with other variables - such as participants - held constant) test with sufficient replicates to evaluate the response statistically. How can you say that? I was proposing two monadic samples of 300 people each. Much more statistical;u reliable than seventeen sample individual tests. IF the focus of the test is the same. Musical enjoyment is NOT the same focus as evaluating a (usually) just detectable difference. In fact the JAES has published peer-reviewed articles that show that at seventeen samples, even the statistical sampling guidelines commonly used are in error...slightly in favor of a "null" result. Again, I'm not questioning population size. But you can sample a thousand people and the resulting statistics are worthless if the test is insensitive to the parameter of interest. Thus the base tests for validation were large samples with proven statistical differences in total and across attributes, across a chosen and agreed upon population of audiophiles. All the ABX test had to do was to show a similar set of overall differences among a fairly large sameple of people, using 17 point samples, to validate. That seemed too threatening, I guess. Threatening, no. Uninformative, certainly. You want to use *as a reference* a test that a) has not been validated for difference distinction and b) that focuses on another parameter altogether, i.e. preference, and c) presents numerous confounding variables ( "...across attributes..." as you stated above). This is a test technique used widely and statistical significance is just that....significant. Your charges are pure fantasy. OK, where was your monadic or proto-monadic test previously used for discrimination of low level or just noticeable audible differences? Show where that's been validated or is routinely used. Ever? You can't have statistically significant difference in preference without there being a difference. Very true. And *what* is that difference? In your test you cannot unambiguously attribute the preference to the physical difference in the A/B systems. Why? Because you're using an indicator (enjoyment/appreciation/satisfaction) that is not directly linked to the parameter you're trying to measure. An indicator, as I pointed out previously, that is clearly influenced by many factors outside of the physical systems being evaluated. snip Looke Keith. People are listening to MUSIC. THEY are asked to rate the experience. THEY are asked to RATE the reproduced music on a "liking" scale (that's how they express their "preference".) They are also asked to rate specific musical attributes (the sound of the violins, for example, or the sound of the tympani, or the sound of the guitars, etc.) OK, and... When you have two large samples, exposed to the same music, and with only one variable changed (lets say the CD player use) if you get statistically significant differences in the ratings you KNOW that it is the variable creating it. The ratings are very similar to those use in ABC/hr, and is one of the reason it is prefered to ABC...it measures quality differences, not just differences. Well, no statistician will ever say you "KNOW" something based on statistical difference. You know, the old correlation/causation thing? But Harry, you cannot change only ONE thing in your test. You changed the CD player, AND the sample population. You're assuming homogeneity in the sample population relative to a rather esoteric parameter (i.e. musical enjoyment) that may or may not be correct. There IS *no direct preference* expressed in monadic testing.... Yes, I got that Harry. the only way a preference shows up is because of statistical sampling of two large bases or respondents. Yes, I got that too Harry. That is WHY I proposed this very expensive and cumbersome test as the "touchstone" demonstrating that a real difference in preference exists. Isn't that after all what we as audiophiles hope to achieve in our own testing? And as an added benefit, it is able to give an indication of in what area of musical reproduction that rating preference exists. Just like two years ago, you just keep raising the same old cannards and in the process show you really don't stop to understand the technique I am expousing. If you doubt it, consult a real experiemental psychologist or statistician. Gratuitous ad hominem comment noted. Thanks Harry, that's really showing how *you* "were not...met by constructive dialog but rather repeated attempts to ridicule and disparage...". Just like two years ago, you are making the same basic argument - if I don't agree with you, I'm just ignorant. snip *Your* conclusion: ABX has been shown to be inaccurate, and is thus discarded. No other conclusion is possible if the monadic preference test is accepted as a suitable standard. First, 100 is too small a sample. It's an "example", not a protocol. I posited 300, which is generally accepted as large enough to show small rating differences if they exist due to the variable under test. Second, the test in both tests is for positive difference. There is no sense in a statistical "no difference". The applied statistics are different, but the concept is the same. "Positive" difference? The worst that can happen is that there is "no difference" (signicant at the 95% level) in overall rating, but there are differences in attribute ratings (again at the 95%+ level). However these are still valuable, and show that their *are* perceived differences in sound atributes even if their is no difference in overall ratings. So in this case, you conclude that their are audible differences. If both the overall rating and the individual attribute ratings show no difference at the 95% level, then you can conclude that in all liklihood their is no difference due to the variable under test. The variable under test has already been shown to be detectable in ABX - that was stipulated in the test case. What that result shows is that your preference test was insensitive to the difference that ABX testing identified. The point of this is to find a variable that does show up as a difference in monadic preference amongst a large group of audiophiles (or perhaps sub-seqment of same) in a test that is equally double-blind and which is evaluative and ratings based, relaxed, music-focused, You can easily do that by having Population A listen to music through $20 computer speakers, and Population B listen through Watt/Puppy speakers. No difference in kind from your example of a CD player change. Now, we'll identify many differences in the preference test, and we'll be able (though with some logistical difficulties) to do an ABX test on A and B, and X will indeed be easily identifiable. Your exact criterion of "a variable that does show up as a difference in monadic preference amongst a large group of audiophiles" was met, and ABX confirmed it. Ok, so now ABX is validated right? If not, then why? See the problem Harry? You propose a very cumbersome test to try and *find* some artifact that preference testing can identify that ABX can't confirm. That's not validation, that's a fishing expedition. Since you do not have any boundary limits for either test, you cannot test at or near those boundaries, nor can you demonstrate that one test has sufficient precision to challenge or validate the other. The speaker example above is clearly a gross situation, but the concept is the same since the boundaries are undefined. You can find any number of such variables that your test confirms, and ABX then confirms, but you can still postulate that there are "other" nuances or more subtle differences that ABX would not be able to find. That will *always* be the case until the boundaries are defined, meaning that you need never accept any result as definitive. and which doesn't require a forced choice. Another canard that is not proven, Harry. No matter what the scalar is, or how it's phrased, placing a rating on "how the violins sound" for example is a forced, evaluative choice. I've yet to seen any evidence to suggest that "A or B" is a more cognitively disruptive choice than "how do the violins sound?" which requires internal comparisons and choices between the current sound and your own internal 'reference' for violins. And clearly, if your scalars for "sound attributes" are of sufficient detail and specificity to allow you to conclude A and B are different (as you claim above), when the overall scoring is not significantly different, then evaluation and comparison choices are unavoidable. Then to subject the same variable to the standard abx tests for difference and find out how well that test fares in spotting those same differences ABX can't spot "these same differences" because it only looks for difference. ....how many people succeed, how many fail, how obvious does the difference seem to show up. Only if ABX failed to detect the differences in any appreciable way would ABX be judged a failure. Difference, singular. A and B are distinguishable or they are not. It's a binary result. I don't know how "...in any appreciable way..." could even apply to ABX. That's why I call it a validation test. If ABX is doing its job and is as good at evaluating musical reproduction differences as it is in spotting distortion artifacts among trained listeners, then this test should be a piece of cake for ABX You're ignoring the test case altogether. Why? Why not answer the question posed? In the test case described, there was already an ABX verified difference. It was measurable, physically, and it did not show up as a change in preference. In that case, the "reference standard" is shown to be inappropriate. So, are you saying that the test case, as presented (OK, let's modify it to include 300 individuals for your test), could not happen? .....especially as you keep insisting that the monadic test is less sensitive than ABX. For what it's designed for yes. And that is NOT for evaluating preference. However, insisting that such a test not be done because it is not needed ("proved science") or somehow inappropriate is simply begging the question. Strawman Harry, I said nothing about "proved science". And I did not say that validation was inappropriate, I pointed out why I believe your proposed test is inappropriate for the intended use. Not the same thing at all. I propose that we see. That's a validation test. If, as in the test case described, there are some number of instances where ABX does exactly what it was designed for (as I understand the reasoning), and detects very subtle or just noticeable artifacts that distinguish systems A and B, but those artifacts do not positively or adversely affect the music played through those systems (above the limits of perception), then your test *cannot* confirm those differences, and would thus be inappropriate. As in the case of speakers discussed above, your test would "validate" ABX quite handily, but what would that prove? I have done just that above. Well, not really. Keith Hughes [ We are getting too close to personal attacks here. Please, everyone in this thread, tone it down. Take a few breaths before hitting Send and make sure you're arguing points rather than people. -- dsr ] |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
|
#84
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
Scott wrote:
On Jul 12, 9:58?am, ScottW2 wrote: I'd like to know the exact CDPs were tested. ?Were they current generation DACs or is this a test of obsolete DAC technology? they were not current for sure. These tests were done in service of the production of his 1994 remasters of the Mercury classical catalog. This particular anomly was discovered when he was testing the physical product from various manufacturers. He discovered that with certain CDPs the CDs from some manufaturers were quite less than transparent compared to the masters. This observation was later confirmed in a number of other tests conducted by other parties. Again, why not publish the details of the CDPs, the test setup, the stats of the results...this sort of thing would be slam-dunks for 'subjectivists'. Or was Drake simply unaware of teh appalling lack of evidence from that side, even while he decided to conduct such a test? -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
wrote in message
... Harry Lavo wrote: wrote in message ... Harry Lavo wrote: wrote in message snip snip I pointed out to you several times that in fact tests of statistical "difference" are routinely applied to the scalars in using such tests. For "preference" yes. Showing that the results of group A are or are not statistically different is not at all the same as a *difference* (i.e. a/b with other variables - such as participants - held constant) test with sufficient replicates to evaluate the response statistically. How can you say that? I was proposing two monadic samples of 300 people each. Much more statistical;u reliable than seventeen sample individual tests. IF the focus of the test is the same. Musical enjoyment is NOT the same focus as evaluating a (usually) just detectable difference. In fact the JAES has published peer-reviewed articles that show that at seventeen samples, even the statistical sampling guidelines commonly used are in error...slightly in favor of a "null" result. Again, I'm not questioning population size. But you can sample a thousand people and the resulting statistics are worthless if the test is insensitive to the parameter of interest. And I'm talking about perceiving differences in audio reproduction equipment when reproducing music, as evaluated using ABX. I am DIRECTLY measuring real differences in the base sample....differences perceived statistically as different between the variable under test and its control, while reproducing music. How much more "on paramenter" can you get? It is "on paramenter", it is just not measured directly (a good thing....see below). Thus the base tests for validation were large samples with proven statistical differences in total and across attributes, across a chosen and agreed upon population of audiophiles. All the ABX test had to do was to show a similar set of overall differences among a fairly large sameple of people, using 17 point samples, to validate. That seemed too threatening, I guess. Threatening, no. Uninformative, certainly. You want to use *as a reference* a test that a) has not been validated for difference distinction and b) that focuses on another parameter altogether, i.e. preference, and c) presents numerous confounding variables ( "...across attributes..." as you stated above). This is a test technique used widely and statistical significance is just that....significant. Your charges are pure fantasy. OK, where was your monadic or proto-monadic test previously used for discrimination of low level or just noticeable audible differences? Show where that's been validated or is routinely used. Ever? This is irrelevant...if their is a statistical difference in the monadic test, it can either be at threshold or above threshold...but that is irrelevant as the fact will be that it is perceived (again, the statistical evaluation says so). It is then the ABX test's job to show that the same difference is perceived under ABX conditions. You can't have statistically significant difference in preference without there being a difference. Very true. And *what* is that difference? In your test you cannot unambiguously attribute the preference to the physical difference in the A/B systems. Why? Because you're using an indicator (enjoyment/appreciation/satisfaction) that is not directly linked to the parameter you're trying to measure. An indicator, as I pointed out previously, that is clearly influenced by many factors outside of the physical systems being evaluated. You are so WRONG here. Any psychological researcher will tell your that an indirect measurement is the best way, as it eliminates any chance that focusing on the variable directly distorts the validity of the measurement. This is perhaps one of the potentially most damaging arguments against ABX, btw...in other words, focusing on difference (when it comes to appraising musical reproduction) can actually get in the way of hearing differences as might be perceived in normal, non-critical listening. Two different states of consciousness. snip Looke Keith. People are listening to MUSIC. THEY are asked to rate the experience. THEY are asked to RATE the reproduced music on a "liking" scale (that's how they express their "preference".) They are also asked to rate specific musical attributes (the sound of the violins, for example, or the sound of the tympani, or the sound of the guitars, etc.) OK, and... When you have two large samples, exposed to the same music, and with only one variable changed (lets say the CD player use) if you get statistically significant differences in the ratings you KNOW that it is the variable creating it. The ratings are very similar to those use in ABC/hr, and is one of the reason it is prefered to ABC...it measures quality differences, not just differences. Well, no statistician will ever say you "KNOW" something based on statistical difference. You know, the old correlation/causation thing? But Harry, you cannot change only ONE thing in your test. You changed the CD player, AND the sample population. You're assuming homogeneity in the sample population relative to a rather esoteric parameter (i.e. musical enjoyment) that may or may not be correct. Keith, there is a whole science developed among researchers to guide the selection of random samples that are matched. Your argument is a non-starter. There IS *no direct preference* expressed in monadic testing.... Yes, I got that Harry. the only way a preference shows up is because of statistical sampling of two large bases or respondents. Yes, I got that too Harry. That is WHY I proposed this very expensive and cumbersome test as the "touchstone" demonstrating that a real difference in preference exists. Isn't that after all what we as audiophiles hope to achieve in our own testing? And as an added benefit, it is able to give an indication of in what area of musical reproduction that rating preference exists. Just like two years ago, you just keep raising the same old cannards and in the process show you really don't stop to understand the technique I am expousing. If you doubt it, consult a real experiemental psychologist or statistician. Gratuitous ad hominem comment noted. Thanks Harry, that's really showing how *you* "were not...met by constructive dialog but rather repeated attempts to ridicule and disparage...". Just like two years ago, you are making the same basic argument - if I don't agree with you, I'm just ignorant. I have reason for the comment (see below) but I agree I should not have made it. I apologize. snip *Your* conclusion: ABX has been shown to be inaccurate, and is thus discarded. No other conclusion is possible if the monadic preference test is accepted as a suitable standard. First, 100 is too small a sample. It's an "example", not a protocol. I posited 300, which is generally accepted as large enough to show small rating differences if they exist due to the variable under test. Second, the test in both tests is for positive difference. There is no sense in a statistical "no difference". The applied statistics are different, but the concept is the same. "Positive" difference? That's how researchers often refer to a statistically significant attribute, since one leg of the test will rate higher than the other. The worst that can happen is that there is "no difference" (signicant at the 95% level) in overall rating, but there are differences in attribute ratings (again at the 95%+ level). However these are still valuable, and show that their *are* perceived differences in sound atributes even if their is no difference in overall ratings. So in this case, you conclude that their are audible differences. If both the overall rating and the individual attribute ratings show no difference at the 95% level, then you can conclude that in all liklihood their is no difference due to the variable under test. The variable under test has already been shown to be detectable in ABX - that was stipulated in the test case. What that result shows is that your preference test was insensitive to the difference that ABX testing identified. Again, you show a lack of understanding of what I proposed. The first step is to find an equipment variable that DOES expose a difference in monadic appreciation....THEN undertak ABX testing to see if it delivers the same result. Not the othe way around. Your failure to understand the difference is one of the reasons I made the comment above. The other is your insistence that a statistical difference in ratings is somehow not "on parameter" to measuring differences. The point of this is to find a variable that does show up as a difference in monadic preference amongst a large group of audiophiles (or perhaps sub-seqment of same) in a test that is equally double-blind and which is evaluative and ratings based, relaxed, music-focused, You can easily do that by having Population A listen to music through $20 computer speakers, and Population B listen through Watt/Puppy speakers. No difference in kind from your example of a CD player change. Now, we'll identify many differences in the preference test, and we'll be able (though with some logistical difficulties) to do an ABX test on A and B, and X will indeed be easily identifiable. Your exact criterion of "a variable that does show up as a difference in monadic preference amongst a large group of audiophiles" was met, and ABX confirmed it. Ok, so now ABX is validated right? If not, then why? I'm talking of the more subtle types of differences that audiophiles often feel exist and abx'rs routinely deny exist except in their heads. See the problem Harry? You propose a very cumbersome test to try and *find* some artifact that preference testing can identify that ABX can't confirm. That's not validation, that's a fishing expedition. Since you do not have any boundary limits for either test, you cannot test at or near those boundaries, nor can you demonstrate that one test has sufficient precision to challenge or validate the other. The speaker example above is clearly a gross situation, but the concept is the same since the boundaries are undefined. You can find any number of such variables that your test confirms, and ABX then confirms, but you can still postulate that there are "other" nuances or more subtle differences that ABX would not be able to find. That will *always* be the case until the boundaries are defined, meaning that you need never accept any result as definitive. I just spoke above of the criteria, as I have in the past. I am looking to find a difference on a variable that "objectivists" believe not to exist. Only once and if we find it can it then serve as a basis for the validation. You are the one setting up the strawman example. and which doesn't require a forced choice. Another canard that is not proven, Harry. No matter what the scalar is, or how it's phrased, placing a rating on "how the violins sound" for example is a forced, evaluative choice. I've yet to seen any evidence to suggest that "A or B" is a more cognitively disruptive choice than "how do the violins sound?" which requires internal comparisons and choices between the current sound and your own internal 'reference' for violins. And clearly, if your scalars for "sound attributes" are of sufficient detail and specificity to allow you to conclude A and B are different (as you claim above), when the overall scoring is not significantly different, then evaluation and comparison choices are unavoidable. Let me reiterate....one is an after-the-fact holistic rating agains that perceived reality....which is exactly how most audiophiles make judgements about the quality of their system. The other is a forced choice "in real time" between snippets of sound (I know, I know, but the reality is this test requires to and fro'ing to make any kind of choice.in real time....seventeen or more in succession, in fact. Find me a dozen psychological researchers who will claim that a direct forced choice is the same as a monadic rating on a subjective scale, and I will cede the point. That dozen simply don't exist (at leas if they got "A"'s in their course-work). Then to subject the same variable to the standard abx tests for difference and find out how well that test fares in spotting those same differences ABX can't spot "these same differences" because it only looks for difference. Yes, but first it has to spot the difference. And then in follow up, people taking the test ought to be able to give some indication of what they thought the difference was. Again, because we are "validating" the use of the test as a useful tool for home evaluation of audio gear, as is so often the matra here. ....how many people succeed, how many fail, how obvious does the difference seem to show up. Only if ABX failed to detect the differences in any appreciable way would ABX be judged a failure. Difference, singular. A and B are distinguishable or they are not. It's a binary result. I don't know how "...in any appreciable way..." could even apply to ABX. The outlier argument. If thirty people do the test, and one or two succeed but others do not, is it significant or not. Or if no one person's choices prove significant, but the overall sample when lumped together does. Small sample difference testing is not as simple as it is often made out to be. That's why I call it a validation test. If ABX is doing its job and is as good at evaluating musical reproduction differences as it is in spotting distortion artifacts among trained listeners, then this test should be a piece of cake for ABX You're ignoring the test case altogether. Why? Why not answer the question posed? In the test case described, there was already an ABX verified difference. It was measurable, physically, and it did not show up as a change in preference. In that case, the "reference standard" is shown to be inappropriate. So, are you saying that the test case, as presented (OK, let's modify it to include 300 individuals for your test), could not happen? Because in your "test case" you've got it bass-ackward, as I've already pointed out. .....especially as you keep insisting that the monadic test is less sensitive than ABX. For what it's designed for yes. And that is NOT for evaluating preference. It is less sensitive for the purpose it is designed for? Can you restate or explain what you mean, please? However, insisting that such a test not be done because it is not needed ("proved science") or somehow inappropriate is simply begging the question. Strawman Harry, I said nothing about "proved science". And I did not say that validation was inappropriate, I pointed out why I believe your proposed test is inappropriate for the intended use. Not the same thing at all. No you didn't, but other supporters of the ABX test have, many times. I wasn't just talking about you....I am sorry if I didn't make that clear. I propose that we see. That's a validation test. If, as in the test case described, there are some number of instances where ABX does exactly what it was designed for (as I understand the reasoning), and detects very subtle or just noticeable artifacts that distinguish systems A and B, but those artifacts do not positively or adversely affect the music played through those systems (above the limits of perception), then your test *cannot* confirm those differences, and would thus be inappropriate. As in the case of speakers discussed above, your test would "validate" ABX quite handily, but what would that prove? First you use a "strawman" test variable. Second you have the validation bass-ackward, as I have pointed out. Let's focus on differences that "do" affect perception of the musical reproduction, although very subtly. THAT is an appropriate test case....the validation is to show that ABX also deteects those differences among a population of similarly-chosen audiophiles, and does not instead create an artificial "null" difference, as audiophiles often claim it does. When used to find diffeeencs in musical reproduction, not in distortion artifact or frequency response or volume differences. I have done just that above. Well, not really. I think really. Keith Hughes [ We are getting too close to personal attacks here. Please, everyone in this thread, tone it down. Take a few breaths before hitting Send and make sure you're arguing points rather than people. -- dsr ] |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
It is interesting to note that my attempt to define how such validation of ABX testing for evaluation of differences in musical reproduction might be done, here on RAHE a few years ago, the attempt wasn't met by constructive dialog but rather repeated attempts to ridicule and disparage (a) the idea of the validation itself ("it wasn't needed...ABX was 'settled science' ") and (b) the specific suggestions of test techniques and sequences made by me (themselves used extensively in the realm of food testing and psychological experimentation). Harry, it is clear to many of the rest of us that there are many people in the world who try to give their lives purpose by: (1) Finding a situation that may or may not even exist and that only they and perhaps a few other people even perceive to be a problem. (2) Trying to promote some expensive and unwieldy method for purportedly solving the purported "problem". Good examples of such a thing would be the SACD and DVD-A formats that followed this model quite exactly. (1) Promoters of DVD-A and SACD alleged the existence of sound quality problems with the Audio CD format that not even they could demonstrate by conventional means other than the well-known and totally invalid methodology of sighted or single blind evaluation. (2) They spent actual millions if not 100's of millions of dollars invented new recorders and players based on their new technology, and additional equal or greater amounts of money recording and re-recording existing recordings in the new format. To this day there is no conventionally-obtained evidence that shows that the new formats had any inherent audible benefits at all, the products never were accepted in the mainstream, and many of the record company executives that bet their careers on the new formats lost their jobs. This despite the fact that the validation techniques I was proposing were to some degree incorporated within ABC/hr testing, considered even by the double-blind enthusiasts as superior to ABX for evaluation of music. This misstates the difference between ABX and ABC/hr testing. ABX is to this day the best known generally used methodology for determining that audio products even sound different. ABC/hr is a methodology for rating audio products in terms of their degradation of the audio signal. Applying the ABC/hr methodology to products that don't even sound different in ABX testing is a waste of time. I'm afraid I agree with Mr. Finsky, attempts at constructive dialog on this subject go nowhere. Actually they do in contexts where people are required to do more than pontificate when they suggest that there problems with generally accepted science as related to audio. One such place is called the Hydrogen Audio Forum, and I heartily suggest Harry that you try to sell your ideas there. Google is your friend! |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
Scott wrote:
Nope. Straw man. ?And you should know better. here are your words from this thread. "Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course)." You might want to check thse things before crying strawman. (note for moderator: I am leaving all quotes in tact for sake of showing that these were Steve's words in context) What does the word 'typical' mean to you, Scott? Does it mean 'all'? Please now and forever stop claiming the me, Arny, or any of the other people you argue with about this over and over, claim that *All* (X) sound *the same*. Thanks. You might want to look up 'photoelectric effect', for example, before you attempt such arguments, much less claim that 'physicists', wholesale, had 'concluded they they had pretty much figured out everything there was to figure out with Newtonian physics'. So that adds up to "many" puzzling things? I think you are grasping at straws here. I think you need to review the history of 20th C physics. You're out of your depth. -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 12, 3:55 pm, ScottW2 wrote:
Players as well as digital audio tools in mixing/mastering have certainly advanced in 15 years but the caveat that "certain" CDPs and CDs from "some manufacturers" doesn't sound like condemnation of the format with what was available 1.5 decades ago. ScottW It wasn't meant as condemnation. It was a correction of Steve's assertion that "Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level- matching for output devices, of course). |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 12, 3:54*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message they were not current for sure. These tests were done in service of the production of his 1994 remasters of the Mercury classical catalog. This particular anomly was discovered when he was testing the physical product from various manufacturers. He discovered that with certain CDPs the CDs from some manufaturers were quite less than transparent compared to the masters. This observation was later confirmed in a number of other tests conducted by other parties. There is an extant AES paper that was presented by Dennis Drake in 1992 presented in its entirety at this URL: http://www.themusiclab.net/aespaper.pdf It says: "As Mrs. Cozart Fine and I began our evaluation sessions in April 1989, it became very clear to us that the A/D conversion process was a very critical step in our production work. As the producer once described it, the sounds from different converters were all different "bowls of soup". We began auditioning every A/D converter that we could obtain. Our test methodology was simple: while playing an original master as source, we would switch between the direct output of our console and the output of the digital chain. The digital chain consisted of the converter under test feeding a Sony 1630 PCM Processor. The final link in the chain was the Apogee filter modified D/A section of the Sony 1630. At times, we would substitute different D/A converters for listening evaluations, but we always returned to the Sony converters or the D/A's of our Panasonic 3500 DAT machine for reference purposes. "Our monitoring set-up consisted of a Cello Audio Suite feeding balanced lines to Cello Performance Amplifiers, which in turn were driving B & W 808 Monitor Loudspeakers. As we compared the various digital converters to the playback of the actual analog source, we found that the soundstage of the orchestra was always reduced in width when listening to the digital chain. We also found that many A/D converters exhibited a strident string sound, unnatural sounding midrange, and a loss of air or ambience around the instruments" This above formal presentation of the relevant so-called Denni Drake tests includes many details that are different from what we have seen presented on RAHE. For one thing, the evaluation was not of CD players, and for another, there is no evidence of level matching, time synching, or bias controls. You skipped the relevant part of the paper. Jeez. "Upon further investigation, it turned out that the plant had three different laser beam recorders and that one of them sounded different than the other two. After making a glass master of the “Balalaika Favorites” on all three LBR’s and comparing the subsequent CD test discs from each, we were definitely able to identify the “thinner sounding” lathe. From the information given to us by the plant engineers, apparently this lathe was configured with different front end electronics." In an exchange of emails Dennis told me that this particular sonic defect was CDP dependent. It was in those emails that he gave details of level matching, time synching and DB protocols. |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 12, 8:04*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Again, why not publish the details of the CDPs, the test setup, the stats of the results...this sort of thing would be slam-dunks for 'subjectivists'. *Or was Drake simply unaware of teh appalling lack of evidence from that side, even while he decided to conduct such a test? Why don't you ask Dennis Drake? He was very kind in discussing these things with me via email. Slam dunks? It's a hobby not a basketball game. |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On 10 jul, 06:45, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Jul 9, 8:06*pm, Scott wrote: On Jul 9, 11:59 am, ScottW2 wrote: Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you can hear such differences under blind conditions. *Such a test should be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy million dollars? That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the laws of physics. As it should be as most exotic cable manufacturers make claims of magical properties outside the laws of physics. the question isn't claims by manufacturers. It is to me and it quite obviously is to the JREF challenge. If so then why are they bothering reviewers? Why not make the challenge to the cable manufacturers. maybe because it is silly to challenge advertsing copy which is abundant in hyperbole and vague assertions that are pretty much unchallengable? I guess the real question is why on earth would you concern yourself over ad copy in a world where it is silly to take any advertisement at face value. Ads are sales pitches not documentaries. A little google searching comes up withhttp://www.randi.org/jr/2007-09/092807reply.html which shows you what he actually said, and that he actually challenged Pear Audio's claims directly. *You'll need to scroll down the page to the headline: MORE CABLE NONSENSE. One advice to all "cable experts" on this forum. The best way, to listen you the music is; OF COURSE YOU MUST USE ORDINARY ZIP or LAMP-CORD...(in combination of ear plugs) To be feel good, and thinking you are right, read a lot of CABLE NONSENSE. BYE EVERYONE, Have a good night, sleep well and enjoy the sound of your system. |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
And I'm talking about perceiving differences in audio reproduction equipment when reproducing music, as evaluated using ABX. ABX is known to work very well. Where's the beef? This is irrelevant...if their is a statistical difference in the monadic test, it can either be at threshold or above threshold...but that is irrelevant as the fact will be that it is perceived (again, the statistical evaluation says so). It is then the ABX test's job to show that the same difference is perceived under ABX conditions. In numerous circumstances, audible differences that had been ascertained by other scientific methods have been confirmed by ABX tests. I know of no example where ABX failed. The only area of controversy with ABX and other widely used scientific testing methods relates to audiophiles and audiophile merchandisers who repeatedly fail to confirm the results they find with sighted evaluations. This seems to be very easy to explain without impugning ABX or any of the other scientific testing methodologies. |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 13, 4:15Â*am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Scott wrote: Nope. Straw man. ?And you should know better. here are your words from this thread. "Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course)." You might want to check thse things before crying strawman. (note for moderator: I am leaving all quotes in tact for sake of showing that these were Steve's words in context) What does the word 'typical' mean to you, Scott? Does it mean 'all'? Main Entry:typ·i·cal Pronunciation:\ˈti-pi-kÉ™l\ Function:adjective Etymology:Late Latin typicalis, from typicus, from Greek typikos, from typos model €” more at type Date:1609 1: constituting or having the nature of a type : symbolic 2 a: combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a group typical suburban houses b: conforming to a type a specimen typical of the species Please now and forever stop claiming the me, Arny, or any of the other people you argue with about this over and over, claim that *All* (X) sound *the same*. Thanks. How can I stop something I am not doing? What does the word "standard" mean to you Steve? Is it something radically different than typical? After all this is what I said; "You seem to have been claiming that standard meausurements predict that all CDPs sound the same" Your words once again.... "Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course). " So what are you saying now Steve that you were not suggesting that audiophiles were and always have been wrong in their reports about audible differences between CDPs? Sure looks like that was what you were saying. And when I pointed out that this wasn't always the case and has been demonstrated with DBTs no less you went into a tail spin begging for details and claiming this would be a "slam dunk" for subjectivists were it true. So you weren't arguing that CDPs all sound the same despite audiophile anecdotes? What was your point then? That audiophiles routinely report differences that are not predicted by "typical" measured performance and sometimes they are right?! Fine, if that is your point I agree with you. You might want to look up 'photoelectric effect', for example, before you attempt such arguments, much less claim that 'physicists', wholesale, had 'concluded they they had pretty much figured out everything there was to figure out with Newtonian physics'. So that adds up to "many" puzzling things? I think you are grasping at straws here. I think you need to review the history of 20th C physics. You're out of your depth. I think you do as well. So what? What does are mutual disresepct for the other's off hand knowledge on the history of quantum physics have to do with my point? the point which for some reason you decided to snip. Here I'll repeat it so we can try to stay on topic.Many things derived from quantum physics would have seemed like magic 150 years or so ago and would have actually met the Randi challenge. Do you disagree? |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
"Scott" wrote in message
I said; "You seem to have been claiming that standard measurements predict that all CDPs sound the same" There are goodly number of CD players, whether by design or due to partial failure, produce signals that are so degraded that they will even sound different. "Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course). " Agreed. Furthermore, audiophiles routinely claim audible superiority for equipment that has audible faults, some of which even they admit that they hear. So what are you saying now Steve that you were not suggesting that audiophiles were and always have been wrong in their reports about audible differences between CDPs? Sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are wrong. They have been found wrong when their claims are checked out by scientific means, whether test equipment or well-run listening tests. Their comments are so frequently inconclusive because of the grotesquely flawed means that they generally use in their evaluations. |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 13, 11:32*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 12, 8:04*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: Scott wrote: On Jul 12, 9:58?am, ScottW2 wrote: I'd like to know the exact CDPs were tested. ?Were they current generation DACs or is this a test of obsolete DAC technology? *they were not current for sure. These tests were done in service of the production of his 1994 remasters of the Mercury classical catalog. This particular anomly was discovered when he was testing the physical product from various manufacturers. He discovered that with certain CDPs the CDs from some manufaturers were quite less than transparent compared to the masters. This observation was later confirmed in a number of other tests conducted by other parties. Again, why not publish the details of the CDPs, the test setup, the stats of the results...this sort of thing would be slam-dunks for 'subjectivists'. *Or was Drake simply unaware of teh appalling lack of evidence from that side, even while he decided to conduct such a test? *Much ado about nothing but a defective laser front end as far as I can tell. How can you tell there is a defect? what specifically was defective with what device? |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
"Scott" wrote in message
On Jul 12, 3:54 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message they were not current for sure. These tests were done in service of the production of his 1994 remasters of the Mercury classical catalog. This particular anomly was discovered when he was testing the physical product from various manufacturers. He discovered that with certain CDPs the CDs from some manufaturers were quite less than transparent compared to the masters. This observation was later confirmed in a number of other tests conducted by other parties. There is an extant AES paper that was presented by Dennis Drake in 1992 presented in its entirety at this URL: http://www.themusiclab.net/aespaper.pdf It says: "As Mrs. Cozart Fine and I began our evaluation sessions in April 1989, it became very clear to us that the A/D conversion process was a very critical step in our production work. As the producer once described it, the sounds from different converters were all different "bowls of soup". We began auditioning every A/D converter that we could obtain. Our test methodology was simple: while playing an original master as source, we would switch between the direct output of our console and the output of the digital chain. The digital chain consisted of the converter under test feeding a Sony 1630 PCM Processor. The final link in the chain was the Apogee filter modified D/A section of the Sony 1630. At times, we would substitute different D/A converters for listening evaluations, but we always returned to the Sony converters or the D/A's of our Panasonic 3500 DAT machine for reference purposes. "Our monitoring set-up consisted of a Cello Audio Suite feeding balanced lines to Cello Performance Amplifiers, which in turn were driving B & W 808 Monitor Loudspeakers. As we compared the various digital converters to the playback of the actual analog source, we found that the soundstage of the orchestra was always reduced in width when listening to the digital chain. We also found that many A/D converters exhibited a strident string sound, unnatural sounding midrange, and a loss of air or ambience around the instruments" This above formal presentation of the relevant so-called Denni Drake tests includes many details that are different from what we have seen presented on RAHE. For one thing, the evaluation was not of CD players, and for another, there is no evidence of level matching, time synching, or bias controls. You skipped the relevant part of the paper. Jeez. I still see no such thing. "Upon further investigation, it turned out that the plant had three different laser beam recorders and that one of them sounded different than the other two. After making a glass master of the “Balalaika Favorites” on all three LBR’s and comparing the subsequent CD test discs from each, we were definitely able to identify the “thinner sounding” lathe. From the information given to us by the plant engineers, apparently this lathe was configured with different front end electronics." Is there a reason why any relevant references to double blind testing seem to be missing from your quote, Scott? I'm not talking about hearsay or anecdotes, I'm talking about a primary source. |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 13, 10:08*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message And I'm talking about perceiving differences in audio reproduction equipment when reproducing music, as evaluated using ABX. ABX is known to work very well. Where's the beef? Some listeners, including myself, feel that a period of longer term listening (at least several hours) is required to reveal itself. E.g., could it possibly be that certain distortion characteristics are not apparent nor find oportunity to 'grate' during instantaneous type comparisons? |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 04:15:28 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ): "Harry Lavo" wrote in message It is interesting to note that my attempt to define how such validation of ABX testing for evaluation of differences in musical reproduction might be done, here on RAHE a few years ago, the attempt wasn't met by constructive dialog but rather repeated attempts to ridicule and disparage (a) the idea of the validation itself ("it wasn't needed...ABX was 'settled science' ") and (b) the specific suggestions of test techniques and sequences made by me (themselves used extensively in the realm of food testing and psychological experimentation). Harry, it is clear to many of the rest of us that there are many people in the world who try to give their lives purpose by: (1) Finding a situation that may or may not even exist and that only they and perhaps a few other people even perceive to be a problem. (2) Trying to promote some expensive and unwieldy method for purportedly solving the purported "problem". Good examples of such a thing would be the SACD and DVD-A formats that followed this model quite exactly. (1) Promoters of DVD-A and SACD alleged the existence of sound quality problems with the Audio CD format that not even they could demonstrate by conventional means other than the well-known and totally invalid methodology of sighted or single blind evaluation. Have you ever done a DBT test between a RedBook CD of a particular title and, say, a high-resolution download (24/96 or 24/192) of the same title? I have. They're different. And the differences aren't subtle. The high-resolution download wins over the CD every time (so far). (2) They spent actual millions if not 100's of millions of dollars invented new recorders and players based on their new technology, and additional equal or greater amounts of money recording and re-recording existing recordings in the new format. To this day there is no conventionally-obtained evidence that shows that the new formats had any inherent audible benefits at all, the products never were accepted in the mainstream, and many of the record company executives that bet their careers on the new formats lost their jobs. That's simply not true, Arny. High resolution recordings in either PCM or DSD sound significantly better than RedBook CD and carefully set-up DBT testing has demonstrated that to my satisfaction (Levels matched as closely as instrumentation will allow, time sync'd between, for instance, two identical players one playing the SACD layer and the other playing the RedBook layer or, one of my own recordings is played back from my master which level matched and sync'd to a CD burned from that master using Logic Studio or Cubase 4). |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
Harry,
first of all, ABX does not need validation, it is a tool and you use it when you need it. When I need to put nail in a wall I use hummer without worrying if it is validated for this task or not. Your 'monadic' test has one huge flow - it brings a lot more variables into the test that are not under your control but they definitely influence outcome of the test. For instance, if the test takes more then one day then temperature and humidity of the air will definitely affect physical abilities and mood of your subjects and become parameters of the test too. Even the weather itself becomes a parameter. In sunny weather people react to the music differently then in a cloudy weather.The quality of the food from day to day (you know, some of them can have problems with indigestion) can become a real issue too. I am sure there are many other things that are not under your control. Another thing is that you have no control over random guesses vs. real recognition. But I better not to open this can of warms :-) my $.02 worth vlad |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 13, 4:20 pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 13, 4:16 am, Scott wrote: In an exchange of emails Dennis told me that this particular sonic defect was CDP dependent. It was in those emails that he gave details of level matching, time synching and DB protocols. This sounds like a test of CDPs ability to handle defective CDs with high read error rates. Again with the defects assertion. What was defective? How were the CDs defective? An error in the pressing? How does that happen? How does this play "better" on one player and not another? Dennis indicated that on some CDPs the so called 'defective" discs played perfectly. How can a defective disc ever play perfectly? |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 13, 4:19*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message You skipped the relevant part of the paper. Jeez. I still see no such thing. And yet there it is right here below. After making a glass master of the “Balalaika Favorites” on all three LBR’s and comparing the subsequent CD test discs from each, we were definitely able to identify the “thinner sounding” "Upon further investigation, it turned out that the plant had three different laser beam recorders and that one of them sounded different than the other two. After making a glass master of the “Balalaika Favorites” on all three LBR’s and comparing the subsequent CD test discs from each, we were definitely able to identify the “thinner sounding” lathe. From the information given to us by the plant engineers, apparently this lathe was configured with different front end electronics." Is there a reason why any relevant references to double blind testing seem to be missing from your quote, Scott? Obviously Dennis didn't include them. I'm not talking about hearsay or anecdotes, I'm talking about a primary source That would Dennis Drake. The person I got the information from. If you don't believe me feel free to contact Dennis. Heck I may have completely misunderstood him. Go straigh to the source if you don't believe me. He's a very nice guy. I'm sure he will answer any of your questions just as he did for me provided you are polite. If I am mistaken then I am mistaken. |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
Norman Schwartz wrote:
On Jul 13, 10:08?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message And I'm talking about perceiving differences in audio reproduction equipment when reproducing music, as evaluated using ABX. ABX is known to work very well. Where's the beef? Some listeners, including myself, feel that a period of longer term listening (at least several hours) is required to reveal itself. E.g., could it possibly be that certain distortion characteristics are not apparent nor find oportunity to 'grate' during instantaneous type comparisons? THis must have been noted dozens of times by now in the history of RAHE, but: ABX does not preclude longer-term listening. The sounds being compared can last as long as you like (though there are good reasons to favor short samples). It's the switching itself that should be made 'instantaneous' if possible...the interval of dead air between A and B (and X). -- -S We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:19:57 -0700, Norman Schwartz wrote
(in article ): On Jul 13, 10:08*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message And I'm talking about perceiving differences in audio reproduction equipment when reproducing music, as evaluated using ABX. ABX is known to work very well. Where's the beef? Some listeners, including myself, feel that a period of longer term listening (at least several hours) is required to reveal itself. E.g., could it possibly be that certain distortion characteristics are not apparent nor find oportunity to 'grate' during instantaneous type comparisons? I think this is flawed thinking. If there is a difference between the sound of two components, ABX or any suitable DBT will illuminate the differences on direct comparison, immediatly. Any differences that require long term listening to uncover, either are too miniscule to make any substantive difference in any listening experience or they are imaginary. That's been my experience. |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 13, 4:20*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 13, 2:56*pm, Scott wrote: On Jul 13, 11:32*am, ScottW2 wrote: On Jul 12, 8:04*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: Scott wrote: On Jul 12, 9:58?am, ScottW2 wrote: I'd like to know the exact CDPs were tested. ?Were they current generation DACs or is this a test of obsolete DAC technology? *they were not current for sure. These tests were done in service of the production of his 1994 remasters of the Mercury classical catalog. This particular anomly was discovered when he was testing the physical product from various manufacturers. He discovered that with certain CDPs the CDs from some manufaturers were quite less than transparent compared to the masters. This observation was later confirmed in a number of other tests conducted by other parties. Again, why not publish the details of the CDPs, the test setup, the stats of the results...this sort of thing would be slam-dunks for 'subjectivists'. *Or was Drake simply unaware of teh appalling lack of evidence from that side, even while he decided to conduct such a test? *Much ado about nothing but a defective laser front end as far as I can tell. How can you tell there is a defect? *"Upon further investigation, it turned out that the plant had three different laser beam recorders and that one of them sounded different than the other two. " I think it's reasonable to conclude that one of them was defective in some manner and the probable cause of sound difference was excessive read errors or perhaps all players had excessive read errors, but some had better error correction than others. * I'm still trying to understand what this experience has to do with CD audio recording or reproduction sound. what specifically was defective with what device? *I don't know, do you? I have no idea either. But I didn't make the assertion, you did. I figured you might have a reason. I figured you might have known what was defective when you claimed it was a simple case of a defect as far as you could tell. |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 13, 11:32*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message I said; "You seem to have been claiming that standard measurements predict that all CDPs sound the same" There are goodly number of CD players, whether by design or due to partial failure, produce signals that are so degraded that they will even sound different. So they don't all sound the same. No argument there. I have heard differences. Heck it was the common claim that there were no differences that lead me to buy an inferior product the first time out. Oh well. Lesson learned. Don't pay attention to nonsense like "Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course). " Clearly alleged typical meausred performance" doesn't tell us jack about any given product's actual sound. "Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course). " Agreed. OK........ Furthermore, audiophiles routinely claim audible superiority for equipment that has audible faults, some of which even they admit that they hear. One person's 'fault" is another person's virtue. Depends on your aesthetic priorities, goals and references. Ultimately that which is "superior" is entirely subjective when talking about the aesthetic values of our human perceptions. So what are you saying now Steve that you were not suggesting that audiophiles were and always have been wrong in their reports about audible differences between CDPs? Sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are wrong. No argument there. They have been found wrong when their claims are checked out by scientific means, whether test equipment or well-run listening tests. "Scientific menas?" If so then ceetainly you can cite the peer reviewed published data. I mean if you are talking about legitimate science this time and not just waving the science flag with no substance in support. Their comments are so frequently inconclusive because of the grotesquely flawed means that they generally use in their evaluations. In your unsupported opinion. |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
"vlad" wrote in message
... Harry, first of all, ABX does not need validation, it is a tool and you use it when you need it. When I need to put nail in a wall I use hummer without worrying if it is validated for this task or not. Your 'monadic' test has one huge flow - it brings a lot more variables into the test that are not under your control but they definitely influence outcome of the test. For instance, if the test takes more then one day then temperature and humidity of the air will definitely affect physical abilities and mood of your subjects and become parameters of the test too. Even the weather itself becomes a parameter. In sunny weather people react to the music differently then in a cloudy weather.The quality of the food from day to day (you know, some of them can have problems with indigestion) can become a real issue too. I am sure there are many other things that are not under your control. Another thing is that you have no control over random guesses vs. real recognition. But I better not to open this can of warms :-) my $.02 worth vlad I appreciate your concern, Vlad, but it is misplaced. Research designers try to anticipate and take into account significant possible intervening variables. In such a monadic test, no doubt the variable would be changed from one session to the next so that any point in time, the sampling would be roughly 50-50. Musical segments would be rotated within samples so there is no order bias, etc. etc. When you have a large sameple size and randomly chosen and matched samples, you don't worry about a few random guesses. The fact is, their is a very well developed set of statistical operations that take into account the "degree" of difference between the ratings of the two samples. A different standard applies depending on the number of scaler points used, whether the scalars are symetrical or not, etc etc. And the significance level is determined by sample size and the shape of the distribution curves as it determines standard deviation and standard error. And if you really want to worry about random guesses, worry about an ABX test where a change in one sample can determine whether or not the test is judged signicant, and there are NO controls against random guessing to create a virtually guaranteed "null" effect. |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
... Norman Schwartz wrote: On Jul 13, 10:08?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message And I'm talking about perceiving differences in audio reproduction equipment when reproducing music, as evaluated using ABX. ABX is known to work very well. Where's the beef? Some listeners, including myself, feel that a period of longer term listening (at least several hours) is required to reveal itself. E.g., could it possibly be that certain distortion characteristics are not apparent nor find oportunity to 'grate' during instantaneous type comparisons? THis must have been noted dozens of times by now in the history of RAHE, but: ABX does not preclude longer-term listening. The sounds being compared can last as long as you like (though there are good reasons to favor short samples). It's the switching itself that should be made 'instantaneous' if possible...the interval of dead air between A and B (and X). The need to make a forced choice, and to do seventeen trials, almost universally leads to short snippets. It may be human nature, but it is a real effect. |
#109
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 13, 7:19*pm, Norman Schwartz wrote:
Some listeners, including myself, feel that a period of longer term listening (at least several hours) is required to reveal itself. E.g., could it possibly be that certain distortion characteristics are not apparent nor find oportunity to 'grate' during instantaneous type comparisons? Anything is possible, However, all of the evidence we have says that just the opposite is true—that any distortion becomes harder to detect as the time interval between hearing the distorted and undistorted signals increases. "Longer-term listening" will decrease your sensitivity to differences, not increase it. bob |
#110
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:34:17 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ): On Jul 13, 11:32*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message I said; "You seem to have been claiming that standard measurements predict that all CDPs sound the same" There are goodly number of CD players, whether by design or due to partial failure, produce signals that are so degraded that they will even sound different. So they don't all sound the same. No argument there. I have heard differences. Heck it was the common claim that there were no differences that lead me to buy an inferior product the first time out. Oh well. Lesson learned. Don't pay attention to nonsense like "Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course). " Clearly alleged typical meausred performance" doesn't tell us jack about any given product's actual sound. True for active devices like CDPs, false for passive conductors like Interconnects and cables. There is simply NO way a properly made cable or interconnect can have a "sound". If it does its because the manufacturer PURPOSELY added components to those cables to alter their frequency response and that sound is subtracting fidelity from the music being played, not adding fidelity to it. I.E. If a cable or interconnect changes the sound of one's system, it is NOT in a good way. At any rate who wants to spend hundreds of dollars for a set of "fixed" tone controls? |
#111
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
"Norman Schwartz" wrote in message
On Jul 13, 10:08 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message And I'm talking about perceiving differences in audio reproduction equipment when reproducing music, as evaluated using ABX. ABX is known to work very well. Where's the beef? Some listeners, including myself, feel that a period of longer term listening (at least several hours) is required to reveal itself. Not a problem with ABX. E.g., could it possibly be that certain distortion characteristics are not apparent nor find oportunity to 'grate' during instantaneous type comparisons? I know and agree with exactly what you seem to be saying. That's one reason why there is no inherent time limit in ABX testing, or the listener training and recording selection leading up to it. It's one reason why ABX Comparators are designed to be self-administered. |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
"Scott" wrote in message
On Jul 13, 11:32 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message I said; "You seem to have been claiming that standard measurements predict that all CDPs sound the same" There are goodly number of CD players, whether by design or due to partial failure, produce signals that are so degraded that they will even sound different. So they don't all sound the same. Right, the defective ones either sound different or are so defective that they don't make a signal at all. No argument there. Well, its common sense that broken things don't work right, and working right for a CD player means sounding exactly like every other CD player that is working right, all other things being equal which they frequently aren't. I have heard differences. Without more reliable data, that means nothing. Heck it was the common claim that there were no differences that lead me to buy an inferior product the first time out. If the product was actually inferior... Oh well. Lesson learned. I'm unsure of that. Don't pay attention to nonsense like "Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course). " Clearly alleged typical meausred performance" doesn't tell us jack about any given product's actual sound. I don't see any reliable evidence that supports any of those conclusions. "Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course). " Agreed. OK........ But, the reasons are generally trivial. Furthermore, audiophiles routinely claim audible superiority for equipment that has audible faults, some of which even they admit that they hear. One person's 'fault" is another person's virtue. However, there is something like 99% agreement about certain old-technology audible colorations and distortions being faults. Depends on your aesthetic priorities, goals and references. .....or like totally tasteless, garish cheap paintings of nudes or Elvis on velvet, a lack of taste. Ultimately that which is "superior" is entirely subjective when talking about the aesthetic values of our human perceptions. Human perceptions in many areas seem to converge to a general area. So what are you saying now Steve that you were not suggesting that audiophiles were and always have been wrong in their reports about audible differences between CDPs? Sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are wrong. No argument there. High end audiophiles are wrong about so many things, because their means for judging are so chronically flawed. High end audiophilia is almost like a parody. They have been found wrong when their claims are checked out by scientific means, whether test equipment or well-run listening tests. "Scientific menas?" If so then ceetainly you can cite the peer reviewed published data. Been there, done that only to be met by a chorus of wails about the costs of obtaining reprints of technical papers. I think you can buy about 100 or more of them for the price of one single mid-priced high end turntable. |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 14, 3:05*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 13, 5:24*pm, Scott wrote: On Jul 13, 4:20 pm, ScottW2 wrote: On Jul 13, 4:16 am, Scott wrote: In an exchange of emails Dennis told me that this particular sonic defect was CDP dependent. It was in those emails that he gave details of level matching, time synching and DB protocols. *This sounds like a test of CDPs ability to handle defective CDs with high read error rates. Again with the defects assertion. What was defective? One of the laser burners. *You said that 2 of 3 systems worked fine. No that isn't what I said at all. In fact I said nothing on the matter. but this is what Dennis Drake said. ""Upon further investigation, it turned out that the plant had three different laser beam recorders and that one of them sounded different than the other two." All three were *different* but none of them were ever said to be "defective." In fact for all we know thouasnds of titles were cut on the one burner that produced colored sounding CDs on certain players. Lesser in quality does nor equate defective. For all we know that burner was opperating exactly up to it's full capacity and was considered at that time "by typical measurements" to be working propperly. That is they produced CDs that sounded the same on all CDPs. We don't even know that. They sounded the same on all the CDPs that Dennis Drake used for his later comparisons. I'm pretty sure Dennis did not test every make and model of CDP past and present to that day. Nor do I suspect that he even tested a substantial sample. The 3rd produced CDs that sounded fine on some players and not so fine on others. *That tells me that unit was defective in that it produced marginal CDs that would not play without audible degradation on some CDPs. In the same report he talks about th colorations of all but one A?D converter. Does that mean that all those other widely used A.D converters were also "defective?" Are you suggesting that all this CD are either universlly transparent or defective? How were the CDs defective? An error in the pressing? How does that happen? How does this play "better" on one player and not another? Let's see...it could be all optics are not created equal, or all error correction is not created equal. Inequities are no surprise. That's what the crazy subjectivists have been claiming from the get go. It is also something that some people claim have never been a concern in CD playback. inequities are not always divided by defective and nondefective. Dennis indicated that on some CDPs the so called 'defective" discs played perfectly. Those players optics could handle deficient CDs or they had better error correction. IOW they were better sounding CDPs with certian CDs. And who knows how many of those discs were released into the commercial market? Do we have any reason to think that Dennis Drake's rigor in persuit of sound quality was the norm in commerical CD production? I'll bet it was and is very much the exception. How can a defective disc ever play perfectly? You've never heard a scratched CD play perfectly? Have you ever heard a scratched CD sound thin as opposed to just skipping or stopping? Not the same thing here. Dennis described inferior colored sound not skips or stops. *IME, CDs have to be rather badly damaged to not play perfectly on a decent player. IYE what sort of damage leads to the sound that Dennis Drake observed? |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... ABX does not preclude longer-term listening. The sounds being compared can last as long as you like (though there are good reasons to favor short samples). It's the switching itself that should be made 'instantaneous' if possible...the interval of dead air between A and B (and X). The need to make a forced choice, and to do seventeen trials, almost universally leads to short snippets. First off, the need to evenually make a choice is obviously *not* a proble. The claim that the choice is forced might be a play on words, because ABX is known among technical specialists as a 2AFC or two-alternative, forced choice test. The only necessary forcing of choice involves the listener eventually having to become comfortable enough with his situation to make a choice. It is unclear how a person who can't make a choice among a short list of alternatives would get along in life. Maybe their moma makes them do it? ;-) It may be human nature, but it is a real effect. No, the use of short samples is simply a well-known means for easing the production of the highest possible scores. If one studies recent science related to how the human brain perceives sound and particularly music (please see the Bibliography of "This is your Brain on Music"), one finds that our ability to remember subtle details about sounds fades rapidly - in about 2 to 10 seconds. Therefore if you listen to a piece of music that is longer than from 2 to 10 seconds, you have already forgotten many subtle details about the beginning of the selection. It then becomes very difficult or impossible to compare them to what you are hearing now. This is just another example of how modern science and high end audiophile tradition have been on a collision course for years, but only science seems to know that it ever happened, |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
"Sonnova" wrote in message
Have you ever done a DBT test between a RedBook CD of a particular title and, say, a high-resolution download (24/96 or 24/192) of the same title? I have. They're different. And the differences aren't subtle. The high-resolution download wins over the CD every time (so far). That is an evaluation with a rather obvious flaw - there is rarely reliable evidence that the production steps for various versions of the same title are otherwise identical. I've gone several steps beyond that: (1) I have produced any number of 24/96 recordings of my own, and compared them to downsampled versions of themselves. (2) I have any number of 24/96, SACD, and 24/192 commercial recordings and private recordings produce by others, which I have compared to themselves as above. To this day there is no conventionally-obtained evidence that shows that the new formats had any inherent audible benefits at all, the products never were accepted in the mainstream, and many of the record company executives that bet their careers on the new formats lost their jobs. That's simply not true, Arny. High resolution recordings in either PCM or DSD sound significantly better than RedBook CD and carefully set-up DBT testing has demonstrated that to my satisfaction (Levels matched as closely as instrumentation will allow, time sync'd between, for instance, two identical players one playing the SACD layer and the other playing the RedBook layer or, one of my own recordings is played back from my master which level matched and sync'd to a CD burned from that master using Logic Studio or Cubase 4). I see no reliable evidence of that, I have tried similar experiements with "no differences" results, I have circulated sets of recordings to the general public with "no differences" results, and there is an extant but unrebutted JAES article (peer reviewed) that recounts similar results that is now about a year old. |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 13, 8:43*pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Norman Schwartz wrote: On Jul 13, 10:08?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message And I'm talking about perceiving differences in audio reproduction equipment when reproducing music, as evaluated using ABX. ABX is known to work very well. Where's the beef? Some listeners, including myself, feel that a period of longer term listening (at least several hours) is required to reveal itself. E.g., could it possibly be that certain distortion characteristics are not apparent nor find oportunity to 'grate' during instantaneous type comparisons? THis must have been noted dozens of times by now in the history of RAHE, but: ABX does not preclude longer-term listening. The sounds being compared can last as long as you like (though there are good reasons to favor short samples). It's the switching itself that should be made 'instantaneous' if possible...the interval of dead air between A and B (and X). So then for longer periods, it be suggested that I spend 3 or more hours listening to"X", immediately followed by 3 or more additional hours listening to "Y"? What are the chances that boredom, listener fatigue, exhaustion and the intervals for eating/drinking and relieveing oneself would enter the comparison? -S |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... ABX does not preclude longer-term listening. The sounds being compared can last as long as you like (though there are good reasons to favor short samples). It's the switching itself that should be made 'instantaneous' if possible...the interval of dead air between A and B (and X). The need to make a forced choice, and to do seventeen trials, almost universally leads to short snippets. First off, the need to evenually make a choice is obviously *not* a proble. The claim that the choice is forced might be a play on words, because ABX is known among technical specialists as a 2AFC or two-alternative, forced choice test. The only necessary forcing of choice involves the listener eventually having to become comfortable enough with his situation to make a choice. It is unclear how a person who can't make a choice among a short list of alternatives would get along in life. Maybe their moma makes them do it? ;-) It may be human nature, but it is a real effect. No, the use of short samples is simply a well-known means for easing the production of the highest possible scores. If one studies recent science related to how the human brain perceives sound and particularly music (please see the Bibliography of "This is your Brain on Music"), one finds that our ability to remember subtle details about sounds fades rapidly - in about 2 to 10 seconds. Therefore if you listen to a piece of music that is longer than from 2 to 10 seconds, you have already forgotten many subtle details about the beginning of the selection. It then becomes very difficult or impossible to compare them to what you are hearing now. This is just another example of how modern science and high end audiophile tradition have been on a collision course for years, but only science seems to know that it ever happened, I'm not going to revisit the entire case against short snippets....only to say that practice in audiometrics has shown that to use ABX effectively, one must know what one is listening for and be trained to pick out and identify that artifact. That is very diffent from listening to music, whereby subtle distinctions can enter consciousness at a threshold level only under holistic conditions....the focus on cognitive differences (direct intervention) works against that state of musical consciousness....and short snippets make this matter even worse. |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
--
Best regards, Wayne Van Kirk ACP International 713-641-6413 http://www.acpinternational.com/ "Sonnova" wrote in message ... On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:34:17 -0700, Scott wrote (in article ): On Jul 13, 11:32 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message I said; "You seem to have been claiming that standard measurements predict that all CDPs sound the same" There are goodly number of CD players, whether by design or due to partial failure, produce signals that are so degraded that they will even sound different. So they don't all sound the same. No argument there. I have heard differences. Heck it was the common claim that there were no differences that lead me to buy an inferior product the first time out. Oh well. Lesson learned. Don't pay attention to nonsense like "Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course). " Clearly alleged typical meausred performance" doesn't tell us jack about any given product's actual sound. True for active devices like CDPs, false for passive conductors like Interconnects and cables. There is simply NO way a properly made cable or interconnect can have a "sound". If it does its because the manufacturer PURPOSELY added components to those cables to alter their frequency response and that sound is subtracting fidelity from the music being played, not adding fidelity to it. I.E. If a cable or interconnect changes the sound of one's system, it is NOT in a good way. At any rate who wants to spend hundreds of dollars for a set of "fixed" tone controls? I have heard a obvious difference with interconnects. An audiophile friend switched from one to the other. One made, a not so good mono recording (Byrd's), duller the other sparkled by comparison. Not a scientific test but I believe that the differences were great enought to be measured. WVK |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 14, 6:28*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message On Jul 13, 11:32 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Scott" wrote in message I said; "You seem to have been claiming that standard measurements predict that all CDPs sound the same" There are goodly number of CD players, whether by design or due to partial failure, produce signals that are so degraded that they will even sound different. So they don't all sound the same. Right, the defective ones either sound different or are so defective that they don't make a signal at all. So perhaps you could tell us what sort of defects in the burner at tha plant would lead a CD to sound thinner on certain CDPs and not others? Of course to me the big question is how does this "defect" go undetected at a major CD producing plant and how many "defective" CDs have entered the market place due to this one type of defect thatthe plant missed when they knew the quality of their product was being scrutinized? Then we have to ask how many other sorts of defects have been missed over the years of commercial CD and CDP production? I mean if different sound means there are defects that would suggest that all but one A/D converter tested by Dennis Drake was "defective." My god how many of those converters were routinely used in the mastering of commercial CDs? For all we know the rate of thse so called "defects" may have been nothing short of pandemic in the production of commercial CDs and CDPs. It's no wonder so many audiophiles that didn't buy into perfect sound forever found fault with so many CDs and CDPs and were always looking for improvement. No argument there. Well, its common sense that broken things don't work right, and working right for a CD player means sounding exactly like every other CD player that is working right, all other things being equal which they frequently aren't. Well that raises a big question. Given that the plant that supplied the "defective" disc to dennis to scrutinize did so with the on the line burner one has to wonder just how many CDs and CDPs weren't "defective" over the years. I have heard differences. Without more reliable data, that means nothing. No. It has meaning. Heck it was the common claim that there were no differences that lead me to buy an inferior product the first time out. If the product was actually inferior... Sounded worse to me so that makes it inferior to me. Oh well. Lesson learned. I'm unsure of that. Don't pay attention to nonsense like "Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course). " Clearly alleged typical meausred performance" doesn't tell us jack about any given product's actual sound. I don't see any reliable evidence that supports any of those conclusions. And yet you have confirmed variations in sound between CDs and CDPs. You simply like to call inferior product defective for whatever reason. "Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course). " Agreed. OK........ But, the reasons are generally trivial. Some folks in our hobby don't consider sound quality to be trivial. Furthermore, audiophiles routinely claim audible superiority for equipment that has audible faults, some of which even they admit that they hear. One person's 'fault" is another person's virtue. However, there is something like 99% agreement about certain old-technology audible colorations and distortions being faults. Do show us the controlled listening tests that confirm this assertion. I think in this case the hidden reference would have to be live music. you might want to talk to james Boyk when gather ing this data since he is the only one I know of who has done such tests. I don;t think you are going to like the results though. *Depends on your aesthetic priorities, goals and references. ....or like totally tasteless, garish cheap paintings of nudes or Elvis on velvet, a lack of taste. How does an afinity for velvet Elvis paintings say anything about one's aesthetic goals, priorities and references in audio? Ultimately that which is "superior" is entirely subjective when talking about the aesthetic values of our human perceptions. Human perceptions in many areas seem to converge to a general area. perhaps it may "seem" that way to you. It matters not. If one is not part of that convergence they are no less a human being and deserve no less in seeking satisfaction in audio. So what are you saying now Steve that you were not suggesting that audiophiles were and always have been wrong in their reports about audible differences between CDPs? Sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are wrong. No argument there. High end audiophiles are wrong about so many things, because their means for judging are so chronically flawed. *High end audiophilia is almost like a parody. I suppose so. We saw this illustrated in a recent account of an alleged superiority of European LPs over American LPs from the 60s. but so what. If you like something you like something even if your methodologies are not rigorous. They have been found wrong when their claims are checked out by scientific means, whether test equipment or well-run listening tests. "Scientific menas?" If so then ceetainly you can cite the peer reviewed published data. Been there, done that only to be met by a chorus of wails about the costs of obtaining reprints of technical papers. I think you can buy about 100 or more of them for the price of one single mid-priced high end turntable. Hmm no citation just more posturing in the name of science. that was what I expected. No citations. No real science in support of your assertions. thank you. |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 12:24:02AM +0000, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Scott wrote: On Jul 13, 4:15??am, Steven Sullivan wrote: Scott wrote: Nope. Straw man. ?And you should know better. here are your words from this thread. "Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course)." You might want to check thse things before crying strawman. (note for moderator: I am leaving all quotes in tact for sake of showing that these were Steve's words in context) What does the word 'typical' mean to you, Scott? Does it mean 'all'? Main Entry:typ??i??cal Pronunciation:\??ti-pi-k??l\ Function:adjective Etymology:Late Latin typicalis, from typicus, from Greek typikos, from typos model ??? more at type Date:1609 1: constituting or having the nature of a type : symbolic 2 a: combining or exhibiting the essential characteristics of a group typical suburban houses b: conforming to a type a specimen typical of the species Yay Google. Now, Scott, answer the question: does 'typical' mean 'all'? E.g.: "Typical suburban houses have a front lawn" vs "All suburban houses have a front lawn." Please now and forever stop claiming the me, Arny, or any of the other people you argue with about this over and over, claim that *All* (X) sound *the same*. Thanks. How can I stop something I am not doing? What does the word "standard" mean to you Steve? Is it something radically different than typical? No, but they're both indubitably different from 'all'...which is what you claim I'm saying. So I ask again, please stop attributing views I never have espoused, and never would espouse, to me. After all this is what I said; "You seem to have been claiming that standard meausurements predict that all CDPs sound the same" Your words once again.... "Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching for output devices, of course). " So what are you saying now Steve that you were not suggesting that audiophiles were and always have been wrong in their reports about audible differences between CDPs? No, I was not suggesting that they were and are *always* wrong... of course even a sighted comparison can turn out to be 'right' , but it requires other methods to determine it. (Btw, 'routinely' doesn't mean 'always', either.) Sure looks like that was what you were saying. Scott, maybe you aren't exactly the best judge of these things. Maybe others here can chime in and say whether they had as much difficulty parsing my use of the word 'typical' as you seem to. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Top 100 Reasons For Despising Arnie | Audio Opinions | |||
About Arnie K | Audio Opinions | |||
rec.audio.Arnie.Krueger | Audio Opinions | |||
*Thank Heaven For Arnie Kroo* | Audio Opinions |