Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 22, 6:27 pm, "MC" wrote:
Pardon me, I see no logical fallacy. Two possible biases are being considered and someone wants to determine which one is stronger, a bias toward false negatives or a bias toward false positives. This is a very straightforward, common, and troublesome question in all types of experiments that involve human perception. "Which bias is stronger?" is a pointless question. Both biases exist to some extent. It doesn't matter which is stronger; it matters that you account for them. A good test design will and does deal with both. You control for false positives through such means as blinding and level matching. You control for false negatives through training the subject and allowing him to control switching, among other things. And how do you know you've controlled for them enough? When you get results that are repeatable and consistent with other sorts of tests. Which professional psychoacousticians do, which is why they use the tests. Only Denialists argue otherwise. bob |
#122
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 22, 5:27 pm, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On 22 Mar 2007 03:20:10 GMT, "Peter Wieck" wrote: Attempting to prove the negative is a logical fallacy. Not only isn't it a fallacy, it is commonly done, especially in Mathematics and occasionally in physics. In audio it is easily proven that there are no loudspeakers with an efficiency of greater than 100%, for example. This follows trivially from the laws of physics as do many other negatives. Those who require such proof simply do not understand that very most basic concept. So the Greeks, who proved millenea ago that there are exactly no pairs of whole numbers whose ratio, multiplied by itself, equals two, were all hallucinating I suppose? As are all the modern textbooks that repeat their proof! Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - God help you both (MC is the 'other half'). a) Mathematical proofs show what 'is', not what 'is not'. That there are a class of conditions that are excluded because of a proof is not that they are proven... it is that the positive is proven, so the negative is excluded. NOT PROVEN... EXCLUDED. Note Clarke's First law as it applies to this condition as well. Additionally: that something is proven-by-exclusion may only be accepted with the following codicil: To-Date. Anything further, Clarke's third law applies. The second is purely gratuitous. b) The operative statement here is "Prove that this bias did not affect the results of all your tests. That is the ONLY thing that matters." Theporky is requiring proof of the negative. The saddest part of all this is that there is a significant number of individuals (in this case as it applies to Audio) who require that the world be divided into two necessarily warring camps: THE SUBJECTIVISTS: Those who believe that hearing is all, sighted or otherwise and that all honest brokers amongst us automagically choose the ideal case if we are only sufficiently unburdened by prejudice to admit it. THE OBJECTIVISTS: those who believe that numbers coupled with rigidly designed (relatively) short-term blind tests under carefully controlled conditions will necessarily and always come up with the ideal result for all listeners. It Ain't Necessarily So! You all need to refer yourselves to William of Occam. He put paid to this crap something like 700 years ago. If any of you would define the opposite of "Black" as "White", remind me not to take _ANY_ advice from you when it comes to audio, or any other thing of note or import. Perhaps we can all agree that cables after a certain pretty basic threshold deliver unmeasurable or irrelevantly measurable differences. So what? That is not significant to either side of the argument. There are those who will believe that there are differences and that they can discern them. There are those that believe that a correctly designed test will prove otherwise. So what? That is not significant to either side of the argument either. Ladies and gentlemen, and children of all ages, this is better understood as 'revealed religion'. It ain't nohow gonna change. Occasionally, an outlyer will flip from one sect to the other, but in the main, the body of each sect is invincibly immune to the lures and blandishments of the other side. The sooner this is accepted by both sides, the sooner we can get on with the meat of the matter... those things that make real differences that we all can discuss as 'equal' true believers... A few to cast out on the waters: a) Speaker Quality, type and style: Advantages and disadvantages b) Headroom: Its potential for making a difference. c) Compare/contrast "headroom" with "speaker quality, type and style": Discuss Keeerist..... We are busy separating fly-crap from pepper... a difficult activity of dubious utility. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#123
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
Peter Wieck wrote:
The saddest part of all this is that there is a significant number of individuals (in this case as it applies to Audio) who require that the world be divided into two necessarily warring camps: THE SUBJECTIVISTS: Those who believe that hearing is all, sighted or otherwise and that all honest brokers amongst us automagically choose the ideal case if we are only sufficiently unburdened by prejudice to admit it. THE OBJECTIVISTS: those who believe that numbers coupled with rigidly designed (relatively) short-term blind tests under carefully controlled conditions will necessarily and always come up with the ideal result for all listeners. That's not the 'objectivist' position, and you do your argument no credit by propping up such a straw man. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#124
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 23, 3:08?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message On Mar 21, 3:42?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message On Mar 19, 2:42?pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote: is merely a restatement of the attitude that pretty well lies behind all of science. Some of us know how easily we can be fooled, and therefore take precautions against that. Hmmm, OK. So what precautions do you take against being fooled when you make purchase choices in audio? I base my purchases on both technical and subjective evaluations. Wherever possible, I use bias controls in my subjective evaluations. They are possible for every component in audio. But tell me, do you use controls against a possible bias that components sound the same? As you say, possible bias. Prove that bias is anywhere near as strong as the bias to hear differences when there can't be any, and you'll have a logical leg to stand on. What? You are waiting for me to prove bias exists? Not at all. I asked for a comparison of the strength of two different kinds of bias: Prove that the bias towards not hearing differences is anywhere as strong as the bias towards hearing differences when there are none. no relevant answer No relevant question to answer. Prove that this bias did not affect the results of all your tests. First off, I didn't do all the tests that I reference. Actually you haven't really referenced any tests thus far. We were talking about how *you* eliminate bias effects in *your* auditions. So other peoples' tests are not relevant unless you are relying on them instead of doing your own. Some of them were done by people with a strong bias towards hearing differences. So you say. How do you know what their biases really are? For example, consider the many tests that John Atkinson that failed to have a positive outcome for audible differences. Consider the tests that were done by Larry Greenhill. Consider the fact that when I started doing tests, I had a stong bias for audible differences. Consider that none of them seemed to test for the possibility oif a bias of no difference heard. Consider also that none of them actually tested their test for sensitivity to known barely audible differences. Cinsider that all of them are anecdotal in the end. But mostly consider that they have nothing to do with my question to you about how *you* eliminate bias from *your* auditions. Scott |
#125
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 23, 6:53 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote: The saddest part of all this is that there is a significant number of individuals (in this case as it applies to Audio) who require that the world be divided into two necessarily warring camps: THE SUBJECTIVISTS: Those who believe that hearing is all, sighted or otherwise and that all honest brokers amongst us automagically choose the ideal case if we are only sufficiently unburdened by prejudice to admit it. THE OBJECTIVISTS: those who believe that numbers coupled with rigidly designed (relatively) short-term blind tests under carefully controlled conditions will necessarily and always come up with the ideal result for all listeners. That's not the 'objectivist' position, and you do your argument no credit by propping up such a straw man. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason I ain't nohow arguing. I am pointing out the general silliness of the arguments here to-date. Straw or otherwise. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
#126
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 23, 3:09?pm, "bob" wrote:
You control for false positives through such means as blinding and level matching. You control for false negatives through training the subject and allowing him to control switching, among other things. Wow, didn't know you could "train" away any biases. I would think the logical way to prevent false negatives is to introduce known barely audible differences into the test. If they go undetected then we have evidence of false negatives. Scott |
#127
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"bob" wrote in message
... On Mar 22, 6:27 pm, "MC" wrote: Pardon me, I see no logical fallacy. Two possible biases are being considered and someone wants to determine which one is stronger, a bias toward false negatives or a bias toward false positives. This is a very straightforward, common, and troublesome question in all types of experiments that involve human perception. "Which bias is stronger?" is a pointless question. Both biases exist to some extent. It doesn't matter which is stronger; it matters that you account for them. A good test design will and does deal with both. I agree, but the average newbie on usenet was only going to hear about the bias towards false positives if it was up to the objectivists on usenet. I suspect that in the last few years we subjectivists have made some inroads in showing the possibility of negative bias and the general lack of control for this that the proponents of abx testing showed in urging it as a home audio, open-ended evaluation procedure. You control for false positives through such means as blinding and level matching. You control for false negatives through training the subject and allowing him to control switching, among other things. Training of course which never is/never can be done when it comes to open-ended evaluation of audio components. One of the main reasons why I believe other forms of testing are preferable to abx and abc/hr for this purpose. And how do you know you've controlled for them enough? When you get results that are repeatable and consistent with other sorts of tests. Which professional psychoacousticians do, which is why they use the tests. Only Denialists argue otherwise. In other words, when you get the results you want consistent with your going in biases? Or is that being a bit unfair? Well then tell me, why did you fight me so hard on validation testing if you believe that a test for "controlling them enough" is consistency with other sorts of tests? Seems at odds on the face, to me. |
#128
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On 23 Mar 2007 22:11:50 GMT, "Peter Wieck" wrote:
a) Mathematical proofs show what 'is', not what 'is not'. That there are a class of conditions that are excluded because of a proof is not that they are proven... it is that the positive is proven, so the negative is excluded. NOT PROVEN... EXCLUDED. Well you can say it a thousand times, but you will still be just as wrong. The proof that there are no two integers whose ratio is the square root of two is actually a reducio ad absurdum, where we assume a positive and show that it involves a contradiction. Disproving a positive is logically equivalent to proving a negative as a simple truth table will show. And similarly we can know and prove the negative conclusion that no unpowered loudspeaker can ever be 100% efficient, because we know from the laws of physics that this must be true if the laws of thermodynamics are correct. Of course it is trivially true that every negative can also be stated as a positive, but often the negative version is the best and simplest way to express a conclusion. Note Clarke's First law as it applies to this condition as well. Clarke's "First Law" is not a "law" at all. It is a clever and often appropriate aphorism that "proves" nothing nor was ever intended to. b) The operative statement here is "Prove that this bias did not affect the results of all your tests. That is the ONLY thing that matters." Theporky is requiring proof of the negative. "Theporky" is, based on my observations of his posts in this group and in my opinion, often wrong and also often illogical. That he is doesn't make you right. In this case you are wrong. We can indeed prove various negative things. See http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/%22You_Can't_Prove_a_Negative%22 for a decent discussion. As Steve Martin points out, "It's impossible to put a Cadillac up your nose". I think we've beaten this to death, don't you? |
#129
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 23, 11:44 pm, wrote:
On Mar 23, 3:09?pm, "bob" wrote: You control for false positives through such means as blinding and level matching. You control for false negatives through training the subject and allowing him to control switching, among other things. Wow, didn't know you could "train" away any biases. Who said you could? Please read what I wrote, for once. Do you see the word "bias" in the previous paragraph? I would think the logical way to prevent false negatives is to introduce known barely audible differences into the test. If they go undetected then we have evidence of false negatives. No, we don't. We have evidence that those subjects couldn't hear those differences under those conditions. That is all. bob |
#130
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote: The saddest part of all this is that there is a significant number of individuals (in this case as it applies to Audio) who require that the world be divided into two necessarily warring camps: THE SUBJECTIVISTS: Those who believe that hearing is all, sighted or otherwise and that all honest brokers amongst us automagically choose the ideal case if we are only sufficiently unburdened by prejudice to admit it. THE OBJECTIVISTS: those who believe that numbers coupled with rigidly designed (relatively) short-term blind tests under carefully controlled conditions will necessarily and always come up with the ideal result for all listeners. That's not the 'objectivist' position, and you do your argument no credit by propping up such a straw man. ___ It's hard to find any accepted definition of objectivism. OTOH, I think Doug Self has a good definition of subjectivism, as expressed on his website: *** A short definition of the Subjectivist position on power amplifiers might read as follows: * Objective measurements of an amplifier's performance are unimportant compared with the subjective impressions received in informal listening tests. Should the two contradict the objective results may be dismissed out of hand. * Degradation effects exist in amplifiers that are unknown to engineering science, and are not revealed by the usual measurements. * Considerable latitude may be used in suggesting hypothetical mechanisms of audio impairment, such as mysterious capacitor shortcomings and subtle cable defects, without reference to the plausibility of the concept, or gathering any evidence to support it . *** A definition of the subjectivist position on cables/power-cords then is simply the above with the word amplifier replaced by cables/power-cords. Perhaps an objectivist is simply one who disagrees with any of the subjectivist positions listed above. Or perhaps "non-subjectivist" is a more accurate term to describe those of us who opposes subjectivism in this newsgroup. |
#131
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
On Mar 24, 10:40 am, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
"bob" wrote in message ... On Mar 22, 6:27 pm, "MC" wrote: Pardon me, I see no logical fallacy. Two possible biases are being considered and someone wants to determine which one is stronger, a bias toward false negatives or a bias toward false positives. This is a very straightforward, common, and troublesome question in all types of experiments that involve human perception. "Which bias is stronger?" is a pointless question. Both biases exist to some extent. It doesn't matter which is stronger; it matters that you account for them. A good test design will and does deal with both. I agree, but the average newbie on usenet was only going to hear about the bias towards false positives if it was up to the objectivists on usenet. No, the reason we spend so much time discussing false positives is that Denialists like you keep bring up "evidence" based on "tests" that fail to control for false positives. We don't discuss false negatives so much because nobody is citing tests that fail to control for them. I suspect that in the last few years we subjectivists have made some inroads in showing the possibility of negative bias and the general lack of control for this that the proponents of abx testing showed in urging it as a home audio, open-ended evaluation procedure. You're joking, right? You Denialists haven't shown ANYTHING. You've not offered a shred of real evidence that what you call "negative bias" even exists. In fact, you haven't shown that you even understand the difference between "negative bias," as you call it, and false negatives. You control for false positives through such means as blinding and level matching. You control for false negatives through training the subject and allowing him to control switching, among other things. Training of course which never is/never can be done when it comes to open-ended evaluation of audio components. Any training that's necessary would be easily doable. What training do you think is necessary for an audiophile to determine which of two components he prefers? One of the main reasons why I believe other forms of testing are preferable to abx and abc/hr for this purpose. And given your previous answer, why would training not be necessary for any other form of "testing"? And how do you know you've controlled for them enough? When you get results that are repeatable and consistent with other sorts of tests. Which professional psychoacousticians do, which is why they use the tests. Only Denialists argue otherwise. In other words, when you get the results you want consistent with your going in biases? Or is that being a bit unfair? Well, you've just libeled the entire scientific community, for starters. Well then tell me, why did you fight me so hard on validation testing if you believe that a test for "controlling them enough" is consistency with other sorts of tests? Seems at odds on the face, to me. What are you talking about? I argued with you about validation because the only thing you're qualified to validate is a parking ticket. Whereas the people who use these tests for a living have already validated them by producing results that are repeatable and consistent with other sorts of tests. As opposed to Denialists like you, who've never done a test in your life, let alone one that produced useful data. bob |
#132
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"bob" wrote in message
On Mar 22, 6:27 pm, "MC" wrote: Pardon me, I see no logical fallacy. Two possible biases are being considered and someone wants to determine which one is stronger, a bias toward false negatives or a bias toward false positives. This is a very straightforward, common, and troublesome question in all types of experiments that involve human perception. "Which bias is stronger?" is a pointless question. Both biases exist to some extent. It doesn't matter which is stronger; it matters that you account for them. A good test design will and does deal with both. One approach that we've used is to simply use people who are advocates for the difference being listened for, as listeners. I alluded to that in my earlier post when I mentioned the name of an editor who seems to be a strong advocate for the existence of a wide variety of audible differences. Another approach that we've used is to provide tangible and/or intangible rewards for listeners who reliably detect a certain audible difference. Both cash awards and titles of honor have been tried. Just Noticable Differences (JND) for many audible effects are known by various means. Listeners can be tested and listeners who do not approach JNDs can be removed from the final analysis of tests involving other differences for which JNDs are not known. A certain systematic approach has been used to detect listeners who are less sensitive for whatever reason. In many cases the difference being listened for can enhanced by various technical means. Listeners are presented with the difference enhanced to the point where the listener would have to be narturally unusually insensitive (i.e., poor hearing or not responding to training) or be biasing his responses towards reporting no differences, in order for the particular test to be negative for audible differences. The future responses from these listeners are ignored. The size of the difference is systematically decreased in steps until reliable detection ceases. Analysis of the data can provide a good estimate of the point of a just noticable difference. You control for false positives through such means as blinding and level matching. Agreed. You control for false negatives through training the subject and allowing him to control switching, among other things. Doesn't really deal with the golden-ear's boogey-man, the listener who either doesn't try hard enough or falsifies his responses because he believes that the difference involved is not audible. And how do you know you've controlled for them enough? When you get results that are repeatable and consistent with other sorts of tests. Which professional psychoacousticians do, which is why they use the tests. In fact, even the most jaded listener will often put forth an exceptional effort, simply because people tend to be optimistic, and don't want to be the only person who can't hear a certain difference. Only Denialists argue otherwise. Denialists can be detected by simply offering them an opportunity to participate in a well-designed listening test, and then waiting for the litany of excuses for them not participating. |
#133
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
I agree, but the average newbie on usenet was only going to hear about the bias towards false positives if it was up to the objectivists on usenet. This is a claim that can be tested. It turns out that this is to the best of my knowlege the first post that mentioned both false positives and false negatives on any rec.* audio group: Date: Sat, 26 Nov 94 18:31:00 http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...249424154aaa13 "A good test that will be a possible safeguard against a 'false positive' or 'false negative' conclusion from the statistical evaluation would of couse be to first make a testrun with both CD's of each recording unpainted." I can't find any evidence of anyone with the name lavo posting prior to 2002, about 8 years later. Therefore we can conclude that the claim has zero validity. |
#134
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Mar 23, 6:53 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote: Peter Wieck wrote: The saddest part of all this is that there is a significant number of individuals (in this case as it applies to Audio) who require that the world be divided into two necessarily warring camps: THE SUBJECTIVISTS: Those who believe that hearing is all, sighted or otherwise and that all honest brokers amongst us automagically choose the ideal case if we are only sufficiently unburdened by prejudice to admit it. THE OBJECTIVISTS: those who believe that numbers coupled with rigidly designed (relatively) short-term blind tests under carefully controlled conditions will necessarily and always come up with the ideal result for all listeners. That's not the 'objectivist' position, and you do your argument no credit by propping up such a straw man. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason I ain't nohow arguing. I am pointing out the general silliness of the arguments here to-date. Straw or otherwise. It's easy to point to a 'silly' argument when you've made it up yourself. ___ -S "As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason |
#135
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "bob" wrote in message On Mar 22, 6:27 pm, "MC" wrote: Pardon me, I see no logical fallacy. Two possible biases are being considered and someone wants to determine which one is stronger, a bias toward false negatives or a bias toward false positives. This is a very straightforward, common, and troublesome question in all types of experiments that involve human perception. "Which bias is stronger?" is a pointless question. Both biases exist to some extent. It doesn't matter which is stronger; it matters that you account for them. A good test design will and does deal with both. One approach that we've used is to simply use people who are advocates for the difference being listened for, as listeners. I alluded to that in my earlier post when I mentioned the name of an editor who seems to be a strong advocate for the existence of a wide variety of audible differences. Another approach that we've used is to provide tangible and/or intangible rewards for listeners who reliably detect a certain audible difference. Both cash awards and titles of honor have been tried. Just Noticable Differences (JND) for many audible effects are known by various means. Listeners can be tested and listeners who do not approach JNDs can be removed from the final analysis of tests involving other differences for which JNDs are not known. A certain systematic approach has been used to detect listeners who are less sensitive for whatever reason. In many cases the difference being listened for can enhanced by various technical means. Listeners are presented with the difference enhanced to the point where the listener would have to be narturally unusually insensitive (i.e., poor hearing or not responding to training) or be biasing his responses towards reporting no differences, in order for the particular test to be negative for audible differences. The future responses from these listeners are ignored. The size of the difference is systematically decreased in steps until reliable detection ceases. Analysis of the data can provide a good estimate of the point of a just noticable difference. This may work when it comes to identifiable artifacts, such as the codec artifacts for which such test techniques were designed. It is totally meaningless when it comes to the open-ended evaluation of audio components. Moreover, "training" the listener is not the same thing as designing a test with built-in bias controls. This is no different (but in reverse) than sighted tests, where the test design if anything favors hearing differences, and we subjectivists argue that the way to prevent that is through a strong motivation for impartial analysis. You know how well you and other objectivists accept that argument. You control for false positives through such means as blinding and level matching. Agreed. You control for false negatives through training the subject and allowing him to control switching, among other things. Doesn't really deal with the golden-ear's boogey-man, the listener who either doesn't try hard enough or falsifies his responses because he believes that the difference involved is not audible. Finally we agree on something (although not the inflamatory phrasing). You are right and Bob is wrong...."training" is not a control; controls are built into the testing itself. And how do you know you've controlled for them enough? When you get results that are repeatable and consistent with other sorts of tests. Which professional psychoacousticians do, which is why they use the tests. In fact, even the most jaded listener will often put forth an exceptional effort, simply because people tend to be optimistic, and don't want to be the only person who can't hear a certain difference. Sorry, Arny, "depending on the (jaded) kindness of others" is not a control, as you seem to recognize above. Only Denialists argue otherwise. Then you contradict yourseld. Denialists can be detected by simply offering them an opportunity to participate in a well-designed listening test, and then waiting for the litany of excuses for them not participating. Others would see them as highly rational, refusing to give credit to tests with obvious (and several unobvious) design flaws. |
#136
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message I agree, but the average newbie on usenet was only going to hear about the bias towards false positives if it was up to the objectivists on usenet. This is a claim that can be tested. It turns out that this is to the best of my knowlege the first post that mentioned both false positives and false negatives on any rec.* audio group: Date: Sat, 26 Nov 94 18:31:00 http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...249424154aaa13 "A good test that will be a possible safeguard against a 'false positive' or 'false negative' conclusion from the statistical evaluation would of couse be to first make a testrun with both CD's of each recording unpainted." I can't find any evidence of anyone with the name lavo posting prior to 2002, about 8 years later. Therefore we can conclude that the claim has zero validity. Let's see: I agree, but the average newbie on usenet was only going to hear about the bias towards false positives if it was up to the objectivists on usenet. This seems to imply "quantity" of posts, Arny....since the visits of Newbies to usenet is spread over time. What on earth does the date of "first post" that you can find have to do with it. And what does my name have to do with it? Back to school to logic class, Arny. |
#137
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
wrote in message
On Mar 18, 7:15?am, "Arny Krueger" wrote: wrote in message Do tell. What exactly do you mean by "measurably similar"? Have similar effective series L, C, and R, equivalent quality factors for the L and C, and similar frequency-dependence of L, C, and R. Have effective shielding. Be capable of maintaining a good grounding system. and how does that mean one would have to believe physicists understanding of how electrical signals pass through wire is fundamentally wrong? The theory of passage of audio signals through short cables is thought to be well-understood. The performance of a short audio cable is essentially described by the parameters I listed above. Sorry but that does not answer the question about how we would have to believe physicists' are wrong about how a cable passes a signal to believe that a cable can distort a signal. ??? I'm willing to stipulate that cables do distort signals (in trivial ways). Are you saying that physicists believe that cables pass audio signals with no measurable distortion? No, it is well known that audio signals can undergo all kinds of measurable changes when they pass through cables. BINGO. Correct answer. But as a rule, they are trivial. So all the hand waving about the "laws of physics" and the fact that we have ways of measuring signal that are far more sensitive than uman hearing is a burning straw man No, that is true - that we have ways of measuring signal that are far more sensitive than human addresses the claim that we don't. and plainly misleading because in fact the laws of physics dictates that a cable should distort an audio signal and the measurements confirm that. Not misleading because cables generally have trivial amounts of nonnlinear distortion that are not audible. Measurements are more sensitive than the ears, so the presence of measureable changes does not prove the existence of audible changes. |
#138
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best possible science, well legitimate science period has not chimed in on the topics most often debated by audiophiles. Actually it has. Being science, it often doesn't tell audiophiles what they want to hear. I suspect he is now going to ask which independent research labs have tested X particular brand of high end audio gear against X brand of 'midgrade' gear or somesuch, as if that was the sort of thing scientists did, and as if *basic* research findings, such as tends to published in the JAES had no bearing on such questions. In a sense, that's been going on for some time. One of the problems is that the persons in question aren't degreed engineers and AFAIK don't even want to be assciated with the enginering profession in any way. For example, some of the worst figurative hellfire and damnation that has ever been leveled at the LP format can be found in the JAES archives, written the chief scientists of companies that were leading producers of LP media or playback equipment. Of course, the writing lacks specfics that lay people have been quick to demand, and it is written up in such a way that it generates minimal excitment. Then it is hardly "hellfire and damnataion" is it? It is if you understand the meaning of it. The JAES paper laying out the lack of need for higher sample rates than 44 KHz was old when the SACD was new, but remains unrebutted. And did it deal with poor impulse response, pre-ripple, and other transiant, dynamic factors involved in *audio* reproduction? There's no evidence that those are audible factors, when within the limits found in good modern audio gear. Or did it just deal with frequency response? Frequency response and transient response tend to define each other. Not too many audiophiles will claim we can physically hear beyond 20khz. Really? http://www.tonmeister.ca/main/textbook/node637.html "Another group relies on the idea that our common understanding of human limits of hearing is incorrect. For many years, many people have argued that our hearing does not stop at 20 kHz, regardless of what the tests and textbooks tell us. These folks say that we are actually able to perceive spectral content above 20 kHz in one way or another. When it proved to be impossible to get people to identify such things in standard listening tests (i.e. can you hear the difference between two sounds, one band-limited and one not) people resorted to looking at EKG's to see if high-frequency content changed Alpha-waves[Yamamoto et al., 1994][Yoshikawa et al., 1995][Yoshikawa et al., 1997]. http://www.iar-80.com/page128.html " Note by the way that we could hear the degradation of this 100 kHz filter in spite of the fact that other previous filters in the recording/reproduction chain (e.g. the microphone and master tape or vinyl disc) themselves were already rolling off the music signal's response above 20 kHz. Countering this rolloff above 20 kHz was the fact, proven independently by our other research measurements, that the spectral energy content of many musical transient sounds was actually rising above 20 kHz (such as that gentle cymbal kiss, which we measured as peaking at 40 kHz). Of course, if these other links in the chain had had wider bandwidth, then the introduction of our 100 kHz filter would surely have been even more audible as a more severe degradation. Thus, our research experiment demonstrates that extending the bandwidth of the medium to 80 kHz (as with a 24/192 DVD-A), instead of restricting it to being an additional filter in the chain at 20 kHz (as with a 16/44 redbook CD), is sonically important. Note too that, as mastering equipment continues to improve its bandwidth beyond 20 kHz, it becomes even more sonically important that the playback medium bringing this extended bandwidth signal into our listening room have bandwidth that extends far beyond 20 kHz." http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/forum...php/t-261.html "But it doesn't really matter because speakers can do 20 Hz - 20 kHz and microphone can record up to 20 kHz. the 96 kHz sampling have the edge of reducing the errors and stuff like versus the 48 kHz sampling that if i am not mistaken." |
#139
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Ed Seedhouse" wrote in message ... But "I hear it so it must be so" is certainly not a scientific scientific attitude, and last I saw it was the scientists and engineers who have given us the ability we have to bring a pretty good approximation of live musical performances into our living rooms. Very true. But it needs also to be pointed out that it was the audiophiles and audio reveiwers who pointed out the audible flaws in the audio technology that promised "perfect sound forever", first in early transistor amplifiers, and later in early CD players. Straw man arguments. There was never a claim that early SS amps had "perfect sound forever", and their audible flaws were widely discussed. However, their audible flaws were minor compared to their lack of reliablity. Reliability may have been the main issue to engineers. To audiophiles, it was vile sound. The vile sound often involved amplifiers that had become defective in use due to their relatively fragility. Their vile sound was because it was a new technology that engineers hadn't yet figured out how to make sound good. This comment doesn't necessarily disagree with what I just said. Was it intended to? The claim that the CD format offered "perfect sound forever" was part of an advertising pitch. Anybody who confuses advertising pitches with adequate technical statements of equipment performance deserves what they get. Except of course for the engineers (Sony and otherwise) who were all over the audio magazines, arguing that CD's indeed did offer "perfect sound'. The CD format has always and continues to prvoide sonically transparent recording and reproduction of music. And some continue to this day. :-( If its not true, it should be easy to show that it isn't. For example, take a 24/192 track off of a DVD-A tracks and downsample it to 16/44 and then compare it to the origional recording in a level-matched, time-synched, bias-controlled test. You continue to take very much that same position today, arguing that they are the ultimate in transparency (what else is "perfect sound"). It is well known that the ear is oblivious to many changes that are easy to measure. Therefore a format that is far from perfect can be sonically transparent. That avoids the claim you made earlier, viz the above. Not at all. However, I have a working sample of a CDP 101 that appears to be well-maintained. This was one of the two original CD players. I defy anybody to detect its insertion into an audio system playing back typical recordings. But of course none of us have access to that machine, and you don't have access to our systems. It would be a simple matter to provide high sample rate, high bit depth recordings before and after passage through the CDP 101 any reasonble number of times. Once again, Arny prefers a PC simulation to testing the "real thing". This response is just another way that the alleged sonic benefits of high sample rates are debunked by supposed proponents of high sample rates. High sample rates aren't generally good things, it seems. They can't reproduce what are purported to be obvious sonic problems with certain pieces of equipment. Thus adding layers of potentially obscuring digitalitus. Whatever that means. So that is a bit of a piece of fluff, unless you want to offer to send it (or bring it) to some of us for audition. Depends on whether or not the listener can cathect with a highly accurate recording of the equipment's output as being representative of its performance. I have no idea what this means. Can you repeat please, with correct spelling of whatever you meant? There are no misspelled words in that paragraph. And it was audio reveiwers who developed a subjective language to describe what they heard, so that audio engineers knew where to focus their attention. Actually, the audio reviewers were just aping a descriptive language that was first developed by recording engineers and sound system installation engineers. In twenty years of discussion, this is the first time I have ever heard this claim. It would be ludicrous to think that recording engineers and sound system installation engineers couldn't articulate their perceptions using a descriptive language to describe what they heard, until some reviewers made it up. So, you admit you made the claim up. Not very nice, Arny. ????????????? And why is it so ludicrous, when you and others still have trouble talking about "sound" as opposed to measurements? ?????????????? For one thing, actual development and limited use of equipment, historically proceeded offering up equipment for review in some publication. The egg comes before the review of the egg. An iterative process...eggs lead to chickens lead to more eggs lead to more chickens. Did I say that some engineer somewhere did not come up with an improvement on their own without the benefit of a special language. Straw man argument in the extreme. ???????????????? All these ???? mean that the claims don't make any sense to me, Harry. You just make a number of unsupported claims. |
#140
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best possible science, well legitimate science period has not chimed in on the topics most often debated by audiophiles. Actually it has. Being science, it often doesn't tell audiophiles what they want to hear. I suspect he is now going to ask which independent research labs have tested X particular brand of high end audio gear against X brand of 'midgrade' gear or somesuch, as if that was the sort of thing scientists did, and as if *basic* research findings, such as tends to published in the JAES had no bearing on such questions. In a sense, that's been going on for some time. One of the problems is that the persons in question aren't degreed engineers and AFAIK don't even want to be assciated with the enginering profession in any way. For example, some of the worst figurative hellfire and damnation that has ever been leveled at the LP format can be found in the JAES archives, written the chief scientists of companies that were leading producers of LP media or playback equipment. Of course, the writing lacks specfics that lay people have been quick to demand, and it is written up in such a way that it generates minimal excitment. Then it is hardly "hellfire and damnataion" is it? It is if you understand the meaning of it. I see. A damnation known only to EE's, is that it? The JAES paper laying out the lack of need for higher sample rates than 44 KHz was old when the SACD was new, but remains unrebutted. And did it deal with poor impulse response, pre-ripple, and other transiant, dynamic factors involved in *audio* reproduction? There's no evidence that those are audible factors, when within the limits found in good modern audio gear. Or did it just deal with frequency response? Frequency response and transient response tend to define each other. Yeah, except it is the transient response we hear when the frequency response gets beyond a certain point. Not too many audiophiles will claim we can physically hear beyond 20khz. Really? http://www.tonmeister.ca/main/textbook/node637.html "Another group relies on the idea that our common understanding of human limits of hearing is incorrect. For many years, many people have argued that our hearing does not stop at 20 kHz, regardless of what the tests and textbooks tell us. These folks say that we are actually able to perceive spectral content above 20 kHz in one way or another. When it proved to be impossible to get people to identify such things in standard listening tests (i.e. can you hear the difference between two sounds, one band-limited and one not) people resorted to looking at EKG's to see if high-frequency content changed Alpha-waves[Yamamoto et al., 1994][Yoshikawa et al., 1995][Yoshikawa et al., 1997]. http://www.iar-80.com/page128.html " Note by the way that we could hear the degradation of this 100 kHz filter in spite of the fact that other previous filters in the recording/reproduction chain (e.g. the microphone and master tape or vinyl disc) themselves were already rolling off the music signal's response above 20 kHz. Countering this rolloff above 20 kHz was the fact, proven independently by our other research measurements, that the spectral energy content of many musical transient sounds was actually rising above 20 kHz (such as that gentle cymbal kiss, which we measured as peaking at 40 kHz). Of course, if these other links in the chain had had wider bandwidth, then the introduction of our 100 kHz filter would surely have been even more audible as a more severe degradation. Thus, our research experiment demonstrates that extending the bandwidth of the medium to 80 kHz (as with a 24/192 DVD-A), instead of restricting it to being an additional filter in the chain at 20 kHz (as with a 16/44 redbook CD), is sonically important. Note too that, as mastering equipment continues to improve its bandwidth beyond 20 kHz, it becomes even more sonically important that the playback medium bringing this extended bandwidth signal into our listening room have bandwidth that extends far beyond 20 kHz." http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/forum...php/t-261.html "But it doesn't really matter because speakers can do 20 Hz - 20 kHz and microphone can record up to 20 kHz. the 96 kHz sampling have the edge of reducing the errors and stuff like versus the 48 kHz sampling that if i am not mistaken." Absolutely no claim here of being able to "hear" beyond 20khz. Much here to suggest that response outside of this bandwidth affects what we hear in it....which was my point about transient response, especially as it is impacted in the 2khz range of high audio sensitivity. |
#141
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best possible science, well legitimate science period has not chimed in on the topics most often debated by audiophiles. Actually it has. Being science, it often doesn't tell audiophiles what they want to hear. I suspect he is now going to ask which independent research labs have tested X particular brand of high end audio gear against X brand of 'midgrade' gear or somesuch, as if that was the sort of thing scientists did, and as if *basic* research findings, such as tends to published in the JAES had no bearing on such questions. In a sense, that's been going on for some time. One of the problems is that the persons in question aren't degreed engineers and AFAIK don't even want to be assciated with the enginering profession in any way. For example, some of the worst figurative hellfire and damnation that has ever been leveled at the LP format can be found in the JAES archives, written the chief scientists of companies that were leading producers of LP media or playback equipment. Of course, the writing lacks specfics that lay people have been quick to demand, and it is written up in such a way that it generates minimal excitment. Then it is hardly "hellfire and damnataion" is it? It is if you understand the meaning of it. I see. A damnation known only to EE's, is that it? The JAES paper laying out the lack of need for higher sample rates than 44 KHz was old when the SACD was new, but remains unrebutted. And did it deal with poor impulse response, pre-ripple, and other transiant, dynamic factors involved in *audio* reproduction? There's no evidence that those are audible factors, when within the limits found in good modern audio gear. Or did it just deal with frequency response? Frequency response and transient response tend to define each other. Yeah, except it is the transient response we hear when the frequency response gets beyond a certain point. Not too many audiophiles will claim we can physically hear beyond 20khz. Really? http://www.tonmeister.ca/main/textbook/node637.html "Another group relies on the idea that our common understanding of human limits of hearing is incorrect. For many years, many people have argued that our hearing does not stop at 20 kHz, regardless of what the tests and textbooks tell us. These folks say that we are actually able to perceive spectral content above 20 kHz in one way or another. When it proved to be impossible to get people to identify such things in standard listening tests (i.e. can you hear the difference between two sounds, one band-limited and one not) people resorted to looking at EKG's to see if high-frequency content changed Alpha-waves[Yamamoto et al., 1994][Yoshikawa et al., 1995][Yoshikawa et al., 1997]. http://www.iar-80.com/page128.html " Note by the way that we could hear the degradation of this 100 kHz filter in spite of the fact that other previous filters in the recording/reproduction chain (e.g. the microphone and master tape or vinyl disc) themselves were already rolling off the music signal's response above 20 kHz. Countering this rolloff above 20 kHz was the fact, proven independently by our other research measurements, that the spectral energy content of many musical transient sounds was actually rising above 20 kHz (such as that gentle cymbal kiss, which we measured as peaking at 40 kHz). Of course, if these other links in the chain had had wider bandwidth, then the introduction of our 100 kHz filter would surely have been even more audible as a more severe degradation. Thus, our research experiment demonstrates that extending the bandwidth of the medium to 80 kHz (as with a 24/192 DVD-A), instead of restricting it to being an additional filter in the chain at 20 kHz (as with a 16/44 redbook CD), is sonically important. Note too that, as mastering equipment continues to improve its bandwidth beyond 20 kHz, it becomes even more sonically important that the playback medium bringing this extended bandwidth signal into our listening room have bandwidth that extends far beyond 20 kHz." http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/forum...php/t-261.html "But it doesn't really matter because speakers can do 20 Hz - 20 kHz and microphone can record up to 20 kHz. the 96 kHz sampling have the edge of reducing the errors and stuff like versus the 48 kHz sampling that if i am not mistaken." Absolutely no claim here of being able to "hear" beyond 20khz. Much here to suggest that response outside of this bandwidth affects what we hear in it....which was my point about transient response, especially as it is impacted in the 2khz range of high audio sensitivity. Harry, There is currently a fairly interesting discussion on the Pro Audio Digest (PGM) mailing list about pre-ringing of digital filters. You would be well advised to take a look at it. But you will have to discard some of your misbegotten notions about blind testing for it to have any value for you. - John |
#142
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message You got that right. NOBODY takes that path. The best possible science, well legitimate science period has not chimed in on the topics most often debated by audiophiles. Actually it has. Being science, it often doesn't tell audiophiles what they want to hear. I suspect he is now going to ask which independent research labs have tested X particular brand of high end audio gear against X brand of 'midgrade' gear or somesuch, as if that was the sort of thing scientists did, and as if *basic* research findings, such as tends to published in the JAES had no bearing on such questions. In a sense, that's been going on for some time. One of the problems is that the persons in question aren't degreed engineers and AFAIK don't even want to be assciated with the enginering profession in any way. For example, some of the worst figurative hellfire and damnation that has ever been leveled at the LP format can be found in the JAES archives, written the chief scientists of companies that were leading producers of LP media or playback equipment. Of course, the writing lacks specfics that lay people have been quick to demand, and it is written up in such a way that it generates minimal excitment. Then it is hardly "hellfire and damnataion" is it? It is if you understand the meaning of it. I see. A damnation known only to EE's, is that it? Something like that. The JAES paper laying out the lack of need for higher sample rates than 44 KHz was old when the SACD was new, but remains unrebutted. And did it deal with poor impulse response, pre-ripple, and other transiant, dynamic factors involved in *audio* reproduction? There's no evidence that those are audible factors, when within the limits found in good modern audio gear. Or did it just deal with frequency response? Frequency response and transient response tend to define each other. Yeah, except it is the transient response we hear when the frequency response gets beyond a certain point. That is so wrong. The truth is the exact opposite - the ear is deaf to transient response above about 500 Hz. I posted this here several weeks ago - why didn't you take exception to it then? "The ear works like a pectrum analyzer above 500 Hz - 1 KHz. Incoming sounds are processed by the ear as if they were broken down by a FFT analyser. All sounds are processed in terms of their harmonic and inharmonic component frequencies." Not too many audiophiles will claim we can physically hear beyond 20khz. Really? http://www.tonmeister.ca/main/textbook/node637.html "Another group relies on the idea that our common understanding of human limits of hearing is incorrect. For many years, many people have argued that our hearing does not stop at 20 kHz, regardless of what the tests and textbooks tell us. These folks say that we are actually able to perceive spectral content above 20 kHz in one way or another. When it proved to be impossible to get people to identify such things in standard listening tests (i.e. can you hear the difference between two sounds, one band-limited and one not) people resorted to looking at EKG's to see if high-frequency content changed Alpha-waves[Yamamoto et al., 1994][Yoshikawa et al., 1995][Yoshikawa et al., 1997]. http://www.iar-80.com/page128.html " Note by the way that we could hear the degradation of this 100 kHz filter in spite of the fact that other previous filters in the recording/reproduction chain (e.g. the microphone and master tape or vinyl disc) themselves were already rolling off the music signal's response above 20 kHz. Countering this rolloff above 20 kHz was the fact, proven independently by our other research measurements, that the spectral energy content of many musical transient sounds was actually rising above 20 kHz (such as that gentle cymbal kiss, which we measured as peaking at 40 kHz). Of course, if these other links in the chain had had wider bandwidth, then the introduction of our 100 kHz filter would surely have been even more audible as a more severe degradation. Thus, our research experiment demonstrates that extending the bandwidth of the medium to 80 kHz (as with a 24/192 DVD-A), instead of restricting it to being an additional filter in the chain at 20 kHz (as with a 16/44 redbook CD), is sonically important. Note too that, as mastering equipment continues to improve its bandwidth beyond 20 kHz, it becomes even more sonically important that the playback medium bringing this extended bandwidth signal into our listening room have bandwidth that extends far beyond 20 kHz." http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/forum...php/t-261.html "But it doesn't really matter because speakers can do 20 Hz - 20 kHz and microphone can record up to 20 kHz. the 96 kHz sampling have the edge of reducing the errors and stuff like versus the 48 kHz sampling that if i am not mistaken." Absolutely no claim here of being able to "hear" beyond 20khz. ?????????????????????? Much here to suggest that response outside of this bandwidth affects what we hear in it....which was my point about transient response, especially as it is impacted in the 2khz range of high audio sensitivity. By 2 KHz the ear is so deaf to transient response, your comment isn't even funny. |
#143
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message snip, not relevant to following, and to shorten And it was audio reveiwers who developed a subjective language to describe what they heard, so that audio engineers knew where to focus their attention. Actually, the audio reviewers were just aping a descriptive language that was first developed by recording engineers and sound system installation engineers. In twenty years of discussion, this is the first time I have ever heard this claim. It would be ludicrous to think that recording engineers and sound system installation engineers couldn't articulate their perceptions using a descriptive language to describe what they heard, until some reviewers made it up. So, you admit you made the claim up. Not very nice, Arny. ????????????? And why is it so ludicrous, when you and others still have trouble talking about "sound" as opposed to measurements? ?????????????? For one thing, actual development and limited use of equipment, historically proceeded offering up equipment for review in some publication. The egg comes before the review of the egg. An iterative process...eggs lead to chickens lead to more eggs lead to more chickens. Did I say that some engineer somewhere did not come up with an improvement on their own without the benefit of a special language. Straw man argument in the extreme. ???????????????? All these ???? mean that the claims don't make any sense to me, Harry. You just make a number of unsupported claims. By the way Arny, you just happened to snip out, without attribution, the entire following section: HFL: It takes both good engineering knowledge and good listening skills to create superior audio equipment, even if the engineering alone is sufficient in some other fields. AK: As a rule audio journalists do not use proper descriptive teminology. They tend to write poetry, not usuable descriptive reports. There is an AES standard, AES22 that lays out a usable set of descriptive terms. HFL: Let's see. Stereophile was formed in, when, 1965? And TAS was formed in 1974. Let's see when the AES Standards Committee started to work. The following is extracted from the AES web page on standards: "AES Standards - a short history "Standards activity in the AES started shortly after the Society was founded. In the early days, the AES Standards Committee (AESSC) mainly acted as a reporting agency to the membership through the Journal on the activities of IEC TC 29 and audio-related activities of other standards organisations such as EIA, SMPTE, IEEE, and the Acoustical Society of America (ASA). Even though the AES at this time was not producing documents, many AES members contributed to standards through these other organisations. "In 1977, stimulated by the growing need for standards in digital audio, the AES Digital Audio Standards Committee was formed. It was responsible for creating some fundamental standards such as the AES3 digital audio interface - sometimes known as the AES/EBU interface - and standards for sampling frequency and synchronisation which are still in use today. "In 1980, a full-time secretary (Dan Queen) was appointed. At about the same time, the AES became the secretariat of ANSI S4 (which continued until 2001). In 1984, the procedures of the AESSC were revised to improve the openness and consensus of our due process, modelled on IEC directives and drawing from the examples of the ASA, IEEE and SMPTE" So the earlierst the AES standards could exist was 1977, more than ten years after J. Gordon Holt started defining terms, and three years after Harry Pearson turned them into a glossary. And since the above suggests that the AES/EBU interface was the group's initial focus, and since they have only developed 43 standards (of which #22 falls somewhere in the middle), it is almost impossible to accept that the AES definitions preceded the audiophile editors work. AK: Formal use generally follows informal use, sometimes by many years. HFL: Failure to establish support for claim noted. AK: I know for sure that much of the terminology in AES22 was used by audio technical persons for many years before the AES started work on formalizing it. HFL: I see...a specific claim is now replaced with "trust me....". Sorry, no reason to. AK: As far back as he goes, Gordon Holt didn't invent audio reviewing. For example, there were audio reviews in High Fidelity Magazine, which was founded in 1951. Holt didn't sell his first article to them until about 2 years later. HFL: Did I say Gordon Holt invented audio reviewing. No such thing. I did say he started developing the Lexicon that Harry Pearson later furthered and codified, putting a descriptive language on audio phenomen. Look at the flames coming from that burning scarecrow. AK: I've talked to people who were installing audio systems in the 1930s, and they had a descriptive language to describe what they heard back then. I first encountered it when I started reading audio articles in 1953. I heard it when I started working professionally in audio, in 1962. It was already well-developed way back then. HFL: I was the son of a father who was in that business, Arny. And who worked alongside him in the store and studio. And who accompanied him as he installed Magnacorders in radio stations and studios all over the Northeast. And so far as I can remember, in the 50's there were few descriptive words for the sound of music reproduced by audio gear. It was simply too new, and just reaching hi-fi status. I can read the jackets of Cook's "Sound of Our Times" records in my collection, or the red vinyl "Audiophile" 78rpm microgroove recordings. There is not a single descriptive audiophile word on them about their sound. But these were produced by knowledgeable engineers specializing in the best sound quality of the day. I believe my firsthand experience with "people in the field" trumps your secondhand knowledge of same. |
#144
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
wrote in message
om... Harry Lavo wrote: snip to shorten Harry, There is currently a fairly interesting discussion on the Pro Audio Digest (PGM) mailing list about pre-ringing of digital filters. You would be well advised to take a look at it. But you will have to discard some of your misbegotten notions about blind testing for it to have any value for you. - John Thanks for the referral, John. I'll take a look at it. Harry |
#145
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
om... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message snip to shorten Absolutely no claim here of being able to "hear" beyond 20khz. ?????????????????????? Much here to suggest that response outside of this bandwidth affects what we hear in it....which was my point about transient response, especially as it is impacted in the 2khz range of high audio sensitivity. By 2 KHz the ear is so deaf to transient response, your comment isn't even funny. Sounds very much like my friend at CBS Labs until he and his friends actually listened. |
#146
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message om... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message snip to shorten Absolutely no claim here of being able to "hear" beyond 20khz. ?????????????????????? Much here to suggest that response outside of this bandwidth affects what we hear in it....which was my point about transient response, especially as it is impacted in the 2khz range of high audio sensitivity. By 2 KHz the ear is so deaf to transient response, your comment isn't even funny. Sounds very much like my friend at CBS Labs until he and his friends actually listened. Details? |
#147
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Cable Upgrade Suggestions
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message om... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message snip to shorten Absolutely no claim here of being able to "hear" beyond 20khz. ?????????????????????? Much here to suggest that response outside of this bandwidth affects what we hear in it....which was my point about transient response, especially as it is impacted in the 2khz range of high audio sensitivity. By 2 KHz the ear is so deaf to transient response, your comment isn't even funny. Sounds very much like my friend at CBS Labs until he and his friends actually listened. Details? I've already posted just a few days ago. Pay attention. :-). |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Here's another one | Audio Opinions | |||
MIT Oracle cables...what's in the box? | High End Audio | |||
mini cable suggestions | Pro Audio | |||
FA: Neve, Manley, TT patch cables, Eventide, Neumann, Coles, bulk cable, connectors, etc. | Pro Audio | |||
Suggestions on what cable to use inside a console. | Pro Audio |