[Audio_Empire]

....that many so-called audiophiles either can't, don't, or simply won't
hear. For instance, I was at an informal listening session for a group
of local audiophiles over the weekend. The organizer of this session had
assembled (with my help) a bunch of compressed files. He ripped some CDs
at different data rates: 32, 64, 128, 192, 384 kbps (MP3) and FLAC. I
supplied some internet radio at 128 and 194 kbps (one of them was a live
concert).

Nobody (except me and one other guy) could really hear any statistically
significant difference. The vast majority of the 15 "high-enders" there
were wrong more than 50% of the time! Most said that they really heard
no difference in anything above 64kbps! They couldn't hear the obvious
compression artifacts in the music at 128 Kbps, which surprised me.
These are some of the same guys, whose big incomes have allowed them to
buy equipment such as Pass amps, Wilson Sasha speakers or, in one case,
Magnepan MG-20.7s, as well as outrageously and needlessly expensive
cables and interconnects. They don't know bad sound from good yet they
talk endlessly about how changing to this mega-buck interconnect "opened
their system up like never before." and how they never realized how much
of the music they were missing before installing this or that brand of
speaker cable. Phooey! They can't even tell a heavily digitally
compressed and lossy playback from a lossless FLAC file and they're
talking about cable and amp or CD player "differences." Talk about the
emperor's new clothes!

Audio_Empire

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Gary Eickmeier]

Your tale wouldn't be all that surprising if the others haven't had any
listener training. They probably don't work in the industry as you do,
probably have never compared a compressed to the original file, have no idea
what to look for. Or is it listen for.

And yes, that does make their pronunciations about cables and amplifiers all
the more silly.

Gary Eickmeier

[Greg Wormald]

I'm going to assume that like most other training, the improvements in
performance can be incredibly specific.

If this is true, then the differences they may have heard in their own
equipment comparisons would not necessarily transfer to the ability to
hear differences due to compression artifacts.

All the same, I do find it surprising that they did so poorly.

Maybe they were so trained to listen to equipment, that they don't
bother listening to the music. :-)

I'm sure there are other explanations/options/interpretations.

Greg

[Audio_Empire]

In article ,
ScottW wrote:

On Monday, June 24, 2013 1:17:10 PM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
They can't even tell a heavily digitally

compressed and lossy playback from a lossless FLAC file and they're

talking about cable and amp or CD player "differences." Talk about the

emperor's new clothes!


You're not helping to encourage listening tests with that attitude
FWIW...I don't notice any problem with WMA VBR (240 to 355 Kbps)rips which
is about 5 fold reduction over flac. If there is an audible artifact at
those rates, I don't want to know about it. I'm not ripping all those CDs
again....ever.

ScottW

You should have done what I did. I ripped everything 16/44.1 in Apple
Lossless. That way I can just run stuff through any one of several apps
(I use Korg's "AudioGate") to convert it back to un-compressed, or
directly to FLAC or even to MP3s (fates forbid) and still have the
original file. Ripping stuff to the lowest common denominator (MP3), I
felt would be a big mistake for a number of reasons: first, and foremost
of which is that you can never retrieve that which the MP3 algorithm has
discarded.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Audio_Empire]

In article ,
Greg Wormald wrote:

I'm going to assume that like most other training, the improvements in
performance can be incredibly specific.

If this is true, then the differences they may have heard in their own
equipment comparisons would not necessarily transfer to the ability to
hear differences due to compression artifacts.

Possibly, but it was not my system either, so we were all on the same
footing with respect to that.

All the same, I do find it surprising that they did so poorly.

Maybe they were so trained to listen to equipment, that they don't
bother listening to the music. :-)

That's possible, but it adds up to the same conclusions: They cannot, or
will not hear.

I'm sure there are other explanations/options/interpretations.

I don't doubt it, but one thing is clear. There are people who consider
themselves audiophiles (or, in some cases, audio enthusiasts - what's in
a name, after all?) who post here regularly (or what passes for
regularly in this group) and are well known in audio circles, whom I
strongly suspect are in the the same boat as most of our recent
listening panel - they cannot, or do not, or will not hear. Mostly, I
believe, with this particular on-line group, it's the latter. They have
made a stand based upon some industry-wide mis-information, and
therefore refuse to acknowledge that this information is wrong. One
person, i'm thinking of, in particular, bought into the common
misconception that 16-bit, 44.1 KHz sampled CD quality sound represents
"Perfect sound Forever". It does not. SACD is better as is
high-bit-rate LPCM, and, under the right circumstances so is the lowly
LP. But even so, they still aren't perfect, and the jury is still out on
even the "forever" part of that.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...

The organizer of this session had
assembled (with my help) a bunch of compressed files. He ripped some CDs
at different data rates: 32, 64, 128, 192, 384 kbps (MP3) and FLAC. I
supplied some internet radio at 128 and 194 kbps (one of them was a live
concert).

Nobody (except me and one other guy) could really hear any statistically
significant difference. The vast majority of the 15 "high-enders" there
were wrong more than 50% of the time! Most said that they really heard
no difference in anything above 64kbps! They couldn't hear the obvious
compression artifacts in the music at 128 Kbps, which surprised me.

Based on past performance I doubt that a time-synched level matched DBT was
involved. Let's get that cleared up first.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 7:00:02 AM UTC-7, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message

...



The organizer of this session had

assembled (with my help) a bunch of compressed files. He ripped some CDs

at different data rates: 32, 64, 128, 192, 384 kbps (MP3) and FLAC. I

supplied some internet radio at 128 and 194 kbps (one of them was a live

concert).



Nobody (except me and one other guy) could really hear any statistically

significant difference. The vast majority of the 15 "high-enders" there

were wrong more than 50% of the time! Most said that they really heard

no difference in anything above 64kbps! They couldn't hear the obvious

compression artifacts in the music at 128 Kbps, which surprised me.



Based on past performance I doubt that a time-synched level matched DBT was

involved. Let's get that cleared up first.

There's nothing to clear up AFAICS. Had the results been positive; I.E. everyone heard the artifacts, then I would say that a carefully level-matched and time-sync'd DBT was important to the outcome. But they weren't asked to hear differences between cables or amps or even DACs, they were asked to hear artifacts in compressed audio and even though the levels were only matched to within about a dB using a Radio Shack hand-held digital sound level meter (you know the one), the important thing is that almost no one could hear the artifacts. I could hear them, one other well-known Bay Area audiophile could hear them, the rest could not!

[Audio_Empire]

In article ,
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote:

Your tale wouldn't be all that surprising if the others
haven't had any
listener training. They probably don't work in the industry as
you do,
probably have never compared a compressed to the original
file, have no idea
what to look for. Or is it listen for.

IOW, they either can't or won't hear.

And yes, that does make their pronunciations about cables and
amplifiers all
the more silly.


No argument, there.

Of course there are many reasons why people become "audio enthusiasts"
Some get hooked by the sound that is possible from a home rig, some are
just in love with the music, and some just like the equipment and there
is a subset of the latter: Those who love the "bling" and bragging rights
of owning eye-wateringly expensive gear (many of the audio rags fall into
catering to this group). It used to be that it was said that a modest
investment would bring one to within 85% of the stat-of-the-art. Buy
an AR Turntable ($69), a Pickering Cartridge ($11), a Dynaco Stereo-70
Power amp ($105, $70 as a kit), a PAS-2 Preamp (~$70 - less as a kit),
a Dynaco FM3 tuner ($50) and a pair of AR3AX speakers ($240) and for
around $500, you were "in" the high -end.

Each C-note expended above that level, would inch one, in half-steps
toward the ultimate available at the time. Cost is no object would get one
to about 98% of that goal. Today, that only applies to speakers. and not
linearly, even then! With electronic audio equipment there is literally
no correlation between expenditure and results. Take two power amps of
the same power. One is plain-jane and costs several hundred
dollars and sounds good because it's well-designed. The other
has an inch-and-half thick machined front panel and endcaps and costs
many thousands of dollars. They might perform so closely to one another
that DB listening tests will reveal no sonic differences. On the other
hand, it is possible for just the opposite to be true, and for the more
expensive unit to actually outperform a lower cost, but similar device.

P.S. Anyone contemplating the purchase of a power amp, are doing
themselves and their pocket books a big disservice if they don't explore
the music reinforcement amps from the likes of Behringer, Peavy,
and Crown. You'd be surprised how much power, audio performance and
indestructible reliability that can be had for so little money.

Audio_Empire

[Robert Peirce]

In article ,
Audio_Empire wrote:

P.S. Anyone contemplating the purchase of a power amp, are doing
themselves and their pocket books a big disservice if they don't explore
the music reinforcement amps from the likes of Behringer, Peavy,
and Crown. You'd be surprised how much power, audio performance and
indestructible reliability that can be had for so little money.

I would add that so-called pro equipment, which used to be considered
poor compared to the ultimate high end rigs, is pretty damn good if you
are into digital. You can get top-of-the-line stuff for 1/10 of what
high end gear costs. I'm sure "golden ears" can hear the difference but
I can't.

I am less certain about non-digital stuff. Speakers, for example, are
all over the place. You can get remarkably good sound for a very fair
price but it isn't necessarily pro gear, but it isn't necessarily high
end either.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:19:22 PM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:
In article


P.S. Anyone contemplating the purchase of a power amp, are doing

themselves and their pocket books a big disservice if they don't explore

the music reinforcement amps from the likes of Behringer, Peavy,

and Crown. You'd be surprised how much power, audio performance and

indestructible reliability that can be had for so little money.



I would add that so-called pro equipment, which used to be considered

poor compared to the ultimate high end rigs, is pretty damn good if you

are into digital. You can get top-of-the-line stuff for 1/10 of what

high end gear costs. I'm sure "golden ears" can hear the difference but

I can't.


DACs often are crossover products. For instance, Benchmark and Antelope DACs were designed for the recording studio, but are sold in high-end 'salons' as well for use in domestic stereos. As such, they aren't cheap but they don't sound as good to this listener as do DACs from MSB or dCS.

I am less certain about non-digital stuff. Speakers, for example, are
all over the place. You can get remarkably good sound for a very fair
price but it isn't necessarily pro gear, but it isn't necessarily high
end either.

As you say, 'professional' speakers are all over the place and seem to come in two distinct flavors: 1) sound reinforcement speakers. These are designed for the specific purpose of filling a venue with ear-splitting volume of some pop or rock ensemble. Most audiophiles wouldn't want these speakers in their home stereo systems. 2) Nearfield monitors. These speakers come in many guises and flavors. They are meant to set atop the recording console (or next to the computer in a DAW setup). Some are self powered and others are not. Most have "woofers" from 4-8 inches and may have AMT or ribbon tweeters while others have normal soft or hard domed tweeters. (I use a pair of Behringer 3030A's in my Mac-based DAW. They weren't cheap at more than $350 for the pair, but they are a 2-way, 140W Bi-amplified Studio Monitor with 6.75" Woofer, 2" Ribbon Tweeter, and Room Compensation EQ. They definitely sound better than ANY computer speaker you can name). While these types of speakers sound fine some few inches from one's head, as room speakers they would be a disaster. Most studios used to use the once ubiquitous JBL L100 series of speakers as studio monitors (if you want to know why so many studio recordings of the 60's and 70's sounded so bad, your quest can stop here. Studios used them so that playback of one part of a mutitrack, multistudio recording would sound the same in another studio. They were simply lousy).

Today, far-field monitors (usually used in the "play-back" room) tend to be high-end consumer speakers. For Instance, Paul Stubblebine, in his SF studio uses Wilson Audio Watt/Puppies as his far-field monitors (or did last time I was there) He was remastering the Skroweczewski/Minnesota Orchestra quad recordings of Ravel's 'Daphnis et Chloe' ballet for Mobile Fidelity. The playback sounded fine. I understand that Wally Heider's studios are re-equipping with Wilson Alexandria XLS's. Some high-end studios use speakers like Revels' and Magico's, and one I know of uses Magnepan MG20s.

But for amps, there is no doubt that an audiophile can buy lots of good sounding amplifier for very little money. For instance, how about a 200 W/Channel (8 Ohm) power amp (bridgeable to 600 Watts mono) for about $250? The Crown XLi800 will do that and sound as good as anything in it's class in the high-end of audio. I know many of you doubt me, but it is true.


Audio_Empire

[Robert Peirce]

In article ,
Audio_Empire wrote:

DACs often are crossover products. For instance, Benchmark and Antelope DACs
were designed for the recording studio, but are sold in high-end 'salons' as
well for use in domestic stereos. As such, they aren't cheap but they don't
sound as good to this listener as do DACs from MSB or dCS.

At my age my hearing isn't what it used to be. On top of that, the
music was always more important than the equipment I played it on.

I recently replaced a pair of Apogee Divas I had owned for twenty years
with a Hsu setup consisting of two sub-woofers and two bookshelf
speakers. The new system sounds great. The subs have built-in amps and
I can drive the bookshelf speakers with one of the two Classe amps I had
for the Apogees. The main factor in making the switch was to plan for a
smaller listening room. The surprise was the quality of the sound. I
don't think Hsu is considered high end but I could have spent a lot more
for very little improvement that I might be able to hear.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Thursday, June 27, 2013 5:15:45 AM UTC-7, Robert Peirce wrote:
In article ,

Audio_Empire wrote:



DACs often are crossover products. For instance, Benchmark and Antelope DACs

were designed for the recording studio, but are sold in high-end 'salons' as

well for use in domestic stereos. As such, they aren't cheap but they don't

sound as good to this listener as do DACs from MSB or dCS.



At my age my hearing isn't what it used to be. On top of that, the

music was always more important than the equipment I played it on.



I recently replaced a pair of Apogee Divas I had owned for twenty years

with a Hsu setup consisting of two sub-woofers and two bookshelf

speakers. The new system sounds great. The subs have built-in amps and

I can drive the bookshelf speakers with one of the two Classe amps I had

for the Apogees. The main factor in making the switch was to plan for a

smaller listening room. The surprise was the quality of the sound. I

don't think Hsu is considered high end but I could have spent a lot more

for very little improvement that I might be able to hear.

I believe that they are considered high-end components. I know Stereophile
has reviewed some of their offerings, but I don't remember which models.

Audio_Empire