[[email protected]]

For anyone who has slogged through the current thread on CD sound and wonde=
rs where the evidence really lies, here=92s a brief summary. There have bee=
n numerous published DBTs of CD players and DACs, and the bottom line of th=
e results agrees with the accepted theory of psychoacoustics experts: there=
is no audible difference among conventionally designed products. The very =
rare differences that have been found can be explained by the unusual desig=
ns in question.

Published DBTs begin with the article cited in the other thread:

Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Ster=
eo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)

If memory serves, they did find one CD player that was audibly distinguisha=
ble from the others. I believe it was an early 14-bit model from Philips.

Two later tests also appeared in SR:

Pohlmann, Ken C., "6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?", Stereo =
Review, pp.76-84 (December 1988)

Pohlmann, Ken C., "The New CD Players, Can You Hear the Difference?", Stere=
o Review, pp.60-67 (October 1990)

Both tests found no differences among players.

The Sensible Sound did a two-part report on another test:

CD Player Comparison, The Sensible Sound, # 75, Jun/Jul 1999.=20

CD Player Comparison, The Sensible Sound, # 74, Apr/May 1999.

My understanding is that they did not identify the actual players being tes=
ted, except for the cheapest one, which was a sub-$100 carousel model. Agai=
n, no differences were found.

A group in Spain has posted results of numerous tests it has done. A full l=
ist of tests is here, unfortunately in Spanish:

http://www.matrixhifi.com/marco.htm

(click on Pruebas Ciegas to see the list)

Most of their tests found no audible differences. (See, for example, their =
comparison of a Benchmark DAC to a Pioneer DVD player.) Devices that did so=
und different:

1) a non-oversampling DAC
2) a device with a tubed output stage
3) a portable Sony Discman, connected via its headphone output

Two further points:

1) No quantity of DBTs can prove a negative. But believers in CD/DAC sound =
can cite no comparable empirical evidence whatsoever for their position.

2) Psychoacoustics researchers have reached the same conclusion via other m=
eans. Here=92s a standard textbook in the field:

Moore, BCJ. An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing, Fourth Edition. S=
an Diego: Academic Press, 1997.

And here=92s what Dr. Moore had to say about the issue:

=93CD and DAT players generally have a specification which is far better th=
an that of other components in a hi-fi system, especially cassette decks an=
d loudspeakers. Essentially, the output signal which they provide is indist=
inguishable from that which would be obtained from the master tape produced=
by the recording studio (studio recordings are now usually digital recordi=
ngs). Thus, provided a CD or DAT player is working according to specificati=
on, it will produce no noticeable degradation in sound quality. It follows =
from this that most CD players and DAT players sound the same.=94

That is all.

bob

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Sunday, December 9, 2012 7:59:31 PM UTC-8, wrote:
For anyone who has slogged through the current thread on CD sound and won=
ders where the evidence really lies, here=92s a brief summary. There have b=
een numerous published DBTs of CD players and DACs, and the bottom line of =
the results agrees with the accepted theory of psychoacoustics experts: the=
re is no audible difference among conventionally designed products. The ver=
y rare differences that have been found can be explained by the unusual des=
igns in question.
=20
=20
=20
Published DBTs begin with the article cited in the other thread:
=20
=20
=20
Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", St=
ereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
=20
=20
=20
If memory serves, they did find one CD player that was audibly distinguis=
hable from the others. I believe it was an early 14-bit model from Philips.
=20
=20
=20
Two later tests also appeared in SR:
=20
=20
=20
Pohlmann, Ken C., "6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?", Stere=
o Review, pp.76-84 (December 1988)
=20
=20
=20
Pohlmann, Ken C., "The New CD Players, Can You Hear the Difference?", Ste=
reo Review, pp.60-67 (October 1990)
=20
=20
=20
Both tests found no differences among players.
=20
=20
=20
The Sensible Sound did a two-part report on another test:
=20
=20
=20
CD Player Comparison, The Sensible Sound, # 75, Jun/Jul 1999.=20
=20
=20
=20
CD Player Comparison, The Sensible Sound, # 74, Apr/May 1999.
=20
=20
=20
My understanding is that they did not identify the actual players being t=
ested, except for the cheapest one, which was a sub-$100 carousel model. Ag=
ain, no differences were found.
=20
=20
=20
A group in Spain has posted results of numerous tests it has done. A full=
list of tests is here, unfortunately in Spanish:
=20
=20
=20
http://www.matrixhifi.com/marco.htm
=20
=20
=20
(click on Pruebas Ciegas to see the list)
=20
=20
=20
Most of their tests found no audible differences. (See, for example, thei=
r comparison of a Benchmark DAC to a Pioneer DVD player.) Devices that did =
sound different:
=20
=20
=20
1) a non-oversampling DAC
=20
2) a device with a tubed output stage
=20
3) a portable Sony Discman, connected via its headphone output
=20
=20
=20
Two further points:
=20
=20
=20
1) No quantity of DBTs can prove a negative. But believers in CD/DAC soun=
d can cite no comparable empirical evidence whatsoever for their position.
=20
=20
=20
2) Psychoacoustics researchers have reached the same conclusion via other=
means. Here=92s a standard textbook in the field:
=20
=20
=20
Moore, BCJ. An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing, Fourth Edition.=
San Diego: Academic Press, 1997.
=20
=20
=20
And here=92s what Dr. Moore had to say about the issue:
=20
=20
=20
=93CD and DAT players generally have a specification which is far better =
than that of other components in a hi-fi system, especially cassette decks =
and loudspeakers. Essentially, the output signal which they provide is indi=
stinguishable from that which would be obtained from the master tape produc=
ed by the recording studio (studio recordings are now usually digital recor=
dings). Thus, provided a CD or DAT player is working according to specifica=
tion, it will produce no noticeable degradation in sound quality. It follow=
s from this that most CD players and DAT players sound the same.=94
=20
=20
=20
That is all.
=20
=20
=20
bob

The SR reviews are suspect due to SR's editorial policy which was=20
that everything printed in SR must serve the advertisers/potential
advertisers. That meant no critical evaluations of anything. Ever=20
wonder why SR never published a negative review from Julian
Hirsch? Because it was SR policy to not publish negative reviews.
That didn't mean that Julian never came across a piece of equipment
that didn't meet its public specs. It simply meant that SR didn't run
the review, that's all. You see, it was their editorial policy to cater
to the industry, not the consumer. It is because of this policy that
the late J. Gordon Holt founded Stereophile. His stint at High-Fidelity=20
Magazine (and I believe that he also worked at SR for a time too)
convinced him that these magazines weren't serving the interest=20
of the consumer. That's also why that no one should be surprised
that SR's tests on the audibility of components, including CD players,
show no differences in audible performance. It's also where the joke
"quote" from Julian Hirsch goes like this: "of all the amplifiers that I
have ever tested, this was one of them" That "quote" applies to=20
tuners, CD decks, preamps, receivers, you name it. And no, Julian=20
never really said that, but if you read the sum-total of his work,=20
including going back to "Hirsch-Houck" labs before Julian went off
on his own, you will see that he never had an opinion. He just=20
measured the equipment against its published specs, and if it met
them, it was good for go. If not, that fact was never mentioned (as
far as I know and I subscribed to SR for decades!) and the reviews
were not published. The fact that to SR, everything sounded the same
was sacrosanct. I don't wonder that all of those "DBTs" showed no=20
difference in CD players.

I won't comment on the Sensible Sound tests because I've only seen
a couple of issues of that magazine and don't know what their=20
editorial policy was.=20

As for the early Philips (Magnavox) players sounding "different" in=20
one of those tests, I agree. It did sound different from the early
Japanese players. It was listenable, the early Sonys, Kyoceras,=20
and Technics players were not and that's MY opinion. =20

[[email protected]]

On Monday, December 10, 2012 6:17:06 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:

The SR reviews are suspect due to SR's editorial policy which was=20
that everything printed in SR must serve the advertisers/potential
advertisers.=20

Science doesn't rely on editorial policies. Science relies on proper test m=
ethodology. Anyone interested can seek out the articles (try either major u=
rban public libraries or technical academic libraries) and see for themselv=
es how well these tests were carried out.

That meant no critical evaluations of anything. Ever=20
wonder why SR never published a negative review from Julian
Hirsch? Because it was SR policy to not publish negative reviews.
That didn't mean that Julian never came across a piece of equipment
that didn't meet its public specs. It simply meant that SR didn't run
the review, that's all. You see, it was their editorial policy to cater
to the industry, not the consumer. It is because of this policy that
the late J. Gordon Holt founded Stereophile. His stint at High-Fidelity=
=20
Magazine (and I believe that he also worked at SR for a time too)
convinced him that these magazines weren't serving the interest=20
of the consumer. That's also why that no one should be surprised
that SR's tests on the audibility of components, including CD players,
show no differences in audible performance. It's also where the joke
"quote" from Julian Hirsch goes like this: "of all the amplifiers that I
have ever tested, this was one of them" That "quote" applies to=20
tuners, CD decks, preamps, receivers, you name it. And no, Julian=20
never really said that, but if you read the sum-total of his work,=20
including going back to "Hirsch-Houck" labs before Julian went off
on his own, you will see that he never had an opinion. He just=20
measured the equipment against its published specs, and if it met
them, it was good for go. If not, that fact was never mentioned (as
far as I know and I subscribed to SR for decades!) and the reviews
were not published. The fact that to SR, everything sounded the same
was sacrosanct. I don't wonder that all of those "DBTs" showed no=20
difference in CD players.
=20
Subsequent research has pretty much vindicated Hirsch, but that's the subje=
ct for another thread.

BTW, the idea that a guy who thought all properly functioning amps sounded =
alike was serving his advertisers is ridiculous. For service to advertisers=
, Stereophile (along with TAS) takes the cake.

snip

As for the early Philips (Magnavox) players sounding "different" in=20
one of those tests, I agree. It did sound different from the early
Japanese players. It was listenable, the early Sonys, Kyoceras,=20
and Technics players were not and that's MY opinion.

The biggest trouble with high-end audio ever since the term was coined is t=
he mistaken confusion of opinion with fact.

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On Dec 10, 7:35*pm, wrote:
On Monday, December 10, 2012 6:17:06 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:
The SR reviews are suspect due to SR's editorial policy which was
that everything printed in SR must serve the advertisers/potential
advertisers.

Science doesn't rely on editorial policies.

That is true but Stereo Review did.

Science relies on proper test methodology.


That is true but Stereo Review did not.

Anyone interested can seek out the articles (try either major urban public libraries or technical academic libraries) and see for themselves how well these tests were carried out.


Very poorly. Clearly Stereo review was a publication that had a very
clear preconception about how certain components sound. Clearly Stereo
Review was not a scientific journal and had no proper peer review
process.









That meant no critical evaluations of anything. Ever
wonder why SR never published a negative review from Julian
Hirsch? Because it was SR policy to not publish negative reviews.
That didn't mean that Julian never came across a piece of equipment
that didn't meet its public specs. It simply meant that SR didn't run
the review, that's all. You see, it was their editorial policy to cater
to the industry, not the consumer. It is because of this policy that
the late J. Gordon Holt founded Stereophile. His stint at High-Fidelity
Magazine (and I believe that he also worked at SR for a time too)
convinced him that these magazines weren't serving the interest
of the consumer. *That's also why that no one should be surprised
that SR's tests on the audibility of components, including CD players,
show no differences in audible performance. It's also where the joke
"quote" from Julian Hirsch goes like this: "of all the amplifiers that I
have ever tested, this was one of them" That "quote" applies to
tuners, CD decks, preamps, receivers, you name it. And no, Julian
never really said that, but if you read the sum-total of his work,
including going back to "Hirsch-Houck" labs before Julian went off
on his own, you will see that he never had an opinion. He just
measured the equipment against its published specs, and if it met
them, it was good for go. If not, that fact was never mentioned (as
far as I know and I subscribed to SR for decades!) and the reviews
were not published. The fact that to SR, everything sounded the same
was sacrosanct. I don't wonder that all of those "DBTs" showed no
difference in CD players.

Subsequent research has pretty much vindicated Hirsch, but that's the subject for another thread.

Since you are waving the science flag please show us the peer reviewed
published research that has "pretty much vindicated Hirsch."



BTW, the idea that a guy who thought all properly functioning amps sounded alike was serving his advertisers is ridiculous. For service to advertisers, Stereophile (along with TAS) takes the cake.

Sorry but that is nonsense. Unlike Stereo Review. TAS and Stereophile
were actually willing to print negative reviews of products. early on
neither publication even accepted advertising. So how were they in
"service to advertisers" then?


snip

As for the early Philips (Magnavox) players sounding "different" in
one of those tests, I agree. It did sound different from the early
Japanese players. It was listenable, the early Sonys, Kyoceras,
and Technics players were not and that's MY opinion.

The biggest trouble with high-end audio ever since the term was coined is the mistaken confusion of opinion with fact.

Then show us the science that establishes the facts. Until then I will
say back at you. Looks to me like you are mistaking your opinions as
facts.

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"Scott" wrote in message
...
On Dec 10, 7:35 pm, wrote:

Very poorly. Clearly Stereo review was a publication that had a very
clear preconception about how certain components sound.

That is not clear to me at all.

I am of the opinion that many people are biased against Stereo Review and
make posts like the one above regardless of whatever facts can be brought to
the discussion.



Clearly Stereo Review was not a scientific journal and had no proper peer
review process.

Neither are any of the journals you priase such as Stereophile or TAS. The
above statement is obviously an attempt to single out one magazine of many
for a situation that affected them all. In short it supports my supposition
that its author is highly biased against SR.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:49:16 PM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

...

On Dec 10, 7:35 pm, wrote:



Very poorly. Clearly Stereo review was a publication that had a very

clear preconception about how certain components sound.



That is not clear to me at all.



I am of the opinion that many people are biased against Stereo Review and

make posts like the one above regardless of whatever facts can be brought to

the discussion.







Clearly Stereo Review was not a scientific journal and had no proper peer

review process.



Neither are any of the journals you priase such as Stereophile or TAS. The

above statement is obviously an attempt to single out one magazine of many

for a situation that affected them all. In short it supports my supposition

that its author is highly biased against SR.

I don't remember anybody praising either TAS or Stereophile. All magazines
fall under the heading of "Entertainment", and should be taken with a grain
of salt. The only thing that Stereophile and TAS does that's different from
Stereo Review and High-Fidelity is that if a review of a piece of equipment
comes out negative, they publish it. OTOH, both SR and High-Fidelity were
better reads than either Stereophile or TAS. I learned a lot about music and
musicians from those "slicks". HF especially, was once a very classy publication.
They had writers like Gene Lees writing articles about jazz, and latin music, and
writers like Nicholas Slonimsky writing about classical music and classical
artists.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 9:20:22 AM UTC-5, Scott wrote:

Very poorly. Clearly Stereo review was a publication that had a very
clear preconception about how certain components sound. Clearly Stereo
Review was not a scientific journal and had no proper peer review
process.

True, but lack of peer review only means that their methodology has not bee=
n independently validated; it does not mean that their methodology is flawe=
d. The open-minded audiophile (obviously a minority taste, alas) should rea=
d those articles--and all the reports I cited--and decide for himself wheth=
er the methodology seems sound.=20

As for preconceptions, every scientist has some preconception of how his ex=
periment will turn out. If SR's preconception was that all CD players sound=
alike, they must have been quite surprised to find an exception in their 1=
8986 test!=20

Since you are waving the science flag please show us the peer reviewed
published research that has "pretty much vindicated Hirsch."

Gladly, but, as I said, it is the subject of another thread. Give me a day =
or two.

Then show us the science that establishes the facts. Until then I will
say back at you. Looks to me like you are mistaking your opinions as
facts.

I did. I presented multiple tests of dozens of devices over a period of dec=
ades by three different organizations. It is a fact that none of these test=
s could show audible differences between conventionally designed CD players=
and DACs. It is further a fact that no one has ever presented even a singl=
e empirically plausible counterexample to these findings. And it is further=
a fact that a peer-reviewed textbook (and there is nothing more carefully =
peer-reviewed than a science textbook) agrees with these findings.

bob

[Scott[_6_]]

On Dec 12, 2:50=A0pm, wrote:
On Wednesday, December 12, 2012 9:20:22 AM UTC-5, Scott wrote:
Very poorly. Clearly Stereo review was a publication that had a very
clear preconception about how certain components sound. Clearly Stereo
Review was not a scientific journal and had no proper peer review
process.

True, but lack of peer review only means that their methodology has not b=
een independently validated; it does not mean that their methodology is fla=
wed.


But we really don't know. Actually we do know. It was quite flawed It
would have never made it through the peer review process. No big deal
but it ain't science.


The open-minded audiophile (obviously a minority taste, alas) should read=
those articles--and all the reports I cited--and decide for himself whethe=
r the methodology seems sound.


I did back in the day and found them very flawed.



As for preconceptions, every scientist has some preconception of how his =
experiment will turn out. If SR's preconception was that all CD players sou=
nd alike, they must have been quite
surprised to find an exception in their 18986 test!

I'm sure if they did find an exception they were surprised.



Since you are waving the science flag please show us the peer reviewed
published research that has "pretty much vindicated Hirsch."

Gladly, but, as I said, it is the subject of another thread. Give me a da=
y or two.

I don't see why it won't fit just fine in this thread. But we'll see
what you come up with in a day or two.



Then show us the science that establishes the facts. Until then I will
say back at you. Looks to me like you are mistaking your opinions as
facts.

I did.

No, you showed us absolutely no legitimate science. You showed us
nothing more than non scientific articles from non scientific consumer
magazines.


I presented multiple tests of dozens of devices over a period of decades =
by three different organizations. It is a fact that none of these tests cou=
ld show audible differences between
conventionally designed CD players and DACs. It is further a fact that no=
one has ever presented even a single empirically plausible counterexample =
to these findings. And it is further a fact that a peer-reviewed textbook=
(and there is nothing more carefully peer-reviewed than a science textbook=
) agrees with these findings.

You cherry picked from anecdotal evidence that has never met the basic
criteria of real scientific research. Pretty far from real science. If
you are going to wave the flag you better bring the goods. You ain't
gonna find the goods in consumer magazines.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Monday, December 10, 2012 7:35:04 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, December 10, 2012 6:17:06 PM UTC-5, Audio_Empire wrote:



The SR reviews are suspect due to SR's editorial policy which was

that everything printed in SR must serve the advertisers/potential

advertisers.



Science doesn't rely on editorial policies.

No, but publications do.

Science relies on proper test methodology. Anyone interested can seek out the articles (try either major urban public libraries or technical academic libraries) and see for themselves how well these tests were carried out.

The idea that a suite of tests which only seeks to confirm a set of
published specs for a unit under test is not, in my estimation, good
science. The further fact that The editorial policy at both SR and
High-Fidelity was that if a component didn't meet specs, the review
was not published, is also not doing good service to one's readership.




That meant no critical evaluations of anything. Ever

wonder why SR never published a negative review from Julian

Hirsch? Because it was SR policy to not publish negative reviews.

That didn't mean that Julian never came across a piece of equipment

that didn't meet its public specs. It simply meant that SR didn't run

the review, that's all. You see, it was their editorial policy to cater

to the industry, not the consumer. It is because of this policy that

the late J. Gordon Holt founded Stereophile. His stint at High-Fidelity

Magazine (and I believe that he also worked at SR for a time too)

convinced him that these magazines weren't serving the interest

of the consumer. That's also why that no one should be surprised

that SR's tests on the audibility of components, including CD players,

show no differences in audible performance. It's also where the joke

"quote" from Julian Hirsch goes like this: "of all the amplifiers that I

have ever tested, this was one of them" That "quote" applies to

tuners, CD decks, preamps, receivers, you name it. And no, Julian

never really said that, but if you read the sum-total of his work,

including going back to "Hirsch-Houck" labs before Julian went off

on his own, you will see that he never had an opinion. He just

measured the equipment against its published specs, and if it met

them, it was good for go. If not, that fact was never mentioned (as

far as I know and I subscribed to SR for decades!) and the reviews

were not published. The fact that to SR, everything sounded the same

was sacrosanct. I don't wonder that all of those "DBTs" showed no

difference in CD players.



Subsequent research has pretty much vindicated Hirsch, but that's the subject for another thread.

Really? Science has vindicated a non-critical approach to evaluation? Since when?



BTW, the idea that a guy who thought all properly functioning amps sounded alike was serving his advertisers is ridiculous. For service to advertisers, Stereophile (along with TAS) takes the cake


Well there you are wrong. I have written for both TAS and Stereophile
over the years, and no one ever told me how to slant a review. If I
found something negative, I said so in no uncertain terms and they
both published those reviews with all my comments intact. Both
Stereophile and TAS started out accepting NO ads, then they
"graduated" to taking ads only from dealers, and finally from
manufacturers. Both magazines' policy toward advertisers is pretty
much the same: We'll take your ads with the understanding that the
fact that you are an advertiser will have no bearing on the outcome
of reviews of your products. Both magazines have a list of not a few
manufacturers who refuse to advertise with them and won't send
them equipment to review any more because they previously
received a bad review at the hands of one or the other.

..



snip



As for the early Philips (Magnavox) players sounding "different" in

one of those tests, I agree. It did sound different from the early

Japanese players. It was listenable, the early Sonys, Kyoceras,

and Technics players were not and that's MY opinion.



The biggest trouble with high-end audio ever since the term was coined is the mistaken confusion of opinion with fact.


I would say that's more than somewhat true. But often,
opinions merely mirror facts. Cable elevators, green
marking pens, blocks of myrtle wood placed on the tops
of components, "cryogenically treated" clocks
and cable sound are all unsupported mythology, but early CD
players that sounded nasty to a rather large group
of people definitely mirror facts. Let's face it, not everyone is
a critical listener. That's a facility that one has to nurture, its
not God-given. And as was discussed ad-nauseum in another
thread, there are people who are so biased toward certain
precepts that they wouldn't hear things that challenged their
biases even if that characteristic stuck-out like a sore thumb!

[Arny Krueger[_5_]]

"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...

The SR reviews are suspect due to SR's editorial policy which was
that everything printed in SR must serve the advertisers/potential
advertisers. That meant no critical evaluations of anything. Ever
wonder why SR never published a negative review from Julian
Hirsch? Because it was SR policy to not publish negative reviews.]

Looks like Stereo Review is being stigmatized for doing what other magazines
do without being noticed.

For example, virtually every product ever reveiwed by Stereophile this
millenium shows up on their Recommended Components List (RCL)

I personally agree with editors who seem to take the viewpoint that they
don't have any space for reviews of equipment that is substandard.

[Audio_Empire[_2_]]

On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 2:22:08 PM UTC-8, Arny Krueger wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message

...



The SR reviews are suspect due to SR's editorial policy which was

that everything printed in SR must serve the advertisers/potential

advertisers. That meant no critical evaluations of anything. Ever

wonder why SR never published a negative review from Julian

Hirsch? Because it was SR policy to not publish negative reviews.]



Looks like Stereo Review is being stigmatized for doing what other magazines

do without being noticed.

What magazines would they be, Mr. Kruger?



For example, virtually every product ever reveiwed by Stereophile this

millenium shows up on their Recommended Components List (RCL)

That's simply a very misleading statement. (1) Not everything published
in Stereophile makes it to the Recommended Components list. and (2)
those that do are categorized according their perceived flaws and listed
under an alphabetical hierarchy. To wit: "A" is state of the art, and "D" is
very flawed but still acceptable. I've seen lots of critical reviews in
Stereophile.



I personally agree with editors who seem to take the viewpoint that they

don't have any space for reviews of equipment that is substandard.

And that serves the readership, how? Seems to me that serves the
advertisers. "Yeah, your new amplifier is lousy, but we won't tell
anybody about it. OK? And while were on the phone, you want to
buy a new ad?"

Gimme a break!