| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ears vs. Instruments
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:mopPa.27198$OZ2.4772@rwcrnsc54...
Thought you guys might find the following interesting. http://www.rogernichols.com/EQ/EQ_2000_02.html I also suspect that responses will be predictable, but perhaps not. As I mentioned in my previous response, Harry provided the first "predictable response" to his own post, simply in what I would assert is his clear mischaracterization of the topic as "Ears vs Instruments." In reading Mr. Nichols' text, we find, in fact, no such conflict between ears an instruments. Why, because nowhere does he mention any attempt to use the relevant measurements. I have no doubt that Mr. Nichols' experienmce is quite real, and, from other sources, I have no doubt of the problem in the stamper that could lead to the problems. But Mr. Nichols simply failed to carry out any relevant measurements. He talks about looking for gross errors and finding none. He jumps to the conclusion, based on almost no objective data, that the problem is jitter. He may well be right, but he has no confirming evidence. There would be plenty of ways to confirm his diagnosis: simply looking at the noise floor would be one way, and actually (gasp! horrors! zut alors!) actually MEASURING the jitter would, i might humbly suggest, be yet another. But that was NEVER DONE! So where, Harry, is the supposed conflict between "ear" and "instrument" that you see, when, in effect, no "instrument" was used? He never said that appropriate instrument measurement failed to reveal the problem. What he DIDN'T say was most eloqient: he never made ANY relevant measurement. A completely similar argument could be raised if he measured the bejeebers out of it and never once listened to it. If jitter was the problem, you'd see it trivially in a high-resolution spectral plot, you'd see it trivially in a straight jitter measurement. Now, with that in hand, where is it reasonable to title a post "Instrument vs. Ear"? Again, I am sure Mr. Nichols' experience is quite real. I am also sure that the conclusion you seem to want people to infer is simply unsupportable from his data, because he has NO data on "instruments." Indeed, he does not state otherwise. Where's the conflict? |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
Yes is interesting, dare we say it would also be interesting to do a dbt
using the material he used? All we have at best is an anecdotal example which would be better supported with controled testing. All that is required is to have one cd from the "good" category and another from the "bad" and let him rip, as long as he doesn't know which is which, as he did in the article. Based on the article, we don't know with any certainty if all he put himself through was a waiste of time or if it had any reality outside of his self reported experience of it. A more accurate subject line, based soley on his report, would be "reported perception vs. reported perception". Thought you guys might find the following interesting. http://www.rogernichols.com/EQ/EQ_2000_02.html I also suspect that responses will be predictable, but perhaps not. Harry. Lavo "it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing" - Duke Ellington |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:mopPa.27198$OZ2.4772@rwcrnsc54...
Thought you guys might find the following interesting. http://www.rogernichols.com/EQ/EQ_2000_02.html I also suspect that responses will be predictable, but perhaps not. Well, Harry, your post can be taken as existance proof that the "predictable responses" have ALREADY begun... :-) |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
Dick Pierce wrote:
He jumps to the conclusion, based on almost no objective data, that the problem is jitter. He may well be right, but he has no confirming evidence. There would be plenty of ways to confirm his diagnosis: simply looking at the noise floor would be one way, and actually (gasp! horrors! zut alors!) actually MEASURING the jitter would, i might humbly suggest, be yet another. But that was NEVER DONE! So where, Harry, is the supposed conflict between "ear" and "instrument" that you see, when, in effect, no "instrument" was used? He never said that appropriate instrument measurement failed to reveal the problem. What he DIDN'T say was most eloqient: he never made ANY relevant measurement. Indeed. In the *only* measurement he did, Mr. Nichols found that the 'bad sounding' and 'good sounding' versions were bit-perfect copies. Assuming jitter is the problem, does that mean that the computer CDR drive he used to transfer the tracks to hard drive for analysis corrected the jitter problem, or does it mean that jitter does not change the bits? (Or does it mean some other thing I'm not thinking of?) -- -S. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
et... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message news:mopPa.27198$OZ2.4772@rwcrnsc54... Thought you guys might find the following interesting. http://www.rogernichols.com/EQ/EQ_2000_02.html I also suspect that responses will be predictable, but perhaps not. As I mentioned in my previous response, Harry provided the first "predictable response" to his own post, simply in what I would assert is his clear mischaracterization of the topic as "Ears vs Instruments." In reading Mr. Nichols' text, we find, in fact, no such conflict between ears an instruments. Why, because nowhere does he mention any attempt to use the relevant measurements. I have no doubt that Mr. Nichols' experienmce is quite real, and, from other sources, I have no doubt of the problem in the stamper that could lead to the problems. But Mr. Nichols simply failed to carry out any relevant measurements. He talks about looking for gross errors and finding none. He jumps to the conclusion, based on almost no objective data, that the problem is jitter. He may well be right, but he has no confirming evidence. There would be plenty of ways to confirm his diagnosis: simply looking at the noise floor would be one way, and actually (gasp! horrors! zut alors!) actually MEASURING the jitter would, i might humbly suggest, be yet another. But that was NEVER DONE! So where, Harry, is the supposed conflict between "ear" and "instrument" that you see, when, in effect, no "instrument" was used? He never said that appropriate instrument measurement failed to reveal the problem. What he DIDN'T say was most eloqient: he never made ANY relevant measurement. A completely similar argument could be raised if he measured the bejeebers out of it and never once listened to it. If jitter was the problem, you'd see it trivially in a high-resolution spectral plot, you'd see it trivially in a straight jitter measurement. Now, with that in hand, where is it reasonable to title a post "Instrument vs. Ear"? Again, I am sure Mr. Nichols' experience is quite real. I am also sure that the conclusion you seem to want people to infer is simply unsupportable from his data, because he has NO data on "instruments." Indeed, he does not state otherwise. Where's the conflict? The conflict, Dick, was that SONY and the production plants were all using conventional measurements that they *thought* provided adequate quality control to insure that the finished product would sound like the master. And these measurements were all based on the "bits is bits" assumption. But the ear/brain combo said "something doesn't sound right". And by eliminating possibilities, the problem was narrowed down to the point where the *important* variables creating the problem were eliminated because somebody else had apparently determined the same thing and made sure those variables were eliminated. Apparently that Denon plant and the JVC K2 people (that's their XRCD24 line, btw, I believe) trusted their ears too, at least the JVC people claim to use rigorous listening as well as measurement in setting up their system and Denon is routinely praised by Audiophiles for their sound quality (and where John Eargle is (or was?) chief engineer). So, could it be measured? I'm sure, if one knew what could cause the problems in the first place and then track them down. But were the right variables measured? Not routinely by the production engineers convinced that "bits is bits" and if you don't measure bit errors "do we really have to listen?" Yep, when all is said and done, there is no substitute....at least until one has proven that *all* the audible variables are under control. p.s. the "they weren't dbt'd and probably the differences were imagined" chorus has started. But I am pleased that your are focused on the measuremen ts, because that was my own focus. As I am sure you will yourself agree, sometimes their *are* large differences so apparent to a group of trained people that the differences can be accepted as a given. In the antidotes portrayed, there were tests and comparisons done which resulted in a "no difference" when it would have been quite possible to have been biased in favor of finding a difference...for that would allow the problem to be solved. Instead, "no difference" was declared and the search continued. I frankly am convinced that in this case the differences were real, and am more interested in the QA measurement scenario. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
|
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:4tLPa.37141$GL4.8369@rwcrnsc53... "Harry Lavo" wrote: ..large snips about tests, measurements and jitter ..... Again, I am sure Mr. Nichols' experience is quite real. I am also sure that the conclusion you seem to want people to infer is simply unsupportable from his data, because he has NO data on "instruments." Indeed, he does not state otherwise. Where's the conflict? The conflict, Dick, was that SONY and the production plants were all using conventional measurements that they *thought* provided adequate quality control to insure that the finished product would sound like the master. And these measurements were all based on the "bits is bits" assumption. But the ear/brain combo said "something doesn't sound right". And by eliminating possibilities, the problem was narrowed down to the point where the *important* variables creating the problem were eliminated because somebody else had apparently determined the same thing and made sure those variables were eliminated. Apparently that Denon plant and the JVC K2 people (that's their XRCD24 line, btw, I believe) trusted their ears too, at least the JVC people claim to use rigorous listening as well as measurement in setting up their system and Denon is routinely praised by Audiophiles for their sound quality (and where John Eargle is (or was?) chief engineer). Unless something has happened I don't know about I am unaware of John Eargle's (IMO probably the finest recording engineer that has ever lived) association with Denon. Perhaps you are confusing Delos with Denon. Oops, my bad! I did make that mistake and in retrospect I know better. But glad we agree on mr. Eargle's credentials and reputation...although I might put Marc Aubort up there with him. But that's not why I'm posting. I want to convey another anecdote. I know a fellow who wons a cd production facility. He recounted a story where a large Japanese company complained about production samples having 'inferior' sound quality. He copied the defective samples returned to him, reproduced same, relabeled some of the 'defective' product and sent them all back. The client then found them all to have acceptable sound quality and was happy that he had 'fixed' the problems. These anecdotes have no end but by themselves deserve no evidentiary status. No doubt people can be fooled but that wasn't the case in the article I referenced. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
Mr. Nousaine,
Care to do like Harry and gives names and company details. Whether it is or not I don't know. But your anecdote has all the markings of something made up. Wonder what the large Japanese company would have thought of this tactic if they had found out? Wonder if something had been amiss and they decided this CD plant couldn't fix the problems? Wonder if owners of CD plants handle other complaints this way? By doing nothing more than a little sleight of hand. Dennis _________________________________________________ ____ __________________________________________________ __--- But that's not why I'm posting. I want to convey another anecdote. I know a fellow who wons a cd production facility. He recounted a story where a large Japanese company complained about production samples having 'inferior' sound quality. He copied the defective samples returned to him, reproduced same, relabeled some of the 'defective' product and sent them all back. The client then found them all to have acceptable sound quality and was happy that he had 'fixed' the problems. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
|
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
So changing labels on a product, giving the same product to a
customer, who you have gone out of your way to mislead into thinking is a different product when it is the same isn't sleight of hand? Okay, what is it? It isn't truthful. Harry's comment about John Eargle falls under a mistake. Doesn't appear to be made up, simply a mistake. Dennis "Nousaine" wrote in message ... "Dennis Moore" wrote: Mr. Nousaine, Care to do like Harry and gives names and company details. No. But Harry made up some of his now didn't he? John Eargle was not, as is not new, Chief Engineer of Denon. Whether it is or not I don't know. But your anecdote has all the markings of something made up. It was related to me by the owner of a cd making facility. I cannot vouch for its truthfulness. But Harry can't vouch for the truthfulness of his anecdote either. On the other hand, I know an engineer at a BMG facility who has related similar "your product sounds bad" experiences. Wonder what the large Japanese company would have thought of this tactic if they had found out? 'Dunno but if the 'new' ones sounded better than 'themselves' perhaps they would have apologized. Probably not  Wonder if something had been amiss and they decided this CD plant couldn't fix the problems? Wonder if owners of CD plants handle other complaints this way? I'm guessing only in those cases where investigation revealed there was nothing wrong with the original product. By doing nothing more than a little sleight of hand. Dennis Why do you consider that sleight of hand. They investigated the 'problem', found none and satisfied a customer. But that's not why I'm posting. I want to convey another anecdote. I know a fellow who wons a cd production facility. He recounted a story where a large Japanese company complained about production samples having 'inferior' sound quality. He copied the defective samples returned to him, reproduced same, relabeled some of the 'defective' product and sent them all back. The client then found them all to have acceptable sound quality and was happy that he had 'fixed' the problems. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
Dennis Moore wrote:
So changing labels on a product, giving the same product to a customer, who you have gone out of your way to mislead into thinking is a different product when it is the same isn't sleight of hand? Okay, what is it? It isn't truthful. You're complaining about THIS, in the face of the rather dubious claims routinely made in the advertisements found every month in audio magazines? -- -S. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
Dennis Moore wrote:
Mr. Nousaine, Care to do like Harry and gives names and company details. Whether it is or not I don't know. But your anecdote has all the markings of something made up. Hardly. If you like, I will seek out the online diary of a recording engineer, where he recounts the commonplace occurrence of 'sweetener' knobs in control rooms, which exist ONLY to placate annoying record producers looking for that 'extra something'. The knob isn't connected to anyting, but careful adjustment, in sight of said producer, accompanied by asking 'Does that sound better?" seems to always do the trick. IIRC I once found a website *selling* such flimflammery to studios, with a knowing wink. -- -S. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
Steven Sullivan wrote:
IIRC I once found a website *selling* such flimflammery to studios, with a knowing wink. Funk Logic: http://www.funklogic.com/ my favorite is the palindrometer: http://www.funklogic.com/palindrometer.htm but the Digilog Dynamicator and Algorhythmic Prosecutor are amusing as well: http://www.funklogic.com/dd301.htm http://www.funklogic.com/ap302.htm for those who master digitally, there is the masterizer plug-in: http://www.funklogic.com/mastererizer.htm I'm sure there have to be more. -- Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." | "Isn't an OS that openly and proudly admits to come directly from Holy UNIX better than a cheap UNIX copycat that needs to be sued in court to determine what the hell it really is?" -- Michael Sokolov |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
Dennis Moore wrote: So changing labels on a product, giving the same product to a customer, who you have gone out of your way to mislead into thinking is a different product when it is the same isn't sleight of hand? Okay, what is it? It isn't truthful. You're complaining about THIS, in the face of the rather dubious claims routinely made in the advertisements found every month in audio magazines? Care to name a few? |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
Daniel wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message ... Dennis Moore wrote: So changing labels on a product, giving the same product to a customer, who you have gone out of your way to mislead into thinking is a different product when it is the same isn't sleight of hand? Okay, what is it? It isn't truthful. You're complaining about THIS, in the face of the rather dubious claims routinely made in the advertisements found every month in audio magazines? Care to name a few? I'll be happy to, when I have the magazines at hand, later. But before we start, do you *seriously* believe that hi-fi advertising does *not* routinely include dubious claims? Have you ever seen *any* ads for high end cables? Do you believe the ad copy therein? Heck, read the white papers at high-end cable mfr sites, which presumably are more rigorously worded than ad copy. For example http://www.taralabs.com/white_papers...ce_Design1.asp Lots of claims about audible effects, and even a claim about a testing methodm, but no proof offered-- NONE -- that the effects are really audible. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
Quite a few years ago there was a magazine called "CD Review". The
editor, Wayne Green, advertised a device called "Balonium" for I believe $3.95. It was a green marker pen for the edge of CDs. As the name indicates, Wayne was not serious (but I think the device COULD be ordered)! -MIKE |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
Daniel wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote in message ... Dennis Moore wrote: So changing labels on a product, giving the same product to a customer, who you have gone out of your way to mislead into thinking is a different product when it is the same isn't sleight of hand? Okay, what is it? It isn't truthful. You're complaining about THIS, in the face of the rather dubious claims routinely made in the advertisements found every month in audio magazines? Care to name a few? I'll be happy to, when I have the magazines at hand, later. But before we start, do you *seriously* believe that hi-fi advertising does *not* routinely include dubious claims? Have you ever seen *any* ads for high end cables? Do you believe the ad copy therein? Um, nope...don't believe in cable. Not part of the cable cabal. I'm happy with what comes in the box, especially after having a salesman *swear* to me some cable (long name beginning with "C") he was going to insert between my CD player and amp was going to be my "happily ever after" cable. SO not true. Couldn't tell the difference over Matrix 805s. I don't even look at the cable ads. Though I do notice flat ones that *look* cool, and I think that's a good enough reason as any to choose a piece of equipment. Heck, read the white papers at high-end cable mfr sites, which presumably are more rigorously worded than ad copy. For example http://www.taralabs.com/white_papers...ce_Design1.asp Lots of claims about audible effects, and even a claim about a testing methodm, but no proof offered-- NONE -- that the effects are really audible. Again, you're barking up the wrong tree trying to start a fight with me over cable. Never gonna happen. We're playing for the same team. I'm not all that interested in "proof," though. Anecdotal experience is more meaningful to me. I can't read those charts. Science bores me to death. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
In article YNARa.74595$GL4.18651@rwcrnsc53,
---MIKE--- wrote: Quite a few years ago there was a magazine called "CD Review". The editor, Wayne Green, advertised a device called "Balonium" for I believe $3.95. It was a green marker pen for the edge of CDs. As the name indicates, Wayne was not serious (but I think the device COULD be ordered)! Uh, unfortunately, there was (is?) a real product called "CD Toplight" which is precisely that. Additionally some CD manufacturers had CD's with pre-printed green edges. And it all started in rec.audio some years ago as an April Fool's joke. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
Hi Gang:
For one person's (Lynn Olson) take on the "Ears vs. Instruments" subject check the URL: http://www.aloha-audio.com/library/FindingCG.html Make sense ? Or is it blasphemy to prefer tubes ? The sand vs. glass debate aside, the approach on seeking better measurments makes some sense I think. Comments ? -=Bill Eckle=- Vanity Web pages at: http://www.wmeckle.com |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
Hi Gang:
For one person's (Lynn Olson) take on the "Ears vs. Instruments" subject check the URL: http://www.aloha-audio.com/library/FindingCG.html Make sense ? Or is it blasphemy to prefer tubes ? The sand vs. glass debate aside, the approach on seeking better measurments makes some sense I think. Comments ? -=Bill Eckle=- Vanity Web pages at: http://www.wmeckle.com |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
Rich Andrews wrote in message .net...
(Daniel) wrote in : Steven Sullivan wrote in message ... Daniel wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote in message ... Dennis Moore wrote: So changing labels on a product, giving the same product to a customer, who you have gone out of your way to mislead into thinking is a different product when it is the same isn't sleight of hand? Okay, what is it? It isn't truthful. You're complaining about THIS, in the face of the rather dubious claims routinely made in the advertisements found every month in audio magazines? Care to name a few? I'll be happy to, when I have the magazines at hand, later. But before we start, do you *seriously* believe that hi-fi advertising does *not* routinely include dubious claims? Have you ever seen *any* ads for high end cables? Do you believe the ad copy therein? Um, nope...don't believe in cable. Not part of the cable cabal. I'm happy with what comes in the box, especially after having a salesman *swear* to me some cable (long name beginning with "C") he was going to insert between my CD player and amp was going to be my "happily ever after" cable. SO not true. Couldn't tell the difference over Matrix 805s. I don't even look at the cable ads. Though I do notice flat ones that *look* cool, and I think that's a good enough reason as any to choose a piece of equipment. Heck, read the white papers at high-end cable mfr sites, which presumably are more rigorously worded than ad copy. For example http://www.taralabs.com/white_papers...ce_Design1.asp Lots of claims about audible effects, and even a claim about a testing methodm, but no proof offered-- NONE -- that the effects are really audible. Again, you're barking up the wrong tree trying to start a fight with me over cable. Never gonna happen. We're playing for the same team. I'm not all that interested in "proof," though. Anecdotal experience is more meaningful to me. I can't read those charts. Science bores me to death. Just because science does not interest you does not make it any less of a discipline and it does not discount mathematic provability. The difference between scientific data and anecdote is that anecdote is not data and without data, one can have no proof. One can spout anecdote like Joe Vialls at http://geocities.com/vialls but that does not make it true. r I'm not saying anything is or isn't a discipline, nor do I discount mathematic anything. I just don't care about it. There's no way to start an argument with me over this. I cave instantly. I imagine you're right with all your scientific hoo-hah. I'm even *glad* there are people like you who care about and comprehend all the science. There wouldn't be audio without science. I'm just not one of those who understand or care to understand. Again, no argument here (except, please, stop trying to drag me into one). None exists. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
(Daniel) wrote:
methodm, but no proof offered-- NONE -- that the effects are really audible. Again, you're barking up the wrong tree trying to start a fight with me over cable. Never gonna happen. We're playing for the same team. I'm not all that interested in "proof," though. Anecdotal experience is more meaningful to me. I can't read those charts. Science bores me to death. Just because science does not interest you does not make it any less of a discipline and it does not discount mathematic provability. The difference between scientific data and anecdote is that anecdote is not data and without data, one can have no proof. One can spout anecdote like Joe Vialls at http://geocities.com/vialls but that does not make it true. r I'm not saying anything is or isn't a discipline, nor do I discount mathematic anything. I just don't care about it. There's no way to start an argument with me over this. I cave instantly. I imagine you're right with all your scientific hoo-hah. I'm even *glad* there are people like you who care about and comprehend all the science. There wouldn't be audio without science. I'm just not one of those who understand or care to understand. Again, no argument here (except, please, stop trying to drag me into one). None exists. OK but can you agree to be skeptical about amp/wire sound until some one, any one, produces a replicable experiment that shows any nominally competent device operating within its power limits has any 'sound' of its own in a normally reverberant environment? If so, then we are in total agreement. If not, then folks are rightly going to ask for verification. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
(Nousaine) wrote in message ...
(Daniel) wrote: methodm, but no proof offered-- NONE -- that the effects are really audible. Again, you're barking up the wrong tree trying to start a fight with me over cable. Never gonna happen. We're playing for the same team. I'm not all that interested in "proof," though. Anecdotal experience is more meaningful to me. I can't read those charts. Science bores me to death. Just because science does not interest you does not make it any less of a discipline and it does not discount mathematic provability. The difference between scientific data and anecdote is that anecdote is not data and without data, one can have no proof. One can spout anecdote like Joe Vialls at http://geocities.com/vialls but that does not make it true. r I'm not saying anything is or isn't a discipline, nor do I discount mathematic anything. I just don't care about it. There's no way to start an argument with me over this. I cave instantly. I imagine you're right with all your scientific hoo-hah. I'm even *glad* there are people like you who care about and comprehend all the science. There wouldn't be audio without science. I'm just not one of those who understand or care to understand. Again, no argument here (except, please, stop trying to drag me into one). None exists. OK but can you agree to be skeptical about amp/wire sound until some one, any one, produces a replicable experiment that shows any nominally competent device operating within its power limits has any 'sound' of its own in a normally reverberant environment? If so, then we are in total agreement. If not, then folks are rightly going to ask for verification. You keep trying to drag me into an argument and I don't want to argue. I'm not in disagreement with either of you on the issue of wire. The *only* thing I said about wire is that I don't believe one sounds any better than any other. I'm *beyond* skeptical. I tried different speaker wires, and found no difference, even while using a pair of very revealing B&Ws. I didn't say word one about amps. All I asked -- and which you have edited out -- was for the OP, Steven Sullivan, to tell us in which ads companies made "dubious claims." I wanted more facts, and instead of providing any beyond the link to taralabs.com, he assumed all sorts of things about me and what I do and don't believe. Here. Read the original text. In case you can't tell, what with all these layers of quotes, what I said were "Care to name a few?" and then the two paragraphs beginning "Um, nope..." I thought it was interesting, and wanted to go through some of my magazines and see what was "dubious." I had hoped SS would provide some examples. He hasn't as of yet, or at least I haven't seen them. I would still like to know. Original text: Steven Sullivan wrote in message ... Daniel wrote: Steven Sullivan wrote in message ... Dennis Moore wrote: So changing labels on a product, giving the same product to a customer, who you have gone out of your way to mislead into thinking is a different product when it is the same isn't sleight of hand? Okay, what is it? It isn't truthful. You're complaining about THIS, in the face of the rather dubious claims routinely made in the advertisements found every month in audio magazines? Care to name a few? I'll be happy to, when I have the magazines at hand, later. But before we start, do you *seriously* believe that hi-fi advertising does *not* routinely include dubious claims? Have you ever seen *any* ads for high end cables? Do you believe the ad copy therein? Um, nope...don't believe in cable. Not part of the cable cabal. I'm happy with what comes in the box, especially after having a salesman *swear* to me some cable (long name beginning with "C") he was going to insert between my CD player and amp was going to be my "happily ever after" cable. SO not true. Couldn't tell the difference over Matrix 805s. I don't even look at the cable ads. Though I do notice flat ones that *look* cool, and I think that's a good enough reason as any to choose a piece of equipment. Heck, read the white papers at high-end cable mfr sites, which presumably are more rigorously worded than ad copy. For example http://www.taralabs.com/white_papers...ce_Design1.asp Lots of claims about audible effects, and even a claim about a testing methodm, but no proof offered-- NONE -- that the effects are really audible. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
Being an old guy I remember Julian Hirsch telling us time and again that any
amplifier with good specs sounded just like all the other amps with good specs. Was he right? Or have we discovered better testing methods than existed in his time? "Nousaine" wrote in message ... (Daniel) wrote: methodm, but no proof offered-- NONE -- that the effects are really audible. Again, you're barking up the wrong tree trying to start a fight with me over cable. Never gonna happen. We're playing for the same team. I'm not all that interested in "proof," though. Anecdotal experience is more meaningful to me. I can't read those charts. Science bores me to death. Just because science does not interest you does not make it any less of a discipline and it does not discount mathematic provability. The difference between scientific data and anecdote is that anecdote is not data and without data, one can have no proof. One can spout anecdote like Joe Vialls at http://geocities.com/vialls but that does not make it true. r I'm not saying anything is or isn't a discipline, nor do I discount mathematic anything. I just don't care about it. There's no way to start an argument with me over this. I cave instantly. I imagine you're right with all your scientific hoo-hah. I'm even *glad* there are people like you who care about and comprehend all the science. There wouldn't be audio without science. I'm just not one of those who understand or care to understand. Again, no argument here (except, please, stop trying to drag me into one). None exists. OK but can you agree to be skeptical about amp/wire sound until some one, any one, produces a replicable experiment that shows any nominally competent device operating within its power limits has any 'sound' of its own in a normally reverberant environment? If so, then we are in total agreement. If not, then folks are rightly going to ask for verification. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
Daniel wrote:
The *only* thing I said about wire is that I don't believe one sounds any better than any other. I'm *beyond* skeptical. I tried different speaker wires, and found no difference, even while using a pair of very revealing B&Ws. I didn't say word one about amps. All I asked -- and which you have edited out -- was for the OP, Steven Sullivan, to tell us in which ads companies made "dubious claims." I wanted more facts, and instead of providing any beyond the link to taralabs.com, he assumed all sorts of things about me and what I do and don't believe. Sorry, it looked to me like you weren't really that interested in reading the ad copy. If I'm goign to do the work of skimming through the ad copy of back issues, I want to know that you really care. IN the meantime, you could just visit the websites of high-end cable manufacterers, one example of which I gave. Another would be www.cardas.com How many examples will you require? I thought it was interesting, and wanted to go through some of my magazines and see what was "dubious." I had hoped SS would provide some examples. He hasn't as of yet, or at least I haven't seen them. I would still like to know. Very well, then, I'll get you some. What will be my reward for my educational efforts, I wonder? |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
Wylie Williams wrote:
Being an old guy I remember Julian Hirsch telling us time and again that any amplifier with good specs sounded just like all the other amps with good specs. Was he right? Most of the time, he probably was. |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:zjzTa.126977$N7.18539@sccrnsc03...
Daniel wrote: The *only* thing I said about wire is that I don't believe one sounds any better than any other. I'm *beyond* skeptical. I tried different speaker wires, and found no difference, even while using a pair of very revealing B&Ws. I didn't say word one about amps. All I asked -- and which you have edited out -- was for the OP, Steven Sullivan, to tell us in which ads companies made "dubious claims." I wanted more facts, and instead of providing any beyond the link to taralabs.com, he assumed all sorts of things about me and what I do and don't believe. Sorry, it looked to me like you weren't really that interested in reading the ad copy. If I'm goign to do the work of skimming through the ad copy of back issues, I want to know that you really care. IN the meantime, you could just visit the websites of high-end cable manufacterers, one example of which I gave. Another would be www.cardas.com How many examples will you require? I thought it was interesting, and wanted to go through some of my magazines and see what was "dubious." I had hoped SS would provide some examples. He hasn't as of yet, or at least I haven't seen them. I would still like to know. Very well, then, I'll get you some. What will be my reward for my educational efforts, I wonder? I guess my hope was that you'd have other types of equipment -- amps, speakers, CD players -- to tell about. I'm already on your side when it comes to cable and wire. I'm somewhat down on high-end audio as a hobby and, even more, as a way to spend money, and wanted to know about dubious claims in these other areas. Thanks, in any case. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
Ahh..This makes the choice so much easier, just line up the specs, and
choose "most bang for the buck" This philosophy will also save future audiophiles a bundle of trouble and money! If it does not sound right, just look at the specs and say to yourself: "I can't trust my ears, the specs are good, the sound must be good" Repeat until total satisfaction is obtained. BTW Those who are still convinced that cables does not matter, try using a well oxidized copper wire as speaker cable. This will sound "great" KE "Steven Sullivan" wrote in message ... Wylie Williams wrote: Being an old guy I remember Julian Hirsch telling us time and again that any amplifier with good specs sounded just like all the other amps with good specs. Was he right? Most of the time, he probably was. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
Daniel wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message news:zjzTa.126977$N7.18539@sccrnsc03... Daniel wrote: The *only* thing I said about wire is that I don't believe one sounds any better than any other. I'm *beyond* skeptical. I tried different speaker wires, and found no difference, even while using a pair of very revealing B&Ws. I didn't say word one about amps. All I asked -- and which you have edited out -- was for the OP, Steven Sullivan, to tell us in which ads companies made "dubious claims." I wanted more facts, and instead of providing any beyond the link to taralabs.com, he assumed all sorts of things about me and what I do and don't believe. Sorry, it looked to me like you weren't really that interested in reading the ad copy. If I'm goign to do the work of skimming through the ad copy of back issues, I want to know that you really care. IN the meantime, you could just visit the websites of high-end cable manufacterers, one example of which I gave. Another would be www.cardas.com How many examples will you require? I thought it was interesting, and wanted to go through some of my magazines and see what was "dubious." I had hoped SS would provide some examples. He hasn't as of yet, or at least I haven't seen them. I would still like to know. Very well, then, I'll get you some. What will be my reward for my educational efforts, I wonder? I guess my hope was that you'd have other types of equipment -- amps, speakers, CD players -- to tell about. I'm already on your side when it comes to cable and wire. I'm somewhat down on high-end audio as a hobby and, even more, as a way to spend money, and wanted to know about dubious claims in these other areas. OK, I'll specifically look for amp and digital player ads. I haven't seen any crazy speaker ads lately, aside from which, it's possible for speakers to sound very different from each other. If you don't mind, I might also throw in some typically unsupported claims from reviews and editorials. -- -S. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 16:34:46 GMT, "Wylie Williams"
wrote: Being an old guy I remember Julian Hirsch telling us time and again that any amplifier with good specs sounded just like all the other amps with good specs. Was he right? Or have we discovered better testing methods than existed in his time? What, we have developed better *ears* in the last 30 years? :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
"Richard D Pierce" wrote in message
news:XgGTa.131481$Ph3.16434@sccrnsc04... In article , All Ears wrote: Ahh..This makes the choice so much easier, just line up the specs, and choose "most bang for the buck" This philosophy will also save future audiophiles a bundle of trouble and money! If it does not sound right, just look at the specs and say to yourself: "I can't trust my ears, the specs are good, the sound must be good" Repeat until total satisfaction is obtained. Great, the typical response of the anti-science bruigade is to trump out irrelevancies, absurdities and thinly veiled snide comments, instead of dealing with the actual content of the post. BTW Those who are still convinced that cables does not matter, try using a well oxidized copper wire as speaker cable. This will sound "great" Really, and what does THAT have to do with anything. Has anyone here refuted the notion that oxidized or corroded connections have no audible effects? Well, has anyone? Seems not, so why bring up an utterly irrelevant strawman, otherv thna to knock it down? -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | I admit that it was meant partly as a provocation. However the subject is interesting to me. There seems to be a problem in the way that we measure or rate the measurements, today. Otherwise, why would equipment with similar specifications sound different? I will also question the value of double blind tests, in connection to audio equipment. This is because that any kind of pressure or stress to the test persons, will affect the perception of the sound presented. I would think that it would be much more interesting to collect statistical material, like letting a fairly large amount of people (one by one, or in small groups) listen to different equipment, in a relaxed atmosphere. To get a good reference point, I would suggest using a live concert piano, in a separate room with a microphone, feeding the signal to the equipment in the other rooms. With regard to cables, I am not speaking of poor connections, even if the connections are good, but the cables are oxidized, it will give a noticeable harsh sound. Anyway, a good quality speaker cable will sound a lot better than a lamp cord, even in a blind test. Those who cannot hear this, are probably not comparing the right speaker cable to the lamp cord. KE |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
"Daniel" wrote in message
... I'm somewhat down on high-end audio as a hobby and, even more, as a way to spend money, and wanted to know about dubious claims in these other areas. My free advice, therefore worthless to begin with, is to get completely involved listening to music, entirely ignoring the equipment for a *long while*. Eventually you will be drawn back to a secondary part of the hobby, (the equipment). Who knows, perhaps this might save you a lot of time, effort and money in the long run. New technologies, new models of almost everything out there, so you avoid dealing with the intervening stuff. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
All Ears wrote:
Ahh..This makes the choice so much easier, just line up the specs, and choose "most bang for the buck" If you trust the specs....not always easy to do, e.g. with power ratings. But my underlying point was that nominally competent amps *should* sound pretty much the same, if not identical. This philosophy will also save future audiophiles a bundle of trouble and money! If it does not sound right, just look at the specs and say to yourself: "I can't trust my ears, the specs are good, the sound must be good" Repeat until total satisfaction is obtained. That's one approach. The other, and perhaps more definitive, would be for them to really do a test where they have to 'trust their ears'. The approach audiophiles tend to take, isntead is to , 'burn in ' the amp until total satisfaction is obtained, or to keep trading up/sideways under the guidance of dubious magazine reviews and marketing hype, until total satisfaction is obtained. For awhile. BTW Those who are still convinced that cables does not matter, try using a well oxidized copper wire as speaker cable. This will sound "great" Hint: if you don't want to appear desperate, don't offer strawman examples. -- -S. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
There's no problem in discarding amps that really do sound bad (and
there's plenty of them out there - the SETs, for one whole class!). Bad is subjective. It does seem that many people prefer them in their systems. I'm guessing they will claim they sound quite good. The trick is to ignore the specs (and the price tag) and actually *listen* under controlled conditions, whereupon you discover that most halfway decent amps actually *do* sound the same. Most but not all? depending on your definition of a "halfway decent amp" that may be a different claim than what Nousaine claims. I am curious, do you think the differences you have heard in your controled listening tests were actual differences or do you think that Nousaine's position that such amps are all identicial in sound is not entirely acurate? |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
All Ears wrote:
"Richard D Pierce" wrote in message news:XgGTa.131481$Ph3.16434@sccrnsc04... In article , All Ears wrote: Ahh..This makes the choice so much easier, just line up the specs, and choose "most bang for the buck" This philosophy will also save future audiophiles a bundle of trouble and money! If it does not sound right, just look at the specs and say to yourself: "I can't trust my ears, the specs are good, the sound must be good" Repeat until total satisfaction is obtained. Great, the typical response of the anti-science bruigade is to trump out irrelevancies, absurdities and thinly veiled snide comments, instead of dealing with the actual content of the post. BTW Those who are still convinced that cables does not matter, try using a well oxidized copper wire as speaker cable. This will sound "great" Really, and what does THAT have to do with anything. Has anyone here refuted the notion that oxidized or corroded connections have no audible effects? Well, has anyone? Seems not, so why bring up an utterly irrelevant strawman, otherv thna to knock it down? -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | I admit that it was meant partly as a provocation. However the subject is interesting to me. There seems to be a problem in the way that we measure or rate the measurements, today. Otherwise, why would equipment with similar specifications sound different? I will also question the value of double blind tests, in connection to audio equipment. This is because that any kind of pressure or stress to the test persons, will affect the perception of the sound presented. I would think that it would be much more interesting to collect statistical material, like letting a fairly large amount of people (one by one, or in small groups) listen to different equipment, in a relaxed atmosphere. To get a good reference point, I would suggest using a live concert piano, in a separate room with a microphone, feeding the signal to the equipment in the other rooms. Are you sure this doesn't involve *any kind of presssure or stress*? With regard to cables, I am not speaking of poor connections, even if the connections are good, but the cables are oxidized, it will give a noticeable harsh sound. I the cable is 'well oxidized', the connected is not likely to be 'good'. Anyway, a good quality speaker cable will sound a lot better than a lamp cord, even in a blind test. Oh, really? Can you describe the blind tests that support this claim, and contrast them, perhaps, with Greenhill's report? Those who cannot hear this, are probably not comparing the right speaker cable to the lamp cord. Those who make this claim have yet to provide evidence of its accuracy. -- -S. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
C. Leeds wrote:
Nousaine wrote: Oh that's not an issue with class-action guys. They're often more corrupt than the guys they sue. Last year a bunch of attorneys filed a class action suit against speaker manufacturers arguin that a 12-inch woofer that didn't have a true 12-inch piston (just a 12-inch basket) was a fraudulent claim. And they got a settlement mostly because the companies figured it was easier to settle than to fight in court. This sure sounds like urban legend. That Mr. Nousaine doesn't cite the names of the litigants only fuels the suspicion. Mr. Nousaine original claim - that he'd been contacted for advice by an attorney regarding a possible class action suit against cable manufacturers - also seems dubious. Lacking logic and without any names or background information, these assertions sound bogus, frankly. LOL..you live in the UK, yes? Perhaps you aren't aware of just how litigious things can get over here in the colonies. -- -S. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ears vs. Instruments
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| I have ears on my arse! | Audio Opinions | |||
| hearing loss info | Car Audio | |||
Linear Mode
