| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What is so high end about high end?
Following the suggestion of moderator David E. Bath:
__________________________________________________ ____ If we believe that objective measurements are the entire story, then we might as well pack it in. Most of the mass market electronics have equal, if not better, objective measurements. Which does beg the question: what is so high end about high end? A good subject for a thread IMHO.  __________________________________________________ ____ Now 'high end' as defined here on RAHE is not high end as thought of by most of the public. The 'high end' commonly attributed to magazines like Stereophile and TAS. So I am not speaking about the 'high end' related to those publications. I am referring to the 'high end' of RAHE. Something I think would more properly and honestly be called simply high fidelity. I also think RAHE would more honestly be called rec.audio.high.fidelity. What is 'high end', what is not? Dennis |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
In article ,
Mkuller wrote: "Dennis Moore" wrote What is 'high end', what is not? Since Harry Pearson coined the term High End in the early 1970's in TAS (and has it copyrighted), his definition should apply if it is going to be used it here. IN a word, b*llsh*t, of which the good Mr. Pearson is one of the most prolific producers. First, Mr. Pearson, despite his arrogant claim to the contrary, did not "coin" the term, it was in common usage around the Boston area before that. Second, just-because-said-so doesn't mean it is fact. Harry's magazine is the source of some of the most outrageous, irresponsible, uninformed pish-posh around. rec,audio-high-end has existed for quite some time and is entirely capable of and entitled to define it's own existance. We don't need the the pontificating, dogma spewing likes of the Harry Pearsons of the world to define anything. (Call it "rec.audio.hi-fi" and you can define it any way you want.) To paraphrase, High End refers to components which are designed and manufactured with the specific goal of reproducing music as closely as possible to the sound of live, unamplified music in a real space. When the term was first introduced, those manufacturers would fill a very short list (Magneplanar, Infinity, Audio Research, and Mark Levinson to name a few) and it has nothing at all to do with specs. Indeed, it often had a lot to do with personal "associations" that had even LESS to do with actual performance. And given the likes of Enid Lumely or whomever, it had nothing to do with reality. Just the sound. Nonsense, it had as much to do with snobbery as anything. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
Dick Pierce wrote:
IN a word, b*llsh*t, of which the good Mr. Pearson is one of the most prolific producers. First, Mr. Pearson, despite his arrogant claim to the contrary, did not "coin" the term, it was in common usage around the Boston area before that. Second, just-because-said-so doesn't mean it is fact. Harry's magazine is the source of some of the most outrageous, irresponsible, uninformed pish-posh around. rec,audio-high-end has existed for quite some time and is entirely capable of and entitled to define it's own existance. We don't need the the pontificating, dogma spewing likes of the Harry Pearsons of the world to define anything. So does that mean you agree with the definition of High End here or not? The above definition seems to fit well with the points posted in the rec.audio.high-end FAQs. (Call it "rec.audio.hi-fi" and you can define it any way you want.) To paraphrase, High End refers to components which are designed and manufactured with the specific goal of reproducing music as closely as possible to the sound of live, unamplified music in a real space. When the term was first introduced, those manufacturers would fill a very short list (Magneplanar, Infinity, Audio Research, and Mark Levinson to name a few) and it has nothing at all to do with specs. Indeed, it often had a lot to do with personal "associations" Perhaps, but that's still High End audio, like it or not. that had even LESS to do with actual performance. And given the likes of Enid Lumely or whomever, it had nothing to do with reality. Just the sound. Nonsense, it had as much to do with snobbery as anything. So High End is about snobbery? I think you could put forth a better definition than that, Dick. (Your tone makes it sound like you might have been excluded from the club...) Regards, Mike |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
Mkuller wrote:
To paraphrase, High End refers to components which are designed and manufactured with the specific goal of reproducing music as closely as possible to the sound of live, unamplified music in a real space. My impression of "high-end" is based on experiences with so-called high-end equipment and the taste of audiophiles in general. "High-end", as I percive it, is to emulate a "live" music event, regardsless of what recording techniques have been used on the music that is reproduced, and make this as pleasant as possible for the listener. This is probably the opposite of a "monitor" sound, where you can hear every detail that's actually on the record. A "monitor" sound will unfortunately reveal that the majority of LP's and CD's sounds really really bad..... Stig Erik Tangen |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
"Wylie Williams" wrote in message
news:3%g1b.220123$o%2.102734@sccrnsc02 It seems that to many "high end" means endorsing outrageous pricing and product quackery. With the focus on retro-technology like vinyl and tubes, and pseudo-technology like blue lights and badly partitioned CD players, that does seem to be what a lot of high end audio has become. We can probably give most of the credit/blame to HP and TAS for this, but we should not forget to give Stereophile an honorable mention. Stereophile differs from the other two in that it does contain some useful factual content. However mixing true facts with questionable or false material is an old propaganda technique. Both have moved the discussion into the realm of components that are priced in the stratosphere, and they have generally neglected lower priced products of merit. My take is that they appear to audio voyeurs. "High Fidelity" was a much nicer term. It never seemed to imply worship of the big ticket components. The audio marketplace is now very fragmented. Video and audio performance and production hardware are important market segments. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 06:10:41 GMT, "Dennis Moore"
wrote: This is a good example of the tyranny of the objectivist. First he insists realism is the only goal. Actually, the 'subjectivists' claim the same goal. Even though no musical system I have ever heard can fully or even mostly recreate the sound of live in music in real space. Yet this person acts as if they have the only path to true 'high end ' sound while admitting they don't even have the ability to experience realization of emotional and music. That may (or may not) be true for Tom, but it in no way represents the position of anyone else I've seen posting to r.a.h-e. Maybe the following descriptions from the RAHE should guide the newsgroup into three parts. Those who deal with high-end sound from description a), those who deal with high-end sound from description b), and those who believe the two can be melded. _________________________________________________ _____ a) audio equipment whose primary and fundamental design goal is to reproduce a musical event as faithfully as possible; or Indeed so, which seems to be the goal of most contributors. b) audio equipment which attempts to provide an electromechanical realization of the emotional experience commonly called music; b) would be virtually anything, including a car radio. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
a) audio equipment whose primary and fundamental design goal is
to reproduce a musical event as faithfully as possible; or Indeed so, which seems to be the goal of most contributors. b) audio equipment which attempts to provide an electromechanical realization of the emotional experience commonly called music; b) would be virtually anything, including a car radio. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering Again this is the objectivist tyranny. a) is a worthy goal b) is discussed as if it could be anything. You also mention Mr. Pinkerton that subjectivists claim the same goal of realism. And indeed they do. But if you can only duplicate live music inaccurately, or incompletely the question is what part is most important to still convey the emotion of music. And it is far from clear that the part you can measure and use dbt's on is the most important part. Or that objectively the most accurate equipment does a better job of it implicitly. It is very difficult to make good progress toward something you cannot easily measure. But that doesn't mean it cannot be measured or that it isn't worth doing. Seems to me most of the traffic here is slanted toward the part of a) of the definition of high end in the faq. And that part would better be characterized as simply high fidelity. The part b) in principle is what represents the difference between high fidelity and high end. The goal to not just do the best measured performance, but to make it easier to emotionally connect with the music. And the difference in a) and b) is what causes the constant bickering. Those who approach reproduced music from the definition b) angle come from the original HP approach, to listen to something and see how it affects you. They may attribute that to the wrong things or to things that aren't happening. But talk about it that way here on RAHE an they will be told how it doesn't fit in with real high end as per the a) definition. Dennis |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
Nousaine wrote:
"Dennis Moore" wrote: Nousaine, You tell me you don't do this for love of music. But for simple realism in playback. And you wonder why you may not have the same experience as one who does sometimes have emotional experience to music. Who says I don't have emotional experiences to music? I just have given up the conceit that I buy/use audio equipment to increase that enjoyment in respect to the art. The art doesn't change with the reproduction devices. I watched Susan Tedeschi perform last night in a small open-air ampitheater and I loved every minute of it. It didn't lack realism even though not a single note was 'acoustical' but played back over a large PA system. Did I break a tear over "Miss You"? Sure. Does play back of that song on my home system produce the same tear? On a musical level, of course. On a 'realism' level? .... no, because her Susan-ness wasn't 30 years in front of me. But I won't tell myself for one minute that I enjoy reproduced audio for the love of music. If the 'music' strikes me with enough power I can enjoy it on my 1941 Zenith AM table radio. ...replicating the experience of millions and millions people over the years, who have 'connected' to music via equipment that wouldn't pass even the least stringent 'audiophile' muster. -- -S. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 06:10:41 GMT, "Dennis Moore" wrote: This is a good example of the tyranny of the objectivist. First he insists realism is the only goal. Actually, the 'subjectivists' claim the same goal. Even though no musical system I have ever heard can fully or even mostly recreate the sound of live in music in real space. Yet this person acts as if they have the only path to true 'high end ' sound while admitting they don't even have the ability to experience realization of emotional and music. That may (or may not) be true for Tom, but it in no way represents the position of anyone else I've seen posting to r.a.h-e. If I recall correctly, it's known as 'the absolute sound'. Or perhaps 'stereophilia'. No use of the word 'music' in either, I notice. For that matter, do *any* audiophile publications have the word 'music' in their titles? |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
Dennis Moore wrote:
Well Tom, as is usual. No discussing with you, without you getting off topic. The thread again was specifically about high-end as defined on RAHE. You keep talking about it as defined elsewhere. And it was of course you who talked about conceit of loving music. And you who didn't seem to want to look at the 'emotional response to music' mentioned in the faq. Oh well, now I have gotten into a ****ing contest of no use to anyone. I think the moderators need to go with definition a), be honest and drop b). And change the name to RAHF (rec.audi.high.fidelity). But of course once created they cannot change it. Well they can change the faq. Dennis If you don't want to see threads containing dbt discussions, why not create your own newsgroup, like rec.audio.dbt-free, or rec.audio.subjectivist? Or simply frequent those sections of Audio Asylum where dbt's are banned? A unique and very valuable feature of rec.audio.high-end is the debunking of high-end myths, and dbt's, unfortunately for some, are a necessary part of the debunking process. How else can you prove or disprove the audible differences among cables, for instance, without mentioning dbt's? |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
Well the dbt's seem impotent in matters of emotional realism as
discussed in the faq to this group. Yet everyone with another idea get beat over the head endlessly by the dbt results. They have their place, and I don't mind some of them. But something is amiss. Too many components long term will give satisfaction that others supposedly sounding the same don't. Or too many that supposedly are more accurate are less enjoyable to listen to long term. I have read all the arguments about why this is so, and don't with to go thru it again. Those touting the dbt route as the only rational route to take consider there is nothing real to investigate otherwise. I find that hard to believe myself. And this difference of long term satisfaction is what initially differentiated real 'high-end' equipment (as defined by all the rest of the world not on this newsgroup) from everything else. Yes, some commercial high end stuff is snake oil. Most of the supposedly technical explanations are bogus or worse made up. Yet some of the better of that equipment seems to satisfy in ways the supposedly accurate just as good equipment often doesn't. And currently any meaningful discussion about that is not possible here. The way some people prove or disprove things is more of an emotional feeling they have. Why is this, I don't know, but it seems certain if there is anything to it, it won't show up in double blind testing. How do you test for it? Even if it is nothing more than self delusion, it is real in listening to music. And I don't for a minute think you can take part in tests blind without it so utterly destroying your emotional reactions that those tests would only be expected to return to results but random. Maybe if you had two things in sealed boxes, let people live with them, and say they were more or less satisfied than the month before you could. Do the switching blind, switch no more often than monthly and see where the results took you. I don't see that as likely to happen. Dennis If you don't want to see threads containing dbt discussions, why not create your own newsgroup, like rec.audio.dbt-free, or rec.audio.subjectivist? Or simply frequent those sections of Audio Asylum where dbt's are banned? A unique and very valuable feature of rec.audio.high-end is the debunking of high-end myths, and dbt's, unfortunately for some, are a necessary part of the debunking process. How else can you prove or disprove the audible differences among cables, for instance, without mentioning dbt's? |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
"Wylie Williams" wrote in message ...
"chung" wrote: If you don't want to see threads containing dbt discussions, why not create your own newsgroup, like rec.audio.dbt-free, or rec.audio.subjectivist? Or simply frequent those sections of Audio Asylum where dbt's are banned? A unique and very valuable feature of rec.audio.high-end is the debunking of high-end myths, and dbt's, unfortunately for some, are a necessary part of the debunking process. How else can you prove or disprove the audible differences among cables, for instance, without mentioning dbt's? Following this thread as someone who is still a subjectivist and who has been taken aback by some objectivist posts on RAHE I believe that RAHE should stay just as it is. The objectivist view is strongly presented and defended here, and so far as I know this is the only forum in the internet where that is so. It's a minority point of view that is suppressed elsewhere. If newcomers are sometimes treated a bit "brusquely" (note: understatement) that would seem to me to be an inevitable part of having a vigorous debate which may eventually lead to establishing broader acceptance of a more rational view of evaluating components. That would benefit all audiophiles. After all there is always the entire rest of the internet for someone seeking the subjectivist viewpoint. Wylie Williams Hear, hear! And rest assured, some of us are concerned about the brusqueness, and are looking for a benign way to address it. bob |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
Dennis Moore wrote:
Well the dbt's seem impotent in matters of emotional realism as discussed in the faq to this group. Yet everyone with another idea get beat over the head endlessly by the dbt results. They have their place, and I don't mind some of them. But something is amiss. Too many components long term will give satisfaction that others supposedly sounding the same don't. Or too many that supposedly are more accurate are less enjoyable to listen to long term. I have read all the arguments about why this is so, and don't with to go thru it again. Those touting the dbt route as the only rational route to take consider there is nothing real to investigate otherwise. Please don't erect a strawman, if you really want a genuine discussion. No one said that the "dbt route is the only rational route to consider". You can say you like a certain cable or a certain amp for whatever reason. Accuracy is not the only factor in choosing equipment. What I really don't understand is that there are many places where subjectivity is the rule. Why try to make this newsgroup another one? Yet some of the better of that equipment seems to satisfy in ways the supposedly accurate just as good equipment often doesn't. Have you heard of "euphonic distortion"? And currently any meaningful discussion about that is not possible here. Another strawman. What is preventing you from having a "meaningful discussion"? The problem I see is that some people are upset because the discussions they want to engage in are not technically meaningful, and they were pointed out by other posters. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
Harry Lavo wrote:
"chung" wrote in message ... Dennis Moore wrote: Well Tom, as is usual. No discussing with you, without you getting off topic. The thread again was specifically about high-end as defined on RAHE. You keep talking about it as defined elsewhere. And it was of course you who talked about conceit of loving music. And you who didn't seem to want to look at the 'emotional response to music' mentioned in the faq. Oh well, now I have gotten into a ****ing contest of no use to anyone. I think the moderators need to go with definition a), be honest and drop b). And change the name to RAHF (rec.audi.high.fidelity). But of course once created they cannot change it. Well they can change the faq. Dennis If you don't want to see threads containing dbt discussions, why not create your own newsgroup, like rec.audio.dbt-free, or rec.audio.subjectivist? Or simply frequent those sections of Audio Asylum where dbt's are banned? A unique and very valuable feature of rec.audio.high-end is the debunking of high-end myths, and dbt's, unfortunately for some, are a necessary part of the debunking process. How else can you prove or disprove the audible differences among cables, for instance, without mentioning dbt's? But how can you give dbt's as traditionally practice such "power" when they are not unchallengeable? Well, I see you, Mirabel, Kuller challenging them every day, so why do you say they are unchallengeable? Given that dbt's are banned at a lot of forums, I would say that dbt's don't get nearly enough recognition. Remember, a while back I introduced a scientific study published by Oohashi et al that among other things suggests that a different form of double-blind-testing may be more music-friendly (showing significant differences where the more traditional quick-switching blind a-b or a-b-x fail to show the difference). This should be a warning flag to the dbt fraternity that some of the arguments put forth in the past by subjectivists might have an element of truth to them. Worthy of investigation, at least. I think a lot of posters have voiced their opinions on that paper. Instead, I was attacked for bringing the article to light, the researchers were implied to be on the take, the existing orthodoxy was trotted out as being "irrefutable", and a whole range of defense mechanisms were raised. This hardly suggests a search for truth. Has anyone been able to repeat that experiment and arrive at the same conclusion? Rather it has the earmarks of a rather pedantic "there-is-nothing-new-to-be-discovered" attitude here that is rather more comfortable with the status quo than some of us believe is healthy. So when this attitude is used to beat all conflicting observation to death, it becomes onerous to people who are willing to consider the orthodoxy but don't like being beat into submission with it. I don't think Mirabel or Kuller feel they have been beaten into submission at all. In fact, the casual observer may even conclude that Mirabel had everyone else beat into submission .On the other hand, why not one person has picked up that cable dbt cash reward? |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 01:47:37 GMT, "Harry Lavo"
wrote: Remember, a while back I introduced a scientific study published by Oohashi et al that among other things suggests that a different form of double-blind-testing may be more music-friendly (showing significant differences where the more traditional quick-switching blind a-b or a-b-x fail to show the difference). This should be a warning flag to the dbt fraternity that some of the arguments put forth in the past by subjectivists might have an element of truth to them. No, because the key is still the double-blind element. In fact ABChr is more commonly used than simple ABX by professionals in the field. The 'subjectivists' OTOH don't seem able to hear these 'obvious' differences unless they *know* what is connected. Worthy of investigation, at least. Instead, I was attacked for bringing the article to light, the researchers were implied to be on the take, the existing orthodoxy was trotted out as being "irrefutable", and a whole range of defense mechanisms were raised. Did you consider that this *was* in fact sponsored 'research' with an expected result? This hardly suggests a search for truth. Rather it has the earmarks of a rather pedantic "there-is-nothing-new-to-be-discovered" attitude here that is rather more comfortable with the status quo than some of us believe is healthy. So when this attitude is used to beat all conflicting observation to death, it becomes onerous to people who are willing to consider the orthodoxy but don't like being beat into submission with it. The attitude has *always* been that we're all more than happy to welcome new *evidence* of audible differences, but the 'subjectivists' never seem to be able to find *any* way of providing it. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
"Harry Lavo" wrote
Remember, a while back I introduced a scientific study published by Oohashi et al that among other things suggests that a different form of double-blind-testing may be more music-friendly (showing significant differences where the more traditional quick-switching blind a-b or a-b-x fail to show the difference). This should be a warning flag to the dbt fraternity that some of the arguments put forth in the past by subjectivists might have an element of truth to them. Worthy of investigation, at least. Instead, I was attacked for bringing the article to light, the researchers were implied to be on the take, the existing orthodoxy was trotted out as being "irrefutable", and a whole range of defense mechanisms were raised. This hardly suggests a search for truth. Rather it has the earmarks of a rather pedantic "there-is-nothing-new-to-be-discovered" attitude here that is rather more comfortable with the status quo than some of us believe is healthy. So when this attitude is used to beat all conflicting observation to death, it becomes onerous to people who are willing to consider the orthodoxy but don't like being beat into submission with it. You would think that adherents of objective testing would welcome variety in approaches to their goal of evaluating audio objectively rather than subjectively. But where human personality is a factor there are goals and then there are goals. At times it seems that the primary goal of some contributors on RAHE is not the promotion or sharing of knowledge of the advantages of the objective approach. That may have been the original inspiration, but sometimes the goal seems to be a quest for dominance: "I'm smart; you're dumb. Admit it.", with the accompanying lack of civility that necessarily accompanies any form of browbeating. As it doesn't take much of this to discourage most people the result is to create a high percentage of transient participants and lurkers. That's a shame, because the objective approach should be better served. It's not as though it has a home elsewhere like the one it has found on RAHE. Let us hope that the discussion will evolve and improve, and become more inclusive and tolerant of different approaches, such as the one you offered. Wylie Williams |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
chung wrote in message .net...
Dennis Moore wrote: Well the dbt's seem impotent in matters of emotional realism as discussed in the faq to this group. Yet everyone with another idea get beat over the head endlessly by the dbt results They have their place, and I don't mind some of them. But something is amiss. Too many components long term will give satisfaction that others supposedly sounding the same don't. Or too many that supposedly are more accurate are less enjoyable to listen to long term. I have read all the arguments about why this is so, and don't with to go thru it again. Those touting the dbt route as the only rational route to take consider there is nothing real to investigate otherwise. Please don't erect a strawman, if you really want a genuine discussion. No one said that the "dbt route is the only rational route to consider". You can say you like a certain cable or a certain amp for whatever reason. Accuracy is not the only factor in choosing equipment. What I really don't understand is that there are many places where subjectivity is the rule. Why try to make this newsgroup another one? Yet some of the better of that equipment seems to satisfy in ways the supposedly accurate just as good equipment often doesn't. Have you heard of "euphonic distortion"? Yes, I'm sure he heard the name. I did too. I just wonder why giving a somewhat negatively coloured name should affect sensory perception. Everytime I choose MY favourite seat in a concert hall I choose MY kind of "euphonic distortion". Everytime I listen to speakers away from an anechoic chamber I'm subject to "euphonic distortion". Where do YOU listen? Everytime I prefer Merlot admixture to undiluted Cabernet Sauvignon I'm subject to tasting distortion. Everytime I choose my seat in amovie house I'm subject to my kind of "visual distortion'. And so on. Giving a name is just giving a name. "Distortion" is a bad name. Funeral Director is meant to sound better than undertaker and "hospitality class" better than "tourist". Pure science. And currently any meaningful discussion about that is not possible here. Another strawman. What is preventing you from having a "meaningful discussion"? The problem I see is that some people are upset because the discussions they want to engage in are not technically meaningful, and they were pointed out by other posters. I'll speak for myself. When I give an opinion I say it is an opinion and what to you constitutes "technical meaningfulness" is the last one of my concerns.. But I will react to silly challenges to "prove" opinions by an unproven "test" with results as dependent on the individual doing it as anything else in life. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
|
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
"Nousaine" wrote in message
. net... "Wylie Williams" wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote Remember, a while back I introduced a scientific study published by Oohashi et al that among other things suggests that a different form of double-blind-testing may be more music-friendly (showing significant differences where the more traditional quick-switching blind a-b or a-b-x fail to show the difference). This should be a warning flag to the dbt fraternity that some of the arguments put forth in the past by subjectivists might have an element of truth to them. Worthy of investigation, at least. Instead, I was attacked for bringing the article to light, the researchers were implied to be on the take, the existing orthodoxy was trotted out as being "irrefutable", and a whole range of defense mechanisms were raised. This hardly suggests a search for truth. Rather it has the earmarks of a rather pedantic "there-is-nothing-new-to-be-discovered" attitude here that is rather more comfortable with the status quo than some of us believe is healthy. So when this attitude is used to beat all conflicting observation to death, it becomes onerous to people who are willing to consider the orthodoxy but don't like being beat into submission with it. You would think that adherents of objective testing would welcome variety in approaches to their goal of evaluating audio objectively rather than subjectively. But where human personality is a factor there are goals and then there are goals. At times it seems that the primary goal of some contributors on RAHE is not the promotion or sharing of knowledge of the advantages of the objective approach. That may have been the original inspiration, but sometimes the goal seems to be a quest for dominance: "I'm smart; you're dumb. Admit it.", with the accompanying lack of civility that necessarily accompanies any form of browbeating. As it doesn't take much of this to discourage most people the result is to create a high percentage of transient participants and lurkers. That's a shame, because the objective approach should be better served. It's not as though it has a home elsewhere like the one it has found on RAHE. Let us hope that the discussion will evolve and improve, and become more inclusive and tolerant of different approaches, such as the one you offered. Wylie Williams Why don't you or Harry include bias controlled listening in your methods? It's not that hard. Be more inclusive and tolerant. " "It's not that hard?" Reading RAHE posts makes it look like a very involved process, especially since RAHE members argue at length about the validity of the methods, the conduct of the tests, and the credibility of the results. But if there is a simple method I would like to see instructions. I am considering comparing three amps I own. Normally I would have just substited and listened to each a few days, comparing opinions with my wife as we went along, but I will consider bias controlled listening. Wylie Williams |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
ludovic mirabel wrote:
chung wrote in message .net... Dennis Moore wrote: Well the dbt's seem impotent in matters of emotional realism as discussed in the faq to this group. Yet everyone with another idea get beat over the head endlessly by the dbt results They have their place, and I don't mind some of them. But something is amiss. Too many components long term will give satisfaction that others supposedly sounding the same don't. Or too many that supposedly are more accurate are less enjoyable to listen to long term. I have read all the arguments about why this is so, and don't with to go thru it again. Those touting the dbt route as the only rational route to take consider there is nothing real to investigate otherwise. Please don't erect a strawman, if you really want a genuine discussion. No one said that the "dbt route is the only rational route to consider". You can say you like a certain cable or a certain amp for whatever reason. Accuracy is not the only factor in choosing equipment. What I really don't understand is that there are many places where subjectivity is the rule. Why try to make this newsgroup another one? Yet some of the better of that equipment seems to satisfy in ways the supposedly accurate just as good equipment often doesn't. Have you heard of "euphonic distortion"? Yes, I'm sure he heard the name. I did too. Interestingly, there's a letter in the new issue of Stereophile from J. Gordon Holt himself, blasting Stereophile and the audio review industry generally for abandoning evaluation of and the search for *accuracy* in favor of touting what he calls *euphonic colorations*. -- -S. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
"Wylie Williams" wrote in message ...
"Nousaine" wrote in message . net... Why don't you or Harry include bias controlled listening in your methods? It's not that hard. Be more inclusive and tolerant. " "It's not that hard?" Reading RAHE posts makes it look like a very involved process, especially since RAHE members argue at length about the validity of the methods, the conduct of the tests, and the credibility of the results. Remember, some people here want to make it seem as hard as possible, because they don't want to deal with its implications. Indeed, if you want to do publishable research, it is quite a chore getting everything right. But as this is only a hobby, you don't have to take it that far, if you don't want to. But if there is a simple method I would like to see instructions. I am considering comparing three amps I own. Normally I would have just substited and listened to each a few days, comparing opinions with my wife as we went along, but I will consider bias controlled listening. Do you have a way to plug in two amps at once and switch between them? You also need a way to level-match them. That's done at the speaker terminals with a voltmeter, and I'll let someone who knows what they're talking about explain that process. All you need is an assistant who, without your knowledge, flips a coin and decides which amp gets plugged into which output. That way, you're comparing two amps, level-matched, without knowing which is which. You can switch between them at will (which means you can switch back and forth fairly constantly, or you can listen for a long time to one, then to the other). This isn't perfect. Just knowing that they're two different amps might be enough to make you think they sound different. (Really! Our brains aren't as reliable as we think.) But you might find that, listening blind, it's a lot harder to spot the distinguishing characteristics that seemed so obvious when you knew which amp was which. bob |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
Imagine that we make a 3rd category of test: 1. sighted, 2. dbt,
3. you can't see it, but we tell you what it is. Would this affect the outcome? IOW, what is it about blind testing that makes it so stressful, and the results unacceptable? Norm Strong Let us just say for example you were taking a test to see which of two pretty girls you preferred, by seeing them in different circumstances in different pictures. No problem picking now is it? Now imagine picking to see which of two nice girls you prefer. And both were former girlfriends. You were being tested for your emotional and other reactions. Would this be different from the other preference test? Do you see the difference? Can emotions in general be switched up or down and back and forth during DBT's? |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 05:37:50 GMT, (ludovic mirabel) wrote: Yes, I'm sure he heard the name. I did too. I just wonder why giving a somewhat negatively coloured name should affect sensory perception. Simple really. It's distortion, which makes it a bad thing if you are interested in *high fidelity* music reproduction. It's euphonic, which means that it sounds pleasant. Hence, some people may well prefer the effect, but it's still inaccurate. It all depends what you want - a pleasant sound, or 'the closest approach to the original sound'. You can't be serious. You do not really believe that what arrives at my preamp. is "the original sound". You know better than I do that it is what the particular configuration of particular microphones that the particular audio-enginner happens to believe in hears in a particular concert-hall. Then our engineer closeted in his little room listens to whatever is coming at him from his litlle monitor speaker and proceeds to mix, equalise and shape according to his idea of what the "average guy with the average set" wants to hear. And the end-result is the D.G idea of what a symphony orchestra sounds like. I then listen to it in my room with my standing waves, my room reflexions and my better or worse components. Whereupon I fall on my face and say: "Good Lord, this violin sounds like someone scratching white chalk on the blackboard. But I must not touch it- this is what DG wanted me to hear and so be it." Just kidding: I interpose my Behringer digital equaliser and fiddle with my JVC X1000P Digital Sound Processor and thank my lucky stars that I got one when it was still available. They don't make them any longer. "Original sound" rules. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote
Simple really. It's distortion, which makes it a bad thing if you are interested in *high fidelity* music reproduction. It's euphonic, which means that it sounds pleasant. Hence, some people may well prefer the effect, but it's still inaccurate. It all depends what you want - a pleasant sound, or 'the closest approach to the original sound'. There is an argument to be made for "a pleasant sound". I have heard systems described as "accurate" that were not at all pleasant. I imagine that a perfect system would so closely approach the original sound that it would satisfy both the soul of the listener and whatever is satisfied by accuracy. My hope of attaining that perfect system is ZERO, so I have to compromise. I have to compromise on the components that I use (because of cost), the room that I use (because of cost) and the software that I use (because the music I like may or may not be available well recorded) so if I could be certain it would be a sufficiently pleasant system I would happily compromise in that direction. I could justify this by saying that I want the sound not for itself but for the effect, and tI'd accept an inaccurate effect that is as much enjoyment as the original sound. If the desired effect were to create a measurably closer approach to the original sound for whatever end that would serve I might prefer a "better" system that was not so enjoyable. I wish I did not have to consider compromise, but I do and if I have to err let it be on the side of enjoyment. For example, we all know that x dollars spent on a system that would satisfy a listener of chamber music would purchase a system that a rock and roll kid would incinerate in a matter of minutes. And that the system that would satisfy the kid would not please the chamber musiocc listener. So almost any system most of us can afford is a compromise. The problem is figuring out how to go about making the best compromise. Wylie Williams |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
"Wylie Williams" wrote in message But if
there is a simple method I would like to see instructions. I am considering comparing three amps I own. Normally I would have just substited and listened to each a few days, comparing opinions with my wife as we went along, but I will consider bias controlled listening. Wylie Williams Which method of testing makes more sense Wylie? Doing DBT's or SBT's which you may never use any of these amps for again. Or hooking them up for a few days. Seeing how you feel about them at the end of it. And picking the one you feel good about to keep listening to long term. Which method of selection comes closest to matching the long term use of the product? Dennis |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
|
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news:%P33b.274985$Ho3.35716@sccrnsc03... "Dennis Moore" wrote in message news  0X2b.273368$uu5.62103@sccrnsc04"Wylie Williams" wrote in message But if there is a simple method I would like to see instructions. I am considering comparing three amps I own. Normally I would have just substituted and listened to each a few days, comparing opinions with my wife as we went along, but I will consider bias controlled listening. Wylie Williams Which method of testing makes more sense Wylie? Doing DBT's or SBT's which you may never use any of these amps for again. Or hooking them up for a few days. Seeing how you feel about them at the end of it. And picking the one you feel good about to keep listening to long term. ..and then never using any of these amps again but the one selected. Of course, there is nothing that keeps one from "hooking them up for a few days" under DBT conditions. Which method of selection comes closest to matching the long term use of the product? Since there need not be any difference in the timetable or listening circumstances for the evaluations, they are equally close to matching the long term use of the product. However, I think it needs to be said that long term listening has been thoroughly investigated under DBT conditions, and found to be very insensitive when it comes to reliably perceiving small audible differences. How about in perceiving less direct but more important "gestalt" difference? EG, depth of soundstage, focus of instruments, accuracy of timbre over a range from ppp to fff, etc. These are the kinds of things audiophiles can hear in a relaxed, monadic state that they have trouble believing are imagainary when they are put into the typical blind a-b or especially a-b-x test which uses much more of a left -brain approach and based on your own comments here seem mostly sensitive to frequency response and loudness. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
|
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:51X2b.273375$uu5.62165@sccrnsc04...
In article OmC2b.261889$YN5.180858@sccrnsc01, (ludovic mirabel) writes: But I will react to silly challenges to "prove" opinions by an unproven "test" with results as dependent on the individual doing it as anything else in life. Please quote where anyone on the group has ever challenged anyone to prove their opinion by using any sort of test. I really don't think you can since it hasn't happened. S. Sullivan: "Blind test question" Aug 23 disagrees: "Actually, ludovic, what tends to happen far more often, is that skeptics ask subjectivists to prove *their* claims, which is quite proper. " I suggest just a little more careful reading before asking time-wasting questions. Plenty more to find where this one comes from but I can think of better uses for my time than rereading old files to answer anyone's imaginings. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
Steven Sullivan wrote in message ...
ludovic mirabel wrote: Delete discussion between Chung and others and save the only sentence of my own quoted by Mr. Sullivan under the heading "L.M. writes" L. Mirabel: Yes, I'm sure he heard the name. I did too. S. Sullivan: Interestingly, there's a letter in the new issue of Stereophile from J. Gordon Holt himself, blasting Stereophile and the audio review industry generally for abandoning evaluation of and the search for *accuracy* in favor of touting what he calls *euphonic colorations*. I haven't seen this issue as yet. But my guess, based on his well-known views, is that Mr. Holt was blasting the "euphonic coloration" added in by the audio engineer using his roomful of mixers, processors and equalisers. My high-fidelity faith is not to what a record company chooses to put in my hands. It is to the original sound of unamplified instruments. And if I have to use my own processing to try to rescue the violin, the cello and the clarinet from the "euphonic colouration" garbage in which some record companies (Philips the least, D.G. most) choose to drown it so be it. It is my taste against theirs. Subjectivity rules. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
In article bud3b.277568$YN5.190095@sccrnsc01,
(ludovic mirabel) writes: (Audio Guy) wrote in message news:51X2b.273375$uu5.62165@sccrnsc04... In article OmC2b.261889$YN5.180858@sccrnsc01, (ludovic mirabel) writes: But I will react to silly challenges to "prove" opinions by an unproven "test" with results as dependent on the individual doing it as anything else in life. Please quote where anyone on the group has ever challenged anyone to prove their opinion by using any sort of test. I really don't think you can since it hasn't happened. S. Sullivan: "Blind test question" Aug 23 disagrees: "Actually, ludovic, what tends to happen far more often, is that skeptics ask subjectivists to prove *their* claims, which is quite proper. " I suggest just a little more careful reading before asking time-wasting questions. Plenty more to find where this one comes from but I can think of better uses for my time than rereading old files to answer anyone's imaginings. It seems you equate "ask" with "challenge". I'm sure I don't and I doubt that was Mr. Sullivan's intention. Please quote where some was "challenged" to "prove" their "opinions", or quit bringing up that strawman. |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
ludovic mirabel wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote in message ... ludovic mirabel wrote: Delete discussion between Chung and others and save the only sentence of my own quoted by Mr. Sullivan under the heading "L.M. writes" L. Mirabel: Yes, I'm sure he heard the name. I did too. S. Sullivan: Interestingly, there's a letter in the new issue of Stereophile from J. Gordon Holt himself, blasting Stereophile and the audio review industry generally for abandoning evaluation of and the search for *accuracy* in favor of touting what he calls *euphonic colorations*. I haven't seen this issue as yet. But my guess, based on his well-known views, is that Mr. Holt was blasting the "euphonic coloration" added in by the audio engineer using his roomful of mixers, processors and equalisers. My recollection is that it was a blast at the reviewers who reviewed *equipment*. But someone who actually has the issue at hand can perhaps clarify. -- -S. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
Wylie,
I often use a good set of head phones as reference, when evaluating components. It seems clearly to point out if there are problems with the set up or acoustics. It is not an universal solution, but to me it seems to work. KE "Wylie Williams" wrote in message news:3rd3b.276870$o%2.127182@sccrnsc02... "Arny Krueger" wrote However, I think it needs to be said that long term listening has been thoroughly investigated under DBT conditions, and found to be very insensitive when it comes to reliably perceiving small audible differences. I am not looking for small differences; as I certainly can't reliably perceive them. I want to discover if there are any obvious differences, and to identify them so I can, as someone once phrased it to me, "specify my colorations". And I may have an Audio Authority amplifier switcher in my treasure trove of unsold store leftovers in the chaos of my basement storage. Fresh question - Does a switcher in the signal path degrade the sound? I always assumed that a switcher would not be as good as hard wired, but I can't quite figure how anyone would test escept by subjective listening.. Wylie Williams |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
ludovic mirabel wrote:
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:51X2b.273375$uu5.62165@sccrnsc04... In article OmC2b.261889$YN5.180858@sccrnsc01, (ludovic mirabel) writes: But I will react to silly challenges to "prove" opinions by an unproven "test" with results as dependent on the individual doing it as anything else in life. Please quote where anyone on the group has ever challenged anyone to prove their opinion by using any sort of test. I really don't think you can since it hasn't happened. S. Sullivan: "Blind test question" Aug 23 disagrees: "Actually, ludovic, what tends to happen far more often, is that skeptics ask subjectivists to prove *their* claims, which is quite proper. " Indeed: I wrote the word *claims*, rather than *opinions*, for a reason. I suggest just a little more careful reading before asking time-wasting questions. And in your case, posting time-wasting 'answers'. -- -S. |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:nsd3b.276882$o%2.127236@sccrnsc02...
"Wylie Williams" wrote in message ... "Nousaine" wrote in message . net... "Wylie Williams" wrote: See previous discussion below: Why don't you or Harry include bias controlled listening in your methods? It's not that hard. Be more inclusive and tolerant. " "It's not that hard?" Reading RAHE posts makes it look like a very involved process, especially since RAHE members argue at length about the validity of the methods, the conduct of the tests, and the credibility of the results. But if there is a simple method I would like to see instructions. I am considering comparing three amps I own. Normally I would have just substited and listened to each a few days, comparing opinions with my wife as we went along, but I will consider bias controlled listening. Wylie Williams At a risk of stirring up a hornets' nest here is a protocol I use because I find that the task of remembering A, then remembering B, and finally comparing X with my memories of A and B results in complete confusion and random guessing, I want a synchronous, simultaneous comparison with no memorisation required. This is me and I guess some others too. I will not repeat the evidence from the past records that there could be many others like myself accounting for the uniformly negative results of the recorded and published ABX component tests audiophile panels. I want to emphasize that I have nothing against anyone using the ABX approach if they feel comfortable with it, have the required ABX switch, a voltmeter for exact levelling etc. My approach centers frankly on preference. Insisting on "difference and difference only" may be a prerequisite in research. An audiophile wants help to exercise his consumer choice. Secondly, while roughly level volumes between the left and right side are desirable. Very exact levelling is not necessary. Other common sense precautions a compare like with like: testing a 400watt amp against a 5watt SET is waste of time. You can not compare signal source against signal source this way ie. a cdplayer against a cdplayer, turntable against a turntable. You cannot compare speakers because that requires special facilities for moving them fast to an exact position . Same of course applies to ABX testing. You can compare interconnects, power cables and power controllers, interconnects, preamps, amps, dacs. An obliging partner is a necessity. 1) Get a monophonic or near monophonic (eg. centred soprano) signal source. MUSICAL, not an artefact. 2) On the left insert one component, on the right the OTHER ONE- (in the case of interconnects using two of one kind together i.e.source to preamp and preamp to amp on each side will give better contrast.) 3) Listen -write down your preference, get blinded. 4) An assistant now changes AT RANDOM (coin throw) both components from one side to the other or (of course) leaves them where they are keeping the records. 5) This is repeated minimum 15 times- for any length of time and with interval for lunch if you like. EVERY TIME you note your preference The repetition and change are the CRUX. At this point INVARIABLY someone says: No good, room sides differ, levels differ subtly etc. Answer;If there are differences between room sides, speaker volumes etc. and yet you still prefer and locate one of the two component as it moves from side to side surely, that REINFORCES the results- yes? no? Eg. The bass is distorted on one side of your room but you still have a statistically significant positive results: "I prefer the sound of this preamp on EITHER side." The other theoretical objections from the people who never tried it are of little interest. The inferences from other fields (eg. research) are even less so. Apples and oranges. Even if they assure you that the Goddess of their kind of "science" is fighting on their side. The comparison is not just supposedly "instantaneous"- it is SIMULTANEOUS. While comparing turn your head from side to side as much as you like. If you have no preference give the component back to the shop. If there is any difference it is not one that matters to you =(Proviso)- at this stage of your musical experience and preference. Exactly like is the case with an ABX result NB. This is not a universally applicable "test". It is a method that suits me because it involves no memory feats that are beyond me and many others. I have no universal "scientific" pretensions. I only use it to reassure myself that I'm not a victim of delusionary bias. Those who are comfortable with ABX are of course welcome to it. Ludovic Mirabel If I were a con artist, and wanted to "prove" how acute my hearing was, this is exactly the method I would use. It's really quite clever for that purpose. Because the two sides aren't level-matched, it would be easy to tell when the two sides had been switched. (The image appears in a different place!) All one has to do is declare a "preference" on the first trial. After that, since you'll always be able to tell when the switch has been made, it's hardly a challenge to declare the same "preference" repeatedly. No wonder you've impressed your friends with this trick. Now, why don't you try it level-matched, and double-blind, and then submit an article to JAES (or even S&V!), so we can see what the results really are? bob |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
"Wylie Williams" wrote in message
news:3rd3b.276870$o%2.127182@sccrnsc02 "Arny Krueger" wrote However, I think it needs to be said that long term listening has been thoroughly investigated under DBT conditions, and found to be very insensitive when it comes to reliably perceiving small audible differences. I am not looking for small differences; as I certainly can't reliably perceive them. I wouldn't give up that easily. I want to discover if there are any obvious differences, and to identify them so I can, as someone once phrased it to me, "specify my colorations". That's generally pretty easy to do, if the differences in coloration actually exist in large enough amounts to be heard. And I may have an Audio Authority amplifier switcher in my treasure trove of unsold store leftovers in the chaos of my basement storage. Fresh question - Does a switcher in the signal path degrade the sound? It may or it may not. It's not just the switcher that matters, it's the whole comparison system, cables, switcher, level matching, equipment providing the signal, speakers, etc. We spent years developing this switching hardware http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_hdwr.htm to deal with these issues. I can find no online documentation about audio authority loudspeaker/amplifier switchers, so they are unknown to me. I always assumed that a switcher would not be as good as hard wired, but I can't quite figure how anyone would test except by subjective listening.. Switching well-done can be totally sonically transparent. However, setup and verification can be challenging. The comparisons aren't valid unless there is excellent level matching. I eliminated switchers from audio equipment listening tests by means of the procedures demonstrated at my PCABX web site. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
What is so high end about high end?
"Dennis Moore" wrote in message
news:Wud3b.277945$Ho3.37329@sccrnsc03 "Arny Krueger" wrote in message news:%P33b.274985$Ho3.35716@ However, I think it needs to be said that long term listening has been thoroughly investigated under DBT conditions, and found to be very insensitive when it comes to reliably perceiving small audible differences. And it precisely this difference that keeps people wondering about DBT's. Why? Is there valid, reliable a-priori evidence that DBTs fail to detect audible differences? Equipment that supposedly sounds identical under conditions of DBT's gives different levels of satisfaction long term. Isn't there more to audio equipment than just sound quality? And you must admit, while possible to do so, it is unusual for DBT's to be done with switching done on a scale of days. Once one finds that something is futile, one is not encouraged to spend a tremendous amount of time with it. So should we be so surprised that a method developed and found most telling under short term comparisons gives different than expected results when used for long term comparison. There's no reliable evidence that this is the case. Indeed, there is reliable evidence that this is NOT the case. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Help -- connecting an amplifier using a high input | Car Audio | |||
| High Pass Filtering - How Audible? | Audio Opinions | |||
| Direct Connect Hub With Only High Quality MP3s? | Audio Opinions | |||
| "High Power" Head Unit to Power Separates? | Car Audio | |||
| High End Hyperbole | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
