Fear and loathing not required

[wgscott]

...

 

<snip>

A corollary of this is that all empirical "facts" are really hypothesis-laden observations. So rather than say we can't call facts "objective", what I would suggest is that we can't call facts indisputable. (If they aren't objective, then they can't be proven to be wrong.) They are hypotheses, and like all others, have to be tested. All of our knowledge, including empirical observables (facts) is in this sense tentative.

[wgscott]

We were born with a pair of ears, and some dedicated engineers, with further improvements over the years by later generations of engineers, gave us the ability to construct some very good electronic amplification and transducers.

The final test isn't what some checksum deigned by man who isn't infallible may report , or well intentioned DBTs designed by the very side that wishes to disprove the proposition.

DBTs are unable to do this, they can only suggest a possibility. Nothing more.

The final arbiter must always be what our ears tell us repeatedly under non sighted conditions, not what measurements taken by those with an axe to grind may say. With most null tests in other Audio areas, the results are more often than not, not a complete null, but the person performing the tests invariably claims that the results are beyond the limits of audibility. How arrogant is that ?

Yet once again wgscott has used my reports in a thread to further his own personal agenda, when in this thread there was no reason to do so.

 

I think your hypothesis (and its opposite, null hypothesis) is a good example. Since you bring it up in every thread, I thought it was fair game. But just to put you at ease, let's examine the competing hypothesis instead.

 

The null hypothesis is that two files with identical sha1 or md5sum checksums will sound the same. I think any reasonable person would accept that the null hypothesis in this case has to be wrong if (1) the two measure differently or (2) a DBT allows one to distinguish between them in a statistically significant way. I think (1) would be more compelling, personally, so if you don't like DBT, lets stick with that. If they measure differently, then they really are objectively different, and you are right and I am wrong.

 

By what criteria would you be willing to accept that you are wrong?

[esldude]

I think you are on to something here, but if you permit me to substitute the "objective/subjective" dichotomy (which I never really liked or even encountered before coming here) with something that I think might actually more accurately represent what you have in mind, then I think the essence of what you are saying might become a little bit clearer. If I have totally misconstrued what you are suggesting, please forgive me.

 

In philosophy of science, the problem of understanding what the difference is between empirically-based knowledge and religious belief has been ongoing for several hundred years. Perhaps a slightly more neutral way of putting that is the question of what distinguishes natural and physical sciences from metaphysics (which would include religion as well as stuff like Freudian psychology). Karl Popper came up with a compelling argument in favor of drawing a line based on what is testable, suggesting we reserve the idea of a scientific hypothesis for one that can be tested and potentially refuted. In other words, a scientific hypothesis, at least implicitly if not explicitly, should be able to tell you under what circumstances you can safely reject it as being wrong. Religious explanations of phenomena, and Freudian psychological explanations of phenomena, for example, don't do this. If everything can be explained in terms of your desire to murder your father and boink your mother, for example, then there are no conditions under which that psychological explanation can be rejected, and it therefore is not testable and it lacks genuine explanatory power.

 

The idea of testing conjectures and refuting them is derived from David Hume, who showed that beyond the realm of pure logic and mathematics, you cannot prove anything (there is no inductive proof in science). The only way to proceed, then, is to try to refute something, and if you try as hard as possible to prove something wrong, and you cannot, then you can begin to have some confidence in your conjecture or hypothesis or whatever you want to call it. (This is essentially Popper's principle of falsification.)

 

A corollary of this is that all empirical "facts" are really hypothesis-laden observations. So rather than say we can't call facts "objective", what I would suggest is that we can't call facts indisputable. (If they aren't objective, then they can't be proven to be wrong.) They are hypotheses, and like all others, have to be tested. All of our knowledge, including empirical observables (facts) is in this sense tentative.

 

The difference is in what we here tend to call "subjective", which I would suggest ought to be replaced by "untestable."

 

If someone claims there is an audible difference between two audio files that have the same sha1 checksum, this is a testable hypothesis. There is also a corresponding "null" hypothesis that says the two must be identical. The first claim is essentially a statement that amounts to a claim that the null hypothesis is wrong. There are at least two very simple ways to refute this null hypothesis. One is to show measured differences, and the other is a double-blind test. However, if the person claiming that two bit-identical files sound different will not accept either of those two potential examples of refutation (or another one that I may not have thought of), and they cannot come up with any potential observation the result of which would cause them to accept their hypothesis as being refuted, then they are making an untestable metaphysical claim (like Freud's Oedipus complex or a religious explanation). It doesn't mean the claim is wrong, but it does mean we have no way of knowing.

 

See InfernoSTI, I knew wgscott would do a far better job of explaining it than I did. Not just better, but nicer.

 

Well done, very well done.

[esldude]

People who feel strongly about a position based on facts must always consider they may only have some of the facts.

 

Chris: May I have your permission to place that statement in my signature line? Do you need/want me to attribute the quote to you?

Thanks,

ALEX C.

 

And what would we say about people who feel strongly about a position without any facts and who wish to ignore contradictory facts?

[sandyk]

By what criteria would you be willing to accept that you are wrong? [/quote

 

Mr. Professor of a non related audio area.

I will NEVER accept I am wrong while my friends and myself are able to demonstrate these clear differences under no sighted listening conditions through better than average equipment at 3 different Sydney locations without me even needing to be present. All they need to use are the files I have provided for them on either CDs such as those I sent to NYC earlier last year, or the files on a Corsair Voyager which is presently on loan to my EE friend from Sydney.

[gmgraves]

So, what you're saying is the high rez sellers are engaged in consumer fraud, but you think that they should continue defrauding their customers

 

 

In this modern age where greed is the overriding business ethic, it would be impossible to bring any pressure to bear on fraud of this type where so many people don't know that they're not getting what they think they're paying for. In this case, I don't think it's done on purpose (at least by the Hi-Res retailers). Places like HDTRacks rely on the record companies to supply them with high-res material and pretty much have to take those sources word for it that they are getting what they ask for. So at worst, the record companies are defrauding the Hi-Res resellers, and at best, it's a misunderstanding by those record company technicians about what the Hi-Res resellers are asking for, and why they want it. The British rag Hi-Fi News and Record Review, has a monthly article where they run so-called Hi-Res material through a spectrum analyzer and publish the graph. It's really easy to see those downloads that are merely up-sampled 16/44.1 material, as well as analog tapes that have been digitized to High-Res specs, as well as those digital recordings actually recorded at 24-bit /88.2 KHz or higher.

[Jud]

In philosophy of science, the problem of understanding what the difference is between empirically-based knowledge and religious belief has been ongoing for several hundred years. Perhaps a slightly more neutral way of putting that is the question of what distinguishes natural and physical sciences from metaphysics (which would include religion as well as stuff like Freudian psychology). Karl Popper came up with a compelling argument in favor of drawing a line based on what is testable, suggesting we reserve the idea of a scientific hypothesis for one that can be tested and potentially refuted. In other words, a scientific hypothesis, at least implicitly if not explicitly, should be able to tell you under what circumstances you can safely reject it as being wrong. Religious explanations of phenomena, and Freudian psychological explanations of phenomena, for example, don't do this. If everything can be explained in terms of your desire to murder your father and boink your mother, for example, then there are no conditions under which that psychological explanation can be rejected, and it therefore is not testable and it lacks genuine explanatory power.

 

The idea of testing conjectures and refuting them is derived from David Hume, who showed that beyond the realm of pure logic and mathematics, you cannot prove anything (there is no inductive proof in science). The only way to proceed, then, is to try to refute something, and if you try as hard as possible to prove something wrong, and you cannot, then you can begin to have some confidence in your conjecture or hypothesis or whatever you want to call it. (This is essentially Popper's principle of falsification.)

 

* * *

 

The difference is in what we here tend to call "subjective", which I would suggest ought to be replaced by "untestable."

 

If someone claims there is an audible difference between two audio files that have the same sha1 checksum, this is a testable hypothesis. There is also a corresponding "null" hypothesis that says the two must be identical. The first claim is essentially a statement that amounts to a claim that the null hypothesis is wrong. There are at least two very simple ways to refute this null hypothesis. One is to show measured differences, and the other is a double-blind test. However, if the person claiming that two bit-identical files sound different will not accept either of those two potential examples of refutation (or another one that I may not have thought of), and they cannot come up with any potential observation the result of which would cause them to accept their hypothesis as being refuted, then they are making an untestable metaphysical claim (like Freud's Oedipus complex or a religious explanation). It doesn't mean the claim is wrong, but it does mean we have no way of knowing.

 

There are some problems with the principle of falsification as a test of what is scientific.

 

One concerns hypotheses we don't have facilities to test yet, and what may not be testable even in principle. This problem is under active discussion in cosmology with regard to the "landscape" and "multiverses," as well as with reference to string theory more generally.

 

A second problem is that there may well be a test that would be accepted as falsifying a hypothesis, but the test is actually not probative; e.g., If this woman does not drown, she is a witch (or is it if she *does* drown, she's a witch? Anyway...).

 

Concerning application to audio:

 

- Multi-variable systems can become chaotic and thus not amenable to exact algorithmic solution very quickly in fairly prosaic circumstances, e.g., the three body problem in physics. Thus effects that arise out of interconnecting multiple boxen, amid environments (electrical, acoustic) that vary widely from instance to instance, may not even in principle be amenable to exact proof or disproof as general cases. Numerical modeling, particularly with ever-increasing computational power, may work. Many of the discussions of things like cable and power supply effects strike me as aspects of this sort of situation. (See, e.g., the discussion in one of the power supply threads regarding how power cords may excite transformer resonances and cause noise. Testing of the cord alone, and certainly equations regarding the idealized behavior of a simple electrical conductor, might not show these types of potential problems.)

 

- There may be effects we don't yet have a good conceptual basis to test. For example, for something as fundamental to discussions of digital audio as jitter: How much jitter is audible (and subsidiary questions, such as what type of jitter, for what type of music or other signal, and in what type of electrical-acoustic environment)? Some credible people say as little as 10-20ps or even less can have audible effects; other tests I've seen show no impact up through the range of a nanosecond or more. That's two orders of magnitude. I'd think we need a lot more precision in our concepts of how jitter works before we can get meaningful testing and discussion.

 

- If two tests appear to be contradictory, does that mean in one or both cases we are testing the right thing but the test(s) is/are badly designed? That we are testing the wrong thing? That we are testing the right thing but there are confounding variables we aren't taking into account? For example, do higher resolution files sound different than Redbook (given a system for which we could get general agreement that it would be capable of reproducing any differences)? What does the test show? If yes, is it due to reproduction of far ultrasonic energy perceived through bone conduction? Near ultrasonic energy from harmonics intermodulating perceptibly with the audible range? Inharmonic transient attacks too quick to be caught by a Redbook sample rate? More than one, all of the above, none of the above? If no, is this actually because there is no difference or because we haven't set up the test correctly to capture one of the effects mentioned above (or due to a different type of factor altogether, such as test anxiety)?

 

With these sorts of potential questions, is it anti-scientific or simply due caution to take a position that at least some questions in audio are not amenable to yes/no answers given the state of things today?

[wgscott]

I will NEVER accept I am wrong ...

 

Got it. Thanks.

[Superdad]

A second problem is that there may well be a test that would be accepted as falsifying a hypothesis, but the test is actually not probative; e.g., If this woman does not drown, she is a witch (or is it if she *does* drown, she's a witch? Anyway…).

 

Indeed, so answer the question: Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

For example, do higher resolution files sound different than Redbook (given a system for which we could get general agreement that it would be capable of reproducing any differences)? What does the test show? If yes, is it due to reproduction of far ultrasonic energy perceived through bone conduction? Near ultrasonic energy from harmonics intermodulating perceptibly with the audible range? Inharmonic transient attacks too quick to be caught by a Redbook sample rate? More than one, all of the above, none of the above?

 

You make many good points Jud. And just with regards to hi-res, I personally feel that much of the advantage of such material is that it lessens the burden (and unavoidable sonic fingerprint) on the compromised digital filters in most DACs. Well-tuned SRC--to 352.8/384KHz--done in a computer goes a long way towards making Redbook sound like native hi-def material. Yet as you point out, everyone argues about if the extended bandwidth is/is not the important thing and if we can or can not hear it.

 

So many dogs, barking up so many wrong trees. The squirrels are in the tress behind the house.

[Paul R]

A couple of issues I challenge Dr. Scott -

 

A DBT or measurement with an electronic instrument are not the only acceptable tests - plain old listening is a very valid test. There is little difference between a sighted listening test and a visual color test where a test subject is asked to identify two different colors. Or a taste test where a test subject is asked to identify sweet and bitter tastes.

 

Just like in those types of tests, a listener can be fooled of course. However, rigging any of those tests to purposely fool the test subject will result in skewed results. And that is exactly what some folks here have demanded - tests rigged to generate results that support their ideas.

 

Secondly, Popper was utterly correct IMO - when testing a mathematical theory, or a chemical reaction, or anything else where the physical environment is all that needs to be studied and evaluated. That just doesn't work with people, there is *always* a large area of uncertainty. I would change "untestable" above to be "extremely difficult to test" or "we don't have adequate testing methods".

 

If you go with that, I agree with you 100%. And the whole problem is that people are drawing untenable conclusion without having "all the facts" - just assumptions. I am of course, referring to the people on the "objectivist" side, which is as you point out, is a horrible label. Quite misleading as well.

 

-Paul

 

 

I think you are on to something here, but if you permit me to substitute the "objective/subjective" dichotomy (which I never really liked or even encountered before coming here) with something that I think might actually more accurately represent what you have in mind, then I think the essence of what you are saying might become a little bit clearer. If I have totally misconstrued what you are suggesting, please forgive me.

 

In philosophy of science, the problem of understanding what the difference is between empirically-based knowledge and religious belief has been ongoing for several hundred years. Perhaps a slightly more neutral way of putting that is the question of what distinguishes natural and physical sciences from metaphysics (which would include religion as well as stuff like Freudian psychology). Karl Popper came up with a compelling argument in favor of drawing a line based on what is testable, suggesting we reserve the idea of a scientific hypothesis for one that can be tested and potentially refuted. In other words, a scientific hypothesis, at least implicitly if not explicitly, should be able to tell you under what circumstances you can safely reject it as being wrong. Religious explanations of phenomena, and Freudian psychological explanations of phenomena, for example, don't do this. If everything can be explained in terms of your desire to murder your father and boink your mother, for example, then there are no conditions under which that psychological explanation can be rejected, and it therefore is not testable and it lacks genuine explanatory power.

 

The idea of testing conjectures and refuting them is derived from David Hume, who showed that beyond the realm of pure logic and mathematics, you cannot prove anything (there is no inductive proof in science). The only way to proceed, then, is to try to refute something, and if you try as hard as possible to prove something wrong, and you cannot, then you can begin to have some confidence in your conjecture or hypothesis or whatever you want to call it. (This is essentially Popper's principle of falsification.)

 

A corollary of this is that all empirical "facts" are really hypothesis-laden observations. So rather than say we can't call facts "objective", what I would suggest is that we can't call facts indisputable. (If they aren't objective, then they can't be proven to be wrong.) They are hypotheses, and like all others, have to be tested. All of our knowledge, including empirical observables (facts) is in this sense tentative.

 

The difference is in what we here tend to call "subjective", which I would suggest ought to be replaced by "untestable."

 

If someone claims there is an audible difference between two audio files that have the same sha1 checksum, this is a testable hypothesis. There is also a corresponding "null" hypothesis that says the two must be identical. The first claim is essentially a statement that amounts to a claim that the null hypothesis is wrong. There are at least two very simple ways to refute this null hypothesis. One is to show measured differences, and the other is a double-blind test. However, if the person claiming that two bit-identical files sound different will not accept either of those two potential examples of refutation (or another one that I may not have thought of), and they cannot come up with any potential observation the result of which would cause them to accept their hypothesis as being refuted, then they are making an untestable metaphysical claim (like Freud's Oedipus complex or a religious explanation). It doesn't mean the claim is wrong, but it does mean we have no way of knowing.

[Paul R]

Well Alex - your stubbornness is a good thing in many ways. I am glad you won't recant what you hear.

 

But you might try being more peaceful and mannerly when you feel you have to respond. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, and that includes the folks who disagree with you mate. The constant aggression is starting to wear a bit...

 

Yours,

-Paul

 

 

By what criteria would you be willing to accept that you are wrong? [/quote

 

Mr. Professor of a non related audio area.

I will NEVER accept I am wrong while my friends and myself are able to demonstrate these clear differences under no sighted listening conditions through better than average equipment at 3 different Sydney locations without me even needing to be present. All they need to use are the files I have provided for them on either CDs such as those I sent to NYC earlier last year, or the files on a Corsair Voyager which is presently on loan to my EE friend from Sydney.

[Paul R]

Oh - Chris and Jud - well said indeed!

 

-Paul

[AlainGr]

I try to behave with people here as if we were physically together. That helps me a lot not to make fun of anyone, since I start from the hypothesis that this person is attempting to understand. It's too easy to hurt someone I don't know.

 

There is a line that I try not to infringe. I try to carry the same values that are mine, even further, to respect others. That does not mean that I agree with all, but I can ask questions in a respectful fashion. Why not ? And if I am in a bad mood, I don't post.

 

As for being OBJ or SUBJ, it's not my way of perceiving things. But whatever a person considers himself (which camp), I certainly think that there is always place for an open mind.

[Superdad]

+1 Alain. I feel the same.

 

Though I do admit there is one person on this site that I would not want to have beer/wine/tequila with under any circumstances (yes, I'm talking about you, Diogenes).

[esldude]

Indeed, so answer the question: Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

 

 

You make many good points Jud. And just with regards to hi-res, I personally feel that much of the advantage of such material is that it lessens the burden (and unavoidable sonic fingerprint) on the compromised digital filters in most DACs. Well-tuned SRC--to 352.8/384KHz--done in a computer goes a long way towards making Redbook sound like native hi-def material. Yet as you point out, everyone argues about if the extended bandwidth is/is not the important thing and if we can or can not hear it.

 

So many dogs, barking up so many wrong trees. The squirrels are in the tress behind the house.

 

Just an observation. If if SRC to 352 goes a significant distance in making Redbook sound like native hi-def, then extended bandwidth isn't needed or at least it doesn't support that idea. Maybe the filtering or other factors, but even rate converted it has nothing above 20 khz. And I did notice you did not say it made Redbook equivalent to native hi-def.

[Superdad]

Just an observation. If if SRC to 352 goes a significant distance in making Redbook sound like native hi-def, then extended bandwidth isn't needed or at least it doesn't support that idea. Maybe the filtering or other factors, but even rate converted it has nothing above 20 khz. And I did notice you did not say it made Redbook equivalent to native hi-def.

 

Dennis: Is there a question in there for me? I'm 52 (with mild tinnitus) and my hearing drops off pretty fast above 13K. The benefits I hear with 24 bit/high sample rate material are not from whatever extended bandwidth it offers.

[esldude]

Dennis: Is there a question in there for me? I'm 52 (with mild tinnitus) and my hearing drops off pretty fast above 13K. The benefits I hear with 24 bit/high sample rate material are not from whatever extended bandwidth it offers.

 

It wasn't a question, as I said an observation. If the high oversampling does similar to what native high sampling does, then it isn't about bandwidth. It is about something else. So often when the topic is brought up people want to say 20 khz bandwidth isn't enough. Your observation does not support that idea. A good test would be if young adults hear the same sort of thing, that SRC redbook sounds more like native hi rate material. Also if software SRC works, in principle hardware SRC could as well. Either way you do SRC however we wouldn't need native files in bit-gobbling high sample rate formats. 48/24 should be plenty. We also would benefit in that there would not actually be any ultrasonic signal to perhaps be a problem for downstream components like speakers and amps.

[sandyk]

Well Alex - your stubbornness is a good thing in many ways. I am glad you won't recant what you hear.

 

But you might try being more peaceful and mannerly when you feel you have to respond. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, and that includes the folks who disagree with you mate. The constant aggression is starting to wear a bit...

 

Yours,

-Paul

 

 

 

Paul

With all due respect, your friend wgscott had no valid reason whatsoever to drag me into this area again.

I shouldn't have even needed to post anything on this subject in this particular thread.

 

Now for something that will almost certainly start a feeding frenzy by the "know-it-all" sceptics of the forum.

I recently posted reply 24 in the thread at the attached link. I am quite happy to demonstrate these things in Sydney as previously mentioned to any C.A. member.

I will not be responding to the usual demands of proof from closed minded sceptics. If your gear is good enough, it's easy to test these things out for yourself instead of spouting "undeniable facts" as a few here are so disposed to do.

Incidentally, this is only confirmation of a single post by another C.A. member around a month ago, that nobody else appeared to have noticed. I thought it unlikely at the time, so it was several weeks before I tried it for myself.

 

Alex

 

Watching the UK mains supply - Page 2 - General HIFI Discussion - HIFICRITIC FORUM - HIFICRITIC FORUM : hi fi audio systems forum

[mayhem13]

The below is a perfect example of why this thread should be locked or even deleted in my opinion.

-Paul

 

You mean post #39 wasn't enough for you? LOL!

[wgscott]

your friend wgscott had no valid reason whatsoever to drag me into this area again.

 

I didn't drag you into anything. You chose to make this about you. I kept it anonymous, and only gave the claim as an example of a testable hypothesis.

 

If someone claims there is an audible difference between two audio files that have the same sha1 checksum, ...

 

Get a grip. You bring this up at every single opportunity, presumably because Chris once suggested that you might not want to do so.

 

[Paul R]

Well Alex - I don't really want to spend the money to fly all the way around the planet to test this out. You know as well as I do that you don't have anything that will convince me to fly around the world on my own dime. You want to front the costs... I will consider it. And if that sounds aggravating to you, consider - it is just as aggravating to myself and other people to be taunted that way. It isn't funny.

 

And apparently, most of the gear I use and enjoy on a daily basis isn't good enough to reveal the differences you hear the way your system does. So I will take your word for it. In the meantime, I will RIP the way I always have, and enjoy the excellent results I always get.

 

I will probably upgrade the power on one of the Mac Minis when John & Alex put out their supply - perhaps more out of curiosity than expectation, but who knows? Until someone comes up with optical connections I am not terribly enthused about band-aid patches like power supplies.

 

And by that, I mean, take a look at the Ayre QB9 DSD - optically connected on the inside, and not TOSlink. Smart. And no way in the world a noisy power supply in a PC is going to jack with *that* unit over a USB link.

 

And yes, the pseudo-scientists who think they have all the facts are dratted annoying. To you, to me, to everyone. They do not understand why everyone does not see the world exactly as they do. They tell us to often enough. It is unfortunate that the Internet provides an audience for incompetent wannabe experts, without degrees or experience. That does not stop them from demanding you agree with their ideas though.

 

Bill Scott is not one of those guys. You don't find the uncompromising arrogance in Bill's posts that you find in others, though you will find a quirky and sometimes offbeat sense of humor.

 

I don't see him picking on or at you. He is being reasonable, even when he utterly disagrees with you. He even goes out of his way to avoid singling you out.

 

Which, by the way, is the idea behind this whole thread.

 

So would you rather act like Bill or one of the wannabes?

 

-Paul

 

 

Well Alex - your stubbornness is a good thing in many ways. I am glad you won't recant what you hear.

 

But you might try being more peaceful and mannerly when you feel you have to respond. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, and that includes the folks who disagree with you mate. The constant aggression is starting to wear a bit...

 

Yours,

-Paul

 

 

 

 

Paul

With all due respect, your friend wgscott had no valid reason whatsoever to drag me into this area again.

I shouldn't have even needed to post anything on this subject in this particular thread.

 

Now for something that will almost certainly start a feeding frenzy by the "know-it-all" sceptics of the forum.

I recently posted reply 24 in the thread at the attached link. I am quite happy to demonstrate these things in Sydney as previously mentioned to any C.A. member.

I will not be responding to the usual demands of proof from closed minded sceptics. If you gear is good enough, it's easy to test these things out for yourself instead of spouting "undeniable facts" as a few here are so disposed to do.

Incidentally, this is only confirmation of a single post by another C.A. member around a month ago, that nobody else appeared to have noticed. I thought it unlikely at the time, so it was several weeks before I tried it for myself.

 

Alex

 

Watching the UK mains supply - Page 2 - General HIFI Discussion - HIFICRITIC FORUM - HIFICRITIC FORUM : hi fi audio systems forum

[sandyk]

Bill Scott is not one of those guys. You don't find the uncompromising arrogance in Bill's posts that you find in others, though you will find a quirky and sometimes offbeat sense of humor.

 

I don't see him picking on or at you. He is being reasonable, even when he utterly disagrees with you. He even goes out of his way to avoid singling you out.

 

Paul

We must have major cultural differences here, because quite a few people have told me that many of his posts are plainly sarcastic. Neither do I accept that he wasn't singling me out when he could have used numerous other examples.

Any long term member will be well aware that wgscott has been trying his hardest to silence me using various forms of ridicule and sarcasm for around 4 years now. I am truly sorry that you are unable to see that.

BTW, I have never suggested that those from different continents should make a special trip here to hear these differences for themselves. Instead, I have suggested that my reports could be verified in Sydney by suitably qualified staff from Silicon Chip magazine, or even accredited staff members from perhaps Sydney Uni, just like I have done previously with Martin Colloms and others. I already have confirmation from qualified people on 3 different continents, so all it needs is a willingness to accept the possibility that previously accepted digital "dogma" may be either incorrect or incomplete, and above average listening gear using supplied software from this end.

 

Alex

[wdw]

There is that great line:

 

Why are arguments between academics so vicious? Because there is so little at stake!

 

Really, is there such stuff about audio, one of my, and assumed to be your, greatest passions/pleasures, that merits this mean derision?

 

(insert joke here...)

 

Cheers,

Warren

[InfernoSTi]

Music reproduction is not an art. If you have a source, be it vinyl or digital, the purpose of your system is to reproduce it as closely as possible. Your system at home isn't a record producer, it isn't a conductor, it isn't an pianist. It's a well understood electronic device with well defined and measurable functions. The only "art" is in your electromechanical speakers and how they interact with your room.

 

I have to respectfully disagree with you. Music reproduction is art for the entire music reproduction chain.

 

If two tweeters have the exact same specifications (Hz, dB, impedance, etc) but one is a pro style compression tweeter and the other is a air motion transfer tweeter or ribbon tweeter or soft dome tweeter or a metal dome tweeter, how do you select the one you have in your system? It isn't the specifications, it is how it sounds to you based on your personal preferences: this is art, not science. They all (theoretically) measure the same but you are emotionally moved by one and left cold by the other.

 

Amplifiers are even more so, right? SS (class A or AB or feedback or single ended) or tubes? Ultimately, you select the one that sounds better to you, never the one that sounds worse. Consider this: does a Pass Labs class A amp spec better or worse than a Pass Labs A/B amp and does that matter as much as which one sounds better to you? Amazingly, the folks who prefer the class A amp subjectively ignore the test results that show the AB amp is "better" because, to them, it isn't. This is art, not science.

 

I have set up three listening rooms (all unique shapes/sizes) and found that room treatments were an art in that I preferred the sound of diffusion on the side first reflection points more than absorption as long as it was a high prime diffuser. Low prime? Give me absorption. I liked a blend of front wall diffusion and absorption better than one or the other. In the end, these didn't change the measurements very much if any but the sound quality did change. This is art, not science.

 

We are talking about art reproduction. We don't listen to test tones. We listen to music. It must move us emotionally. It is art.

 

Best,

John

[Paul R]

Must definitely be a cultural difference - I tell you three times that what you "see" is incorrect.

 

As for the Sydney thing, it must be another cultural difference, because it sure sounds like you are taunting people to me.

 

In regard to the differences you hear, everyone is interested, but as with cold fusion, few are able to duplicate your results. We will just have to see how things turn out.

 

Perhaps you will be right and we will all learn something new. Or perhaps you are wrong and just hearing something in your playback chain. Or perhaps the answer lies somewhere else.

 

Point is, nobody knows- and that includes you. People are listening to you and things are moving ahead in your part of the world. Relax and stop snapping at everyone like an ill tempered Pekenese.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paul

We must have major cultural differences here, because quite a few people have told me that many of his posts are plainly sarcastic. Neither do I accept that he wasn't singling me out when he could have used numerous other examples.

Any long term member will be well aware that wgscott has been trying his hardest to silence me using various forms of ridicule and sarcasm for around 4 years now. I am truly sorry that you are unable to see that.

BTW, I have never suggested that those from different continents should make a special trip here to hear these differences for themselves. Instead, I have suggested that my reports could be verified in Sydney by suitably qualified staff from Silicon Chip magazine, or even accredited staff members from perhaps Sydney Uni, just like I have done previously with Martin Colloms and others. I already have confirmation from qualified people on 3 different continents, so all it needs is a willingness to accept the possibility that previously accepted digital "dogma" may be either incorrect or incomplete, and above average listening gear using supplied software from this end.

 

Alex