Article: My Lying Ears

[jabbr]

Oops, link to thread: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/showthread.php?t=27617

[Miska]

Take a RedBook file and do the interpolation and filtering required to convert to 24/192. Is there a mathematical operation that will convert the 24/192 file back to the RedBook file losslessly? (Does closed form filtering make any difference here?)

 

Yes...

[Don Hills]

(Moved to other thread)

[Teresa]

No there is no difference...You can't just go around making any claim you want and not expect someone to want the facts...I don't get how you can't understand the simple concept that if you make statements you need to be able to back them up. You can't just go around making any claim you want and not expect someone to want the facts.

 

Yes, there is a very big difference! You still do not understand listening impressions and opinions are not and have never been claims or facts. Any good reviewer will say you need to listen before you purchase.

 

I am unwilling to accept any kind of proof, one way or the other of anything audio related. I have to hear it in my system, in my room, using my ear/brain system or I have no comment. I trust no one.

 

I never demand proof of anything and I never offer proof of anything. Your demand for proof is silly IMHO, would you really rush out and buy something if someone can somehow prove to you it sounded better to them. It doesn't work for me like that, I prefer to hear things for myself instead, and only if I am interested and it feels a need or desire.

 

We don’t babysit adults, if they are unwilling to listen and compare any new purchase before the money guarantee ends that is their fault.

 

In addition, there currently are no acceptable proofs anyway since the ABX/DBTs you demand usually offer null results, proving everything statistically sounds the same, which is not true in real life. ABX/DBT has never worked in its history, with the exception of extremely large differences, as they ignore how the ears/brain/body system works.

 

The Flawed Idea Behind Any Form of AB Testing

 

Problem of cognitive bias in AB Testing

 

Aural recovery and why you can’t A-B something by flipping a switch

 

Why ABX Testing Usually Produces Null Results with Human Subjects

Blind Listening Tests are Flawed: An Editorial by Robert Harley

 

Five "human" things ensure why sighted or blind A/B testing fails to reveal statistical differences between nearly everything:

 

Cognitive bias - your brain will fill in missing information thus making both samples sound the same on repeated listening.

 

Listener Fatigue - switch back and forth too often and both music files will sound like crap.

 

Accumulative effects are hidden - Accumulative effects on sound quality increase over time and remain hidden when switching back and forth between two music files, especially things such as strident/smooth, cold/warm sound, etc.

 

Soundstage and instrument placement - it takes anywhere between 30 seconds to several minutes for my brain to map the soundstage and hear the instrument and vocal placement before I can judge anything. A/B'ing insures this never happens.

 

Confirmation Bias - In addition sighted A/B testing has to fight confirmation bias, as some people think the major brand or more expensive item must sound better. This is not always true as sometimes the unknown brand or the least expensive item sounds the best.

 

The only way I’ve discovered to get a handle on how something sounds is listening to it using a few select complete uninterrupted songs from my music collection with the lights turned out. Or if at a dealer with with lights turned low, if they can’t turn them out, and the salesman must leave the room while I listen in comfort.

 

So in conclusion, I am all for exposing any manufacturer who cheats or fudges demonstrations. However on the other hand it is not my place (or anyone else's place, including you) to tell other people what they are hearing with their ear/brain system, in their room, with their system, with their music. Since we all have different ears, different rooms, and even listen to different things in the music we love. It is not our place to tell other people what they may or may not be allowed to hear. To do so is rude IMHO.

[Sal1950]

Just the (same old same old) of ducking any responsibility for any ridiculous statements made by both so called Golden Ears and the snake-oil marketing manufacturers. As subjective audiophiles we will not let ridiculous, technically unfounded claims, on such things a multi thousand dollar digital cables and power cords go unchallenged, it is not only our place but our responsibility to call out BS when we smell it.

 

To quote Peter Aczel,

The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information? It wasn’t always so. Between the birth of “high fidelity,” circa 1947, and the early 1970s, what the engineers said was accepted by that generation of hi-fi enthusiasts as the truth. Then, as the ’70s decade grew older, the self-appointed experts without any scientific credentials started to crawl out of the woodwork. For a while they did not overpower the educated technologists but by the early ’80s they did, with the subjective “golden-ear” audio magazines as their chief line of communication. I remember pleading with some of the most brilliant academic and industrial brains in audio to fight against all the nonsense, to speak up loudly and brutally before the untutored drivel gets out of control, but they just laughed, dismissing the “flat-earthers” and “cultists” with a wave of the hand. Now look at them! Talk to the know-it-all young salesman in the high-end audio salon, read the catalogs of Audio Advisor, Music Direct, or any other high-end merchant, read any of the golden-ear audio magazines, check out the subjective audio websites—and weep. The witch doctors have taken over. Even so, all is not lost. You can still read Floyd Toole and Siegfried Linkwitz on loudspeakers, Douglas Self and Bob Cordell on amplifiers, David Rich (hometheaterhifi.com) on miscellaneous audio subjects, and a few others in that very sparsely populated club. (I am not including The Audio Critic, now that it has become almost silent.) Once you have breathed that atmosphere, you will have a pretty good idea what advice to ignore.

[Teresa]

Sal please see Post 156 in HQP vs. Vinyl Reassessment

 

I have never tried multi thousand dollar digital cables or power cords, have you? I can't afford, nor do I want them! However, I don't go around attacking things I can't afford and have no intention of listening to music through.

[Sal1950]

Sal please see Post 156 in HQP vs. Vinyl Reassessment

 

I have never tried multi thousand dollar digital cables or power cords, have you? I can't afford, nor do I want them! However, I don't go around attacking things I can't afford and have no intention of listening to music through.

 

Sorry Teresa but your words fall on deaf ears as do mine on yours. I believe in technology, measurements, and appropriately designed ABX. It's this very technology designed by EEs that brought you the components that you use. Without the science you would be without the music. Those of us in the objective community aren't going to go quietly away while the snake-oil peddlers continue to rip off gullible audiophiles that believe everything they read in the print and electronic media.

Re-read Peters post a few times and they give some thought that the world is full of unscrupulous people just looking to fool you and get in your pockets. No better example can exist than the AudioQuest HDMI video scandal. How many people do you think watched that video over the last year, heard the obvious differences and then went out and spent their money on the highest priced spread they could afford. Then after the purchase if they went "humm I didn't hear these huge differences here"? Of course if he goes internet or print media public with that result he would be bombarded by the subjective community that either his gear or hearing aren't up to the job.

Like everything else in life there are two sides to every story. By deductive listening the engineers have been pointed to weakness in design many times. We were around when amp builders started the low distortion wars using ungodly amounts of negative feedback to be able to show .000001 distortion figures. But ultimately creating unstable amps prone to "letting the smoke out" they also sounded ill with time distortions and other previously mis-understood negative sounding results.

It's all about the money and there are people that will claim anything as long is it puts the dough in their pockets. If you close you mind to what very knowledgeable engineers tell you about what all the cable snake-oil peddlers claim you'll end up in a situation where stuff like the AudioQuest video will be the norm and tame.

I know for a fact the world is full of hustlers and I will question and if possible test the claims of anything people are trying to sell me. You ears and mind are not infallible and can easily be fooled and tricked. Don't rely on them or others hearing claims only, question the conclusions.

It's your wallet we are trying to protect.

[Teresa]

Sal,

 

New cables come with a 30-day money-back satisfaction guarantee, and some even have a 60-day money-back satisfaction guarantee. I feel if a cable or any other manufacturer is not delivering the goods that are promised they would go quickly out of business. Are you saying that audiophiles are too lazy to return products that don't offer them a sonic benefit? I find that very hard to believe.

 

As I said I have never tried multi thousand dollar digital cables or power cords. I can't afford, nor do I want them! I would also assume the vast majority of posters on CA have not tried them either. So what is your crusade for?

 

No one (including you) should go around attacking things they can't afford and have no intention of listening to music through.

 

Peter Aczel of the late The Audio Critic believes pretty much everything sounds the same and that high resolution digital is no better than CD. In short his opinions are untrustworthy.

 

"16-bit/44.1-kHz processing is as good as it gets, audibly." - Peter Aczel

 

My friend, famous audio designer, John Curl has a whole room of test equipment in his apartment, I’ve seen it and it looks impressive. He uses it to make sure parts meet their stated specifications. However, he uses his ears to select which sounds the best in his designs. He has had parts with the exact same specifications that sound drastically different. He says that we can only measure a very small percentage of what we can hear and I believe him.

 

Audio ABX/DBT tests, or even simple A/B tests blind or sighted have so far in their 50 year history not worked to reveal important differences, audio designers have to rely on their ears under normal listening conditions. Why would you believe in something that has never worked? I am curious.

 

As I said before, trust no one! I can't stress this enough trust no one!!!. Audition any audio purchase in your room, with your stereo, with your music, using your ears to determine if it sounds better, worse or the same. It is your money, don't waste it.

[Sal1950]

"Are you saying that audiophiles are too lazy to return products that don't offer them a sonic benefit? I find that very hard to believe."

 

Don't, it's human nature, and not only for audiophiles. Lazy, maybe. Not willing to admit they got burned, more commonly. Ladies who bought the creams and pills that made their breasts grow, guys buying products claiming to do the same only lower, LOL they don't get returned. I could name you untold numbers of automotive products with money back guarantees that almost never get returned, oil additives, fuel additives, a million different snake-oil do-dads that promise to add 10 horse or mpg to your car. Like the do-dad products of certain audiophile hustlers they don't get returned or complained about in public. No one wants to admit they paid $100 for that little fancy colored penny they put on top of the tonearm and it did nothing. You know what will happen, a dozen golden ears will jump on him, gears or ears suck dude, the waters parted for me.

 

" So what is your crusade for?

No one (including you) should go around attacking things they can't afford and have no intention of listening to music through."

 

I can and will when I believe honest people are being lied to and taken advantage of. Didn't the AQ video hoax prove to you that these things are going on?

One of the life lessons my father gave to me was not to stand by and let people do bad thing to others. If you heard about some guy going around taking advantage of seniors in your neighborhood on home repairs would you do something or stand idly by and watch them get ripped off? I also have a gun permit to carry, and if I'm in the mall late at night and I spot someone trying to rob or molest you, I'll stop that too, its a responsibility to your fellow man.

 

"16-bit/44.1-kHz processing is as good as it gets, audibly." - Peter Aczel"

You know Peter is like 92 now but he's still not far off the mark. If you took a 24/192 file and downsampled it to 16/44 I don't believe that one in a million people could hear the difference. Not saying there's no difference but how many people have you read about screaming that the HDA thing is all a con and they hear no difference. The recordings more important. David Manley's CDs still sound just about as good as anything in my collection to me. It's only the specialty recordings played back on very good equipment that comes close to revealing any improvements over Redbook, and only the fringe of audiophile land will ever give a darn. But that's a different story.

 

"My friend, famous audio designer, John Curl has a whole room of test equipment in his apartment"

Yep but you missed a step in the process. When John is designing a new product he breadboards up the idea and way before he ever listens to it, he's measuring all sort of design attributes and goals. No sense in listening to anything if its unstable, or producing 20% distortion, maybe it's not working at all, an OPPs, we all have em. After all has been measured and tested the the finer details of listening and tweaking would enter the process.

 

"Audio ABX/DBT tests, or even simple A/B tests blind or sighted have so far in their 50 year history not worked"

Ok fine, I won't argue. So smarty what else have ya got? How do we sort the delusional claims from the truth? You can't sidestep this with "you don't care" or "just so people are happy". Some are real happy dialing in their own frequency response curve with equalizers, or headphone amps with plugin curves from a GoldenEar, or tube rolling in their tube equipment but that's about a personal preference and nothing to do with accuracy in the reproduction of a musical event.

We want a better sounding 2020 so how ya gonna clear out the BS

How ya gonna keep em down on the farm once they've seen Parie?

[Teresa]

Sal,

 

No one gets burned if they return a product under the 30 or 60 day money-back satisfaction guarantee, if the product doesn't improve their sound or makes it worse. This applies to the other things you mentioned not just audio. I know of no one stupid enough to keep something that doesn't delivery on its promises when they can get the cold hard cash back! Not getting ones money back when an audio product doesn't work out is beyond stupid, it's insane IMHO.

 

Also, you don't need to protect people from spending their own money on something they want to try, the protection is the money-back guarantee. You just sound ignorant when you try to tell other people what they are allowed or not allowed to hear. You can report your own listening observations with the product under question, this is if you have tried said product in your system.

 

Even when Peter Aczel was younger and "The Audio Critic" was a print magazine, I thought he was either tone deaf, just stupid or both. Have you read Peter Aczel's idiotic 10 biggest lies in audio? All the stuff he calls lies are actually true, not lies!

 

I didn't miss any steps in John Curl's process, I clearly stated he uses his test equipment to make sure parts meet their stated specifications. However, he uses his ears to select which sounds the best in his designs. He has had parts with the exact same specifications that sound drastically different. He says that we can only measure a very small percentage of what we can hear and I believe him. He is a subjectivist, and that is one of the reasons his award winning designs are so great!

 

You asked, "how do you sort out delusional claims?" Well, first you don't know they might be delusional, you are only guessing. As I said if a manufacturer's products don't live up to their claims, the products will be returned for refund and said manufacturer will soon be out of business.

 

The Home Entertainment by D-Tronics video was rigged to unfairly show the AudioQuest HDMI cable being superior by volume and frequency modifications. That does not mean that AudioQuest HDMI cables are not superior to the generic cable. It means Home Entertainment by D-Tronics cheated. If AudioQuest HDMI cables are sonically superior, do you really think you could hear the difference on a YouTube video which uses lossy AAC at 192 kbps or worse?

 

The David Manley ViTaL 45 RPM LPs and DSD downloads sound excellent to me, I've not heard the CDs, the quality of these recordings is one of the few things we agree on.

 

I believe the reason some don't appreciate the superior, more relaxed sound of correctly done high resolution digital is because they are buying downloads from the major labels, many of which are so bad they don't even reach the potential of lossy MP3. To really appreciate high resolution digital or even LPs for that matter one should try audiophile recordings such as Reference Recordings, Chesky, Channel Classics, Pentatone, Telarc and others. I would guess perhaps less than 10% of current high resolution downloads actually clearly show the potential of high resolution digital.

 

Because major label recordings get worse and more squashed as years go by, high resolution anything will remain a fringe product. But there is enough of us who appreciate the improvements to keep audiophile companies in business.

 

I feel about major label recordings the way you feel about cables, yet I don't warn others not to buy major label recordings or warn them not to buy CDs, even though unlike cables and other audio equipment they is no money-back guarantee for music. Why? Because many people actually enjoy those recordings and it's not my place to tell others what to buy and not to buy. I do say if one is trying audio equipment or cables make sure they have a money-back guarantee. I believe that is far more ciivil.

[Sal1950]

 

I feel about major label recordings the way you feel about cables, yet I don't warn others not to buy major label recordings or warn them not to buy CDs, even though unlike cables and other audio equipment they is no money-back guarantee for music. Why? Because many people actually enjoy those recordings and it's not my place to tell others what to buy and not to buy. I do say if one is trying audio equipment or cables make sure they have a money-back guarantee. I believe that is far more ciivil.

 

Your absolutely right on the issue of HDA , the major labels and all that. You've heard me say the same many times. But I also run a DR14 on every new recording I buy and post the results to the Dynamic Range Database if its not already up. You can also find my various posting around the web where I've warned people about badly squashed masters and also praised the good ones. Should I and everyone else that reviews recordings or components just shut up, let people read the manufactures ads, and then buy what they like, because people need to be "allowed" to buy what they want with no outside input from others? OPPS no "money-back satisfaction guarantee" on recordings that I'm aware of, he sold you IYHO a piece of crap, too bad.

 

With John your still missing the point that before he does any listening to any new design, he builds prototypes that he FIRST measures to make sure the darn thing even works and is up to the specs he aimed for. Then he'll start a listening and tweaking process on that design. His groundbreaking work on the sound of different dielectrics and mechanical design in capacitors along with Walt Jung and others who's names I know longer remember is legendary and that path was closely followed by myself and most audiophiles in the 80s. It brought about great improvements in the components use in amp design and just about every thing else. But much of that path was first done by measuring all sorts of caps and then listening to them in a circuit. There's tons of info on his work and how he did it back in the day, read some of it.

 

As to the rest you need to STOP using that word "allowed". People a allowed to use whatever they want, but not warning someone when you believe someone is about to cheat them is a matter of responsibility and morality. If your a church goer bring these posts by you there and ask them if they think you should stand idly by.

Morality has nothing to do with a "money-back satisfaction guarantee". I don't understand your position and will never discuss this issue with you again. You're "allowed" to tell me I'm wrong for telling what IMHO is the truth as much as you like, I give you my permission.

[Teresa]

Sal,

 

In the case of music, I can't condemn something I've not heard. Just as I can't condemn a cable or equipment I've not heard.

 

I no longer buy modern major label recordings recorded from the 1980's forward. It's not just the lack of dynamic range due to the loudness wars but also the large number of tracks used, and the misuse of mastering "tools" invented in the early 1980's to date.

 

Audiophile recordings began increasing in numbers beginning in the late 1970's as a protest to the gimmicky recordings of the major labels. For example the Telarc Soundstream LPs took us back to the Mercury Living Presence days of three omni directional microphones placed further back.

 

I like authentic audiophile recordings from any decade including modern ones. An authentic audiophile recording is audiophile from the microphones to the finished product. Such as:

 

Acoustic Disc

Acousence Classics

Analogue Productions Originals

AudioQuest Music

Cardas

Challenge Classics

Chandos

Channel Classics

Chesky

Crystal Clear Direct to Discs

CSO Resound

DMP

Exton

Fanfare Cincinnati

Fidelio

fonè

Groove Note

MA Recordings

Naim

Opus 3

PentaTone Classics

Pope Music

Sheffield Lab Direct to Discs

Sketti Sandwich

Stockfisch Records

Reference Recordings

Tacet

Telarc

Turtle Records

ViTaL Records (Vacuum Tube Logic)

Wilson Audiophile

 

There are people who cannot limit their purchases to 1950's-1970's major label recordings and audiophile recordings. I have even had people tell me they hate the music on audiophile recordings so it doesn't matter to them how realistic they sound.

 

Thus, if one doesn't like major label recordings made before 1980's and don't like audiophile recordings I have nothing to recommend to them. So it would make no sense to belittle the music they enjoy.

---

As far as the beginnings of John Curl's designs we are saying the same thing with different words.

 

I said "he uses his test equipment to make sure parts meet their stated specifications. However, he uses his ears to select which sounds the best in his designs."

 

You said "he builds prototypes that he FIRST measures to make sure the darn thing even works and is up to the specs he aimed for. Then he'll start a listening and tweaking process on that design."

 

Those two sentences say the same thing, I just assumed that you knew the parts he was testing were of his new prototype. "parts meet their stated specifications." is the same as "is up to the specs he aimed for."

[xyzzy1]

Just the (same old same old) of ducking any responsibility for any ridiculous statements made by both so called Golden Ears and the snake-oil marketing manufacturers. As subjective audiophiles we will not let ridiculous, technically unfounded claims, on such things a multi thousand dollar digital cables and power cords go unchallenged, it is not only our place but our responsibility to call out BS when we smell it.

 

To quote Peter Aczel,

The gullibility of audiophiles is what astonishes me the most, even after all these years. How is it possible, how did it ever happen, that they trust fairy-tale purveyors and mystic gurus more than reliable sources of scientific information? It wasn’t always so. Between the birth of “high fidelity,” circa 1947, and the early 1970s, what the engineers said was accepted by that generation of hi-fi enthusiasts as the truth. Then, as the ’70s decade grew older, the self-appointed experts without any scientific credentials started to crawl out of the woodwork. For a while they did not overpower the educated technologists but by the early ’80s they did, with the subjective “golden-ear” audio magazines as their chief line of communication. I remember pleading with some of the most brilliant academic and industrial brains in audio to fight against all the nonsense, to speak up loudly and brutally before the untutored drivel gets out of control, but they just laughed, dismissing the “flat-earthers” and “cultists” with a wave of the hand. Now look at them! Talk to the know-it-all young salesman in the high-end audio salon, read the catalogs of Audio Advisor, Music Direct, or any other high-end merchant, read any of the golden-ear audio magazines, check out the subjective audio websites—and weep. The witch doctors have taken over. Even so, all is not lost. You can still read Floyd Toole and Siegfried Linkwitz on loudspeakers, Douglas Self and Bob Cordell on amplifiers, David Rich (hometheaterhifi.com) on miscellaneous audio subjects, and a few others in that very sparsely populated club. (I am not including The Audio Critic, now that it has become almost silent.) Once you have breathed that atmosphere, you will have a pretty good idea what advice to ignore.

 

The same exists in any "hobby" where its a matter of discipline to control ones subjective analysis of something so it is objective based on experience.

 

In the wine world, there are plenty of snobs who know nothing of wine and taste but buy wines based on what others tell them.

There are plenty of magazines that cater to the know-nothing snobs.

And then there are people who can taste and appreciate what they taste and develop a language to describe what they are tasting and develop background checking out wines and realize price does not always tell the story and is often hyped (raised) for the snobs.

 

Audio is no different. There are lots of things that can not yet be measured but are audible.

Plenty of audio snobs who buy what the magazines tell them or because the latest cable / amp / whatever looks cool.

 

And then, again as with the wine world, there are people can hear and appreciate nuances in sound and develop a language/vocabulary for what they hear.

 

There are magazines you can rely on (stereophile, absolute sound, HI FI+, among a few). And plenty that cater to the know-nothing audio snobs.

 

I don't know where you sit with what you posted above.

 

But if you say "if it can't be measured" it must not exist then you are missing a lot.

There is a lot we can not yet measure that we can hear.

 

Anyone that says "can't be measured so can't be heard" falls into one of two catagores:

 

1) Lazy and does not go out to seek high end equipment to listen to.

2) if genetically compromised in the area of hearing.

 

I believe 2 is rarely true. I have never had anyone listening to my high-end system and not leave flabergasted at what they hear when they listen to music they are familiar with. Comments range from "I never heard that instrument in the background", I never heard those notes", "I feel the emotion of the music".

[xyzzy1]

Yes, there is a very big difference! You still do not understand listening impressions and opinions are not and have never been claims or facts. Any good reviewer will say you need to listen before you purchase.

 

I am unwilling to accept any kind of proof, one way or the other of anything audio related. I have to hear it in my system, in my room, using my ear/brain system or I have no comment. I trust no one.

 

I never demand proof of anything and I never offer proof of anything. Your demand for proof is silly IMHO, would you really rush out and buy something if someone can somehow prove to you it sounded better to them. It doesn't work for me like that, I prefer to hear things for myself instead, and only if I am interested and it feels a need or desire.

 

We don’t babysit adults, if they are unwilling to listen and compare any new purchase before the money guarantee ends that is their fault.

 

In addition, there currently are no acceptable proofs anyway since the ABX/DBTs you demand usually offer null results, proving everything statistically sounds the same, which is not true in real life. ABX/DBT has never worked in its history, with the exception of extremely large differences, as they ignore how the ears/brain/body system works.

 

The Flawed Idea Behind Any Form of AB Testing

 

Problem of cognitive bias in AB Testing

 

Aural recovery and why you can’t A-B something by flipping a switch

 

Why ABX Testing Usually Produces Null Results with Human Subjects

Blind Listening Tests are Flawed: An Editorial by Robert Harley

 

Five "human" things ensure why sighted or blind A/B testing fails to reveal statistical differences between nearly everything:

 

Cognitive bias - your brain will fill in missing information thus making both samples sound the same on repeated listening.

 

Listener Fatigue - switch back and forth too often and both music files will sound like crap.

 

Accumulative effects are hidden - Accumulative effects on sound quality increase over time and remain hidden when switching back and forth between two music files, especially things such as strident/smooth, cold/warm sound, etc.

 

Soundstage and instrument placement - it takes anywhere between 30 seconds to several minutes for my brain to map the soundstage and hear the instrument and vocal placement before I can judge anything. A/B'ing insures this never happens.

 

Confirmation Bias - In addition sighted A/B testing has to fight confirmation bias, as some people think the major brand or more expensive item must sound better. This is not always true as sometimes the unknown brand or the least expensive item sounds the best.

 

The only way I’ve discovered to get a handle on how something sounds is listening to it using a few select complete uninterrupted songs from my music collection with the lights turned out. Or if at a dealer with with lights turned low, if they can’t turn them out, and the salesman must leave the room while I listen in comfort.

 

So in conclusion, I am all for exposing any manufacturer who cheats or fudges demonstrations. However on the other hand it is not my place (or anyone else's place, including you) to tell other people what they are hearing with their ear/brain system, in their room, with their system, with their music. Since we all have different ears, different rooms, and even listen to different things in the music we love. It is not our place to tell other people what they may or may not be allowed to hear. To do so is rude IMHO.

 

Well said!

 

The only thing I would add in....

 

Most A/B test are done on random group of folks who have no listening experience. I always joke I can prove 3 point shots are impossible except for chance by pulling folks off the street. And there are plenty of A/B tests done with Michael Fremer and other experienced audiophiles who always get it right. But statistically they are discarded in the results. Problem with A/B testing is that someone with all correct answers is discarded as chance.

 

But this is lost on most of the crowd on this site while they discuss in a "vacuum of no experience".

[davide256]

There was an interesting dichotomy in New York in the 1860's... those that saw the west as a land of opportunity and those that belittled anyone going west as foolish risk takers. The audiophile industry is no different, sometimes the pioneers of the past become "settled" and lose vision that what they discovered is not the limit of discovery.

[ednaz]

Your absolutely right on the issue of HDA , the major labels and all that. You've heard me say the same many times. But I also run a DR14 on every new recording I buy and post the results to the Dynamic Range Database if its not already up. You can also find my various posting around the web where I've warned people about badly squashed masters and also praised the good ones. Should I and everyone else that reviews recordings or components just shut up, let people read the manufactures ads, and then buy what they like, because people need to be "allowed" to buy what they want with no outside input from others? OPPS no "money-back satisfaction guarantee" on recordings that I'm aware of, he sold you IYHO a piece of crap, too bad.

 

With John your still missing the point that before he does any listening to any new design, he builds prototypes that he FIRST measures to make sure the darn thing even works and is up to the specs he aimed for. Then he'll start a listening and tweaking process on that design. His groundbreaking work on the sound of different dielectrics and mechanical design in capacitors along with Walt Jung and others who's names I know longer remember is legendary and that path was closely followed by myself and most audiophiles in the 80s. It brought about great improvements in the components use in amp design and just about every thing else. But much of that path was first done by measuring all sorts of caps and then listening to them in a circuit. There's tons of info on his work and how he did it back in the day, read some of it.

 

As to the rest you need to STOP using that word "allowed". People a allowed to use whatever they want, but not warning someone when you believe someone is about to cheat them is a matter of responsibility and morality. If your a church goer bring these posts by you there and ask them if they think you should stand idly by.

Morality has nothing to do with a "money-back satisfaction guarantee". I don't understand your position and will never discuss this issue with you again. You're "allowed" to tell me I'm wrong for telling what IMHO is the truth as much as you like, I give you my permission.

 

I was a professional musician for a long time. Different metals in the brass bells sounds different. You can analyze the daylights out of the sound with instrumentation and not be able to see or explain a difference, and most people can't tell the difference, but trained ears can. The same is true of any art or activity that relies on human senses. Trained perceivers can sort things out that instrumentation can not measure.

 

When I read someone ranting that what can't be quantified about human perception isn't real, it makes me sad for how flat and shallow the world must be for them.

 

The whole notion that everything can be measured and thereby understood is absurd. It assumes that our science about acoustics, taste, color theory, light, touch, is complete (nothing more to discover! Hooray!) Our science is NOT complete. If we're still discovering new taste receptors - how can someone assert that the ability to tell which vineyard, which year, is impossible. I've watched many people who can reliably - very close to 100% reliably - identify a wine's provenance down to the field. It's actually a standardized test for a wine society I was a member of in Australia, with hundreds of people able to meet that test standard. Yet all that wine stuff is just phony baloney, right?

 

It is to someone who's a low taster.

 

If everything about audio could be determined to its best level with measurements, you'd think that the really smart people with long careers in audio would be 100% measurement oriented. And they're not.

[Sal1950]

But if you say "if it can't be measured" it must not exist then you are missing a lot.

There is a lot we can not yet measure that we can hear.

 

Anyone that says "can't be measured so can't be heard" falls into one of two catagores:

.

 

I don't believe you've heard anyone taking that position, good spin though.

The objective position is that if your going to claim to hear anything, you either need to back that up with measurements or strictly controlled, overseen, non-sighted listening tests, preferably both.

Until you can do that, your claims are only your opinions, not fact. Your opinions will most likely have many other folks with opinions exactly the opposite.

"Sounds good to me" just don't cut it as a alternative to the reality.

[xyzzy1]

I don't believe you've heard anyone taking that position, good spin though.

The objective position is that if your going to claim to hear anything, you either need to back that up with measurements or strictly controlled, overseen, non-sighted listening tests, preferably both.

Until you can do that, your claims are only your opinions, not fact. Your opinions will most likely have many other folks with opinions exactly the opposite.

"Sounds good to me" just don't cut it as a alternative to the reality.

 

No spin. Just your inability to concede that we can hear things that can't yet be measured.

So the only SOMEWHAT RELIABLE way, until we can measure it, is to listen and develop an objective vocabulary to describe what we hear so we can discuss and formulate why it sounds different.

 

Opinions matter based on ones experience.

If you don't believe this prove it by making your next doctors visit with someone who has only read a book and memorized how to treat you (though this is which is pretty much where we are at and way many folks just gobble medications scripted by drug companies). Good luck with that.

 

The A/B testing method is flawed beyond belief.

To fall to that as your only proof shows a total lack of understanding of real world situations in your "reality".

 

And it would also seems that you are #1 in my 2 possibilities because anyone who has earnestly listened to a high-end audio system knows that there is something going on.

 

It would seems like you can't tell the color blue from the color red without a double blind test each time cause, jeez, there is all kinds of lighting and you can never be sure. Well, sometimes you can't (and we acknowledge that in the audiophile world) but a lot of time you can.

 

Good luck waiting for measurements.... We WILL get there one day thanks to the audiophile world.

Just like the audiophile world discovering all sorts of NOW measureable digital distortions that have led to huge improvements in digital sound after Sony declared "perfect sound forever" back in the early 80's.

 

This would not have happened if audiophiles first didn't "subjectively" say "this digital stuff sounds like crap".

[Paul R]

No spin. Just your inability to concede that we can hear things that can't yet be measured.

So the only SOMEWHAT RELIABLE way, until we can measure it, is to listen and develop an objective vocabulary to describe what we hear so we can discuss and formulate why it sounds different.

 

You have differentiate that a bit. Any physical sonic vibration transmitted though air we can measure to exceedingly tight tolerances.

 

How someone perceives those physical vibrations, that is not clear at all. Too many variables.

 

How those physical acoustic vibrations are turned into electrical or other forms of binary data, then reconstituted to an acoustic waveform is endlessly fascinating, but always the reconstitution to an acoustic waveform is imperfect. Whether we can physically hear or discern those imperfections is pretty easy to establish. Whether we can perceive them, or even somehow fill in the blanks in our brain and recognize those patters - that is where all the arguments center.

 

I don't think anyone is taking the extreme you describe. On either end. I think most people fall somewhere safely in the middle.

 

-Paul

[Sal1950]

No spin. Just your inability to concede that we can hear things that can't yet be measured.

So the only SOMEWHAT RELIABLE way, until we can measure it, is to listen and develop an objective vocabulary to describe what we hear so we can discuss and formulate why it sounds different.

 

Opinions matter based on ones experience.

If you don't believe this prove it by making your next doctors visit with someone who has only read a book and memorized how to treat you (though this is which is pretty much where we are at and way many folks just gobble medications scripted by drug companies). Good luck with that.

 

The A/B testing method is flawed beyond belief.

To fall to that as your only proof shows a total lack of understanding of real world situations in your "reality".

 

And it would also seems that you are #1 in my 2 possibilities because anyone who has earnestly listened to a high-end audio system knows that there is something going on.

 

It would seems like you can't tell the color blue from the color red without a double blind test each time cause, jeez, there is all kinds of lighting and you can never be sure. Well, sometimes you can't (and we acknowledge that in the audiophile world) but a lot of time you can.

 

Good luck waiting for measurements.... We WILL get there one day thanks to the audiophile world.

Just like the audiophile world discovering all sorts of NOW measureable digital distortions that have led to huge improvements in digital sound after Sony declared "perfect sound forever" back in the early 80's.

 

This would not have happened if audiophiles first didn't "subjectively" say "this digital stuff sounds like crap".

 

WOW, Seven more more paragraphs of spin, good job.

Any excuse you can create not to be held accountable for your claims.

I saw a UFO and some Ghosts last night too.

Prove I didn't. LOL

[xyzzy1]

WOW, Seven more more paragraphs of spin, good job.

Any excuse you can create not to be held accountable for your claims.

I saw a UFO and some Ghosts last night too.

Prove I didn't. LOL

 

 

Usual trite retort and I question if you know the intended use of "spin".

 

Still haven't heard you or anyone else I've bantered on this topic say they have actually spent time listening to a high-end audio system.

 

High-end audio system are all around and its easy to sit there and listen to one (and not mythical and hard to find like your inane ufo/ghost retort).

 

So I'll continue to wait for you to call me out after you've heard a high-end system.

 

But you won't and you will continue to dismiss something you have no experience. This is worse than spin, btw.

[Evo1668]

The point of trying to measure everything with regard to audio and our human senses is rather fruitless excercise really. Our senses are intrinsically linked, and we are only just getting to a point of understanding at a basic level some of the interactions and affects. You can take for example beverages which all taste exactly the same, but by playing different sound frequencies affect the taste receptors in perception of for example bitter/sweetness. Savvy restranteurs, play different background music to affect the dining experience for the better. If you can affect senses in one direction, sound to taste....stands to reason the opposite direction can be affected too! Sort of blows a complete hole in A/B, DBT.....you only have to look at Placebo effect in medicine....the mind and our senses are powerful things. Dismiss them at you peril, or remain on your flat earth.

[Sal1950]

Sort of blows a hole in your subject claims also, no?

Following that logic the taste in your mouth from tonight's beverage or dinner could modify that which you think you are hearing from your Hi Fi from session to session.

[Evo1668]

Sort of blows a hole in your subject claims also, no?

Following that logic the taste in your mouth from tonight's beverage or dinner could modify that which you think you are hearing from your Hi Fi from session to session.

 

No not claiming anything at all....glad I could help...and yes following such logic, it probably does

[VenturaRV]

The same exists in any "hobby" where its a matter of discipline to control ones subjective analysis of something so it is objective based on experience.

 

In the wine world, there are plenty of snobs who know nothing of wine and taste but buy wines based on what others tell them.

There are plenty of magazines that cater to the know-nothing snobs.

And then there are people who can taste and appreciate what they taste and develop a language to describe what they are tasting and develop background checking out wines and realize price does not always tell the story and is often hyped (raised) for the snobs.

 

Audio is no different. There are lots of things that can not yet be measured but are audible.

Plenty of audio snobs who buy what the magazines tell them or because the latest cable / amp / whatever looks cool.

 

And then, again as with the wine world, there are people can hear and appreciate nuances in sound and develop a language/vocabulary for what they hear.

 

There are magazines you can rely on (stereophile, absolute sound, HI FI+, among a few). And plenty that cater to the know-nothing audio snobs.

 

I don't know where you sit with what you posted above.

 

But if you say "if it can't be measured" it must not exist then you are missing a lot.

There is a lot we can not yet measure that we can hear.

 

Anyone that says "can't be measured so can't be heard" falls into one of two catagores:

 

1) Lazy and does not go out to seek high end equipment to listen to.

2) if genetically compromised in the area of hearing.

 

I believe 2 is rarely true. I have never had anyone listening to my high-end system and not leave flabergasted at what they hear when they listen to music they are familiar with. Comments range from "I never heard that instrument in the background", I never heard those notes", "I feel the emotion of the music".

Hello.

"If it cannot be measured, it cannot be heard".

Well; that depends on what is being measured and what is intended to be heard.

If, for example, we're measuring the freq response of a redbook player (I'm supposing a very good and expensive one), and the plot shows an extension beyond, say, 30 kHz, it's quite clear that the unit is failing (not that it's better). BUT if someone says he hears the sounds beyond 20 kHz the unit delivers, well, he's simply lying (or, worse, he suffers from esquizofrenia).

A different example: directional interconnecting and speaker cables (all made with good old and loved OF copper). This theme knew its moment of glory years ago. "Audiophiles" (and manufacturers, for sure) claimed to exhaustion the "dramatic" difference in sound it produced just changing the direction of the cables (manufacturers were so kind of marking whith printed arrows their products! [emoji2]). BUT, after measuring very carefully ALL measurable electric properties (what others, if not) in both directions, the ressulting plots did NOT show the slightest difference. More, and it is very usual among the itself called "audiophile community", when the deffenders of such esoteric claims were invited to ABX blind and rigurous listening tests, the refusal was as unanime as their enthusiasm for "directivity" was. Very sad.

My point is: there are huge differences between audio items (sources, electronics, speakers, even cables), BUT when a real and clear difference can be heard for many (not just a bunch) NOT PREVIOUSLY BIASSED by appearence, prices, other oppinions, etc., then that difference CAN BE MEASURED. Extraordinary claims need to be backed up by no less extraordinary proofs from who makes the claims.

If not, well, better to spend the time in more interesting things.

 

Sal,

 

In the case of music, I can't condemn something I've not heard. Just as I can't condemn a cable or equipment I've not heard.

 

I no longer buy modern major label recordings recorded from the 1980's forward. It's not just the lack of dynamic range due to the loudness wars but also the large number of tracks used, and the misuse of mastering "tools" invented in the early 1980's to date.

 

Audiophile recordings began increasing in numbers beginning in the late 1970's as a protest to the gimmicky recordings of the major labels. For example the Telarc Soundstream LPs took us back to the Mercury Living Presence days of three omni directional microphones placed further back.

 

I like authentic audiophile recordings from any decade including modern ones. An authentic audiophile recording is audiophile from the microphones to the finished product. Such as:

 

Acoustic Disc

Acousence Classics

Analogue Productions Originals

AudioQuest Music

Cardas

Challenge Classics

Chandos

Channel Classics

Chesky

Crystal Clear Direct to Discs

CSO Resound

DMP

Exton

Fanfare Cincinnati

Fidelio

fonè

Groove Note

MA Recordings

Naim

Opus 3

PentaTone Classics

Pope Music

Sheffield Lab Direct to Discs

Sketti Sandwich

Stockfisch Records

Reference Recordings

Tacet

Telarc

Turtle Records

ViTaL Records (Vacuum Tube Logic)

Wilson Audiophile

 

There are people who cannot limit their purchases to 1950's-1970's major label recordings and audiophile recordings. I have even had people tell me they hate the music on audiophile recordings so it doesn't matter to them how realistic they sound.

 

Thus, if one doesn't like major label recordings made before 1980's and don't like audiophile recordings I have nothing to recommend to them. So it would make no sense to belittle the music they enjoy.

---

As far as the beginnings of John Curl's designs we are saying the same thing with different words.

 

I said "he uses his test equipment to make sure parts meet their stated specifications. However, he uses his ears to select which sounds the best in his designs."

 

You said "he builds prototypes that he FIRST measures to make sure the darn thing even works and is up to the specs he aimed for. Then he'll start a listening and tweaking process on that design."

 

Those two sentences say the same thing, I just assumed that you knew the parts he was testing were of his new prototype. "parts meet their stated specifications." is the same as "is up to the specs he aimed for."

 

 

VenturaRV