Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?

[christopher3393]

33 minutes ago, semente said:

 

Thanks, that's a nice summary.

But I wonder why Dürer was stated as an example, since he never got to see the Pope's Rhinocerus...

 

I think the point is that this very famous woodcut was based on a written description and was taken to be an accurate or "true" representation, even a model work, even though it was not.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dürer's_Rhinoceros

 

The main text that the presentation draws on is Objectivity by Lorraine Daston and Peter Gallison. The book has had a significant impact on discussions of objectivity since its publication in 2007.

 

 

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/objectivity

 

 

[christopher3393]

Peter Galison offers a capsule summary of  Objectivity at the beginning of this article, "The Journalist, the Scientist, and Objectivity"( the whole article is worthwhile, imo, the capsule summary is brief) :  https://galison.scholar.harvard.edu/files/andrewhsmith/files/petergalison_journalistscientistobjectivity_final.pdf

[fas42]

11 hours ago, plissken said:

 

Oversample a 192kbps mp3 all you like. 

 

Ummm ... that does help, depending upon everything. I was playing with seeing what upsampling did for a desktop PC just using the internal sound system, and simple external monitors. I even went to the next level, a very 'raw', live AC/DC track at, gasp, 128k. Crap treble, messy, you name it - but wait! Converting to WAV, and then upsampling - my goodness!! The cymbals actually started to vaguely sound like an instrument, rather than annoying scratching noises - how could this be?? Well, I put it down to the fact that the CPU was spared doing the translation to a WAV on the fly, and upsampling just helped the poor mainboard chip do its job better - it still wouldn't have won any awards for sound, but it turned the track from a complete mess, to an effort listenable to ...

[Jud]

10 hours ago, plissken said:

You CAN NOT add information once it is lost in the production process. We have sound REPRODUCTION equipment. What ever it is given is what it has. No matter DSP, Upsampling, EQ, cables, lifters, Hookum sticks. 

 

You can only have a reproduction chain that does the least amount of damage to the source as it makes it way through our systems. That's why I'm a shortest path first. 

 

 

9 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

It's not so simple in the real world. EQ-convolved signal is further corrupted by noise and other signals (e.g., leakage currents, jitter, EMI, feedback loops, etc.) 

 

For deconvolution to recover the 'original' signal, you need a very precise model of the corrupting signal. In most real-world cases, this is very hard to derive. Because of this, an estimate is commonly used as the deconvolution kernel. An estimate may help with signal recovery in some cases, but it can also destroy or corrupt signal in others.

 

Sounds like an argument for hi res.

 

Here's what I mean: 

 

(1) We can't restore what's been lost along the way.

 

(2) Right now our chain from recording through distribution to playback involves decimation filters and interpolation filters, plus sigma-delta modulation on the recording side and almost always on the playback side.  The interpolation filters and sigma-delta modulation make it easier for the final reconstruction filter to do its job, but see (1).  It's quite possible we're not losing anything audible along the way, but why even mess around with these extra steps?

 

It's an example, I think, of Paul's principle of simplification.

[fas42]

Further on "recovering" ... this will be possible down the track - the concept of unmixing is actively being researched, and you can buy tools now to do some sort of job: take a mix, and extract the individual sound elements within it. So, you end up with, say a 24 track version, with "all the bits". Fix 'em up, perhaps, and then reconstitute any way you like it. It only requires sufficient, and sophisticated enough algorithms to do this - and it only keep getting better in terms of the raw ability to separate everything.

[pkane2001]

2 hours ago, Jud said:

 

 

Sounds like an argument for hi res.

 

Here's what I mean: 

 

(1) We can't restore what's been lost along the way.

 

(2) Right now our chain from recording through distribution to playback involves decimation filters and interpolation filters, plus sigma-delta modulation on the recording side and almost always on the playback side.  The interpolation filters and sigma-delta modulation make it easier for the final reconstruction filter to do its job, but see (1).  It's quite possible we're not losing anything audible along the way, but why even mess around with these extra steps?

 

It's an example, I think, of Paul's principle of simplification.

 

There is actually a benefit to having a higher resolution signal and a higher resolution model of distortion (impulse function) when using deconvolution. Just as significant is the high S/N for both. A low-resolution system with high level of noise would be a poor candidate to deconvolve.

[Teresa]

On 7/7/2017 at 7:12 AM, AJ Soundfield said:

Yes. Folks whose hearing abilities are poor have zero trust in their ears.

In a blind controlled test, the only thing you can trust is ears, not eyes, beliefs, audio comic books, reviewer-prophets, etc.

So yes, the obstacle is indeed trust. For good reason!

 

Personally, I don’t trust anyone’s ears and I don’t trust anyone’s measurements. I have to experience it myself, in my room.

 

Even before my dementia I have never been able to AB anything sighted, with the exception of some level differences, so how the hell would I be able to do it blind? It takes me weeks to decide if I like something or if I don’t. I always thought everyone was like me, but some people including you, claim to be able to AB. I don’t believe it, if one thing sounds better than another blind AB tests should always be 100% and they are not, they are closer to 50 to 60% and that is not good enough for me. So, in short I don’t believe that AB’ing works either sighted or blind. Music cannot be listened to in that manner. I say it’s impossible.

 

On 7/7/2017 at 7:34 AM, plissken said:

If you don't trust your ears, why should anyone?

 

I don't trust anyone's ears using any type of AB sighted or blind test. The only way I have ever found out what I like is to listen to a wide variety of my favorite music over a period of several weeks.

 

On 7/7/2017 at 9:55 AM, AJ Soundfield said:

...That and staring at components for weeks because you can't trust your ears to hear any real differences

 

Staring at components one is auditioning is not a good idea. It is best to turn out the lights and close one's eyes. Not only does music sound better with eyes closed but the soundstage is wider and deeper and it feels more like real music. I only listen with lights on when I am doing something else, like now in typing this post.

 

 

[Teresa]

21 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

I wonder how many audiophiles would prefer a TASCAM over a piece of $50k audiophile bling, in a sighted evaluation, 2 months or not?

Hmmm 

 

Tascam is the pro-line of Teac. I own a Teac UD-501 DSD USB DAC, Tascam products are too expensive for me, so I go for the less expensive Teac versions. In the past I have owned several Teac reel-to-reel tape decks and I really liked them a lot. So does that count?

 

My entire computer/audio/video system cost less than $4k. My guess would be less than 1% of audiophiles have or could afford a $50k system.

 

AJ you seem to enjoy making fun of audiophiles, which is behavior I find odd for a speaker manufacturer.

 

Hmmm indeed! 

[AJ Soundfield]

12 hours ago, Teresa said:

I always thought everyone was like me, but some people including you, claim to be able to AB. I don’t believe it, if one thing sounds better than another blind AB tests should always be 100% and they are not, they are closer to 50 to 60% and that is not good enough for me. So, in short I don’t believe that AB’ing works either sighted or blind. Music cannot be listened to in that manner. I say it’s impossible.

No, you are projecting your inadequate hearing abilities unto all others and fabricating numbers out of thin air, about subjects you clearly know nothing about.

Folks with normal hearing have no issue picking out what they perceive as better in AB tests (even though they are relatively rare, as most serious blind tests are done using ANOVA, ABCHR, etc), such as the Harman speaker tests.

Trained listeners do even better, as they have learned and tested their skills hearing tonal colorations such as peaks and some dips (though harder to hear) in the frequency responses (multi-axis, as this affects timbre as well). In the same way you can't outrun Usain Bolt, who has trained all his life and field tested his skills. No matter how much one fantasizes being able to run faster than him, in a real, officially electronically timed 100m distance etc. test, one would fail badly. Obviously to be avoided also!

In these same large scale Harman AB tests (and MS too), the worst performers are self identified "audiophiles. They have no reference and any sort of training regimen other than lifelong self delusion. So naturally, they do very poorly is actual trust ears just listening tests. They use those words, but have absolutely no idea what they mean.

Btw, I believe when you say you can't tell differences ABing. ABing is very revealing of real differences (such as with loudspeakers), but very poor at revealing imaginary ones. It makes perfect sense for some folks to avoid them at all cost. However, the entire field of audio science uses such controlled listening comparisons, out in the real world of audio, not in the bubble most audiophiles talk to each other in.

 

Quote

 

The only way I have ever found out what I like is to listen to a wide variety of my favorite music over a period of several weeks.

Staring at components one is auditioning is not a good idea.

 

But that is exactly what you do. You know the entire time what component you are listening/watching/seeing/knowing. You are doing far more than "just listening", "trusting ears". You are also incorporating what you believe you want to hear.

Nothing wrong with that approach if you simply want to know what you prefer. But what you prefer goes well beyond sound and includes looks, street rep, what you believe, etc, etc.

IOW, way more than soundwaves.

[AJ Soundfield]

11 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

Tascam is the pro-line of Teac. I own a Teac UD-501 DSD USB DAC, Tascam products are too expensive for me, so I go for the less expensive Teac versions. In the past I have owned several Teac reel-to-reel tape decks and I really liked them a lot. So does that count?

Sure. How many times have studio "transparent" Tascam DACs,etc. won Product of Year, Class A, etc etc in audiophile mags?

 

Quote

My entire computer/audio/video system cost less than $4k. My guess would be less than 1% of audiophiles have or could afford a $50k system.

Good for you finding such value. I've had a $7k CD player in my system. It sounded no better than my $1k bluray/UD player, so its gone. I have no issue with someone spending $50k or $500k if it makes them happier. Do you?

 

Quote

AJ you seem to enjoy making fun of audiophiles

That is purely your subjective perception. I may indeed poke a bit of fun at audiophile beliefs. If they weren't so tenuous, how could I? Why is it that they are always playing the card of poor victims, if what they claim has any basis and is not completely specious?

Teresa, was Stereophiles founder making fun of audiophiles here? https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/index.html

 

Quote

which is behavior I find odd for a speaker manufacturer.

How many tell it like it is ones do you know?

What speakers do you prefer?

[Ralf11]

a blind test means the subject does not know the identity of the components; it does not mean the subject is blind or listening in darkness

[AJ Soundfield]

Yes, Teresa is badly misinformed about controlled testing.

Teresa, if you have an interest in finding about the reality of controlled audio tests, this is a good place to start

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=11272

Here are some basics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinded_experiment

No need to guess and make up random numbers about statistics in these sort of tests.

[fas42]

What's happening here is that people are talking about different things: in car terms, AJ's saying that that if you can't distinguish the precise brand, rubber composition, and size of the tyres being used on the car you don't have a good sense of what the car is capable of; Teresa says, I drive the car and see how it performs on the roads I like to travel on, what counts is how the package works as a transporting device.

 

I tend to be on Teresa's side ...

[Ralf11]

Nyet!  Bad analogy.  Two cars are involved, assuming one could blind test a car

[AJ Soundfield]

Wrong Frank. Teresa says she prefers A over B by "experiencing" it over weeks, which is perfectly fine for determining preference, if you can't hear it via soundwaves...which is what a controlled listening comparison does. Sound.

Vs looks, feelings, touch, etc over weeks of staring-listening-knowing-believing,etc, etc.

[Ralf11]

BTW, there is nothing wrong with extended listening tests, and they can be done blind and done as A/B or A/B/X

 

the contrast is really to extended vs. quick switching - and there are reasons to do both

[Superdad]

1 hour ago, AJ Soundfield said:

No, you are projecting your inadequate hearing abilities unto all others and fabricating numbers out of thin air, about subjects you clearly know nothing about.

 

You're such an ass AJ. 

You really ought to apologize to Teresa for being so rude.

[fas42]

My approach is very different to nearly everyone, including Teresa - I'm watching out for the sound being 'wrong' - in the car analogy, the car twitches in a disturbing manner when it goes over a certain bump, or road construction example. I immediately stop the car, and try and determine why the vehicle reacted that way - which could be because the tyres were inappropriate - I don't keep driving in the hope that I don't experience that again.

[AJ Soundfield]

8 hours ago, Superdad said:

You really ought to apologize to Teresa for being so rude.

Yes. I can see now she has no short term memory due to her condition, so indeed it may have nothing to do with her hearing per se, so for that I do apologize. I missed the dementia part.

[Teresa]

11 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

No, you are projecting your inadequate hearing abilities unto all others and fabricating numbers out of thin air, about subjects you clearly know nothing about.

 

Folks with normal hearing have no issue picking out what they perceive as better in AB tests (even though they are relatively rare, as most serious blind tests are done using ANOVA, ABCHR, etc), such as the Harman speaker tests.

 

Trained listeners do even better, as they have learned and tested their skills hearing tonal colorations such as peaks and some dips (though harder to hear) in the frequency responses (multi-axis, as this affects timbre as well).

 

I fully trust my ears with honest long-term listening. One cannot hear how realistic anything will sound, without auditioning the item with their favorite music under all kinds of conditions over a period of several weeks.

 

Your statement that folks have no issue picking out what they perceive as better in AB tests is highly incorrect and what I consider an extraordinary claim!! I will agree they can hear level differences but anything else as never been proven with 100% correct answers. You should learn how the brain works to defeat AB'ing anything except for large differences such as level.

 

Yes I know trained listeners do better, but still not 100% correct.

 

11 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Btw, I believe when you say you can't tell differences ABing. ABing is very revealing of real differences (such as with loudspeakers), but very poor at revealing imaginary ones. It makes perfect sense for some folks to avoid them at all cost. However, the entire field of audio science uses such controlled listening comparisons, out in the real world of audio, not in the bubble most audiophiles talk to each other in.

 

I trust my ears completely with long-term listening, however I don't trust them AB'ing (blind or sighted), nor do I trust it the first time I hear something. It takes time to hear how something sounds and if it brings me closer to live acoustic music in a good sounding performance space or further away. In addition based on the long sad history of AB'ing it will not reveal important differences that increase enjoyment of music, no matter whose ears are listening including yours.

 

Here is what I wrote about the subject back in 2011 before I had dementia: Why ABX Testing Usually Produces Null Results with Human Subjects

 

11 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

But that is exactly what you do. You know the entire time what component you are listening/watching/seeing/knowing. You are doing far more than "just listening", "trusting ears". You are also incorporating what you believe you want to hear.

Nothing wrong with that approach if you simply want to know what you prefer. But what you prefer goes well beyond sound and includes looks, street rep, what you believe, etc, etc.

IOW, way more than soundwaves.

 

As I previously replied to you in this thread on June 26. "Subjectivists find nothing wrong with blind tests, it’s AB’ing that doesn’t work. Bring over two unmarked black boxes and at the end of two weeks I will tell you if one I liked better or if they sound close to the same."

 

So I find nothing wrong with blind listening, it's AB'ing that doesn't work except for some level changes.

 

I audition what I purchase, which means it has already passed my other tests. Does not look nice? Is it user friendly? Is it a good price? Did it sound promising in the dealers showroom? And I always get at least a 30-day money-back guarantee. So when I get it home I then listen to my favorite music. After several weeks having heard all kinds of music, mostly audiophile recordings, I know if like the sound quality or I don't, or if it adds nothing to my music pleasure. I have actually returned more audio products than I have purchased.

 

So you are again dead wrong, the audition is all about music enjoyment. 

 

11 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Sure. How many times have studio "transparent" Tascam DACs,etc. won Product of Year, Class A, etc etc in audiophile mags?

 

FYI Teac is a consumer product and that is what audio magazines review, consumer products. Tascam is Teac's pro division. Teac is the parent company, understand?

 

11 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Good for you finding such value. I've had a $7k CD player in my system. It sounded no better than my $1k bluray/UD player, so its gone. I have no issue with someone spending $50k or $500k if it makes them happier. Do you?

 

I try to spend less than $1k for any audio component, I prefer finding something that sounds great for less than $500! I have purchased sales, clearance and demo items and I get a satisfaction guarantee.

 

I have no problem with the existence of rich people who can afford to spend $50k or more on their audio equipment. On the other hand I have no envy, I am happy with my very musical audio/video system.

 

11 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

That is purely your subjective perception. I may indeed poke a bit of fun at audiophile beliefs. If they weren't so tenuous, how could I? Why is it that they are always playing the card of poor victims, if what they claim has any basis and is not completely specious?

Teresa, was Stereophiles founder making fun of audiophiles here? https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/1107awsi/index.html

 

Your posts since you first came to Computer Audiophile have been very offensive and anti-audiophile.  I was never a fan of Gordon Holt at Stereophile, I preferred the late Harry Pearson who started The Absolute Sound.

 

11 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

How many tell it like it is ones do you know?

What speakers do you prefer?

 

Sorry, but you don't tell it like it is. You are wrong in almost everything you post. I feel very sorry for you as you are chasing away potential customers with your anti-audiophile rhetoric.

 

I own the Infinity Reference Standard Kappa 7's I purchased in 1992. Twenty five years old and I still love them, I had to replace the woofer surrounds several years ago. I was lucky as I have spent nearly a year, listening to speakers once a week at the ten audio stores we had in town then. It was between the Infinity's and Magneplanar's. The Infinity Reference Standard Kappa 7's went on clearance at 50% off and I bought the last pair for $694 for the pair. 

 

10 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Yes, Teresa is badly misinformed about controlled testing.

Teresa, if you have an interest in finding about the reality of controlled audio tests, this is a good place to start

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=11272

Here are some basics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinded_experiment

No need to guess and make up random numbers about statistics in these sort of tests.

 

Hogwash. Perhaps you should read this  Why ABX Testing Usually Produces Null Results with Human Subjects

 

10 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Wrong Frank. Teresa says she prefers A over B by "experiencing" it over weeks, which is perfectly fine for determining preference, if you can't hear it via soundwaves...which is what a controlled listening comparison does. Sound.

Vs looks, feelings, touch, etc over weeks of staring-listening-knowing-believing,etc, etc.

 

Wrong, since taking home Klipsch KG4 speaker's in the 1980's which I selected by letting the audio sells person AB me, I no longer AB anything, I do single item auditions. I'm now convinced that I chose them because they were the most efficient and thus louder than the other speakers. I am throughly convinced that AB'ing either sighted or blind doesn't work with the human ear/brain system.

 

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.
• A/B testing favors B over A when A is played first and B is played second. Seems humans think the last thing they hear is the best.

 

[Teresa]

11 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

a blind test means the subject does not know the identity of the components; it does not mean the subject is blind or listening in darkness

 

I agree, there is nothing wrong with blind tests where the subject doesn't know what they are listening to. My objection is to the switching back and forth (AB'ing)

 

Listening in the dark with eyes closed helps one to more accurately hear the music they are listening to.

 

Totally different things, I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I said.

[AJ Soundfield]

51 minutes ago, Teresa said:

I fully trust my ears with honest long-term listening

Along with your eyes, knowledge, biases, etc, etc, etc.

 

Quote

Your statement that folks have no issue picking out what they perceive as better in AB tests is highly incorrect

Except in the real world where many can and do. Harman, MS, Fremer & JA had no issue in an AES amp comparison, etc, etc, etc. The key is real, vs imaginary differences. For very small impairments, a bit more sophisticated than AB is used.

I get it, your condition prevents this, but not everyone else, like you believe.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Enjoy your Infinitys, those are nice speakers that can compete with many modern one (yes, I've heard that model).

Don't take what I say too seriously, I certainly am not offended by your fact averse statements. Its all just audio, enjoy.

 

 

[Dragonfyr]

Quote

I fully trust my eyes ears with honest long-term peeking listening.

 

[AJ Soundfield]

26 minutes ago, Teresa said:

 

I agree, there is nothing wrong with blind tests where the subject doesn't know what they are listening to. My objection is to the switching back and forth (AB'ing)

That's exactly what is done in a blind test. There is no time limit between switching, if you know anything about blind tests. You could take a week or a month. The key is no knowing what each is, etc, etc. Thats what "blind" means.

[Teresa]

1 minute ago, AJ Soundfield said:

39 minutes ago, Teresa said:

I fully trust my ears with honest long-term listening

Along with your eyes, knowledge, biases, etc, etc, etc.

 

With or without my eyes. As I clearly stated "Subjectivists find nothing wrong with blind tests, it’s AB’ing that doesn’t work. Bring over two unmarked black boxes and at the end of two weeks I will tell you if one I liked better or if they sound close to the same."

 

I don't have to know what component or music sample I am listening to, I just need time to get to know it, several weeks works for me.

 

Also most of my biases are pre-purchase, looks, ergonomics, good discount. So none of that will filter into what I am auditioning. As I already like everything about it, the sonic quality in my system, in my room, with my music, and my ear/brain system being the only unknown. 

 

6 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Except in the real world where many can and do. Harman, MS, Fremer & JA had no issue in an AES amp comparison, etc, etc, etc. The key is real, vs imaginary differences. For very small impairments, a bit more sophisticated than AB is used.

 

50% - 60% correct answers are not good enough for me, show me a credible AB test with 100% correct.

 

Also the Stereophile amp test was further proof that AB'ing doesn't work "In the July Stereophile magazine, Jason Serinus reports an A/B test of very expensive amplifiers that he conducted with two groups, 10 members each, of his local audiophile club.  Group 1 listened to each selection on amplifier A before amplifier B.  Group 2 reversed the order of the two amplifiers. Both groups strongly preferred whichever amplifier they heard second."

 

Long-term listening will weed out any false starts such as an imaginary difference, this is why it is so important to not rush to judgement but to get to know the sonic qualities of what you are evaluating.

 

9 minutes ago, AJ Soundfield said:

I get it, your condition prevents this, but not everyone else, like you believe.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Enjoy your Infinitys, those are nice speakers that can compete with many modern one (yes, I've heard that model).
Don't take what I say too seriously, I certainly am not offended by your fact averse statements. Its all just audio, enjoy.

 

Most of what I wrote was written before I got dementia, I save all my posts in a text file I call Forums. I also have two other text files called Blogs, and Letters I can search. I copy and paste from these files. So I don't have to use my memory for things that occurred in the past.

 

In short I believed this strongly 20 years ago, way before I developed dementia.

 

I likely will keep the Infinity's until I die, if they hold up. I have been to audio shows where I have heard better speakers than mine but they are aways way out of my price range.

 

Thanks for the last sentence, but I just want to say that most of what is written on audio forums are personal opinions not facts. Enjoy.