Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[sandyk]

13 minutes ago, fas42 said:

So, you believe it's part of the natural order of things that systems should all sound different; that it's inevitable for a system to colour playback to a significant, subjective degree?

 

 I have yet to hear even very expensive systems in recent years , where the DACs sound identical, let alone the speakers and the rest of the chain. I have been able to listen to some very expensive systems costing >Au$100K, where different DACs etc. were swapped in and out. Some of the Preamps and Power Amplifiers even cost around Au$50K.

 

Alex

[sandyk]

16 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

That's a bit low, no matter who it's aimed at.

 Chris

 There is no excuse for the message that Michael sent, but I hope that the guys who provoked Michael don't get off without even a warning ?

Reviewers and some well known designers often seem to be targeted by some members as fair game, often either being driven away or ceasing posting for quite a while.

 

Regards

Alex

[sandyk]

12 minutes ago, George Hincapie said:

Wow! Surprised by Michael's behaviour. He always seems so calm in his videos.

 

Perhaps Michael got out the wrong side of the bed this morning ?

It doesn't seem characteristic of him.

[sandyk]

19 minutes ago, realhifi said:

Faltering?  It’s getting stiffer and more inflexible if you ask me.  Reminds me of politics. No doubt that the “discussions” are becoming more heated and far less entertaining. 

 

 

I agree.

Some members appear to forget that this forum is Computer Audiophile.

That doesn't mean however, that suitable technical input is not welcomed by most members.

However, some members appear to reject  outright, reports of audible improvements , that their technical training is unable to explain.

Without subjective reports , there would be no need for Objective measurements, and very little progress would be made with further improvements in consumer or Hi Fi equipment.

 

Not all research by EEs results in audible or visual improvements to the general public.

A good example of this, is the reduction in the high definition capabilities of HD TV due to the industry change from mpeg 2 to considerably lower bit rate mpeg 4 transmissions, in order to squeeze in additional channels in the available spectrum.

Quite often these days, mpeg 4 HD TV is only marginally clearer than SDTV,(at least in Australia)  and may look more like SD TV with some EQ. used.

Many mpeg 4 HD TV transmissions these days make people's faces look like too much makeup has been used, and you can no longer tell whether a male has had a shave recently or not. Skin  Blemishes are often covered up !

 

It's mainly about extra advertising revenue ?

Heaven help us if 4K transmissions are ever widely introduced. Originally, they were capable of being used with good results, even in movie theatres.

 

N.B.

I am NOT saying that the more efficient mpeg 4 is not capable of very high definition at higher bit rates than most broadcasters use, and still need less bandwidth than the older mpeg 2 transmissions,  but that commercial considerations usually results in a downgrading of Visual Content, just as it does with Audible content with lower bit rate audio.

 

Alex

[sandyk]

 

40 minutes ago, marce said:

Fisrtly, audible improvements need some proper testing behind them, you can't just use anecdotal evidence...

 

Anecdotal evidence was not used for my original reports about files with identical check sums sounding different.

It was verified using DBT, by a highly experienced E.E. and technical writer, as well as a very respected Recording and Mastering Engineer who was virtually hounded out of this forum by the usual suspects.

 

Engineers  developed mpeg 4. It is Engineers that implemented the changes thinking that the General Public wouldn't notice the obvious degradation with both Audio and Video. Don't even talk about the crap that is DAB, with it's very low bit rates.

No wonder it hasn't taken off, and most people haven't even heard of DAB.

Original Stereo FM broadcasting, before being dumbed down by the use of .mp3 carts to assist automation, sounded way better. Even  the original AM broadcasting that went up to 15kHZ in mono sounded very good to most people.

AM broadcasting these days is relegated mainly to TALK, as it is  now too narrowband and overly compressed. Then there was AM Stereo, which I tried using an available special I.C. , and it was yet another flop.

Incidentally, I have heard the high quality AM mono feeds from our national broadcaster, as sent from Sydney to further north via 15kHZ equalised cable pairs. It was very good quality through the Telephone Exchange monitoring amplifier, and most material was from LP and high quality turntablesi..

 

Progress ? I think NOT !

It would appear that you are quite happy to accept reduced quality from HDTV etc. .

 I am NOT happy about HD TV, or the accompanying audio  being dumbed down, even if you are happy to accept this !

[sandyk]

51 minutes ago, marce said:

I do find this accusation of happy with lower quality an oft used phrase against those that don't fully embrace some aspect of  the audiophile hobby.

 

 Then why do qualified people like yourself meekly accept it as an inevitable result of modern commercial pressures ?

I also see posts from members unhappy about lousy Audio quality from the use of .aac audio encoding at low bit rates with Google and VEVO etc.

 Perhaps they dumb down the Audio deliberately so that people won't save the clips, and need to buy the CD/DVD etc to hear it properly ?

[sandyk]

18 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

So have I. But I heard it on 15" Tannoys both direct from the desk and via the off-air monitor, not tiny boxes with 4x6" radio speakers in them (still have a telco monitoring amp as a signal tracer). And the "high quality turntables" had Stanton 500 carts with spherical styli. I think you're forgetting that the "good old days" weren't really as good as you think.

Granted, we thought they were good then, but we have moved on. Progress? I think so.

 

 No I am not forgetting that the good old days weren't as good as I remember.

 Back then we had wideband TRF tuners,Homodyne tuners (MC1330 I.C.)

Later the superhets took over , with their typical 4.5KHZ response, and they reduced the channel spacing from 10KHZ to 9KHZ.

BTW, we had a high quality DIY program monitor amplifier and large speakers too at Chatswood in Sydney

[sandyk]

30 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

ABX results from a properly designed and proctored test, or it's anecdotal

 

 Everything is anecdotal when you don't wish to accept the results, and weren't there personally to organise the tests !

 

We are now getting well off the original topic

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, marce said:

Who has said I take this meekly!

 

 That's good to hear !

[sandyk]

9 hours ago, mansr said:

At sufficiently high bitrates, both MPEG2 and MPEG4 are visually indistinguishable from the original.

 

9 hours ago, mansr said:

Don't blame the engineers for corporate greed and general ignorance.

 

I have already stated that the more efficient .mpeg 4 can look equally good at lower bit rates than .mpeg 2.

 

 That's not the problem. It is being used at less than optimum bit rates, in Australia at least, and most likely in many other countries including the USA,  to squeeze in more channels, usually ones that are so called "Lifestyle" channels, which really are mainly long commercials, undoubtedly in order to get more advertising revenue.

It would be foolish to think that only Australia is using less than optimum bit rates for HD TV, as we usually "follow the leader"

 

Yes , I do blame the Engineering body who developed the new .mpeg 4 standards for not specifying MINIMUM bit rates to be used for SD and HD, that would not result in degradation of the picture and audio in comparison with well established .mpeg2 practices.  

[sandyk]

Just now, mansr said:

That's just not feasible. There are far too many parameters in play.

 

That is a copout !!!

 

 

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

He is right that ABX results from a properly designed and proctored test will be the gold std.

 

Garbage. There are far too many variables with typical ABX. This includes whether the ABX switching is seamless and completely transparent, as well as the software used for playback.

Barry D. for example, is seamlessly able to switch between sources with his studio gear, so that an average listener would not even be aware of a discontinuity in playback..

 Foobar 2000 ABX for example, is far from transparent, and many other software programs are far more revealing than Foobar 2000 , even when not using the ABX facility.

 I have been told that even recent versions of jRiver, as an example, are VASTLY better sounding, and more faithful to the original than Foobar 2000 which was developed by a committee. 

 

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

Do you know anything about video codecs?

 

Only what I have found from personal use in a Video editing program where I use different Codecs , and find a sweet spot for the bit rate with most.

This is yet another red herring from you. The committee that sets the standards would have access to suitable test material and very high quality monitoring equipment. They would also undoubtedly use test transmissions in various countries as well .

However, as many of them on the committee may be old fogeys like yourself, with age related visual and audio degradation, perhaps this is no guarantee ? 

 

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Wow.  Ad hominem much?

 

I encourage you to do a bit of reading about H.264 before you blame it on "old fogeys".  There are a mind numbing amount of variables with H.264.  Like profiles, color depth, levels, and more.  Standards bodies would have no more success governing end user picture quality than they would preserving original dynamic range values of audio catalog titles.  With due respect, it's a bit naive to assert that such a thing should happen.

 

 It's engineers that develop these new standards. It's engineers that implement them.

 Is it naïve to expect that the general public should meekly accept continual lowering of Radio and TV transmission quality simply because nobody from the engineering side is willing to accept responsibility  for the abuse of the new standards that they have created ?  

Perhaps vested commercial interests are subsidising the creation of these new standards ?

[sandyk]

6 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he was asked to show ID when buying a drink.

 

 

Second childhood perhaps ?

That doesn't mean that due to his age, that his hearing and vision have not suffered the usual age related decline.

Can YOU still hear 20KHZ, or read the complete bottom line on an Optometrist's chart without the need for vision correction?

Neither can mansr !

[sandyk]

Just now, Ralf11 said:

it's ok if you don't like science; neither did this person:

 

 Who said that I don't like science ,or use my own measurements of electronic gear wherever  possible ?

I am not confusing a discontinuity in playback with the ability to determine a particular component .

 I just can't be bothered repeating over and over, what I have posted many times previously on the subject,  much of which may not have been seen  by newer members.

 I dislike people who insist that current scientific knowledge of both Audio and Video is complete, and anybody who reports hearing or seeing things that can't be explained by current scientific knowledge must be delusional.

[sandyk]

Just now, mansr said:

You got me. I'm nearsighted, so without correction, I can't even see the bottom line.

 

 Neither can I without glasses, but I can still read half the bottom line correctly with glasses if I haven't driven 120KM down the M1 Freeway to Sydney before the test.

I guess that's not too bad for a 78 year old though ?

[sandyk]

32 minutes ago, mansr said:

Please stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

N o !

I am obviously pissing off the Engineers who don't like what I am saying about the dumbing down of TV and Radio standards due to new Codecs and Standards that they have created, being abused.

Most of you ( "marce" is an exception apparently) appear to meekly accept the degradation of these standards due to vested commercial interests.

You have already accurately described what I see with lower bit rate HD TV in .mpeg 4.

 I have downloaded .ts streams from some U.S.A late night segments that were transmitted in .mpeg 2 that are so much better than what is currently being transmitted here, that it annoys the hell out of me that I can no longer view HD TV to anywhere near it's full capabilities. I also have a few video clips from the U.S.A. using H.264,  that don't even come remotely close to the earlier .mpeg2 1080 transmissions in overall picture quality.

The same applies to FM stereo which I can no longer tolerate for anything but background music in the car, due to .mp3  carts, and heavy compression to make the station sound the loudest on the FM band.

 

Aren't any of you EEs willing to stand up for the general public and complain to your associations about the obvious reductions in quality worldwide?  Or are you more interested in closing ranks whenever somebody complains about poorer quality due to the way your new Codecs and standards are being misused ?

[sandyk]

27 minutes ago, jabbr said:

We can say that if two electronic signals are measurably identical that they contain the same information and will sound or look the same given identical transeivers. Can you agree?

 

The key words here are "measurably identical".

This assumes that all parameters have been correctly measured, including frequency ,phase,  low level noise and other artifacts .

I do not class pure Binary Data comparisons as shown by Checksums , as proving that they are identical. Although the extracted 1s and 0s from a HDD etc. may be identical , the differences in processing them due to waveform shape , (rise and fall times and measured levels etc.) may result in them sounding a little different. Any extraneous noise riding along with the exported analogue representation of the binary information may also affect how they sound .

 Differential Receivers aren't perfect either.

Anyway, I am not interested in getting back into this already done to death subject if I can avoid it.

 I stand by my previously confirmed findings in this area..

 

Alex

[sandyk]

4 hours ago, sandyk said:

 I have downloaded .ts streams from some U.S.A late night segments that were transmitted in .mpeg 2 that are so much better than what is currently being transmitted here, that it annoys the hell out of me that I can no longer view HD TV to anywhere near it's full capabilities. I also have a few video clips from the U.S.A. using H.264,  that don't even come remotely close to the earlier .mpeg2 1080 transmissions in overall picture quality

 Getting back to this reply from me.

 As I have been without Internet for 9 months previously, a lot of things can change in the meantime.

 I just looked at some of the HD TV stuff that has been posted from the USA.

 It appears that quite a few TV stations in the USA are still transmitting HD using mpeg 2. ( e.g. 1080i HDTV DD5.1 MPEG2)

 However, what was a big surprise was the reported bit rate with the attached from this year:

SNL Live S43E01 Ryan Gosling + Jay-Z 1080i h264 24mbps DTS HDMA  5.1

I even saw a few from 2016 with up to 38mbps in h.264

 

I'm wouldn't be complaining if we had anything like that in mpeg 4 !!!

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

Fortunately, what happens in the ear or brain isn't relevant to sound reproduction. If identical signals are fed to identical speakers, identical sound waves will emerge.

 

 Providing that the signals are comprehensively, and accurately measured, and are shown to be identical by actual measurements, (not check sums) then that is indeed correct.

[sandyk]

1 hour ago, marce said:

corporate broadcasting decisions do not involve the engineers that design the kit and codecs, its made at a much higher level and involves government licencing... go learn instead of spreading you vile against engineers.

 

Who do you think the Governments listen to when Licencing the use of new Codecs etc.?

They would mainly rely on the advice and comprehensive test results presented by the Engineering teams that developed  and tested them !

Very few Government agencies would have the necessary expertise (and finances)  to perform in depth tests before licencing them, perhaps with the exception of USA's FCC ?

[sandyk]

8 minutes ago, mansr said:

Would you also agree that if the peak difference between two signals is less than some threshold, they can be considered identical?

 

 I would need to consider that on a case by case basis. You can also have "identical" signals  with different noise floors   ( residual Tape Bias etc.) that MAY make them sound a little different.

[sandyk]

Just now, opus101 said:

It would be naive to think any government listens to anyone other than he who wields the fattest chequebook. Governments' sole aim is to remain in power, which requires a steady stream of readies.

 

 

 That is a very cynical attitude ! Most major changes like this don't involve just one country.

My understanding is that the change from mpeg 2 to mpeg 4 TV transmissions is the new Industry standard, and does not apply to just one country. Recently in Australia, the Government had to reduce licensing fees in order to help keep one Network viable. This was apparently mainly due to loss of advertising revenue to others such as Corporate giants like Google etc.

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Governments do not license codecs. They license frequency ranges

 

Agreed, but their agencies also approve the use of new transmission methods, phasing them in so as not to disadvantage too many people with older non compatible TV receivers. It was quite a few years in Australia before TV networks were permitted to transmit HD TV.