Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[rando]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

What I want to know is what is the most expensive bicycle inner tube to use for my air bearing vibration control platforms. Just goes to show, you can mix high-end bicycle and audio after all !

 

I'm hearing improved acoustics using this for personal audio projects.  

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, rando said:

 

I'm hearing improved acoustics using this for personal audio projects.  

 

 

 

I can see how it might *elevate* your perception but I'm guessing way too cheap !

[marce]

36 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Then why is it a perennial topic raised ? Who raises it?

 

So should I believe you ?

 

Just pointing out a little perspective may be in order, not pacification. Why are you the arbiters of truth ?

Because we have physics as our guide... Simple.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, marce said:

Because we have physics as our guide... Simple.

 

Your subjective interpretation of physics = Your theory.

And how does the physics you know let you inside other people's experience? Does it tell you how much I should spend on my audio gear?

[marce]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Your subjective interpretation of physics = Your theory.

And how does the physics you know let you inside other people's experience? Does it tell you how much I should spend on my audio gear?

What, what are you going on about... The laws of physics apply to everyone even audiophiles...

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Your subjective interpretation of physics = Your theory.

And how does the physics you know let you inside other people's experience? Does it tell you how much I should spend on my audio gear?

 

Iff the interpretation were subjective it would be wrong — physics applies to everyone equally. In the specific area of electromagnetism, the physics is well established and for our purposes beyond reasonable disagreement.

 

What I see is that the term physics is bandied about without proper care eg physics says this or that when it may not. Yet physics may say this or that.

 

The lack of real understanding of physics on the part of some people does not imply the physics is wrong. I wouldn’t put @marce in that category.

 

Now physics doesn’t say things like “all DACs sound the same” or “all cables sound the same” or “bits are bits” — those are all propositions which are either testable or can be determined through modeling/equations. Short of either, I wouldn’t elevate such statements to the level of a “theory”

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, rando said:

 

I'm hearing improved acoustics using this for personal audio projects.  

 

 

 

Improved acoustics of which particular sounds, I dare ask? 

[rando]

24 minutes ago, lucretius said:

Improved acoustics of which particular sounds, I dare ask? 

 

Throughput in my system has been improved across all functions.   Notably, strength of attack with a drastic lengthening of decay.  @Ralf11 might be interested to discover that bass impact is not unlike the effects of a SUB-PAC in the lowest frequencies.  I've also noticed a large impact in the horns, very detailed hall resonance coming forward, and non-fatiguing listening sessions.  

[marce]

LOL

[Ralf11]

9 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 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

 

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

 

Calling some information anecdotal is not saying it is worthless.  For example, science often starts with anecdotal observations - witness the voyages of discovery in the 1800s or the modern analog today with space probes taking photos.  After that, you design an experiment to put on a planetary lander.

 

If there are a very large number of anecdotal observations - all pointing the same way - then one begins to get suspicious that there's something happening here, but what it is ain't exactly clear.  And you would then do some controlled testing.

 

You, of course, are free to spend your own money on any legal product - problems arise when exhortations are made on public media to buy, buy, buy items of dubious worth.

 

Not to say that mechanisms can exist to cause some effects that seem unlikely at first glance - the foil in the transformer post by jabbr was... um... transformative. 

[Ralf11]

4 hours ago, rando said:

 

Throughput in my system has been improved across all functions.   Notably, strength of attack with a drastic lengthening of decay.  @Ralf11 might be interested to discover that bass impact is not unlike the effects of a SUB-PAC in the lowest frequencies.  I've also noticed a large impact in the horns, very detailed hall resonance coming forward, and non-fatiguing listening sessions.  

 

 

I don't think Wendell will allow me to use that with my Maggies.

 

First up is a new DAC.

[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.  

[Allan F]

9 minutes ago, sandyk said:

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"

 

In Canada, at least where I live, the issue seems to be identifying the provider that uses less compression. A cable provider is known to employ less compression than a telecom, but both use it to conserve bandwidth.

[mansr]

14 minutes ago, sandyk said:

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.

Having worked in the broadcast industry, I can assure you that this indeed the case.

 

14 minutes ago, sandyk said:

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.  

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

[sandyk]

Just now, mansr said:

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

 

That is a copout !!!

 

 

[mansr]

10 minutes ago, sandyk said:

That is a copout !!!

Do you know anything about video codecs?

[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 ? 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 

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 ? 

 

 

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.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 hours ago, marce said:

What, what are you going on about... The laws of physics apply to everyone even audiophiles...

 

Quite agreed physics apples to all - even "objectivists". However "so called" objectivists very often form theories based on physical facts that are subjective interpretations.

 

"bits are bits" therefore it is impossible for bit identical files to sound different. This is misguided pseudoscience. It is a reasonable theory and predictions made from said theory need testing. What you can say is that if two bit identical files sound different it is not due to having different checksums but some other variable which may or may not be determined at this point.

 

What you cannot say with scientific certainty is that a $250,000 amplifier cannot sound better than a $5000 amplifier  OR vice versa. What you cannot say with scientific certainty is that somebody else is not having a different but equally valid perceptual experience to that of your own.

 

I will ask you again -

And how does the physics *you know* let you inside other people's experience? Does it tell you how much I should spend on my audio gear? Present your facts, not subjective theory, what you want to believe.

Read more  

9 hours ago, jabbr said:

Iff the interpretation were subjective it would be wrong — physics applies to everyone equally.

 

Of course it does .

Quote

What I see is that the term physics is bandied about without proper care eg physics says this or that when it may not.

 

Agreed completely!

 

[kumakuma]

11 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

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 ? 

 

 

Having seen pictures and videos of manrs, "old fogey" is not the term I would use to describe him. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he was asked to show ID when buying a drink.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 hours ago, jabbr said:

Now physics doesn’t say things like “all DACs sound the same” or “all cables sound the same” or “bits are bits” — those are all propositions which are either testable or can be determined through modeling/equations. Short of either, I wouldn’t elevate such statements to the level of a “theory”

 

Agreed except - Physics and maths *do* say Bits are Bits. indisputable fact.  Its the extrapolations and predictions based on fact where people get it wrong.

[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 !

[Ralf11]

45 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

you are confusing a discontinuity in playback with the ability to determine a particular component

 

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/10/04/a-mother-refused-to-follow-a-court-order-to-vaccinate-her-son-now-shes-going-to-jail/?utm_term=.25717337288c