Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[mansr]

13 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 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 ?

Please stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

Improved acoustics of which particular sounds, I dare ask? 

 

Bass notes...or should I say *bottom* notes

[mansr]

16 minutes ago, sandyk said:

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 !

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

[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 ?

[mansr]

42 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

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.

I'm less than half Alex's age. Not that it really matters.

[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 ?

[Ralf11]

please point out the "incompleteness" of the "current scientific knowledge of [] Audio"

 

what is not known??

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

On 10/2/2017 at 10:26 AM, fas42 said:

 

Alex, the money spent doesn't come into it - if anything, higher priced components can make things worse; because they get so much right, but still the overall system has clear weaknesses which are too intrusive, audibly.

 

I can only repeat, over and over and over again - a competent system results from the elimination of all audible flaws; not, the addition of pricey, upmarket components!! It's a very simple principle, which always works, completely consistently IME.

 

As Alex says

On 10/2/2017 at 10:26 AM, fas42 said:

 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

 

Money does come into it, *if* as *you* say "they get so much right" and *if* as *you* say "a competent system results from the elimination of all audible flaws". If each component "got it right" with "less audible flaws" the whole system would benefit - but yes system "tuning" may be required. IME a well tuned system of components with less audible flaws sounds better than a system with flawed components.

 

I agree with Alex (SandyK), DACS sound differently, expensive or not. IME more expensive DACS sound less different than cheaper DACS. IME more expensive DACS have less audible flaws ie IMO. I am *not* saying cheaper DACS sound worse necessarily or that anyone else should have the same experience.

 

I will say we all hear want we want to hear and believe what we want to believe.

 

I believe for example Michael L got set upon in this thread. Others will disagree. He lost his cool at the end which is unfortunate. I did value his contribution. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 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.

 

I agree but fortunately truly objective "objectivists" and "subjectivists" that are objective are unraveling more explanations.

 

11 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

please point out the "incompleteness" of the "current scientific knowledge of [] Audio"

 

what is not known??

 

Ahh the old "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns". I suppose unless you profess to know everything some things remain unknown. Clearly, Alex's (SandyK) point remains valid even if he cannot know the unknowable.

[jabbr]

3 hours ago, sandyk said:

 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.

 

Scientific knowledge can encompass many things, including the brain's ability to process information.

 

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?

[Teresa]

15 hours ago, marce said:

...All we do it look what is happening, don't just blindly believe everything we are told...

 

I just want to point out that as a subjectivist I believe even less than you do.

 

I believe very little that I have not experienced with my 5+ senses. In audio if I have not heard it in my system, in my room, with my ears I can't comment.

 

I like to read other people's experiences but they are not my own, so there is nothing to believe or disbelieve IMHO.

 

subjectivism |səbˈjektəˌvizəm|
noun Philosophy
the doctrine that knowledge is merely subjective and that there is no external or objective truth.

[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

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

58 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Scientific knowledge can encompass many things, including the brain's ability to process information.

 

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?

 

Alex can answer for himself but for me, I would say yes provided that by "transceivers" you mean ALL possible other transmission, transduction and receptive processes. In the event that they don't sound the same there are two possible explanations. You are fooling yourself (not quite accurate but what some would assert) OR you have missed something that explains the difference.

 

I would comment that what occurs between tympanic membrane and brain is not a simple matter of transmission and registration on the right bit of the cortex. Two people can perceive the same stimulus differently for all sorts of reasons - some pathological and some physiological and some psychological that then further modulate the actual neural signal. The altered perception is therefore as real as the next guy's, with certain caveats.

 

Edit: and yes , as Alex says, assuming your measurements are always 100% accurate, measuring what you think you are measuring in the first place and are sensitive and specific enough to do so.

 

 

[jabbr]

18 minutes ago, sandyk said:

The key words here are "measurably identical".

 

Yes! This indeed means the measurements are comprehensive, are done accurately, with highest sensitivity and correctly.

 

That is the electromagnetic physics with which we have a great deal of confidence. What happens when the air or light hits the brain is not nearly so well known nor established.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

7 minutes ago, jabbr said:

What happens when the air or light hits the brain is not nearly so well known nor established.

 

But when "the air or light hits the brain" is precisely what we hear and see.

 

You can measure surrogate signals all you like and provided the conclusions are accurate and pertain to the surrogate I have no problem.

[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 !!!

[marce]

9 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

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  

Of course it does .

 

Agreed completely!

 

Yawn you just spout rubbish, I think you will be the first ever person I may ignore...

[marce]

9 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

 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 ?

The last few posts show clearly that  you haven't got a clue about what goes on in the engineering world and are just bashing engineers needlessly. 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 minute ago, marce said:

Yawn you just spout rubbish, I think you will be the first ever person I may ignore...

 

Couldn't answer the questions eh. I thought not (in fairness I knew not).

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Just now, marce said:

The last few posts show clearly that  you haven't got a clue about what goes on in the engineering world and are just bashing engineers needlessly. 

 

seems like everyone that doesn't see it your way "hast got a clue" or is "spouting rubbish."

[marce]

8 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

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 ?

This is just plain derogatory, It is so misinformed that it is laughable. 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.

[marce]

12 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

seems like everyone that doesn't see it your way "hast got a clue" or is "spouting rubbish."

Read my full response, it was a specific answer to a specific question, stop trying to read more into what I put. You and your little "pack" are bashing engineering and science, unnecessarily and for what reason, other than it does not always back up your beliefs, I cannot understand. The answer was specific to the comment posted nothing more...

[marce]

23 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Couldn't answer the questions eh. I thought not (in fairness I knew not).

Nothing to answer, nothing to say.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 minutes ago, marce said:

Nothing to answer, nothing to say.

If you adopt a position and the invoke physics as your *simple* answer be prepared to be called out. You having "nothing to say" is probably a good thing.