Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?

[kumakuma]

26 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

As I have just posted, I also normally seek confirmation from others BEFORE posting my reports.

You will also find that last year there was a thread where several members, including Peter St., Manisandher,  and ACG ( Anthony) confirmed my results with uploaded versions  of "Unter Donner und Blitz Polka, Op. 324" from the album "Ein Straussfest -  Erich Kunzel

 

Are these the results you are referring to?

 

Quote

 

Recently I uploaded the last pair of comparison tracks that appeared on the CD that I sent esldude several months ago, and from which the CD-R was burned .

All 3 C.A. recipients had no problems identifying audible differences between the tracks. There was however disagreement on which track was which, with 2 reporting that the cannon at the end of the track sounded not quite right. The 3rd recipient accurately identified it as thunder.

 

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/27206-jitter-problem/?page=15&tab=comments#comment-541812

 

 

 

[crenca]

6 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

I believe the 3 of us are on the verge of founding a top level audio cable company!

 

I suggest we set up a GoFunkme account for the initial $$ flow and call it Confirmation Bias Cable Company

 

maybe Bill will join us

LOL!

 

 

 

In fact, I think this is a two emoticon post:

 

 

[crenca]

1 hour ago, wgscott said:

 

No, his point is that outside of pure mathematics, there is not inductive law that permits you to prove a hypothesis.  cf David Hume.  So the best we can do is try to falsify a hypothesis.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

 

Amongst other things this leads to a form of intellectual humility.  Unless you can state under what circumstances you would be willing to accept that your hypothesis is wrong, you are operating in the realm of metaphysics and religious beliefs.  In other words, science is simply a formalized approach to being reasonable.

 

Ask SankyK under what conditions he would accept that his hypothesis that music files having identical checksums can sound different, depending on his past history, would be demonstrably wrong.  His answer is fairly telling.

 

 

Just a quibble - methodological science itself is incapable of defining reasonable.  Such a limit/boundary of reason itself would be a hypothesis.  

 

Metaphysics (of all kinds - excepting perhaps what goes by that name in you local New Age bookstore), religion, etc. do not observe the same limit.  Not that they can not be wrong, etc.

[crenca]

Hey, as far as the something actually "pragmatic" in the realm of audiophiledom that is also compelling in its view of the "subjective" vs. "objective" audiophile, some might like:

 

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/approaching-neutral

 

Now, if we could somehow steer back toward the thread OP. Just a little perhaps...

[sandyk]

4 minutes ago, crenca said:

Now, if we could somehow steer back toward the thread OP. Just a little perhaps...

 

 Probably better to let it die a natural death, as most of what can be said, probably has been said already ?

[crenca]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 

 Probably better to let it die a natural death, as most of what can be said, probably has been said already ?

 

Oh don't worry, the Cloud will think of something, she always does

 

(that's right, the Internet and her collective Cloud Concsiousness is a women...you know, like your boat)

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

The chance that two files having the same checksum are different is extremely small. 

 

For the record, I have compared files that Alex claims sound different and they are bit-for-bit identical.   

 

yes, small but not zero - do you happen to know how small?

[fas42]

27 minutes ago, crenca said:

Hey, as far as the something actually "pragmatic" in the realm of audiophiledom that is also compelling in its view of the "subjective" vs. "objective" audiophile, some might like:

 

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/approaching-neutral

 

Now, if we could somehow steer back toward the thread OP. Just a little perhaps...

 

Pretty good rundown ... my quibble is the use of the word "neutral", throughout - I never use this term, because it means nothing, to me. Now, if he had titled it "Approaching Inaudible Distortion" I would grok the article, fully - it's distinctive distortion artifacts that distract one, that cause one to switch from "experiential listening" to "analytical listening" - if it switches like this, it's game over for the system I'm listening to ...

[kumakuma]

14 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

yes, small but not zero - do you happen to know how small?

 

According to the following page, a "32-bit hash gives you roughly 4 billion possible hashes" 

 

https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=149670

 

Search google using "crc32 hash collision probability" to find more information

[pkane2001]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Pretty good rundown ... my quibble is the use of the word "neutral", throughout - I never use this term, because it means nothing, to me. Now, if he had titled it "Approaching Inaudible Distortion" I would grok the article, fully - it's distinctive distortion artifacts that distract one, that cause one to switch from "experiential listening" to "analytical listening" - if it switches like this, it's game over for the system I'm listening to ...

 

Doesn't the word neutral mean exactly that in the context of audio: 'approaching inaudible distortion'? Neutral, as in not adding to or subtracting from, not imparting any of its own characteristics to the sound. At least that's how I understand it.

[esldude]

20 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

yes, small but not zero - do you happen to know how small?

Not the only method of comparison.  Simply a very convenient one.  

 

A little utility I use gives the MD5, SHA1, and SHA256 values.  What are the odds all of those would match and it still not actually be bit identical?  Wow, I run out of decimal places I think.  

 

Using some other methods will give zero chance they differ.  

 

 

 

 

[esldude]

Is audiophiledom a confidence game? We have enough evidence to wrap this one up now I think. 

 

Yes.  

 

On the one side we have audiophiles who generally have confidence in their hearing ability, the hubris to think they aren't part of the human condition, and that is it.  Ripe for being the mark in a confidence game. 

 

On the other side of things we have humble skeptical types.  They have some understanding of what the conditions of being human are.  Extraordinary measurements that modern technology allows.  The understanding of science behind these phenomena. Results of many tests of listeners.  And the already quoted Feynman, "the hardest thing is not to fool yourself, and you are the easiest one to fool", which results in those taking appropriate precautions as much as possible.  

 

The typical audiophile instead maximizes the probability he will fool himself, while pumping up his own sense of self prophesying his 'experience' and pure motives protect him from human frailty giving him the omniscient aural abilities of a true god.  He hears it.  He knows it.  He knows he hears it as it is.

 

Now where is that winkie of absolution..........  ;~)

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, esldude said:

On the other side of things we have humble skeptical types. 

 

 Humble, my right Royal arse  !

[tne]

23 minutes ago, esldude said:

Is audiophiledom a confidence game? We have enough evidence to wrap this one up now I think. 

 

Yes.  

 

On the one side we have audiophiles who generally have confidence in their hearing ability, the hubris to think they aren't part of the human condition, and that is it.  Ripe for being the mark in a confidence game. 

 

On the other side of things we have humble skeptical types.  They have some understanding of what the conditions of being human are.  Extraordinary measurements that modern technology allows.  The understanding of science behind these phenomena. Results of many tests of listeners.  And the already quoted Feynman, "the hardest thing is not to fool yourself, and you are the easiest one to fool", which results in those taking appropriate precautions as much as possible.  

 

The typical audiophile instead maximizes the probability he will fool himself, while pumping up his own sense of self prophesying his 'experience' and pure motives protect him from human frailty giving him the omniscient aural abilities of a true god.  He hears it.  He knows it.  He knows he hears it as it is.

 

Now where is that winkie of absolution..........  ;~)

 

Wow. Talk about hubris.

You must feel that the world is such a better place since you are here to tell people what they should think and hear.

 

It is always curious when those who fancy themselves as "objective" and scientific, expect others to accept their opinions and ideas without questioning.

That would be neither objective nor scientific.

[fas42]

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Doesn't the word neutral mean exactly that in the context of audio: 'approaching inaudible distortion'? Neutral, as in not adding to or subtracting from, not imparting any of its own characteristics to the sound. At least that's how I understand it.

 

Yes, going by the Stereophile Audio Glossary, it means, "Freedom from (an audible "signature" with which a reproducing system imbues all signals passing through it)". However, that word typically is only used to refer to linear distortion, FR and phase variations from the ideal - a type of distortion I find to be relatively benign. Non-linear distortion is the real culprit IME, so I should have inserted that term, "non-linear", in my post - I will always be meaning non-linear distortion when I refer to distortion artifacts.

[lucretius]

3 hours ago, crenca said:

Hey, as far as the something actually "pragmatic" in the realm of audiophiledom that is also compelling in its view of the "subjective" vs. "objective" audiophile, some might like:

 

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/approaching-neutral

 

Now, if we could somehow steer back toward the thread OP. Just a little perhaps...

 

I just could not read through to the end of that B.S.

[Allan F]

12 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

Regardless of how many times Alex posts something with the "Audiophile" portion of "Computer Audiophile" highlighted in bold, I refuse to give into the bullying tactics of the hardline audiophiles that have overrun this site.

 

Who gives a rat's ass about what you refuse to give into? Your use of the word "audiophile" as a pejorative term only serves to highlight your abject negativity. While I generally and strongly reject Michael Lavorgna's characterization of the Computer Audiophile community, at least in your sad case, he appears to be right.

[marce]

13 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

yes, noise, gnd loops, EMF 

 

and I said plausible -- not proven

 

but a plausible mechanism is a LOT better than witchcraft that cannot work except via conf. bias

I said earlier somewhere that some set ups do to me look like an EMC nightmare, especially when they use grounding boxes, wires everywhere and as Jabbr correctly pointed out, its all about RF.

Quote

Doesn’t everything have to do with RF ? ??

So I do think it is possible that EMC could be a big contributor to any possible change in signal... Hacking power lines, shielding at one end only (without an RF connection at the other end), multiple components, every system will be different, every environment different...So it is a plausible explanation, one where the residual noise signal is changed. All this would be measurable if we had the means, you need a proper shielded EMC lab. Anyway got to go just reading up on EMC stuff and very high impedance probes and signal to noise ratios.

[marce]

6 hours ago, esldude said:

Is audiophiledom a confidence game? We have enough evidence to wrap this one up now I think. 

 

Yes.  

 

On the one side we have audiophiles who generally have confidence in their hearing ability, the hubris to think they aren't part of the human condition, and that is it.  Ripe for being the mark in a confidence game. 

 

On the other side of things we have humble skeptical types.  They have some understanding of what the conditions of being human are.  Extraordinary measurements that modern technology allows.  The understanding of science behind these phenomena. Results of many tests of listeners.  And the already quoted Feynman, "the hardest thing is not to fool yourself, and you are the easiest one to fool", which results in those taking appropriate precautions as much as possible.  

 

The typical audiophile instead maximizes the probability he will fool himself, while pumping up his own sense of self prophesying his 'experience' and pure motives protect him from human frailty giving him the omniscient aural abilities of a true god.  He hears it.  He knows it.  He knows he hears it as it is.

 

Now where is that winkie of absolution..........  ;~)

Satire at its best...

[mansr]

9 hours ago, esldude said:

Not the only method of comparison.  Simply a very convenient one.  

 

A little utility I use gives the MD5, SHA1, and SHA256 values.  What are the odds all of those would match and it still not actually be bit identical?  Wow, I run out of decimal places I think.  

 

Using some other methods will give zero chance they differ.

An MD5 hash is 128 bits. The chance of a random collision is vanishingly small. However, the algorithm has some flaws that make it relatively easy to construct pairs of files with the same hash. Crafting a file producing a specific hash is much harder.

 

SHA1 is 192 bits, so random collisions are even less likely here. Again, however, flaws have been found allowing the creation of collisions, as demonstrated by Google researchers earlier this year. Their attack used over 6000 years of CPU time to produce a pair of valid PDF files with the same hash.

 

SHA256, as its name implies, produces 256-bit hashes. No vulnerabilities are known. A collision has never been found.

 

Hashes are a convenient way to compare if two files on different systems are identical, for instance to verify error-free transmission. There is, obviously, a slim chance of a hash collision. If both files are on the same system, they can simply be compared byte for byte instead.

 

As for audio files, even in the case of a random hash collision, the chance of them sounding almost but not quite the same is even more vanishingly small. More likely, one file would be utterly corrupted, at least in part. For a compressed file, any random corruption would also most likely render it invalid and thus unplayable.

 

I think is is safe to say that the files being discussed here are indeed bit for bit identical.

[pkane2001]

8 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

Yes, going by the Stereophile Audio Glossary, it means, "Freedom from (an audible "signature" with which a reproducing system imbues all signals passing through it)". However, that word typically is only used to refer to linear distortion, FR and phase variations from the ideal - a type of distortion I find to be relatively benign. Non-linear distortion is the real culprit IME, so I should have inserted that term, "non-linear", in my post - I will always be meaning non-linear distortion when I refer to distortion artifacts.

 

I don't keep up with audiophile press, so maybe I missed that 'neutral' applies only to linear distortions

 

But, FR is far from being a benign distortion and is often the largest offender in an uncorrected system. Phase distortions, I'll agree with you, are not as obvious although can be audible. Also, these types of distortions are most often non-linear.

[kumakuma]

9 hours ago, Allan F said:

 

Who gives a rat's ass about what you refuse to give into? Your use of the word "audiophile" as a pejorative term only serves to highlight your abject negativity. While I generally and strongly reject Michael Lavorgna's characterization of the Computer Audiophile community, at least in your sad case, he appears to be right.

 

It was a joke, Allan, in the same vein as Bill's Taliban references.

[wgscott]

Why is it all the Happy People(™) can't laugh at a joke, or even (as in this case) a very mild parody?

[kumakuma]

Religion and humor often have a stormy relationship.

[Allan F]

1 hour ago, kumakuma said:

 

It was a joke, Allan, in the same vein as Bill's Taliban references.

 

The line between sarcasm and snide remarks can become so thin as to be virtually non-existent, especially with certain members of this forum. Those who closely approach or occasionally cross it should not expect apologies but, if it makes you feel better, I offer mine.

 

Given the role that religion has played in the slaughter of so many millions of people, the often stormy relationship between religion and humour may be a good thing. My last polemic for today.