Jump to content
IGNORED

Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?


Recommended Posts

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

 

 

 

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

 

:) :D

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ?

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to post
Share on other sites
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)

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ...

Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

 

 

 

 

And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Over and out.

.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

mQa is dead!

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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...:D:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby
Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley
Through the middle of my skull

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...