Jump to content
IGNORED

Is Audiophiledom a confidence game?


crenca

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

A lot of the 'normal' stereo material is manufactured by applying a certain amount of phase difference and reverb to the signal to position it at a certain spot in the soundstage. The original recorded signal contains few real spatial cues, as it is often captured from a mic close to the performer/instrument and designed to remove as much of the reverberant  information from it as possible. More often than not, you're hearing positional cues that are artificially created in post-processing.

 

 

Recordings which are totally artificial in their presentation of a soundstage are no less interesting than a completely "natural" one. An analogy might be, an impressionist painting versus a photograph of the same scene - one look at the latter, and you "know" just about everything that's 'happening' in the scene there and then; with the former it can be quite a journey of discovery, finding all the interesting plays with colour, texture and light and shade within, the creative input.

 

Heavily worked pop recordings can be amazing productions, a constant delight of Easter eggs for the ears, because there are almost no limits on what can be conjured up.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Recordings which are totally artificial in their presentation of a soundstage are no less interesting than a completely "natural" one. An analogy might be, an impressionist painting versus a photograph of the same scene - one look at the latter, and you "know" just about everything that's 'happening' in the scene there and then; with the former it can be quite a journey of discovery, finding all the interesting plays with colour, texture and light and shade within, the creative input.

 

Heavily worked pop recordings can be amazing productions, a constant delight of Easter eggs for the ears, because there are almost no limits on what can be conjured up.

 

Yes, we agree. Some of my albums play with a soundstage so deep and spaced out that I hear the instruments and performers well outside of my listening room. I know this effect is mostly artificially created by a mastering engineer, and yet, these albums are a lot of fun to listen to anyway :)

 

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Yes, we agree. Some of my albums play with a soundstage so deep and spaced out that I hear the instruments and performers well outside of my listening room. I know this effect is mostly artificially created by a mastering engineer, and yet, these albums are a lot of fun to listen to anyway :)

 

 

Good one! The "fully invisible speakers" illusion is just a natural extension of this, and occurs with every recording, no matter how "bad" - which makes the exercise of optimising a rig quite straightforward in terms of having a goal ... how close are we to the disappearing drivers quality level?

 

My last project, a combo of old NAD units, still has not reached that point - close, pretty close at some peaks of everything being in the right place - but no cigar! There is still plenty to do to improve things, so it's merely a matter of applying some energy and focus, on my part, to get to that point.

Link to comment
On 10/13/2017 at 7:50 PM, wgscott said:

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.

 

I can very easily create two files with the identical bits in them that will pass all checksums, yet they will sound different.  This is a characteristic of my particular audio playback system which includes a computer, some hard drives, and a RAM disk.  The computer is located a few feet from my listening position and is under my right near field monitor.  If I have two bit-identical files, on one the RAM disk and one on the hard drive, when I play the RAM disk file I won't hear any acoustic noise from the spinning disk.  If I play the file on the hard drive I will hear noise from the (now) powered up disk drive.  This is unarguable and easily repeatable (however care has to be taken that the file system doesn't have the hard drive file contents cached in other parts of the RAM).

 

This one example completely demolishes the unrestricted claim that bit identical files must sound different and that people who hear differences between files with identical checksums are delusional. 

 

It would be more difficult to demonstrate differences were the computer with spinning disk outside of the listening room, but there is nothing, in principle, that would make this impossible.  The extent that the different electrical environment in the computer might affect the electrical signals to the speaker drivers would depend on details of the playback electronics.  (It would be easier to demonstrate measured differences in the analog output of the DAC under various conditions in the digital side of the DAC, as has been done with various USB regenerator devices, etc..)

 

Link to comment

All @Tony Lauck is really saying is that ambient noise, if he can hear it, makes a difference. Well of course it does. If the spinning disk does not increase ambient noise, then you can't hear it and the media choices makes no difference in your example.

 

Now, if you want to argue that the hard disk introduces other types of noise into the system versus the SSD, that is a different conversation.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Unless I'm misunderstanding, your argument is a total red herring.

It was a real-world example that shows the effect of imperfections of the playback chain  on the sound a listener hears.  I chose it because it was a blatant example of how differences in the representation of two files in a computer system can interact with defects in the playback system to affect what listeners hear, so blatant that there would be no calls for double blind testing, etc...  I could have chosen other examples, for example if I had two copies of the same file on the hard drive and one of them was badly fragmented it would be possible to hear the disk seeking.  (It was the seek noise that originally caused me to set up the RAM drive and play out of that.)

 

I admit this was a slippery slope argument.  IMO this was well deserved because the long history of some objectivists calling some subjectivists delusional over the very issue of playback of bit identical files.  (One of the earlier examples concerned the alleged difference between playing back WAV files vs. playing back WAV files that have been polluted by being converted to FLAC and then back to WAV.)

 

By the way, I am an objectivist when criticizing subjectivists reaching nonsensical conclusions from what they have heard and I am a subjectivist when dealing with dogmatic statements from objectivists, especially those who don't even understand the underlying technology they are using and therefore can be flat out wrong in their scientific conclusions in some cases.  I am more than OK if I sometimes irritate both groups.

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Tony Lauck said:

I(One of the earlier examples concerned the alleged difference between playing back WAV files vs. playing back WAV files that have been polluted by being converted to FLAC and then back to WAV.)

 

WAV and FLAC are containers that hold data. When done properly, converting from WAV to FLAC, the container changes but the data stays the same. The same is true when converting from FLAC to WAV. Explain how the data is polluted when changing the container.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

 

WAV and FLAC are containers that hold data. When done properly, converting from WAV to FLAC, the container changes but the data stays the same. The same is true when converting from FLAC to WAV. Explain how the data is polluted when changing the container.

 

The data is not polluted.  However, the result is a new file.  As in the example I gave earlier the new file will be stored on a different place in the computer system and may therefore sound different when played back.  (It shouldn't, but it might.)  In addition, many times the conversion software changes the output WAV file in the process WAV to FLAC to WAV.  Examining the audio samples in the two WAV files one will see that they contain the identical samples, but the two WAV files have different checksums.  This may be related to changing ways the metadata is stored or how the chunks are laid out on the individual file blocks.  Again, the meta data should not affect the playback of the identical audio samples, but who can say what software may do and how the software can interact with various aspects of the underlying hardware.

 

It's a separate question as to whether real-time playback of a FLAC file sounds different from converting the file to WAV and then playing back the resultant WAV file in real time. Again, this should not make any difference, but on some systems it does.

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, Tony Lauck said:

I admit this was a slippery slope argument.  IMO this was well deserved because the long history of some objectivists calling some subjectivists delusional over the very issue of playback of bit identical files. 

 

We have been down this road multiple times before as you well know. 

 

Alex is saying that he is able to generate two bit identical files that sound different when played under identical conditions (same playback chain, same media, same everything). His theory is that noise is somehow embedded in one of the files and travels along with it when it is copied to a USB drive and sent to the UK or downloaded over the Internet.

 

Glad to hear any theories you have on how this is possible. 

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 comment
8 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

Alex is saying that he is able to generate two bit identical files that sound different when played under identical conditions (same playback chain, same media, same everything). His theory is that noise is somehow embedded in one of the files and travels along with it when it copied to a USB drive and sent to the UK or downloaded over the Internet.

 

Glad to hear any theories you have on how this is possible. 

As I recall, he provided insufficient details as to how these files were produced.  This makes it impossible for anyone to replicate the experiment.  As such, and after wasting a fair amount of time, I  consider this a waste of time.

 

I don't doubt that two USB sticks might sound different.  One could even have a virus on it that hacked my computer.  Again, this is an extreme case, just to show that solid controls are necessary as part of any scientific experiment.  In addition, a useful experiment would need to show when these differences were possible.  This could lead to producing better playback gear (that eliminates said effects if they are real) or alternatively results in studios producing better quality recordings.  But this won't happen if the people involve wear audiophile, music lover, objectivist or subjectivist hats.  They must put these hats away and put on their scientist hat, if they have one.

 

If someone actually gave me two bit identical files that sounded different after I controlled for location and other effects then I would waste no effort getting to the bottom of it, just as I did with the question of hard drive noise.

 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

We have been down this road multiple times before as you well know. 

 

Alex is saying that he is able to generate two bit identical files that sound different when played under identical conditions (same playback chain, same media, same everything). His theory is that noise is somehow embedded in one of the files and travels along with it when it is copied to a USB drive and sent to the UK or downloaded over the Internet.

 

Glad to hear any theories you have on how this is possible. 

 

My theory about what's going on is that the sequence of playing is key - perhaps a combination of some type of 'memory effects' in the playback chain, and how human hearing reacts to repeat playings of material. If we have A and B versions, then I would be interested in what people who are hearing this behaviour pick up when combinations of play sequences A B, vs B A, vs A A, vs B B, is tried.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tony Lauck said:

It was a real-world example that shows the effect of imperfections of the playback chain ...

 

 

I think you mean a non-ideal listening environment.  A noisy listening room proves nothing.

 

Quote

By the way, I am an objectivist when criticizing subjectivists reaching nonsensical conclusions from what they have heard and I am a subjectivist when dealing with dogmatic statements from objectivists, especially those who don't even understand the underlying technology they are using and therefore can be flat out wrong in their scientific conclusions in some cases.  I am more than OK if I sometimes irritate both groups.

 

Your declared tribal memberships are non sequitur to the point you're trying to make.

Link to comment
Just now, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I think you mean a non-ideal listening environment.  A noisy listening room proves nothing.

The noise was from the audio equipment.  I would agree with you if the noise came elsewhere.  I see no difference between noise that comes through the air from a component other than the speaker or if the noise originates elsewhere in the system end comes out through the speakers.   My example is no different from problems I recall ages ago, such as noisy tape reels when playing reel to reel tape,  needle talk from an LP cartridge, etc...

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Tony Lauck said:

The noise was from the audio equipment.  I would agree with you if the noise came elsewhere.  I see no difference between noise that comes through the air from a component other than the speaker or if the noise originates elsewhere in the system end comes out through the speakers.   My example is no different from problems I recall ages ago, such as noisy tape reels when playing reel to reel tape,  needle talk from an LP cartridge, etc...

 

 

This is quite a stretch.  The "audio equipment" in question is a PC mechanical hard drive.  This is just not a persuasive argument.  Others may agree with you.  I still think it's a red herring.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Tony Lauck said:

The noise was from the audio equipment.  I would agree with you if the noise came elsewhere.  I see no difference between noise that comes through the air from a component other than the speaker or if the noise originates elsewhere in the system end comes out through the speakers.   My example is no different from problems I recall ages ago, such as noisy tape reels when playing reel to reel tape,  needle talk from an LP cartridge, etc...

 

 

I am incredulous as to your "point", which is quite besides the point of whether two bit identical software files can have some quality in-of-themselves that leads to 1+1=2 at on time, and 1+1=3 at another.

 

In addition, it is not on subject of this thread.

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

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, Tony Lauck said:

I don't doubt that two USB sticks might sound different.

 

Tony

It's not just when using USB memory.

esldude should still have a MAM Gold CD-R similar to that I sent M.C., and Barry D.  a while back, where they heard differences between tracks with identical checksums, just as M.C. did with the original uploaded .wav files where he performed the series of 6 positive DBTs.

You could always ask Dennis to send you the MAM Gold CD-R where the differences are more obvious than with the generic CD-R that I also sent him. The differences were quite obvious when played via an Oppo 103 into a high quality DIY DAC, and also obvious to a friend when we also used a Bricasti M1 DAC with the Oppo 103 via Coax SPDIF.

Note also my quote from Cookie Marenco in my signature. That makes 2 highly respected Recording and Mastering Engineers that are also able to hear these differences. Barry D. does not supply DLs in in .flac for the same reasons.

Alex 

 

P.S.

 I will NOT be entering into further discussions on this subject in this thread.

I can be contacted via P.M. for further information ONLY, but I will not be drawn into further arguments/discussions with the usual Anti Subjective crowd via P.M.

This has already been going on for around 8 years in this forum, and I am sick and tired of discussing it with every new Tom, Dick and Mary that comes along. 

 

 

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 comment
2 hours ago, Tony Lauck said:

It was a real-world example that shows the effect of imperfections of the playback chain  on the sound a listener hears. 

 

Alex's claim is that two bit-identical files on the same device, etc., and all other things being equal, can nevertheless sound different if they have different histories (such as, for example, one is copied from the other using a computer powered by a noisy power supply).

 

The point isn't whether he is right or wrong (and he and I are finally in agreement to simply disagree and let it go). Rather, the point was whether someone can state, under what hypothetical conditions, they might be willing to accept that their hypothesis has been refuted.  Alex used to say he would never accept any contrary evidence as compelling, under any condition. If testability and potential falsifiability are used as a demarcation between science and non-science (eg metaphysics, religion, subjective opinion, etc), then his claim by those standards don't meet the criteria.  It doesn't mean his claim is wrong; it just means we can never know if it is right or wrong.  (I too have wondered if there is some other explanation, like differences encoded in the resource fork on HFS+ or similar file systems, byte-swapping, or something else that might not show up under conventional tests.)

Link to comment
1 minute ago, wgscott said:

 

Alex's claim is that two bit-identical files on the same device, etc., and all other things being equal, can sound different if they have different histories.

 

The point isn't whether he is right or wrong (and he and I are finally in agreement to simply disagree and let it go). Rather, the point was whether someone can state, under what hypothetical conditions, they might be willing to accept that their hypothesis has been refuted.  Alex used to say he would never accept any contrary evidence as compelling, under any condition. If testability and potential falsifiability are used as a demarcation between science and non-science (eg metaphysics, religion, subjective opinion, etc), then his claim by those standards don't meet the criteria.  It doesn't mean his claim is wrong.  (I too have wondered if there is some other explanation, like differences encoded in the resource fork on HFS+ or similar file systems, byte-swapping, or something else that might not show up under conventional tests.)

what do you mean by "different histories"?

 

2 identical files can sound different even depending "heat of the moment".

Link to comment
Just now, beerandmusic said:

what do you mean by "different histories"?

 

2 identical files can sound different even depending "heat of the moment".

 

I edited the post to make it a bit more explicit.

 

We have a lot of threads here on the topic.  Let's honor Alex's request and not make this another one.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Unless I'm misunderstanding, your argument is a total red herring.

@Tony Lauck's argument is no red herring. He has disproven an assertion with an example. It is clearly stated and real. There simply *are* conditions where bit identical/same checksum files "sound" different. Moreover there are many conditions in which the media containing the files whether this be CD, or hard drive contain embedded noise. That is to say that although the files are bit identical, they are not electrically identical. @alfe who has real experience with CD, DVD and hard drive technology at a professional level said as much and was hounded endlessly.

 

Now this doesn't mean that these electrical differences are embedded in the file as "memory" that travels with the file across, say a network. Perhaps what you mean to say is that: a network can eliminate embedded electrical differences between bitwise identical files.

Custom room treatments for headphone users.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, jabbr said:

That is to say that although the files are bit identical, they are not electrically identical. @alfe who has real experience with CD, DVD and hard drive technology at a professional level said as much and was hounded endlessly.

 

Wait, you realize bits are electrically identical, don't you? We are talking digital here. Now, what may not be identical is all the hardware surrounding the bits. What may not be identical is the medium the bits are stored on. The CD /DVD examples are using different mediums being read by the same hardware.

 

The files, being identical, would sound exactly the same if all other things are equal. 

Link to comment

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...