Errors of Mis-Placed Precision in Audiophility

[Ralf11]

Based on some recent repartee, I thought this might be a useful thread ...

 

The opening title phrase refers to a common procedure done by students in STEM classes - they will incorrectly put too many decimal places after a number for a measurement (in the most simple example).  This denotes a more precise measurement than was actually made.

 

I've seen similar things done in related contexts - for example, in one lab great effort was made to increase the precision of oxygen measurements - when the real issue was the volume of gas flow (that and some other issues lead to an NIH site visit and eventual loss of a career by the not so technically astute scientist involved).

 

One thing for audiophiles is to consider if higher quality (and often, but not always) more expensive gear will really enhance the sound.  One situation where it may not is where the source recordings one wishes to hear are not of high SQ to begin with.  Examples include very early ragtime, jazz, blues, and Dead shows recorded on cassettes.

 

Other situations are where an improvement in - say - noise or power supplies do not affect the signal carried like, arguably, the Apple TV).  Certain cables often fall into this category as well (AC power cables, speaker cables for Magneplanar speakers, overly expensive speaker cables, interconnects, and some others).

[Ralf11]

you're being sillity

[Ralf11]

I sometimes hear that some equipment is too revealing - you hear every flaw...

 

Many listeners have a mix of source quality - e.g. recent jazz along with stuff from the beginning of recorded music...

[Ralf11]

the most recent study on this was a meta-analysis that found small significance in tests of hi-res vs. Redbook

 

Reiss, J. D.  2016.  A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation.  JAES 64(6): 364-379.  

 

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296

[Ralf11]

Not if the used CD has a different recording/mastering than the Hi-Res release - and usually the latter has a lot of care taken

[Ralf11]

13 hours ago, firedog said:

Uh, the KOB hi-res remasters are also better sounding even if you convert them to Redbook. They simply are a superior mastering done with more care and attention to detail than the typical versions you come across. Anyone can hear a difference. How much money that is worth to you is a different question. 

 

download only?  or is there an SACD that is superior?

[Ralf11]

3 hours ago, Speedskater said:

There were questions about the suitability and validity of many of the tests used in this meta-analysis.

 

I'm not aware of any publications to that point - can you cite them?

 

For the meta-analysis, they removed quite a few studies.

 

I do agree more studies would be useful

[Ralf11]

4 hours ago, Speedskater said:

About 400 hundred posts on the "A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation" paper.

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,112204.0.html

 

I wasn't asking for posts on the internet - publications as in an article in a scientific or engineering journal.