AB Testing

[bhobba]

Peter Aczel over at the Audio Critic writes pretty strongly around this and is a firm believer in the theory of it (not that I've hardly ever done it) and he is understandably hard on the "glossier" hifi journals which promote pieces of equipment using nice metaphors rather than direct comparisons with other items that do the same function.

 

For people who have not heard stuff in genuinely transparent systems what Peter Aczel writes can be seductive. But he believes a cheap late model DVD player from K-Mart sounds the same as a high end DAC. Take my word for it - it doesn't - and yes myself and many others have heard the difference blind.

 

My view is there is only one way to inoculate yourself against marketing BS, and that is lo listen to a lot of gear and learn what you like. Its a long process hearing and comparing a lot of different gear and forming your own view but really there is no shortcut. Also a DBT is not necessary - a SBT is very reliable and much easier to do. If you are worried about being fooled simply do a SBT - but as you get more experience you will find increasingly they are not necessary - you will learn to trust your ears.

 

Thanks

Bill

[thesurfingalien]

I am now 100% convinced that you really do absolutely nothing else with your days other than spread your objectivist, save others from themselves agenda. Sad really. Any post with even a hint of subjective discussion you feel the need to jump in and repeat yourself over and over. You will never stop! Well, hopefully, eventually others will get tired of it and some day you'll get banned. You really add nothing positive to CA.

 

chg,

 

I personally believe Dennis DOES add A LOT of positive stuff to CA. Just because you disagree with him does not make what he contributed to CA to be regarded as "nothing positive".

 

I would suggest you to examine your own posting behavior before you call for a ban of another member.

 

Peter

[Jud]

chg,

 

I personally believe Dennis DOES add A LOT of positive stuff to CA. Just because you disagree with him does not make what he contributed to CA to be regarded as "nothing positive".

 

I would suggest you to examine your own posting behavior before you call for a ban of another member.

 

Peter

 

Agree completely with Peter. Dennis pointed out quite accurately the basis on which mp3 encoding was designed to work. He did not try to say it completely succeeded. And he has made what I consider to be careful, thought-provoking contributions to many threads here.

 

As far as arrogance, I find Dennis neither more nor less objectionable on that score than many commenters here - myself, for instance. :-)

[chg]

chg,

 

I personally believe Dennis DOES add A LOT of positive stuff to CA. Just because you disagree with him does not make what he contributed to CA to be regarded as "nothing positive".

 

I would suggest you to examine your own posting behavior before you call for a ban of another member.

 

Peter

 

Thanks for your opinion.

 

Just because you agree with him does not make what he contributed to CA to be regarded as "positive".

 

I suggest you read more carefully. Where do you see that I "call for a ban of another member"?

 

"Well, hopefully, eventually others will get tired of it and some day you'll get banned."

[sandyk]

And he has made what I consider to be careful, thought-provoking contributions to many threads here

 

I completely agree with Jud. I often give Dennis a hard time, but I have a lot of respect for Dennis and his technical opinions.

It's these exchanges of views that can often lead to some kind of consensus, and we then gain further knowledge in the process, although nobody is likely to change camps. (grin).

[chg]

It's not about an MP3 encoding discussion. It's about you and your I have all the answers, all must believe as I do, and must save people from themselves attitude. And you repeat yourself in nearly every single thread. This thread, for example, asked about simple AB listening tests. You use this thread to, yet again, repeat yourself (in an arrogant and condescending tone) and try to turn it into an ABX/blind test debate with this:

 

Good Necro-post wgscott. Apparently wasn't much interest in this topic nearly 4 years ago. And now it looks like it is a topic of interest.

 

First off, AB or ABX testing is about the least fun one can have as an audiophile. Hard to think of any type listening more tiring or less enjoyable. That doesn't mean it is of no value or without a place.

 

Secondly, AB and especially AB blind testing is about the most inconvenient thing you could do with your audio system. It is easier with say the ABX plug-in of Foobar or other software for some purposes. One can even record signals from other equipment and do it through Foobar. But other than basic files, swapping cables, or amps or source or anything, doing it blind, doing it with enough people or enough trials as an amateur audiophile is darned difficult and inconvenient. So I think it better left to genuine research by scientists or as group efforts of audio clubs. An alternative would be serious efforts by publications of one sort or another, but unfortunately that hasn't been a regular event anywhere. Probably would need to be an audio consumer reports type publication or website that had subscriber funding and took none from makers of this equipment. I doubt you will get much ad space if you show an expensive piece of gear is no better than cheaper gear. Nor would such makers have an incentive to loan gear and even take that risk regardless of the eventual outcome.

 

Now the typical alternative is swapping stuff and listening sighted. For quick comparisons that is okay.

 

Next is people who say long term listening is the alternative for finer discrimination. I agree to a point, but not too much. I think what happens as often as not is time for you to 'convince yourself'. And I don't really mean convince. I mean once you think you have a favorite you get more comfortable with the idea over time. This happens if there is a real difference of course. Something may really be better. I think it also happens when there is little to no difference as well. Which is why at some level of marginal audibility it isn't the gold standard. Please note, I am not saying it has no place or that it isn't viable for some purposes, just that I think there are even better ways.

 

Now in terms of making equipment choices everyone wants two things. The most discerning way to make the best choice, and one that makes them feel they have the best choice.

 

When you know nothing else, properly done ABX blind testing can determine if something is audibly different from something else. I also think it has (when done properly) nearly the best level of discrimination. There is simply too much evidence that near the margins of human perception, non-blind testing is swayed by too many factors and also has a strong tendency to indicate difference where none exists. This is true for all humans and for all of our senses.

 

Unfortunately, blind testing is probably the worst at making a person feel they have made the best choice. So of the two desires: discernment, and confidence in the person(s) it is maybe tops at the first and worst in the latter.

 

Long term listening is tops in inspiring confidence, but perhaps only middling in discernment. It is better than short sighted listening. Like play this amp for three songs and then play that one. The discernment is less (though not zero) and the confidence is less though better than in blind testing.

 

The other alternative is measurements. Done right I think it is the most discriminating as I believe in general measurements have exceeded our hearing ability. It suffers however in interpretation. Some easily measurable differences are of no consequence, and others are. Determining whether it is or not is the problem.

 

You can make some decisions at some level without listening. For instance differences in sound level that would be below not only the threshold of hearing, but below the brownian motion of the air can be dismissed as not audible. Some physical structure of the ear itself puts limits on what might be heard, and can guide measurements. Some is known about processing done on sound by our ear/brain that put some limits on it. In time with more knowledge of the brain and real-time scanning of it in action we might be able to determine what measurements at what level represent full transparency without any listening tests by humans whatsoever.

 

But for the present translating measurements into what is audible or not must also involve some listening. I think research done by psycho-acoustics already tells us plenty. And that double-blind testing is the most discriminating at finding those limits. Not all possibilities are fully fleshed out and that leads people to doubt such conclusions. Which means when long term listening leads them with confidence into believing a difference they don't believe either measurements or blind test results to the contrary.

 

So everyone wants high discernment and high confidence that they have made the right choices in comparing.

 

Long term listening: middling discernment with very high confidence.

 

Blind tests: high discernment with nearly no confidence in listeners.

 

Measurements: highest discernment (with problems of interpretation) and more confidence than blind testing, but still low confidence in listeners.

 

Finally, it seems everyone thinks they are special. That unlike these other easily biased humans they are very careful, very discerning and listen with unusual care that allows them to believe in their sighted listening despite protests they might not represent the highest discernment.

 

Think about it this way. How fast can a man run 100 meters? Well Usain Bolt manages it well under 10 seconds as do a few other people. That however wouldn't generally be the right answer. For one thing there is no absolutely correct answer for everyone. I don't know what the average would be, but I can assure you it is more than 10 seconds. When young you might get close to 10 seconds and when older further away. There isn't even a correct answer for anyone at all times. Mr. Bolt is maybe one in a million or less. In a distribution curve he is way up at one end away from everyone else. There could be someone even faster. We can confidently say there isn't anyone ready to do 5 seconds.

 

Hearing ability is like that. Someone somewhere has the most sensitive and discriminating hearing in the world. We don't know who it is. Some number among us have hearing considerably above average and we all lose some of that with age. It also varies over time from day to day. There is enough known that we can say some things are not heard by anyone. And we can set pretty good limits for the great majority of the people. Some things lots of people claim to hear are like saying they can easily do the 5 second 100 meter run. It isn't credible or likely. Others claims are like more than half the people thinking they surely can run just the 10 second 100 meters. Just not at all likely to be true. Yet, so often, so many audiophiles all want to believe they are the Usain Bolt of the audiophile world.

 

Now any of us can grab a stopwatch or get a friend to work one, mark off 100 meters and quickly determine just about how close to being Usain Bolt we are. Hearing and hearing ability is a bit trickier. I do think we as a group could put together some reasonably simple tests to do the equivalent of running the 100 meters and timing yourself. Even then people are just too desirous of saying the tests aren't testing the real thing with real music (even when it uses music) and would not believe the results. If the results indicated contradiction with their personal basic hearing ability and long term listening impressions, they are going to disbelieve the test.

 

Hearing isn't a competition (maybe an idea the Audiophile Olympics to see who hears the tiniest differences), and tests are not fun. People don't like failing them or even facing the risk of it in their hobbies. Nor is there any need. Until they make outlandish claims that others don't wish to accept. And there is the problem. Maybe someone will figure a way out of it one day.

[chg]

Agree completely with Peter. Dennis pointed out quite accurately the basis on which mp3 encoding was designed to work. He did not try to say it completely succeeded. And he has made what I consider to be careful, thought-provoking contributions to many threads here.

 

As far as arrogance, I find Dennis neither more nor less objectionable on that score than many commenters here - myself, for instance. :-)

 

Jud,

 

CA is supposed to be a place where computer audio hobbyists come for enjoyment. Does it look like Dennis is one who enjoys this hobby? Or that his "contributions" enhance the enjoyment of others here? Lately, I would say no. His take on this hobby looks more like torture.

[Audio_ELF]

Jud,

 

CA is supposed to be a place where computer audio hobbyists come for enjoyment. Does it look like Dennis is one who enjoys this hobby? Or that his "contributions" enhance the enjoyment of others here? Lately, I would say no. His take on this hobby looks more like torture.

chg ... may I respectfully suggest that you look in the mirror before throwing stones in your green (glass) house?

 

Eloise

[chg]

chg ... may I respectfully suggest that you look in the mirror before throwing stones in your green (glass) house?

 

Eloise

 

Obviously you fail to see the difference between defending oneself against an attack and an aggressor. You find one post of mine where I went at someone as the aggressor. Any negative posts on my part were in defense.

 

BTW, do you recall this exchange we had:

 

Audio_ELF: "the subjectives are the ones who badger continually"

 

chg: "You are simply wrong here. We'll see which side starts the next "we're right, you're wrong" thread."

 

Here are a few threads following that exchange:

 

Thread: AB testing

 

Objectivists turn a simple AB listening question into a ABX/blind tests debate.

 

Thread: Fuses

 

Member posts his subjective experiences and who are the first to attack?

 

Thread: Trust my ears? I think not.

 

A new aggressive objectivist post started.

[Jud]

Jud,

 

Does it look like Dennis is one who enjoys this hobby? Or that his "contributions" enhance the enjoyment of others here?

 

Speaking for myself, absolutely. While Dennis's current predispositions and mine are I think far apart, I'm here to learn, and Dennis consistently cites interesting research I either have not read or have not paid sufficient attention to before. The learning process is something I enjoy more than just about anything else in life, so yes, Dennis's contributions have indeed enhanced my enjoyment.

 

I do undertand that Dennis's persistence can feel like he's paying special attention to raining on your parade. :-) But from his point of view, I'm guessing it looks more like he's trying to fight a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation.

[jhwalker]

Jud,

 

CA is supposed to be a place where computer audio hobbyists come for enjoyment. Does it look like Dennis is one who enjoys this hobby? Or that his "contributions" enhance the enjoyment of others here? Lately, I would say no. His take on this hobby looks more like torture.

 

Yes, absolutely. I enjoy reading facts about audio, psychoacoustic theory, etc. Thanks, Dennis!

[thesurfingalien]

Thanks for your opinion.

 

Just because you agree with him does not make what he contributed to CA to be regarded as "positive".

 

I suggest you read more carefully. Where do you see that I "call for a ban of another member"?

 

"Well, hopefully, eventually others will get tired of it and some day you'll get banned."

 

chg,

 

Regarding your first remark, yes, you are completely correct about that But given the fact that *I* regard his posts as positive, your initial statement "You really add nothing positive to CA" by definition is not true.

 

As for your second remark, you are right again. However, *hoping* that others will get tired of Dennis eventually shows some pretty clear insights about *your* feelings. And, intentions often get through in words, even if not said directly...

 

Peter

[mav52]

Well said. The only point I contend you might want to reconsider is discrimination over time. You learn to recognize what you are hearing.

 

Take a person raised in a big city, full of 24X7 traffic, people, electronic, and other sounds, and who has never been out of the city. Plop them down in at midsummer in the middle of a large forest in Northern California (with a guide and suitable survival gear) and for a week, they won't be able to discern most birds from bugs. But they will learn what they are hearing, and as they gain experience, they will discern more and more information from the sounds they re hearing.

 

Audio listening is exactly like that.

 

-Paul

 

Well said Paul

 

 

 

My take on AB, well I do use measurements and also my ears and in the end which ever sounds the best to me and my wallet I buy, or not. If I can't bring the amp, speaker, dac into my home and place the item in my room where my room has been treated with acoustic panels to support my current gear, then doing a AB at another location is a hit and miss effort and possibly a waste in hard earned money.

[Audio_ELF]

Obviously you fail to see the difference between defending oneself against an attack and an aggressor. You find one post of mine where I went at someone as the aggressor. Any negative posts on my part were in defense.

 

BTW, do you recall this exchange we had:

 

Audio_ELF: "the subjectives are the ones who badger continually"

 

chg: "You are simply wrong here. We'll see which side starts the next "we're right, you're wrong" thread."

Actually saying "what you are saying is (probably) wrong because" is NOT badgering... The badgering comes when the same claim is repeated continually without any additional information as if some how stating it 5/10/20 times makes the information stronger each time...

 

Here are a few threads following that exchange:

 

Thread: AB testing

Objectivists turn a simple AB listening question into a ABX/blind tests debate.

Somewhat after [Peter Aczel over at the Audio Critic]'s views were introduced and the response was [i don't regard people like Peter Aczel or the Hydrogen Audio forum as fellow audiophiles.]

 

Thread: Fuses

Member posts his subjective experiences and who are the first to attack?

He asked for opinions... the attacks actually came from those who suggested that fuses made a difference... and I seam to remember one of the negative comments being...

If these hi-fi tuning fuses provide such a performance boost, wouldn't it make sense for all manufacturers to include them in their products? Since most (all?) do not, doesn't that say something?

Or was that comment not meant as a negative towards fuses...?

 

Thread: Trust my ears? I think not.

A new aggressive objectivist post started.

I'll give you that one...

 

Eloise

[esldude]

Thanks for the support and kind comments from fellow forum members. Especially good to see from those who know they are not in agreement with me.

 

I do try to keep comments about ideas and not make it personal. Sometimes there is some sarcasm or mockery thrown in so as not to be too much of a broken record.

 

One thing that has been brought up repeatedly, even by Chris quite recently, seems to be the idea I don't enjoy the hobby or don't engage this forum for fun or have been overly serious. I must be doing a poor job of communicating in some manner here. I do very much enjoy music. Over time in an effort to improve the enjoyment of the music I became curious and focused on the various aspects of how one best reproduces that music. I think I have learned a bit more than your average person, though I believe people who regularly take part here can say the same. And we are all like the 5 blind men trying to describe an elephant. Likely none of us know the entire creature of computer audio.

[esldude]

Jud,

 

CA is supposed to be a place where computer audio hobbyists come for enjoyment. Does it look like Dennis is one who enjoys this hobby? Or that his "contributions" enhance the enjoyment of others here? Lately, I would say no. His take on this hobby looks more like torture.

 

chg,

 

Very early in this very thread, my first post to this thread, my first comment was blind testing was about the least enjoyable least fun thing you could do with your audio system. My second comment in that first post was that blind testing was about the least convenient thing you could do with your system. And further for those reasons I considered such testing not really fit for people to carry out on their own.

 

Now if you have gotten the idea I think all these folks reading here at CA should make decisions on the various aspects of their system by an on going series of careful blind tests conducted by themselves, then yes I can see how you and others wonder about the enjoyment I get. Or how you could think what I 'prescribe' for others would be like torture.

 

Further I also like measurements of what is going on in some of these matters. I do happen to like that myself though not everyone does. On the other hand it isn't like I spend the majority of my time measuring what is going on. I do at times spend some time when I am trying to understand something about this audiophile stuff. It is useful in some cases, and clear cut, and sometimes doesn't and sometimes does agree with plain old listening.

 

Sometimes less pleasant or objectionable activity is overall worth doing to makes gains and improve more fun things down the road. It is I think beneficial if one bothers to go 'through the torture' to share it with others so they don't each and every one need to go through that to learn something. That is also why I think making use of available psycho-acoustic knowledge, and well founded electrical engineering knowledge makes good sense. Instead, when it contradicts plain old fun listening, it is the plain old listening that takes precedence in many people's minds. I say that as someone who once approached things just in the plain old listening way, and since taking advantage of the hard won knowledge of others have found it quite rewarding, useful and resulting in improved fidelity and musical enjoyment.

 

CA is supposed to be a place where computer audio hobbyists come for enjoyment.

 

I am sure it is an on going evolving thing, but Chris can say what his idea of what CA is supposed to be. I am sure it is for CA hobbyists to come for fun and share ideas. Does that mean that we should only relate the simplest most fun things and not have talk of more serious matters regardless of whether they are true or not? I wouldn't think that is the case, but Chris can have his say on that.

 

I once only posted if I could make a direct and helpful input to someone. I have been in a position to do that at least a few times. More than I have done that others have done the same for me. But a great many posts aren't about concrete equipment or software issues. It is just discussing ideas. If we eliminated those, then posts like this one, by Chris, about AB testing wouldn't be allowed. Since Chris himself started this one (though 4 years ago) I take it he doesn't wish to eliminate such idea exchange.

[Paul R]

Dennis - either MP3s throw away only "stuff" that people "cannot hear" - which would result in an file that sounds the same as the original, or they throw away "stuff" people *can* hear, which results in a file that sounds different.

 

The files do sound different, even by measured playback.

 

The model is wrong. There is really no other way to get around that. The difference between an MP3 and a full quality file can be both heard and measured. The more compression the file has, the more difference is heard and measured.

 

Whatever point you are making, the above is difficult to dispute, and in direct opposition to your original statement:

 

They will explain that MP3 is based upon psycho-acoustical models taking advantage of masking. They determine what sounds in the original signal would not be heard anyway. So throwing that information away will not be noticed as it wouldn't be heard.

 

When you modify that statement as you did in the message this is in response to, where you included "according to the model" it changes what you said. More, it actually proves the model wrong.

 

As for arguing whether the brain is "masking" sounds or "filling in" sounds, well, we already know the model for MP3s is wrong, which brings parts of the theory into question. It is quite possible that what a MP3 throws away are signals the brain does use to "fill in" or more accurately - complete - the sounds it is hearing.

 

It is as simple as that.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

 

My logic is not in error here. Yours is. You are presuming the MP3's were intended to sound identical and indistinguishable from the original file. In the early days at least, it was meant to get very close, and be a trade off in file size and fidelity. That is why they can be picked out. Even the people who developed the MP3 encoding didn't think at lower bit rates it was transparent. They wanted it efficient to allow it to be transparent enough.

 

They throw away sounds that would not be heard according to the model and adjust what might be heard based upon available bits to allocate. In any case, they don't work by taking advantage of what your brain fills in. If they did I suppose would could go the other way and ask, why doesn't the brain fully in the info? But there really is no point, the supposition about how MP3 works was incorrect. And it really is as simple as that.

[Paul R]

More so, since you set yourself up as the judge on what is and is not correct and acceptable. As as posted previously, the model behind MP3s is to a greater or lesser extent, simply wrong. If it were not, there would be no audible or measurable difference in the sound produced. That is quite obviously, not the case.

 

As arrogant as posting what is simply incorrect information on MP3's and continuing to insist on it being so?

 

Hey no one likes being told they are wrong, even when they are. This stuff about MP3's and how they are intended to work was wrong. Simply wrong. I am not apologizing for pointing that out. I guess that seems arrogant. Not sure what to do about that other than say nothing and let it go.

[Paul R]

Yep, I agree 100% with Jud on this one, and nope, I am not exactly innocent of being a bit arrogant myself.

 

Dennis is a very valuable contributor, and I think when you step back a bit, you might realize he feels a bit beat upon. As anyone would who is passionate about the hobby. Like all the rest of us here.

 

If anything, I think some folks over-react a bit, or fail to realize that it is important to Dennis that he finds and validates the theories and reasons behind what he hears, and he is trying to be honest with himself about what he does and does not hear, and what may or may not be real.

 

That kind of honesty is tough on the people around a person. Trust me on that one. But usually being honest with yourself like that is worth it. When one finally works through the issues, it is easier to identify and pay attention to what is really important.

 

For me, it turns out that cost or measurements are less important than being delighted by the sound. To identify what delights me means I can make the maximum the use of my available funds, and plan to redirect those finds to buying more music rather than equipment.

 

To someone else, that may or may not be true. For some it will definitely not be true.

 

-Paul

 

 

Speaking for myself, absolutely. While Dennis's current predispositions and mine are I think far apart, I'm here to learn, and Dennis consistently cites interesting research I either have not read or have not paid sufficient attention to before. The learning process is something I enjoy more than just about anything else in life, so yes, Dennis's contributions have indeed enhanced my enjoyment.

 

I do undertand that Dennis's persistence can feel like he's paying special attention to raining on your parade. :-) But from his point of view, I'm guessing it looks more like he's trying to fight a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation.

[Audio_ELF]

Dennis - either MP3s throw away only "stuff" that people "cannot hear" - which would result in an file that sounds the same as the original, or they throw away "stuff" people *can* hear, which results in a file that sounds different.

 

[...and more]l

With respect Paul, I think you are taking the letter of Dennis' post and twisting it away from the original intent...

 

(At least to my mind) it was clear that Dennis was talking about what the creators of MP3 intended rather than the actuality of what they created. This is especially obvious when you take Dennis' comments as being a response to another post (which they were) rather than taking them out of context.

 

Refering back to the first post about MP3 from USB-SPDIF and Dennis' response...

The mp3 codec is another fine example of how it's possible to omit information from an audio signal without people really noticing, all because of the simple fact their brain fills in this information for them.

 

Actually this is not correct. The brain isn't filling in the missing info on an MP3. That info was masked and is info that would not have been perceived by the ear/brain anyway, so it being removed isn't noticed.

Yes, Dennis should perhaps have put the word theoretically in there somewhere - but his response is correct. The model/theory that MP3 codec is based on is getting rid of information that theoretically cannot be percieved by the human ear; it is NOT (as was originally stated) they it can be got rid of because the mind "fills in the blanks".

 

Or are you saying this isn't the model that lossy compression works on?

 

Eloise

[thesurfingalien]

More so, since you set yourself up as the judge on what is and is not correct and acceptable. As as posted previously, the model behind MP3s is to a greater or lesser extent, simply wrong. If it were not, there would be no audible or measurable difference in the sound produced. That is quite obviously, not the case.

 

Hi Paul,

 

May I step in?

 

You can argue the model was wrong, but you also have to consider the MP3 format was designed to take less storage-space, (especially) on portable devices. These are more often than not listened to using cheap head- or (in)ear phones, not to mention the often rather noisy environment.

 

In that respect one can safely assume that the model does a very good job, and one can indeed no longer distinguish the MP3 from CD quality, given those conditions. MP3, or any kind of lossy format was not designed to be listened to on serious hi-fi equipment.

 

Regards,

Peter

[Paul R]

Hi Eloise -

 

I was just thinking of that. Perhaps you are right.

 

MP3's divide a signal up into something like 576 frequency bands, and remove information that is, in theory, undetectable from each band. Then it does some kind of Huffman compression on what remains.

 

The core question is does the brain "mask" the information that is removed, or does it "fill in" the missing information from cues in the remaining signal?

 

I'm not all that sure it matters - obviously the "inaudible" information that is removed is audible, at least to some degree or another. So either the brain is not masking that information or the cues to "fill in" that information are not present in the remaining signal. This is the main point I was throwing out there.

 

In either case, the acoustic model and theory behind MP3s is at least partially wrong. It's amazing, but no matter which side of the debate you come down on, the theory about what the brain is doing is wrong. Because if the theory were correct, *you would not hear a difference*.

 

Does that have any bearing on whether or not MP3s do a good job and can sound really good? Of course not. They are an *amazing* technology. Or at lest the end result it. Just an imperfect one, as you point out.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

 

With respect Paul, I think you are taking the letter of Dennis' post and twisting it away from the original intent...

 

(At least to my mind) it was clear that Dennis was talking about what the creators of MP3 intended rather than the actuality of what they created. This is especially obvious when you take Dennis' comments as being a response to another post (which they were) rather than taking them out of context.

 

Refering back to the first post about MP3 from USB-SPDIF and Dennis' response...

 

 

 

Yes, Dennis should perhaps have put the word theoretically in there somewhere - but his response is correct. The model/theory that MP3 codec is based on is getting rid of information that theoretically cannot be percieved by the human ear; it is NOT (as was originally stated) they it can be got rid of because the mind "fills in the blanks".

 

Or are you saying this isn't the model that lossy compression works on?

 

Eloise

[esldude]

Yep, I agree 100% with Jud on this one, and nope, I am not exactly innocent of being a bit arrogant myself.

 

Dennis is a very valuable contributor, and I think when you step back a bit, you might realize he feels a bit beat upon. As anyone would who is passionate about the hobby. Like all the rest of us here.

 

If anything, I think some folks over-react a bit, or fail to realize that it is important to Dennis that he finds and validates the theories and reasons behind what he hears, and he is trying to be honest with himself about what he does and does not hear, and what may or may not be real.

 

That kind of honesty is tough on the people around a person. Trust me on that one. But usually being honest with yourself like that is worth it. When one finally works through the issues, it is easier to identify and pay attention to what is really important.

 

For me, it turns out that cost or measurements are less important than being delighted by the sound. To identify what delights me means I can make the maximum the use of my available funds, and plan to redirect those finds to buying more music rather than equipment.

 

To someone else, that may or may not be true. For some it will definitely not be true.

 

-Paul

 

Thank you Paul. You indeed have the gist of it from my perspective.

 

Dennis

[Richard Dale]

Somewhat after [Peter Aczel over at the Audio Critic]'s views were introduced and the response was [i don't regard people like Peter Aczel or the Hydrogen Audio forum as fellow audiophiles.]

Eloise

 

You are referring to my comment about Peter Aczel. I said it because on his site he had a list of so called top 10 'lies' about audio, implying that people who disagreed with him were actually dishonest people trying to deceive others. It seems perfectly proper to me to label people like that as 'poisonous'. Similarly the people at Hydrogen Audio have no intention of respectfully disagreeing with audiophiles who listen to equipment subjectively - you can tell because they spend a lot of time ridiculing them instead.

 

I've seen nothing on this thread that I would personally regard as 'poisonous'. It is perfectly possible to have a discussion about A/B and DBX testing between people of differing opinions. I do find such discussions a bit boring and try to avoid joining in. But I am keen that we collectively know when to draw the line. A recent thread attacking subjectivists was terminated quite properly, because the OP was obviously a troll. He described people he disagreed with as 'suckers', he used the phrase 'Snake Oil' which I find a dead give away when you are trying to spot whether or not someone is a poisonous troll. Any talk about 'rescuing audiophiles from their foolish mistakes' or the word 'audiofool' also point to someone being a troll.

 

I think attacks from non-audiophiles, inspired by the type of views that are held by people on Hydrogen Audio (but probably not fully understood), are a threat to the audiophile hobby. As soon as anything audio related comes up on a mainstream site like Slashdot these nasty vitriolic anti-audiophile types come out in force, and I don't like it very much.

[thesurfingalien]

You are referring to my comment about Peter Aczel. I said it because on his site he had a list of so called top 10 'lies' about audio, implying that people who disagreed with him were actually dishonest people trying to deceive others.

 

Hi Richard,

 

I have read Peter Aczel's Top 10 list, but I have a bit of a different feeling about it. What I get from what he writes is that these what he calls lies are bestowed upon audiophiles, and not so much implying that people who disagree are dishonest.

 

He speaks in fairly absolute terms, and I can understand why you would have a different interpretation than I do.

 

While I have no "special love" for Hydrogen Audio, especially the communication skills of certain people (or lack of it) I believe there are some very knowledgeable people active there. But yes, attacks are not uncommon there. That, from experience, I know.

 

But to (pretty much) label all objectivists as non-audiophiles goes a bit to far for me, and stating that different thoughts are a threat to the audiophile hobby might be something you want to think about some more...

 

Regards,

Peter