AB Testing

[Paul R]

Hey Peter - What's your take on the motivation behind the hostile and vicious attacks on anything labeled Audiophile on gasbag forums? Or from people like Aczel?

 

I tend to agree more with Richard on this, and I do think that they are a bit of a threat to the hobby, and their motivations should be exposed as such. On the other hand, I can't see the hobby as being a threat to anyone, other than record companies trying to fob off substandard material at premium prices.

 

-Paul

 

 

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

[Audio_ELF]

Hello Peter, Hello Paul...

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.

First off, I think you have to start with the point of view that Peter Aczel is a journalist/pundit. The way he writes, as I think with the way all journalists is that he is creating sensationalism and portraying a subject in a way to get his point of view across. Would we really have got excited by an article entitled "10 things which may or may not be true"?

 

He is also writing in a "publication" which prides itself on putting forward the objective view point. The context is all important.

 

Reading through the "Top 10" there are elements of truth in all of them...

 

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.

When a forum turns from some form of debate to personal attacks its never wrong. On the other hand Hydrogen Audio have a specific guideline (I believe it's not somewhere I frequent) - all debates must have an objective point of view. If you go there and start talking how something sounds better then I think you (to a certain extent) get what you deserve. While we all like to think the internet is full of free speech - it's only free as a whole, everyone who creates a website is allowed to control opinions as much as they like... if you don't like it go elsewhere.

 

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...

I agree, I welcome everyone's opinion though I reserve the right to argue against them...

 

Hey Peter - What's your take on the motivation behind the hostile and vicious attacks on anything labeled Audiophile on gasbag forums?

Hostile and vicious attacks are motivated by the need for some people to make themselves feel big/important. There is no difference between an internet forum and a school playground in this respect.

 

Or from people like Aczel?

Peter Aczel's motivation is to write opinion pieces which get published and therefore make money. Though when the status quo seems to be "stamp an audiophile badge on it and people will buy it"; I don't think having someone say "hold on a moment, you say it does WHAT? <ha ha ha>" is a bad thing.

 

I tend to agree more with Richard on this, and I do think that they are a bit of a threat to the hobby, and their motivations should be exposed as such. On the other hand, I can't see the hobby as being a threat to anyone, other than record companies trying to fob off substandard material at premium prices.

Paul, what is the thread to "the hobby" of people actually wanting some concrete details of what a device is doing when it claims to improve sound quality? What is the harm of the people who said "hold on Lexicon, your Blu Ray player that costs $3,500, isn't it just a $500 Oppo in a box?" Where is the harm asking if cryogenically treating a £50 and selling it or £150 actually does anything other than relieve the buyer of an additional £100?

 

Eloise

[Richard Dale]

Hello Peter, Hello Paul...

 

First off, I think you have to start with the point of view that Peter Aczel is a journalist/pundit. The way he writes, as I think with the way all journalists is that he is creating sensationalism and portraying a subject in a way to get his point of view across. Would we really have got excited by an article entitled "10 things which may or may not be true"?

 

He is also writing in a "publication" which prides itself on putting forward the objective view point. The context is all important.

 

Reading through the "Top 10" there are elements of truth in all of them...

Eloise

 

Well to me there is a big difference between labelling your talk piece as '10 lies about audio' as opposed to something like '10 misconceptions about audio'. Maybe Aczel will get more hits with confrontational language. But I'm sorry, I don't think Peter Aczel falls within what I regard as acceptable standards of journalism. He is a troll.

[Paul R]

Paul, what is the thread to "the hobby" of people actually wanting some concrete details of what a device is doing when it claims to improve sound quality? What is the harm of the people who said "hold on Lexicon, your Blu Ray player that costs $3,500, isn't it just a $500 Oppo in a box?" Where is the harm asking if cryogenically treating a £50 and selling it or £150 actually does anything other than relieve the buyer of an additional £100?

 

Eloise

 

I think the threat is intimidation. Audiophiles do tend to intimidate rather easily, mostly because we are always in a questioning mode.

 

When some gas bag comes around pretending to expertise they do not have, and especially when they adopt a condescending attitude, it is not difficult to see how they can be a bit intimidating. Worse even, when they have the slightest thread of justification for their attitudes, such as being "published."

 

At least until they are exposed and their real motivation becomes apparent. Most here just like to chat with people interested in the same types of things, especially about audio equipment and music. That is a pretty harmless motivation.

 

As you pointed out, Aczel's motivation is to get paid, and he will pick on any target to do that. The gas bags? Who knows what their motivation truly is, but it is unlikely to be the same as here. At least for most of them.

 

-Paul

[Audio_ELF]

I think the threat is intimidation. Audiophiles do tend to intimidate rather easily, mostly because we are always in a questioning mode.

You think so... my impression has always been the opposite...

 

I find that when confronted with a new products, the default position is to accept that it WILL improve sound quality as the manufacturer claims; the audiophile being targeted rarely questions IF the claim is (a) possible and (b) likely.

 

When some gas bag comes around pretending to expertise they do not have, and especially when they adopt a condescending attitude, it is not difficult to see how they can be a bit intimidating. Worse even, when they have the slightest thread of justification for their attitudes, such as being "published."

Well yes you have a point there - we rarely know what the qualification/expertise of the person making the claim or the counter claim is....

 

At least until they are exposed and their real motivation becomes apparent. Most here just like to chat with people interested in the same types of things, especially about audio equipment and music. That is a pretty harmless motivation.

 

As you pointed out, Aczel's motivation is to get paid, and he will pick on any target to do that.

At the end of the day, what you is being exposed is open for as much debate as anything. An article debunking the myths of extraterrestrial life (for an extreme example) can as easily expose the journalist as a narrow-minded attention seeker as it can dispel the likelihood that life from elsewhere has visited this planet.

 

There are many people who agree with Aczel's point of view. There are people who have subjectively trialled cables and who come up with the result that there is no difference. They then read objective material which says there is no measurable scientific basis for the being any difference, that's why you've not heard any difference. At the end of the day why do people with a subjective view point always (appear) to ignore the observations which say "there is no difference".

 

How often have you heard claims along the lines of "you didn't hear it because you've not trained yourself to hear it" or "your equipment isn't resolving enough" or "well you didn't expect to hear a difference so you didn't"?

 

I try to keep a balanced outlook somewhere between subjective and objective, when I read a claim I make my own assessment based on the likelihood of the claim based on my own (albeit not specialised) scientific knowledge, my own previous experiences and also my experience of the person making the claim. I acknowledge that if I don't hear something that the three possibilities I listed above exist, but I also expect those making the claims to accept that there is a possibility that the difference doesn't exist in reality.

 

The gas bags? Who knows what their motivation truly is, but it is unlikely to be the same as here. At least for most of them.

Playground mentality I think as I commented before. Though there is also an element of passion in some people's arguments which can come across badly.

 

Eloise

[Audio_ELF]

Well to me there is a big difference between labelling your talk piece as '10 lies about audio' as opposed to something like '10 misconceptions about audio'. Maybe Aczel will get more hits with confrontational language. But I'm sorry, I don't think Peter Aczel falls within what I regard as acceptable standards of journalism. He is a troll.

Maybe British tabloids have made me immune and cynical...

[esldude]

Assuming by gasbags, you mean Hydrogen audio, they make clear their policy. They don't brook any talk of subjective listening impressions, they won't accept difference testing, they won't accept though may discuss other instrumented testing, only the one gold standard of double blind testing.

 

There are a good many people there with lots of knowledge about codecs and such. They regularly do group, remote blind testing of files. Now despite their attempt to be objective and in their case objective in only one acceptable (to them) manner, they also don't pay as much attention as they should in some details. Doing testing with downloaded files over a variety of systems and people has some obvious shortcomings and limits. But at least they make all this clear, and go about it within the confines of those defined limits.

 

As a result some of what you see there is unlike any other forum. And some is quite good. Some isn't. I spend very little time there myself, as in maybe take a look once in a month or two or when I get a hit on Google for something I am searching for info about. I think refusing to use instrumented measurement in conjunction with blind testing really cuts one off to a vital part of trying to be objective rather than subjective. It also is very much less efficient as a way to figure out what is audible and what is not. But it cuts down on the clutter in the sense I know beforehand such complaints, or confusion or debate isn't part of what they are about.

[Paul R]

Well, that's your opinion and you are welcome to it. In my opinion, about the only gold you will find on Hydrogen Audio is fools gold.

-Paul

 

 

Assuming by gasbags, you mean Hydrogen audio, they make clear their policy. They don't brook any talk of subjective listening impressions, they won't accept difference testing, they won't accept though may discuss other instrumented testing, only the one gold standard of double blind testing.

 

There are a good many people there with lots of knowledge about codecs and such. They regularly do group, remote blind testing of files. Now despite their attempt to be objective and in their case objective in only one acceptable (to them) manner, they also don't pay as much attention as they should in some details. Doing testing with downloaded files over a variety of systems and people has some obvious shortcomings and limits. But at least they make all this clear, and go about it within the confines of those defined limits.

 

As a result some of what you see there is unlike any other forum. And some is quite good. Some isn't. I spend very little time there myself, as in maybe take a look once in a month or two or when I get a hit on Google for something I am searching for info about. I think refusing to use instrumented measurement in conjunction with blind testing really cuts one off to a vital part of trying to be objective rather than subjective. It also is very much less efficient as a way to figure out what is audible and what is not. But it cuts down on the clutter in the sense I know beforehand such complaints, or confusion or debate isn't part of what they are about.

[Paul R]

You think so... my impression has always been the opposite...

 

I find that when confronted with a new products, the default position is to accept that it WILL improve sound quality as the manufacturer claims; the audiophile being targeted rarely questions IF the claim is (a) possible and (b) likely.

 

Really? I almost always see suspicion in direct proportion to the cost. A $5 is laughed about and tried by everyone. A $100 cost, not so much. $1000 cost by hardly anyone, and above that, only a few crazy people buy truly expensive gear without knowing a lot about it first.

 

I can well see you point of view if you run into a lot of people that do otherwise.

 

At the end of the day, what you is being exposed is open for as much debate as anything. An article debunking the myths of extraterrestrial life (for an extreme example) can as easily expose the journalist as a narrow-minded attention seeker as it can dispel the likelihood that life from elsewhere has visited this planet.

 

There are many people who agree with Aczel's point of view. There are people who have subjectively trialled cables and who come up with the result that there is no difference. They then read objective material which says there is no measurable scientific basis for the being any difference, that's why you've not heard any difference. At the end of the day why do people with a subjective view point always (appear) to ignore the observations which say "there is no difference".

[/Quote]

 

Oh, that's easy. Because they perceive a difference. It isn't necessarily the kind of difference that you can accurately measure. An analogy might be choosing between two shirts. They are both made of the same cotton, feel the same, smell the same, fit the same, wear the same. But you or I might choose one over the other for a number of reasons. For example, if one is blue and one is red, I would much prefer and be happier with the blue one.

 

It's a real physical difference that only makes a difference to the purchaser, because everything else is equal and in a perfectly logical world, a color preference that makes no difference in application is - well - meaningless. But the choice of color sure isn't meaningless to you or I.

 

It's similar in audio - something is making a difference to the buyer. Most buyers willing to put out say, $2000 on a hunk of gear are smart enough to want to know everything there is to know about the gear, but still - red vs. blue type of thing. Not just the colors or faceplates, but something about the sound of one device is more pleasing than the other. I for example, am always curious about what, but knowing or not, I still may like one hun of gear over another.

 

To me this is a fairly sane attitude, because you might never know what it is that you really like about that hunk of gear. Why let that little nuisance factor get in the way of enjoying it?

 

How often have you heard claims along the lines of "you didn't hear it because you've not trained yourself to hear it" or "your equipment isn't resolving enough" or "well you didn't expect to hear a difference so you didn't"?

 

I try to keep a balanced outlook somewhere between subjective and objective, when I read a claim I make my own assessment based on the likelihood of the claim based on my own (albeit not specialised) scientific knowledge, my own previous experiences and also my experience of the person making the claim. I acknowledge that if I don't hear something that the three possibilities I listed above exist, but I also expect those making the claims to accept that there is a possibility that the difference doesn't exist in reality.

[/Quote]

 

A very sane viewpoint, in my opinion. Very sane and very reasonable. Also, such a viewpoint means you can have fun with the gear too.

 

Playground mentality I think as I commented before. Though there is also an element of passion in some people's arguments which can come across badly.

 

Eloise[/QUote]

 

I guess I don't really get Playground mentality. I didn't take well to being bullied when I was a kid, and usually wound up at the center of a large pileup because of that. Then I learned to cut the bullies out of their herd and deal with them one by one. Far more fun that way, and you also run far less risk of seriously hurting someone in a one to one than in a one to many type of brawl.

 

Jr. High School became much more pleasant after I learned that tactic. (Thank you Coach Griffith!)

 

-Paul

[thesurfingalien]

Hey Peter - What's your take on the motivation behind the hostile and vicious attacks on anything labeled Audiophile on gasbag forums? Or from people like Aczel?

 

I tend to agree more with Richard on this, and I do think that they are a bit of a threat to the hobby, and their motivations should be exposed as such. On the other hand, I can't see the hobby as being a threat to anyone, other than record companies trying to fob off substandard material at premium prices.

 

-Paul

 

Hi Paul,

 

I really don't know how to answer your question. However, I think "hostile and vicious" are quite strong words, and I wonder to what extent it is a matter of intention versus interpretation.

 

I agree there are some people active on various forums that apparently "get off" on calling other people idiots (or something similar) because they believe they know better than anyone else. It happens, and I am sure you know people who display the same behavior in "real life". I know some people who, on a regular basis, doing this in order to look better or smarter.

 

The problem is that, when it comes to "people like Aczel", I in general agree with the content of their writings or the idea behind it. I would personally word things a bit more nuanced though...

 

 

Where I draw the line is when people get personal. And unfortunately that happens here on CA as well. I sometimes feel obligated to voice my opinion about behavior that I feel is not OK. Recently with "chg", and some time ago with "goldsdad". I do not give a rat's ass about on which side (objective or subjective) people are...

 

 

Regards,

Peter

[spdif-usb]

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?

If the information is removed, it means the information goes missing. A void is left behind, surrounded by the information that still remains. How does the brain mask something that's missing? The logical answer would have to be it fills in the gap with ersatz information. So what we are hearing is the ersatz information, a construct of the human mind. A placebo effect, if you will.

My point was that A/B testing doesn't always work because if we listen to A first, what we hear when we listen to B second is a sound that's modified by the things we can remember about what A sounded like. This is because our brain uses our memory to create bias. Whether the thing we remember about an amp is its price tag after we've seen it or the way it sounded like after we've heard it, doesn't always make such a big difference because both will still create bias in the end, after all.

Moreover, A/B testing cannot be used to prove that two sounds are audibly the same, so A/B testing is very often severely biased towards "hearing no difference" because of this and what I already said, in my previous comments on here, about bias also being created by the act of comparison versus listening purely for pleasure.

[esldude]

If the information is removed, it means the information goes missing. A void is left behind, surrounded by the information that still remains. How does the brain mask something that's missing?

 

Okay, stop right there.

 

First you have to accept that hearing doesn't hear all possible information. That being the case, there is no void if the removed info would not have been heard in the first place. That is how you define masking. One sound masks the other so the ear doesn't pick up the second sound. Everything you said after that in your first paragraph is of no consequence for that reason. There is no void in what is heard and no filling in going on.

[spdif-usb]

First you have to accept that hearing doesn't hear all possible information.

So much is obvious.

That being the case, there is no void if the removed info would not have been heard in the first place.

Wrong. There is still a void there, because the information is now gone, whereas previously it was still present, but the difference the void creates is too small to be noticed by human hearing. One of the possible explanations why it is too small, is because the brain applies bias to fill in what's missing, more or less similar to the way expectation bias can cause us to hear things that aren't actually there.

That is how you define masking. One sound masks the other so the ear doesn't pick up the second sound.

In the experiment Poppy Crum has conducted, the 's' sound was masked out. Still, most people reported they hear an 's'.

Everything you said after that in your first paragraph is of no consequence for that reason. There is no void in what is heard and no filling in going on.

So, if I understand you correctly, the experiment by Poppy Crum was just a hoax. Do you have any objective evidence to support your accusation?

[Audio_ELF]

@spdif-USB (sorry have no idea what your name is).

 

The concept that MP3 is designed to work on is this:

Imagine someone speaking to you from across the room - that will be somewhere in the 300Hz - 3500Hz back iirc; at the same time there is a much louder noise crash caused by a lorry driving into the neighbouring building (don't worry it was unoccupied) this will occur in a much lower frequency band.

 

A recording however will pick up both frequencies. If you compress using MP3 algorithm the speak pattern will be removed. There is (theoretically) nothing lost and no "void" as you put it because the speach is already masked by the noise from the crash.

 

I believe this is what Dennis (esldude) is trying to get across.

 

Eloise

[Paul R]

Ah, you might want to rethink that. Your premise is invalid. When the information is removed a difference is heard. And that difference is also measurable.

 

The brain might not process all the information we hear, but in this case, what was removed was clearly something that could be and actually was heard.

In this case neither masking or fill-in is working, for the simple fact that a difference is heard.

 

If you want to find an example of perfect masking, I will buy that. Conversely, there are many cases of the brain filling in (manufacturing) missing sonic information.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

If the information is removed, it means the information goes missing. A void is left behind, surrounded by the information that still remains. How does the brain mask something that's missing?

 

Okay, stop right there.

 

First you have to accept that hearing doesn't hear all possible information. That being the case, there is no void if the removed info would not have been heard in the first place. That is how you define masking. One sound masks the other so the ear doesn't pick up the second sound. Everything you said after that in your first paragraph is of no consequence for that reason. There is no void in what is heard and no filling in going on.

[bhobba]

Well to me there is a big difference between labelling your talk piece as '10 lies about audio' as opposed to something like '10 misconceptions about audio'. Maybe Aczel will get more hits with confrontational language. But I'm sorry, I don't think Peter Aczel falls within what I regard as acceptable standards of journalism. He is a troll.

 

Yea. Anyone who actually listens to gear knows a cheap late model DVD play does not sound the same as a decent DAC. It turns people who actually take the time and trouble to do listening tests totally off - not to mention his claims about cables. The trouble is to people not into listening to stuff is it can be very seductive and lead them up a blind alley.

 

Thanks

Bill

[spdif-usb]

Eloise,

 

Yes, but why is it so hard to understand that the concept of masking sound is based on our perception of sound? My point was the brain can pick up information from sounds even though we aren't necessarily always consciously aware of the fact.

An important part of the reason why sounds can be inaudible is because the brain is perfectly capable of discarding information, as well as storing information without seemingly doing anything with what was stored. It is even perfectly capable of replacing information with ersatz information (placebo effect). There is not a very linear relationship between the sounds that reach the pinnae, and our perception of those sounds.

The brain uses information stored in the brain's memory to process information it receives from the cochlea. The information stored in the brain causes bias. Bias, which can tremendously affect the way we hear sounds.

Just because a sound is masked by the presence of another sound, doesn't necessarily always mean the brain didn't receive information about the sound that's masked. Nor does it necessarily always mean the brain cannot use information stored in its memory to either replace or modify information it received, or to, whether it be accurately or inaccurately, reconstruct information that it didn't receive at all. The thresholds of human hearing are closely determined by these factors. Therefore, so is masking.

If it were tuly the second sound masking the first, the microphone wouldn't be able to pick up the first sound. The actual masking effect itself occurs not in the air molecules that vibrate, but inside the ears/brain. For a more in-depth explanation about masking, I suggest you read the book titled Psychoacoustics Facts and Models, by Hugo Fastl and Eberhard Zwicker.

[bhobba]

At the end of the day why do people with a subjective view point always (appear) to ignore the observations which say "there is no difference".

 

I can't speak for all 'subjectivists' but I, and most guys I know (who are also subjectivists), do not ignore the claims of 'objectivists'. I, and people I know, do blind tests on stuff the objectivists claim there is no difference all the time such as amps. cables etc etc and readily and easily hear differences. I know a DAC manufacturer who DBT's every aspect of his DAC to ensure it is audibly better and readily hears differences in all sorts of things like USB cables and output capacitors. However DBT's are difficult to organise and analyse so hobbyists like me do SBT's. I did a lot of wine tasting at one time and the person conducting the tasting usually knows the wine being tasted so it is a SBT. On no occasion has this ever proved a problem so I know SBT's are deadly accurate.

 

I have an open invitation to any objectivist to come on over to my place and hear my system where the sound differences in all this stuff can be readily and easily demonstrated. Very few actually take me up on it - but on the rare occasions they do they leave my place scratching their head with a totally different view.

 

The issue with so called 'objectivists' is they will ignore what does not suit them and say all reputable tests show there is no difference - where they decide what is reputable. Blind tests like I do are invalid because they are not DBT's - and of course since DBT's are so hard to organise and do - guess what - they get away with it since no one really has the time or inclination to take them up on it. DBT's done by manufacturers are tainted because they are commercial. It goes on and on - basically they are not interested in the truth - rather they are simply interested in promulgating a pre-decided agenda.

 

Thanks

Bill

[esldude]

Yes, some of the masking is a result of how nerves conduct the signal and the mechanical properties of the ear's shape. So those masking effects aren't stored in the brain, they never get that far. Again, neither I nor the people who made MP3's said it was perfect. So that is a ridiculous complaint.

 

You guys who insist on MP3's being about filling in details need to give it up. It was not predicated upon that, nor does it work that way nor is anyone claiming it works perfectly. You are just arguing not to admit you had the wrong idea about MP3's.

[sandyk]

I have an open invitation to any objectivist to come on over to my place and hear my system where the sound differences in all this stuff can be readily and easily demonstrated. Very few actually take me up on it - but on the rare occasions they do they leave my place scratching their head with a totally different view.

Hi Bill

My system is far more modest than yours, being mainly DIY stuff, but my gear is often used at listening sessions at a friend's place in comparison with some highly regarded commercial gear.

I am also more than happy to do the same for any Sydney C.A. member.I have already extended this offer to a Sydney DIYAudio moderator, but he hasn't so far taken me up on this. In coming weeks I expect to have a visit from a qualified E.E. from Sydney that I knew 30 years ago.Unlike many E.E.s he doesn't have a closed mind though, as he was into high quality audio before he became an E.E. We will also be having another listening session at a friend's place on the weekend of the 20/21st of October . It's so much easier to demonstrate these differences, than argue about it, isn't it ?

Kind Regards

Alex

[spdif-usb]

The issue with so called 'objectivists' is they will ignore what does not suit them and say all reputable tests show there is no difference - where they decide what is reputable. Blind tests like I do are invalid because they are not DBT's - and of course since DBT's are so hard to organise and do - guess what - they get away with it since no one really has the time or inclination to take them up on it. DBT's done by manufacturers are tainted because they are commercial. It goes on and on - basically they are not interested in the truth - rather they are simply interested in promulgating a pre-decided agenda.

They do admit that DBT cannot be used to prove no difference exists, though. The problem is they are too busy being subjective to see why DBT is flawed.

[mitchco]

Interested in masking? "I'm confident that these test files bust the myth that anyone can hear artifacts 40 dB below a typical noise floor". Says Ethan Winer in Part 2.

 

Interested in audio illusions? Try it out, it's fun to hear our ears being fooled. Top 10 Incredilble Sound Illusions.

 

Btw, I have more objective measures and ABX tests in my blog than anyone else on this site (esldude is a close second). But I am also a subjectivist. When I was an electronics fool many years ago, when the first CD players came out, I would rip out the cheap 4558 op amps and replace them with the state of the art op amps at the time. I had two of the same players, one modded one not. Everyone that "took the test" could easily hear the difference, especially at the frequency extremes. This was also verified by measuring both the frequency response and distortion.

 

Everything audio has a sonic signature. Whether it is all audible or not...

 

I feel that our ears are like our eyes and can rapidly adapt to ever changing scenarios. Just like when it's dark and then a bright light comes on and initally, it's difficult to see, but quickly our eyes adapt and the darkness was just a short memory ago. But can I precisley say exactly how dark it was? Or is it just different?

[spdif-usb]

You guys who insist on MP3's being about filling in details need to give it up. It was not predicated upon that, nor does it work that way nor is anyone claiming it works perfectly. You are just arguing not to admit you had the wrong idea about MP3's.

The fact the effectiveness of mp3 relies on masking effects doesn't also mean an important part of the effectiveness of those masking effects can never be explained by a two-way combination of the brain's capability to discard information and its capability to fill in missing information.

[Paul R]

Yes, some of the masking is a result of how nerves conduct the signal and the mechanical properties of the ear's shape. So those masking effects aren't stored in the brain, they never get that far. Again, neither I nor the people who made MP3's said it was perfect. So that is a ridiculous complaint.

 

You guys who insist on MP3's being about filling in details need to give it up. It was not predicated upon that, nor does it work that way nor is anyone claiming it works perfectly. You are just arguing not to admit you had the wrong idea about MP3's.

 

(grin)

 

I would think you would realize that there is no one explanation for audio phenomena like this. Saying the only operator involved with the audible signature of a MP3 is masking is just plain wrong Dennis.

 

It may be a factor, but not the only factor. And moreover, even if it were the only operator, which it is not, but if it were, then it would be nothing more than a theory proved false. Yes, you can argue it is implemented poorly, but then you would have to find a reason why nobody has been able to perfect it in more than 20 years. It's much more likely the theory is just wrong. You get that, don't you?

 

Perhaps you know of a study where MP3s have been implemented with perfect reproduction. If so, I'll reconsider my thinking. But you are making an extraordinary claim here, and it will require extraordinary proof. Especially with a preponderance of evidence against it.

 

-Paul

[spdif-usb]

mitchco,

 

The speed at which hearing can adapt is IMO greatly dependent on exactly what it is it's adapting to, and how. For example, if someone's accustomed to listening to bright speakers for years, it can take two whole months of listening to nothing else but neutral speakers for that someone to finally stop describing neutral speakers as dull and lifeless. Brightness is often misinterpreted as detail, and it actually even keeps people from hearing some parts of the real detail. Personal bad preferences in sound can be very difficult to cure.