Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: [TOS #5/#7] From: Blind test - old AVRs beat new (Read 4405 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

[TOS #5/#7] From: Blind test - old AVRs beat new

Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: _if on
Quote
He's the one who in his brief obit on Nousaine criticized him for "espousing science" ?!, rather than approaching audio like most writers. [links upon request]

I'd love to see that!


http://stereos.about.com/od/introductionto...e-1945-2014.htm

He's not against blind tests but seems a bit defensive about pooh-poohing audiophile beliefs.
Not this defensive though.  Some incredibly funny stuff with the 'ol "envy" card thrown in.  Seems to have been several of these lately. Maybe the paranoia is really getting them to believe they're being equated with pedophiles?
Brent ought to submit his receiver and IC tests to AES for some further scrutiny. Heck, these days, he may even win an award.

cheers,

AJ


Mike Lavorgna was only temporarily chastened by failing a DBT of cables, in his own house, with his own selections. 

But only temporarily.  He was and is a classic case of the audiophile with way more money than sense.  It's no surprise he's wound up blogging for a 'sister site' to Stereophile.

Read the details here:
Observations of a controlled Cable Test

[TOS #5/#7] From: Blind test - old AVRs beat new

Reply #1 –
C'mon Krab, that's still Lavigne.
Get your Mikes straight.
Lavigne, Lavorgna, Fremer.

Btw, scroll through the Fremer commentary. Some very funny stuff from Dr AIX and Brad Meyer
Loudspeaker manufacturer

[TOS #5/#7] From: Blind test - old AVRs beat new

Reply #2 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
C'mon Krab, that's still Lavigne.
Get your Mikes straight.
Lavigne, Lavorgna, Fremer.

Btw, scroll through the Fremer commentary. Some very funny stuff from Dr AIX and Brad Meyer



Aw jeez, you're right.  I got my Mikes wrong.  But could I tell them apart in a blind test?

[later, perusing the Fremer rant comments] 



Fremer: "If you or anyone else wants to read a thorough debunking of the Moran-Meyer study by an ex-Microsoft guy who IS rooted in science and IS qualified to comment on their study follow "Amir" on these two links...."




Fremer: "I will soon publish an article by an electrical engineer who uses MATH to make a very compelling case for why vinyl actually does have wider dynamic range than CD."

Woah, MATH!   

[TOS #5/#7] From: Blind test - old AVRs beat new

Reply #3 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Fremer: "If you or anyone else wants to read a thorough debunking of the Moran-Meyer study by an ex-Microsoft guy who IS rooted in science and IS qualified to comment on their study follow "Amir" on these two links...." 
That is funny. So he isn't qualified to comment on their study himself but instead suggests we should look to a shopkeep?

[TOS #5/#7] From: Blind test - old AVRs beat new

Reply #4 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Fremer: "If you or anyone else wants to read a thorough debunking of the Moran-Meyer study by an ex-Microsoft guy who IS rooted in science and IS qualified to comment on their study follow "Amir" on these two links...."


The  500 pound gorilla in the Moran-Meyer study was their innocent false presumption that almost all or all of the so-called high resolution recordings they used were actually high resolution.  We now know that about half of them had masters with CD or poorer resolution in their provenance.  Of course the golden ears attack their equipment because that's how their knees jerk.

As usual, the recordings limited the sensitivity of the tests.

[TOS #5/#7] From: Blind test - old AVRs beat new

Reply #5 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Fremer: "If you or anyone else wants to read a thorough debunking of the Moran-Meyer study by an ex-Microsoft guy who IS rooted in science and IS qualified to comment on their study follow "Amir" on these two links...."


Interesting commonality: Both Fremer and Amir appear to be very strong believers in proof by means of (obsolete, cherry-picked) authority. One could make a career out of exposing the really wretched logic in the stuff they write.

[TOS #5/#7] From: Blind test - old AVRs beat new

Reply #6 –
Quote from: mzil on
Quote from: krabapple on
Fremer: "If you or anyone else wants to read a thorough debunking of the Moran-Meyer study by an ex-Microsoft guy who IS rooted in science and IS qualified to comment on their study follow "Amir" on these two links...." 
That is funny. So he isn't qualified to comment on their study himself but instead suggests we should look to a shopkeep?


After lo those many years of rebutting Amir's posts on AVS I obtained new respect for Steve Balmer as a manager, given that he probably had to approve Amir's departure. ;-)

[TOS #5/#7] From: Blind test - old AVRs beat new

Reply #7 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: krabapple on
Fremer: "If you or anyone else wants to read a thorough debunking of the Moran-Meyer study by an ex-Microsoft guy who IS rooted in science and IS qualified to comment on their study follow "Amir" on these two links...."


The  500 pound gorilla in the Moran-Meyer study was their innocent false presumption that almost all or all of the so-called high resolution recordings they used were actually high resolution.  We now know that about half of them had masters with CD or poorer resolution in their provenance.  Of course the golden ears attack their equipment because that's how their knees jerk.



But audiophiles are quite disingenuous when they complain about that, because SACDs and DVDAs were routinely being praised to the skies for their creamy 'hi rez' sound since year 2000 -- even when they were sourced form analog or CD-rate masters.

Then, after M&M, only 'HHH' (high rez at every step) would suffice...but they're inconsistent about that, too.








[TOS #5/#7] From: Blind test - old AVRs beat new

Reply #8 –
The bizarre thing is, it was never a secret. I went to DVD-A and SACD pre- and post-launch events. I heard both sides apologise that they had to use 20-bit 48kHz sources for some releases. I heard a Sony guy say how few native DSD releases there were of "modern" content. I could be mis-remembering it, but I'm sure he thought it was a shame that they hadn't standardised and used some marking to show the provenance of the recording (like AAD/ADD/DDD for CDs) but maybe it would happen when there were more native hi-res recordings to sell.

I heard a story, never verified, that there were a few DVD-A releases where they had literally just repeated each sample from the CD release - so the data was 88.2kHz 16-bit, with each pair of samples identical. Why had they done it that way? To get something above 22kHz.

Cheers,
David.

[TOS #5/#7] From: Blind test - old AVRs beat new

Reply #9 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
The  500 pound gorilla in the Moran-Meyer study was their innocent false presumption that almost all or all of the so-called high resolution recordings they used were actually high resolution.  We now know that about half of them had masters with CD or poorer resolution in their provenance.


Arny, from their perspective analog studio recordings ARE better than CD, whether you and I agree or not. Like for example M&M's use of DSotM [the critically acclaimed best selling SACD of all time and praised by the audio magazines]. Those studio tape machine go up to 23 maybe even 24K, on a good day with proper alignment, etc., don't you know. Same with 20/48k digital reordings: they exceed 16/44, now don't they? [pretending for the moment the content in the recordings itself does]. Does changing the top frequency a fraction of an octave actually matter to human perception, again pretending there was content in the recording there and that it wouldn't be perceptually masked? Of course not, but that's not how THEY think!

[TOS #5/#7] From: Blind test - old AVRs beat new

Reply #10 –
Quote from: mzil on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
The  500 pound gorilla in the Moran-Meyer study was their innocent false presumption that almost all or all of the so-called high resolution recordings they used were actually high resolution.  We now know that about half of them had masters with CD or poorer resolution in their provenance.


Arny, from their perspective analog studio recordings ARE better than CD, whether you and I agree or not.


Of course.  I've been working with these folks since the 70s, and so well I know their tightly grasped illusions.

Quote
Like for example M&M's use of DSotM [the critically acclaimed best selling SACD of all time and praised by the audio magazines]. Those studio tape machine go up to 23 maybe even 24K, on a good day with proper alignment, etc., don't you know. Same with 20/48k digital reordings: they exceed 16/44, now don't they? [pretending for the moment the content in the recordings itself does]. Does changing the top frequency a fraction of an octave actually matter to human perception, again pretending there was content in the recording there and that it wouldn't be perceptually masked? Of course not, but that's not how THEY think!


Technically speaking, bandpass is orthogonal to resolution, and it is in the resolution where analog media falls flat on its face. 

Analog media can have more extended bandpass than 44.1 KHz media, but the fidelity of the response in those upper ranges is always severely degraded. It is severely degraded down in the regular audible band as well, it just gets far worse at higher frequencies. 

IOW a media's noise, linear and nonlinear distortion together make up its resolution, and analog media can't hold even a dim candle to 16 bit media in any of those areas.  Not even close.

One might say that Dolby SR which adds up to 28 dB dynamic range (noise reduction) to the finest analog tape machines which might themselves have 80 dB SNR  sums to 108 dB thus eclipsing 16 bit digital. However that would be a violation of Information Theory if it were true with no strings attached. The attached strings take the form of significantly increased linear and nonlinear distortion that start out orders of magnitude worse than 16 bit digital in basic analog tape. Dolby SR  trades them off to provide its SNR benefits so it makes these things even worse.  The gods of Science are thus satisfied.

[TOS #5/#7] From: Blind test - old AVRs beat new

Reply #11 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Analog media can have more extended bandpass than 44.1 KHz media, but
  "End of story"  - Joe Blow Audiophile

Quote
One might say that Dolby SR which adds up to 28 dB dynamic range (noise reduction) to the finest analog tape machines which might themselves have 80 dB SNR  sums to 108 dB thus eclipsing 16 bit digital. However that would be a violation of Information Theory if it were true with no strings attached. The attached strings take the form of significantly increased linear and nonlinear distortion that start out orders of magnitude worse than 16 bit digital in basic analog tape.
"And those distortions, or as I prefer to call them modifications, are euphonic and 'add character' to the recording much like how LPs sound so much better than CD. You just have to learn how to hear beyond the pops, clicks, ticks, hiss, wow, flutter, head bumps, drop outs, rumble,  inner groove distortion, frequency response errors tonal modifications, and general grunge, etc.,  of all these various analog mediums, you and your propeller-headed kind pooh-pooh so often, to hear the music's true essence...Perhaps your gear isn't up to snuff? Are you not using a Mark Levinson power amp, for example? I could easily pick out the superior LP sound over CD should you wish to test me, and I promise I will do it by listening to the music, not the pops and ticks." - Joe Blow Audiophile

  If only we had a dime for each time they repeated this garbage to us...

[TOS #5/#7] From: Blind test - old AVRs beat new

Reply #12 –
Quote from: Ed Seedhouse on
Moreover I have yet to see any evidence that anyone has repeated this study and confirmed it's results.  Last I heard that was part of doing Science too...

As noted, these revelatory "blind" tests are always cryptic. Mr Butterworth seems to lament that rational people with >2 brain cells tend to dismiss woo beliefs too easily and presents his "counter" evidence of why we should tread carefully. If you read his article I linked earlier, he purports to have found audible differences in ICs in his own "blind" tests, then links a thesis paper as somehow supportive of the idea that they may be audible, but not measurable by known means. (How this magic would be engineered into the design is beyond the scope of this particular logic adventure, unless of course, it's the 'ol Top Secret known only to magicians variety).
Quote from the thesis: "The main motivation for this thesis came after reading Brent Butterworth and Al Griffin's article, "String 'Em Up", in the August 1997 issue of Home Theater. In this article, the authors present the results of a supposedly single-blind listening test".
Supposedly single blind???
This, coupled with what Mzil is posting, might make Mr Butterworths "blind" tests a bit suspect, at least deserving a bit more scrutiny. Or repeatability. Were they not so cryptic.

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

[TOS #5/#7] From: Blind test - old AVRs beat new

Reply #13 –
Quote from: krabapple on
later, perusing the Fremer rant comments

Its just seems he, Mr Lavorgna and a few others writing columns recently, have simultaneously decided to channel Howard Beale

What, no link to his "+/-10% volume method".... 

Quote from: krabapple on
Fremer: "I will soon publish an article by an electrical engineer who uses MATH to make a very compelling case for why vinyl actually does have wider dynamic range than CD."

Yes, of course, we all know true subjectivism....requires mathematical proof.

cheers,

AJ

Loudspeaker manufacturer

[TOS #5/#7] From: Blind test - old AVRs beat new

Reply #14 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: Ed Seedhouse on
Moreover I have yet to see any evidence that anyone has repeated this study and confirmed it's results.  Last I heard that was part of doing Science too...

As noted, these revelatory "blind" tests are always cryptic. Mr Butterworth seems to lament that rational people with >2 brain cells tend to dismiss woo beliefs too easily and presents his "counter" evidence of why we should tread carefully. If you read his article I linked earlier, he purports to have found audible differences in ICs in his own "blind" tests, then links a thesis paper as somehow supportive of the idea that they may be audible, but not measurable by known means. (How this magic would be engineered into the design is beyond the scope of this particular logic adventure, unless of course, it's the 'ol Top Secret known only to magicians variety).
Quote from the thesis: "The main motivation for this thesis came after reading Brent Butterworth and Al Griffin's article, "String 'Em Up", in the August 1997 issue of Home Theater. In this article, the authors present the results of a supposedly single-blind listening test".
Supposedly single blind???
This, coupled with what Mzil is posting, might make Mr Butterworths "blind" tests a bit suspect, at least deserving a bit more scrutiny. Or repeatability. Were they not so cryptic.



The referenced paper concludes that cable quality is of "...very little consequence" (page 40)

Butterworth's use of inherently flawed single blind listening tests is thus compounded by attempting to support his conclusions with papers that falsify his claims.

[TOS #5/#7] From: Blind test - old AVRs beat new

Reply #15 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: krabapple on
later, perusing the Fremer rant comments

Quote from: krabapple on
Fremer: "I will soon publish an article by an electrical engineer who uses MATH to make a very compelling case for why vinyl actually does have wider dynamic range than CD."

Yes, of course, we all know true subjectivism....requires mathematical proof.


And speaking of the one who I presume is Fremer's favorite "Mathematician", we have this new example of his work:

Amir's latest contribution to the AES web site

Please notice the central straw man argument! ;-)  This really belongs in a thread that was closed for some reason, but of course the thread is closed and it can't be put there.

[TOS #5/#7] From: Blind test - old AVRs beat new

Reply #16 –
Quote from: ajinfla on
Quote from: Ed Seedhouse on
Moreover I have yet to see any evidence that anyone has repeated this study and confirmed it's results.  Last I heard that was part of doing Science too...

As noted, these revelatory "blind" tests are always cryptic. Mr Butterworth seems to lament that rational people with >2 brain cells tend to dismiss woo beliefs too easily and presents his "counter" evidence of why we should tread carefully. If you read his article I linked earlier, he purports to have found audible differences in ICs in his own "blind" tests, then links a thesis paper as somehow supportive of the idea that they may be audible, but not measurable by known means.



BTW I should point out a serious error in the linked paper. Section 3.5 and Figure 3.10 fail to highlight the residual distortion of the Audio Precision System 1. I've worked with a number of samples of this device, and their residuals have been in the same range as the data shown.  The data shown is probably not data about the cables tested. It relates to the test equipment.

As a general rule even the cheapest audio cable with good end-to-end continuity and free of obvious shorts will reveal the residual distortion of the distortion measuring setup that is being used to measure it because even the most humble but competent cable is for all practical purposes free of measurable nonlinear distortion.

[TOS #5/#7] From: Blind test - old AVRs beat new

Reply #17 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Amir's latest contribution to the AES web site

Please notice the central straw man argument! ;-)  This really belongs in a thread that was closed for some reason, but of course the thread is closed and it can't be put there.


The discussion there seems to gather momentum. The authors themselves have now answered.

The other thread would be more appropriate, perhaps it can be reopened?

[TOS #5/#7] From: Blind test - old AVRs beat new

Reply #18 –
Quote from: pelmazo on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Amir's latest contribution to the AES web site

Please notice the central straw man argument! ;-)  This really belongs in a thread that was closed for some reason, but of course the thread is closed and it can't be put there.


The discussion there seems to gather momentum. The authors themselves have now answered.

The other thread would be more appropriate, perhaps it can be reopened?


Indeed.

Probably the most important point of the 3/16/2015 Stuart post is its apparent promise to do better next time:

"As stated earlier, we have continued this series of experiments using different filters (including both shorter and minimum-phase designs) and will be reporting these findings in the near future."

One could hope that the many errors and suboptimal choices of the earlier conference paper will be corrected, but I really don't have a lot of hope for that because of the continued reiteration by Stuart (like that of Amir) that there is just one ABX test the one that was developed in 1950, and subsequent enhancements to it can safely be ignored. He does this as follows:

"It is not uncommon to believe, as we do, that the ABX test is “hard” for listeners, and hence possibly sacrifices some sensitivity and reliability over simpler tasks such as same-different (AX, see Lass 1984, Crowder 1982). For example, Pisoni (1975) compared results from ABX and 4IAX in the same subjects for short speech-stimuli, and found that the 4IAX invariably gave smaller threshold estimates."

Psioni's 1975 paper is online here: Link to Psioni's 1975 paper comparing ABX to 4AIX  This paper does not shed any direct light on which ABX he feels has been bested except of course by being published in 1975, it can't possibly reference Clark's 1982 paper.  However it is presumably based on Psioni's 1971 paper "On the Comparison Between Identification And Discrimination Tests In Speech Perception"  published starting on page 299 in "Mental Health Research Institute Staff Publications, Part 2" which is available on Google books.  This paper provides detailed descriptions of both tests, and leaves no doubt that Psioni's ABX test (and by implication Stuart's and Amir's ABX test) is still the original JASA 1950 ABX test.  Apparently those old dogs can't learn any new tricks. Not only do they kick dogs in public, but they kick old sick dogs that belong to dead people who aren't around to defend themselves or their dogs.