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: "Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle (Read 154038 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

"Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle

Reply #275 –
Quote from: krabapple on
For someone like John Atkinson to publish 'objections' to ABX while touting difference-signal 'demonstrations' of the 'evils of MP3' strikes me as....objectionable.


Why? This is a serious question.  Like all human endeavors, the utility of ABX is open to debate. I have taken part in well over 100 formal blind tests: double-blind, single-blind using methodology approved, for example, by Stanley Lipshitz. I have even used the ABX Box. My criticisms are not fabricated out of whole cloth; I feel it appropriate to publish those criticisms in Stereophile, though I acknowledge that ti would probably not be appropriate to offer them on HA.

As for difference tests, I feel they can be useful, as do other engineers whose opinions I respect. Others, as has pointed out in this thread, disagree. Why do you have a problem with me personally holding these opinions and discussing them when and where I feel appropriate?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle

Reply #276 –
Quote from: Donunus on
Unless I can state exactly what the technical term for the deficiencies that I hear are ex. mp3's pre-echo in certain passages and other specific errors on different passages then I'd rather not talk about anything specific on this topic.

...or tell us you'll get back with more test results in a week and never do?

Quote from: Donunus on
What if you don't exclusively listen to foobar/pc audio and you can hear the difference on your home audio rig more clearly but have no way to prove it because you can not use foobar abx during the time you are hearing those limitations?

There are other methods of doing ABX than foobar, but using foobar with proper time-synchronized and level-matched samples this is very easily controlled.  Why can't you connect your PC to your stereo?

Quote from: Donunus on
- Does the lack of training for searching for specific codec artifacts when doing an abx test mean that one will not be able to hear those differences when just listening to the music for enjoyment from time to time?

Most likely, yes.

Quote from: Donunus on
Its possible that one could be focused on too many specific things trying to find the differences between files when they should listen to other parts of the music instead during an abx test.

Doubtful.

Quote from: Donunus on
Does this really mean that failing to pass a quick ABX test ensures that one cannot hear the difference between these files in the long term?

If you cannot distinguish the difference in the short term, then you probably will not be able to in the long term either, unless you've managed to successfully train yourself, in which case you can test again.

Quote from: Donunus on
-Is it possible that in certain mental states (different moods, sleepiness, etc...) that certain differences in sound can be heard more easily by people?

...or your ears are stuffed up because of a cold, sure.  As I said before, feel free to test again.

"Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle

Reply #277 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
My criticisms are not fabricated out of whole cloth; I feel it appropriate to publish those criticisms in Stereophile, though I acknowledge that ti would probably not be appropriate to offer them on HA.

It's not inappropriate, so long as you follow teh rulez.

"Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle

Reply #278 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: krabapple on
For someone like John Atkinson to publish 'objections' to ABX while touting difference-signal 'demonstrations' of the 'evils of MP3' strikes me as....objectionable.


Why? This is a serious question.
Maybe because you're not a casual contributor, but someone with "an agenda"? The agenda presumably being to make a magazine about very expensive audio equipment, sell.

Quote
As for difference tests, I feel they can be useful, as do other engineers whose opinions I respect.
I know - but some of these others really should know better. Others are saying "this is what the codec is doing to the signal" and then making clear that the magnitude or nature of the difference you hear in a difference test is not necessarily related to the magnitude or nature of difference you hear in an A/B comparison.

I notice the same people are less keen to demonstrate the difference signal in the case of 24-bits vs 16-bits, never mind 48kHz sampling vs 96kHz sampling.

(I really can't find a smiley big enough and cynical enough to put at the end of that sentence!)

Cheers,
David.

"Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle

Reply #279 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
I notice the same people are less keen to demonstrate the difference signal in the case of 24-bits vs 16-bits, never mind 48kHz sampling vs 96kHz sampling.

"Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle

Reply #280 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: krabapple on
For someone like John Atkinson to publish 'objections' to ABX while touting difference-signal 'demonstrations' of the 'evils of MP3' strikes me as....objectionable.


Why? This is a serious question.
Maybe because you're not a casual contributor, but someone with "an agenda"? The agenda presumably being to make a magazine about very expensive audio equipment, sell.


I think it fair to point out that that assumes matters that "not in evidence," as they say. But it would be fruitless to argue the matter. People believ what they want to believe and disregard the rest, to paraphrase Paul Simon.

Quote
Quote
As for difference tests, I feel they can be useful, as do other engineers whose opinions I respect.
I know - but some of these others really should know better. Others are saying "this is what the codec is doing to the signal" and then making clear that the magnitude or nature of the difference you hear in a difference test is not necessarily related to the magnitude or nature of difference you hear in an A/B comparison.


I made that exact point in the Seattle dems. But playing the difference signal emphasizes that _something_ is removed by lossy codecs, which is a point that I also wanted to make.

Quote
I notice the same people are less keen to demonstrate the difference signal in the case of 24-bits vs 16-bits, never mind 48kHz sampling vs 96kHz sampling.


I did demonstrate the former at the 2004 AES Convention in the workshop on high-resolution players. Some 24-bit recordings have nothin but random activity in the 7 or LSBs. Others do have real musical information down there.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle

Reply #281 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
It is possible that we'd now have far better actual audio technology if the floobydust contingent hadn't siphoned off so much of everybodies' time and energy.
...and relatively normal people would still be interested

You know, in the same way that relatively normal people think "HD looks better", but don't think "this $500 cable sounds better".


Right - the same kind of people if not the same people who in 1983 decided that CDs in general sounded better than the LPs that they already had.  The high end has been trying to tell them that they were wrong ever since.

"Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle

Reply #282 –
Quote from: dhromed on
Quote from: Donunus on
-and here is a funny question... Why is Placebo bad?


Because there are real resources involved, like hard drive space, CPU, time, and, last but not least, money.

Placebo isn't bad, but if placebo causes you to needlessly waste money, then that's bad.

"Waste" here is as per your perspective. From the audiophile's perspective, pleasure is derived as money is spent.

In other news, the placebo effect is sometimes strong enough to overcome any ethical issues - http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2010/1...bs.html?ref=rss

"Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle

Reply #283 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: krabapple on
For someone like John Atkinson to publish 'objections' to ABX while touting difference-signal 'demonstrations' of the 'evils of MP3' strikes me as....objectionable.


Why? This is a serious question.  Like all human endeavors, the utility of ABX is open to debate. I have taken part in well over 100 formal blind tests: double-blind, single-blind using methodology approved, for example, by Stanley Lipshitz. I have even used the ABX Box. My criticisms are not fabricated out of whole cloth; I feel it appropriate to publish those criticisms in Stereophile, though I acknowledge that ti would probably not be appropriate to offer them on HA.


'Publish' as in 'allow to be published in your magazine, in your role as editor' not just as in 'write yourself'. 
Quote
As for difference tests, I feel they can be useful, as do other engineers whose opinions I respect. Others, as has pointed out in this thread, disagree. Why do you have a problem with me personally holding these opinions and discussing them when and where I feel appropriate?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Your magazine has taken a rather consistently 'skeptical' stance towards audio DBTs, and of course your own writing is part of that too.  Every theoretical objection to DBTs -- a cornerstone method in psychacoustic research --gets an airing at Stereophile.  Meanwhile, objections to the use of  the 'difference' method to demonstrate what's evil about mp3s seem a bit rare on the page, in Stereophile.  This is the case even though it's a patently lousy and misleading method for demonstrating how mp3s are heard.  Shall I find you some 'engineers' that might agree with me on that?  I can think of one that you know and respect that even posts here.

Simpler version:  established scientific method:  ALWAYS QUESTIONED.  easily discredited , pseudoscientific method:  TAKEN ON THE ROAD.

Yeah, I object to that.

"Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle

Reply #284 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on

Others are saying "this is what the codec is doing to the signal" and then making clear that the magnitude or nature of the difference you hear in a difference test is not necessarily related to the magnitude or nature of difference you hear in an A/B comparison.


I made that exact point in the Seattle dems. But playing the difference signal emphasizes that _something_ is removed by lossy codecs, which is a point that I also wanted to make.



What, pray tell, is the point, other than 'ideological', in emphasizing that something is lost when a lossy perceptual codec is used, particularly when the demonstrated 'loss' is not necessarily correlated to what the mp3 sounds like?  What 'evil' was demonstrated?  Perhaps you would consider emphasizing  the *perceptual* part at your next dem.  The listeners might be truly amazed to hear what the use of perceptual models can achieve in terms of codec transparency.

"Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle

Reply #285 –
Quote from: Notat on
In other news, the placebo effect is sometimes strong enough to overcome any ethical issues - http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2010/1...bs.html?ref=rss

There were several problems with that study, it wasn't exactly rock solid. One of the most glaring faults being:

Quote
Before randomization and during the screening, the placebo pills were truthfully described as inert or inactive pills, like sugar pills, without any medication in it. Additionally, patients were told that “placebo pills, something like sugar pills, have been shown in rigorous clinical testing to produce significant mind-body self-healing processes.”

IOW, they placeboed the placebos.

See here and here for more details.

"Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle

Reply #286 –
Quote from: Notat on
"Waste" here is as per your perspective. From the audiophile's perspective, pleasure is derived as money is spent.


That is true. I guess it just conflicts with my personal sense of worldly justice and cosmic balance.

"Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle

Reply #287 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
I notice the same people are less keen to demonstrate the difference signal in the case of 24-bits vs 16-bits, never mind 48kHz sampling vs 96kHz sampling.

I did demonstrate the former at the 2004 AES Convention in the workshop on high-resolution players. Some 24-bit recordings have nothin but random activity in the 7 or LSBs. Others do have real musical information down there.
I'm not sure how you'd reliably tell the difference. I have an interest in how many bits of LPCM include useful information and it's not a trivial question to answer. If the last 7-bits of 24-bit audio were audible, then you increased the gain a little . If they sounded like anything other than white noise, that's quite surprising, though not impossible in contrived signals.

We've got to be very careful here though: a 16-bit signal isn't just a 24-bit signal with the bottom 8-bits chopped off. There should be dither - preferably noise shaped dither. Do that, and the 24-bit vs 16-bit difference signal is always dominated by the dither, and never contains anything recognisable from the original - that's the point of dither.

Cheers,
David.

"Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle

Reply #288 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: Donunus on
Unless I can state exactly what the technical term for the deficiencies that I hear are ex. mp3's pre-echo in certain passages and other specific errors on different passages then I'd rather not talk about anything specific on this topic.
...or tell us you'll get back with more test results in a week and never do?

I did post some test files here a long time ago with results and log files

Quote from: Donunus on
What if you don't exclusively listen to foobar/pc audio and you can hear the difference on your home audio rig more clearly but have no way to prove it because you can not use foobar abx during the time you are hearing those limitations?

There are other methods of doing ABX than foobar, but using foobar with proper time-synchronized and level-matched samples this is very easily controlled.  Why can't you connect your PC to your stereo?

I can do that but the quality won't be that great depending on the external dac used which influences being able to tell the difference between lossless and lossy.

Quote from: Donunus on
- Does the lack of training for searching for specific codec artifacts when doing an abx test mean that one will not be able to hear those differences when just listening to the music for enjoyment from time to time?

Most likely, yes.

No way of proving that though... Thats a variable that could matter depending on how obsessive compulsive a person is.

Quote from: Donunus on
Its possible that one could be focused on too many specific things trying to find the differences between files when they should listen to other parts of the music instead during an abx test.


Doubtful.

Thats a wrong answer there. I could easily listen to a part without artifacts and not be able to tell the difference then go to a portion of the track with artifacts that are already familiar to me and easily ABX flac and 320 mp3. I could also easily control an abx test by making a person listen through my headphones doing foobar ABX with files that are easy to tell the difference with and ones without artifacts depending on whether I want them to be able to tell the difference between bitrates or not.

Quote from: Donunus on
Does this really mean that failing to pass a quick ABX test ensures that one cannot hear the difference between these files in the long term?

If you cannot distinguish the difference in the short term, then you probably will not be able to in the long term either, unless you've managed to successfully train yourself, in which case you can test again.


Fair Enough. But then again, you could have just missed the artifacts and then at another time could easily hear it when you were concentrating more

Quote from: Donunus on
-Is it possible that in certain mental states (different moods, sleepiness, etc...) that certain differences in sound can be heard more easily by people?

...or your ears are stuffed up because of a cold, sure.  As I said before, feel free to test again.


Colds are one thing, but there could be other factors that we don't know of yet

My Answers are in BOLD

"Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle

Reply #289 –
Quote from: Donunus on
My Answers are in BOLD
...including enough straw men to build a large bonfire.

Sorry, but seriously: the points you make are relevant to any listening test. They are in no way unique to ABXing.

The only relevance is that, if you made some of those mistakes in a sighted or non-randomised test, the mistakes would not be caught and would make their way into the published results. Whereas if you make those mistakes under ABX, they're going to be caught (19 times out of 20 on average, for p=0.05). Which means you'll have to go back and find the part/instance/whatever where you can hear a difference.

Which is far better than reporting "oh yes, I could hear a difference on all the audio content, even when I had a cold or wasn't concentrating" - when in fact there were only some moments where you really heard a difference, and even then you really had to concentrate.

In effect, you're implying that sighted tests are better than ABX because they still let you report audible differences even when/where none exist.

That might be "better" for being able to write 5 pages of prose for Stereophile, but it's not "better" in terms of being able to accurately report reality.

Cheers,
David.

"Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle

Reply #290 –
You have a point there but how is it possible to concentrate to double check every second of every track of our entire collections? Why not just save the time and just use lossless instead. Time (to me anyway) is more precious than 1/3 a dime per album. All my OC tendencies and paranoia will come to an end and I can finally just enjoy the music listening to basically all that the recording has to offer... limited to the quality of ones audio system of course  I'm sure I'm not alone with this opinion since I see so many people here being very picky on what sounds best. Its simple really... Lossless is still the most transparent to the original CD and everything else(lossy)can vary from junk to great but can never be exactly the same as the original at all times with all possible samples.

"Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle

Reply #291 –
It's fine to use lossless.

It doesn't mean mp3 is evil though - or necessarily audibly inferior. That's all.

Cheers,
David.

"Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle

Reply #292 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
I notice the same people are less keen to demonstrate the difference signal in the case of 24-bits vs 16-bits, never mind 48kHz sampling vs 96kHz sampling.

I did demonstrate the former at the 2004 AES Convention in the workshop on high-resolution players. Some 24-bit recordings have nothin but random activity in the 7 or [8] LSBs. Others do have real musical information down there.
I'm not sure how you'd reliably tell the difference. I have an interest in how many bits of LPCM include useful information and it's not a trivial question to answer. If the last 7-bits of 24-bit audio were audible, then you increased the gain a little . If they sounded like anything other than white noise, that's quite surprising, though not impossible in contrived signals.


I wasn't discussing audibility. Others on the panel - Vicki Melchior, George Massenburg, Malcolm Hawksford - examined wider and deeper issues raised by the advent of high-resolution media. My brief for the AES workshop was to answer 2 questions: 1) what content is present on 24-bit/96kHz recordings that isn't preserved on CD? and 2) if there is such content, how effective are typical playback systems at preserving that content?

That some (but not all, of course) 24-bit recordings do have signal-related content in the 8 LSBs I thought interesting, given that many people have written that all real-world recordings will have sufficiently high a noise floor to randomize the LSBs below the 16th.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle

Reply #293 –
Quote from: Donunus on
I did post some test files here a long time ago with results and log files
I found none relating to the discussion I linked.

Quote from: Donunus on
I can do that but the quality won't be that great depending on the external dac used which influences being able to tell the difference between lossless and lossy.
Got any objective proof of this?  To me is sounds like a desperate excuse (besides being a TOS #8 violation).

Quote from: Donunus on
No way of proving that though... Thats a variable that could matter depending on how obsessive compulsive a person is.
No, it's not a variable that could matter depending on a person's OCD.  You are capable of hearing artifacts or you aren't.  If you don't know what to look for you won't find it.

Quote from: Donunus on
Thats a wrong answer there. I could easily listen to a part without artifacts and not be able to tell the difference then go to a portion of the track with artifacts that are already familiar to me and easily ABX flac and 320 mp3. I could also easily control an abx test by making a person listen through my headphones doing foobar ABX with files that are easy to tell the difference with and ones without artifacts depending on whether I want them to be able to tell the difference between bitrates or not.
Pick the sample and repeat the test.  Tell me where it is written that samples from ABX tests must not be chosen by the person being tested.  Then tell me where it is written that one failed ABX attempt by one person is universally applicable to everyone.

Quote from: Donunus on
you could have just missed the artifacts and then at another time could easily hear it when you were concentrating more
Like I said, rinse and repeat.  The problem is that many people won't ever reach for the shampoo bottle, ignoring those who proselytize against using shampoo altogether.

Quote from: Donunus on
Colds are one thing, but there could be other factors that we don't know of yet
It's a wonder science ever progresses.

"Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle

Reply #294 –
Quote from: andy o on
There were several problems with that study, it wasn't exactly rock solid. One of the most glaring faults being:

Quote
Before randomization and during the screening, the placebo pills were truthfully described as inert or inactive pills, like sugar pills, without any medication in it. Additionally, patients were told that “placebo pills, something like sugar pills, have been shown in rigorous clinical testing to produce significant mind-body self-healing processes.”

IOW, they placeboed the placebos.

See here and here for more details.

Thanks for the links. My point in bringing it in was that there are ethical and truthful ways to manipulate people's expectations and there can be real or perceived benefits in doing so. This study is unable to show real benefits but clearly shows perceived benefits. In high-end audio, it's all about perception. You can change what people perceive by changing their expectations. It's all in their head but that's where perception happens; they really are hearing something different.

And yes it does threaten worldly justice and cosmic balance but there is no requirement for these to be upheld within the confines of an individual's head.

"Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle

Reply #295 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
That some (but not all, of course) 24-bit recordings do have signal-related content in the 8 LSBs I thought interesting, given that many people have written that all real-world recordings will have sufficiently high a noise floor to randomize the LSBs below the 16th.


That some 24 bit recordings have signal-related content in the 8 LSBs in no way contradicts the idea that all real-world recordings will have sufficiently high of a noise floor to randomize the quantization error when the 24 bit signal is converted to 16 bits. 

Notice that I corrected your misstatement of the idea that "many people" have. ;-)

The idea that some 24 bit recordings have signal-related content in the 8 LSBs that somehow remains detectable when the 24 bit signal is converted to 16 bits with proper randomization of the quantization error is proven by the fact that a properly dithered 16 bit signal may contain audible content that is smaller than the LSB.

In essence John, you've just reiterated the audiophile myth that a 16 bit signal can contain no detectable signal smaller than the LSB. I think you believe what you said.  This may be how you *hear* the loss of low level signals when some 24 bit recordings are converted to 16 bits, in your sighted evaluations. ;-)


"Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle

Reply #296 –
Quote from: Notat on
In high-end audio, it's all about perception. You can change what people perceive by changing their expectations. It's all in their head but that's where perception happens; they really are hearing something different.


A perception that contradicts actuality, such as the false vision of a shimmering lake in the desert, is of course called an illusion.

This is why I say that high end audiophiles who hear changes in their sighted evaluations when there is no actual change are illusional, not delusional.

Their perceptions are similar to those of normal human beings under the same conditions.  There is no pathology in their perceptions of sonic differences, given the circumstances.

ABXers can and do perceive non-existent differences when they do sighted evaluations. It's just that we've evolved our means for doing comparisons in the interest of behaving more consistently with actuality.

"Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle

Reply #297 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
But playing the difference signal emphasizes that _something_ is removed by lossy codecs, which is a point that I also wanted to make.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


But since it is a lossy codecs then by _definition_ "something" is removed.  Otherwise it wouldn't be a "lossy codecs".  I could put on a demonstration that would show that water is wet if I liked, but why would anyone come. What's the point?  Since something is by definition removed you can isolate and amplify what is removed and it will obviously be audible on it's own.  So what?

The question of interest is not whether something is removed, but whether the something that is removed changes the sound audibly.  It certainly changes it physically, but ears have limits.  And the evidence seems to be all on the side of the theory that some "lossy codecs" result in differences that are inaudible to human ears.  Oddly, people seem to sell these recordings to human beings and not robots or computers.  Perhaps that has something to do with who has the money to spend.



Ed Seedhouse
VA7SDH
 

"Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle

Reply #298 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
That some (but not all, of course) 24-bit recordings do have signal-related content in the 8 LSBs I thought interesting, given that many people have written that all real-world recordings will have sufficiently high a noise floor to randomize the LSBs below the 16th.
I see - I agree that this is interesting for that reason. Do you recall any examples?

I doubt they "need" more than 16-bits, but they could still be good candidates for a listening test, and in any case may be very good recordings - so always of interest.

Cheers,
David.

"Audiophile" listening event @ Definitive Audio in Seattle

Reply #299 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
That some (but not all, of course) 24-bit recordings do have signal-related content in the 8 LSBs I thought interesting, given that many people have written that all real-world recordings will have sufficiently high a noise floor to randomize the LSBs below the 16th.


I see - I agree that this is interesting for that reason. Do you recall any examples?


Virtually *every* real world recording has "signal-related content" whose amplitude is less than 16 bits, even the ones that were made @ 16 bits, went through production @ 16 bits, and were distributed in a 16 bit format.

In properly dithered digital recordings (which covers pretty much everything modern unless someone screws up)  it is always true with recordings of natural sounds that signals whose amplitude is < LSB  and even << LSB are present.  The caveat "natural sounds" excludes synthesized sounds because it is possible to create a recording with synthesized sounds that lack components whose amplitude is that small. Even that isn't particularly likely, but it could theoretically happen.

The point is that you have to go out of your way to totally loose low level detail.  There are two ways that low level detail failes to be perceptible and that is that it gets lost in the noise or masked by louder signals at the same or nearby frequencies. The ear is good at pulling signals out of noise, but it sucks at avoiding masking.

Here's your challenge - how does one make the data that represents low level detail completely go away? 

There is an obvious answer which is: use undithered requantization to shorter data words.  That's a no-no. Nobody who is serious about quality would intentionally do that, and the world is full of software and equipment that goes out of its way to not do it.

There's another answer - add a noise gate which is a standard production tool, usually a feature of a more generalized dynamics processor. Thing is, that only works during quiet passages - the low level detail in louder signals is still there.

I would sincerely hope that John is pulling your leg. ;-)

Or, he's trying to sell the audiophile myth about only the highest  quality, most expensive  equipment reproducting low level detail. :-(  I think that we've all seen this property ascribed to everything from intereconnects to loudspeakers.