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: Article: Why We Need Audiophiles (Read 502502 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #400 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
I fail to see why my doing so in these demonstrations should be "prohibited."

But is there a logical reason for doing so?

In other words, what exactly is the point? Surely we aren't to believe it's going to be done purely for educational purposes, John.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #401 –
Quote from: analogcorner on
That bumper sticker was on my car in the early 1980s when compact discs did suck.


Ignores the fact that even in the initial release of CDs, there were many fine-sounding examples. I bought one of the first CD players sold in my area, and I took advantage of many business trips to browse the rather limited collections of CDs that were for sale in he early days. Ironically, I found an amazing collections in Bismark, North Dakota, as well in as more predictable locations like downtown Chicago.

Quote
They sounded awful.


I don't know why anybody would say that. By modern standards, the general run of recordings was hit-or-miss, whether LP or CD. Since the LP format added the well known technical problems of the format, as well as the production and quality control problems in many pressing plants, CDs early on became the more uniformly-enjoyable product. 

The miserable quality of the general run of work in US pressing plants was driven home to me by a late-60's year in Europe, all expenses paid by Uncle Sam. ;-) I actually re-bought a number of favorite LPs on the strength of the improved sonics of European pressing and mastering.

Quote
The transfers from analog were uniformly poorly done


While mistakes were made, there was also a lot of good work done right up front.

Quote
from questionable sources with overuse of CEDAR and Sonic Solutions.


This claim about CEDAR has already been falsified.

Furthermore, many analog tape masters were already subjectively noise-free as-is because Dolby A had been in use for  a decade or more if memory serves.

Quote
So called DDD discs actually went through multiple D/A A/D conversions since there were no digital mixing boards.


This is also false as a generality, and its not the problem that some would make it out to be, since a quality SS analog mixing boards can easily have more than 96 dB dynamic range.

By the late 80s and early 90s, even semi-pro mixing boards (e.g. Mackies) had more than 96 dB dynamic range.

Most DDD discs were minimal-miced, so no mixing board was required.


Quote
Many factors contributed to what was awful sound.


Denies the well-known fact among non-digiphobes that there was a lot of good or better sound on CDs from the outset.

Quote
Those who called that sound "pristine" and a "big advancement" were wrong.


With TOS 8 sitting here before us, how were these people wrong?

Quote
History has proven me correct as virtually the entire catalog of what had been issued back then has been reissued using better sources, better associated gear, especially better converters and fewer attempts at lopping off the top end along with supposedly offensive tape hiss.


What history has shown is that the CD was the most successful introduction of a new audio format in history up until the introduction of the DVD. The CD quickly sent the LP and cassette formats packing.

In fact I know of no early recordings that show evidence of atttempts of lopping off the top end. Titles and catalog numbers please.

Many of us bemoan the sound quality of many  reissues because they were degraded, often by excessive dynamics compression. In some cases resissues have had other added-on sonic defects like reverb.

Those of us who have original CD recordings from the early-mid 80s still treasure them, because they are in fact very clean, uncompressed, and have some of the widest dynamic range and strong upper octaves ever heard. Compared to the gundgy LPs that went before them, they were strong breaths of fresh air.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #402 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Of course aliases and sockpuppets are as opaque to me as anybody else. I have long suspected that some SP employees have posted  things online under various aliases, but I have no relaible evidence to back that up.


Not only do you not have any evidence for this specious claim, Mr. Krueger, when you made the same claim on Usenet, you were repeatedly assured that all of Stereophile's writers post to public forums using their own names or, as in this forum, under screen names that reveal their identity. There is one exception, in that the writer Tom Gillett posts under his nom-de-plume "Sam Tellig," which he adopted 25 years ago for professional reasons.


Just shows how naive you are, John. If one of your employees were posting from his own computer using an alias that was unknown to you, how would you know?

Quote
If you have no evidence for your suspicion, Mr. Mr. Krueger, than you should refrain from expressing it on a public forum, partualrlty as it was recenrly revealed that you_ have been posting under sockpuppet aliases to Usenet newsgroups :-).


I know of no such revelations. If you have any evidence John, then you should meet the standard that you try you hold me to, and provide it forthwith. I have from time to time posted from google instead of my usual newsgroup provider, but there was no effort to conceal that those posts were from me.


Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #403 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
If you have no evidence for your suspicion, Mr. Mr. Krueger, than you should refrain from expressing it on a public forum, partualrlty as it was recenrly revealed that you_ have been posting under sockpuppet aliases to Usenet newsgroups :-).
 
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
With all due respect, his suspicion has a large engaging sort of soundstage and the warm, full midrange that only someone who has many years of examining suspicions could appreciate.  We could never possibly see the entire picture of factors which go into examining such suspicion, and you should therefore withhold your skepticism.
elevatorladylevitateme

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #404 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: krabapple on
I can't say what happened afterwards between AK and MF from personal witness, as I was mainly talking to Tom Nousaine at the other end of the large-ish room.  I did introduce myself to Arny at some point, and do recall MF being in the vicinity then, and later hearing some audience buzz about 'words' having been exchanged between him and MF, but if a physical brawl almost broke out, it was a pretty local and well-damped one ;>


Fremer was restrained by one or more associates from approaching me closely.  What some might call one-sided assault but no battery.


No, this is not correct, Mr. Krueger. You were on the podium, behind the table as shown in the photographs at http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/; Michael was on the floor.


Of course John you want  everybody to believe that Michael and I were frozen in the locations shown in that photograph from well before the debate until well after.

Just like you want everybody to believe that if one of your writers were posting using an alias that was unknown to you, he would report it to you immediately.

Funny John, I didn't smell fresh cabbage or truck exhaust when I met you at HE2005. ;-)

Let the record show that I really don't recall that much about the Fremer HE2005 incident but what I recently posted, and Michael being hustled away while he was shouting the F-word repeatedly in a very loud voice.  I can't remember the exact way he phrased his usage of the F-word except that it was clear that it somehow was directed towards me. Being a hetrosexual in a long term committed relationship, I was not the least bit pleased by the repeated declarations of his sexual intentions towards me. ;-)

Needless to say I was quite releaved by Michael's recent admission that he is not psychiatrist. He behavior at HE2005 was quite unprofessional by the standards of any number of professions including medicine. Apparently it did not affect his repuation as a writer but of course we all know about writers... ;-)



Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #405 –
Quote from: cpchan on
Yawn, I am seriously being underwhelmed here. I was really looking forward to a vigourous debate, but all I have seen so far is that ridiculous car analogy and the repetition of the "I am an expert" mantra.


What we see before us pretty much follows the behavior of Atkinson on Usenet. I don't recall having seen him post anything opn Usenet that was actually about audio for years. He got his &^%!! kicked by Nousaine and I many times quite a few years back on RAO and RAHE, and apparently learned his lesson.

Fremer has actually posted a little about audio here, but people are quickly figuring out that he's actually posting a treatise about his ignorance of just about any topic in audio he has written about.

This supports my general belief that most golden ears say what they do out of ignorance and inabilty to comprehend relatively simple techical topics in audio, not any a priori desire to be dishonest.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #406 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Of course aliases and sockpuppets are as opaque to me as anybody else. I have long suspected that some SP employees have posted  things online under various aliases, but I have no relaible evidence to back that up.


Not only do you not have any evidence for this specious claim, Mr. Krueger, when you made the same claim on Usenet, you were repeatedly assured that all of Stereophile's writers post to public forums using their own names or, as in this forum, under screen names that reveal their identity. There is one exception, in that the writer Tom Gillett posts under his nom-de-plume "Sam Tellig," which he adopted 25 years ago for professional reasons.


Just shows how naive you are, John. If one of your employees were posting from his own computer using an alias that was unknown to you, how would you know?


Because as the person who pays them, I have asked them outright, Mr. Krueger. They have responded, truthfully I fully believe, that they only post under their own names, not as sockpuppets. If such trust in my employees makes me "naive" by your standards, Mr. Krueger, that is something I am fully content to live with.  As you said, you have no evidence to support your specious claim; you'd be wise to leave the subject alone, surely.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #407 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: krabapple on
I can't say what happened afterwards between AK and MF from personal witness, as I was mainly talking to Tom Nousaine at the other end of the large-ish room.  I did introduce myself to Arny at some point, and do recall MF being in the vicinity then, and later hearing some audience buzz about 'words' having been exchanged between him and MF, but if a physical brawl almost broke out, it was a pretty local and well-damped one ;>


Fremer was restrained by one or more associates from approaching me closely.  What some might call one-sided assault but no battery.


No, this is not correct, Mr. Krueger. You were on the podium, behind the table as shown in the photographs at http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/; Michael was on the floor.


Of course John you want  everybody to believe that Michael and I were frozen in the locations shown in that photograph from well before the debate until well after.


No-one said anything about "well before" to "well after," Mr. Krueger. The photos merely show where you were when you were shouting at Michael and he was shouting back at you. As you know, I was spooling microphone cables and packing up my recording gear so had a grandstand view of the argument. The point was that, contrary to your assertion, no-one had to "forceably restrain" Michael or even you :-)

Quote
Just like you want everybody to believe that if one of your writers were posting using an alias that was unknown to you, he would report it to you immediately.


If I ask a direct question, it is my experience that I get a truthful response from those I employ. If your experience is different, either as employer or as employeee, than that is unfortunate, of course.

Quote
Let the record show that I really don't recall that much about the Fremer HE2005 incident but what I recently posted...


I do believe that your memory is faulty, Mr. Krueger.

Quote
and Michael being hustled away while he was shouting the F-word repeatedly in a very loud voice.  I can't remember the exact way he phrased his usage of the F-word except that it was clear that it somehow was directed towards me. Being a hetrosexual in a long term committed relationship, I was not the least bit pleased by the repeated declarations of his sexual intentions towards me. ;-)


Perhaps you would have done well to have left well enough alone, Mr. Krueger. :-)

But I am puzzled that the moderating team allow you so much latitude. As it says in Hydrogen Audio's "Terms of Service,"

"2. All members, at the staff's discretion, must converse in an acceptable fashion to be allowed the privilege of continued participation."

I am not sure if the personal comments you direct toward Michael or me qualify as "acceptable," Mr. Krueger. Oh well. First Amendment and all that.
 
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #408 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: rpp3po on
Quote from: ShowsOn on
This statement is just bizarre, and demonstrates you don't understand how lossy encoders work.  They are designed to take into account what sounds will be masked (and thus not audible) when the entire audio stream is played back.


We should not bash everything they say, that makes HA look one sided. I have listened to difference files myself. It is just interesting to hear what's inside them, that should not be prohibited.


Of course. It is interesting with these files, not only to audition the character of what is removed by various codecs but also the level of the difference signal.  I fail to see why my doing so in these demonstrations should be "prohibited."  :-)


But *of course* mp3s aren't bit-identical to their source and *of course* there can be audible content in the difference file.  You could also horrify them by showing waveforms of an mp3 versus lossless.

And then when you've got them gasping and shaking their heads in dismay, you *do* plan to explain what perceptual encoding *means*, right?  Which is to say, why the differences you hear in isolation, and see on graphs, can be perceptually *irrelevant* to what the mp3 sounds like? And why DBT would be *necessary* to determine if a given listener can actually hear the difference?
 
If you don't, you're misleading and misinforming your public...and that would be *shameful*.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #409 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: C.R.Helmrich on
I think you should produce the MP3 files from 24-bit, 44-kHz downsampled files. IIRC, it is possible to encode/decode from/to such files with LAME.


I did consider that, but decided against it because, to the best of my knowledge commercial MP3 files are almost universally mastered from the 16-bit CD master. I am demonstrating _typical_ differences that might be heard from the lossy codecs under normal circumstances.



 

And to what do you plan to ascribe these differences?  If you performed a similar demonstration of 'normal' pop or rock LPs bought circa 1978, at random from your local Sam Goody, would you present that as demonstration the capabilities of the format? 

I doubt it.  So I must assume you also plan to explain what to look for when shopping for commercial MP3s, and how easy it is for audio hobbyists to create their own first-rate mp3s from CDs, demonstrating that deficiencies you may find in the 'commercial MP3 files', aren't necessarily inherent to the format? 

Otherwise....shameful. 

So, what encoder and settings and source CDs *are * you planning to use in the interests of mimicking 'commercial MP3 files'?  And may I presume that the very idea of having the demonstration be performed with blind and level-matching controls in place,  is *right out*?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #410 –
Quote
They have responded, truthfully I fully believe,


Many people tell me that their pastor at church responded truthfully, and they fully believe.

Call me crazy, but I'm more comfortable believing in God than Michael Fremer. Billions of people agree with me. ;-)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #411 –
Quote from: krabapple on
If you don't, you're misleading and misinforming your public...and that would be *shameful*.


You know, my number one beef with Atkinson, Fremer and others like them is not that they have their quirky little hobby or that they spend buckets of money on their gear and an absurd amount of time tracking down obscure issues of music they've all ready been listening to for decades, it is that they give BAD ADVICE to people and send them on unnecessary wild goose chases.  I am not much of a techy.  I don't claim to know very much about sampling rates or how lossy compression actually works and so forth.  I've learned a bit, but a lot of the threads here still sail way over my head.  I consider myself fairly representative of the layperson/end consumer music junkie who mainly just wants things to turn on when I push "on", turn off when I push "off" and to sound decent in between.  If those three objectives are accomplished then I'm pretty happy.  My bottom line is that if I had gone to Atkinson prior to ripping my music and setting up my iPod then I would have gotten this line ( http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/ ) "MP3s and their lossy-compressed ilk do not offer sufficient audio quality for serious music listening."  Maybe that's his opinion and he obviously has lots of fancy graphs to back it up, but does it really hold water?  Is it based on sound reasoning? 

I came here for advice and I was told that I should:  1. Strongly consider ripping to lossless so that my music is 100% future-proof, I never have to rip the discs again, and I can always transcode to any lossy or lossless format I want down the line.  2.  Do a series of ABX tests in order to determine the point at which I could no longer distinguish lossy files from lossless files.  3.  Make lossy files from my lossless files at that bitrate, load up my iPod with those and rock out.  If I had been told to just rip everything at 128kbps CBR and toss the CDs then I'd have been wary, but this seemed like a very prudent, sensible and objective approach that was far preferable to someone pontificating from on high "Thou shalt rip thusly." 

I followed the advice I got here as close to the letter as I could, was suitably humbled by the ABX tests, and I am sitting here today beyond thrilled with the results which are nearly 600GBs worth of ALAC and a 120GB Classic stuffed with over 1700 CDs worth of music in AAC at a level of quality that my ears, which are pretty decent, are unable to distinguish from my lossless files and about 7GB left over for new additions.  If I had gone to Atkinson then I'd have ALAC or  (Ack!) Wav in the iPod instead and I'd be stuck spending a fairly large amount of time glued to the computer every week swapping out music and making new playlists instead of simply being able to grab my iPod with my full library on it and just go.  I think it is safe to say that I would not be nearly as satisfied if I had followed Atkinson's approach and I would like to ask Atkinson the following:  If I am unable to distinguish the sound I hear from the lossy files that inhabit my iPod and make up my iTunes library from my lossless files then in what way do these lossy files "...not offer sufficient audio quality for serious music listening."?  I assure you that I take my music and my listening thereof quite seriously.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #412 –
I couldn't agree more.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #413 –
Quote from: Frumious B on
My bottom line is that if I had gone to Atkinson prior to ripping my music and setting up my iPod then I would have gotten this line ( http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/ ) "MP3s and their lossy-compressed ilk do not offer sufficient audio quality for serious music listening."

*sigh* Time for science again. Mr. Atkinson, this is exactly what I was talking about. From the above URL regarding Figure 2:

Quote
However, a picket fence of very-low-level vertical lines can be seen. These represent spurious tones that result, I suspect, from mathematical limitations in the codec.

No, they are not limitations in the codec. They are are a limitation of the particular decoder used. The spurious tones are the harmonic distortion you get when letting an MP3 decoder output to 16 bit by simply rounding the floating-point data. They would be completely gone when you decode to 16 bits with dither. LAME developers, maybe you should add a decoder option to dither before outputting to 16 bits so that the audiophile community has one less thing to worry about. IIRC, Winamp and foobar can dither MP3 decodes.

Quote
Like the skirts that flank the 1kHz tone, these will not be audible. But they do reveal that the codec is working hard even with this most simple of signals.

From my audio coding engineer's point of view, very tonal sounds belong to the most difficult sounds to code, especially for MP3. The skirts that flank the 1-kHz tone are due to the QMF in MP3. There is no QMF in AAC, hence there is much less smearing of the tones at low levels.

Quote
Both MP3 and AAC introduce fairly large changes in the measured spectra, even at the highest rate of 320kbps.

Regarding AAC at 320 kbps, I completely disagree with your conclusion. In the range below 17 kHz, the maximum distortion level is -110 dB. That's on the order of the distortion the best D/A-converter+amplifier+loudspeaker configuration can achieve.

Quote
Given the bigger bit budget at 320kbps, the AAC codec produces a result that may well be indistinguishable from CD for some listeners some of the time with some music.

I have never heard of a person being able to repeatedly distinguish a 320-kbps AAC encoded stationary signal from its original, especially if the signal is like the one shown in Figures 4 - 8. If there is, please let me know. He/she will surely be of help in improving the quality of today's audio coders.

Chris

P.S.: Mr. Atkinson, it's "Fraunhofer", not "Fraunhöfer"
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #414 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on

It is interesting with these files, not only to audition the character of what is removed by various codecs but also the level of the difference signal.  I fail to see why my doing so in these demonstrations should be "prohibited."  :-)


But *of course* mp3s aren't bit-identical to their source and *of course* there can be audible content in the difference file.


Correct. And I believe people who don't have the facilities to prepare such files for themselves should be able to experience them. Surely an informed listener is a better listener?

Quote
And then when you've got them gasping and shaking their heads in dismay, you *do* plan to explain what perceptual encoding *means*, right?  Which is to say, why the differences you hear in isolation, and see on graphs, can be perceptually *irrelevant* to what the mp3 sounds like? And why DBT would be *necessary* to determine if a given listener can actually hear the difference?
 
If you don't, you're misleading and misinforming your public...and that would be *shameful*.


You seem very ready to argue by projection, "krabapple." Why wouldn't I explain what perceptual coding is and why it can be useful under some circumstances? Why wouldn't I allow people to hear MP3s at various bitrates and the equivalent Red Book and hi-rez versions?  Even if they can't perceive any difference between any of the versions I play them, again, an informed listener is a better listener.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #415 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: C.R.Helmrich on
I think you should produce the MP3 files from 24-bit, 44-kHz downsampled files. IIRC, it is possible to encode/decode from/to such files with LAME.


I did consider that, but decided against it because, to the best of my knowledge commercial MP3 files are almost universally mastered from the 16-bit CD master. I am demonstrating _typical_ differences that might be heard from the lossy codecs under normal circumstances.



 

And to what do you plan to ascribe these differences?  If you performed a similar demonstration of 'normal' pop or rock LPs bought circa 1978, at random from your local Sam Goody, would you present that as demonstration the capabilities of the format? 

I doubt it.


Again you argue by projection, "krabapple."

Quote
So I must assume you also plan to explain what to look for when shopping for commercial MP3s, and how easy it is for audio hobbyists to create their own first-rate mp3s from CDs, demonstrating that deficiencies you may find in the 'commercial MP3 files', aren't necessarily inherent to the format?


Not at all. As I write in an article quoted elsewhere in this thread, I don't regard lossy-compressed files as appropriate for serious listening, particularly when lossless compression is easy and convenient and hard-drive space is ridiculously cheap. My standing advice for use of lossy compression for use on space-limited iPods is to encode at 320kpbs AAC. But even that will not be transparent to all listeners at all times with all kinds of music, which is what I deem necesary for "serious" listening. My opinion. YMMV, of course.

Quote
Otherwise....shameful.


Oh dear. That would be _terrible_ :-)

Quote
So, what encoder and settings and source CDs *are * you planning to use in the interests of mimicking 'commercial MP3 files'?  And may I presume that the very idea of having the demonstration be performed with blind and level-matching controls in place,  is *right out*?


Of course these comparisons will be level-matched. Why wouldn't they be? But given that these demonstrations are open to the public there may by up to 20 people in the listening room, a formal DBT is out of the question. And please note that, as I keep saying, these are demonstrations, not tests. There will be no scoring of listeners' preferences. As I have said, I am only interested in exposing listeners to the the various formats. This is so that they can decide for themselves whether a) hi-rez formats are necessary, b)  whether CD is good enough for serious listening, and c) whether the lossy versions are sonically compromised or not. Who could argue that that would be a bad or, in your emotionally loaded term, a "shameful" thing.

As I have said, Hydrogen Audio members who live in Colorado are welcome to attend one of these sessions and debate this subect in person.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #416 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
John Atkinson stated:
Quote
They have responded, truthfully I fully believe...


Many people tell me that their pastor at church responded truthfully, and they fully believe.

Call me crazy, but I'm more comfortable believing in God than Michael Fremer. Billions of people agree with me. ;-)


It looks as if you are confusing the different usages "I believe..." and "I beleve in..." Mr. Krueger. But your raising of your belief in God raises an interesting point.

Hydrogen Audio appears, by its charter, to be a community of logical positivists in that something that cannot be proved through experiment to exist must be assumed not to exist. (Forgive me, moderators, if this paraphrase is not sufficiently nuanced.) Arny Krueger has long adopted this position on Usenet and on this forum, condemning those, like me, who describe our perceptions as being deluded. Yet in the past day on this forum, Arny Krueger has twice declared that he believes in something for which no evidence exists and that cannot be tested by experiment: 1) his belief in something called "God," and 2) his belief that, despite his own admission that there is _no_ evidence for them having done so, he believes that Stereophile's writers disguise their identities when posting to on-line forums/fora.

Surely this behavior is what he so antagonistically accuses others of? Doesn't this make Mr Krueger the subjectivist in this thread, the one who holds on to beliefs despite the lack of evidence?

By contrast, if you examine my postings in this thread, I have kept to facts or made it clear when I am expressing an opinion. And unlike Mr. Krueger, I have not been reduced to hurling personal insults.

As my friend James Johnston once observed in another forum, an unreasonable advocate for a reasonable position harms, not helps that position. I believe JJ's label should pinned on you, Mr. Krueger. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #418 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
...a formal DBT is out of the question...
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Do you guys ever perform a double blind test for any reason?

Why do you avoid it?

A double blind test would eliminate the placebo effect from your comparisons and reveal the truth.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #419 –
Quote from: Light-Fire on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
...a formal DBT is out of the question...


Do you guys ever perform a double blind test for any reason?


Of course. I took part in my first blind test in the spring of 1977, and must have been involved in over 100 since then, using all kinds of methodologies including the original ABX box.

Quote
Why do you avoid it?


I haven't overall, but yes, we perform them very infrequently in review listening. If this bothers you, then please do not read my magazine. You won't offend me by not doing so. :-)

Quote
A double blind test would eliminate the placebo effect from your comparisons and reveal the truth.


Not really. I assume you mean by the "truth" you mean null results. But you can't draw a general conclusion from a set of null results, only that under the specific circumstances of that test, no difference could be detected to a predetermined degree of statistical confidence.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
 

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #420 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
My standing advice for use of lossy compression for use on space-limited iPods is to encode at 320kpbs AAC.


Geez, I wonder how many tracks people with a 2 GB DAP can put on their device at that bitrate. 

Quote from: Stereoeditor on
But even that will not be transparent to all listeners at all times with all kinds of music, which is what I deem necesary for "serious" listening.


Please backup your claims with some ABX test results that you can actually hear a difference or are you too afraid that your precious ego will be destroyed?

Quote from: Stereoeditor on
My opinion. YMMV, of course.


Of course this is an opinion not backed by any DBT hard data. This is all hyperbole until I see some ABX results.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #421 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote
A double blind test would eliminate the placebo effect from your comparisons and reveal the truth.


Not really. I assume you mean by the "truth" you mean null results. But you can't draw a general conclusion from a set of null results, only that under the specific circumstances of that test, no difference could be detected to a predetermined degree of statistical confidence.


"...Audio as a hobby is dying, largely by its own hand. As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel "

--- Gordon Holt, founder of Stereophile magazine

Quote from: Stereoeditor on
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


cpchan
Field Agent, Bureau of Scientific Investigations 

I feel like I am in a episode of the X-Files, investigating voodoo!

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #422 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
It looks as if you are confusing the different usages "I believe..." and "I beleve in..." Mr. Krueger. But your raising of your belief in God raises an interesting point.

Hydrogen Audio appears, by its charter, to be a community of logical positivists in that something that cannot be proved through experiment to exist must be assumed not to exist.


As someone working on their Master's of Divinity at a evangelical institution, I assure you that your stereotype is incorrect. You can read my reasons for a lack of personal conflict here.

That said, it certainly doesn't do anyone wishing to study audio scientifically any favors to compare audio to religion; you're just giving the other side more meaningless cannon fodder.
elevatorladylevitateme

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #423 –
Quote from: shakey_snake on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Hydrogen Audio appears, by its charter, to be a community of logical positivists in that something that cannot be proved through experiment to exist must be assumed not to exist.


As someone working on their Master's of Divinity at a evangelical institution, I assure you that your stereotype is incorrect.
You can read my reasons for a lack of person conflict here.


I will certainly check what you wrote.

Quote
That said, it certainly doesn't do anyone wishing to study audio scientifically any favors to compare audio to religion; you're just giving the other side more meaningless cannon fodder.


Perhaps you didn't read my posting carefully enough. I didn't compare audio to religion. I stated that Mr. Krueger is arguing about non-audio-related behavior of others based on beliefs that are not based on physical evidence. I find that strange behavior in someone who subscribes to this group.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #424 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
My standing advice for use of lossy compression for use on space-limited iPods is to encode at 320kbps AAC.


320kbps is pretty steep for flash based players such as the iPod Nano, iPod Touch and mobile phones that can play AAC files. Anyway the average person with untrained ears is likely to find that a 175 kbps VBR AAC file to be transparent most of the time.
"I never thought I'd see this much candy in one mission!"