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 499575 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #375 –
[
footnote 3: the 1.000.000 challenge about audio cables for Michael Fremer

Because Fremer has so many years experience in comparing audio, I suggest, he should take the James Randi challenge to earn the million dollars and to prove finally, that somebody can listen (not see) a difference between different audio cables, as long those are not totally corrupted towards the HiFi setup. (like dust on vinyl).
Unfortunately I recall an ugly conversation between Randi and Fremer, which had shown writing Fremer a lot of in CAPITALS and using some weird words, I did not understand as non-native English speaker.
The capitals did not appear here so many so far, or not so obvious, but I found again some words from Fremer, I wasn't able to grasp.
I cite, give citates:


Randi is a con artist. I agreed to take his challenge and we began setting up the parameters. The whole thing came about because of a review or some Pear cables in, I believe, Positive Feedback, that were described as "danceable"---not a descriptor I would ever use... Pear at first agreed to supply the cables, and then they backed out. However, in the interim I offered him a choice of some other very expensive cables and he said he'd check with his people to see if they were acceptable. Then Pear backed out. They emailed to tell me. I told them to contact Mr. Randi directly and tell him, which they did. The next morning I went to Randi's site where he'd written a nasty post claiming I had backed out and that I was a fraud (etc.), when in fact I had not backed out but was negotiating in good faith to set the test parameters and cables used. So I posted for all to see, the emails between Randi and myself, with the dates. At that point even Randi's most fervent cult followers could see his bad behavior. A few even called him on it and Randi was left to defend himself. Do you know what he did? He actually posted a picture of his hospital band and claimed that he had to go to the emergency room because he was sick and that prevented him from attending to the web site....of course he did manage to lie about our emails and to accuse me of pulling out of the challenge and of being a "fraud" when in fact NONE of that was true. Now, maybe you would continue to associate with someone like this, but not I.

I have not been to Randi's site in some time and have no desire to go there, but I will give "user" the benefit of the doubt and assume that Randi has removed the pertinent parts of the thread wherein I explained all of this, and that he left up the parts that make me look 'bad' because I don't like being accused of being a "fraud" by someone who actually is one---and that is the reason "user" has chosen to post here only about my CAPITAL offense.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #376 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Quote from: [JAZ] on

Not only that, but I fully think that this thread is attacking at the bases of hydrogenaudio.


Why? Fremer has shown in this thread, for everybody to read, that he cannot answer the simple question, why he requires his eyes for audio testing, with anything else than a childish car analogy. We should not underestimate our readers. They can surely differentiate without the mods' help how telling that is.

Whole cars can't be ABXed for obvious reasons, audio can, if you are just willing to. Fremer isn't and his reasons might be that he needs optical self deception to write the kind prose that he is bought for. His customers also enjoy their equipment with eyes and ears. But letting himself get involved into the latter makes him much more of a style guide than a trustable source about sound quality, even if he would not want to hear that.


The car analogy was an obvious joke that was clearly beyond your 'childish' lack of a sense of humor. You may characterize me as a 'style guide' or whatever. I've been doing this for twenty years and have an excellent track record for being a 'trustable source about sound quality' around the world, though of course your answer will be that I've "duped" all of these people. I really couldn't care less what you think.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #377 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
They don't sell a perspective that many around here would buy, myself included. It's not scientific and it's not suitable to make objectively verifiable statements about the sound (and only sound) of audio gear. But as I understand it now, their world has much more inner consistency than I had thought before. These are sane people. Their subjective approach is so extreme, that I really don't think that they would call anything they do objective even in the slightest sense (they might not admit that in public). Their world is a huge circus to love and celebrate music. It doesn't matter a shit if unit A is really objectively better than unit B, it's a preposterous question in their world. They fill audio gear, even from our POV idiotic things like cables, with life and story and that alone can be a huge actually perceivable enjoyment for their followers.

How is this sane:
Quote from: analogcorner on
One thing that can be said about that test, whatever you want to call it, is that 5 very different sounding amplifiers could not be reliably identified by a statistically significant percentage of the participants. That tells me, that that particular test, and I'd say this kind of test generally (though that's just my supposition) produced statistically insignificant results, not because "it all sounds the same," but because the test is not necessarily a valid way to to evaluate the sonic performance of audio gear.

At the very least, there was something wrong with that test, since the test takers--mostly recording engineers-- couldn't identify what clearly were 5 very different sounding amplifiers. My conclusion is that these kinds of tests produce confusion and performance anxiety that masks obvious differences for inexperienced test takers.

1) I think there are huge differences.
2) The results of the test conclude there are not huge differences.
3) Therefore the test must be wrong, because I think there are huge differences.


I'm sorry but that is not sane at all. That is the epitome of egotistical, illogical thinking.

[edit] I should mention that he does at least provide a rationale, although according to a study done by Sean Olive (done about ABC/HR) it's not a very good one.
elevatorladylevitateme

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #378 –
 Well stated point!

However, it is not an insane position to lack a completely consistent world view. Empirical studies show that nearly 100% of us don't. I have also never read a philosophical work that would qualify for that.

It can still be sane and even consistent to tangle up logical reasoning as you have just demonstrated to protect your cause or because your followers' main priority is something else than logical consistency. Peoples' heads don't always work like formal logic. Just look around. The world would else be a totally different one.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #379 –
Quote from: analogcorner on
One thing that can be said about that test, whatever you want to call it, is that 5 very different sounding amplifiers could not be reliably identified by a statistically significant percentage of the participants. That tells me, that that particular test, and I'd say this kind of test generally (though that's just my supposition) produced statistically insignificant results, not because "it all sounds the same," but because the test is not necessarily a valid way to to evaluate the sonic performance of audio gear.


How are we to know that the 5 amplifiers you mentioned do indeed sound "very different"?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #380 –
Quote from: [JAZ] on


Yes. this is the exact reason why it can't be considered serious. It is the equivalent of looking at graphs.
I will not explain you why, because I have already contributed in this thread once, just to be told wrong on a thing i was right.

@ Moderators, I think it is really time to close this thread. There have been too many wrongdoings, for both usual members and newcomers, but in the end, it has not provided any goodness at all, just a lengthly thread of such a quality that doesn't belong to hydrogenaudio.


No, moderators, please don't.  Let the Stereophile folk keep demonstrating their 'expertise' in lossy and lossless codecs, and how to perform valid 'demonstrations'.  It could be a valuable teaching tool for future reference: a case study in officially sanctioned audiophoolery.

Quote
Not only that, but I fully think that this thread is attacking at the bases of hydrogenaudio.



So?  The 'bases' of HA are more than strong enough to handle such 'attacks'.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #381 –
Quote from: analogcorner on
The car analogy was an obvious joke that was clearly beyond your 'childish' lack of a sense of humor.


Maybe I got so tired of waiting for an actual answer to a simple question that I missed an obvious joke.

So please, don't duck away from this one. Why is blind testing no standard procedure in your lab? Why do you insist on being allowed to use your eyes to judge sound?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #382 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
My recollection is that I was pretty much alone in the room when this happened, other than Fremer and anybody who might have walked in with him. I think it was well before the debate. I'm pretty sure that the person who posts here as krabapple was not present.



If the fracas happened well before the debate, I certainly wasn't there.  I was likely still marveling at exhibition tables offering CD player tweaks ;>

(Not to say the whole convention was flooby...there were some wonderful demos going on too...amidst a few  too many just-OK sounding demos consisting of very expensive, gear in small, hot, acoustically troubled rooms packed with sweaty, paunchy old audiophiles.)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #383 –
Quote from: krabapple on
The truth is that Fremer and Kruger have some history of mutual rancor--mostly online.


My memory is not perfect, but I recall zero instances of directly communicating with Fremer, other than the single HE2005 instance.

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.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #384 –
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.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #385 –
Quote from: analogcorner on
That bumper sticker was on my car in the early 1980s when compact discs did suck. They sounded awful. The transfers from analog were uniformly poorly done from questionable sources with overuse of CEDAR and Sonic Solutions.


NoNoise didn't debut until 1987, and CEDAR until 1988.

[movie voiceover] IN A WORLD where 1987 is the 'early 80s',  everything sounds different if you believe it does. [/movie voiceover]

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


And amusingly,  at the time, some 'audio engineers' were saying they purposely put their work through analog stages to add some 'warmth'.  Some still do today.

Quote
Many factors contributed to what was awful sound. Those who called that sound "pristine" and a "big advancement" were wrong.


Actually, when done right, it was pristine and a big advancement.  Also *fucking awesome*. Which is perhaps why classical music recording professionals, for whom arguably sound 'matters' most,  pushed for digital , and embraced digital when it arrived, and haven't looked back.

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.


But even by your own testimony, it wasn't "CD' that was the problem, Mr. Fremer.  Would you have sported a bumper sticker saying 'LPs suck' based on, say, fake stereo releases of the Beatles catalog rushed into print in the 1960s?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #386 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: analogcorner on
Krueger was at the AES where I got the 5/5 identifications correct. That part is true....that's the only part.


I don't believe so, Michael. It was David Clark aided by Tom Nousaine, if I remember correctly.


That agrees with what I remember. Just another example of Fremer's flawed memory. Stress does that to people.

Quote
Arny Krueger isn't an AES member and doesn't attend the conventions.


I am not currently an AES member, and wasn't one in 1995, but that is irrelevant. I was an AES member earlier, but I dropped it when I lost a lot of my interest in audio.  Non-members can attend AES exhibits and presentations.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #387 –
Quote from: analogcorner on
That bumper sticker was on my car in the early 1980s when compact discs did suck. They sounded awful. The transfers from analog were uniformly poorly done from questionable sources with overuse of CEDAR and Sonic Solutions. So called DDD discs actually went through multiple D/A A/D conversions since there were no digital mixing boards. Many factors contributed to what was awful sound. Those who called that sound "pristine" and a "big advancement" were wrong. 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.


You were sitting at the ground floor of a technology that would ultimately bring revolutionary change to the entire popular entertainment business and all you could do was go racing home and slap on a reactionary bumper sticker inciting a crusade against that technology.  You couldn't see the upside or the potential, just the things that you perceived as problems.  I suppose it's a good thing that you weren't hanging out in Thomas Edison's lab or in Steve Jobs' garage.


Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #388 –
Quote from: krabapple on
No, moderators, please don't.  Let the Stereophile folk keep demonstrating their 'expertise' in lossy and lossless codecs, and how to perform valid 'demonstrations'.  It could be a valuable teaching tool for future reference: a case study in officially sanctioned audiophoolery.


The strange thing is, they seen to think they're actually scoring points here!?!?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #389 –
(trying to bring some science into this discussion)

To Mr. Atkinson and all others thinking of doing a comparison test à la "high-res vs. MP3":

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. After all, the QMF and MDCT filterbanks used for MP3 coding/decoding are typically operating in floating-point precision, so it's a reasonable thing to feed the encoder with the highest possible word length, and to get the highest possible word length out of the decoder. Otherwise, you would be comparing to the high-res original not only the effects of down-/upsampling and lossy coding, but also the distortion effects caused by truncation to 16 bit (yes, most PC decoders I know of truncate their output to 16 bit). The latter distortion effects can be audible when the playback volume is high enough. So in short:

- Downsample to 24-bit/44.1-kHz
- Encode, e.g. with Lame
- Decode to 24-bit/44.1-kHz
- Upsample to 24-bit/whatever sampling rate your original high-res file has.

Chris
If I don't reply to your reply, it means I agree with you.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #390 –
Quote from: knucklehead on
The strange thing is, they seen to think they're actually scoring points here!?!?


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.

I have to agree with Gag Halfrunt that at least John Atkinson is trying.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #391 –
Quote from: knucklehead on
The strange thing is, they seen to think they're actually scoring points here!?!?


That's a little unfair. John Atkinson is at least trying. Realistically, he's doubly damned:

If he mentions double-blind ABX tests in a positive light, his readers start calling for his head on a platter
If he doesn't, HA members do the same

We're not his readership so he doesn't need to be here, especially as this is about as unfriendly a place he can possible post his viewpoint. I don't see him trying to score points, at most he's trying to present and justify something he really doesn't stand a chance of justifying here. I would guess he's smart enough to know that, too. And yet, he's posting.

Even though I don't agree with his methodology and question the results they deliver, I respect him for that.

Of course, if he'd try and apply something more than 'scienciness' to find a way to back up the claims made in his magazine, I'd respect him a whole lot more...

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #392 –
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."  :-)

Quote
The sample rate conversion to 88.2 khz was also an attempt to increase objectivity and we shouldn't bash that just for the cause of it.


If you don't resample back to the original bit depth and sample rate, you are introducing an additional variable in the performance of the replay DAC and reconstruction filter at different sample rates. If all you wish to examine is the effect of the codec, you _must_ eliminate that variable. Basic application of Scientific Method, I would have thought. Obviously some others disagree.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #393 –
Quote from: knucklehead on
Quote from: krabapple on
No, moderators, please don't.  Let the Stereophile folk keep demonstrating their 'expertise' in lossy and lossless codecs, and how to perform valid 'demonstrations'.  It could be a valuable teaching tool for future reference: a case study in officially sanctioned audiophoolery.


The strange thing is, they seen to think they're actually scoring points here!?!?


Really? I haven't posted anything that is equivalent to my thinking that. I can't help thinking your imagination is running a little wild, however. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #394 –
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. Both of you ended up shouting but no-one had to be restrained. Your statement in the original posting that "[Michael's] friends had to forceably restrain him and drag him out of the room" is a false memory on your part.
 
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #395 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: knucklehead on
Quote from: krabapple on
No, moderators, please don't.  Let the Stereophile folk keep demonstrating their 'expertise' in lossy and lossless codecs, and how to perform valid 'demonstrations'.  It could be a valuable teaching tool for future reference: a case study in officially sanctioned audiophoolery.


The strange thing is, they seen to think they're actually scoring points here!?!?


Really? I haven't posted anything that is equivalent to my thinking that. I can't help thinking your imagination is running a little wild, however. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Might be guilty of lumping the "audiophile" posts together.

.... you don't drive a Ferrari, do you?

 

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #396 –
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.

I'd be glad to talk in person to any Hydrogen Audio members who turn up to the Colorado dems. And I will also be playing what I think are some excellent-sounding recordings.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #397 –
Quote from: knucklehead on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: knucklehead on
Quote from: krabapple on
No, moderators, please don't.  Let the Stereophile folk keep demonstrating their 'expertise' in lossy and lossless codecs, and how to perform valid 'demonstrations'.  It could be a valuable teaching tool for future reference: a case study in officially sanctioned audiophoolery.


The strange thing is, they seen to think they're actually scoring points here!?!?


Really? I haven't posted anything that is equivalent to my thinking that. I can't help thinking your imagination is running a little wild, however. :-)


Might be guilty of lumping the "audiophile" posts together.


Might be the case.

Quote
.... you don't drive a Ferrari, do you?



Sadly no, but having once driven a friend's, I do feel any Ferrari is useless for hauling audio components around :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #398 –
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.

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

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #399 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
If you think that's amusing, you'll find it hilarious that, given that my magazine's name is _Stereo_phile, the recording of the debate is a _mono_ file. :-)




Quote from: Stereoeditor on
As for Stereophile being against lossy codecs, Colorado-based audiophiles can attend a series of demonstrations I am giving May 5, 6, & 7 comparing hi-rez recordings against Red Book and lossy versions. Details later this weekend on the www.stereophile.com home page.


I was just going by what Mr. Fremer wrote. It is nice to see this. I hope it is not just a sighted test. Also, why limit the lossy versions to mp3 and not include some more modern codecs such as Ogg Vorbis and AAC?