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 499566 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #750 –
Quote from: andy o on
What does "romantic" have to do with New Age? I am a perfectly naturally romantic guy (in the real-meaning sense, not in the Julia-Roberts-flick sense). I also fail to see how that portion of the Wikipedia article you linked makes the same argument as you, or even support it. In any case, you can't seriously think that philosophers or historians possess the ability to assess truth better than scientists? I respect certain schools and individual philosophers, but philosophy as a method and by itself has never been able to discover anything significant. You can say math and science sparked from that endeavor of confirming philosophical hypotheses, actually. Some philosophy has helped tremendously and will continue to help science, but by itself can't speak truth with much, or any, authority. And there's lots of "junk" philosophy out there.
What is a "perfectly naturally romantic guy"? I´d like to think that several people will see that differently. And you, my dear Andy, did imply that I was saying that philosophers posess the ability to assess the truth better than scientists, not me. I was aiming for a balance and I did not judge. You concentrate on some sentences, take them at face-value yet you fail to see the overall picture. I could be wrong with that but to me it appears that we are just not compatible when it comes to opinions.

Quote
Ethics in science doesn't have anything to do with being "friendly". Why would you think reality gives a damn about anyone's social behavior? It's absolutely irrelevant. You're confusing again being nice with being right (regarding truth claims). Likewise, lack of social skills, rudeness even being a complete jerk doesn't automatically mean somebody is wrong. I tend to trust more someone who speaks bluntly than someone who is overly nice. You know what's unethical, not only in science, but also in education and even politics? Knowingly peddling pseudoscience.
I smell a bit of Seven-of-Nine here... irrelevant... hm... but then maybe Star Trek also is New Age. Ethics automatically lead to friendlieness - at least it does in my opinion. But now we have the true reason why we are clashing: you simply trust the people more who are speaking bluntly. I do not because I think that this can be said in a friendly and calm way while still speaking the truth. And by writing that you made clear that you don´t trust people who are "overly nice". Let me ask you: where does this "overly nice" start with you? Do you, when someone says a friendly "Hello" to you, automatically assume that this persons holds a knife behind his back?

Quote
What has to do with how people treat each other? Again, if you're planning a dinner party, suit yourself to pick whomever you think is "nice" to be your guest. If you're going to be making truth claims, nice or rude mean nothing. Or do you think that the "universe" responds to our thoughts and wishes? If so, you are a serious case of deluded New Agey. Do you think we should take as seriously something like The Secret, as, say, Newton's Principia?
What has the universe to do with that? I don´t get it. And what is the advantage of presenting a claim bluntly? In my experience this leads to fury on the other side (the receptionist of this blunt claim).

Quote
You keep talking about objectivism and subjectivism like they're equivalent. Since we're quoting Wikipedia, do you agree with this?
Quote
Subjectivism is a philosophical tenet that accords primacy to subjective experience as fundamental of all measure and law.
If that is what you're referring to as subjectivism, let me ask. What exactly does it have to show for itself after all these thousands of years? Do I even have to mention what science and scientific thought in just a few hundred years has accomplished? Science is not an ideology or a set of beliefs. It is just the best method humans have come up with to discover reality.
Is it really the best method? I would tend to think that millions of people who believe in something like God would tell you different. I´m not talking about fundamentalists, I´m not talking about myself. I just don´t believe that science is the "ultimate" and "best" way to describe things. It is only one way of several approaches. When it comes to both of us I think that we are banging our opinions at each other. But if you are saying that science is superior to other things you are simply stating your own opinion as a fact. Where is your proof for that?

Science has led us to things as wonderful as the CD player, the airplane (just a few examples). But science also has led us to the atomic bomb, global warming. So you see that everything has two or more sides to it. The same goes for metaphysics, ethics, subjectivism, objectivism... the list can go on and on. Our whole discussion has been off-topic so far, we´ve strided away from the basic subject. I´m equally guilty at that, all right. Maybe we can return now to the basic subject.
marlene-d.blogspot.com

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #751 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
The latter sort of thing is behind my comment that "There are no golden ears".


When we have compared problem samples here in the past, /mnt could ABX several samples that I (and others) couldn't. And I don't believe that he was making it up, because his track record of identifying actual problem samples (that were found to be valid) out of the sheer mass of unABXable material is quite good. He may not be a general golden ear, but regarding pre echo he seems to be quite a shot.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #752 –
Quote from: Cavaille on
Quote
The straw men set up against DBTs are silly - there's just one fundamental: you must not know what you are listening to, because if you do, it can cloud your judgement.
Excuse me but what does "straw men" mean?
A straw man argument is arguing against something (in this case, DBT) by mis-representing in order to make it easy to discredit. For example, saying that you can only listen to ten seconds of audio in a DBT, so of course there are real subtle changes that are never detected in DBTs.

The wikipedia entry is a bit wordy, but here it is anyway...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Cheers,
David.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #753 –
Sorry Cavaille, I missed this one, you ask some pointed questions I'll be happy to answer.
Quote from: Cavaille on
[...]My basic argument for treating "Audiophiles" (you call it pseudoscience) the same as "objectivinists" (you call it science) is that one side needs the other one in order to evolve. I explained it in the post above.
I just found your explanation:
Quote
This brings me to starting point of this thread here: both sides (objectivist vs. subjectivist, which he and I are not actually) are there to challenge each other. I believe that this in combination with convenience and marketing brings true progress. We need both sides in order to evolve sonically. If the audiophiles find something new, let´s measure it. If we can´t measure it, maybe we can in a few years. If we can´t even then, well then they were wrong.
I don't think this is true at all. Science challenges itself. It thrives from challenge. That is the difference with pseudoscience and religion. Science is constantly questioning itself. That is the core of science. If it doesn't (as in pseudoscience), or if it discourages it (as in religion), it isn't science. If you are to investigate what's wrong with your car, you don't need anyone telling you that invisible gnomes are messing with the engine and then debate with them. You go out and find out yourself, maybe by trial and error, or maybe by empirical knowledge. You don't need what you seem to think is "the other side".

By the way, these debates have been raging for years now. Evidence is overwhelmingly against what I can now call pseudoscience. They made their claims, many of which are wild, and they failed to produce any evidence. Meanwhile, when scientifically rigorous tests were done, evidence was against their claims. It has been years. And it probably will be years to come.

Quote
Also you imply that objectivists are scientists - which they obviously are not. Or does everyone of us here work in a laboratory or actually do scientific research with Audio at let´s say, a University? Maybe some of us - but I guess they are less than 25 %.
I don't imply that, but I don't say they aren't either. I never mentioned the terms objectivist or subjectivist before this post of yours. Subjectivists though, by definition don't have much of a problem with pseudoscience. Objectivists often have to (still doesn't mean they're necessarily scientists or scientific).

Quote
Quote
You're assuming based on mislead observations. The misleading seems to be done by your belief that niceness leads to being "right" somehow. Or at least right enough for you to take "their side".
I tend to believe more in nice people, true. But I didn´t say that they are right and I don´t believe it either. I thought I made it clear that my personal choice only applies to this thread here - and only for the sake of talking reasonably to each other (which was by the way explained later in my post) if my memory serves me right.
OK, so you like these people better. That much is clear. That still doesn't say anything about the validity of their truth claims.

Quote
Quote
So that just means that you don't understand why scientific claims are more valid than pseudoscientific claims. You don't seem to get the meaning of evidence and falsifiability. Even in the realm of wild claims, some have more validity than others because of the virtue of being (1) clear and (2) falsifiable. Pseudoscientific claims fail in both cases. If we had infinite time, sure, why not "look into" invisible dragons in our garages. Until then, I'll stick with reasonable endeavors.
I don´t seem to recall doing some "wild claims". Please be so kind to provide an example. And if you choose to stick with reasonable endeavors, that is of course fine with me. But you also have to respect that I´ll stick with my "pseudoscientific" opinion, as you call it.
I didn't say you yourself made any wild claims. You did defend and sided with people who did though. I'm arguing both against pseudoscience and people who think it is on an equivalent footing with science. I respect that you have your pseudoscientific opinion, of course you can have it. But I can also argue against it, don't I? Especially if you are defending its peddlers based on a fallacy. Did I offend your person directly? I'm perfectly aware I'm being blunt, and maybe not that nice, but I don't think I've gone out to offend.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #754 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
A straw man argument is arguing against something (in this case, DBT) by mis-representing in order to make it easy to discredit. For example, saying that you can only listen to ten seconds of audio in a DBT, so of course there are real subtle changes that are never detected in DBTs.

The wikipedia entry is a bit wordy, but here it is anyway...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Cheers,
David.
*gasp* Shoot, when I remember some of my writings here in this thread I found that I did exactly that. I apologize for that. Thank you for the link, I freely admit that I made a mistake which lead to a huge off-topic discussion.
marlene-d.blogspot.com

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #755 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: Frumious B on
The graphs in this case are largely meaningless because they accomplish nothing other than rebutting an essentially straw man argument that nobody to my knowledge has ever made.  That argument is that mp3 is "the same" as CD.


I am sure that that claim hasn't been made on HA. But it is widely made in the outside world, in places like the "Circuits" section of the NY Times, and in advertising. Even the low-bit-rate audio offered by satellite radio is routinely described as "CD quality."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


If your primary complaints are that people involved in the selling of this still comparatively new technology make exaggerated claims about their products in order to drum up business and that journalists do too much of their work from press releases without any substantial critical examination or analysis then all I can respond with are hoary cliches about pots and kettles that don't even make sense to me because my teapot is a lovely shade of turquoise.

That said, I think it is extremely unfortunate that you didn't take the opportunity to write a balanced piece that covered the strengths and benefits of lossy compression as well as the weaknesses and pitfalls along with useful and practical information about different ripping applications, codecs and bitrates instead of engaging in what I perceive as a sort of "reds under the bed", "audiophiles under siege!" kind of scaremongering.  Why not inform instead of sowing division and fear?  The latter approach makes about as much sense to me as "abstienence only" sex ed.

PS:  I listened to Sgt. Pepper's... a couple of weeks ago in lossy from my iPod and it sounded just fine. 

PPS:  I bet you didn't know that every time somebody listens to Sgt. Pepper's... in lossy some angels get really stoned and look for hidden messages and clues to Paul McCartney's death in the album cover.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #756 –
Quote from: Cavaille on
And you, my dear Andy, did imply that I was saying that philosophers posess the ability to assess the truth better than scientists, not me. I was aiming for a balance and I did not judge. You concentrate on some sentences, take them at face-value yet you fail to see the overall picture. I could be wrong with that but to me it appears that we are just not compatible when it comes to opinions.
I was referencing the wiki article you linked, where mostly the opinion of philosophers were quoted or referenced regarding to science. I think some of them are valid, many of them aren't. In any case, they aren't right because they're philosophers.

Quote
Quote
Ethics in science doesn't have anything to do with being "friendly". Why would you think reality gives a damn about anyone's social behavior? It's absolutely irrelevant. You're confusing again being nice with being right (regarding truth claims). Likewise, lack of social skills, rudeness even being a complete jerk doesn't automatically mean somebody is wrong. I tend to trust more someone who speaks bluntly than someone who is overly nice. You know what's unethical, not only in science, but also in education and even politics? Knowingly peddling pseudoscience.
I smell a bit of Seven-of-Nine here... irrelevant... hm... but then maybe Star Trek also is New Age. Ethics automatically lead to friendlieness - at least it does in my opinion. But now we have the true reason why we are clashing: you simply trust the people more who are speaking bluntly. I do not because I think that this can be said in a friendly and calm way while still speaking the truth. And by writing that you made clear that you don´t trust people who are "overly nice". Let me ask you: where does this "overly nice" start with you? Do you, when someone says a friendly "Hello" to you, automatically assume that this persons holds a knife behind his back?
You're projecting here. I don't trust people because they are blunt. I am not the one who trusts people's truth claims (I can't stress this enough, cause it's our subject) based on their niceness. I tend to distrust more overly nice people because there are other more cynical reasons for which they could be being nice. Please do know that I appreciate niceness, and please note the emphasized words in my previous sentence.

Quote
Quote
What has to do with how people treat each other? Again, if you're planning a dinner party, suit yourself to pick whomever you think is "nice" to be your guest. If you're going to be making truth claims, nice or rude mean nothing. Or do you think that the "universe" responds to our thoughts and wishes? If so, you are a serious case of deluded New Agey. Do you think we should take as seriously something like The Secret, as, say, Newton's Principia?
What has the universe to do with that? I don´t get it. And what is the advantage of presenting a claim bluntly? In my experience this leads to fury on the other side (the receptionist of this blunt claim).
I didn't say it was an advantage to be blunt. My point is that nice or blunt or rude, it's irrelevant to the truthfulness of the claims. You could use niceness as a strategy to win over people like you for instance, but the truthfulness of your claims is the same regardless. The universe comment is a new age fad right now, in which people believe they can change the outcome of what the universe throws at them by just thinking about it. Sort of good that you didn't even get the reference.

Quote
Quote
You keep talking about objectivism and subjectivism like they're equivalent. Since we're quoting Wikipedia, do you agree with this?
Quote
Subjectivism is a philosophical tenet that accords primacy to subjective experience as fundamental of all measure and law.
If that is what you're referring to as subjectivism, let me ask. What exactly does it have to show for itself after all these thousands of years? Do I even have to mention what science and scientific thought in just a few hundred years has accomplished? Science is not an ideology or a set of beliefs. It is just the best method humans have come up with to discover reality.
Is it really the best method? I would tend to think that millions of people who believe in something like God would tell you different.
And what have THEY accomplished with this kind of thinking? One of Einstein's theories (don't remember which one off the top of my head, probably GR) was so earth-shattering that a book was published: "One Hundred Authors Against Einstein". His reply? "Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough." Number of people who believe something is also irrelevant for truth claims. Science IS the best method. You're typing on a keyboard and instantly sending messages over thousands of miles all over the world, for crying out loud. As Louis CK commented once on our lack of amazement: It's going to space!

Quote
I´m not talking about fundamentalists, I´m not talking about myself. I just don´t believe that science is the "ultimate" and "best" way to describe things. It is only one way of several approaches. When it comes to both of us I think that we are banging our opinions at each other. But if you are saying that science is superior to other things you are simply stating your own opinion as a fact. Where is your proof for that?
Again, the proof is at the tip of your fingers, literally. And there's millions of other proofs. Just look around you. How do you get to work? How do you move to other continents? How do you listen to music? How do your precious headphones/amplifiers work? Surely not by magic. What has religion or pseudoscience done? What has subjectivism done compared to that?

Quote
Science has led us to things as wonderful as the CD player, the airplane (just a few examples). But science also has led us to the atomic bomb, global warming. So you see that everything has two or more sides to it. The same goes for metaphysics, ethics, subjectivism, objectivism... the list can go on and on. Our whole discussion has been off-topic so far, we´ve strided away from the basic subject. I´m equally guilty at that, all right. Maybe we can return now to the basic subject.
So you asked for my proof, and then you basically state it. Science is not a moral guide. It is not a set of rules on how to behave morally. It advances knowledge so we can make our own educated moral decisions. Ethics should also be based on knowledge of the world, and subjectivism doesn't give you that.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #757 –
Quote from: Cavaille on
Science has led us to things as wonderful as the CD player, the airplane (just a few examples). But science also has led us to the atomic bomb, global warming. So you see that everything has two or more sides to it. The same goes for metaphysics, ethics, subjectivism, objectivism... the list can go on and on.


I think it's worth mentioning that CD players, airplanes and atomic bombs all WORK.  When you turn them on they fulfill the function for which they were designed.  What is the non-science side's track record on this front?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #758 –
Quote from: andy o on
Science is not a moral guide. It is not a set of rules on how to behave morally. It advances knowledge so we can make our own educated moral decisions. Ethics should also be based on knowledge of the world, and subjectivism doesn't give you that.


I'd like to expand on this just a bit.  Please consider the opening paragraph from Wikipedia's article on the scientific method:
Quote
Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.  To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.  A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.


For those willing to read the whole thing, find it here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

I won't elaborate on the above much further.  The paragraph I quoted is pretty concise about what capital S Science is.  Criticisms of Science like "Science killed the dodo" and "Science can't explain everything, therefore it's garbage" miss the mark completely.  And, I'm going to stop there for now.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #759 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
The latter sort of thing is behind my comment that "There are no golden ears".


When we have compared problem samples here in the past, /mnt could ABX several samples that I (and others) couldn't. And I don't believe that he was making it up, because his track record of identifying actual problem samples (that were found to be valid) out of the sheer mass of unABXable material is quite good. He may not be a general golden ear, but regarding pre echo he seems to be quite a shot.

Well, at least some people seem to have a different kind of perception. Me for example isn't good with hearing these pre-echoes /nmt does but i seem to be sensitive to added distortion. I a long time ago reported problems nobody really could verify, Now that Guruboolez found many samples of that kind and halb27 can hear these also and still some can't must show that ears must hear different. Guruboolez most likely can report problems in more directions anybody else here can.
Also i had the chance to do a smal listening test with a member of the Avantgarde-Acoustic team, Jürgen "the ear"
Back then i burned a cd of 3 files of one non-spectacular sample from Jazz at the Pawnshop. I used 3.96 insane + mpc xlevel 5 (if i remember right) + ripped wav playing on a Trio setup.
I played them random. On every try he detected what was wich without one error and even was able to describe what he hears sounding different. I switched several times and not one time he was wrong. His self-evidence was impressive and it was fun to him. I couldn't hear the things btw...
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #760 –
This thread has by now become fragmented into several subtopics, some of which are pretty unrelated. Is there any sane way to split it up so that readers can pick and choose whch parts to read?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #761 –
Quote from: Cavaille on
Is it really the best method?


When you're talking about the many things in physical world, nothing seems to be better than science.

For example, art which is often tries to be utterly unpredictable provides us with the externals of the building, but science which always tries to be predictable provides us with the structure that holds the building up.

Quote
I would tend to think that millions of people who believe in something like God would tell you different.


Many people who believe in God have absolutely no problems with the reliable findings of Science and happly apply them to their daily life where they fit.

Quote
I´m not talking about fundamentalists, I´m not talking about myself. I just don´t believe that science is the "ultimate" and "best" way to describe things. It is only one way of several approaches.


I agree that science is not the only valid or the very best way to describe *everything*. I do believe in choosing the best tool for the job at hand.

OTOH, we're talking relatively simple stuff here. Audio isn't rocket science, at most it has been just a tiny subset of it.

I don't think that the people who built the SpaceLab spent a lot of time arguing over the Philosphy of Science or whether or not Science even applied.

Home audio is Science in service of Art, right? I always get the feeling that when Quantum Mechanics and the Philosophy of Science creep into a discussion of power amplifiers, that there's a bit of obfuscation going on!  Ya think? ;-)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #762 –
Quote from: Frumious B on
.....then all I can respond with are hoary cliches about pots and kettles that don't even make sense to me because my teapot is a lovely shade of turquoise.


Actually, it's not the teapot that's calling the kettle black it's the cooking pot. In the old days both would have been heated on an open fire and so become black. Hope that's cleared it up

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #763 –
Quote from: pdq on
This thread has by now become fragmented into several subtopics, some of which are pretty unrelated. Is there any sane way to split it up so that readers can pick and choose whch parts to read?


I think that sorting this one out would tie up an infinite number of moderators for an infinite number of years, and when they finished there would an infinite number of complaints about what they did. ;-)

Far better I think, to put the thread out of its misery with say a day's warning, and then let nature take its course when it comes to starting up any sequels.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #764 –
I would let this thread become the black hole of Hydrogenaudio. Eventually the whole universe itself might collapse into it.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #765 –
Quote from: Axon on
The only conclusion I can reach is that John's numerical analysis is more or less correctly done. At least, whatever we're getting on the MP3 spectra, it's not because the output stages are not dithered.


Thank you for doing this work, Axon.

Quote
Note, of course, that I said "we're wrong" without saying "John's right". I believe that point #2 of my summarized objections - that the whole notion of frequency analysis for the evaluation of lossy encoders is fundamentally flawed for the purposes of observed sound quality analysis, rather than its intrinsic qualities - still stands AFAIK.


There are 2 issues here: 1) can we agree on the results of the actual experiments? 2) Do we agree on the meaning or even the relevance of those results?

Even if we agree on the first question, it is legitimate to disagree on the second. I had my say on this matter in the Stereophile article; I am therefore reading the criticisms on this forum with interest, if not some of the namecalling. One point I  would make is that some of the posters don't appear to have read my article thoroughly. Some of the criticisms were points I did actually address in the article.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile



Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #766 –
If you're talking about the MP3 vs AAC vs FLAC vs CD article, please take all discussion to the relevant thread:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=61839
 

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #767 –
Guys, this thread has ended in the usual amount of sentences ripped out of their context. It truly has become the "black Hole" of Hydrogenaudio.org. This reminds me of a movie... I think I´ll watch this wonderful movie again ("The Black Hole", Disney, 1979) because it is completely un-scientific and even has a typical "mad scientist" (a German scientist named Hans Reinhardt, played by the German Maximilian Schell). Before anyone of you is starting again, this is of course off-topic, completely unrelated and therefore worthless.

As a result I´m going to exit this thread and I won´t take part in discussions anymore. Maybe by erasing myself from the discussion this will provide this thread with reasonable posts again. I´ve tried to broaden your mind just a tiny little bit - but apparently some people are very narrowminded. I even went so far admitting mistakes I´d done myself in communicating my ideas & opinions. Did you? I think not. 90% of you people didn´t even bother to consider the slightest possibility that you are in fact incapable of accepting another ones opinion without critzising it. To quote another movie: "To think of oneselve as being perfect clearly is a sign of a delusional mind." In short there are too many people here that won´t challenge themselves and are happy to stay in their own comfort zone. For me however, this doesn´t work. Just another opinion, of course.

In Germany we have a saying: "Der Klügere gibt nach." Roughly translated it means "The smarter one gives in". Well, it appears that I´m the smartest person here!  Hooray, hooray, clap your hands! Can´t live with that? Pity, I´ll get you a hanky when I´ve got time.

Now please, everyone back to the subject at hand which was... eh... let me see... ah yes! "Why we need Audiophiles."
marlene-d.blogspot.com

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #768 –
Or to quote Woody Allen:

YALE:
You're problem is you think you're God.
IKE:
Well, I've got to model myself after someone.
(from Manhattan)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #769 –
Quote from: pdq on
Or to quote Woody Allen:

YALE:
You're problem is you think you're God.
IKE:
Well, I've got to model myself after someone.
(from Manhattan)

Now we're on to Woody Allen quotes here are a couple of my favourites, albeit probably misquoted somewhat :

"My only regret in life is that I wasn't somebody else"

"Most of the time I don't have much fun. The rest of the time I don't have any fun at all"

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #770 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
As I said in the article, the codecs used were the Fraunhofer, as implemented in Adobe Audition, or AAC in iTunes/Quicktime.


The Fraunhofer codec has long been surpassed in its quality*.
*Quality in the sense of the inverse number of known positively ABXable "killer" samples.

Not according to HA's last public listening test from November 2008. Both LAME 3.98.2 and the Fraunhofer codec got a score lower than 4 for one out of the 14 items tested. If you were referring to the particular codec used in Audition (Mr. Atkinson, which version, by the way?), that may be true. If not, I'd like to see some more links in support of your claim.

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

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #771 –
Quote from: C.R.Helmrich on
Not according to HA's last public listening test from November 2008. Both LAME 3.98.2 and the Fraunhofer codec got a score lower than 4 for one out of the 14 items tested. If you were referring to the particular codec used in Audition (Mr. Atkinson, which version, by the way?), that may be true. If not, I'd like to see some more links in support of your claim.

Chris


That October 2008 reference proves me wrong, thanks. After a longer pause I had become active again at HA not before January '09. Wasn't LAME quite ahead a couple of years before that? Has your codec been continuously under development or is this the result of a rather large revision?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #772 –
Ok, let's refrain from further movie quotes.  While I'm considering splitting out some of the noise, I most certainly will NOT begin if people are just going to add more noise.

Any new requests for splitting or other moderation need to be specific and requested via PM.  Further public requests or complaints regarding moderation (or the lack thereof) may lead to closure of this discussion.  Intentional baiting for the closure of this thread by way of making public requests or complaining will lead to administrative action on an individual case-by-case basis.

EDIT: The second paragraph was not directed at anyone in particular.  There have only been a few requests for splitting and/or closure and none of them have been impolite or unreasonable.  It's just that dissecting this thread is no small undertaking and doing so may just increase the noise.  I think the fact that it is all contained in this thread is better for the forum overall.  If there are some technical discussions that are beyond the level of those who are here just to say "me too", I'll split them off, since the past has shown that they remain pretty focused.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #773 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
That October 2008 reference proves me wrong, thanks. After a longer pause I had become active again at HA not before January '09. Wasn't LAME quite ahead a couple of years before that? Has your codec been continuously under development or is this the result of a rather large revision?

I think LAME was only ahead a few years ago in terms of VBR quality. I think back then Fraunhofer didn't focus on VBR. So yes, over the last years our codec has undergone tuning and bugfixing just like LAME did. As you can see, we do monitor HA listening tests  Whether there was a large codec revision in between, I don't know (I working on AAC, not MP3).

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