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 499639 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #850 –
"Some people don't set up proper ABX tests, so results from ABX tests in the case of differentiating lossless from lossy are not trustworthy."

"I can't believe the results, therefore it is not likely that they could have been true."

It seems as though this is what you want people to come away thinking.

So John, it seems that you must be close to 60.  How good is your HF response?  Have you had your hearing checked lately? 

Have you bothered to test one of the current lossy codecs correctly, or are you afraid that you won't be able to demonstrate that you can hear a difference?

You must be aware that your credibility is at stake.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #851 –
Quote from: greynol on
I sure love the arguing: ABX tests can be flawed, therefore all ABX tests are flawed.


No-one has said that, at least I haven't. What I an saying is that the results of a double-blind test cannot to be considered definitive on the grounds _alone_  that it is was performed double-blind. The experimental design and the circumstances of the test need to be take into consideration.
 
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #852 –
Precisely.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #853 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
quote]
Does it really need to be said that while I am responsible for what I write and what I publish in Stereophile, there are many others who also hold opinions on this subject. You remind me of the Amazing Randi, who pilloried me for something that had been written by someone else in another magazine about something of which I had no experience. Yet he was unrepentant: "All cats look black in the dark!" was his retort.


OK...Let's talk about this picture.



Obviously, this is an attention getter that makes you want to scroll down, but what is the meaning behind it?  What is the intention here?  Sgt. Pepper's... is one of those watershed kind of albums in pop music history with, arguably, the most famous and instantly recognizable album cover shot ever.  It's a cultural touchstone with a lot of symbolic power for millions of people who came of age during the era in which it was released. 

So I click on the link to your article and I'm instantly confronted with a distorted and pixelated version of this famous image.  What is that all about?  It's a little shocking and disorienting at first glance.  It seems to me that the most obvious implication is that lossy compression will do precisely to the music on Sgt. Pepper's... what you have done to the cover.  (Not true, because I listened to Sgt. Pepper's... on my iPod two weeks ago and if it had sounded as bad as that picture looks then I would have thrown that iPod out the window right then and there.) Now you might go with the "sometimes a picture is just a picture" defense, but I would also argue that you are, by extension, implying that lossy compression is eroding and diminishing not just the music, but that whole rock subculture of albums, bands and concerts with the fragrant scent of marijuana wafting through the air of which Sgt. Pepper's provided kind of a symbolic jumping off point.  In other words, that picture of yours strikes me as a sort of dog whistle for baby boomer audiophile types that their culture and their very way of life is under attack.  If that's not a deliberate attempt to be provocative and inflame passions then I don't know what is.

Clearly lossy compression has destroyed The Beatles' music.  The dream is over.  What can I say?  It has destroyed their music so utterly that they are being forced to rerelease their whole catalog in a few months in order to replace all those copies in all those different formats and configurations around the world that have been destroyed by the scourge of lossy compression.  Like I said a few pages back with apologies to Frank Capra:  "Every time somebody listens to Sgt. Pepper's in lossy some angels get stoned and look for clues to Paul McCartney's death in the album cover."

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #854 –
Quote from: greynol on
So John, it seems that you must be close to 60.  How good is your HF response?  Have you had your hearing checked lately?


Last standard test was at the audiologist's about 18 months ago. Of course, that only extends up to 8kHz but my hearing still falls into the range considered "normal" in both ears. Regarding HF sensitivity, I check this pretty much on a continual basis, when I test loudspeaker impedance. I use a stepped tone starting at 50kHz and moving downward in frequency in small increments. As I am sitting in front of the Audio Precision during the test, I routinely note what frequency is being displayed when I can first hear the tone produced by the loudspeaker (which is not very loud, around 75dB spl). Currently I can't detect the sound until it reaches approximately 15.5kHz. Using headphones, however, I can still hear the "mosquito tone" that teenagers are supposed to be able to hear without having to play the file excessively loud.

As someone professionally involved in listening, I do try to protect my hearing. I wear earplugs when flying and when on the subway, for example.

And now that I have answered your questions as fully and honestly as possible, I suggest that everyone else on this forum supplies the same information: age, the time of their last visit to the audiologist; whether they have any noted deficiencies; and a reasonable estimate of their upper-frequency cutoff.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #856 –
Quote from: Frumious B on
OK...Let's talk about this picture.



Why? Did the use of lossy compression render it anonymous?

Quote
Obviously, this is an attention getter that makes you want to scroll down, but what is the meaning behind it?  What is the intention here?  Sgt. Pepper's... is one of those watershed kind of albums in pop music history with, arguably, the most famous and instantly recognizable album cover shot in pop history with a lot of symbolic power.  It's also a cultural touchstone for millions of people who came of age during the era in which it was released.


So you _did_ recognize it. Obviously my art director didn't try hard enough :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #857 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote
And now that I have answered your questions as fully and honestly as possible, I suggest that everyone else on this forum supplies the same information: age, the time of their last visit to the audiologist; whether they have any noted deficiencies; and a reasonable estimate of their upper-frequency cutoff.


17.5 kHz and I'm in my late 30s.


Thank you. And the date of your last audiologist test? And whether you have any deficiencies noted on that test?

Quote
As far as acknowledging all of my points, with all respect, you most certainly have not.


With respect, my statement  concerned your questions about my hearing. I thought my answer complete.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #858 –
If the intention was to give the impression of lossy versus lossless, wouldn't it have been more accurate to show a BMP of the image immediately next to a typically compressed JPG of the same image? Oh, wait! Nobody would have seen any difference.

Cheers, Slipstreem. 

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #859 –
yes slipstreem, that would have been more accurate than trying to show the differences with that picture (of which simply can't be correlated with lossy audio compression).  I have seen the use of pictures like that before and it is yet another way to misrepresent lossy encoding.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #860 –
Quote from: krabapple on
IN medicine the placebo effect isn't caused by the ingredients in the 'Obecalp' pill per se, it's the result of the belief that the sugar pill is 'real' medicine. No one is claiming that sugar pills really are curative...if they were known to be sugar pills, they wouldn't be.

Actually there's Placebo Awareness Phenomena
Quote
However, one classic 1965 study, despite having no control group and suffering from a sample size of only 14 individuals, suggests that patients can improve significantly by taking a placebo even when aware of the placebo condition. ~ Wikipedia

... and then there's one of my favorite placebo facts:
Quote
Proper adherence to placebos have been found to decrease mortality. ~ Wikipedia

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #861 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Using headphones, however, I can still hear the "mosquito tone" that teenagers are supposed to be able to hear without having to play the file excessively loud.
Do you have a link to this tone so that I can have a listen?

Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Thank you. And the date of your last audiologist test?
A very long time ago.  Other than that I think I have a mild case of tinnitus I haven't seen the need to see an audiologist.

Quote from: Stereoeditor on
With respect, my statement  concerned your questions about my hearing. I thought my answer complete.
I can't say I find this response as much of a surprise.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #862 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Using headphones, however, I can still hear the "mosquito tone" that teenagers are supposed to be able to hear without having to play the file excessively loud.
Do you have a link to this tone so that I can have a listen?


You can download the tone here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5434687

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #863 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Using headphones, however, I can still hear the "mosquito tone" that teenagers are supposed to be able to hear without having to play the file excessively loud.
Do you have a link to this tone so that I can have a listen


The tone I downloaded was an MP3 file with a single 15kHz tone at -6dBFS. I couldn't find the  specific site I downloaded it from. Here's a generic link: http://www.freemosquitoringtones.org/.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #864 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Two words:sighted evaluation.... In fact this has to be one of the most bogus listening comparisons that I've ever heard of. It would be totally invalid even if it were hextuple-blind.  ;-)  Read the lines, not between them. They didn't compare the using same music!

Yes, I agree, it wasn't at all, in any way objective or scientific; however, this isn't the same issue that I'm talking about. What interested me was the quality of this particular completely subjective experience. Did the listener experience what he claimed? It seems so, doesn't it? Now, I'm not claiming anything other than trying to point out that quality of his experience seemed to transcend far beyond what would have been heard through an ordinary, consumer grade audio system. To me it it seems as if some are claiming that his experience wasn't real and was nothing more than self-deception combined with hyperbole and or artistic license. Personally, I wonder as I've seemingly had similar experiences.

Quote
Now, let's back off a step. We all know that in reproduction systems, transducers are everything. AFAIK, this comparison was between $65,000 Wilson MAXX3 speakers and what for all the world seems to be standard iPod earbuds. Plesae prove me wrong about this!

In fact, I completely agree with your point that a comparison isn't meaningful or in anyway useful, however, I'm not interested in the comparison or in his earbuds at all. What interests me is in replicating the quality of his original experience, if at all possible.

Quote
So, if the red badge of courage goes to people who know how to make standard iPod earbuds sound like they are "...completely lifeless, flat in every way...", it seems like you've two choices. You can spend $65,000 on Wilson MAXX3 speakers, $350,000 on the complete Fremer vinyl-analog trip, or you can sink a couple-three $hundred on some decent personal transducers for listening. ;-)

Comparing different earbuds, headphones and speakers would be interesting, but once again it seems as if you're just beating around the bush, while I'm trying to grasp the nettle.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #865 –
OK, now I'm confused.

As a recovering audiophile, I have started conducting at-home ABX tests through my own system. These could be more thorough (they could be double-blind, but I had enough trouble convincing the Missus to help me conduct such tests... bring in a third party and she'll think it's some kind of musical sex game) but so far when comparing ALAC and 256kbps AAC through my Mac Mini played through the system, I got things right five times out of the twelve tests conducted. I need to conduct more tests, but the chances of me spotting a difference is looking grim.

For the record, the rest of the system comprises a Sugden integrated amp and a pair of ProAc loudspeakers that I've had for several years.

So why confused? A client of mine is really into his high-end gear, and uses Spectral amps with Peak Consult speakers. His whole system cost about as much as a good Mercedes. He knows about my fall from audiophile grace and we got talking about the Fremer piece (he reads Stereophile). So, I asked him if I could bring my Mac Mini over and we could run the same ABX tests there. He agreed. First, I acted as operator, and I got to run four tests on him, and he got them right four times out of four. No struggle, either - he aced each one in seconds flat. I made sure I was turned away from him and that he couldn't see my iPod Touch I use as remote control for the test, so I tried to eliminate bias as much as possible in a single-blind test. I tried the same test twice and could clearly (and quickly) spot the difference between lossless and AAC, but his enthusiasm for 'better quality' and inexperience with running iTunes meant I was likely being biased by his testing skills. He also played me the same piece of music on my Mac Mini running lossless and his Esoteric SACD player - again I could differentiate the two clearly, but I can't vouch for precise level matching.

The thing that really got me was the speed of evaluation. On my system at home, I'd spend time listening to X trying to hear minute differences, to see whether this was A or B; here, it was an instant thing, the gulf between lossless and AAC appeared so wide (on one of my tests, I didn't even get to the music... the applause sounded like applause on lossless and like applause with quietly popping popcorn mixed in on AAC). When I returned home, I couldn't determine this difference through my system at all and I had to really struggle to hear this through headphones run from the back of the Mac. His system was not played appreciably louder than mine, but the room was bigger and there was more bass going on - I've got an old King Tubby track that had actual bass notes where there are just ill-defined parpy rumbles at my place.

So what's happening? I know the number of tests is very low, but how come the difference is so wide in one system and so small in another? It's not an easy test to replicate (unless you have tens of thousands lying round to replicate his system... he was already starting to question the need to run the test again after the second time, so the chances of re-evaluating this test is remote) but does this mean it's time to go back to the audiophile fold after all?

 






Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #866 –
Quote from: Gag Halfrunt on
So what's happening?

My hypothesis is that the audiophile speakers, and a high power amp, allow for greater discrimination due to greater resolution and higher sound pressure levels. As well, it may be a better environment, acoustically speaking.

PS. How would someone properly test this hypothesis?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #867 –
Quote from: greynol on
I sure love the arguing: ABX tests can be flawed, therefore all ABX tests are flawed.


It's worse than that.  Essentially what John is arguing is that he participated in a blind test with a strange outcome more than 20 years ago involving beverages, all blind tests are flawed.  His other blind test anecdote involving an amplifier is even stranger than that, because it's not clear that there was anything wrong with it at all.

Here's how blind tests worked out for me.

Before the ABX comparator there was the X identification box. The X Identifier simply presented a sequence of randomly-chosen unknowns which were either A or B, and the listener without an opportunity to compare the unknown to any references, was required to identify each of 16 Xs.  When I tried it, I had some serious doubts about it, but I did try it on some volunteers. The consensus was that it was hopeless. A few weeks of contemplating the situation and out came the ABX Comparator.

My point is that the X Identifier sounds a lot like John's blind beverage test, only in the beverage test there were more than two alternatives. That makes it even more hopeless.

And now more then 20 years later and uncounted number of ABX Compators succesfully in operation, John is still trying to give us nightmares about his bad blind beverage test way back then.

Before I was married, I had a number of really bad dates. If my mind worked like John's, I'd still be a batchelor, I guess. ;-)
 

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #868 –
Quote from: 2tec on
Quote from: Gag Halfrunt on
So what's happening?

My hypothesis is that the audiophile speakers, and a high power amp, allow for greater discrimination due to greater resolution and higher sound pressure levels. As well, it may be a better environment, acoustically speaking.

PS. How would someone properly test this hypothesis?


How about this: Compare the audiophile speakers and high powered amp to some equally high quality but non-audiophile speakers (e.g. speakers designed for use in audio production) and amplifier, by running some challenging but diable ABX tests with them, alternating sound systems for each trial over an excessivly large number of trials. Thus the effects of listener training would be divided up equally between the systems.  Then see which system enabled the listener to get the best scores.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #869 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Most people here would agree that high end speakers really make a tremendous difference.


Then I guess most people here lack experience with some of the better speakers made for use while doing audio production.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #870 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
How about this: Compare the audiophile speakers and high powered amp to some equally high quality but non-audiophile speakers and amplifier, by running some challenging but diable ABX tests with them, alternating sound systems for each trial over an excessivly large number of trials.

Sounds do-able. What's the best way of handling the ABX switching? My problem is the time it takes to rewire makes definite direct comparisons quite difficult.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #871 –
Quote from: 2tec on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
How about this: Compare the audiophile speakers and high powered amp to some equally high quality but non-audiophile speakers and amplifier, by running some challenging but diable ABX tests with them, alternating sound systems for each trial over an excessivly large number of trials.

Sounds do-able. What's the best way of handling the ABX switching? My problem is the time it takes to rewire makes definite direct comparisons quite difficult.


Rewire? 

Background - Hardware ABX has traditionally been done using ABX CS-5 logic and display modules driving and RM-2 relay modules. You can find more details about them here:

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_hdwr.htm

There's two parts to a setup like this - one ABX Compator logic and display modules controls two relay modules via TTL signals. Each relay module controls  the ABX switching in one system. So now you have two systems doing ABX tests in parallel. Then, via separate relays, you mute the speakers of the system you don't want to listen to.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #872 –
Quote from: Gag Halfrunt on
I made sure I was turned away from him and that he couldn't see my iPod Touch I use as remote control for the test, so I tried to eliminate bias as much as possible in a single-blind test. I tried the same test twice and could clearly (and quickly) spot the difference between lossless and AAC, but his enthusiasm for 'better quality' and inexperience with running iTunes meant I was likely being biased by his testing skills.


According to what you've described, I'm afraid the experiment doesn't suffice, not only in terms of the number of trials, because it wasn't done double-blind. You may have had your backs turned but the vocal inflections could have given away the answer.

From a distant recollection of mid-1990s undergrad psychology: there was a study on how subjects who were hypnotised to regress to their 10th (?) birthday in childhood appeared to be 80% accurate in their answer to the question of what day of the week it was (thus seeming to prove the "authenticity" of their regressed state).
[Google says: R. M. True, "Experimental control in hypnotic age regression states" (1949)]
Attempts to reproduce the result couldn't get beyond ~15% (i.e. 1/7, or what would be expected at random); the original researcher had skewed the results by posing the question verbally in the form of "Was it a Monday? [y/n] Was it a Tuesday? [y/n]... etc" until he got a "yes". He had calculated in advance what the right answers were, and apparently the subjects were able to get an 80% result entirely by guessing from the tone of his voice.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #873 –
Does the placebo effect work in reverse? IOW if I'm convinced there is no difference between two samples does that mean I'm less likely to hear a difference that really does exist?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #874 –
Quote from: botface on
Does the placebo effect work in reverse? IOW if I'm convinced there is no difference between two samples does that mean I'm less likely to hear a difference that really does exist?


Maybe.

It depends on how people respond to their disbelief.

Many people will blow these things off, and many other people will give it a heck of a try, anyway.

There is a phrase "suspending disbelief" which describes a common human behavior.  It is easier to suspend disbelief if you know that this can lead to knowning the true facts in the end.

A good attitude is "I'll give myself over to this thing, because that's the only way to know the truth about it".

OTOH, it is always best if people who are whole-hearted advocates of something do the tests. I've been in many situations where that is the case.

In many group and individual ABX tests I've been involved with, there is a sort of transformation where people start believing that they *are* hearing a difference, regardless of what they believed coming in.