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 499480 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #975 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
OK then the comparison is that they are before and after processing by the Furutech LP demagnetizer.


Whoa! Back up a moment, please. Furutech LP demagnetizer?

I don't think my credulity gland can take that much stretching in a single day. I did not know vinyl had magnetic properties, especially ones that require demagnitizing. Or is it a special machine that magnetically extracts money from people's wallets?

I just checked: $1,800 to do something no-one ever suspected needed doing to something that doesn't need it doing to in the first place. P.T. Barnum would have been proud.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #976 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
In the end people will believe whatever they want to believe. There are very few new Christians taken from the ranks of confirmed atheists, and vice-versa.  The only place where traction is possible to a useful extent is among the truely undecided.


I guess so. Even so, if there's a windmill, I tend to tilt at it.

Pity I have no idea how to tilt at a windmill, or what part I have to tilt or even where my nearest windmill is so that I can tilt something at it. But you get my drift.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #977 –
Quote from: Gag Halfrunt on
Quote from: krabapple on
Please don't lump loudspeakers in with all other classes of home audio hardware.  Every 'objectivist' accepts that loudspeakers (and to an extent other transducers) are likely going to 1) sound different ; 2) be particularly difficult to set up a good DBT for  and 3) have less definite metrics for judging sound quality than we have for mere difference.  (But even given that, Stereophile itself usually publishes substantial and useful bench tests of loudspeakers...far more comprehensive than most other audio journals I've seen)

For CD players, cables, amps, preamps, however, the question is present at the start : do the really sound differemt at all?  And there we have more than just DBT results from which to make reasonable predictions.


I don't lump loudspeakers in with other audio hardware. What I've been discussing is loudspeaker-based.


Then please don't attribute a lack of guidance for the consumer who wants to choose *audio hardware*, to a lack of DBT information, as you did a few posts previously.  If you are only referring to loudspeakers, refer to loudspeakers.  Because for most classes of audio hardware, one can make reasonable assumptions about the existence of difference -- or lack thereof -- from the way such gear works, and how it has tested out on the bench.  And with particular instances of such gear, where a DBT *has* authenticated a sonic difference, and the gear has been measured either before or afterwards, the measurements have always supported a mundane explanation. 

Loudspeakers really do constitute a special case of audio hardware.  We predict that they will typically sound different, they DO typically sound different in controlled comparisons, and thus the question advances to how to correlate measured performance to quality, as Toole and Olive have been doing.  For most other classes of audio gear, the question hasn't gotten to that point yet.  There's still a fundamental question of whether real differences are being heard in the first place.

Quote
And yes, Stereophile does seem to do good work here, but much of the work it does seems irrelevant to me as I don't have tens of thousands to spend on a loudspeaker. My problem is that few audiophiles get this at all, but to disabuse them of this at the same time as trying to shake their firm belief in the supremacy of the uncompressed file seems to be asking too much. Which is why I am (was) suggesting a systemic approach.



First, Stereophile does review the occasional sub-10 grand loudspeaker set.  Second, I have no hard data, but I would bet that there are many Stereophile readers who don't have $10,000 loudspeakers yet claim that mp3s sound horrible to them.  So why would an 'audiophile friendly test' using $10K loudspeakers make a difference to them?  They already think their gear is ''resolving'' ENOUGH to tell the difference!


Quote
If you establish an audio system that uses a good pair of loudspeakers ('good' in this context implies it performs well from both audiophile and objective standings) but then connect it to what audiophiles would dismiss as a ho-hum design (because it doesn't have the right label or doesn't weigh enough), you are simply giving them ammo to shoot down the test. Even if their ammo is nothing but blanks, it still makes a loud noise to other audiophiles. So, you make the test as audiophile-friendly as possible, using expensive cables, tables and the rest (albeit you make it clear you are doing so under sufferance). Turn your nose up at the temple bells, though.


If audiophiles shoot ammo from a position of mulish irrationality, it's not our job to cater to every foolishness they request.  Suppose you ran a test with high end rig and found no difference.  They have three choices; they can either decide their own gear/ears aren't as good as that, and therefore they're probably imagining things; they can simply say that things are different on *their* rigs with *their* ears, and therefore the 'definitive' test 'proves nothing'; or they can claim the test itself is flawed, either inherently ('DBTs mask differences') or in this particular case. Wanna bet which of those will lose out?

Far better to suggest that they perform their own tests using their own gear, if they can.  It is easier to do this for mp3 vs lossless than for any gear-to-gear comparison. 

What we *can* do is expose the fallacies and apparent biases in purportedly educational articles like JA's and Fremer's.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #978 –
Quote from: Gag Halfrunt on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
OK then the comparison is that they are before and after processing by the Furutech LP demagnetizer.


Whoa! Back up a moment, please. Furutech LP demagnetizer?


Yes. Atkinson's ragazine is alleged to have gone ga-ga over it.

Quote
I don't think my credulity gland can take that much stretching in a single day. I did not know vinyl had magnetic properties, especially ones that require demagnitizing. Or is it a special machine that magnetically extracts money from people's wallets?


Ummm,  the true believers over at the SP forum pooh-pooh that. You know what about all those LPs with magnetic ink in their labels (or the labels that ground up the previous times they recycled the LPs).

Quote
I just checked: $1,800 to do something no-one ever suspected needed doing to something that doesn't need it doing to in the first place. P.T. Barnum would have been proud.


The irony is that the data before me suggests that the Fremer needle drops that I downloaded are evidence that *something* changed pretty significantly between two playings of the same LP.

There was a demagnetization step in-between.

So I might think that there was some unrecovered deformation of the vinyl, but someone else might offer some other explanation.  ;-)

Go figure!

Maybe someone wants to repeat my technical tests and ABX test and confirm or deny?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #979 –
Quote from: MordredKLB on
Quote from: Gag Halfrunt on
Failing that, someone will invent a Ward-Off MP3 spell they can cast.
You jest but I wrote an MP3 renaming program which inexplicably makes every MP3 I rename with it sound fuller, with a more clearly defined soundstage and exceptional 3-dimensional location. The highs of course sound noticeably more transcendant than before. It's really night-and-day.




Ah, but does it add 'inky black silences' or 'limpid pools of pellucidity'? Or better still, 'inky limpid silence pools of black pellucidity'?

I like those, they are limpid, and black, and pooly.
 

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #980 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Then please don't attribute a lack of guidance for the consumer who wants to choose *audio hardware*, to a lack of DBT information, as you did a few posts previously.  If you are only referring to loudspeakers, refer to loudspeakers.  Because for most classes of audio hardware, one can make reasonable assumptions about the existence of difference -- or lack thereof -- from the way such gear works, and how it has tested out on the bench.  And with particular instances of such gear, where a DBT *has* authenticated a sonic difference, and the gear has been measured either before or afterwards, the measurements have always supported a mundane explanation.


Good point. Duly noted. 

Quote
Loudspeakers really do constitute a special case of audio hardware.  We predict that they will typically sound different, they DO typically sound different in controlled comparisons, and thus the question advances to how to correlate measured performance to quality, as Toole and Olive have been doing.  For most other classes of audio gear, the question hasn't gotten to that point yet.  There's still a fundamental question of whether real differences are being heard in the first place.




Quote
First, Stereophile does review the occasional sub-10 grand loudspeaker set.


Very, very few of which have any relevance to my country, but I agree

Quote
Second, I have no hard data, but I would bet that there are many Stereophile readers who don't have $10,000 loudspeakers yet claim that mp3s sound horrible to them.  So why would an 'audiophile friendly test' using $10K loudspeakers make a difference to them?  They already think their gear is ''resolving'' ENOUGH to tell the difference!


Therein lies their own get out clause, potentially. IMO, you either take such a test to the pinnacle of audiophilia, or you risk someone dismissing the test because it 'only' featured $25,000 loudspeakers. Suddenly the rest of the pack will climb aboard that argument. Even those with $2,000 loudspeakers.


Quote
If audiophiles shoot ammo from a position of mulish irrationality, it's not our job to cater to every foolishness they request.  Suppose you ran a test with high end rig and found no difference.  They have three choices; they can either decide their own gear/ears aren't as good as that, and therefore they're probably imagining things; they can simply say that things are different on *their* rigs with *their* ears, and therefore the 'definitive' test 'proves nothing'; or they can claim the test itself is flawed, either inherently ('DBTs mask differences') or in this particular case. Wanna bet which of those will lose out?


Every foolishness... no. There has to be a middle ground, though.

Quote
Far better to suggest that they perform their own tests using their own gear, if they can.  It is easier to do this for mp3 vs lossless than for any gear-to-gear comparison.


And then you run the risk of very poorly managed tests confirming the biases they bring to the party. As I've demonstrated by running a test with some inconsistencies that I already noted and you highlighted; by audiophile standards, that was full on lab-coat stuff. 

Quote
What we *can* do is expose the fallacies and apparent biases in purportedly educational articles like JA's and Fremer's.


Agreed

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #981 –
Quote from: Gag Halfrunt on
Quote from: krabapple on
Second, I have no hard data, but I would bet that there are many Stereophile readers who don't have $10,000 loudspeakers yet claim that mp3s sound horrible to them.  So why would an 'audiophile friendly test' using $10K loudspeakers make a difference to them?  They already think their gear is ''resolving'' ENOUGH to tell the difference!


Therein lies their own get out clause, potentially. IMO, you either take such a test to the pinnacle of audiophilia, or you risk someone dismissing the test because it 'only' featured $25,000 loudspeakers. Suddenly the rest of the pack will climb aboard that argument. Even those with $2,000 loudspeakers.
Because one day, like every good audiophile, they hope to be able to afford the $65k speakers. I don't think what you're proposing is unreasonable because it does remove more potential complaints about the test.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #982 –
I don't understand why this becomes a 41-page, 1000+posts monster.

For vinyl lovers:
Use the same system to abx a vinyl, a CD and a V0 mp3 of the same music.
If you can do this, you win.

For $350k system lovers:
Use the same audio source (cd, vinyl, mp3 etc.) to abx two systems.
If you can point out the expensive one is better, you win.

And that's it.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #983 –
Quote from: Gag Halfrunt on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
OK then the comparison is that they are before and after processing by the Furutech LP demagnetizer.


Whoa! Back up a moment, please. Furutech LP demagnetizer?

I don't think my credulity gland can take that much stretching in a single day. I did not know vinyl had magnetic properties, especially ones that require demagnitizing. Or is it a special machine that magnetically extracts money from people's wallets?

I just checked: $1,800 to do something no-one ever suspected needed doing to something that doesn't need it doing to in the first place. P.T. Barnum would have been proud.


Stereophile has a Recommended Components List addendum on the web here.  The second item on the list is the Acoustic Revive LP demagnetizer for $2350.  So it isn't simply a case of Stereophile claiming that the concept of LP demagnetization is valid.  They actually recommend that you buy one .

In my system, I have speakers that cost me $2400 for the pair.  Should I have gotten speakers that cost $50 for a pair, along with a $2350 LP demagnetizer instead?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #984 –
Quote from: andy_c on
[quote name='Gag Halfrunt' post='632092' date='May 4 2009, 13:In my system, I have speakers that cost me $2400 for the pair.  Should I have gotten a $50 per pair set of speakers and a $2350 LP demagnetizer instead?


Heh.

My new (homedesigned) speakers cost way less than that  too.

Demagnetize aluminium. Or lexan. My brain hurts.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #985 –
Quote from: MordredKLB on
Because one day, like every good audiophile, they hope to be able to afford the $65k speakers. I don't think what you're proposing is unreasonable because it does remove more potential complaints about the test.


Of course, what I'm proposing is entirely untenable because what manufacturer, group of manufacturers or magazine is going to risk sacrificing their 'good reputation' and standing within the whole high-end knitting circle by agreeing to such a test?

Thinking about it, if the putative $65k loudspeakers (partnered, of course, with the 'right' $50k amplifier and the 'right' $10k worth of wire) don't reveal the difference between compressed and uncompressed formats, the audiophiles will have to blame something. And, along with the test methodology, those pesky scientists, the codec, computers, the people running the test, their parents for never marrying, the electrical company for using the bad kind of electricity at key moments, liberal conservatives, the record companies, the grey aliens, global warming, non-aligned screws, a gust of bad karma across the back of the room, someone turning the water faucet in the wrong direction and Mexican pig flu... the system had to be to blame.

But never that A and B might be indistinguishable. That just can't possibly happen.


Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #986 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Quote from: MichaelW on
Could people please look again at Gag Halfrunt's proposal.


German c't magazine has tried this (MP3 vs. CD audio) with 12 listeners out of 300 who had applied in 2000. Equipment was a pair B&W Nautilus 803 speakers, a Marantz CD14 as DAC and a Marantz PM14 integrated amp.


I'm sorry, but this is exactly NOT what I was proposing, nor I think what G H was suggesting. I am not interested in the quality of lossy encoders, as such, but whether the undoubted imperfections in low rate lossy files are MORE or LESS apparent with different equipment.

When I do this test, I shall start at V9 because I want to know that, at some point, I will be sure of hearing a difference.

One of the things that has gone wrong with this thread is people responding to what they think someone has said, not what they actually said.

And, yes, I know my prose is a bit convoluted for non-native users of English: I really do apologise for that, but it was 4 am when I posted.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #987 –
Quote from: andy_c on
Stereophile has a Recommended Components List addendum on the web here.


Oh, thank you so much for that. I like the $2,800 wooden puck that clamps your LP, "It produced a richness, clarity, three-dimensionality, natural liveliness, and harmonic rightness that must be heard to be appreciated," states an occasional HA member.

Wow, three 'ness's in a single sentence. In imperial units, that's approximately 1.7 milliFremers of hyperbole. That's nowhere near toxicity, but you should make sure you are wearing gloves and a mask while handling the website.




Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #988 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
With all due respect, you are taking this _way_ too seriously.
And you've not taking lossy codecs seriously enough.

Huge swathes of content will never be available in a lossless format - broadcast content, for example.

Radio in the USA might be largely wall-to-wall junk with poorly funded NPR at one end of the band, and TV might be even worse unless you subscribe to HBO - but just imagine for a second that there are some broadcasts somewhere that are worth listening to

They will only be available via some lossy format. Disengaging from lossy because it's not high-end enough does everyone a dis-service - it makes your readers think there's no enjoyment to be gained from listening to these broadcasts; it also makes your readers think "lossy = bad", meaning they're unable to engage in the debate about whether what's provided is "good" lossy or "bad" lossy, and that leaves the broadcasters free to be unchallenged on their quality - where they could be providing something that's essential transparent, but because all the people who care about audio are brain washed to believe "lossy = bad", they go ahead and provide junk audio anyway.


Of course, some of your readers listen to these broadcasts anyway. They notice some sound great, others sound terrible, but unless they escape from your little world and learn something from, say, Hydrogenaudio, they won't have the language to complain to the broadcasters about the mistakes or coding choices which cause audio problems.

128kbps mp3s in discrete stereo, for example(!), vs 192kbps AAC. Both lossy. Both not worth listening to as far as Stereophile is concerned. Well guess what? If you want to listen to the BBC Proms, you'd better hope they use the latter, rather than the former!

Cheers,
David.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #989 –
Quote from: kinnerful on
I don't understand why this becomes a 41-page, 1000+posts monster.

For vinyl lovers:
Use the same system to abx a vinyl, a CD and a V0 mp3 of the same music.
If you can do this, you win.


For $350k system lovers:
Use the same audio source (cd, vinyl, mp3 etc.) to abx two systems.
If you can point out the expensive one is better, you win.

And that's it.



er...you mean a CDR of a digital capture of the vinyl, and then an mp3 of that, right?

Because a commercial CD and its LP counterpart will almost certainly be ABX-able, due to mastering differences and the noise levels of LP vs CD.
No 'win' there, it's a giveaway.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #990 –
Quote from: Gag Halfrunt on
Wow, three 'ness's in a single sentence. In imperial units, that's approximately 1.7 milliFremers of hyperbole. That's nowhere near toxicity, but you should make sure you are wearing gloves and a mask while handling the website.

LOL!  By the way, does your preamp have musical joie de vivre?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #991 –
Quote from: andy_c on
Stereophile has a Recommended Components List addendum on the web here.  The second item on the list is the Acoustic Revive LP demagnetizer for $2350.


OK...I try to be respectful of people's different views and keep an open mind.  However, with that ridiculous list Stereophile and anybody associated with the mag has officially forfeited any expectations that I accept a single word they say with anything other than the deepest skepticism.  LP demagnetizer?  That goes completely and totally beyond the pale.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #992 –
Quote from: Gag Halfrunt on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
OK then the comparison is that they are before and after processing by the Furutech LP demagnetizer.


Whoa! Back up a moment, please. Furutech LP demagnetizer?



Yes.  The one Michael Fremer gave the enthusiastic thumbs up to in the Oct 2006 Stereophile  -- as quoted on the Furutech website:

"…demagnetizing an LP definitively removed a high-frequency glaze or glare and seemed to enrich the midband…Demagnetizing LPs works. Better yet, once a record has been demagnetized, it seems to stay that way…And do not try one of these devices unless you're prepared to buy it." – Michael Fremer, Stereophile.

They left out the part where he wrote he can't explain *how* it could work,  "but it does!" 

After all, he *heard* it.  And after him, so did the rest of the usual audiophool reviewers, from 6moons to Soundstage to ToneAudio.  Not one did a blind comparison. Stereophile honored it with a place on its annual REcommended list.


(Subsequently audiophiles have chimed in with more or less ridiculous pseudoscientific explanations involving the carbon in LPs.)

This remarkable LP demagnetizer can be yours for just  ~$1900, btw.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #993 –
Quote from: Frumious B on
OK...I try to be respectful of people's different views and keep an open mind.  However, with that ridiculous list Stereophile and anybody associated with the mag has officially forfeited any expectations that I accept a single word they say with anything other than the deepest skepticism.  LP demagnetizer?  That goes completely and totally beyond the pale.

I like to think of it as being somewhat like the case of Clever Hans, in which inadequate experimental controls can lead to conclusions that are completely preposterous.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #994 –
Quote from: Gag Halfrunt on
And then you run the risk of very poorly managed tests confirming the biases they bring to the party. As I've demonstrated by running a test with some inconsistencies that I already noted and you highlighted; by audiophile standards, that was full on lab-coat stuff.


We run less of that risk if our recommendations spell out the requirements for a WELL-managed DBT.  And actually, with ABX comparator software, those recommendations become even simpler. 

If *THEY* still choose to run a poor DBT, then *we* can point out how they didn't follow our instructions.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #995 –
Quote from: MichaelW on
I'm sorry, but this is exactly NOT what I was proposing, nor I think what G H was suggesting. I am not interested in the quality of lossy encoders, as such, but whether the undoubted imperfections in low rate lossy files are MORE or LESS apparent with different equipment.


HA's codec developers would  confirm that non linear frequency response increases the probability of perceivable artifacts. Codecs are optimized for flat FR and any deviation invalidates assumptions about what would get masked. The only thing preventing cheap gear from massively uncovering artifacts is noise (or enough bitrate headroom). Once you eliminate the noise chances to detect artifacts only decrease when you improve your system's frequency response, because you're increasing the accuracy of your encoder's predictions. The best bet to find artifacts would be an audiophile system with excellent SNR, but an intentional non-flat FR. There might be a few 'audiophile' (price-) class systems, that are exactly doing that to get a characteristic sound.

What else would you expect? There's no such thing as audible 'resolution', which wouldn't be a function of frequency response. High resolution in a low noise setup is usually just an expression to describe a broad, flat frequency response without major dips.

There is no common property or intersection of cheap systems except noise, that could hide an encoder's artifacts better than a high end system could.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #996 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
The point you're ignoring is a big one - reliability.

What post was it that gave you the idea I was ignoring reliability? As far as I'm aware, the placebo effect works very reliably. According to the study I quoted, the effect was so reliable that it even demonstrated the ability to manifest despite the subjects knowing there was no actual effect. As, well, I'd like to point out that the whole "it's just all in your head" argument you personally often use is exactly that reliable psychoactive placebo effect happening that so skews people in a sighted evaluation. That certain seems reliable, wouldn't you say?

Quote
IME the effectiveness of holistic and other medical treatments whose only known effects are similar to that of placebos is maybe 30%.  Furthermore, the effectiveness of placebo treatments has been reported to decrease as time passes. After all, the inital effectiveness was dependent in suspended disbelief.

I understand that that may have been your experience. Can you post a reference to prove that the effectiveness of placebo treatments being reported decreases as time passes? Personally, I wouldn't doubt it, however, the placebo effect still reliably exist, even if it decreases with time. In fact, most visceral pleasures suffer exactly the same fate. Thrills just don't seem to last.

Quote
The effectiveness of many very expensive high end tweaks is in the same range, decreasing to zero in controlled evaluations.

I could believe it if you'd provide a reference.

Quote
If you spend $3,000 on a CD player, how reliable should the purported audible benefit be?  Should the purported audible benefit reliable enough to still be perceived after a lengthy discussion with a person who as ABXed a lot of CD players?

Wouldn't that, of course, depend upon the purchaser? For some people, ignorance is bliss, for others, it is agony.

Quote
People *are* interested in reliability - after all it was the reduced reliability of American and British cars as compared to Japanese cars that decimated the US and British auto industries.

I've never argued otherwise. Indeed I relish reliability. Did I ever give you any reason to think otherwise?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #997 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: Gag Halfrunt on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
OK then the comparison is that they are before and after processing by the Furutech LP demagnetizer.


Whoa! Back up a moment, please. Furutech LP demagnetizer?



Yes.  The one Michael Fremer gave the enthusiastic thumbs up to in the Oct 2006 Stereophile  -- as quoted on the Furutech website:

"…demagnetizing an LP definitively removed a high-frequency glaze or glare and seemed to enrich the midband…Demagnetizing LPs works. Better yet, once a record has been demagnetized, it seems to stay that way…And do not try one of these devices unless you're prepared to buy it." – Michael Fremer, Stereophile.

They left out the part where he wrote he can't explain *how* it could work,  "but it does!"



I've got one idea about how its use can be part of a demonstation of an audible difference, when used between playings.

Quote
After all, he *heard* it.  And after him, so did the rest of the usual audiophool reviewers, from 6moons to Soundstage to ToneAudio.  Not one did a blind comparison. Stereophile honored it with a place on its annual REcommended list.

(Subsequently audiophiles have chimed in with more or less ridiculous pseudoscientific explanations involving the carbon in LPs.)

This remarkable LP demagnetizer can be yours for just  ~$1900, btw.


Did you catch the part where I downloaded Fremer's *before* and *after* .wav files and quikcly ABX'd them 20 out of 30 (< .05)?  They quite clearly measure to have different spectral balance > 5 KHz.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #998 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
Quote from: MichaelW on
I'm sorry, but this is exactly NOT what I was proposing, nor I think what G H was suggesting. I am not interested in the quality of lossy encoders, as such, but whether the undoubted imperfections in low rate lossy files are MORE or LESS apparent with different equipment.


HA's codec developers would  confirm that non linear frequency response increases the probability of perceivable artifacts. Codecs are optimized for flat FR and any deviation invalidates assumptions about what would get masked. The only thing preventing cheap gear from massively uncovering artifacts is noise (or enough bitrate headroom). Once you eliminate the noise chances to detect artifacts only decrease when you improve your system's frequency response, because you're increasing the accuracy of your encoder's predictions. The best bet to find artifacts would be an audiophile system with excellent SNR, but an intentional non-flat FR. There might be a few 'audiophile' (price-) class systems, that are exactly doing that to get a characteristic sound.



IIRC one example came up here : PA systems.  Someone who worked in sound reinforcement said they had an easier time telling mp3s from source over a PA (which tend to emphasize brute SPL over flat frequency response) than at home.  One of the developers (?) replied to the effect that mp3s weren't designed to be 'transparent' over such systems....I wonder how many DJs know that?  ;>

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #999 –
Quote from: 2tec on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
The point you're ignoring is a big one - reliability.

As far as I'm aware, the placebo effect works very reliably.

That is completely untrue.

For example:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj.39...9618.25v1?rss=1

"The proportions of patients reporting moderate or substantial improvement on the global improvement scale were 3% (waiting list), 20% (limited), and 37% (augmented) (P<0.001)."

IOW, depending on the context, the effectiveness of placebo treatment ranged from 3 to 37%.