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 505265 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #250 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Then in the other corner we have Arny who has run and participated in countless ABX tests - and most of these, some with the "best ears" available, proved negative.


Probably not true at this time.  Many examples of ABX tests with positive outcomes could have been found on the now-departed PCABX web site. I think that over 50% of my last year's ABXing had positive outcomes.


Actually there's still some 'classics' here:


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

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #251 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Obviously BORK is very interested in audio, has just discovered blind testing, and has been willing to do some ABX tests of an audio codec. He's been surprised by the difficulty of passing these tests, but has managed to do so in some cases.

He hasn't yet probed their applicability to the rest of audio, and assumes everything he knows about audio still holds good. He finds the idea that most of the tweaks in the big wide audiophile world are either tiny or inaudible quite baffling - he assumes everyone who thinks this is deaf, or jealous that they can't afford expensive equipment.


2Bdecided, I understand you are trying to make a point here, & level it out,
but if that means reducing me into something I am not in the process, then I'll pass.

I am not interested in audio , I make a living from audio
I have discovered blind testing before some kids here were born.
You KNOW that from our work in the LossyWav thread - where did u get that ??

(You all assumed I was a true audiophile (not that I'd mind that), because I stood against moronic narrow minded stereotyping that is spread like the plague in this forum, especially when backed by the Lossy Forever kids, & when the pros here shy away from spanking them when needed.)

so once and for all I will set the record straight if that's ok, READ this.

I have tried to avoid from making the focus of this thread about me, my background, or my abilities.

In the LossyWav thread when I tried to help, & after being 'questioned' about it I clarified if you recall, I even felt the need to apologize (!), about not being clearer on my background :


Quote from: B0RK on
Quote from: sauvage78 on
I will not let anyone tell that standard is not transparent if I am not 100% sure of his ABXing skills.
standard is a very high quality level IMHO so I need to test by myself. For me, it's either a big problem always hearable by golden heared people or a fake.
I am not telling you are lying, but in this forum the only guy telling me that standard is not transparent that I would blindly trust is Guruboolez.
I am just shocked by a guy that don't know how to ABX but ABX everything at first try, even a musician.
That said, your logs are impressive.



Please let me clarify a few things about myself.

I am here because I saw The LossyWav project - & just had to try it, & thank the author for the great work.

....
I am not a naysayer.

Now about me being new to ABXing ...
nothing can be further from the truth ..
what I AM new to is abxing using apps like Foobar.

To make a long boring story short, I have been in music basically all my life & I make
my living from music, in more then one form.[/b]

so please ,do not mistake me for a beginner  .. I never said I was.
I am sorry I have not been clearer on my background, I can see now how it might have looked ..


So I hope It's clearer now, No experience or knowledge I gained, comes from this forum.
AB/ABX tests are not something this forum taught me, or exposed me to.
Back when I started, I used mechanical switchers, & then moved on to relay based switching systems .

After getting some more testers lined up & working on a test material collection in the studio, I decided I am putting it on hold because of the work load I had, & the uninspiring direction I felt this was taking.

* You would be interested to know that currently, the same guy that questioned the results, sauvage78 ,
is pretty much the only tester controlling the tuning of LossyWav, & the testing has been reduced to 2 or 3 'hot' samples, meaning, samples that generate noticable artifacts when encoded, as opposed to a wide selection of music material.

coincidence ? you do the math.

But for now,with the way things are, I will not put in any more of my &/or my fellow professionals time in it.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #252 –
r u Prince?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #253 –
    

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #254 –
Quote from: B0RK on
So I hope It's clearer now, No experience or knowledge I gained, comes from this forum.

That has been obvious from the beginning. We are just saying that that deficiency could be fixed if you are willing.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #255 –
Quote
As for the “tube sound,” there are two possibilities: (1) It’s a figment of the deluded audiophile’s imagination, or (2) it’s a deliberate coloration introduced by the manufacturer to appeal to corrupted tastes, in which case a solid-state design could easily mimic the sound if the designer were perverse enough to want it that way.
~ The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio

Personally, I wonder if the quoted article is completely true in this regard. Are there any actual published tests demonstrating solid state and tube amps cannot be told apart in a double-blind test? As well, if there is a difference, can a solid state amp actually mimic the sound of a tube amp? Furthermore, would fidelity be preserved best by playing older analog audio, which was recorded and mixed on tube based audio equipment, back through an tube based system?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #256 –
@BORK,

Sorry, I'd forgotten that part.

However, if you have true double-blind test results, from whatever decade, which show positive results with different decent amplifiers, DACs etc, then I'm sure this is the place to report them.

Regards,
David.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #257 –
If you don't overdrive both and all other circuitry is proper, very sensible measurements don't show any difference. Slight overdrive causes a tube to add saturation  which may sound pleasing to some people (including me but only for a very limited selection of recordings). I have yet to find a digital tube saturation plugin that fits my expectations. Most of the time they just add some even order harmonics and that's it. But there's practically nothing that you cannot do to digital audio but can to analog, so I consider it only a matter of time until I find a suitable implementation.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #258 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on


Quote
It seems obvious to the unbiased observer that there will be at least some things which Arny hasn't seen a positive ABX result for which can be ABXed by someone.


No examples come to mind.
Got any?


Well, until a few weeks ago, filter ringing!

You talked about ABXing small, trivial differences. There may be some more of those lying around which people haven't been trained up to ABX properly yet, or which no one has bothered ABXing yet.

Are you saying that there aren't? Wouldn't such a statement be somewhere between brave and stupid?



No, I'm saying that no examples come to mind. That seems to me to be violently different from saying they don't exist.


Quote
Oh come on, give me the benefit of the doubt. It is very obvious that ther is a monumental gap between what your average newbig-to-the-world-ff-science thinks matters, and what actually does.

Quote

I was that guy about 30 years ago. I still remember actually thinking that the guys at TAS had something on the ball.


How long did it take you to make that journey?



No more than 5 years.  TAS was founded in 1973, and by 1977 I had developed a working ABX comparator and done both individual and group ABX tests.

Quote
Quote
What's wrong with modern recordings starts at the microphone(s).  The whole paradigm is wrong from violin body to pinnae.


That sounds like a far more interesting discussion: how would you do it?


I don't know how to do it right, I only know how to make recordings that sound good enough, all things considered. I favor the use of coincident microphones with spot mics as needed for large ensembles.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #259 –
Quote from: 2tec on
Are there any actual published tests demonstrating solid state and tube amps cannot be told apart in a double-blind test?


At least one:

Masters, I. G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp. 78-84 (January 1987)

Quote
As well, if there is a difference, can a solid state amp actually mimic the sound of a tube amp?


Depends on the tube amp, if you see the above reference.

Remember, really good tubed equipment can pass a straight wire bypass test, just like a lot of SS equipment can.

Quote
Furthermore, would fidelity be preserved best by playing older analog audio, which was recorded and mixed on tube based audio equipment, back through an tube based system?


Depends.  You might get closer to the sound that the people who produced the recording heard during the production process with the tubed amp.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #260 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Remember, really good tubed equipment can pass a straight wire bypass test, just like a lot of SS equipment can.

So, the "better" the tube amp, the more it sounds like a good SS amp? 

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #261 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: 2tec on
Are there any actual published tests demonstrating solid state and tube amps cannot be told apart in a double-blind test?

At least one: Masters, I. G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?", Stereo Review, pp. 78-84 (January 1987)

Can you provide a quote from the source you provided that would clearly summarize the article? As well, do you actually have the article you're quoting or is this simply what you remember? On a related note, are there sources for Stereo Review articles?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)
 

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #263 –
Quote from: 2tec on
Quote
As for the “tube sound,” there are two possibilities: (1) It’s a figment of the deluded audiophile’s imagination, or (2) it’s a deliberate coloration introduced by the manufacturer to appeal to corrupted tastes, in which case a solid-state design could easily mimic the sound if the designer were perverse enough to want it that way.
~ The Ten Biggest Lies in Audio

Personally, I wonder if the quoted article is completely true in this regard. Are there any actual published tests demonstrating solid state and tube amps cannot be told apart in a double-blind test? As well, if there is a difference, can a solid state amp actually mimic the sound of a tube amp? Furthermore, would fidelity be preserved best by playing older analog audio, which was recorded and mixed on tube based audio equipment, back through an tube based system?


He's not saying tube sound doesn't exist -- he's saying where it does, it's corrupted sound.  Others consider it to be warm, 'euphonic' distortion (and out come the explanations involving even-order harmonic distortion....even order harmonics being, like, more NATURAL, and therefore more BETTER ) 

The Carlstrom ABX site I linked to earlier reports results of a 'positive' ABX of tube vs SS amp

As for SS mimicking tube sound , IIIRC the mischievous Bob Carver demonstrated that to the amazement of Stereophile writers, some years ago.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #264 –
Quote from: evereux on
I believe this to be the article in question:

http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf

I've saved it, so should it be removed I can host it elsewhere.



The AES Preprint by Clark also cites them  , and puts them in historical context (as of 1991)

Ten years of A/B/X Testing by Clark, David L.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #265 –
Quote from: pdq on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Remember, really good tubed equipment can pass a straight wire bypass test, just like a lot of SS equipment can.

So, the "better" the tube amp, the more it sounds like a good SS amp? 


That was and is the general impression among well-educated audio professionals since the mid-70s, if not earlier. 

Yes, the first 5 or so years of solid state amps were a little hairy. I did a tube -> ss -> tube -> ss  thing in the late 60s.

Makes, models and dates on request. :-)

It was pretty much everybody's impression until sometime in the 1980s. :-(

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #266 –
Quote from: krabapple on
As for SS mimicking tube sound , IIIRC the mischievous Bob Carver demonstrated that to the amazement of Stereophile writers, some years ago.


AFAIK Bob's *secret sauce" for mimicking tube sound was small-value resistors in series with the speaker jacks.

Point being that the most audible aspect of *tube amp sound* is the random nonflat response you get with most speakers and a too-high source impedance.  The built-in nonlinear distortion, poorly-regulated power supply etc, is often window dressing.

There's a Stereophile aritcle by a tube bigot suggesting that the proper value is 3.3 ohms.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #267 –
Don't you also get some microphonics, and (almost the same thing) some internal self resonance in some valves (tubes!)?

I've certainly heard it on my Leak Stereo 20: if you replace the speaker with a 10 ohm resistor, and you can hear the valves themselves playing the music! Also, with no input signal, if you tap the valves with your finger nail, you can hear it through the speakers.

It's not hard to see how these two features combined mean that the valves can act like mini echo chambers, adding subtle short-term reverb to the music.

I don't know if it's usually directly audible, but I'd be surprised if it was universally inaudible.

(It could just be that the valves in my amp are rubbish, of course!)

Cheers,
David.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #268 –
Quote from: krabapple on
The Carlstrom ABX site I linked to earlier reports results of a 'positive' ABX of tube vs SS amp


If memory serves there was a subsequent retest after the tubed amp had some maintenance done on it, and the results were null.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #269 –
For what it's worth I did some blind tests around 15 years ago. I couldn't tell valves (vintage Rogers RD Junior) from SS (Ion Systems SAM40). But then I'm the guy who can't tell anlogue from digital either

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #270 –
On the subject of whether this thread has show HA in a good light or not, I'm definitely of the opinion that it hasn't. I also believe personal insults lower the quality of debate - assuming members are interested in debate. In fact I'd go further and say they should be outlawed by TOS.

When people are attacked they either fight back or run away. I don't see how either can be seen as constructive. Also when under attack it's dificult to remain focussed on the debate in hand so I think it also dilutes the quality of people's contributions. If we removed the insults and retaliations from this thread it would be smaller, easier to follow and consequently much more helpful to an outsider or neutral. Then, there are no doubt people who are frightened to contribute at all in case they draw ridicule or insults. I think there's a real danger that you end up with what effectively becomes a private club for like-minded people. Of course, if that's what HA members want, that's fine. I'd rather see an atmosphere of openness and moderators tepping in as soon as it gets personal.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #271 –
Quote from: botface on
I also believe personal insults lower the quality of debate - assuming members are interested in debate. In fact I'd go further and say they should be outlawed by TOS.
This should be covered under TOS #2.

As far as warning members for abuse, as you can imagine it is a very fine line, especially when there appears to be a lot of sarcasm and mud-slingling going on in general.  We have received at least one report on this thread, but after reading the recent posts I must admit that I just decided to close the door and let you all get on with it... whatever "it" is.  Perhaps not the best course of action, but I have better things to do than try to decide how much mud is being slung and in what directions.
I'm on a horse.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #272 –
Quote from: botface on
On the subject of whether this thread has show HA in a good light or not, I'm definitely of the opinion that it hasn't. I also believe personal insults lower the quality of debate - assuming members are interested in debate. In fact I'd go further and say they should be outlawed by TOS.

I'm not going to reread the thread to confirm it, but my impression is that BORK was the one who first started shifting things in that direction. Unfortunately, others soon started to respond in kind.

This is not the first time a thread has gone this way, and I am sure that it will not be the last, but let's hope that these occurrences remain as rare as possible.

I would also like to thank Synthetic Soul and the other mods for doing a great job of keeping things on track when needed.

Edit: typos

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #273 –
Arnie Krueger is a liar.

I have never behaved as described below.

I have never had to be forcibly restrained by anyone for anything. In my entire life.

What a shame a sad individual like this would make such assertions in a public forum--along with having the gall to  count my money and make baseless insinuations about my integrity and honesty.

Let me answer Mr. Krueger's fantasies:

There was an AES meeting back in the early '90s and an ABX test of amplifiers. I was involved because I claimed that the idea that all amplifiers sound alike, or pretty much alike (that measure the same) is kind of foolish, since we really don't measure every aspect of performance and I told David Clark to produce an ABX test and I'd be happy to take it.

I took the ABX test as devised and produced by the group and I got five of five identifications correct. My editor, John Atkinson got 4 of 5 correct. The average of all test takers was inconclusive. According to Dr. Stanley Lipschitz, I was a "lucky coin" and my result was tossed.

So much for "science." 

Now, here's the funny part: among the amps were some steely sounding solid state products including a Crown DC 300 and a very warm sounding VTL tube amp. It was quite easy to hear the difference between those. For one thing, they surely won't measure the same!

However, the average test taker, which included many recording engineers, could not, under blind ABX conditions tell the difference! Having been involved in many such tests, I brought more experience to it and so performed better as did John Atkinson.

I am happy to take such tests and usually do very well taking them...I can show you results of speaker identification blind tests I did at Harman's research center. However, I don't believe they are necessarily the best way to audition audio gear for long term satisfaction and I believe, as that test proved, very different sounding amplifiers can be judged to sound "the same" under what can be confusing ABX type tests.

Now, let's clear up the Gizmodo story. A writer for Gizmodo was assigned to write a story about audiophiles. Gizmodo found me. I did not find Gizmodo. I was not looking for publicity for me. I was happy to try and help promote a hobby and an industry I have loved since I heard my first Dynaco/AR-3 system many years ago.

It was the kid who wrote the story, who wrote about shitty sounding MP3s, not me! He came to write the usual negative story about audiophilia. He came to write a story that said it was stupid to spend a lot of money on an audio system. that there's really not much that can be done except drain your bank account if you spend more than a few thousand dollars on it.

What he heard though, absolutely sent him reeling. That's what's in the story. All I did was sit him down and play some tunes. He did the rest. He wanted to hear the high bit rate MP3 version of something I'd played on vinyl and we hooked his iPod player to my system and he heard just how degraded it was by comparison.....

So if you're an audio enthusiast, and you feel such a story was bad for our hobby, I think you have a few screws loose. I made sure that he understood that one can assemble a great system for not that much money. I told him about my system in the 1980s consisting of a Hafler DH-101 preamp and DH-200 amplfiier built from kits by me and a pair of Spica TC-50s and a used Thorens TD-125 turntable with Luster GST-1 tonearm, all of which cost about $1500 or so. I told him that I enjoyed listening to music as much on that system as I do on the one I OWN now.

Now, let's get to Mr. Krueger's disgraceful insinuation that somehow I am either a "trust fund baby" or I am a crook because how else could I own such an expensive audio system of which he's clearly insanely jealous.

First of all, I am an audio reviewer who actually buys the equipment in his system. This is not something that can be said of all audio reviewers but in my case, that is a fact. I own my system. I have always felt obliged to support the industry I cover by  actually buying the stuff. Over many years I have bought and sold and traded up. I did not go out and buy a $300,000 system.

What's more, I don't pay retail. I get an accommodation price on the gear I own. If you have a problem with that, I can't help you. The price I pay is still steep. For instance, I bought a turntable that costs $150,000. Crazy? Maybe. But you haven't heard it. The people who have and the people who have bought it don't think it's crazy. I talk to them. They think it's the best product they've ever bought...and many have Ferraris in the garage.

When I bought the turntable it cost $80,000. My sample was a cosmetic third. It could never be sold to a retail consumer. But it still cost me as much as a nice car. I borrowed money from the bank and paid it off over two years. It's the best thing I ever bought. It gives me the greatest pleasure of anything I've ever bought including some very nice cars.

As for the rest of my system, I have bought all of it, except for cables, which are on loan and tend to change depending upon the system or the gear under review. I own many cartridges, but have a few also on loan for similar reasons.

Oh, I have produced two very successful DVDs on analog. One is about turntable set-up. It has sold 10,000 copies. It wholesales for $15.00. Do the math Arnie. Everyone loves this DVD. It has been translated into German and Italian and Japanese. It continues to sell well and I continue to get thank you emails from people who buy who have been helped with their analog from it. The second DVD was recently released and it too has already sold thousands of copies. It's about record production (shot at two pressing plants in high definition) and covers record care, cleaning, handling and collecting.  People seem to like it too.

And you know what? People who know me through my writing or through meeting me, like me too.

Have a nice weekend.




Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Unlike most people who post here, I've had the *privilege* of meeting Michael Fremer in the flesh. Well sort of. This was in 2005.  After a few seconds in my presence, he started loudly screaming profanities about an ABX demo that some of my friends did at an AES meeting back in the very early 1990s.  His friends had to forcably restrain him and drag him out of the room.

To put this into perspective, my 16 year old son died of a brain hemhorrage about 10 years ago. By most accounts I can talk about that pretty calmly. Compared to matters of life and death, there's nothing about ABX or even all of high end audio thaat is as all-fired important as Fremer seems to think that one day back in the early 1990s was.  All the other people I know who were directly involved with it have pretty well forgotten about it. And well they should. That wsa then and this is now.

To say that Fremer is a little tightly wound would be IMO an understatement. :-(

IMO, the only way to understand Fremer is to consider the meaning of the word hyperbole. Fremer seems to live in a world of hyperbole where nothing is anything like what it seems. For example, the Gizmodo article http://i.gizmodo.com/5213042/why-we-need-audiophiles mentions Fremer's alleged $350,000 audio system.

My first question is who paid $350,000 for the equipment Fremer uses?  It is worth that today?  Is he a trust-fund baby? Does he get paid that much by Stereopihile? Or, has Fremer fanned the flames of Fremer-celebrity or possbily Fremer-fear so well that enough high end audio dealers and/or manufacters have been cowed into giving or loaning him most if not all of that equipment?

I'm sure the truth about Fremer will never be reliably known. Why should we even care?

Pardon me while I go and listen to some music... ;-)

Moderation: Removed useless full quotation of the first post.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #274 –
Quote from: pdq on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
My first question is who paid $350,000 for the equipment Fremer uses?  It is worth that today?  Is he a trust-fund baby? Does he get paid that much by Stereopihile? Or, has Fremer fanned the flames of Fremer-celebrity or possbily Fremer-fear so well that enough high end audio dealers and/or manufacters have been cowed into giving or loaning him most if not all of that equipment?

It's not that hard for the manufacturers of "$350,000 worth" of audio equipment to donate it to Fremer, because the actual manufacturing cost was probably only a few thousand, if that.



You are a very foolish person. And irresponsible as well.

-Michael Fremer