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 504335 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1225 –
Quote from: honestguv on
Quote from: nlsteele on
As an active and participating experimental scientist, I can tell you without qualification that scientific progress and science itself is often adversarial debate.

In which case you should be able to put forward some examples. But I am going to add a qualification and that is not examples from the "soft sciences" but examples from the real sciences that are based on scientific laws/hypotheses. The qualification is important because it is basing reasoning on a pyramid of established, self-supporting and agreed "facts" that makes adversarial debate meaningless. In order to disagree one side has got to believe one thing while the other believes something else but if both sides have signed up for the scientific method then this is not an option.


Well, for one example from the "hard" science of physics: http://www.theory.caltech.edu/~preskill/jp_24jul04.html

The debate over Hawking's Information Loss Paradox.

Do I really need to provide you some more or is this satisfactorily far enough away from those bad old "soft" sciences I'm part of?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1226 –
Quote from: nlsteele on
As to what I think I observe within this thread as a whole, and not just limiting to John and Arnold's discussion, is some potential indication . That thing that allows music to connect in a way with a listener that isn't captured by any other sorts of tones or sounds in series. It's certainly an unscientific pursuit unto itself, but that doesn't mean we simply have to wage a war of opinion. We can look at what little empirical evidence we have and postulate falsifiable hypotheses from there the way that all science begins.



Where do you see these 'potential indications of what that as yet unidentified or measured element of the human perception of audio may be', and why do you presume that 'element' exists in the first place?


Btw, from my personal experience of science and scientists, I totally agree with you that adversarial contest -- some of them even heated and personal -- have played a role in advancing science.    Scientists are human too and competition for priority (and grant money) can be a great stimulus!

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1227 –
Quote from: nlsteele on
I do wonder if we do any good to the audiophile magazine's "resistance to subjecting such claims" by bullying one of their editors when he actually starts discussing matters in a testable way (and even comes over to the counterpoint's camp to share in that discussion).

What do you think John Atkinson is trying to achieve by braving the bullying and posting here?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1228 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: nlsteele on
Krabapple, the effect of and existence of germs for one.
None of these represent 'overlooked as voodoo' phenomena (and the quantum relatedness example hardly qualifies as something the layman would have ever noticed or claimed to be happening in the first place, much less be called 'voodoo' for it).


The germ theory was certainly considered too far fetched by the folks, scientific and lay alike, that rejected it until measurement (microscopic observation) was possible. I can't stop you from dismissing my examples, but at the end of the day, I'm satisfied I've made my point. My intention is certainly not to "finger wave" but rather to advocate for open discussion.

----------------------------

Honestguv, open discussion from all perspectives?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1229 –
Quote from: nlsteele on
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: nlsteele on
Krabapple, the effect of and existence of germs for one.
None of these represent 'overlooked as voodoo' phenomena (and the quantum relatedness example hardly qualifies as something the layman would have ever noticed or claimed to be happening in the first place, much less be called 'voodoo' for it).


The germ theory was certainly considered too far fetched by the folks, scientific and lay alike, that rejected it until measurement (microscopic observation) was possible. I can't stop you from dismissing my examples, but at the end of the day, I'm satisfied I've made my point. My intention is certainly not to "finger wave" but rather to advocate for open discussion.



But except for the quantum experiment, so far you're pulling examples from fields in their infancy, or when science as we know it barely existed. And you're not engaging the point that in audio, we are not operating in a knoweldge vaccuum , and keeping an open mind does not mean abandoning skepticism.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1230 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: nlsteele on
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: nlsteele on
Krabapple, the effect of and existence of germs for one.
None of these represent 'overlooked as voodoo' phenomena (and the quantum relatedness example hardly qualifies as something the layman would have ever noticed or claimed to be happening in the first place, much less be called 'voodoo' for it).


The germ theory was certainly considered too far fetched by the folks, scientific and lay alike, that rejected it until measurement (microscopic observation) was possible. I can't stop you from dismissing my examples, but at the end of the day, I'm satisfied I've made my point. My intention is certainly not to "finger wave" but rather to advocate for open discussion.



But except for the quantum experiment, so far you're pulling examples from fields in their infancy, or when science as we know it barely existed.  And you're not engaging the point that in audio, we are not operating in a knoweldge vaccuum , and keeping an open mind does not mean abandoning skepticism.


Now I get your point. You're right that we're certainly not as far into the infancy as those fields were in my examples (although with the case of heliocentrism,  astrophysics had been around a few hundred years as observational science before Galileo, Kepler, or Copernicus were running around doing their things). We are, however, kind of in the infancy of psychoacoustics as a field (less than 100 years does not a science make), and the study of emotion in psychology is certainly in its infancy. If there's a contribution to be made to our understanding of psychoacoustics by our understanding of emotion, it's yet to be made, so I suppose that's why I'm vehement about open debate on this end of that timeline.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1231 –
Quote from: nlsteele on
Now I get your point. You're right that we're certainly not as far into the infancy as those fields were in my examples (although with the case of heliocentrism,  astrophysics had been around a few hundred years as observational science before Galileo, Kepler, or Copernicus were running around doing their things).


'Observational science' ..you mean astrology?

Quote
We are, however, kind of in the infancy of psychoacoustics as a field (less than 100 years does not a science make), and the study of emotion in psychology is certainly in its infancy. If there's a contribution to be made to our understanding of psychoacoustics by our understanding of emotion, it's yet to be made, so I suppose that's why I'm vehement about open debate on this end of that timeline.


Leaving aside the question of how old science itself is ('scientist' being a 19th C coinage, and the scientific method formally going back perhaps to Bacon and Descarte in the 1600s), and given the accelerating rates of scientific and technological advance in the last century or so, neither psychoacoustics NOR experimental methodology NOR audio technology are in their infancy  (and audio woo claims and arguments typically hinge on all three of these), so skepticism of certain ideas may be entirely appropriate.  Any good scientist acknowledges that 'facts' are provisional, but they also acknowledge that it requires evidence and logic, not speculation, to revise the current models.  So where's the evidence and logic, beyond "I hear it!" or "I feel better listening to this CD player than that one!" from audiophiles?  That only becomes 'good evidence' for objective audible difference when certain methods of subjective comparison are used , yet Mr. Atkinson's magazine propagandizes AGAINST such methods, and meanwhile is willing to promote *irrelevant* objective measures to support claims of audible difference, as in his recent article on mp3.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1232 –
Most theories of today's mainstream science started off as fringe ideas until enough evidence accumulated to convince everybody. Moreover, in many cases, the theories really were fringe ideas, in some sense - their adherents in many cases really did not have good evidence for a while. I'm thinking specifically of plate tectonics, atomic theories of matter, etc. Or even general relativity for that matter (it was first a very "beautiful" theory with no real supporting evidence to speak of).

What is considered controversial in the audio world today revolves, almost exclusively, around listener perceptions which cannot be validated with blind testing. It is true that the "mainstream scientific thought" on the matter (if there is one in the first place) does not make particularly detailed explanations of these perceptions/beliefs. A lot of it boils down to "it's placebo" which frankly, isn't particularly persuasive. Unfortunately the competing theories offered are even less persuasive. IMHO.

Some audiophiles are really quick to assert the incompleteness of human knowledge of audio, particularly Beltists - nlsteele, I suppose you wouldn't have an alter ego with a last name "Frog"?  - but I think if such a gap in knowledge exists, it rests exclusively in the psychological realm, not the psychoacoustic. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing! If music companies had a better understanding of how people derive enjoyment from music, they certainly wouldn't be in as dire straits as they are in now. And I can certainly see how a choice of format - particularly vinyl with its larger artwork and "tactile" interface requirements - could correlate with such enjoyment. And audiophiles, ostensibly representing a group of people who derive much pleasure from music and have much knowledge of how to configure environments to maximize such enjoyment, could still be respected in a world that went completely skeptical and pro-DBT.

But such justifications do not really rely on objective or intrinsic qualities, such as the nature of the format itself. It really would be all in your head. And I think some people are frankly just not secure enough to state a preference that requires no justification, and instead use really poor or false ones. It is somewhat refreshing to hear some vinyl n00bs derive satisfaction not from any intrinsic sound quality, but from the artwork! Or even the ticks and pops themselves! It's superficial, but at the same time, it's uncommonly honest.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1233 –
Quote from: honestguv on
Quote from: nlsteele on
I do wonder if we do any good to the audiophile magazine's "resistance to subjecting such claims" by bullying one of their editors when he actually starts discussing matters in a testable way (and even comes over to the counterpoint's camp to share in that discussion).

What do you think John Atkinson is trying to achieve by braving the bullying and posting here?


Seems like John was up to quite a bit of bullying of his own.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1234 –
Audiophile arguments often resemble 'god in the gaps' arguments.  "Because you buzzkillers don't know EVERYTHING, MY belief is still likely to be true."  That's a fail. And "it's placebo" (or "it's in your head') is unpersuasive NOT because it isn't often true, but  because most people are innumerate about probability, or illiterate as to just how common 'placebo' responses are.  People tend to greatly underestimate how fallible they are.

But I do think the record company morons missed an opportunity by not offering CDs in LP-sized packages and artwork, as an option.  Yes , I KNOW record retailers would have balked, but look at where retailers have ended up in their 'wisdom'.
Certainly so called 'high rez' or 'audiophile' releases should have been given old-school extravagant packaging, to make them more of an 'event'.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1235 –
Quote from: krabapple on
And "it's placebo" (or "it's in your head') is unpersuasive NOT because it isn't often true, but  because most people are innumerate about probability, or illiterate as to just how common 'placebo' responses are.


What I've seen in this debate is that people will implicitly or explicitly claim their results should be taken at face value (even though their experiment was uncontrolled) because the results were not what they expected or wanted.  See for example here.  You'll see the quote "I'm sorry to report that demagnetizing LPs works-consistently and decidedly," he said.

Quote from: krabapple on
People tend to greatly underestimate how fallible they are.


Ain't that the truth!

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1236 –
Quote from: Axon on
Most theories of today's mainstream science started off as fringe ideas until enough evidence accumulated to convince everybody. Moreover, in many cases, the theories really were fringe ideas, in some sense - their adherents in many cases really did not have good evidence for a while. I'm thinking specifically of plate tectonics, atomic theories of matter, etc. Or even general relativity for that matter (it was first a very "beautiful" theory with no real supporting evidence to speak of).

What is considered controversial in the audio world today revolves, almost exclusively, around listener perceptions which cannot be validated with blind testing. It is true that the "mainstream scientific thought" on the matter (if there is one in the first place) does not make particularly detailed explanations of these perceptions/beliefs. A lot of it boils down to "it's placebo" which frankly, isn't particularly persuasive. Unfortunately the competing theories offered are even less persuasive. IMHO.

Some audiophiles are really quick to assert the incompleteness of human knowledge of audio, particularly Beltists - nlsteele, I suppose you wouldn't have an alter ego with a last name "Frog"?  - but I think if such a gap in knowledge exists, it rests exclusively in the psychological realm, not the psychoacoustic. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing! If music companies had a better understanding of how people derive enjoyment from music, they certainly wouldn't be in as dire straits as they are in now. And I can certainly see how a choice of format - particularly vinyl with its larger artwork and "tactile" interface requirements - could correlate with such enjoyment. And audiophiles, ostensibly representing a group of people who derive much pleasure from music and have much knowledge of how to configure environments to maximize such enjoyment, could still be respected in a world that went completely skeptical and pro-DBT.

But such justifications do not really rely on objective or intrinsic qualities, such as the nature of the format itself. It really would be all in your head. And I think some people are frankly just not secure enough to state a preference that requires no justification, and instead use really poor or false ones. It is somewhat refreshing to hear some vinyl n00bs derive satisfaction not from any intrinsic sound quality, but from the artwork! Or even the ticks and pops themselves! It's superficial, but at the same time, it's uncommonly honest.


Axon, I've appreciated your contributions since the start of this thread, and this one is no exception. I'm very happy to see the discussion seems to be refreshed, but you've piqued my curiosity on another topic. I'm not familiar with these "Beltists," and can't seem to find a good definition online for them. Sorry to report that Frog isn't amongst my monikers (of which there are only really three), but I'd like to hear more about what you're talking about. If it's OT, just PM me, as this feels like a sidebar conversation anyway. FWIW, Andy O can vouch that I'm relatively new to this whole audio thing, and I can furnish credentials to the opposite for my indoctrination in science. This is far more fun to discuss than my own job, though.

Thanks to all for being so tolerant of my jumping into the midst of this conversation.

---------------------------

Krabapple, I out of habit lump even some "pre-science science" in with the usual suspects because when psychologists go through the history of the pursuit it usually includes a healthy dose of why mind-body arguments are bumpkis relegated to philosophy and that references a good deal of ancient Greeks on up (e.g., Heraclitus) as the philosophy became a natural philosophy became a science.

I actually loosely meant navigational astronomy which has been around since the Phoenicians, though it certainly wouldn't have been thought to be capital-S Science at that point, it was still reliant on observation.

Your patience with my own descriptive quirk and your point is duly noted.

----------------------------

Everyone, or particularly Krabapple, is there some sort of doctrine on this "audio woo" you guys are talking about? I was assuming Michael was talking about something else when said the rhetoric of woo, but I was apparently mistaken? I'm guessing this is a terminology common to HA regulars for some facet of audiophile circles.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1237 –
Even if general relativity was untestable due to technical limitations when it was first presented by Einstein, it was falsifiable using standard scientific reasoning and thought experiments which were later acomplished.

The problem with "audiophools" (sorry, can't think of a less biased word at the moment) is not the scientific theories or hypotheses presented. The problem lies in the denial of scientific methods and in the claims of opinions as facts.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1238 –
Quote from: Axon on
What is considered controversial in the audio world today revolves, almost exclusively, around listener perceptions which cannot be validated with blind testing.


Understatement of the facts.

Most if not all of the controversies revolve around listener perceptions that:

(1) Perceive large differences where no relevant differences exist.
(2) Perceive large differences where the relevant differences that do exist are orders of magnitude below well-known human thresholds of hearing, based on blind testing.
(3) Perceive large differences that are smaller than those that are found to be reliably discernable, even when using recognized listening tests methods that aren't exactly blind.
(4) Perceive large differences where the relevant differences that do exist that are orders of magnitude below well-known human thresholds of hearing, based on our understandings of human physiology.

Quote
It is true that the "mainstream scientific thought" on the matter (if there is one in the first place) does not make particularly detailed explanations of these perceptions/beliefs.


?????????????

Quote
A lot of it boils down to "it's placebo" which frankly, isn't particularly persuasive. Unfortunately the competing theories offered are even less persuasive. IMHO.


The better explanation is that the perceptions are due to audible illusions. 

In fact the human brain is the most powerful organ in the body and it can supercede the sensations of most if not all other parts of the body.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1239 –
Quote from: nlsteele on
Some audiophiles are really quick to assert the incompleteness of human knowledge of audio, particularly Beltists - nlsteele, I suppose you wouldn't have an alter ego with a last name "Frog"?  - but I think if such a gap in knowledge exists, it rests exclusively in the psychological realm, not the psychoacoustic. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing! If music companies had a better understanding of how people derive enjoyment from music, they certainly wouldn't be in as dire straits as they are in now. And I can certainly see how a choice of format - particularly vinyl with its larger artwork and "tactile" interface requirements - could correlate with such enjoyment. And audiophiles, ostensibly representing a group of people who derive much pleasure from music and have much knowledge of how to configure environments to maximize such enjoyment, could still be respected in a world that went completely skeptical and pro-DBT.

Everyone, or particularly Krabapple, is there some sort of doctrine on this "audio woo" you guys are talking about? I was assuming Michael was talking about something else when said the rhetoric of woo, but I was apparently mistaken? I'm guessing this is a terminology common to HA regulars for some facet of audiophile circles.


heh. Are you sure you want to know?

well, for starters there's cable craziness; used to be just speaker cable and old fashioned RCA interconnects, but now we even have USB CABLE WOO:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/...mber-USB-Review

for tweaks, the perhaps classic example is the 'green marker' tweak from the early 90s
http://www.snopes2.com/music/media/marker.htm

and there's the ever-popular Shakti bamboozelry
http://www.shakti-innovations.com/hallograph.htm

But it just doesn't get more woo than than Machina Dynamica...and no surprise, it even cites quantum mechanics as the mechanism! I present to you:
Brilliant Pebbles
Teleportation Tweak
Audiophile-Grade Outlet COVERS

and as for the audio craziness of the Belts (Peter and May), here is an example, tunnel down into the website for more:
http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/product/odl/One_Drop_Liquid.html

of note here on HA has been the recent dustups over LP demagnetization (there is also a CD demag tweak)
http://www.musicdirect.com/product/73520

(the musicdirect catalog  is, itself , a swirling sucking vortex of audio woo)
 

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1240 –
Quote from: krabapple on
well, for starters there's cable craziness; used to be just speaker cable and old fashioned RCA interconnects, but now we even have USB CABLE WOO:

Don't forget the $500 Denon ethernet cable.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1241 –
Quote from: nlsteele on
The rotation of the world around the sun for two.


Our world doesn't "rotate" around the Sun at all.  It rotates around it's own internal axis of rotation, in about 24 hours.

It revolves around said Sun, more or less, which I suppose is what you meant, but your apparent confusion about the terminology is a bit concerning.

Actually, to be more precise, both the Earth and the Sun revolve about a common center of gravity, which happens to be located within the body of the Sun, but not at it's center.

Ed Seedhouse
VA7SDH

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1242 –
Quote from: krabapple on
'Observational science' ..you mean astrology?


Would Kepler count as a scientist, in some loose sense of the word? At one time he had a day job as official astrologer for a German city, and I think Braehe was a court astrologer.

The point is that, at certain stages, science can be mixed up with woo; there was a time when it was intellectually respectable to be interested in ESP.

Scientists get taught a particularly 19th century rationalist version of intellectual history, which includes a travesty of the Middle Ages, a deliberate ignoring of the fact that the Renaissance was the golden age of woo, and a conflation of the ideas of the Renaissance with those of the Enlightenment. This does matter, because it leads to an oversimplified view of how we might advance the cause of reason without narrow dogmatism--even in such a peripheral endeavour as audio.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1243 –
Quote from: Ed Seedhouse on
Quote from: nlsteele on
The rotation of the world around the sun for two.


Our world doesn't "rotate" around the Sun at all.  It rotates around it's own internal axis of rotation, in about 24 hours.

It revolves around said Sun, more or less, which I suppose is what you meant, but your apparent confusion about the terminology is a bit concerning.

Actually, to be more precise, both the Earth and the Sun revolve about a common center of gravity, which happens to be located within the body of the Sun, but not at it's center.


Aren't you the clever boy.

---------------------------

Greynol, that's my favorite set of amazon reviews ever (and tags). Restored my basic faith in humanity.

---------------------------

Krabapple, is Machina Dynamica real or just a spoof site? Those pebbles were the deal breaker for me. I can't believe anyone would really tape pebbles to their interconnects. That's pet rock bad. Thanks for providing all the links (though I feel my faith in humanity dwindling again).

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1244 –
Quote from: krabapple on
and as for the audio craziness of the Belts (Peter and May), here is an example, tunnel down into the website for more:
http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/product/odl/One_Drop_Liquid.html


You know, it's sad because there's some really cool stuff coming out of more scientific pipelines that's WAY more interesting and that this will likely steal some credibility from because of the way it's purporting the same kind of thing, the influence of the observer. I give you the global consciousness project (I didn't buy it when I first saw it either, read a while on it): http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

The really stupid thing is Belt's postulate is testable by having blindfolded listeners sit at a listening position right beside a sighted-audiophile/sighted-normal based on random assignment. They'd be able to tell you if the quantum influence of the observation of the sighted audiophile was able to change the SQ at the listening point.

Krabapple, again, thanks for clearing this up for me. I'm glad to know who the "Beltists" are and to count myself not amongst them (though I now get the joke, Axon , nice one).

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1245 –
Quote from: Gag Halfrunt on
I would have thought that the number of synesthetes within the audiophile community to be in proportion to the number of synesthetes in the wider population. If anything, I'd even make a wild guess that the number of those with sound->colour synesthesia that own audio equipment would be slightly lower than the wider population, because if I had an in-head visualizer permanently switched on, I'd be more editorial in my listening.

That audiophiles can hear a three-dimensional 'soundstage' would suggest one of three things:

1. They are making stuff up
2. They all have OCD when it comes to setting up their systems, and this is the pay-off
3. They are making stuff up again

I know #1 and #3 are similar, but it's such an important point, it's worth repeating.

I suspect this 3D stuff is smoke and mirrors, especially as whenever I attend an unamplified classical concert, I struggle to identify the point in space where the second violinist sits if I close my eyes. But perhaps what they are describing is their brain over-compensating because supposed distance cues are being artificially rebuilt from something a fraction of that distance away in reality. The fact that the instrument may have been less than a foot from the microphone and the only mechanism for stereo positioning at the engineer's desk is a pan-pot is irrelevant - if you have an instrument that you anticipate being 20 feet away, your brain will attempt to locate it 20 feet away. If the loudspeakers are giving precise HRTF cues to the distance of that instrument, but that places the instrument six feet away instead of 20, your brain might conceivably struggle with the dichotomy and over-compensate by making you think stereo is more three-dimensional. This over-compensation could potentially be more noticeable if the loudspeakers are in very precise placement relative to the listener and the loudspeaker-room interaction was particularly favourable. And if there's one thing most audiophiles have in common, it's precise placement of loudspeakers and listener.

That's a whole lot of 'ifs' and 'maybes', though. Trouble is, we'll never know for sure, 'ifs' and 'maybes' seem to be all part of the audiophile magical mystery tour. If you ask 'why', chances are you'll get a Yoda-like response: Disturbance there is in the dark side of the cables. Phase is what you seek, yesssss.


All of a sudden a person who cares about speaker placement has OCD. I don't comment on your lack of care of speaker placement and diagnose you with a mental illness thereof.

The stereo "effect" requires careful speaker placement and succeeds to vary degrees based on the room. Certain speakers due to to their dispersal patterns succeed more than others in a given room.

With that out of the way, I can always hear left to right instrument placement. However I cannot say that it is clear whether one instrument is in front of or behind another. I think at that point one must begin to imagine the positions of instruments behind and in front of others. They then must use the information coming from the speakers to support their view of some sound being in front of or behind another sound.

I have listened to a recording made in a church of a person with loud shoes walking in a straight line towards a stereo mic setup. I listened on a system that cost in the range of $15,000. I have to admit that if I wasn't exactly told what was going on in the recording it would have been difficult to really tell what was being recorded apart from the fact that the sound does get louder as he walks towards the mic(s) (which I think is a moot point in the case of a live performance where performers are mere feet away from each other) and that as he gets closer the "image"shifts from center to both speakers independently. I suppose that happens when he walks between the mics and past them.

So I think basically people need to imagine this "depth" aspect to some extent and what they hear in terms of depth is based on what they imagine.

Listening to a large orchestra on the other hand gives you the distances that enable you to hear a particular instrument from behind others. However if you've never been to the orchestra you would just know from the acoustic cues that the position of the harp is different from the violins but you wouldn't really be able to state that one is behind the other. Only if you know the harp is behind the violins can you then interpret the different acoustic cues of the harp and say it is behind the violins.

All in all I wouldn't go so far as to say they are making it up but rather that they exaggerate the capability of stereo to provide a real feeling of depth and they fail to either understand or properly express the role of prior knowledge in this perception of "depth".

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1246 –
Quote from: greynol on
Quote from: krabapple on
well, for starters there's cable craziness; used to be just speaker cable and old fashioned RCA interconnects, but now we even have USB CABLE WOO:

Don't forget the $500 Denon ethernet cable.


Well, yes I wouldn't have expected a company like Denon to pull this kind of stunt but I guess everyone has mouths to feed.


This same sort of thing happens with "gamers" in computing. These are the guys who claim to need 180 frames per second and buy $200 ethernet cards that do exactly the same thing as the one built into the motherboard of all modern computers for about a $1 in cost at most.

I can cite other examples like the Totem beak for one, but the drop of water thing takes the cake.

As for MP3 at 128KBPS vs. CD I believe personally that I have heard a difference. It happens once in a rare while but it happens when I am listening to a song and I wonder why it doesn't sound like I remember (or frankly why I don't feel as I usually do when listening to that song) and then I discover I'm accidentally playing the MP3 and not the FLAC. I suppose when being tested the human mind wants to "pick up" on something and is tuned to a different analytical set of faculties that ironically are the wrong set to pick out the difference between these two audio formats. When one sits down to listen and enjoy music I believe a different set of faculties comes into play and I personally believe based on my experience that you can sometimes be caught playing the wrong file. The realization tends to come a few songs into a well listened to album. It's actually happened to me once when I found I was playing the CD layer instead of the SACD layer of a particular album. That has only happened to me once in my recollection and in fact surprises me also.

That needed to happen to me 3 times before I decided on FLAC at home and 256kbps on the iPod and ideally ALAC on the iPod when we see them equipped with 1TB Flash memory on day about 5 years from now. But in general, where in my youth I was attracted by the audiophile marketing machine, I now find myself repelled by it. I think my first pro-audio purchase set me straight very quickly.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1247 –
Quote from: nlsteele on
Quote from: Ed Seedhouse on
Quote from: nlsteele on
The rotation of the world around the sun for two.


Our world doesn't "rotate" around the Sun at all.  It rotates around it's own internal axis of rotation, in about 24 hours.

It revolves around said Sun, more or less, which I suppose is what you meant, but your apparent confusion about the terminology is a bit concerning.

Actually, to be more precise, both the Earth and the Sun revolve about a common center of gravity, which happens to be located within the body of the Sun, but not at it's center.


Aren't you the clever boy.

---------------------------

Greynol, that's my favorite set of amazon reviews ever (and tags). Restored my basic faith in humanity.

---------------------------

Krabapple, is Machina Dynamica real or just a spoof site? Those pebbles were the deal breaker for me. I can't believe anyone would really tape pebbles to their interconnects. That's pet rock bad. Thanks for providing all the links (though I feel my faith in humanity dwindling again).


You won't believe some of the stuff they have out there. They have these special wooden blocks that life the cable a certain distance from the ground and are made of a certain material and create or rather mitigate a certain negative physical effect caused by the cable lying on a floor or carpet and then it is followed usually by what exactly the difference in sound will be etc. etc. So basically they manufacture a effect with some vague explanation that is killing your sound and then they offer you a fix for lots of $$$. Then they tell you exactly what to expect so that you basically believe it when you listen.

The thing that gets me is that these are things that invented. It indicates malicious intent on the part of the purveyor. What observed problem exactly were they attempting to solve? So they basically create one to make extra money.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1248 –
Quote from: honestguv on
Quote from: nlsteele on
I do wonder if we do any good to the audiophile magazine's "resistance to subjecting such claims" by bullying one of their editors when he actually starts discussing matters in a testable way (and even comes over to the counterpoint's camp to share in that discussion).

What do you think John Atkinson is trying to achieve by braving the bullying and posting here?


Assuming this question is not rhetorical, I do enjoy a good discussion. But, at least in the latter part of this thread, I have been demonstrating the irony that underlies the discussion of Arny Krueger's recording example: that it is the so-called "subjectivist," who has been offering observations supported by subsequent measurement and backed up by theory, and that it is the self-declared believer in Scientific Method who has bee arguing from an unsupported position of faith, expectation bias, self interest, and the active dismissal of scientific theory.

The larger point, of course, that is illustrated by the exchanges with Mr. Krueger, is that the denizens of this forum, despite the adherence to Science that they share with Mr. Krueger, are also human and thus equally likely to be led by their beliefs as those they criticize. I am in Mr. Krueger's debt for offering me the opportunity to illustrate what would otherwise be unsupported opinion with an actual example.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #1249 –
Quote from: Ed Seedhouse on
Quote from: nlsteele on
The rotation of the world around the sun for two.


Our world doesn't "rotate" around the Sun at all.  It rotates around it's own internal axis of rotation, in about 24 hours.

It revolves around said Sun, more or less, which I suppose is what you meant, but your apparent confusion about the terminology is a bit concerning.

Actually, to be more precise, both the Earth and the Sun revolve about a common center of gravity, which happens to be located within the body of the Sun, but not at it's center.


Actually the earth still is the center of the universe. A couple of hundred years ago god just changed the pattern the universe is circulating around us. The catholic church had more and more become a perversion of his original Christian message, got swellheaded and power hungry. Much of his most talented breed had been killed in their dungeons. So he changed the sun's rotation around the earth into a complex circular pattern that lets it look like the earth is rotating around the sun. This bolstered some really bright heads afterwards and generally made it look like we are just some minor periphery in much larger entity. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good and mankind took off like it never had before.