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: Anti-science in audio journalism (Read 20146 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #50 –
Quote from: knutinh on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Dark_wizzie on
I don't really understand why cable myths exist though.


One word: Ignorance of EE principles. Which makes the point that it is unreasonable to expect everybody to be a well-trained EE.

I am not sure that EE training is needed (or even sufficient). My EE training tells me that "skin-effect" is a real physical thing, but does not (in itself) tell me under what conditions this effect can lead to audible degradation.


Mine did. We ran the equations through some boundary conditions that showed why it wasn't a problem for audio but could be a problem in power plants where the buss bars are like structural beams.

Quote
I think it comes down to "openness" vs "scepticism".

Some people are easy to convince. Or, rather, they seem to be easy to convince about certain things. Other people are hard to convince.

"Science" may serve as a guide, but cannot be taken as a coherent, absolute reference on everything. This can be seen in controversial matters such as climate change or alternate medicine, where different publishers and scientists may point in different directions, and people tend to cherry-pick those papers that seems to support their beliefs.


True in cases where the science does not speak decisively.  Not true in the many cases where science does speaker decisively.

Quote
What is needed in such cases is often an "expert" that can give a reasonable summary of existing science, filtering out obvious outliers (the "average" view? The "best" view). But then we have to trust this expert, and what if some lobbyist group manage to find an expert with an alternate view? Do we then choose the expert with the most prestigous university affiliation, the one with the best publishing ranking or what?


There is no "what if" to that. Thus, we have one science in the courtroom, another in the legislature, and another in the factory down the street. But again that is largely true where science does not yet speaker decisively. The issues that are well-decided are often taken for granted.

Quote
I think that we believe whatever we are prone to believe. And even (especially?) academics tend to believe that their beliefs are based on a rational analysis, when that is perhaps only part truth.



It all depends which area of science you are talking about and with whom. The issues that are well-decided are often taken for granted so people may under appreciate how pervasively science is referred to in the real world.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #51 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
...but what if there are better cars to be made, but no market for them, because the people with the time and money to seek "better" cars are all being directed to more expensive cars that are no better?


That might always be the case for everything.  Look at the TV industry as another example.  Companies insisted on using LCD and LEDs for edge-lit backlights.  They then added "motion blur," 3D, and are now pushing 4K.  They are using resolution as a means to increase the quality of the display whereas the Samsung plasma I have, which costs 1/5th of a 4K TV of the same size, has better color reproduction that is a lot more accurate along with black levels that a higher end 4K TV could never reach.  Sure, the resolution is "only" 1080p but, from a normal viewing distance, it produces a better picture.  To me, the addition of 4K is like going up to high resolution audio.  It' not focusing on the right aspect to provide better image quality just as releasing 192KHz, 24-bit recordings doesn't provide better audio quality.  There will always be better alternatives that are swept aside due to industry buzz and/or lack of knowledge.

Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Or, to put it less dramatically, what improvements do you think we'd get sooner if the high end wasn't distracting the industry with non-improvements?

Cheers,
David.


I would hope for better mastering techniques, something that doesn't cause clipping.  I think one of main problems comes from having to appease two different groups.  The "audiophiles" want higher quality releases to fulfill their but those recordings have to be mastered so that the general public will also buy the music.  This means thumping bass and squealing highs for the mass public while releasing 24-bit, 48KHz/96KHz/192KHz content for the other group.  That means music companies don't really have to change much to appease both groups while releasing one product.  It would be nice if the placebophiles actually focused on music mastering so that I wouldn't have to apply ReplayGain to my music every single time I rip a CD (though that might put you out of business).  I can't even play a CD on my way from the store to my apartment, in my car, without adjusting the bass and treble levels so that my speakers don't experience clipping.

I agree that people are focusing on the wrong aspects for audio improvement.  In those respects, it is hurting the industry.  People, including myself, are content with what we purchase and just deal with it.  The ones who aren't are mainly focusing on the wrong end of the spectrum.  Lastly, there's also that group that just doesn't care (i.e. the mainstream public).  They are perfectly content with the mixing and mastering of the album they buy as it makes their subwoofer (or speakers) rumble while having the guitars/vocals come in at piercing levels.  I've said for a while that the younger audiences like to feel their music, not actually listen to it.  In other words, they want to feel the air from the speakers hitting them.  A prime example is when I purchased the small Bluetooth speaker I use on my deck during the spring and summer.  It's the Bose SoundLink Mini.  Not the best speaker in the world but I enjoy it.  I had conducted all sorts of research leading up to the purchase of either that speaker or another brand.  I went with the Bose store to actually hear the speaker before I purchased it.  The sales rep took me to their theater room where I paired my phone with the speaker.  I was playing music and then the sale rep said "feel how much air this thing moves, it's awesome!"  The rep, who was about 22 years old, focused on the wrong aspect.

I think that is happening quite a bit all around, audio industry or not.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #52 –
Quote from: cliveb on
It strikes me that the way the audiophile industry works is similar to how the Catholic Church operated in the middle ages, selling indulgences as some kind of promise that you'd have a better time in the afterlife. Both business models rely on the consumer being willing to delegate their belief system to a higher authority. (Come to think of it, we have a contemporary equivalent in Scientology).


This is gold - I tweeted it (with credit and link back to HA) but it is dead on correct.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #53 –
the article has been updated with responses to some of the comments..... 

Quote
BretM brought up the subject of hard disks, and whether they could make a difference. In my opinion I see no reason as to why there couldn't be differences between NAS devices and hard drives in the way they sound.




Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #54 –
Quote from: kornchild2002 on
To me, the addition of 4K is like going up to high resolution audio.  It' not focusing on the right aspect to provide better image quality just as releasing 192KHz, 24-bit recordings doesn't provide better audio quality.  There will always be better alternatives that are swept aside due to industry buzz and/or lack of knowledge.

But at least there 4K has the potential of being an advantage with further refinement. They're trying to do it too soon as there is still room for more advancement at 1080p, but I think once they started labeling screen with numbers numbers people took that as shorthand for image quality and think that a bigger number equals better. It ignores many other components involved in image quality, but when 4K TVs catch up in all other aspects it should look at least somewhat better. The same is not true for audio where the push for bigger numbers is just wholly misguided.

2Bdecided was making the same argument I believe James Randi makes, that quackery and false advertising are not merely benign but actually harmful because they divert resources from legitimate purposes into things that are dead ends or worse, thereby weakening things that could improve life or society. Not that I think it's a mortal sin, but audiophile magazines and websites seed envy in people for expensive things that really have no benefit as can be proven scientifically. They promote illogical, magical thinking and make it out that it's an inadequacy of your system if you can't hear what they claim to hear (even when the laws of physics, which we've come to understand well enough to send people to the moon and such, say it's impossible that they do) and you can't engage them because you aren't a true listener until you've bought components that cost an exorbitant sum. People care about music and some care about how it sounds just as much and, once convinced that it's not unreasonable to spend thousands on cables or whatever else, they begin to take the plunge where, in the absence of those people who falsely influenced them, they would have scoffed at the notion before. It doesn't just take money away from legitimate things in the audio field. When you're spending huge sums of money but aren't extremely wealthy you're sacrificing from other areas. Maybe it's a more fuel efficient car or home furnace, maybe it's better food that would improve your health, maybe it's more money in your retirement fund, maybe it's just overall financial well-being. Saying this kind of thing might make it seem very grand and I don't want to make this sound like a fight between good and evil, but this can mean a decreased quality of life for some. Thankfully, that kind of audiophilia is something that appeals to only a small number of people.

Quote from: marc2003 on
the article has been updated with responses to some of the comments..... 

Quote
BretM brought up the subject of hard disks, and whether they could make a difference. In my opinion I see no reason as to why there couldn't be differences between NAS devices and hard drives in the way they sound.


Idiot.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #55 –
Quote from: marc2003 on
the article has been updated with responses to some of the comments..... 

Quote
BretM brought up the subject of hard disks, and whether they could make a difference. In my opinion I see no reason as to why there couldn't be differences between NAS devices and hard drives in the way they sound.



OMG! And to think that he almost certainly keeps a straight face while saying that!

On a side note, I feel sorry for his other half (assuming some of these people have one) as this must certainly be one of the most boring, saddest husbands ever! 

edit: ad hoc smiley.
Listen to the music, not the media it's on.
União e reconstrução

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #57 –
Quote from: marc2003 on
the article has been updated with responses to some of the comments..... 

Quote
BretM brought up the subject of hard disks, and whether they could make a difference. In my opinion I see no reason as to why there couldn't be differences between NAS devices and hard drives in the way they sound.




Unintentional changes to timbre, nonlinear distortion  and dynamics are impossible.  Tics, pops, and both short term and long term pitch changes are possible, but reversible with correct processing.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #58 –
Quote from: allnoyz on
Fair enough. I suppose it is pretty outrageous to even think of suggesting digital to analog conversion has been improved upon over the last 15 years.

It strikes me as somewhat odd, to be perfectly honest. It's like saying I went from my previous $400pr loudspeakers to my current $1200pr speakers but can't say I hear any difference between the two without charts and graphs to prove it?

Why ever buy anything beyond each initial purchase you made?



It's perhaps not 'outrageous' to think that,  but what's outrageous about asking for some objective proof -- either measurement data, or a proper listening test? 
If the difference existed, it surely would show up there.

If you think DACs were so generally crap 15 years ago that you would routinely hear a real difference between one from then vs one from now, that too should show up in measurements.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #59 –
At least Sony have been taken to task over their hi-res claims:

Complaint against Sony upheld

So they added the following below their stair-step graphs:

"Graphs are for illustrative purposes only"

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #60 –
Quote from: allnoyz on
And digital cables? Either the 0's and 1's reach point B from point A, or they don't.

Well, unless the digital transmission channel uses some kind of ECC (which, if my understanding is correct, S/PDIF does NOT use), cables can degrade the output signal (unrecoverable information loss on the medium). But only in case the cable does not meet the minimum requirements for the particular application.

Being digital does not equal being perfect no matter what. It's not just 1/0 - bits can get mistaken for the opposite value by a receiver (resulting in a different sample value being sent to a DAC).

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #61 –
Quote from: kornchild2002 on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
...but what if there are better cars to be made, but no market for them, because the people with the time and money to seek "better" cars are all being directed to more expensive cars that are no better?


That might always be the case for everything.  Look at the TV industry as another example.  Companies insisted on using LCD and LEDs for edge-lit backlights.  They then added "motion blur," 3D, and are now pushing 4K.  They are using resolution as a means to increase the quality of the display whereas the Samsung plasma I have, which costs 1/5th of a 4K TV of the same size, has better color reproduction that is a lot more accurate along with black levels that a higher end 4K TV could never reach.  Sure, the resolution is "only" 1080p but, from a normal viewing distance, it produces a better picture.  To me, the addition of 4K is like going up to high resolution audio.  It' not focusing on the right aspect to provide better image quality just as releasing 192KHz, 24-bit recordings doesn't provide better audio quality.  There will always be better alternatives that are swept aside due to industry buzz and/or lack of knowledge.

The display industry is trying to sell an "improvement" that it can manufacture easily. The screen on an 84" 4k display is just a big bit of plastic that would previously have been cut up to make 4 separate 42" HD displays. Whether 4k brings any real benefit depends entirely on screen size, seating distance, and visual acuity - basic physics/optics. It's easy enough to prove that is can provide a visual benefit (unlike "hires" audio), while it's obvious that in most living rooms, people sit too far away / will buy too small a display for it to matter (kind of like most people put their speakers and seats in the wrong place to make stereo matter  ).

The 4k that's being pushed now is just what display manufacturers want to see (effectively 4xHD resolution, with no other improvements), but various European broadcasters are pushing for better colours, higher frame rates, and a wider dynamic range to be part of the broadcast standard - because they recognise that "just" more pixels isn't going to be compelling for most of their viewers.


Your Bose rep who was in awe of how much air was being moved at the speaker's port just requires some education. Whether they'd still want to be a Bose rep after that, I couldn't possibly say

Cheers,
David.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #62 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
The 4k that's being pushed now is just what display manufacturers want to see (effectively 4xHD resolution, with no other improvements), but various European broadcasters are pushing for better colours, higher frame rates, and a wider dynamic range to be part of the broadcast standard - because they recognise that "just" more pixels isn't going to be compelling for most of their viewers.


Living only in the U.S., I wasn't aware of that.  Still, the push for 4K here in the U.S. reminds me of the whole "high resolution" audio movement.  Can it bring benefits?  Maybe.  To me though, they are focusing on the wrong aspect.  I have a friend who just purchased a 55" 4K Sony TV and they make the claims that it looks a whole lot better than my 51" Plasma.  It doesn't matter if mine has better contrast ratios (not like those extreme ones manufacturer's advertise), better color accuracy, better black levels, and produces no framerate stuttering when watching content as it can display 1080p, 24fps content natively.  Granted, it's not quite as good as a similarly equipped Panasonic plasma but it's still better than their 4K TV.  Their end argument comes down to "it has more pixels so it's better."  Similarly, I think people wanting "high resolution" audio look at the numbers and say "they are higher so they're better."

Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Your Bose rep who was in awe of how much air was being moved at the speaker's port just requires some education. Whether they'd still want to be a Bose rep after that, I couldn't possibly say


True.  I tend to stay away from Bose but their $200 portable Bluetooth speaker seems like it's the best in that price category and I've been happy with it.  I would never buy one of their home theater systems (I like having two kidneys) but the little speaker I have was the best of what I heard last year whenever I purchased it.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #63 –
Quote from: Martel on
Quote from: allnoyz on
And digital cables? Either the 0's and 1's reach point B from point A, or they don't.

Well, unless the digital transmission channel uses some kind of ECC (which, if my understanding is correct, S/PDIF does NOT use), cables can degrade the output signal (unrecoverable information loss on the medium). But only in case the cable does not meet the minimum requirements for the particular application.

Being digital does not equal being perfect no matter what. It's not just 1/0 - bits can get mistaken for the opposite value by a receiver (resulting in a different sample value being sent to a DAC).


If a voice with actual real world experience with digital transmission errors in audio systems were speaking he'd say that any cable bad enough to mangle bits leaves very audible tracks, typically clicks and pops sometimes just plain silence.

It is possible to pontificate all day long about what could happen in someone's fevered imagination, particularly one stoked by reading way to many DAC box and magic cable vendor's white papers.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #64 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
If a voice with actual real world experience with digital transmission errors in audio systems were speaking he'd say that any cable bad enough to mangle bits leaves very audible tracks, typically clicks and pops sometimes just plain silence.

It is possible to pontificate all day long about what could happen in someone's fevered imagination, particularly one stoked by reading way to many DAC box and magic cable vendor's white papers.

I believe that it is right to be open about the arguments served and offer suggestions why they might not be particulary relevant.

The spdif interface seems to open for cable-induced jitter. As the cable bandwidth is lowered and noise is introduced, the apparent timing of data is variable. Now, a number of counter arguments can be introduced:
1. Audio is subject to many "errors". Any sensible person should worry about the "significant" errors before worrying about the "insignificant" errors.
2. Jitter is a fact of life, and (sensible) engineers have found ways to live with it, without spending $4000 on a cable
3. Variable timing on analog media is orders of magnitude greater than digital media, without audiophiles complaining

But the best argument is (to me):
If this is a real phenomenon, then at least one person should be able to audibly distinguish the degraded signal from a reference. Do a (reasonable) positive blind test on this person, and it will fundamentally change my view of audiophiles.

-k

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #65 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: knutinh on

I am not sure that EE training is needed (or even sufficient). My EE training tells me that "skin-effect" is a real physical thing, but does not (in itself) tell me under what conditions this effect can lead to audible degradation.

Mine did. We ran the equations through some boundary conditions that showed why it wasn't a problem for audio but could be a problem in power plants where the buss bars are like structural beams.

I'd agree that most EE can do _calculations_ on skin-effect.
-k

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #66 –
Quote from: bandpass on
At least Sony have been taken to task over their hi-res claims:

Complaint against Sony upheld

So they added the following below their stair-step graphs:

"Graphs are for illustrative purposes only"

Wow, didn't see that coming, especially on such an obscure topic. Good for them. Now it remains to be seen if Sony will pull a Power Balance and only take it out of their UK website or of all the other sites as well. Power Balance even stopped linking to the Australian site (where they were called out) from their other sites.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #67 –
Quote from: knutinh on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
If a voice with actual real world experience with digital transmission errors in audio systems were speaking he'd say that any cable bad enough to mangle bits leaves very audible tracks, typically clicks and pops sometimes just plain silence.

It is possible to pontificate all day long about what could happen in someone's fevered imagination, particularly one stoked by reading way to many DAC box and magic cable vendor's white papers.

I believe that it is right to be open about the arguments served and offer suggestions why they might not be particulary relevant.

The spdif interface seems to open for cable-induced jitter.


If you were willing to satisfy TOS 8 with either your own personal DBT or a documented one from the literature that is positive for cable induced jitter,  that would be great.  AFAIK all of the heavy breathing about cable-induced jitter has never ever been reliably detected in a proper listening test.

As a matter of fact, history shows that a exceptionally sensitive (and I don't mean that in a good way) test for jitter called the J-test had to be invented to even have a measurable effect to talk about.  The world is full of things that are measurable but well known to be not the least bit audible.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #68 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
If you were willing to satisfy TOS 8 with either your own personal DBT or a documented one from the literature that is positive for cable induced jitter,  that would be great.

Why would I? I never made a claim that it was audible (rather the opposite), and you requesting such documentation from me makes it obvious that you have the bad manners of replying to posts that you did not read.

-k

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #69 –
Quote from: knutinh on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
If you were willing to satisfy TOS 8 with either your own personal DBT or a documented one from the literature that is positive for cable induced jitter,  that would be great.

Why would I?


Because of your comment about cable-induced jitter.

Quote
I never made a claim that it was audible (rather the opposite),


Sorry, but I didn't see that shading of meaning.

Quote
and you requesting such documentation from me makes it obvious that you have the bad manners of replying to posts that you did not read.


or perhaps you should be open to someone besides you reading your posts...  I've reread the post in question and I don't find it to be overly clear on this issue.

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #70 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Because of your comment about cable-induced jitter.

Please be specific about what part of my post violated TOS#8. Does TOS8 prohibit me from saying that there can be jitter in digital transmissions?
Quote
Quote
I never made a claim that it was audible (rather the opposite),

Sorry, but I didn't see that shading of meaning.

Talking about "shading of meaning" seems like over complicating stuff.
Quote
Quote
and you requesting such documentation from me makes it obvious that you have the bad manners of replying to posts that you did not read.

or perhaps you should be open to someone besides you reading your posts...  I've reread the post in question and I don't find it to be overly clear on this issue.

Take a look at the last sentence in the post that you quoted:
Quote
"Do a (reasonable) positive blind test on this person, and it will fundamentally change my view of audiophiles."


I shall of course be open to feed-back on language, but I have a distinct feeling that you let your emotional view on audiophiles overturn your ability to read a post calmly and process its content before making a "TOS#8? reply".

-k
 

Anti-science in audio journalism

Reply #71 –
Quote from: knutinh on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Because of your comment about cable-induced jitter.

Please be specific about what part of my post violated TOS#8.


You lecture me about reading posts? You seem to need to read my post for the first time. I never said it violated TOS 8. 

I said:

"If you were willing to satisfy TOS 8 with either your own personal DBT or a documented one from the literature that is positive for cable induced jitter, that would be great."

Now if you can find the word "violation" in there someplace I'd  love to see it.