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 552474 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 13 Guests are viewing this topic.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #575
Could we agree on the following:
I doubt it.

Seriously. The whole point is that "we" don't.

Quote
Now isn't it senseless for a reviewer to conduct exhaustive blind testing for components, that when properly built (and some audiophile grade gear has unbelievably low distortion) should all sound the same?
You can apply ABX testing to things that a-priori knowledge tells you should sound the same, or to things that a-priori knowledge tells you should sound different.

If we have that a-priori knowledge, either seems "senseless" to me - unless we doubt the "knowledge", in which case either seems quite reasonable.


I'm left wondering: where are all these hundreds of amplifiers, DACs etc are that are completely faultless for the whole 120dB below peak output? These discussions assume this equipment is everywhere. That's not my experience.

ABK suggested 100dB as a good number a few pages back, but I'm not convinced. It's not enough if you calibrate to SMPTE RP200, for example. It's close, but I like to leave a margin of error, rather than cut it as fine as possible. For one thing, we have to chain several items together to make music - it won't work if we only make each one "just good enough".

I know this sounds like a subjectivist argument, but it's only meant as a rebuttal to the most extreme objectivist stance. I want proper ABX tests!

Cheers,
David.

 

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #576
In fairness to Mr. Atkinson, if he were to recommend the use of MP3 then he would become the target of everyone who ever made or downloaded a lousy MP3 file (and who hasn't) as well as all of those who aren't even willing to consider MP3's use on a philosophical basis. Recommending against its use is a safe position because it avoids all of the caveats that must otherwise be applied. He then becomes the target of MP3 advocates, which he can live with.

I do not, however, in any way condone the way in which he justified not recommending lossy encoding. His article with all of its useless and misleading spectral plots is absolutely shameful.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #577
  • A "properly" built amp has the following properties: Low output impedance, flat FR, any noise and distortion well below the threshold* of human hearing.
    [indent]
  • An absolute threshold of hearing can be agreed on, at least in terms of a rather "safe" lower limit. Relating research is already quite old and nothing that would matter in this context has been discovered for a long time. Current and recent research has discovered many interesting properties of human hearing, but it mostly relates to masking and spatial processing. Both aren't of interest when looking at supposedly neutral elements of a playback chain as amps, DACs, cables, CD players, etc., which are already accurate at much smaller time scales than this research is concerned (exclude lossy encoding)


Research into masking has shown that under common conditions, the ear is far less sensitive to spurious responses of the kind we see with power amplifiers,  digital players, etc.,  than was once thought.  Another effect that desensitizes the ear relates to theshold shifts after very loud stimulus.  Listen to music at 120 dB (slow, A-weighted) for very long and you won't be detecting sounds at 0 dB SPL!  The ear tends to become less discerning at levels much above 85 dB.

The safe lower limit would be -100 dB with the caveat that all spurious responses and noise either remain the same or decrease with decreasing output level.  -80 dB is not all that bad, but it is near the edge.  It is reasonably easy to construct test cases where artifacts at -60 dB or higher can be heard, at least in some cases.

Real world power amps tend to hedge in the low output impedance area, with significantly rising output impedance above 10 KHz being common. Switchmode power amps are often particularly bad in this area and can have audible effects with  loudspeakers whose impedance drops at high frequencies.




Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #578
I'm left wondering: where are all these hundreds of amplifiers, DACs etc are that are completely faultless for the whole 120dB below peak output? These discussions assume this equipment is everywhere. That's not my experience.


Agreed. There is a fair amount of stuff whose spurious responses are -110 dB, but -120 is tough.

Quote
ABK suggested 100dB as a good number a few pages back, but I'm not convinced. It's not enough if you calibrate to SMPTE RP200, for example. It's close, but I like to leave a margin of error, rather than cut it as fine as possible. For one thing, we have to chain several items together to make music - it won't work if we only make each one "just good enough".


Please explain how SMPTE 200 (which seems innocious enough to me) breaks the -100 dB rule, and what evidence there is for that.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #579
Don't both sides just come down to faith? Objectivists believe they know what to measure, that they can measure it and that they know the effect it has (if any). Subjectivists believe that's not true and there must be other things involved that haven't been identified or measured yet.


Depends on who you ask & where, I would say that sums it up.
Reading through this entire thread though, some questions remain unanswered.

In case measurements were an acceptable mean to prove a point, maybe this discussion would have never taken off, as I assume measurements will prove/favor lossless audio.

Reading Terme Of Service #8 specifically refers to ABX (ie subjective) tests as the objective support:

"8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support."

As this method is the #1 acceptable form of support, it explains why A.krueger was expected by some to carry the flag in this debate.
Reading A.Krueger's viewing angle though, & the posts provoking him to do so, it becomes clear to me, that this is not the case.

A.Krueger explains that the ABX tests he conducted /designed, were designed/intended to be used in comparing Hardware, & closely specd Hardware:

Not everything is a codec. Codecs seem to be very different from things like amplifiers and CD players. In the hardware world we have seriously inaudible things like 0.1 dB FR and level shifts, and noise floors that are 30 dB below the noise in the program material. Not the same as ABXing 128 or maybe 320 kbps codecs.

I don't have a lot of experience with testing codecs. I do just about everything including personal listening with pure .wav files and redbook CDs.

Testing real-world hardware, particularly that of the floobydust kind, seems to be an especially different world than testing codecs.


Reading the above, If I am not mistaken, I can only gather that it is not A.Krueger, that is promoting the use of ABX test methods as applied here, He is not even claiming they are essential or even vaild in this case.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #580
Doesn't SMPTE RP 200 set the peak at 103dB SPL?

So 100dB down is 3dB SPL.

If some piece of equipment in the chain generates a whining noise at 3kHz, at a level which comes out at 3dB SPL, it meets your -100dB rule, yet has an audible fault.

A bucket load of caveats apply, but it still breaks the rule, if only just.

Cheers,
David.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #581
The solution to questionable results is to simply run more trials. Run enough independent trials and the results will converge to something that is very reliable.

Absolutely. I can't recall, does Mr Atkinson or does he not agree on this?


I do agree, as I thought I had made clear in an earlier posting in which I referred to the fact that it did not prove possible for Michael Fremer and me to retake the "lucky coin" test at an AES Convention in which we scored 5/5 and 4/5 correct, respectively.
 
With further trials, either Michael's and my scoring would have regressed to the mean or it would have confirmed the earlier identification with a higher degree of probability.

In the 1990s, Tom Norton and I did perform a number of blind tests of loudspeakers. Ostensibly, this was in connection with reviews but it was also to allow me to test my reviewers' consistency as listeners. The reviewers as a whole performed well, but it quickly became apparent that the results were meaningless unless every speaker was auditioned in the same place in the room - boy, do I envy Sean Olive at Harman! - and that no more than 2 listeners at a time took the test and ideally one. This meant that the procedure became so time-consuming that doing such tests on a routine basis was impractical, at least for a magazine with our resources. Having tested my reviewers and seen that they were consistent reliable listeners, we concentrated on sighted listening.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #582
Now a "better" audio magazine could promote the following chain:

| Source | -> | Colorization Device (DSP)| -> | DAC | -> | Amp | -> | Speaker |

Anything excluding the DSP and speakers would be neutral elements and could be just ticked off for being "proper" and else be reviewed for looks and features. The DSP adds noise and/or harmonic distortion just as preferred and could also be replaced by an analog component behind the DAC.

Now would that be a too honest approach? Would people want to read that their acoustical taste is intended signal degradation? Or do they want to read that their choice of a non-neutral amp (e.g. with quite some output impedance) is more musical and probably "closer" to the original performance? Subjective reviewing staff could really relocate all their magic to DSP analysis and how it can bring sound reproduction even closer to human experience.


I suspect it would be too honest, yes. Given that a small but significant proportion of the audiophile community use something like the following:

|Colorization Device (turntable)| -> |Colorization Device (RIAA equalization)| -> |Colorization Device (Single-ended triode amp with about 10% distortion at one watt)| -> |Colorization Device (Horn Speaker)|

I think you are on a hiding to nothing. Especially because, as everyone knows, this is 'better' than anything we've dreamed up in the last 50 years

I also suspect that even if you could ably demonstrate that any distortion preferences people might have could be removed to DSP and perfectly replicated there, there would still be a body of audiophiles who insist that the distortion 'sounds better' in its natural home.

The problem is one of expectation in the audiophile community. They've been sold this idea of everything making a difference for so long, most are too entrenched to even entertain an alternate viewpoint. If one of the magazines started taking a more objective stance, it would fold fast. Especially as its readers would get pretty upset at being told that the expensive amp recommended a few months back is in fact functionally identical to one that costs 1/10th or 1/50th the price.



Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #583
I think Fremer is XXXX. I think he's a XXXX XXXX. The Beach Boys review(s) quoted earlier are clear evidence, not to mention pretty much all we know about the guy.


Er, please try to stay within the boundaries of libel laws, people.

Mr Fremer has made contradictory - but in legal terms, 'fair comment' - statements. If he likes something today and doesn't like it tomorrow, he's 'mercurial', not 'lying'. If he got facts wrong and then corrected them without comment, unless his actions were in breach of code of conduct guidelines by the publication, the publishing house or a professional body or union he is a member, this does not constitute 'dishonesty'.

Sorry, but calling someone dishonest, or even a liar, especially when having reasonable evidence, libel? I didn't know it was such a formal environment here. Perhaps I should adopt Penn & Teller's strategy of not saying any specific words, and just proclaim BS?

But anyway, what kind of small weak mind would even think of suing for libel someone over some internet comments, even if I did commit libel? I'm not writing for the New York Times for crying out loud.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #584
That's exactly what I do with the iPod. Thanks for your comment though, it does give me some peace of mind that I was doing the right thing. I have tried the Shure earphones up to the SE530, but liked better the Westone UM2, which is too efficient for its own good. The attenuators that come with those though are very crappy, at some attenuation level they start to mess with high frequencies.


I share the enthusiasm for the UM2. Never heard anything better in-ear. The sensitivity really is a pain with iPods in very quiet environments. Your bad experiences with in line attenuators might be caused by the fact that the UM2 is two way with a passive crossover. The attenuator's resistors alter the behavior of the crossover.

I didn't consider that, thanks for the idea. Although, the non-variable attenuators from Ultimate Ears don't seem to affect frequency response appreciably at all. Also, I'm not 100% sure, but with the Shure E4, which have a single driver, I think I also heard the difference.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #585
Sorry, but calling someone dishonest, or even a liar, especially when having reasonable evidence, libel? I didn't know it was such a formal environment here. Perhaps I should adopt Penn & Teller's strategy of not saying any specific words, and just proclaim BS?

But anyway, what kind of small weak mind would even think of suing for libel someone over some internet comments, even if I did commit libel? I'm not writing for the New York Times for crying out loud.


It doesn't matter where you are writing from, particularly. Defamation is defamation. And law suits have been issued against forums and chatrooms:

http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/...20chatrooms.htm

It may seem unlikely, but here's a scenario that ends up bad for you. Your post notionally defamed Fremer. This forum is being read by Fremer's boss, John Atkinson. Unbeknown to any of us, Atkinson plans to reduce Fremer's workload over the coming months. Fremer has just lost work and he knows his boss has read your post; he could potentially put these things together and blame your post for potential loss of earnings. You would have to find some seriously strong evidence to support your suggestions.  The evidence you have is of his presenting 'fair comment'.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #586
OT, but calling somebody a liar accuses them of habitually intending to deceive.  Since I can't read minds, I have almost no occasion to use the word.  However, I have said without qualms that somebody has uttered false statements (and backed it up).

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #587
@Gag Halfrunt ,regarding Defamation is defamation, you do have a point, it is a possible scenario.
but have a look throughout this thread, way mo better .
Certainly a lot more worthy of your notice then andy, he's really just quoting/joining/backing what others have said before him.

Got 2 quick quotes from the thread's first page, there are more & they are very easy to find.

Quote
[krueger:] 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....

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?


Quote
[krabapple]: There's a certain part of me that sees modern "audiophilism" as some sort of mental disease. Unfortunately, Fremer would probably feel similarly about anyone who subscribes to the notion of audio objectivism: that we are not only wrong but that we're indeed knee-deep in some sort of circle of madness. Thankfully, logic dictates that objective thinking is not only rational but quite comfortably sane, so I can (generally) rest easy


If there was an Audiophile union, you could have added Class Action on top of it.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #588
So 100dB down is 3dB SPL.

If some piece of equipment in the chain generates a whining noise at 3kHz, at a level which comes out at 3dB SPL, it meets your -100dB rule, yet has an audible fault.


I found this very interesting and generated a -100db 3kHz (24 bit, 44.1kHz) test tone in Wavelab. Just to hear it at all I had to turn up the volume about three times as high as my usual listening setting and about twice as high as my recently loudest setting (party).

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #589
I argued at the time that 5 trials was too small, for the reasons mentioned, but that was the number decided upon, presumably to be able to get as many listeners through the listening test as was possible during the convention. The goal was to have a large number of listeners each doing a small number of trials, as I understood from the test organizers at the time.
As I think I mentioned before to Michael, I agree wholeheartedly that the results do not support the conclusion that you and Michael were "lucky coins", and it is news to me that you two got 5/5 and 4/5. It's plainly unfortunate that more testing was not done.

At the same time, do you not agree that the overall result of the test - IIRC, that the results overall were fairly indistinguishable from chance (I don't have the paper on me right now) - still has a very important meaning? I am comfortable with the notion that a small fraction of listeners are able to tell a difference in such situations, while most listeners can't. And if you get close to a 50% result, while individual testers such as yourself can still pass a 16- or 32-trial test with flying colors, well..

Moreover, I think that such results can have considerable importance for those who cannot pass such ABX tests, and perhaps can readjust their purchase priorities accordingly. Of course this has to be balanced against the odds of the listener becoming more adept in the future to hearing such details.[

So I'm really tempted to just straddle the fence here. That test did not show that you and Michael could hear the difference, because your results were as to be expected as due to chance. But they certainly did not show that you couldn't hear the difference, either - it is quite plausible - and more testing really should have been done on that matter. The test did strongly suggest that a majority of the testers could not tell a difference, and that in itself is important.

Put another way, the test was certainly "flawed" if it was attempting to show that absolutely nobody could hear a difference, but under a more relaxed criteria (of showing that the proportion of discriminators must be below some low percentage), I don't think it's flawed at all.



If someone can pass the ABX -- almost certainly if that someone is a 40-ish adult male very likely having a normal amount of high-frequency loss -- then others can do it to, with some training.  And if this was indeed a tube vs SS trial, then really, this is all rather beside the point, as no 'objectivists' I know of argue that the tubes vs SS are typically just as likely to sound the same as SS vs SS.

And again, MF's 4/5 is not above even the usual standard of statistical significance, while JA's was (again with the note that .05 is not necessarily low enough for demonstrating the existence of truly 'small' difference).  What we don't have, and IIRC from my reading about the fracas in Stereophile years ago, didn't have even then, is a full rundown of each person's results, as we get here on HA.  So I'm not even sure what the aggregate report tells us. What I am sure is that debating this particular test from years and year ago is about as much a sideshow as the original test itself probably was.

Let's see JA and MF  ABX two competently designed level-matched solid state amps at nondistorting levels,  16 trials minimum  -- THEN we have something to debate.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #590
If there was an Audiophile union, you could have added Class Action on top of it.

You misquoted. I wrote your second quote, not krabapple.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #591
Quote
You do the cause of DBT a huge disservice. John Atkins comes across as perfectly reasonable; you come across as a complete twit (I misspelled that). If I had no prior knowledge, and could only judge this subject from the tone of this discussion, I'd be deleting my HA account and subscribing to Stereophile immediately.


As someone who really does have very little knowledge of the subject, I've got to second this. I mean, I totally understand being tired of making the same civil and informative arguments over and over and over (and over) again, but that is what being an advocate for something entails. If you (for whichever value of 'you' is preferred) would rather score points on the Great Electric Arguing Machine that is the internet (people think I'm joking when I call it this) than actually convince people of anything, well done I suppose.

As it is, I think I hate ABX tests on principle now, and will be making my future audio equipment purchasing decisions based on the number of people it will annoy. I wonder if there's a double-blind test for that?



I would be very happy if all the crap that originated in the RAO cesspool, stayed there.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #592
So 100dB down is 3dB SPL.

If some piece of equipment in the chain generates a whining noise at 3kHz, at a level which comes out at 3dB SPL, it meets your -100dB rule, yet has an audible fault.

I found this very interesting and generated a -100db 3kHz (24 bit, 44.1kHz) test tone in Wavelab. Just to hear it at all I had to turn up the volume about three times as high as my usual listening setting and about twice as high as my recently loudest setting (party).
I would guess that your PC is louder than 3dB SPL - you need to try in a properly quiet room.

Over half a century of psychoacoustic testing says that 3kHz @ 3dB SPL is audible for most people with "normal" hearing.

btw, there's no calibration in your system, and SMPTE RP200 calibration can't be used with "loudness war" CDs - play those CDs at that loudness level and you will be in pain.

Cheers,
David.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #593
I think I understand why I am (and Canar is) so flummoxed about this entire topic, going all the way back to when B0RK was the center of attention. You, and also Steven to a certain degree, have turned this thread into what seems like a word-for-word rematch of the exact same argument, made against the exact same people, that has been replayed on Usenet for what seems like a decade - an argument I have absolutely no intention of supporting.


I'd be curious to what degree that is.  RElative to my usenet activity on the whole, my participation in RAO isn't much to speak of...google it and see.  I can't recall when my last post there was.  My usenet audio posting is overwhelmingly on a  moderated forum: rec.audio.high-end, to this day.

I do think Fremer is a d*ck,  and Atkinson is 'elusive' at best when it comes to brass tacks, and what have you seen here or elsewhere that shows me wrong?  I don't support everything Arny writes, and I agree he's being a d*ck  by dredging up sludge from RAO , especially silly claims of stalking or whatever.  (My take on Arny was already noted long ago on HA  here ; note too JJ's response a few posts down)

I'm sure I can be perceived as 'militantly' anti-audiophool, just as I suppose I would be called a 'militant' atheist or a 'militant' scientist by the sorts of people who find Richard Dawkins or Chris Hitchens just too plain *rude* and who fret over whether they are helping or hurting 'the cause' (sometimes mistakenly referred to as 'concern trolls').  I have my own concerns; I sincerely believe that Stereophile's work within its ambit has a pernicious effect on 'my' hobby, and I'm not afraid to act on that.

If anyone has complained to moderators about my posts, I haven't been made aware of it.  (And if my style has been called 'too coarse' on Stereo Central, for god' sake, that's I just have to see  ).

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #594
I would guess that your PC is louder than 3dB SPL - you need to try in a properly quiet room.

Over half a century of psychoacoustic testing says that 3kHz @ 3dB SPL is audible for most people with "normal" hearing.

btw, there's no calibration in your system,


Yes, there is no calibration. Can't say where I am in SPL terms. Just found it interesting to put this naked number of -100db in relation to my usual listening habits. It's not necessarily quiet here. While I almost can't hear my notebook all other kinds of stuff like birds excited about the beginning of spring outside and even the fridge over in the kitchen came to my attention when you mentioned this.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #595
I would be very happy if all the crap that originated in the RAO cesspool, stayed there.
...and look who's trying to link here with there...
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.audio...615e3791?hl=en#

Quote
I have my own concerns; I sincerely believe that Stereophile's work within its ambit has a pernicious effect on 'my' hobby, and I'm not afraid to act on that.
I share that concern (and have expressed it many times), but...

Quote
I'm sure I can be perceived as 'militantly' anti-audiophool, just as I suppose I would be called a 'militant' atheist or a 'militant' scientist by the sorts of people who find Richard Dawkins or Chris Hitchens just too plain *rude* and who fret over whether they are helping or hurting 'the cause'
I don't think it's that at all. I think much of this thread has been "rude", and more importantly unhelpful, by the standards of HA.

We'll get back on track though. Stereophile won't do proper ABX tests, HA will ignore Stereophile, the world will return to normal.

Well, that's my guess. If JA returns and does a proper DBT of something meaningful, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Cheers,
David.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #596

If an individual listener is unable to differentiate a lossy file, either under the conditions of an ABX test or in a more relaxed and conventional listening setting, from its lossless counterpart then in what way, precisely, does the lossy file "not offer sufficient audio quality for serious music listening"?


For that person at that time, then yes, the lossy compressed file is presumably good enough. But everyone's threshold is going to be different and perhaps more significantly, their threshold of defects will change with time. For example, when I was younger, I wasn't bothered by scrape flutter in affordable analog tape machines. Just as well, as that's all I could afford at that time. But over the years, I have become much less tolerant of it, presumably because I have learned to identify it, and that is something that can't be unlearned.

Hence my blanket recommendation to which you refer: lossless or uncompressed for "serious" listening, to which I would add archiving. Why not when hard drive capacity is now so cheap. And for portable listening, I personally use AAC at 320kbps and recommend that, even if it might be thought overkill. People are not obliged to follow my advice, of course, and they are free to make their own decision about where to make the trade-off between file size and bit rate. But I think of an email from a Stereophile reader who ripped all his CDs as 128kbps MP3s and disposed of the CDs. He is now dissatisfied with the sound of his music collection but can't do anything about improving it short of repurchasing the CDs.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

PS: I always recommend to my readers that they keep their CDs, as inconvenient as that might be. They are the backup of last resort.


Nobody here has ever recommended archiving to MP3 -- certainly not to 128 kbps.  And we here, too, recommend keeping the 'hard backup' CD.  That is a side issue.

Your contention here is that longer listening to mp3 could sensitize the listener to its artifacts, as you were eventually sensitized to tape scrape flutter.  This suggests that 'self training' for artifacts is taking place.  This is reasonable and could be -- indeed would have to be, to verify that it happened -- readily tested...using blind methods.

On the other hand one might propose that people can get used to and 'hear through' artifacts too -- apparently what vinylphiles do.

But that too is somewhat beside the point.  There are 'audiophiles', some in your employ, who seem to rarely if ever to listen to mp3s, on the basis that whenever they do, they sound just awful, hugely less good than lossless.  Assuming this is true even for the very best mp3 encoding,  they cannot have arrived at this power through inadvertant sensitization; they must either be natively terrific discriminators, or they are imagining the difference.

Which do you suppose is true, or have you another explanation? And how would you test it?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #597
  • The entire notion of using frequency response plots to estimate the performance of lossy encoders is fundamentally flawed, because they only show one source of distortion while being ignorant of many far more important ones, like pre-echo and stereo imaging. They are almost useless for such evaluations. Relying on plots to tune coders - especially at lower bitrates - is a direct cause of the crappy MP3 sound that JA comments on, and yet he makes the exact same mistake that so many others have made in the past! In a magazine that prides itself on the primacy of subjective evaluations! HA as a forum is profoundly against the use of objective measurements (like frequency response) to evaluate coders, as is jj IIRC, who is about the best expert opinion one is likely to find on the matter...
  • Too little information is provided on the Fraunhofer codec that JA uses. Is it fastenc or l3enc? Which version? CBR or VBR? Which other settings? All these things matter tremendously. As Sebastian's latest test results pointed out, 128kbps can vary quite tremendously in quality - and at least one Fraunhoder codec is considered among the worst codecs out there.


I called JA out on this sort of thing earlier in the thread, giving much the same reasons:  misleading presentation of facts that are irrelevant to perceived mp3 sound, and inadequate documentaion of the conditions (codecs etc) used.

You call that sort of presentation 'flawed'.  I call it *shameful*. Because JA is taken as a voice of audiophile authority on this, and really should know better -- and I think, *does* know better.  And from his vague report, it sounds like much the same sort of 'flawed' evidence for performance of lossy encoding will be presented to some folks in Colorado -- I *do* hope some HA folk show up.

So explain to me again why I'm degrading the debate?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #598
You may be thinking of Michael Gindi who was parodied in Sam Tellig's 1980s columns in Stereophile and then got a gig with The Absolute Sound and maybe Ultimate Audio and had an MBL fixation--that guy was definitely a psychiatrist.


You're exactly right!  I was confusing my audiophile journalist Michaels.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #599
Reading Terms Of Service #8 specifically refers to ABX (ie subjective) tests as the objective support:


At least in my mind I object to using ABX as a synonym for subjective testing because there are so many other ways to do reliable listening tests (IOW, DBTs) than just ABX (and ABC/hr).  The most important properties of a test is that it is reliable and relevant.  DBT is just one of many things that have to be done if there is a reliable test. However, it seems like DBT is a good simple litmus test for reliability.

Quote
"8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support."

As this method is the #1 acceptable form of support, it explains why A.krueger was expected by some to carry the flag in this debate.
Reading A.Krueger's viewing angle though, & the posts provoking him to do so, it becomes clear to me, that this is not the case.


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

Quote
A.Krueger explains that the ABX tests he conducted /designed, were designed/intended to be used in comparing Hardware, & closely specd Hardware:


Please remember that there were no codecs that had much interest to people working with high quality audio when we invented ABX (ca. 1978). 

Not everything is a codec. Codecs seem to be very different from things like amplifiers and CD players. In the hardware world we have seriously inaudible things like 0.1 dB FR and level shifts, and noise floors that are 30 dB below the noise in the program material. Not the same as ABXing 128 or maybe 320 kbps codecs.

I don't have a lot of experience with testing codecs. I do just about everything including personal listening with pure .wav files and redbook CDs.

Testing real-world hardware, particularly that of the floobydust kind, seems to be an especially different world than testing codecs.


Quote
Reading the above, If I am not mistaken, I can only gather that it is not A.Krueger, that is promoting the use of ABX test methods as applied here, He is not even claiming they are essential or even vaild in this case.


??????

For the record, I understand that technical tests (tests based on test equipment which also don't involve listening) are not generally agreed upon as a reliable means for characterizing the performance of codecs.  Therefore, listening tests are still very important for assessing the performance of codecs. It appears that people long been using reliable listening test methods such as ABX and ABC/hr for that purpose. Of course, I support those efforts in any way that I can.

I also understand that technical tests (tests based primarily measuring synthetic signals and sometimes other signals such as music ) are also not generally agreed upon as a reliable means for characterizing the performance of audio products other than codecs, such as amplifiers and music players. Not only does it appear that people long been using reliable listening test methods such as ABX and ABC/hr for that purpose, but I invented ABX for just that purpose. I also support those efforts in any way that I can.