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'.

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.

Quote from: krabapple on 2009-04-28 17:11:29

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#

I share that concern (and have expressed it many times), but...

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.

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.

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

JA claims a Damascene experience that made him 'anti' DBTs.  IIRC, Saul became Paul, and never went back to being Saul.  So don't count on it.

Quote from: krabapple on 2009-04-28 17:55:56

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.

Agreed. Also it seem to be a sighted test...

I did address this question. Perhaps you both missed my posting. There are no "tests," there won't be any scoring. All I am doing is playing level-matched files of various provenances to meetings of audiophiles, including many of my own recordings. I will be using the original hi-rez master files, the Red Book master files, and AACs and MP3s at various bitrates, as well as the specific comparison I mentioned in an earlier posting. The goal, as well as to have a pleasantly entertaining evening, is to allow listeners to hear for themselves if any of the differences are a) audible and b) matter.

I did address this question. Perhaps you both missed my posting. There are no "tests," there won't be any scoring. All I am doing is playing level-matched files of various provenances to meetings of audiophiles, including many of my own recordings. I will be using the original hi-rez master files, the Red Book master files, and AACs and MP3s at various bitrates, as well as the specific comparison I mentioned in an earlier posting. The goal, as well as to have a pleasantly entertaining evening, is to allow listeners to hear for themselves if any of the differences are a) audible and b) matter.

Regarding the meta-discussion about defamation earlier,  I think it fair to point out that pretty much everything that has been said on this forum merits a First Amendment defense as protected opinion. Where someone would get into trouble was if they presented something defamatory as fact rather than opinion. My 2 cents, as someone who has been involved in libel lawsuits and gained an education in return. Feel free to ignore it.

Regarding the meta-discussion about defamation earlier,  I think it fair to point out that pretty much everything that has been said on this forum merits a First Amendment defense as protected opinion. Where someone would get into trouble was if they presented something defamatory as fact rather than opinion. My 2 cents, as someone who has been involved in libel lawsuits and gained an education in return. Feel free to ignore it.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote from: Stereoeditor on 2009-04-28 19:52:47

Regarding the meta-discussion about defamation earlier,  I think it fair to point out that pretty much everything that has been said on this forum merits a First Amendment defense as protected opinion. Where someone would get into trouble was if they presented something defamatory as fact rather than opinion. My 2 cents, as someone who has been involved in libel lawsuits and gained an education in return. Feel free to ignore it.

I agree with "Michael Fremer's boss".

maybe some here, reading a thread like THAT, will see how Arny got to be Arny)

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.

Quote from: andy o on 2009-04-28 20:38:30

Quote from: Stereoeditor on 2009-04-28 19:52:47

Regarding the meta-discussion about defamation earlier,  I think it fair to point out that pretty much everything that has been said on this forum merits a First Amendment defense as protected opinion. Where someone would get into trouble was if they presented something defamatory as fact rather than opinion. My 2 cents, as someone who has been involved in libel lawsuits and gained an education in return. Feel free to ignore it.

I agree with "Michael Fremer's boss".

I must point out before everyone starts flingind defamatory comments around like confetti, that having a First Amendment defense does not prevent a suit being filed. It only means that there is a good probability that the suit will be unsuccessful. In cyberspace as in "meat space," it is best to be polite.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote from: krabapple on 2009-04-28 18:25:38

JA claims a Damascene experience that made him 'anti' DBTs.  IIRC, Saul became Paul, and never went back to being Saul.  So don't count on it.

This would be in his opening comments at the 2005 debate, right?

Anybody who thinks that JA has a first rate logical mind really needs to study those comments.

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.

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  ).

...and look who's trying to link here with there...http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.audio...615e3791?hl=en#

If these essays make me appear illogical, so be it. But as I wrote: "To explain my quarter-century-old Damascene experience, you have to accept that either the blind test was flawed—in which case all the reports that cited that 1978 test as 'proving' the amplifiers sounded the same were wrong—or that the nonaudio factors were irrelevant, in which case the criticisms of sighted listening based on that factor must be wrong."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Having been involved in the tests, having seen how carefully Martin had organized them, and having experienced nothing that conflicted with my beliefs, I concluded that the null results proved that the amplifiers didn't sound different from one another. I bought a Quad 405.

However, over time I began to realize that even though the sound of my system with the Quad was the same as it ever had been, the magic was gone. Listening to records began to play a smaller role in my life—until I replaced the 405 with an M&A tube amplifier two years later.

If these essays make me appear illogical, so be it. But as I wrote: "To explain my quarter-century-old Damascene experience, you have to accept that either the blind test was flawed—in which case all the reports that cited that 1978 test as 'proving' the amplifiers sounded the same were wrong—or that the nonaudio factors were irrelevant, in which case the criticisms of sighted listening based on that factor must be wrong."

The troubling part here is that you also wrote:

Quote

Having been involved in the tests, having seen how carefully Martin had organized them, and having experienced nothing that conflicted with my beliefs, I concluded that the null results proved that the amplifiers didn't sound different from one another. I bought a Quad 405.

Quote

However, over time I began to realize that even though the sound of my system with the Quad was the same as it ever had been, the magic was gone. Listening to records began to play a smaller role in my life—until I replaced the 405 with an M&A tube amplifier two years later.

But your "loss of magic" has nothing to do with sound quality.

The troubling part here is that you also wrote:

Quote

Having been involved in the tests, having seen how carefully Martin had organized them, and having experienced nothing that conflicted with my beliefs, I concluded that the null results proved that the amplifiers didn't sound different from one another. I bought a Quad 405.

However, over time I began to realize that even though the sound of my system with the Quad was the same as it ever had been, the magic was gone. Listening to records began to play a smaller role in my life—until I replaced the 405 with an M&A tube amplifier two years later.

But your "loss of magic" has nothing to do with sound quality. But sighted listening tests do make sound quality claims.
So you've poorly drawn up a false dilemma.

So yeah, it really makes you look completely illogical. The fact that you're willing to hang your hat ("so be it") on such a fallacy does even moreso.

Because he (John Mahoney) isn't here?

Did Lipshitz really tell Michael that he was a "lucky coin"?

Because I think we can all agree that is entirely unsupported from a mere 5-trial test.

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)