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 552418 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 25 Guests are viewing this topic.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #875 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: greynol on
I sure love the arguing: ABX tests can be flawed, therefore all ABX tests are flawed.


No-one has said that, at least I haven't.


Perhaps not in so many words. However, this litany anecdotes about bad DBTs from zillions of years ago paint a certain picture.

It first and foremost paints a picture of DBT being a failure, because all we hear about are the failures and purported failures.

The no-so-hidden subtext is that DBT critics tend to be living in the past, which is reinforced by their opinons of modern technology.

Note that many of the MP3 critics we've been talking about are still uncomfortable with digital *in any form". Forget about perceptual coding, they are still fighting a hot war against PCM in any form. Its not as good as analog, is what they keep saying.

Quote
What I an saying is that the results of a double-blind test cannot to be considered definitive on the grounds _alone_  that it is was performed double-blind. The experimental design and the circumstances of the test need to be take into consideration.


Which brings up another point, which is that people who base their reputations with sighted evalatuions are showing their practical ignorance of experiemental design as it has been for the past 30 or more years. They may know about the walk, but they don't go there.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #876 –
Quote from: euphonic on
According to what you've described, I'm afraid the experiment doesn't suffice, not only in terms of the number of trials, because it wasn't done double-blind. You may have had your backs turned but the vocal inflections could have given away the answer.


Except that I didn't speak, and told the guy in advance why I was staying silent for the duration of each test. I wrote 'A', 'B' and '?' on three pieces of paper. I just held up one at a time. 


Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #877 –
Which AAC codec or iTunes version have you used to produce the AACs?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #878 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: greynol on
I sure love the arguing: ABX tests can be flawed, therefore all ABX tests are flawed.


No-one has said that, at least I haven't.


Perhaps not in so many words.


That's exactly my point, Mr. Krueger. Please address what I took the care actually to write, not what others have written, nor what you project what I might have written.

Thank you.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #879 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
I thought that part was obvious: in a comparison between vinyl and iPod, all kinds of things could be wrong with the version on the iPod: loudness war / badly remastered CD, lousy lossy encoding / transcoding, inappropriate EQ applied to the recording (or maybe iPod output), file with dubious provenance downloaded for free etc etc


Two words:sighted evaluation.
Yes, but given that the defects of vinyl were clearly audible, it would be impossible to do blind. Then again, what was this young person's expectation bias?

Quote
Now, let's back off a step. We all know that in reproduction systems, transducers are everything. AFAIK, this comparison was between $65,000 Wilson MAXX3 speakers and what for all the world seems to be standard iPod earbuds. Please prove me wrong about this!
I assumed, maybe wrongly, that "we play ... off my iPod" meant hooking the iPod up to Fremer's system. Makes more sense, surely?

Otherwise, we're doing a (big) speakers vs (mediocre) headphones comparison, which would be worse than pointless to prove anything about the source formats.


If we'd been a bit more polite to Fremer here, he might still be around to ask.

Cheers,
David.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #881 –
Quote from: Gag Halfrunt on
Except that I didn't speak, and told the guy in advance why I was staying silent for the duration of each test. I wrote 'A', 'B' and '?' on three pieces of paper. I just held up one at a time.


I'm not in the position to definitely claim that your results are flawed. It may be that you friend's setup really is able to unmask some artifacts*. You have shown serious willingness to investigate the issue with scientific accuracy and have indeed found some notable outcome. If I was you, I would go the extra step and try it double blind to be really sure. As far you have just eliminated voice while body language probably carries at least as much unconscious information as the latter. DBTs are preferred over single blind in science for a reason.



* Lossy codecs are designed for a flat frequency response of the playback system. Because of that artifacts tend to become even less audible when you approach a perfect setup. Imperfections of cheap speakers can unmask artifacts that would otherwise be masked instead.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #882 –
Quote from: rpp3po on
I'm not in the position to definitely claim that your results are flawed. It may be that you friend's setup really is able to unmask some artifacts*. You have shown serious willingness to investigate the issue with scientific accuracy and have indeed found some notable outcome. If I was you, I would go the extra step and try it double blind to be really sure. As far you have just eliminated voice while body language probably carries at least as much unconscious information as the latter.



* Lossy codecs are designed for a flat frequency response of the playback system. Because of that artifacts tend to become even less audible when you approach a perfect setup. Imperfections of cheap speakers can unmask artifacts that would otherwise be masked instead.


I'd like to do more, but I hit the boredom threshold on the part of the system owner. As he's more 'client' than 'friend', I don't want to push the issue much further.

And yes, I couldn't eliminate body language. So there might be bias in there anyway. I'm not discounting that at all.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #883 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: greynol on
I sure love the arguing: ABX tests can be flawed, therefore all ABX tests are flawed.


No-one has said that, at least I haven't.


Perhaps not in so many words.


That's exactly my point, Mr. Krueger. Please address what I took the care actually to write, not what others have written, nor what you project what I might have written.



Well John, when you stop cherry-pcking the points that I raise, and stop censoring most of my post from your replies, we might get somewhere.

As things stand, you said nothing new that merits a response, other than to complain about how you run and hide from the issues.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #884 –
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
I thought that part was obvious: in a comparison between vinyl and iPod, all kinds of things could be wrong with the version on the iPod: loudness war / badly remastered CD, lousy lossy encoding / transcoding, inappropriate EQ applied to the recording (or maybe iPod output), file with dubious provenance downloaded for free etc etc


Two words:sighted evaluation.
Yes, but given that the defects of vinyl were clearly audible, it would be impossible to do blind. Then again, what was this young person's expectation bias?

Quote
Now, let's back off a step. We all know that in reproduction systems, transducers are everything. AFAIK, this comparison was between $65,000 Wilson MAXX3 speakers and what for all the world seems to be standard iPod earbuds. Please prove me wrong about this!
I assumed, maybe wrongly, that "we play ... off my iPod" meant hooking the iPod up to Fremer's system. Makes more sense, surely?


Well, the first exploding red light is the fact that they didn't compare the same basic recordings. Not even the same artists. Since I'm not familiar with what they did listen to, I don't even know if it was the same genre.

;-) Let me paraphrase the Gizmodo article with a big hammer in my hand:  "We compared a Tosconini Beethoven Symphony to a little Black Sabbath and based on that, we decided that standard Sennheiser headphone cables suck compared to Cardas." ;-)

Since there's nothing in the article saying that happened, I'm safe in assuming that a hook up didn't happen.

Given what I know about Fremer, I'm wondering how long he'd have to re-burn-in his $350,000 system after he pulled the iPod back out. ;-)

Quote
Otherwise, we're doing a (big) speakers vs (mediocre) headphones comparison, which would be worse than pointless to prove anything about the source formats.


All logic and reason was lost when they didn't compare the same basic recordings. Let's not haggle over nits.

IMO, the whole point of the article was to slam (relatively) new audio technology, and glorify vinyl, old tech and old men. It's a sales pitch, not solid science!  Remember,  doing good comparisons is a slippery slope of its own. First you hook up the iPod to the same speakers, then you start matching levels, conceal the identity of what's playing at the moment,  then a little time-synching and before you know what happens, you actually have a fair comparison!  BTW, imagine what you'd have to pay for an iPod cable for a $350,000 stereo system, being careful to stay within their value system.

Quote
If we'd been a bit more polite to Fremer here, he might still be around to ask.


I know some people actually believe that, but in fact that is an idealistic expectation.  It is all about image. Look at how Atkinson cherry-picks points to reply to. Look at how people here get distracted by that. 

I was just over on Harley's site and noticed all of the posts of mine that they've deleted behind my back. There's a big part of the high end mentality about not giving the civilians fair breaks.

If being fair was an important value of theirs, they'd do fair comparisons. It is as simple as that.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #885 –
Quote from: Stereoeditor on
Quote from: Frumious B on
OK...Let's talk about this picture.



Why? Did the use of lossy compression render it anonymous?

Quote
Obviously, this is an attention getter that makes you want to scroll down, but what is the meaning behind it?  What is the intention here?  Sgt. Pepper's... is one of those watershed kind of albums in pop music history with, arguably, the most famous and instantly recognizable album cover shot in pop history with a lot of symbolic power.  It's also a cultural touchstone for millions of people who came of age during the era in which it was released.


So you _did_ recognize it. Obviously my art director didn't try hard enough :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Since you're the Editor, Big Cheese, Big Kahuna, Head Honcho, etc. that picture was either your own idea or you approved it.  Otherwise it wouldn't be there.  Since the appearance of that image is not remotely analogous to the way that the music of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band actually sounds when presented in mp3 or aac even at the lowly and much maligned 128kbps CBR bitrate and since you are obviously knowledgeable and intelligent enough to be fully aware that your image choice isn't analogous then the only possible conclusion is that the image in question represents a deliberate attempt to mislead and misinform.  The only thing at issue, then, is your intention behind misleading and misinforming.  Is it simply an act of sloppy, sensationalistic, tabloid style journalism on your part?  Is it an attempt to stir up the pot?  Is it a little bit of both?

All this has got me wondering if pixelated Beatles are bigger than pixelated Jesus, but since we don't have any actual pictures of Jesus to pixelate the answer must remain an eternal mystery of the ages.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #886 –
Quote from: Slipstreem on
If the intention was to give the impression of lossy versus lossless, wouldn't it have been more accurate to show a BMP of the image immediately next to a typically compressed JPG of the same image?

I have respect for the way you keep participating in this discussion, Mr. Atkinson. Even though you get some nasty responses you keep calm and respectfull yourself. But I think it's rather disturbing that we have to explain to the editor of a famous audio magazine that pixilating an image has nothing to do with how lossy audio compression works.

I assume you just not know how lossy audio compression works (otherwise it would mean you're fooling your readers). Isn't it time that you - or one of your writers - look into that and publish an article about it? As objective as possible? Lossy compression is a very important part of todays music industry! I'm sure your readers wil find that interesting.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #887 –
Pixelation would actually be a jab against digital vs. analog. In this case it might represent something like 1K samples per second and 4 bit resolution.

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #888 –
Quote from: pdq on
Pixelation would actually be a jab against digital vs. analog. In this case it might represent something like 1K samples per second and 4 bit resolution.

But then you forget that after an A->D->A conversion you recreate the original continuous signal + quantization noise (not discrete "pixilated" audio). So even in that case the picture won't make sense. But that's a different discussion

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #889 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I know some people actually believe that, but in fact that is an idealistic expectation.  It is all about image. Look at how Atkinson cherry-picks points to reply to. Look at how people here get distracted by that.


Actually, Mr. Atkinson's evasiveness has been repeatedly commented on, and seems to be quite apparent to most here. I don't think he's scoring any points at all with that little trick.


Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #890 –
Quote from: knucklehead on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I know some people actually believe that, but in fact that is an idealistic expectation.  It is all about image. Look at how Atkinson cherry-picks points to reply to. Look at how people here get distracted by that.


Actually, Mr. Atkinson's evasiveness has been repeatedly commented on, and seems to be quite apparent to most here. I don't think he's scoring any points at all with that little trick.

There's not one poster in this thread who couldn't be accused of, in some manner, cherry-picking or evasiveness, myself included. It is my belief that singling out the behavior, and therefore becoming dismissive, of those opposed to ones own beliefs is sure sign of closed-mindedness. Furthermore I'd personally like to thank each and every poster to this thread for sharing their perspective in order that we may clearly see all sides of this issue.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #891 –
Quote from: krabapple on
Quote from: 2tec on
Quote from: 2Bdecided on
Or to put it more bluntly, if it was medicine rather than audio, the practice would be illegal (in most parts of the developed world!).

Sigh ... this is simply not true, in fact right now, there are many 'medications' that have questionable medicinal value; for example, kids cough syrup. In fact, there is an entire world of alternative, unproven, holistic 'legal' remedies in the health fields of all the countries of the first world.

Yes, there are. And that is a problem, not an endorsement.

Yes, the pseudo-drugs which actually are either harmful in themselves or keeping people from trying useful medications are indeed a problem. However, your argument ignores those non-scientific remedies which are effective either through the placebo effect or are themselves medicinally effective even despite any scientific endorsement. For instance, just how many people still believe that chicken soup is an effective treatment for the common cold?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #892 –
Quote from: 2tec on
Quote from: knucklehead on
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
I know some people actually believe that, but in fact that is an idealistic expectation.  It is all about image. Look at how Atkinson cherry-picks points to reply to. Look at how people here get distracted by that.


Actually, Mr. Atkinson's evasiveness has been repeatedly commented on, and seems to be quite apparent to most here. I don't think he's scoring any points at all with that little trick.

There's not one poster in this thread who couldn't be accused of, in some manner, cherry-picking or evasiveness, myself included. It is my belief that singling out the behavior, and therefore becoming dismissive, of those opposed to ones own beliefs is sure sign of closed-mindedness. Furthermore I'd personally like to thank each and every poster to this thread for sharing their perspective in order that we may clearly see all sides of this issue.


I think it would be nice to hear Mr. Atkinson actually respond to the points in question.
Is that a sure sign of closed-mindedness in your opinion?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #893 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
All logic and reason was lost when they didn't compare the same basic recordings. Let's not haggle over nits.

I disagree, indeed, aren't you simply throwing out the baby with bath water? It's hardly just nits we're haggling over, it's the validity of the author's experience and his subsequent comments that is what is of concern to me. Simply put, the fact they listened to different musical selections doesn't diminish the results at all. Simply consider that no matter what the selection, the outcome would have been the same in term of the experience. Or are you really claiming that the genre of a selection will determine the quality of reproduction?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)
 

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #894 –
Quote from: knucklehead on
I think it would be nice to hear Mr. Atkinson actually respond to the points in question.
Is that a sure sign of closed-mindedness in your opinion?

I too think it would be nice! Do you really think you've encouraged him to do so? Oh and by the way, in the way you've been putting it to him, with all due respect, yes indeed.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #895 –
2tec, you continue to carelessly muddle "experience" with "sound quality".

I don't think anyone here really cares to disagree with whatever the author's total experience was; it was obviously quite captivating. He was not going to a listening test, but he seemed to go visit Mr. Fremer expecting something of "a show" and Mr. Fremer seems to have delivered upon that expectation.

That may be an indication that Mr. Fremer has good production values when it comes to being a host, but it doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the sound quality. The fact that the author then attempts to make quality claims about the mp3 on his iPod being "dull and lifeless" is just simply a non sequitur.
elevatorladylevitateme

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #896 –
Quote from: shakey_snake on
2tec, you continue to carelessly muddle "experience" with "sound quality".

I don't think anyone here really cares to disagree with whatever the author's total experience was; it was obviously quite captivating. He was not going to a listening test, but he seemed to go visit Mr. Fremer expecting something of "a show" and Mr. Fremer seems to have delivered upon that expectation.

That may be an indication that Mr. Fremer has good production values when it comes to being a host, but it doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the sound quality. The fact that the author then attempts to make quality claims about the mp3 on his iPod being "dull and lifeless" is just simply a non sequitur.

Actually, despite your comment, I've been carefully trying to discuss the relationship between direct experience and sound quality. Are you really suggesting they aren't connected in some meaningful way? Furthermore, it's seems as if you're claiming that good showmanship produces a memorable listening experience that is completely irrespective of the equipment involved? Wow, now I know that all I need is showmanship, I'm going to hire a good MC for my room. 
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  ;~)

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #897 –
Quote from: 2tec on
Quote from: knucklehead on
I think it would be nice to hear Mr. Atkinson actually respond to the points in question.
Is that a sure sign of closed-mindedness in your opinion?

I too think it would be nice! Do you really think you've encouraged him to do so? Oh and by the way, in the way you've been putting it to him, with all due respect, yes indeed.


A bit more of a challenge, than encouragement. He's been asked many times, and I don't think it's working to his advantage as mentioned in the post I was responding to. Oh, and by the way, does implying that someone is small-minded despite any evidence actually fit in with your ideas of polite discourse?

Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #898 –
Here is an appropriate visual representation of lossy compression artifacts.

The first is a high resolution lossless 24 bit image of 11,2 MB size.
The second is an example of perceptual lossy compression by which its size could be reduced to 2 MB.

Bitmap
JPEG


Article: Why We Need Audiophiles

Reply #899 –
Quote from: 2tec on
There's not one poster in this thread who couldn't be accused of, in some manner, cherry-picking or evasiveness, myself included. It is my belief that singling out the behavior, and therefore becoming dismissive, of those opposed to ones own beliefs is sure sign of closed-mindedness. Furthermore I'd personally like to thank each and every poster to this thread for sharing their perspective in order that we may clearly see all sides of this issue.


I think that the difference is that Mr. Atkinson has put himself out there as the editor of a prominent magazine and a journalist.  He is a public figure and is considered an authority and a "go to" guy in his field.  His words and recommendations are read by more people and carry far more weight with more people than yours, mine, Arnold Krueger's or those of anybody else who has participated in this thread with the possible exception of Mr. Fremer who might have a following of roughly equal or only slightly smaller size.  As such, I think that it is perfectly reasonable that he be held to a higher standard of accountability for his writings and his editorial decisions.