[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2007, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
|
Home
/ FAQ
/ News Classifieds / Events |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer |
Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
130.149.86.77
In Reply to: RE: Boston Audio Society Strikes Again! posted by Charles Hansen on September 11, 2007 at 09:44:35
So the paper opposes one or two audiophile beliefs. What is to stop an audiophile with a bit of confidence in those beliefs spending a few minutes making a low-res copy of a high-res CD and having a bit of a listen? If the results of controlled listening tests disagree with the published results as surely the must then take the time to collect the evidence and write to the JAES and let them know. This is how science works and they will welcome and publish contradictory scientific data but, obviously, not unsubstantiated statements of belief.
Since anyone that works with audio and has an interest in the audible differences of various bit resolutions and depths will have established this long ago there would seem to be little scientific reason for the study. Perhaps a more general interest for their members or, possibly, to oppose audiophile marketing? I believe somebody once reported on speaker cables a few decades ago but can we now expect controlled listening tests of power cables or some of Geoff and May's products?
> Since anyone that works with audio and has an interest in the audible differences of various bit resolutions and depths will have established this long ago <
You obviously don't know many recording engineers! Your statement above is so totally wrong that it's not worth commenting about further. Not just objectionable, not just shortsighted, not just a differing of opinon, but just plain dead wrong.
> You obviously don't know many recording engineers!
Depends what you mean by many and recording engineer.
> Your statement above is so totally wrong that it's not worth commenting
> about further. Not just objectionable, not just shortsighted, not just a
> differing of opinon, but just plain dead wrong.
I presume you really want to tell me about how despite earning their living from making recordings in high and low res formats and listening to them closely for upto 12 hours a day, recording engineers fail to hear the differences in the formats. Unlike audiophiles like yourself who, despite not knowing the details of how the recordings were made, can use their sophisticated trained ears and audiophile equipment to clearly hear all the deficiencies in both high and low resolution digital formats. Please tell me about it.
> I presume you really want to tell me about how despite earning their living from making recordings in high and low res formats and listening to them closely for upto 12 hours a day, recording engineers fail to hear the differences in the formats <
Just the opposite. I don't know a single recording engineer that doesn't know that higher rez recordings sound "better" and more accurate. Most of them just know good sound, whether they are audiophiles or not. "If it can be played back at higher rez, it should be recorded in high rez" is their credo. I can't imagine anyone working with music and sound that has missed this, and if they have, I'd have trouble trusting them to get the best sound out the recording studio.
Knowledge is a wonderful thing, trumped only by experience.
> Just the opposite. I don't know a single recording engineer that doesn't
> know that higher rez recordings sound "better" and more accurate.
There you go then.
> Most of them just know good sound, whether they are audiophiles or not.
Audiophiles? What sort of recording engineers are these?
> "If it can be played back at higher rez, it should be recorded in high
> rez" is their credo.
Now this looks like fantasy. Recording engineers will usually take care to produce an accurate recording but will deliver it in the form the customer wants. Why is modern pop music loud?
> I can't imagine anyone working with music and sound that has missed
> this, and if they have, I'd have trouble trusting them to get the best
> sound out the recording studio.
I think you may be living in an audiophile fantasy land.
> Recording engineers will usually take care to produce an accurate recording but will deliver it in the form the customer wants. <
True. Thankfully, a lot of the customers want to maximize the RE's talents and allow him to do a lot of the setup. Especially when, as in a couple of cases involving RE friends, the customer and the RE are one and the same company.
> I think you may be living in an audiophile fantasy land. <
I forwarded your previous post to a couple of RE's I know, both personally and from their work. Both advised me not to argue with a nitwit and that the computer has an "off" button I should get to know. I usually listen to them, at least eventually. Sorry, but you do not know what you're talking about in this case. The experts in the field of sound and music recording have spoken. I can't argue with you anymore because it's as if you're arguing against 2+2 equaling 4.
They get pissy when people put false words into their mouths, just as they get pissy when I or anyone else tries to tell them their business. They don't seem to mind telling ME how to play the guitar, though! LOL!
> I forwarded your previous post to a couple of RE's I know, both personally
> and from their work. Both advised me not to argue with a nitwit and that
> the computer has an "off" button I should get to know. I usually listen to
> them, at least eventually. Sorry, but you do not know what you're talking
> about in this case. The experts in the field of sound and music recording
> have spoken. I can't argue with you anymore because it's as if you're
> arguing against 2+2 equaling 4.
I must congratulate you for an original reply. Do you think the audiophiles will believe it?
> I must congratulate you for an original reply. <
Thanks, but I can't take credit for it, as I was paraphrasing - but I'd say it was very close to direct quotes. I'll be happy to let the originators of the comments know, on your behalf.
> Do you think the audiophiles will believe it? <
Well, any that are RE's probably will. As for the others, there's no reason for them to believe what I post anymore than there's a reason for them to believe what you post. The only thing I really recommend to people regarding audio is to think for themselves, and try things out for themselves. There's enough misinformation on both the subjectivist and objectivist sides that taking anyone's word for anything is risky, especially around here.
The ones that make the best recordings.
Is that sort of like how the religious faithful have determined that the religious make the best religions?
Or those with superior perception have determined that those with superior perception have the best perception? Cool.
cheers,
AJ
If you can't hear ghosts, just how Golden are your Ears?
> Is that sort of like how the religious faithful have determined that the religious make the best religions?
Of course not. But your question certainly does tell us a lot about your perspective that you would not see the difference between assessing excellence in audio and assessing the merits fo religions.
> Or those with superior perception have determined that those with superior perception have the best perception? Cool.
When it comes to audio, do you have anything other than baggage? If it weren't for the fueds would you actually have any interest in audio?
Of course not
Why?
But your question certainly does tell us a lot about your perspective that you would not see the difference between assessing excellence in audio and assessing the merits fo religions
Excellence in audio according to who? Excellence as assessed how? Someones words of interpretation of sound? To be taken as gospel? Have faith?
When it comes to audio, do you have anything other than baggage
You mean like my portable radio? Sure, I have a couple home audio systems.
If it weren't for the fueds would you actually have any interest in audio?
What or who are the fueds? I do have an interest in foods, but I am not sure how that would correlate with audio.
BTW, how were those NFL games today on your analog TV? Completely absent of the harshness and grain of my digital set I imagine? Or does video perception not affect your condition?
cheers,
AJ
If you can't hear ghosts, just how Golden are your Ears?
> > Of course not > >
> Why?
You really don't understand the difference between consumers passing judgement on consumer goods and people of a particular religious faith doing comparative surveys of all religions? that does explain a lot about your posts.
> > But your question certainly does tell us a lot about your perspective that you would not see the difference between assessing excellence in audio and assessing the merits fo religions > >
> Excellence in audio according to who? Excellence as assessed how? Someones words of interpretation of sound? To be taken as gospel? Have faith? >
Once again your questions tell us more about you than anything else. Who do you think should evaluate excellence in audio and how should it be done? once again you seem to be confusing religion and consumer products.
> > When it comes to audio, do you have anything other than baggage > >
> You mean like my portable radio? Sure, I have a couple home audio systems. >
You consider a couple porable radios to be home audio *systems* OK,,,,, That also adds some perspective to all your posts. You might want to look into upgrading. From your point it shouldn;t cost much nor should it be difficult to acomplish. you might even start hearing differences you you don't believe exist.
> > If it weren't for the fueds would you actually have any interest in audio? > >
> What or who are the fueds? I do have an interest in foods, but I am not sure how that would correlate with audio.>
The most sure sign of an internet loser is finding personal victories in other peoples' typos. did you dance on the table in nothing but your stained underwear when you saw this golden opportunity to pounce? Must have felt real good huh?
> BTW, how were those NFL games today on your analog TV? >
My "analog TV?" didn't know there was such a thing as analog TVs and digital TVs. Did you mean CRT or tube monitor? I understand how words like analog and tube make guys like you see red.
> Completely absent of the harshness and grain of my digital set>
Difital grain of TV? what are you sniffing?
> I imagine? >
That about sums it up right there.
> Or does video perception not affect your condition? >
My condition? LOL
--
If you can't hear ghosts, just how Golden are your Ears?
...I'm not above dancing on the table in stained undies from time to time.
"Am I boogying to a salsa dance,
or is that salsa on my underpants,
la la la scooby doo...."
P.S. I won't give up my day job... if I even have a day job.
Are you enjoying your speakers, you rat-fink so-and-so %#$%&^@&*$???? Hope so! I haven't seen any updates from you. How're they coming along?
Ha ha. I actually worked on them a bit today for an hour or two. Soon. Soon. I'm hoping for a working prototype by weeks end. At least one (close your eyes) that can be measured. With a generic DSP as xo. Daily evening rains have been killing me as my anechoic chamber looks a lot like my back yard.
The real McCoy uses a full blow computer, but that's close to 70% done now too. Sloooowwwly.
cheers,
AJ
If you can't hear ghosts, just how Golden are your Ears?
Like, totally, dude; the guy's so off, so obviously. Just don't ask me why. He should be, like, banned, man, by the authority of the sacred community of us believers in the privileged truth that no way can be articulated, dude, not to mere mortals at the very least. It's more than that, man, way more; you can't really capture it with this request for evidence thing, dude, you know what I mean? It's like a vision, a beautiful vision! You feel what I'm feelin'? Dude, we're free from the constraints of nature, that boring old bull! You know what I mean, man, only you, and let me tell you, trust no one else. It's all in your head. One day we'll rule the Earth again, man, they won't hold us down for ever, not this evil apparatus of establishment shit, you know what I'm saying? Poor losers! Let them spew their misguided shit. Let's go, we've got some work to do, since they won't bother; we listen, they just talk, those insecure sissies -- right or wrong, Clarkie my man? But bring that green marker of yours, it makes everything even more beautiful and blissful, I've got the hand cream already, and tonight we'll do this teleportation thing that Geoff showed us last time we spoke. Far out!
TL
I showed your post to my kids. It was an excellent way to show them the danger of massive amounts of illegal drugs. :)
Exactly, the clinical pictures are rather alike. I think you came close to a realization here.TL
> I think you came close to a realization here. <
Yes. A massive amount of drugs can cure any listening skills one might have. Well, that and daily doses of DBT's. But I'll pass - you enjoy! :)
x
Very sad -- really destroyed his family.
.
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
His participles dangled, too! It was embarrassing!
I made a joke out of this but really described a true story, and have met the ex-wife and her children once or twice. I never met the husband but he died a few years later, probably not helped by the stress of his arrest and subsequent divorce. After hearing this story it makes pubic, er, public libraries seem kind of creepy.
.
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
Can't imagine why his wife divorced him! I had to do stuff a whole lot worse than that to get rid of my wife!
They caught him by the organ and threw him out.
see if you can tell the difference between a full resolution CD and a low rez MP3. Let us know your outcome.
rw
> see if you can tell the difference between a full resolution CD and a low
> rez MP3.
First I would probably have to see some logical train of thought?
then get back with us concerning the results of your stated test.
rw
> then get back with us concerning the results of your stated test.
I think you will find that it was you that stated I perform a test. This is what I meant about the logic and train of thought thing. Bit of clarity required before the next step.
What is to stop an audiophile with a bit of confidence in those beliefs spending a few minutes making a low-res copy of a high-res CD and having a bit of a listen?
Here is your test. I have done such a comparison on good gear. How 'bout you?
rw
> I have done such a comparison on good gear.
There you go then. If you used proper controls, write it up and send it off to refute the claims in the paper.
> How 'bout you?
I am not an audiophile and have no problem with the paper. We seem to be back to this logic thing.
Evidently, your experience in such matters is absent. No surprise.
...write it up and send it off to refute the claims in the paper.
One of the lead authors, Meyer, has already done that and stated the despite the findings of the test, high rez still sounds better. No need to refute that which I agree.
rw
d
Don't hold your breath for AES or any other "recognized organization" to perform any type of tests, blind or otherwise, on the items you refer to. Organizations like AES (believe they) have much to lose by even pretending to take such products seriously. That will be the day! Ha HaAlong these lines, The Journal of Acoustical Society of America (oldest in the US and like AES quite set in their ways) published an article on audio tweaks last year (a portion of which I posted here a while back). That article mentioned both Brilliant Pebbles and the Belts, as well as some other items -- but only in the context of ridicule. After all, they are the Acoustic Society of America LOL.... it wasn't as if the author of the article had actually seen, much less heard, the items he was ridiculing.
Was the Journal of Acoustical Society article peer reviewed? Who among the "peers" would have stood up and objected? LOL This is precisely what we've come to expect from the so-called pillars of modern audio thought: "There's nothing new under the sun, and when there is you'll hear it from us first." HA! HA!
~ Geoff Kait
> Don't hold your breath for AES or any other "recognized organization" to
> perform any type of tests, blind or otherwise, on the items you refer to.
They are publishers, they do not perform tests themselves but report the tests of others. So get testing and submit your results (scientific flavour required).
> Organizations like AES (believe they) have much to lose by even
> pretending to take such products seriously.
Indeed they do have a great deal to lose: their scientific credibility. If they lose that they will lose almost all their members and hence far too much income to remain in business. It is not unlike an audiophile publication losing the support of the audiophile industry by publishing too much scientific data about sound, sound perception and electronics.
> Was the Journal of Acoustical Society article peer reviewed?
If you mean the one by Wright, probably not in the sense you mean because it is a light hearted review article not an article presenting new science.
> Who among the "peers" would have stood up and objected?
I skimmed your section in the context of a light hearted article reviewing acoustical nonsense over the centuries. Nobody with a grasp of how sound propagates would object to jars of pebbles in the corner of a room being held up as an example of something that fails to audibly modify the sound field but may influence sound perception in some people. I would not have objected.
> LOL This is precisely what we've come to expect from the so-called pillars of modern audio
> thought: "There's nothing new under the sun, and when there is you'll hear it from us
> first." HA! HA!
If you look at the other articles in JASA you will see many people reporting new things to do wiht sound while conforming to the scientific method. Apart from the review articles of course.
"Nobody with a grasp of how sound propagates would object to jars of pebbles in the corner of a room being held up as an example of something that fails to audibly modify the sound field but may influence sound perception in some people. I would not have objected."Excellent Strawman Argument (Appeal to Authority). You'd make an excellent token peer.
Thanks for making my point more vivid.
~ Cheerio
> Excellent Strawman Argument; that's called Appeal to Authority. You'd
> obviously make an excellent token peer.
It is an appeal to the scientific laws governing the propagation of sound. This is indeed an authority and one that all that have spotted the usefulness of science tend to recognise.
> Thanks for making my point more vivid.
I think you may have to expand the strawman bit to really make it stick.
I have the sneaking suspicion that you're just being argumentative and really have no idea what the laws governing the propagation of sound are nor whom you can consult to support your non-argument.~ Cheerio
> I have the sneaking suspicion that you're just being argumentative and
> really have no idea what the laws governing the propagation of sound are
> nor whom you can consult to support your non-argument.
Not sure about the argumentative. I am responding because you posted but not in a wholly serious manner it must be admitted.
I am afraid you will have to judge my knowledge of the laws of sound propagation from the content of my postings. I am not going to give you an authority.
My non-argument has not drawn a convincing rebuttal (not that know which non-argument you are referring to) so it presumably stands as the last word?
Unfortunately for you, that's exactly what I did. Your posts have no content. That's why I said you were being argumentative (and continue to be). Not to worry -- even if you don't know these laws you hold so dear, it's quite easy to find experts out there who will back you up 100%. LOL
> Unfortunately for you, that's exactly what I did. Your posts have no
> content.
Which raises the question what you have found to reply to?
> Not to worry -- even if you don't know these laws you hold so dear, it's
> quite easy to find experts out there who will back you up 100%.
Why do I need backing up? The point was that the readers of your JASA article would be experts knowing these laws and how to use them to determine whether or not your product could audibly change the sound field. Whether I am an expert or not makes little difference.
You fail to grasp the original point of my mentioning the article -- that supposed scientific experts in the field jumped to the same conclusion you and numerous others have: the concept of the "rocks in jar" sounds too ridiculous to investigate further, thus should be pronounced "rubbish." Ditto for the readers of that austere publication. Arrogance and ingorance, plain and simple (no offense to you, personally).Making the Journal and its readership appear even more foolish, if that is possible, is that the author apparently boosted much of the material for his "article" off of Wikipedia -- Hell, a fifth-grader could do better than that!
As for your argument, it continues to be a Appeal to Authority, a rather weak one at that. Can I suggest you get a hold of the Skeptics Handbook? You will be better prepared and have higher entertainment value when trolling these waters.
~ Cheerio
> that supposed scientific experts in the field jumped to the same
> conclusion you and numerous others have: the concept of the "rocks in jar"
> sounds too ridiculous to investigate further, thus should be pronounced
> "rubbish."
Not at all. They evaluated the ability of your rocks in a jar to modify the sound field using the known scientific laws and then they pronounced rubbish. For your argument to work you must pick a group of people that do not know about the science of acoustics. Have you tried to convince audiophiles?
> Ditto for the readers of that austere publication. Arrogance and
> ingorance, plain and simple.
It cannot be that austere if it contains light hearted articles of the kind to raise your hackles.
> As for your argument, it continues to be a Appeal to Authority, a rather
> weak one at that.
It is an appeal to the authority of scientific knowledge. I would suggest that for matters in the scientific domain this is the strongest authority that mankind has yet devised. Or would you disagree?
> Can I suggest you get a hold of the Skeptics Handbook. You need to be
> better prepared when trolling these waters.
I have no objections to being better prepared but the "serious" sceptic material tends to be a bit too earnest and judgemental for my tastes. I am expect one or two articles might be entertaining but it will have to wait for a holiday break.
You are suggesting that the author - or anyone asociated with the Journal - had a single thought regarding the "rocks in a jar." They did not evaluate anything. Obviously, they cut and pasted some paragraphs from Wikipedia. Just some old men sitting around at the end of their careers, giggling.
That is not science. It's stupidity.
~ Cheerio
> You are suggesting that the author - or anyone asociated with the Journal
> - had a single thought regarding the "rocks in a jar." They did not
> evaluate anything.
I think you will find they did evaluate what a jar in the corner of a room would do to the sound field. This does not involve lots of hard sums or complicated experiments but a brief flash of thought based around the laws of acoustics and experience of where the wrinkles may lie.
> Obviously, they cut and pasted some paragraphs from Wikipedia.
No sane person uses wikipedia as the source of anything that is important. Certainly not someone writing an academic paper even a lighthearted one.
> Just some old men sitting around at the end of their careers, giggling.
The author of your paper is young. I suspect it may be a requirement for mustering the effort for that sort of thing.
> ~ Cheerio
Does that mean I get the last word?
That is quite an assumption on your part that any thought was given to the jar of rocks. What proof do you have? "A brief flash of thought" -- that is so funny! Is that what you think science is? What they were probably having was hot flashes. LOL
~ Cheerio
> That is quite an assumption on your part that any thought was given to the
> jar of rocks. What proof do you have?
A knowledge of how my peers think. Is that proof?
> "A brief flash of thought" -- that is so funny! Is that what you think
> science is?
When it comes to jars of rocks in the corner of the room brief is about the limit.
Do not seem to have had the last word. Need to hang on a bit longer?
Not really. You are perhaps the peer of the author of the article, but you are not my peer. I will leave you to your flashes of thought or hot flashes, as the case may be.
d
--
If you can't hear ghosts, just how Golden are your Ears?
;-P
"If you can't hear ghosts, just how Golden are your Ears?"
What's a ghost supposed to sound like?
What's a ghost supposed to sound like?Aw, c'mon now. I thought you with your "superior perception" would be the one telling me? Ok, I'd say they sound a lot like different colored wires, frozen photos and wood blocks.
Now of course, not all ghosts sound the same! (Only an objectivist would believe that). They are huge differences in the sound of different ghosts. However, if one is both sufficiently gifted and properly trained(through self analysis of course), these differences are trivial to hear. Except when other people are present. With scientific knowledge and equipment. Then, no.
Sound (no pun intended) familiar?On a less serious note, what wall are your hemptones in front of, in that 16x13 room? How far out?
cheers,
AJ
If you can't hear ghosts, just how Golden are your Ears?
"On a less serious note, what wall are your hemptones in front of, in that 16x13 room? How far out?"
I think the room's a big bigger.... It's at a condo I'm renting a room at..... The speakers are kind of placed at an angle so they play into the room..... There was no real thought behind the placement, since the owner's furniture, fireplace, and patio door kind of put some real limitations in placement options.
I'm not really a room placement freak, unless the usual "red flags" in placement become obvious..... (I'm more of a "enjoy the music anywhere in the room" guy than a "sweet spot" guy.) Not so much to me, but to visitors more into things like that.
So, 2' out (rear of speaker box) from the short wall (13) listening along the longer room dimension (16)? I understand it's a rental, but where are they placed in the room? Where do you sit?
BTW, still no Don Allen(sp) website. How much power from those SET's, 2-3 watts or so?
cheers,
AJ
If you can't hear ghosts, just how Golden are your Ears?
"BTW, still no Don Allen(sp) website."
Chances are he won't have one..... He doesn't really need one..... He has more work than he can deal with, due to solely word-of-mouth demand.....
"How much power from those SET's, 2-3 watts or so?"
Depends on the amp..... The unit at the condo is about 6 wpc..... Or about 4 dB above a 45 amp.
Remember, a 96 dB Hemptone powered by a 6-watt amp is equivalent to a typical 87 dB speaker powered by a 50-watt amp..... Sound great with symphonic works, and it is a condo..... Anything louder might bother the neighbors.
I have something in the works that is in the size range of the Fritz. One small problem though. It will be 96db +/-2db average sensitivity , not "96db for tube audiophiles" like the hemp, with what +/- 10db amplitude distortion alone? So you may not like it. Or you may. To make matters even worse(?), the impedance will be flattened. Is this acceptable for tube "magic"? Or forget that idea and create some "excitement"?
The other issue is that it can convert from dipole/cardioid bass to full ranged cardioid. Both would require the face of the speaker to be at least 3' out from the wall (4' recommended for dipole, hence my room questions) unless you want "audiophile" type sound (then you can place it anywhere, physics plays no roll). Any objections to a(n)(adjustable)powered bass section (yes I know there are neighbors, but there is also this thing call bass, which is present in recordings, very different from what you hear from the hemps resonating pipe/8" paper cone tweeter)?
Your thoughts?
cheers,
AJ
If you can't hear ghosts, just how Golden are your Ears?
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2007, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]