Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

Return to Propeller Head Plaza

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Page: [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ]

Boston Audio Society Strikes Again!

209.97.232.186
Posted on September 11, 2007 at 09:44:35
Charles Hansen
Manufacturer

Posts: 6984
Joined: August 1, 2001
 Brad Meyer and David Moran of the Boston Audio Society have (once again) proven that we are all deaf. Here is the abstract from their article in the latest issue of the AES journal:

Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality
for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than
the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests comparing
the analog output of high-resolution players playing high-resolution recordings with
the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz “bottleneck.” The tests were conducted for
over a year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems included expensive
professional monitors and one high-end system with electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive
components and cables. The subjects included professional recording engineers, students in
a university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test results show that the
CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the
subjects, on any of the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible only
at very elevated levels.

Is it any wonder that folks like John Curl have sworn off any association with the AES?

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: They did well..., posted on September 11, 2007 at 10:09:37
theaudiohobby
Audiophile

Posts: 4674
Joined: January 16, 2003
 At least they managed to narrow down instances under which differences are audible. As opposed to what folks think is audible. If anybody disagrees, they should perform their own tests and show otherwise. Recently, in a little corner of Seattle after a whole year foot dragging, some diehard vinyl guys found out they could not reliably detect differences btw a CD-copy and vinyl, so Meyer and Moran test is not necessarily inconsistent with what happens on the ground.

Personally, considering the quality of John Curl's contribution here and on DIYAudio, he needs to radically change his approach, if he is to contribute anything of longterm value to the advancement of audio perception.

Music making the painting, recording it the photograph

 

"...and one high-end system." Oh bully for them! But the gaps in their reasoniing are blatant., posted on September 11, 2007 at 10:52:58
clarkjohnsen
Reviewer

Posts: 26843
Location: Massachusetts
Joined: May 5, 2000
 Am I surprised this pretentious (excuse me, I meant prestigious) "peer-reviewed" journal missed them? What does that say about their peers?

First, was their 16-bit/44.1-kHz “bottleneck" sonically comparable to Redbook CD? Or was it more like a CD-R, which in a wide variety of processes sounds far more real than an original CD? I mean, if you're going to claim a fair comparison...

Second, was the "bottleneck" itself designed for sonic results of any sort, or was it one of those strictly numerical things one finds from off the boards of so many digital engineers (present company excepted)?

Third, what were those "professional monitors" referenced? Yamahas? B&Ws? (Feh! to both!) And the electronics? Maybe the entire article, when it comes to my mailbox, will explain; meanwhile I fall back on an observation that was given to me long ago: Nine out of ten worst hi-fis are found in recording studios.

Fourth, consider the phrase, "students in a university recording program". Never mind that in the Boston area, where presumably the tests were conducted, I know of no "university recording program" -- these would be the very students who are learning how to use 48-96-192-channel boards and accompanying digital toys -- the very students who, along with their teachers, are mostly responsible for the very noticeable degradations in current recordings.

Fifth, was any attention paid to the polarity of the musical material?

Finally (although I do have more in mind), apparently no effort was made to include a top-rank SACD player such as the Ayre C-5xe Universal Disc Player (ahem!) or a top-rank Redbook player such as the Memory Player from Nova Physics. (Charlie, I haven't heard yours...)

I may write a letter of response to the JAES!

clark, AES Lifetime Member

 

A test that I did., posted on September 11, 2007 at 12:00:10
jsm
Audiophile

Posts: 1887
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: October 28, 2000
 FWIW, here is a rather simple test that I did. I have a rather good outboard ADC that puts out its digital signal to the USB input of my Mac laptop computer. I made three different kinds of recordings. Using my Ayre CX-7e, I took the analog signal out, passed it through the ADC and made a CD-R. Using my TT and the output of my phono stage (an ARC PH 5), I made CD-Rs of some vinyl discs. Finally, using a Sony SACD player (by no means a high-end SACD player) in two-channel mode I did same thing with SACD playback, taking the analog out and converting it to CD-R. I listened in all cases to the CD-R with the Ayre, since the Sony is obviously much poorer on RBCD- no surprise there. The rest of the chain consisted of an ARC preamp, a Plinius amp, and Vandersteen 5 speakers.

The result: The CD-Rs of both the vinyl and CD recordings were very close in sound quality to the original, though I could hear the differences without a great deal of difficulty. At times I found it difficult to hear differences between the vinyl and the CD-R of it. I was a bit surprised how close the copy of the CD was, with the extra ADC steps, but it was quite good. However, it was very easy to hear the difference between the original SACD and the CD-R made from its analog signal; the CD-R was obviously inferior. This is a rather ordinary SACD player. My conclusion: RBCD encoding is capable of doing very well with the information content in vinyl and CD playback, but it clearly falls short in handling a signal derived from a SACD source. One can easily hear the difference between the RBCD standard and SACDs. One can debate all sorts of things about how I did this, but it was a comparative test. Using exactly the same setup to make RBCD recordings of analog signals, those derived from SACDs were obviously not as good as the original, while the other two were much closer to the original. One can argue about the vinyl result and what it means, and I won't get into that here, but I think the SACD result is pretty clear, and it agreed with what I was hearing directly.

Joe

 

RE: Boston Audio Society Strikes Again!, posted on September 11, 2007 at 12:18:52
Dr. S
Reviewer

Posts: 1264
Location: Oregon
Joined: February 7, 2007
 there are those that believe only double bind testing can reveal true differences, and that in actuality those differences are mostly vanishingly small, or non-existant anyway.

Then there are the rest of us.

I thought the whole thing got banished to another forum, because it is unresolvable.

For myself, I have heard systems assembled with the wire is wire, bits is bits approach and they fall into two catagories ... zip chord wired nightmares, or an obvious contradiction (I know it doesn't matter, but that doesn't stop me from buying good wire and interconnects and a premium CD player).

What I do know, if that no amount of rancorous arguments are going to sway ANYONE who has already formed an opinion about this matter.

All it does is inflame bitterness.

Doc S.

 

I Guess I Must Be Deaf......, posted on September 11, 2007 at 12:38:08
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 And lacking in diligence, in being able to find these claims and anecdotes.....

"Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard."

Funny, I've been claiming the contrary..... I've almost never preferred 24/96 or SACD playback over 16/44 CD.....

And what I've read recently, and discovered first-hand, a lot of people have even been wondering if anything beyond 320 kbps MP3 is overkill..... I personally think not, but when it comes to resolution in digital audio playback, until "fatiguing high rez" is addressed and fixed, I wouldn't go beyond CD.

 

RE: Boston Audio Society Strikes Again!, posted on September 11, 2007 at 12:38:32
suretyguy
Audiophile

Posts: 3022
Location: western Missouri
Joined: October 9, 2001
 I'm disappointed to see anyone post something on this subject, since it invariably results in yet another endless round of bickering.

 

A reasoned and effectual reply from a buddy of mine..., posted on September 11, 2007 at 14:16:51
clarkjohnsen
Reviewer

Posts: 26843
Location: Massachusetts
Joined: May 5, 2000
 ...who has done some work already along these lines. (Once upon a time he was selected as one of America's "Top Young Scientists".) Many there will be, who won't care to hear this, but give it a shot.

____

I don't know about the specific tests in the Boston silliness, but to my
way of thinking, the fairest test would be to take high quality digital
material (e.g. 96 Khz 24 bits - no non-linear 1 bit SACD stuff) and
make specific versions of it that are degraded. For example, down
convert to 44.1/16 and back up to 96/24. Then play the two files back
through the highest quality available equipment and see if there is any
difference. There will be NOTHING ANALOG that is changing, just the
digital signal itself. Furthermore, there is nothing different about
the digital signal processing into and out of analog. So the difference
between the original and degraded material can be definitively
understood. (And the polarity will be the same as well.)

Now, here's the rub. I did part of this test last year while mastering
an album. Specifically, I went from 44/24 down to 44/16. We conducted a
"triple blind" test. Triple blind, in that not only the experimenter or
the subject knew what was being compared, but even more, none of us knew
that there was actually an experiment underway!

[Note: I developed this same technique in the late Eighties, and presented it in a paper to the 91st AES Convention in 1992; I have taken flak for my impertinence ever since, although none of my antagonists cared to re-analyze my results.]

That is until the
subject (the producer for the album, I was the engineer) complained that
the sound quality was poor. How could this be? The sound quality the
day before had been agreed to be good. What had changed was the word
length. The particular method used to down convert from 24 bits to 16
bits had introduced a low level of distortion -- something that should
have been completely inaudible, but it was actually the difference
between music that was pleasant to listen to and music that was harsh
and unlistenable. Ultimately, we had to get down to 16 bits so we could
make a CD, so after trying several different methods of dithering and
noise shaping we finally came up with a 16 bit version that was acceptable.

Now the theory says that all that changed between the good reduction and
the bad reduction was the low order bit. This was below 0 db spl in the
listening room, at 1 meter from the speakers. (The gain was calibrated.)
We were listening in a room full of computers with fans and whirring
disks, and a noise level of perhaps 45 db or more. So how could the low
order bit have mattered?

Theoretically, it couldn't have mattered. The intellectuals will say we
were deluded. The artists know better. The intellectuals will dismiss
this as "anecdotal evidence". This is, of course, the paramount
buzz-word they use to dismiss results that disagree with Kuhn's "Normal
Science", that is to say their favorite theories.

Now I've thought about this quite a bit -- because this gets to the
heart of the problem that began when digital audio first came into
existence. If one could take tests like this and cast them into a form
that would convince a reasonable fraction of the flat-earthers perhaps
some progress could be made. In other words, make a double blind test
based on the kind of sonic differences that seemed so significant to me
last year.

But I don't think this will work. Why? Because double blind testing
won't be able to distinguish what we were hearing. The problem was that
listening to the polluted music was giving us a headache. It took some
time to recover before we could appreciate the unpolluted music. In a
rapid sequence of blind testing our malaise would have continued and
would have been falsely applied to the unpolluted music as well as the
polluted music.

There may be a way out, but it's very high budget. Perhaps PET scans of
the brain of listeners will show different neural activity when
listening to low and high quality audio. They may give external
("objective") access to some of the subjective aspects of perception
that are not readily available to the consciousness of many subjects.

PS No high end equipment here. A $59 external sound card, plus 20 year
old amplifier and speakers that originally cost under $500. These
differences could be heard on cheap headphones as well.

 

RE: Boston Audio Society Strikes Again!, posted on September 11, 2007 at 14:25:47
John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 4045
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003
 >Brad Meyer and David Moran of the Boston Audio Society have (once again)
>proven that we are all deaf.

Don't let it be forgotten that E. Brad Meyer was doing blind tests at
AES Conventions in the early 1990s to "prove" that TDK's latest cassette
tape formulation produced recordings that could not be distinguished by
ear from the original CDs. :-)

See my "As We See It" essays in the September and October issues of
Stereophile, which outline the results of some blind tests that come up
with different conclusions.

The Pioneer player used in the Meyer/Moran tests has a measured dynamic
range with hi-rez recordingsd no better than CD, so perhaps it is not
surprising that they ended up with negative findings.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile



 

Compare the ear to the eye, posted on September 11, 2007 at 15:12:48
Jayme
Audiophile

Posts: 254
Location: NYC
Joined: September 27, 2006
 Our senses are quite interesting. Note that when you look directly at an object, you can discern colors and detail better. BUT, you are actually better at detecting movement and changes from your peripheral vision.

I am inclined to believe that the ear works under similar premises. Changes and differences between systems and recordings are difficult to pin down when directly concentrating on them.

I note significant differences between many components, but I rely more on how I emotionally feel after a long period of listening. And, well, that is not a 100% measurable factor, and prone to outside influence from many different factors.

 

The BAS should be shortened to BS., posted on September 11, 2007 at 16:51:51
LiquidMidrange
Audiophile

Posts: 331
Location: USA
Joined: June 24, 2004
 What utter nonsense.

 

RE: Boston Audio Society Strikes Again!, posted on September 11, 2007 at 17:06:44
middleground
 Logic is dead! Long live eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemotion!

 

Wait til they announce........mp3 is the new hi-rez, posted on September 11, 2007 at 18:20:47
Joe M
Audiophile

Posts: 11980
Joined: September 27, 2001
 .

 

RE: Boston Audio Society Strikes Again!, posted on September 11, 2007 at 21:30:54
Old nuff 2 no better
Audiophile

Posts: 516
Location: Upstate NY
Joined: September 3, 2007
 I'm generally a skeptic when it comes to hearing this sort of thing, and my 52 year old ears roll off like a stone off a cliff at 14.5khz. But...

I've been recording some old LPs to CD and noticed that the character of some awful clicking/rattling maracas (or something) on a 1959 Enoch Light demo album (Provocative Percussion) wasn't quite right. I changed the sampling from 44.1 to 96khz and the problem went away. Looking at the digitized waveforms, it's pretty obvious that the higher and lower rate waveforms simply aren't the same. I admit it's subtle, but that's not the same as non-existent.

 

Perhaps you all might agree with the conclusion more?, posted on September 11, 2007 at 21:49:26
Axon
Audiophile

Posts: 369
Location: Austin, TX
Joined: December 20, 2005
 That is, if any of you have an AES membership to read it. But, I guess nobody here does... Oh! Wait. I've got the article right here. Along with your moms. ZING!

"Virtually all of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs — sometimes much better... Partly because these recordings have not captured a large portion of the consumer market for music, engineers and producers are being given the freedom to produce recordings that sound as good as they can make them, without having to compress or equalize the signal to suit lesser systems and casual listening conditions... Our test results indicate that all of these recordings could be released on conventional CDs with no audible difference. They would not, however, find such a reliable conduit to the homes of those with the systems and listening habits to appreciate them. The secret, for two-channel recordings at least, seems to lie not in the high-bit recording but in the high-bit market."

In other words, SACD and DVD-A releases generally sound better than CD, for reasons that have nothing to do with the encoding. Everybody - including (almost) all the DBT folks at HydrogenAudio - agree with that.

 

"the same signal passed through a 16-bit/44.1-kHz “bottleneck.”, posted on September 12, 2007 at 07:17:37
Richard BassNut Greene
 What's a "Bottleneck" and where can we buy them?

Unless an audiophile used a similar "Bottleneck" in his audio system, which seems very unlikely, test results based on the use of a "Bottleneck" would not apply to him.

We already have 30 years of blind testing that consistently shows audiophiles can't even come close to proving their claims that "everything sounds different", except with speakers and two components playing at different SPL's, so why would an audio club waste time testing some theoretical "Bottleneck"?

I suppose their next test will be metal coat hangers versus speaker wire?

High resolution digital recordings/discs are much more likely to be sold on the basis of better sound quality so the engineers involved are much less likely to provide the usual LOUD compressed overprocessed pop recordings that seem so common on Redbook CDs.

.
.
.
.



Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007

 

RE: Did I, or did I NOT tell you all, posted on September 12, 2007 at 10:44:02
Dr. S
Reviewer

Posts: 1264
Location: Oregon
Joined: February 7, 2007
 This would turn into a pissing match? It ALWAYS DOES! That is why there is propeller head forum.

Doc S.

 

Double blind, blah, blah, blah....., posted on September 11, 2007 at 10:22:34
Ozzy
Audiophile

Posts: 7597
Joined: September 21, 1999
 ...measurements, blah, blah, blah,.....


actually listening to music for long term enjoyment?

Nah, what could THAT possibly tell us?


Oz

 

Glad to see I'm not the only one appaled at JC's "contributions" here., posted on September 11, 2007 at 14:40:28
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 I'm also wondering how much of that crap would be allowed if he was just regular inmate here.

 

RE: They did well..., posted on September 11, 2007 at 19:05:32
john curl
Manufacturer

Posts: 4708
Joined: May 16, 2000
 What is wrong with you people and why are you so insulting to me? What did I do to you?

 

Nine out of ten worst hi-fis are found in recording studios., posted on September 11, 2007 at 10:54:54
kavakidd
Audiophile

Posts: 20316
Location: Upstate NY
Joined: April 15, 2004
 Or - in the homes of musicians

"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain

 

RE: "...and one high-end system." Oh bully for them! But the gaps in their reasoniing are blatant., posted on September 11, 2007 at 11:13:53
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 18614
Location: Ontario
Joined: November 22, 2003
 My gawd did your leg go flying across the room after that incredible knee jerk?

You complain that the "gaps in their reasoniing [sic] are blatant" (emphasis added) and then proceed to speculate (having not read the paper) as to what those gaps might be!

The only thing blatant is the patent obtuseness evident in your post! ... something that is, though it hardly need saying, entirely independent of the question of the superiority of high def. audio formats, e.g. SACD, vs. 16-bit/44.1-kHz Redbook.





I feel a dirty wind blowing
Devils and dust

 

I think they just wanted to find out if a 16/44.1 A/D/A conversion was easily detected, posted on September 11, 2007 at 11:22:24
Slider
 Not really a comparison of different players.

We will be using the Pioneer 563A DVD-A/SACD universal player which keeps the DSD output of the disc in DSD form without converting to PCM. The conversion to 16 bit and back will be by a Sony DTC-790 DAT machine (1996 consumer model) which has been carefully checked to represent the best in conventional technology.

 

Agreed, although it's different with musicians., posted on September 11, 2007 at 11:01:16
clarkjohnsen
Reviewer

Posts: 26843
Location: Massachusetts
Joined: May 5, 2000
 With their systems there are few pretensions, and hardly ever any sqauwky top ends. And rarely a B&W!

clark

 

Careful, posted on September 11, 2007 at 11:57:30
unclestu52
Dealer

Posts: 6982
Location: Hawaii
Joined: March 5, 2005
 Clark, IIRC, lives in Boston.....


Stu

 

Pioneer 563A DVD-A/SACD universal player --) approx. $250.00, posted on September 11, 2007 at 11:29:07
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 18614
Location: Ontario
Joined: November 22, 2003
 If you're stating that this was the source component then personally I cannot see why the study would be of any interest whatsoever to the audiophile community.


I feel a dirty wind blowing
Devils and dust

 

interest to the audiophile community?, posted on September 11, 2007 at 12:26:11
Slider
 Probably not. But no statement on my part, I just grabbed the italicized announcement from the BAS homepage. Sadly though, that source component is at least as good as most of the gear used to make the recordings we love as audiophiles, so I think most of us would probably consider the DSD-converted analog output of sufficient quality to test for whether we could hear two 16-bit/44.1HKz conversions inserted in the chain. I'd confidently take the test if I had a chance to get to know the system a bit.

 

I imagine, posted on September 11, 2007 at 12:07:24
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 18614
Location: Ontario
Joined: November 22, 2003
 you're cautioning me against sweeping generalizations. Thanks, but no worries, just be cause CJ and the BAS are co-located I assure you I'll not start questioning the integrity of the water supply, speculate about indications of (the consequences of) lack of genetic diversity, or anything of the sort.

:)


I feel a dirty wind blowing
Devils and dust

 

RE: A test that I did., posted on September 11, 2007 at 12:45:44
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "My conclusion: RBCD encoding is capable of doing very well with the information content in vinyl and CD playback, but it clearly falls short in handling a signal derived from a SACD source."

You may want to find out, in a future test, if such derivation fares any better via DSD..... Which on paper synchronizes conversion between CD, SACD, and DVD-A.

 

RE: A test that I did., posted on September 11, 2007 at 13:31:52
Dr. S
Reviewer

Posts: 1264
Location: Oregon
Joined: February 7, 2007
 is that I really enjoy listening to music in analog, PCM and DSD digital forms...

Doc S.

 

Nahh, posted on September 11, 2007 at 18:44:43
unclestu52
Dealer

Posts: 6982
Location: Hawaii
Joined: March 5, 2005
 not really. I just find it amusing that CJ would have something like this crop up in his backyard, while he attempts to solve the issue of polarity for the world. and he still claims polarity may be the issue too, which is interesting because you would assume having a store front in the area would have generated a group of converts sensitive to the issue he raises.

Ah well, c'est la vie.....


Stu

 

The usual DBT crowd hasn't arrived yet., posted on September 11, 2007 at 12:53:26
Bruce Kendall
Dealer

Posts: 27050
Location: SoCal
Joined: February 4, 2005
 The flames will come soon enough, I'm sure.


 

"I'd confidently take the test if I had a chance to get to know the system a bit." --- *I wouldn't!*, posted on September 11, 2007 at 12:51:39
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 18614
Location: Ontario
Joined: November 22, 2003
 Let me say first that I completely agree with you on the importance of becoming familiar with the system. However that wouldn't be completely sufficient. For example I found in my experience that tests oriented around rapid switching are completely useless, i.e. I never compare that way (rapid switching between A/B) because I find I'm very insensitive to hearing differences; and I could care less what anyone has to say on the mattter, e.g. that rapid switching is a requirement based upon what is known of aural memory, bla bla bla...

Also I've have found that if I don't like the sound of a system I becomes insensitive to detecting differences; e.g. suppose testing two CD Players and the sounds sucks for both then I find it comes down to "bad is bad" vs. being able to distinguish (confidently) "bad" vs. "more bad".

Hence I'd have to be generally familiar and pleased with the system and agree with the methodology before I'd agree to become a participant in a test; were I conducting a test that's basically the criteria I'd use for screening the test subjects.


I feel a dirty wind blowing
Devils and dust

 

Thanks..., posted on September 11, 2007 at 13:38:45
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 18614
Location: Ontario
Joined: November 22, 2003
 for pretty much confirming what I said about you being oblivious to opinions contrary to your own; previous observation (link) was re: CD technologies yet clearly (here) we witness just another manifestation of same.

I suppose I should recommend you spend some time at Hi-Rez but I suspect after reading any number of testimonials from the high-rez fans you'd still be posting about not having encountered any such "claims and anecdotes".

Oh wait, just thought of a new angle... here's a little thought experiment for you. Ask yourself why the high rez formats have attracted supporters. Is it bacause:

A. They find the sonics to be superior compared to Redbook CD?

B. They are attracted to the vast catalogs of music (new and re-issue)available in the high rez. formats compares to the "slim pickings" that now accurately describes what is avialable on CD Reedbook?

C. They just want one player that will do it all? Including playing their DVDs since after all they believe everything sounds the same anyway.

Challenge yourself Todd... but do ease up if you sense something about to snap in the old grey matter, wouldn't want that!


I feel a dirty wind blowing
Devils and dust

 

RE: Boston Audio Society Strikes Again!, posted on September 11, 2007 at 12:58:03
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "I'm disappointed to see anyone post something on this subject, since it invariably results in yet another endless round of bickering."

People have opinions on the subject. And a lot of disagreement. I don't think it's been awful.

But then again, I've never had a problem with being shouted at. So some may perceive me as being "desensitized" to the bickering you cited......

In regard to the bickering, I've thought for quite some time there should have been a forum here for "hot-button" issues ("DBT", "snake oil", digital issues, etc.), to shield those who cannot stomach the flamethrowing.

 

I was asking a much simpler question., posted on September 11, 2007 at 16:36:57
jsm
Audiophile

Posts: 1887
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: October 28, 2000
 I was dealing with the analog signal put out by three different devices and asking how well I could encode that signal with RBCD. For two devices RBCD worked quite well, for one (SACD original source) it didn't. I have no doubt that if I used a better digital encoding method than RBCD I would have done better with SACD, which would further strengthen the point I am trying to make (probably not very well).

Joe

 

RE: I admit a lot of our discussions go nowhere, posted on September 11, 2007 at 13:30:47
Dr. S
Reviewer

Posts: 1264
Location: Oregon
Joined: February 7, 2007
 but this one is SURE to spiral into groin kicking and spitting.

Sigh

Doc S.

 

No, we just left the party before you showed up., posted on September 11, 2007 at 21:29:38
Axon
Audiophile

Posts: 369
Location: Austin, TX
Joined: December 20, 2005
 I posted this on HydrogenAudio fully a day before Mr. Hansen did. Touche! ;P

 

RE: Boston Audio Society Strikes Again!, posted on September 11, 2007 at 14:55:24
suretyguy
Audiophile

Posts: 3022
Location: western Missouri
Joined: October 9, 2001
 I didn't word my earlier post well, since I'm not the least bit concerned about flames. It's more a matter that this is one of those issues that has been debated forever-or at least for the 30 years or so I've been involved with this hobby-and has no resolution, so we get subjected to an endless rehash of the same old tired arguments (on both sides). It takes up a lot of space and goes nowhere. And, yes, I can just skip it, but it seems to me that the time and effort could be better expended on topics that might actually be informative rather than merely uselessly argumentative.

But I do like like your idea of a separate board: Why not call it "Dead End Alley?"

 

I don't think this one is so much about DBTs, as about poorly conceived experiments. nt, posted on September 11, 2007 at 13:58:55
clarkjohnsen
Reviewer

Posts: 26843
Location: Massachusetts
Joined: May 5, 2000
 d

 

I couldn't agree more., posted on September 11, 2007 at 16:45:24
jsm
Audiophile

Posts: 1887
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: October 28, 2000
 I have plenty of recordings in all three formats and enjoy them all. I rarely make CD-Rs, but my wife wanted a copy of an SACD for her car player. It was in the process of making that that I discovered that RBCD didn't do as well in capturing the sound quality of SACD, which wasn't a surprise. However that RBCD copy of the SACD was quite enjoyable to listen to. It was better in sound quality than a lot of CDs that I have.

Joe

 

Item B in your post - you're kidding, right?, posted on September 11, 2007 at 14:55:40
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 We obviously listen to different kinds of music. In my world, available music in digital formats is distributed as 100%/0% for CD/High Rez.

It's probably cost-prohibitive for small labels to do SACD, especially considering that some albums are limited to only few hundreds or thousands copies.

 

RE: Thanks..., posted on September 11, 2007 at 18:43:33
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "Oh wait, just thought of a new angle... here's a little thought experiment for you. Ask yourself why the high rez formats have attracted supporters. Is it bacause:

A. They find the sonics to be superior compared to Redbook CD?"

Several have claimed that..... I don't agree, but otherwise no problem.

"B. They are attracted to the vast catalogs of music (new and re-issue)available in the high rez. formats compares to the 'slim pickings' that now accurately describes what is avialable on CD Reedbook?"

If you say so..... I don't think it's the case.....

"C. They just want one player that will do it all? Including playing their DVDs since after all they believe everything sounds the same anyway."

I might get one if it can also play vinyl..... [-;

"Challenge yourself Todd... but do ease up if you sense something about to snap in the old grey matter, wouldn't want that!"

I'm not sure what you want..... You may want to re-phrase..... Thanks.

 

You should know., posted on September 12, 2007 at 03:17:37
tlyyra
Audiophile

Posts: 1422
Location: Northern Europe
Joined: April 6, 2006
 If there's anyone with an intimate knowledge of "poorly conceived experiments," it ought to be you, to be sure. It is the one indisputable area where you can show a true track record and where you have shown some serious "hoots-pah," if you don't mind my quoting from a post of your own.

The fact alone that all the usual suspects so quickly rally behind their opinion leaders vocally attacking this piece and the issues behind it (without probably even having bothered to read it) makes me convinced that it must address itself to something valuable and valid.

TL

 

RE: you make the classic mis-assumption..., posted on September 11, 2007 at 17:34:33
mls-stl
 of many test naysayers that all "double blind" testing involves rapid ABX switching. That is not an inherent requirement of blind testing. One can concoct a testing scenario where you are given whatever amount of time you wish to listen to one configuration before listening to the other.

The only requirement is that the test subject remain blind to the specific item under test (the first blind), and that immediate test administrator who has contact with the test subjects also be blind (the second blind.)

The only goal of any blind testing is to remove the conscious and subconscious influence that specific knowledge of the item under test brings. Remember that such biases don't always follow the lines of expectation.

If there is a valid difference, it will show up repeatedly over time. The problem is that such tests are never easy to set up to the satisfaction of the varied interests. In fact, a certain segment of the audio world wouldn't even want firm results. Uncertainty offers them far more security than the chance that tests might not go their way.


 

Kuhn and "triple blind", posted on September 12, 2007 at 04:09:08
tlyyra
Audiophile

Posts: 1422
Location: Northern Europe
Joined: April 6, 2006
 Having a bit of a background in this, I really must object to your continued oversimplifications and terminological abuse of philosophy of science in general and Thomas Kuhn's work in particular in your efforts to lend an aura of seriousness to your obscurities. I severely doubt that you've read more than an Amazon.com blurb of even his main text, so please drop the references; they're unpertinent and only make your case look like a hodgepodge of someone slightly disintegrating. Let's talk about things on their own terms: yours is a case not of an alternative or "victimized" theory or a theorema making heroic claims to equal footing, but simply of nonsense naturally waved off, sort of something like the necessary quotient of noise in any environment. Neither would I call anyone in your camp an "artist." That's offensive, too, having a real one as my partner.

Which all makes me wonder how "young," "top" and in any way involved with "science" your (typically) anonymous buddy might have ever been.

And that somewhat related "triple blind" sillyness can only be talked about in the one and only fashion it's been addressed when and if anyone has bothered to comment: as a joke. All it assures us of is ignorance and miscomprehension, and it's not the first time the point is broached here, either.

You just keep repeating these in the hopes of finding fresh audiences, I guess.

TL

 

And now I have permission to reveal his identity., posted on September 12, 2007 at 09:54:19
clarkjohnsen
Reviewer

Posts: 26843
Location: Massachusetts
Joined: May 5, 2000
 It is Tony Lauck, ex scientific bigwig at Digital Equipment Corp (late, lamented). And a classical music devotee of considerable note, now doing some of his own recording.

And I still have (temporary) possession of a tape he made of a Boston Symphony stereo broadcast of the Mahler Second back in 1958, made off two separate FM stations, for which momentous occasion he obtained two Citation tuners!

Disclaimer: I have known Tony for forty-five years, was best man at his wedding *and* gave the bride away, etc. etc. Plus we were active together at the college radio station, and he essentially taught me audio, although I had known a good deal already.

Further disclaimer: He was closely acquainted with E. Brad Meyer at prep school, then later at college the three of us hung together, and after graduation became housemates for a while, several years in the case of Brad and me.

Brad Meyer went on to become a writer for Stereo Review.

clark

 

Wha? The player was Pioneer? That wasn't in the paper., posted on September 11, 2007 at 21:35:38
Axon
Audiophile

Posts: 369
Location: Austin, TX
Joined: December 20, 2005
 That is one of the sore points of the paper - the equipment is not at all described. How did you determine that?

 

Good catch! Back in the Seventies (or so) he and his pals were saying that..., posted on September 12, 2007 at 09:30:17
clarkjohnsen
Reviewer

Posts: 26843
Location: Massachusetts
Joined: May 5, 2000
 ...(mind you, these were not DBTs)... saying that a certain Audio Technica cartridge (I forget which) rendered LPs so well, they sounded like master tapes!

This was on a Saturday morning radio show about audio called Shop Talk, which preceded even Car Talk on WBUR-FM in Boston. Other participants (the founders) were Peter Mitchell and Richard Goldwater. It was fair fun, I admit, and I even bought the cartridge -- which eventually was replaced in their estimation by a Sonus, which I also bought. But sound like mastertapes? No way!

clark

 

There's already such a place, Isolation Ward. Some, posted on September 11, 2007 at 17:18:50
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 18614
Location: Ontario
Joined: November 22, 2003
 would argue Prop Head serves a similar function.

I feel a dirty wind blowing
Devils and dust

 

"Dead End Alley"?..... I Like It!!!!!, posted on September 11, 2007 at 18:45:37
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 That's better than anything I've come up with!!! .....

 

RE: Item B in your post - you're kidding, right?, posted on September 11, 2007 at 20:12:04
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 If SACD were readily available, it would be like it was for me when CD first came out. I may have had a player by now, but I'd be on this huge learning curve, once again, in determining which players are any good (if they exist), and which recordings are as well (if such recordings exist). But the lack of selection makes me think it isn't worth the trouble. At least for now.

I think my initial ordeal with CD is why I'm so hesitant with new formats. Even more so than the limited selection of recordings. (If I thought SACD sounded fabulous, I'd definitely be using one now, and talking about it like I talk about Don Allen's products.) Remember, I once thought there was no such thing as "good-sounding CD playback" as well, until that "Wadia 7/9" experience. The only difference with high-rez is that it won't be likely that I'll purchase anything until such experience occurs, if it were to happen.

 

RE: Compare the ear to the eye, posted on September 12, 2007 at 05:49:43
middleground
 Not the emotional thing again!

 

RE: I was asking a much simpler question., posted on September 11, 2007 at 19:50:42
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "I was dealing with the analog signal put out by three different devices and asking how well I could encode that signal with RBCD."

Oh I see..... So if it was originally digital, it was sent to the DAC and then converted to RBCD.....

"For two devices RBCD worked quite well, for one (SACD original source) it didn't."

Interesting..... You may have dug up some underlying flaw in the SACD format..... It would be interesting to see if it shows up in a scope trace......

Re-digitizing a signal after a D/A can have side effects. For example, if the jitter is encoded onto analog media, and then sampled again in A/D, the jitter will be seen as "amplitude errors" in the new data. Which is noise. (The new sampling doesn't see the jitter from the previous digitization, it only sees deviations in amplitude as a result of the jitter.)

"I have no doubt that if I used a better digital encoding method than RBCD I would have done better with SACD, which would further strengthen the point I am trying to make (probably not very well)."

It's hard to say. SACD is a totally different format/conversion, involving pulse density modulation instead of data numerically depicting amplitude (pulse code modulation).

 

RE: It's an important part of the hobby for me ...., posted on September 11, 2007 at 16:52:51
Dr. S
Reviewer

Posts: 1264
Location: Oregon
Joined: February 7, 2007
 moving back and forth between vinyl and digital, tubes and SS ... I wish I had the room for a pure vintage system ... each is a somewhat different experience, which adds to the overall experience.

I don't worry much about whether nor not the Japanese, American, or Mofi pressing of Dark Side of the Moon is better than the CD, MOFI CD, Japanese CD, or SACD. I listen to that which I am in the mood to hear.

Someone was pressing me for which I preferred, the original Roxy Cast, or the movie soundtrack for Rocky Horror ... I said I liked my memory of the live version I saw in Canada best, and both of the recordings equally. They are just different from one another.

I find these never ending discussions about which is superior to be pointless and rancorous.

Doc S.

 

RE: There's already such a place, Isolation Ward. Some, posted on September 11, 2007 at 18:55:33
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 Isolation Ward is for subjects like Brilliant Pebbles and vacuum tube motherboards. Also repetitive threads initiated by the same posters on subject matters like absolute polarity.

Prop Head is for scientific matters like why one amp topology is better than another or why a new performance parameter better correlates to subjective performance. Or why we prefer the sonics of vacuum tubes.

And naturally, both forums have their flameouts as well.

I was thinking of a general board for heated discussion, that would not necessarily fit into far-out tweaks for Isolation or scientific matters for Prophead. Those who don't mind the heat just go to that board regularly, and those who do mind it won't have to worry about flame wars ruining their enjoyment of the normal forums.

 

My objections were not to the DBT element as such, please note., posted on September 12, 2007 at 08:58:56
clarkjohnsen
Reviewer

Posts: 26843
Location: Massachusetts
Joined: May 5, 2000
 Rather they addressed the highly unrigorous experimental procedure and the unjustified assumptions made about various conversions. And, as someone else stated, the cheap crap used for digital operations.

The DBT thing is entirely separate, and I deliberately avoided it.

clark

 

RE: Thanks..., posted on September 11, 2007 at 19:15:23
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 18614
Location: Ontario
Joined: November 22, 2003
 "Oh wait, just thought of a new angle... here's a little thought experiment for you. Ask yourself why the high rez formats have attracted supporters. Is it bacause:

A. They find the sonics to be superior compared to Redbook CD?"

>Several have claimed that..... I don't agree, but otherwise no problem.

You just finished saying you'd not seen any such claims! Are intentionally playing the fool, or what?




I feel a dirty wind blowing
Devils and dust

 

"...won't have to worry about flame wars ruining their enjoyment of the normal forums." Yes, and..., posted on September 12, 2007 at 09:56:23
clarkjohnsen
Reviewer

Posts: 26843
Location: Massachusetts
Joined: May 5, 2000
...where they feel safe to post pictures of their cats.

Geez Luiz, Todd!

clark

 

RE: How about ATA, posted on September 12, 2007 at 11:47:20
Dr. S
Reviewer

Posts: 1264
Location: Oregon
Joined: February 7, 2007
 All Things Argumentative?

Doc S.

 

RE: There's already such a place, Isolation Ward. Some, posted on September 12, 2007 at 13:04:35
geoffkait
 Things 5, 10, 20 years or more ahead are bound to draw the fire of knuckle draggers, mossbacks and chest beaters. What else is new?

 

RE: They did well..., posted on September 11, 2007 at 19:54:02
Charles Hansen
Manufacturer

Posts: 6984
Joined: August 1, 2001
 << What is wrong with you people and why are you so insulting to me? >>

Oh, just ignore them John. Maybe it's the way they were raised. Or maybe they are trying to compensate for some other personal deficiencies.

 

RE: They did well..., posted on September 11, 2007 at 23:01:20
Brian Walsh
Distributor or Rep

Posts: 10768
Location: IL
Joined: December 6, 1999
 I agree, ignore them. Sometimes I think some people's sole mission in life is to stir the pot and cause trouble, instead of trying to learn and share their knowledge openly with others. The lazy person doesn't bother trying.

Brian Walsh

 

RE: Thanks..., posted on September 11, 2007 at 19:57:50
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 "You just finished saying you'd not seen any such claims!"

I've seen them.... I've only had a hard time finding them with great regularity......

"Are intentionally playing the fool, or what?"

I guess you'll have to determine that..... I think you've already come to that belief anyway.....

 

No, no, no!, posted on September 12, 2007 at 12:01:35
jsm
Audiophile

Posts: 1887
Location: SF Bay Area
Joined: October 28, 2000
 I am not claiming that I have dug up a flaw in the SACD format. Just the opposite! I am simply saying that SACD is better than RBCD as revealed by the fact I can make a very good, compelling RBCD copy of the analog signal coming out of a RBCD player, but a RBCD copy of an analog signal derived from a SACD doesn't do it justice. SACDs are better. There is something advantagous to the higher sampling rate and/or more bits of SACD that comes through in the analog signal. This thread started by citing a study claiming the opposite.

Joe

 

RE: They did well..., posted on September 11, 2007 at 20:14:58
john curl
Manufacturer

Posts: 4708
Joined: May 16, 2000
 This is all your doing! Here I was trying to retire into a quiet life, and you have to bring up my relations with the AES (that I have been a member of for 40 years). They will be sure to kick me out now! ;-)

 

Before you chaps, posted on September 11, 2007 at 20:44:08
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 18614
Location: Ontario
Joined: November 22, 2003
 go too far down the road with the Dumb and Dumber routine one of you might want to look up "sarcasm" in a dictionary.

Just a suggestion.

I feel a dirty wind blowing
Devils and dust

 

RE: They did well..., posted on September 11, 2007 at 20:40:43
Charles Hansen
Manufacturer

Posts: 6984
Joined: August 1, 2001
 Hey, if they kick you out, I'll quit too and we can start our own danged audio society. One that actually tries to improve the art. Kind of like AES was 40 years ago...

 

RE: Wha? The player was Pioneer? That wasn't in the paper., posted on September 12, 2007 at 03:54:24
John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 4045
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003
 >That is one of the sore points of the paper - the equipment is not at all
>described.

To my regret, I have not yet read the paper as my JAES has not yet arrived.

> How did you determine that?

Earlier in this thread, it was stated that the BAS homepage listed the
equipment used by Meyer and Moran.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

RE: Perhaps you all might agree with the conclusion more?, posted on September 12, 2007 at 00:47:32
theaudiohobby
Audiophile

Posts: 4674
Joined: January 16, 2003
 Thanks for the summary.

Music making the painting, recording it the photograph

 

RE: Perhaps you all might agree with the conclusion more?, posted on September 12, 2007 at 01:06:08
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 The root criticism is that a study was seemingly brought up out of thin air with a desired outcome, and then used as factual basis for the remaining article. (It also used subjective perception of just a few people, that is not unanimously agreed with, as factual basis.) The lack of references, controls, or data raised skepticism over whether such a project had actually taken place. Citing the seemingly-sacred belief that because it's an AES article, it's automatically truth and ought not be challenged.

 

RE: Perhaps you all might agree with the conclusion more?, posted on September 12, 2007 at 05:45:16
Dan Banquer
Manufacturer

Posts: 9461
Joined: November 13, 2002
 I'm not surprised. Recording engineers that I know are telling me that they are limiting the dynamic range to 60 db to 70 db because most folks don't have the systems that go beyond that.(Think about how many speakers can realistically do this.) There is one caveat from the same folks, practically all of them hear the benefits of 20 bit, and due to the increased low level linearity.
d.b.

 

"I guess nobody here... has AES membership." LOL!, posted on September 12, 2007 at 09:38:16
clarkjohnsen
Reviewer

Posts: 26843
Location: Massachusetts
Joined: May 5, 2000
 Good try, no cigar. While I can't name everyonehere who might be a member, try:

Charles Hanson

John Atkinson

John Curl

and

clark, Life Member, AES

 

So it's good news that SACD remains niche, posted on September 12, 2007 at 09:53:01
Feanor
Audiophile

Posts: 9878
Location: London, Ontario
Joined: June 17, 2003
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2004
 "In other words, SACD and DVD-A releases generally sound better than CD, for reasons that have nothing to do with the encoding." Yep, I agree too, and for the reasons stated.

At inception, did Sony ever really want SACD to go mainstream? I very much doubt it, otherwise why did they first release only pure DSD, non-hybrid discs? Reflecting on the whole thing, I think it's just as well SACD has remained niche.

Bill Bailey
___
Feanor's list of 250 Core Classical Compositions

 

Wrong., posted on September 12, 2007 at 10:44:41
carcass93
Audiophile

Posts: 7181
Location: NJ
Joined: September 20, 2006
 May I ask what knowledge, exactly, is being shared routinely insulting people?

I'm pretty sure you know what I'm talking about, but just in case - you may want to recall the most recent performance, involving some guy from Sweden.

 

"The... sacred belief that because it's an AES article, it's automatically truth and ought not be challenged.", posted on September 12, 2007 at 09:35:51
clarkjohnsen
Reviewer

Posts: 26843
Location: Massachusetts
Joined: May 5, 2000
 Quite so. Also remember, it's peer-reviewed, another sacred touchstone.

LOL! What does that say about the peers?

clark

 

RE: You should know., posted on September 12, 2007 at 05:13:39
theaudiohobby
Audiophile

Posts: 4674
Joined: January 16, 2003
 Nice observation...

Music making the painting, recording it the photograph

 

RE: You should know., posted on September 12, 2007 at 07:24:12
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 18614
Location: Ontario
Joined: November 22, 2003
 "The fact alone that all the usual suspects so quickly rally behind their opinion leaders vocally attacking this piece and the issues behind it (without probably even having bothered to read it) makes me convinced that it must address itself to something valuable and valid."

You are easily "convinced" it seems, after all that the "piece" addresses "something valuable and valid" should be determined by the content of said "piece" as certainly nothing authoritative can be ascertained based merely on the observation of it being attacked by individuals who may not even have bothered to read it!

You would appear to share much with those that you are quick to ridicule.


I feel a dirty wind blowing
Devils and dust

 

So you haven't even read it..., posted on September 12, 2007 at 04:44:59
tlyyra
Audiophile

Posts: 1422
Location: Northern Europe
Joined: April 6, 2006
 ...but feel encouraged to "comment" anyway? Based on what, exactly?

TL

 

While one normally (and wisely) chooses not to respond to troubled adolescents..., posted on September 12, 2007 at 09:20:35
clarkjohnsen
Reviewer

Posts: 26843
Location: Massachusetts
Joined: May 5, 2000
 ...who post here posing as adults, occasionally the rule must be lifted.

"Having a bit of a background in this, I really must object to your continued oversimplifications and terminological abuse of philosophy of science in general and Thomas Kuhn's work in particular in your efforts to lend an aura of seriousness to your obscurities."

Oh my, such faux-grownup lingo! ("I really must object" actually sounds more prissy, but let it pass, let it pass.)

Had the writer not let his typically rancorous animosity blind his vision, he might have noticed that it wasn't I who composed the entry.

"Yours is a case not of an alternative or 'victimized' theory or a theorema making heroic claims to equal footing, but simply of nonsense naturally waved off." Mercy!

"You just keep repeating these in the hopes of finding fresh audiences, I guess." Oh this person is such a jester. I laugh. L!

clark

 

RE: So you haven't even read it..., posted on September 12, 2007 at 12:04:29
John Atkinson
Reviewer

Posts: 4045
Location: New York
Joined: November 24, 2003
 >...feel encouraged to "comment" anyway?

I think you are misreading what I wrote. I made no comment at all on
the Meyer/Moran tests or conclusions. I merely pointed out: 1) that this
is not the first series of blind tests E. Brad Meyer has been involved
in where a null result appeared to be the desired outcome; and 2) that
the source player used, if it was indeed the Pioneer as noted by other
posters, has a measured dynamic range no better than 16-bit CD, so could
hardly be expected to preserve the hi-rez aspects of the new media.

As I said, my copy of the new JAES issue has not yet arrived. When it
does, I will certainly comment on it if necessary. If that's okay by you?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

"Believe your ears", posted on September 12, 2007 at 09:57:09
Feanor
Audiophile

Posts: 9878
Location: London, Ontario
Joined: June 17, 2003
Contributor
  Since: March 12, 2004
 The problem is that our ears are connected to our brains.

Bill Bailey
___
Feanor's list of 250 Core Classical Compositions

 

This just in..., posted on September 12, 2007 at 11:10:24
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 18614
Location: Ontario
Joined: November 22, 2003
 Richard BassNut Greene, notorious throne in the side of the faithful at the Audio Asylum and well known staunch DBT advocate, little impressed by announcement of the Boston Audio Society's latest victory in debunking yet another Audiophile Community myth. Ridiculing the BAS effort that utilized scientifically valid DBT methodology Greene was reported to have said, "I suppose their next test will be metal coat hangers versus speaker wire?"

While this reporter could not obtain an official statement from any of Green's fellow Ultra Objectivists one did offer the following off the record comment, "We fear that Richard has gone off his rocker, I really don't know what to think, it's just surreal like, like... I dunno, Rush Limbaugh going on the campaign trail for Hillary Clinton? It's a sad day."


I feel a dirty wind blowing
Devils and dust

 

DOTARD ALERT!, posted on September 12, 2007 at 10:15:56
tlyyra
Audiophile

Posts: 1422
Location: Northern Europe
Joined: April 6, 2006
 Maybe it is an age issue after all.

;-)

 

RE: "sound like mastertapes? No way!", posted on September 12, 2007 at 10:03:22
tlyyra
Audiophile

Posts: 1422
Location: Northern Europe
Joined: April 6, 2006
 Nowhere near as close to mastertapes as where, according to you, we get by marking our CDs with a green ink pen, sanding their edges, and smearing their tops with hand cream?

TL

 

These Were Never True Peer Reviews to Begin With......., posted on September 12, 2007 at 11:07:02
Todd Krieger
Audiophile

Posts: 37333
Location: SW United States
Joined: November 2, 2000
 A peer-reviewed study or document is normally so air-tight in terms of references, data, and theory, it would be extremely difficult to find a hole that is permeable to challenge. This is what the peers are supposed to achieve.

I personally think the AES's "peer reviews" were never so much peer reviews in the classic sense as much as mutual agreement amongst a circle of people with like thought. I've thought for a long time that many papers in the audio engineering field have utilized "token peers," whose concern was getting these papers submitted to establish a sense of authority amongst those within the circle, rather than maintain and advance sound design practices within the industry. This in time has also established a dogmatic belief system amongst audio designers (often with hushed dissent) and an "us versus them" mentality in regard to their consumer base.

Most of the questioning levied at the audio engineering establishment from the consumers should have been flagged by the peers themselves. But since the quest for "authority immune from challenge" has trumped the quest for sound practices, such burden for genuine review has shifted to the consumers. (Which has driven the belief system and "us versus them" mentality.) And in time, some amongst the consumers realize this. You and me amongst them.

Peer reviews are a lot more effective when the pool of reviewers is vast, the reviewers are otherwise independent in thinking (there is no fear in citing problems or rejecting the presentation), and there are elements in the study or document that are critical (often involving either human health or safety), which could come back to haunt the reviewers if they were later to be found to have let questionable statements or data evade their scrutiny.

 

I'd say Sony (and others) were hoping, posted on September 12, 2007 at 10:47:13
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 18614
Location: Ontario
Joined: November 22, 2003
 SACD would be a repeat of the great Cash Cow that CD was!

So, yeah, I'd say they very much *really* wanted SACD to go mainstream, what the hell do you think, that they were guided by philanthropic motives?

But you need not believe me, here's a little something from Stereophile's reporting of a joint Sony/Philips market launch announcement back in 1999 at the Palmer House Hilton in Chicago (emphasis [bold] added):

---
"Unsurpassed pure audio," Fidler told the audience of industry journalists, some of whom asked pointed questions about the new format's market potential. Stereophile's Sam Tellig expressed doubt about the public's concern for ultimate audio quality, to which a Philips exec replied that in extensive tests, untrained listeners could tell the difference even on boomboxes, and they expressed their preference for SACD. A student journalist from UCLA asked how college students and others of limited means would receive the format. "We fully expect that SACD will trickle down to the entire market," he was told, "eventually to portables and car stereo."
---

So much for niche market pretenses, I mean really??!!


I feel a dirty wind blowing
Devils and dust

 

RE: Wrong., posted on September 12, 2007 at 12:58:26
john curl
Manufacturer

Posts: 4708
Joined: May 16, 2000
 Let me address this: As a small manufacturer, over the years, I know that some customers need help, after their purchase, and some can just be very petty and assume that I will behave like Sony Corp or somesuch when it comes to: schematics, owners manuals, warranty transfer, etc.
Here is Charles Hansen, recently in a serious accident, and not at the factory.
Someone, from somewhere, who has gotten a good deal on some audio equipment, is VERY concerned that he gets the very most out of his most recent purchase, and he addresses a public forum, accusing Charles of not following through in some way. When Charles tries to redress the issue, the guy continues to insist that he is not satisfied. Charles, encumbered with other problems, effectively tells the guy off, by insulting himself. This should have been the end of it, but NO! Then Charles is rebuked for losing his patience.
Well let me tell you, some people tried the same thing with me, after I was totally burned out in a firestorm, 16 years ago. I had a fairly short fuse at the time, so I know that this is not out of line. This is why I offered my input to the discussion.

 

"Token peers," Omigosh, that sez it all!, posted on September 12, 2007 at 11:11:18
clarkjohnsen
Reviewer

Posts: 26843
Location: Massachusetts
Joined: May 5, 2000
 You have voiced my own inchoate objections most forcefully. You have written a classic!

Say, do you belong to them (as it were)?

clark

 

RE: So you haven't even read it..., posted on September 12, 2007 at 12:58:55
tlyyra
Audiophile

Posts: 1422
Location: Northern Europe
Joined: April 6, 2006
 Well, all sophistry apart, what you did is basically prejudice its value before even familiarizing yourself with it.

I'm also curious where the evidence is that "a null result appeared to be the desired outcome" in this research, since, like you, I haven't read the paper, either.

And yes, thanks so much for asking; we all appreciate reasoned, well-informed, and fair commentary where we can find such.

TL

 

Wrong again., posted on September 12, 2007 at 13:11:16
tlyyra
Audiophile

Posts: 1422
Location: Northern Europe
Joined: April 6, 2006
 I followed that debacle quite closely, as you probably saw, and where you are distorting the facts is that the poster in question NEVER accused Charles Hansen of anything. Simply not true. You can go back and read the whole thread again if you wish.

The rest we can simply call differing perspectives then, I suppose.

TL

 

RE: Wrong again., posted on September 12, 2007 at 13:24:35
john curl
Manufacturer

Posts: 4708
Joined: May 16, 2000
 Seems like a quibble to me. Why then was Charles Hansen provoked to respond in such a way?

 

RE: Why CH responded in such a way?, posted on September 12, 2007 at 13:41:59
tlyyra
Audiophile

Posts: 1422
Location: Northern Europe
Joined: April 6, 2006
 I presume that was the question on everyone's lips.

TL

 

"Prop Head is for scientific matters like why ..." You were saying...? LOL nt, posted on September 12, 2007 at 14:28:57
bjh
Audiophile

Posts: 18614
Location: Ontario
Joined: November 22, 2003
 .

I feel a dirty wind blowing
Devils and dust

 

You have to keep up., posted on September 12, 2007 at 15:52:40
Bruce Kendall
Dealer

Posts: 27050
Location: SoCal
Joined: February 4, 2005
 That information came out


 

No, you did NOT!, posted on September 12, 2007 at 18:25:24
andy_c
Audiophile

Posts: 1470
Joined: June 2, 2007
 Just joking :-)

Hey, this is Plop Heads. When in Rome...

 

RE: Why CH responded in such a way?, posted on September 12, 2007 at 19:18:32
Rufipennis
Audiophile

Posts: 1217
Location: Utah
Joined: November 1, 2003
 Judging by the abundance of your posts on that thread, I would have guessed you might have read Charles Hansen's post that enumerated why he lost his temper. Guess I am wrong.

Sometimes anger is an appropriate response - all of us are humans and anger is a part of our nature. Name calling maybe is not an appropriate response, and Mr. Hansen came to regret that aspect of his posts.

 

"a study was seemingly brought up out of thin air with a desired outcome", posted on September 12, 2007 at 20:16:25
andy_c
Audiophile

Posts: 1470
Joined: June 2, 2007
 Like your buddy Cheever?

The old "base your evidence on the conclusion" trick. Science at its best.

 

Yeah, didn't catch that post. thanks. -nt, posted on September 12, 2007 at 22:36:30
Axon
Audiophile

Posts: 369
Location: Austin, TX
Joined: December 20, 2005
 .

 

Touché. I'm just a little surprised at..., posted on September 12, 2007 at 22:45:50
Axon
Audiophile

Posts: 369
Location: Austin, TX
Joined: December 20, 2005
 how hard everybody is focusing on the DBT itself, and not on the significant apology for SACD/DVD-A tacked on at the end of the article. That would only make sense to me if few people had actually read the paper.

I've listened to a few SACDs myself and found them mostly lacking in superiority to CD, but this paper is making me reevaluate that.

For Meyer to appear to be so focused on obtaining a null result - as JA and Todd allege - and then for him to backtrack and say that high rez *still* sounds better than CD, means to me that the BAS was not clearly on some sort of anti-audiophile or anti-high-res vendetta. Despite the shouting on this thread, they *were* trusting their ears on this one.

That said, the lack of detail on equipment used and test results is a damn shame.

 

RE: Why CH responded in such a way?, posted on September 13, 2007 at 03:58:25
tlyyra
Audiophile

Posts: 1422
Location: Northern Europe
Joined: April 6, 2006
 And judging by the abundance of the posts assaulting this shellshocked ex-customer, I'd have thought people read his posts, too (and that includes Charles Hansen - what the hell was he thinking?). Once again, go back and read them before jumping on anyone's bandwagon. There is nothing offensive in any one of them; what's striking instead is their remarkably polite tone, intact even in the face of the inanities hurdled at him.

If you guys just like to hang around looking for someone to jump on (ideally someone who's not an English-speaker, I guess, so it's not too troublesome), that's another matter, but then don't windowdress it as something nobler than what it is, using all these silly little rationalizations transparent enough for anyone bothering to read the posts in question. Find other outlets for that accumulated anger - go jogging, chop some wood, put it into productive use. Though conceptions of "human nature" are in fact anything but uniform (feel free to hold on to your own however), group attacks aren't very manly any longer, and in this case it moreover made Ayre products look like something comparable to brass knuckles in their cultural connotation.

Enough said.

TL

 

Page: [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ]

Page processed in 0.080 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]