 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
129.33.19.254
The only surprising post really is moderator's - directing one of the zealots to cut down on trash talk.
Follow Ups:
I was struck by E-stat's comment on the amount of "vitriol" at HA. However, AA is hardly without that as evidenced by some of the remarks in this thread:
“Feeding time at the zoo “--- carcass93
“Hydrogenaudio takes sour grapes to the level of mob mentality This is what happens when you have snot nosed kids who think they know everything about audio living in their parents' basements with no means to enjoy high end audio forming a club/cult online. They'd probably have record burning mob scenes if they had the money to buy audiophile records to begin with.“– Analog Scott
“It's not the bunch of pseudo-scientific BS that's called "DBT applied to audio"? Please tell me it isn't... “–carcass93
“an audio site devoted to the belief that everything sounds the same” – kerr
“their fair share of mentally unstable members” – carcass93
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
you could hang there. isnt that where all the chihuahuas went?
...regards...tr
They (and you) are wrong - and we are right.
Seriously, HA IS the zoo, there are quite obviously mentally unstable people (read Krueger's rants, for instance), and audio DBT IS bunch of pseudo-scientific BS. You're not going to contest any of this, are you?
No vitriol there at all.
.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
There is no vitriol in objective observation and level headed analysis.
So people stop making fun of those pathetic idiots - just quit it!
Dr. Who, A Christmas Carol, "Like I say, Lucky"
We're right and they're wrong. So we are justified in mocking them.
> I was struck by E-stat's comment on the amount of "vitriol" at HA. However, AA is hardly without that <
I wasn't spewing it when I commented about HA being a site dedicated to the belief that everything sounds the same. I find it incredulous that they'd spend hours discussing that which they believe does not exist, but I think it's great that they have their own place to go to do that. It's become painfully clear that arguments between the differing sides are pointless, so it would make sense that like-minded folks can simply engage each other, both at HA and here.
I'm certain you can find a more appropriate comment from me to quote in order to help your case!
This is what happens when you have snot nosed kids who think they know everything about audio living in their parents' basements with no means to enjoy high end audio forming a club/cult online. They'd probably have record burning mob scenes if they had the money to buy audiophile records to begin with.
-Kurt
It doesn't for me, sorry. Don't know about everybody else.
It does, as DBT ground hog day is just looking for a new place to keep it all going. Poop heads finally got the message I guess. Any references to that debate is just same sh!t, another day. And your post was not that, the responses were. Sorry I responded to your legit news story, I should have started it as a new post and explained better.Sorry if you feel insulted. None was intended. I just made the observation.
-Kurt
Edits: 02/11/11
It's like it's always the same day here.
...we're as funny as Bill Murray and cute as Andie MacDowell?
I don't think we discuss these matters here all that often. Although I hardly post in Critic's, so may be am missing something.
The crux of the disjoint between communities ... not to say that the AA don't have some that are of the HA persuasion ... is easily demonstrated by the response to something Atkinson says in that thread and the response by Krueger:
Atkinson:
"After all, there's no substitute for personal experience."
Krueger:
"IME many personal experiences are a total waste of my time."
That gulf will not be bridged, and the throwing of stones across the divide *is* unfortunately the *hobby* of many.
Total waste of time, yet children will play so the attempt to contain is futile.
Dr. Who, A Christmas Carol, "Like I say, Lucky"
You could put the sentence in context, which in this case is easy, as Mr. Krueger gave an example immediately following:
"IME many personal experiences are a total waste of my time. For example, sighted evaluations of lossy decoders operating as they are typically used to do high quality distribution of audio files are a complete waste of the time of anybody with serious intents."
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
...to defend those clowns.
And to keep us straight...
Actually, I don't see what they were arguing about in that thread. After all, JA says he was demonstrating things that have been proven to be audible.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
"Actually, I don't see what they were arguing about in that thread. After all, JA says he was demonstrating things that have been proven to be audible."
Much like you - babble senseless about things you know nothing about - abolutely devoid of experience - you walk into a shop and eveluate speakers not giving a whim about what is hooked up to them because as long as it's not flawed it's basically pretty much the same - and then you have the balls to corespond directly to John Atkinson as if you had a funck'in clue - laughable! zip cord for speaker wire, a true believer! LOL
So yeah, how is it you put it .... "Ahh, a perfect illustration of my point."
ROTF
Dr. Who, A Christmas Carol, "Like I say, Lucky"
.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
N/T
I have a better technical handle on the audibility of MP-3 encoding artifacts from reading accounts of ABX tests than I do from my own listening. But, on a purely subjective level, a comparison of the sort JA made can be more important, since there's nothing in the quantification of the audibility of artifacts that tells me how the encoding artifacts might affect my listening enjoyment, and how much -- if anything -- those who still listen to high bit rate MP-3's may be missing.
> > Krueger:
> >
> > "IME many personal experiences are a total waste of my time."
> >
> > That gulf will not be bridged,
Some comments:
The problem with "personal experiences" - especially those of the psychological variety - is they are not transferable between people. One person's reaction to subliminal non-audio influences when evaluating audio are of not much use in determining how someone else will react.
I don't read the HA website, but it strikes me as a perfectly legitimate pursuit to sort out reactions to audio into those that have a true physical basis and those non-audio influences that affect the psychological perception of some.
Because we are human, how subjective aspects impact different individuals varies widely.
The problem with some on the subjective side is they tend to treat the collective mix of physical and psychological factors as a universal whole that affects all similarly. They figure there must be something wrong with those who do not hear what they do.
Conversely, some on the "measurement" side of the fence tend to discount the complex nature of human perception. They too have difficulty imagining others might have a differing point of view.
However, I think it is just fine that everyone has a place to go so they can discuss things with others who share their point of view.
Sure they are. if not our perceptions would be utterly random. Some may like chocolate while others like feces. doesn't work that way does it? There is commonality in percpetions even with bias in play. We actually do relate to each others preferences.
That's an important point that some people there miss. Their feeling is, if it's subject to bias, it's not useful. Mine is, in a perfect world, perhaps, in which we had ideal objective measures for everything. But we don't. We have to use our ears. And really, is that so bad? Sure, there are times when I wonder whether I'm imaging I hear something -- or not hearing something that others hear -- or impressed by something because it has a fancy faceplate. I'm sure there are times when all of these things are true. But I learned years ago that imperfect information is better than no information at all. And really, for all the vagaries of subjective analysis, I've never had any doubt that I know it when I hear it. Not some obscure effect that's on the edge of audibility, but whether a system sounds like music or not.
> > Sure they are. if not our perceptions would be utterly random.
I've read a fair amount on the brain and our perceptions and there are two broad categories.
Some subconscious perceptions are indeed fairly common in the human race. Whether they are hard-wired or something else may be unknown, but they are still there.
A good example of this is not too long ago a research study examined the impact of jersey color in sports contests where the referee awards points. It was found that in a closely matched contest, judges generally gave a preference to the contestant with a red jersey. Digitally switching which contestant wore red could change who was awarded more points.
However, many of our preferences as humans vary quite widely. One has to only look at fashion choices, music, TV shows and many other preferences by various segments of the population. Who knows what combination of genetics and experience result in difference choices for different people, but there is hardly a predictable universality involved.
Simply put, it is pretty clear from reading these forums that individuals can and do have a wide variety of responses to the same item. There are good reasons there are over 1,000 makes and models of speakers on the market and not just a handful. A substantial portion of those good reasons are rooted in differing psychological preferences.
I think you are really underestimating the large amount of common ground between peoples' aesthetic experiences.
...that in this case our personal perceptions are different....
I think that you're both right, just looking at the problem from different angles.
Specifically, Toole and Olive found that subjective ratings of speaker quality differed dramatically when the same listeners listened to the same speakers in sighted and blind listening tests. As one might expect, fancy looking speakers were ranked more highly in sighted tests than in the blind ones.
At the same time, they found that listeners of every stripe ranked loudspeakers in the same order in blind tests.
So we have both bias, and that commonality of perception and judgment to which Analog Scott referred.
Groups that were more expert were distinguished by the consistency of their ratings, rather than by ranking order.
The one subgroup that couldn't rank speakers reliably was the subgroup of listeners with significant hearing loss below 1 kHz (but not above), a surprisingly high percentage of adults. Their rankings were idiosyncratic, in that they'd rate something one way in one test, another in another test. That's a case in which the basic perceptual mechanism has broken down.
I'truth, I think it's going a bit far to apply this blindly to preferences in loudspeakers. After all, someone who listens to chamber music is likely to prefer a different type of loudspeaker from someone who listens to metal. And I've noticed over the years that different people apply different weightings to various parameters. Some people are willing to sacrifice SPL for the clarity of electrostatics, some people love the dynamics of horns, etc. I've noticed the same thing in the way people judge movies -- Joe will say this sucks because the dialog was bad, Sam will say it's great because the acting is good, but if you ask, Joe will acknowledge that the acting was good and Sam that the dialog sucks -- they just apply different weighting to these aspects of moviemaking.
But whatever personal preferences, there does seem to be a great deal of commonality.
...but the portion of this thread in which I've made comments is concerned not with blind listening but rather the unpredictable manner in which the non-audio aspects of sighted listening can subliminally influence perception.
That was the source of difference between Scott & me in our "personal perceptions" of this issue. I apparently ascribe a more variable range of sighted, but subconscious influences in listening than Scott.
The problem with "personal experiences" - especially those of the psychological variety - is they are not transferable between people. One person's reaction to subliminal non-audio influences when evaluating audio are of not much use in determining how someone else will react.
If this were true, Improvisation on stage in a jazz combo *would not nor could not occur*
> > If this were true, Improvisation on stage in a jazz combo *would not nor could not occur*
Care to elaborate?
The scenario you described has a small group of like-thinking trained musicians working together on a song within a range of not-unexpected variations.
I've certainly heard jazz jams where an otherwise trained musician isn't with the flow.
I also never heard of a jazz combo checking the direction of the fuses in their amps beforehand.... ;-)
Each member of the jazz combo during soloing "catches a vibe off of each other" and improv ensues. No rehearsals, no second guessing, it happens spontaniously, instantly and emotionally.It is precisely a small group of like-thinking trained musicians working together on a song within a range of "unexpected" variations. The difference is each "feels" which direction the other is going, on the fly, unrehersed and many times in unison. I have played with cats that played exactly what I "am" playing in unison, real time and I was making it up as I go. There is no explaining this.
It happens.
Call it magic, snake oil, experience, intuition or what-have-you but it happens nightly and often with musicians unaccustomed to the chart or the other musicians.
FTR, I have played for over 40 years and this I know. I cannot explain it--it just happens and it happens often.
This may have something to do with what audiophiles may be thinking when they think "together" about how something sounds as it is happening. I would not begin to know how to study this.
Edits: 02/10/11
... the minds of anti-audiophiles, who like fantasizing about subjects they have no clue about, or experience with. Evidence is aplenty on HydrogenAudio, and occasionally here in some threads (less frequent now, thankfully, after Prop Heads pretty much died).
Generally, casual perusal of Audio Asylum will give you pretty good idea how UN-together audiophiles think.
Then your comments would actually support the idea that certain perceptions by some groups of audiophiles are psychologically based and not a function of physical aspects of a system.
That said, I'm not sure I agree that musicians playing well together in an unscripted fashion is a good analogy for perceived differences in audio equipment always being due to physical parameters.
As I said "I would not begin to know how to study this"
... too many tend to draw the line between two exactly at the limits of their own understanding how things work. In other words, "if I understand it, based on common sense and HS physics course - it's physical. If I don't - it must be psychological".
Let's get down to details, shall we? Fuse directionality, i.e. system sounding different when fuse direction in a component is flipped - is that physical or psychological? It's very real for me, however I don't necessarily understand why it would be the case. Should we automatically declare the effect "psychological", or should we ask someone much more knowledgeable in the field - why could it be the case from physics perspective?
I said nothing about the issue of things being understood or not. Science has many things that clearly occur but current theory does not adequately explain. No one denies the physical occurrence however.
You mentioned fuse directionality.
If it is important to you that it be a physical characteristic and not a psychological one, it should be demonstrable and repeatable under blind test conditions. However, outside of a small subsect of the audiophile community, I'm not too sure anyone else is worried about it.
However, if you hear the effect and use it to your listening advantage, the question becomes why is it important to you that the cause is physics and not psychology?
If it is important that the cause must be physical, there are a fairly well known set of scientific procedures one follows to establish that. And when others are able to consistently repeat the results, then you have something physical whether understood or not.
If one wants the "approval" of science, then one has to be willing to follow those methods. Otherwise one is asking for the reward without bothering to do the work.
Could you elaborate on what you call "set of scientific procedures", that one follows to establish that cause for differences is physical?
It's not the bunch of pseudo-scientific BS that's called "DBT applied to audio"? Please tell me it isn't...
Whether you like it or not, blind testing is part of any science research where human perception can influence the outcome.
There are even blind procedures for counting nutrinos in particle physics to eliminate bias based on pet theories that various observers may have.
The one problem with many in audio is their concept of blindness is limited to the old DBT switchbox model. There's more than one way to set up a test for blindness.
However, I don't think anyone in the science community regards anecdotal self-reporting as a basis to definitely answer the physics vs psychology question of fuse direction.
One problem is that often there simply aren't enough people interested in a particular subject to go to the trouble and expense of conducting a well set-up experiment. Frankly, not many in the academic research community are all that concerned with the things that occupy the minds of audiophiles. As such, its not likely that a conclusive test will be run on the subject, so that leaves it to the small group with a set interest in the subject. That never gives a solid basis for definitive answers.
We're back to the question mentioned earlier. If it "works" for you, why is it important the effect be physical and not psychological? If you prefer green shirts over blue ones, is it important there be a physical cause for that also?
I don't think further discussion is going to make sense.
As for "important" - no, it's not terribly important. However, instead of pseudo-scientific parlor games, one could, as I pointed initially, ask more knowledgeable people what could cause the difference. They would probably tell you that it COULD BE because of crystal structure as a product of DIRECTIONAL metal drawing process.
Read relevant posts in Tweaker's, if you're inclined so.
There are lots of theories for lots of things.Some prove to be valid, some turn out to be nothing more than vivid imagination, and some turn out to be mixed bags.
But along with theories, science also works toward getting repeatable documentation from multiple sources in support of the theories.
For me, fuse directionality is way down the list of priorities. I've worked in the guts of audio electronics for over 40 years and never picked up the least inkling that fuse directionality has influenced anything.
Perhaps that's the fault of my equipment, my ears or my training, but it doesn't give me any bang for my buck.
And it certainly isn't the case where I don't hear other differences. I can move my listening position (or speakers) slightly and hear a change in sound. Frankly though, my human perception is far and away a bigger variable than my system.
However, when I have to concentrate intently to hear a difference and still wonder if I'm sure, I've learned to quit worrying about things at that level. Those get in the way of listening to music.
That some wish to worry about fuse direction is fine by me. It's just not my piece of cake.
Edits: 02/10/11
> That gulf will not be bridged, <
And so, I think it's great that they have their own playground. No need to bridge anything. After many years of debate, it's quite obvious that further discussion will continue to be pointless.
I do admit to finding it odd that there is an audio site devoted to the belief that everything sounds the same. But there are stranger things in the world.
they don't believe that everything sounds the same. They do insist that every difference be detectable in an ABX test to be considered. This results in a fairly contorted disussion at times, since, while we listeners have our biases, there are differences that just about everybody can hear, and not everything has been subjected to ABX testing! That position seems to me as extreme in its own way as the insistence that everything we think we hear is real, or the position that a few measurements are adequate to characterize the sound of every device.
> they don't believe that everything sounds the same. <
Really? Ok, you may be right. I have little experience with the site. Which amp, preamp, CDP, transport, DAC, cable do they find that sounds different from another?
> They do insist that every difference be detectable in an ABX test to be considered <
Hmmm... sounds a little like praying to the east or not stepping on a sidewalk crack, but they get to insist whatever they like on their site.
> as extreme in its own way as the insistence that everything we think we hear is real, <
Agreed. As I've maintained for years, the truth usually lies somewhere between any two extremist positions.
> Really? Ok, you may be right. I have little experience with the site. Which amp, preamp, CDP, transport, DAC, cable do they find that sounds different from another?
I'm not all that familiar with the site either, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but from what I've seen, the consensus seems to be that transistor amps sound the same within their linear range, that tube amps don't, that DAC's and CD transports sound the same (though my info on that is sketchy), that op amps don't (at least, it seems that they can be distinguished in ABX tests), and that lossy compression is audible but that the artifacts at high bit rates are fairly infrequent. I assume they dismiss audiophile cables since they don't ABX, but I don't recall a discussion of it.
> As I've maintained for years, the truth usually lies somewhere between any two extremist positions.
Heh, yes.
> transistor amps sound the same within their linear range <
Extraordinary claim. I wonder if they'd blind tested any? Ditto cables and DACs. I'd lean towards agreeing with them on transports because the group of testers I've worked with are 0-for-lifetime on differentiating any.
I'm assuming they scoff at tube amps. So unless they are only interested in op amps and lossy compression with respect to audio, I'm not sure what they are trying to accomplish with their group. It seems to me (based on my very limited experience) that their sole reason for being is to caste aspersions on audiophiles. Not that there is anything wrong with that if that is their desire. But if most of everything sounds alike and the things that don't sound alike are not suitable for an audio system, their purpose seems to be less about audio and more about personalities and belief systems.
Clark offered $10,000 to anyone who could consistently ABX any two modern amplifiers in proper working order, provided that the amplifiers were used within their linear range and that any frequency response aberrations were equalized out:
http://www.tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/index.htm
So far, no one's been able to beat it, although what I think is often lost in the discussion is that this doesn't make Clark's assertion true. All it says is that the amplifiers don't differ enough to be identifiable on ABX tests, which I can easily believe, since in my own experience, the differences between modern analog solid state amplifiers operating in their power range are subtle at best.
From what I've seen of Hydrogen, you have a variety of types, as you do here. There are people there who do very solid work with blind testing -- Sean Olive in particular has made significant contributions to audio knowledge. And some other very knowledgeable pros. At the opposite extreme, you have some people there who are just out to feast on the bones of the opposition, and they were out in force in that ridiculous kill John Atkinson thread.
But I've picked up some interesting info from their ABX tests. For one thing, they usually demonstrate that you *can* hear the difference between components, not the other way around, and sometimes contradict the results of widely-publicized tests that claim otherwise. For example, participants have been able to detect the difference between 192 kHz and 44.1 kHz downsampled audio. And for all the hysteria about MP-3's, I was just reading a thread about the audibility of 320 kHz MP-3 compression:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=85961&st=0&gopid=743201&#entry743201
Which kind of makes me wonder why they were so up in arms. They've already proved themselves that you can hear lossy compression -- what's wrong with a subjective demonstration of those effects?
ABX testing can't disprove the existence of audible differences between components, and IMO those who rely on it to do so are (cliche police!) barking up the wrong tree. But it can demonstrate the existence of audible differences, and from what I've seen, it frequently does that. It's also very useful for manufacturers since it gives them a way to identify major improvements without the bias that can creep in to a sighted subjective evaluation.
Where I disagree with Hydrogen Audio is their over-reliance on forced choice testing, and their refusal to countenance discussion of differences that haven't been demonstrated in a forced-choice test. Forced choice testing has some well-documented limitations, and even if it didn't, the experimental setups are frequently flawed. And the strictly enforced ban on subjective impressions can get a bit ridiculous at times, as when Greynol suggested that spending more than $4000 in a home system might not have sonic benefits, and I had to try to respond without recourse to listening. Weird.
> the strictly enforced ban on subjective impressions can get a bit ridiculous at times, as
> when Greynol suggested that spending more than $4000 in a home system might not
> have sonic benefits, and I had to try to respond without recourse to listening. Weird.
In order to minimize the flames on Hydrogen Audio. I thought it best to thank you here
for stepping into the fray.
It really does puzzle me that on a forum that is so concerned with people not making
statements without "scientific" verification of and support for those statements, that
so many posters seen incapable of preventing their emotions from affecting their
perceptions of what is actually written.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Strange, isn't it? Freud would have a field day. :-)
of including unproven assumptions in the *test". Naturally, he required that both amplifiers be connected to a common ABX box. So what's wrong with that? Isn't the impedance of the switches low enough to prevent any issues? Surely such a simple box will have zero effect on the outcome. Right? Not according to Frank Van Alstine. Oops . And for those who say that you can simply switch both sides to eliminate the problem, then there's this . So let's compare the shared signal of both to the shared signal of both. Hear any differences?
While not intended, you find all sorts of ways that researchers dumb down tests (E Brad's Hi Rez test anyone?) and then blindly follow the results of the contrived tests.
rw
And a great example of the phenomenon to which you refer.
I happen to think that even flawed ABX tests are useful. They do sometimes demonstrate the audibility of differences, and they can help separate major differences from subtler ones, which is of use to manufacturers making decisions about bang for the buck.
But too many people seem to think that ABX tests can disprove the existence of audible phenomena, and confuse scientific trappings with infallibility. But many of these ABX tests have methodological and statistical holes so big you could drive a truck through them. Like listening to upconverted files in a test of the audibility of high sampling rates, LOL. Or testing the audibility of 24 bits with program material of limited dynamic range. At their worst, they can lend a veneer of scientific respectability to meaningless results.
but only when the deck hasn't been stacked. Do you remember Adam (aka AJinFLA)? He was a strident anti-audiophile who dropped a gauntlet in my face a while back. I enjoyed playing the game by taking (and bettering the results of) his test to evaluate the audibility of added distortion.
"Audiophile Repellent"
You might follow my two responses. :)
rw
Heh, yeah, I've been reading through that thread and that guy is definitely way out there!
> So far, no one's been able to beat it, <
Thanks for the link - I'll check it out. Lots of questions, such as how does anyone really know that no one has beaten it aside from Clark's assertions, how many corrects out of trials are required (Randi requires 100%, and when someone can MISS 100%, I'll believe someone can HIT 100% -lol), etc. I think most people, if pressed, would agree that amp differences are subtle, but I've witnessed them picked up blind. ABX just seems like a Houdini thing. Put enough complexity into the mix and anyone can screw up anything.
> Forced choice testing has some well-documented limitations, and even if it didn't, the experimental setups are frequently flawed. <
It's far from perfect. Complete reliance on it is absurd but it can in some cases be a good tool.
> It's far from perfect. Complete reliance on it is absurd but it can in some cases be a good tool.
My feeling exactly.
The problem with the Clark challenge, and IMO many other ABX tests, is that many people don't understand their limitations. This is true even when the people who conduct the tests do. So a test that shows only that audible differences aren't at the threshold that can be detected with a 95% CI in a confusing ABX test is interpreted to mean that there are no audible differences whatsoever.
I could demonstrate easily audible distortion that has a very low probability of being detected in such a test. For example, the audio chipset on my motherboard has gone south and it lets out a chirp every few days. Nothing subtle about that, but because it has a low probability of occurrence it wouldn't be detected in a practical ABX study.
> And for all the hysteria about MP-3's, I was just reading a thread about > the audibility of 320 kHz MP-3 compression:
>
> http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=85961&st=0&gopid=743201&#entry743201
>
> Which kind of makes me wonder why they were so up in arms. They've
> already proved themselves that you can hear lossy compression -- what's
> wrong with a subjective demonstration of those effects?Thanks for the link.
This is what puzzled me, as nothing I demonstrated was controversial
or new. One point I meant to add was that some of the artefacts of lossy
codecs are difficult to hear until someone points them out, following
which you hear them all the time. The AES even has available a training CD
on this subject.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Edits: 02/11/11
Those guys were out for blood. I think the last thing they expected (and, I fear, wanted) was a friendly invitation on your part!
I would call it insecurity.
rw
If you were secure, you guys wouldn't be too concerned about what was said on an obscure forum like Hydrogen Audio.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
you won't find a single example of my pining about what those clowns say. I confess that I don't share C93's fascination with HA. Maybe for some, it is like looking at a train wreck. :)
rw
It's more like a kind of entertainment that was popular with 18th century Russian empress Anna Ioannovna - sexual orgies involving midgets, cripples, jesters and so on.
I look at it on rare occasions (usually when someone brings it up here) because I still can't see the point of their site. I simply see a lot of mudslinging at those with listening skills and carrying on about those components that sound exactly like all other components. The demands for ABX has taken on a cult-like religiosity. Blind faith like that simply strikes the rational skeptic in me (and that is probably in all of us) as laughable. I find it hard to imagine how they can manage to get through a day without hurting themselves. I'd pity them, but then again, it is just audio, so I can afford to laugh and not feel too guilty.
rw
It seems to me quite reasonable to demonstrate things that have been proven to be audible.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Maybe he can start a Hi Fi group that just faxes each other specs and they can all agree how their gear must sound based on the printed data and they can bypass this messy biological personal experience stuff.
So, an audiophile living in the area....and a local dealers sets up a night of music and listening to different formats...and it would be a waste of time to go say hi to fellow audiophiles and see what one sees or hears.
Did this Arnie nut kind of just launch himself out of the hobby?
In my personal experience, personal experiences are a waste of time.
Makes my "logic chip" go in deadlock with that.
"most".
Then "all".
Sad.
" Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination." -Michael McClure
"IME many personal experiences are a total waste of my time."
Really? He doesn't trust his own experience? What the hell does that leave him with? Yep, I guess he has to read the spec sheet to know how things are . . . How very, very sad.
And notice the incongruency - it's his *experience* that he doesn't trust his *experience*. How can he be sure? Perhaps I should give him a spec sheet that tells him he shouldn't trust his experience that experiences are a total waste of his time . . . how very, very funny.
i don't know since it wasn't eaten under double blind conditions and the sex last night was goo....well I don't know. I can't say I enjoy anything without scientific proof that I did.
What a way to live............
jeez what am I saying?! No one at Hydorgenaudio is having sex! Unless going solo counts.
Is that really a stopsign????
CRASH!!!!!
How these guys manage to get out of bed without hurting themselves or others remains a mystery.
If you require DBTs in audio because, in your opinion the ears are so "fallible" that you don't trust what you or others hear.
Please explain why you suddenly decide you'll trust your eyes, which are also very "fallible" and why do you suddenly decide to trust those same "fallible" ears ---{ you won't trust when listening to music }--- when your car's on the train tracks and you hear the train's horn blowing and your life is on th line?
The logic seems skewed to me. You'll trust those "fallible" ears with your life, but won't trust those "fallible" ears with a hobby? Hmmmm....
Tom Scata (thetubeguy1954)
===============================================================
--- SETriodes Group --- Central Florida Audio Society --- Space
Coast Audio Society --- Fullrange Drivers --- Front & Back Loaded Horns
Would you suddenly fail to be able to hear the train because your eyes were closed?
Are you only able to identify the fact that the train is coming because you see it and know in advance that it is there, or could you hear the same train in a DBT?
If you say that you'd be able gather the same information about the train's sound whether you knew it was there or not, then they would ask you why you can't do that with your audio gear.
In a DBT, would you fail to identify the difference between a train coming vs. not? Would audiophiles faced with DBT and forced choice be run down by trains or would they be able to overcome the terrible burdens DBT and forced choice create and say, "Hey, there's a train a coming!"
HA could say: If only sighted listening works for identifying sonic virtues, then are you really doing a LISTENING test?
A DBT would be fine for something as obvious as a train whistle; not so fine for subtle differences.
That said, I have heard differences blind. I don't do DBT's because they are too difficult to perform, not to mention unnecessary. Single blind is fine for me. I've also witnessed many listeners pick out components blind. It's hardly the oddity the naysayers believe it to be.
And finally I'd say, if you believe everything sounds the same, why would you believe anyone that said they've heard differences blind? And why, when given the opportunity to witness someone (Tubeguy) prove what he can hear blind, did you run squealing with your tail between your legs? Is it because you're only trying to maintain a dogmatic belief and aren't interested in the truth??? Er... oh, wait - that wasn't HA, that was our own merry band of naysayers right here on AA. ;)
I say we kill the train analogy right now.
Never forget, the reason audiophiles argue so vehemently is because the stakes are so low!
Cheers!
Paint me in as enjoying SBT challenges just for the fun of it. It's an intersting hobby to me, so I like trying to check to see if I can hear what I think I hear.
Yes, I enjoy SBT's. I don't do as many as I used to because I don't audition gear nearly as often anymore. And once I established that various components "can" sound different, I no longer felt the need to confirm the diffs each time. But it has been fun, particularly when the SBT's could not confirm what sighted listening established. I've gotten some big laughs out of those situations! :)
> > And finally I'd say, if you believe everything sounds the same...
That is a canard. But it does seem to be a favorite phrase of some to put in the mouths of others.
I can't think of a case where I've seen anyone say or write "everything sounds the same". If they have, it's been a rare event.
What I have seen is that "big" differences in sighted testing typically get much smaller during blind ones. My experience is that it isn't a lack of difference but rather how much hyperbole is involved.
Of course, no one engages in blind listening for their regular listening sessions. If sighted factors increase enjoyment for a particular listener, I say "enjoy"!
> That is a canard. But it does seem to be a favorite phrase of some to put in the mouths of others. <
I admit to laziness. It's easier to write "everything sounds the same" than to add the usual disclosures such as "...except speakers and high guage cable, etc". It's a statement designed for those who can't hear differences between one component and another unless it's a component unsuitable for normal audio applications. Nobody likes it, but until one of those believers can hear some differences between any solid state amp, preamp, CDP, cable, etc, they essentially believe everything sounds the same.
> What I have seen is that "big" differences in sighted testing typically get much smaller during blind ones. My experience is that it isn't a lack of difference but rather how much hyperbole is involved. <
My experience exactly. There are few if any "huge" differences between any two components, IMHO. Blind testing confirms that. If the diffs were huge, I'd see more perfect scores. Everything I've heard sighted that I also heard blind was at least somewhat difficult to determine, not to mention lessened in magnitude.
> If sighted factors increase enjoyment for a particular listener, I say "enjoy"! <
It does, because sighted listening is stress-free. A lack of stress always enhances the listening experience.
Maybe they should listen to more music and let it soothe their soul. Oh, wait. "Many personal experiences are a total waste of my time"
rw
Like this, for instance?
Don't forget to play it back with Crown amps through PA horns for the best effect. :)
rw
"Don't forget to play it back with Crown amps"
Hey... I actually heard a DC-300 sound good once back in, oh, maybe 1974. Sort of like shaking hands with Superman? It was driving the original Ohm F's and they need a ton of bass current and have a forgiving treble.
Rick
That's when I used a D-150 to drive double Advents. I was a junior in high school at the time and the resident audio geek. I ended up using my system for the Miss RHS Pageant. The system actually covered the gym pretty well. During setup in a dark setting, I inadvertently shorted the outputs with a screwdriver, causing it to be lightly fused to the binding post. I powered it down, removed the screwdriver and powered it back on. Worked just fine!
A Threshold Stasis 3 used to drive double New Advents in my garage is so much better sounding.
rw
"A Threshold Stasis 3 used to drive double New Advents in my garage is so much better sounding."
I use a Nakamichi that's pretty similar and like it.
The only D-150 I've heard was decades ago at my brother-in-laws place when he was in a downsizing mode. It was fed by a matching preamp, IC-150? and I thought it sounded horrible but tactfully didn't mention it as he liked it.
Around '72 they built a combination planetarium/Imax theater in Balboa Park in San Diego. I watched a show and the sound was wretched, it's one of those things that has speakers (expensive ones) all over behind the screen. I happened to catch a tour for donors afterward despite not being one and got to go all over 'behind the scenes'. I kid you not, in the sound room they had a wall of DC-300's, probably 'A's. Apparently they used a channel for each speaker. About six weeks later we happened to go to the planetarium at Griffith Park and while we were waiting for the show to start I of course noticed that their speakers were the ESS/heil pyramid shaped home models. The had three or four on a shelf in each corner. At the time my home speakers were ESS towers driven by a Citation 12 and I was having problems finding a location where they integrated well. So considering how super the speakers used in San Diego was supposed to be and how horrible it sounded I had little hope for essentially the same home speakers that I was having problems with on plywood shelves.
Well, the sound was fabulous, beautiful. The speakers really came into their own in the large space and sang. I don't know what amplifiers they had as a convenient tour wasn't at hand.
OK, enough nostalgia. But did I mention... I think a lot of us have been interested in this stuff for a long long time and I have about a decade on you, oddly enough it doesn't seem to get old, there's enough new things and new things being discovered about old stuff to keep it fresh for me.
Regards, Rick
It was fed by a matching preamp, IC-150?
was a far worse preamp than the D-150 was an amp. The Crown dealer also sold H-K and let me listen to a Cit 11 and The ICK (his moniker). It didn't take long to realize that the fingernails on chalkboard top end wasn't my cup of tea. I bought the H-K. He also preferred the Cit 12 to the D-150 - but at age 17 the "rack mount" pro amp with double the 4 ohm power just had to be better. We're all young and stupid at some time! :)
rw
> We're all young and stupid at some time! :) <
All electronics sound the same!
Seems to me some folks are old and stupid! :)
nt
... self-satisfying - continuing with your analogy.
nt
My speaker building site
Gee, I haven't had a chance to talk to you since you got back.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
I think they might be trying to keep people on track, because there's someone who likes sending especially threatening anonymous emails to audiophile reviewers and editors in the UK.
-
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus magazine, Itsbrassmunkeysahtdere, Lun-duhnn, innit
> there's someone who likes sending especially threatening anonymous emails to
> audiophile reviewers and editors in the UK.
If you are referring to the final letter in the new issue of HiFi+, from the grammar and
(lack) of style, this looks like it was from Carl Engbretsen (sp), who posts to (and has
been banned from) many forums under the handle DUP or CEDUP.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
That one was grumbly, but tame. There were a couple that went unpublished that weren't so 'polite'.
But thanks for the heads up. I'll keep watching the inbox.
-
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus magazine, Itsbrassmunkeysahtdere, Lun-duhnn, innit
... their fair share of mentally unstable members (just reading some rants there), but I wouldn't guess the extent.
Well, it just as easily might not be someone on HA.
I don't have a particular problem with the science club. It's largely self-regulating because of the 'sheesh' effect; if a real person accidentally stumbles on HA, they tend to bail quickly because the forum silverbacks are apt to try and tear them a new one for saying "I like..." But deep down it's just audio; no one should get killed over a damn cable, whether they think it makes a difference or not.
-
Editor, Hi-Fi Plus magazine, Itsbrassmunkeysahtdere, Lun-duhnn, innit
> no one should get killed over a damn cable, whether they think it makes a difference or not. <
When I first encountered that debate, I was shocked at the vitriol. Still am, really. I couldn't care less that they can't hear differences in components and I'm surprised they would care that I can. Lack of self-esteem, perhaps... feelings of inadequacy... a psychologist would find a wealth of potential case studies at HA....
and bail quickly i did, and i am sure they dont miss me any more than i miss them. this seems like the bunch that tried to get high end cables banned in NY (i believe it was NY).
even the audio annex seemed more hospitable and i am sure there are some that remember them. "science club"? idont think so.
...regards...tr
Is it really necessary to stir in the cat litter?
fate accomplis?
Good one. ;-)
Kal
hehe, you got it!
... posting meaningless response to a topic you obviously have no interest in?
I'd say more.
I have interest in keeping high end audio alive.
Sadly, some people rely on propaganda to support their own lack of belief.
If your post was not intended to point out that some people do not share my interests, (as above) then, my apologies. Take it for it is- It is stirring in the cat "shit" box to pollute the air.
If not, please explain any of the other reasons to point out such negativity and attacks pointed at the editor of a well known audio publication.
Are you THAT bored?
> The only surprising post really is moderator's - directing one of the zealots to cut down
> on trash talk.
I find it sad that the HA posters reject the ideas both of personal experience and of
taking part in an event that tries to increase enthusiasm for the concept of playing back
recordings with as high a quality as possible.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Well I don't normally read or post there but just from that thread it seems that several members there are of the Speakers sound different, codexs sound different, everything else sounds the same.
Also, they seem to be of the "High bit rate MP3 is good enough for me" crowd and anything more than that is a waste of digits. I especially like how the one guy was trying to twist your comment around to mean the opposite of your intention.
Proof of how people will fight to the death over the most trivial things if it clashes with their beliefs.
I wouldn't bother there anymore if I were you.
Have you ever been to one of those car audio "contests" where car audio aficionados gather to "demonstrate" their car's performance and are judged for distortion, etc....
....by placing microphones in an unoccupied car and measuring what the sonic environment was during a playback event (which many times is nothing more than non-musical frequency sweeps. (As opposed to musical frequency sweeps, I guess.))
Car audio and HA are on the verge of evolving to the point where humans are no longer required to be part of the listening chain. They can now move straight to codec discussions and dispense with music entirely! Woo Hoo! I wonder if they'll start calling listening to music some derogatory biological term for people who listen to music rather than measure and proclaim.
JA, by actually playing music and chatting, you are doing something that is apparently anathema to the HA types.
I guess it's good they aren't opining that the 8 bit sonics of Berzerk were the point when we reached audio Nirvana.
I fully expect HA to migrate away from any and all references to actual music listening.
Do they allow someone to claim Vivaldi is superior to Barney without an objective study verifying same?
However, "High-resolution Vivaldi is superior to 128 Kbps MP3 Barney" will be surely met with well-deserved outrage.
That will surely calm natives down - as evidenced by cool, calm, collected posts of another moderator, immediately following yours.I hope he's not of particularly advanced age - we don't want anything bad happen because of the spike in blood pressure.
BTW - I don't know whether you noticed, but he "objects". I thought it's pretty funny. Until he appears at the event in person, to possibly object by some other means, that is.
Edits: 02/09/11
> That will surely calm natives down - as evidenced by cool, calm, collected posts of
> another moderator, immediately following yours.
Especially as one of the other "super moderators" requested people refrain from ad
hominem attacks and not make comments with out offering evidence. Perhaps
"super moderators" don't have to follow HA's own rules on making unsupported
statements..
> I don't know whether you noticed, but he "objects". I thought it's pretty funny. Until he
> appears at the event in person, to possibly object by some other means, that is.
I responded on HA because I would like people who critizice what I do actually to have
experience of what I do and say. The OP in that HA thread said he lived within a
25-minute drive from Definitive - it would be a shame if he didn't bother to attend.
And if any inmates are planning to attend, please say "hi" and I hope you enjoy the
music.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Perhaps some test tones would entice him out of his lair?
N/T
I don't understand what they're in such a tizzy about. There have been lots of ABX tests of MP-3 compression, with results that are easily available online. What's wrong with just listening?
It sounds like an interesting presentation, wish I could be there myself.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]