regalma1;412781 Wrote:
It would be interesting if they came up a with a statistically
significant negative result, say 20%, what would that mean? I've never
seen that.
That would happen every so often due to pure chance. When a
statistically significant result happens (say for a subset of
The whole objectivist/subjectivist debate is really rather simple.
Listening to music whether live or over a hifi system is a subjective
pursuit.. It can't be objective by definition. Trying to apply
objective criteria to a purely subjective activity is pointless, and
ultimately unsatisfying.
ErikM;412706 Wrote:
The whole objectivist/subjectivist debate is really rather simple.
Listening to music whether live or over a hifi system is a subjective
pursuit.. It can't be objective by definition. Trying to apply
objective criteria to a purely subjective activity is pointless, and
Most blind tests I have seen are tests of whether the listeners can hear
a difference between setups. Run each setup enough so the listeners are
familiar with it then run two setups in a random order and ask the
listeners to identify which one is playing. If they their ability to
identify the
MrSinatra;412178 Wrote:
why is finding a middle ground necessary? sometimes, there is a right
and a wrong.
Do you ever have days of self-doubt? I'm having one today - doubting
whether I am capable of writing something so that other people actually
understand what I'm thinking. So I'm now
i believe i understand what you are saying, i just don't see the
importance of the last sentence.
first off, most people don't buy both and then pick one at home after
trying them both there, so it never really happens like that.
secondly, even if they did do that, and even if they allowed
ralphpnj wrote:
You're right, if nothing short of a full blown ABX will make you happy
then don't spend the money. However, just for the record, what does
your audio system consist of right now? Are you using the analog
outputs of the SBR or the digital outputs into an external DAC or
cdmackay;412477 Wrote:
ralphpnj wrote:
You're right, if nothing short of a full blown ABX will make you
happy
then don't spend the money. However, just for the record, what does
your audio system consist of right now? Are you using the analog
outputs of the SBR or the digital outputs
pfarrell;412126 Wrote:
Teus de Jong wrote:
discussion is that I'm afraid a lot of people won't know the
difference
between the sound of a real Steinway and the sometimes totally
distorted
version some amplifiers make of them.
When my daughter was trying to get into music schools
cdmackay;412477 Wrote:
indeed, and probably it's a bad example in my case.
I'm takign the analogue output of the SBR into Quad pre/power amps, and
thence to Quad bookshelf speakers, which is the best I can fit in my
crowded office, which itself doesn't have ideal acoustics. no doubt.
tomjtx;412537 Wrote:
A few weeks ago classical guitarist and grammy winner David Russel
played a concert here, he records for Telarc.
He had a rare free night on his tour the next day so he and his wife
came over for dinner.
He brought his latest CD to give me. I ripped it and played it
pfarrell;412181 Wrote:
Nonreality wrote:
And while we are on the subject, how much are sung in cables?
Does it make a difference as to genre of the music sung into the
cables? Must you break them in with guitar rock to make them match to
hair bands? Should we plan on switching cables
Phil Leigh wrote:
I'm takign the analogue output of the SBR into Quad pre/power amps, and
thence to Quad bookshelf speakers, which is the best I can fit in my
crowded office, which itself doesn't have ideal acoustics. no doubt.
I'm also considering getting a headphone amp and some nice cans,
ralphpnj wrote:
You might want to consider one the combination headphone amp and DAC
interesting, thanks...
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
GuyDebord;411583 Wrote:
have you ever gone to a concert venue, a symphony hall? I never said
that music smells, but you involve all your senses in a musical
experience...
Yep, plenty thanks, I have 3 gigs/concerts in 1 week over Easter for
starters.
Why would I want the smell of stale
pfarrell;411973 Wrote:
... If classical includes soloist violins, or small
chamber groups, then it can be a good selection for testing.
The best audio tracks to test are things like acoustic guitar with one
singer, or bluegrass. Or some of Patricia Barber's jazz.
If you want to test
thanks CatBus,
Better than that--I can point you to the samples themselves. But
first--you weren't clear which you wanted...do you want the 320k MP3
that's indistinguishable from RedBook or the 320k MP3 that's easily
distinguished from RedBook. It's a kinda important difference.
Looks like
cdmackay;412056 Wrote:
Looks like I misunderstood; I got the wrong impression that there were
claims that some people could routinely tell the difference between
320k
MP3, and lossless, for a random selection of tracks.
The most genteel way I can put it is that, to my knowledge, the world
Teus de Jong;412024 Wrote:
The first thing I do when listening to a new amplifier is put in a disc
with a simple piano tune (I mostly use Glenn Gould's 1981 recording of
the Goldberg variations -- in modern standards not an impeccable
recording, but not a bad one either). It's amazing how
Teus de Jong wrote:
discussion is that I'm afraid a lot of people won't know the difference
between the sound of a real Steinway and the sometimes totally distorted
version some amplifiers make of them.
When my daughter was trying to get into music schools (trumpet), we
recorded her playing
john4456;411418 Wrote:
Isn't the great triumph of blind testing that it enables advertisers to
claim that 128kbs mp3 is cd quality ?
It's about the same as small stones enhancing your stereo system. And
while we are on the subject, how much are sung in cables?
--
Nonreality
-IF THE RULE
pfarrell;411973 Wrote:
Nonreality wrote:
The general consensus seems to be that rock and pop at the higher
bit
rates are tough for almost anyone to tell a difference while
classical
is not the best candidate for mp3 if you have a critical ear.
This from the blindingly obvious file?
cliveb;410749 Wrote:
Recent postings in some threads here have stirred up that old hornets
nest of blind testing once again. The antagonists have once again set
out their uncompromising positions, with no prospect of reaching any
kind of shared view. So, at the risk of getting badly stung by
Nonreality wrote:
And while we are on the subject, how much are sung in cables?
Does it make a difference as to genre of the music sung into the
cables? Must you break them in with guitar rock to make them match to
hair bands? Should we plan on switching cables when we go from full
symphonies to
pfarrell;412126 Wrote:
Teus de Jong wrote:
discussion is that I'm afraid a lot of people won't know the
difference
between the sound of a real Steinway and the sometimes totally
distorted
version some amplifiers make of them.
When my daughter was trying to get into music schools
probedb;412026 Wrote:
Yep, plenty thanks, I have 3 gigs/concerts in 1 week over Easter for
starters.
Why would I want the smell of stale alcohol in my living room?
I'm sorry but I disagree with you, I love sitting in complete darkness
listening to music if I'm relaxing but that same
pfarrell;412126 Wrote:
I'll never forget the sound of her playing with me sitting on the sofa.
Amazing. And no stereo that I've ever heard has replicated it.
Marvelous isn't it? That's what music is all about. It shows that even
with a single instrument like the piano any reproduction is
Mr Sinatra wrote: blind testing was not invented for audiophiles. as
far as i know, it was first created to test pharmaceuticals...
Blind testing is hardly limited to pharmaceuticals. It is a basic part
of the scientific method where controls are needed address the effects
of observer bias,
Teus de Jong wrote:
Lets make a comparison here. If someone has read Umberto Eco's novel
'The name of the rose', the impact of this novel will totally depend on
the background knowledge of this person. The beautiful thing about this
novel is that you don't need any background knowledge to
to me, it comes down to a simple issue of justifying cost.
I hear that the Transporter might be a very good upgrade from my SBR.
And it looks great. And I can have my beloved old-fashioned analogue
VU*, and still have text info. Marvelous! :)
But it costs over a thousand quid, which is a huge
cdmackay;412293 Wrote:
Teus de Jong wrote:
Lets make a comparison here. If someone has read Umberto Eco's novel
'The name of the rose', the impact of this novel will totally depend
on
the background knowledge of this person. The beautiful thing about
this
novel is that you don't need
thanks for the recommendations Ralph, I'll look those that Eco, and some
Pynchon.
___
audiophiles mailing list
audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
cdmackay;412296 Wrote:
to me, it comes down to a simple issue of justifying cost.
I hear that the Transporter might be a very good upgrade from my SBR.
And it looks great. And I can have my beloved old-fashioned analogue
VU*, and still have text info. Marvelous! :)
But it costs over a
DBT don't have to be used to prove something is a farce or is wrong. I
read quite a few at hydrogenaudio when I was trying to figure out what
bit rate to go with for home and for my Ipods and Sansa's. It gave me
a reference point to start with and one that I knew would be probably
ok for most
GuyDebord;411584 Wrote:
because I have a close relationship with siltech and kharma, and have
been present at their voicing auditions.
In that case you should hopefully be able to answer the first part of
the question: How does somebody voice a cable and what do they change
to achieve the
Nonreality said: I never did see any that stated a 128 file was equal
to a lossless btw.
That's an excellent point. One of the most annoying things about these
types of discussions is the degree to which actual positions can be
misrepresented by the opposing view.
Your comment above (which
mlsstl;411719 Wrote:
Your comment above (which others have also stated) gives a typical
case. As you and others have noted, I not aware of any study that
claims 128Kbps is indistinguishable from CD, yet it is a constant
theme. I guess it is far too convenient a straw man to give up.
I spent half an hour chatting with Martin Colloms at a HiFi Show on
Sunday. I'd never met him before, although I've read many of his
reviews, and he was just as enthusiastic about hi-fi as I imagined he
would be.
Most of the time we talked about blind testing. To my surprise he said
he used
john4456;411754 Wrote:
In the UK the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) exists to police
the advertising industry and investigate complaints from the public.
The ASA is occasionally called on to adjudicate complaints concerning
an advertiser's claims regarding sound quality. In
darrenyeats;411766 Wrote:
But for me none of that is the point. What I found surprising and
pleasing was that Martin doesn't ignore the elephant in the room. He
doesn't deny that the placebo effect applies to music listening. I
think there's a question over how to address the placebo
ralphpnj;411768 Wrote:
When an individual involved in an DBT consistently identifies A as A and
B as B while the majority of the other people cannot then that person's
responses are dismissed as statistically insignificant instead of be
taken as proving that real differences exist.
That
ralphpnj;411773 Wrote:
You are, of course, completely correct
I can see our views are not that far apart. Just kidding. :)
ralphpnj;411773 Wrote:
the placebo effect does exist but its existence does not necessarily
mean that sonic differences do not exist between various brands of
darrenyeats;411775 Wrote:
That isn't necessarily true. A good DBT test will take any statistically
significant groups like that and test further to check whether the
apparent statistical significance is just chance or something real. I
say a good DBT...
Let's get back to the central
john4456 said: proved that most listeners were unable to distinguish
between compressed AAC files encoded at 128kbps and CD sound.
I took some time to run down the original Report on the MPEG-2 AAC
Stereo Verification Tests done for the ISO in 1997 and published in
1998.
Interestingly
ralphpnj;411768 Wrote:
By the way, if DBTs can be used to show that no differences exist where
there clearly are differences, as is the case with comparisons of lossy
to lossless compression, then exactly what good are they?
I'm not sure if you're deliberately misstating this, but I'll
Will you two please get a room :)
Rant
The results published by Stereophile (and any mag for that matter)
are about as useful as a hairdryer in a tornado.
As for the schizo mags like Hi-Fi World that publish what look like
well-measured results and then confound them with complete hyperbolic
darrenyeats;411775 Wrote:
Let's have a debate about what (if anything) can be done to address the
placebo effect properly and practically.
While people seem to be beginning to agree that the placebo effect does
exist in audio, it seems that the basic point I was attempting to make
when I began
cliveb;411838 Wrote:
If the placebo effect enhances one's listening pleasure, that's fine:
accept it as a benefit.
But if you can save money by having a cheaper placebo (Those 10gauge
zip cords from Home Depot work great!) then it is even better.
--
snarlydwarf
CatBus wrote:
darrenyeats;411499 Wrote:
Is that true? I thought I'd read about some blind tests where people
could distinguish between MP3 320 and red book?
It depends on the sample. There really are tracks have not yet been
distinguished with any certainty from RedBook at 320k, and there
cdmackay;411917 Wrote:
I've seen this mentioned a number of times.
To me, it's extremely hard to understand how it can be true; but that's
probably because of my ears.
Does anyone have a pointer to these experiments, so we can read about
them first-hand?
cheers,
calum.
Better
CatBus;411934 Wrote:
Better than that--I can point you to the samples themselves. But
first--you weren't clear which you wanted...do you want the 320k MP3
that's indistinguishable from RedBook or the 320k MP3 that's easily
distinguished from RedBook. It's a kinda important difference.
Nonreality wrote:
The general consensus seems to be that rock and pop at the higher bit
rates are tough for almost anyone to tell a difference while classical
is not the best candidate for mp3 if you have a critical ear.
This from the blindingly obvious file? Pop/rock is compressed to death
Excuse me for straying a little from the topic, but this dicussion
reminds me of one I had on a forum run by a Canadian speaker
manufacturer with a name starting with A.
The concensus on that forum seems to be that because any modern
amplifier has a flat frequency response, and inaudible
CatBus;411236 Wrote:
Bad example, you're right. String theory. Many Freudian/Jungian
theories. Both at least started out as making up stuff that works out
the way we like, and can't be tested. I understand string theory is on
the cusp of being testable so I may retract that half.
GuyDebord;411196 Wrote:
I know by fact that most of the components I own, once designed were
voiced by ear(s) including my expensive cables.
How does somebody voice a cable - what do they change to achieve the
desired sound?
How do you know for a fact that your cables were voiced?
--
honestguv wrote:
How does somebody voice a cable - what do they change to achieve the
desired sound?
How do you know for a fact that your cables were voiced?
Obviously, all cables that cost more than $200 meter are voiced.
Intuitively obvious to the most naive observer.
--
Pat Farrell
pfarrell;411268 Wrote:
honestguv wrote:
How does somebody voice a cable - what do they change to achieve the
desired sound?
How do you know for a fact that your cables were voiced?
Obviously, all cables that cost more than $200 meter are voiced.
Intuitively obvious to the most naive
Listener;411276 Wrote:
I paid far less for my cables so they only hum.
bill
My Transporter is connected to SqueezeCenter wirelessly but the air in
my house is strictly top of the line audiophile quality. I've done
extensive testing, both subjective and objective, and have concluded
that the
GuyDebord;410979 Wrote:
Listening to music involves all the senses, sight, touch, smell... you
guys just dont get it... continue convincing yourselves of perfectly
reproduced SOUND!
Since when did music smell?
--
probedb
Paul.
'last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/probedb)
probedb;411347 Wrote:
Since when did music smell?
Since people starting believing that the American Idol winners and
runner-ups could sing.
Remember just say NO to American Idol.
--
ralphpnj
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Snatch - The Transporter -
Transporter 2
'Last.fm'
Isn't the great triumph of blind testing that it enables advertisers to
claim that 128kbs mp3 is cd quality ?
--
john4456
john4456's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=23008
View this thread:
john4456;411418 Wrote:
Isn't the great triumph of blind testing that it enables advertisers to
claim that 128kbs mp3 is cd quality ?
No. Any other questions?
--
CatBus
CatBus's Profile:
JezA;411022 Wrote:
cliveb, you need to listen to some music. go to a concert even.
What's the point? I'd have forgotten what it sounded like before I got
to the parking lot.
I'll go back to my 64kbps frauenhoffer mp3's, people tell me they sound
awful but I don't remember hearing anything
I'm a bit confused here.
Those in favor of DBT use it as a reason for deriding the subjectivists
and their expensive cables since DBT clearly shows that most (if not
all) cables sound the same. And this behavior is not only accepted but
often times encouraged, as in, Hey isn't that guy a dope
I am blind and S Club 7 sound the best wherever I am.
MC
--
ModelCitizen
On average people have fewer than two feet.
http://www.last.fm/user/ModelCitizen
ModelCitizen's Profile:
radish;411454 Wrote:
What's the point? I'd have forgotten what it sounded like before I got
to the parking lot.
I'll go back to my 64kbps frauenhoffer mp3's, people tell me they sound
awful but I don't remember hearing anything better, so they must be OK.
LOL.
ralphpnj;411475 Wrote:
ralphpnj;411475 Wrote:
I'm a bit confused here.
Those in favor of DBT use it as a reason for deriding the subjectivists
Yep, you're confused. As a rule, we don't.
However when the subjectivists point out that DBTs also show that an mp3
file sounds the same as an uncompressed or
darrenyeats;411499 Wrote:
Is that true? I thought I'd read about some blind tests where people
could distinguish between MP3 320 and red book?
It depends on the sample. There really are tracks have not yet been
distinguished with any certainty from RedBook at 320k, and there really
are
ralphpnj;411475 Wrote:
I'm a bit confused here.
Basically there are problems with both belief systems and as is often
the case, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Nonsense. When people make incorrect objective statements they are
simply wrong.
If one person says the earth is flat and
Not that I want to pat myself on the back or anything but.
More in the way of reaching a middle ground has come about since my
last post than in the 10+ prior posts. I'm glad to see that things are
beginning to lighten up a bit since nothing new or constructive was
being said, just the same
probedb;411347 Wrote:
Since when did music smell?
have you ever gone to a concert venue, a symphony hall? I never said
that music smells, but you involve all your senses in a musical
experience...
--
GuyDebord
'*LAST.FM*' (http://www.last.fm/user/bloodyrosa)
- SPEAKERS: Kharma CRM
honestguv;411263 Wrote:
How does somebody voice a cable - what do they change to achieve the
desired sound?
How do you know for a fact that your cables were voiced?
because I have a close relationship with siltech and kharma, and have
been present at their voicing auditions.
--
ModelCitizen;411476 Wrote:
I am blind and S Club 7 sound the best wherever I am.
MC
They sound much better if you are deaf.
--
snarlydwarf
snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179
opaqueice;410870 Wrote:
the industry needs to focus on the areas that matter, and stop getting
distracted by mysticism and bogus received wisdom.
Clearly what matters to you and other posters here is NOT the feeling
of music!
Listening to music is by all means a SUBJECTIVE action, there is
JezA;410808 Wrote:
No it is not my position. I said that A-B-X testing is a poor way of
evaluating components, because it is more a test of memory than
anything else.
OK, so you feel that memory is not a good mechanism to compare audio
components. Let's suppose it's true, and then consider
There's a number of things I'd like to respond to, so let's gather them
all in one post:
honestguv;410861 Wrote:
cliveb;410749 Wrote:
The Blind Testing Controversy
There is nothing controversial about blind testing.
Sorry - I didn't mean to suggest that there is any doubt about the
cliveb, you need to listen to some music. go to a concert even.
--
JezA
JezA's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=21219
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=61877
JezA;411022 Wrote:
cliveb, you need to listen to some music. go to a concert even.
What is the purpose of that comment?
I take it you won't (or can't) explain how to compare two components
without using your memory, then?
--
cliveb
Transporter - ATC SCM100A
cliveb;410994 Wrote:
Not sure I understand exactly what you're saying here. Are you pointing
out that a double-blind test can only give a statistical confidence
level, and that 100% proof is never possible? Or are you saying that,
having failed to detect a difference in a blind test, a
GuyDebord;410979 Wrote:
Clearly what matters to you and other posters here is NOT the feeling of
music!
Listening to music is by all means a SUBJECTIVE action, there is
nothing scientific about it unless you dont care about music and just
sound! this forum is populated by sound geeks. You
GuyDebord;410979 Wrote:
Listening to music involves all the senses, sight, touch, smell... you
guys just dont get it... continue convincing yourselves of perfectly
reproduced SOUND!
You're erecting a straw-objectivist and then beating him over the head.
The fact is that it seems to be
CatBus;411101 Wrote:
There is a pigeon in my back yard. I can prove that, even to hardcore
pigeon deniers. However, I cannot convince hardcore pigeon believers
that there ISN'T a pigeon in my yard.
An image of a pigeon in your back yard would be evidence. A dead
pigeon you collected
opaqueice;43 Wrote:
But the part of my comment that seems to have irritated you wasn't
directed at listeners - it was directed at audio engineers, the people
that design and build audio gear and make recordings, and have to worry
about this stuff professionally. They shouldn't listen
GuyDebord;411196 Wrote:
I know by fact that most of the components I own, once designed were
voiced by ear(s) including my expensive cables. Of course some
companies (i.e. YG acoustics) believe in pure measurements, the result
sound is most of the time: analytical, clinical, un-organic and
darrenyeats;410811 Wrote:
1. The word blind in blind testing doesn't refer to having no sense of
sight. It's about not knowing the identity of the candidate at hand.
Hence you can (and reviewers DO*) have blind tests on televisions. The
frame of the television is covered so the tester
Listener;411146 Wrote:
An image of a pigeon in your back yard would be evidence. A dead pigeon
you collected in your back yard would be evidence. Even pigeon
droppings from your back yard would be evidence.
Exactly my point. Evidence that proves the existence of the pigeon is
easy. You
Recent postings in some threads here have stirred up that old hornets
nest of blind testing once again. The antagonists have once again set
out their uncompromising positions, with no prospect of reaching any
kind of shared view. So, at the risk of getting badly stung by the
angry hornets, I
I think you are missing the point.
A-B-X testing, blind or otherwise, as advocated by the
(pseudo-)objectivists is a poor way to judge differences between
systems, because it is more a test of musical memory than musical
perception. For it to be useful, you have to be capable of remembering
the
JezA;410762 Wrote:
A-B-X testing, blind or otherwise, as advocated by the
(pseudo-)objectivists is a poor way to judge differences between
systems, because it is more a test of musical memory than musical
perception. For it to be useful, you have to be capable of remembering
the A and the B
cliveb;410749 Wrote:
Objectivists should stop telling people they are deluding themselves
when they hear a difference, and Subjectivists should stop insisting
that the difference they hear can't be down to these external factors.
Good thoughts! You could apply them on other subjects. The
Quad;410778 Wrote:
Good thoughts! You could apply them on other subjects. The blind testing
controversy here reminds me of the discussion between homeopathy and
conventional medicine (...which has been going on for the last 200
years, so don't expect harmony too soon. But hope dies last,
cliveb;410775 Wrote:
So if I understand you correctly, you're basically saying that it's
impossible to compare two components, sighted or otherwise, to
determine whether they sound the same. Is that your position? .
No it is not my position. I said that A-B-X testing is a poor way of
cliveb;410749 Wrote:
Here's an analogy. You have two servings of food: one is presented
artistically and looks nice on the plate; the other is the same but has
been pre-cut up, mixed and dumped into a bowl. Once the food is in the
mouth, there's no difference, but pretty much everyone would
iPhone;410810 Wrote:
Not to stir the pot to much, but I find it rather odd that your analogy
very much involves SIGHT when your post is about Double Blind Testing.
1. The word blind in blind testing doesn't refer to having no sense
of sight. It's about not knowing the identity of the candidate
Discussions like this tend to generate more heat than light.
Perceptions are personal. Views can differ.
--
Goodsounds
Goodsounds's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14201
View this thread:
My main problem with DBT is that it only gives one a snapshot of the
sound of the components being tested. By snapshot I mean a very small
sampling of the musical spectrum, a one or two minute long snippet of
music rather than an overview of how the components may or may not
differ when playing
The Blind Testing Controversy
There is nothing controversial about blind testing. There is a small
groups of audiophiles, plus a few other groups, that have wish to
believe in magic more strongly than they wish to believe in science.
Since these groups offer nothing in support of rejecting the
cliveb;410749 Wrote:
The Objectivist typically considers that to allow oneself to be
influenced by these other factors is some kind of character flaw.
While I obviously can't speak for others, I haven't found that
characterization to be at all accurate. In I don't think I've ever
honestguv;410861 Wrote:
Can you provide an example or two?
Wait a second...
honestguv;410861 Wrote:
[...] subjectivists making incorrect statements [...] due to their
belief system.
Ha! Found one.
--
Quad
Quad's
opaqueice;410870 Wrote:
In my opinion, perceptual bias is simply a fact - it's part of what
makes us human beings.
So is expectation bias.
--
Quad
Quad's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=20234
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
