View Full Version : Audio Myth's Dispelled?
:)
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/06/audio_myths_dispelled.html
Very interesting Gary.
I think all AoS members should take some time to look at this. For my part, in general, I was swayed by the demonstrations, but I could pick out the more expensive sound card when used.
Regards
Spectral Morn
30-09-2010, 16:13
" As it turns out, most of these subtle yet pricey upgrades/enhancements are nothing more than placebo - and hearing is a very subjective thing" yes of course it is. How else would you listen to music via ones ears not a piece of electrical measuring equipment. Oh yes and the placebo comment, oh how I hate it when that is wheeled out.
I am afraid that single line of text puts me off. Unless I can actual try the things tried/de-bunked then I am not in a position to comment on any of those things...no matter how outlandish they might be or sound.
Oh yes and not having a go but unless you have tried all those things yourself personally and can in your case say you heard nothing then why post it in the first place. You are taking unknown (to me at least) peoples word for it. Try for yourself and then all you can say is that X did not work in my set up. If you then try X in lots of set ups and it does not work in any of them then its foo but not until you try it....otherwise it hearsay.
Waste of time imho.
Regards D S D L
Hi Gary,
Thanks for the link :)
Unfortunately I got bored after 4 mins with the old guy waffling on, so switched it off and went and listened to some music instead! :lol:
Sorry, not my thing. I make my own mind up about "pricey upgrades/enhancements" in hi-fi, without any need for the input of so-called 'experts'....
Marco.
Hi Gary,
Thanks for the link :)
Unfortunately I got bored after 4 mins with the old guy waffling on, so switched it off and went and listened to some music instead! :lol:
Sorry, not my thing. I make my own mind up about "pricey upgrades/enhancements" in hi-fi, without any need for the input of so-called 'experts'....
Marco.
:lol: Quite right too!
Theres some great stuff about ABX'ing and digital recording later in the clip though..
When does that start, so I can fast forward to it! :)
Marco.
Admit an hour is a long time to watch and listen (with headphones), but it is always good to be reminded of the capricious nature of the brain - ear interface and psychacoustic phenomena in particular.
The difficulty of arranging for impartial listening comparisons was well made, if one is to avoid 'expectation bias'.
To talk of "the old guy waffling on" and "so-called 'experts'" is a bit disingenuous in my opinion.
Just my opinion, Barry - my boredom threshold for these things is pretty low :)
Also, the only people's opinions I pay any attention to, as far as audio is concerned, belong to those whose ears I trust. Experiments carried out by complete strangers, no matter who they are, in an alien environment, mean not much more than zippo.
Marco.
Reid Malenfant
30-09-2010, 18:17
Frankly i really think people ought to trust their own ears :eyebrows:
I'm really surpriesd that no-one has mentioned the Stradivari violins & how they were all tuned. What were they tuned by i wonder? I guess they all had spectrum analysis in the 17th & 18th century as well as Bruel & Kjaer microphone to feed it :rolleyes:
Nope, they were all tuned by ear :eyebrows:
Here's a quote from a wiki page on the subject:-
While the sound of Stradivari's instruments still has not been fully explained by modern research tools, devices such as the scanning laser vibrometer are aiding researchers in testing the theory that the careful shaping of belly and back plate, in order to "tune" their resonant frequencies, may be an important factor
The page itself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradivarius)
Mark Grant
30-09-2010, 18:18
Have seen this before on another forum, it is interesting.
fairly sure someone in that video is from this website:
http://www.realtraps.com/prices.htm
Charges thousands of dollars for pieces of foam.
Nothing wrong with that, but how do you know the expensive foam makes any difference ? , you listen, just the same as with any tweak...
Mark.
Indeed! :)
Of course, as human beings, we're sometimes fooled by all manner of things - I accept that. Note the word 'sometimes'. It's the assumption by the scientific fraternity in audio that 'if it can't be measured then it doesn't exist', and thus we're automatically imagining it, I don't accept.
I do believe, however, that if it can genuinely be heard, then it can be measured... *But* of course we need to know exactly what to measure and how!
Fundamentally though, it's not a healthy (or normal) mindset to have if you're constantly worrying about being fooled every time you do something new to your system. Life's too short, so trust your senses, let your ears decide - and relax and enjoy the music!
Marco.
The Grand Wazoo
30-09-2010, 23:19
Nope, they were all tuned by ear :eyebrows:
Is this correct?
I'm not disputing your statement or the content of the article (which I haven't even read yet, so shut me up if I'm out of line). I have nothing to base this on other than my own prior assumption, but I always assumed that bells would have been used as the reference for tuning instruments because any bell with a known volume capacity should always have a corresponding known note.
The obverse of this logic was used in ancient China as a standard for weights & measures.
The Vinyl Adventure
01-10-2010, 09:48
I listened to the first 10 mins but will go back to it.
I have mentioned this before, but I'm a bit of a lefty (I have definately mentioned that before) but I like to read stuff about right wing politics. Star ship troopers for eg. Hannah didn't even like me having it in the house! But if you can greater understand the oposite of your veiw point then it can only help in the understanding of your view point.
In this instance (from where i got to) they seem to be getting at the idea that a lot o what a subjective hifi enthusiast hears is all in thier mind... Well maybe it is ... I have always admitted to my self that might be the case ... It helps with that healthy bit of sceptisim that is required to partake in this hobby without being ripped off...
I think it is very interesting and (so far) informative and would encourage everyone from this side of the fence to watch the video ... And anyway, if you are firm in your convictions, what harm can it do?
StanleyB
01-10-2010, 10:32
A lot of assumed experts in audio listening are quick to claim that perceived differences are in the mind. That includes burning in, amongst other things.
I myself have written very little on this subject, even though I have spent decades studying it in quite fine detail. My reason for keeping quiet are twofold:
1. Trying to convince others of its existence is like hitting your head against a brick wall.
2. Implementing my findings into an actual product is far more rewarding than just blabbing on about it.
As all my mods for the Caiman have shown, just to use an example for this topic, the audible differences were in most cases quite obvious right away. But according to the assumed experts in audio differences, it would be classified as being all in the mind. Who would after all be able to prove that one power supply regulator can sound different to another one? Or that using a different brand of caps of the same value work also sound different?
Such talk would see you get burnt at the stakes on some forums.
A lot of assumed experts in audio listening are quick to claim that perceived differences are in the mind. That includes burning in, amongst other things.
I myself have written very little on this subject, even though I have spent decades studying it in quite fine detail. My reason for keeping quiet are twofold:
1. Trying to convince others of its existence is like hitting your head against a brick wall.
2. Implementing my findings into an actual product is far more rewarding than just blabbing on about it.
As all my mods for the Caiman have shown, just to use an example for this topic, the audible differences were in most cases quite obvious right away. But according to the assumed experts in audio differences, it would be classified as being all in the mind. Who would after all be able to prove that one power supply regulator can sound different to another one? Or that using a different brand of caps of the same value work also sound different?
Such talk would see you get burnt at the stakes on some forums.
wot Stan said.
Reid Malenfant
01-10-2010, 14:40
Is this correct?
I'm not disputing your statement or the content of the article (which I haven't even read yet, so shut me up if I'm out of line). I have nothing to base this on other than my own prior assumption, but I always assumed that bells would have been used as the reference for tuning instruments because any bell with a known volume capacity should always have a corresponding known note.
The obverse of this logic was used in ancient China as a standard for weights & measures.
Hi Chris, what i mean't by tuning wasn't about getting the strings to resonate at the correct frequency. I was refering to the instrument itself so as to produce the correct overtones, or if you like distortion :eyebrows: Again, i'm not on about nasty harmonics, i'm on about the ones that make a violin sound like a violin ;)
You may well be perfectly correct about the bell thing when tuning the strings to the correct fundamental frequencies.
Ali Tait
01-10-2010, 15:03
We like a bit of even order harmonics,it's part of what makes the valve amp sound many of us like so much.
The Grand Wazoo
01-10-2010, 23:27
Hi Chris, what i mean't by tuning wasn't about getting the strings to resonate at the correct frequency. I was refering to the instrument itself so as to produce the correct overtones,
........... i'm on about the ones that make a violin sound like a violin ;)
Yes, I read the linked article and thought a bit more about what you were saying.......but forgot to respond!
Sorry, I did grab the wrong end of the stick.
I've always thought the thing about bell volumes to be fascinating though. The inspectors could ensure that traded commodities were sold fairly because the measuring scoops that they had to use were bells. If the inspectors wanted to check whether the traders were diddling their customers, they'd compare the note (with the use of the Mk I eardrum) to the note of the reference bell.
Hi Hamish,
But if you can greater understand the oposite of your veiw point then it can only help in the understanding of your view point.
... And anyway, if you are firm in your convictions, what harm can it do?
None; providing out of sheer boredom you don't lose the will to live and slash your wrists halfway through! ;)
Seriously though, you make a very good point (emboldened above). I've spent years on forums 'interacting' (for want of the use of a better word) with the most belligerent of 'objectivists', so I reckon that I've got a pretty good understanding of their psyche, which makes me eternally thankful I don't have their rather uncomfortable relationship with audio.
I consider not being able to trust your senses as a serious affliction.
Marco.
I've always thought the thing about bell volumes to be fascinating though. The inspectors could ensure that traded commodities were sold fairly because the measuring scoops that they had to use were bells. If the inspectors wanted to check whether the traders were diddling their customers, they'd compare the note (with the use of the Mk I eardrum) to the note of the reference bell.
I guess the Wheeltappers back in the days of steam used the same Mk1 eardrum to test if the wheel was still sound - wouldn't be allowed today:)
I bet if Stan measured carefully enough, he'd find reasons why one regulator may affect an audio circuit differently to another and also, the fact that one audio circuit may ask more of that regulator than another. That's where the art and intuition come in - some people (like Tim de Paravacini) just seem to "know" what to do and can draw it out on the back of a fag packet.......
I bet if Stan measured carefully enough, he'd find reasons why one regulator may affect an audio circuit differently to another and also, the fact that one audio circuit may ask more of that regulator than another. That's where the art and intuition come in - some people (like Tim de Paravacini) just seem to "know" what to do and can draw it out on the back of a fag packet.......
You raise a very interesting point, Dave, and one I completely agree with.
"That's where the art and intuition come in".
Indeed, and that's *precisely* the thinking this forum promotes, and why it exists. It is at the very core of our ethos. What is AoS short for - particularly the 'A'? ;)
Just as TDP seems to "know" what to do in terms of the design of audio circuits, so do some others "know" how to optimise or 'tweak' a system by judiciously selecting the right ancillaries, such as stands or cables; the effect of which unfortunately is not always scientifically provable.
It's a 'feeling' or just plain intuition (based on years of experience), as you describe with TDP, which is often the criteria used by knowledgeable audio enthusiasts to judge the efficacy of system 'tweaks', and so 'tune' a system to reproduce recorded music in a way which often exceeds normal standards.
If the 'objectivists' who populate the various audio forums on the Internet could acknowledge this concept, then it would go some way to stopping the wars which occur when the subject of people 'imagining' things raises its ugly head!
Marco.
Reid Malenfant
02-10-2010, 11:31
Yes, I read the linked article and thought a bit more about what you were saying.......but forgot to respond!
Sorry, I did grab the wrong end of the stick.
No offence taken so no need to apologise :)
hifi_dave
02-10-2010, 12:58
Seriously though, you make a very good point (emboldened above). I've spent years on forums 'interacting' (for want of the use of a better word) with the most belligerent of 'objectivists', so I reckon that I've got a pretty good understanding of their psyche, which makes me eternally thankful I don't have their rather uncomfortable relationship with audio.
I consider not being able to trust your senses as a serious affliction.
Marco.
There have been several threads and a couple of forums which I have decided not to post on because I know it willl only lead to arguments with the objective camp. Life's too short.
I just wonder whether some of these people have systems so bad that they can't hear subtle differences or their hearing isn't up to it. That or they just don't believe that relatively small improvements are worth having.
The Vinyl Adventure
02-10-2010, 13:19
But marco, our sences do lie to us, that's the point of the video ... And they are right!
I can lie in bed at night listening to the fan (Hannah can't sleep without noise so we have to have a fan on all year round) and I can make my mind think the sound from the fan is changing frequency. I would say that there is a good chance that some "upgrades" are all in the mind for some people somtimes ...
The problem is that because it happens some times, the hardened objectavist thinks it happens all the time!
Aknowledging that it can happen is important I think, if you are open minded to the idea you might be fooled, I think it reduces the chances of being fooled.
I certainly dont entierly trust my sences, and i would concider trusting ones sences entierly an affliction ...
The problem with hardened objectavists is that they don't hear things because they arnt open minded enough... There is as good a chance they are fooling them selves in to not hearing something as we are fooling our selves into hearing something!
My position on this, in my mind is the only logical one... If the mind can be fooled one way it can be fooled the oposite way, not being aware of that, as I said, is definatly an affliction
The Vinyl Adventure
02-10-2010, 13:26
In fact, if you think about it, an objectatist saying the mind can be fooled is effectively admiting that they might be wrong... They are saying the mind can be fooled but effectivly saying thier mind can't be fooled in to not hearing anything... It doesn't make any sence to me to think like that!
The Vinyl Adventure
02-10-2010, 13:27
Sorry I hope this makes sence, I'm feeling a bit ropey today
The Vinyl Adventure
02-10-2010, 13:31
Another example of not being able to trust my sences just happend, I walked into the bathroom and saw the cat out of the corner of my eye, turned to say hello to it and it was the furry mat thing by the shower... That sorta thing happens all the time, surly that happens to you marco! That is your sences fooling you... You must acknowledge that it happens??
hifi_dave
02-10-2010, 13:33
In fact, if you think about it, an objectatist saying the mind can be fooled is effectively admiting that they might be wrong... They are saying the mind can be fooled but effectivly saying thier mind can't be fooled in to not hearing anything... It doesn't make any sence to me to think like that!
Aren't they saying that if a difference can't be measured, it can't exist ?
The Vinyl Adventure
02-10-2010, 13:44
Yes dave, and by saying that they are cutting them selves off from the possibility that it can exist! Thus fooling them selves into not hearing things...
A scientific mind set to me is contradictory, it is about discovery, but anything that hasn't yet been discovered doesn't exist...
Just because things can't be measured now, doesn't mean a scientist might not find a way to measure it in the future... So by saying something doesn't exist because it can't be measured is in my mind saying there is no point in what they believe in...
Does this make sense to anyone or am I just talking shite...
Stratmangler
02-10-2010, 13:52
Does this make sense to anyone or am I just talking shite...
Well............;)
A scientific mind set to me is contradictory, it is about discovery, but anything that hasn't yet been discovered doesn't exist...
Just because things can't be measured now, doesn't mean a scientist might not find a way to measure it in the future... So by saying something doesn't exist because it can't be measured is in my mind saying there is no point in what they believe in...
Does this make sense to anyone or am I just talking shite...
Science is about testing theories and hypotheses (to destruction, if necessary) not about saying this or that 'can't happen'.
So, if a subjectivist hifi person claimed that making a certain tweak vastly improved the sound of any system, a scientist would say, in effect, demonstrate to me that this is a real change; can it be objectively measured, for example by recording the 'before' and 'after' sound of the system? Can it be heard, unprompted, under 'blind' conditions, by anyone with good hearing?
Only if these basic conditions could be met would a scientist be interested in finding out why the tweak worked, because only then would he/she have something definite to work on, beyond an unverified 'it just sounds better' type of statement.
In brief, if the only person you want to convince is yourself, subjective impressions are fine, but if you want external verification, you need to go into the realms of scientific testing, where more rigorous rules apply.
The Vinyl Adventure
02-10-2010, 14:30
I think I have spent to long arguing with my mate Chris who basically refuses to belive in the possibilty of anything that can't been proven by science ... I find it very frustrating and I'm not intelegent enough to agrue my case in an ariculate enough way to get my point accros... And the same is happening here!
Hi Hamish,
But marco, our sences do lie to us, that's the point of the video ... And they are right!
Did you read this earlier post of mine:
Of course, as human beings, we're sometimes fooled by all manner of things - I accept that. Note the word 'sometimes'. It's the assumption by the scientific fraternity in audio that 'if it can't be measured then it doesn't exist', and thus we're automatically imagining it, I don't accept.
I do believe, however, that if it can genuinely be heard, then it can be measured... *But* of course we need to know exactly what to measure and how!
Fundamentally though, it's not a healthy (or normal) mindset to have if you're constantly worrying about being fooled every time you do something new to your system. Life's too short, so trust your senses, let your ears decide - and relax and enjoy the music!
Note the bits underlined and in bold.
I fully accept that our senses can fool us - just not ALWAYS when there isn't a ready-made scientific explanation to 'prove' effects we can genuinely hear. *That* is the key bit!
'You've imagined it', although possible, I'm afraid is trotted out way too often as a convenient excuse by the measurement über alles brigade to pooh-pooh something which doesn't fit with their belief set.
I don't buy the notion that just because we haven't (yet) found a way to properly measure something we can genuinely hear (cable or stand effects, for example) means that, that something is imagined. At best it is grossly over-simplistic thinking, and at worst, a nonsense.
The trouble is, some people need an established 'set of rules' to justify their life experiences, and for everything they hear in audio to be neatly pigeonholed into currently recognised phenomena. Anything other than that is an anathema to them. That's certainly not my view - and never will be. I remain forever open-minded to the existence of new phenomena in all areas of life, not just in hi-fi.
With hi-fi, once I've analysed effects I've heard with cables, or whatever, using rigorous subjective testing over a period of time (I never just 'automatically believe' anything), and I'm satisfied that what I'm hearing is real, then that's good enough for me. I will then apply it to my system and recommend it to others.
This is entirely natural and normal behaviour for a human being and audio enthusiast. Worrying about constantly being 'fooled' by your senses, and testing for it, isn't. That's bordering on neurosis and OCD, and suggests a serious insecurity!
The problem is that because it happens some times, the hardened objectavist thinks it happens all the time!
Aknowledging that it can happen is important I think, if you are open minded to the idea you might be fooled, I think it reduces the chances of being fooled.
Indeed. I think we're in agreement, although using different words to describe our thoughts :)
Marco.
Science is difficult; that's why I did arts.
One thing to bear in mind is the impossibility of proving a negative; there is (AFAIK) no actual proof of God's existence, but equally science can't prove there's no God.
Science is difficult; that's why I did arts.
One thing to bear in mind is the impossibility of proving a negative; there is (AFAIK) no actual proof of God's existence, but equally science can't prove there's no God.
To pick up on an earlier post by hifi dave, the audio engineers of yesterday used to discover all sorts of things and then try to measure what they found and design products which juggled the shortcomings of the period into something listenable. The Quad II's I have are a perfect example of this. If you analyse them too closely, both objectively and subjectively, you can pull them apart, but now I have the absolute phase thing sorted (some say that this isn't an issue and it isn't for many systems - it is for mine right now...), the Crofted II's are just sublime, covering their tracks so well and with a midrange to die for. The replacement 303 and 405 run within their limits seem to do the same thing and the basic wonderful work of Peter Qalker and team shines through when better modern components relieve the strict fettering they suffered from due to component limitations..
As for "God," I think we all ought to realise the one-ness in which we live and think of ourselves as an individual part of the whole, rather than being separate from it - a huge area for discussion which is way beyond me..
Steve Eddy
02-10-2010, 15:17
The problem is that because it happens some times, the hardened objectavist thinks it happens all the time!
And that person would be as foolish as the one who thinks it never happens (or at least never happens to them).
But because it does happen some times, you don't know when it is or isn't happening. The perception seems no less real when it happens as when it doesn't. So until you can control for it, you don't know one way or the other.
se
Hi Joe,
Science is about testing theories and hypotheses (to destruction, if necessary) not about saying this or that 'can't happen'.
Indeed, and it's this mindset that separates real scientists from the self-appointed pretenders, of which there are far too many on forums!
In brief, if the only person you want to convince is yourself, subjective impressions are fine, but if you want external verification, you need to go into the realms of scientific testing, where more rigorous rules apply.
True, and I have no problem with that notion, but what's a hi-fi forum for if an audio enthusiast can't relate to other like-minded enthusiasts the results of something they've done to their system to improve the sound, which they believe is significant, without wannabe scientists rudely and disrespectfully rubbishing their perfectly valid experiences?
Now that shit doesn't happen on AoS - and never will - but the whole point of an audio forum, as far as I'm concerned, is to share suggestions and experiences with others; it is not meant to be a formal environment where every observation is scrutinised to death to the point of causing upset and offence. No-one is submitting a thesis for critical appraisal - we're just having a bit of fun!
*That* is the problem I have with most other forums, and why AoS was created in the first place as a haven from that sort of nonsense.
If someone wishes to report a tweak they've tried with a view to it possibly being of benefit to others, then that person should be allowed to do so without being subjected to ridicule, although that doesn't mean they can't be robustly, but politely, challenged.
In fact, we welcome that here, as robust debating is stimulating, healthy, and often educational, but there has to be mutual TOLERANCE and RESPECT shown on both sides of the objectivist/subjectivist divide in order for anything new to be learned. Without that respect and tolerance, all that is achieved is pointless point scoring, and ultimately, offence and resentment.
Whether what people recommend on forums is scientifically provable or not is irrelevant. It's simply a matter for the reader to decide whether the tweak (or whatever) being described is bullshit or not. People can make up their own minds without needing 'science' to do it for them.
If what's being suggested is considered bullshit, then it can simply be ignored. If it's thought to have some merit, then people can try it for themselves and discover if it has any worth. It's that simple. There is no need for anyone to be belittled just because what they're recommending lacks 'scientific credibility'. That's what gets people's backs up and when a war starts!
Some folk, though, get a kick out of being self-appointed 'smart arses'....... :rolleyes:
If certain people adopted a more tolerant approach, it would largely put an end to all the unnecessary fights that happen on forums over cables and such like, but then I suspect that this would remove the very reason why they contribute, which is to ridicule, irritate and score points, rather than possibly learn something new.
Marco.
As I've just said on PFM, the real division is not between objectivists and subjectivists, it's between pragmatists and dogmatists.
Reid Malenfant
02-10-2010, 15:27
As for "God," I think we all ought to realise the one-ness in which we live and think of ourselves as an individual part of the whole, rather than being separate from it - a huge area for discussion which is way beyond me..
Let me make it easy for you :) We are all made of dead stars :eyebrows: Any element heavier than iron was or indeed is still formed only during supernova explosions. Stars create elements heavier than hydrogen & helium by fusion & create all the lighter elements up to & including iron.
Our planet, all the other planets, ourselves & everything alive on this planet & anywhere else in the known universe are made of accreted star dust.
So yes, i guess you could say we are all part of a bigger picture :cool:
Apologies for going off topic :doh:
And that person would be as foolish as the one who thinks it never happens (or at least never happens to them).
But because it does happen some times, you don't know when it is or isn't happening. The perception seems no less real when it happens as when it doesn't. So until you can control for it, you don't know one way or the other.
Indeed, Steve, which is when you simply 'go with the flow' and decide that if it sounds better, then it *is* better, and worry not about being 'fooled'.
That's what I do now and always will! :)
The trouble is, for those of a science-obsessed absolutist mindset, everything is always 'black & white', when the world around them is full of shades of grey......... ;)
Marco.
As I've just said on PFM, the real division is not between objectivists and subjectivists, it's between pragmatists and dogmatists.
How true is that!!
Do you know what really hacks me off, though?
People who think that they have the right (not to mention necessary knowledge and ability) to psycho-analyse how I determine the efficacy of equipment or 'tweaks' used in my system, and whether I'm being 'fooled' or not, when they know virtually NOTHING about me (my system) or how my mind works.
Forums are unfortunately full of these types of characters who get their 'jollies' out of irritating people to the point of them losing the plot out of sheer exasperation! :wanker:
I hear what I hear, and certainly don't need told to the contrary by some unqualified f*ckwit on an Internet forum, usually with an axe to grind ;)
[Rant over].
Marco.
The individuals on that video clip are established names in the pro-audio industry. Many of their arguments can be argued against and they are indeed argued even by what you would call the "objectivists".
Joe actually nailed it from the scientific point of view.
Not everything is explained or proven by the science, it is true, but these are the things way beyond the scope of the fundamentals. The problem starts when the fundamentals are violated.
Hi Cemal,
How are you? I hope all is well :)
The individuals on that video clip are established names in the pro-audio industry. Many of their arguments can be argued against and they are indeed argued even by what you would call the "objectivists".
Ah.... I had no idea who they were. Why is it, I wonder, that "established names" in the pro-audio industry are always touted by so-called 'objectivists' as being 'experts' - as if their ears are necessarily better than those of anyone else?
I've never understood that notion, or why I should consider the findings of these so-called 'experts', and complete strangers to me, as somehow more significant than, say, people on this forum whom I know personally and whose ears I trust because they value the same things in audio as I do.... :scratch:
The only things these 'experts' are experts in is what they do specifically in their chosen field. They are no more likely better able to judge what's best for my hi-fi system than some people here, or most of all me!
It's as if these 'experts' who work in the pro-audio industry are to be held in reverence, just because they are "established names". So what? Bollocks to that!
And when you consider some of the shit recordings produced by studios these days, it doesn't exactly give those behind making them in the pro-audio industry kudos, or fuel the idea that they somehow have 'golden ears' or are in any way particularly discerning!
Joe actually nailed it from the scientific point of view.
Not everything is explained or proven by the science, it is true, but these are the things way beyond the scope of the fundamentals. The problem starts when the fundamentals are violated.
Indeed. However, how would you define "when those fundamentals are violated"?
Marco.
Steve Eddy
02-10-2010, 21:48
Ah.... I had no idea who they were.
Y'ever heard of MP3?
Well, it was "the old guy" who developed it.
se
Oh gawd, so it's his fault that sonic abomination was foisted upon us that has driven down standards of audio quality worldwide! :doh:
I'm against anything in audio, Steve, that places convenience before quality, and MP3 is unadulterated shit, and a valid case in point. That makes me even less likely to pay any attention to a word he says! :lol:
Marco.
Steve Eddy
02-10-2010, 22:53
Oh gawd, so it's his fault that sonic abomination was foisted upon us that has driven down standards of audio quality worldwide! :doh:
Not his fault at all. If there's been any foisting done, it's been by a non-discriminating public.
No one, least of all jj ("the old guy"), has ever argued that MP3 is anything but a compromise. It is simply a tool to enable a more effective use of limited storage. Keep in mind that it was developed nearly 20 years ago when the average hard drive capacity was still just in the tens of megabytes.
I'm against anything in audio, Steve, that places convenience before quality, and MP3 is unadulterated shit, and a valid case in point. That makes me even less likely to pay any attention to a word he says! :lol:
Actually, MP3 IS adulterated. That's its job. :)
But what you don't seem to appreciate is that in order to develop such a CODEC as MP3, you need to know a hell of a lot about the physiology and psychology of human aural perception. You also have to know a hell of a lot about blind testing, which was used extensively in the development of MP3.
To dismiss jj out of hand simply because pirated music and the Internet gave rise to the popularity of MP3 is highly unfair in my opinion.
se
Hi Steve,
Not his fault at all. If there's been any foisting done, it's been by a non-discriminating public.
But if MP3 hadn't been invented in the first place then the non-discriminating public wouldn't have been able to play their part in any foisting ;)
No one, least of all jj ("the old guy"), has ever argued that MP3 is anything but a compromise. It is simply a tool to enable a more effective use of limited storage. Keep in mind that it was developed nearly 20 years ago when the average hard drive capacity was still just in the tens of megabytes.
I'm afraid that as a diehard analogue man, none of that is of any interest to me. Regardless, MP3 has driven down standards in audio quality, which is something that pisses me off, as the knock-on effect is felt far and wide!
Actually, MP3 IS adulterated. That's its job. :)
Which for me as a purist makes it an abomination!
But what you don't seem to appreciate is that in order to develop such a CODEC as MP3, you need to know a hell of a lot about the physiology and psychology of human aural perception. You also have to know a hell of a lot about blind testing, which was used extensively in the development of MP3.
I'm in no position to judge whether you are right or wrong in that respect (although with you being a knowledgeable chap, I suspect the former is nearer the truth) as I simply have no interest in "CODECs" or anything much to do with computer audio - not my zone, baby!
To dismiss jj out of hand simply because pirated music and the Internet gave rise to the popularity of MP3 is highly unfair in my opinion.
I'm not dismissing him out of hand; merely not affording him anything like the kudos, as being someone I would consider as having particularly discerning ears, like some obviously think he deserves.
It takes somewhat different qualities in a person to impress me where audio is concerned!
Marco.
Steve Eddy
03-10-2010, 01:36
Was just trying to stay on topic is all.
se
A noble but futile gesture on AoS, my friend, where thread drift is notorious and (often) highly entertaining! :eyebrows:
Marco.
hifi_dave
03-10-2010, 09:23
And on that note - The Art of Sound Library is wonderful. A great source of information and useful specs.
I recommend it to the House...:interesting:
Haha, someone's noticed it at last!!
Marco.
hifi_dave
03-10-2010, 09:42
I would imagine that it took quite some time and a lot of work to put it together and I would like to thank those concerned for their great work of reference.
Thanks, Dave. Kudos for that goes to Barry, Chris (TGW) and Beechy, amongst others.
We're planing, in due course, to make The Library into a main room on the forum, so that more people will use it :)
Marco.
Not his fault at all. If there's been any foisting done, it's been by a non-discriminating public.
No one, least of all jj ("the old guy"), has ever argued that MP3 is anything but a compromise. It is simply a tool to enable a more effective use of limited storage. Keep in mind that it was developed nearly 20 years ago when the average hard drive capacity was still just in the tens of megabytes.
Actually, MP3 IS adulterated. That's its job. :)
But what you don't seem to appreciate is that in order to develop such a CODEC as MP3, you need to know a hell of a lot about the physiology and psychology of human aural perception. You also have to know a hell of a lot about blind testing, which was used extensively in the development of MP3.
To dismiss jj out of hand simply because pirated music and the Internet gave rise to the popularity of MP3 is highly unfair in my opinion.
se
Well done Steve
You have succinctly posted more-or-less what I had intended writing. To dismiss someone who has studied and knows a fair bit about the physiology and psychology of hearing, and thus the ways in which the 'ear' can be fooled, as someone who's opinion of high-end hi-fi has no value, is to have one's head in the sand.
If optical illusions exist and are exploited practically, why not audible illusions? The whole business of providing stereo sound via only two speakers, uses an aural illusion; cleverly discovered by the great Alun Dowker Blumlein at EMI
Regards
Hi Barry,
To dismiss someone who has studied and knows a fair bit about the physiology and psychology of hearing, and thus the ways in which the 'ear' can be fooled, as someone who's opinion of high-end hi-fi has no value, is to have one's head in the sand.
Indeed, but no-one is doing that. Where did anyone say that his opinion has "no value"? I certainly didn't, so you're misconstruing things, old chap! :)
All I'm saying is that although JJ may be an expert in his field, his ears aren't necessarily more discerning than anyone else's in terms of analysing effects in audio which many people can genuinely hear, but yet are currently not proven by science, or judging what constitutes as a good sound.
As such, his opinion on that aspect of matters is to be respected, but no more so, IMO, than anyone whose ears I trust on this forum or elsewhere, because JJ may know all about the physiology and psychology of hearing, but he doesn't *know* how you or I as individuals analyse what we hear when listening to recorded music reproduced by our respective hi-fi systems. Everyone is different.
Furthermore, and rather significantly, he doesn't know what our individual levels of hearing acuity are, or the ability of our hi-fi systems to resolve often subtle (but significant) differences. Not all people's systems, hearing acuity or experience in audio is equal. In summary, his observations, although worthy, cannot be treated as fact, simply because tests prove that sometimes people can be fooled.
Therefore, whilst I accept and acknowledge some of the observations made during the video, at the end of the day it changes nothing, other than making me aware of something I already knew.
Whilst I'm fully aware that my ears and brain can be fooled, ultimately, after subjectively testing what I need to with hi-fi over a period of time, I will always trust my senses and gut instinct, no matter if what I hear is not currently scientifically provable, simply because scientific testing is not infallible and life's too short to be constantly worrying about 'imagining things' - and so my ears and accumulated experience over many years will, in terms of my system, remain the final arbiters in all matters audio related.
If optical illusions exist and are exploited practically, why not audible illusions?
This has already been covered, Barry. I have no doubt that the "audible illusions" you allude to exist; just that the notion shouldn't always be used as a convenient excuse by the audio pro-science fraternity to pooh-pooh something someone has genuinely heard, simply when they believe it to be 'imagined' because it doesn't conform to their belief set or to any currently known scientific phenomena.
For me, that smacks of over-simplistic, rather woolly thinking, and the so-called 'objectivists' relating as 'fact' similarly inconclusive theories 'subjectivists' are often accused of doing! ;)
Marco.
Hi Marco,
Where did anyone say that his opinion has "no value"? I certainly didn't, so you're misconstruing things, old chap!
You may not have used the words "no value", but you did write:
Oh gawd, so it's his fault that sonic abomination was foisted upon us that has driven down standards of audio quality worldwide!
I'm against anything in audio, Steve, that places convenience before quality, and MP3 is unadulterated shit, and a valid case in point. That makes me even less likely to pay any attention to a word he says!
I believe that we should be guided by our ears, but should also be aware that we can sometimes be fooled on initial hearing into thinking that a change made is for the better. After a period of time revert back to the original status and see if the change was genuine.
You may not like the idea, but I do believe that there is the phenomenon of 'expectation bias', both for and against a change, and I think one has to conduct these comparisons with great care. A recent example of this is my visit to the Whittlebury Hall show. I arrived in a less than good mood and having a poor opinion of audio shows in general, all of my initial impressions of the demonstrations was negative. After I had relaxed a bit and then revisited the demonstration rooms, I was able to hear things a lot more impartially.
My modus operandi when comparing items is simply not to expect any change. If there is a change that is important to me, I will hear it whether I want to or not, rather than having to listen for it - it just pops out regardless. I will then live with that change for a while, then revert to the status quo to see how significant the change was.
However at the end of the day, we are all looking for a system that is right for us and there is no point in worrying about acoustic 'illusions'. It's all one big illusion, but it gives us a lot of pleasure. This applies equally to the MP3 generation as well as to members of this forum. Just be aware of the charlatans out there, ready to take your money!
Regards
Hi Barry,
You may not have used the words "no value", but you did write:
Oh gawd, so it's his fault that sonic abomination was foisted upon us that has driven down standards of audio quality worldwide!
I'm against anything in audio, Steve, that places convenience before quality, and MP3 is unadulterated shit, and a valid case in point. That makes me even less likely to pay any attention to a word he says!
That's not the same though as saying his views or what he's discovered have no value, which isn't the case. I've already explained where I stand on this matter in my previous post.
All I meant by that comment was that the person responsible for inventing MP3, which as a purist I consider as a sonic abomination, is not likely to endear themselves to me, and therefore neither would I be likely to hold their views of audio in particularly high regard!
As a wine connoisseur, it would be akin to giving kudos to those responsible for producing Blue Nun! ;)
I trust you see my point, especially with knowing me personally, and thus the relevance of that last remark.
I believe that we should be guided by our ears, but should also be aware that we can sometimes be fooled on initial hearing into thinking that a change made is for the better. After a period of time revert back to the original status and see if the change was genuine.
I completely agree, and that methodology forms the basis of my subjective analysis when testing anything in my system. It's the only way (short of the blind testing favoured by 'objectivists', which I believe is fatally flawed) to be as sure as possible that what you're hearing isn't imagined. I never just 'automatically accept' anything.
You wouldn't believe how thorough I am when carrying out tests in my system and the lengths I go to before arriving at a proper conclusion. Just because my methods aren't particularly scientific doesn't make the results any less relevant.
You've loaned me some cables to try, so when I try them and return my verdict, I don't expect you to turn round and tell me that whatever I've heard I've 'imagined' due to lack of 'scientific proof'....
That of course was a tongue-in-cheek remark, but I trust you can see my point.
You may not like the idea, but I do believe that there is the phenomenon of 'expectation bias', both for and against a change, and I think one has to conduct these comparisons with great care.
Au contraire, mon ami, I absolutely believe in the phenomenon of 'expectation bias', and indeed have even been a victim of it myself on occasions, so I completely agree with what you're saying.
All I'm saying is that there is a tendency for the pro-science audio fraternity to use that as a convenient excuse to always dismiss people's perfectly valid experiences when there is no ready-made explanation in their junior edition of 'Dr Oetker's book of scientific facts'! :eyebrows:
It's a grossly simplistic outlook, as things aren't that straightforward (in life and in audio), least of all how the human ear and brain processes recorded music, but then some people need everything to be 'black & white' and neatly pigeonholed into certain established 'facts' to bolster and justify their world view, which is a complete anathema to me.
I've always said that absolutists of any description, by their very nature (with them ignoring the grey areas and 'what ifs?' of life) will, amongst other things, miss the subtleties and complexities of hi-end audio which enables one to have a truly great system, and experience confirms this.
This incidentally, has nothing whatsoever to do with 'golden ears' - it's about having the right attitude and mindset, and that means always being willing to learn and discover new things, not cocooning oneself inside some narrow-minded scientific bubble.
A recent example of this is my visit to the Whittlebury Hall show. I arrived in a less than good mood and having a poor opinion of audio shows in general, all of my initial impressions of the demonstrations was negative. After I had relaxed a bit and then revisited the demonstration rooms, I was able to hear things a lot more impartially.
Indeed. There is no doubt whatsoever that mood plays a very significant part in determining what we hear. That's why when any critical listening is required, I always do it in a relaxed state of mind and when I have plenty of time on my hands.
My modus operandi when comparing items is simply not to expect any change. If there is a change that is important to me, I will hear it whether I want to or not, rather than having to listen for it - it just pops out regardless. I will then live with that change for a while, then revert to the status quo to see how significant the change was.
Same here, although I enter any testing with a completely open mind, and so whatever happens, happens. I don't begin not expecting any change, or vice versa - I simply go with the flow, make some observations, and then do what you've described above. I don't reach a definitive conclusion on whatever is being tested, however, until I'm convinced that its sonic effect is real.
A key thing for me when analysing the effectiveness of any new 'tweak' in my system, is to discover whether the change has resulted in me listening to more music, or to music for longer than I would normally do. When that happens I know that the effect of whatever change I've made to my system is beneficial and very much real, especially when after having also reverted back to the way the system was before, listened, and having had it confirmed that the 'tweak' I introduced has indeed offered a genuine sonic improvement.
However at the end of the day, we are all looking for a system that is right for us and there is no point in worrying about acoustic 'illusions'.
Damn right. Otherwise, that way madness lies!
It's all one big illusion, but it gives us a lot of pleasure. This applies equally to the MP3 generation as well as to members of this forum. Just be aware of the charlatans out there, ready to take your money!
Never truer words were said! :)
Marco.
No further comment on this, Barry? :)
Marco.
Hi Marco,
Will post something later; your carefully written post deserves a reply.
I think we are converging to a 'meeting of minds' - but I would want you to have the last word! :eyebrows:
Regards
Lol - that's your prerogative, age before beauty and all that! :eyebrows: ;)
I look forward to your erudite scribbles later.
Marco.
Rare Bird
06-10-2010, 13:10
I believe that we should be guided by our ears, but should also be aware that we can sometimes be fooled on initial hearing into thinking that a change made is for the better. After a period of time revert back to the original status and see if the change was genuine.
That's intresting Barry, after my long voyage through the years of upgrading (Going thru the motions) it was only a few years back i decided to take a trip down memory lane, revisiting a few early systems i used to have only to realise i'd totally not upgraded through the years but in reality degraded (to my ears)! Now for me it's implementing various aspects of new technology with the older to create a concoction of loverlyness :)
I think you've misunderstood Barry there, Andre! ;)
Marco.
Rare Bird
06-10-2010, 16:38
I think you've misunderstood Barry there, Andre! ;)
Marco.
I understood that checking back to see if any upgrade is worthwhile, just thought id chuck in that one..
electric beach
07-10-2010, 21:33
I understood that checking back to see if any upgrade is worthwhile, just thought id chuck in that one..
I have always kept the album that I used to audition my first amp and CD player 30 years ago, using a few specific tracks for particular qualities that I grew to know very well and to have some kind of constant reference. Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time.
It feels like I've come a long, long way since but putting that disc on is a big reality check. It never seems to be quite as amazing as I expect it will be - or should be after all the upgrades. Perhaps all those post component change comments of "Well, I can't hear any difference - but so long as you're happy. Can that be it now?" had merit after all! :doh:
In the video one of the magic treatment examples they ridicule is the Synergistic Research Acoustic ART room treatment system (the tuning bowls). I heard this used with Zingali speakers at the Heathrow show two consequetive years and both times I thought they had one of the best sounds of the show. They demonstrated taking the devices away one by one, touching nothing else and you didn't need to strain or focus on the changes to hear how the presentation of the sound changed. Dramatically. With all devices removed, obviously having the full treatment as the reference, the system seemed nothing special at all; soundstage collapsed, presence and projection into the room disappeared. The illusion of holographic reality evaporated before our ears.
Valerie came to her first Hi Fi shows those years. The other day I asked her which was the most impressive thing that she'd heard from all her exposure to different replay systems and she nominated that system sound and in particular the effect of those impossibly named little bowls. For me, their inclusion of the ART system in their examples of ridiculous, ineffective pseudo tweaks completely undermined their credibility for every other word spoken.
There's a big difference between an enquiring attitude and a mission to find confirmation that what you already believe is correct.
If you think you already know, then you're not looking.
I have always kept the album that I used to audition my first amp and CD player 30 years ago, using a few specific tracks for particular qualities that I grew to know very well and to have some kind of constant reference. Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time.
It feels like I've come a long, long way since but putting that disc on is a big reality check. It never seems to be quite as amazing as I expect it will be - or should be after all the upgrades. Perhaps all those post component change comments of "Well, I can't hear any difference - but so long as you're happy. Can that be it now?" had merit after all! :doh:
In the video one of the magic treatment examples they ridicule is the Synergistic Research Acoustic ART room treatment system (the tuning bowls). I heard this used with Zingali speakers at the Heathrow show two consequetive years and both times I thought they had one of the best sounds of the show. They demonstrated taking the devices away one by one, touching nothing else and you didn't need to strain or focus on the changes to hear how the presentation of the sound changed. Dramatically. With all devices removed, obviously having the full treatment as the reference, the system seemed nothing special at all; soundstage collapsed, presence and projection into the room disappeared. The illusion of holographic reality evaporated before our ears.
Valerie came to her first Hi Fi shows those years. The other day I asked her which was the most impressive thing that she'd heard from all her exposure to different replay systems and she nominated that system sound and in particular the effect of those impossibly named little bowls. For me, their inclusion of the ART system in their examples of ridiculous, ineffective pseudo tweaks completely undermined their credibility for every other word spoken.
There's a big difference between an enquiring attitude and a mission to find confirmation that what you already believe is correct.
If you think you already know, then you're not looking.
Were you aware of these devices, i.e. were they advertised as being used to optimise the listening enviroment? Did the demostrators announce they would be removing these devices one-by-one, and in doing so, the 'tuning' would be affected?
Sounds similar to the Linn 'one speaker' demonstrations whereby after explaining the reasons why the presence of additional (unused) speakers in the room would adversely affect the sound, they then brought in a small bookshelf speaker into the room - and guess what? everybody thought it did spoil the sound.
StanleyB
07-10-2010, 21:49
There's a big difference between an enquiring attitude and a mission to find confirmation that what you already believe is correct.
If you think you already know, then you're not looking.
A healthy dose of generalization there, and one that I have to disagree with.
anthonyTD
08-10-2010, 08:35
hi all,
i am a great believer that almost everything can be explained if we know how to test for it, and that is i feel the main problem with experiencing changes in audio that at first seem to defy logic. at the moment we humans are just starting to realise that there is a lot more going on than we originaly thought posible, if we first acknowledge and accept that there are changes happening then we need to look outside our comfort zone to try and establish what is actualy going on.
anthony,TD...
An genuine enquiring mind would set about this with a full RTA sweep of the room before application of these devices, followed by a full sweep after they have been 'placed' and a comparsion made of the resulting plots.
I did get involved in with a client who had imported these units from the US, small basement room, low ceiling height, lots of stray upper frequency dispursial modes (verity audio speakers), the chap insisted on using these tuning cups and wooden blocks, upshot 5 hours of faffing around did provide some improvement.
However, 45 mins spent correctly positioning the speakers give more satisifing results, cost your time.
Final issues were resovoled with a couple of deffuser panels on the side wall, and a absorbtion panel behind the listening position, cost was less that the tuning cups, which he resold on audiogon.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.