Oh then we are almost in agreement. I think your OPINION that the effects of exotic passive components are highly overstated is actually a FACT!
We may differ on our opinions as to if a distortion component can be heard at -120db re full power level, but we both would agree it cannot when it is -200db.
Why do so many people seem happy with it?
Who knows? Certainly it's possible that there could be nothing more than a lot of psychology going on.
It would be interesting to see what your reaction would be if you didn't have the benefit of knowing whether you were listening to CD or SACD.
I mean, some people will go into anaphylactic shock if they just think they've been exposed to something they're allergic to.
It's not clear just what they are sensitive to.
It's interesting that people only seem to be so sensitive when they can peek and not so sensitive when they can't.
se
Whatever effect there may be. It should be tested whether the ABX system has any sonic effect on a sound system, prior to deciding about it as the ultimate judge. When different switches and interconnect cables have an impact on the sound of an audio system, an ABX system may also have such an impact – and it may not. However it should be tested for whether it has any impact on the sound of the audio system, or not.
Why so many people are happy with mp3?
Is the fact that so many people are happy with mp3 a proof that it's high quality audio?
First of all, it's not the "ultimate judge."
That's a straw man.
Second, how exactly would you test for that?
Says who? Where exactly has this been demonstrated and how?
se
I don't know. Can you tell the difference between CD and a high bitrate MP3 without peeking?
se
Fact vs Opinion
Joshua,
Unless I am reading this wrong, I think in re-reading you will find your comment in the context it was delivered begs the question. What is being discussed is an attempt to define exactly what is fact or opinion, and provide factual data to support the claim. The words opinion and fact are not identical in meaning, but one's opinion even in the absence of facts, may be. My best understanding of these terms (to cut down on semantic issues) is that a true fact is external to the user's perception of that fact, whereas an opinion is entirely within the holder of that opinion.
I like your description of a violinist not going by test results to pick an instrument; as a violist, I can relate that how an instrument sounds to the player, and perhaps to a listener they trust, is all that matters in selection. Unfortunately the analogy to a signal path does not hold for me, indeed to my way of thinking the perfect signal path would have zero sound of it's own. If you do think this is an good analogy, then you are tacitly accepting that you pick your system for a specific coloration.
I'm not sure that the gulf between the "prove it to me" crowd and the "I hear it therefore I believe it" crowd can ever be bridged. Considering the function that these two differing personality types serve, maybe it shouldn't be. We need engineers who design circuitry for uses like nuclear reactor controls, and I really want those guys focusing on gathering and correctly processing factual sensory data, and not wasting energy worrying about ephemeral issues that don't show up as data.
It is also easy to prove that we bias our senses by expectation: accidentally take a drink of water when you think it is coffee, it sure doesn't taste like water: until you look in the cup and let the odd taste wear off. My personal opinion, based on my own experiences with critical listening, says the same thing can happen to me with audio phenomena.
But, SO WHAT? I'm glad that senses are easily fooled, and change with outside influences, if they weren't my wife would have left me years ago! Maybe the real trick is arranging your listening environment in toto to acheive the maximum pleasure, and not worry at that point?
In my case I find I have to listen in dim lighting: the visual sense ranks higher in the sense hierarchy than hearing does, and I can feel my brain focus shift toward my hearing as the light grows dim. If it is the end of the day, I also find that a bit of alcohol to kill the 'worry-of-the-day' thread that runs in my mind really helps me re-focus on a melody. If someone doesn't need this step, then I am glad for them! I also notice that if I am really getting into a piece of music, my eyes involuntarily close; maybe my brain shutting off any visual input to really focus on the aural input?
I love listening to music like that.
Howard Hoyt
CE - WXYC-FM 89.3
UNC Chapel Hill
www.wxyc.org
1st on the Internet
Joshua,
Unless I am reading this wrong, I think in re-reading you will find your comment in the context it was delivered begs the question. What is being discussed is an attempt to define exactly what is fact or opinion, and provide factual data to support the claim. The words opinion and fact are not identical in meaning, but one's opinion even in the absence of facts, may be. My best understanding of these terms (to cut down on semantic issues) is that a true fact is external to the user's perception of that fact, whereas an opinion is entirely within the holder of that opinion.
I like your description of a violinist not going by test results to pick an instrument; as a violist, I can relate that how an instrument sounds to the player, and perhaps to a listener they trust, is all that matters in selection. Unfortunately the analogy to a signal path does not hold for me, indeed to my way of thinking the perfect signal path would have zero sound of it's own. If you do think this is an good analogy, then you are tacitly accepting that you pick your system for a specific coloration.
I'm not sure that the gulf between the "prove it to me" crowd and the "I hear it therefore I believe it" crowd can ever be bridged. Considering the function that these two differing personality types serve, maybe it shouldn't be. We need engineers who design circuitry for uses like nuclear reactor controls, and I really want those guys focusing on gathering and correctly processing factual sensory data, and not wasting energy worrying about ephemeral issues that don't show up as data.
It is also easy to prove that we bias our senses by expectation: accidentally take a drink of water when you think it is coffee, it sure doesn't taste like water: until you look in the cup and let the odd taste wear off. My personal opinion, based on my own experiences with critical listening, says the same thing can happen to me with audio phenomena.
But, SO WHAT? I'm glad that senses are easily fooled, and change with outside influences, if they weren't my wife would have left me years ago! Maybe the real trick is arranging your listening environment in toto to acheive the maximum pleasure, and not worry at that point?
In my case I find I have to listen in dim lighting: the visual sense ranks higher in the sense hierarchy than hearing does, and I can feel my brain focus shift toward my hearing as the light grows dim. If it is the end of the day, I also find that a bit of alcohol to kill the 'worry-of-the-day' thread that runs in my mind really helps me re-focus on a melody. If someone doesn't need this step, then I am glad for them! I also notice that if I am really getting into a piece of music, my eyes involuntarily close; maybe my brain shutting off any visual input to really focus on the aural input?
I love listening to music like that.
Howard Hoyt
CE - WXYC-FM 89.3
UNC Chapel Hill
www.wxyc.org
1st on the Internet
That seems to be the key question.
I don't have an answer right now, however, the burden of proof is on the shoulders of those suggesting ABX tests - they should prove that the ABX system itself don't have any sonic impact on the DUT (the sound system).
I had an intern two summers ago rebuilding a pair of Langevin vacuum tube amps. He was playing his MP3 player through them. I did not see the source and assumed he was using the test rack CD player. The sound quality was bad enough I thought there was still something wrong with the amps. So not knowing the source I could hear the lack of quality. Yes those were 320kbs MP3s.
So I suspect I can tell the difference without peeking.
I disagree with you here.
When my mother died I was very deeply sad.
My mother's death was an external fact.
My sadness was inner emotional phenomena - and it was very real to me.
Thus, inner experiences are reality.
In my country, I favor a certain political party over other parties. This favoring of mine is based entirely on my opinions.
Recently I tried two isolations transformers for my sound system. One of the two caused the sound of the mid-high frequencies on my system to be harsh and aggressive. It was my experience and my inner reality and it was a fact to me, (though a fact applicable to me only, in this case), that the sound was aggressive and harsh. I cannot prove to others that the sound was aggressive and harsh, yet, it's indisputable fact, as far as my own experience is concerns.
I fail to see what makes a difference between the way of choosing musical instruments and choosing loudspeakers, or amplification, to sound system.
I fail to see why a musician can be trusted to choose a musical instrument by sighted listening tests, according to his appreciation of the sound of the musical instrument, while audiophiles cannot be trusted to choose audio gear according to how it sounds to them, sighted.
It seems to me that this gulf cannot be bridged.
The one group rely on external tests, while the other group rely on inner experience.
Indeed, our experiences are given to bias of expectations, the "Placebo Effect".
Yet, people with integrity, or inner honesty, can neutralize the bias of expectations.
Musicians are credited to be able to neutralize the bias of expectations, while audiophiles are discredited (by some people) of the very same ability.
Most of the time I listen to music with my eyes closed, both in live concerts and at my home. I found that it enables to be more concentrated in the music, to be more swept by the music.
MP3
Audibility of any differences caused by lossy codecs are HIGHLY program material dependant. I took that torture test when auditioning different codecs for WXYC's DSL-based audio backup link.
A test using Sound Forge to extract the difference (Diffmaker would be a cool tool for the purpose) shows a horror show for all but 320kb/s. What these FFTs do not show is how close they can sound; until a specific piece of music comes along and they stumble.
In my experience, reverb tails, brushed high-hats, and the harmonic structure of violins are most at risk when utilizing lossy codecs. Compressed pop music is a breeze for the high-rate codecs, though.
Howard Hoyt
CE - WXYC-FM 89.3
UNC Chapel Hill
www.wxyc.org
1st on the Internet
Audibility of any differences caused by lossy codecs are HIGHLY program material dependant. I took that torture test when auditioning different codecs for WXYC's DSL-based audio backup link.
A test using Sound Forge to extract the difference (Diffmaker would be a cool tool for the purpose) shows a horror show for all but 320kb/s. What these FFTs do not show is how close they can sound; until a specific piece of music comes along and they stumble.
In my experience, reverb tails, brushed high-hats, and the harmonic structure of violins are most at risk when utilizing lossy codecs. Compressed pop music is a breeze for the high-rate codecs, though.
Howard Hoyt
CE - WXYC-FM 89.3
UNC Chapel Hill
www.wxyc.org
1st on the Internet
- Status
- Not open for further replies.