I can't find the forum from their email, perhaps I didn't look hard enough.
But the results are unsurprising, and I'm an audio manufacturer with a vested interest in perpetuating myths which might result in audiophiles parting with their cash
I've noticed a very clear (and surprising) difference between SACD 2 ch and the CD layer in informal listening tests. I've also done unrelated blind testing (compression codecs) in which I was certain I couldn't tell a difference, but consistently got 10/10 right. Subjectivism is a strange thing, and not necessarily "wrong".
Anyway this paper seems to have triggered some unusually intelligent discussions on other forums, considering the subject matter. It'll be interesting to see how it progresses here.
But the results are unsurprising, and I'm an audio manufacturer with a vested interest in perpetuating myths which might result in audiophiles parting with their cash
I've noticed a very clear (and surprising) difference between SACD 2 ch and the CD layer in informal listening tests. I've also done unrelated blind testing (compression codecs) in which I was certain I couldn't tell a difference, but consistently got 10/10 right. Subjectivism is a strange thing, and not necessarily "wrong".
Anyway this paper seems to have triggered some unusually intelligent discussions on other forums, considering the subject matter. It'll be interesting to see how it progresses here.
We realize that this may meet with opposition
from some in the audio community.
This is called insight
To know that your policy may meet opposition from others' opinions.
From those not sharing your publishing policy values.
The criteria for publication here at www.diyaudio.com is no way this strict.
We allow many pseudo audio facts and many not scientific at all statements to pass.
And this is as it should be
We are one DIY Audio Community & all members discussion forum.
Not an Engineering Society.
Let us be happy for this
Lineup
*** AES = Audio Engineering Society
Hello all members.
[qutoe]Subjective as John Curl or destroyer X.
Or more Objective as
syn08 and me self, Lineup.[/quote]
We have this very good, in my subjective opinion !!!,
Objetive vs. Subjective topic:
Audio Lies
10 common Audio Myths categorized by Peter Aczel
The last post posted is this one.
It still has not got no good reply .....
Probably because no one from the other camp
has got a some good enough repsonse or reply
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1545394#post1545394
adx said:
You got that right......about being a strange thing. I am not a manufacturer and so are in the same position as an opposition politician and can say things that those 'in power' can't. Apart from a few strange folk most people are up to speed and have heard of DBTs applied to audio and its counter intuitive results. If they are into audio like me they will have tried a blind test and been amazed or deeply disturbed.
I hope we get some good dialog.
I have not read the article, but I think that everone will have an opinion based on what they have experienced in the pass. Only those that can explore the possibilities in a devoted manner will find new experience and truth. Most people that cannot do this just want something to talk about. I am interested what kind of people will visit this thread.
right on man, audio as the ulimate religious experience..
audio is a ******* technical persuit in the first place, and anybody who looks for more better join a church.
This "quasi" spiritual approach to audio a lot of the BS forums have seems to be more of a sign that most folks cannot cope with secularity but need something beyond the mere physical existence.
So, subjectivity hearing mousdroppings fall reigns, and is part of this whole new agey crap that ranges from alternate medicine to feng shui.
Nothing really new over the last 70 000 years, but still annoying.
It should be the opposite, unfortunately people remain people and science is just as vulnerable to being treated like a religion, a body of authority for social purposes instead of a blueprint for investigation and discovery. AK's and lineup's typical ad hominems are apt examples, what relevance do they have to the spirit or pursuit of Science? Your posts are the very few I see on line always cautious of the distinction, something I presume derived from the experience of 'living the life'.
rdf: The Moran article is really quite good. They are careful not to claim universality in their conclusions, but do rightly say that the burden of proof has shifted. They used some very high end systems and a variety of listeners, then looked at overall statistics and statistics broken down by listener types. If there are holes in their methodology, the AES forum is a perfect place to bring that out.
What I'd like to see as a follow-up are some long-term preference tests, but still properly controlled.
What I'd like to see as a follow-up are some long-term preference tests, but still properly controlled.
The objection targeted the sentiments express in the forum, the AES initiative is actually very encouraging and should generate interesting results, welcome or not. I haven't read the paper. If John Vanderkooy's 'Editor's Note' is any indication, which expresses the spirit of science beautifully, it's worth tracking down.
It seems that there are different approaches to creating audiotorial illusions: One is to try and recreat the original recording using various methods such that it can be mathematically derived to prove such; another is to mess the original signal in a certain way so it creates a spacial sensation. These two result in very different products and there are people that prefer each.
For the first approach, usually there are measurable data that clearly relate with a certain improvement, for example, if I listen to a system that is pretty harsh sounding, up to now, I always find a hard diaphragm tweeter with a breakup mode between 20KHz and 30KHz, take care of that mode, the sound becomes smooth and detailed with nice clean realistic sounding cymbals. To many people, that cannot hear the harshness, they will think it's a "religion" thing. But for people that can hear, it's a proven fact.
For the second appoach, many methods cause different levels out-of-phase signals using various processing methods or resonances, thus creating a spacial sensation, but the original perfomer(s) are not so well in focus. For people that don't care about focus and detail of the original performers, this seems more realistic.
Is there a way to gain the benefits of both? I certainly beleive so, but do not have the money to put into research and develop a different set of reproduction process.
Hopefully in the future we can hear people clapping right beside us like we were sitting in the audience.
For the first approach, usually there are measurable data that clearly relate with a certain improvement, for example, if I listen to a system that is pretty harsh sounding, up to now, I always find a hard diaphragm tweeter with a breakup mode between 20KHz and 30KHz, take care of that mode, the sound becomes smooth and detailed with nice clean realistic sounding cymbals. To many people, that cannot hear the harshness, they will think it's a "religion" thing. But for people that can hear, it's a proven fact.
For the second appoach, many methods cause different levels out-of-phase signals using various processing methods or resonances, thus creating a spacial sensation, but the original perfomer(s) are not so well in focus. For people that don't care about focus and detail of the original performers, this seems more realistic.
Is there a way to gain the benefits of both? I certainly beleive so, but do not have the money to put into research and develop a different set of reproduction process.
Hopefully in the future we can hear people clapping right beside us like we were sitting in the audience.
ad hominems?
I attacked a particular statement, not the person.
This statement sounded to me not like an invitation to critical and sceptical research, but rather like an invitation to a spiritual persuit.
Having been a participant in several audio forums - until the quasi spiritual nature of audio "hobby" on some of them were simply too much for my rather starightlaced brain - I can recognize this language as the typical lingo of a group of people who uncritically announce their rather limited senses - be it hearing or seeing - as an unfailingly accurate and precise instrument.
If my contention, that this is utter nonsense in light of neurological and biological research, is considered to be an ad hominem attack, so be it. The same goes for my statement that those uncritical believes are on the same level as any of the en vogue spiritual nonsense current.
Pjotr - oh yeah, hadn't thought that most people won't be able to access the article without paying.
So, basically what they did was optionally insert a CD format (44.1kHz 16 bit) A/D/A conversion after the output of an SACD player and did a lot of ABX testing on various high end systems. For the CD loop they used a pro CD recorder's recording monitor output. It's interesting to note it wasn't a test between SACD vs CD encoding, but between the SACD output either direct, or via the CD recorder and level matching amps. The stats show with a pretty much statistical certainty that the difference couldn't be picked by the test subjects (included audio pros and audiophiles), hence the assertion by the authors that the burden of proof now rests with anybody who wants to suggest that SACD (and by implication other hi-bit formats) are audibly superior to CD.
Now I could criticise their test method and try to justify away their conclusions until the cows come home, but I know I would be in for a hard road to overturn their conclusion in any meaningful way.
Bringing religion into the argument is apt, because an unresolvable clash between subjective and objective results soon degrades into a religious argument between opposing belief systems ("my hearing" vs "the body of scientific opinion"), while the facts take a back seat (because they are useless in an unresolvable argument).
Let's not forget that all experience is subjective, and science is only a tool to assist with understanding this. In this way science is just a belief system, and could validly be called a religion. When we get into "body of scientific opinion" stuff then it definitely is. But it works, for what it is intended to do. The "Church of the AES" certainly have no problem with it.
As a manufacturer who tries to see the bigger picture, it is untenable for me to view it as a fight to the death between subjectivists and objectivists. If something is unresolvable I just think of it as "engineering with a certain element of art". It's a bit of a cop out, but the alternative is like doing double blind trials on some piece of impressionistic art to measure what the artist was trying to say. Or give up altogether on any quest for the truth, and just pick a side and fight for it.
In this case, it's looking like, technically, CD and SACD are audibly equal. I already knew that. The creators of the CD format knew that when they invented it, that was the whole point. But I also know there exists the chance for something to be wrong with the "body of scientific opinion" that sets these technical rules and that shaped this test. I also know that I heard a difference, whether it was "real" or not. This is ok with me.
So, basically what they did was optionally insert a CD format (44.1kHz 16 bit) A/D/A conversion after the output of an SACD player and did a lot of ABX testing on various high end systems. For the CD loop they used a pro CD recorder's recording monitor output. It's interesting to note it wasn't a test between SACD vs CD encoding, but between the SACD output either direct, or via the CD recorder and level matching amps. The stats show with a pretty much statistical certainty that the difference couldn't be picked by the test subjects (included audio pros and audiophiles), hence the assertion by the authors that the burden of proof now rests with anybody who wants to suggest that SACD (and by implication other hi-bit formats) are audibly superior to CD.
Now I could criticise their test method and try to justify away their conclusions until the cows come home, but I know I would be in for a hard road to overturn their conclusion in any meaningful way.
Bringing religion into the argument is apt, because an unresolvable clash between subjective and objective results soon degrades into a religious argument between opposing belief systems ("my hearing" vs "the body of scientific opinion"), while the facts take a back seat (because they are useless in an unresolvable argument).
Let's not forget that all experience is subjective, and science is only a tool to assist with understanding this. In this way science is just a belief system, and could validly be called a religion. When we get into "body of scientific opinion" stuff then it definitely is. But it works, for what it is intended to do. The "Church of the AES" certainly have no problem with it.
As a manufacturer who tries to see the bigger picture, it is untenable for me to view it as a fight to the death between subjectivists and objectivists. If something is unresolvable I just think of it as "engineering with a certain element of art". It's a bit of a cop out, but the alternative is like doing double blind trials on some piece of impressionistic art to measure what the artist was trying to say. Or give up altogether on any quest for the truth, and just pick a side and fight for it.
In this case, it's looking like, technically, CD and SACD are audibly equal. I already knew that. The creators of the CD format knew that when they invented it, that was the whole point. But I also know there exists the chance for something to be wrong with the "body of scientific opinion" that sets these technical rules and that shaped this test. I also know that I heard a difference, whether it was "real" or not. This is ok with me.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.