Well you seem to be all about trying to discredit anyone you don't agree with and/or engage them in pointless debates. Since when is that about advancing the state of audio reproduction? Some of us are trying to make a contribution to audio. You're simply running around throwing rocks at people and offering very little in the way of anything constructive that furthers the premise of this website. That's what trolls do.
I'm interested in helping people get better sound for their money. It's clear that's not your main priority. So we're apparently on this planet for different reasons.
Not to stir the pot, but a musical device such as a stereo does not need to have measurements.
When somebody says a Martin guitar sounds good, it is not followed by some geeky measurement.
When that persons peers hear that same guitar, most would agree, word gets around, good or bad.
So what makes it sound good? Is the the size of the sound hole? The woods they used to build it? How about the finish, nitro? The tension used to clamp the pieces while gluing?
-The point being, it is a combination of possibly thousands of measurable points. It's symbiotic.
Describing 2 or 3 measurements does not make a comprehensive description.
Describing 2 or 3 measurements can be used to mislead the public.
So with regard to being "Transparent", the microphone has already coloured the sound, so you can forget about "true live sound".
Now with regard to the master track, it has to be played back on something. Who's to say what this master track is "supposed" to sound like?, after all we need a device to hear what the track is saying.
If said device measures "good" in a few categories does that make it a true reference? Hardly.
These "measurements" are the equivalent of tools, like chisels, calipers, scrapers etc. Having good tools does not make the perfect guitar, it only helps.
Having poor tools may make it harder, but certainly not impossible.
A good craftsmen can make due with less, or substandard tools.
"A teaspoon of sugar makes it taste better" -In what context?
What's right for a cup of tea may be weak in a pot, might even taste funny on Bologna.
All that's left is the subjective opinion of the bulk of the population. If it sounds great, good for you, your product should succeed on it's own merits. You don't "need" to state a single measurement, aside from maybe the power output. We all know power outputs are fudged all the time so why should we trust these other measurements which are relatively insignificant.
Advertisers are constantly miss-leading you, case in point: Detergent A gets rid of 96% of dirt, Detergent B gets rid of 93% of dirt, a 3% difference. Now if I was to just show you the top of the chart, the last 10% (top of bar graph) it would appear that Detergent A is 30% better then Detergent B rather then 3%.
If it was an exact science, there would be no DIYaudio. It is more of an art form, craftsmanship if you will. You have your Monet's and your Robert Batemans.
Even the best glossy photograph is nothing compared to the real thing. It's smaller, everything is shiny and motionless. Even the perspective is different due to the geometry of the lens.
In the hands of a good photographer it still may be able to evoke emotion and bouquet.
Your ears are the only measurement tools that can combine all this into a judgement of reality.
When somebody says a Martin guitar sounds good, it is not followed by some geeky measurement.
When that persons peers hear that same guitar, most would agree, word gets around, good or bad.
So what makes it sound good? Is the the size of the sound hole? The woods they used to build it? How about the finish, nitro? The tension used to clamp the pieces while gluing?
-The point being, it is a combination of possibly thousands of measurable points. It's symbiotic.
Describing 2 or 3 measurements does not make a comprehensive description.
Describing 2 or 3 measurements can be used to mislead the public.
So with regard to being "Transparent", the microphone has already coloured the sound, so you can forget about "true live sound".
Now with regard to the master track, it has to be played back on something. Who's to say what this master track is "supposed" to sound like?, after all we need a device to hear what the track is saying.
If said device measures "good" in a few categories does that make it a true reference? Hardly.
These "measurements" are the equivalent of tools, like chisels, calipers, scrapers etc. Having good tools does not make the perfect guitar, it only helps.
Having poor tools may make it harder, but certainly not impossible.
A good craftsmen can make due with less, or substandard tools.
"A teaspoon of sugar makes it taste better" -In what context?
What's right for a cup of tea may be weak in a pot, might even taste funny on Bologna.
All that's left is the subjective opinion of the bulk of the population. If it sounds great, good for you, your product should succeed on it's own merits. You don't "need" to state a single measurement, aside from maybe the power output. We all know power outputs are fudged all the time so why should we trust these other measurements which are relatively insignificant.
Advertisers are constantly miss-leading you, case in point: Detergent A gets rid of 96% of dirt, Detergent B gets rid of 93% of dirt, a 3% difference. Now if I was to just show you the top of the chart, the last 10% (top of bar graph) it would appear that Detergent A is 30% better then Detergent B rather then 3%.
If it was an exact science, there would be no DIYaudio. It is more of an art form, craftsmanship if you will. You have your Monet's and your Robert Batemans.
Even the best glossy photograph is nothing compared to the real thing. It's smaller, everything is shiny and motionless. Even the perspective is different due to the geometry of the lens.
In the hands of a good photographer it still may be able to evoke emotion and bouquet.
Your ears are the only measurement tools that can combine all this into a judgement of reality.
The wine and audio analogy is not very good, there is no objective "goal" for the enjoyability of wine or food for that matter. Some people hate reds some only want sweet. BTW I have participated in many hundreds of wine tastings with no were near these results. My problem is that even when blind I could identify many of the wines making further objective assesment difficult. People prefering cheap wines is a new marketing sport, rarely are wines across a large cost gap comparable at the same age. BTW I have had many triple digit wines that I think suck both blind and sighted, in fact SY and I dumped out our glasses of a Leroy Mersault so rare only one barrel was made (250 bottles). OTOH I could give you a $5 Loire red that many would prefer to a recent Latour or Lafite.
EDIT - The wine tastings refered to by RG were for non-professionals so SY and I don't fit. And yes wine prices are stupid but no more stupid than top drawer vodka. Also could you get me some of those ultra-low noise bench supplies, the ones from Aglient all suck.
Last edited:
I'm not into personalities as you are. I'm into science and evidence and reasoning. If you can point to a post (on DIYA or anywhere else for that matter) where I've shown interest in discrediting people rather than pointing out flaws in their work, I'm all ears. I doubt you will because I am fairly consistent in my ignoring of personalities. But then again, you might surprise me - have at it
I agree its not, but then your perception (viewed through my own, of course) is clearly subject to distortion here. I have pointed up the evidence of your perceptual distortions before in our interactions. Stump up the evidence for mine please. We do agree its necessary to act as a check and balance to distorted human perception don't we?
I've acknowledged your contribution to audio on this very thread. I enjoy reading your blog in the main, and support what you're doing in general. Audio does indeed need shaking up, I'm planning to contribute to the shake-up as I've already hinted. So in many ways we are cut from the same cloth
But you're not consistent in your approach and you call out others for their inconsistency. That means you're applying different standards to others than you do to yourself. Don't like it when the boot's on the other foot?
I've posted over 3500 messages on DIYA. How many have you read and absorbed? I have 43 entries on my blog, but the stats provided don't currently show you've been a recent visitor. I'd be interested if you can back up your perception with statistics. Until then it just looks like bleating.
Actually I'd say you're more interested in people getting better measurements for their money. That's not a bad objective n itself.
If its really clear that means its observable. So just post up the evidence.
Yeah we are. Your reason is better measurements, mine is better sound.
A rare beast indeed. Is it a Cab Franc? Tell us more
Yes one of her's (YMMV) Olga Raffault Chinon “Les Picasses” 2002 | Organic Wine Journal
The price is off the top of my head (at the domain) from a while ago maybe it's $10 or $15 by now, but when the Wine Spectator says why buy Latour for $1600 a bottle when you can buy Les Forts de Latour for $400 who cares. Geez we bought it for by the case at $6 even in the late 70's.
Actually, if you do your research, the tastings by RG included lots of wine professionals. But whatever. I understand people don't like others bringing the objective real world into their hobbies, fantasies, etc. So many react defensively, insist the fantasy is real, etc. If you really do your homework with RG, his research went impressively deep.
But the RG's, Peter Aczel's, and similar types who dare try and bring some objectivity into a subjective world of fantasy are used to being dismissed, discredited, lied about, and worse. It's just the nature of what they're doing.
Individual people consistently claim they're right and 600+ other people involved in carefully run blind trials must all, as a group, be wrong. The very methodology we use to determine if life saving drugs work or not somehow is useless for evaluating wines or audio gear. Mind you these individuals opposing the researchers, large groups, well documented results, peer reviewed papers, etc. almost never have anything even remotely as credible to offer to support their personal assertions besides some hearsay, recycled myths, armchair quarterbacking and really weak anecdotal evidence.
Last edited:
I know, I was just saying that it added to the irony, not inferring what the source for your irony was
Defensive? Yawn, you’ll have to do better than that. I usually reserve extreme disdain for those with something to sell posting in DIY forums, but I have gotten myself in trouble for this. I was peripherally involved in the wine and food industry for 10 or so years and SY made his living at it. From what I can tell you accept RG’s input second hand because it fits into your world view of objectivity.
From his site…
“Rather, my basic points are these:
(1) Evidence has shown that most everyday wine drinkers (not wine professionals) don’t prefer more expensive wines to cheaper wines in blind tastings. This is separate from the question of whether the properties of expensive wines are aesthetically superior in the minds of experts.”
So what did I miss? I gather you didn’t even bother to read my posts. I suspect deeper research would find praise for industrial confections like Mollydooker or cultured yeast/ enzyme flavored typical NZ sauvignon blanc (please folks don’t take offense it’s MNSHO). The more recent generation of wine enthusiasts don’t generally have a clue about the esthetic properties of the most reputable wines at say 15 to 20 yrs. of age so I find virtually nothing of interest in any wine journalism these days.
As for objectivity, a few hours research will find numerous blind tests that show 16/44 audio is indistinguishable from SACD, etc. maybe even “transparent” so why bother.
I read some of your blog and think what you have done is very nice. I would, for my use, prefer an SD card player with USB only to transfer data. Some(former?) ESS guys are my buddies so I don't need the NDA
.
Last edited:
And ironically, a major part of my job was setting up and performing double-blind evaluations.
Ok, I'll try this again. Scott is certainly entitled to believe the wine analogy is "not very good" but I believe there are many interesting and applicable parallels between the two industries including:
Both industries have developed their own somewhat cryptic and vague language primarily used by experts (or quasi-experts) to describe their respective products. Psychologists and marketing experts have explained how this is mainly a clever marketing technique to make people doubt what they're hearing and tasting while also making it much more difficult to hold reviewers accountable.
Both industries play heavily off insecurities over their customers own taste buds and ears. It's in both industries best interest to have people "defer to the experts" rather than make their own decisions. The experts in both industries consistently rate higher priced products much higher overall.
Both industries use rating systems to try and boil down the deferred decision making to "4 stars", "Class A" or "92 points". If it's really all about individual subjective perceptions, as Scott Wurcer suggests, such a system is rather absurd yet it's widely accepted in both industries.
Very substantial and profitable sub-industries have grown up around both industries over the last few decades. High-end audio is no longer just about good sounding gear, it's about $5000 equipment racks, stabilization platforms, fancy power cords, magic crystals, cable break-in devices, etc. Likewise There are far more ways to spend your money on, and related to, wine compared to 30 years ago.
Both industries have media that's been caught red-handed being far less than unbiased and completely lacking journalistic integrity (details in What We Hear). In fact, some argue it's downright fraudulent.
Both industries have relatively few people like Robin Goldstein who try to swim upstream by conducting extensive blind tests, publish their findings, and try to help educate people as to how human perceptions really work. And both industries generally try to discredit the few who dare travel that path.
Expectation bias is very applicable in both wine tasting and when evaluating audio gear. That's just how our senses work. As much as some want to believe they can completely decouple all their senses, and exclude other knowledge from their perceptions, they can't--taste or hearing.
And, above all, blind tasting/listening in both industries has consistently revealed VERY different results than the overwhelmingly more popular sighted tasting/listening. Those results have been well documented yet both industries have tried to marginalize blind testing in a variety of creative but not terribly valid ways. In both industries it would be trivial for those selling more expensive products to arrange blind tests to prove their product's worth, but I've yet to see a similarly well documented example of such a test (although I admit I've looked much harder on the audio side).
That said, I agree there are some differences between wine and audio. And I've tried to make them clear in the article.
I like wine. I sometimes spend more than I probably need to for wine. I've been to many tasting rooms at many wineries and it's great to talk to the people working there and hear the stories. Wine making is part art and part science.
Designing a DAC, however, isn't art at all unless you want a lower fidelity DAC that intentionally distorts the music. And once audio gear is audibly transparent it has been demonstrated to sound just like other gear that's also transparent. So in those respects audio is different than wine.
Back to the original topic of this thread, I still am not understanding how offering reasonably priced audio designs demonstrated to meet standards for audible transparency is somehow a bad thing. If anything it should help raise the price/performance bar and encourage others to follow. And, regardless, it's a good thing for those spending their money on audio gear to offer them another choice.
Quite the opposite in my experience - the art of DAC design focusses very strongly on doing more with less. Without optimization going on at every step, the design would not come out as the best value for money. Which after all is one pertinent definition of engineering (told, but apparently not originated by Henry Ford): 'doing for $1 what any fool can do for $2'.
Since double-blind methods are used by every major winery (and most small ones), every candidate for wine certifications, every wine competition, every university oenology program, and (so it's claimed) by every major wine review publication, in what way is your statement not complete rubbish?
ART: "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful or appealing"
SCIENCE: "study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws"
FIDELITY: "the degree to which the output of a system, such as an amplifier or radio, accurately reproduces the characteristics of the input signal"
Designing a high fidelity DAC involves only the second two unless you want to consider what it looks like. And the fidelity of the result can be entirely determined by objective measurements.
SCIENCE: "study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws"
FIDELITY: "the degree to which the output of a system, such as an amplifier or radio, accurately reproduces the characteristics of the input signal"
Designing a high fidelity DAC involves only the second two unless you want to consider what it looks like. And the fidelity of the result can be entirely determined by objective measurements.
I don't want to violate copyrights, but I could quote what many have had to say about Robert Goldstein. It sure looks like they're trying to discredit his work to me. I didn't say blind testing isn't used in the wine industry. But it does seem many are quick to downplay or discredit it when tests published to the general public fail to favor more expensive wines. The famous Two Buck Chuck blind test is another example.
As SY said with respect to the wine industry this statement is rubbish. You're living in a postmodern world, as late as 1978 the entire range of retail prices was maybe 5:1. The over the top high end in audio was already blooming then. You obviously have no interest in having a conversation so I won't waste my time.
.
You call the link in your sig "non-commercial" ??? It reads like a long self congraulatory advert.
Last edited:
OK... Obviously it's a mistake to tackle TWO passionate hobbies/topics here (wine and audio) which apparently is touching two raw nerves. I probably should have just stuck to what I know best: Audio.
I have never said I'm a wine expert, I only know what I've read from a consumer's perspective. I still maintain there are plenty of parallels between the two industries and the idea was to help others, again from a consumer's perspective, better understand both how our senses work and how audio products are marketed.
So I will humbly refrain from discussing wine, but I would still like to understand how offering well documented, well measured, and arguably transparent, audio designs is a problem for those spending their money on audio gear? That is, as I understand it, the main topic of this thread.
I have never said I'm a wine expert, I only know what I've read from a consumer's perspective. I still maintain there are plenty of parallels between the two industries and the idea was to help others, again from a consumer's perspective, better understand both how our senses work and how audio products are marketed.
So I will humbly refrain from discussing wine, but I would still like to understand how offering well documented, well measured, and arguably transparent, audio designs is a problem for those spending their money on audio gear? That is, as I understand it, the main topic of this thread.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.