No measurements for the electronic parts were presented, it seems the authors simply trusted that the specs were met. It was one of the points i've critized, especially when considering that this experiment was running over the course of ~ one year.
As described on the supplemental webpage, they discovered after roughly three months that one of the players (the description gives the impression the one mainly used up to that point) had a problem with low level linearity. But nobody could say how many trials were done at this point.
To investigate if the additional gear introduced any sonic differences, the authors simply asked some of the "subjects" :
Measured frequency response of the speakers were not published -the authors mentioned that pink noise measurements with temporal averaging showed "flat response broad band".
I was not able to find any measurements from other sources, but read from the manufacturers information that a level adjustment for the high-frequency section was available on the backside.
The list of records used on the webpage is not comprehensive, apparently nobody was taking notes about the records used in the trials. David Moran posted in a forum discussion that from memory he thought, about half of the trials were done with the chesky records (iirc).
Nobody analyzed the content of the records.
And as mentioned before, there were several inconsistencies obvious wrt the data. The number of trials in each experiment wasn't the same among the listeners.
That an experimenter has strong biases is often so, but usually in a well documented experiment the reader could evaluate if it was mainly well planned and executed or suffered from experimenter biases.
The problem with Meyer's bias was that he stated vigorously at BAS events, before the Meyer/Moran experiments was done - (and in the publications about those events) that in a controlled listening test about "high res vs. Red Book" the only possible result will be that no difference is detectable.
But the main point is/was, that your quite innocuous comment was already too much and so the attack started. Instead of trying to find out first the facts.
That was the guy known as "old retired jj" aka James D. Johnston.
Your point is not unique to any one group on any one forum. It is a feature of humans on the internet who are “on guard” from previous arguments or discussions. I can go post something reasonable at the Audio Asylum and get jumped just the same. Happens on car forums all the time. Just a cognitive shortcut.
Yes, look what happened here https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/sol...ocking-feedback-capacitor-20.html#post5831356 when gabdx jumped on something misquoted to Bruno when it suited his purpose and others also didn't realise.
I love Meyer & Moran (links above):
Meyer, E. B., & Moran, D. R. (2007). Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 55(9), 775-779.
Not because it's a shining example of proper experimental design and execution: it's not. Not because the exact, specific question they sought to answer burns a hole in my brain: it doesn't. Not because the conclusions drawn follow logically from their work: they don't. All of this IMHO.
It is a wonderful litmus test for intellectual honesty/hypocrisy. ...no matter which tribe you belong to.
Anyone who has participated in a journal club (link) , or has simply read many scientific journal articles, knows that nearly all papers have some identifiable flaws. Some are quite minor and don't change the convincingness of the paper. Others have fatal flaws, even in very high quality (high impact factor) peer-reviewed journals. What constitutes "convincing" is very subjective, and I easily accept that some find Meyer&Moran convincing and some don't. But I like to see if they use a consistent set of criteria for all articles, both those that they like the conclusions and those they don't.
If you accept M&M, you should also accept:
Reiss, J. D. (2016). A meta-analysis of high resolution audio perceptual evaluation. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.
Jackson, H. M., Capp, M. D., & Stuart, J. R. (2014, October). The audibility of typical digital audio filters in a high-fidelity playback system. In Audio Engineering Society Convention 137. Audio Engineering Society.
Although it is easy to find flaws, in a journal club or otherwise, the design and execution of both is far better than M&M.
If you reject M&M as too flawed, you should also reject virtually all magazine article stereo equipment reviews for the same reasons.
I do realize there is a middle ground between full acceptance and full rejection, but consistent criteria are still important, IMHO.
Meyer, E. B., & Moran, D. R. (2007). Audibility of a CD-Standard A/DA/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 55(9), 775-779.
Not because it's a shining example of proper experimental design and execution: it's not. Not because the exact, specific question they sought to answer burns a hole in my brain: it doesn't. Not because the conclusions drawn follow logically from their work: they don't. All of this IMHO.
It is a wonderful litmus test for intellectual honesty/hypocrisy. ...no matter which tribe you belong to.
Anyone who has participated in a journal club (link) , or has simply read many scientific journal articles, knows that nearly all papers have some identifiable flaws. Some are quite minor and don't change the convincingness of the paper. Others have fatal flaws, even in very high quality (high impact factor) peer-reviewed journals. What constitutes "convincing" is very subjective, and I easily accept that some find Meyer&Moran convincing and some don't. But I like to see if they use a consistent set of criteria for all articles, both those that they like the conclusions and those they don't.
If you accept M&M, you should also accept:
Reiss, J. D. (2016). A meta-analysis of high resolution audio perceptual evaluation. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society.
Jackson, H. M., Capp, M. D., & Stuart, J. R. (2014, October). The audibility of typical digital audio filters in a high-fidelity playback system. In Audio Engineering Society Convention 137. Audio Engineering Society.
Although it is easy to find flaws, in a journal club or otherwise, the design and execution of both is far better than M&M.
If you reject M&M as too flawed, you should also reject virtually all magazine article stereo equipment reviews for the same reasons.
I do realize there is a middle ground between full acceptance and full rejection, but consistent criteria are still important, IMHO.
Last edited:
I do reject all magazine article reviews. I look at the measurements though. How would an opinion garnered by someone with a different system in a different room (if in USA likely different construction) with different tastes in music. (mostly borrowed from Howie).
I did have one phase of chosing components based on low 'PRAT' as at the time I considered PRAT to be a form of colouration, but I recovered from that.
Here is the truth you might be interested with:
(1) As you agree, the difference is 'small' but 'small' is subjective depends on individual ears. Some can perceive smaller differences (let's call it the 5% population) some cannot (95%). The real issue is when this 'small' differences is perceived as 'disturbing'. In this case, the difference is 'small' but the effect is 'big'.
(2) There is nothing wrong with ABX. Misunderstanding is that the ABX result should correlate with what the 5% perceives, otherwise perception is wrong. This is wrong as only smaller portion of the 5% population can do ABX successfully.
Those 5% who can perceive small differences (like i believe all the subjectivists here) but cannot do well with ABX will be frustrated, especially when they are accused to be delusional. I can understand this. But those who draw wrong conclusion from the null result are also wrong.
So for a brief time it's back to Meyer/Moran 2004. It created quite a stir on sacd forums like sacd.net at the time it was published. I am a big sacd supporter as I mostly listen to classical music, where most sacd recorded discs reside. And if it weren't for Hyperion's Romantic Piano, and other, Concerto Series I would have an even larger percentage of sacd recordings in my collection.
Only real trouble with Meyer/Moran was the heavy reliance on reissue sacds rather than origianl DSD or High res pcm recordings. Old reissues, whether classical or jazz would be hard to distinguish in any ABX comparison, as afterall, what's the real difference? For DSD or high res recordings, well, likely any 2 channel difference is system dependent, which raises red flags for many.
In the end, who really cares? I support the sacd labels as much as I can as I like the recordings and the sound of those recordings. I don't let others choose what I like to purchase and enjoy!!!!!
Only real trouble with Meyer/Moran was the heavy reliance on reissue sacds rather than origianl DSD or High res pcm recordings. Old reissues, whether classical or jazz would be hard to distinguish in any ABX comparison, as afterall, what's the real difference? For DSD or high res recordings, well, likely any 2 channel difference is system dependent, which raises red flags for many.
In the end, who really cares? I support the sacd labels as much as I can as I like the recordings and the sound of those recordings. I don't let others choose what I like to purchase and enjoy!!!!!
Afair I didn't write about "unique" , but if the scientific basis and approach is proudly emphasized, then I expect something different .
As an example I'd add the Oohashi et al. publication from 2000:
T. Oohashi et al. Inaudible high-frequency sounds affect brain activity: hypersonic effect. J Neurophysiol. 2000 Jun;83(6):3548-58
One simply can't argue that Oohashi et al. is "totally" or "inherently" "flawed" while praising M&M.
And of course, there is still something to find that should have been addressed more carefully, which means it is not without flaws too (especially when considering newer evidence regarding the multiple comparison problem in imaging).
But compare the effort, execution and documentation.
Sure, never take a subjective review result for granted, but usually most readers know that it is subjective work and that they should find out if there is something worth in it (because they might share similar habits or preferences with the reviewers). Why should it be different compared to book reviews, music reviews, restaurant .... and so on.....?
Last edited:
You an me both! Although as I have said before but bears repeating, the extended frequency response in LF of the redbook layer on hybrid SACD makes the recordings worth buying even if you don't have SACD replay. I don't know quite why a some modern redbook recording still curtail LF with classical, but they do. but a hybrid seems to guarantee FFRR.
I thought Stereophile is available online... ? If you want to read , but don't want to buy, one of the scientific articles, let me know. I might be able to help.Presumably all these papers have a monetary value somewhere along the line? Why would I buy and read stereophile magazine when I can buy 3 or 4 CDs for the same amount? I could even buy a SACD
Yea, it's interesting that the excuse is "others do it too". I can understand people fearing their belief system will crumble if even a hint is allowed of something outside their closely guarded set of beliefs. And I can understand those same people not being able to recognise this fear in themselves even when it is clearly demonstrated on another forum.
So what to conclude? Forget about trying to get at any truths, just sit back & take comfort in your own belief system & find like-minded people to support you?
Oh dear, I've just described the current state of the world
Yes, indeed, I believe we came to limited consensus (for some anyway) - that forum posts of impressions & forum run ABX tests were all just a bit of fun to be read, rejected, found interesting and/or followed up personally - just like any other opinions about any other topic?
I’m gonna go at this one more time because I think I’m getting a handle on a few things.....
This ITD mentioned ‘recordings rendered without ITD’ ......are you talking about adding delay to one channel?
The dsp in my setup allows delay separately between channels, it’s measured in 0.10 foot increments (I have no idea what that equates to in ms but it can’t be much.)
I find that a 0.10 ft difference gives a pleasant ethereal effect on some recordings, some others it seems to blur or mess up imaging. seems about 50/50.....I’ve never really kept track.
I wonder how the binaural recording process plays into it?
This whole ‘emotion’ thing seems connected to this, although people are saying oh just let it go; I’m definately finding more answers the deeper I dig.
The sensation I’ve been trying to describe seems to be ASMR (autonomous sensory meridian response) ....google it.
Now although this is not a heavily explored area it seems to be described (in a nutshell) as a response to pleasant stimuli.....soft voices, soft touch (like a tickle), etc.
Some say it’s a personal response but all humans have the capability.
Now I’ve never experienced this phenomenon without obvious stimuli (tickling etc) certainly never while listening to music. The fact that I can make it come and go with changes in gear tuning (all else the same....music track,levels, etc) is interesting.
Mainly (as I’ve said) phase/timing seems to bring it in/out of focus.
Funny thing is that when it’s (whatever it is) in focus I end moving my head around like Stevie wonder....almost as if I’m painting a picture with my ears! Nuts right?
The only reason I go on about this is because in my 40+ yrs of audio I’ve never been so affected......this is not just ol’ Bob just realizing he’s got a good system.
Don’t want no pats on the back just trying to share something I feel relevant......have you ever stumbled across something you know might be important yet not know how or why? It’s rather frustrating.....also the fact that nobody has said ‘oh yah that’s just (insert name here) affect’ and added a link has me quite curious.
Measurement is the next obvious step but how and what? Is there a way to measure absolute phase at different points in the chain.....input/output/speaker?
Last edited:
Yea, it's interesting that the excuse is "others do it too". I can understand people fearing their belief system will crumble if even a hint is allowed of something outside their closely guarded set of beliefs. And I can understand those same people not being able to recognise this fear in themselves even when it is clearly demonstrated on another forum.
So what to conclude? Forget about trying to get at any truths, just sit back & take comfort in your own belief system & find like-minded people to support you?
Oh dear, I've just described the current state of the world
You’ve just described organized religion, the root cause of most conflict in the world......it even trickles down in ‘the guarding of ones beliefs’
We (most) are trained from a young age to be close minded......pitiful shame really.
Disclaimer; this is not intended as a hateful comment against any certain groups.....more a full scope kinda view.
Last edited:
A good example of how things could be conveniently distorted:
1. Nobody here "praised" M&M. "Accepted the results" has a different meaning.
2. Oohashi was debunked as a deeply flawed study (and rejected for publication in multiple journals dealing with Audio, including AES). You keep pushing Oohashi for over 10 years now, if you need a reminder pointer to SY's analysis from quite a few years ago let me know. I am sure you conveniently forgot all those arguments, but at the same time you conveniently remember all the details of the M&M debate.
3. Assuming the M&M study is flawed, this is no reason to accept another flawed study, "flaws" cannot be a null sum game, except in your flawed logic.
4. Presenting a less than perfect study (M&M) is more than sitting on the fence and doing nothing (except spreading FUD). A correct approach for the M&M flaws would be to repeat their experiment while fixing the loopholes. Nobody ever did that, including yourself, it is so much convenient to sit on the fence and criticize while posing as an "expert" in those matters.
Jakob2, you have never showed anything of your own results and conclusions here and on any other forums, direct or by quoting your own peer reviewed published results. Your motivation to do so (or not, thereof) are none of my concern, but until you decide come up with something, you are exactly what you seem to be: at best a theoretician with an agenda and an axe to grind.
Last edited:
Makes sense.
Wait.... oh no..... SAM2? Am I mmerrill100? Are we both part of the Jakob(x) collective? Do me a favor and go to the mirror... do you see me?
Science is also about reading, rejecting, finding interesting and following up. Depending on the specific question and the intended audience, I think lay people can do a valid ABX, with some instruction. I know you and I have respectfully agreed to disagree, so I'm not trying to reopen this... you can have the last word... I won't follow up.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.