How do you prove something "sounds better?" Maybe micro should have said "that sounds better to you."
Is the dynamic range of CD sufficient?
- Thread starter Al M.
- Start date
How do you prove something "sounds better?" Maybe micro should have said "that sounds better to you."
Al. M.
I think you forgot to put a smile on your post. Did you check the whole site? Did you make a donation?
Pretty hard to do. I guess the best we could do would be "sounds better to a large majority of a significant number of people who have done a strictly controlled listening test". And even that would not be any guarantee that it sounds better to you or me.
That would of course have been much better.
My original comment:
(...)
BTW2, no one says that the dynamic range of CD is not fine. But if someone shows you a media with higher dynamic range that sounds better, it is not optimum anymore.
Julf,
A good example of successive distortions of a quote. This was a general statement, I did not show anything to anyone, I have no significant experience of Hi-Rez, why sounding better to me?
And I hope that by this time everyone in WBF except newcomers knows that an individual "sounds better" is just "to me", and readers weight it according to poster credibility. We do not need to include it our signature, the equipments is enough.
Elementary, my dear Watson. You do not get extra points on this one ... Please read my previous post.
Mark,
Perhaps we agree more than you think. Anyway, most of us are here for the friendly debate, as you know. Most of the time we disagree on the way thinks are "proved" and the arguments that are used to "prove" it. In my humble opinion, (please note I write it in full words), most of the time our discussions are compromised by oversimplification or the need to keep subjects that need long expositions short.
BTW, I try to keep an open mind to new products and equipments, but if I would be defending the redbook adequate quality in this thread I would have relied on opinions from known experts. I have a long list ...
BTW, I try to keep an open mind to new products and equipments, but if I would be defending the redbook adequate quality in this thread I would have relied on opinions from known experts. I have a long list ...
I still believe more in presenting actual factual evidence and peer-reviewed research than in appealing to authority of "known experts" - that so easily becomes "my expert is better than your expert"
I still believe more in presenting actual factual evidence and peer-reviewed research than in appealing to authority of "known experts" - that so easily becomes "my expert is better than your expert"
Julf,
As you know there is no peer-reviewed published research on almost all the subjects we debate. It is why very often we should debate not "my expert is better than your expert", but " the arguments X and Y of my expert are better than the arguments V and W of your expert", and why we think so. My main criteria for asserting expertise is also proven past and present work in the field, not on wine tasting, watch collecting or great photography.
. Can you tell me examples of "factual evidence" you have read in this thread?
No. I just scanned it and while there was a bit of hyperbole (like I haven't seen that before), most of what I saw has been well-covered by many people and publications, as have the counter arguments. One author's credibility, or lack thereof, is not likely to change anyone's mind.
How do you judge the credibility of an author on a subject?
Tim
Tim,
Sorry , I do not have the time or will to discuss such general question, I have gone through tens of articles and essays on internet technical and scientific credibility.
Just from one of those:
1. Is there any evidence that the author of the Web information has some authority in the field about which she or he is providing information? What are the author's qualifications, credentials and connections to the subject? , followed by a long list of guidelines.
http://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/web-eval-sites.htm
I can not understand how the lack of credibility of the author is not relevant to a debate.
Ignored by whom? There are quite a few of us who agree with Stuart's conclusions at a minimum. Of course, there also appear to be those who think he asks for too much...Yes, Rbbert, we know, but all these long papers from known authors and its conclusions have been ignored in this thread. The article by a great expert in the field referred in post 1 is much easier to read and most people have calculators and soundmeters. Why should we need anything else?
But... But... Isn't the audiophile world an "all or nothing" world?
Not the audiophile world I live in. This one is about knowingly making compromises that work out best for given situations. A lot like engineering but without the math! LOL!
Well yeah ok, just a little bit o math!
I disagree. Audiophiles do like to think that they are pioneers in unfathomed territory, pushing boundaries, but the fact is that most of what we discuss is well researched, understood and documented basic engineering knowledge.
I am not going to spend my Saturday afternoon going through all 300 messages in this thread (unless you really want me to), but there have been good references to research into dynamic range etc.
I was going to say something about how important math actually is, especially when moving into digital stuff, where "intuition" and "common sense" really leads us astray if we don't understand the theory and math.
Mark,
Perhaps we agree more than you think. Anyway, most of us are here for the friendly debate, as you know. Most of the time we disagree on the way thinks are "proved" and the arguments that are used to "prove" it. In my humble opinion, (please note I write it in full words), most of the time our discussions are compromised by oversimplification or the need to keep subjects that need long expositions short.
BTW, I try to keep an open mind to new products and equipments, but if I would be defending the redbook adequate quality in this thread I would have relied on opinions from known experts. I have a long list ...
Which is really almost everything Francisco. The digital people are fractured in their beliefs, ditto for tube lovers and analog lovers. Lots of people think they have found "the" way to audio nirvana vice "their" way.
I find myself in agreement with you quite often although I must admit that sometimes I fantasize about coming to your house and finding your copy of the Floyd Toole book and using it to start a bonfire.
Digital IS quite counterintuitive if you really think about. One common thing I noticed when it comes to dialogs regarding analog to digital and digital conversion is how most people tend to focus on the "Big" and not the "Small". If say we ask someone how he thought about infinity, I'm betting it would be about how large say the universe might be and give little thought to how infinitely small it might be divided.
I was going to say something about how important math actually is, especially when moving into digital stuff, where "intuition" and "common sense" really leads us astray if we don't understand the theory and math.
Yes, sometimes it feels like discussing evolution with creationists. The scientifically well-established workings of evolution are also quite counterintuitive and "common sense" leads us astray on that subject as well if we don't understand the theory.
And no, I am not pretending to be an expert in digital (as a biochemist I know much more about evolution), yet I have kept an open mind for the facts, and these are quite convincing. But as Tim says, in high-end audio you can't even fight an opinion with the facts...well, I guess that holds for many things in life.
That is exactly how I feel all too often. On a real bad day, I feel like I am discussing with people who believe in UFOs and extraterrestrials.
<Grumpy Old Man>
Unfortunately, yes. We seem to have moved into a world of "truthiness", soundbites and worshipping people who are famous for being famous.
</Grumpy Old Man>
Similar threads
