Transparency vs. Synergy?

[jkeny]

The last Ethan told us, I believe he has a Pioneer receiver playing into a pair of JBL speakers (and I don't know the model numbers of either).

Ah yes, the self-fulfilling prophesy syndrome.

I find this often to be the case - those that are convinced there is no/little difference between devices choose their devices with little or no thought for the sonics & thus fulfill their expectations ( bias). They then go forth & proselytise to the masses!! There are a few examples dotted around - one fanatic on a UK site, Pinfishmedia has the same mantra - all DACs sound the same (bits is bits, init) who has come to this firmly entrenched position using a TV feeding a digital signal to some ADM powered speakers. Any & all discussions with him involves him asking for scientific proof that he is wrong

 

[mep]

Ah yes, the self-fulfilling prophesy syndrome.

I find this often to be the case - those that are convinced there is no/little difference between devices choose their devices with little or no thought for the sonics & thus fulfill their expectations ( bias). They then go forth & proselytise to the masses!! There are a few examples dotted around - one fanatic on a UK site, Pinfishmedia has the same mantra - all DACs sound the same (bits is bits, init) who has come to this firmly entrenched position using a TV feeding a digital signal to some ADM powered speakers. Any & all discussions with him involves him asking for scientific proof that he is wrong

I think he has a long-lost cousin over here on this side of the pond.

 

[rockitman]

Ah yes, the self-fulfilling prophesy syndrome.

I find this often to be the case - those that are convinced there is no/little difference between devices choose their devices with little or no thought for the sonics & thus fulfill their expectations ( bias). They then go forth & proselytise to the masses!! There are a few examples dotted around - one fanatic on a UK site, Pinfishmedia has the same mantra - all DACs sound the same (bits is bits, init) who has come to this firmly entrenched position using a TV feeding a digital signal to some ADM powered speakers. Any & all discussions with him involves him asking for scientific proof that he is wrong

In the end if that quality of reproduction floats their boat...More power to them. They save a lot of dough
Speaking for myself, I am a bit more discerning when it comes to audio repro.

 

[microstrip]

My friend brought a CD of solo piano, and I ripped the original Wave from one track, then created three MP3 files at 128, 192, and 256 kbps. He listened while I switched sources, which he couldn't see, and he was unable to tell reliably which version was which. He got some right some of the times, but one time he got them all in reverse order thinking the original Wave was 128 kbps and the 128 kbps version was the original. So all in all it was random results, and he couldn't tell which was which with any certainty.

What surprised me was the way he wanted to listen. Initially I played the same very short fragment of different versions repeatedly, which in my experience is the best way to identify small differences. But he insisted that I play longer sections before switching, which I was glad to oblige. Not that it seemed to help him.

--Ethan

This just shows that in your system using your methods your friend could not distinguish the different versions of the recording.
IMHO no conclusion can be taken without further tests in other systems, perhaps with different people and methods.

Was there any test carried in that occasion in which your friend got a positive result?

 

[MylesBAstor]

This just shows that in your system using your methods your friend could not distinguish the different versions of the recording.
IMHO no conclusion can be taken without further tests in other systems, perhaps with different people and methods.

Was there any test carried in that occasion in which your friend got a positive result?

Try an internal standard.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Yes, Ethan, but what software/hardware was used to rip/playback the WAV files?

I probably used Sound Forge. I'm sure you understand that ripping a CD gives the original Wave file, unless the CD is damaged.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

Was there any test carried in that occasion in which your friend got a positive result?

As I said, he got them right some times and not right other times. We only did eight playbacks in all, so it's not enough to be statistically useful. Not that we were aiming for that.

This is why I so often offer to meet in person with people who make claims I don't believe, and offer to drive to them so they can listen on their own familiar system. But they never agree. Never once, not ever! Instead, all they have are insults, such as these I rounded up from this thread alone:

if ... you couldn't tell the difference from the actual tape, your hearing is probably suspect at best. Or, your stereo system has such low resolution that it homogenizes the sound of everything that goes through it and plays back every recording with the same level of mediocrity.

You mean the test where Amir and Bruce called into question the files that Ethan posted?

Does this not tell you something about your replay system, Ethan?

Maybe this says more about your system than the quality of the recordings??

Not to pick on rockitman, but that's a typical example where he claims he is "a bit more discerning when it comes to audio repro" yet he is unwilling to get together for a friendly discussion and listening session. If someone told me I was wrong and offered to drive here to prove it to me, I'd accept in a minute because I really want to know if I'm wrong! I guess that means I'm not a typical audiophile.

--Ethan

 

[rockitman]

Not to pick on rockitman, but that's a typical example where he claims he is "a bit more discerning when it comes to audio repro" yet he is unwilling to get together for a friendly discussion and listening session. If someone told me I was wrong and offered to drive here to prove it to me, I'd accept in a minute because I really want to know if I'm wrong! I guess that means I'm not a typical audiophile.

--Ethan

I don't need to prove anything about my system to anyone Ethan. Your challenge does not interest me in the least. The only ears I care about are my own. Why would I want to degrade my sound with your lamp cord, cheap rca's ect ? I am glad your modest system gives you great joy. Unfortunately it will not deliver the musical experience I am blessed to hear with my setup. That is a fact that is indisputable.

 

[jkeny]

I probably used Sound Forge. I'm sure you understand that ripping a CD gives the original Wave file, unless the CD is damaged.

--Ethan

Sure but you didn't answer the second part of my question - what playback system was used?
Just trying to get the details of the setup that you used when you cited this anecdotal example of someone challenged to hear differences & they couldn't even though they were fully sure they could in their own system.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Sure but you didn't answer the second part of my question - what playback system was used?
Just trying to get the details of the setup that you used when you cited this anecdotal example of someone challenged to hear differences & they couldn't even though they were fully sure they could in their own system.

What difference does it make?

 

[MylesBAstor]

As I said, he got them right some times and not right other times. We only did eight playbacks in all, so it's not enough to be statistically useful. Not that we were aiming for that.

This is why I so often offer to meet in person with people who make claims I don't believe, and offer to drive to them so they can listen on their own familiar system. But they never agree. Never once, not ever! Instead, all they have are insults, such as these I rounded up from this thread alone:









Not to pick on rockitman, but that's a typical example where he claims he is "a bit more discerning when it comes to audio repro" yet he is unwilling to get together for a friendly discussion and listening session. If someone told me I was wrong and offered to drive here to prove it to me, I'd accept in a minute because I really want to know if I'm wrong! I guess that means I'm not a typical audiophile.

--Ethan

You mean that your experiment is based on totally erroneous reasoning eg. what the ear initially likes has any relationship to long term satisfaction? Not to mention you choose to consistently ignore every basic tenet of physiology, psychology and neurobiology. But why let some facts get in the way of a good story? Guess they never taught you that in engineering school.

 

[jkeny]

As I said, he got them right some times and not right other times. We only did eight playbacks in all, so it's not enough to be statistically useful. Not that we were aiming for that.

So because he didn't get it right 100% of the time, you infer that it proves something? I would have lost focus & given up listening after about 4 repeat playings of the same track, I believe.

One other point that you didn't pick up on - have you ever determined if your system/listener(s) are capable of differentiating known audible differences - the calibrating of the sensitivity of the setup?

 

[MylesBAstor]

One other point that you didn't pick up on - have you ever determined if your system/listener(s) are capable of differentiating known audible differences - the calibrating of the sensitivity of the setup?

That's what I've been asking for ages. It's called an internal standard and is a commonly used scientific practice.

 

[jkeny]

What difference does it make?

Repeatability?
Maybe if someone wanted to try Ethan's test & report on it, they would have sufficient information to do so & evaluate his claims. It's something Ethan always seems keen to suggest - to let others try it for themselves.

 

[jkeny]

That's what I've been asking for ages. It's called an internal standard and is a commonly used scientific practice.

Yes, hidden controls are part & parcel of such perceptibility testing!

 

[MylesBAstor]

Repeatability?
Maybe if someone wanted to try Ethan's test & report on it, they would have sufficient information to do so & evaluate his claims. It's something Ethan always seems keen to suggest - to let others try it for themselves.

Yes but it's easier to play the poor victim.

 

[jkeny]

You mean that your experiment is based on totally erroneous reasoning eg. what the ear initially likes has any relationship to long term satisfaction? Not to mention you choose to consistently ignore every basic tenet of physiology, psychology and neurobiology. But why let some facts get in the way of a good story? Guess they never taught you that in engineering school.

Your signature is apropos, here, I believe
"There is something to be said in doing things wrong the exact same way every time. It’s not a good thing, but still."

 

[microstrip]

As I said, he got them right some times and not right other times. We only did eight playbacks in all, so it's not enough to be statistically useful. Not that we were aiming for that.

This is why I so often offer to meet in person with people who make claims I don't believe, and offer to drive to them so they can listen on their own familiar system. But they never agree. Never once, not ever! Instead, all they have are insults, such as these I rounded up from this thread alone:

(...)

Not to pick on rockitman, but that's a typical example where he claims he is "a bit more discerning when it comes to audio repro" yet he is unwilling to get together for a friendly discussion and listening session. If someone told me I was wrong and offered to drive here to prove it to me, I'd accept in a minute because I really want to know if I'm wrong! I guess that means I'm not a typical audiophile.

--Ethan

I can not understand what you want to bring to this debate. As I have often said in WBF, reliable tests are not easy to carry and beyond the possibilities of audiophile meetings or informal sessions. Now we know that the tests you were referring were not even statistically valid. IMHO these amateur challenges only give discredit to those who participate - but yes, they generate a lot of useless noise and misleading generalization in forums.

Unfortunately the pattern is always the same - some vague tests, a naive audiophile who gets involved in these pseudo tests, no publicized reliable available data to analyze or comment and an humiliating result for the poor guy, who is not able to defend himself and escape from the trap in which he volunteered, sometimes because of his excessive confidence.

 

[mep]

I can not understand what you want to bring to this debate. As I have often said in WBF, reliable tests are not easy to carry and beyond the possibilities of audiophile meetings or informal sessions. Now we know that the tests you were referring were not even statistically valid. IMHO these amateur challenges only give discredit to those who participate - but yes, they generate a lot of useless noise and misleading generalization in forums.

Unfortunately the pattern is always the same - some vague tests, a naive audiophile who gets involved in these pseudo tests, no publicized reliable available data to analyze or comment and an humiliating result for the poor guy, who is not able to defend himself and escape from the trap in which he volunteered, sometimes because of his excessive confidence.

It's like the audio version of the Great Randi.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Sure but you didn't answer the second part of my question - what playback system was used?

Sorry, I didn't mean to avoid your question. We did this in my home studio, which is about 33 feet long front to back, 18 feet wide, and 12 feet high at the peak. I believe playback was through a Delta 66 sound card, though I might have had my newer Focusrite 8i6 sound card by then. The loudspeakers are large old-school JBL 4430s, bi-amped with a pair of Crown PowerBase power amps totaling just over 1 KW. This system plays very loud and very clear!

Even if you think this system is not "revealing" enough for a serious test (though it surely is), this is why I constantly offer to visit others at their home. It doesn't matter what I can hear, or what I think I can or can't hear. What matters to me is whether other people can hear what they claim. I'm convinced they are often mistaken. But since nobody ever agrees to get together to listen while I observe, they get to continue their fantasy!

BTW, my friend and I also listened quite a bit on my living room system, though not that particular test of identifying MP3 files at various bit-rates versus Wave files. I'm sure you'll continue to pretend to not believe anything I say but a lot of my friends are professional musicians and recording engineers, and many of them bring their works in progress to my home to hear on both of my systems because the playback is so clean and clear, and both rooms are well treated acoustically and thus very neutral.

--Ethan