Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
musicom;688106 Wrote: > > If one were to compare based on the data rate alone, CD beats mp3 as it > has a data rate of 141 kbps vs 128 k for the mp3. > Just a small correction (might have been a typo): CD has a data rate of 1411 kbit/s (44100 x 2 x 16 bit per second); that's the effective data rate for the music encoding excluding error correction information. This hence is more than 10 times the data rate of a 128 kbit/s mp3 file. Not everything of this additional information is audible (also depends on the material) - that's why mp3 compression is working in the first place. -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
Bytec;687992 Wrote: > I use foobar2000 ABX Comparator for such purposes. > http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx I was using the Touch with a mix of local flac files with their Spotify premium equivalent version in one single playlist. -- evdplancke evdplancke's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=43147 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
musicom;688106 Wrote: > http://www.mediatechnics.com/cdaudio.htm > > http://www.uaudio.com/blog/understanding-audio-data-compression/ > > If one were to compare based on the data rate alone, CD beats mp3 as it > has a data rate of 141 kbps vs 128 k for the mp3. But the most > important limitation of mp3 is that it is a data reduction format that > permanently throws music information away so the information is simply > not there to be heard. CD has all of the music information on the disc > that the producer cares to put there (subject to the limitations of the > format, which again are much less limiting than mp3). There was an article on the CNN website the other day about Neil Young and his quest for hi-def music re. Apple. http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/31/tech/web/neil-young-apple-high-def-music/index.html According to the article (and I have no verification of this), "Industry-standard MP3 files have only about 5% of all the sounds that were contained in the original recording". That's a pretty amazing numbera LOT of compressionand we know that, in addition, there's some data loss going on. -- rgro Rg System information Main: PS Audio Quintet > Vortexbox > Touch (wired) via optical > Rega DAC > LFD LE IV Signature amp > VA Mozart Grands > REL Acoustics R305 sub. Home Theatre: Duet/SBR (Wired) > Pioneer VSX 919 > Energy Take 5 Classic 5.1. SBS 7.7.1 r33751 on a Vortexbox Appliance, V 2.0. Touch w/Hardware V.5. Touch: FW 7.7.1 r9558. Duet: FW 7.7.1 r9557. rgro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
superbonham;688118 Wrote: > ... overlapping posts ... > > If you take a high-definition master recording at 96kHz/24 bit stereo > (~ 4,600 kbit/s) and compare it with a 256 kbit/s mp3 (which you might > consider "industry-standard" these days) this actually holds true (at > least approximately). > > But as already said: a lot of this data can be "omitted" without having > (too much) of an audible effect. mp3 compression is based on (rather > well understood) psycho-acoustic phenomena (e.g. masking just to name > one of them) to reduce the data rate. > > Personally I am - at least for the vast majority of my own music > collection - not able to tell the difference between the CD source and > a mp3 file with 320 kbit/s encoded from this source (using a decent > hifi system - that won't perhaps qualify as "audiophile", though). agree. And in general the tests reported at hydrogenaudio.org (some quite large scale in terms of participants) are based on transparency via listening (not comparing charts or bitrate, etc.). These are double-blind ABX tests regarding the hypothesis of transparency between things (i.e., can one detect a difference in the source files (e.g., 128 mp3 and lossless) via listening that is not simply due to random selection). -- garym *Location 1:* VB Appliance 6TB (1.10) > LMS 7.7.1 > Transporter, Touch, Boom, Radio w/Battery (all ethernet except Radio) *Location 2:* VB Appliance 3TB (2.0) > LMS 7.7.1 > Touch > Benchmark DAC I, Boom, Radio w/Battery (all ethernet except Radio) *Office:* Win7(64) > LMS 7.7.1 > SqueezePlay Retired: SB3, Duet Receiver Controllers: iPhone (iPeng), iPad (iPengHD & SqueezePad), CONTROLLER, or SqueezePlay 7.7 on Win7(64) laptop Ripping (FLAC) - dbpoweramp, Additional Tagging - mp3tag garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
Soulkeeper;687996 Wrote: > I don't think I even want to try that. Don't want to risk my ears > disappointing me. ;) I agree. Spotify and BBC 3 HD sound quality is scarily good. I thank darren's right that there is sound evidenced for 128kbps, bt above that hm IIRC I'm not sure there is any evidence that people can tell the difference at 320. There have been a lot of studies done: when the perceptual codecs were being designed they didn't just do it randomly. Perhaps the current personality inhabiting MCR would like to check out Hydrogen audio where i am sure the information resides. -- adamdea adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.The High-End Creed -- ghostrider ghostrider's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18959 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
rgro;688112 Wrote: > There was an article on the CNN website the other day about Neil Young > and his quest for hi-def music re. Apple. > > http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/31/tech/web/neil-young-apple-high-def-music/index.html > > According to the article (and I have no verification of this), > "Industry-standard MP3 files have only about 5% of all the sounds that > were contained in the original recording". That's a pretty amazing > numbera LOT of compressionand we know that, in addition, > there's some data loss going on. ... overlapping posts ... If you take a high-definition master recording at 96kHz/24 bit stereo (~ 4,600 kbit/s) and compare it with a 256 kbit/s mp3 (which you might consider "industry-standard" these days) this actually holds true (at least approximately). But as already said: a lot of this data can be "omitted" without having (too much) of an audible effect. mp3 compression is based on (rather well understood) psycho-acoustic phenomena (e.g. masking just to name one of them) to reduce the data rate. Personally I am - at least for the vast majority of my own music collection - not able to tell the difference between the CD source and a mp3 file with 320 kbit/s encoded from this source (using a decent hifi system - that won't perhaps qualify as "audiophile", though). -- superbonham superbonham's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=22540 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
magiccarpetride;687901 Wrote: > Another audio myth: red book CDs somehow better sounding than 128 kbps > mp3. Where's the evidence to support such outlandish claims? http://www.mediatechnics.com/cdaudio.htm http://www.uaudio.com/blog/understanding-audio-data-compression/ If one were to compare based on the data rate alone, CD beats mp3 as it has a data rate of 141 kbps vs 128 k for the mp3. But the most important limitation of mp3 is that it is a data reduction format that permanently throws music information away so the information is simply not there to be heard. CD has all of the music information on the disc that the producer cares to put there (subject to the limitations of the format, which again are much less limiting than mp3). -- musicom musicom's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=30459 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
adamdea;688048 Wrote: > Perhaps the current personality inhabiting MCR would like to check out > Hydrogen audio where i am sure the information resides. He can read there, but would have trouble posting. hydrogenaudio is well moderated and almost every post MCR has made here would have been trash binned over there based on TOS violations. They don't suffer audiofoolery at hydrogenaudio.org. -- garym *Location 1:* VB Appliance 6TB (1.10) > LMS 7.7.1 > Transporter, Touch, Boom, Radio w/Battery (all ethernet except Radio) *Location 2:* VB Appliance 3TB (2.0) > LMS 7.7.1 > Touch > Benchmark DAC I, Boom, Radio w/Battery (all ethernet except Radio) *Office:* Win7(64) > LMS 7.7.1 > SqueezePlay Retired: SB3, Duet Receiver Controllers: iPhone (iPeng), iPad (iPengHD & SqueezePad), CONTROLLER, or SqueezePlay 7.7 on Win7(64) laptop Ripping (FLAC) - dbpoweramp, Additional Tagging - mp3tag garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
evdplancke;688071 Wrote: > I was using the Touch with a mix of local flac files with their Spotify > premium equivalent version in one single playlist. Note that not all 320kbps MP3s are equal. Some have said that Spotify applies dynamic compression which, if true, would certainly affect the aural "signature". For example, see post #10 of http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=91955. -- aubuti aubuti's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2074 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
darrenyeats;687935 Wrote: > Double blind test results show people can hear that difference...I > believe I've seen this on hydrogenaudio. Try the following: rip a reference cd twice to flac and mp3, give them a recognizable name, put them in a playlistism and play it randomly with shuffle. Try then to figure out for each song if it is mp3 or flac when listening and then check by name if you are right. If you are able to recognize lets say 2/3 of the file types, then there is a listenable difference. I have used this method with Diana Krall Live in Paris and after some learning time, I could recognize different signature of the sound between 320 kbps mp3 and flac. -- evdplancke evdplancke's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=43147 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
evdplancke;687991 Wrote: > and after some learning time, I could recognize different signature of > the sound between 320 kbps mp3 and flac. I don't think I even want to try that. Don't want to risk my ears disappointing me. ;) -- Soulkeeper 'Bug 17797: Updating wiki.slimdevices.com' (http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=17797) Soulkeeper's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35297 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
evdplancke;687991 Wrote: > Try the following: rip a reference cd twice to flac and mp3, give them a > recognizable name, put them in a playlistism and play it randomly with > shuffle. Try then to figure out for each song if it is mp3 or flac when > listening and then check by name if you are right. If you are able to > recognize lets say 2/3 of the file types, then there is a listenable > difference. > > I have used this method with Diana Krall Live in Paris and after some > learning time, I could recognize different signature of the sound > between 320 kbps mp3 and flac. I use foobar2000 ABX Comparator for such purposes. http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx -- Bytec Bytec's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17676 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
darrenyeats;687935 Wrote: > Double blind test results show people can hear that difference...I > believe I've seen this on hydrogenaudio. Depending on the piece of music or sound, I have been able to ABX this for myself to detect the difference. My threshold is around 160-192 kbps with studio headphones. -- Archimago Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
magiccarpetride;687901 Wrote: > Another audio myth: red book CDs somehow better sounding than 128 kbps > mp3. Where's the evidence to support such outlandish claims? Double blind test results show people can hear that difference...I believe I've seen this on hydrogenaudio. -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
magiccarpetride;687921 Wrote: > I used to think you're the only kind person on this forum, but now I see > I was sadly mistaken -- you also enjoy attacking people when they're > down. Oh, the humanity! I'm just giving you some friendly advice... I'm sure it's curable... -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/W7)+Teddy Pardo PSU - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters,VdH Toslink,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
Phil Leigh;687917 Wrote: > I think MCR is suffering from a bad case of Boolean inversion. I used to think you're the only kind person on this forum, but now I see I was sadly mistaken -- you also enjoy attacking people when they're down. Oh, the humanity! -- magiccarpetride magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
I think MCR is suffering from a bad case of Boolean inversion. -- Phil Leigh You want to see the signal path BEFORE it gets onto a CD/vinyl...it ain't what you'd call minimal... Touch(wired/W7)+Teddy Pardo PSU - Audiolense 3.3/2.0+INGUZ DRC - MF M1 DAC - Linn 5103 - full Aktiv 5.1 system (6x LK140's, ESPEK/TRIKAN/KATAN/SEIZMIK 10.5), Pekin Tuner, Townsend Supertweeters,VdH Toslink,Kimber 8TC Speaker & Chord Signature Plus Interconnect cables Stax4070+SRM7/II phones Kitchen Boom, Outdoors: SB Radio, Harmony One remote for everything. Phil Leigh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=85 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
magiccarpetride;687901 Wrote: > Another audio myth: red book CDs somehow better sounding than 128 kbps > mp3. Where's the evidence to support such outlandish claims? One from the audio truths department: when it comes to anything having to do with audio magiccarpetride has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. This is universally true in this and any other dimension. -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels -> Snatch -> The Transporter -> Transporter 2 (oops) -> Touch 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
TheOctavist;687886 Wrote: > keep them coming. heres another. > > 180 gram weight somehow being "better sounding" is one of the biggest > myths in audio there is. Contrary to common misconception groove depth > is set during mastering - as long as the biscuit the record is pressed > from is the minimum weight needed for good fill (easily achievable at > 120 grams) then the weight of the record has absolutely no effect on > this. Heavier records are indeed easier to make sure they are flat and > stay that way - but this factor is easily achievable at weights of > around 130 grams. > > The quality and care put into the mastering, pressing and plating has > substantial more to do with the sound of a record than the weight of > the record ever does. Another audio myth: red book CDs somehow better sounding than 128 kbps mp3. Where's the evidence to support such outlandish claims? -- magiccarpetride magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
keep them coming. heres another. 180 gram weight somehow being "better sounding" is one of the biggest myths in audio there is. Contrary to common misconception groove depth is set during mastering - as long as the biscuit the record is pressed from is the minimum weight needed for good fill (easily achievable at 120 grams) then the weight of the record has absolutely no effect on this. Heavier records are indeed easier to make sure they are flat and stay that way - but this factor is easily achievable at weights of around 130 grams. The quality and care put into the mastering, pressing and plating has substantial more to do with the sound of a record than the weight of the record ever does. -- TheOctavist Vortexbox>SBT(TT 3.0)>>Forssell MDAC-2>>>Klein and Hummell 0300D Sota Sapphire/Lyra Kleos>>Bespoke Valve Phono Stage>>Mastersound Due Venti>>Link Audio K100 TheOctavist's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=52700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
While you all debate, Karen Carpenter's sweet voice has me melting in my listening chair. That is what it's all about, right? -- steveinaz - transport: squeezebox touch/channel island audio ps - dac: benchmark dac/pre - linestage: placette passive - power amplifier: parasound hca-1500a - speakers: harbeth compact 7es-3 monitor steveinaz's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34707 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
jfo;685192 Wrote: > Spoken like a well practised troll. Of all the urges I might have, this > is truly not one of them, so you can rest easy on the state of my life. > At some point early on though, I did try to give you the benefit of the > doubt. Stop obsessing about me, you're weirding me out. Get a life. One more stalking post from you and I'm reporting you to authorities. -- magiccarpetride magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
Mnyb;684935 Wrote: > Then I have to buy pro products despite the ugly utilitarian design and > rack handles and large backlit > buttons etc . > Hey that migth be much cheaper :) Yes, If the SQ/$ rate is what's important, I'm pretty certain that pro or even semi-pro gear is the way to go. (Hey, maybe that's how I'm gonna get rich - design and sell pretty front panels for ugly pro amps? - or even richer: put ugly pro amps in pretty (but well shielded) boxes, rebrand them completely, and sell them on to the private market for 50x the price? :D To prevent people from finding out what's really inside the boxes, the boxes have got to be sealed, and with 10 years warranty so that people don't want to open them... but anyway, at such a price, I think giving a 10 year warranty might be worthwile.) -- Soulkeeper -That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.- 'Bug 17797: Updating wiki.slimdevices.com' (http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=17797) Soulkeeper's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35297 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
adamdea;684750 Wrote: > Obviously a little introspection is required before making bold claims > on any side. But that is exactly what is lacking in the subjectivist > blather which has fogged up several threads on this forum. > > In reality all that has happened in response has been some more or less > terse reminders that most of this is probably imaginery, and none of it > constitutes a compelling reasopn for a rational person to wish to apply > the changes to which the imagined effect are attributed. > > There isn't really an epistemological middle ground. That is to say if > you take these things seriously, ie if you actually care whether they > are true, and if you consdier that they deserve serious discussion, you > cannot avoid analysing the reliability of the evidence presented and the > conclusions which can be drawn from it. > > Aside from the really extreme and egregious examples (most of which > come from one source), the ad hominems and the more or less insulting > ways of putting things are largely irrelevant: The essential points > remian and can't be evaded > 1. there does exist a body of science about audio principles, audio > engineering and what human beings can hear. > 2 it requires cogent evidence to make a rational person accept a > proposition which appears to contradict the body of knowledge at 1 > 3 a sensible person who thought he had experienced something which > appeared to contradict that body of knowledge would think again; he > might still conclude that he really had experienced what the thought he > had, but if he didn't think long and hard about it then he would be > showing extraordinary and possibly pathological self-belief.[it's not a > question of demadning scientific evidence from people- if you point out > that it exists it is up to them to consider it and explain it away] > 4 there is a considerable body of evidence within psychoacoustics > (summarised in the poppy crum/ethan weiner talk)which points to the > conclusions that non abx subjective experience is very unreliable. > 5 even if the subjective experience *were* reliable in general as with > all evidence one has with each piece of evidence to consider what > weight is to be attributed to it including especially the reliability > of the witness and the internal coherence of the evidence. > > Now all the appeals to calmness and not being rude etc are largely > largely beside the point if you consider the real complaint by > twaekers on this forum. The complaint is that they think it is rude or > arrogant not to think that what they expereince is true real and cogent > (if not irrefutable) evidence that fiddling with psus/cables/shakti > stones makes your hifi sound > a) different > b) better. > > They think this is rude and arrogant irrespective of how politely or > otherwise it is put. The cries of foul are disngenuous and amount to a > sort of desperate procedural wrangling in a losing case. I have wasted > time politely dealing with certain people's arguments, and in cetain > cases I can;t really be bothered because it ends up the same no matter > what. > > If a point is well made whether with or without the odd calumny thrown > in, it can usually be identified and can still be distinguished from a > "point" which simply consists of insults, suggestiones falsi and > sophistry. > > If people don;t want to have their reports evaluated and considered > then why do they make them? Why do they advise people as to what to do? > Why do they *state* that blah blah blah makes the squeezebox touch into > a much better trasnport? Who are they talking to and why are they doing > it? Plainly they want people to listen and take note. > > In which case what could be wrong with replying "thank you for the > information but, having considered it, it appears to provide no > reasonable ground for altering the view that [blah blah blah] is > unlikely to make any differnece, and no reason to spend any money or > time on a [blah blah blah.]" And that will be just as unwelcome as > saying "Having consdiered your latest posting you still seem to be a > fuckwit". > > Now one could stop at point 4 above but it would be disingenuous to > ignore point 5 if the argument is really being taken seriously. In fact > the tiresome subjectivist/objectivist argument on this forum rarely gets > to the interesting point about the way in which value judgments are > assessed. People who are interested in the arts certainly do hold > ex[press and trade subjective opinions; the fact that these opinions > are subjective does not mean that they can;t be evaluated. There are > more and less rational, cogent and deep reasons for admiring one > painting or preferring it to another. > > And it is therefore quite reasonable to point out that, even if > subjective reports which don't make any technical sense are *in > principle* to be taken seriously, some reporters have excluded > themselves from being taken seriously by writing bizarre,
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
magiccarpetride;685088 Wrote: > Your life is indeed in a very sorry state if you feel the urge to take > me seriously. > > Lighten up, dude! Spoken like a well practised troll. Of all the urges I might have, this is truly not one of them, so you can rest easy on the state of my life. At some point early on though, I did try to give you the benefit of the doubt. -- jfo jfo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1135 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
magiccarpetride;685088 Wrote: > Your life is indeed in a very sorry state if you feel the urge to take > me seriously. > > Lighten up, dude! +1 Well said. Spot on and to the point. -- pandasharka pandasharka's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=45806 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
I'm cool the thing In have against for example set amps is more like how they are selling it. they use TAS style arguments . The claims are that these are actually better amplifiers than modern designs. Better resolution and dynamics etc ? This is not the case . A more modest and true claim would be that they provide a certain euphonic property that sounds nice on some easy to drive speakers, but they are not reproducing the signal as acurate as possible. If one use the original hifi definition= high fidelity ,the devices should aim to reproduce the input signal as true as possible . Then products delibaretly adding gross colouration falls outside of what hifi per definition is . Then of course they actually do something :) many tweaks do absolutly nothing. But such hifi is sold with TAS like pseudo science arguments, that it mysteriusly actually sounds better despite the bad technical performance and clearly audible artifacts and that "sounds better" is not a matter of taste but it should be interpretted as you hear more content of the recording. duringbthe years Inhave seen all kinds of bad arguments that normally designed electronics remove some unmeasurable quality that was there , but it is mysteriuslynretored with [ insert cult design ] these are also tru audio myths and fits the topic. There may be no clear cut demarkation line at all . i think I owned products that fit all these categories in the same product . Real solid engineering + cult engineering + nonsense you can also add expensive exterior design to this. I fondly remeber the original NAD idea , just performance nothing else and an ugly box. Maybe the topic is to wide audio myths have a wide scope there is plenty in every field of audio design, loudspeaker myths amp myths CD myths . Was Octavist intent only to bring up the latest fad in squeezebox tweaking and computer audio ? If so I think let the treads rest from my input for a while -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad 64gB wifi +3g with iPengHD & SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
Mnyb;684946 Wrote: > I think a have a piont seriusly, actually look at any hifi mag read what > the mfg claims about the products some design considerations are clearly > inspired of this kind of thinking for example bi-wiring or triwirng > terminals on speakers silver speaker binding posts , you have very over > engineered chassis as some believes in "mechanical grounding" or some > such nonsense . > > And all the tube gear , any modern OP surpase those for small signals > and for power amps the high distorsion and transformer coupling ? Don't > get me started on 3w single ended triode amps with 5% thd and no ability > to drive speakers that is usually explained away with that it is > something " wrong " with modern multiway speakers ? > > There are also some very poorly performing solid state stuff due to > overbelief in no feedback designs or some other obscure detail that > preocupy the designer. > Or early musical fidelity stuff before the current sometimes very well > designed stuff, where crossover distorsion and high thd was on the menu > even if it was " class A" , aha the class A myth migth have been valid > at some piont with silicon from the 60's - 70's not as linear as todays > trannies. > > you mean they really know thier stuff, but are complete cynics and > designed to met target audience > expectations , clearly believ target audience wont regognise sq if it > bit them in thier behind ? > they may actually have the formal training and some design skills but > do they really understand ? > Just like some doctors can make it trough med shool and open practice > but still believ in healing ? > Or like some people both you and i know from shool that actually passed > exams in both basic physics > and nature subject but still believes in strange stuff that counter > this education ? > > i think hi end would be a lot cheaper and perform better if more > objective thinking went in to it. > Thats the piont, and the belief that is must be expensive to be any > good is also most damaging. > The high prices have other explanations too this is high risk bussiness > what if the audiophile read the latest hifi+ and sudenly wants another > cult object this year you must plan for this and charge for the meager > years next time your product is the winner ? Mnyb;684948 Wrote: > And what about overdesigned psu's there is god practice to overdesign > this to some extend for stability and peak demands. > > But sometimes it seam like they really want to impress by how > overdesigned your psu is especialy in preamps and small signal stuff > that have psu's that could feed a small power amp. > > Here i start to wonder if the actual circuit design does not have very > good psu noise rejection due to some other obscure design goal in some > cases ? > > And what about those mythical components like paperr in oil capacitors, > or transformers wound with silver wire ? > > Sorry for the long rant, but I do actually think this kind off thinking > creeps in to the design of many hifi components. > It can be a very good amp/speaker/cd but some design element is clearly > not there for any good reason. Yes that was some rant and again I ask you calm down. Your points are valid but you have blown them all out of proportion. Let's go through them one at a time. High end audio magazines are quickly becoming a joke. The on going series on computer based music in TAS only serves to prove that these magazines will go to any length to serve their advertisers and have no regard for principles, scientific or otherwise. And this only the latest in a very long list of sins, to many sins to list here. Even with all their sins these magazines still serve a very useful function that you only hinted at, namely they help to keep the used audio equipment market full of great bargains as they switch from flavor of the month to new flavor of the month. Next you go on to trash a few of the branches that make the audio tree. Try thinking of these branches (tube equipment, single ended triode amps, no feedback designs, over designed power supplies, etc.) as you would think about different genres of music. Some genres you like and other genres you can't stand. I don't like heavy metal so I don't listen to it. I don't like single ended triode amps so I don't own one. If someone likes the sound of single ended triode amps so what, it's their money and their system. let them do what they want. Just learn to ignore the discussions about the things you don't like, for example I don't even look at certain threads in this section of the forum because I have no interest in them. I'm happy with the stock Touch power supply and don't believe that a $500 linear power supply is going to make enough of difference to be worth the money. End of discussion, at least for me. Someone else may feel differently, so what. As I keep repeating, it's their money. The high prices in high end audio are part of the package. I don't like the high prices
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
magiccarpetride;684926 Wrote: > There was a time back in ancient history when Newtonian physicists > roamed the earth. Then one rainy day along came a guy named Albert > Einstein and proceeded to kick some Newtonian ass. He continued messing > with the feeble Newtonian minds by proposing some ungodly thing called > Theory of Relativity. They, of course, thought that was the stupidest > thing ever. Sorry, but this is a very bad analogy. When the Special Theory of Relativity was published, the reaction from the world's physicists was NOT to suggest it was stupid. Rather, it was recognised for what it was: a viable theory that explained experimental results that did not fit with Newtonian mechanics - such as that the measured speed of light was the same regardless of the relative motions of source and observer. -- cliveb Transporter -> ATC SCM100A cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
And what about overdesigned psu's there is god practice to overdesign this to some extend for stability and peak demands. But sometimes it seam like they really want to impress by how overdesigned your psu is especialy in preamps and small signal stuff that have psu's that could feed a small power amp. Here i start to wonder if the actual circuit design does not have very good psu noise rejection due to some other obscure design goal in some cases ? And what about those mythical components likenpaper inoil capacitors, or transformers woundnwithbsilver wire ? Sorry for the long rant, but I do actually think this kind off thinking creeps in to the design of many hifi components. It can be a very good amp/speaker/cd but some design element is clearly not there for any good reason. -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad 64gB wifi +3g with iPengHD & SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
ralphpnj;684944 Wrote: > Wow calm down there Mnyb, high end audio equipment is still being > designed by highly qualified and very competent individuals. Not sure > about all cables but many of the high priced cables are quite well made > even if one doesn't agree with their high cost. > > Sure some people get carried away with tweaking and trying to squeeze > that last ounce of performance from their stereo system but they by no > means make up the majority of the high end audio buyers. I'm sure > pretty that if we set up a poll we would that a majority of the members > do not believe a lot of these audio myths, oh wait we can't do polls on > this forum so I guess it can never really be proven which then makes it > 100% true simply by believing it, based on audiophile approved out of > the box thinking. God, I just love being an audiophile. I think a have a piont seriusly, actually look at any hifi mag read what the mfg claims about the products some design considerations are clearly inspired of this kind of thinking for example bi-wiring or triwirng terminals on speakers silver speaker binding posts , you have very over engineered chassis as some believes in "mechanical grounding" or some such nonsense . And all the tube gear , any modern OP surpase those for small signals and for power amps the high distorsion and transformer coupling ? Don't get me started on 3w single ended triode amps with 5% thd and no ability to drive speakers that isnusually explained away with that itnis something " wrong " with modern multiway speakers ? There are also some very poorly performing solid state stuff due to overbelief in no feedback designs or some other obscure detail that preocopy the designer. Or early musical fidelity stuff before the current sometimes very well designed stuff, where crossover distorsion and high thd was on the menu even if it was " class A" , aha the class A myth migth have been valid at some piont with silicon from the 60's - 70's not as linear as todays trannies. you mean they really know thier stuff, but are complete cynics and designed to met target audience expectations , clearly believ target audience wont regognise sq if it bit them in thier behind ? they may actually have the formal training and some design skills but do they really understand ? Just like some doctors can make it trough med shool and open practice but still believ in healing ? Or like some people both you and i know from shool that actually passed exams in both basic physics and nature subject but still believes in strange stuff that counter this education ? i think hi end would be a lot cheaper and perform better if more objective thinking went in to it. Thats the piont, and the belief that is must be expensive to be any good is also most damaging. The high prices have other explanations too this is high risk bussiness what if the audiophile read the latest hifi+ and sudenly wants another cult object this year you must plan for this and charge for the meager years next time your product is the winner ? -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad 64gB wifi +3g with iPengHD & SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
Mnyb;684935 Wrote: > Is it indipendent thinking to swallow the audiophile mythos whole sale > ? > That if anything is group mentality ? > > The main stream of audiophilia has gone very far in the obscure cultish > direction. > i think people trying to keep a sane evidence based pow is in minority > . > just visit your dealer almost everyone he sells to buy into the fancy > cables bs . > So not drinking the cool aid is going against the stream and stand out > in the crowd ? > > This forum is unique in it's composition of really extraordinarie > people and a high percentage good at critical/sceptical/scientific > thinking . This is probably why the same people can help my figure out > things when my server malfunctions and when my tags aint rigth, kudos > . > > Btw. > Wonder when all sane EE is gone in high end and virtually all products > are cult objects. > Has it already happened ? Did I just miss the anoucement ? > > I think ralphpnj q re 5000$ amp designed by morons have an answer , yes > it happens all the time this is exactly what many people are throwing > money at ! > > Then I have to buy pro products despite the ugly utilitarian design and > rack handles and large backlit > buttons etc . > Hey that migth be much cheaper :) Wow calm down there Mnyb, high end audio equipment is still being designed by highly qualified and very competent individuals. Not sure about all cables but many of the high priced cables are quite well made even if one doesn't agree with their high cost. Sure some people get carried away with tweaking and trying to squeeze that last ounce of performance from their stereo system but they by no means make up the majority of the high end audio buyers. I'm sure pretty that if we set up a poll we would that a majority of the members do not believe a lot of these audio myths, oh wait we can't do polls on this forum so I guess it can never really be proven which then makes it 100% true simply by believing it, based on audiophile approved out of the box thinking. God, I just love being an audiophile. -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels -> Snatch -> The Transporter -> Transporter 2 (oops) -> Touch 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
- quote Originally Posted by magiccarpetride There was a time back in ancient history when Newtonian physicists roamed the earth. Then one rainy day along came a guy named Albert Einstein and proceeded to kick some Newtonian ass. - unquote One thing AE wasn't - he wasn't a proto-member of the US Marine Corp going around 'kicking ass'. -- castalla 1 Touch - Muse M50 EX TPA3123 T-Amp Mini - Acoustics Q10 speakers - 2 duff ears - purfek! 1 Logitech Radio + remote - purfek! castalla's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=15624 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
Is it indipendent thinking to swallow the audiophile mythos whole sale ? That if anything is group mentality ? The main stream of audiophilia has gone very far in the obscure cultish direction. i think people trying to keep a sane evidence based pow is in minority . just visit your dealer almost everyone he sells to buy into the fancy cables bs . So not drinking the cool aid is going against the stream and stand out in the crowd ? This forum is unique in it's composition of really extraordinarie people and a high percentage good at critical/sceptical/scientific thinking . This is probably why the same people can help my figure out things when my server malfunctions and when my tags aint rigth, kudos . Btw. Wonder when all sane EE is gone in high end and virtually all products are cult objects. Has it already happened ? Did I just miss the anoucement ? I think ralphpnj q re 5000$ amp designed by morons have an answer , yes it happens all the time this is exactly what many people are throwing money at ! Then I have to buy pro products despite the ugly utilitarian design and rack handles and large backlit buttons etc . Hey that migth be much cheaper :) -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad 64gB wifi +3g with iPengHD & SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
magiccarpetride;684926 Wrote: > There was a time back in ancient history when Newtonian physicists > roamed the earth. Then one rainy day along came a guy named Albert > Einstein and proceeded to kick some Newtonian ass. He continued messing > with the feeble Newtonian minds by proposing some ungodly thing called > Theory of Relativity. They, of course, thought that was the stupidest > thing ever. > > I can't help but wonder if all those petty Newtonian physicists were at > that point tripping over themselves in the race to label Einstein as > 'sophisticated troll'? Well Albert, what you don't seem to get (or perhaps you do) is that by ranging from thought provoking comments to profane, meaningless rants and over-the-top meaningless claims, is typical of a troll. As much as I have tried, it's impossible to take you seriously. -- jfo jfo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1135 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
magiccarpetride;684926 Wrote: > There was a time back in ancient history when Newtonian physicists > roamed the earth. Then one rainy day along came a guy named Albert > Einstein and proceeded to kick some Newtonian ass. He continued messing > with the feeble Newtonian minds by proposing some ungodly thing called > Theory of Relativity. They, of course, thought that was the stupidest > thing ever. > > I can't help but wonder if all those petty Newtonian physicists were at > that point tripping over themselves in the race to label Einstein as > 'sophisticated troll'? There is one major thing wrong with the above statement: Einstein's Theory of Relativity does not nullify Newtonian physics, it just adds to mankind's overall knowledge. I am a mechanical engineer and the laws of Newtonian physics are still very much in effect and remain basically unchanged in the normal everyday world we live in. -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels -> Snatch -> The Transporter -> Transporter 2 (oops) -> Touch 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
jfo;684905 Wrote: > Just the characteristics of a sophisticated troll There was a time back in ancient history when Newtonian physicists roamed the earth. Then one rainy day along came a guy named Albert Einstein and proceeded to kick some Newtonian ass. He continued messing with the feeble Newtonian minds by proposing some ungodly thing called Theory of Relativity. They, of course, thought that was the stupidest thing ever. I can't help but wonder if all those petty Newtonian physicists were at that point tripping over themselves in the race to label Einstein as 'sophisticated troll'? -- magiccarpetride magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
ralphpnj;684906 Wrote: > Okay I'll accept your explaination but in the future please use "one" > rather than "you" in your diatribes since you don't know me from Adam. Deal. -- magiccarpetride magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
magiccarpetride;684900 Wrote: > The reason I appear so baffling to you and to other people like you is > that, horrors, I ALWAYS use my own independent thinking faculties. > Unlike many brainwashed people who have been programmed since early > childhood to only regurgitate what's already been said, or what some > imaginary 'top dog' of the pack is currently peddling, I don't give a > shit about what others think, prefer, like, or dislike. Nor do I give a > shit about what they might think of me. > > I know it is a hell of a challenge for you to digest this, but you can > never experience the joys of free thinking so long if you stay enslaved > inside the groupthink, pecking-order-driven matrix, where butt sniffing > is the most important duty and everyone is obliged to toe the party > line. > > What you may think is quite a reasonable or completely outrageous > content posted by me is for me one and the same thing. The dirty mind > is yours, not mine. Okay I'll accept your explaination but in the future please use "one" rather than "you" in your diatribes since you don't know me from Adam. -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels -> Snatch -> The Transporter -> Transporter 2 (oops) -> Touch 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
ralphpnj;684891 Wrote: > MCR: You are the living embodiment of an enigma - you can write > something very useful and by all accounts quite reasonable, as the > passage quoted proves, and then you can also write something so > outrageous and far out that one can think you completely insane. In any > case, until Mr. Hyde resurfaces, well done Dr. Jekyll! Just the characteristics of a sophisticated troll -- jfo jfo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1135 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
magiccarpetride;684900 Wrote: > The reason I appear so baffling to you and to other people like you is > that, horrors, I ALWAYS use my own independent thinking faculties. > Unlike many brainwashed people who have been programmed since early > childhood to only regurgitate what's already been said, or what some > imaginary 'top dog' of the pack is currently peddling, I don't give a > shit about what others think, prefer, like, or dislike. Nor do I give a > shit about what they might think of me. > > I know it is a hell of a challenge for you to digest this, but you can > never experience the joys of free thinking so long if you stay enslaved > inside the groupthink, pecking-order-driven matrix, where butt sniffing > is the most important duty and everyone is obliged to toe the party > line. > > What you may think is quite a reasonable or completely outrageous > content posted by me is for me one and the same thing. The dirty mind > is yours, not mine. For someone who claims not to care what others think of you, you sure do get your underwear in a knot quite easily! -- jfo jfo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1135 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
ralphpnj;684891 Wrote: > MCR: You are the living embodiment of an enigma - you can write > something very useful and by all accounts quite reasonable, as the > passage quoted proves, and then you can also write something so > outrageous and far out that one can think you completely insane. In any > case, until Mr. Hyde resurfaces, well done Dr. Jekyll! The reason I appear so baffling to you and to other people like you is that, horrors, I ALWAYS use my own independent thinking faculties. Unlike many brainwashed people who have been programmed since early childhood to only regurgitate what's already been said, or what some imaginary 'top dog' of the pack is currently peddling, I don't give a shit about what others think, prefer, like, or dislike. Nor do I give a shit about what they might think of me. I know it is a hell of a challenge for you to digest this, but you can never experience the joys of free thinking so long if you stay enslaved inside the groupthink, pecking-order-driven matrix, where butt sniffing is the most important duty and everyone is obliged to toe the party line. What you may think is a quite reasonable or completely outrageous content posted by me is for me one and the same thing. The dirty brain is yours, not mine. -- magiccarpetride magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
magiccarpetride;684877 Wrote: > One could argue, equally forcefully, that the exact opposite approach > would be more prudent. Waiting for the time when we're 99% there to > turn our attention to experimentation/tweaking would invariably mean > that we've already spent copious amounts of money. Many of those > expenditures could've easily been avoided if only we had prudently > applied some experimentation along the way. > > For example, room treatments. If we're just starting to build a high > quality audio system, and had reached a point where we feel that the > sound of our system is lacking in bass and is at the same time having > too much glare in the upper mids, we could, following your advice, work > on upgrading one or more major components. We could for example upgrade > our integrated amp to a much pricier pre-amp/power-amp separates, or > maybe upgrade our lowly $500 DAC to a more esoteric $8,000 DAC etc. > After doing that, we may still feel that the bass is a bit shy and > muddy, and that there is still some remaining glassiness and shrill in > the highs. There goes another round of very expensive upgrades; maybe > we upgrade our Totem speakers to much more expensive Willsons, and so > on. You get the general idea. > > But what if many of these expensive upgrades could've been avoided if > only we paid more attention to experimenting a bit with speaker > placement, room treatment, or even just purchasing a $100.00 power > conditioner? > > I'd encourage people to start experimenting and tweaking early on in > the game, especially with free or cheap tweaks (in the range of $10 to > $100). We've all been there at one point or another, and discovered > that by replacing the noisy switching wallwart with a $65.00 linear PSU > introduced more order and musicality into our system than buying a > $1,500 preamp could ever do. MCR: You are the living embodiment of an enigma - you can write something very useful and by all accounts quite reasonable, as the passage quoted proves, and then you can also write something so outrageous and far out that one can think you completely insane. In any case, until Mr. Hyde resurfaces, well done Dr. Jekyll! -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels -> Snatch -> The Transporter -> Transporter 2 (oops) -> Touch 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
steveinaz;684693 Wrote: > I think everyone would agree (and what I preach w/my 37yrs in this > hobby) is that you need to start with good base components. While I do > believe cables can make a difference(as an example)---it is IMO, > extremely subtle; and there are far more important things to address > first. > > The important thing to stress to new audiophiles, is that tweaks should > be done last; as a fine tuner. No cable, pebble, brass cone, special > spray, or demagnetizer is gong to address system deficiencies/lack of > synergy due to poor integration. You'll do nothing but chase your tail > with that approach-- > > Save the experimentation/tweaking for the 99yd line, then bring it on > home with specific cables, your favorite magic "rock" whatever it is > that turns that final screw for you--just don't ever kid yourself that > you can cure "real" system problems with these "nth" degree approaches. One could argue, equally forcefully, that the exact opposite approach would be more prudent. Waiting for the time when we're 99% there to turn our attention to experimentation/tweaking would invariably mean that we've already spent copious amounts of money. Many of those expenditures could've easily been avoided if only we had prudently applied some experimentation along the way. For example, room treatments. If we're just starting to build a high quality audio system, and had reached a point where we feel that the sound of our system is lacking in bass and is at the same time having too much glare in the upper mids, we could, following your advice, work on upgrading one or more major components. We could for example upgrade our integrated amp to a much pricier pre-amp/power-amp separates, or maybe upgrade our lowly $500 DAC to a more esoteric $8,000 DAC etc. After doing that, we may still feel that the bass is a bit shy and muddy, and that there is still some remaining glassiness and shrill in the highs. There goes another round of very expensive upgrades; maybe we upgrade our Totem speakers to much more expensive Willsons, and so on. You get the general idea. But what if many of these expensive upgrades could've been avoided if only we paid more attention to experimenting a bit with speaker placement, room treatment, or even just purchasing a $100.00 power conditioner? I'd encourage people to start experimenting and tweaking early on in the game, especially with free or cheap tweaks (in the range of $10 to $100). We've all been there at one point or another, and discovered that by replacing the noisy switching wallwart with a $65.00 linear PSU introduced more order and musicality into our system than buying a $1,500 preamp could ever do. -- magiccarpetride magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
rgro;684807 Wrote: > Thank you. I have a couple very minor quibbles with what you wrote, but > they're really not particularly relevant to this forum. On the > wholewell done!! You are too kind. But thanks. -- adamdea adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
adamdea;684750 Wrote: > Obviously a little introspection is required before making bold claims > on any side. But that is exactly what is lacking in the subjectivist > blather which has fogged up several threads on this forum. > > In reality all that has happened in response has been some more or less > terse reminders that most of this is probably imaginery, and none of it > constitutes a compelling reasopn for a rational person to wish to apply > the changes to which the imagined effect are attributed. > > There isn't really an epistemological middle ground. That is to say if > you take these things seriously, ie if you actually care whether they > are true, and if you consdier that they deserve serious discussion, you > cannot avoid analysing the reliability of the evidence presented and the > conclusions which can be drawn from it. > > Aside from the really extreme and egregious examples (most of which > come from one source), the ad hominems and the more or less insulting > ways of putting things are largely irrelevant: The essential points > remian and can't be evaded > 1. there does exist a body of science about audio principles, audio > engineering and what human beings can hear. > 2 it requires cogent evidence to make a rational person accept a > proposition which appears to contradict the body of knowledge at 1 > 3 a sensible person who thought he had experienced something which > appeared to contradict that body of knowledge would think again; he > might still conclude that he really had experienced what the thought he > had, but if he didn't think long and hard about it then he would be > showing extraordinary and possibly pathological self-belief.[it's not a > question of demadning scientific evidence from people- if you point out > that it exists it is up to them to consider it and explain it away] > 4 there is a considerable body of evidence within psychoacoustics > (summarised in the poppy crum/ethan weiner talk)which points to the > conclusions that non abx subjective experience is very unreliable. > 5 even if the subjective experience *were* reliable in general as with > all evidence one has with each piece of evidence to consider what > weight is to be attributed to it including especially the reliability > of the witness and the internal coherence of the evidence. > > Now all the appeals to calmness and not being rude etc are largely > largely beside the point if you consider the real complaint by > twaekers on this forum. The complaint is that they think it is rude or > arrogant not to think that what they expereince is true real and cogent > (if not irrefutable) evidence that fiddling with psus/cables/shakti > stones makes your hifi sound > a) different > b) better. > > They think this is rude and arrogant irrespective of how politely or > otherwise it is put. The cries of foul are disngenuous and amount to a > sort of desperate procedural wrangling in a losing case. I have wasted > time politely dealing with certain people's arguments, and in cetain > cases I can;t really be bothered because it ends up the same no matter > what. > > If a point is well made whether with or without the odd calumny thrown > in, it can usually be identified and can still be distinguished from a > "point" which simply consists of insults, suggestiones falsi and > sophistry. > > If people don;t want to have their reports evaluated and considered > then why do they make them? Why do they advise people as to what to do? > Why do they *state* that blah blah blah makes the squeezebox touch into > a much better trasnport? Who are they talking to and why are they doing > it? Plainly they want people to listen and take note. > > In which case what could be wrong with replying "thank you for the > information but, having considered it, it appears to provide no > reasonable ground for altering the view that [blah blah blah] is > unlikely to make any differnece, and no reason to spend any money or > time on a [blah blah blah.]" And that will be just as unwelcome as > saying "Having consdiered your latest posting you still seem to be a > fuckwit". > > Now one could stop at point 4 above but it would be disingenuous to > ignore point 5 if the argument is really being taken seriously. In fact > the tiresome subjectivist/objectivist argument on this forum rarely gets > to the interesting point about the way in which value judgments are > assessed. People who are interested in the arts certainly do hold > ex[press and trade subjective opinions; the fact that these opinions > are subjective does not mean that they can;t be evaluated. There are > more and less rational, cogent and deep reasons for admiring one > painting or preferring it to another. > > And it is therefore quite reasonable to point out that, even if > subjective reports which don't make any technical sense are *in > principle* to be taken seriously, some reporters have excluded > themselves from being taken seriously by writing bizarre,
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
A simple question: What you buy a $5,000 power amp designed by someone with no formal training in electrical and audio engineering and who believed that placing a small stone on top an amplifier drastically improved the sound? I didn't think so. -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels -> Snatch -> The Transporter -> Transporter 2 (oops) -> Touch 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
adamdea;684750 Wrote: > Obviously a little introspection is required before making bold claims > on any side. But that is exactly what is lacking in the subjectivist > blather which has fogged up several threads on this forum. > > In reality all that has happened in response has been some more or less > terse reminders that most of this is probably imaginery, and none of it > constitutes a compelling reasopn for a rational person to wish to apply > the changes to which the imagined effect are attributed. > > There isn't really an epistemological middle ground. That is to say if > you take these things seriously, ie if you actually care whether they > are true, and if you consdier that they deserve serious discussion, you > cannot avoid analysing the reliability of the evidence presented and the > conclusions which can be drawn from it. > > Aside from the really extreme and egregious examples (most of which > come from one source), the ad hominems and the more or less insulting > ways of putting things are largely irrelevant: The essential points > remian and can't be evaded > 1. there does exist a body of science about audio principles, audio > engineering and what human beings can hear. > 2 it requires cogent evidence to make a rational person accept a > proposition which appears to contradict the body of knowledge at 1 > 3 a sensible person who thought he had experienced something which > appeared to contradict that body of knowledge would think again; he > might still conclude that he really had experienced what the thought he > had, but if he didn't think long and hard about it then he would be > showing extraordinary and possibly pathological self-belief.[it's not a > question of demadning scientific evidence from people- if you point out > that it exists it is up to them to consider it and explain it away] > 4 there is a considerable body of evidence within psychoacoustics > (summarised in the poppy crum/ethan weiner talk)which points to the > conclusions that non abx subjective experience is very unreliable. > 5 even if the subjective experience *were* reliable in general as with > all evidence one has with each piece of evidence to consider what > weight is to be attributed to it including especially the reliability > of the witness and the internal coherence of the evidence. > > Now all the appeals to calmness and not being rude etc are largely > largely beside the point if you consider the real complaint by > twaekers on this forum. The complaint is that they think it is rude or > arrogant not to think that what they expereince is true real and cogent > (if not irrefutable) evidence that fiddling with psus/cables/shakti > stones makes your hifi sound > a) different > b) better. > > They think this is rude and arrogant irrespective of how politely or > otherwise it is put. The cries of foul are disngenuous and amount to a > sort of desperate procedural wrangling in a losing case. I have wasted > time politely dealing with certain people's arguments, and in cetain > cases I can;t really be bothered because it ends up the same no matter > what. > > If a point is well made whether with or without the odd calumny thrown > in, it can usually be identified and can still be distinguished from a > "point" which simply consists of insults, suggestiones falsi and > sophistry. > > If people don;t want to have their reports evaluated and considered > then why do they make them? Why do they advise people as to what to do? > Why do they *state* that blah blah blah makes the squeezebox touch into > a much better trasnport? Who are they talking to and why are they doing > it? Plainly they want people to listen and take note. > > In which case what could be wrong with replying "thank you for the > information but, having considered it, it appears to provide no > reasonable ground for altering the view that [blah blah blah] is > unlikely to make any differnece, and no reason to spend any money or > time on a [blah blah blah.]" And that will be just as unwelcome as > saying "Having consdiered your latest posting you still seem to be a > fuckwit". > > Now one could stop at point 4 above but it would be disingenuous to > ignore point 5 if the argument is really being taken seriously. In fact > the tiresome subjectivist/objectivist argument on this forum rarely gets > to the interesting point about the way in which value judgments are > assessed. People who are interested in the arts certainly do hold > ex[press and trade subjective opinions; the fact that these opinions > are subjective does not mean that they can;t be evaluated. There are > more and less rational, cogent and deep reasons for admiring one > painting or preferring it to another. > > And it is therefore quite reasonable to point out that, even if > subjective reports which don't make any technical sense are *in > principle* to be taken seriously, some reporters have excluded > themselves from being taken seriously by writing bizarre,
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
rgro;684667 Wrote: > > My point was that before subs came into existence, if you'd kludged one > together and, on some yesteryear forum equivalent, said that you'd > invented a "bass enhancement device" that had the effect of changing > the ambience and making cellos sound better, a lot of people might have > dismissed you as a nutjob, irrespective of your pointing out the science > of what it actually did. The vast majority of folks would (and probably > still do not) not equate the addition 20 or 25hz of bass to better > cellos and increased ambience. > > My other point, however, is that the reflexive dimminution and/or > dismissal of the effect simply because the scientific cause cannot be > immediately produced is somewhat arrogant. It is, indeed, possible > that the subjective effect has, in fact, preceded the identification of > the objective cause. Much very excellent science has been done in that > fashion. As has been pointed out, myth--audio or otherwise---has had a > historical habit of sometimes becoming science and vice-versa. > > At least as arrogant and the somewhat more evil mirror image of the > above is that which uses the lack of objective proof to promulgate > falsehoods and outright dangerous dis/misinformation. I readily admit > that it is more than possible that any particular effect is complete > nonsense, only in someone's imagination or, worse yet, an utter and > blatant (and contemptible) attempt to profit off someone's ignorance. > > Demanding the immediate production of a scientific basis for someone's > subjective hearing of a change is, IMO, mostly admirable, but I suspect > that 98% of us don't have the education, time, or wherewithall to find > that specific research much less do that sort of science and analysis > oneself if it hasn't yet been done. > > And so we're left the problem that there is much that we know, much > that we don't know, and much in between. IMO, because of that, hubris > and ad hominem attacks really should have no place here as we're so > often left to (if we are really honest and humble with ourselves) our > own incomplete knowledge to try to figure out what is what. Obviously a little introspection is required before making bold claims on any side. But that is exactly what is lacking in the subjectivist blather which has fogged up several threads on this forum. In reality all that has happened in response has been some more or less terse reminders that most of this is probably imaginery, and none of it constitutes a compelling reasopn for a rational person to wish to apply the changes to which the imagined effect are attributed. There isn't really an epistemological middle ground. That is to say if you take these things seriously, ie if you actually care whether they are true, and if you consdier that they deserve serious discussion, you cannot avoid analysing the reliability of the evidence presented and the conclusions which can be drawn from it. Aside from the really extreme and egregious examples (most of which come from one source), the ad hominems and the more or less insulting ways of putting things are largely irrelevant: The essential points remian and can't be evaded 1. there does exist a body of science about audio principles, audio engineering and what human beings can hear. 2 it requires cogent evidence to make a rational person accept a proposition which appears to contradict the body of knowledge at 1 3 a sensible person who thought he had experienced something which appeared to contradict that body of knowledge would think again; he might still conclude that he really had experienced what the thought he had, but if he didn't think long and hard about it then he would be showing extraordinary and possibly pathological self-belief. 4 there is a considerable bosy of evidence within psychoacoustics (summarised in the poppy crum/ethan weiner talk)which points to the conclusions that non abx subjective experience is very unreliable. 5 even if the subjective experience *were* reliable in general as with all evidence one has with each piece of evidence to consider what weight is to be attributed to it including especially the reliability of the witness and the internal coherence of the evidence. Now all the appeals to calmness and not being rude etc are largely largely beside the point if you consider the real complaint by subjectivist on this forum. The complaint is that they think it is rude or arrogant not to think that what they expereince is true real and cogent (if not irrefutable) evidence that fiddling with psus/cables/shakti stones makes you hifi sound a) different b) better. They think this is rude and arrogant irrespective of how politely or otherwise it is put. The cries of foul are disngenuous and amount to a sort of deparate procedural wrangling in a losing case. I have wasted time politely dealing with certain people's arguments, and in cetain cases I can;t really be bothered because it ends up the
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
Mnyb;684718 Wrote: > Interesting side track, it deserves it own tread You're right. I'll start another thread and ask people not to make any further comment on the soundstage topic in this thread. -- chill chill's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10839 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
Ron Olsen;684705 Wrote: > Good audio science = validated by blind listening test, with precise > volume matching between the test alternatives. > > Good audio science = validated by relevant electrical or acoustic > measurements. thats a good partial answer thanks. Rgro rasies some more q it is not just about audio science some audiophile tweaks fly in the face of all science. Imo there is only one " science " however ill defined I know. In all science it goes something like " the more fantastic and counter to known science your claim is the harder you have to work to prove it " Example no one would balk and demand proof of you or tell you that you are spreading fud and BS, if have a tread where described that another toe in angle made you speakers sound better, or if go from 25watt to 250 watt amp of your dynaudios. You can ofcourse be the victim of just as much perceptual bias here to, but behind thes changes are well accepted principles on how stuff works ( aka science ). So being a friendly discussion forum we believe you at face value. But on the other hand you claim that specially treated spiral tube around you power cables makes a difference ( an old peter w belt tweak ) I would call BS on you for sure . There is no science behind this and it's is extremly unlikely that you heard it rigth. And some tweaks do fly in the face of all science, that why people are sometimes very quick about calling bs on some stuff. Example TAS latest drivel re computer audio. if TAS is rigth the whole body of known science in computers and physics has to be rewritten and absolutely knothing we knows works as we thougth it did. and why do we have particle accelerators and science labs proffesors, shools like MIT , when all you need is a set amp shakti stones and some quantumpurifiers to overthrown known science ? This goes back to you have to work hard if your claim is fantastic. Another valid piont I would like some help with is how do we piont out kindly that " this cant be rigth " just as thier is powerfull ways to convince people of audio BS ( TAS and Hifi+ and Stereophile does this weekly ) there must be ways to better argue the other piont . What I think is the biggest problem as that such arguments works against perceptual bias and the BS works with them, so the sane argument sometimes counter to what some one " hears " . -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad 64gB wifi +3g with iPengHD & SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
chill;684657 Wrote: > I considered starting a new thread for this, because I promise you, I'm > not raising it in a thread entitled 'Audio Myths' because I think it > falls into that category. But since the subject of the soundstage was > raised here I thought it could make an interesting aside to the main > topic, and I think it DOES pertain to the question of objectivity > versus subjectivity. > > I've often wondered how our brains construct a soundstage from two > channel reproduction, so I thought I'd get input from those here with > more experience than me. > > In every day situations we are able to place sounds using various cues, > such as relative volume (both left/right and near/far), and probably > slight differences in arrival times. If a sound comes from a point on > my left, for instance, then the sound in my left ear will be lounder > than that in my right ear, and it may be that the arrival time in my > left ear will be sufficiently ahead of the arrival time in my right ear > to aid me in placing the source. Similarly, sounds, such as voices, > that are close to me will be louder than those further away, so I can > use my experience of how loud a voice should sound to estimate a > distance. Nevertheless, there have definitely been occasions when a > sound that is directly behind me, for instance, has sounded as though > it's directly ahead of me, or more accurately, it's source has been ill > defined, and > I've put that down to the fact that the locus of all points where the > source would have equal volume and time delay in both ears would be a > vertical circle with me at the centre. I have to turn my head to > resolve this ambiguity. This is probably what a bird digging for worms > is doing when you see it cocking its head to one side. > > Similarly, our ability to place the height of the sound source seems to > me to be difficult to explain - I assume it is something to do with the > shape of our ears. > > So when the sound source is PHYSICALLY in various places our anatomy > and our experience allow us to determine the location of the source. > > However, when it comes to sound reproduction from two speakers, I can > easily see that relative volume and phasing can help me to locate a > source laterally (left/right), but I'm not so sure about how our brains > allow us to construct height and depth. I suppose relative volumes in > the mix can give cues about near/far, and maybe minute phasing > differences among voices and instruments can create the impression that > some sources are nearer than others. But the real physical differences > in the live sound are, for the most part, lost if you put a microphone > in front of each voice/instrument. The relative volumes and phasing > differences are lost, except maybe if each instrument bleeds into the > neighbouring microphones, but in the case of multiple tracks recorded > at different times then even this is lost. Unless a performance > is captured live by a couple of microphones representing our speaker > locations then it seems to me that the sound stage, such as it exists > in the recording, is something that the mixing engineer has created > after the event. > > And for the life of me, I can't see where the height of the soundstage > comes from. Since the sound all comes from two point sources, rather > than being physically at different heights, the anatomical shape of our > ears can't come into play - that just allows me to work out where my > speakers are. What if I was to lean my speakers backwards to lie on > the floor - would the sound stage rotate backwards as well? I don't > think so. > > So I don't deny that the sound stage in two channel music reproduction > cannot be experienced - far from > it, it is what contributes to our enjoyment of well reproduced music - > but I suppose my question, after all that rambling, is how much of the > soundstage actually exists in the recording, and how much is down to > our powerful imaginations. Interesting side track, it deserves it own tread, you can add a couple of ohter interesting cues evelution have made us vary of such sounds a the cracking of a twigg so such dynamic cue makes us react. We also seems to posses some biological tds equipment ( time domain analysis ) we can pinpiont people even indoors in very undamped souroundings to some limits, we can intictlyntellmthe diff between direct and reflected sound, and we can learn we get used to our listening rooms and sound engineers gets used to thier mixing studio ( albiet they have an advantage of better acoustics ). I think audio scientist studying psychoacoustics are very interesting in those 2 tier questions today, after all their must be some knowledge somewhere we have very well function souround modes for example. The one dimensional thd+noise measurment and freq/phase plots and jitter spectrums can tell us that the signal deviate from the original ( or not ) to some degree, the interesting question th
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
garym;684706 Wrote: > You raise a very good question, and a difficult one to answer (a good > answer to this question could end all this discussion!). Some things > are hard to validate. But many things discussed on this forum are EASY > to test with a simple blind comparison. e.g., Tell me how many times > you could identify which CABLE was being used in the system out of N > trials. 90% of the time? 50/50 (guessing). Or simply report that I > like Cable X better in my system. If you report that Cable X gave much > better quality audio than Cable Y, then you should be willing to report > a simple blind test result. > > edit: and before anyone jumps in on this, blind tests don't have to > take place in the format of listening to snippits of music over very > short period. A test could be over days, weeks, months, etc. Of course, there are the obvious questions as to the honesty of the individual, who's monitoring the results, etc, but I can see that this would be a place to start should one want to, at least for some period of time, give oneself an initial bit of "street cred". -- rgro Rg System information Main: PS Audio Quintet > Vortexbox > Touch (wired) via optical > Rega DAC > LFD LE IV Signature amp > VA Mozart Grands > REL Acoustics R305 sub. Home Theatre: Duet/SBR (Wired) > Pioneer VSX 919 > Energy Take 5 Classic 5.1. SBS 7.7.1 r33751 on a Vortexbox Appliance, V 2.0. Touch w/Hardware V.5. Touch: FW 7.7.1 r9558. Duet: FW 7.7.1 r9557. rgro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
rgro;684692 Wrote: > "True. Do what floats your boat. But don't foist off voodoo science on > unsuspecting newbies looking to use a SB Touch in their music system as > "required mods to get the best out of your Touch." > > First of all, I agree with both of these. But, and I ask this in all > seriousness: > > Can one or both of you tell me what exactly is considered "voodoo > science"? Is "I tried in my Touch and my music sounds better now" > defined as voodoo science? > > Since I see a lot of this sort of thing and, due to my vast lack of > knowledge in this field, I'm often totally confused by the responses. > It seems that some folks consider this type of statetment as just one > individual's opinion (the "try it, YMMV idea) and others see it and > react as if it were heresy/voodoo science (the "without DBT and/or > published, peer-reveiwed research, etc. to back it up then it should > not be stated at all" idea). > > Is it more in HOW it's stated (as in "this'll change your life/you MUST > do this!!"), or is it just the notion that anything at all that is > stated without objective substantiation is, by definition, categorized > as voodoo? > > I get that there are some things that just fly completely in the face > of current physics and acoustical science. But it'd sure be nice for > us numpties to have some objective measure of what's generally > considered merely opinion (and left at that), what's generally > considered total b.s., and what is considered "good" science! Thanks. You raise a very good question, and a difficult one to answer (a good answer to this question could end all this discussion!). Some things are hard to validate. But many things discussed on this forum are EASY to test with a simple blind comparison. e.g., Tell me how many times you could identify which CABLE was being in the system out of N trials. 90% of the time? 50/50 (guessing). Or simply report that I like Cable X better in my system. If you report that Cable X gave much better quality audio than Cable Y, then you should be willing to report a simple blind test result. -- garym *Location 1:* VB Appliance 6TB (1.10) > LMS 7.7.1 > Transporter, Touch, Boom, Radio w/Battery (all ethernet except Radio) *Location 2:* VB Appliance 3TB (2.0) > LMS 7.7.1 > Touch > Benchmark DAC I, Boom, Radio w/Battery (all ethernet except Radio) *Office:* Win7(64) > LMS 7.7.1 > SqueezePlay Retired: SB3, Duet Receiver Controllers: iPhone (iPeng), iPad (iPengHD & SqueezePad), CONTROLLER, or SqueezePlay 7.7 on Win7(64) laptop Ripping (FLAC) - dbpoweramp, Additional Tagging - mp3tag garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
rgro;684692 Wrote: > "True. Do what floats your boat. But don't foist off voodoo science on > unsuspecting newbies looking to use a SB Touch in their music system as > "required mods to get the best out of your Touch." > > First of all, I agree with both of these. But, and I ask this in all > seriousness: > > Can one or both of you tell me what exactly is considered "voodoo > science"? Is "I tried in my Touch and my music sounds better now" > defined as voodoo science? > > Since I see a lot of this sort of thing and, due to my vast lack of > knowledge in this field, I'm often totally confused by the responses. > It seems that some folks consider this type of statetment as just one > individual's opinion (the "try it, YMMV idea) and others see it and > react as if it were heresy/voodoo science (the "without DBT and/or > published, peer-reveiwed research, etc. to back it up then it should > not be stated at all" idea). > > Is it more in HOW it's stated (as in "this'll change your life/you MUST > do this!!"), or is it just the notion that anything at all that is > stated without objective substantiation is, by definition, categorized > as voodoo? > > I get that there are some things that just fly completely in the face > of current physics and acoustical science. But it'd sure be nice for > us numpties to have some objective measure of what's generally > considered merely opinion (and left at that), what's generally > considered total b.s., and what is considered "good" science! Thanks. Good audio science = validated by blind listening test. -- Ron Olsen Ron Olsen's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9233 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
Hi-fi is about TRUTH. If you sincerely want truth in your system, you have to understand both the science of electronics/sound, and the psyhcoacoustical (sp?) properties. Now, you can kid yourself all day long--but that's no way to get at the truth. So ask yourself, what is it you want to accomplish? And it's OK if you don't want total neutrality--it's YOUR system. There's nothing wrong with adding some flavor (tubes anyone?). It's like calibrating an HDTV. Either your goal is to meet cal standards, or it's -not-. Just don't kid yourself (or others) if you choose to deviate from the standard, because personal preference is factoring in. Let's face it, current/past mastering techniques work against us, no doubt; and I think this plays a big role in system dissatisfaction. This is turn leads to "tail-chasing"...so be careful, and don't forget that a truly good system is not going to fix poorly mastered music. -- steveinaz - transport: squeezebox touch / ci audio ps - dac: benchmark dac/pre - linestage: placette passive - power amplifier: parasound hca-1500a - speakers: fritz speakers carbon 7 monitor - cables: kimber hero/8tc v.2, belden 1694a steveinaz's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34707 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
steveinaz;684693 Wrote: > I think everyone would agree (and what I preach w/my 37yrs in this > hobby) is that you need to start with good base components. While I do > believe cables can make a difference(as an example)---it is IMO, > extrememly subtle; and there are far more important things to address > first. > > The important thing to stress to new audiophiles, is that tweaks should > be done last; as a fine tuner. No cable, pebble, brass cone, special > spray, or demagnetizer is gong to address system deficiencies/lack of > synergy due to poor integration. You'll do nothing but chase your tail > with that approach-- > > Save the experimentation/tweaking for the 99yd line, then bring it on > home with specific cables, your favorite magic "rock" whatever it is > that turns that final screw for you--just don't ever kid yourself that > you can cure "real" system problems with these "nth" degree approaches. Wow what a great breathe of fresh air and much needed sanity. Thank you very much for your words of wisdom - typed with tongue NOT in cheek, just to clear. -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels -> Snatch -> The Transporter -> Transporter 2 (oops) -> Touch 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
ralphpnj;684688 Wrote: > +1 (which is why I don't read the soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0 thread > - I happen to think that the Touch sounds wonderful right out of the > box.) Agree--I have an upgraded power supply (CIA), and I run into a Benchmark DAC--I'm very pleased with the performance. I have no justification to phutz with my Touch any further. -- steveinaz - transport: squeezebox touch / ci audio ps - dac: benchmark dac/pre - linestage: placette passive - power amplifier: parasound hca-1500a - speakers: fritz speakers carbon 7 monitor - cables: kimber hero/8tc v.2, belden 1694a steveinaz's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34707 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
I think everyone would agree (and what I preach w/my 37yrs in this hobby) is that you need to start with good base components. While I do believe cables can make a difference(as an example)---it is IMO, extrememly subtle; and there are far more important things to address first. The important thing to stress to new audiophiles, is that tweaks should be done last; as a fine tuner. No cable, pebble, brass cone, special spray, or demagnetizer is gong to address system deficiencies/lack of synergy due to poor integration. You'll do nothing but chase your tail with that approach-- Save the experimentation/tweaking for the 99yd line, then bring it on home with specific cables, your favorite magic "rock" whatever it is that turns that final screw for you--just don't ever kid yourself that you can cure "real" system problems with these "nth" degree approaches. -- steveinaz - transport: squeezebox touch / ci audio ps - dac: benchmark dac/pre - linestage: placette passive - power amplifier: parasound hca-1500a - speakers: fritz speakers carbon 7 monitor - cables: kimber hero/8tc v.2, belden 1694a steveinaz's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34707 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
garym;684673 Wrote: > Yes! Recent example, someone wants to customize info shown on screen of > Touch (similar to how they were able to do it on their old SB3). One of > the first few posters said basically first do all the TT3.0 mods! The > guy wants to change the info displayed, and he's being told to do mods > that turn OFF the display entirely! "True. Do what floats your boat. But don't foist off voodoo science on unsuspecting newbies looking to use a SB Touch in their music system as "required mods to get the best out of your Touch." First of all, I agree with both of these. But, and I ask this in all seriousness: Can one or both of you tell me what exactly is considered "voodoo science"? Is "I tried in my Touch and my music sounds better now" defined as voodoo science? Since I see a lot of this sort of thing and, due to my vast lack of knowledge in this field, I'm often totally confused by the responses. It seems that some folks consider this type of statetment as just one individual's opinion (the "try it, YMMV idea) and others see it and react as if it were heresy/voodoo science (the "without DBT and/or published, peer-reveiwed research, etc. to back it up then it should not be stated at all" idea). Is it more in HOW it's stated (as in "this'll change your life/you MUST do this!!"), or is it just the notion that anything at all that is stated without objective substantiation is, by definition, categorized as voodoo? I get that there are some things that just fly completely in the face of current physics and acoustical science. But it'd sure be nice for us numpties to have some objective measure of what's generally considered merely opinion (and left at that) and what's generally considered total b.s.! -- rgro Rg System information Main: PS Audio Quintet > Vortexbox > Touch (wired) via optical > Rega DAC > LFD LE IV Signature amp > VA Mozart Grands > REL Acoustics R305 sub. Home Theatre: Duet/SBR (Wired) > Pioneer VSX 919 > Energy Take 5 Classic 5.1. SBS 7.7.1 r33751 on a Vortexbox Appliance, V 2.0. Touch w/Hardware V.5. Touch: FW 7.7.1 r9558. Duet: FW 7.7.1 r9557. rgro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
rgro;684668 Wrote: > Heheheheh, I like this point of view! +1 (which is why I don't read the soundcheck's Touch Toolbox 3.0 thread - I happen to think that the Touch sounds wonderful right out of the box.) -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels -> Snatch -> The Transporter -> Transporter 2 (oops) -> Touch 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
garym;684673 Wrote: > Yes! Recent example, someone wants to customize info shown on screen of > Touch (similar to how they were able to do it on their old SB3). One of > the first few posters said basically first do all the TT3.0 mods! The > guy wants to change the info displayed, and he's being told to do mods > that turn OFF the display entirely! True but if the screen is turned off then there would be no need to customize it and the problem would be solved. So in a strange way they did actually address the screen customization issue. -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels -> Snatch -> The Transporter -> Transporter 2 (oops) -> Touch 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
Ron Olsen;684670 Wrote: > True. Do what floats your boat. But don't foist off voodoo science on > unsuspecting newbies looking to use a SB Touch in their music system as > "required mods to get the best out of your Touch." Why is it that in here we find so many bleeding hearts and an endless parade of do-gooders whose only worry in life is to protect some unsuspecting 'newbies' from being fed unreliable info? As with anything else in life, grownups should know to take everything with a pinch of salt. Buyer beware is a constant, universally applicable mantra. You always get what you pay for, and on this forum, all you get is a whole bunch of free advice. So, do the math yourself. And please, can we now stop, once and for all, with the el cheapo sentiments and the lame attempts at protecting the 'endangered' newbies? -- magiccarpetride magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
Ron Olsen;684670 Wrote: > True. Do what floats your boat. But don't foist off voodoo science on > unsuspecting newbies looking to use a SB Touch in their music system as > "required mods to get the best out of your Touch." Yes! Recent example, someone wants to customize info shown on screen of Touch (similar to how they were able to do it on their old SB3). One of the first few posters said basically first do all the TT3.0 mods! The guy wants to change the info displayed, and he's being told to do mods that turn OFF the display entirely! -- garym *Location 1:* VB Appliance 6TB (1.10) > LMS 7.7.1 > Transporter, Touch, Boom, Radio w/Battery (all ethernet except Radio) *Location 2:* VB Appliance 3TB (2.0) > LMS 7.7.1 > Touch > Benchmark DAC I, Boom, Radio w/Battery (all ethernet except Radio) *Office:* Win7(64) > LMS 7.7.1 > SqueezePlay Retired: SB3, Duet Receiver Controllers: iPhone (iPeng), iPad (iPengHD & SqueezePad), CONTROLLER, or SqueezePlay 7.7 on Win7(64) laptop Ripping (FLAC) - dbpoweramp, Additional Tagging - mp3tag garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
steveinaz;684656 Wrote: > The bigger question is: Why are people so pre-occupied with the > decisions of other people? Is hi-fi not a hobby? What fun is it to have > a hobby---and then "sit in the box" never trying anything new? Where's > the passion in that? > > Experiment gents. Let the lab rats be lab rats, let the nut jobs be nut > jobs. If hi-fi was all about: "buy this, this, and this; you're done." > Where the hell is the fun in -that-? > > Lighten up, and enjoy the music baby. If that exotic cable blows up > your skirt---I say go for it. If tweaking that Touch to perfection > gives you a woodie, woodie it up man. Hobbies are suppose to be fun, > no? True. Do what floats your boat. But don't foist off voodoo science on unsuspecting newbies looking to use a SB Touch in their music system as "required mods to get the best out of your Touch." -- Ron Olsen Ron Olsen's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9233 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
steveinaz;684656 Wrote: > The bigger question is: Why are people so pre-occupied with the > decisions of other people? Is hi-fi not a hobby? What fun is it to have > a hobby---and then "sit in the box" never trying anything new? Where's > the passion in that? > > Experiment gents. Let the lab rats be lab rats, let the nut jobs be nut > jobs. If hi-fi was all about: "buy this, this, and this; you're done." > Where the hell is the fun in -that-? > > Lighten up, and enjoy the music baby. If that exotic cable blows up > your skirt---I say go for it. If tweaking that Touch to perfection > gives you a woodie, woodie it up man. Hobbies are suppose to be fun, > no? Heheheheh, I like this point of view! -- rgro Rg System information Main: PS Audio Quintet > Vortexbox > Touch (wired) via optical > Rega DAC > LFD LE IV Signature amp > VA Mozart Grands > REL Acoustics R305 sub. Home Theatre: Duet/SBR (Wired) > Pioneer VSX 919 > Energy Take 5 Classic 5.1. SBS 7.7.1 r33751 on a Vortexbox Appliance, V 2.0. Touch w/Hardware V.5. Touch: FW 7.7.1 r9558. Duet: FW 7.7.1 r9557. rgro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
adamdea;684613 Wrote: > I wrote a fairly long response to this but for some reason the browser > crashed as i pressed "submit". > > I'm sure that your "let's all be nice" point was well intentioned, but > the example you used was very badly chosen. > > In the post which you quoted I was making the specifc point that it > makes more sense to concentrate on areas which can objectively be shown > to make an imporvment in fidelity as opposed to getting a "better" > ethernet cable. It is common knowledge and has been for decades that > the human hearign range goes down to 20Hz. > > I have no ideas why you think that in 1981 or so people did not know > that, or did not realise that (for example) an large organ can make a > note just over 20Hz. I have no idea why anyone would have thought that > extending the bandwidth to 20Hz was a waste of time. This rather > removes the force of your point: what i was suggestign was a change > which any audio engineer in recent history would have seen would have > at least potentially produced an audiable benefit > > I can't help thinking that you have confused sub-wooffers which extend > frequency range to that of human hearign with super tweeters which > extend it beyond human hearing. Had i extolled the virtues of the > latter I would have expected eye brows to be rasied. Had I done so, you > would have had a point. > > Now it is true that I gave examples of what i think the subjective > effects were of this objectively verifiable change; but so what? Of > course the point this that we listen to hifi in order to hear things. > There would be no point making the change if it had no subjective > effect. > > But that is not that same as saying that you have to make a change just > becasue I say there's a subjective effect; it is not the same as > thinking that we must take seriously whatever subjective effects > someone reports, irrespective of whether they are unsupported by > objective data or even contradict any technical understanding of the > system. > > It seems to me that whether you point was addressed to me as an > individual or not, the example you chose did not really support it. > Perhaps if it did leap out at you, it still missed. I hate it when that happens---you write something brilliant that, in an instant, evaporates! Yes, we can measure that a sub can extend the audible bass response down to 20 hz and we can measure, that in a perfect world, human hearing can hear down to that frequency. That's probably been around for many decades, indeed, and your point is taken. And I certainly and wholeheartedly agree that just because someone says I HAVE to make a change for some reason doesn't mean anything whatsoever--either way---regarding the validity or effect of that change. My point was that before subs came into existence, if you'd kludged one together and, on some yesteryear forum equivalent, said that you'd invented a "bass enhancement device" that had the effect of changing the ambience and making cellos sound better, a lot of people might have dismissed you as a nutjob, irrespective of your pointing out the science of what it actually did. The vast majority of folks would (and probably still do not) not equate the addition 20 or 25hz of bass to better cellos and increased ambience. My other point, however, is that the reflexive dimminution and/or dismissal of the effect simply because the scientific cause cannot be immediately produced is somewhat arrogant. It is, indeed, possible that the subjective effect has, in fact, preceded the identification of the objective cause. Much very excellent science has been done in that fashion. As has been pointed out, myth--audio or otherwise---has had a historical habit of sometimes becoming science and vice-versa. Att least as arrogant and the somewhat more evil mirror image of the above is that which uses the lack of objective proof to promulgate falsehoods and outright dangerous dis/misinformation. I readily admit that it is more than possible that any particular effect is complete nonsense, only in someone's imagination or, worse yet, an utter and blatant (and contemptible) attempt to profit off someone's ignorance. Demanding the immediate production of a scientific basis for someone's subjective hearing of a change is, IMO, mostly admirable, but I suspect that 98% of us don't have the education, time, or wherewithall to find that specific research much less do that sort of science and analysis oneself if it hasn't yet been done. And so we're left the problem that there is much that we know, much that we don't know, and much in between. IMO, because of that, hubris and ad hominem attacks really should have no place here as we're so often left to (if we are really honest and humble with ourselves) our own incomplete knowledge to try to figure out what is what. -- rgro Rg System information Main: PS Audio Quintet > Vortexbox > Touch (wired) via optical > Re
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
chill;684657 Wrote: > I considered starting a new thread for this, because I promise you, I'm > not raising it in a thread entitled 'Audio Myths' because I think it > falls into that category. But since the subject of the soundstage was > raised here I thought it could make an interesting aside to the main > topic, and I think it DOES pertain to the question of objectivity > versus subjectivity. > > I've often wondered how our brains construct a soundstage from two > channel reproduction, so I thought I'd get input from those here with > more experience than me. > > In every day situations we are able to place sounds using various cues, > such as relative volume (both left/right and near/far), and probably > slight differences in arrival times. If a sound comes from a point on > my left, for instance, then the sound in my left ear will be lounder > than that in my right ear, and it may be that the arrival time in my > left ear will be sufficiently ahead of the arrival time in my right ear > to aid me in placing the source. Similarly, sounds, such as voices, > that are close to me will be louder than those further away, so I can > use my experience of how loud a voice should sound to estimate a > distance. Nevertheless, there have definitely been occasions when a > sound that is directly behind me, for instance, has sounded as though > it's directly ahead of me, or more accurately, it's source has been ill > defined, and I've put that down to the fact that the locus of all points > where the source would have equal volume and time delay in both ears > would be a vertical circle with me at the centre. I have to turn my > head to resolve this ambiguity. This is probably what a bird digging > for worms is doing when you see it cocking its head to one side. > > Similarly, our ability to place the height of the sound source seems to > me to be difficult to explain - I assume it is something to do with the > shape of our ears. > > So when the sound source is PHYSICALLY in various places our anatomy > and our experience allow us to determine the location of the source. > > However, when it comes to sound reproduction from two speakers, I can > easily see that relative volume and phasing can help me to locate a > source laterally (left/right), but I'm not so sure about how our brains > allow us to construct height and depth. I suppose relative volumes in > the mix can give cues about near/far, and maybe minute phasing > differences among voices and instruments can create the impression that > some sources are nearer than others. But the real physical differences > in the live sound are, for the most part, lost if you put a microphone > in front of each voice/instrument. The relative volumes and phasing > differences are lost, except maybe if each instrument bleeds into the > neighbouring microphones, but in the case of multiple tracks recorded > at different times then even this is lost. Unless a performance is > captured live by a couple of microphones representing our speaker > locations then it seems to me that the sound stage, such as it exists > in the recording, is something that the mixing engineer has created > after the event. > > And for the life of me, I can't see where the height of the soundstage > comes from. Since the sound all comes from two point sources, rather > than being physically at different heights, the anatomical shape of our > ears can't come into play - that just allows me to work out where my > speakers are. What if I was to lean my speakers backwards to lie on > the floor - would the sound stage rotate backwards as well? I don't > think so. > > So I don't deny that the sound stage in two channel music reproduction > cannot be experienced - far from it, it is what contributes to our > enjoyment of well reproduced music - but I suppose my question, after > all that rambling, is how much of the soundstage actually exists in the > recording, and how much is down to our powerful imaginations. Interesting questions. I am of the belief that certain equipment can "create" or at least "enhance" a soundstage, much like you can have equipment with a warm bass or tizzy treble. For example, on my current system, some tracks don't image well. Some image very well. On my previous system, almost EVERYTHING imaged well. I put it down to the above effect - my current system uses all pro-audio type equipment which might have something to do with it. Darren -- darrenyeats http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503. SB Touch darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
magiccarpetride;684612 Wrote: > If I make a change/upgrade and report on this forum how that upgrade > extended the soundstage by at least five feet into the depth, where I > can now pinpoint cellos as they're playing three to five feet behind > the vocalist, how to measure that and provide a reality check? I considered starting a new thread for this, because I promise you, I'm not raising it in a thread entitled 'Audio Myths' because I think it falls into that category. But since the subject of the soundstage was raised here I thought it could make an interesting aside to the main topic, and I think it DOES pertain to the question of objectivity versus subjectivity. I've often wondered how our brains construct a soundstage from two channel reproduction, so I thought I'd get input from those here with more experience than me. In every day situations we are able to place sounds using various cues, such as relative volume (both left/right and near/far), and probably slight differences in arrival times. If a sound comes from a point on my left, for instance, then the sound in my left ear will be lounder than that in my right ear, and it may be that the arrival time in my left ear will be sufficiently ahead of the arrival time in my right ear to aid me in placing the source. Similarly, sounds, such as voices, that are close to me will be louder than those further away, so I can use my experience of how loud a voice should sound to estimate a distance. Nevertheless, there have definitely been occasions when a sound that is directly behind me, for instance, has sounded as though it's directly ahead of me, or more accurately, it's source has been ill defined, and I've put that down to the fact that the locus of all points where the source would have equal volume and time delay in both ears would be a vertical circle with me at the centre. I have to turn my head to resolve this ambiguity. This is probably what a bird digging for worms is doing when you see it cocking its head to one side. Similarly, our ability to place the height of the sound source seems to me to be difficult to explain - I assume it is something to do with the shape of our ears. So when the sound source is PHYSICALLY in various places our anatomy and our experience allow us to determine the location of the source. However, when it comes to sound reproduction from two speakers, I can easily see that relative volume and phasing can help me to locate a source laterally (left/right), but I'm not so sure about how our brains allow us to construct height and depth. I suppose relative volumes in the mix can give cues about near/far, and maybe minute phasing differences among voices and instruments can create the impression that some sources are nearer than others. But the real physical differences in the live sound are, for the most part, lost if you put a microphone in front of each voice/instrument. The relative volumes and phasing differences are lost, except maybe if each instrument bleeds into the neighbouring microphones, but in the case of multiple tracks recorded at different times then even this is lost. Unless a performance is captured live by a couple of microphones representing our speaker locations then it seems to me that the sound stage, such as it exists in the recording, is something that the mixing engineer has created after the event. And for the life of me, I can't see where the height of the soundstage comes from. Since the sound all comes from two point sources, rather than being physically at different heights, the anatomical shape of our ears can't come into play - that just allows me to work out where my speakers are. What if I was to lean my speakers backwards to lie on the floor - would the sound stage rotate backwards as well? I don't think so. So I don't deny that the sound stage in two channel music reproduction cannot be experienced - far from it, it is what contributes to our enjoyment of well reproduced music - but I suppose my question, after all that rambling, is how much of the soundstage actually exists in the recording, and how much is down to our powerful imaginations. -- chill chill's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10839 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
The bigger question is: Why are people so pre-occupied with the decisions of other people? Is hi-fi not a hobby? What fun is it to have a hobby---and then "sit in the box" never trying anything new? Where's the passion in that? Experiment gents. Let the lab rats be lab rats, let the nut jobs be nut jobs. If hi-fi was all about: "buy this, this, and this; you're done." Where the hell is the fun in -that-? Lighten up, and enjoy the music baby. If that exotic cable blows up your skirt---I say go for it. If tweaking that Touch to perfection gives you a woodie, woodie it up man. Hobbies are suppose to be fun, no? -- steveinaz - transport: squeezebox touch / ci audio ps - dac: benchmark dac/pre - linestage: placette passive - power amplifier: parasound hca-1500a - speakers: fritz speakers carbon 7 monitor - cables: kimber hero/8tc v.2, belden 1694a steveinaz's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34707 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
There is a scientifically rigorous tool to establish whether a change makes an audible difference: the double blind ABX test. Any other kind of comparison cannot be taken seriously, because we all know that non-auditory clues cause the brain to change its perception of the sound. The video that began this thread included Poppy Crum's demonstration of this. If any of the subjective tweakers claim that they heard no difference between the audio-only and audio+visual clues playback in Poppy's demo, then they are either deaf, can't read English, or lying. If they agree that they DID hear a difference, then they have to accept that non-blind testing of audio components cannot produce reliable results about the sound produced. So: when someone makes a claim about the effects of a tweak that goes against the established body of audio engineering knowledge, and we also know that the results were not blind-tested, then we must necessarily respond that the cause of the perceived audible difference is overwhelmingly likely to be due to non-auditory influences, which past studies have shown WILL influence what you hear. -- cliveb Transporter -> ATC SCM100A cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
adamdea;684618 Wrote: > You don't measure a subjective effect as such, you measure things which > may correspond to it. So you claim the knowledge that unerringly maps this correspondence? That's pretty haughty, if you ask me. How did you come to such heightened knowledge? And more importantly, please do explain which measurable things correspond directly to deepening the sound stage by two feet? If I change the capacitors in my amp, is there a direct correspondence between these new capacitors and the depth of the sound stage? How so? What other objective factors do you pull in when attempting to draw a correspondence between them and a subjective effect? adamdea;684618 Wrote: > Obviously you (ie the hypothetical rational person; not you, clearly!) > don't measure a "soundstage" in feet, with a tape measure. How do you know that I was measuring the soundstage with a measuring tape? Are you stalking me? adamdea;684618 Wrote: > But there are other things which can be measured in a signal. If there > is no measurable change in a system then little weight can be attached > to subjective reports even of reliable witnesses. Interesting. How do you measure the signal? At which point? Frankly, I think you're making this up. adamdea;684618 Wrote: > I already have all the data i need to assess your subjective reports: > 1 You believe that shakti stones make a positive difference I would be prepared to bet large sums of money that you've never listened to audio with Shakti stones fitted in. Be honest and admit this fact. As such, you're claiming to know something that you have no experience in. Sad. -- magiccarpetride magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
magiccarpetride;684612 Wrote: > It must be nice to occupy a space where everything is simple and plain > and as easy as 1-2-3. You don't seem aware of this, but setting up an > audio system and then working on improving it/tweaking it is a game > that is many orders of magnitude more complex than a game of chess. And > yet you demand simple, straightforward proofs that the claimed > improvements are real. > > If by real you mean measurable, riddle me this: how does one go about > measuring the depth/width/height of a soundstage? If I make a > change/upgrade and report on this forum how that upgrade extended the > soundstage by at least five feet into the depth, where I can now > pinpoint cellos as they're playing three to five feet behind the > vocalist, how to measure that and provide a reality check? You don't measure a subjective effect as such, you measure things which may correspond to it. Obviously you (ie the hypothetical rational person; not you, clearly!) don't measure a "soundstage" in feet, with a tape measure. But there are other things which can be measured in a signal. If there is no measurable change in a system then little weight can be attached to subjective reports even of reliable witnesses. I already have all the data i need to assess your subjective reports: 1 You believe that shakti stones make a positive difference 2 I have read the first paragraph of your post. I could go on. The only remotely interesting thing about your posts is the ever present question of whether you believe them yourself. -- adamdea adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
rgro;684596 Wrote: > Since this is what this thread is all about, I'll interject. In > general, I tend to come down more on the objective than the subjective. > All the time, I think disagreements should be respectful and civil. > > Only because it leapt out at me and not directed at adamdea as an > individual, I excerpt the following quote from you on another thread: > > "Not all recordings have information below 45Hz but some do. Some of it > is muscial and some merely ambient, but there is information. Some > people go as far as to say that it makes a very significant difference > to the impression of reality of a recording through spatial cues; I > myself use a sub with my proac tablettes (nominal frquecny range 38Hz > upwards) and found that they gave a very definite improvement both to > the indivual sound of certin instruments (from cellos down) and to the > sense of space in the recording as a whole." > > Whilst the frequency numbers you mention are most certainly measurable, > the rest is "listener opinion". Today, many of us would be in general > agreement that a sub gives the kind of result that you talked about. > But, even now, I'd guess that some people might question this, and 30 > years ago.I daresay some folks might have ridiculed you, considered > this an "audio myth", and demanded some sort of objective measurement > (which is essentially impossible) to support that opinion. > > Again, I write this not to single out any individual but to point out > that most of us---while we may or may not be entirely conscious of > it---have a line where science and faith cross and that line may well > differ from decade to decade (or even week to week!) and from person to > person. It's nice to remember that and be gentlepersons when having > even the most spirited debate. I wrote a fairly long response to this but for some reason the browser crashed as i pressed "submit". I'm sure that your "let's all be nice" point was well intentioned, but the example you used was very badly chosen. In the post which you quoted I was making the specifc point that it makes more sense to concentrate on areas which can objectively be shown to make an imporvment in fidelity as opposed to getting a "better" ethernet cable. It is common knowledge and has been for decades that the human hearign range goes down to 20Hz. I have no ideas why you think that in 1981 or so people did not know that, or did not realise that (for example) an large organ can make a note just over 20Hz. I have no idea why anyone would have thought that extending the bandwidth to 20Hz was a waste of time. This rather removes the force of your point: what i was suggestign was a change which any audio engineer in recent history would have seen would have at least potentially produced an audiable benefit I can't help thinking that you have confused sub-wooffers which extend frequency range to that of human hearign with super tweeters which extend it beyond human hearing. Had i extolled the virtues of the latter I would have expected eye brows to be rasied. Had I done so, you would have had a point. Now it is true that I gave examples of what i think the subjective effects were of this objectively verifiable change; but so what? Of course the point this that we listen to hifi in order to hear things. There would be no point making the change if it had no subjective effect. But that is not that same as saying that you have to make a change just becasue I say there's a subjective effect; it is not the same as thinking that we must take seriously whatever subjective effects someone reports, irrespective of whether they are unsupported by objective data or even contradict any technical understanding of the system. It seems to me that whether you point was addressed to me as an individual or not, the example you chose did not really support it. Perhaps if it did leap out at you, it still missed. -- adamdea adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
adamdea;684534 Wrote: > Entirely missing the point:- > People communicate for a purpose. On an audiophile website they wish to > exchange information as to how to improve the sound of their system. > When someone reports an improvement, others ask implicitly or > explicitly whether whether the reported improvement is a real one, and > whether they would be able to experience a similar improvement > themselves; or whether the improvement may only apply to particular > systems; or whether the person reporting the improvement is likely to > be mistaken or simply unreliable > If people report in exaggerated terms improvements based on things > which are unlikely to make a difference then others are entitled to > question ( or simply ignore) their findings > > Whats so difficult to grasp about that? As for anger and rudeness- ! It must be nice to occupy a space where everything is simple and plain and as easy as 1-2-3. You don't seem aware of this, but setting up an audio system and then working on improving it/tweaking it is a game that is many orders of magnitude more complex than a game of chess. And yet you demand simple, straightforward proofs that the claimed improvements are real. If by real you mean measurable, riddle me this: how does one go about measuring the depth/width/height of a soundstage? If I make a change/upgrade and report on this forum how that upgrade extended the soundstage by at least five feet into the depth, where I can now pinpoint cellos as they're playing three to five feet behind the vocalist, how to measure that and provide a reality check? -- magiccarpetride magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
adamdea;684534 Wrote: > Entirely missing the point:- > People communicate for a purpose. On an audiophile website they wish to > exchange information as to how to improve the sound of their system. > When someone reports an improvement, others ask implicitly or > explicitly whether whether the reported improvement is a real one, and > whether they would be able to experience a similar improvement > themselves; or whether the improvement may only apply to particular > systems; or whether the person reporting the improvement is likely to > be mistaken or simply unreliable > If people report in exaggerated terms improvements based on things > which are unlikely to make a difference then others are entitled to > question ( or simply ignore) their findings > > Whats so difficult to grasp about that? As for anger and rudeness- ! Since this is what this thread is all about, I'll interject. In general, I tend to come down more on the objective than the subjective. All the time, I think disagreements should be respectful and civil. Only because it leapt out at me and not directed at adamdea as an individual, I excerpt the following quote from you on another thread: "Not all recordings have information below 45Hz but some do. Some of it is muscial and some merely ambient, but there is information. Some people go as far as to say that it makes a very significant difference to the impression of reality of a recording through spatial cues; I myself use a sub with my proac tablettes (nominal frquecny range 38Hz upwards) and found that they gave a very definite improvement both to the indivual sound of certin instruments (from cellos down) and to the sense of space in the recording as a whole." Whilst the frequency numbers you mention are most certainly measurable, the rest is "listener opinion". Today, many of us would be in general agreement that a sub gives the kind of result that you talked about. But, even now, I'd guess that some people might question this, and 30 years ago.I daresay some folks might have ridiculed you and demanded some sort of objective measurement (which is essentially impossible) to support that opinion. Again, I write this not to single out any individual but to point out that most of us---while we may or may not be entirely conscious of it---have a line where science and faith cross and that line may well differ from decade to decade (or even week to week!) and from person to person. It's nice to remember that and be gentlepersons when having even the most spirited debate. -- rgro Rg System information Main: PS Audio Quintet > Vortexbox > Touch (wired) via optical > Rega DAC > LFD LE IV Signature amp > VA Mozart Grands > REL Acoustics R305 sub. Home Theatre: Duet/SBR (Wired) > Pioneer VSX 919 > Energy Take 5 Classic 5.1. SBS 7.7.1 r33751 on a Vortexbox Appliance, V 2.0. Touch w/Hardware V.5. Touch: FW 7.7.1 r9558. Duet: FW 7.7.1 r9557. rgro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
magiccarpetride;684454 Wrote: > I agree. I am an audio aficionado, meaning I enjoy good, pleasant sound. > Toward that end I'm constantly upgrading and tweaking my audio system, > because I truly enjoy the changes these upgrades are bringing me. > > Where things become illogical is when I read how many people spring > into action and organize impromptu witch hunts the moment someone logs > in here to report some improvements to the sound. For example, if I > upgrade my speaker cables, or my mains power conditioner, and report > back how I truly enjoy the changes it made to my system, I invariably > get a lot of angry replies, sometimes even right down hostile, with > some people foaming at their mouths and claiming how I'm a troll or a > moron etc. > > Why such hatred? Where is that coming from? I could understand the > hatred if, by me purchasing some audio accessory, I'd rob some member > here of their hard earned cash. But that's not the case -- I'm paying > everything with my own money. > > Consider wine aficionados, for a contrast -- if I'm into enjoying a > good bottle of wine, and I'm discussing various brands and years etc., > no one is going to start threatening me if I report back how I went and > bought a $500.00 bottle and how it was, to me, moneIy well spent. > > So why are people getting so riled and upset if I do the same on the > audio font (i.e. I spend $500.00 on upgrading my mains conditioner)? Entirely missing the point:- People communicate for a purpose. On an audiophile website they wish to exchange information as to how to improve the sound of their system. When someone reports an improvement, others ask implicitly or explicitly whether whether the reported improvement is a real one, and whether they would be able to experience a similar improvement themselves; or whether the improvement may only apply to particular systems; or whether the person reporting the improvement is likely to be mistaken or simply unreliable If people report in exaggerated terms improvements based on things which are unlikely to make a difference then others are entitled to question ( or simply ignore) their findings Whats so difficult to grasp about that? As for anger and rudeness- ! -- adamdea adamdea's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37603 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
ralph re cables up to a limit around where BJC or similar companies operates I'm with you, but not after that then it's markup and fancy design. Or worse, I have in my closet cables that are actually worse than the free ones thrown in the box, but very cherished among some audiophiles . aplhacore did a somewhat decent speaker cable albiet circa 20 times to expensive for what it is, but their signal cable design is simply wrong. or vdh's carbon fibre cables a hoax imo Many things are just cargo cult design, sometimes they do aply some EE to it but not always, sometimes the design actually is strange enough to sound " different " ;) in reality performs worse. so it is a free for all and not easy to see who's serius. a teltale is if the company offers 500$ usb cables or 1000$ spdif cable or very expensive powercables , then i would deem them completely untrustable, if they lie about their usb cable what about the rest, so scrap those from the list of brands to do bussiness with. so belden canare and some other brands that is used by broadcast companies is on my list nowdays. You can get belden cat5 trough BJC . US or EU made cables are safe bets, belden is a US company. You can get very bad cables if buy the cheapest chinese made ones, then you can get problems. HDMI or USB that simply are not up to spec and don't work as they should . Or they chinese ones could be disguised as hi end cables... so it is possible that someone got things improved with expensive usb cable if he simply owned an flawed cheopo cable before, but a better one may cost 20$ not 500$ to replace the 5$ cable. i do like quality cables , but they don't cost near as much as the typical hi end brand. After a certain piont you simplynget nothing more for your money. -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad 64gB wifi +3g with iPengHD & SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
magiccarpetride;684485 Wrote: > I've never claimed that WAV sounds better than FLAC (that's not the case > as far as my ears are concerned), nor did I claim that ethernet sounds > better than wi-fi. Where did you get that idea from? Mia culpa. I was just trying to think of some examples. I'm sorry that mistook you for someone else. magiccarpetride;684485 Wrote: > I am not disputing that. But most of the ridicule I get is in cases when > I report something like replacing my Nordost power cable with Shunyata > power cable resulted in better sounding system. How's that digital? > People think that I should be arrested for spending $99.00 on a power > cable? How's that their business in the first place? > > It is diatribes like those that made me believe that we're dealing with > a bunch of bitter, sour, sorry individuals who, through a series of > unfortunate events in life, fell behind their peers, are therefore > still forced to live in their parents' basement, and are upset and > angry whenever they read that someone had successfully managed to tweak > their system to sound better. > > Petty, really. As I stated earlier I agree with you on this point. You are entitled to your beliefs and opinions, just as is everyone else. -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels -> Snatch -> The Transporter -> Transporter 2 (oops) -> Touch 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
ralphpnj;684472 Wrote: > I think where you run into some serious issues with many of the members > of this forum is when you begin to talk about upgrades, tweaks and > improvements of the digital side of one's audio set up. You know things > likes "wav sounds better than flac" or "ethernet sounds better than > wi-fi". I've never claimed that WAV sounds better than FLAC (that's not the case as far as my ears are concerned), nor did I claim that ethernet sounds better than wi-fi. Where did you get that idea from? ralphpnj;684472 Wrote: > You do not seem to be alone when it comes to these kinds of beliefs > since most audiophiles have been programmed to believe in certain kinds > of improvements brought about by certain kinds of actions, e.g. more > expensive cable means better sound (to a degree). Unfortunately what > may be true in the analog domain may not be true in the digital domain, > e.g. a $2 usb cable will and does work just as good as a $500 usb > cable. > > Please understand that it is not that many of us are out to get you but > rather that we would like to see discussions of ways to improve the > sound of one's audio system focus on areas where improvements can be > made and not on areas which have no direct bearing on the sound of the > system. I am not disputing that. But most of the ridicule I get is in cases when I report something like replacing my Nordost power cable with Shunyata power cable resulted in better sounding system. How's that digital? People think that I should be arrested for spending $99.00 on a power cable? How's that their business in the first place? It is diatribes like those that made me believe that we're dealing with a bunch of bitter, sour, sorry individuals who, through a series of unfortunate events in life, fell behind their peers, are therefore still forced to live in their parents' basement, and are upset and angry whenever they read that someone had successfully managed to tweak their system to sound better. Petty, really. -- magiccarpetride magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
garym;684471 Wrote: > No one cares how any of us spend our own money or whether we get > enjoyment from tweaking. That has never been the point. I'm not so sure. I can't recall how many times already I've read snickering deriding statements like "you're an incredible moron for wasting that much money on such-and-such". Mean spirited people on this and other audio related forums are tripping over themselves in the attempts to ridicule how some members are spending their money. That type of derranged behavior is petty, gossipy, sad, and extremely disturbing. For example, I've spent $99.00 on Shakti Venom 3 power cable, and am extremely happy to report that this cable makes the sound in my system much smoother and more liquid than the Nordost power cable I was using. I haven't got the foggiest as to why would that cable sound better than another cable, nor am I trying to explain that difference (nor do I care about the explanation -- I just love the final results). But sure enough, there won't be shortages of people who would jump in and ridicule my purchasing decision and call me gullible moron and a fruitcake and so on. Sad, really. garym;684471 Wrote: > It is typically more similar to a situation where a wine lover suggests > that his new $500 bottle of wine tastes better because the (1) the > Earth is flat and (2) the grapes are grown at the outermost edge of the > flat earth. Another poster says, "wait a minute, the Earth is not flat, > and that's a scientific fact." OP says, "well that's your opinion and > how dare you even raise that issue. It's unfair. or stupid, or none of > your business." > > Most of the counter comments to tweaks made here are of that nature > (i.e., assertions that no, the Earth is NOT flat and it is not subject > to debate). But I agree with the earlier comment that this is a > religious war and they can't be won, at least not in an internet > debate No, I don't feel that it's really about that, because even if I don't supply my lame explanation as to why does an upgrade work (and typically many of us tweakers never bother to hypothesize as to why does something work, we just enjoy the ride), the witch hunt nevertheless gets unleashed. The hatred crowd is ever vigilant in sniffing out people who are not afraid to post their impressions, and then the hate mongers are riling the forum to burn the fuckers alive on the stake. Such sad, psychotic behavor, causes deep reasons for concern. -- magiccarpetride magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
magiccarpetride;684454 Wrote: > I agree. I am an audio aficionado, meaning I enjoy good, pleasant sound. > Toward that end I'm constantly upgrading and tweaking my audio system, > because I truly enjoy the changes these upgrades are bringing me. > > Where things become illogical is when I read how many people spring > into action and organize impromptu witch hunts the moment someone logs > in here to report some improvements to the sound. For example, if I > upgrade my speaker cables, or my mains power conditioner, and report > back how I truly enjoy the changes it made to my system, I invariably > get a lot of angry replies, sometimes even right down hostile, with > some people foaming at their mouths and claiming how I'm a troll or a > moron etc. > > Why such hatred? Where is that coming from? I could understand the > hatred if, by me purchasing some audio accessory, I'd rob some member > here of their hard earned cash. But that's not the case -- I'm paying > everything with my own money. > > Consider wine aficionados, for a contrast -- if I'm into enjoying a > good bottle of wine, and I'm discussing various brands and years etc., > no one is going to start threatening me if I report back how I went and > bought a $500.00 bottle and how it was, to me, money well spent. > > So why are people getting so riled and upset if I do the same on the > audio font (i.e. I spend $500.00 on upgrading my mains conditioner)? MCR: I do believe that you are partly right and partly wrong. I'll try to explain. You are completely right in stating that is your money and that you have every right to spend it as you please. No argument there. And you are completely in your comparison of wine aficionados to audiophiles. And you are right when you are talking about upgrades or tweaks which involved changes to the analog side of one's audio set up. I have some very nice interconnects, speaker cable and power cables installed on my various stereos and while I may not attribute the same degree of importance to these wires as some others do, I do at least acknowledge that good quality cabling can improve the sound of one's audio system. I think where you run into some serious issues with many of the members of this forum is when you begin to talk about upgrades, tweaks and improvements of the digital side of one's audio set up. You know things likes "wav sounds better than flac" or "ethernet sounds better than wi-fi". You do not seem to be alone when it comes to these kinds of beliefs since most audiophiles have been programmed to believe in certain kinds of improvements brought about by certain kinds of actions, e.g. more expensive cable means better sound (to a degree). Unfortunately what may be true in the analog domain may not be true in the digital domain, e.g. a $2 usb cable will and does work just as good as a $500 usb cable. Please understand that it is not that many of us are out to get you but rather that we would like to see discussions of ways to improve the sound of one's audio system focus on areas where improvements can be made and not on areas which have no direct bearing on the sound of the system. -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels -> Snatch -> The Transporter -> Transporter 2 (oops) -> Touch 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
magiccarpetride;684454 Wrote: > I agree. I am an audio aficionado, meaning I enjoy good, pleasant sound. > Toward that end I'm constantly upgrading and tweaking my audio system, > because I truly enjoy the changes these upgrades are bringing me. > > Where things become illogical is when I read how many people spring > into action and organize impromptu witch hunts the moment someone logs > in here to report some improvements to the sound. For example, if I > upgrade my speaker cables, or my mains power conditioner, and report > back how I truly enjoy the changes it made to my system, I invariably > get a lot of angry replies, sometimes even right down hostile, with > some people foaming at their mouths and claiming how I'm a troll or a > moron etc. > > Why such hatred? Where is that coming from? I could understand the > hatred if, by me purchasing some audio accessory, I'd rob some member > here of their hard earned cash. But that's not the case -- I'm paying > everything with my own money. > > Consider wine aficionados, for a contrast -- if I'm into enjoying a > good bottle of wine, and I'm discussing various brands and years etc., > no one is going to start threatening me if I report back how I went and > bought a $500.00 bottle and how it was, to me, money well spent. > > So why are people getting so riled and upset if I do the same on the > audio font (i.e. I spend $500.00 on upgrading my mains conditioner)? No one cares how any of us spend our own money or whether we get enjoyment from tweaking. That has never been the point. It is typically more similar to a situation where a wine lover suggests that his new $500 bottle of wine tastes better because the (1) the Earth is flat and (2) the grapes are grown at the outermost edge of the flat earth. Another poster says, "wait a minute, the Earth is not flat, and that's a scientific fact." OP says, "well that's your opinion and how dare you even raise that issue. It's unfair. or stupid, or none of your business." Most of the counter comments to tweaks made here are of that nature (i.e., assertions that no, the Earth is NOT flat and it is not subject to debate). But I agree with the earlier comment that this is a religious war and they can't be won, at least not in an internet debate -- garym *Location 1:* VB Appliance 6TB (1.10) > LMS 7.7.1 > Transporter, Touch, Boom, Radio w/Battery (all ethernet except Radio) *Location 2:* VB Appliance 3TB (2.0) > LMS 7.7.1 > Touch > Benchmark DAC I, Boom, Radio w/Battery (all ethernet except Radio) *Office:* Win7(64) > LMS 7.7.1 > SqueezePlay Retired: SB3, Duet Receiver Controllers: iPhone (iPeng), iPad (iPengHD & SqueezePad), CONTROLLER, or SqueezePlay 7.7 on Win7(64) laptop Ripping (FLAC) - dbpoweramp, Additional Tagging - mp3tag garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
I suppose the Topic - Audiophiles - sort of encourages people to participate in a 'Mine is bigger than yours - it must be 'cos I just spent $500 on a SupaDupa plug' contest - why is there a need to broadcast your spending habits. Is it in a search for like-minded souls? If you announce your opinion then more than likely somebody will have a counter opinion ... and so it goes. -- castalla 1 Touch - Muse M50 EX TPA3123 T-Amp Mini - Acoustics Q10 speakers - 2 duff ears - purfek! 1 Logitech Radio + remote - purfek! castalla's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=15624 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
audiomuze;684419 Wrote: > Where audiophoolia is concerned logic needn't apply I agree. I am an audio aficionado, meaning I enjoy good, pleasant sound. Toward that end I'm constantly upgrading and tweaking my audio system, because I truly enjoy the changes these upgrades are bringing me. Where things become illogical is when I read how many people spring into action and organize impromptu witch hunts the moment someone logs in here to report some improvements to the sound. For example, if I upgrade my speaker cables, or my mains power conditioner, and report back how I truly enjoy the changes it made to my system, I invariably get a lot of angry replies, sometimes even right down hostile, with some people foaming at their mouths and claiming how I'm a troll or a moron etc. Why such hatred? Where is that coming from? I could understand the hatred if, by me purchasing some audio accessory, I'd rob some member here of their hard earned cash. But that's not the case -- I'm paying everything with my own money. Consider wine aficionados, for a contrast -- if I'm into enjoying a good bottle of wine, and I'm discussing various brands and years etc., no one is going to start threatening me if I report back how I went and bought a $500.00 bottle and how it was, to me, money well spent. So why are people getting so riled and upset if I do the same on the audio font (i.e. I spend $500.00 on upgrading my mains conditioner)? -- magiccarpetride magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
Mnyb;684227 Wrote: > in the wav-flac-wav case the corect answer is there in thier own data > set for everyone to see, and yet they are incapable of seing it rigth > in front of them !?How can they think like that ? What is wrong . Where audiophoolia is concerned logic needn't apply -- audiomuze *'Linux finally gets a great audio tagger' (http://www.ubuntugeek.com/linux-finally-gets-a-great-audio-tagger.html): 'puddletag' (http://puddletag.sourceforge.net/)* audiomuze's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=33613 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
ralphpnj;684211 Wrote: > I disagree to a degree with first part of this statement. Several > members have presented factual evidence to support their > claims/beliefs. Believing in something based on factual evidence is > entirely different from believing in something which goes against the > facts. There is no equivalence between the two and I'm sick and tired > of having people declare that the two beliefs are equally valid. In the > US we hear this kind of nonsense day in and day out in the world of > politics, an area where science and logic are often completely > ignored. > > The playback of recorded audio is based on science and works because of > well founded scientific principles. Anything which clearly contradicts > the established laws of science can and should be treated as nonsense. > Granted there are many grey areas within known science but there are > also many, many very well understood areas as well. When a snake oil > vendor is trying to sell a worthless product which can be clearly shown > to violate some of the well understood laws of science their defense is > ALWAYS that the product works because it somehow working within one of > those grey areas of science. To which I cry BS! > > For example the crackpot authors of that ridiculous series on computer > audio now running in TAS do exactly what I stated above and it is not, > nor should it ever be, an acceptable defense. > > I may sound harsh but whenever I think that I am being to rigid I just > think back to something a very wise professor of thermodynamics once > taught me: if someone is try to promote or sell a perpetual motion > device the simplest and easiest way to debunk their device is to show > that violates one or more of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. > And these devices ALWAYS one or more of these laws. And yet still people are trying to build perpetum mobiles :) now they call it free energy . God response btw, there is sometimes no consensus or compromise to be had. how to compomise with flat eart believers should we settle for slightly concave ;) politicians sometimes do that anyway which is sad. Society is swarming over with this BS from all directions not only in hifi, if your not already doing it you should support some scepticist organisation I do that . It's the only charity I give money to as it is vital that science and knowledge and reason survives the current storm of stupidity like creatonism and " intelligent design " New Age and other BS. Otherwise we are in for another dark age imo. back on topic. I did like that TAS tread. Take the wav-flacexperiment are so close but also so very far away , here is why. TAS wav-flac-wav experiment reading the article you notice that they actually did checksums and they where corect so wav=wav and the files are the same, and yet they proclame that there is a diference ! These two conclusion are mutually exclusive only one can be correct either the checksum is wrong or the subjective listening test is skewed, both can not be true at the same time it's impossible from basic principles. in the wav-flac-wav case the corect answer is there in thier own data set for everyone to see, and yet they are incapable of seing it rigth in front of them !? How can they think like that ? What is wrong . -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad 64gB wifi +3g with iPengHD & SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
mherger;683990 Wrote: > Guys - when will you learn that religious wars can't be won? So please > either stop this stupid discussion, or at least stop complaining about > each other. This thread and its relatives have caused more reports than > all the last few months worth of spam... it's ridiculous. I disagree to a degree with first part of this statement. Several members have presented factual evidence to support their claims/beliefs. Believing in something based on factual evidence is entirely different from believing in something which goes against the facts. There is no equivalence between the two and I'm sick and tired of having people declare that the two beliefs are equally valid. In the US we hear this kind of nonsense day in and day out in the world of politics, an area where science and logic are often completely ignored. The playback of recorded audio is based on science and works because of well founded scientific principles. Anything which clearly contradicts the established laws of science can and should be treated as nonsense. Granted there are many grey areas within known science but there are also many, many very well understood areas as well. When a snake oil vendor is trying to sell a worthless product which can be clearly shown to violate some of the well understood laws of science their defense is ALWAYS that the product works because it somehow working within one of those grey areas of science. To which I cry BS! For example the crackpot authors of that ridiculous series on computer audio now running in TAS do exactly what I stated above and it is not, nor should it ever be, an acceptable defense. I may sound harsh but whenever I think that I am being to rigid I just think back to something a very wise professor of thermodynamics once taught me: if someone is try to promote or sell a perpetual motion device the simplest and easiest way to debunk their device is to show that violates one or more of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. And these devices ALWAYS one or more of these laws. -- ralphpnj Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels -> Snatch -> The Transporter -> Transporter 2 (oops) -> Touch 'Last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/jazzfann/) ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
Mnyb;684076 Wrote: > Now an half oftopic dilemma I have a closet of crap from my former life > as audiophool . > should i just recycle it ? I'm reluctant to sell it even if has a " > value " , moraly i consider it fraud/scam now when i'm not a believer > myself. Think demand and supply. Sell it on ebay, for half the market price, and write "I'm selling this stuff because I don't believe in that sort of thing any more. If you are a believer in audiophile magic, you may (or may not) be interested in this." This way, you contribute to saturating the market, making demand slightly lower, which leads to peddling the nonsense becoming slightly less lucurative, and best of all, it is possible to do it without being dishonest. -- Soulkeeper -That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.- 'Bug 17797: Updating wiki.slimdevices.com' (http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=17797) Soulkeeper's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35297 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
Octavist thanks for the reading list :) I do like to read , so why not something related to my hobby. this looks very interesting. Now an half oftopic dilemma I have a closet of crap from my former life as audiophool . should i just recycle it ? I'm reluctant to sell it even if has a " value " , moraly i consider it fraud/scam now when i'm not a believer myself. -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad 64gB wifi +3g with iPengHD & SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
sckramer;684022 Wrote: > I just got mad at the bickering, but people must have banned me cause > they though I was sbgk, didn't mean for that to happen Indeed - I think a few people put 2 and 2 together to make 5. My apologies for being among them. -- chill chill's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10839 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
adamdea;683643 Wrote: > If you are interested in thud I recommend > Watkinson > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Digital-Audio-John-Watkinson/dp/0240516435 > > I am not an engineer but got bored listening to BS from people who have > no idea what they are talking about. So I read this book and the one by > Pohlmann and Jim Lesurf's information and Measurement. > > The simplest explanation of how a dac works is that it samples and > holds. So if the sample value is 10 it produces a voltage equal to 10x > LSB value which it holds until the next sample is coverted. This > produces a staircase pattern > ie a series of square waves. It is demontsrable that this wave equals > the orginal sample value plus images at higher frequency. Thus when you > apply the anti imaging filter with a stopband at nyquist you remove the > images- and hey presto the resulting analog signal ***equals*** the > orginal band limited signal (ie the signal sampled in the ADC at the > recording studio). > > see http://www.lavryengineering.com/forum_images/Digital_Audio.pdf > and the other articles on the same website which are very good indeed. my favorite books on digital www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/141960001X/ref=redir_mdp_mobile www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0071348190/ref=redir_mdp_mobile search.barnesandnoble.com/Mastering-Audio/Bob-Katz/e/9780240808376?r=1&cm_mmc=Google%20Product%20Search-_-Q00630-_-Mastering%20Audio-_-9780240808376 www.stereosoundbook.com/ all musts for any audio.enthusiast also, learning #how# to listen scientifically is essential two invaluable tools(best investments ever made)..seriously. thank me later for these two links www.moultonlabs.com/full/product01 harmanhowtolisten.blogspot.com/ learn the fundamentals, avoid bullshit(cables, shakti stones, aural illuminators, mpingo etc) learning the basics of audio, learning how to listen, and treating the ROOM ACOUSTICS...these are the MOST IMPORTANT AND,EFFECTIVE TWEAKS one can do. period. end ballgame -- TheOctavist Vortexbox>SBT(TT 3.0)>>Forssell MDAC-2>>>Klein and Hummell 0300D Sota Sapphire/Lyra Kleos>>Bespoke Valve Phono Stage>>Mastersound Due Venti>>Link Audio K100 TheOctavist's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=52700 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
Can the tread go back on topic now :) Topic is audio myths , not infigthing within the TT3.0 comunity, there is a whole other tread for that. mennace/scramer . Did you maintain both accounts at the same time ? People usually do this to practice " sock puppeting " and this skews dicussion as sudenly someone has a lot of suporters that are on his side or even more devius schemes that completely derails the discussion even false arguments with your alter ego ! therefore this is frowned upon. If you only wanted a new name , sorry for missunderstanding your intent. back on topic.. I think Ralphpnj is doing us a great favor in his TAS tread, to piont out that some are actively spreading BS and untruths about audio on thier own agenda, these myths are the livelyhood of these magazines. the future develpment of that is going to be interesting when they shift from analog myths to new fresh digital myths. so audio myths differs a bit from " normal myths " or urban legends etc. In that there is a lot of money in actively spreading and maintaning those myths this is very powerfull . the only more powerfull myths are religion, when there is a higher cause ( but lets not go there ). I have no good material to post , but on the topic of cable myths.. Blue Jean Cable seems to be the only manufacturer that have actual facts and real science in their tech articel section. the usual overexpensive brand names usually have BS myths and homemade pseudo science. A good read recomended. Do anyone have good links to other places with really good material ? Preferable in laymans terms to. A part of the problem is that to someone not an engineer or scientist, science and pseusdo science may look the same. And in fringe cases to scientists to and it can change. Example " the ether" to believe in that now is silly but it was not untill a better modell emerged. this may be a good telltale for some myths that they are stuck in the past denying new facts and inventing very elaborate schemes to maintain the myth a good one is " memory distorsion " invented by lavardin to sell thier cargo cult. Is there a good breakdown on psychoacoustics somewhere ? many seems to have very exagerated pow on what is possible to hear or not to hear. I don't think the cause is hopeless it may look so , given the status of the high end where products now are designed acording to pseudo science and thus are more expensive and perform worse that they should or in some cases worse than any no name chinese dvd player ! A positive example astronomy vs astrology , once this was the same thing. Now it took > 1000 years to accomplish it but anyway why give up :) -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad 64gB wifi +3g with iPengHD & SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
mherger;683990 Wrote: > Guys - when will you learn that religious wars can't be won? So please > either stop this stupid discussion, or at least stop complaining about > each other. This thread and its relatives have caused more reports than > all the last few months worth of spam... it's ridiculous. > +1. I wish, fervently, that everyone would communicate with both respect and civility---whether one agrees or disagrees with someone's opinion. This episode as well as portions of the TT 3.0 discussion were, at times, rather distasteful (putting it politely). -- rgro Rg System information Main: PS Audio Quintet > Vortexbox > Touch (wired) via optical > Rega DAC > LFD LE IV Signature amp > VA Mozart Grands > REL Acoustics R305 sub. Home Theatre: Duet/SBR (Wired) > Pioneer VSX 919 > Energy Take 5 Classic 5.1. SBS 7.7.1 r33751 on a Vortexbox Appliance, V 2.0. Touch w/Hardware V.5. Touch: FW 7.7.1 r9558. Duet: FW 7.7.1 r9557. rgro's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
mherger;683990 Wrote: > Guys - when will you learn that religious wars can't be won? So please > either stop this stupid discussion, or at least stop complaining about > each other. This thread and its relatives have caused more reports than > all the last few months worth of spam... it's ridiculous. > > And fwiw: after realising that registering with the same mail address > as user sckramer wasn't a great idea, mennace decided to change his > profile... I doubt he'll be back again. No need to ban him. I just got mad at the bickering, but people banned me cause they though I was sbgk, didn't mean for that to happen But not sure I really said anything that bad? -- sckramer CiAudio VDC-SB - Touch (TT 2.0 mods, removed toslink, disconnected screen, buf:2) PSaudio DLIII DAC (Cullen 4 mods) - PSaudio Trio C-100 Amp (Cullen 3 mods) Energy Veritas 2.2i speakers (mundorf silver oil capacitors, inductor, and resistor mods) Martin Logan Depth i (x2) Cardas power cables - PSaudio Duet - Cardas clear light interconnect -- black cat veloce digital cable - Audioquest slate biwire spkr cables sckramer's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=20311 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
Guys - when will you learn that religious wars can't be won? So please either stop this stupid discussion, or at least stop complaining about each other. This thread and its relatives have caused more reports than all the last few months worth of spam... it's ridiculous. And fwiw: after realising that registering with the same mail address as user sckramer wasn't a great idea, mennace decided to change his profile... I doubt he'll be back again. No need to ban him. -- mherger Michael - http://www.herger.net/slim-plugins - AlbumReview, Biography, MusicInfoSCR mherger's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=50 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
Look, a copypasta spambot. Another addition to my ignore list, then. You were right Mnyb, this thread has been excellent for identifying the candidates. -- Soulkeeper -That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.- 'Bug 17797: Updating wiki.slimdevices.com' (http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=17797) Soulkeeper's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35297 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
chill;683816 Wrote: > There are some forums where creating alternate user names (funny that we > haven't heard from Mennace again) and posting large chunks of irrelevant > copy+pasted material would get a user banned. I suspect he knows this, > hence the few words of his own at the start of each post and the > correct attribution of the source at the end. you can always push the abuse link and report who you suspects it is ? This forum is basically not moderated, strangely enough it sort of works trough most users common sense and sanity. spambots gets banned on regularly but I think I known of only one banned user, who directly attacked some one and andy banned him ? Who do you think Mennace is/was sock puppeting should mean lifetime ban imo, or is it banned user reapering as new user name ? -- Mnyb Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad 64gB wifi +3g with iPengHD & SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Audio Myths!
There are some forums where creating alternate user names (funny that we haven't heard from Mennace again) and posting large chunks of irrelevant copy+pasted material would get a user banned. I suspect he knows this, hence the few words of his own at the start of each post and the correct attribution of the source at the end. -- chill chill's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10839 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=92918 ___ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
