tweaks and proof

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

From: chung chunglau@covad.net
>Date: 6/27/2004 10:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <wjDDc.118970$HG.109026@attbi_s53>
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>
>> From: chung chunglau@covad.net
>>>Date: 6/25/2004 11:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <cbhr3b0k1j@news2.newsguy.com>
>>>
>>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>>From: nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine)
>>>>>Date: 6/23/2004 4:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>Message-id: <cbd2kn01k4b@news1.newsguy.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article cb5jh80ug2@news4.newsguy.com, "Nousaine"
>>>>>><nousaine@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case
>>>here
>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>> both sides.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me ask again. If I'm not mistaken you have said that anything that
>>>can
>>>>>>be
>>>>>>> heard can be measured or perhaps that was more like 'if you can't
>>>measure
>>>>>a
>>>>>>> difference than there would be nothing to hear' or something similar.
>I
>>>>>>then
>>>>>>> asked exactly what measureable differences would explain amp/cable
>sound
>>>>>>.....
>>>>>>> and I don't recall a response.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we
>>>>>>haven't
>>>>>>> already done?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It might be that no one knows. If you notice something - even if 10
>>>people
>>>>>>were to denounce you - it does not mean you know the mechanism, nor are
>>>you
>>>>>>the expert on what measurements to make.
>>>>>
>>>>>So how do they "design" products then .... by making random choices? Are
>>>some
>>>>>people just lucky?
>>>>
>>>> Why would you ask the consumer how the designer opperates? I suggest you
>>>pose
>>>> those questions to actual designers and let them speak for themselves.
>>>
>>>Uh, Tom's intent of asking those questions is to make the consumer think
>>>about the questions.
>>
>> It seems that when many consumers do so the objectivists get very upset
>with
>> any eroneous conclusions they may draw.
>
>Really? It seems like some of the people who came up with the erroneous
>conclusions get unhappy when it was pointed out to them why those
>conclusions were erroneous. I did not sense any objectivists getting
>upset over these erroneous conclusions at all.
>
>> The question is better answered by the
>> designers and the consumer is better served if the answers come form the
>> designers.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you would say they "listen" to them for validation
>>>>>then
>>>>>I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of debate
>you
>>>> should have already considered this.
>>>
>>>Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the consumer,
>>>think. And question.
>>
>> I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game played on
>> consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issues.
>
>Wait a minute. Tom was asking some very general questions on the design
>process. I would think that someone not being very technical can still
>give an educated guess.

What is the point of guessing? I think such guesses are nothing more than shark
food.

Or start thinking about an answer.

Why? Some of us would really prefer to get at the best sound we can get without
becoming EEs.

>
> I think Tom
>> is just waiting for one subjectivbist to give a technically inept answer so
>he
>> can pounce on that person.
>
>Can you give some examples of Tom's "pouncing"?

I'm sure I could if I wanted to do the search. If you want to think this is of
no interest to Tom fine.

If it were truly a
>technically inept answer, would you object strongly if someone points
>that out?

Hey if you guys enjoy subjectivist hunting on RAHE that's fine. We all have our
hobbies. If one asks for an opinion and then attacks the opinion asked for that
is simply baiting a sure win debate. May be great for the ego but it does
nothing to advance the hobby of audio. I noticed nobody took the bait.

>
>> The fact is it doesn't matter what answer he gets
>> from the consumer. The question is one that should be posed to the
>designer.
>
>Why?

Because they aren't guessing. It could lead to a discussion that would be
relevant. Maybe you think discussions on someone's mistaken beliefs about
another designers work and intentions is interesting. I don't.

The consumer should be thinking about those questions, too.

They "should'? Where is this rule of audiophilia written?

>>
>> Despite, or in addition to, what the designers may
>>>(or may not) tell you, the consumer should try to think independently
>>>and use his/her own reasoning skills.
>>
>> Well some often do. They get smacked around in RAHE for doing so sometimes.
>
>Care to cite examples?
>

Not really. If you don't think it actually happens I'm not going to try to
persuade you otherwise. People see what they want to see. I think it has been
pretty obvious.
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

From: chung chunglau@covad.net
>Date: 6/27/2004 10:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <wjDDc.118970$HG.109026@attbi_s53>
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>
>> From: chung chunglau@covad.net
>>>Date: 6/25/2004 11:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <cbhr3b0k1j@news2.newsguy.com>
>>>
>>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>>From: nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine)
>>>>>Date: 6/23/2004 4:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>Message-id: <cbd2kn01k4b@news1.newsguy.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article cb5jh80ug2@news4.newsguy.com, "Nousaine"
>>>>>><nousaine@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case
>>>here
>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>> both sides.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me ask again. If I'm not mistaken you have said that anything that
>>>can
>>>>>>be
>>>>>>> heard can be measured or perhaps that was more like 'if you can't
>>>measure
>>>>>a
>>>>>>> difference than there would be nothing to hear' or something similar.
>I
>>>>>>then
>>>>>>> asked exactly what measureable differences would explain amp/cable
>sound
>>>>>>.....
>>>>>>> and I don't recall a response.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we
>>>>>>haven't
>>>>>>> already done?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It might be that no one knows. If you notice something - even if 10
>>>people
>>>>>>were to denounce you - it does not mean you know the mechanism, nor are
>>>you
>>>>>>the expert on what measurements to make.
>>>>>
>>>>>So how do they "design" products then .... by making random choices? Are
>>>some
>>>>>people just lucky?
>>>>
>>>> Why would you ask the consumer how the designer opperates? I suggest you
>>>pose
>>>> those questions to actual designers and let them speak for themselves.
>>>
>>>Uh, Tom's intent of asking those questions is to make the consumer think
>>>about the questions.
>>
>> It seems that when many consumers do so the objectivists get very upset
>with
>> any eroneous conclusions they may draw.
>
>Really? It seems like some of the people who came up with the erroneous
>conclusions get unhappy when it was pointed out to them why those
>conclusions were erroneous. I did not sense any objectivists getting
>upset over these erroneous conclusions at all.
>
>> The question is better answered by the
>> designers and the consumer is better served if the answers come form the
>> designers.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you would say they "listen" to them for validation
>>>>>then
>>>>>I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of debate
>you
>>>> should have already considered this.
>>>
>>>Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the consumer,
>>>think. And question.
>>
>> I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game played on
>> consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issues.
>
>Wait a minute. Tom was asking some very general questions on the design
>process. I would think that someone not being very technical can still
>give an educated guess.

What is the point of guessing? I think such guesses are nothing more than shark
food.

Or start thinking about an answer.

Why? Some of us would really prefer to get at the best sound we can get without
becoming EEs.

>
> I think Tom
>> is just waiting for one subjectivbist to give a technically inept answer so
>he
>> can pounce on that person.
>
>Can you give some examples of Tom's "pouncing"?

I'm sure I could if I wanted to do the search. If you want to think this is of
no interest to Tom fine.

If it were truly a
>technically inept answer, would you object strongly if someone points
>that out?

Hey if you guys enjoy subjectivist hunting on RAHE that's fine. We all have our
hobbies. If one asks for an opinion and then attacks the opinion asked for that
is simply baiting a sure win debate. May be great for the ego but it does
nothing to advance the hobby of audio. I noticed nobody took the bait.

>
>> The fact is it doesn't matter what answer he gets
>> from the consumer. The question is one that should be posed to the
>designer.
>
>Why?

Because they aren't guessing. It could lead to a discussion that would be
relevant. Maybe you think discussions on someone's mistaken beliefs about
another designers work and intentions is interesting. I don't.

The consumer should be thinking about those questions, too.

They "should'? Where is this rule of audiophilia written?

>>
>> Despite, or in addition to, what the designers may
>>>(or may not) tell you, the consumer should try to think independently
>>>and use his/her own reasoning skills.
>>
>> Well some often do. They get smacked around in RAHE for doing so sometimes.
>
>Care to cite examples?
>

Not really. If you don't think it actually happens I'm not going to try to
persuade you otherwise. People see what they want to see. I think it has been
pretty obvious.
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

From: nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine)
>Date: 6/27/2004 10:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <OjDDc.118971$HG.29498@attbi_s53>
>
>s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>
>...snips....
>
>>>>>So how do they "design" products then .... by making random choices? Are
>>>some
>>>>>people just lucky?
>>>>
>>>> Why would you ask the consumer how the designer opperates? I suggest you
>>>pose
>>>> those questions to actual designers and let them speak for themselves.
>>>
>>>Uh, Tom's intent of asking those questions is to make the consumer think
>>>about the questions.
>
>And it assumes that I have not asked designers of high-end tweak products how
>they design products.
>

Not entirely an assumption. This isn't the first time I have asked you about
this. So far you have never described any such dialogues with designers that
fit the picture or even acknowledged having had any such discussions. After a
while it is reasonable to deduct that no such dialogues have taken place.

>The answers have been basically obfuscation. None has defined a process.

I guess this means you have hads such discussions. care to name names and tell
us more precisely what these designers actually said?

>
>The "lab"at a wire company was a conference room a single "piece" of
>electronic
>equipment that was idle and the room was empty during my visity. Of course
>all
>by itself that means nothing.... but so do uncontrolled listening "tests."

Which company was this?

>
>>It seems that when many consumers do so the objectivists get very upset with
>>any eroneous conclusions they may draw. The question is better answered by
>>the
>>designers and the consumer is better served if the answers come form the
>>designers.
>
>And how many has Mr Wheeler asked?

Several actually.

And what were the answers he received?

Bill Johnson said the design proccess was one of intuitive ideas followed with
a lot of listening with some trial and error and a lot more listening. The
trial and error part was usually in finding the best components and materials.

Peter Forsell said his design wrok was mostly trial and error. His turntable
went through over fifty different incarnations, All decisions were based on
listening tests.

Andy Payor claims his aproach was quite the opposite. The work was done very
much on paper with little trial and error.

>
>>>> If you would say they "listen" to them for validation
>>>>>then
>>>>>I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of debate
>>you
>>>> should have already considered this.
>
>Mr Wheeler thinks that I haven't?

Up until now I doubted it due to your failure to ever give a specific answer
when ever asked about it. You still haven't named any names of designers who
have discussed their design proccess with you.

>
>>Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the consumer,
>>>think. And question.
>>
>>I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game played on
>>consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issues. I think
>>Tom
>>is just waiting for one subjectivbist to give a technically inept answer so
>>he
>>can pounce on that person. The fact is it doesn't matter what answer he gets
>>from the consumer. The question is one that should be posed to the designer.
>
>
>And as an enthusiast Mr Wheeler hasn't asked these questions himself?

Not of other consumers. I don't expect them to speak for the designers.

>
>>Despite, or in addition to, what the designers may
>>>(or may not) tell you, the consumer should try to think independently
>>>and use his/her own reasoning skills.
>>
>>Well some often do. They get smacked around in RAHE for doing so sometimes.
>
>"Smacked around?" Of whom do you speak?

I guess Bromo hasn't been "smacked around" lately has he?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/27/04 1:09 PM, in article cbmv0502qhl@news4.newsguy.com, "chung"
<chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

>> I believe that it is a mistake for someone who hears a difference,
>> scientist, consumer or designer, unless really skilled in the art, to offer
>> and "explanation" - because invariably a debunker will be able to refute the
>> explanation (only proving the someone in question didn't know why the
>> difference was noted) and avoid the more difficult and intellectually
>> important task of proving or disproving the observation.
>
> Now let's give a counter example to illustrate how you are wrong. SACD
> and CD versions of the same recording were sometimes assumed to be
> mastered identically and any superiority of the sound clearly due to the
> better technical specs of DSD. Recently people noticed that on some
> Telarc recording, the two versions sound different.
>
> Careful inspection of the CD wave files shows digital clipping. This
> clearly indicates an intentional compression on the CD by the mastering
> engineer. Follow-up emails to Telarc confirm this.
>
> So here is an example that shows people hear differences, and were able
> to provide an explanation that runs counter to the popular notion that
> the two versions are mastered the same way, or that DSD has to be
> superior. Now, Mr. Bromo, why don't you try to refute this explanation?

Okay - someone not skilled in the art could pose a number of "explanations"
for the different sounds - many of which would be wrong. If this person
were to claim that they heard a difference and it was because they had
bathed their CD player in warm milk (your particular favorite example) -
again an explanation that would be a wild guess - so a debunker could easily
refute the warm milk theory and be no closer to the root cause.

There.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:cbmv0502qhl@news4.newsguy.com...
> Bromo wrote:
>
> > On 6/27/04 1:51 AM, in article FftDc.99337$2i5.10037@attbi_s52,
"S888Wheel"
> > <s888wheel@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of
debate you
> >>>> should have already considered this.
> >>>
> >>> Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the consumer,
> >>> think. And question.
> >>
> >> I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game played
on
> >> consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issues. I
think
> >> Tom
> >> is just waiting for one subjectivbist to give a technically inept
answer so he
> >> can pounce on that person. The fact is it doesn't matter what answer he
gets
> >> from the consumer. The question is one that should be posed to the
designer
> >
> > I believe that it is a mistake for someone who hears a difference,
> > scientist, consumer or designer, unless really skilled in the art, to
offer
> > and "explanation" - because invariably a debunker will be able to refute
the
> > explanation (only proving the someone in question didn't know why the
> > difference was noted) and avoid the more difficult and intellectually
> > important task of proving or disproving the observation.
>
> Now let's give a counter example to illustrate how you are wrong. SACD
> and CD versions of the same recording were sometimes assumed to be
> mastered identically and any superiority of the sound clearly due to the
> better technical specs of DSD. Recently people noticed that on some
> Telarc recording, the two versions sound different.
>
> Careful inspection of the CD wave files shows digital clipping. This
> clearly indicates an intentional compression on the CD by the mastering
> engineer. Follow-up emails to Telarc confirm this.
>
> So here is an example that shows people hear differences, and were able
> to provide an explanation that runs counter to the popular notion that
> the two versions are mastered the same way, or that DSD has to be
> superior. Now, Mr. Bromo, why don't you try to refute this explanation?
>
> By the way, Norm Strong provided a link to this incident a few days ago.
>

Yes, but you conveniently overlook two things:

1) You and the other objectivists used to argue that the SA-CD layer sounded
better than the CD layer because the SA-CD layer had been artificially
boosted in volume. Exactly the opposite is true, which all else being
equal, would give the advantage to the CD layer.

2) Of course, all else is not equal since there is compression and clipping.
Which should lead you to ponder that these artifacts were heard without dbt
as an inferior sound from the CD layer by those of us who thought the SACD
sound superior.

3) None of this necessarily establishes that CD will sound as good as SACD
even if they are exactly level matched and uncompressed.

Sometimes things don't fit conveniently into the boxes you wish to put them
in.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Nousaine" <nousaine@aol.com> wrote in message
news:vJFDc.118769$eu.79790@attbi_s02...

snip...snip..

> During this time exactly NO High-End manufacturer, distributor or
journalist
> has ever demonstrated a single experiment that shows that amp/wire sound
exists
> when subjects are asked to "hear" it with listening bias controlled.
>
> Not ONE. High-end is where rigor is lacking.
>

I can vouche for that.My humble experience, I was not able to distinguish
Conrad Johnson, Gryphon and one another. But I would say Air Tight sounded
more pleasing ( I loved the sound) but I am not going to bet on it under
DBT.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <cbmk6n0den@news1.newsguy.com>, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:

> Reminds me of the debunkers that debunk astrology - they gather a bunch of
> people in a room and hand out the same "horoscope" or "personality profile"
> to everyone - and everyone agrees it was spot-on at which point it is
> revealed they were duped. The TV show this appears on concludes with a
> "well, that about washes it up for astrology." They sometimes go on to an
> astrologer and ask them how it works - the astrologer mumbles something
> about gravitational influence or something - cut back to the debunker who on
> a whiteboard or display shows how that couldn't possible be true with
> further conclusions "well, astrology mustn't work then." What have they
> proven? That people are gullible, and astrologers have no clue as to why
> what they do could possibly work. Now, whether you think astrology works or
> not is immaterial - the rigor by the people debunking it does no service to
> the cause of light and science - because all the astrologers have to say
> then is "we don't know why it works but it does" - and "people are gullible,
> but it doesn't mean we are cheating them." They would be correct, and the
> debunker has to begin all over again - and would be counting on the lasting
> impression on the same 'gullible people' exposed during the show.

The above is hardly the only method used to debunk astrology, though you
seem to be acting as if it is. There have been formal and rigorous
experiments. I am not aware of any whose results indicated that
astrology had any useful predictive value. But you don't hear about
them because the simple demonstrations are better for the TV camera.

Aside from which, you've left out countless other types of informal
demonstrations with different emphasis. The point of the exercise you
mentioned is not to prove that astrology doesn't work. It's designed to
raise public consciousness about the reasons why it appears to work.
Such self-knowledge (if sufficiently generalized and internalized) can
protect people from countless other scams. Including some of those
which infest "high end" audio...

> Why all this garbage about the thoroughly debunked and disproven waste o'
> time, Astrology? Because A similar level of non-rigor is shown by the high
> end debunkers - and it begs the question if the debunkers are holding "a
> position" every bit as stubbornly by insisting that "nothing matters" as
> those that insist that "everything matters."

Your characterization of high end audio debunking seems just as suspect
as your characterization of astrology debunking.

--
Tim

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 27 Jun 2004 14:05:11 GMT, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Why all this garbage about the thoroughly debunked and disproven waste o'
>time, Astrology? Because A similar level of non-rigor is shown by the high
>end debunkers - and it begs the question if the debunkers are holding "a
>position" every bit as stubbornly by insisting that "nothing matters" as
>those that insist that "everything matters."

Utter rubbish. The 'high end' debunkers do no such thing. What we *do*
do, is ask for the claimants to provide proof of their extraordinary
claims - which is a first principle of scientific investigation. This
has *never* been forthcoming, so we hold the proposition that 'wire is
wire' until someone *proves* otherwise.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

 

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo wrote:
> On 6/27/04 1:09 PM, in article cbmv0502qhl@news4.newsguy.com, "chung"
> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>
>>> I believe that it is a mistake for someone who hears a difference,
>>> scientist, consumer or designer, unless really skilled in the art, to offer
>>> and "explanation" - because invariably a debunker will be able to refute the
>>> explanation (only proving the someone in question didn't know why the
>>> difference was noted) and avoid the more difficult and intellectually
>>> important task of proving or disproving the observation.
>>
>> Now let's give a counter example to illustrate how you are wrong. SACD
>> and CD versions of the same recording were sometimes assumed to be
>> mastered identically and any superiority of the sound clearly due to the
>> better technical specs of DSD. Recently people noticed that on some
>> Telarc recording, the two versions sound different.
>>
>> Careful inspection of the CD wave files shows digital clipping. This
>> clearly indicates an intentional compression on the CD by the mastering
>> engineer. Follow-up emails to Telarc confirm this.
>>
>> So here is an example that shows people hear differences, and were able
>> to provide an explanation that runs counter to the popular notion that
>> the two versions are mastered the same way, or that DSD has to be
>> superior. Now, Mr. Bromo, why don't you try to refute this explanation?
>
> Okay - someone not skilled in the art could pose a number of "explanations"
> for the different sounds - many of which would be wrong. If this person
> were to claim that they heard a difference and it was because they had
> bathed their CD player in warm milk (your particular favorite example) -
> again an explanation that would be a wild guess - so a debunker could easily
> refute the warm milk theory and be no closer to the root cause.
>
> There.
>

You seem to have missed the whole point. There is no way to come up with
an irrefutable explanation for invalid claims. In the warm milk example,
of course any explanation can easily be shot down. The root cause is
that there is no difference in sound. Once you understand that there is
no way to explain the difference, you should be closer to the root
cause: there is no detectible audible difference.

The process of shooting down explanations is one way of getting closer
to the root cause.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:

>From: nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine)
>>Date: 6/27/2004 10:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <OjDDc.118971$HG.29498@attbi_s53>
>>
>>s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>>
>>...snips....
>>
>>>>>>So how do they "design" products then .... by making random choices? Are
>>>>some
>>>>>>people just lucky?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would you ask the consumer how the designer opperates? I suggest you
>>>>pose
>>>>> those questions to actual designers and let them speak for themselves.
>>>>
>>>>Uh, Tom's intent of asking those questions is to make the consumer think
>>>>about the questions.
>>
>>And it assumes that I have not asked designers of high-end tweak products
>how
>>they design products.
>>
>
>Not entirely an assumption. This isn't the first time I have asked you about
>this. So far you have never described any such dialogues with designers that
>fit the picture or even acknowledged having had any such discussions. After a
>while it is reasonable to deduct that no such dialogues have taken place.

Sure thats a reasonable assumption; but its wrong. It's like all the expriments
that have never been conducted to 'prove' wire/amp sound.

>>The answers have been basically obfuscation. None has defined a process.
>
>I guess this means you have hads such discussions. care to name names and
>tell
>us more precisely what these designers actually said?

I'll play the Atkinson card and say that it's not a good idea for me to mention
names publicly. But what has been said is exactly what you profess later in
this post.

>>The "lab"at a wire company was a conference room a single "piece" of
>>electronic
>>equipment that was idle and the room was empty during my visity. Of course
>>all
>>by itself that means nothing.... but so do uncontrolled listening "tests."
>
>Which company was this?

Transparent Audio Marketing.

>>>It seems that when many consumers do so the objectivists get very upset
>with
>>>any eroneous conclusions they may draw. The question is better answered by
>>>the
>>>designers and the consumer is better served if the answers come form the
>>>designers.
>>
>>And how many has Mr Wheeler asked?
>
>Several actually.
>
>And what were the answers he received?
>
>Bill Johnson said the design proccess was one of intuitive ideas followed
>with
>a lot of listening with some trial and error and a lot more listening. The
>trial and error part was usually in finding the best components and
>materials.
>
>Peter Forsell said his design wrok was mostly trial and error. His turntable
>went through over fifty different incarnations, All decisions were based on
>listening tests.

Trial and error. OK so they just randomly substitute parts/circuits and "hope"
for improvement. With the several hundred "parts" inside an amplifier exactly
how do they ever hone-in on an optimized design? Don't they have to perform
listening tests on "every" part and on "every" change in value?

Actually that is exactly what I've heard from high-end manufacturers ......
they just guess and have no systematic process for optimization.

>Andy Payor claims his aproach was quite the opposite. The work was done very
>much on paper with little trial and error.

Which would be exactly right .... but where are his controlled listening test
validation tests of the improvements in sound of his turntables?

>>>>> If you would say they "listen" to them for validation
>>>>>>then
>>>>>>I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of debate
>>>you
>>>>> should have already considered this.
>>
>>Mr Wheeler thinks that I haven't?
>
>Up until now I doubted it due to your failure to ever give a specific answer
>when ever asked about it. You still haven't named any names of designers who
>have discussed their design proccess with you.

Why would you expect that I would make them look like fools? They do a good
enough job by themselves by NOT providing evidence that shows their products
provide the benefits they claim.

>>>Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the consumer,
>>>>think. And question.
>>>
>>>I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game played on
>>>consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issues. I think
>>>Tom
>>>is just waiting for one subjectivbist to give a technically inept answer so
>>>he
>>>can pounce on that person. The fact is it doesn't matter what answer he
>gets
>>>from the consumer. The question is one that should be posed to the
>designer.
>>
>>
>>And as an enthusiast Mr Wheeler hasn't asked these questions himself?
>
>Not of other consumers. I don't expect them to speak for the designers.

Some of them are very happy to speak out on practically everything. But again I
hear so much "talk" about the sound of amps/wires but no evidence of its
existance from the high-end community it has to make one wonder why their
customers argue so hard when the makers leave them strung out on the
evidentiary line.

>>>Despite, or in addition to, what the designers may
>>>>(or may not) tell you, the consumer should try to think independently
>>>>and use his/her own reasoning skills.
>>>
>>>Well some often do. They get smacked around in RAHE for doing so sometimes.
>>
>>"Smacked around?" Of whom do you speak?
>
>I guess Bromo hasn't been "smacked around" lately has he?

No he hasn't. He's been treated fairly and at arms' length.

 

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry Lavo wrote:

> "chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> news:cbmv0502qhl@news4.newsguy.com...
>> Bromo wrote:
>>
>> > On 6/27/04 1:51 AM, in article FftDc.99337$2i5.10037@attbi_s52,
> "S888Wheel"
>> > <s888wheel@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>> Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of
> debate you
>> >>>> should have already considered this.
>> >>>
>> >>> Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the consumer,
>> >>> think. And question.
>> >>
>> >> I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game played
> on
>> >> consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issues. I
> think
>> >> Tom
>> >> is just waiting for one subjectivbist to give a technically inept
> answer so he
>> >> can pounce on that person. The fact is it doesn't matter what answer he
> gets
>> >> from the consumer. The question is one that should be posed to the
> designer
>> >
>> > I believe that it is a mistake for someone who hears a difference,
>> > scientist, consumer or designer, unless really skilled in the art, to
> offer
>> > and "explanation" - because invariably a debunker will be able to refute
> the
>> > explanation (only proving the someone in question didn't know why the
>> > difference was noted) and avoid the more difficult and intellectually
>> > important task of proving or disproving the observation.
>>
>> Now let's give a counter example to illustrate how you are wrong. SACD
>> and CD versions of the same recording were sometimes assumed to be
>> mastered identically and any superiority of the sound clearly due to the
>> better technical specs of DSD. Recently people noticed that on some
>> Telarc recording, the two versions sound different.
>>
>> Careful inspection of the CD wave files shows digital clipping. This
>> clearly indicates an intentional compression on the CD by the mastering
>> engineer. Follow-up emails to Telarc confirm this.
>>
>> So here is an example that shows people hear differences, and were able
>> to provide an explanation that runs counter to the popular notion that
>> the two versions are mastered the same way, or that DSD has to be
>> superior. Now, Mr. Bromo, why don't you try to refute this explanation?
>>
>> By the way, Norm Strong provided a link to this incident a few days ago.
>>
>
> Yes, but you conveniently overlook two things:

Not really, unless you can refute that explanation.

>
> 1) You and the other objectivists used to argue that the SA-CD layer sounded
> better than the CD layer because the SA-CD layer had been artificially
> boosted in volume. Exactly the opposite is true, which all else being
> equal, would give the advantage to the CD layer.

Not when the boost is so much that distortion is audible.

Furthermore, some of us claimed that the *players* themselves boost up
the level a notch when playing the SACD layer. See the difference?

>
> 2) Of course, all else is not equal since there is compression and clipping.
> Which should lead you to ponder that these artifacts were heard without dbt
> as an inferior sound from the CD layer by those of us who thought the SACD
> sound superior.

The point however is that the superiority may not lie in the DSD
technology, but is the result of mastering differences. Which is what we
have always suspected as to why the two layers may sound different.

And there are CD's that are mastered correctly, too.

>
> 3) None of this necessarily establishes that CD will sound as good as SACD
> even if they are exactly level matched and uncompressed.

But it explains why some people believe that SACD's sound different or
better.

Other experiments appear to indicate that no one has detected a
difference when two were mastered the same way. Like carefully recording
the output of a SACD player on redbook CD.

>
> Sometimes things don't fit conveniently into the boxes you wish to put them
> in.
>

I would say that this is true. Now, what boxes do you wish to put them
into? .

 

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

S888Wheel wrote:
> From: chung chunglau@covad.net
>>Date: 6/27/2004 10:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <wjDDc.118970$HG.109026@attbi_s53>
>>
>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>>> From: chung chunglau@covad.net
>>>>Date: 6/25/2004 11:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <cbhr3b0k1j@news2.newsguy.com>
>>>>
>>>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>>>From: nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine)
>>>>>>Date: 6/23/2004 4:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>>>Message-id: <cbd2kn01k4b@news1.newsguy.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article cb5jh80ug2@news4.newsguy.com, "Nousaine"
>>>>>>><nousaine@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case
>>>>here
>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>>> both sides.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let me ask again. If I'm not mistaken you have said that anything that
>>>>can
>>>>>>>be
>>>>>>>> heard can be measured or perhaps that was more like 'if you can't
>>>>measure
>>>>>>a
>>>>>>>> difference than there would be nothing to hear' or something similar.
>>I
>>>>>>>then
>>>>>>>> asked exactly what measureable differences would explain amp/cable
>>sound
>>>>>>>.....
>>>>>>>> and I don't recall a response.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we
>>>>>>>haven't
>>>>>>>> already done?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It might be that no one knows. If you notice something - even if 10
>>>>people
>>>>>>>were to denounce you - it does not mean you know the mechanism, nor are
>>>>you
>>>>>>>the expert on what measurements to make.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So how do they "design" products then .... by making random choices? Are
>>>>some
>>>>>>people just lucky?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would you ask the consumer how the designer opperates? I suggest you
>>>>pose
>>>>> those questions to actual designers and let them speak for themselves.
>>>>
>>>>Uh, Tom's intent of asking those questions is to make the consumer think
>>>>about the questions.
>>>
>>> It seems that when many consumers do so the objectivists get very upset
>>with
>>> any eroneous conclusions they may draw.
>>
>>Really? It seems like some of the people who came up with the erroneous
>>conclusions get unhappy when it was pointed out to them why those
>>conclusions were erroneous. I did not sense any objectivists getting
>>upset over these erroneous conclusions at all.
>>
>>> The question is better answered by the
>>> designers and the consumer is better served if the answers come form the
>>> designers.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you would say they "listen" to them for validation
>>>>>>then
>>>>>>I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of debate
>>you
>>>>> should have already considered this.
>>>>
>>>>Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the consumer,
>>>>think. And question.
>>>
>>> I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game played on
>>> consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issues.
>>
>>Wait a minute. Tom was asking some very general questions on the design
>>process. I would think that someone not being very technical can still
>>give an educated guess.
>
> What is the point of guessing? I think such guesses are nothing more than shark
> food.
>
> Or start thinking about an answer.
>
> Why? Some of us would really prefer to get at the best sound we can get without
> becoming EEs.

In that case, you probably don't want to know the answer anyway. So why
are you even interested in Tom's question?

In case you have forgotten, Tom's question was how did the designers
design those products, if, as Mr Bromo suggested, no one knows how to
make measurements that show those products work. Seems like a legitimate
and fair question to ask on this forum. And it can be considered a good
rhetorical question, too.

>
>>
>> I think Tom
>>> is just waiting for one subjectivbist to give a technically inept answer so
>>he
>>> can pounce on that person.
>>
>>Can you give some examples of Tom's "pouncing"?
>
> I'm sure I could if I wanted to do the search. If you want to think this is of
> no interest to Tom fine.

Actually I believe that Tom would want to see some examples, too. Didn't
Tom asked you for some similar examples?

>
> If it were truly a
>>technically inept answer, would you object strongly if someone points
>>that out?
>
> Hey if you guys enjoy subjectivist hunting on RAHE that's fine. We all have our
> hobbies. If one asks for an opinion and then attacks the opinion asked for that
> is simply baiting a sure win debate.

Would you equate pointing out a technically wrong explanation as
attacking the opinion?

>May be great for the ego but it does
> nothing to advance the hobby of audio.

You think asking the proper questions, or refuting the technically wrong
opinions, does nothing to advance the understanding of audio among
hobbyists?

Just today, Mr. Bromo learned that there are 16 information bits in CD
samples, because people corrected him. I would say that his
understanding of audio has been advanced tremendously.

>I noticed nobody took the bait.

I noticed nobody else complained about Tom's questions either.

>
>>
>>> The fact is it doesn't matter what answer he gets
>>> from the consumer. The question is one that should be posed to the
>>designer.
>>
>>Why?
>
> Because they aren't guessing. It could lead to a discussion that would be
> relevant. Maybe you think discussions on someone's mistaken beliefs about
> another designers work and intentions is interesting. I don't.
>
> The consumer should be thinking about those questions, too.
>
> They "should'? Where is this rule of audiophilia written?

Why would you interpret it as a rule? I am making a suggestion, and
somehow you read that as me imposing a rule?

>
>>>
>>> Despite, or in addition to, what the designers may
>>>>(or may not) tell you, the consumer should try to think independently
>>>>and use his/her own reasoning skills.
>>>
>>> Well some often do. They get smacked around in RAHE for doing so sometimes.
>>
>>Care to cite examples?
>>
>
> Not really. If you don't think it actually happens I'm not going to try to
> persuade you otherwise. People see what they want to see.

That part is clear to me.

>I think it has been
> pretty obvious.

Then examples would be easy to cite, no?

>>
>>
>>
>>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/28/04 12:51 PM, in article 50YDc.130210$Sw.1855@attbi_s51, "Timothy A.
Seufert" <tas@mindspring.com> wrote:

> The above is hardly the only method used to debunk astrology, though you
> seem to be acting as if it is.

It certainly is the most visible one, and is decidedly non rigorous.

I *did* mention it was on the television. I do recall an issue of Skpetic
where a reporter went to a "psychic fair" and asked people why it "worked" -
hence the second part of my post on it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/27/04 10:37 PM, in article 1wLDc.127052$Sw.29280@attbi_s51, "chung"
<chunglau@covad.net> wrote:

>>> Care to cite examples?
>>
>> A quick perusal of the archives ought to do it - something you should be
>> very capable of doing.
>
> A google search of "smacked around" in RAHE did not return any examples.
> So obviously this is figurative speech. I want to ask for examples since
> I am interested in knowing what you and your friends consider as being
> "smacked around".

If you do not believe that you and others do this - there is no point
pointing it out to you further - you will not pick it up.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
news:cbq76001khv@news3.newsguy.com...
> Harry Lavo wrote:
>
> > "chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> > news:cbmv0502qhl@news4.newsguy.com...
> >> Bromo wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 6/27/04 1:51 AM, in article FftDc.99337$2i5.10037@attbi_s52,
> > "S888Wheel"
> >> > <s888wheel@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>> Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of
> > debate you
> >> >>>> should have already considered this.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the
consumer,
> >> >>> think. And question.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game
played
> > on
> >> >> consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issues.
I
> > think
> >> >> Tom
> >> >> is just waiting for one subjectivbist to give a technically inept
> > answer so he
> >> >> can pounce on that person. The fact is it doesn't matter what answer
he
> > gets
> >> >> from the consumer. The question is one that should be posed to the
> > designer
> >> >
> >> > I believe that it is a mistake for someone who hears a difference,
> >> > scientist, consumer or designer, unless really skilled in the art, to
> > offer
> >> > and "explanation" - because invariably a debunker will be able to
refute
> > the
> >> > explanation (only proving the someone in question didn't know why the
> >> > difference was noted) and avoid the more difficult and intellectually
> >> > important task of proving or disproving the observation.
> >>
> >> Now let's give a counter example to illustrate how you are wrong. SACD
> >> and CD versions of the same recording were sometimes assumed to be
> >> mastered identically and any superiority of the sound clearly due to
the
> >> better technical specs of DSD. Recently people noticed that on some
> >> Telarc recording, the two versions sound different.
> >>
> >> Careful inspection of the CD wave files shows digital clipping. This
> >> clearly indicates an intentional compression on the CD by the mastering
> >> engineer. Follow-up emails to Telarc confirm this.
> >>
> >> So here is an example that shows people hear differences, and were able
> >> to provide an explanation that runs counter to the popular notion that
> >> the two versions are mastered the same way, or that DSD has to be
> >> superior. Now, Mr. Bromo, why don't you try to refute this explanation?
> >>
> >> By the way, Norm Strong provided a link to this incident a few days
ago.
> >>
> >
> > Yes, but you conveniently overlook two things:
>
> Not really, unless you can refute that explanation.
>
> >
> > 1) You and the other objectivists used to argue that the SA-CD layer
sounded
> > better than the CD layer because the SA-CD layer had been artificially
> > boosted in volume. Exactly the opposite is true, which all else being
> > equal, would give the advantage to the CD layer.
>
> Not when the boost is so much that distortion is audible.
>

Never even mentioned as a possibility in prior discussion with relation to
SA-CD.

> Furthermore, some of us claimed that the *players* themselves boost up
> the level a notch when playing the SACD layer. See the difference?
>

See the interesting work done by Christine Tham illustrating that CD
technology under some circumstances produces levels 1 to 3 db higher than
odbf when reconstructing redbook material. This work duplicated work
presented in an AES paper entitled "0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering" by
Søren H. Nielsen and Thomas Lund of T.C. Electronic A/S.

Perhaps the SACD people, if they are doing what you claim, are simply trying
to equalize average levels. But you have also not *proven* your claim...as
far as I can remember, it is simply an assertion that this *may* be
true...an excuse generated for the general audiophile preference for SA-CD
in informal AB's.

> >
> > 2) Of course, all else is not equal since there is compression and
clipping.
> > Which should lead you to ponder that these artifacts were heard without
dbt
> > as an inferior sound from the CD layer by those of us who thought the
SACD
> > sound superior.
>
> The point however is that the superiority may not lie in the DSD
> technology, but is the result of mastering differences. Which is what we
> have always suspected as to why the two layers may sound different.
>

Still, did not require dbt's to hear. And the argument was usually made
that the CD's were deliberately downgraded, whereas in the case of the
Telarc disks we have state of the art masters following industry-standard
practice.

> And there are CD's that are mastered correctly, too.
>

Yep..but there is no proof one way or the other that completely controlled
DSD masters with no compression will sound the same on CD as on SA-CD. It
is still a hypothesis until proven...and it hasn't been proven.

> >
> > 3) None of this necessarily establishes that CD will sound as good as
SACD
> > even if they are exactly level matched and uncompressed.
>
> But it explains why some people believe that SACD's sound different or
> better.
>

It may in some cases. But not in all necessarily. The assertion that there
is no difference in sound has not been proven in practice.

> Other experiments appear to indicate that no one has detected a
> difference when two were mastered the same way. Like carefully recording
> the output of a SACD player on redbook CD.
>

Please show me the peer-reviewed study done on an extremely high-quality
home system (not a PC) that shows this?

> >
> > Sometimes things don't fit conveniently into the boxes you wish to put
them
> > in.
> >
>
> I would say that this is true. Now, what boxes do you wish to put them
> into? .

None. No need for boxes. An inquisitive attitude and an open
mind...combined with a real familiarity with live acoustic (non-amplified)
music is all that is required.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/28/04 6:46 PM, in article cbq73901ker@news3.newsguy.com, "Nousaine"
<nousaine@aol.com> wrote:

>> Peter Forsell said his design wrok was mostly trial and error. His turntable
>> went through over fifty different incarnations, All decisions were based on
>> listening tests.
>
> Trial and error. OK so they just randomly substitute parts/circuits and "hope"
> for improvement. With the several hundred "parts" inside an amplifier exactly
> how do they ever hone-in on an optimized design? Don't they have to perform
> listening tests on "every" part and on "every" change in value?

Armstrong, the father of FM, and a large force in modern communications, was
an empiricist in design. Not doing audiophile stuff (RF pays a lot better)
surely, but don't denigrate the empiricists - theory gets you to the bench
and can even help you around it a bit, but sometimes in design a bit of
empirical sweating is what it required (I would follow it up with
explanations of what you found that were sound which I suspect was not the
case here, but still ... )

 

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo wrote:
> On 6/27/04 10:37 PM, in article 1wLDc.127052$Sw.29280@attbi_s51, "chung"
> <chunglau@covad.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Care to cite examples?
>>>
>>> A quick perusal of the archives ought to do it - something you should be
>>> very capable of doing.
>>
>> A google search of "smacked around" in RAHE did not return any examples.
>> So obviously this is figurative speech. I want to ask for examples since
>> I am interested in knowing what you and your friends consider as being
>> "smacked around".
>
> If you do not believe that you and others do this - there is no point
> pointing it out to you further - you will not pick it up.
>

If you do not give examples, then we just don't know what you consider
as being "smacked around". The risk then is that we would keep doing
that, and someone would keep feeling "smacked around". We don't want
that to happen.

If you give us examples, perhaps we can try to explain how we are *not*
trying to smack someone around. That might help that person feel better.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Forgot to post the link to Tham's site. Here it is:

http/users.bigpond.net.au/christie/0dBFS/index.html

Harry

"Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:TM3Ec.124296$eu.23157@attbi_s02...
> "chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> news:cbq76001khv@news3.newsguy.com...
> > Harry Lavo wrote:
> >
> > > "chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> > > news:cbmv0502qhl@news4.newsguy.com...
> > >> Bromo wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On 6/27/04 1:51 AM, in article FftDc.99337$2i5.10037@attbi_s52,
> > > "S888Wheel"
> > >> > <s888wheel@aol.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>>> Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of
> > > debate you
> > >> >>>> should have already considered this.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the
> consumer,
> > >> >>> think. And question.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game
> played
> > > on
> > >> >> consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such
issues.
> I
> > > think
> > >> >> Tom
> > >> >> is just waiting for one subjectivbist to give a technically inept
> > > answer so he
> > >> >> can pounce on that person. The fact is it doesn't matter what
answer
> he
> > > gets
> > >> >> from the consumer. The question is one that should be posed to the
> > > designer
> > >> >
> > >> > I believe that it is a mistake for someone who hears a difference,
> > >> > scientist, consumer or designer, unless really skilled in the art,
to
> > > offer
> > >> > and "explanation" - because invariably a debunker will be able to
> refute
> > > the
> > >> > explanation (only proving the someone in question didn't know why
the
> > >> > difference was noted) and avoid the more difficult and
intellectually
> > >> > important task of proving or disproving the observation.
> > >>
> > >> Now let's give a counter example to illustrate how you are wrong.
SACD
> > >> and CD versions of the same recording were sometimes assumed to be
> > >> mastered identically and any superiority of the sound clearly due to
> the
> > >> better technical specs of DSD. Recently people noticed that on some
> > >> Telarc recording, the two versions sound different.
> > >>
> > >> Careful inspection of the CD wave files shows digital clipping. This
> > >> clearly indicates an intentional compression on the CD by the
mastering
> > >> engineer. Follow-up emails to Telarc confirm this.
> > >>
> > >> So here is an example that shows people hear differences, and were
able
> > >> to provide an explanation that runs counter to the popular notion
that
> > >> the two versions are mastered the same way, or that DSD has to be
> > >> superior. Now, Mr. Bromo, why don't you try to refute this
explanation?
> > >>
> > >> By the way, Norm Strong provided a link to this incident a few days
> ago.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yes, but you conveniently overlook two things:
> >
> > Not really, unless you can refute that explanation.
> >
> > >
> > > 1) You and the other objectivists used to argue that the SA-CD layer
> sounded
> > > better than the CD layer because the SA-CD layer had been artificially
> > > boosted in volume. Exactly the opposite is true, which all else being
> > > equal, would give the advantage to the CD layer.
> >
> > Not when the boost is so much that distortion is audible.
> >
>
> Never even mentioned as a possibility in prior discussion with relation to
> SA-CD.
>
> > Furthermore, some of us claimed that the *players* themselves boost up
> > the level a notch when playing the SACD layer. See the difference?
> >
>
> See the interesting work done by Christine Tham illustrating that CD
> technology under some circumstances produces levels 1 to 3 db higher than
> odbf when reconstructing redbook material. This work duplicated work
> presented in an AES paper entitled "0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering" by
> Søren H. Nielsen and Thomas Lund of T.C. Electronic A/S.
>
> Perhaps the SACD people, if they are doing what you claim, are simply
trying
> to equalize average levels. But you have also not *proven* your
claim...as
> far as I can remember, it is simply an assertion that this *may* be
> true...an excuse generated for the general audiophile preference for SA-CD
> in informal AB's.
>
> > >
> > > 2) Of course, all else is not equal since there is compression and
> clipping.
> > > Which should lead you to ponder that these artifacts were heard
without
> dbt
> > > as an inferior sound from the CD layer by those of us who thought the
> SACD
> > > sound superior.
> >
> > The point however is that the superiority may not lie in the DSD
> > technology, but is the result of mastering differences. Which is what we
> > have always suspected as to why the two layers may sound different.
> >
>
> Still, did not require dbt's to hear. And the argument was usually made
> that the CD's were deliberately downgraded, whereas in the case of the
> Telarc disks we have state of the art masters following industry-standard
> practice.
>
> > And there are CD's that are mastered correctly, too.
> >
>
> Yep..but there is no proof one way or the other that completely controlled
> DSD masters with no compression will sound the same on CD as on SA-CD. It
> is still a hypothesis until proven...and it hasn't been proven.
>
> > >
> > > 3) None of this necessarily establishes that CD will sound as good as
> SACD
> > > even if they are exactly level matched and uncompressed.
> >
> > But it explains why some people believe that SACD's sound different or
> > better.
> >
>
> It may in some cases. But not in all necessarily. The assertion that
there
> is no difference in sound has not been proven in practice.
>
> > Other experiments appear to indicate that no one has detected a
> > difference when two were mastered the same way. Like carefully recording
> > the output of a SACD player on redbook CD.
> >
>
> Please show me the peer-reviewed study done on an extremely high-quality
> home system (not a PC) that shows this?
>
> > >
> > > Sometimes things don't fit conveniently into the boxes you wish to put
> them
> > > in.
> > >
> >
> > I would say that this is true. Now, what boxes do you wish to put them
> > into? .
>
> None. No need for boxes. An inquisitive attitude and an open
> mind...combined with a real familiarity with live acoustic (non-amplified)
> music is all that is required.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>On 6/28/04 6:46 PM, in article cbq73901ker@news3.newsguy.com, "Nousaine"
><nousaine@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> Peter Forsell said his design wrok was mostly trial and error. His
>turntable
>>> went through over fifty different incarnations, All decisions were based
>on
>>> listening tests.
>>
>> Trial and error. OK so they just randomly substitute parts/circuits and
>"hope"
>> for improvement. With the several hundred "parts" inside an amplifier
>exactly
>> how do they ever hone-in on an optimized design? Don't they have to perform
>> listening tests on "every" part and on "every" change in value?
>
>Armstrong, the father of FM, and a large force in modern communications, was
>an empiricist in design. Not doing audiophile stuff (RF pays a lot better)
>surely, but don't denigrate the empiricists - theory gets you to the bench
>and can even help you around it a bit, but sometimes in design a bit of
>empirical sweating is what it required (I would follow it up with
>explanations of what you found that were sound which I suspect was not the
>case here, but still ... )

And your point is......exactly what? Armstrong worked in a distant past ....
but you are suggesting that he did not have a working theory and that he didn't
employ that in development?

Otherwise how could he move forward? Was it "all" luck? If not how could we
believe that cable companies "get better." And how have branded companies
just"each" happened on a different way to maximize quality with "different:
wire topology?

 

[chung]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Harry Lavo wrote:
> "chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
> news:cbq76001khv@news3.newsguy.com...
>> Harry Lavo wrote:
>>
>> > "chung" <chunglau@covad.net> wrote in message
>> > news:cbmv0502qhl@news4.newsguy.com...
>> >> Bromo wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On 6/27/04 1:51 AM, in article FftDc.99337$2i5.10037@attbi_s52,
>> > "S888Wheel"
>> >> > <s888wheel@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>>> Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of
>> > debate you
>> >> >>>> should have already considered this.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the
> consumer,
>> >> >>> think. And question.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game
> played
>> > on
>> >> >> consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issues.
> I
>> > think
>> >> >> Tom
>> >> >> is just waiting for one subjectivbist to give a technically inept
>> > answer so he
>> >> >> can pounce on that person. The fact is it doesn't matter what answer
> he
>> > gets
>> >> >> from the consumer. The question is one that should be posed to the
>> > designer
>> >> >
>> >> > I believe that it is a mistake for someone who hears a difference,
>> >> > scientist, consumer or designer, unless really skilled in the art, to
>> > offer
>> >> > and "explanation" - because invariably a debunker will be able to
> refute
>> > the
>> >> > explanation (only proving the someone in question didn't know why the
>> >> > difference was noted) and avoid the more difficult and intellectually
>> >> > important task of proving or disproving the observation.
>> >>
>> >> Now let's give a counter example to illustrate how you are wrong. SACD
>> >> and CD versions of the same recording were sometimes assumed to be
>> >> mastered identically and any superiority of the sound clearly due to
> the
>> >> better technical specs of DSD. Recently people noticed that on some
>> >> Telarc recording, the two versions sound different.
>> >>
>> >> Careful inspection of the CD wave files shows digital clipping. This
>> >> clearly indicates an intentional compression on the CD by the mastering
>> >> engineer. Follow-up emails to Telarc confirm this.
>> >>
>> >> So here is an example that shows people hear differences, and were able
>> >> to provide an explanation that runs counter to the popular notion that
>> >> the two versions are mastered the same way, or that DSD has to be
>> >> superior. Now, Mr. Bromo, why don't you try to refute this explanation?
>> >>
>> >> By the way, Norm Strong provided a link to this incident a few days
> ago.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yes, but you conveniently overlook two things:
>>
>> Not really, unless you can refute that explanation.
>>
>> >
>> > 1) You and the other objectivists used to argue that the SA-CD layer
> sounded
>> > better than the CD layer because the SA-CD layer had been artificially
>> > boosted in volume. Exactly the opposite is true, which all else being
>> > equal, would give the advantage to the CD layer.
>>
>> Not when the boost is so much that distortion is audible.
>>
>
> Never even mentioned as a possibility in prior discussion with relation to
> SA-CD.

There were a lot of mentions of the CD layer being mastered differently
than the SACD layer.

Is your point simply that some objectivists have overlooked the possible
reasons why they are mastered differently?

>
>> Furthermore, some of us claimed that the *players* themselves boost up
>> the level a notch when playing the SACD layer. See the difference?
>>
>
> See the interesting work done by Christine Tham illustrating that CD
> technology under some circumstances produces levels 1 to 3 db higher than
> odbf when reconstructing redbook material.

I think that work has been roundly critiqued on this newsgroup, so no
sense in rehashing the objections here. But what is the relevance here?
Are you now saying too that indeed the two layers are not mastered equally?

> This work duplicated work
> presented in an AES paper entitled "0dBFS+ Levels in Digital Mastering" by
> Søren H. Nielsen and Thomas Lund of T.C. Electronic A/S.
>
> Perhaps the SACD people, if they are doing what you claim, are simply trying
> to equalize average levels. But you have also not *proven* your claim...as
> far as I can remember, it is simply an assertion that this *may* be
> true...an excuse generated for the general audiophile preference for SA-CD
> in informal AB's.

I never tried to prove any claim in that post, which was to show how
Bromo was wrong in saying that any explanation for audible differences
will be refuted.

What is true, and proven, is that there is intentional degradation of
the CD quality in some recordings, compared to SACD's.

BTW, how hard would it be to prove that the playback levels are not the
same?

>
>> >
>> > 2) Of course, all else is not equal since there is compression and
> clipping.
>> > Which should lead you to ponder that these artifacts were heard without
> dbt
>> > as an inferior sound from the CD layer by those of us who thought the
> SACD
>> > sound superior.
>>
>> The point however is that the superiority may not lie in the DSD
>> technology, but is the result of mastering differences. Which is what we
>> have always suspected as to why the two layers may sound different.
>>
>
> Still, did not require dbt's to hear. And the argument was usually made
> that the CD's were deliberately downgraded, whereas in the case of the
> Telarc disks we have state of the art masters following industry-standard
> practice.
>

Not sure if I catch your point. If the CD and the SACD were from the
same master, we postulate that it will require DBT's to tell them apart,
because the differences will be subtle at best. If the two layers are
mastered differently, with the CD having intentional clipping, it is not
surprising that dbt's are not required to tell them apart.

If you followed the thread that Norm Strong linked to, you will find
that indeed Telarc downgraded the CD layer, via mastering.

>> And there are CD's that are mastered correctly, too.
>>
>
> Yep..but there is no proof one way or the other that completely controlled
> DSD masters with no compression will sound the same on CD as on SA-CD. It
> is still a hypothesis until proven...and it hasn't been proven.

Well, is there any proof that they will sound different? Has it been
proven that SACD and CD will sound different if mastered the same way?

>
>> >
>> > 3) None of this necessarily establishes that CD will sound as good as
> SACD
>> > even if they are exactly level matched and uncompressed.
>>
>> But it explains why some people believe that SACD's sound different or
>> better.
>>
>
> It may in some cases. But not in all necessarily. The assertion that there
> is no difference in sound has not been proven in practice.
>
>> Other experiments appear to indicate that no one has detected a
>> difference when two were mastered the same way. Like carefully recording
>> the output of a SACD player on redbook CD.
>>
>
> Please show me the peer-reviewed study done on an extremely high-quality
> home system (not a PC) that shows this?

No, just blind testing done by serious hobbyists. Now, can you show me a
peer-reviewed study that shows SACD will sound different from CD? More
importantly, what is the theoretical reason why SACD will sound better
than CD?

BTW, do you really need an "extremely high-quality home system" to tell
them apart? That could lead to all kinds of excuses when the results are
not what you like .

A sidenote here: a lot of audiophiles claimed that SACD sound better
than DVD-A, because it does not have that "PCM digital grit". A recent
AES convention paper shows that no difference was detected between DVD-A
and SACD. So much for audiophiles' claims, or digital grit, whatever
that means.


>
>> >
>> > Sometimes things don't fit conveniently into the boxes you wish to put
> them
>> > in.
>> >
>>
>> I would say that this is true. Now, what boxes do you wish to put them
>> into? .
>
> None. No need for boxes. An inquisitive attitude and an open
> mind...combined with a real familiarity with live acoustic (non-amplified)
> music is all that is required.

Well, I have a grand piano at home, and my kids play piano, flute,
saxophone and drums. I think I know how real instruments sound.

If you have an open mind, you should entertain the possibility that
indeed there is no reason why SACD should sound better than CD. One
would think that if SACD really sounds better, there would have been
DBT's that back that up.