Post by LivyII April 21, 2010 (11 of 38)
|
|
I found this website to be way overloaded with hyperbole and assumptions; that said, I agree that there is sometimes a "cult of hi-fi" that makes too much of rather minor audible differences. Of course, such esoteriscism exists in many hobbies and areas of interest, beyond hi-fi.
I would add that audio is ultimately very subjective and dependent on individual hearing. I know my hearing is not what it used to be (too many concerts and hours on the rifle range in the US Army - ooh rah!) so I am well-aware of the fact that others may hear subtle differences that I do not. This is a good thing because I know that spending signficant sums for hi-end equipment will be wasted, so I can settle for middle of the road equipment and be very happy.
Best of all, I never feel like I am missing out on anything!
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have neaver heard of, much less seen, an ABX test that proved there were any "differences" at all in audio. Has anyone else? This says either that ABX testing cannot reliably detect differences or that the differences are indeed small or non-existent. But, we cannot be sure which. I do agree that the equipment in this test - cables, amps, and CD players - is likely to have small, subtle differences, so I am not surprised that the test, which is faulty in many ways, could not detect a statistically significant difference.
Why don't they do a test on stuff that exhibits what I think are large, obvious sonic differences, like speakers, Mch vs. stereo, or DSP-EQ? Or, as I suspect, everybody already knows the outcome would be a slam dunk.
People can believe in the "science" of ABX if they wish. I think the methodology is suspect. So, I think we each need to conduct our own tests on our own terms for differences or improvements that are worthwhile to us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Clark said:
LOL!
If you think taunting me will get under my skin, knock yourself out. I am undeterred by a narrow-minded juvenile like yourself. If you think you have changed one person's mind in this forum with your antics, go ahead and continue to waste your time here. You are free to do it all you want, but what kind of a sick minded person would continue to exhibit this strange behavior and make a fool of themselves?
|
|
|
Post by hiredfox April 21, 2010 (15 of 38)
|
|
Fitzcaraldo215 said:
If you think taunting me will get under my skin, knock yourself out. I am undeterred by a narrow-minded juvenile like yourself. If you think you have changed one person's mind in this forum with your antics, go ahead and continue to waste your time here. You are free to do it all you want, but what kind of a sick minded person would continue to exhibit this strange behavior and make a fool of themselves?
So he did get under your skin? Tch!
Exactly part of his aim of course. HINT, if a big fat juicy worm is offered to you on a plate (nee Hook!) right in front of your nose, for heaven's sake think to yourself "...this must be too good to be true.. " It is, so don't just bite it greedily or you'll soon be on a grill plate.
I am certain Paul is a wind-up merchant as UK dwellers would understand it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Clark's major problem is that he is a REPRESSED AUDIOPHILE at heart. When he comes out of his closet and starts spending big bucks on audiophile equipment and sees what the fuss is really all about, he'll be singing a different tune. Until then, there is NO hope for the uninitiated. But in his defense, thanks Paul for that fantastic photo of the upcoming Universal SHM-SACD release......but for US $45 + shipping, you can purchase 2 cable elevators for that tangle of zip cord in your listening room.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He doesn't have a monopoly on being 11, and/or unreasonable: I'd just wish that he'd actually achieve some of the humor that he attempts. At the end of the day, I feel sorry for him and the desperate envy that he can't hide.
But hey, maybe we'll all get treated to another "LOL."
|
|
|
|
|
|
sordidman said:
He doesn't have a monopoly on being 11, and/or unreasonable: I'd just wish that he'd actually achieve some of the humor that he attempts. At the end of the day, I feel sorry for him and the desperate envy that he can't hide.
But hey, maybe we'll all get treated to another "LOL."
Which translated into PaulSpeak is LOT'S OF LOVE! When you truly love yourself everything else falls into place.
|
|
|
Post by gfresh April 22, 2010 (20 of 38)
|
|
Fitzcaraldo215 said:
I have neaver heard of, much less seen, an ABX test that proved there were any "differences" at all in audio. Has anyone else? This says either that ABX testing cannot reliably detect differences or that the differences are indeed small or non-existent. But, we cannot be sure which. I do agree that the equipment in this test - cables, amps, and CD players - is likely to have small, subtle differences, so I am not surprised that the test, which is faulty in many ways, could not detect a statistically significant difference.
Why don't they do a test on stuff that exhibits what I think are large, obvious sonic differences, like speakers, Mch vs. stereo, or DSP-EQ? Or, as I suspect, everybody already knows the outcome would be a slam dunk.
People can believe in the "science" of ABX if they wish. I think the methodology is suspect. So, I think we each need to conduct our own tests on our own terms for differences or improvements that are worthwhile to us.
This is an excellent point. ABX tests have "proved" CD, SACD, 24/96k and 24/192k PCM are indistinguishable, that all amplifiers sound exactly the same, that 1k alias tones cannot be heard, the list goes on. This flies in the the face of people that have actually used the equipment.
I have a decent amount of experience with high end equipment in a professional studio environment, having worked with analog, PCM and DSD, different preamps, cables and converters, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that these differences are real and significant. You would be hard pressed to find a studio engineer who agreed that 16/44.1, 24/96 and DSD all sound the same as do all converters and analog signal paths, which is what the ABX experts claim to demonstrate.
To the argument that high-end gear is simply a placebo based on cost: My first SACD setup was $300 Pioneer DV-45a into a crappy Panasonic stereo set and then later into an old 70s Pioneer reciever and late 60s Rectilinear speakers. I can tell you on both cheap setups the difference between SACD and Red Book CD, even on the same hybrid disc, was noticeable if not dramatic.
I found the a comparable level of sonic difference using the surround mixing room at the Conservatory of Recording Arts, using the Tascam DSD recorder and Cider Mountain Recorders, and with my current OPPO BDP-83 NE.
If anything, it seems the more one spends on high-end equipment the more audio formats and converters sound alike. That said, I still think that most SACDs on my old Pioneer DV-45a sound vastly better than CDs "done right" through my freind's expensive Cambridge Audio 384k Upsampling player. SACD is actually a more cost effect way to improve sound quality(OOP titles aside). It is not a placebo for people who want to spend money.
|
|
