calling computer audiophiles.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,087
Likes: 2
From: Dry Branch
Originally Posted by dean' date='Jan 16 2009, 08:58 AM
Sez you. 
Not all of them are posers. Many of them are as zealous and as thoroughly entrenched in their beliefs as the most rabid religious fundamentalist. It's a curious thing. They pursue a hobby that's purposely designed to trick the ear, then become nearly apoplectic in their denials when it succeeds.
One of my favorites, which is sure to cause my head to explode one of these days, from the purveyors and disciples of audio woo is the claim that not everything we hear can be measured. There's magic pixie dust in our ears, apparently.
Not all of them are posers. Many of them are as zealous and as thoroughly entrenched in their beliefs as the most rabid religious fundamentalist. It's a curious thing. They pursue a hobby that's purposely designed to trick the ear, then become nearly apoplectic in their denials when it succeeds.
One of my favorites, which is sure to cause my head to explode one of these days, from the purveyors and disciples of audio woo is the claim that not everything we hear can be measured. There's magic pixie dust in our ears, apparently.
One of the dumbest things I ever heard anyone say came from an audiophile who informed me that "the problem with guys like you, and your silly measurements, is that you always measure in the frequency domain, and never in the time domain." I sent him a picture of an o-scope, but he didn't get it. To me, it's always funny when some self proclaimed expert proves so clearly how little he really knows. The guy used the words, but obviously didn't have a clue what they mean. Hahaha, and the golden ear in quesiton here is a designer at a well known audio company, so obviously you don't need to understand anything about electronics or measurements to design audio gear for some companies.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,087
Likes: 2
From: Dry Branch
Originally Posted by mikegarrison' date='Jan 16 2009, 09:22 AM
Well ... not magic pixie dust, no. But the brain does a lot of processing on the images our eyes and ears receive. So we do "see" and "hear" things that don't exist in the light and pressure waves that reach our ears.
The difference between monaural and binaural recording, for instance, is startling if you have ever heard it. (Stereo is an approximation that tries to manufacture a binaural response, but it's not true binaural recording/playback.) Head Acoustics makes a binaural recording device (the "Aachen Head") that I've worked with before. It's like the difference between a 3D image and a 2D image.
None of that really comes directly in to play with "high end acoustics", because this stuff is "high end" in a different way than anybody has on the consumer level (even the guys that build their own $100,000 speakers for $3000). These are systems that are typically purchased by Fortune 500 companies and research universities for their noise labs. http://www.head-acoustics.de/eng/nvh_binau...ing_systems.htm
The difference between monaural and binaural recording, for instance, is startling if you have ever heard it. (Stereo is an approximation that tries to manufacture a binaural response, but it's not true binaural recording/playback.) Head Acoustics makes a binaural recording device (the "Aachen Head") that I've worked with before. It's like the difference between a 3D image and a 2D image.
None of that really comes directly in to play with "high end acoustics", because this stuff is "high end" in a different way than anybody has on the consumer level (even the guys that build their own $100,000 speakers for $3000). These are systems that are typically purchased by Fortune 500 companies and research universities for their noise labs. http://www.head-acoustics.de/eng/nvh_binau...ing_systems.htm
Hahaha, but then that's almost always the case. How the heck did you ever get so darn smart?
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,478
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by RED MX5' date='Jan 16 2009, 04:58 PM
One of the dumbest things I ever heard anyone say came from an audiophile who informed me that "the problem with guys like you, and your silly measurements, is that you always measure in the frequency domain, and never in the time domain." I sent him a picture of an o-scope, but he didn't get it. To me, it's always funny when some self proclaimed expert proves so clearly how little he really knows. The guy used the words, but obviously didn't have a clue what they mean. Hahaha, and the golden ear in quesiton here is a designer at a well known audio company, so obviously you don't need to understand anything about electronics or measurements to design audio gear for some companies.
BTW, we need some pictures of those ESLs of yours. I'm a big fan of them, but I'm currently using Maggies.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,087
Likes: 2
From: Dry Branch
Originally Posted by Starbrd' date='Jan 16 2009, 02:30 PM
My PhD is actually in psychoacoustics. I spent 18 years at Bell Labs in sound quality research. I was also involved in writing the AAC standard, which actually is one of the MPEG-2 audio options.
The criterion for MPEG-2 audio was "transparency." Transparency was defined as the inability in a well designed listening test to tell the difference between the source material and the result of decoding the compressed material. Note that I said a well designed listening test. This is not a simple matter. all sources of possible bias or error have to be eliminated. An appropriate subject pool has to be used. The proper experimental design and statistical analysis have to be used in oder for the results to be valid.
The other audio coding options in MPEG-2 are backward compatible with MPEG-1. To allow better quality backward compatibility was abandoned in defing AAC.
Many properly designed listening tests have shown that only current state of the art digital amplifiers can reproduce source material without detectable distortion. The current fascination with tube amplifiers only shows that people actually like some kinds of distortion, Perhaps this si not too surprising given the kind of distortion that amplifiers used in rock music introduce into the audio signal.
The holy grail of audio reproduction is of course the ability to render music exactly like it would be perceived in the concert hall. While not impossible it would be extremely difficult. What is heard in the concert hall is a product of both the source (the orchestra) and the acoustic characteristics of the hall. What the listeners in the hall hears depends on where they are located in the hall. What gets on the recording depends on the placement of the microphones. Finally, the acoustic environment of the listening room is added to the perceptual space. All this adds up to the fact that a person listening to a recording of music will never have the same experience as would have been obtained by personally listening in the hall where the music was played originally, even if no distortion was added in the recording, transmission and reproduction chain.
The criterion for MPEG-2 audio was "transparency." Transparency was defined as the inability in a well designed listening test to tell the difference between the source material and the result of decoding the compressed material. Note that I said a well designed listening test. This is not a simple matter. all sources of possible bias or error have to be eliminated. An appropriate subject pool has to be used. The proper experimental design and statistical analysis have to be used in oder for the results to be valid.
The other audio coding options in MPEG-2 are backward compatible with MPEG-1. To allow better quality backward compatibility was abandoned in defing AAC.
Many properly designed listening tests have shown that only current state of the art digital amplifiers can reproduce source material without detectable distortion. The current fascination with tube amplifiers only shows that people actually like some kinds of distortion, Perhaps this si not too surprising given the kind of distortion that amplifiers used in rock music introduce into the audio signal.
The holy grail of audio reproduction is of course the ability to render music exactly like it would be perceived in the concert hall. While not impossible it would be extremely difficult. What is heard in the concert hall is a product of both the source (the orchestra) and the acoustic characteristics of the hall. What the listeners in the hall hears depends on where they are located in the hall. What gets on the recording depends on the placement of the microphones. Finally, the acoustic environment of the listening room is added to the perceptual space. All this adds up to the fact that a person listening to a recording of music will never have the same experience as would have been obtained by personally listening in the hall where the music was played originally, even if no distortion was added in the recording, transmission and reproduction chain.
Bell Labs does good work. Conducting valid DBT's is one of the most difficult things I've ever done. Audiophiles like to think that it is easy to get false negatives, but the truth of the matter is that it is all too easy to get false positives. Controling, or even finding, all the variables, can be a bear. Bell has it down pat, but then they aren't working on a small company budget, and that helps, to say nothing of their years of experience and the quality of people they have in their labs.
I really don't care to get into a discussion about it, but am wondering if you are familiar with LEDE?
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,087
Likes: 2
From: Dry Branch
Originally Posted by dean' date='Jan 16 2009, 04:18 PM
Would his initials be JC, by any chance? I've heard some stories about that character that would curl the hair.
BTW, we need some pictures of those ESLs of yours. I'm a big fan of them, but I'm currently using Maggies.
BTW, we need some pictures of those ESLs of yours. I'm a big fan of them, but I'm currently using Maggies.
The back end of our HT room is a pig sty, so I'm not sure I want to post any pictures. The rear panels are just your typical 6' tall and 4' wide "full range" (in quotes, because it's never really true) panels, quite typical of $100k+ ESL's, only more reliable than any commercial speakers of comparable size (due to the encapsulated stators, aka "UltraStat" panels). LOL, they are black, and thin, hang from the ceiling, and there is a sub to pick up the work below 60 Hz.
I guess it's pretty obvious that I have a strong prefernece for ESL's and true ribbons, and I freely admit that this preference comes from the fact that I can get better performance (flatter in room response, better transient response, lower distortion) from them, than from any other technology, but some of the Maggies are sweet little (or not so little) planar ribbons, and I have a great deal of respect for the companies designs.
I don't want to post a picture of the back of our HT room, but I'll see if I can find one of my old waterfall plots, and if I can, I'll post it up later. I think you'll be amazed.
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 45,849
Likes: 8,352
From: Mish-she-gan
Originally Posted by HondaGal' date='Jan 16 2009, 05:22 PM
I have a question regarding copying LP's thru an amp thingy and then on to the comupter, and burning the songs on to cd
Can I ask it here?
I bet Red is posting more than ever now
Can I ask it here?
I bet Red is posting more than ever now