High Fidelity the Miraculous Invention

<font color='#000000'>Audio or high fidelity has been a miraculous invention. If you need to understand why, read Steppenwolf. We audiophiles are at the forefront of a revolution written about by Larry Klein, in Stereo Review, over a quarter century ago. We believe that, if we can create the right conditions, the original reality can be recreated at will. Today we recreate auditory information, tomorrow information for all the senses. Ultimately, our revolution leads to a version of “The Matrix”. Understanding this, we have pushed the envelope for developing better and better audio equipment.

This push for furthering the goal has led to two camps: those that rely on measurements to determine accuracy and those that rely on their hearing. Let’s briefly examine both.

[More]</font>
 
<font color='#000000'>I personally think this is a solid article that gives some leeway to both camps. &quot;Naysayers&quot; get their testing, and &quot;yeahsayers&quot; can customize the test to their parameters (with regards to duration and test material.)</font>
 
P

Pat D

Audioholic
<font color='#000000'>Three things come to mind:

1) An unrealistic basis of division between two camps.

To wit, I have not come across anyone who proposes solely to rely on measurements to determine accuracy in audio equipment. &nbsp;Where are these people? &nbsp;As is pointed out, to rely on measurements presupposes the measuring equipment is more sensitive than our hearing--but this already supposed Just Noticeable Differences (JND's), which are, of course, based on Double Blind Tests (DBT's). &nbsp;JND's, of course, vary with the frequency and the level.

Now the DBT does not presuppose much in the way of measurements, except what is necessary for level matching within, ideally, 0.1 dB. &nbsp;Either one can tell the difference or one cannot. &nbsp;However, it is most useful if one can correlate the measurements with measurements. &nbsp;This might look to a subjectivist like relying on measurements, but it in fact implies a correlation with listening tests.

I think the more real basis of division is whether, to determine whether a difference is audible, one relies on uncontrolled, sighted listening comparisons or whether one relies, ultimately, on DBT data. &nbsp;Of course, those who rely on DBT data agree with the mantra &quot;trust your ears,&quot; and in fact, are the only ones who do so, as sighted listening relies on human built in biases to make choices, cultural things like reputation, brand name, appearance, and lack of controls.

Of course, there are cultural differences. &nbsp;The subjectivist may want one to do it all oneself, what I call the &quot;hair shirt&quot; approach, which they often oppose to reliance on reading. &nbsp;A real man (most audiophiles are men) will do it himself! &nbsp;As if, in fact, any of us do not rely a great deal on things learned from others. &nbsp;Of course, when I read the similar terminology and thought patterns, I know that the subjectivists views are spread in great part by the written word or other forms of communication, so this is not only irrelevant but silly.

There is also a romantic kind of bias, the reliance on subjective experience rather than soulless machines. &nbsp;But this really relies on a mischaracterization, as the rationalists in fact rely on correlations between DBT results and measurements.

Another objection is that long term listening is needed. &nbsp;Well, this may be a learning process, but once identified, differences should be audible in DBT's. &nbsp;Besides, I think Daniel Shanefield did some long term DBT's, and found they didn't produce different results.

But these are side issues as to whether the most accurate determinations of small audible differences is signted listening or controlled DBT's. &nbsp;Everything else is peripheral.

2) &nbsp;The example using digital cables is not clear, as it seems to mix up concerns regarding regular audio patch cords. &nbsp;Why would a digital cable with a rolled off top end sound &quot;smoother&quot;?
&nbsp;I don't grasp this, but then I am not a techie.

3) &nbsp;The number of trials you suggest seems much too small. &nbsp;From what I have read, those who do such tests suggest at least 16 or 17 trials. &nbsp; For some reason, I can no longer find the ABX website, so I can't find the tables, references, and so one.

So, I think the article needs some modifications.</font>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

Guest

Guest
<font color='#000000'>I have no problem with increasing the number of trials in the listenng test. I think in most cases, a few attempts will be enough to at least establish if someone appears to be hearing a difference. At that point, if the measurents show no difference, &nbsp;I would certainly agree that more trials should be done to further eliminate luck as a factor.

As for a cable, causing a rolled of top end, sounding smoother,that is merely an example. If the roll off is very steep it might call more attetiion to the upper mid and the listener might perceive it as harsher. Listener perception allows for many variabls in the descripton.

Solely relying on testing for determining audio quality? I would suggest that most mass market electronic manufacturers belong to this category.</font>
 
P

Pat D

Audioholic
<font color='#000000'>Ahem! &nbsp;This is part of the passage in question:

&quot;If, for instance, I am using a cable between my CD drive and my processor, and I hear a difference when I change cables, I should measure the cables to be sure there isn’t a measurable reason for the difference. If one of the cables isn’t the standard impedance for digital cable, I will be able to measure a difference at the frequency extremes. In this case I know that someone is attempting to sell me a “better” cable by claiming it is “smoother”, when in fact all they’ve done is sold me a cable with the wrong impedance in order to roll off the top end.&quot;

In the example, the digital cable is passing digital data to the processor. &nbsp;What difference does a roll off in the high frequencies (these would be extremely high) have to do with a roll of in the highs in the actual sound produced--assuming that the digital processor can properly detect the data. &nbsp;If it can, then the sound should be virtually perfect. &nbsp;Why on earth would a roll off in the digital cable result in a roll off in the highs of the sound produced by the processor?

As I say, you seem to be conflating two things: &nbsp;1) digital data transmission, and 2) transmission of audio signals.</font>
 
Yamahaluver

Yamahaluver

Audioholic General
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
hawke : <font color='#000000'>Audio or high fidelity has been a miraculous invention. If you need to understand why, read Steppenwolf. We audiophiles are at the forefront of a revolution written about by Larry Klein, in Stereo Review, over a quarter century ago. We believe that, if we can create the right conditions, the original reality can be recreated at will. Today we recreate auditory information, tomorrow information for all the senses. Ultimately, our revolution leads to a version of “The Matrix”. Understanding this, we have pushed the envelope for developing better and better audio equipment.

This push for furthering the goal has led to two camps: those that rely on measurements to determine accuracy and those that rely on their hearing. Let’s briefly examine both.

[More]</font>
<font color='#000000'>It is a highly subjective field. Each has his/her own perception of sound, in the end what matters is what makes you feel good over a long term. Nothing or no system can satisfy fully so priorities and compromises have to be reached.

Very hard to find a general consensus in this arena. In case of assesing speakers nothing can be furhter than truth.</font>
 
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
<font color='#000000'>Pat;

Thanks for your usefull inputs. &nbsp;I addressed the impedance / digital cable and roll off issue with Tony before I posted his article, but forgot to post the updates which corrected the statement to get his point across. &nbsp;I have since then updated it as was originally intended.

As for the two camps: &nbsp;I agree with you to a point. &nbsp;Most rational people would adopt both. In reality however, usually the camp that believes in listening only, renounces measurements and science since they either really don't understand these concepts or have hidden agendas to promote their products or ideologies and base their experiences on faith and/or their reasoning in which they think they can hear sonic differences when none may exist.</font>
 
G

Guest

Guest
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>
Pat D : <font color='#000000'>&quot;If, for instance, I am using a cable between my CD drive and my processor, and I hear a difference when I change cables, I should measure the cables to be sure there isn’t a measurable reason for the difference. If one of the cables isn’t the standard impedance for digital cable, I will be able to measure a difference at the frequency extremes. In this case I know that someone is attempting to sell me a “better” cable by claiming it is “smoother”, when in fact all they’ve done is sold me a cable with the wrong impedance in order to roll off the top end.&quot;</font>
<font color='#000000'>I think there is a gap between technical side of digital audio and the &quot;listening&quot; side. &nbsp;The above quote implies that the characteristics of a digital audio cable can &quot;roll off&quot; the high end of the audio spectrum.

The only way to &quot;roll off&quot; the high end of a digital audio signal is to put it through a digital low pass filter. &nbsp;And further, the digital signal would have to be transformed from its S/PDIF format before going through such a filter. &nbsp;Thus, there are no digital audio cable properties or parameters that can act like a digital low pass filter (unlike the properties of an analog audio cable and signal).

Simply put, a digital audio cable cannot &quot;smooth&quot; the S/PDIF digital audio signal.</font>
 
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
<font color='#000000'>Mike please review the post above yours and the article again. &nbsp;This has been updated to fix the oversight you mentioned.</font>
 
G

Guest

Guest
<font color='#000000'>I see that now, Gene. &nbsp;Keep up the good work.

Here is an interesting site that concerns audio testing. &nbsp;These engineers worked on the DD codec and the MP3 codec:

http://www.crc.ca/en/html/aas/home/home

And as my final audio comparison thought, keep in mind that even something as benign as closing the drapes can change the &quot;sound&quot; of a room and may cause somebody to mistakenly assign a sound change to a component instead.</font>
 
G

Guest

Guest
<font color='#000000'>I think its a well balanced article that should appeal to all camps. &nbsp;Although, I tried to post it at Audioasylum and it was immediately deleted because it allegedly thier DBT rule.</font>
 
<font color='#000000'>I tried getting it up there, to... does it technically violate that rule, though (not that JR cares)? It appears to be much more of a flexible and &quot;fair&quot; approach to the standard (stiff) DBT comparisons you hear about.</font>
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top