Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29
  1. #1
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    171

    posted before, ten biggest lies..

    Most but the newest of the new will have read this but it's now offered in pdf format as a sample of what is in the online version of the Audio Critic, the most entertaining of all audio mags:

    http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

  2. #2
    Forum Regular DaHaq's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Posts
    83
    Screw them, I still want a tube amp

  3. #3
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    I've saved the PDF; thanks

    Is that a copywrite infringement?? Oh well.

    Peter Azcel is (or effects to be) extreme and dogmatic here, but he's a lot more right than wrong, IMO.


    Quote Originally Posted by bubbagump
    Most but the newest of the new will have read this but it's now offered in pdf format as a sample of what is in the online version of the Audio Critic, the most entertaining of all audio mags:

    http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

  4. #4
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    490
    hmmm..

    CD treatment lie.

    If a surface is not optically clear, as in lots of scratches, the application of a liquid or a suspension which has the same index of refraction as the surface, allows more light to enter the surface and not be reflected diffusely.. So why are all CD treatments equally trashed??

    Bi-wire lie..

    There may be a significant issue with the simple application of superposition to a wire. I'm looking into that..

    There are other faults with the article..

    The biggest problem with the format is the 11 by 17 one. I can't print it and put it into one of my notebooks..

    Cheers, John

  5. #5
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    "The Peter Aczel who sucked in a lot of subscribers and then disappeared for awhile.
    The Fourier speaker fiasco. He liked the NAD 3020 and original Quads,at one time was a believer. You better watch out who you put your trust in because if you have any of his original reviews he was one of the first to rave about Exotic speaker cables such as Fulton Gold and Brown and being able to hear the benefits of better cable. Now who are you going to believe?"

    "I hesitated in bringing up the Fourier loudspeaker scam but hey, now that the genie is out of the bottle... Chuck, why don't you fill in Loubaloo et al on the sordid details. Perhaps a little more info on the ethics of their hero would put a different light on the man and his beliefs. Its interesting how often the evangelists, those with the most intolerant, inflexible beliefs, get caught with their pants around their ankles."

    "I was an original subscriber to the Audio Critic and used to enjoy what Mr Aczel said. Back then if IAR, Absolute sound, Stereophile and Audio Critic all agreed on the merits of a component then there was a pretty good chance that it was good. The next step any logically thinking audiophile would do was to get out of his listening chair and seek out where said product could be listened to and then make a decision. I used to travel from Niagara to Toronto and to Buffalo ,the Stereo Emporium, and a place on Niagara Falls Boulevard where Mr Krell, Dan D"Agostino cut his pre-Krell teeth to listen to high ned audio.
    When Mr. Aczel put his money into theFourier speaker product,his was the only mag that sang it's praises.He said it was the best that money could buy and like someone said "they are all in it to make a buck" So when the speaker failed to make it's mark, Mr. Aczel and his magazine and speaker went under leaving many people out in the cold.
    When he did resurface he came back with a vengence denouncing all things high end,and apparently has a new audience with a different perspective on High end audio.
    Perhaps he should start up his speaker again as it appears there are quite a few "audiophiles" on this site who would plunk down their cash because of their faith in his outlook on the High End."


    "Just to make this crystal clear though- Mr Aczel and his hi-end audio print magazine, the Audio Critic, were the ONLY champions of the Fourier speaker in the high-end community. In the pages of the Audio Critic, Mr Aczel stated that the Fourier speaker was indeed the best you could buy, state-of the-art, blah blah... He did not however, reveal that he had a financial interest in the Fourier Loudspeakers company. That was discovered and revealed a short while later by his peers in the Absolute Sound if memory serves me correctly (It was a long time ago!).

    The rather average sonics of the Fourier speakers, and the glaring conflict of interest that had been revealed by the other magazines destroyed Mr Aczel's reputation. There was much heated discussion about the ethics of hi-end audio reviewing and Mr Aczel's ethics specifically amongst the pages of the Absolute Sound and other 'zines at the time. The failure of both the Audio Critic print magazine and the Fourier Loudspeaker company followed shortly thereafter.

    Hmmm, perhaps as Chuck (and many magazine reviewers) have implied, there was a much simpler and nastier explanation for Mr. Aczels sudden and vociferous conversion to the "other side"... Just 'cuz the guy can write well does not make him an honest or honorable individual. "

  6. #6
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025

    I'm sorry, what's the point of this convoluted post?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    "The Peter Aczel who sucked in a lot of subscribers and then disappeared for awhile.
    The Fourier speaker fiasco. He liked the NAD 3020 and original Quads,at one time was a believer. You better watch out who you put your trust in because if you have any of his original reviews he was one of the first to rave about Exotic speaker cables such as Fulton Gold and Brown and being able to hear the benefits of better cable. Now who are you going to believe?"

    "I hesitated in bringing up the Fourier loudspeaker scam but hey, now that the genie is out of the bottle... Chuck, why don't you fill in Loubaloo et al on the sordid details. Perhaps a little more info on the ethics of their hero would put a different light on the man and his beliefs. Its interesting how often the evangelists, those with the most intolerant, inflexible beliefs, get caught with their pants around their ankles."

    "I was an original subscriber to the Audio Critic and used to enjoy what Mr Aczel said. Back then if IAR, Absolute sound, Stereophile and Audio Critic all agreed on the merits of a component then there was a pretty good chance that it was good. The next step any logically thinking audiophile would do was to get out of his listening chair and seek out where said product could be listened to and then make a decision. I used to travel from Niagara to Toronto and to Buffalo ,the Stereo Emporium, and a place on Niagara Falls Boulevard where Mr Krell, Dan D"Agostino cut his pre-Krell teeth to listen to high ned audio.
    When Mr. Aczel put his money into theFourier speaker product,his was the only mag that sang it's praises.He said it was the best that money could buy and like someone said "they are all in it to make a buck" So when the speaker failed to make it's mark, Mr. Aczel and his magazine and speaker went under leaving many people out in the cold.
    When he did resurface he came back with a vengence denouncing all things high end,and apparently has a new audience with a different perspective on High end audio.
    Perhaps he should start up his speaker again as it appears there are quite a few "audiophiles" on this site who would plunk down their cash because of their faith in his outlook on the High End."


    "Just to make this crystal clear though- Mr Aczel and his hi-end audio print magazine, the Audio Critic, were the ONLY champions of the Fourier speaker in the high-end community. In the pages of the Audio Critic, Mr Aczel stated that the Fourier speaker was indeed the best you could buy, state-of the-art, blah blah... He did not however, reveal that he had a financial interest in the Fourier Loudspeakers company. That was discovered and revealed a short while later by his peers in the Absolute Sound if memory serves me correctly (It was a long time ago!).

    The rather average sonics of the Fourier speakers, and the glaring conflict of interest that had been revealed by the other magazines destroyed Mr Aczel's reputation. There was much heated discussion about the ethics of hi-end audio reviewing and Mr Aczel's ethics specifically amongst the pages of the Absolute Sound and other 'zines at the time. The failure of both the Audio Critic print magazine and the Fourier Loudspeaker company followed shortly thereafter.

    Hmmm, perhaps as Chuck (and many magazine reviewers) have implied, there was a much simpler and nastier explanation for Mr. Aczels sudden and vociferous conversion to the "other side"... Just 'cuz the guy can write well does not make him an honest or honorable individual. "
    Does attacking the man now invalidate his claims?

  7. #7
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727

    Aczel

    Quote Originally Posted by kexodusc
    Does attacking the man now invalidate his claims?
    No, but it speaks to his integrity. It's a lot tougher to believe a man with zero integrity. The Fourier speaker fiasco is certainly a big part of that but the mere fact that he calls all of these audio claims "lies"... as if we're all lying to each other and ourselves... shows me he's a man that is simply an extremist that should be ignored. On the other hand, if his vitriol sells more magazines to other audio extremists, more power to him.

  8. #8
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Kex

    Most all magazines that sell stuff (which includes any audio magazine to some degree or another) basically are set-up to preach to choir. You walk into a store and think B&W is cool - then you will be bound to find a great review of them -- and it applies to pretty much everything. Or you browse the magazine first as is often the case and you think wow they love that and it looks cool so ... or the reader already owns stuff from that brand and actively seek out reviews for them (even I do that I admit).

    When Auduio critic died in the wool golden ear cable lover amp difference to the hilt guru tried to flog his speakers through his magazine and the other more credible golden ears found that in fact the stuff he was flogging as the BEST on the planet in fact sucked rocks he and his little crappy self serving shill magazine fell apart. So he comes back and thinks "I can;t make it in high end anymore because I'm a fraud so instead I'll pretend I'm scientific like the other crapfest pseudo science magazine the Sensible Sound, and I'll preach to them so I can make a few bucks. Same liar different choir.

    As for the ten points people will either agree or disagree and many of them are created as strawmen anyway -- the green pens or cleaners are simply things that SOME people fall for. On AA there is some chip that you put on a cd player which only lasts for a certain number of discs and makes them sound better. It's a strawman to assume that ALL audiophiles believe or believe these things. Some do but it's hardly a "myth buster" when there was no body of audiophiles who supported these things anyway. There will always be self-proclaied golden ears who claim to hear massive difference between tender cups under their cd player. The DBT issue is something else and many well educated people like me in psychology just are not going to give some engineers and forumers their conclusions which thye use to attack subjective experience observations because none of their test thus far are competatnly valid. IMO Aczel isn't just a crook he's an unscientific crook.

  9. #9
    Forum Regular hifitommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    sylmar, ca. in beautiful so cal earthquake country
    Posts
    1,442

    i missed the boat in buffalo

    i had just gotten back from guam in '69 and wanted to learn about audio but had a family. i got an elecrophonic stereo and had to be content for a while while enjoying sergio mendes.



    moved to california (LA) and got turned onto dynaco a25s and the trek began. and to think i could have rubbed shoulders with d d'a! well, eventually i rubbed shoulders with cary christie, john ulrich, joe grado, and others of note here in shops and at infinity where my friend worked.



    oyeah, john bedini and mark schifter too.



    i graduated at kensington high in '62, went into the air force in 65. had lived on the west side near the peace bridge and went to the drags at niagara and lancaster (1/8 mile drags! awesome, frank brown in A/S!). do they still do lancaster?



    out here i went to lions dragstrip and saw some great racing, and then most of it went away, even riverside raceway (no drags there).



    oh, a trip thru the past.
    ...regards...tr

  10. #10
    If you can't run-walk. Bernd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    1,602
    Comforting to revisit the past now and then.

    Peace

    Bernd

  11. #11
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025

    Well

    Didn't realize the guy was this crooked....sorry for my rushed conclusions.


    [QUOTE=RGA] The DBT issue is something else and many well educated people like me in psychology just are not going to give some engineers and forumers their conclusions which thye use to attack subjective experience observations because none of their test thus far are competatnly valid. [QUOTE]

    I've heard this from you and a few others more than once now. Yet anytime I ask for an explanation as to why DBT's aren't at least extremely compelling evidence, if not definitive, nobody will contribute any meaningful arguments.

    The few people I do know in that field have told me DBT's are still quite useful and relevant means of testing. There appears to be some disagreement in the field of psychology as to the validity of using this method of testing.

    Personally, if I ever felt the need to DBT something, I'd already have my answer to whatever the question was, but just for the sake of discussion, I'd love to know what the psychological flaws of a DBT are.

  12. #12
    Forum Regular hifitommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    sylmar, ca. in beautiful so cal earthquake country
    Posts
    1,442

    some honest opposition to DBT can be found at

    AA critics asylum. also, if you were a regular reader of tas, you would have read similar things. in the most recent issue of tas, kevin voecks of harman int'l mentions it numerous times.

    i will say that i would probably participate in such if asked given that all the necessary parameters and required equipment and procedures were in place. its doubtful to me that a situation like that would present itself very often. of course, living close to northridge california increases that likelihood.

    but even then, such things as 'performance anxiety' can enter the equation. havent you ever had a hearing test in one of those soundproof booths? sometimes you think you hear tones when there ARE none, and then you feel silly, and thats not even a DBT.

    i wonder if harman employees welcome or dread participation in the tests. i may suggest to the leadership of the LA/OC audio society to approach harman about a dbt experiment. who knows, it could be with speakers or electronics, they make both.
    ...regards...tr

  13. #13
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    39
    An experimenter can use deception as long as at the end of the experiment they disclose the deception and the rationale behind it. A properly constructed and run DBT could certainly provide valid data, it is silly for anybody to say otherwise. That does not mean all such experiments will yield valid data, there are bad experiments. Any and all experiments need to be judged on their own merits. If the scientific community evaluates the experiment and all related details and determines that it was done correctly, then the data it yields can be considered as valid.

    Then further testing of the data yielded can be done through further experimenting. To dismiss valid science because it does not take into account subjective views may be a very limiting approach. Subjective things can't be scrutinized scientifically and thus a significant part of the scientific world frowns on things that can't be tested. Does this mean there is no value to a subjective opinion? No, but it does mean that a subjective opinion is just that an opinion, nothing more and nothing less.

    We all believe the science that enabled us to create the technology to produce all of this wonderful sound in the first place. Why get suspicious of the science now? I hear what people say, but if machines can't measure certain things and the equipment is as sensitive as our hearing, why assume there is a special side to sound science can't find, but we just know is there? I know science isn't perfect, but sound measurement and the limitations of human hearing are very well established. If there is an area of sound we can detect but that can't be measured it must be so minimal that one needs to ask does it really become part of the audible portion of sound at all? How do we know there are very subtle parts of sound we can't measure? I do not pretend to know one way or the other, but I have also heard people contending that they can hear something whether or not it has been established that it exists at all. High end cables come to mind, how many people after spending massive amounts of money will insist in the face of evidence to the contrary that they can hear the difference? What do we believe? Do we believe what empirical evidence we have or take a subjective opinion that can't be validated as fact?

    I feel confident in saying that unless something can be demonstrated with scientific evidence we need to not consider it very seriously. If the scientific experiments have not been designed properly than that is another thing. Science is by no means perfect, but it does attempt to take us out of the realm of the subjective. Would you prefer to have a heart surgeon use techniques that have been proven effective, or another technique that has not been established as effective based on scientific testing and data analysis, but one the surgeon has a feeling should work? Please note, I really do not pretend to know, nor do I really have an opinion based on the review of scientific data, I just feel that people need to really be honest about the implications of subjective data and thus I speak out in defense of scientific analysis. Not because I have blind faith, but because I know without science where such issues are concerned, we have no chance of establishing what is actually audible and what isn't.


  14. #14
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Kex

    I do not have the time to fully get into this right now because frankly many of the arguments have already been made. DBT's have a purpose and having conducted DBT and variations of them in psychology (at that time testing claiments who felt they had an affinity for psychic ability) there is a strong reason to use them. But even in psychic claimants there are a number of psychological factors that impede the conclusions. There is a difference in this field which other fields obviosuly don't appreciate because they simply don't delve enough into the research of tertiary factors around the brain. There is a big big difference in saying "unfortunately you did not meet the statistical significance criteria to prove scientifically that you are Psychic" and that "you have no psychic ability because you failed this DBT" The two may seem the same, they are not. And the reason the last conclusion is not drawn is because psychologists understand the dilemma of wanting to "test" the claim and also knowing that their test is heavily flawed. Any Test environment, which is more my field, imposes on the test taker a wide variety of stresses and they range from those kinds of stresses you take when you do SATs (in the States) to blind taste tests etc.

    A "good" double blind test I have yet to read in audio. There are bizzarre things like in the test you have to pick which cd player is the Arcam. So their idea of Long term listening is that you own your Arcam for several months and then someone brings in a new cd player blinds you level matches it and then you get to listen and then "pick" which you think is the Arcam in a given track - and as bad as this is they don;t always even play the same part of the track or even the same song. When I go to an audition to buy I don't say ahh that's obviously the Arcam. The DBT is not a prefernece test like a shopping environment is and it's not a long term listening environment with the artistic(music) side of the brain (right hemisphere). I have read the pseudo scince argument that well the only time it goes to the left hemisphere (decision making) is at the point of the decision. What a bogus crock of garbage that is if I ever read it. This is where talking to anybody that ever took a test in school would tell you what a crock. I can take band for block A but if I know that in Block B I have a major math test my mind is not on the band as it would be if in block B I had no test.

    None of this is to chuck out DBT's they are a valuable tool but like any valuable tool chances are you need more than a hammer to build a F-16. And the statisitical aspect is another one that i don't get. In psychology more trials is better. More trials rules out type 1 errors. Usually tests are constructed to have to meet the .05 statistical signifcance level (though in fact this is arbitrary and not always the specified requirment). 9/10 meets signifcance to the .05 level --- but so does 6/10 ten time for a total of 59/100. If you only run a 10 trial test on subtle issues then you could be making the mistake of saying that the person who scored 6/10 failed.

    "If there is an area of sound we can detect but that can't be measured it must be so minimal that one needs to ask does it really become part of the audible portion of sound at all?"

    This is not something that one can really say with certainty and it overshoots our overconfidence in our abilities to test things. There is so much about the brain that we don;t know. There is a MYTH out there that we humans only use 10% of our brains. Psychology has proven that wrong because in fact we use 100% of our brains. Psychologists and biologists only know what 10% of the brain actuall does and the general areas of what the parts do like the visual cortex the part responsible for our senses and thinking.

    What our ear and brain is able to do is decipher what we want to decipher. It's funny because Peter Qvortrup in one of his articles mentioned that LP can gain 40db in dynamic range by listneing more into the music. I don't necessarily buy that for hios argument of LP superiority but the analogy that he provided about our heairng and brain being more advanced than any machine measurment is not far off. In a crowded bar we have the ability to focus on the two hot blondes we want to hear and "filter out" equally loud equal frequency pitch from several other women or men to hear what THEY are saying. Measring machines don;t do that - they don't know how to value what is important. Our brain is vastly more sophisticated than ANY measuring system and any computer - until we get Lt Commander Data. And even then Data knew it was better to be human.

  15. #15
    Loving This kexodusc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Department of Heuristics and Research on Material Applications
    Posts
    9,025
    Interesting stuff guys.

    I don't care enough to delve too far into this old debate. Some aspects of my life are very subjective, so I get quite offended by the objectivists at times when they get on a roll. There's a lot more to life than reducing everything to statistics. But I don't blame them for what they do. Nothing pisses me off more than the wild claims we're all guilty of making from time to time.

    That said, I think both sides miss the point and make this debate far more complicated than it ever should be. If I can't demonstrate first to myself and then to the world that I can clearly identify a perceived improvement, advantage, or characteristic of something, then I don't trust that this trait is consistently there. Geez, it shouldn't be hard to hear something, if it is, it's not good enough for me. If I can't always hear what I tell myself I'm hearing, that raises enough doubt for me too. If it gets to a DBT, it's already gone way too far.

  16. #16
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727
    Quote Originally Posted by The Grudge
    I feel confident in saying that unless something can be demonstrated with scientific evidence we need to not consider it very seriously.
    Then I'm sure you've measured the love you have for your wife/girlfriend and the joy you feel when you hear your favorite piece of music!

    I understand your basic points, though. Science is indeed what has wrought the fidelity part of our hobby. But until a decent test comes along that is unambiguous, the two sides of subjective and objective will both be valid. It's the scientific side that allows us to have subjective feelings in audio... feelings that can't be measured. Anyone that assumes that measurements explain all there is to know in audio does so at their own peril. When someone cares enough to do the testing and research necessary to explain differences in cables (Jneutron - you out there???), we might all learn something. The limits of human hearing are alleged well known but the limits of the human brain are not. If my experiences take me beyond what is currently "proven" and does so time and again, it's time to explore those "proofs".

  17. #17
    Forum Regular thepogue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Hayes, Va
    Posts
    490

    What I find interesting about the artical...

    is that as with most audio subjects it cannot be reduced to a simple "black and white" issue. Of the 10 "myths/lies" outlined I believe that most here would not disregard all ten in some fashion while I also think most would not believe in all ten...and to add "mud to the mix" to what degree would one believe? "Burn in" is a perfect example...some people claim 100's of hours of break in before peak performance is reached. Others will suggest that it will take only a few minutes, others just a few hours, while others suggest that items will sound no different from the factory floor to your listening room. So as I read such articles if take each one, on its own merit add to it my own judgment (based on my experiences) and either agree or disagree. I try my best not to buy in to any one "Peter's" mind-set. (winks at RGA) For the record my brothers name is Peter and he is a retired @ 41, so I guess I should have followed that Peter!!

    Peace, Pogue

    • Mark Levinson No. 27
    • Musical Fidelity 308cr
    • Martin Logan Prodigy's
    • Ariel Acoustics 10-T
    • Rega Planet CD
    • CJ Premier 9 DAC
    • Linn LP12 - Basik Plus - Valhalla
    • Benz Micro Cart.
    • Akai GX 747 Reel to Reel
    • Straight Wire Virtuoso Interconnects

  18. #18
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    727

    Don't you ever listen to Blues music????

    Quote Originally Posted by thepogue
    is that as with most audio subjects it cannot be reduced to a simple "black and white" issue. Of the 10 "myths/lies" outlined I believe that most here would not disregard all ten in some fashion while I also think most would not believe in all ten...and to add "mud to the mix" to what degree would one believe? "Burn in" is a perfect example...some people claim 100's of hours of break in before peak performance is reached. Others will suggest that it will take only a few minutes, others just a few hours, while others suggest that items will sound no different from the factory floor to your listening room. So as I read such articles if take each one, on its own merit add to it my own judgment (based on my experiences) and either agree or disagree. I try my best not to buy in to any one "Peter's" mind-set. (winks at RGA) For the record my brothers name is Peter and he is a retired @ 41, so I guess I should have followed that Peter!!

    Peace, Pogue

    Multitudes of men have suffered as a result of blindly following Peters!

    My biggest problem with the article is his use of the word "lies". That would indicate he or someone has proven they are falsehoods. Since it's hard to prove a negative, I think the liar is Aczel himself. He may disagree with them, he may disbelieve them, he may think they are stupid, but he has no proof they are lies. If they are, we're all liars... except Pete and his merry band of believers, of course!

    I don't automatically follow all 10, which was the basis for your post. I'm not antidigital and "burn in" hasn't exactly been a big part of my experience. In fact, I have yet to experience it. Of course, buying a lot of gear used might account for that. Overall, I disagree with Aczel. He's simply preaching to his own choir of disbelievers.

  19. #19
    Forum Regular thepogue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Hayes, Va
    Posts
    490

    Multitudes of men have suffered as a result of blindly following Peters!

    roflmao!!...boy a truer word has never been spoken...I don't care what camp yer from!...lmao



    Pogue
    • Mark Levinson No. 27
    • Musical Fidelity 308cr
    • Martin Logan Prodigy's
    • Ariel Acoustics 10-T
    • Rega Planet CD
    • CJ Premier 9 DAC
    • Linn LP12 - Basik Plus - Valhalla
    • Benz Micro Cart.
    • Akai GX 747 Reel to Reel
    • Straight Wire Virtuoso Interconnects

  20. #20
    Forum Regular Mike Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    SF Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    722
    I feel confident in saying that unless something can be demonstrated with scientific evidence we need to not consider it very seriously.
    I would have agreed with this initially, but consider:

    It is well known that some people cannot tell the difference between lossy and lossless compression unless they are told how to spot artifacts. Thus, you could subject them to a DBT before telling them how to spot artifiacts, and they wouldn't be able to tell the difference. But then if you tell them how to spot the artifacts and re-do the DBT, they can tell the difference.

    So... If you take a DBT and can't tell the difference, how do you know it isn't simply because you don't know how to spot the differences?
    There's an audiophile born every minute. Congratulations; you're right on time.

    FREE RADICAL RADIO: Hours of free, radical MP3s!

  21. #21
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    39
    Really good point Mike, but that is where the problem remains from my perspective. Even asking people to participate brings the whole subjective problem back into play. I would contend that the experiment would have to be done with extremely sensitive audio measuring machines in a controlled environment, take the subjective out of the equation.

    As long as there is a machine which can detect the full range of sound that is audible to human hearing then in theory you can test claims such as those made by high end interconnect and speaker cable manufacturers. The goal would be to measure any part of sound that was within the human range of detection, nothing else matters. If there is no significant difference in signals with high end cabling and without, then it stands to reason the human ear isn't likely to obtain any extra audible information.

    I have heard people say that there may be special qualities to sound we know nothing about yet that add to sound which our brain actually uses to create the listening experience. Until such time as these factors can actually be demonstrated to exist and be useable by the brain to enhance an audible experience, it makes no sense to entertain the possible contribution these elements may make. I of course can't say such things do not exist, but unless we can test such things, for all intent and purpose they do not exist.


  22. #22
    Forum Regular Mike Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    SF Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    722
    I of course can't say such things do not exist, but unless we can test such things, for all intent and purpose they do not exist.
    I wouldn't go so far as to say they don't exist, but I would put the burden of proof on those who insist they are there. They should be able to point out the differences, or at the very least, differentiate between them in a DBT.

    It's an interesting philosophical point though: If you can't tell there are any differences in a DBT (even if there are, and other people can recognize them and later point them out to you), should you care? It's our old friend the tree falling in the forest, isn't it?
    There's an audiophile born every minute. Congratulations; you're right on time.

    FREE RADICAL RADIO: Hours of free, radical MP3s!

  23. #23
    music fanatic
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    New Haven, IN
    Posts
    164
    My biggest problem with audio myths have nothing to do with absolute truths. I live in the real world and to me it is all about relative value.

    What do you think the markup is on a $1000 cable, how about a $1000 tt cartridge? There may be a slight audible difference, but I refuse to buy into the bs economics that is high end audio. Those schmucks can drink their vintage wine on someone elses dime. Think about the audible improvements you get from $1000 worth of well planned (or even home made) room treatments.

    DBTs, give me a break. It just needs to sound good in my house!

    As for the article, they guy has some points, but he is off his rocker. His 10 lies, aren't necessarily lies, they're just things that aren't really worth buying into, for me anyway.

    For the record, here's my experiences with his "10 lies" to this date...

    1. Cables - Okay maybe a slight difference, but proper cable routing solves any real issues.
    2. Tubes - For guitar amps, heck yeah. For audio...ehh, depends on your taste. Worth money, but not any more than good SS is worth money.
    3. Antidigital - No difference, digital is more reliable and more consistant. It just depends on the content. Some recordings were meant for vinyl imo.
    4. Listening Test - I don't personally care.
    5. Feedback - Never knowingly noticed it in my system.
    6. Burn-in - I'm in the camp that thinks this has more to do with ears than equipment, but who cares, I mean it's not like it's going to cost you anything.
    7. Biwiring - Never noticed a difference, then again I don't have fancy cables.
    8. Power Conditioner - For protecting equipment, sure. For better sound quality, I've never noticed a difference.
    9. CD treatment - Who even does this?
    10. Golden Ear - We've all known these types. I usually just say I agree with them and walk away.

  24. #24
    music fanatic
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    New Haven, IN
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by jneutron
    CD treatment lie.

    If a surface is not optically clear, as in lots of scratches, the application of a liquid or a suspension which has the same index of refraction as the surface, allows more light to enter the surface and not be reflected diffusely.. So why are all CD treatments equally trashed??
    It's a digital signal. If it can be read at all, it is being read as absolute 1s and 0s. If it can't be read, it's time to replace the disc. Cleaning is one thing, cd treatment is another.

    Quote Originally Posted by jneutron
    The biggest problem with the format is the 11 by 17 one. I can't print it and put it into one of my notebooks..
    fit to page, but it's not worth printing anyway

  25. #25
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by bacchanal
    It's a digital signal. If it can be read at all, it is being read as absolute 1s and 0s. If it can't be read, it's time to replace the disc. Cleaning is one thing, cd treatment is another.
    Cleaning only removes things that are in the way. Goop, fingerprints, coffee..whatever..

    Coating the surface with a material which has a matching refractive index that can fill scratches will certainly help, if the unit is unable to see adequately all those one's and zero's as a result of surface finish issues.

    Both of those are valid.

    Demagnetizing or using the magic chip...is certainly silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by bacchanal
    fit to page, but it's not worth printing anyway
    It is all worth printing.

    Printing and believing are two different things.

    To arrive at a solution, one must know the problem. So many of the blanket diatribes are just useless, but worth reading to understand the source.

    Cheers, John

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •