Noticable Difference in Sound - Page 4 - AVS Forum
First ... 2  3  4 5  6  ... Last
CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports > Noticable Difference in Sound
PULLIAMM's Avatar PULLIAMM 11:37 AM 07-27-2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpu8088
hearing not superior just that musical senses more acute. thats the difference
So you are a professional musician with perfect pitch, and the training to hear subtle countermelodies and such?
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Cowclops's Avatar Cowclops 11:38 AM 07-27-2006
Which is a claim, cpu8088, YOU HAVE YET TO ILLUSTRATE and you have yet to realize that you haven't actually provided any convincing argument for your claims. You've just repeated yourself ad nauseum.
cpu8088's Avatar cpu8088 11:41 AM 07-27-2006
do you mean i have to be a good actor or director to appreciate a good movie?
PULLIAMM's Avatar PULLIAMM 11:56 AM 07-27-2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpu8088
do you mean i have to be a good actor or director to appreciate a good movie?
You would to inherently appreciate it more than anyone else in the audience. When you claim to have a higher level of appreciation for musical detail than the rest of us, you need to be able to give some sort of justification for that.
(I have spent as much time as possible listening to music, both live and recorded, for over thirty years. I think this gives me as much of a claim on appreciating musical detail as anyone out there other than a professional musician.)
cpu8088's Avatar cpu8088 12:02 PM 07-27-2006
or over 30 odd years you still have not grapped the essence of music? or beethovan imagined music in his head while deaf not a great composer?"
Cowclops's Avatar Cowclops 12:04 PM 07-27-2006
What the bloody hell are you talking about? This is about whether people who claim to hear differences between two components can actually identify the components by sound and sound alone. It isn't about "enjoying music" or determining what is the "preferable" component.

It is about your claim that you have better hearing than I do. If it is the case, then you should be able to pass a test that tests your ability to hear the things you claim you can hear.

What if I said that I can hear AM radio in my head without an actual receiver, and that I was listening to a radio talk show right now. Would you believe me, or would you ask for proof? It is an extraordinary claim, wouldn't you want extraordinary evidence?

The point is, there ARE accepted boundaries to what the human ear is capable of hearing. I believe discerning one high quality cd player from another is beyond those accepted boundaries. Many counterclaims have been provided, but no counterarguments or counterevidence. Just ad hominem attacks, straw men, and plain-old repetition of the same inconclusive "facts."

If you want to prove that your hearing is superior to mine, I would make you do the following:

Pick a CD player and a CD that you are "familiar" with.
Hook it up to any system of YOUR choosing, with the added bit that we must also hook up my Panasonic RP82, an old-ish DVD player that was never meant to double as a botique cd player.

First, we run some sighted tests. You can hook up your CD player, then at your leisure hook up my CD player, and describe the differences in sound. If you can discern them in sighted (but level matched) conditions, then we agree that there is nothing fundamentally flawed with the test.

After that, we would have to run a blind test. Minimum variables (i.e. level matched, no bass management, no upsampling, no knowledge of what you are listening to). If you can still identify whether you are listening to your CD player or mine in such a situation, then I would concede that you have superior hearing abilities.

Mind you, I know that it would be hard for everyone on here to meet up and do such a test, and I haven't outlined EVERY detail required to make this test conclusive, but you at least agree that even as a thought experiment, such a test would be valid and the results can be valid or else the test could be tweaked till all the results are agreed upon. If you really have amazing hearing and any-given $6000 cd player sounds different than a Panasonic RP82, you WILL hear the difference as easily in a blind test as you would in a sighted test. If your experiences are fabricated as a result of cognitive dissonance, what you "hear" in a sighted test will probably disappear in a blind test.

You don't have to agree to buy a plane ticket and fly to NY to test the theories, but you must agree that in concept, such a test is a reasonable way to test someone's claims of superior hearing/superior equipment.
Cowclops's Avatar Cowclops 12:15 PM 07-27-2006
You know what, this message board crap is ridiculous. If you want to actually debate the matter, get on irc:

/server irc.freenode.net
/join #listen

And wait till everybody joins so we can actually talk without having to wait 10 minutes to get a response.
PULLIAMM's Avatar PULLIAMM 12:19 PM 07-27-2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpu8088
or over 30 odd years you still have not grapped the essence of music? or beethovan imagined music in his head while deaf not a great composer?"
Yes, obviously, I have grasped the essence of music (and a long time ago, at that.)
(Oh, by the way, the most expensive Krell monoblock amplifier has a THD of .05%. My $200 Onkyo CD player has a THD of .005%)
wineslob's Avatar wineslob 01:07 PM 07-27-2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueueCumber
It is definitely possible, though I wouldn't say it sounded bright, just grainy in comparison.
I've heard this on a few players! My Marantz 8260 is guilty as was a Consonance I listened to. My guess is it's what some call Digititus. A Lamba w/ the outboard DAC had NONE, and is probably one of the best CD players I've ever heard. It was easily as good as some mega-buck TT's I've listened to.
BTW these are all "class A" rated players.
wineslob's Avatar wineslob 01:17 PM 07-27-2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowclops
But what did you do to remove the possibility that the differences were imagined? If there are differences, you should be able to identify them in a simple blind test too, right?

This is the fallacy that I do get pissed off hearing every time. Restating that the differences are "real" without actually using a test that you could legitimately draw such a conclusion from is not proof.

For a moment I thought an EAC direct rip "really" sounded better than the RP82, until I realized the same program was playing the same waveform to the same sound card. Subconsciously fabricated observations are not unusual at all, which is why the only way you can separate real from imaginary is to take a blind test and properly identify components by sound and SOUND ALONE. If you can identify by sight and not by sound, then it is not the sound that differs.

See my last post. The differences are real, as heard by three people all in the same room. Sorry guys, but I dont buy the Julian Hirsh style of review. One thing: how good are your speakers?????? It makes all the difference.
Ron Party's Avatar Ron Party 01:25 PM 07-27-2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowclops
Pulliamm illustrated the fact that repeating a claim isn't the same as providing a convincing argument. That is why he conjured up such an image. Cpu8088, however, is baselessly attacking our ability to hear rather than our ability to reason, and as such that is an ad hominem attack.
Nice try. Sorry. Doesn't cut it. Where is the "intellectual honesty", to use your language, of conjuring an image of cpu8088 or anyone else as being a "kid with a red face and fists against his hips"? :eek: It's odd that one person's view of permissible imagery is another person's view of an ad hominem attack.

--------------------------------
Ron Party
Brad Hood's Avatar Brad Hood 01:27 PM 07-27-2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by wineslob
The differences are real, as heard by three people all in the same room..
Well that proves it; no way could three people be susceptible to the power of suggestion at the same time. :rolleyes:
PULLIAMM's Avatar PULLIAMM 01:38 PM 07-27-2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Party
Nice try. Sorry. Doesn't cut it. Where is the "intellectual honesty", to use your language, of conjuring an image of cpu8088 or anyone else as being a "kid with a red face and fists against his hips"? :eek: It's odd that one person's view of permissible imagery is another person's view of an ad hominem attack.

--------------------------------
Ron Party
Actually, I was responding directly to the statement "the differences ARE there, they are not imagined". This statement was offered not merely without proof, but without even a rational argument as to why it might be true.
I wasn't paying the least bit of attention to who said it, nor would my response have been different if I had been. :cool:
Ron Party's Avatar Ron Party 01:56 PM 07-27-2006
Hey Pulliamm, is the eleven line a reference to Spinal Tap? That is one of my all time favorite lines, although in the film I think he says: "It's one louder".

------------------------------
Ron Party
wineslob's Avatar wineslob 02:02 PM 07-27-2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Hood
Well that proves it; no way could three people be susceptible to the power of suggestion at the same time. :rolleyes:

Or you could say we weren't all wrong...........................
PULLIAMM's Avatar PULLIAMM 02:05 PM 07-27-2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Party
Hey Pulliamm, is the eleven line a reference to Spinal Tap? That is one of my all time favorite lines, although in the film I think he says: "It's one louder".

------------------------------
Ron Party
Yes. I haven't seen the movie in a while. The way I remember it: The guitarist (Nigel Tufnel?) explains that his amp is special because it goes to eleven, the interviewer asks "couldn't you just make 10 be louder?", and then, after a blank look, the guitarist responds with that line. :D
PULLIAMM's Avatar PULLIAMM 02:06 PM 07-27-2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by wineslob
Or you could say we weren't all wrong...........................
Could say that. Won't say that, but could. :D
Cowclops's Avatar Cowclops 03:47 PM 07-27-2006
An infinite number of unscientific anecdotes, an infinite amount opinions from listeners that were biased and didn't even know it, its not proof that the differences are "real."

A single audiophile identifying a piece of equipment by sound and nothing else, however, would significantly weaken my argument.
CharlesJ's Avatar CharlesJ 08:20 PM 07-27-2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpu8088
same as those who are crying out that "i hear no difference" while they dont know their hearing is impaired

Are you sure that is the case? Or, just a lame straw man excuse?
CharlesJ's Avatar CharlesJ 08:23 PM 07-27-2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpu8088
just that i have not learned to imagine all sound the same to stop the upgrade urge.

No, you imagine they are all different. You should take a few DBT listening comparisons. Perhaps then you will KNOW, one way or the other for sure.
CharlesJ's Avatar CharlesJ 08:25 PM 07-27-2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpu8088
... just that musical senses more acute. thats the difference

That is yet to be demonstrated to be true. Easy to claim, harder to demonstrate in a credible manner.
QueueCumber's Avatar QueueCumber 09:21 PM 07-27-2006
Scientist 1: Light is a wave.

Scientist 2: No it isn't, it is a particle.

Scientist 1: It is a wave, a wave...

Scientist 2: I'm telling you, it is a particle. Heh.

Scientist 1: When I test light it shows up as a wave.

Scientist 2: When I test light it shows up as a particle.

Scientist 1: I'm right!

Scientist 2: No you're not, I'm right!
cpu8088's Avatar cpu8088 10:37 PM 07-27-2006
needless to say the onus of proof lies upon you to have a hearing capabilitycheckup

and enlighten me if you select your equipment after any blind test?

convince me if emm labs or dcs are snake oil in your opinion
Cowclops's Avatar Cowclops 10:45 PM 07-27-2006
I wish somebody like Amfibius would knock some sense into a barely-coherent person like Cpu8088. While both of these people disagree with what I claim, Amfibius has not made such poor attempts at intellectual discourse. When people like cpu8088 are fundamentally incapable of adding anything to the discussion without setting up a straw man, knocking it down, and patting himself on the back, it really gets ridiculous. Every time somebody posts something thoughtful, he must revert to the "you need a hearing test" argument or "you need to disprove the claims i'm making, I refuse to provide reasonable evidence." or best of all "Do you use blind tests to select equipment?"

I use tests that can have a result that logically supports or dismisses the claims at stake. I don't just use rhetoric to try to "win" an argument, as it is the pursuit of knowledge, not the pursuit of victory, that keeps me going.
Cowclops's Avatar Cowclops 11:18 PM 07-27-2006
For the people who need assistance in molding a claim into an actual argument, try this:

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/resource_rhet.html

One paragraph that may be especially useful for some here is this:

"The point isn't merely to win the debate. As a result, certain techniques that might help one win the debate are ultimately self-destructive. For instance, falsifying information, misrepresenting data, and bolstering one's case through deception, lies, logical fallacies, or exaggeration--such techniques are not good rhetoric. They do not lead to the best possible answer, but instead make a weak answer appear better than it really is. The rhetor may think he's won his argument by engaging in this sort of trickery, but in actual point of fact, the entire community involved in that decision has lost by accepting an inferior substitute. That's the idealistic reason we should consider debate as a cooperative, honest venture."

If you wish to find the truth (which may be contrary to your currently-held beliefs) we must test, with as few variables as possible to keep it scientific, whether the audiophile claim that most to all CD players sound distinctly different is valid. Such a test requires level matching and bias-removal (by way of eliminating knowledge of what you're listening to). The people who must participate in this test are the ones that claim they CAN hear the difference (if they can hear it, they should be able to hear it without their eyes).

The people who can not/choose not to hear the differences do not matter. Testing my own hearing neither supports nor refutes anyone else's claim of hearing capability.

If you change the topic from "what is audible" to "what music is enjoyable" you also are completely avoiding the actual idea in question.

I have many times suggested the test that would test the claims others have made. If you disagree with the criteria, don't just state that you disagree, EXPLAIN why you disagree and how you can improve/change the test to make it test reality. Do not disagree simply because the results could be opposite to your initial assumptions, as that would be a case of experimenter's bias. If an audiophile could pass what I considered a logically valid test to identify their CD player in a blind, level matched comparison with all the signal-modifying circuitry disabled, then I would concede that their listening capabilities are greater than mine.

So please, formulate an argument rather than repeating a claim, avoid logical fallacies, and try to find the truth rather than "win" a battle.
Cowclops's Avatar Cowclops 11:26 PM 07-27-2006
Even more where that came from:

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy...AppendixE.html

Read this for an introduction to the scientific method. Note that eliminating bias and minimizing variables are both requirements of a scientific experiment.
PULLIAMM's Avatar PULLIAMM 08:39 AM 07-28-2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowclops
I wish somebody like Amfibius would knock some sense into a barely-coherent person like Cpu8088. While both of these people disagree with what I claim, Amfibius has not made such poor attempts at intellectual discourse. When people like cpu8088 are fundamentally incapable of adding anything to the discussion without setting up a straw man, knocking it down, and patting himself on the back, it really gets ridiculous. Every time somebody posts something thoughtful, he must revert to the "you need a hearing test" argument or "you need to disprove the claims i'm making, I refuse to provide reasonable evidence." or best of all "Do you use blind tests to select equipment?"

I use tests that can have a result that logically supports or dismisses the claims at stake. I don't just use rhetoric to try to "win" an argument, as it is the pursuit of knowledge, not the pursuit of victory, that keeps me going.
What gets my goat are statements that essentially mean "Since your audio system is not as good as mine (meaning as expensive, of course), you have no right to claim that you are appreciating music when listening through it." :mad:
QueueCumber's Avatar QueueCumber 08:57 AM 07-28-2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowclops
If an audiophile could pass what I considered a logically valid test to identify their CD player in a blind, level matched comparison with all the signal-modifying circuitry disabled, then I would concede that their listening capabilities are greater than mine.
How is this possible if the very method that translates digital to analog involves a stage of interpolation between digital modulation points where different algorithms are used by different companies? The process of transforming the digital signal to analog arrives at different results between companies that use different and often proprietary algorithms.
PULLIAMM's Avatar PULLIAMM 09:27 AM 07-28-2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueueCumber
How is this possible if the very method that translates digital to analog involves a stage of interpolation between digital modulation points where different algorithms are used by different companies? The process of transforming the digital signal to analog arrives at different results between companies that use different and often proprietary algorithms.
The programming details vary by company, but the underlying mathematics of these algorithms is the same in every case. When properly implemented, it can be rigorously proven that the resulting waveform is identical to the original waveform at all frequencies up to 1/2 the sampling frequency.
All of this was known at the time that the "redbook" standard was established. Since all CD players are required by the licensing agreement to meet this standard, they all reproduce the recorded signal accurately.
Cowclops's Avatar Cowclops 09:44 AM 07-28-2006
Ok, I misworded the part about signal-modifying circuitry, but instead of correcting it I'll just leave it at the fact that a possible result IS that two very-expensive CD players sound different, possibly because of integral signal-altering circuitry besides the DAC. It would be tough to prove if a CD player has an integral EQ or something that isn't advertised in the specs, but at least the question wouldn't be of a paranormal quality.

All I want to do is first determine whether observations people have made between pieces of electronic components are real and not imagined, and only after we have determined they are real can we start to speculate as to what part of the CD player is not just degrading the signal but AUDIBLY degrading the signal.
First ... 2  3  4 5  6  ... Last

Up
Mobile  Desktop