At what point does audio snake oil become fraud? - Page 13

I didn't rewrite it. I said that the assertion that the metric is random music is wrong with respect to proof point of the claim (that no one can hear difference between 320 kbps and CD). You can claim that a sports car and compact economy car have the same handling while going 10 mph straight. I can tell you that to differentiate them, you need to go faster and throw some curves at it. That is not rewriting a claim but to answer the claim and show it to be incorrect.

To make you happy, there is no question whatsoever that you can find music that would sound the same as the CD when compressed. We actually conducted large scale, independent double blind tests that shows 90% of the people could not tell the difference between *64* Kbps and CD! The independent testing agency didn't understand compression and picked "random" music that they thought would make good test cases. That, combined with average person's apathy toward fidelity issues helped us get the score we wanted.

When we design high performance system, the goal is not to have it work some or even most of the time. It needs to work that way all of the time. If it falls apart all of a sudden, then it is not a good system. That is why no one recommends that you compress your music at 64kbps even though I have the impressive test results above.

You have to understand how the system works, its usage pattern, and then determine if the results are valid. A proof point based on "random music" isn't worth anything at all if one understood the nature of compressed system.

If your claim is that you should be able to say anything you like and not be challenged, well, then you are in the wrong place.


Never took debating class ever. I have learned however to see it when you all use those tactics instead of discussing the science. See this information free post from you. That is what a debater does. He doesn't have data so substitutes arguing, hoping to score a point that way. But it is useless to do that on AVS in presence of people who do this stuff for a living.

As much as I love AVS, this is one thing I never understand about it. If I asked you and Krab to give your chances for getting a job at a company working on codecs, the logical answer would be zero. You wouldn't even get to the interview. Yet you are so bold in your claims even in this area. If this kind of thing doesn't work in real life, why do you attempt it here? I am asking honestly.

BTW, the above is what we tried to fix at whatsbestforum with creating the expert area and not allowing argumentative posts from people not schooled in the science. Without it, most people would not want to even set foot in a forum. I was asking recently for one of the top acoustic experts why he did not post in forums he gave me this analogy. He said imagine there is a fair and everyone who shows up is given a megaphone. And that a bunch of criminals show up together with upstanding citizens yet they are all treated exactly the same with respect to said megaphone. Then there is a discussion about a topic. Do you think anything good comes out of it?

It was a compelling argument. Everyone here is all of a sudden an expert in compressed music and are going to arguing with anyone they see with authority. I am going to assume you are smart. If so, then the only reason to do it is to a) want to settle a personal fight and b) use debating tactics to get there. Or else, answer what I asked before: if Floyd Toole showed up here, would you argue to know more than him about speaker design?

Very true. If you dig deep though, he will tell you that he is making an ROI call. We had this discussion on his sub placement. Initially it appeared that he was saying it was a better system than JBL Synthesis. But later, he said that the JBL system was a very expensive solution so his process accomplished most of it for very little money. I have faulted him for that and he gets upset at me but at the end, that is what he does .

In these discussions, it is important to separate value from performance ranking. The former is for someone to decide on their own or specifically ask about. We have to be careful to not answer everything in the context of ROI.

To give you another example, Earl uses a piece of fabric he bought from local store for his projector. He said he tried a commercial acoustically transparent screen and it messed too much with sound and his fabric store one doesn't. I buy that. But I don't buy that his fabric is the best thing for video where a) he lacks instrumentation to measure it and b) he doesn't have the expertise to make that call with regards to video. So in my eyes, telling people to go buy a bed sheet is not a valid thing to do. He calls me snobbish when I say that. I disagree with that too . Our goal in these forums is to understand Audio/Video performance. We shouldn't be so picky with speakers and rooms as he is, then all of a sudden use no objective criteria for video.

So yes, I disagree with Earl in some areas. But if put in the context of what is the cheapest and has best ROI, the gap will be much smaller if there at all. Indeed, with respect to AVRs, I have already noted that I am more hardcore than many in telling people to buy on features if they are not picky about audio.

Yes, you did. And in the very next sentence, you do it again:


Right, and NO ONE MADE THAT CLAIM. Why can you not understand that?


It's not our claims that are so bold. It's your rewrite of our claims.

When we make statements without appropriate qualifiers, you bash us for being wrong. When we make statements with appropriate qualifiers, you bash us for being afraid to make bold statements. Can you understand why you engender such animosity here?

And thanks for confirming that you outright lie and fabricate like you did accusing me of deleting portions of your post. Very constructive.


Features, price. For the third time.



. 5 brands, zero models. Wow. Learn how to read eh?


Oh cool. Long winded utter obfuscation. Shocking.


Really? And exactly how was this amp "performance" ascertained by you? How does it differ between any of the 3 brands you own? Vs any of the other dozen popular brands you see recommended on these boards daily? Onkyo? HK? Which and how does amir determine amp "performance"??


More amir BS. Amir, $600-700, what AVR? Brand and model. Then why.
Here comes the dance....


No. I don't read your WTF?? forum. Earl stated this on DIYAudio many years ago. I happened to have a similar Pioneer (VSX815), which I used (since '05-'06) as a reference for an "average" AVR when testing loudspeaker loads.
I still use it now to test my commercial model.

Now let's look at what Earl also says


So exactly where are you getting your "data" for AVR amp "performance"? Where is the listening test data to correlate this "performance"?? Oh wait, is it all pure inference, like your HDMI "data"??
Can't wait for the amir.."I've done my own 'tests' at home and it's audible, I assure you...and you can do these 'tests" too, but don't worry if you can't 'hear' it, cuz so many are deaf". Oh yeah, plus "I more Objective that everyone here combine"...


Right. So where is the data for the VSX912's DAC "performance"?
Uh oh. Amir conveniently doesn't mention anything about the DACs in 8+ yr old receiver Earl still uses for demos. Hmmm. What about their "performance"?? Amir must have just forgot. No way he deliberately deleted any reference due to his little agenda. Right Amir?
The DAC in Earl's VSX912? "Performance"?? AVR amp AND DAC "performance" Amir?
Why doesn't that bottleneck Earl's demo "performance" and the subsequent rave reviews?? Hmmm...I wonder...


1) Yep.
2) Kinda.
3) name dropping when convenient you say....

cheers,

AJ

Well, your starting sentence is wrong. It *is* a test of hearing ability or do you use your eyes to hear compression artifacts? Seriously, once you get trained, you can hear compression artifacts even across dissimilar compression systems you were *not* trained on. On that basis, your hypothesis is wrong.

That said, it is true that hearing compression artifacts doesn't mean you can hear DAC differences. I wish I had an easy DAC test that everyone could run but I don't. But the entire planet has a way to compress audio more or less. So I used that to weed out people who can't hear even more gross levels of distortion. So it is the inverse of what you. It is a test to exclude people, not include. For folks like you, Krab, etc. we can say with very high confidence that your hearing acuity is not high enough to hear artifacts even when we throw out 75% of the music.

To be clear then, I am saying, based on experience, that DAC differences rate lower than 320 kbps and CD. If you want to argue this point, let me know and we will go to town .


I tell you what. How about you and Krab running a test and getting it published, proving that anyone hearing artifacts in 320 Kbps compressed audio is delusional?

You could stop shooting from the hip and asking me why I would own so many (noting that none of your cohorts list any audio equipment and yet you are cool with that). That part didn't surprise you? Not inquisitive, are you?

I don't list the models because frankly I don't know them! I "bought" them at a charity auction for ELF -- an organization that puts home theaters at children hospitals for very sick children with cancer and such. Yamaha, etc participate, putting up products for bid. Caring more for the cause than than the equipment, I don't memorize what model and such they were when I bid high enough to get them.

The Onkyos I bought for testing of Blu-ray which I documented in the codec thread which you were part of. I don't recall their model numbers either.

I do use some of the AVRs, the rest I have been trying to give away to family and such. I use them in non-critical situation and not bothered by what DAC or amp they have in them. They are just fine for casual listening although the Onkyos get hot, super hot.


It wasn't. You are parsing his statement asking me to explain it?


Already explained the first part. I have an audio precision for analyzing amplifier performance objectively. Subjectively, I have a selection of music I use. I start with low volume and gradually turn it up and listen for changes in fidelity. If it occurs below the listen I might listen to, then I consider the amp not performing to my liking. I also listen to low frequency reproduction.


So you rather hear the man's opinion from years ago and not benefit form what he may have discovered since? Only a person putting gut feeling ahead of learning would do that.


Plot is lost again. This discussion was about *your* position relative to amps. You claimed that anyone who says they all sound the same is *not* objective. I say that is nonsense in that you advocate all amps sound the same. And here you prove my point. This, after Terry pointed out the same thing. You guys can't decide where stand. You are trying to fight both sides of the argument. One minute no one can be wrong about amplifier differences, and in another, no one can be objective in saying they are the same!


You just proved you are not objective based on your own definition. You said claiming amps sound the same indicates you are not objective. Is that what you are claiming or are you going to backtrack in the next post?


I don't know. I am confident though that Earl doesn't care about its performance. Is that what you are getting at? He doesn't care about bed sheets for video either as I noted. Some things are his priority, some things are not. Same with me. We don't need to all agree with each other to have useful things to say, lest you want to tell me you use Earl's designs in your speakers. Do you? Is Floyd wrong and Earl is right?

I've been to his house and know about the fabric screen. Enjoyed myself. It was fun and a learning experience. Earl is all about value but I disagree with him on things too. I didn't critically evaluate the video although it was fine for the movies we watched. I was there to evaluate the sound. I don't have a problem with telling people to buy a bedsheet if they have a limited budget and want the best sound with speakers behind the screen. By the way, he doesn't just throw up a bedsheet, he has a process of the type of bedsheet and weight (forget the measurement on bedsheets), how you wash it as I recall, and starch. Can't remember it but it certainly worked fairly well from my casual viewing.

I do have the advantage of having spent time at his house and seen and heard his system first hand. I do need to mention his wife as she was a wonderful host. She is an audio PHD as well.

P.S. One thing that I found encouraging was he actually uses his system a lot. I see so many people (audio and videophiles) who have a great system but it is more for show and bragging rights than actual use. I use my system ALOT.

This is probably one of most entertaining/exhausting theads in a while.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQY-uzzm7GA

Terrific. this from the guy who chides multiple members about not revealing their equipment and blabbers on about AVR recommendations and "performance". No, really...


I see. So the little man on the throne doesn't think much of AVR's for "critical" listening eh. Yet you are rambling on about AVR amp/dac "performance". Hmmmm. I wonder how that categorizes Earl's demos with the $200 Costco AVR, with "$1 dac" (8+ yrs old too!!!)? let me guess, "Non critical" listening? With audiophiles having mega buck systems going gaga?
Ah, the twisted little world of the greatest (self assessed of course) Objectivist of them all.....amirm.


Hmmm. The greatest objectivist of them all doesn't seem to mention controls at all. An oversight?? Could the greatest objectivist at all be immune to bias that plagues all others? Could he be using the same method that the idiot bybee and magic puck guys use? Oh, but wait...he measures. Magnetism in LP's. See, we measured it...thus....


Get help little man.


Right. because he has forgotten more about correlating "audibility" than you will ever know. He constantly says "close the loop". Go figure it out...or ask him amir.


His priority is audio. Audible issues. So yeah, his priorities are very different from yours. You also hint at your elitism here amir. As if Earl may not care enough about audio to care about DAC "performance" (your psychogenic definition).


Oh cool. A red herring...my/Earls speakers. Shocking. AVR amp/dac "performance>>>>>aj's speakers".

cheers,

AJ

There you go again, not being able to make up your mind what you want people to learn from your statements. Here is what you said:


Am I supposed to read that and walk away thinking people can tell 320 kbps from the CD? Of course not. You would not use the phrase "deluding himself" if you wanted to leave any impression of people being able to hear a difference. Yet when I crisp up your statement you back away realizing you went too far, especially given the data to the contrary. It is disappointing really.


As I said, you are unsure of your claims altogether. Your point is slippery as a freshly caught fish. At the same time that you all are fighting me that there are any audible differences, you like to pretend that you don't believe in that. It is the most remarkable argument I have seen from all of you combined. All I have to do is wait for a post or two and the position changes. AJ goes from claiming that no one is objective if they say amps are the same and then fights me on the notion of a difference between amps. How can you be objective and yet vacillate this way?


You don't make appropriate qualifiers. There was nothing appropriate in what I quoted from you above. The right qualifications would have been to say that if you use VBR encoding at 320kbps, across large amount of content and large segment of population, people could not tell the difference between CD and compressed version so produced. You see the difference? The qualifications go to the heart of how the system works. Instead, you use the word "random music." Random music? That is a qualification? And how about the bit about being delusional? That is the proper way of saying who can and cannot hear the difference?

That of course puts aside the fact that your claim was exaggerated anyway. And this is my beef. It is perfectly fine to push the argument to the edge of the mountain. But if you go one step further, you go from being completely right to completely wrong:



That is the heart of the matter. I would have nothing to say or argue with you if you didn't take that one laaaast step! Do that and you go upside down as you did with the MP3 claim. Say that the audio quality is excellent to your ears and there would be no argument. But claiming someone hearing the difference being delusional? Not a chance .

A few questions. If Amirm lies (and he does). If he makes comments and then spins them the opposite way when it suits him. (he does) If he is a troll (and that is a fact) Then why is anybody continuing to engage with him?

To argue with a rational, honest, open minded person looking for a dialog is one thing, to continue to engage with a less than honest troll is folly. You can't win because he will just change his mind and take the other side until he frustrates you and then switch back and forth at will. He is the personification of everything he professes to hate. And he is getting everyone's goat.

I chide them because not only do they not list them, they don't even talk about them. I am happy to talk and discuss the gear I have. Very different than your friends who believe in aliens, but not in talking about their audio equipment in an audio forum!


I didn't tell you that. I said that I use them in that application. The one Onkyo AVR for example is hooked up to our living room media center, playing mostly TV programming but sometimes relaxing music.


The only rambling is from you, one moment saying you can't be objective to say all amps sound the same and in the next moment, hyperventilating that someone says they might -- including Earl!


First, I am not the greatest objectivist. I said I was more of an objectivsts than the rest of you combined. It is easy to prove that seeing how you claim to be an objectivist yet you don't believe in blind testing your speakers.

As to the rest of your rambling, I have a tool for objective analysis and I understand circuit design. My listening tests must match those two other data points. That doesn't mean I still can't make mistake. Anyone can and I have made some catastrophic ones. As have any expert listener I have ever run into. There is a reason we have expert panels, not just one person giving us data in audio testing.


No. His priority is acoustics. That is what he does professionally. That is the business he is in. Yes, he is opinionated like the rest of us and gives opinions outside of that including video . That doesn't make him an authority in all things audio.


You can twist the words all you like. At the end, it is just a debating tactic. You are not Earl. And by your own admission, you have not read his countless posts over the last year on WBF as I have.

Sadly, Earl is a pawn in your arguments anyway. You use him when you want, and spit at him when you don't. You don't want to read WBF. So how about reading Earl's posts here? You have read them, right? http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1124011

Look at our own Penngray's reaction to him after the poor guy explains *his* methodology when Earl says, "As Randy points out the bass in my room - WITH NO EQ! - is the best that he's heard. Based on that how can you say that its necessary?"


So he is saying his claims are meaningless that EQ is not needed. Do you believe EQ is meaningless? Remember, that is Earl's field of expertise -- acoustics. Do you believe there is one answer and that is no EQ?

Read the thread further and you see how people make fun of him later saying he must not know what he is talking about. You see the point I made about the bad side of AVS and criminals with megaphones?

FYI, one of the friction points with Earl on WBF was members asking him there for measurements and he refused to provide any.

Read that thread as I have done to the end (45+ pages!) and you will learn something rather than arguing with me .

Same as with any other massively self deluded pseudo-Subjectivist. Entertainment.

cheers,

AJ

What a perfect answer!

Similarly idiotic but I grant you the distinction. But of course, it's the Subjectivists who suffer from Delusions of Grandeur.


Ah yes, I'm not objective because I don't blind test my speakers. Test/compare against what? Lets' see, I measure +/- 1.5db instead of +/-3db (repeatably, with any calibrated mic), but this must be blind tested to see which is preferred, because there is no precedence or established science of preference via DBT for audible FR deviation. This, with the one electro-acoustic component that interacts totally with it's environment, makes physical location critical, cannot be level matched without eq, introduces greater error when listened to in more than one channel (which is not how it will be used), etc, etc, etc.
This is equivalent to you (not?) blind testing a static piece of electronics in the equipment rack than can easily be switched, matched, doesn't have channel number error limitations, etc, etc., etc.
So when you measure "10x" more distortion (depending on the phase of the moon), no need to blind test because there is zero precedence, zero audibly established correlation via DBT, etc, etc. same thing as me not blind testing my speakers. And making what audible claim?
Hmmm. Wow. 99% of loudspeaker manufacturers fall into the "Subjectivist" category. Even the 1%, Harman, tests only in mono. How do they level match to within 0.1db? Is this for JND...or preference? Hmmm.
And what does any of this have to do with amir fabricating HDMI and spdif tests?? Oh yeah..nothing! It's all a smokescreen. A subjectivist ploy from Mr self assessed Objective man. Cool.


But of course, not with HDMI. Or SPDIF. Or DACs. Or SS amps. Or....


Wait, you're an "expert listener"? According to who? As evidenced by...???


I see. So the expert panels giving us data for audible HDMI, SPDIF, DACs, insert amir audio malady here, etc.....is where now?


Not audio, but acoustics.
So he is an "acoustics" manufacturer. Of loudspeakers.


No, I have no interest in your WTF?? forum and amirm's audio fantasies. I have real audio issues to deal with. Thanks. Abstract theories like FR deviation. Polar response. Benign impedance. None of the decades ago established via DBT "10x distortion" run of the mill maladies that you obsess over. You know, because you are "more of an objectivsts than the rest of you (us) combined".

cheers,

AJ

Who cares.
Your credibility is shot.

+1

It's funny to see amirm squirm and try every desperate move he can muster.

Now, imagine a discussion forum about electronics founded and administered by such man...

Pinning him down to this thread helps keep other threads clear of his sophistries.

Suuure your did. How long ago was this? What version of what codec? You didn't train the listeners? You used what samples?

How about this? Take 100 people off the street right now at random, have them take a 16-trial DBT of a LAME 320 mp3 with no training, using whatever music THEY like. I predict you'll find not a single one that could 'pass'.
Hell, do it at 192 VBR, I predict the same result.

You think self-selected 'audiophiles' would do better? Fine. Take 100 of those at random. Again, no training. Let them pick their music samples. Wanna bet it'll be any different outcome?




No, that what' YOU are talking about. You're all about trying to steer the conversation. Tough luck. I'm talking about what can typically be heard, not specially trained listeners, or at pathological playback levels. (And btw, calling yourself an audiophile is no guarantee that you will be 'at the top of the pyramid' of audio discernment. DBTs have shown that, too.)




The reason they're used is because they illluminate the limits of the technology. Not because they're common. Again, you want to go on Hydrogenaudio, where LAME codec developers congregate, and spout this Amirian bluster? Be my guest, it will be fun to watch.


I don't care what you listen to. (Though if your listening habits are anything like normal, I think you'd fail the 320 LAME mp3 challenge on most of not all of it.)

I care whether a difference can be expected to matter in a typical listening situation. So yes, 'random' music -- meaning, you don't get to cherry-pick a 'codec killer' to prove your point. Because that's just the sort of thing you would do, isn't it? And that would prove, what? That the possibility of encountering an audible difference is not ZERO? Gee, didn't I say that already when we were talking about amps and DACs? Objectivists know stuff CAN sound different. CAN is not the same as WILL.

LIKELIHOODS, Amir. That's what objectivists are talking about, whether they use the word or not. Not worst-case scenarios.


LOL. And here's what it also says on that same page, about -V (which isn't even 320kps):

"High quality: HiFi, home or quiet listening

-V0 (~245 kbps), -V1 (~225 kbps), -V2 (~190 kbps) or -V3 (~175 kbps) are recommended. These settings will normally produce transparent encoding (transparent = most people can't distinguish the MP3 from the original in an ABX blind test). Audible differences between these presets exist, but are rare. "

I dare you to go to Hydrogenaudio itself and make your claim about transparency, from that graph. (Hint: there's no error bars.)





No one said anything about 'magic', Amir. Your clown shoes are showing again. The LAME codec has improved over the last decade and half.. in significant part by addressing the artifacts revealed in different generations of 'killer samples'. Some of which aren't 'killer' any more as a result.




Yes, we see that, Amir. You can't stop trying though, can you?

A couple of days ago, I caught Jay Leno. After his monologue, he had a segment where he puts up interesting things found in print. One of them was a small ad where Motel 6 was selling soiled bed sheets for around $3. Good for the frugal videophile I say!

I just made a pot of chicken rice soup.

...which was not the claim.

(emphases mine)

I've got a pot roast in the crock pot. I replaced the power cord so's I could get better definition and transparency of flavors.

I'm afraid you're the delusional one, if you think mcnarus or I ever claimed such a thing.

I suggest you learn when and how to use these words...or at least take notice whether or not others use them, and notice the other words around htem (like mcnarus' 'almost certainly'):

anyone
everyone
no one

Otherwise you'll sound sillier than the drunk who was rambling on about 'one true scotsman' back there.

Actually,

Here on AVSF, over the years since 2003, I've 'talked about' my AVR, my various DVD players, my music server setup, and doubtless other aspects of my home audio setup, on various AVSF threads, typically devoted to that particular type of gear. I don't do it a lot, and I don't talk about the 'sound' much at all, not the way subjectivists do (you know, 'I changed X and suddenly the veil was lifted') ; typically I'm discussing how certain features work, or don't, to deliver the audio I need. One good reason not to talk about sound quality that way, is because I'm not set up to verify impressions with blind tests of gear. Most recently I've been talking about MCACC with other Pioneer AVR users on that thread, helping them work out what it does and does not do. Lately I've finally gotten around to setting up my AVR to output its room EQ data to my laptop, so I'll probably be posting that soon, on the appropriate thread, because 'room correction' fascinates me.

So WTF are you talking about, Amir? 'Cos you sure don't have a clue what I have and have not done here on AVSF.

You're all such hypocrites.

Want me to go and find all your posts moaning about how amir just loves to argue?

We ALL love to argue, that is why we are here. Every thread ends up in some sort of dispute. IIRC penngray was one who made that claim recently too, and even in as 'innocent' a thread as a guy asking about room treatments, yep, as always, there is some sort of argument.

What is wrong about a good old dust up if you will on forums?? It is fun, entertaining and occasionally with nuggets of value in it.

So why the hand wringing?

Again, bullcrap on the weaseling. It was VERY clear the claim was that no-one can distinguish between 320 lame (or whatever it was) and cd. Why all the cowardice? If you do 'claim' to hear a difference then you are delusional. And bang, right on cue, comes krab agreeing with it.

Yet again, watch the backing away.

Hey, mcnarus, let me ask you... is it your view that 320kbps mp3s (let's assume the best encoder) can never be distinguished from source, by anyone, in a blind test? For that matter, has that ever been your view?

Is it your view, and has it ever been your view, that two unspecified amps can never sound different in a level-matched blind test?

Is it your view, and has it ever been your view, that two unspecified DACs can never sound different in level-matched blind test?


Keep it simple, please, so terry won't try to harm any more weasels.

Replacing the power cord is not enough unless you have a digital "crock" pot with the proper DAC to convert AC to heat.

Word!

Jitter, jitter, your DAC is a mess. Sung to Bowie's Rebel Rebel.