or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy? - Page 60

post #1771 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee 
Critics devise theories which become influential and enable them to tell the rest of us what is good and beautiful.

I don't subscribe to that view. I won't allow a critic to dictate what I should or should not like.
post #1772 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD in NJ View Post

Let me see if I understand this conversation:

"Please provide citations"

"Here you go"

"La la la la la I am not listening"
Pretty much...smile.gif
post #1773 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riffmeister 
The flat-earthers that proclaim the merits of level-matched-double-blind-ABX tests...
Your use of this term suggests controlled double blind testing is an outdated, discredited idea. What evidence at all do you have of this?
Quote:
When you have obviously different pieces of gear and you cannot tell any difference using ABX testing, then this is an indictment of the test itself, not of quality equipment.
Interesting logic. "Obviously different" is based on the results of sighted testing widely accepted to be unreliable and biased. Based on that "obvious difference" you conclude that the only explanation for decades of research into human hearing and psychology not agreeing with your results are that the mountain of research is flawed. The possibility that, instead of decades of research and thousands of tests being in error, it is instead your perception that is, as predicted, influenced by extrinsic factors thus yielding unreliable results is summarily dismissed.

Who again were you calling a flat-earther??!?
Quote:
Human hearing is not at all good with sequential memory...
This contradicts all available research into this subject. Again you dismiss the whole of science because it disagrees with your need to be correct. Do you have any evidence at all that this is the case?
Quote:
that is what makes ABX testing completely useless, or worse, harmful to the advancement of the art and science of music reproduction.
You mean, harmful to the advancement of the art and science of audio shillery.
Quote:
Anyone who has ears and has spent any amount of time actually listening to good high fidelity sound systems, rather than just reading and rehashing internet tales, would find the truth for themselves.
Hmm. I count myself as "anyone" or "someone" who might fit your thesis. I have two ears, which function quite well as of last testing, and I figure work at least as well as the average for this purpose since I have spent my life not only listening to music but performing, solo and in all manner of groups, as well. Perhaps my personal equipment, past and present, may never meet your definition of "good high fidelity", but since I've listened to literally hundreds of complete systems over the years I'm sure at least some have. The truth I have found is that I am no more immune from bias than you or anyone else, but that when controlling for bias there are no audible differences in well designed amplifiers, preamps, cables, DAC's, CD players, transports...
Quote:
I have never met an audiophile that wanted to pay more money. I have never known any to assume that a piece of gear is better simply because it is more expensive.
You haven't met many audiophiles.
post #1774 of 3048
Quote:
]"Please provide citations"

"Here you go"

"La la la la la I am not listening"

So a citation is sacrosant? I can't verify anything, it's just a claim. How do I know those tests were not doctored in some way to produce negative results? The nice thing is that I can rest easy knowing you can't prove a damn thing. smile.gif
post #1775 of 3048
I just decided to believe that earth's gravity does not exist in all locations across the planet.

I now expect AVS members to span the globe to test and confirm that gravity exists in all locations, otherwise, it clearly can't be correct science. wink.gif And I don't care how many locations you test - until members prove they've covered every square inch of the globe, you can't prove there isn't a single location where gravity isn't reversed

Seriously, there are some ridiculous arguments being put forth here. Some of them even appear to be self written and not plagiarized.
post #1776 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma 
Seriously, there are some ridiculous arguments being put forth here. Some of them even appear to be self written and not plagiarized.

Congratulations.
post #1777 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post

if you want me to cite a DBT showing positive results, whether it be from an amplifier or a source component I'll do so.
Please do.
post #1778 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

Please do.

As if there's a chance that will happen. It's not like you haven't asked for it a dozen times in this thread.

Perhaps because it doesn't exist, because we already know the requestee has solid Google skills....
post #1779 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 
I think that mostly the hostility to ABX testing is because the results don't lend themselves to what the 'subjectivists' want to believe.

It's not the ABX test that I have a problem with but the arrogant behaviour from the proponents who think they can make sweeping pronouncements about what is "good" or what is "bad" and then tell me what I should or should like. It's just a bunch of evangelists singing the same tune.

Well that doesn’t apply to me because what is "good" or "bad' is by definition in this context, subjective and the only reason I am contributing at all is that I believe a purely subjective assessment of audio gear is 'dangerous' with a serious potential to mislead, because of the way our ears/brain work. The beauty of objective tests is that they are, well, objective - so any vagaries of the human mind, placebo, expectation bias, auditory memory etc can be safely removed from the assessment. After all the testing and measuring has been done, then I do some serious listening, using just my ears/brain :)  If what I hear sounds 'good' I am done. If it sounds 'bad', then I need to dig deeper to discover why. I have rarely, if ever, found that something which measures good sounds bad, and only occasionally found that something which measures bad sounds good. I could never just rely on my ears and my subjective opinion - there are too many vagaries involved. If my system is, to my ears, sounding imprecise in its imaging, for example, and I run some ETC graphs, I can get a pretty good idea of why it sounds imprecise. I can use the graphs (and some string) to determine the likely cause of the problem and correct it - and then I can listen again. Both aspects are important. 

 

WRT to 'evangelists' surely you must agree that this applies just as much (if not more) to the 'pure subjectivists' as it does to the 'objectivists'?

post #1780 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 
One test? That's all you can show? There are thousands of ABX tests, conducted over decades and they all come to the same conclusion. You saying that if you find one that comes to a different conclusion, it invalidates the thousands? BTW, if it's the Scandinavian one, don't bother - that horse died from its flogging a long time ago. If it isn't please let's see it - along with the reasoning that one contradictory test can invalidate the results of thousands of others.

I never said I had just one DBT. Why don't you shoulder your claim and show me all these thousands of negative DBT results? Because all I see here are extraordinary claims. Since I'm 99.9999% certain that you are merely speculating and you have no actual idea what the test results are from the thousands of published DBTS, my question would be where did YOU get this information from? Please cite references and links to the published results of thousands of DBTS.

I will not be holding my breath on this.

 

Breathe freely. Arny has rescued you from death by suffocation :)  Meantime, I accept the apology you are no doubt about to make.

post #1781 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd68 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Room correction software, such as Audyssey for example, doesn’t try to 'correct the amp' in any way. It tries to correct the room/speaker interaction - hence the name, room correction software.

It is correcting the response curve of the amp to compensate for the room, right? So it is "fixing" the perfectly flat response amp, because of the variations of room and speaker response.

 

No - it is not correcting the response curve of the amp at all. That 'curve' will be more or less ruler flat 20Hz to 20kHz. Room correction software corrects the in-room frequency response of the speakers in the room. 

post #1782 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post

If I understood him, Ethan said that it was theoretically possible for distortions to cancel, but this case would never arise in practice (for reasons not yet made clear).

Do you understand the various types of distortion and their causes? If not, I humbly suggest you get my book The Audio Expert because it explains all of this in great detail. Briefly, the main two types are clipping distortion and crossover distortion. Clipping distortion flattens the tops of the waveforms which generates harmonically related overtones (as well as IM distortion), while crossover distortion shifts the waveform near the zero-crossing point:



Clipping happens when a circuit is overdriven, such that increasing the input signal level doesn't increase the output further. Clipping can be countered by applying an inverse curve that exaggerates the peak, and some analog tape recorders from years ago used a special circuit to do that. But "inverse" clipping doesn't happen normally in amplifier circuits. You have to design such a curve specifically by adding clipping to the feedback path of a normal circuit.

All normal distortion mechanisms add distortion components when combined, rather than counter existing distortion.

--Ethan
post #1783 of 3048
post #1784 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post

Quote:
]"Please provide citations"

"Here you go"

"La la la la la I am not listening"

So a citation is sacrosant? I can't verify anything, it's just a claim. How do I know those tests were not doctored in some way to produce negative results? The nice thing is that I can rest easy knowing you can't prove a damn thing. smile.gif

 

All of them? Oh come on... I think you have just given up if you really believe what you just typed there. You asked for the evidence of the thousands of tests conducted. It has been provided (which you did not expect, hence not holding your breath) and now you say that ALL of the tests are likely to have been doctored? I am sure if you quietly reflect on what you just said that you will see the absurdity of it. 

post #1785 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 
WRT to 'evangelists' surely you must agree that this applies just as much (if not more) to the 'pure subjectivists' as it does to the 'objectivists'?

I will agree with you.
post #1786 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

I now expect AVS members to span the globe to test and confirm that gravity exists in all locations, otherwise, it clearly can't be correct science.

No need. Already done... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/04/110406-new-map-earth-gravity-geoid-goce-esa-nasa-science/
post #1787 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S View Post

if you want me to cite a DBT showing positive results, whether it be from an amplifier or a source component I'll do so.
Please do.

 

Yes, come on Heinrich - a few of us are waiting. I asked you too but instead of providing it, you just asked ME to provide evidence that thousands of ABX tests had been conducted. Well, that has now been provided (thanks Arny) and so let's see you give what you promised... where is this one DBT test to which you refer?

post #1788 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by josh6113 View Post

Here is a good read...smile.gif

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue56/abx.htm

The person writing the above simply doesn't understand what ABX is, or much of anything else for that matter. As Riffmeister would say, this rebuttal of ABX's usefulness is written from someone who obviously has never undertaken, witnessed, nor even read about an actual ABX test. Pathetic.

Let's also not forget that ABX isn't the only method of controlling for biases. If Riffmeister thinks its the rapid switching and stress of this type of test that makes it invalid, it is entirely possible to set up a controlled test in his home using his equipment completely under his control with his music allowing as much or as little time to listen to each device as he desires at whatever volume he desires until he is satisfied that he has demonstrated the ability he claims to perform with ease under identical situations (except that the identities of the devices will not be known). Think he'll take such a challenge?
post #1789 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 
All of them? Oh come on... I think you have just given up if you really believe what you just typed there. You asked for the evidence of the thousands of tests conducted. It has been provided (which you did not expect, hence not holding your breath) and now you say that ALL of the tests are likely to have been doctored? I am sure if you quietly reflect on what you just said that you will see the absurdity of it.

But no one can verify any of the results. Were the results independently verified by a third party? If so, where are the details? Arnold provided a line of text which is supposed to be solid evidence for his claim. I don't think it tells the whole story. I don't think it tells us much at all about the tests. I just have to trust the results from a guy who is clearly bigoted. I'll remain skeptical until I see more information.
post #1790 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

Please do.

As if there's a chance that will happen. It's not like you haven't asked for it a dozen times in this thread.

Perhaps because it doesn't exist, because we already know the requestee has solid Google skills....

I'm betting it's the Robert Harley/Swedish test. Which wasn't actually an ABX test anyway IIRC.

post #1791 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heinrich S 

Forgive me but I'll take your claim with a grain of salt.

Why would you doubt this? You've already stated in direct response to my question that if there are audible differences, you expect them to be measurable.

I suppose I should have followed up with the (to me) obvious corollary just to be complete: If there are no measurable differences within the range of what is widely accepted as audible, do you expect there to nonetheless be audible differences?
post #1792 of 3048

 

OMG - it's French!  If it's 'just a sample' that means there must be lots more. Can you provide one in English please?  

 

Admit it - you just googled and found that didn't you?  You didn't know about it before did you? ;)

post #1793 of 3048
So all this should mean that us audiophiles could liquidate our high-end gear, cables, fancy modded CD players etc. and just buy an AVR with good specs and room correction. A budget player and or DAC. But keep the speakers if of excellent quality. This could end up giving better results?

I wonder if anyone did this and was satisfied? I need to try it myself I guess. First I would try the budget gear before selling off anything of course! It would be quite compact too, one AVR vs separate preamp, and two power amps. But my modded Sony CD player sounds better than my OPPO 105, I guess I will need to keep that, or get use to the sound of a lesser player.

The predominant AVS way seems great if it produces the results we all strive for, for way less money.
post #1794 of 3048

The first link is about a study of CD tweaks where amp tests are mentioned and the methodology debated but no conclusion reached.
The second two have nothing to do with amps whatsoever.

Care to explain how you believe these support your position?
post #1795 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

OMG - it's French!  If it's 'just a sample' that means there must be lots more. Can you provide one in English please?  

Admit it - you just googled and found that didn't you?  You didn't know about it before did you? wink.gif
Just copy and paste in Google...then hit translate...smile.gif
post #1796 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 
Admit it - you just googled and found that didn't you? You didn't know about it before did you? wink.gif

Obviously I googled it. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

To answer your second question, I was aware of the tests, but I must admit ... at first I was not able to read the French tests with much success. However the google translator works wonders. wink.gif

Goodness, I just cracked a smile.
post #1797 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

The person writing the above simply doesn't understand what ABX is, or much of anything else for that matter. As Riffmeister would say, this rebuttal of ABX's usefulness is written from someone who obviously has never undertaken, witnessed, nor even read about an actual ABX test. Pathetic.

She's got an amazing set of ears though! Must be something in the gene pool biggrin.gif:
Quote:
"My Mom could hear the difference between Original Monster, 12 Gauge Discwasher and 14 Gauge lamp cord from the other room while doing dishes! How? All three behaved differently in the bass which she could hear through the walls. The monster had the thickest and deepest bass, next was the lamp cord (believe it or not) followed by the Discwasher cable."
http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=general&n=519873
post #1798 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma 
The first link is about a study of CD tweaks where amp tests are mentioned and the methodology debated but no conclusion reached.
The second two have nothing to do with amps whatsoever.

Care to explain how you believe these support your position?

I wanted to show positive DBT results and I did. There are more DBT results from amplifiers alone. But I suppose you will just ignore the results. As I predicted.
post #1799 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

I don't care what your opinion of "freezing" is, a "good" thermometer will always identify 32 degrees F. as the freezing point of water. If you want one that identifies 64 degrees F. as the freezing point of water, more power to you.

I prefer one that puts the freezing point of water at 0 degrees.
post #1800 of 3048
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

No - it is not correcting the response curve of the amp at all. That 'curve' will be more or less ruler flat 20Hz to 20kHz. Room correction software corrects the in-room frequency response of the speakers in the room. 

I guess I am missing something, but the amp still drives the speakers. How can the room correction work if the amps response isnt equalized or altered?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Are audio companies all involved in a huge conspiracy?