or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › A desktop CD player to use w/ Grado SR-125 (about $150) headphones or ?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A desktop CD player to use w/ Grado SR-125 (about $150) headphones or ? - Page 2

post #31 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post

The reason I can hear the difference betweem mp3*** and 1644/1 or better is precisely because I do have good equipment that is why I can hear the difference.it is also very apparant to me and others including musicians on decent headphones .

The above is prima face evidence that being charitable, you are unaware of your true perceptions and/or you are unaware of what is possible at the current state of the audio art.

Sighted, you can always do what you claim. But of course you are responding to the sighted cues, not what you are hearing.

Deprived of necessary cues, and obliged to base your conclusions on just what you hear, in general you can't. In a few pathological cases, you can.

Scientific fact.

What you say you can do is just as probable as you sprouting wings and flying around the world.

So, are you going to tell me that you can sprout wings and fly? ;-)
Edited by arnyk - 9/12/13 at 2:21am
post #32 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post


@Arnold
I don't need an article or peer approved scientific white paper or wikipedia to tell me that what I and many others can and cannot hear regardless of placebo science .ofc maybe some can not hear the difference then they are happy with mp3 and thats fine for them but does not convince me.

The above statement tells me that you are completely disinterested in my welfare or my opinion of you, and by implication that applies to everybody else in the world.

Why should I or anybody else grant your statements any credibility?

Why should I or anybody else allow anything that you say to affect my opinions or actions?
post #33 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post

T

DBT's are by nature subjective and therefore not usually an accurate measurement as opposed to electronic sound analysis the old saying holds true
"if it measures good and sounds bad you are measuring the wrong thing " mp3 inherently usually measures bad.

The above is simply an error of fact. High bitrate MP3s measure very well.

Here is a summary of measurements made on a 320K test file:

Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB +0.22, -0.38
Dynamic range, dB (A) 97.2
THD, % 0.0009
IMD at 10 kHz, % 0.011

The author is apparently unaware of the fact that one of the problems of developing MP3 encoders is that they have for all time measured far better than they sounded. They are very complex and develop complex modes for generating audible distortion that go beyond what can be determined from the simple tests that have sufficed with traditional audio hardware.
post #34 of 107
I find it quite entertaining that the subjectivists blame the facts on poor equipment without even knowing what equipment we used to do the tests. Not a single one of them will do a simple test to find out for themselves. They are audio cowards but certainly passionate in their ignorance.
post #35 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

I find it quite entertaining that the subjectivists blame the facts on poor equipment without even knowing what equipment we used to do the tests. Not a single one of them will do a simple test to find out for themselves. They are audio cowards but certainly passionate in their ignorance.

Yes, in the old days they would ask us what we had before emptying their bladders all over it! ;-)

Of course using their undocumented standards for truth, their audio systems can be whatever they need to impress...
post #36 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

I find it quite entertaining that the subjectivists blame the facts on poor equipment without even knowing what equipment we used to do the tests. Not a single one of them will do a simple test to find out for themselves. They are audio cowards but certainly passionate in their ignorance.
I said many times that I did tests. You just choose to ignore that and insult me. Because calling names is what every 'scientist' does...
Oh, and if you say that my tests are not done correctly (because you cannot believe that I can listen with eyes closed), then you do the tests. Oh, wait that's not acceptable to your buddy (arnyk) - he said that he cannot prove the 'negative'. Of course that a flat-out lie, but hey, anything goes here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Of course using their undocumented standards for truth, their audio systems can be whatever they need to impress...
What's your documentation? A bunch of guys that swear on forums that they 'cannot hear a difference'? No equipment qualifications, no hearing tests to prove the subjects qualifications.
I guess it's the same like other people swear they saw miracles of various prophets? What matters one more?
Edited by SoNic67 - 9/12/13 at 9:24am
post #37 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post

DBT's are by nature subjective and therefore not usually an accurate measurement as opposed to electronic sound analysis the old saying holds true
How many level matched DBT of electronic audio gears have you participated in?
post #38 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

I find it quite entertaining that the subjectivists blame the facts on poor equipment without even knowing what equipment we used to do the tests. Not a single one of them will do a simple test to find out for themselves. They are audio cowards but certainly passionate in their ignorance.

I said many times that I did tests.

And I showed several times how your little sighted fun and games fail to meet the definition of test.

I show you international standards and peer-reviewed papers and you ignore those issues when you kinda-sorta respond to my posts. It's really hard to understand what you are talking about because you seem to be unable to quote the posts that you are responding to. I guess the lack of technical expertise I see in your posts even extends to the simple mechanics of conferencing!
Quote:
You just choose to ignore that and insult me.

It wasn't a choice and it wasn't personal. you don't seem to either understand or value science so all the science in the world seems to mean nothing to you, I can't help that!
Quote:
Because calling names is what every 'scientist' does...

As if you've never called names!
Quote:
Oh, and if you say that my tests are not done correctly (because you cannot believe that I can listen with eyes closed), then you do the tests.

There you go. Blind tests have nothing to do with listening with the eyes closed. Should I take that false allegation as an insult or ignorance on your part?
Quote:
Oh, wait that's not acceptable to your buddy (arnyk) - he said that he cannot prove the 'negative'.

Of course that a flat-out lie

Thank you for admitting the untruth of the above comments.

When are you going to stop lying about science? ;-)
Edited by arnyk - 9/12/13 at 10:03am
post #39 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

I said many times that I did tests. You just choose to ignore that and insult me. Because calling names is what every 'scientist' does...
Oh, and if you say that my tests are not done correctly (because you cannot believe that I can listen with eyes closed), then you do the tests. Oh, wait that's not acceptable to your buddy (arnyk) - he said that he cannot prove the 'negative'. Of course that a flat-out lie, but hey, anything goes here.

I don't recall mentioning your handle but if you think an insult was directed at you then so be it. Blind tests aren't done with eyes closed. They are done in a manner that prevents the listener from knowing what he is listening to. If you know which unit is playing at a given time, the test is not valid because of hearing bias. I don't know what I have to do to explain it to you. You simply don't want to hear the truth and you don't want to do the tests. I assume you fear learning the truth.
post #40 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

I said many times that I did tests. You just choose to ignore that and insult me. Because calling names is what every 'scientist' does...
Oh, and if you say that my tests are not done correctly (because you cannot believe that I can listen with eyes closed), then you do the tests. Oh, wait that's not acceptable to your buddy (arnyk) - he said that he cannot prove the 'negative'. Of course that a flat-out lie, but hey, anything goes here.

I don't recall mentioning your handle but if you think an insult was directed at you then so be it. Blind tests aren't done with eyes closed. They are done in a manner that prevents the listener from knowing what he is listening to. If you know which unit is playing at a given time, the test is not valid because of hearing bias. I don't know what I have to do to explain it to you. You simply don't want to hear the truth and you don't want to do the tests. I assume you fear learning the truth.

 

Please tell me he doesn't think 'blind tests' mean 'tests conducted with eyes closed'?  Please tell me this because I am laughing so loud that I fear I may harm myself....

 

If he does mean that, then I think we can all just safely wipe his hundreds of inane posts from our minds and carry on...

post #41 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

If you know which unit is playing at a given time, the test is not valid because of hearing bias.
That's not 'the truth', it is just a hypothesis/belief. Nobody did prove it.

Typically, a scientist devises a hypothesis and then sees if it ``holds water'' by testing it against available data (obtained from previous experiments and observations). If the hypothesis does hold water, the scientist declares it to be a theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Please tell me he doesn't think 'blind tests' mean 'tests conducted with eyes closed'? Please tell me this because I am laughing so loud that I fear I may harm myself....
If he does mean that, then I think we can all just safely wipe his hundreds of inane posts from our minds and carry on...
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Blind tests have nothing to do with listening with the eyes closed. Should I take that false allegation as an insult or ignorance on your part?
You forgot to take your sarcasm-awareness pill today?
post #42 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

What's your documentation?

International standards and peer-reviewed scientific papers that were published in internationally-recognized scientific journals.

What is your documentation?

What I see from you is poorly-informed hypothesis, technical errors, rookie mistakes, easily disproved wild suppositions, advertising fluff, evasions of simple questions you must not be able to answer, the same-old, same-old, and self-serving "white papers" that are disguised advertisting that would never make the grade in the professional contexts I just mentioned above.
post #43 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

International standards and peer-reviewed scientific papers that were published in internationally-recognized scientific journals.
What 'standards' are you talking about?
'Peer' in your acceptation means only who is agreeing with you.
post #44 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

If you know which unit is playing at a given time, the test is not valid because of hearing bias.
That's not 'the truth', it is just a hypothesis/belief. Nobody did prove it.

Of course someone proved it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment

"The French Academy of Sciences originated the first recorded blind experiments in 1784: the Academy set up a commission to investigate the claims of animal magnetism proposed by Franz Mesmer. Headed by Benjamin Franklin and Antoine Lavoisier, the commission carried out experiments asking mesmerists to identify objects that had previously been filled with "vital fluid", including trees and flasks of water. The subjects were unable to do so. The commission went on to examine claims involving the curing of "mesmerized" patients. These patients showed signs of improved health, but the commission attributed this to the fact that these patients believed they would get better - the first scientific suggestion of the now well-known placebo effect.[2]
In 1799 the British chemist Humphry Davy performed another early blind experiment. In studying the effects of nitrous oxide (laughing gas) on human physiology, Davy deliberately did not tell his subjects what concentration of the gas they were breathing, or whether they were breathing ordinary air.[2]

Blind experiments went on to be used outside of purely scientific settings. In 1817, a committee of scientists and musicians compared a Stradivarius violin to one with a guitar-like design made by the naval engineer François Chanot. A well-known violinist played each instrument while the committee listened in the next room to avoid prejudice.[3][4]

One of the first essays advocating a blinded approach to experiments in general came from Claude Bernard in the latter half of the 19th century, who recommended splitting any scientific experiment between the theorist who conceives the experiment and a naive (and preferably uneducated) observer who registers the results without foreknowledge of the theory or hypothesis being tested. This suggestion contrasted starkly with the prevalent Enlightenment-era attitude that scientific observation can only be objectively valid when undertaken by a well-educated, informed scientist.[5]

Double-blind methods came into especial prominence in the mid-20th century.[6]"
post #45 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

If you know which unit is playing at a given time, the test is not valid because of hearing bias.
That's not 'the truth', it is just a hypothesis/belief. Nobody did prove it.

Typically, a scientist devises a hypothesis and then sees if it ``holds water'' by testing it against available data (obtained from previous experiments and observations). If the hypothesis does hold water, the scientist declares it to be a theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Please tell me he doesn't think 'blind tests' mean 'tests conducted with eyes closed'? Please tell me this because I am laughing so loud that I fear I may harm myself....
If he does mean that, then I think we can all just safely wipe his hundreds of inane posts from our minds and carry on...
You forgot to take your sarcasm-awareness pill today?

 

So tell me - what do you think a blind test is and why did you mention listening with your eyes closed?

 

BTW, bias elimination in properly-conducted tests is standard procedure in numerous branches of science, hence blind testing. It's not a 'belief'. 

post #46 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

International standards and peer-reviewed scientific papers that were published in internationally-recognized scientific journals.
What 'standards' are you talking about?

Asked and answered.

If you don't respect my answers well enough to remember them for a few days, there's no purpose in repeating them.
post #47 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoNic67 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

If you know which unit is playing at a given time, the test is not valid because of hearing bias.
That's not 'the truth', it is just a hypothesis/belief. Nobody did prove it.

Of course someone proved it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment

"The French Academy of Sciences originated the first recorded blind experiments in 1784: the Academy set up a commission to investigate the claims of animal magnetism proposed by Franz Mesmer. Headed by Benjamin Franklin and Antoine Lavoisier, the commission carried out experiments asking mesmerists to identify objects that had previously been filled with "vital fluid", including trees and flasks of water. The subjects were unable to do so. The commission went on to examine claims involving the curing of "mesmerized" patients. These patients showed signs of improved health, but the commission attributed this to the fact that these patients believed they would get better - the first scientific suggestion of the now well-known placebo effect.[2]
In 1799 the British chemist Humphry Davy performed another early blind experiment. In studying the effects of nitrous oxide (laughing gas) on human physiology, Davy deliberately did not tell his subjects what concentration of the gas they were breathing, or whether they were breathing ordinary air.[2]

Blind experiments went on to be used outside of purely scientific settings. In 1817, a committee of scientists and musicians compared a Stradivarius violin to one with a guitar-like design made by the naval engineer François Chanot. A well-known violinist played each instrument while the committee listened in the next room to avoid prejudice.[3][4]

One of the first essays advocating a blinded approach to experiments in general came from Claude Bernard in the latter half of the 19th century, who recommended splitting any scientific experiment between the theorist who conceives the experiment and a naive (and preferably uneducated) observer who registers the results without foreknowledge of the theory or hypothesis being tested. This suggestion contrasted starkly with the prevalent Enlightenment-era attitude that scientific observation can only be objectively valid when undertaken by a well-educated, informed scientist.[5]

Double-blind methods came into especial prominence in the mid-20th century.[6]"

 

My old grandaddy used to say that feeding pigs cherries was always a waste of cherries. 

post #48 of 107
He's a broken record. I recommend we simply stop responding to him. Feeding trolls is always a frustrating experience.
post #49 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

He's a broken record. I recommend we simply stop responding to him. Feeding trolls is always a frustrating experience.

 

Amen to that. Cold turkey, starting now?

post #50 of 107
I'm in. He'll need another handle to elicit a response from me.
post #51 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

I'm in. He'll need another handle to elicit a response from me.

+1.

Which raises the question of whether we've been assaulted by the same guy, different handles for a while.
post #52 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

I'm in. He'll need another handle to elicit a response from me.

 

Same here.

post #53 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMW View Post

I'm in. He'll need another handle to elicit a response from me.

+1.

Which raises the question of whether we've been assaulted by the same guy, different handles for a while.

 

+1

post #54 of 107
Quote:
I'm in. He'll need another handle to elicit a response from me.
Sonic who?
post #55 of 107
I should add that one thing I try to do in most threads is to ignore the subjectivist trolls and just respond directly to the OP (or anyone else who seems to be asking legitimate questions). Just dismiss the trolls as the scientific illiterati they are, and encourage the OP to do the same.

I must admit that this approach requires more discipline than I sometimes have. Fish. Barrel. Shotgun.
post #56 of 107
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

I should add that one thing I try to do in most threads is to ignore the subjectivist trolls and just respond directly to the OP (or anyone else who seems to be asking legitimate questions). Just dismiss the trolls as the scientific illiterati they are, and encourage the OP to do the same.

I must admit that this approach requires more discipline than I sometimes have. Fish. Barrel. Shotgun.

As the OP I'm a bit underwhelmed that only approximately 10 - 20 % of posts were on topic.
I do appreciate the good insight / suggestions, additionally someone pointing out that a post contains incorrect information is certainly fair game in a forum.
But holy ****... At one point I considered asking if I start a thread titled "You don't know what you are talking about", could we move the argument there.
post #57 of 107
sorry double post incomplete edit my bad!
Edited by tubetwister - 9/12/13 at 7:04pm
post #58 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post

I think the Moderators would be doing us all a service by locking the tread
But before that happens, perhaps you can answer my question posted on post #37. Just trying to have a better understanding of where you are coming from...
post #59 of 107
Like I said before even the best algorithms can not replace information that was discarded by mp3**compression they can only substitute it with a best guess if you will in the mp3 process.


I am aware that *some mp3* measures well but that can not tell the whole story of dicscarded information substituted by algorithems in mp3** that is why I said earlier that mp3 usually measures poorley (meaning not always)

If one wants to believe it makes no difference ,feel free to do so by all means but that does not validate the placebo science evident in that thinking, however all are welcome to believe what you will and defend those beliefs .Audio perception like most things human is subjective. everyone hears somewhat differently you can't quantify if with armchair/google science or legitamate scientific study you can get close but still no cigar!

Some here have some knowledge of the subject to be sure and believe what they may know to be true .
Nothing wrong with that but when dicussion degenerates into vitriole attacks and snide comments
then free intelegent dicsussion is inhibited .


OTOH at least for me (and many others ) I know that if I'm listening to 16/44.1 or better on a decent system its much more likely ( highly probable in fact to sound better than mp3***.)

Some here perhaps should come over to Audiokarma or maybe Steve Hoffman's forums just to see alternative viewpoints you may or may not find it interesting as they are more focused on audio than TV there. OTOH if you enjoy discussing audio it's a diversion from the usall TV stuff here
which is pretty good btw I'm learning a lot about TV here (I don't know everything :-) .


The bad part about the whole thread here is WE meaning ALL of us after post 5 or 6 hijacked the thread and contributed nothing of value to the OP 's origional topic.



Arnold I will say you did give OP good advise in post 3. You shouldn't take offense that I do not share your beliefs it's nothing personal or meant to be derogatory or denigrating in any way.

My beliefs are based on my experiences and knowlege not yours so ofc they are bound to be different .
Oh Arnold, Of course I can not fly you should know that !biggrin.gif

Unfortunately this thread has morphed into little more than a pissing contest most of us were guilty as charged and then some of the self proclaimed scientific illuminati were in fact trolling this tread and making snide comments and contributed nothing ,seems like in a lot of forums *some* folks that have a lot of posts somehow feel entitled to thread crap with a comment and quickly duck out without participating.

Hopefully the OP will not be to discouraged from this thread , most threads here aren't as bad as this one became.
OP would also do well to check out Audiokharma for audio questions.

Kinda of a poor welcome welcome for a new poster! This thred ended up being a crap fest (Ofc there was one main instigator maybe two) not
much free discussion although some did attempt free discussion and got thread crapped .


Some posters here were trying intimidate some of the other posters with their knowledge
or references right,partially right , wrong maybe out of context or at least debatable .
and took offense to anyone that did not agree with them . (not my problem :-) )

That being said I think the Moderators would be doing us all a service by locking the tread
Edited by tubetwister - 9/12/13 at 7:18pm
post #60 of 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubetwister View Post

Like I said before even the best algorithms can not replace information that was discarded by mp3**compression they can only substitute it with a best guess if you will in the mp3 process.


I am aware that *some mp3* measures well but that can not tell the whole story of dicscarded information substituted by algorithems in mp3** that is why I said earlier that mp3 usually measures poorley (meaning not always)

If one wants to believe it makes no difference ,feel free to do so by all means but that does not validate the placebo science evident in that thinking, however all are welcome to believe what you will and defend those beliefs .Audio perception like most things human is subjective. everyone hears somewhat differently you can't quantify if with armchair/google science or legitamate scientific study you can get close but still no cigar!

Would you agree that there is or the potential for a difference between what is measurable and what is audible?

If the differences are indeed obvious, they would show up no matter what kind of way of "proving" the audible difference, correct? I mean, if they're there, they're there.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › A desktop CD player to use w/ Grado SR-125 (about $150) headphones or ?