or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › What is it about 300+ dollar cd players that makes them sound better?? (I want detail
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What is it about 300+ dollar cd players that makes them sound better?? (I want detail - Page 9  

post #241 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by JorgeLopez11 View Post

Smitty, there's a sensory test related to magnitudes: The JND test. For example this test is widely used in the food industry to determine the minimum ingredient concentrations people are really able to detect in many products.

AFAIK it has not been applied to audio tests... yet. But it shares the same principle with the DBT: avoid bias due to people's expectation, eagerness, taste, cultural background, prejudices... You name it.

JND certainly has been applied to audio.
post #242 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

In what has been a rather moronic post, this is a particularly stupid thing for you to have written, since loudspeakers, unlike CD players, are likely to sound different.

lol says who? a monkey?
you used completely unrelated wine study to prove CD players wouldn't sound any different.
I guess I can apply your logic and quote the study for speaker as well...

wow separate all my sentences and replied them huh....such a hard worker...too bad a monkey can't even understand how to quote a study.

Bose are high price comparative in their category lol? what category? The speaker category?
You are saying 50 dollars cd player = 10,000 dollars one.....so Bose would be compare to those 100,000 dollars speaker.
So Bose would be able to compete with 100,000 dollars speaker set and It would sound the same according to your logic of quoting wine study to prove CD player has no difference whatsoever.

Man this forum is hilarious...one person quote about cinnamon another quote about wine study to compare to a CD player
What do we got next? study of monkey VS human?
post #243 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krabapple View Post


JND certainly has been applied to audio.

Yes, now I remember Florian's reference!
post #244 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyotousa View Post

lol says who? a monkey?

Ha ha! You called me a monkey! Again!

Quote:


you used completely unrelated wine study to prove CD players wouldn't sound any different.

No, I used it to demonstrate that price can affect perception of sensory quality...regardless of ACTUAL difference.

Quote:


I can quote the study for speaker as well...

Sure, after you look it up. Any fool can do that.

Quote:


wow separate all my sentences and replied them huh....such a hard worker...too bad a monkey can't even understand how to quote a study.

Ha ha! It never gets old!

I split your post up because each gem of brilliance therein deserves to shine alone.
post #245 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Ha ha! You called me a monkey! Again!

lol it never gets old.... I am talking to a monkey
post #246 of 269
Kyotousa,

In spite of some roughness here and there, this thread has evolved with a decent discussion level. There's no need to insult other posters!
post #247 of 269
Quote:


What do we got next? study of monkey VS human?

Well, we got monkeys doing rather well at math and memory. Maybe even as good as you
post #248 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by JorgeLopez11 View Post

Yes, now I remember Florian's reference!

Soulodre, Gilbert A., Lavoie, Michael C., and Norcross, Scott G. The Subjective Loudness of Typical Program Material, AES Convention Paper 5892, 115th Convention, Oct 2003.

Florentine, Mary, et al 'Level Discrimination as a Function of Level for Tones from .25 to 16kHz. Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 81(5) May 1987, pg 1528-1541.

Zwislocki, J and Jordan H. 'On the Relations of Intensity JND's to Loudness and Neural Noise,' Journal of Acoustics Society of America, 79(3), Mar 86, pg 772-780.

Viemeister, Neal F., ' Auditory Intensity Discrimination at High Frequencies in the Presence of Noise,' Science, vol 220, 16 Sep 83, pg 1206-1208.
post #249 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by atdamico View Post

Actually, a true professional salesperson/dealer should, and many times does, know a whole hell of a lot more than even the most experienced enthusiast. They are immersed in the product/s over extended periods of time, that very few can ever hope to match. While most enthusiasts hold down full time jobs and listen to gear on their off hours, sandwiched between other obligations, professional salespeople are listening too, studying about, being trained on, totally immersed for a considerably longer period of time. Personally that's why when Kal or PaulS post I tend to pay more attention.

Are you implying that they are better listeners in a DBT? Why is it none of them have published their prowess and demonstrated their abilities un a real test?

On the other hand, some real professionals, those whose business is listening, not selling, have a hard time demonstrating their prowess?

Gould, Glenn, "The Grass is Always Greener in the Outtakes," High Fidelity, Aug 75, pg 54-59.

You see, not even conductors can differentiate their bad recordings that were deleted from their good recordings that were recorded?
I'd be very careful who can do what without some data to support.
post #250 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

People cannot sense 'magnitude' flawlessly. .

And how.

Soulodre, Gilbert A., Lavoie, Michael C., and Norcross, Scott G. 'The Subjective Loudness of Typical Program Material,' AES Convention Paper 5892, 115th Convention, Oct 2003.
post #251 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by schticker View Post

1. Cite a 20-30 year old test case;
.

Are you implying that they are no longer valid? That somehow they have an exparation date on them someplace?
post #252 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

In what has been a rather moronic post, this is a particularly stupid thing for you to have written, since loudspeakers, unlike CD players, are likely to sound different.

Very well put, and entirely correct.
post #253 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

The question is not whether differences exist, it's whether they are AUDIBLE and inherent to the gear. And sometimes THEY ARE NOT. And the way to determine if they are, is a level-matched blind comparison. Why is that so hard to 'sign on to'?

When you put it like that, it's not hard to "sign up" to that reasoning at all.

I'll give you this...you sure are passionate on this topic. I suspect/fear that someone close (maybe family pet?) was accidently backed over by a truck full of Levinson gear or something...j/k, of course.


Scott
post #254 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post

Are you implying that they are better listeners in a DBT? Why is it none of them have published their prowess and demonstrated their abilities un a real test?

I'm not implying anything. I am stating, as fact, that most salespeople aren't the horrible prediators some make them out to be. Nothing more, nothing less. I will also state as fact, that I detest people who have nothing better to do than interpret to their advantage, what others post, and then use that interpretation as a basis to attack and post negative responses. If the shoe fits...
post #255 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by JorgeLopez11 View Post

In spite of some roughness here and there, this thread has evolved with a decent discussion level.

I was thinking the same thing. Going nine pages without being locked down in a 'why do more expensive cd players sound better' thread has to be some kind of record.

Now that it's practically a love-in here, I say we all get together for our own testing session. So, who wants to come to New England in January?

Scott
post #256 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post

Soulodre, Gilbert A., Lavoie, Michael C., and Norcross, Scott G. The Subjective Loudness of Typical Program Material, AES Convention Paper 5892, 115th Convention, Oct 2003.

Florentine, Mary, et al 'Level Discrimination as a Function of Level for Tones from .25 to 16kHz. Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 81(5) May 1987, pg 1528-1541.

Zwislocki, J and Jordan H. 'On the Relations of Intensity JND's to Loudness and Neural Noise,' Journal of Acoustics Society of America, 79(3), Mar 86, pg 772-780.

Viemeister, Neal F., ' Auditory Intensity Discrimination at High Frequencies in the Presence of Noise,' Science, vol 220, 16 Sep 83, pg 1206-1208.

Thanks Charles.

Yesterday I was reading an interesting reference written 28 years ago about JND tests applied to audio.

I think it's interesting to mention that according to Christman, nobody could tell differences between 25.4 and 25.8 dB (difference = 0.3 dB). But people were able to detect differences between 25.2 and 26.0 dB (difference = 0.8 dB). This is in complete agreement with what we've been discussing about differences in voltage output.

Christman, R.J. Sensory experience. Harper and Row, New York, 1979.
post #257 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssteel01 View Post

When you put it like that, it's not hard to "sign up" to that reasoning at all.

I'll give you this...you sure are passionate on this topic. I suspect/fear that someone close (maybe family pet?) was accidently backed over by a truck full of Levinson gear or something...j/k, of course.

Scott

Passionate? I'm usually,um, smiling when I read the nonsense some people post here.

Honest, I'm not laughing at them. Or you. I swear.
post #258 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyotousa View Post

lol it never gets old....

Hey, I wrote that first!

Quote:
I am talking to a monkey

OK, I get it: Monkey see, monkey do! No wonder people are monkeys to you!

Now, I'm gonna do an experiment: can a monkey survive in an ignore file?

Let's find out! In you go!
post #259 of 269
RE: that wine tasting article . I downloaded the actual pdf from PNAS. And it turns out the work is actually more germane to CDPs that even I thought. Because an important part of the experiment was presenting the SAME wine, twice, with different price labels on it. The subjects believed they were sampling five different wines, at five different price points: $5, 10, 35, 45, 90; in fact there were only three different wines used in the entire experiment. Wines 1 ($5) and 2 ("$10")' were in fact the same as wines 4 ("$45") and 5 ($90) (the prices in quotes are fake; the other price is the true retail price for these two wines)

Subjects still reported the visibly 'pricier' wine as tasting better -- and the brain scans showed their pleasure centers lighting up more -- than the 'cheap' wine, even when they were really the same wine. This is in addition to reporting higher priced=better, when the wines were truly different. In fact, for these subjects overall, 'liking' one over the other was ALL about the price, because when they were retested blind, without price information, there was no statistical difference between the wine 'liking' ratings. (This doesn't rule out that individuals might have consistently preferred one over another, blind -- I'll have to check the online supplementary material for that)

here, btw , is a cite the authors give, as a review of literature on factors affecting perception of quality:

Rao, A, Monroe KB (1989) The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers' perceptions of product quality: An integrative review J Market Res 26:351-57.
post #260 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesJ View Post

Are you implying that they are no longer valid? That somehow they have an exparation date on them someplace?

Anything can be reviewed over time. Are you implying any study about anything is always set in perpetuity?

What was it I said about science liking to box up tidy theories and pretending like they don't exist anymore?
post #261 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Subjects still reported the visibly 'pricier' wine as tasting better -- and the brain scans showed their pleasure centers lighting up more -- than the 'cheap' wine, even when they were really the same wine. This is in addition to reporting higher priced=better, when the wines were truly different. In fact, for these subjects overall, 'liking' one over the other was ALL about the price, because when they were retested blind, without price information, there was no statistical difference between the wine 'liking' ratings. (This doesn't rule out that individuals might have consistently preferred one over another, blind -- I'll have to check the online supplementary material for that)

I love the on-off studies of things that appear to be significant, but are really freestanding studies.

People choose things based on a variety of issues. In reality, most high-end shop don't post prices (walked into that one didn't you)--so the reality is most people aren't aware of that factor anyway. Experienced types that are aware of price differences ALSO have heard enough product to understand that price isn't the arbiter of performance.

Again, trying to take individual studies of semi-related things sounds great (especially with the citation at the bottom--nice touch), but all you are doing is flailing at an answer as to why this industry succeeds at selling high-end product to people who, if really that stupid, wouldn't be in a position to purchase it. Excluding that factor still leaves you with the fact that all you're attempting to do is suck the fun out of the hobby, which I guess is really the most confusing and infuriating part.

Look, if you can't afford it, stop trying to justify in everyone else's mind why they shouldn't.

The high end of anything requires no justification from the masses. That's part of what makes it high end.
post #262 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Passionate? I'm usually,um, smiling when I read the nonsense some people post here.

Honest, I'm not laughing at them. Or you. I swear.

That's new i thought you only smile when you get a banana
post #263 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Hey, I wrote that first!



OK, I get it: Monkey see, monkey do! No wonder people are monkeys to you!

Now, I'm gonna do an experiment: can a monkey survive in an ignore file?

Let's find out! In you go!

oh...ignore file eh...hahah monkey transform into a ostrich.
post #264 of 269
[quote=krabapple;12840644]RE: that wine tasting article . I downloaded the /QUOTE]

haha you still don't get it huh... everyone knows brand and price will affect people's judgment. It just doesn't apply to this discussion.
All you proved is people might have bought a 10,000 dollars player and think it's better than the 50 dollars. But it's actually the same.
However, what if these CD players in fact sound different.
post #265 of 269
Quote:


Unread Today, 12:53 AM

schticker
This message is hidden because schticker is on your ignore list.
View Post Unread Today, 12:59 AM

schticker
This message is hidden because schticker is on your ignore list.
View Post Unread Today, 01:50 AM

kyotousa
This message is hidden because kyotousa is on your ignore list.
View Post Unread Today, 01:52 AM

kyotousa
This message is hidden because kyotousa is on your ignore list.
View Post Unread Today, 01:56 AM

kyotousa
This message is hidden because kyotousa is on your ignore list.


post #266 of 269
Kyotusa, if you're going to make fun of people by calling them monkeys, then you might be well served by working on your grammar and sentence structure because you're coming off as Tarzan.
post #267 of 269
I think it's entirely inappropriate on this forum to insult Tarzan that way, Chu.
post #268 of 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyotousa View Post

haha you still don't get it huh... everyone knows brand and price will affect people's judgment. It just doesn't apply to this discussion.

Of course it applies to this discussion. When people imagine that a more expensive CD player sounds better, it is only because they are aware of the price. There is no difference in double-blind tests.
post #269 of 269
If you guys don't smarten up this forum will be closed.

Kyser
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › CD Players & Dedicated Music Transports › What is it about 300+ dollar cd players that makes them sound better?? (I want detail