What's wrong with Redbook, really?

Phelonious Ponk · Jan 31, 2012

The use of the scientific method and audio science as a sword in our debates is tiresome and useless. I do not share many of Frank ideas, but appreciate his arguments and his passion for audio - it is why many of us read WBF. As we are grown up adults, we do not risk of being corrupted by his sayings. His language is not scientific, and he writes in a free way what he feels. We decode and interpret it!

And the denial and dismissal of any science, no matter how well established, when it fails to support our beliefs, is tiresome and ignorant, at best. In this case, Frank has not simply denied it, he has acted as if it does not exist and stated the exact opposite of the truth...

Rapid switching is never going to tell anything worthwhile with audio, unless there are extreme differences ...

...as if it were an indisputable fact. It would be laughable if it weren't so common in this hobby. Are we "grown up adults" who will not be corrupted by what he says? Hardly. Many of us believe this particular lie, and many other falsehoods that tell us what we want to hear. We perform logical gymnastics to believe them against all the evidence.

The "sword" of science may be tiresome in these debates, but the truth is essential in the pursuit of fidelity.

Tim

microstrip · Jan 31, 2012

Phelonious Ponk said:
...as if it were an indisputable fact. It would be laughable if it weren't so common in this hobby. Are we "grown up adults" who will not be corrupted by what he says? Hardly. Many of us believe this particular lie, and many other falsehoods that tell us what we want to hear. We perform logical gymnastics to believe them against all the evidence.

The "sword" of science may be tiresome in these debates, but the truth is essential in the pursuit of fidelity.

Tim

Tim,

Please understand that the many of us that consider that rapid switching is not an appropriate methodology for audiophile tests are not against any evidence.

BTW, perhaps you can replace the Many of us wit Almost all of us, excluding a few in your sentence. Number does not constitute an argument, but should make people think.

Phelonious Ponk · Jan 31, 2012

Please understand that the many of us that consider that rapid switching is not an appropriate methodology for audiophile tests are not against any evidence.

Of course you are, micro. The evidence - long, established, re-tested and implemented in the field decades ago - clearly indicates that the most effective way of differentiating between small variations in sound is rapidly switching between them, blind. That evidence is denied in the audiophile community, and the very opposite is presented as the truth, all the time. Really, the only reason to pick on Frank in particular is that he was so blatant about it. He didn't even try to make a nuanced argument. He just flatly stated that up is down.

Tim

microstrip · Jan 31, 2012

Phelonious Ponk said:
Of course you are, micro. The evidence - long, established, re-tested and implemented in the field decades ago - clearly indicates that the most effective way of differentiating between small variations in sound is rapidly switching between them, blind. That evidence is denied in the audiophile community, and the very opposite is presented as the truth, all the time. (...)

Tim

The audiophile community, as you are labeling it, has its reasons.

The typical reaction of some promoters of the science argument is of permanent denial of the relative importance of the so called "small differences" and exploiting the well known effects of expectation bias. And they insist on forgetting that sound reproduction can not be reduced to "small differences". They mix scientific based methods or techniques with real science.

IMHO sound reproduction is a perceptual and emotional activity. No study I have seen has proved that there is a bridge between it and its evaluation rapidity switching sources.

Your model assumes a convergence point in sound reproduction, and sacrifices everything else to preserve this point.

Ron Party · Jan 31, 2012

microstrip said:
The audiophile community, as you are labeling it, has its reasons.

The typical reaction of some promoters of the science argument is of permanent denial of the relative importance of the so called "small differences" and exploiting the well known effects of expectation bias. And they insist on forgetting that sound reproduction can not be reduced to "small differences". They mix scientific based methods or techniques with real science.

That, of course, assumes facts which may not be there, i.e., the existence of those small differences. This is what we call *bootstrapping*. The rest is just audiophile mysticism and the rejection of rational thought.

*Real* science? What would that be? Trusting one's ears if and only if one knows what is the DUT? Hmmm.

Oh, and *promoters* of the science argument? And just what would that be? That there is such a thing as the physics of sound? That there is a methodology for studying the perceptual world. Oh no, the horror of it, heaven forbid. Many audiophiles sure do have their reasons, but the pursuit of truth is only occasionally one of them.

IMHO sound reproduction is a perceptual and emotional activity.

Sound reproduction is science. Every single one of those boxes one uses to reproduce sound came directly as a result of the application of the scientific method. Those boxes are inanimate, even though capital A Audiophiles are bent on making them sentient.

OTOH, human reaction to sound reproduction is perceptual and sometimes emotional. And science can and does explain a lot of that as well or else we should just throw behavioral sciences off the cliff as well. Frank, you're in good company.

Phelonious Ponk · Jan 31, 2012

microstrip said:
The audiophile community, as you are labeling it, has its reasons.

The typical reaction of some promoters of the science argument is of permanent denial of the relative importance of the so called "small differences" and exploiting the well known effects of expectation bias. And they insist on forgetting that sound reproduction can not be reduced to "small differences". They mix scientific based methods or techniques with real science.

IMHO sound reproduction is a perceptual and emotional activity. No study I have seen has proved that there is a bridge between it and its evaluation rapidity switching sources.

Your model assumes a convergence point in sound reproduction, and sacrifices everything else to preserve this point.

Where to start? How about at the end? I don't have a model, and I'm not converging anything, because I'm not asking rapid switching to evaluate a perceptual and emotional activity. I'm responding to this:

Rapid switching is never going to tell anything worthwhile with audio, unless there are extreme differences...

...which is exactly the opposite of the truth. Very small differences in audio are best perceived through rapid switching. Extreme differences do not need it. They don't even need blind listening, the other leg of this old argument.

The typical reaction of some promoters of the science argument is of permanent denial of the relative importance of the so called "small differences"

We can disagree on what is and is not important, but that's another subject. But clearly we're not talking about anything obvious. That should be, well, obvious.

and exploiting the well known effects of expectation bias

I don't know who you're talking about, but my typical response, when I question the audibility of anything, is "listen blind," which is the opposite of exploiting the well-know effects of expectation bias.

No study I have seen has proved that there is a bridge between it and its evaluation rapidity switching sources.

Again, no one, at least not me, is recommending rapid switching to evaluate audio. Blind listening? I'll recommend that all day, but quick switching isn't, to my knowledge, very useful unless you're testing the audibility of very subtle differences. You won't need a study for that. You probably won't find one unless it is pretty old, because at this point it is simply accepted.

Tim

PS: "The audiophile community" is a label? I thought it was utterly generic. And benign.

Bruce B · Jan 31, 2012

Phelonious Ponk said:
Of course you are, micro. The evidence - long, established, re-tested and implemented in the field decades ago - clearly indicates that the most effective way of differentiating between small variations in sound is rapidly switching between them, blind. That evidence is denied in the audiophile community, and the very opposite is presented as the truth, all the time. Really, the only reason to pick on Frank in particular is that he was so blatant about it. He didn't even try to make a nuanced argument. He just flatly stated that up is down.
Tim

Fast switching is the only way Mastering engineers work....

Steve Williams · Jan 31, 2012

Bruce B said:
Fast switching is the only way Mastering engineers work....

I guess Frank will never be a mastering engineer

Soundproof · Jan 31, 2012

As I understand it, most components are continuously at some stage of their individual run-in process, the entire system in an unstable state of flux as a result, this not necessarily ameliorated by the frequent substitution of components in the chain, thus risking upending whatever stability was in formation.
One would think that this would affect the validity of longer listening sessions. (Insert smiley here)

There are quite a few studies showing that differences btw audio samples/components are best ascertained through fast switching. At least that's when test subjects have best been able to successfully identify such differences. Longer listening periods do not give as good results.
But when there are no differences ...

sasully · Jan 31, 2012

fas42 said:
In fact there would be a simple, "scientific" way of assessing such a factor. Let's say we consider an experiment in auditory matters, such as Geddes carries out: the ability to detect harmonic distortion.

A pure signal is mixed with a harmonic at various levels until the subject can reliably detect its presence, or absence, tested the "normal way".

What 'normal way' is that? Sighted? (i.e., knowing in advance which signal has the 'harmonic' added)?

Done blind, what you describe there is subject training, and it is highly recommended for maximum DBT sensitivity.

(However,in my view if a subject already claims to hear a difference, that claim can be DBT'd without subject training. Your'e only testing the subject's currently-claimed ability to hear a difference, not some ultimate ability.)

Then we vary the way the switching takes place between the signal with, and the signal without, for that subject: switching back and forth at various rates controlled by the experimenter, then do the same but also insert variable gaps of silence between the two versions switched, and finally allow the subject to control the rate of switching.

Why would we do that? If you want to give the subject the best shot at accurately reporting a difference or unbiased preference, the speed of switching, should be as close to instantaneous as possible, so as to maximize subject sensitivity. As for length of the musical sample, subjects typically do better with short samples.

You *can* change both these things, but then a 'negative' result would be more highly vulnerable to critique.

sasully · Jan 31, 2012

microstrip said:
Tim,

Please understand that the many of us that consider that rapid switching is not an appropriate methodology for audiophile tests are not against any evidence.

'Switching' refers to going from the end of sample A to the start of sample B. "Rapid switching' means reducing that interval to some small value -- i.e, leaving no audible silence/gap. Including a gap typically makes the discrimination task more difficult.

What you are apparently referring to is the test signal length/ probe length/ stimulus length -- the length of the musical sample in this case.

Audiophiles often confuse these, and mistakenly rattle on as if something about them was 'forbidden' in a DBT. Nothing is 'forbidden' by the definition of DBT except prior knowledge of what A and B are. So go ahead and use long musical samples if you like, or leave a gap between A and B (and X) if you like. The thing is, you'll likely make your test less sensitive.

sasully · Jan 31, 2012

microstrip said:
The audiophile community, as you are labeling it, has its reasons.

The typical reaction of some promoters of the science argument is of permanent denial of the relative importance of the so called "small differences" and exploiting the well known effects of expectation bias.

There is no such 'denial'. Small measured differences may be audible, or not -- no one disputes that. DBTs (or inference from the measured size of the difference)
show that they may be audible right off the bat, or that they require listener training to be reliably perceived, or that they are likely not heard at all.

And they insist on forgetting that sound reproduction can not be reduced to "small differences". They mix scientific based methods or techniques with real science.

Your portrait of the 'pro science' group, appears to be a cartoon. That group recognizes that both measurably 'large' and 'small' differences contribute to the sonic differences. You don't see them questioning, for example, that different loudspeakers typically sound different.

IMHO sound reproduction is a perceptual and emotional activity. No study I have seen has proved that there is a bridge between it and its evaluation rapidity switching sources.

Sound reproduction is not an 'emotional activity'. Sound perception -- including the evaluation of sound quality -- is affected by emotions. That's in you, not your playback devices (unless your devices are from the future or something).

microstrip · Jan 31, 2012

Phelonious Ponk said:
Again, no one, at least not me, is recommending rapid switching to evaluate audio. Blind listening? I'll recommend that all day, but quick switching isn't, to my knowledge, very useful unless you're testing the audibility of very subtle differences. (...) .

I see. You use rapid testing to test the audibility of small differences, that using this method you probably will claim that are non existent, as shown by reports on its usage. Why do you want us to carry slow blind tests after all if all sounds the same?

sasully · Jan 31, 2012

Phelonious Ponk said:
Again, no one, at least not me, is recommending rapid switching to evaluate audio.

I am, if it can be done. I'd say 'slow switching' -- leaving a perceptible gap between the and of A and the start of B -- poses the same audio memory confounders to preference formation ('evaluation') as to difference discrimination.

If 'short sample length' is what is meant here by 'rapid switching', then I'd say that again, audio memory of subtle difference -- the sort required for bias-free quality evaluation of similar samples -- is more likely maintained using short rather than long samples.

But again, these are methods intended to make the evaluation as confounder-free as possible, leaving only the sound as the deciding factor. Perhaps that is not really what 'audiophiles' desire?

sasully · Jan 31, 2012

microstrip said:
I see. You use rapid testing to test the audibility of small differences, that using this method you probably will claim that are non existent, as shown by reports on its usage.

That depends on what is being compared. Certainly audio DBTs do NOT always yield a 'no difference' result. So which reports of its usage are you referring to?

Why do you want us to carry slow blind tests after all if all sounds the same?

No one says 'all sounds the same' -- and audiophiles have been told this over and over. Why don't they listen? Or do they just not care what words mean?

microstrip · Jan 31, 2012

sasully said:
Your portrait of the 'pro science' group, appears to be a cartoon. That group recognizes that both measurably 'large' and 'small' differences contribute to the sonic differences. You don't see them questioning, for example, that different loudspeakers typically sound different. (...)

Sound reproduction is not an 'emotional activity'. Sound perception -- including the evaluation of sound quality -- is affected by emotions. That's in you, not your playback devices (unless your devices are from the future or something).

Although the some people in the group have reasonable positions , when some of them systematically say all electronics that satisfy a minimum criteria sound the same , and that only speakers and rooms are allowed to sound different we have a problem. They claimed it 40 years ago, and go on claiming it - and we know that some modern electronics sounds better, or at less different.

The issue about sound reproduction is only a semantic one - I am including listening in the sound reproduction process. People have different opinions on it - no need to recreate "the tree in the forest... " debate . .

rbbert · Jan 31, 2012

microstrip said:
... some of them systematically say all electronics that satisfy a minimum criteria sound the same , and that only speakers and rooms are allowed to sound different we have a problem...

That "some" is certainly not very many among those who actually care about sound; Peter Aczel is the only one who comes to mind. I think the "pro science" group, as you characterize them, wants improved sound reproduction as much as any listeners, but perhaps they want that improvement to be "real" and not imagined. That doesn't seem to be an unreasonable viewpoint at all.

microstrip · Jan 31, 2012

Ron Party said:
(...) Frank, you're in good company.

I am in good company with any friendly and polite WBF member. I hope that Frank feels the same.

But it is a pity a member who is also a moderator can not resist to use personal and insidious remarks.

I am now out of this thread. .

Ron Party · Jan 31, 2012

You might be the nicest, most benevolent person on the planet. It might be wonderful to listen to some tunes and sip some tequila with you. I don't know. It is not you with whom I have any issues, so no need take this personally. This is a forum and sometimes we discuss things, you know? And some times those things have to do with audio. And some times there are misconceptions about certain matters audio. And some times those misconceptions concern the physics of sound and the scientific method. It is in this regard, i.e., your allegations of fact, with which I take issue.

Amongst many reasons I come here (and other fora) to learn. It is everyone's interest, including yours and mine, to consider all allegations of opinion and fact. As rbbert just posted, it is not an unreasonable goal to seek real improvements in audio. It also is not unreasonable to subscribe to a methodololgy that differentiates real from imagined improvements. That same methodology is used in virtually every other avenue of human existence and there is no rational reason to reject its application to this hobby.

NorthStar · Jan 31, 2012

I am reading this thread regarding CD (RedBook);
and within I found few posts talkin' about WBF members.

Are those members made of the same type of plastic residue used in the fabrication of CDs?
CDs, do they have standards that were invented by Philips/Sony?
How far one does have to travel before he gets to his destination?
And what do we do there when we do reach it?

Switch from CD RedBook to another audio formulation and different higher resolution?
Search for the quality recordings in our medium of choice?
Endure all there is in this world; the good with the bad?

Best, :b
Bob

What's wrong with Redbook, really?

New Member

VIP/Donor

New Member

VIP/Donor

WBF Founding Member

New Member

WBF Founding Member, Pro Audio Production Member

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

VIP/Donor

New Member

New Member

VIP/Donor

Well-Known Member

VIP/Donor

WBF Founding Member

Member

Similar threads