What's wrong with Redbook, really?

Gregadd · Jan 31, 2012

It bears repeating that the absence of proof proves notung. Pointing out that somone one did not ustilize proper scientific protcol states the obvious. it proves nothing.

I think the way we learn is through prolonged exposure toi a a prticular subject. If not I've wasted a lot of time sitting at a desk. I think we call it expereince. Proponents of blind tests have invited us to listen as long as we like. Once we we become acquanited with the two subjects we can switch back and foth as quickly as we like. Assuming there is a difference we ought to be able to discern the difference.
If I think that the distortion in A causes my ears to bleed after listneung to four cuts of a particular album that is not likley to be revealed after 15 second music selection. Differences even if dramatic often take time to reveal themselves. OTOH say if a drum strike is the bais for my finding a difference, I ought to be able play that drum strike on A/B and distinguish rapidly. Other differences

Phelonious Ponk · Jan 31, 2012

microstrip said:
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 . .

You're having an argument with an opinion that has not been raised, by a person who is not involved in this thread.

Tim

Phelonious Ponk · Jan 31, 2012

sasully said:
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?

And I don't really disagree, but it wasn't what my remark about Frank's post was about or the point I was trying to make with Micro. I was trying to keep things focused, because I know how these discussions can easily run off the rails and I can suddenly find myself being countered for positions I have not taken. Went there pretty quickly while I was at work, actually. Thanks for stepping in.

Tim

Soundproof · Jan 31, 2012

The weight of credible musical reproduction, across the entire spectrum, undiluted by unwanted room interactions. All that matters. Have experienced this from Redbook.

fas42 · Jan 31, 2012

It's good to see that a solid debate has sprung up about this matter, that being, whether exposed to one version of a sound and then to another, "works" as a way of differentiating the two. As sasully says, sound perception is a whole different thing from sound reproduction, because emotion, the human organism, is involved. And what I'm particular aware of just lately, is how "conditioning" affects the way my brain, and I presume, perhaps falsely, others work. Working with this decompression exercise has shown me how you can thoroughly confuse yourself completely in auditory matters: when I was unfamiliar with the material, the Springsteen track, it was obvious where the differences occurred in different "filterings" of the sound. The trouble was, being played over and over, I learnt what the music structure was, I developed shall I call it, a long term memory of the pattern of the music, I knew it "by heart". So I was no longer reacting to what was actually there, rather I was responding emotionally to the playback as a musical event, not a sequence of sounds. This made the exercise of differentiating much, much harder; I was starting to struggle, in trying to pick the "better" version.

Now, in regards to the resampling exercise mentioned above, no such problem. I'm very familiar with the tune, but, the differences were extreme, in the the sense of the point that Tim disputes. I could play each version long enough to pick up the "vibe" of the sound, change to another, and the variation was dramatic.

Frank

microstrip · Jan 31, 2012

sasully said:
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).

I am out, but F.Toole is not:

. From the Sound Reproduction introduction:

Audio—sound reproduction—engages both the emotions and the intellect.Understanding the process is challenging because it embraces domains with enormous contrasts: human perceptions in their manifold dimensions and technology with its own system of devices, functions, and performance descriptors.
The subjective side is notable for its complexity, flexibility, adaptability,and occasional capriciousness. The technical side is characterized by the near absolute reproducibility of the devices, the stability of their performance over time, and the reliability of their measured parameters. The interface of these two cultures has met with mixed success over the years. Both sides seek excellence in the final subjective experience, but there are fundamental differences in philosophy, metrics, languages, and the economic and emotional attachments to the results.

Phelonious Ponk · Jan 31, 2012

Just to be clear, this discussion is about this statement...

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

...to which neither of the last two posts are related in any meaningful way.

Tim

fas42 · Jan 31, 2012

Phelonious Ponk said:
Just to be clear, this discussion is about this statement...

...to which neither of the last two posts are related in any meaningful way.

Tim

Okay, to clarify: "anything worthwhile" is in the context that "high end" sound is listened to, not whether a raw mid-fi setup is as "good" as a normal ambitious system. In other words, in those relatively subtle areas where everything counts, why people will buy a more expensive amplifier than the pricey one they're already using.

And the reasons are as already alluded to: because the mechanism of human perception is a complex, cantankerous beast, that needs time and often its own space to come to worthwhile decisions; and also, certainly as I know in my own situation, components need to stabilise, not only in themselves, but as they exist as an element in an overall system, over sometimes quite considerable periods of time. Believing otherwise is just an assumption, an easy simplification of the true situation, and serious audiophiles know this, at least instinctively, and modify their systems using a philosophy of longer term assessment.

Frank

LenWhite · Jan 31, 2012

Phelonious Ponk said:
...to which neither of the last two posts are related in any meaningful way.

Tim

IMO although the rapid switching approach will expose sound differences, that approach is not likely to tell one very much about timbre, presence, dynamic contrasts, spatial definition, and coherence. In my experience only careful listening and attention to detail yields really great sounding audio systems.

Gregadd · Jan 31, 2012

LenWhite said:
IMO although the rapid switching approach will expose sound differences, that approach is not likely to tell one very much about timbre, presence, dynamic contrasts, spatial definition, and coherence. In my experience only careful listening and attention to detail yields really great sounding audio systems.

Here!Here!

Phelonious Ponk · Jan 31, 2012

LenWhite said:
IMO although the rapid switching approach will expose sound differences, that approach is not likely to tell one very much about timbre, presence, dynamic contrasts, spatial definition, and coherence. In my experience only careful listening and attention to detail yields really great sounding audio systems.

Agreed.

Tim

fas42 · Jan 31, 2012

So where is the "dispute"? ...

Frank

Phelonious Ponk · Jan 31, 2012

fas42 said:
So where is the "dispute"? ...

Frank

The dispute is right here, Frank:

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

It is exactly the opposite of the established science which says rapid switching's forte is the detection of very subtle differences. Now, perhaps you didn't mean what you said. Maybe you meant to say something much more nuanced, like Len said. But you didn't.

Tim

Ron Party · Jan 31, 2012

Hopefully you can read that which we've taken great pains to make clear. If the detection of real vs. imaged differences is not something worthwhile in audio, well, then your statement is true.

And Micro, you continue to cite but misunderstand Toole, one of the most staunchest advocates of the scientific method. Do you honestly believe that passage means that Toole ascribes sentient ability to an inanimate object?

What's next? Cars? Toaster ovens?

fas42 · Jan 31, 2012

Phelonious Ponk said:
It is exactly the opposite of the established science which says rapid switching's forte is the detection of very subtle differences. Now, perhaps you didn't mean what you said. Maybe you meant to say something much more nuanced, like Len said. But you didn't.

Tim

Well, I did mean something more nuanced. That's why I included the phrase "anything worthwhile", because it's those "nuanced" elements that make the journey into high end realisation of sound meaningful, worthwhile. In the context of this forum, it seemed to be a reasonable way of putting things. I guess I was wrong ...

Frank

Phelonious Ponk · Feb 1, 2012

Frank, to someone of your remarkable perceptual talents, the ability to identify what's actually audible before skipping down the path of your imagination would be the most worthwhile thing you could do. A month of your...ahem, activities...verified through blind rapid switching, might give you the power to put away Tinkerbell's soldering iron and dedicate your days to actually listening to music.

Besides, the inclusion of "anything worthwhile," regardless of what nuance you would ascribe to it retrospectively, doesn't change the fact that you said rapid switching would only be useful in identifying extreme differences, when exactly the opposite is the truth.

Tim

microstrip · Feb 1, 2012

Ron Party said:
H(...) And Micro, you continue to cite but misunderstand Toole, one of the most staunchest advocates of the scientific method. Do you honestly believe that passage means that Toole ascribes sentient ability to an inanimate object? What's next? Cars? Toaster ovens?

Just to make it clear - you are trying to misrepresent, as most of the time, my position. Even when I enter only a quote just to define an alternative "sound reproduction" definition without any comment you can not resist to distort your opponent view. I have read the full book and know what Toole wisely thinks about the problems and even limitations of applying the scientific method to sound reproduction. Unhappily you seem to think that WBF is a Boston Legal scene. For me it is friendly forum, not a court. Sorry, but I am out of any debate in this style. As I said I am out of thread.

Ron Party · Feb 1, 2012

I'm sorry, but the distortion is your interpretation of the passage in Toole's book, not the first time you have done so in your tenure here. It was you, yesterday, who stated and I quote:

IMHO sound reproduction is a perceptual and emotional activity.

If your idea of a friendly forum is one where I must accept your (and not Toole's nor my) definition of inanimate objects involved in sound reproduction as sentient, then color me unfriendly. I'm also sorry that you continue to exhibit such thin skin. We're discussing an issue relating to this hobby, not whether either one of us is, e.g., a mass murderer.

As an aside, my status here as a moderator is irrelevant to this discussion. I could be a mortician, school teacher, or car mechanic. Absolutely irrelevant. That you continue to raise my job title, not only in this thread but others, well, now that is personal. My response is, amongst many, that I occasionally share my opinions and raise allegations of fact just like anyone else, and sometimes I have different opinions or contend one's allegations of fact are untrue in part or in whole. Doesn't seem so unreasonable in an on-line forum, does it, unless you believe I must always agree with you (or others)?

I might be correct; I might be incorrect.

Soundproof · Feb 1, 2012

Hmmm ... Sentient HiFi™ - components ahead of their signal. Look for it at the next CES.

What surprises me, again and again, is how little audiophilia seems to be aware of the immense research going into the emotional portion of musical perception, particularly now that we can actually watch the brain as it's processing away, responding to varied stimuli.
For instance, we know that brand-comfort is very important in order to get synergistic triggering of brain centra. Advertisers and marketers are rejoicing over these findings, and are funding research into the field. It turns out that our ability to enjoy, to be emotionally engaged, is extremely dependent upon our foreknowledge of the stimuli we are to receive.
Consider the recent "findings" by an engaged researcher that trained violinists can't tell a Strad or Guarneri from a modern fiddle, when asked to do so. And that they actually seemed to prefer the recently built violins to the renowned treasures. The story punches through the media balloon around the world, and people go: "Hah! They couldn't tell them apart!"
Reactions vary from guffaws to incredulity, missing the point:

The very fact that I know I will be going to the Kennedy Center in D.C., and there get to listen to Viktoria Mullova playing the Jules Falk Stradivarius, primes my mind for maximum enjoyment of the event (on two counts, really, I like Mullova too). As I sit down, my hormone cocktail having primed me for maximum event reception, my blood bubbles with joy as my brain centres fire away, at the sheer joy of achieving this, a two-fer, maybe even a three-fer if the conductor and orchestra do their bit well. A four-fer, as I have scored the tickets and get to experience this.

And it all becomes a nice witches' brew of synapses firing happily away, giving me a memory to treasure for life. What an enchanted evening!!!

Very much the same mechanism at work with hifi, and also the reason why people get so very, very incensed when someone is trying to kick the underpinnings out from under their particular fascination. The only fallacy being that a hardcore lobby seems to want everyone else to appreciate their particular path to sensory enjoyment, at the expense of everyone elses'.

Phelonious Ponk · Feb 1, 2012

Soundproof said:
Hmmm ... Sentient HiFi™ - components ahead of their signal. Look for it at the next CES.

What surprises me, again and again, is how little audiophilia seems to be aware of the immense research going into the emotional portion of musical perception, particularly now that we can actually watch the brain as it's processing away, responding to varied stimuli.
For instance, we know that brand-comfort is very important in order to get synergistic triggering of brain centra. Advertisers and marketers are rejoicing over these findings, and are funding research into the field. It turns out that our ability to enjoy, to be emotionally engaged, is extremely dependent upon our foreknowledge of the stimuli we are to receive.
Consider the recent "findings" by an engaged researcher that trained violinists can't tell a Strad or Guarneri from a modern fiddle, when asked to do so. And that they actually seemed to prefer the recently built violins to the renowned treasures. The story punches through the media balloon around the world, and people go: "Hah! They couldn't tell them apart!"
Reactions vary from guffaws to incredulity, missing the point:

The very fact that I know I will be going to the Kennedy Center in D.C., and there get to listen to Viktoria Mullova playing the Jules Falk Stradivarius, primes my mind for maximum enjoyment of the event (on two counts, really, I like Mullova too). As I sit down, my hormone cocktail having primed me for maximum event reception, my blood bubbles with joy as my brain centres fire away, at the sheer joy of achieving this, a two-fer, maybe even a three-fer if the conductor and orchestra do their bit well. A four-fer, as I have scored the tickets and get to experience this.

And it all becomes a nice witches' brew of synapses firing happily away, giving me a memory to treasure for life. What an enchanted evening!!!

Very much the same mechanism at work with hifi, and also the reason why people get so very, very incensed when someone is trying to kick the underpinnings out from under their particular fascination. The only fallacy being that a hardcore lobby seems to want everyone else to appreciate their particular path to sensory enjoyment, at the expense of everyone elses'.

How one primed their blood to be enchanted by the Strad or the Goldmund, and how much more they enjoy the experience as a result doesn't concern me. But when, upon removal of the breathless, well-primed expectation, the Strad or the Goldmund is indistinguishable from options accessible to millions more music lovers, while an entire hobby and industry insists that it can't be so....well, that bothers me. Call it an over-zealous sense of democracy. I just think of it as my way of putting the music first. If more people think that a first-rate listening experience is accessible to them (and it is), perhaps more of them will pass by the iPod dock for something a bit more substantial, perhaps serious listening will grow as a hobby, perhaps good recordings will become a market worth persuing. Perhaps we'll benefit. I think audiophiledom's oppressive, insecure elitism is a shot in its own foot.

Tim

What's wrong with Redbook, really?

WBF Founding Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Addicted To Best

VIP/Donor

New Member

Addicted To Best

Well-Known Member

WBF Founding Member

New Member

Addicted To Best

New Member

WBF Founding Member

Addicted To Best

New Member

VIP/Donor

WBF Founding Member

New Member

New Member

Similar threads