The Absolute Sound (magazine) take on many aspects of computer assisted music reprodu

[rbbert]

This is solely dependent on the burner. I can get C1 errors at 0.5 and under with any of these discs using the correct burner. A Plextor burner works best on TY media, whereas a Sony works better on TDK and Lite-On with MAM-A. AND I've gotten these results burning 16x OR FASTER!

Ah, but they claim that there is NO correlation between any error counts and the resulting sound quality. And their $25 (retail) Samsung burner is clearly superior to any Plextor or Yamaha burner, and also than the transport mechanism in the PS Audio Perfect Wave Transport!

 

[Bruce B]

Ah, but they claim that there is NO correlation between any error counts and the resulting sound quality.

Yes, I already know this.... to a certain point, just as long as you stay within the RB standard.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

For me, that tends to call into question nearly all of their conclusions, even though my own experience supports many of them.

You're too kind. I'll go ahead a drop the "nearly" and say that some of the "conclusions" they reach shine a light on their incompetence and strip away any small bit of credibility they may have had. If they can get this so wrong, if they can imagine so much that cant be here, how can any of their conclusions, in any other article be trusted?

Tim

 

[rbbert]

These particular authors are complete unknowns to me, and there has been no biographic profile printed AFAIK

 

[microstrip]

I'll assume all of this was sighted and expectation bias was in full-force!

Bruce,

I think one should at least carefully read an article before stoning it in the arena. I do not have the expertise to comment on the article under consideration, nor the time to read with with the care to take position on it, but could read in TAS:

All listening tests were conducted under strict single-blind conditions.
Upon occasion, double-blind testing was also employed where
practical. When appropriate, listening levels were matched to +/-
0.1dB. For most tests, this was unnecessary and redundant since
common digital files yielded identical playback volumes. We wish
to make one final comment about how we arranged our listening
tests when only the two of us were evaluating differences. In
conducting single-blind trials, one person would do the switching
while the primary listener would sit without moving, with eyes
closed, and with no talking allowed to eliminate any potentially
distracting sensory stimuli which could disturb our concentration
and long-term memory (musical excerpts lasted anywhere from
30 seconds to 5 minutes depending on the content of the test
track). This was essential when trying to make extremely subtle
quantitative judgments. The A/B comparison was then repeated
with our roles reversed. Only after we agreed that we had come
to a conclusion did we discuss between us what we had heard.

 

[Ron Party]

Micro, thanks for posting that part of the article. Was there any reporting of the number of trials and the results?

 

[microstrip]

Micro, thanks for posting that part of the article. Was there any reporting of the number of trials and the results?

As far as I remember they report on it and in the number of A/B tests they have to carry to consider an experiment valid. They try to define their methodology, listening criteria, music selections and other relevant aspects. It is a long article that spreads along more than one issue of TAS - you should not read the second part without reading the first one! And two more parts are promised.

 

[Ron Party]

I have to concede I've never ever read even one issue of TAS and almost certainly won't read the current or any future issues. Having stated that, any quotes (like the one you posted above) you can provide in this thread would be most appreciated. It's nice to have all of the information here in one place.

 

[FrantzM]

Bruce,

I think one should at least carefully read an article before stoning it in the arena. I do not have the expertise to comment on the article under consideration, nor the time to read with with the care to take position on it, but could read in TAS:

All listening tests were conducted under strict single-blind conditions.
Upon occasion, double-blind testing was also employed where
practical. When appropriate, listening levels were matched to +/-
0.1dB. For most tests, this was unnecessary and redundant since
common digital files yielded identical playback volumes. We wish
to make one final comment about how we arranged our listening
tests when only the two of us were evaluating differences. In
conducting single-blind trials, one person would do the switching
while the primary listener would sit without moving, with eyes
closed, and with no talking allowed to eliminate any potentially
distracting sensory stimuli which could disturb our concentration
and long-term memory (musical excerpts lasted anywhere from
30 seconds to 5 minutes depending on the content of the test
track). This was essential when trying to make extremely subtle
quantitative judgments. The A/B comparison was then repeated
with our roles reversed. Only after we agreed that we had come
to a conclusion did we discuss between us what we had heard.

Are we seeing the beginning of a trend? Al

 

[Stereoeditor]

These particular authors are complete unknowns to me, and there has been no biographic profile printed AFAIK

The authors wrote an article on blind testing of digital systems for Stereophile in the mid-1980s. They offered this computer audio article to Stereophile but I felt there were some technical issues that needed to be addressed before the article could be published. Rather than address those issues, the authors withdrew it and offered it to TAS, where it appears to have been published as is.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[rbbert]

The authors wrote an article on blind testing of digital systems for Stereophile in the mid-1980s. They offered this computer audio article to Stereophile but I felt there were some technical issues that needed to be addressed before the article could be published. Rather than address those issues, the authors withdrew it and offered it to TAS, where it appears to have been published as is.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John, is that article on-line? I did a search of your site for "zeilig" and came up only with a post on your blog from RMAF 2010.

 

[Stereoeditor]

John, is that article on-line? I did a search of your site for "zeilig" and came up only with a post on your blog from RMAF 2010.

Not yet, I am planning on posting it in our free on-line archives in the New Year.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[Speedskater]

John A. do you recall what issue in the mid-1980's ?
I have all the issues up in the attic.

 

[Stereoeditor]

John A. do you recall what issue in the mid-1980's ?
I have all the issues up in the attic.

Vol.9 No.4, approximately May 1986. It was titled
ANALOG VS. DIGITAL: HOME-BREW SCIENCE AT THE EDGE OF THE ART
by
Jay Clawson & Chuck Zeilig

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

 

[Bruce B]

Because of this article, now everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon to upsample their files thinking they will sound better.

I was reading a "funny" thread over at Computer Audiophile called "Upsampling".

Now here's the funny part. Labels do it producing SACD's, DVD-A's and Blu-ray discs. HDtracks inadvertently sold upsampled files and you know what became of that. Plus, just about every DAC these days upsamples anyway! You can't have it both ways. I have never heard a file sound better by upsampling. The only way it can sound better upsampled is if you do processing on it. Every conversion degrades the sound.

 

[Othersongs]

John A. do you recall what issue in the mid-1980's ?
I have all the issues up in the attic.

Vol.9 No.4, approximately May 1986. It was titled
ANALOG VS. DIGITAL: HOME-BREW SCIENCE AT THE EDGE OF THE ART
by
Jay Clawson & Chuck Zeilig

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Well there's a response that took some time to search.

FWIW I ditched my brief 1 year subscription to
Absolute Sound this past year. I liked it better
in the distant past but not now.

I continue to subscribe to Stereophile, largely due to Atkinson.

 

[amirm]

John Atkinson's measurements in Stereophile are my bible for evaluating equipment. People don't realize what a wonderful library of science they are, put up on the web site for all to use -- subscribers or not.

 

[NorthStar]

I fully agree with you Amir. :b Stereophile is indeed an Audio Bible, an invaluable source of information...

* John Atkinson reviewed and measured my loudspeakers back in 1988 (August).

 

[rbbert]

At least one of the authors of this series is now "publicly" responding to comments

http://www.avguide.com/forums/computer-music-audio-quality#comment-55015

 

[sasully]

among those responses:

On the other hand, there are criticisms that can be made of our procedures. For example, testing was usually conducted under single, not double blind conditions. Our results lack proper statistical rigor; generally speaking, we looked to replicate our results on two different systems and duplicate our tests at least once. It is also the reason why these results were submitted for publication to TAS and not the JAES. For the record, we did employ listening panels and numerous replications (at least 4) for what we felt were going to be the most controversial findings.

Lack of proper statistical rigor = honking big 'technical problem', especially for differences that are are likely to be subtle at best if they are audible at all. From what I've read of it so far, the authors don the garb of science but don't seem to have had the heart to actually run and analyze and report the experiment in a scientific manner.

I'd say it's a safe bet that this is audiophile nonsense that will resolve to either the products of imagination/bias, or defects in the playback chain.