I've certainly never seen a statement to that effect or even close. The point still is that if the files (ultimate source) are never the same, there is no point in continuing, and that is pretty much what TAS articles (I can't really call them a study) seem to state.
The Absolute Sound (magazine) take on many aspects of computer assisted music reprodu
- Thread starter rbbert
- Start date
I've certainly never seen a statement to that effect or even close. The point still is that if the files (ultimate source) are never the same, there is no point in continuing, and that is pretty much what TAS articles (I can't really call them a study) seem to state.
FrantZ,
You have a point here. However, as I have read in the original version and I understand its limitations, and a few (not all, surely) people were attacking it strongly based on word of mouth and blog comment we were sometimes addressing different things.
IMHO, when we comment an article we should address the good and bad points. As there are always many volunteers to criticize the bad ones I took the other side, as I find many interesting points to debate in the article, irrespectively of the conclusions, and do not fill guilty about it.
BTW, you are correct - most of the time I support the high end corner. They supply the tools for my enjoyment of music, why shouldn't I do it?
I will come again to this subject later. .My main problem with this series of articles (as is probably apparent from my many posts) is that what turns out to be subjectivism at its worst is presented in what appears to be a scientific manner. Why do I think this is "subjectivism at its worst"? Because there appears to have been no attempt to find any explanations or justification for the conclusions presented in the article. It's really no different than if you or I (or anyone) submitted an article on our feelings and opinions about something in audio; the difference is that the quasi-scientific framework and language apparently fooled someone who should have known better (Robert Harley) after it didn't fool John Atkinson.
OK, I see why you dislike it so much. In no way I found the paper written in a scientific manner. It is mainly factual, and even lacks a firm conclusion. IMHO, one real problem can be the added magazine comments and subtitles, that seem to be written by a market guy, and can add a false idea of the contents to fast readers.
I repeat myself - the next sentence shows the article limitations clearly from start:
In the following four-part article we first define a set of listening criteria and create a quantitative listening scale that can be reproduced on your own system. Using this scale, readers can judge for themselves the significance of our subjective findings and actually understand what we have heard.
Again, IMHO, TAS was never a scientific magazine. Any of its readers should know of it.
This clearly shows that WBF has plenty of opportunity to debate these matters with its own methodology.
I repeat myself - the next sentence shows the article limitations clearly from start:
In the following four-part article we first define a set of listening criteria and create a quantitative listening scale that can be reproduced on your own system. Using this scale, readers can judge for themselves the significance of our subjective findings and actually understand what we have heard.
Again, IMHO, TAS was never a scientific magazine. Any of its readers should know of it.
This clearly shows that WBF has plenty of opportunity to debate these matters with its own methodology.
My problem with that is it becomes very difficult to isolate all the various permutations of what they claim to have found. If I am reading it correctly, CD's rank about "100", SACD's and 24/96 PCM about 180, "upconverted" CD's about 170, 320k MP3's about 50, and it appears that each cycle of WAV > FLAC > WAV costs you about 10 points (or maybe 15) on this scale. So it only takes about 5 of those FLAC conversion cycles to reduce a CD to 320k MP3 quality, and about 8 for a 24/96 download to be equivalent to 16/44.1 CD. Oh, but wait, if you are using Jplay for regular 16/44.1 CD-quality files, all of a sudden you're up at 150 again, so it only takes about 4 FLAC conversion cycles for a 24/96 file to be worse than the CD.
Are you beginning to see some of the problems here? Not to mention the fact that if 1000 FLAC conversion cycles produce no change at all, what does that mean about the rest of their claims?
Are you beginning to see some of the problems here? Not to mention the fact that if 1000 FLAC conversion cycles produce no change at all, what does that mean about the rest of their claims?
Hi
At the risk of sounding too curt the thing is pure BS and everyone knows it ... Including those who are trying to defend it. As usual such Bovine Manure will not help in the reproduction of music in our homes. It will however push forward those companies who can come with an expensive "solution" to non-existent problems. Soon someone will claim that the sound changes when you rename the file .. Don't please laugh .. Some people here have claimed that the sound of their system changes by just moving their cables and that it takes days for the system to re-settle ...
I am out of this thread ...
At the risk of sounding too curt the thing is pure BS and everyone knows it ... Including those who are trying to defend it. As usual such Bovine Manure will not help in the reproduction of music in our homes. It will however push forward those companies who can come with an expensive "solution" to non-existent problems. Soon someone will claim that the sound changes when you rename the file .. Don't please laugh .. Some people here have claimed that the sound of their system changes by just moving their cables and that it takes days for the system to re-settle ...
I am out of this thread ...
FrantzM,
Are you still recovering from the shock of discovering about the estimated price for the Burmester music server?
Are you still recovering from the shock of discovering about the estimated price for the Burmester music server?
FrantzM,
Are you still recovering from the shock of discovering about the estimated price for the Burmester music server?
Wasn't interested in the first place.. re-building my (mostly Burmester-based) music system. I don't believe, much in any special quality of a music server. I see the following:
Great User Interface... bit perfect and Asynchronous Interface to DAC... I see a music server as a deck ... Get the signal and send it to the DAC... hHe signal wold be on a NAS anyway or even in the cloud the way I am thinking these days ...
So No ... Simply finding it tedious and now frankly boring to fight what has become a religion for many ...
Parting shot. I have people talk about how R2R "pressurize" a room .. meanwhile most people would admit that even CD has better bass than anything out there .. I never knew the "pressurization" sensation came from anything but bass ... so if the bass is better on a medium it ought to "pressurize" better wouldn't you think?
Words like "criteria," "quantitative," "scale" and "significance" in the hands of the fools who wrote this dribble are like loaded guns in the hands of toddlers. Really. It makes you ache for a bit less freedom of speech.
Tim
Frantz, no one IIRC ever stated that the reason for pressurizing the room was due to bass. Not sure I follow your argument
Steve
Room pressurization cannot due to anything but bass .. if the bass is better with a given medium, this medium will have to pressurize more or better than another medium ...
To me it is a feeling one realizes as those VU meters start moving and before any sound is heard
Perhaps. But you can have systems with excellent bass reproduction and they not pressurize the room in this sense. For me, I feel it at the end of symphony when all the orchestra is playing fortissimo and you feel the power of it in an acoustic space that exceeds what you can expect from your room - all the power the orchestra at all frequencies grows in a crescendo, as in a great hall. Sorry for not being able to explain it better - it seems related how music conveys power to you.
I would suggest in part it's due to the system being good enough that you turn up the volume to more than conventional listening levels. The ear is extremely responsive to higher volume levels, so once a certain sound level is reached there is an automatic volume control that kicks in, which balances the decibel levels so that you can still clearly hear what's going on, it doesn't feel like it's "too loud". While the ear is in this mode, you experience the feeling that the room is "pressurising" ...Perhaps. But you can have systems with excellent bass reproduction and they not pressurize the room in this sense. For me, I feel it at the end of symphony when all the orchestra is playing fortissimo and you feel the power of it in an acoustic space that exceeds what you can expect from your room - all the power the orchestra at all frequencies grows in a crescendo, as in a great hall. Sorry for not being able to explain it better - it seems related how music conveys power to you.
A good test is having someone speak to you at that moment: there is a large disparity between the volume of his voice, and the music, and the ear has to play a little game of trying to adjust itself so that you can pick up what he's saying, without being overwhelmed by the volume of the playback.
Frank
For me the answer is simple. I "always" listen as if it's the "live' event and I am there. No reason to "ever" make it louder IMHO
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |