Transparency vs. Synergy?

[mep]

If you don't believe in the high-end industry, why in the world would you own any high-end components?

 

[Bruce B]

LOL, all you have to do is visit me and let me test you blind, and then we'll both know how good your hearing is. This is a standard offer I've been making for many years now, yet not one (local to me) golden eared audiophile has ever agreed. Even when I offer to drive to them so they can listen on their own familiar system, they still refuse. I'm sure I know why.

--Ethan

One would be stupid to take you up on your offer of listening to an unknown system in an unknown room. Come to MY studio and perform the same test and you can publish the results for all the world to see.

 

[MylesBAstor]

One would be stupid to take you up on your offer of listening to an unknown system in an unknown room. Come to MY studio and perform the same test and you can publish the results for all the world to see.

Check the files first.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Come to MY studio and perform the same test and you can publish the results for all the world to see.

If only you lived closer Bruce, I'd be there tomorrow afternoon! As I said above, I have offered countless times to visit people in person for such listening through their systems, and they always refuse. One is Jeremy Kipnis, another is Mikey Fremer, and yet another is our own Myles B. Astor. All of these "golden ear expert audiophiles" have refused countless times my offers to drive to them for a visit. Maybe you can convince Myles to act as your surrogate?

--Ethan

 

[Bruce B]

Check the files first.

That's why I say MY studio so I could check the files to make sure we're on a level playing field!

 

[Ethan Winer]

Speaking of lossy compression, have you heard one that is really transparent?? I sure haven't and I can't stand to listen to MP3 even on headphones.

I find 256 kbps to be very close if not indistinguishable from the original. I imagine you'd have a hard time telling the difference too if you listened blind and the levels were matched very closely. But unless you live near me and are willing to test this with me in person, I guess we'll never know.

A few years ago someone I met at the Stereophile forum drove out from NYC to visit me. He too insisted he could identify MP3 type compression every time, no matter the bit rate. But when we tested him, he learned that he could not. We did several tests, and at one point he picked 128 kbps as the original. A proper test reveals all. Anything less is just patting one's self on the back.

--Ethan

 

[Ethan Winer]

are you are suggesting that any audio gear, regardless of price delivers the same transparency ?

I didn't say "any" gear, I said "most modern gear" which is not the same. I'll further qualify this to include mass-produced consumer gear, and pro and semi-pro quality gear, and specifically exclude boutique gear which is often intentionally colored.

What you are suggesting is that a system (amps/pre) that costs $3,000 (just an example) is just as transparent as a system (amps/pre) costing $100K ? That is ludicrous.

How do you know it's ludicrous? Have you ever done a proper level-matched blind test?

--Ethan

 

[rockitman]

Have you ever done a proper level-matched blind test?

--Ethan

Have you ever done a blind test with a $200k system and a $20k system ? If you have and can't tell the difference you might want to get checked out by an ENT.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I didn't say "any" gear, I said "most modern gear" which is not the same. I'll further qualify this to include mass-produced consumer gear, and pro and semi-pro quality gear, and specifically exclude boutique gear which is often intentionally colored.



How do you know it's ludicrous? Have you ever done a proper level-matched blind test?

--Ethan

What colored high end gear have you heard in your system? Inquiring minds want to know.

With that $15 sound card that Atkinson tore to shreds?

 

[jkeny]

A few years ago someone I met at the Stereophile forum drove out from NYC to visit me. He too insisted he could identify MP3 type compression every time, no matter the bit rate. But when we tested him, he learned that he could not. We did several tests, and at one point he picked 128 kbps as the original.

Does this not tell you something about your replay system, Ethan? I wonder what the guy had to say about the test at the time or afterwards? Care to share any details?

A proper test reveals all. Anything less is just patting one's self on the back.

--Ethan

Equally, a cr*p test can return a result that some people use every opportunity to pat themselves on the back!

 

[Ethan Winer]

Have you ever done a blind test with a $200k system and a $20k system ? If you have and can't tell the difference you might want to get checked out by an ENT.

You're less than three hours from me. Would you be up for a (totally non-confrontational) listening session to test some of this stuff in person? I could bring some $3 RCA wires and 16 gauge lamp cord to see if you can tell blind when they replace your Nordost stuff. And maybe we could compare blind your high-end DAC with the on-board sound card built into my aging Dell Inspiron laptop.

BTW, I'm not insisting or even suggesting that you won't be able to tell a difference! Especially with my old Dell laptop. But I think it would be fun to do this. I'd also bring some software tools so we can see at what levels you can hear various artifacts and frequency response changes through your system. You game?

--Ethan

 

[jkeny]

On the transparency Vs synergy question I'm sure people have seen the research of Sean Olive's ( a member here) into headphone target response & the following graph


The plot above shows the frequency response measured at the ear drum (DRP) of a flat in-room speaker response (dashed green line) and the new target response curve developed in the research. These curves are essentially what should be seen with ideal headphones in the raw (uncompensated) measurements.

So a preferred headphone should produce a frequency curve which is not flat to match the frequency spectrum that arrives at the ear. Does transparency/synergy come into this?

Another finding was that people actually like more bass on speakers than headphones.

 

[Ethan Winer]

Care to share any details?

My friend brought a CD of solo piano, and I ripped the original Wave from one track, then created three MP3 files at 128, 192, and 256 kbps. He listened while I switched sources, which he couldn't see, and he was unable to tell reliably which version was which. He got some right some of the times, but one time he got them all in reverse order thinking the original Wave was 128 kbps and the 128 kbps version was the original. So all in all it was random results, and he couldn't tell which was which with any certainty.

What surprised me was the way he wanted to listen. Initially I played the same very short fragment of different versions repeatedly, which in my experience is the best way to identify small differences. But he insisted that I play longer sections before switching, which I was glad to oblige. Not that it seemed to help him.

--Ethan

 

[jkeny]

Yes, Ethan, but what software/hardware was used to rip/playback the WAV files?

 

[tony ky ma]

You're less than three hours from me. Would you be up for a (totally non-confrontational) listening session to test some of this stuff in person? I could bring some $3 RCA wires and 16 gauge lamp cord to see if you can tell blind when they replace your Nordost stuff. And maybe we could compare blind your high-end DAC with the on-board sound card built into my aging Dell Inspiron laptop.

BTW, I'm not insisting or even suggesting that you won't be able to tell a difference! Especially with my old Dell laptop. But I think it would be fun to do this. I'd also bring some software tools so we can see at what levels you can hear various artifacts and frequency response changes through your system. You game?

--Ethan

The reason of what your believing is the source, digital rock music repro for testing, why you don't try a 15/psi master dud recording in acoustic instrument,then you will find more system up grade can hear more !
tony ma

 

[morricab]

I find 256 kbps to be very close if not indistinguishable from the original. I imagine you'd have a hard time telling the difference too if you listened blind and the levels were matched very closely. But unless you live near me and are willing to test this with me in person, I guess we'll never know.

A few years ago someone I met at the Stereophile forum drove out from NYC to visit me. He too insisted he could identify MP3 type compression every time, no matter the bit rate. But when we tested him, he learned that he could not. We did several tests, and at one point he picked 128 kbps as the original. A proper test reveals all. Anything less is just patting one's self on the back.

--Ethan

I seriously doubt your methodology and no I am sure I don't live near you (unless you are in Europe). Most audio tests are not designed correctly. What I can tell you is that I always want to turn MP3 recordings off because they are thin and dimensionally flat. THis is what I perceive even when I am not originally aware of the source...happened a couple of times at friend's with computer music servers. They put on an MP3 without thinking and I commented that it doesn't sound good because it is flat or uninvolving. You can doubt this but as a professional scientist I am attuned to observations...either by my own senses or of those from achieved with instruments, which are nothing more than extensions of our senses. When I notice consistently something I take note and try to find the root cause. It is the same with live music...I notice it from a distance without effort compared to a recording...many people have noted this and I am not surprised when they tell me.

I have done single blind studies at my place with levels matched to within 0.5db and people easily picked out differences in preamps (for that particular test).

The fact that you apparently cannot and a guy from stereophile could not distinguish MP3 is not a statistically relevant sample that convinces me in the least that MP3 is indistinguishable from the original! If you had a few hundred tests with 80% failure rate then we might have something to discuss there...otherwise it is purely anecdotal evidence and no better than the "audiophile" you try to debunk.

Have you read the Geddes papers or Cheever thesis? They claim in their works results that you seem to think aren't possible, yet I would consider Geddes a very science driven individual (read the rest of his site...he is not into nonsense.)

 

[morricab]

My friend brought a CD of solo piano, and I ripped the original Wave from one track, then created three MP3 files at 128, 192, and 256 kbps. He listened while I switched sources, which he couldn't see, and he was unable to tell reliably which version was which. He got some right some of the times, but one time he got them all in reverse order thinking the original Wave was 128 kbps and the 128 kbps version was the original. So all in all it was random results, and he couldn't tell which was which with any certainty.

What surprised me was the way he wanted to listen. Initially I played the same very short fragment of different versions repeatedly, which in my experience is the best way to identify small differences. But he insisted that I play longer sections before switching, which I was glad to oblige. Not that it seemed to help him.

--Ethan

Maybe this says more about your system than the quality of the recordings??

 

[mep]

Maybe this says more about your system than the quality of the recordings??

The last Ethan told us, I believe he has a Pioneer receiver playing into a pair of JBL speakers (and I don't know the model numbers of either).

 

[rockitman]

You game?

--Ethan

Lamp cord/laptop and $5 rca's ? I don't think so but thanks for the offer.

 

[mep]

Lamp cord/laptop and $5 rca's ? I don't think so but thanks for the offer.

Correction-He said $3 RCA ICs.