kaepplein@amber.DEC (09/25/85)
>Subject: nut.audio: The "ear" vs. the "instrument" >Posted: 23 Sep 85 17:39:04 GMT >Organization: New Jersey State Farm for the Terminally Bewildered >Here we go again... >Any perceptual phenominon that can be heard >can also be measured. Period. The problem is that many people >interpret measurements in ways that are either wrong, >incomplete, or misleading. (Those interpreting the results >are often sincere, by the way.) Violent agreement here, and a good quote (though out of context): > This is an example of the kind of thinking that's >held the audio industry 20 years behind the state of the art >for so long. What is keeping consumer audio in the dark ages is multifold. The first is a refusal to believe there is a problem. Solutions are never sought for problems thought not to exist. Most problems are discovered in the course of listening since few of us play music for the enjoyment of our test equipment. Measurement for TIM was developed after it was sonicly identified with much debate. Two reasons that problems arn't recognized are either "ear ignorance" or "ear denial." The former is due to lack of training and the latter is caused by a lack of confidence in our subjective, flawed ears. Both problems form a cause for rabid audiophiles but the second has interesting socilogical aspects. People's worship of technology and instant acceptance of any new "high tech" product confers instant absolute authority to "scientific" measurements. It dissolves people's confidence in their ears and their judgement. It also gives a false security to the ignorant. "These CDs MUST be good because there is only .003% distortion, 95 db S/N etc.." The introduction of the CD player matches the introduction of transistorized components in an important way. Both had measured specifications better than the existing technology at the time (tubes and LPs). The public reacted by junking their tubes and LPs and adopting the new and initially flawed products that sounded worse. Only after a few heritics of technology spoke up and identified problems that they heard were problems identified and addressed. > You deny that anything but your ears count, >and refuse to allow measurements of what it is that you hear. Ears ARE the only judges that count. If our test equipment is happy but our ears not than it is still failure. The problem with measurements is that all available measurements still can not guarentee good sound or even why two amplifiers sound different. I accept the fact that some measurements are useful but they provide less than the whole story. What really keeps audio in the dark ages is that most technocrats see no deficiency in today's measurements or interpretations. This blithe attitude is reflected every month in CD player reviews. Talk about vested interests? CBS owns both Audio and Stereo Review, and ABC owns High Fidelity. CBS Japan is mostly owned by Sony and Phillips has diverse interests too. These folks and Tidy Bowl want you to feel inadaquate with what you currently have and buy the new clean product. The public deserves the deception too. They want a simple quick way to judge and buy audio without listening. They both suffer from and promote the belief that technology holds the answer. > (Some)Recording >engineers, (some) concert producers, etc, develop this >skill to a nearly instinctive basis in order to survive. Those >who would criticize should at least learn what various >technical problems sound like. How can these people recognize problems with their failable ears? Don't they immediately dig out their test equipment? (sarcasim here and elsewhere) The attack on Mr. Schley was unnecessary. In fact, of the few people who heard CD player deficiencies and contacted me about modifications, he was the only one recognizing specific problems in the circuitry. >(nut.audio goes through this discussion once every three months or >so, a completely unnecessary and wasteful behavior. It's called >the tyranny of the minority Audiophile, as far as I'm concerned.) I agree its wasteful, but as long as only a minority spends more time critically listening than reading specs, its necessary. If we want to catch up on those 20 years we have to fight the ignorance that Stereo Review and Digital Audio promote. If anyone cares to read an intellegent article on the need for new and better measurements, I suggest "The Sound of Audio Amplifiers" by Martin Colloms. This graduate engineer's article can be found in two audiophile publications: HiFi News & Record Review (May 1985) and The Audio Amateur ( #3, 1985). >(ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj Mark Kaepplein decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!kaepplein / Kaepplein@dec.arpa
pmr@drutx.UUCP (Rastocny) (09/25/85)
[] Well said, but to no resolve (as you shall soon see). The two camps remain and shall never meet. It's a necessary situation; the one keeps the other in balance. Unfortunately, the subjective listener is always at a disadvantage since there is no barrage of statistics to back up subjective claims. Yours for higher fidelity, Phil Rastocny AT&T-ISL ihnp4!drutx!pmr
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (09/29/85)
It's quite conceivable that there are audible differences between sound systems that we're not currently measuring. (That they are, if understood, measurable, is beyond debate, I'd say, though there's no guarantee that such a measurement could come up with a single number like THD.) The real question is whether or not the "golden ears" are actually hearing something. I'm dubious for several reasons: a) double-blind tests reveal little or no difference. I'm not insisting on rapid-switching tests a la abcd[12], but some sort of controlled test is essential. b) many golden-ears denigrate or deny the power of the placebo effect. It's been well-demonstrated; indeed, the purely physiological effects of inert pills has been demonstrated many times. The placebo effect is the main reason I insist on blind tests. c) nonsensical physical theories are often propounded to explain purported (or real) differences. The ad excerpt Andy Koenig posted a few days ago for "CD-compatible cables" is a good example. Before I give any credibility to a report of a new effect, I want one of three conditions: 1) an objectively-measureable difference; 2) a subjectively- demonstrated difference under well-controlled conditions; or 3) a plausible physical theory to explain the effect. Nonsense tends to put me off, and perhaps causes me to disregard subjective reports that deserve more credit. d) the rhetoric used in the debate is totally out of bounds. I trust that most of us would agree that we're arguing about a fairly small difference.
dca@edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) (09/30/85)
Time for my two cents. > >Any perceptual phenominon that can be heard > >can also be measured. Period. The problem is that many people > >interpret measurements in ways that are either wrong, > >incomplete, or misleading. (Those interpreting the results > >are often sincere, by the way.) > > Violent agreement here, and a good quote (though out of context): > Sounds good to me. > > This is an example of the kind of thinking that's > >held the audio industry 20 years behind the state of the art > >for so long. > > What is keeping consumer audio in the dark ages is multifold. The > first is a refusal to believe there is a problem. Solutions are > never sought for problems thought not to exist. Most problems are > discovered in the course of listening since few of us play music for > the enjoyment of our test equipment. Measurement for TIM was developed > after it was sonicly identified with much debate. > > Two reasons that problems arn't recognized are either "ear ignorance" > or "ear denial." The former is due to lack of training and the latter > is caused by a lack of confidence in our subjective, flawed ears. Both > problems form a cause for rabid audiophiles but the second has interesting > socilogical aspects. ...Lots more dribble. Wrong, wrong, wrong! Consumer audio is not driven by those audiophiles which sit in a corner with their high priced tube amps and turntables frothing at the mouth and pulling on the pants legs of passing joes trying to convince them how superior their ears are. What is produced for consumers is dependent on what will sell. Golden ears are pretty much ignored by the marketplace (and rightly so). Consumers want good basic performance at a good basic price. Despite what people in nut.audio say the measurements use to evaluate equipment have proved to be very good estimators of equipment quality when used properly. I have not seen yet double blind tests of equivalently specced units which have been distinguishable under double blind tests. Golden ears rarely produce results of any merit because they are too busy justifing how good their ears are to produce rigid systematic testing using double blind techniques (any other kind is plain and simple just horseshit). While an audio oriented designer must use his ears and his brain if he doesn't also use the most sophisticated test equipment he can get his hands on I certainly won't have much respect for the results. It can be argued that there is too much reliance on specifications but I think that this has little merit. Without specifications manufacturers would cost cut all sorts of corners producing all sorts of crap and the poor consumer would be left with no basis at all for comparison other than the manufacturers inflated claims (no thanks). Certainly the consumer market will lag behind state of the art, everything consumer oriented lags behind state of the art. Manufacturers must spread the cost of developing very complex equipment (such as CD players) across millions of consumers. Few are willing to take potentially disasterous risks. David Albrecht
kaepplein@amber.DEC (10/01/85)
>Path: decwrl!ucbvax!ulysses!smb >Subject: Re: nut.audio: The \"ear\" vs. \"the instrument\" >Posted: 28 Sep 85 22:18:06 GMT >Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill > The real question is whether or not the "golden ears" are actually hearing something. I'm dubious for several reasons: > b) many golden-ears denigrate or deny the power of the placebo effect. > It's been well-demonstrated; indeed, the purely physiological > effects of inert pills has been demonstrated many times. The > placebo effect is the main reason I insist on blind tests. > c) nonsensical physical theories are often propounded to explain > purported (or real) differences. The ad excerpt Andy Koenig > posted a few days ago for "CD-compatible cables" is a good > example. Before I give any credibility to a report of a new > effect, I want one of three conditions: 1) an > objectively-measureable difference; 2) a subjectively- > demonstrated difference under well-controlled conditions; or > 3) a plausible physical theory to explain the effect. > Nonsense tends to put me off, and perhaps causes me to > disregard subjective reports that deserve more credit. These two points go well together. Audiophiles arn't putting up with mystique or magic anymore. The best example is the trouncing that the Linn Sondek and Linn's publications are getting. SOTA explains the physics of their design. SOTAs tolerate footfalls and placement and don't have the four letter word incantations associated with Linn set-up. TAS is especially annoyed with the Linn because of inconsistant performance. The CD-compatable cables ad was not written for audiophiles - they laugh at it as much as the rest of us. That ad was aimed square at all the new suckers that CD hype will bring into the mature audio market. The CD mid-fi hype is getting much deeper than audiophile hype and reaching a much larger segment of the population. Monster Cable's ad is about par with ads from members of the Compact Disc Consortium, manufacturers, and even articles (not even editorials!) in popular magazines; all these folks ranting like a hell, fire, and brimstone preacher to put some life into the audio industry. Those CD cables probably just have a rolled off high-end. Perhaps one or both cables has frequency dependant phase delay to compensate for a single DAC machine, but I doubt it. The marketing problem is: How do I sell a cable that sounds better, but opposes the CD maxim of flat response? We have to apply critical reasoning whenever we read these ads or listen to political and press disclosures. CD accessories are fast upon us: CD cleaners, tiptoes, and disc dampers. All three MIGHT reduce the hard error rate, and the latter two may reduce vibration lessening heavy power supply demand from the focus servo. But focus servo operation is minor compared to armature movement required to track off center tracks (up to 2mm) found in all CDs not made by Phillips/Polygram (they punch the holes after laser centering). I beefed up my player's power supply, but will test the other theory by displaying the soft and hard error flags off the error correction chip as Meridian now does with their professional unit. The marketing problem is: How do I sell my accesories without popping the CD baloon describing hard errors, inadaquate power supplies, and warped and off-centered disks? Expect more hype. The illusion that digital is perfect can not be dispelled. At least audiophile makers don't have to meet the expectations set for CDs and can be honest. > d) the rhetoric used in the debate is totally out of bounds. I > trust that most of us would agree that we're arguing about a > fairly small difference. I'm sorry. It was late. I was tired, but I wasn't going to be able to sleep without explaining that subjective listeners can be rational too. "Small" vs "large" differences for individuals are totally subjective. Comparing a Pioneer preamp with an SP-10 is a gross difference even though the Pioneer is probably "better" in "all" respects except output voltage. Rick Schley was correct that good specs will only guarentee mid-fi. I could tell in an A/B between those preamps as long the signal wasn't fed through a half dozen distortion generators like most equalizers, and switches. The rest of the equipment should also be reference quality to best demonstrate individual component differences. Mark Kaepplein decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!kaepplein Kaepplein@dec.ARPA PS recovering from Gloria lossage and catching up on postings. PPS For those of us inconvienced by a day or two without power, consider months without power as the result of a "small scale," "winable" nuclear war.
speaker@ttidcb.UUCP (Kenneth Speaker) (10/04/85)
You have my interest. Just what IS the typical hard and soft error rate on current CD equipment? I have only one disc that I have ever HEARD any- thing that sounded like a real error that lasted longer than could be masked, but I might not be recognizing small, masked errors. For that matter, what does a small, masked error sound like? Information please! --Kne
sjc@mordor.UUCP (Steve Correll) (10/04/85)
> Those CD cables probably just have a rolled off high-end. Perhaps one > or both cables has frequency dependant phase delay to compensate for a > single DAC machine, but I doubt it. Using a single DAC in a CD player does not introduce frequency-dependent phase distortion ("group delay distortion"). When one channel advances to the next sample 1/(2*44100) second later than the other, the delay is constant and independent of the frequency which the samples are representing. Imagine (I fear people are getting tired of reading this) that you are using a two-DAC CD player but you are sitting 1/3 inch closer to one speaker than to the other. The sound from the farther speaker will, due to the finite propogation speed of sound in air, be delayed exactly the same amount as if the player were using only one DAC. This delay is independent of frequency. If a 20kHZ sinusoid and a 20Hz sinusoid cross the zero axis at the same instant, and you delay each of them by 1/(2*44100) second, they will still cross the zero axis together. An unscrupulous audio manufacturer can make this appear detrimental by expressing the delay in degrees rather than seconds, since one degree of a 20kHz sinusoid is shorter than one degree of a 20Hz sinusoid, but that's like comparing feet and meters. If a CD player did somehow manage to delay both tones by exactly the same number of degrees, then it would be introducing frequency-dependent delay with a vengeance! The phase distortions which *do* occur in the CD process result from filters which delay some frequencies more (when measured in seconds) than others, causing our 20kHz and 20Hz sinusoids no longer to cross the zero axis together. -- --Steve Correll sjc@s1-c.ARPA, ...!decvax!decwrl!mordor!sjc, or ...!ucbvax!dual!mordor!sjc