Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Testing audiophile claims and myths - Page 139

post #2071 of 2507

There's some good stuff under Miscellaneous here :) http://www.stereophile.com/content/2013-recommended-components

Actual there's some gear I would seriously love to hear gathered together in this 2013 collection regardless of hype.

post #2072 of 2507
Quote:
Originally Posted by uchihaitachi View Post

Has anybody attempted to sell audiophilr power stations by any chance?

during a tour of a professional studio - built as a "end game" studio by the owner with a (long hallway) wall of  Gold, Platinum albums he mastered, a few Grammy's

 

he bragged about being online the next day after a storm the previous week  knocked out power to the region for days - running the studio on his battery bank powered AC line regenerators


Edited by jcx - 7/21/13 at 9:13am
post #2073 of 2507

Hey guys, nice thread!

 

Admittedly, I haven't been able to go through all 139 pages yet... Just wanted to drop a note that over the last 6 months or so, I've put up a blog to document a few things for myself from an objective perspective (after years of exposure to audiophilia) and put my thoughts together in some of the "Musings" posts.

 

I don't have any fancy gear or recording device, but even without that, I think there's something to be learned with just simple measurements...

 

Main site:

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/

 

It all started when I was curious about folks who claimed high quality MP3 (~320kbps) was bad, so I set up a "blind" survey between transcoded MP3 (higher-than-normal bitrates, removal of lowpass filtering in LAME) to hide the obvious spectral anamalies in a standard MP3 encode with the original uncompressed CD rip without going through the psychoacoustic algorithm.

 

Procedure:

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test.html

 

Results:

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test_3422.html

 

Discussion:

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-mp3-internet-blind-test_2.html

 

Subjective Descriptions:

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/2013/02/high-bitrate-internet-blind-test-part-4.html

 

Relatively small "study" at about 150 respondents (including some from Head-Fi). Interesting seeing the results come through and correlation with quality / price of equipment.


Edited by Archimago - 7/21/13 at 1:16pm
post #2074 of 2507
Thanks, Archimago. Got you bookmarked.

se
post #2075 of 2507

@Archimago

 

Nice experiment and write up!

beerchug.gif

 

Cheers

post #2076 of 2507

Bybees

post #2077 of 2507
Quote:
Originally Posted by acdalek View Post

Bybees

Any time someone mentions them I just recommend doing a google image search.
post #2078 of 2507

Jebus!  I just googled that and checked out their website.  Now, I'm not one for s**t-canning things that I have no personal experience with but I'm pretty sure putting anything additional in the signal chain is only going to remove something (e.g. low/high pass filters) or add something (e.g. noise).

 

These things cost 2 grand a pair!  Now I'm sure active processing of a signal (e.g. DSP) can alter the signal and produce some of the effects described on the website but what can a lump of "carbon nanotubes" do considering you are plugging your current interconnects into the damn thing anyway!

 

/rant over

post #2079 of 2507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archimago View Post

Hey guys, nice thread!

 

Admittedly, I haven't been able to go through all 139 pages yet... Just wanted to drop a note that over the last 6 months or so, I've put up a blog to document a few things for myself from an objective perspective (after years of exposure to audiophilia) and put my thoughts together in some of the "Musings" posts.

 

I don't have any fancy gear or recording device, but even without that, I think there's something to be learned with just simple measurements...

 

Main site:

http://archimago.blogspot.ca/

 

 

really great site, glad i found this!  

post #2080 of 2507

interesting read! Cheers!

post #2081 of 2507

Well, I can't believe I've read all 139 pages of this thread!

 

I subscribed mainly to thank:

  • Prog Rock Man for the extensive compilation of audio blind tests. Great work.
  • xnor, bigshot, jaddie, Steve Eddy, mikeaj and others for the sometimes enthralling input.

 

I'm a musician, sound engineer, music producer and DJ from Belgium and Switzerland.

 

Since my teens (in the late 70s), always been on the rational side of  the audiophile "border". Partly because I've been exposed very early to sociology, social psychology and the like, so I knew how tremendously and easily the human senses can be abused and fooled by expectation, suggestion, perceived authority etc... (EDIT oh and by manipulation, marketing nonsense and the like, of course).


Edited by Wizz - 8/3/13 at 10:07am
post #2082 of 2507
Nice to have you around, wizz!
post #2083 of 2507
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan.gheorghe View Post

 

I know a lot of people that noticed improvements brought by cables in general. You cannot just throw that aside.

 

Argumentum ad populum. Sigh. Cable believers seem to have an endless cornucopiae of fallacies ready to be thrown at the unbelievers, just as cultists do.

 

Besides, of course we can throw that aside! This is called being rational. Even, dare I say, adult. If in your book a claim (a "noticed improvement" is just that, a claim), whatever silly it is, automatically gains credibility by simply being repeated by more and more people, despite the lack of any proof, then... there is a whole lot of b*s on earth that you are bound to be taking seriously! biggrin.gif

 

Just open any tabloid: thousands of people on earth actually believe what's printed in these. By your book, because there are so many people believing in what is claimed in these, we shouldn't throw these claims aside? Pah! Count me out. tongue.gif

post #2084 of 2507

Thanks for the welcome, bigshot bigsmile_face.gif
 

post #2085 of 2507

In this debate, something that bothers me somewhat, it's the use of the word "placebo" when dealing with audio perceptions that can't be measured or proven.

 

The placebo effect originally refers to a phenomenon that is, actually, measurable and provable. A patient takes a pill that is supposed to have no effect, but gets better nonetheless. The improvement is measurable (regression of symptoms - like fever, for instance) and sometimes -actually rather often- the "false" pill does better than the real one.

 

To me "placebo" is a term that doesn't fit these audio illusions, since they can't be measured. They're not real... the original placebo effect, on the other hand, causes real, actual, measurable improvements in the patient.

 

What we're dealing with in audio is, in my view much closer to hallucinations, where the brain creates "logical" patterns causing the senses to see, feel, taste or hear things that aren't actually there (at least not in the form we think we sense them). More close to optical illusions, as well. They have been discussed here btw, its a great way to remind people that we should NOT trust our senses, because our senses play tricks on us all the time.

 

Just curious, has anyone here already played a game that I love, which is to concentrate (kind of) on audio noise (pink noise for instance) until actually hearing in it voices, melodies, chords, even a full orchestra? I do that often when taking a shower. It's fun, and rather easy if you have a bit of imagination. I know other people, musicians or not, who play that game too. Sometimes, the illusion can even get pretty uncanny! It's a bit like looking at video noise (like we could with old TV programs...) and seing movement in it. We sure see these things ven though they aren't there per se.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › Testing audiophile claims and myths