[dalethorn]

 

But that is not enough in the way of proof. I hate taking people on their word; I'd much rather take them on their evidence. And the valid evidence to demonstrate an audible difference is DBT.

There is no "proof" in a subject this complex. And the only, repeat only valid evidence is the historical evidence that Stereophile for example has presented over its 50 year existence. Short-term tests mean nothing. The ear-brain combinations of thousands of people are beyond measurements. The data is out there, you need to investigate it.

 

[dalethorn]

It's not a theory.  If you read this, you'd see that the additional bits do not add resolution, but dynamic range that you can't actually use, unless you're planning death by sound.

If it's really as simple as bits, then it's not complex enough for music.

 

[haloxt]

Quote:

Quote:

That's like saying because politics is corrupt then anarchy would be an alternative method of governance. I think there's a lot of bs in scientific journals, but because of that doesn't mean we throw out DBT. I don't think it can be denied that DBT has the benefit of greatly reducing false positives when implemented properly, something I think is invaluable when we're treading an area as delicate as the limits of audibility. You can come up with a million examples of why experiments done to date can be flawed, wouldn't you agree that some of these mistakes might also occur in experiments claiming to prove differences?

I'm not asking for Audio Anarchy. Exactly the opposite. Instead of having all these self appointed "experts" reducing my signal, I want the original signal.

And we are treading a delicate area. The ear and brain are still better than the test gear, but unfortunately, the only valid way to test is in the large arena - millions of gear users and their experiences, digested over time by the community at large.

Scientific proof and practical data are two different things, one cannot replace the other. When it comes to research, I would of course take into consideration such things as "the ear and brain are still better than the test gear". But such a statement has not been "proven beyond a doubt", and is not a valid argument against the use of DBT as the means of proving something. No matter how many "listening impressions" you get, you will never approach the certainty you can achieve with a properly implemented DBT that proves an audible difference. But what you say is a valid argument against people misusing or misinterpreting DBT.

 

[dalethorn]

Additional thought: Having someone chop 8 bits off of my digital files is Digital Lobotomy.

"Here, let me cut out a couple small parts of your brain, and I can prove that you can think better that way."

 

[Cataphract]

Quote:

Quote:

It's not a theory.  If you read this, you'd see that the additional bits do not add resolution, but dynamic range that you can't actually use, unless you're planning death by sound.

If it's really as simple as bits, then it's not complex enough for music.

Nyquist-Shannon would suggest otherwise.

 

[rroseperry]

Quote:

Quote:


Nyquist-Shannon would suggest otherwise.

Exactly. Musical complexity is different from the systems that reproduce it. It's like reading a great book on your iPad or Kindle.  The underlying computer architecture is still based on 0s and 1s, despite the sophistication of the interface.

 

[fatcat28037]

To the hi-fi industry, audiophile has always been another word for sucker.   
 
How rude, I'd like to strangle him with one of my $400 power cables.

 

[maverickronin]

Wow.  I go to work and this thread absolutely explodes.  I'll have some more detailed comments latter.
 
Just one thing to clear up now.  My last comment about "convincing" other people may have been a little misworded.  When I say I intend to "convince" other people it is because I believe a rational person without preconceptions or biases who is presented with the same evidence I have been presented with will likely reach the same conclusion I have.  I think reason will eventually win out. 
 
And don't forget, if you present me with new evidence then I may change my conclusion as well.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

There is no "proof" in a subject this complex. And the only, repeat only valid evidence is the historical evidence that Stereophile for example has presented over its 50 year existence. Short-term tests mean nothing. The ear-brain combinations of thousands of people are beyond measurements. The data is out there, you need to investigate it.

The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
 
The ear-brain combinations of thousands of people are sadly far less reliable than measurements, not least because they are influenced by factors other than the stimulae themselves. This has been borne out by DATA again and again, such as when you ask people to rate speakers and they can see them and know how much they cost they ALWAYS rate them bettter than when they can only hear them including altering the rank positions (Sean Olive, Harman).
 
Here in the back of the bus.....

 

[batphink]

Here's a more aesthetically pleasing version of the article:
http://ca.gizmodo.com/5768446/why-24+bit-audio-will-be-bad-for-users
 
Anyway, I agree with the first half.  If the audio is badly mastered, it doesn't matter what resolution it is.

 

[dalethorn]

Wow.  I go to work and this thread absolutely explodes.  I'll have some more detailed comments latter.
 
Just one thing to clear up now.  My last comment about "convincing" other people may have been a little misworded.  When I say I intend to "convince" other people it is because I believe a rational person without preconceptions or biases who is presented with the same evidence I have been presented with will likely reach the same conclusion I have.  I think reason will eventually win out. 
 
And don't forget, if you present me with new evidence then I may change my conclusion as well.

When you find one of those rational persons without preconceptions or biases (has to be female I'm sure), I want to marry her. And I'm rich and she can shop all day and sleep wherever she wants. All she has to do is entertain my business friends at the dinner table, conversation only. I'm really looking forward to this!

 

[dalethorn]

The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
 
The ear-brain combinations of thousands of people are sadly far less reliable than measurements, not least because they are influenced by factors other than the stimulae themselves. This has been borne out by DATA again and again, such as when you ask people to rate speakers and they can see them and know how much they cost they ALWAYS rate them bettter than when they can only hear them including altering the rank positions (Sean Olive, Harman).
 
Here in the back of the bus.....

Data doesn't put down serious cash for equipment. Money talks and BS (i.e. academic research funded by dubious parties) walks.

 

[dalethorn]

Exactly. Musical complexity is different from the systems that reproduce it. It's like reading a great book on your iPad or Kindle.  The underlying computer architecture is still based on 0s and 1s, despite the sophistication of the interface.

Actually, the brain itself is digital when you get down to the nitty-gritty. But the test subjects are grown up with learned hearing that has to be retrained to be useful in audiophile-level tests. You bring non-audiophiles into the tests and very few of them could have a clue what to listen for, without a lot of "training" that would corrupt the results.

You can't separate the brain's perception of the audio stream from the ear-nerve response short of plugging wires into the brain. This thing is way too big for your tests, which to repeat, would have to be funded by dubious partners to have a level of equipment and personnel to be valid (more or less).

 

[nick_charles]

 
Quote:

Quote:

The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.
 
The ear-brain combinations of thousands of people are sadly far less reliable than measurements, not least because they are influenced by factors other than the stimulae themselves. This has been borne out by DATA again and again, such as when you ask people to rate speakers and they can see them and know how much they cost they ALWAYS rate them bettter than when they can only hear them including altering the rank positions (Sean Olive, Harman).
 
Here in the back of the bus.....

Data doesn't put down serious cash for equipment. Money talks and BS (i.e. academic research funded by dubious parties) walks.

Dubious parties such as Dolby labs , NHK Japan, BAS, AES, Harman and various Universities, dubious research often using self-confessed audiophiles, engineers, tonnmeister students, audio salesdroids, audio reviewers and other audio professionals, dubious research that has often gone through a rigorous anonymous peer review process. Dubious research such as 100+ years of psychophysics research ?
 
The laws of physics and the ability of humans to discriminate between stimulae are indifferent to the cost of audio items.
 
If you read the reviews in Stereophile you will find multiple examples where their golden eared reviewers are incapable of detecting grotesque flaws in expensive audio kit, flaws that are trivially exposed by their bank of routine tests. You put trust in that lot , seriously ?
 
Reviewers like Harley and Fremer ?
 
Harley whose only audio credentials were that he won an essay writing contest and whose articles contained so many material inacccuracies that he was routinely corrected by The Audo Critic, whose ramblings about jitter were so inaccurate that Aczel commissioned an article by Bob Adams (Analog Devices) specifically to undo all the damage he had done ?
 
Fremer a reviewer whose inability to detect a broken cable and who gave glowing reviews to a CD/DAC combo with 25% distortion below 50hz and which never achieved a flat FR at any frequency ?
 
This lot you trust ?

 

[Cataphract]

Quote:

Quote:

Exactly. Musical complexity is different from the systems that reproduce it. It's like reading a great book on your iPad or Kindle.  The underlying computer architecture is still based on 0s and 1s, despite the sophistication of the interface.

Actually, the brain itself is digital when you get down to the nitty-gritty. But the test subjects are grown up with learned hearing that has to be retrained to be useful in audiophile-level tests. You bring non-audiophiles into the tests and very few of them could have a clue what to listen for, without a lot of "training" that would corrupt the results.

You can't separate the brain's perception of the audio stream from the ear-nerve response short of plugging wires into the brain. This thing is way too big for your tests, which to repeat, would have to be funded by dubious partners to have a level of equipment and personnel to be valid (more or less).

 
Actually audiophiles fared quite poorly in terms of ability to reliably and consistently pick out differences compared against Harman's internal listeners, even though their overall preferences were the same. Unless of course Sean Olive's Harman funding counts him as a 'dubious partner'.
http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/part-2-differences-in-performances-of.html
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/download.cfm?ID=12206&name=harman