[Beauregard]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS ... [Peter Azcel is] probably deaf (in the audiophile) sense, or he's figured out a good way to make some extra money. There's always people willing to pay money to people who will tell them what they want to hear. This applies to both sides of the issue.

Phil, I couldn't let this pass. First, shame on you for resorting to an unsubstantiated smear; it hardly contributes to a constructive discussion. Second, audiophiles have accused Peter Aczel of lots of things but one of them isn't getting rich from his journalistic efforts. The publishing schedule of The Audio Critic was, to put it kindly, erratic. More than once, a new business arrangement was announced that never lived up to its promise of regular publication and readership was never more than a miniscule fraction of that of SP or TAS. You can easily imagine that, given the magazine's message for the hi-end, advertising revenue hardly rolled in - a difficulty compounded by the fact that Aczel refused to accept ads with unsubstantiated claims. And if ol' Pete is living the good life in his golden years, it ain't because of the revenue generated by a publishing empire consisting of a one-man webzine with a lifetime subscription of $13.

Speaking of publishing empires... I do agree with the idea implicit in your statement that it is important to ask qui bono in evaluating the credibility of those who disseminate information about hi-end audio products. I think some light is shed on that issue in this thoughtful analysis by, of all people, a subjectivist audiophile. Stereophile fans should be sure to check it out...


A couple of brief thoughts based on what I've seen in this thread:

I'd encourage those put off by Peter Aczel's style not to neglect the substance of what he says. He was frequently criticized by his readers in letters to the editor expressing concern that his acerbic approach wasn't the best way to spread light in the darkness - attempting to get people to question the basic givens of subjective audio evaluation. I tend to agree - though I'm not unsympathetic to Aczel's defense of his confrontational style as a necessary counterbalance to the ignorance perpetuated by those with vested interest in maintaining the mythology of the hi-end.

So don't condemn the message for the messenger. I haven't the technical knowledge or experience in audio to support or challenge specific contentions he makes - but I'd remind you that Aczel is hardly a lone voice spouting "bullsh*t theory". His ideas fundamentally represent cumulative knowledge gained via scientific investigation in audio engineering and psychoacoustics. Indeed, one of most astounding things about the phenomenon of hi-end audio in the twenty-first century is that a journalist speaking for the scientific method in the consumer press is the one regarded as a heretical loony! I'd suggest that anyone who regards the assertions made in the Aczel articles available online as "unsupported" have a look at the back issues of The Audio Critic. You'll find in-depth technical articles authored by noted scientists from academia and industry, including engineers affiliated with hi-end companies whose products are regularly praised by audiophiles.

I'll try to make time over the weekend to contribute my personal take on some of the ideas that have been discussed so far...

Best,
Beau

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ15k ...Im not saying that cables dont make a difference, but like previously mentionned, that the difference heard is due to cables made to have a high inductance/capacitance.

No.

Sorry! That's not how it works. I've measured several headphone cables with significantly different sonic behavior, and the electrical values were very close. I made different sorts of cables myself, and while capacitance made a difference, the decisive difference was caused by other factors, such as geometry and material of the conductor.

 

[clarke68]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sleestack I'm not nearly smart enough to figure out how exactly my brain is working.

Neither is anyone else...I heard an interview on the radio recently with one of the guys on the forefront of research on how the brain works, and he freely admits that they understand maybe 10% of it.

 

[Publius]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ Sorry, no -- that's your personal definition. But since neutrality is an unachievable goal, let's better talk about coloration. I'm not interested in perfect data -- since they don't tell much when it comes to electronics (and cables for that matter) --, because since we're talking about audio phenomena, we should seriously care for audibility, not measurability. Even you can't be sure that harmonic distortion is really the decisive criterion (apart from linearity issues in rare cases) -- although you make it look like that, for lack of alternatives.

Look at my original comment:
Quote:

The perfect amplifier is defined by AC a priori as one with complete neutrality and no distortion, and all tests (subjective or otherwise) revolve around that axiom.

I was trying to elaborate on what AC considers to be "neutrality". I wasn't trying to enter a debate on what "neutrality" actually means. Do you disagree with what my interpretation of AC's definition of neutrality?

Quote:

That's a bold statement! So electronics all sound the same? Of course, I forgot -- because you won't find significant measuring differences, so it's not worth auditioning them...

Not at all! I never said that, and I resent you putting words into my mouth like that. All speakers and headphones sound different.

Quote:

I have a really good explanation why D.B.T often fail -- but we're not allowed to discuss this subject here. No, there's no real need to argue about the validity of established physical theories, because there are none that prove the inexistence/impossibility of unexplained audio phenomena. I'm not a defender of vinyl, so I have no problems with the objections against it, although you won't find me concurring on the perfection of the CD format.

Exactly! Each side has answers to all the questions. It's a matter of interpretation - indeed, to a certain degree a matter of social dynamics and personal experience - as to how each side evolves and wins/loses. Because both sides are internally self-consistent.

Quote:

Maybe -- and that's part of his simplification and bias.

I can admit that possibility.

Quote:

From the above mentioned I'd not call your approach to «rationalism» open minded. The fear of the placebo effect should not hold you back from auditioning gear. Just relying on DBT data and measurings is a strange and actually hyperrational, top-heavy approach, absolutely ignoring human qualities such as intuition and trust in your own senses. How is it possible that there's unanimity that a Stradivari sounds better than a Radio-Shack violin? Placebo? I'm sure you can't measure the abolute quality of a violin tone, although you'll possibly be able to measure the differences. But that's not how people have come to acknowledge the artistry of the Maestro. It was by listening to his products.

Actually, I just googled on the subject, and apparantly a lot of people have blind tested Strats against other violins. And failed.

I have no problems with auditioning gear - I'll be going to the Ft Worth meet with a lot of stuff. I'll be especially interested in listening to the DAC1 there, and maybe whatever tube amps are there. The key point I'm making is that even if I hear something that I can't explain - say that somebody brings an Intelligent Chip in, and somehow I notice a change - I still believe that the difference is quantifiable, even though I may not be able to do it myself. And I can be perfectly OK with believing that what I may hear is placebo.

In general, I believe that what my senses tell me and what my measurements tell me should be the same. I think everybody can agree that this would be a pretty ideal situation, no matter what they believe. If they don't line up, I won't trust that which is most suspect, which may be my senses rather than my measurements (although measurements can be quite wrong too). Obviously that's not a license to stop listening.

Quote:

As to beliefs: I don't think the subjectivist approach has much to do with beliefs -- save for you'd call believing his own ears a belief. Actually it even represents the rejection of beliefs and theories as long as your ears tell you otherwise. A good approach in my opinion.

It requires that the truth of perception be axiomatic, which as much of a belief as anything else. Unfortunately I don't have any specific philosophical references on the subject, although Kuhn does discuss it (ironically in the context of dissing scientific modernism).

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beauregard Phil, I couldn't let this pass. First, shame on you for resorting to an unsubstantiated smear; it hardly contributes to a constructive discussion. Second, audiophiles have accused Peter Aczel of lots of things but one of them isn't getting rich from his journalistic efforts.

First, in terms of "unsubstantiated smears," Mr. Aczel outdoes yours truly in spades, since much of what he says in his article either explicity or implicitly (1) "smears" thousands, if not millions, of intelligent, rational people who supposedly are complete morons for believing their ears, and (2) "smears" large numbers of audio manufacturers and vendors who are allegedly guilty of outright fraud. Furthermore, IMO, much of what HE says is "unsubstantiated." It is only "substantiated" if you accept his premise that scientific measurements tell us everything about what we hear.

I have to concede that I have not read any of his other articles, but reading the article under discussion, my first impresssion was that I mystified why someone would say the things he says in the tone he says them. Thus, I concluded that one possbility is that he's "deaf" in the audiophile sense, since he can't hear what I and thousands of others hear. Frankly, I simply do not believe that anyone who has really spent a signifiant amount of time actually listening to all of the items referenced in his article could possibly make ALL of the statements he makes, and make them with such categorical certainty.

On the other hand, my speculation that he had some financial motivation was not really serious. I don't know for a fact that this has anything to do with what he says, but it does seem fairly obvious that he has some axe to grind. Perhaps he just gets his jollies by preaching to all the "deluded audiophiles" with "corrupted tastes" who like to listen to "perverse" and "deliberate" coloration (see, e.g., his disussion on tube equipment). There are many inhabiting the planet who obtain a satisfying feeling of superiority by acting is if they have some specialized knowledge in certain areas, which enables them to view and criticize others around them as fools, and their pleasure seems to be only compounded (for some "perverse" reason) when the dogma they spew forth is laced with ridicule .

Anyway, you're right, I don't know what his motivation is for the substance and tone of his article. But I don't really care. It it looks like ****, and it smells like ****, then it's ****.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publius I was trying to elaborate on what AC considers to be "neutrality". I wasn't trying to enter a debate on what "neutrality" actually means. Do you disagree with my interpretation of AC's definition of neutrality?

No. I'm too lazy to search for AC's statement to this subject, but (theoretically) there's nothing more welcome than a non-distorting amplifier. Nevertheless I don't agree if you equate measured neutrality (= ultra-low distortion) with sonic neutrality. Because obviously we still don't know what makes amps sound different, even those with virtually identical measurings.


Quote:

Not at all! I never said that, and I resent you putting words into my mouth like that. All speakers and headphones sound different.

Now I'm confused.

«Headphone/speaker measurements are one of the few areas where there are audible differences.» This your then statement, repeated here in other words, without much need for interpretation. You do exclude electronics (amps and sources) from the devices which can cause sonic differences, don't you?


Quote:

Actually, I just googled on the subject, and apparantly a lot of people have blind tested Strats against other violins. And failed.

So does that mean Stradivaris are no better than normal violins? You should know that blind tests don't prove anything. Fact is that Stradivaris have gained enormous respect with a broad public for their beautiful sound and were considered superior to (most) other violins of the same era. I don't know if some of today's violins aren't just as good, but that's not the point.


Quote:

In general, I believe that what my senses tell me and what my measurements tell me should be the same. I think everybody can agree that this would be a pretty ideal situation, no matter what they believe.

Not necessarily. Of course, from a scientific point of view it would be ideal, but I don't like the idea of having everything gaplessly explained by science, no white spots on the map, no mysteries waiting for solution... Not that that's my motif for audiophile hallucinations, don't get me wrong!

But science and data can never explain the world, so don't give them too much power!


Quote:

It requires that the truth of perception be axiomatic, which as much of a belief as anything else. Unfortunately I don't have any specific philosophical references on the subject, although Kuhn does discuss it (ironically in the context of dissing scientific modernism).

Whatever Mr. Kuhn or anybody else may have to say to the matter, I don't buy it if it means that trusting your senses (with all due self-criticism) equates to belief. That's a typical top-heavy-objectivist attitude rating the intellectual, data-oriented input above all other things. Tell an acrobat to not trust his senses!

 

[MonkeyMan]

When it comes to audio gear, NOTHING matters. ALL components are interchangeable and will yield absolutely NO difference in system performance.

Tongue firmly planted in cheek...

I say forget the details; buy and listen to that which pleases you.

 

[JB.]

I also support Peter Aczel, his articles, and his methods. He does come off as dogmatic and self-important, but this is only the result of needing to overshoot the mark, so to speak, to combat the overwhelming ignorance and credulity that have become hallmarks of high-end audio. I generally don’t engage in discussions like this, as this seems to boil down to “The Credulous Mind vs The Incredulous Mind.”

For those of us who have refrained from judgments until having thoroughly examined evidence from sources that support or reject some of claims familiar to high-end audio, it seems remarkable that such unbelievable ignorance could persist. Many researchers have conducted double-blind studies for peer-reviewed journals in order to supply evidence for or against every topic that Mr. Aczel has addressed. Despite conclusive results, people either haven’t read the material at all or they outright reject the double-blind test standard. If you find what I’m writing to be upsetting, check out Carl Sagan’s, “The Demon Haunted World” from your local library- your brain will thank you.

BTW, I find an interesting correlation between people who believe in many of the topics discussed in the article and people who believe in:
1.Ghosts
2.Spontaneous Human Combustion
3.Psychics
4.Superstitions
5.Demons
6.Crackpot Medical Treatments (Psychic surgery, etc.)
7.Bigfoot, Vampires, Nessie . . .
8.UFO’s/Aliens (Do they exist? Maybe. Have they visited earth? No.)
9.Creationism as the rejection of Evolution
10.Etc.

I would love to hear from a member who rejects the previous nine items as “real” but who believes that Mr. Aczel was completely wrong in more than one area.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB. I also support Peter Aczel, his articles, and his methods. He does come off as dogmatic and self-important, but this is only the result of needing to overshoot the mark, so to speak, to combat the overwhelming ignorance and credulity that have become hallmarks of high-end audio. .

Oh man, I hate this kind of "end justifies the means" reasoning. It's in the same category as: "It's ok to steal from Walmart because . . . . " Mr. Aczel comes off as dogmatic and self-important because he's full of kaka, and the fact that he justifies his conduct as necessary to counteract what he calls ignorance just confirms, IMO, a defect in his character. Quote:

Originally Posted by JB. BTW, I find an interesting correlation between people who believe in many of the topics discussed in the article and people who believe in: 1. Ghosts 2. Spontaneous Human Combustion 3. Psychics 4. Superstitions 5. Demons 6. Crackpot Medical Treatments (Psychic surgery, etc.) 7. Bigfoot, Vampires, Nessie . . . 8. UFO’s/Aliens (Do they exist? Maybe. Have they visited earth? No.) 9. Creationism as the rejection of Evolution 10. Etc.

You can't be serious?! If you are, I understand why you appreciate Aczel's methods and madness.

 

[JB.]

Are you saying that the things in the list exist? or that they're ridiculous?

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB. Are you saying that the things in the list exist? or that they're ridiculous?

I'm saying it's ridiculous to suggest a correlation between people who beleive in one or more of the things in the list and the audio issues under discussion. In addition, without getting into a lengthly off-topic debate, issue #9 is of a totally different character and nature than #2, for example.

 

[JaZZ]

I agree with Phil: Equating audiophiles with believers in demons and UFOs is below the belt. No wonder you sympathize with your soulmate Peter Aczel...

 

[Ferbose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ From the above mentioned I'd not call your approach to «rationalism» open minded. The fear of the placebo effect should not hold you back from auditioning gear. Just relying on DBT data and measurings is a strange and actually hyperrational, top-heavy approach, absolutely ignoring human qualities such as intuition and trust in your own senses. How is it possible that there's unanimity that a Stradivari sounds better than a Radio-Shack violin? Placebo? I'm sure you can't measure the abolute quality of a violin tone, although you'll possibly be able to measure the differences. But that's not how people have come to acknowledge the artistry of the Maestro. It was by listening to his products.

Here is a link to one of the finest violin makers in the world today and the foremost expert on the chemical treatment of wood used by Cremonese masters: http://www.nagyvaryviolins.com/

If you go over the website, you will realize that it is impossible to make two violins that measure exactly identical, even just playing a single, sustained note. Different Stradivari violins measure differently and sound differently. The measured difference is quite big and it is not suprising that they all sound different. However, to decide which violin sounds better requires humans to listen to it. For example, Nagyvari's new violin bettered a multi-million Stradivari violin in a blind test in fron of a concert hall of listeners.

Back to cables--the electrical property differences between reasonably constructed cables are so small that we really have to question if it is possible to hear a difference. When these differences are simulated, controlled tests show that people can't hear a difference. When people actually listen to different cables, in controlled blind tests in Canada's NRC or other labs, they can't detect a difference either. However, I guess headphone cable may be one area when cables may make a difference because hi-end phones are incredibly accurate transducers, but I am not sure if anyone has done extensive research into this.

To claim that our scientific understanding of passive, bulk electronic devices such as cables is incomplete is ridiculous. Sure, modern physics can not explain everything about electrons and matters. This is true when it comes to strange quantum states such as superconductivity or ultra-small scale phenomena the internal structure of an electron. However, electricity flow through cables is fully and properly described by classical electromagnetism.

What modern science can't explain is psychoacoustics. We don't know how the brain determines what sounds good or bad. Very different signals may sound very similar to the brain and that is called audio illusion. If you have seen any picture demonstrating visual illusion you will understand audio illusion. The classic example is having two lines of identical lengths with end arrows pointing in different directions. You think one line looks longer than the other. In fact, everyone sees the same illusion. But if you measure with a ruler, you realize they are the same length and your brain fools itself. Now imagine a person saying: "You can't use a stupid low-tech measurement such as a ruler to tell me what I see is wrong. In fact, my buddy aslo sees the same thing, and I can find 10,000 people on-line who swear they see the same thing. Your sciecne is flawed. Your objectivism is erroneous. I beleive what I see and no one can convince me what I and another 10,000 people see is wrong."

Back to amplifiers--every amplifier in the world has measurable distortions.
This is becuase our electronic devices are incredibly sensitive. Now, to say solid state sounds better because it has lower total distortion is ridiculous, becuase the types of distortion are different. If we take two defective 1024*768 LCD screens, one has 5 contiguous dead pixels in the center, and the other has 1024 contiguous dead pixes at the very top (becomes 1023*768). Which one would look better, which one would you buy? Would you buy the one that has 200 times lower total distortion? Does the 1024 dead pixel screen look better becuase it introduces "pleasant coloration"? No. A big distortion may escape detection of human hearing if it is in the right spot, and a small distortion can annoy the brian if it is in a critical spot. Unfortunately we understand little about music perception to determine what kind of distortion is benign or serious or even euphonic. We don't know why tubes sound good but many people do prefer them in blind tests. And the difference is measurable--so it is not just placebo effect.

 

[JB.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS I'm saying it's ridiculous to suggest a correlation between people who beleive in one or more of the things in the list and the audio issues under discussion. In addition, without getting into a lengthly off-topic debate, issue #9 is of a totally different character and nature than #2, for example.

They were included specifically because they are of "different character" in order to establish some baseline so discussion can move forward. A thing exists or it doesn't; decent through common ancestry is no less arbitrary than is spontaneous human combustion.

Any assertion that is non-falsifiable classifies as dogma. The nuances of cables and rainbow foil lend themselves very well to research. These products are without question capable of being tested empirically, and can be done so easily and with valid and meaningful results. To say that testing could not be performed is, by definition, a dogmatic assertion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaZZ I agree with Phil: Equating audiophiles with believers in demons and UFOs is below the belt. No wonder you sympathize with your soulmate Peter Aczel...

I'm not saying they believe in ALL of those things, just one or more of them.

 

[philodox]

Congrats JB, you just moved this discussion into the next level of needless insult.

I suppose that the sceptics are all:
1. Impotent.
2. Living with their mothers.
3. Graduates of Law school.
4. Wearing track pants.
5. Etc.

Yeah, I believe in Vampires all right... come on Nessie, we don't need to listen to this bullsh!t. We've got a UFO to catch.