Testing audiophile claims and myths

[bfreedma]

Pointing out ridiculous nonsense by a poster is not trolling.

Trolling is not defined by posts you happen not to like.

Except it's not ridiculous nonsense. Your inability/unwillingness to understand the details of the discussion is the issue. Since you don't have the background or education to follow the discussion, of course it seems like "ridiculous nonsense". But instead of asking questions, you chop apart responses to try to deflect and insult.

Trolling is exactly what you're doing. You're posting subjective opinions while rejecting known science in the Sound Science subforum. If you have an actual alternate theory, this is a great place to discuss it in detail. If you just want to essentially disavow measurements and established science because "my ears" and post here, you are a troll.

And like most of the trolls here, you hide your profile.

The real question is - why is behavior that will absolutely result in post deletion in any other subforum acceptable here?

 

[Davesrose]

The real question is - why is behavior that will absolutely result in post deletion in any other subforum acceptable here?

What's a real head scratcher about this site is that if you bring up controlled testing in another subforum, it can result in post deletion and banishment. I experienced that with a sponsor ad over an audiophile LAN silencer. An audiophile wanted to engage with me since we were civil and I was bringing up the nature of networking protocols. When it got to you don't have to just test the brand's audio designers (premise being they have "trained ears"), or that testing on a "noisy PC" should even be optimal....I was told by another member to knock it off since it's breaking forum rules (the sponsor didn't delete my posts since I was being respectful).

 

[Davesrose]

Some very clever people have thought too much about a subject and it has taken a severe toll on their mental wellbeing. The book Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance is one example and another was a story about a master swordsman who was asked to explain what made him so highly accomplished which resulted in him spending the rest of his life trying to be as good as he once was (he just did it without too much thought).
Maybe many are in similar danger for always searching for something that improves on what they already consider sonically to be very good instead of just enjoying what they currently own, even if they know certain areas can be improved on? I know I can sometimes concentrate overly on what I'm using instead of what is being played.

It's kind of funny that this evening I watched a news segment over how an American chemist has caused a stir in Britian this week. I can see some merit in perception being different if you add salts to water. Being a homebrewer myself: one of the things we do is add different salts to water. It's thought that stouts originated in Ireland because the water was hard (and the black malts in stouts are less astringent with hard water). Germany originating lagers due to soft water. The concentrations I use with my beer is much less than the assumptions Brits are trying with their cups of tea (IE I add up to 200 grams of a particular mineral per several gallons). Brits are also used to their tea:

American chemist causes stir in Britain by suggesting salt can improve cup of tea

Honestly when it comes to science, I can see how water chemistry has more weight with perception vs headphone cable material. The main thing about headphones is the target curves of the headphone design itself. I also have taken neuroanatomy and know that our perceptions change with any given hour, let alone days or weeks. If an IEM becomes less fatiguing over time, there can be less bias or different conditioning.

 

[gregorio]

gregorio said:
2. We live in a “post truth” world. It’s far more acceptable/fashionable to be suckered by “fake news” and insult others than it used to be. There was a time, not that many years ago, when demonstrating gullibility and ignorance was something to be embarrassed about and avoided, rather than be proud of!

Of which I suggested snake oilmanship/ audiophilia wasn't new.

Exactly! You missed the context, which is what you then accused me of.

The quote I initially responded to was exactly what you’re denying here! Pot kettle: you have sometimes admitted to being an engineer who isn’t concerned with the consumer end.

I am denying that I stated “snake oilmanship/audiophilia was new”, show me where I stated that! And, ”sometimes” does not mean “always” or even “commonly”, again, context and Pot Kettle!!

G

 

[gregorio]

Bear in mind that among gregorio's gems are that pianos aren't complex harmonic sound sources and that audio processing isn't meant to make audio sound better, among lots of other nonsense.

Really, so you still think a piano is a complex harmonic sound source compared to say an entire orchestra or even to individual instruments like cymbals and many others that produce a far greater number of harmonics, not to mention “noise” which is all the freqs, even after proof has been provided (in the form of spectrogams)? What really is “nonsense” is ignoring the proven facts and arguing from ignorance!

Pointing out ridiculous nonsense by a poster is not trolling.

It is when the poster you’re talking about (me) provides incontrovertible proof that it’s actual proven fact rather than “ridiculous nonsense” but that doesn’t stop you from just endlessly falsely repeating it’s “ridiculous nonsense“!

G

 

[gregorio]

Is the piano hard to record? The first page of google search suggests that it... very well may be.

That depends on what you compare it to. It’s harder than some things, easier than others and, it also depends on the circumstances. A piano is much easier to record than an orchestra, easier than a drum kit and easier than even some other individual instruments; church organs, marimbas, certain other perc instruments, a few other instruments and even certain human voices can all be more difficult. Plus there’s the advantage that there’s a wealth of collective knowledge/experience within the recording industry of recording pianos, it’s a common instrument and a standard thing to teach student engineers. There are usually some trade-offs required when recording a piano but that‘s not uncommon with quite a few instruments.

I would say a piano is generally “somewhat” or “moderately” hard to record really well but of course that is just an opinion rather than a scientific fact.

G

 

[FunkyBassMan]

Really, so you still think a piano is a complex harmonic sound source compared to ...

Thank you for the perfect demonstration of why no one should take you remotely seriously. As, per your go-to tactic when shown to be wrong, you claim the other person said something they never said.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

Is the piano hard to record? The first page of google search suggests that it... very well may be.

Technically, barring difficult environmental situations, nothing is "hard to record". You just stick a mic up and record it.

The hard part comes from needing to record it in such a way that it optimally performs its role in the final "full mix" recording. A piano is a massively complex set of sound fields (which is why it has such a rich sound). A piano recorded for an soft-rock piano/vocal ballad likely would be recorded very differently (XY under an opened lid) than a heavily percussive rock track (spaced pair with a small diaphragm condenser over the higher hammers and a large over the lower hammers maybe) than a classical piano concert (ORTF). A mic placed too close will emphasize too much the sounds its close to (too much hammer, not enough tone, say) while a mic too far away may make the sound mushier and less percussive than the project calls for.

A common dictum among recording engineers is that you want to accomplish as much as you can acoustically (use the right mics, in the right places) and do corrective processing as little as you can (EQ, say). This is what separates the really great engineers from the rest. Because you really need to know 1) how the piano you're recording sounds all over the place in its many, many sound fields, 2) how, musically, the part you're recording is meant to function in the full arrangement, and 3), what kind of processing you'll be able to/want to do later in the process. If you're going to compress the heck out of it or have certain EQ or time-processing ideas in mind (like chorusing/reverb, etc) that can have a big impact on what mics you use and where you put them.

The electronics chain is also very important (particularly which mic pre's you choose), but that's for another discussion since the religious faith here in sound science is that all amps (less tube/solid state) sound the same. Also, in long cable runs in concert situations to an outside recording truck, the quality of cable you use is very important since a cable is essentially an antenna and susceptible to picking up all kinds of EM. But again, that's a discussion for a normal forum, as here the religion is that all cables sound the same.

 

[gregorio]

Thank you for the perfect demonstration of why no one should take you remotely seriously.

Sure, no one should take me “remotely seriously” because I provided objective proof of my assertion but they should take you “remotely seriously” because you’ve provided no reliable evidence whatsoever and in fact nothing but just repeating the same old ad hominem attacks. So thank you for a “perfect demonstration” of trolling!

As, per your go-to tactic when shown to be wrong, you claim the other person said something they never said.

What planet are you living on, how does no reliable evidence whatsoever and nothing but ad hominem attacks show me to be wrong? And sure, this is “something you never said”:

Bear in mind that among gregorio's gems are that pianos aren't complex harmonic sound sources

G

 

[FunkyBassMan]

Sure, no one should take me “remotely seriously” because I provided objective proof of my assertion but they should take you “remotely seriously” because you’ve provided no reliable evidence whatsoever and in fact nothing but just repeating the same old ad hominem attacks. So thank you for a “perfect demonstration” of trolling!

What planet are you living on, how does no reliable evidence whatsoever and nothing but ad hominem attacks show me to be wrong? And sure, this is “something you never said”:


G

I have said nothing ad hominem. I've only commented on assertions. You need to learn English.

You little picture is "objective proof" of exactly my point: the complexity of the piano waveform. The piano, with its better than 10,000 parts, is close to the most complex wave form among the instruments commonly recorded (pipe organs, even moreso).

Pointing out where you're wrong is not trolling. It's discussion. Again, English.

 

[Ryokan]

It's kind of funny that this evening I watched a news segment over how an American chemist has caused a stir in Britian this week. I can see some merit in perception being different if you add salts to water. Being a homebrewer myself: one of the things we do is add different salts to water. It's thought that stouts originated in Ireland because the water was hard (and the black malts in stouts are less astringent with hard water). Germany originating lagers due to soft water. The concentrations I use with my beer is much less than the assumptions Brits are trying with their cups of tea (IE I add up to 200 grams of a particular mineral per several gallons). Brits are also used to their tea:

American chemist causes stir in Britain by suggesting salt can improve cup of tea

Honestly when it comes to science, I can see how water chemistry has more weight with perception vs headphone cable material. The main thing about headphones is the target curves of the headphone design itself. I also have taken neuroanatomy and know that our perceptions change with any given hour, let alone days or weeks. If an IEM becomes less fatiguing over time, there can be less bias or different conditioning.

I might try that plus a little salt helps your body absorb water. It's got to be 'proper' salt though not table salt.

 

[gregorio]

I have said nothing ad hominem. I've only commented on assertions. You need to learn English.

That really is impressive! So you didn’t say “Bear in mind that among gregorio's gems”, “As, per your go-to tactic”, “no one should take you remotely seriously” or numerous other examples? Did some one break into your account and post those ad hominems for you? And to really make it a classic, “ad hominem” is actually Latin, not English!

You little picture is "objective proof" of exactly my point: the complexity of the piano waveform. The piano, with its better than 10,000 parts, is close to the most complex wave form among the instruments commonly recorded (pipe organs, even moreso).

Clearly you don’t know how to read a spectrogram if you think it’s just a “little picture” and is somehow “objective proof” of the exact opposite of what it actually demonstrates/proves. Plus, what has the number of parts got to do with anything, what difference does it make to the complexity of the waveform of having say 88 keys and all their associated parts if only say one to ten of them are actually used at the same time? And lastly, so are you saying that acoustic and electric guitars, cymbals, drum kits, the human voice, synths, many other perc instruments and numerous other instruments/sounds are not “commonly recorded” or just that you’ve never studied (or understood) the spectrograms of recorded sounds/instruments?

Pointing out where you're wrong is not trolling. It's discussion. Again, English.

It is trolling when it’s been proven I’m not wrong, when you apparently don’t understand and just ignore that proof but nevertheless just keep repeating that falsehood regardless. That is NOT discussion, it is trolling. If you actually want a discussion, particularly in a science discussion forum, then provide something other than just falsehoods/fallacies!

G

 

[castleofargh]

To distrust anybody who ever said something wrong is nonsensical because nobody's perfect to begin with. To hang onto one or 2 such examples to try and discredit anything later said or written by somebody on any given topic not related to the contested point, is no more than a bad demonstration of personal grudge.


Then there are plain mistakes, poorly expressed ideas, out of context quotes, where rechecking in good faith often makes it quite obvious what the poster was trying to convey. Of course, when reading a post with the single purpose of finding a fault, the interpretation is going to be quite different. Dragging someone down in the mud for a missing "not" in a sentence, or for writing something ambiguous and interpreting it on purpose in the worst possible way, that's so very counterproductive. We have too many people doing just that here and at large on the web(me included, probably).
I for example am a typical smelly French guy chewing on frogs all day long while holding a baguette, my writing and interpretation of English aren't that of a native speaker(or maybe a young poorly educated one? ^_^). This should probably be taken into account somewhere.
I guess my point is, a touch of forbearance and forgiveness wouldn't hurt this forum nor the world in general.


Because I'm a nerd:

the proposition that forgiveness involves constructive psychological change vis a` vis
one’s transgressor is a point of nearly universal consensus

(Mc-Cullough et al., 2000)

And also clearly suggested in a later study(and really too much of a captain obvious result), time is a significant variable for forgiveness.

 

[FunkyBassMan]

To distrust anybody who ever said something wrong is nonsensical because nobody's perfect to begin with. To hang onto one or 2 such examples to try and discredit anything later said or written by somebody on any given topic not related to the contested point, is no more than a bad demonstration of personal grudge.


Then there are plain mistakes, poorly expressed ideas, out of context quotes, where rechecking in good faith often makes it quite obvious what the poster was trying to convey. Of course, when reading a post with the single purpose of finding a fault, the interpretation is going to be quite different. Dragging someone down in the mud for a missing "not" in a sentence, or for writing something ambiguous and interpreting it on purpose in the worst possible way, that's so very counterproductive. We have too many people doing just that here and at large on the web(me included, probably).
I for example am a typical smelly French guy chewing on frogs all day long while holding a baguette, my writing and interpretation of English aren't that of a native speaker(or maybe a young poorly educated one? ^_^). This should probably be taken into account somewhere.
I guess my point is, a touch of forbearance and forgiveness wouldn't hurt this forum nor the world in general.


Because I'm a nerd:

(Mc-Cullough et al., 2000)

And also clearly suggested in a later study(and really too much of a captain obvious result), time is a significant variable for forgiveness.

Great post.

And I'd say your writing and interpretation of English is fantastic. The frog thing...hmmm...not so sure!

 

[Syan25]

My personal hell is living.