Is the entire audio industry a fraud?

[NTK]

I have read so much pro-ABX arguments that are clearly wrong, unscientific and make me go "cargo cult science" that I have to choose if I want to spend my time fighting windmills on my keyboard or agreeing to disagree and go lazing in my pool drinking beer and listening to music.

Getting really tired of your hypocrisy. Evidently you are very fond of calling others practicing "cargo cult science", fooling people into thinking Feynman and you are on the same side. Well, you are not doing what Feynman said scientists should do. So the opposite it true. Inventing lame and faulty excuses to discount tests that show the contradictory results from those you want? Did you actually read what Feynman said in his "cargo cult science" commencement speech?

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.pdf

 

[bodhi]

And it only happens in audiophile land.

Nobody goes "My monitor feels smoother on a $2000 AC cable, the measured refresh rate and pixel response times etc don't tell the whole story, trust me bro" on computer land which is also a much, much larger market without being universally ridiculed.

As I said in another thread, eye is so much better instrument than ear that claiming things that aren't there is just too much. You can put two of the same TVs side by side with different power cables, look at them both at the same time and well... Difference just isn't there, no matter how much you want to believe in it. No way you are convincing other people either.

But hifi is of course not the only suspect in there. For example fitness industry: it makes high end hifi look like completely honest, reasonable business by comparison. This is because in the scale of "how hard is it to measure differences of small changes" it's far out there. Also the BS stuff gets sold to the mass market as well (stuff is cheaper but benefits are also almost zero so infinite negative value). It too has very widespread attitude about "those labcoat lifters know nothing about the real secrets of training". Also the sciency stuff says that what gets you 90% there is just some basic stuff you can write on single sheet of paper and rest is genetics and hard work (both which cannot really be monetized).

 

[danadam]

Keep in mind that the ear uses higher orders to sense sound pressure. And has a 120-130dB range

The instantaneous range is much lower than that: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...mic-range-of-human-hearing.23037/#post-768077

 

[ahofer]

The instantaneous range is much lower than that: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...mic-range-of-human-hearing.23037/#post-768077

Thank you, and others, for parrying the recent onslaught of dubious assertions.

 

[atmasphere]

It very much is not. And the argument, "Instrument spectra show 20-30-50+ percent harmonics, so an amp adding 0.05% harmonics should be audible" makes absolutely no sense.

Since we can add harmonics in software (@pkane has a particularly useful program), it would be trivial for you to take a music file, add the same harmonic content as the Adcom amp you claimed had "a perception of 'harsh and bright' at some volume setting," then post the files and an ABX log showing identification. That would be actual evidence.

Do that successfully and I (and others who look at 40+ years worth of testing showing no significant audible differences between amps with the same frequency response and not clipping) will humbly salute you, cite you regularly, and not question this claim again.

Evidence. That what separates solid claims from fairy tales.

Uh, just so we are clear, your second sentence is a strawman logical fallacy. I never said the part in quotation.

The Adcom (thankfully) is long gone.

You have ignored something that I've noticed a lot of others ignore also (so not blaming you in particular) which is how the ear senses sound pressure. You didn't attempt to debunk my comment about that either, so can we proceed on the basis that we agree on that?

Ofcourse the distortion is integrated into the waveform ? That’s how it works the fft Analyzer just separates them for us to see there magnitude ? It’s only one waveform the complete track your listening to is only one waveform?
Who are you trying to confuse?

My point, which seemed to have trouble hitting home, is that harmonics define how instruments sound. While I didn't exactly get pushback around that, it did seem as if that issue was being dodged.

Thank you, and others, for parrying the recent onslaught of dubious assertions.

I liked that post too. The link which was posted in it wasn't relevant, but it was good info.

 

[ahofer]

My point, which seemed to have trouble hitting home, is that harmonics define how instruments sound.

I don't think that's controversial (the Motte). It's what you may be extrapolating from that fact that appears to be in dispute (the Bailey).

 

[dshreter]

My point, which seemed to have trouble hitting home, is that harmonics define how instruments sound. While I didn't exactly get pushback around that, it did seem as if that issue was being dodged.

A Stradivarius does produce harmonics to the fundamental note. But just like an amplifier, any harmonic products 90dB down will also be inaudible.

I’m not sure you’ve made a point that needs to be refuted.

 

[SIY]

Uh, just so we are clear, your second sentence is a strawman logical fallacy. I never said the part in quotation.

You said exactly that, which is why it was in quotations. Post 229, fifth paragraph.

And then named a competitive power amp as a culprit, providing no data to either support that or support your purported mechanism (keeping in mind that the 565 has better than 0.02% THD+N and the dominant part of that is noise, see https://www.stereophile.com/content/adcom-gfa-565-monoblock-power-amplifier-measurements).

The analogy with instruments is one you make over and over. It is ludicrous- we're talking 4 orders of magnitude difference. If that's still audible, prove it, the test is easy. If you can't, then the claim is worthless and empty.

edit: for anyone who is unfamiliar with musical instrument harmonic structure, run right out and buy a copy of "Music, Physics, and Engineering."

Trumpet spectrum

Violin Spectrum

 

[pma]

It very much is not. And the argument, "Instrument spectra show 20-30-50+ percent harmonics, so an amp adding 0.05% harmonics should be audible" makes absolutely no sense.

Since we can add harmonics in software (@pkane has a particularly useful program), it would be trivial for you to take a music file, add the same harmonic content as the Adcom amp you claimed had "a perception of 'harsh and bright' at some volume setting," then post the files and an ABX log showing identification. That would be actual evidence.

Do that successfully and I (and others who look at 40+ years worth of testing showing no significant audible differences between amps with the same frequency response and not clipping) will humbly salute you, cite you regularly, and not question this claim again.

Evidence. That what separates solid claims from fairy tales.

I am sure you know you cannot get 1 Stereophile plot at 1 frequency and 1 amplitude as a representative of amplifier distortion profile and a description of its nonlinear transfer function. This does not work. Not mentioning miserable resolution of this archaic plot.

Fig.6 Adcom GFA 565, spectrum of 50Hz sinewave, DC–10kHz, at 66W into 4 ohms (linear frequency scale).

 

[SIY]

I am sure you know you cannot get 1 Stereophile plot at 1 frequency and 1 amplitude as a representative of amplifier distortion profile and a description of its nonlinear transfer function. This does not work. Not mentioning miserable resolution of this archaic plot.

View attachment 253477
Fig.6 Adcom GFA 565, spectrum of 50Hz sinewave, DC–10kHz, at 66W into 4 ohms (linear frequency scale).

So what? Look at the level. And since Ralph darkly hinted at the "ilk," I have detailed distortion spectra of a 525 which also don't show anything even vaguely close to plausible levels of audibility.

 

[Vacceo]

Well said. I love threads like this, because they all pose the same basic question: why? Why do people need to think this stuff so desperately? And why don't they change it up from time to time? The same cast of characters shows up on every thread - the evidently young guy who boasts of spending lots of money, and who pities us paupers; the slightly older guy who all but admits he hates audio science simply because it spoils his fun: and now the avuncular chin-stroking sage, wearing an interesting hat, very satisfied with his enormous expertise, finding sciency-sounding new ways of saying the same old, same old.

Surely such behaviors can only be explained via self image, or self doubt, or self worth, or the compulsion to be different, or something. I think a lot of people here are fascinated about it, but as you say, we lack expertise in the field. It would be great to hook up with a psychology or social science website. We could give them examples, they could give us explanations.

If you want a theory for that, you have Jungian archetypes. I'm not a Jungian myself, but the discourse is super fancy.

 

[fpitas]

Well said. I love threads like this, because they all pose the same basic question: why? Why do people need to think this stuff so desperately? And why don't they change it up from time to time? The same cast of characters shows up on every thread - the evidently young guy who boasts of spending lots of money, and who pities us paupers; the slightly older guy who all but admits he hates audio science simply because it spoils his fun: and now the avuncular chin-stroking sage, wearing an interesting hat, very satisfied with his enormous expertise, finding sciency-sounding new ways of saying the same old, same old.

Surely such behaviors can only be explained via self image, or self doubt, or self worth, or the compulsion to be different, or something. I think a lot of people here are fascinated about it, but as you say, we lack expertise in the field. It would be great to hook up with a psychology or social science website. We could give them examples, they could give us explanations.

99% of the time here at least, that turns out to be a troll. It is a stereotype the trolls thrive on.

 

[MAB]

My point, which seemed to have trouble hitting home, is that harmonics define how instruments sound.

Yeah, oboes and clarinets do sound different for instance. That's obvious. But the point you are making escapes me.

 

[MAB]

Getting really tired of your hypocrisy. Evidently you are very fond of calling others practicing "cargo cult science", fooling people into thinking Feynman and you are on the same side. Well, you are not doing what Feynman said scientists should do. So the opposite it true. Inventing lame and faulty excuses to discount tests that show the contradictory results from those you want? Did you actually read what Feynman said in his "cargo cult science" commencement speech?

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.pdf

View attachment 253443

Thank you. I appreciate this, was trying to figure how to address Thorsten's ramblings. The cargo-cult references are incoherent, especially when Thorsten so obviously wants to be the cult-leader. The analogy doesn't work when you actually didn't do any experiments of note, or lost the results of the sole experiments you did do, and cast baseless doubt on any evidence you are presented with.
Based on the writing style, I would have guessed an AI infiltrated ASR. But the style is classic Thorsten, unless Chatbots have gotten better than I thought...

 

[ahofer]

The analogy doesn't work when you actually didn't do any experiments of note, or lost the results of the sole experiments you did do, and cast baseless doubt on any evidence you are presented with.

That was my thinking from the get-go.

I do find the discussion of shortcomings of blind-testing interesting. The evidence we have of various folks being unable to tell equipment apart does suffer from small-N, less-than-ideal controls, etc. (I don't share his concern about "high pressure" skewing the results). But the evidence to the contrary doesn't seem to exist, despite the much greater incentives to produce it. So just point out the shortcomings (or some other fact) and wave your hands frantically - sow as much doubt as possible.

 

[MAB]

That was my thinking from the get-go.

I do find the discussion of shortcomings of blind-testing interesting. The evidence we have of various folks being unable to tell equipment apart does suffer from small-N, less-than-ideal controls, etc. (I don't share his concern about "high pressure" skewing the results). But the evidence to the contrary doesn't seem to exist, despite the much greater incentives to produce it. So just point out the shortcomings (or some other fact) and wave your hands frantically - sow as much doubt as possible.

Agreed. Blind testing for audible differences is hard, not pleasant, and many people understandably avoid. But if I took Thorsten's approach to my day job and cast doubt on every experimental result I saw, I would quickly get ignored and then fired.

 

[IPunchCholla]

That was my thinking from the get-go.

I do find the discussion of shortcomings of blind-testing interesting. The evidence we have of various folks being unable to tell equipment apart does suffer from small-N, less-than-ideal controls, etc. (I don't share his concern about "high pressure" skewing the results). But the evidence to the contrary doesn't seem to exist, despite the much greater incentives to produce it. So just point out the shortcomings (or some other fact) and wave your hands frantically - sow as much doubt as possible.

My statistics is really rusty so I have been wading in the shallow end a bit lately. It seems to me that Thorsten is applying known issues of ABX testing a populations ability to distinguish small differences to ABX tests of a single listener. The failure mode (people get tired or take the test without honest intentent, thereby diluting the pool of positive indicators and skewing the statistical result) does not apply to a single individual taking the test. In the individual case you either discriminate and identify or you don’t.

 

[bodhi]

Agreed. Blind testing for audible differences is hard, not pleasant, and many people understandably avoid.

Depends on how you approach it. I did some testing a while back to get some background info for forum argument about youtube audio quality with the OPUS codec.

I only had to do it for couple of minutes to get 100% certain result: whether or not I could have scored a passing result (very unlikely) it wouldn't matter at all in any normal music listening situation.

 

[pablolie]

My statistics is really rusty so I have been wading in the shallow end a bit lately. It seems to me that Thorsten is applying known issues of ABX testing ...

I for one would never claim "all ABX tests are rigged", nor would I claim "All ABX tests are valid". Either depends on many factors.

I'll talk for myself: I would never feel comfortable trying to listen to the minute differences that may exist between competently designed equipment or different music formats in an environment that isn't my very own, with tracks that aren't my own, and with equipment that isn't mine and I haven't set up. But those who do can not complain after the fact. They agreed to be a test sample and represent a very valid statistic in proving their self-confidence in succeeding in such a test wasn't warranted. The test proves that X out of Y individuals failed to love up to the standard they agreed to be measured against. The test does not prove that the equipment is measurably better or worse, the music format sucks, etc etc.

The Archimago tests were well made inasmuch as it allowed people to test their self-proclaimed capabilities with their own gear, in their own preferred location - pretty good parameters. I did the test. I wasn't familiar with the tracks, so I seem to recall except for one track (Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez, castanets galore [[1]) I had no idea if there were differences and I knew I was just guessing, and I was exhausted after 4 or 5 tracks.

[1] Even though I could reliably tell a difference, I picked the wrong file as a HiRez file :-D i.e. the 2 tracks were played 6 times, and 5 times out of that I picked the same track to be HiRez (and it turned to be the 320k MP3 :-D]

 

[SIY]

Again, one has to do a very special pleading to argue that all of these supposed problems don't apply when testing tiny variations in frequency response, localization, compression and numerous other phenomena where ABX shows positive results.