Message to golden-eared audiophiles posting at ASR for the first time...

[antcollinet]

This is a big site and it will probably take a long while for me to dissect everything. So you don't agree with Kunchur? But he is a scientist with credentials? Otherwise he wouldn't be posting papers like this I'm assuming. So you do not agree with his conclusions or are you suggesting he is a quack? Help me to understand this a little better because as a layman when I read his paper it seemed pretty complicated and I think has references for his work.

Complicated is not the same as valid. The title "scientist" doesn't convey an inability to publish bad science.

 

[afinepoint]

This is a big site and it will probably take a long while for me to dissect everything. So you don't agree with Kunchur? But he is a scientist with credentials? Otherwise he wouldn't be posting papers like this I'm assuming. So you do not agree with his conclusions or are you suggesting he is a quack? Help me to understand this a little better because as a layman when I read his paper it seemed pretty complicated and I think has references for his work.

It needs to be peer reviewed for validation. Has it? I was a Reactor Operator for 31 years. I have a solid understanding of reactor physics and thermodynamics but in no way could write an authoritative paper on such. I realize this is an over simplification and am not attacking his qualifications or intelligence. His findings like all in science needs corroboration.

 

[Emlin]

It needs to be peer reviewed for validation. Has it? I was a Reactor Operator for 31 years. I have a solid understanding of reactor physics and thermodynamics but in no way could write an authoritative paper on such. I realize this is an over simplification and am not attacking his qualifications or intelligence. Nor do I automatically assume him wrong. That would be presumptuous. His findings like all in science needs corroboration.

I'm sure that all papers on reactor physics get glowing reviews.

 

[afinepoint]

I'm sure that all papers on reactor physics get glowing reviews.

Provided they are validated. Stay on point.

I edited my comment as the remarks regarding personal views were unnecessary and distracted from the topic. And as mentioned by a Moderator sarcasm is not constructive to intelligence discourse. Come to the table with a more mature contribution.

 

[Galliardist]

Provided they are validated. Stay on point.

When I clicked the link to the paper it told me that a peer reviewed version is now in print. I can't get to that version, which may be substantially different to the pre-press version.

On a brief read, he is repeating some of his previous errors as reported by @Newman but we should probably not criticise the pre-press item now the peer reviewed version is available.

 

[afinepoint]

When I clicked the link to the paper it told me that a peer reviewed version is now in print. I can't get to that version, which may be substantially different to the pre-press version.

On a brief read, he is repeating some of his previous errors as reported by @Newman but we should probably not criticise the pre-press item now the peer reviewed version is available.

That's all I'm saying. His paper stands up under the scrutiny of a valid peer review or it's doesn't. And if he is in error already then his entire argument is dubious.

 

[Emlin]

Provided they are validated. Stay on point.

I edited my comment as the remarks regarding personal views were unnecessary and distracted from the topic. And as mentioned by a Moderator sarcasm is not constructive to intelligence discourse. Come to the table with a more mature contribution.

Ignore button deployed.

 

[afinepoint]

So much for maturity. And you should remove the "Learning" from your signature. Moving on.

 

[Galliardist]

That's all I'm saying. His paper stands up under the scrutiny of a valid peer review or it's doesn't. And if he is in error already then his entire argument is dubious.

If only peer review guaranteed correctness.... but I'll wait and see on this one.

 

[afinepoint]

If only peer review guaranteed correctness.... but I'll wait and see on this one.

Agreed there's no guarantee. Thus my word valid. Guess there's not much more to say on this point.

 

[ahofer]

If people have this very sensitive hearing, it should be easy to demonstrate with a proper listening test.

Waiting….

 

[afinepoint]

If people have this very sensitive hearing, it should be easy to demonstrate with a proper listening test.

Waiting….

I had an audiogram done last week to see where I stand. I'm 64. The results were quite surprising.

In quick summary my hearing begins to roll off above 10k but extends to 16khz where the test was stopped.

 

[LewisWaddo]

Ten Signs that you may be suffering from Audiophilus Nervosa, the neurotic behavior of the self-described "Audiophile":

#1: You have a box full of line level interconnects but can only use two pair at any given time.
#2: You have multiple LP copies of the same title, being wrapped up in the search for "The Perfect Copy".
#3: You have, at one time or another, used a green marker on your CDs or attached "rings" to said CDs, and can hear the difference.
#4: You have adjusted VTA on your tonearm so many times, you have worn out the screws.
#5: You are "into" swapping tubes.
#6: You have "Upgraded" your electronic gear with "High-End" passive parts.
#7: You have a re-clocking device between your digital source and your DAC, and the DAC set you back $10,000.00
#8: There are scratch marks all over your floor from constantly re-positioning your heavy floorstanding speakers.
#9: You KNOW LPs sound better.
#10: You get into a pointless argument on ASR and then get blocked.

I can put a tick next to a couple of those, mainly the speaker position and multiple copies of vinyl… but that’s because I understand that the format has its flaws… I know digital sounds better, but nowt feels better than whacking on a bit of 60 year old vinyl, and it sounding awesome. My ears are shit, and I can’t really tell the difference. I do however like tangible assets, that I can pass on to my kids. I like to think that there will be a record of what I’ve enjoyed over the years, and someone down the line might get a brief snippet of my taste in music.

All nonsenses, I know…

Also!

I love ASR. Love what it offers, and love that it holds a light up to the snake oil within this industry!

Keep up the good work!

 

[Galliardist]

I had an audiogram done last week to see where I stand. I'm 64. The results were surprising.

I'm 62. I was doing OK until I had nearly two years on a painkiller that did a better job killing my high frequency hearing than the pain! Fortunately I'm off it again now.

 

[Dimitrov]

Complicated is not the same as valid. The title "scientist" doesn't convey an inability to publish bad science.

But what is your beef with this guy? Is it because he has not connected the dots between measurements and audibility? Or something else?

 

[Dimitrov]

But what is your beef with this guy? Is it because he has not connected the dots between measurements and audibility? Or something else?

Just to ask for further clarification, like what in the paper do you have a strong disagreement with? Is it the whole paper, just a few technical issues, or is it past experience reading his papers?

 

[KenA]

So much for maturity. And you should remove the "Learning" from your signature. Moving on.

Dude, he made a joke. You missed it. Let me help you. Reactors get ‘glowing’ reviews. Get it?

 

[JustJones]

One of the conclusions is High End Audio components(well measuring, high price ? No idea) require extended listening to complex music with a palate cleansing break. I didn't notice any such test conducted by Kunchur to support this but perhaps this is for someone else to perform. I would assume Low End Audio components ( whatever these may be) do fine with short term tests.

13. The SSC (short segments compared back-to-back)
listening protocol, may be adequate for simple tasks such
as detecting level changes in a sinusoid. Real-world audio
distortions sprinkle myriad tiny variations all over the
NEP. This complex pattern of change cannot be handled
by the extremely limited short-term memory. Blind
listening tests for comparing subtle differences between
HEA components requires an EMP (extended multiple
passes of listening to complex music) protocol. Having a
“palate cleansing” break (preferably ~1 minute or longer)
between stimuli resets short-term memory and recruits the
durable and infinitely more detailed long-term memory.

 

[Galliardist]

Just to ask for further clarification, like what in the paper do you have a strong disagreement with? Is it the whole paper, just a few technical issues, or is it past experience reading his papers?

Kunchur's past papers have had errors (see @Newman's post above). He has shown in the past an agenda to try to prove standard measurements and double blind measurement technique inadequate to assess audio reproduction, and the language is there in the draft article again. He has made mistakes in previous papers as well.

However, to condemn the draft paper as shown here would be unfair to the peer reviewers, now a reviewed version has been published.

 

[Dimitrov]

Kunchur's past papers have had errors (see @Newman's post above). He has shown in the past an agenda to try to prove standard measurements and double blind measurement technique inadequate to assess audio reproduction, and the language is there in the draft article again. He has made mistakes in previous papers as well.

However, to condemn the draft paper as shown here would be unfair to the peer reviewers, now a reviewed version has been published.

Okay but disregarding previous papers, if we just focus on the paper I linked to, what is there that you disagree with? Do you disagree with what he says in principle, is it because there is a lack of evidence? I'm just trying to understand the various points of view on this because there is always nuances and rarely is anything cut and dry. I don't know the author, I get the feeling people here don't take him seriously, so I'm just trying to put 1+1 together.