And again, the eternal question of lenses versus sensors

On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:36:40 +1200, Eric Stevens
wrote:

Please give a few examples of these "countless double-blind tests".

here's one:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195
Claims both published and anecdotal are regularly made for audibly
superior sound quality for two-channel audio encoded with longer word
lengths and/or at higher sampling rates than the 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD
standard. The authors report on a series of double-blind tests
comparing the analog output of high-resolution players playing
high-resolution recordings with the same signal passed through a
16-bit/44.1-kHz ³bottleneck.² The tests were conducted for over a
year using different systems and a variety of subjects. The systems
included expensive professional monitors and one high-end system with
electrostatic loudspeakers and expensive components and cables. The
subjects included professional recording engineers, students in a
university recording program, and dedicated audiophiles. The test
results show that the CD-quality A/D/A loop was undetectable at
normal-to-loud listening levels, by any of the subjects, on any of
the playback systems. The noise of the CD-quality loop was audible
only at very elevated levels.

I thought you would come out with that one. That's not a report. It's
a summary of other reports. It gives too little detail to enable any
of the tests to be evaluated.

I have already tracked down a copy of the original paper and commented
upon it. I have since encountered http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=3954
I am now of the opinion that the Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
paper is a waste of time from any point of view.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I thought you would come out with that one. That's not a report. It's
a summary of other reports. It gives too little detail to enable any
of the tests to be evaluated.

the summary might not but the article goes into more detail.

Only a little more. See http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf for the
full article.

The test results for the detectability of the 16/44.1 loop on
SACD/DVD-A playback were the same as chance: 49.82%. There were
554 trials and 276 correct answers. The sole exceptions were for the
condition of no signal and high system gain, when the difference in
noise floors of the two technologies, old and new, was readily
audible.

For some of the tests the speakers are descibed as "a pair of highly
regarded, smooth-measuring full-range loudspeakers in a rural
listening room", whatever that means The photograph Fig 2 gives me no
confidence that the speakers are up to the job and, even if there are
suitable dome or ribbon tweeter hidden behind the speaker fabric
(which I doubt), the presence of the speaker fabric will undoubtedly
attenuate the higher frequencies. There is no point in testing for the
ability of listeners to hear the difference in performance of
different sound chains if the speakers are incapable of reproducing
that difference.

seriously? you're refuting it because of some fabric in front of the
tweeter, which just about every speaker has and which has no audible
difference?

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I have already tracked down a copy of the original paper and commented
upon it. I have since encountered http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=3954
I am now of the opinion that the Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
paper is a waste of time from any point of view.

of course you don't because it shows that it's all snake oil.

do your own double-blind test (and be sure it's done properly). i
guarantee you won't be able to tell which is which.

On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:45:09 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I thought you would come out with that one. That's not a report. It's
a summary of other reports. It gives too little detail to enable any
of the tests to be evaluated.

the summary might not but the article goes into more detail.

Only a little more. See http://drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf for the
full article.

The test results for the detectability of the 16/44.1 loop on
SACD/DVD-A playback were the same as chance: 49.82%. There were
554 trials and 276 correct answers. The sole exceptions were for the
condition of no signal and high system gain, when the difference in
noise floors of the two technologies, old and new, was readily
audible.

For some of the tests the speakers are descibed as "a pair of highly
regarded, smooth-measuring full-range loudspeakers in a rural
listening room", whatever that means The photograph Fig 2 gives me no
confidence that the speakers are up to the job and, even if there are
suitable dome or ribbon tweeter hidden behind the speaker fabric
(which I doubt), the presence of the speaker fabric will undoubtedly
attenuate the higher frequencies. There is no point in testing for the
ability of listeners to hear the difference in performance of
different sound chains if the speakers are incapable of reproducing
that difference.

seriously? you're refuting it because of some fabric in front of the
tweeter, which just about every speaker has and which has no audible
difference?

And there you give yourself away. The fabric does have an audible
difference as you would know if you had ever tried a speaker with the
fabric variously on or off.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:45:10 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I have already tracked down a copy of the original paper and commented
upon it. I have since encountered http://www.realhd-audio.com/?p=3954
I am now of the opinion that the Meyer, E. Brad; Moran, David R.
paper is a waste of time from any point of view.

of course you don't because it shows that it's all snake oil.

do your own double-blind test (and be sure it's done properly). i
guarantee you won't be able to tell which is which.

What kind of double blind test keeps changing the components? And
then:

"The bold text in the abstract is at the center of my criticism. It
clearly states that the authors believed they played
“high-resolution recordings”. They didn’t. They played what the
members of their audiophile organization brought to the listening
sessions. And what they brought were SACDs and DVD-Audio (only one
of the discs was a DVD-Audio title) discs of older analog
recordings or commercial DSD 64 recordings. It’s no wonder the
participants didn’t detect any differences between the
high-resolution and CD spec versions. They were the same fidelity.
There weren’t any sonic differences."

Bunch of amatuers.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

seriously? you're refuting it because of some fabric in front of the
tweeter, which just about every speaker has and which has no audible
difference?

And there you give yourself away. The fabric does have an audible
difference as you would know if you had ever tried a speaker with the
fabric variously on or off.

if it's audio transparent, there's no difference.

on the other hand, if it's a heavy beach towel, then obviously there
will be a difference, but who does that?

and i'll bet in a double-blind test, nobody will be able to tell the
difference with normal speaker fabric either.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Bunch of amatuers.

feel free to do a better job.

On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 00:18:22 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

seriously? you're refuting it because of some fabric in front of the
tweeter, which just about every speaker has and which has no audible
difference?

And there you give yourself away. The fabric does have an audible
difference as you would know if you had ever tried a speaker with the
fabric variously on or off.

if it's audio transparent, there's no difference.

Quibblling, eh? There is no fabric which is completely audio
transparent. Just try it if you don't believe me.

on the other hand, if it's a heavy beach towel, then obviously there
will be a difference, but who does that?

and i'll bet in a double-blind test, nobody will be able to tell the
difference with normal speaker fabric either.

You would loose.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

On Thursday, 11 June 2015 10:34:16 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 00:18:22 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

seriously? you're refuting it because of some fabric in front of the
tweeter, which just about every speaker has and which has no audible
difference?

And there you give yourself away. The fabric does have an audible
difference as you would know if you had ever tried a speaker with the
fabric variously on or off.

if it's audio transparent, there's no difference.

Quibblling, eh? There is no fabric which is completely audio
transparent. Just try it if you don't believe me.

This is also true of the air but to a reduced extent.

I think they should have tested them in a vacuum ;-)

And then you wouldn't have to worry about cracks in the amp tubes
either...
--
teleportation kills

On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 02:53:10 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 11 June 2015 10:34:16 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 00:18:22 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

seriously? you're refuting it because of some fabric in front of the
tweeter, which just about every speaker has and which has no audible
difference?

And there you give yourself away. The fabric does have an audible
difference as you would know if you had ever tried a speaker with the
fabric variously on or off.

if it's audio transparent, there's no difference.

Quibblling, eh? There is no fabric which is completely audio
transparent. Just try it if you don't believe me.

This is also true of the air but to a reduced extent.

I think they should have tested them in a vacuum ;-)

Most high quality speakers have clip-on front panels and the change in
sound when they are removed or refitted is quite audible.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens