[BEAR]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
bear wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
bear wrote:

The key conclusion that you restate above contains the keyword "unnecessarily":
"signal resolutions that probably unnecessarily exceed...limits...".
The keyword is 'probably'...it's a well-worded conclusion.

So, and equally well worded conclusion would be the converse, as long as the
word "probably" is used? I think not.

Of course not! "X is probable" does not automatically mean "its
opposite is probable too" Please! It means the converse is still
*possible*.

Steven, probably = conjecture.
Probable is a different thing.

At least in this part of the universe as we know it.
Local customs where you live may or may not diverge or be different.
I take his "well worded" conclusion to be nebulous conjecture designed to
support the dogma he is espousing.


Clearly,
this would lead the careful reader to the conclusion that I suggest regarding
MP3 and Bose Wave radios, as they are certainly designed based on extensive
statistically valid scientific testing about what people hear or do not, right??

I dont;' know about the Bose's being so tested, but some lines of JBL
speakers are so tested. But I would hardly lump all three together.
Would you lump any technology together that is based on research into
hearing? What if the different technologies have different goals?

What if they do? The point I was making is clear, it is not useful to
change the object or subject.

*You* are the one who decided to bring up Bose Wave Radios, for some
reason.

The reason is clear, if you chose to pretend for the benefit of a debate to
speak as if you do not see the connection, so be it.


Eg. so as not to unnescessarily exceed said "limits"? This seems to be the true
aim and intent of the "presentation" (as you call it).
Again,it's odd that you immediately start talking about MP3 and Bose radios, as if
that's what the author was advocating.

No. Not as if anything. MP3 is - as is generally used is a non loss free
medium,
and is intended as such. That is as a highly data compressed
medium that
provides the necessary utility so as to reproduce credible
sound, with data
compression.

Clearly, such a medium (using this data compression) is designed and intended to
meet the "center" of the 'bell curve' of "audibility" not to push beyond the
thresholds of audibility.

Why, then, have MP3 codec developers put so much work into making the
codec 'transparent'? Which, btw, they have succeeded in doing, to a very
large extent.

OH? Perhaps they are designing unnecessarily beyond some limits??
Could this be possible then?


MP3, for a fact, *can* be transparent compared to source, to many listeners. But I doubt
Moulton is advocating their use in recording studios or as 'permanent' delivery media.

The only thing I can see Moulton saying is that he disagrees with
squeezing the maximum performance from the medium... his claim being as
I read it, that one can't hear it anyhow.

MP3s are all about the tension between 'audible quality' and 'size'. In
terms of *audibility" 'maximum performance' of a codec = transparent to
course -- which, for most people for most sources, has been achieved.
Users are free to weight that against needs for storage space. But
Moulton's article isn't about MP3s, where NO ONE disagrees that you can
make them sound audibly different from source, and NO ONE advocates using
it as a recording/archiving medium.

Well, I am not sure about that last absolutist statement. Maybe someone
advocates it?

Moulton's article appears to be about Moulton and Mouton's opinions.
Although below you call it a "slide show" not an article...


Your apparently endless desire to have people respond about some nebulous
"audiophile claim(s)" and supply a body of "counter evidence" appears to be a
troll for a confrontational result which I will not participate in. There is
only ONE "body of evidence." The question is what conclusions can be drawn from
the one single body of evidence extant. About that we apparently disagree.

Audiophile claims are hardly 'nebulous' in teh sense of having a wispy
existence; the claims themselves are all too real. The factual basis
of them, not so much.

Dunno what such a thing might be??

Oh, you know, science'n'stuff.

Ah, I see, audiophile claims are science n' stuff... thanks for explaining that!

I don't know of any specific claims that can be laid upon some group called
"audiophiles" per se. Seems like those who might be called audiophiles span a
very wide range of beliefs and expertise. Hey, wait a second! You're one too!!


As I said, Steven, the "factual basis" is exactly the same "factual
basis" that you are fond of bandying about. The only differential is in
the conclusions drawn from the true facts.

A 'true fact'? What might that be? 'THe facts as bear sees them'? Does
that apply to silver cables too then?

Mud? Why mud Steven?
Why sling mud?
What in the world does "silver cables" have to to with your support of "an
interesting presentation on audibility"?? Isn't that the subject here??
Stick to the topic, unless of course you are unable to support a position if it
is closely examined?

By 'true facts' I mean the raw data and basic elements employed (as reported) in
a given paper, or in an actual test. That's all. I am saying ignore the author's
bias and see what the information really says.

Here's a simple example (not relating to audio, so that we can divorce the
emotional attachment from the idea, ok?):

They say that studies show that eating oatmeal for breakfast lowers Cholesterol.
The clinical tests clearly show a lowering of Cholesterol, statistically valid
across the board. SO, can we then say that eating oatmeal lowers Cholesterol?
Most would say yes.

BUT, if one were to look past the simple information and think for a second or
so, one might have some reservations about the CONCLUSION! Again, the statistics
and the actual clinical tests were VALID.

So, what's wrong then?
Do you know?

Simply this, we do not know if the lowering of Cholesterol was due to the
participants in the study having a metabolic change due to oatmeal OR if it was
due to CHANGING from a higher Cholesterol breakfast (eggs, bacon, sausage,
butter, etc...) to a no Cholesterol breakfast - oatmeal! (...we'd have to go
back to the original clinical trial's papers and see if that information was
published... or avoided to know for sure, right?)

Got it now, Steven?
Look past the surface to see what is NOT being said.
Draw your own conclusions, do not depend on others to tell you what to think.


That is often different than
the suggested
conclusions either published or authored by others upon
reading some sort of
paper that does contain testing or other meaningful
information...

Or, to summarize, my conclusion is that this is not a particularly
interesting presentation on audibility at all, rather a poorly written,
inconclusive, waffling and ducking piece based on the opinion of the
author. (which apparently mirrors your own?)

Slide shows tend not to be 'well written'.

Then perhaps they are not so very interesting, nor do they provide much solid
ground about the topics they purport to illuminate?

'nuff said on this topic...

_-_-bear

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason