[Steven Sullivan]

http://www.paudio.com/Pages/presenta...ity/sld001.htm

--

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

[BEAR]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
http://www.paudio.com/Pages/presenta...ity/sld001.htm

Several problems with it.

It assumes some things not in evidence.

The presentation claims that the 0.4dB ~50% audibility group
is effectively chance. It may well be. But, do we know if
some members of the "test group" reliably were able to detect
this threshold? No. If they were, then the conclusions drawn
are simply wrong.

Do we know what the general state of the "test subject's"
hearing is from a purely empirical point of view? The age
of the subjects pays a significant role. No.

Do we have any idea about the environment for the presumed
"test"? No. (i.e., background noise level and spectra)

Do we know anything at all about the objective measurement
of known parameters of the system being used to present the
stimuli? No. In the case of the pink noise, perhaps it doesn't
matter, but in the case of the complex source -music- perhaps
it does??

My conclusion is that this type of thinking is problematic,
as it yields a conclusion that appears to be truth, but in
fact only contains *some truth*, and is not definitive or
dispositive.

_-_-bear

PS. if we "design to" (as he puts it) the center of the bell
curve of all hearing in the general population we design for
Bose Wave Radio and iPod/MP3, yes??

[Steven Sullivan]

bear wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
http://www.paudio.com/Pages/presenta...ity/sld001.htm

Several problems with it.

It assumes some things not in evidence.

The presentation claims that the 0.4dB ~50% audibility group
is effectively chance. It may well be. But, do we know if
some members of the "test group" reliably were able to detect
this threshold? No. If they were, then the conclusions drawn
are simply wrong.

etc.

First, this is a slideshow summary, not a paper. But I know at least one reader has emailed
Moulton and gotten clarification on data behind one of the points made; I presume you can too.
Second, I think the author qualifies his claims about his results pretty well. He liberally
employs the words 'probably' and 'may be', for example. He addresses the limits of population
sampling. His conclusions (see below) *are* in line with the data.

PS. if we "design to" (as he puts it) the center of the bell
curve of all hearing in the general population we design for
Bose Wave Radio and iPod/MP3, yes??

The Bose Wave and the iPod and MP3s are not equivalent in terms of the sound quality they can
deliver. And does the author really *advocate* 'designing to the center of the bell curve'?
In fact he suggests the opposite (see slide 25) -- where he writes that te commonly accepted
definition for audibility threshold (75%) of loudness change for music (3 dB) 'might NOT be a
reasonable design standard'.

His conclusions seem rather uncontroversial to me. THey a

1) Audibility is a range, not a point (shich woudl seem to address you complaint about
the 0.4dB group, above)
2) Audibility is probabilistic, not absolute (ditto)
3) Audibility is a psychological as much or more than phsyical phenomenon.

and further that
1) there is no perfect data
2) there are no perfect experiments
3) there are no entirely valid conclusions (I would argue this with him, but he may be
referring to psychouacoustic experiments especially, or pe employing a very strict definition
of 'entirely valid')

I don't see that a careful reader of such would come away with the conclusions you fear.
Audiophiles, of course, will blanch at this deduction (even thoughit is again sprinkled with
appropriate qualifiers):

"And as a result, we have now created,a t considerable extra cost, siganl resolutions that
probably unnecessarily exceed by a significant amount any reasonably defined audible limits of
our hearing'

A skeptic must be ready to answer this: Where's the body of counterevidence about
audibility , that supports 'audiophile' claims?

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

[BEAR]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
bear wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
http://www.paudio.com/Pages/presenta...ity/sld001.htm

Several problems with it.

It assumes some things not in evidence.

The presentation claims that the 0.4dB ~50% audibility group
is effectively chance. It may well be. But, do we know if
some members of the "test group" reliably were able to detect
this threshold? No. If they were, then the conclusions drawn
are simply wrong.

etc.

First, this is a slideshow summary, not a paper. But I know at least one reader has emailed
Moulton and gotten clarification on data behind one of the points made; I presume you can too.
Second, I think the author qualifies his claims about his results pretty well. He liberally
employs the words 'probably' and 'may be', for example. He addresses the limits of population
sampling. His conclusions (see below) *are* in line with the data.

PS. if we "design to" (as he puts it) the center of the bell
curve of all hearing in the general population we design for
Bose Wave Radio and iPod/MP3, yes??

The Bose Wave and the iPod and MP3s are not equivalent in terms of the sound quality they can
deliver. And does the author really *advocate* 'designing to the center of the bell curve'?
In fact he suggests the opposite (see slide 25) -- where he writes that te commonly accepted
definition for audibility threshold (75%) of loudness change for music (3 dB) 'might NOT be a
reasonable design standard'.

His conclusions seem rather uncontroversial to me. THey a

1) Audibility is a range, not a point (shich woudl seem to address you complaint about
the 0.4dB group, above)
2) Audibility is probabilistic, not absolute (ditto)
3) Audibility is a psychological as much or more than phsyical phenomenon.

and further that
1) there is no perfect data
2) there are no perfect experiments
3) there are no entirely valid conclusions (I would argue this with him, but he may be
referring to psychouacoustic experiments especially, or pe employing a very strict definition
of 'entirely valid')

I don't see that a careful reader of such would come away with the conclusions you fear.
Audiophiles, of course, will blanch at this deduction (even thoughit is again sprinkled with
appropriate qualifiers):

"And as a result, we have now created,a t considerable extra cost, siganl resolutions that
probably unnecessarily exceed by a significant amount any reasonably defined audible limits of
our hearing'

A skeptic must be ready to answer this: Where's the body of counterevidence about
audibility , that supports 'audiophile' claims?

Steven,

There is no need to rehash the past years of discussion on this topic.

The key conclusion that you restate above contains the keyword "unnecessarily":
"signal resolutions that probably unnecessarily exceed...limits...". 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??
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).

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.

_-_-bear


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

[Skeeter]

Hello Steve:

On Jun 29, 6:43 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
http://www.paudio.com/Pages/presenta...ity/sld001.htm
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Like most studies, I do find it somewhat interesting reading. I do
not find any suggestions, implications, or conditional conclusions
from this slide show to be of any value or importance to me
personally. But still interesting and amusing reading.

As stated on the author's second slide, "Why Should We Worry About
This?". This is a meaningful statement/query that frames this study
in it's proper light. The allusions to controversies and obsessions,
along with the implications of "wars" over cables, tubes, analog/
digital, etc... has nothing in substance to offer a high fidelity
sound hobbyist or purist. This type of language serves to encourage
emotional response to the study topic.

Threshold of hearing, and the ability to discriminate small
differences in amplitude or volume is not critically important to me
in my pursuit of high fidelity sound reproduction. I can reliably
note differences during AB and ABX testing of approximately 1.5
decibels. This is neither fantastic nor poor recognition, and to me
it does not contribute greatly to any sensory ability to identify
naturalness, complex details, comparative ambiance, or any other
aspect of witnessing a sonic event that is critical to high fidelity
sound reproduction.

That said, when comparing audio gear in an AB or ABX setting, it is
very important to match the levels as closely as possible. Less than
a decibel when possible is preferable, the less the better. Even
though I cannot reliably note less than a 1.5 decibel difference in
level, I have experienced the natural preference for the slightly
louder setup even though I could not identify it as a SPL difference.
Therefore, I know that I can sense a difference in SPL before my
reasoning can reliably identify it.

I agree that pink noise is far easier to discriminate level
differences than most music would be. Pink noise is consistent, and
full spectrum while music is inconsistent in momentary level, variable
in frequency, full of transients, etc... This is why pink noise is
generally used to set levels, find room resonances/modes, and
equalisation.

Studies such as this are attempting to quantify general perceptions of
a sample of populace. I really don't personally worry about what any
other human hears. It's not my hearing that is being studied, it's a
group of other people's hearing. Because there are other humans in
the study, it may be relative to my hearing experience, but not exact
or characteristic to me personally.

My personal conclusions of the slide show is that "audibility" as
reported is kind of interesting and amusing to read about, and not
very important or relevant to me in terms of high fidelity sound
reproduction.

Cheers,
Skeeter.

[Steven Sullivan]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

[Steven Sullivan]

Skeeter wrote:

Threshold of hearing, and the ability to discriminate small
differences in amplitude or volume is not critically important to me
in my pursuit of high fidelity sound reproduction. I can reliably
note differences during AB and ABX testing of approximately 1.5
decibels. This is neither fantastic nor poor recognition, and to me
it does not contribute greatly to any sensory ability to identify
naturalness, complex details, comparative ambiance, or any other
aspect of witnessing a sonic event that is critical to high fidelity
sound reproduction.

That said, when comparing audio gear in an AB or ABX setting, it is
very important to match the levels as closely as possible. Less than
a decibel when possible is preferable, the less the better. Even
though I cannot reliably note less than a 1.5 decibel difference in
level, I have experienced the natural preference for the slightly
louder setup even though I could not identify it as a SPL difference.
Therefore, I know that I can sense a difference in SPL before my
reasoning can reliably identify it.

Well, tehre tyou go; despite your belief stated in'graf 1above, in fact you, like many/most
people, are prone to interpreting a simple difference in 'volume' as a difference in 'quality'
(preference). I would suggest then that your discrimination of small level differences may
well 'contribute greatly' to you sensory abilities to identify 'naturalness' or whatever.

I agree that pink noise is far easier to discriminate level
differences than most music would be. Pink noise is consistent, and
full spectrum while music is inconsistent in momentary level, variable
in frequency, full of transients, etc... This is why pink noise is
generally used to set levels, find room resonances/modes, and
equalisation.

Studies such as this are attempting to quantify general perceptions of
a sample of populace. I really don't personally worry about what any
other human hears. It's not my hearing that is being studied, it's a
group of other people's hearing. Because there are other humans in
the study, it may be relative to my hearing experience, but not exact
or characteristic to me personally.

Indeed...that's why the author uses the language of probability.

My personal conclusions of the slide show is that "audibility" as
reported is kind of interesting and amusing to read about, and not
very important or relevant to me in terms of high fidelity sound
reproduction.

Your self-report above suggests it's quite relevant, whether you choose
to believe so or not.

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

[BEAR]

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.


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.


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.


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.


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??

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. 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...

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

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?)

_-_-bear

[Steven Sullivan]

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*.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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'.

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Skeeter" wrote in message

Hello Steve:

On Jun 29, 6:43 pm, Steven Sullivan
wrote:
http://www.paudio.com/Pages/presenta...ity/sld001.htm
___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through
simile, analogy, metaphor, narrative and, sometimes,
claymation." - B. Mason

Like most studies, I do find it somewhat interesting
reading. I do not find any suggestions, implications, or
conditional conclusions from this slide show to be of any
value or importance to me personally. But still
interesting and amusing reading.

If audibility of equipment performance parameters isn't interesting to you,
then why would you bother to spend money on high performance audio
equipment?

As stated on the author's second slide, "Why Should We
Worry About This?". This is a meaningful statement/query
that frames this study in it's proper light.

But apparently only "interesting and amusing" and completely without
"suggestions, implications, or
conditional conclusions"?

The allusions to controversies and obsessions, along with the
implications of "wars" over cables, tubes, analog/
digital, etc... has nothing in substance to offer a high
fidelity sound hobbyist or purist.

It's true that those controversies are over issues that have nothing of
substance to offer a high
fidelity sound hobbyist or purist. They are all issues that have been
resolved for a long time. They are only of interest to ragazines and
retailers who seek to recuscitate them for fun and profit.

This type of language
serves to encourage emotional response to the study
topic.

Appropriate, as they are only emotional issues.

Threshold of hearing, and the ability to discriminate
small differences in amplitude or volume is not
critically important to me in my pursuit of high fidelity
sound reproduction.

If audibility of equipment performance parameters isn't interesting to you,
then why would you bother to spend money on high performance audio equipment
as part of your pursuit of high fidelity sound reproduction?

I can reliably note differences
during AB and ABX testing of approximately 1.5 decibels.

Depending on the circumstances, this is pretty weak.

This is neither fantastic nor poor recognition,

More like the latter.

and to me
it does not contribute greatly to any sensory ability to
identify naturalness, complex details, comparative
ambiance, or any other aspect of witnessing a sonic event
that is critical to high fidelity sound reproduction.

If you can't hear fairly large differences, then why bother pursuing high
fidelity sound reproduction?

[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

[Skeeter]

Hello Arnold:

On Jul 8, 11:58 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Skeeter" wrote in message
Like most studies, I do find it somewhat interesting
reading. I do not find any suggestions, implications, or
conditional conclusions from this slide show to be of any
value or importance to me personally. But still
interesting and amusing reading.

If audibility of equipment performance parameters isn't interesting to you,
then why would you bother to spend money on high performance audio
equipment?

I would not categorize the ability to discern minute differences in
SPL a very important "equipment performance parameter". Perhaps I did
not understand the slide show... My ken on it was to test the ability
of a selected group of humans to identify small differences in SPL.
In my experience and my opinion, this ability or talent is somewhat
important, but not critical to high fidelity sound reproduction.

As stated on the author's second slide, "Why Should We
Worry About This?". This is a meaningful statement/query
that frames this study in it's proper light.

But apparently only "interesting and amusing" and completely without
"suggestions, implications, or
conditional conclusions"?

You are not quoting my text or intention accurately. The slide show
does have several suggestions, implications, and conditional
conclusions. My comment was "I do not find any suggestions,
implications, or conditional conclusions from this slide show to be of
any value or importance to me personally. But still interesting and
amusing reading."

I can have an appreciation of anyone's efforts without personally
subscribing to the results of those efforts.

Threshold of hearing, and the ability to discriminate
small differences in amplitude or volume is not
critically important to me in my pursuit of high fidelity
sound reproduction.

If audibility of equipment performance parameters isn't interesting to you,
then why would you bother to spend money on high performance audio equipment
as part of your pursuit of high fidelity sound reproduction?

There has to be an audible output, but to me this is a given in sound
reproduction. If the average SPL of the playback is within a couple
of decibels of the original sound, this is normally good enough for
me. Now, whether the audible output is a convincing reproduction of
the original sound is what is critically important to me.

I can reliably note differences
during AB and ABX testing of approximately 1.5 decibels.

Depending on the circumstances, this is pretty weak.

This is neither fantastic nor poor recognition,

More like the latter.

Arnold, these are absolutely juvenile comments. Labeling me as being
"pretty weak with poor recognition" is like trying to poke a dog with
a stick. People will have a hard time taking you seriously with
comments of this flavour.

I can reliably identify what my natural sensory equipment allows me
to. However to clarify a possible misconception, the 1.5 decibel
difference I state is when listening to a dynamic sound reproduction.
If I am auditioning pink noise or test tones it is far easier to be
certain of small differences in SPL. Certainly to a half of a decibel
or less.

But I do not listen to pink noise or test tones except when performing
system-room-equalisation setup.

and to me
it does not contribute greatly to any sensory ability to
identify naturalness, complex details, comparative
ambiance, or any other aspect of witnessing a sonic event
that is critical to high fidelity sound reproduction.

If you can't hear fairly large differences, then why bother pursuing high
fidelity sound reproduction?

I hear what I hear. Age has handicapped me in some criteria, but
thousands of hours of purposeful listening and recording experience
has conditioned me to be more exact and discerning in other criteria.
I was "bit by the bug" of recording high fidelity sounds since the
early 70's. Attempting to create convincing replication of sonic
events is a passion to me that I cannot escape. If you have ever been
caught by this passion, you would never have asked the question.

Cheers,
Skeeter

[Steven Sullivan]

bear wrote:
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.

'Probably' and 'probable' both mean 'likely'. Always glad to help
through these difficult bits of navigation, 'bear'.

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.

Yes, I'm glad you finally admitted that. It's what I suspected your first
post was all about in the first place.

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.

It's clear your aim is to associate the slideshow with words like 'dogma'
and audiophile 'pariahs' like Bose and mp3s. Which is cute but rather
transparent.

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?

Well, if transparency is a goal, then I'd say they were designed *to* the
limit, not beyond.

And of course one has to keep historical context in mind, e.g, the
evolution of the LAME mp3 codec. If 320 kbps *today* is in excess to
requirements, that because codecs at lower bitrates, and in general, have
gotten *so much better* over the course of the last decade.

(And, too, even today 320 kbps *might* stumble over 'killer' samples [the
very samples used to improve codecs], or *might* be detectable on 'normal'
sources by an exceptionally well-trained and sensitive ear for mp3
artifacts. None of which falsifies the statement I made above...the one
end with the phrase 'to a very large extent')

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...

My bad! You got me on two *essential* points! Yes, maybe someone,
somewhere,advocates recording and archiving to mp3 over other formats
(could you find tehm for me, please?) ; and yes, it's a slide show, not an
article...as I pointed out previously.

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!

er...no, I'm afraid you don't see. I meant that there tends not to be
much factual basis -- science 'n stuff -- behind audiophile claims.
Whew, another shoal navigated!

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!!

Oh, you're right, I can see how confusing that must have been. I was
assuming you're the same 'bear' who has actually been here before. My bad
again! You'd have no idea whatever what I was talking about . I should
have written *audiophools*. Or maybe 'longtime subscribers to The
Absolute Sound'? Clearer now?

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?

Wow, doesn't audibility factor into the design of silver cables? Are they
designed 'for the middle of the curve' or for some other region?

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.

Oh, you mean you're not promulgating your *own* set of biases? My bad
again!

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?

etc

What's wrong is you're comparing some 'studies' you've made up, which use
unqualified language in its conclusions, to the slideshow I pointed to,
which *does* use qualified language, and which does not pretend to be
primary data.

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

[BEAR]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

snip


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

'Probably' and 'probable' both mean 'likely'. Always glad to help
through these difficult bits of navigation, 'bear'.

Suggest you might want to obtain a better quality dictionary?
There are differences, graduations and shades of meaning, perhaps even
subtleties, especially as used in practice.

Sort of like the same thing in audio equipment?

I'll stick with my original statement and say that they do NOT mean
the "same 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.

Yes, I'm glad you finally admitted that. It's what I suspected your first
post was all about in the first place.

Huh? That his conclusion is nebulous conjecture? Ok.




snip

*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.

It's clear your aim is to associate the slideshow with words like 'dogma'
and audiophile 'pariahs' like Bose and mp3s. Which is cute but rather
transparent.

I see, so you claim that Bose is a pariah? And now you no longer think
that mp3 is a viable or "accurate" format, because it is somehow a
pariah? You've lost me on the logic of your assertion(s).


snip


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

Well, if transparency is a goal, then I'd say they were designed *to* the
limit, not beyond.

And, where precisely is that limit to be found or how/where is it defined??
It would seem to me that IF said "limit" can not be rather precisely
defined both in a theoretical and pragmatic/empirical way that the only
choice available in order to meet the "limit" is to be certain to maximize
performance in (virtually) all regards. Is there an other way?


And of course one has to keep historical context in mind, e.g, the
evolution of the LAME mp3 codec. If 320 kbps *today* is in excess to
requirements, that because codecs at lower bitrates, and in general, have
gotten *so much better* over the course of the last decade.

(And, too, even today 320 kbps *might* stumble over 'killer' samples [the
very samples used to improve codecs], or *might* be detectable on 'normal'
sources by an exceptionally well-trained and sensitive ear for mp3
artifacts. None of which falsifies the statement I made above...the one
end with the phrase 'to a very large extent')

So your tactic is to qualify your statements so that you do not have
to be pinned down or have to defend your positions? A good debate
tactic for sure.


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.

snip

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

My bad! You got me on two *essential* points! Yes, maybe someone,
somewhere,advocates recording and archiving to mp3 over other formats
(could you find tehm for me, please?) ; and yes, it's a slide show, not an
article...as I pointed out previously.

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

snip

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!

er...no, I'm afraid you don't see. I meant that there tends not to be
much factual basis -- science 'n stuff -- behind audiophile claims.
Whew, another shoal navigated!


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!!

Oh, you're right, I can see how confusing that must have been. I was
assuming you're the same 'bear' who has actually been here before. My bad
again! You'd have no idea whatever what I was talking about . I should
have written *audiophools*. Or maybe 'longtime subscribers to The
Absolute Sound'? Clearer now?

So, you think if anyone subscribes to a magazine such as Absolute Sound, then
they are some sort of "fool" or "audiophool" as you put it? So you are saying
that all (longtime) subscribers to that magazine are of one mind? Interesting
view of the world.


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?

Wow, doesn't audibility factor into the design of silver cables? Are they
designed 'for the middle of the curve' or for some other region?

Silver cables? I don't recall Moulton mentioning that. Did I miss something?


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.

Oh, you mean you're not promulgating your *own* set of biases? My bad
again!

Where are my biases mentioned? Moulton didn't seem to mention me.
The bias seems to be yours Steven, by posting the thread, which seems to be
motivated by a rather strong intent to champion a specific point of view. One
which you and Moulton coincidentally both seem to feel the need to equivocate
through the use of phrases like "probably" and "very large extent" etc...

Look, Steven, it's fine by me to have a point of view and philosophy about
all these things. But, is it REALLY necessary to bash everyone else that may
or may not agree with you in the process? Does that make your position stronger
or weaker?? More persuasive or less persuasive??

Must everyone agree with you and/or Moulton?
Are your views and Moulton's definitive and accepted as beyond critique??


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?

etc

What's wrong is you're comparing some 'studies' you've made up, which use
unqualified language in its conclusions, to the slideshow I pointed to,
which *does* use qualified language, and which does not pretend to be
primary data.

Sorry? What???
What do you mean by "qualified language" in this context?
Steven, surely you comprehend that the purpose of my narrative was to
illustrate a point - using a pitch commonly used, btw, in advertising
today for oatmeal and oat products (right?) - not to present an actual
argument ABOUT the efficacy of cholesterol lowering via oatmeal. You do
understand this? Please reassure us of this?

So, why pretend to miss the key point of the narrative?
Perhaps to avoid dealing with it entirely?

_-_-bear

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

[Skeeter]

Hello Steven:

(Sorry if this is a somewhat duplicate reply. I did send a reply over
a week ago but I have not received notification from the moderator and
I have yet to see it in the forum)

On Jul 6, 11:23 am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Skeeter wrote:
Threshold of hearing, and the ability to discriminate small
differences in amplitude or volume is not critically important to me
in my pursuit of high fidelity sound reproduction. I can reliably
note differences during AB and ABX testing of approximately 1.5
decibels. This is neither fantastic nor poor recognition, and to me
it does not contribute greatly to any sensory ability to identify
naturalness, complex details, comparative ambiance, or any other
aspect of witnessing a sonic event that is critical to high fidelity
sound reproduction.
That said, when comparing audio gear in an AB or ABX setting, it is
very important to match the levels as closely as possible. Less than
a decibel when possible is preferable, the less the better. Even
though I cannot reliably note less than a 1.5 decibel difference in
level, I have experienced the natural preference for the slightly
louder setup even though I could not identify it as a SPL difference.
Therefore, I know that I can sense a difference in SPL before my
reasoning can reliably identify it.

Well, tehre tyou go; despite your belief stated in'graf 1above, in fact you, like many/most
people, are prone to interpreting a simple difference in 'volume' as a difference in 'quality'
(preference). I would suggest then that your discrimination of small level differences may
well 'contribute greatly' to you sensory abilities to identify 'naturalness' or whatever.

You are free to suggest away. I failed to include how I use AB or ABX
testing when auditioning equipment, so this may help to qualify my
remarks.

I use AB or ABX testing as the second last procedure when auditioning
equipment. At this stage of comparison, the equipment being
considered has proven to be quite comparable in quality of sonic
reproduction. The use of AB or ABX testing enables quick analysis and
comparison of sonic characteristics that can be evaluated in a short
period of time. Many times it has helped me "cut to the chase"
promptly and decisively when attempting to make a somewhat difficult
choice.

Very small SPL differences can make a difference in this type of
audition when AB or ABX testing.

Differences in SPL do not cloud evaluation when comparing sonic
sources that are "yards apart" in terms of convincing audio
reproduction. I would never choose to waste my time setting up an ABX
test to compare equipment that is clearly inferior or dissimilar.

In my opinion and experience, your attempt to discount or denigrate
"naturalness or whatever" is quite feeble. If the reproduction of a
sonic event is not natural and transparent in character ("essentially
characterless"), then it is not accurate regardless of how many
studies, specifications, surveys, papers, etc... that may suggest
otherwise.

I agree that pink noise is far easier to discriminate level
differences than most music would be. Pink noise is consistent, and
full spectrum while music is inconsistent in momentary level, variable
in frequency, full of transients, etc... This is why pink noise is
generally used to set levels, find room resonances/modes, and
equalisation.
Studies such as this are attempting to quantify general perceptions of
a sample of populace. I really don't personally worry about what any
other human hears. It's not my hearing that is being studied, it's a
group of other people's hearing. Because there are other humans in
the study, it may be relative to my hearing experience, but not exact
or characteristic to me personally.

Indeed...that's why the author uses the language of probability.

I don't understand the inclusion of this remark. Probability, as used
by the author in his study is concerned with the measurement of the
element of chance in a given population. It does not identify or
qualify individual differences in perception.

My personal conclusions of the slide show is that "audibility" as
reported is kind of interesting and amusing to read about, and not
very important or relevant to me in terms of high fidelity sound
reproduction.

Your self-report above suggests it's quite relevant, whether you choose
to believe so or not.

I believe what I hear based upon the feedback of my personal sensory
equipment. I have always used objective methods to confirm or
disprove my subjective responses. Using totally blind setups in short
and long term scenarios is my norm for arriving at a conclusion. Even
when listening for pleasure or entertainment, I purposely never
"showboat" the electronics in plain view. It is the output that is
important.

Cheers,
Skeeter