There's some vinyl rips from Michael Fremer available here, so it's possible to get at least some insight into the sound out of his phono preamp.  The downloads are the two "Step Right Up" AIFF files.  I'm not taking sides here, just mentioning this as an FYI.

BTW, I tried these in Foobar and they didn't work, but I don't know why.  Winamp plays them okay though.

If the 'remedies' are onbly 'effective' through the placebo effect, it's not the substance of the remedies that is causing the effect.

And who cares how many believe something that has not been properly tested* except as examples of the power of belief and human gullibility?  If the ubiquity of the belief was enough to serve as 'proof', then scientific testing would not be necessary.  Unfortunately, enough widely-believed 'remedies' have proved to have no effect of their own, that one can't take widespread belief as an indicator of fact.

(*there is scientific evidence for effectiveness of chicken soup against cold)

It's a) an iillustration, therefore of minor concern, b) an analogy, and will, as I have said, fall aprt when examined too closely. I don't see the need to carry on a debate with multiple posters on something that that I think trivial. YMMV.

The point you're ignoring is the benefit derived, whether or not it was a placebo. Benefit is benefit. Furthermore, if it helps people to be happier, than it simply can't be dismissed, out of hand, as inconsequential. Just because something doesn't agree with your beliefs doesn't mean it isn't real. It doesn't matter what people believe, what matters is that the effect has been proven to exist in a meaningful way through the rigors of scientific testing. It seems to me as if you're simply ignoring the facts which don't fit in your viewpoint.

Again,this is not at odds with what I have written. I would note that tradeoff between "perceived sound quality problems" and the degree of compression is a personal one. And again, I don't understand what damage is being done to someone who rips, say, at 256kbps when 192kbps is the current level where he cannot distinguish the MP3 from the uncompressed file? Surely the damage occurs in the opposite direction, when he rips at a lower bit rate than he finds transparent? And nothing I have published would lead to that situation.

The problem here is that both sides concentrate on individual components and I don't think this serves any purpose other than to create a clash of the orthodoxies. Audiophiles believe they can hear a difference between badge engineered CD players and HA members would dismiss such claims as laughable... testing that out is merely re-starting a paused fight. So instead it should be a systemic test - audiophile system (set up by audiophiles, as high-end, high-resolution and 'system matched' as possible) against prosaic equipment under double-blind and level-matched conditions. ABX test lossless vs. MP3 on one system. Repeat the same test on the other system. Do the same test as many times as possible. Stress upon the listeners that this is not to determine qualities of the systems under test, but instead to see if ABX results are altered by changes in the replay chain itself.

Quote from: krabapple on 2009-05-04 07:01:27

Ah. Another 4/4 result   

If you are implying dishonesty on my part here, please do so directly. I prefer my criticism bare-faced and up-front.

Quote

This one with the added feature of near-instantaneous identification of very high bitrate lossy fiels made with the presumably good AAC codec. 

This raises all kinds of flags.

Please elucidate. What flags?

Again,this is not at odds with what I have written. I would note that tradeoff between "perceived sound quality problems" and the degree of compression is a personal one.

Quote from: andy_c on 2009-05-04 01:01:32

There's some vinyl rips from Michael Fremer available here, so it's possible to get at least some insight into the sound out of his phono preamp.  The downloads are the two "Step Right Up" AIFF files.  I'm not taking sides here, just mentioning this as an FYI.

BTW, I tried these in Foobar and they didn't work, but I don't know why.  Winamp plays them okay though.

Cool Edit Pro had no problem identifying them, and let me save them out as ordinary windows .wav files.

The bit order used was indeed LSB, MSB.

Any idea what the difference is between the two versions?

Quote from: krabapple on 2009-05-04 07:08:38

If the 'remedies' are onbly 'effective' through the placebo effect, it's not the substance of the remedies that is causing the effect.

And who cares how many believe something that has not been properly tested* except as examples of the power of belief and human gullibility?  If the ubiquity of the belief was enough to serve as 'proof', then scientific testing would not be necessary.  Unfortunately, enough widely-believed 'remedies' have proved to have no effect of their own, that one can't take widespread belief as an indicator of fact.

(*there is scientific evidence for effectiveness of chicken soup against cold)

The point you're ignoring is the benefit derived, whether or not it was a placebo. Benefit is benefit.

Furthermore, if it helps people to be happier, than it simply can't be dismissed, out of hand, as inconsequential. Just because something doesn't agree with your beliefs doesn't mean it isn't real. It doesn't matter what people believe, what matters is that the effect has been proven to exist in a meaningful way through the rigors of scientific testing. It seems to me as if you're simply ignoring the facts which don't fit in your viewpoint.

... and yes, chicken soup can be beneficial, but I'd bet you're unable to explain the mechanism of that benefit, just as we cannot explain all the interactions in the audio arena.

most of the ca. 1990 Stereo Review ABX tests of power amplifiers and CD players were performed using large Magnepan's in a relatively large well-designed room that conformed to the IEC listening room standards of the day.

IMO you're worrying about an issue that was settled long ago in a different context. Not only that, but you've excluded a rich middle range of excellent loudspeakers from your discussion.

I'm familiar with speakers of the kind you mention for your first two alternatives. Used appropriately, the CV's are proabably not all that much less revealing of codec faults than the Genelecs. Besides balance and smoothness, studio monitors generally have a lot more dynamic range than small home speakers, and this can cost serious money to implement. The Magicos are simply rediculous, you can no doubt find something in the Paradigm catalog with a similar design and maybe even better performance, for a few percent of the price. The Genelecs chosen are almost as rediculous as the Magicos. Genelec is best known for studio monitor speakers more of the size and general configuration as the CVs. albeit for about 20 times the money.

Most codec faults seem to be present in the middle and upper frequency ranges, so bass extension is not usually a big issue.

In your experience, per what you are currently saying.

It has been done.  No special joy.

I think that Gizmodo's mention of Fremer's wildly over-priced speakers with questionable technical performance has skewed some people's perceptions of what it takes to obtain  dynamic, good-sounding and highly revealing loudspeakers.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2009-05-04 14:50:00

most of the ca. 1990 Stereo Review ABX tests of power amplifiers and CD players were performed using large Magnepan's in a relatively large well-designed room that conformed to the IEC listening room standards of the day.

Granted, but sadly such tests remain a thing of the past. If the only sources of information on hardware don't seem willing to discuss the products on the basis of blind testing, aren't our hardware selection processes dreadfully arbitrary?

I'm not implying dishonesty, for god's sake.  I'm saying that a four-trial test won't provide very robust standalone proof of effect....as was noted earlier in this thread, when Fremer and Atkinson reported 4/5 and 5/5 results in an old amplifier DBT, as if htis was slam-dunk proof of claim.

Methodological ones.  When suddenly a result appears that is not just unusual, but almost 180 degrees in apposition to the bulk of previous results, one first checks carefully that the method was not flawed.
And I'm talking more about the ease of detection here, not the 4/4 result itself.

Except, both 'sides' don't focus on individual components.  One side says that two different modern amps picked at random, and compared level-matched, double-blind, and not being driven into distortion, are more likely than not to sound the same.  Ditto (with appropriate provisos) digital players, cables, preamps.  NOT the case for transducers, analog gear, tube stages.

Also, you commit a common fallacy here -- writing as if the evidence up front supports both sides equally, and therefore the same burden of proof lies on both sides.  You ignore the *reasons why* each side believes what it does.  One side can point to hearing thresholds, experimental evidence for fallibility of perception, measurements of the technology itself and the way the technology works.  The other side points to the 'fact' that it has more discriminating ears than the average listener, has better gear than the average hobbyist, and that science can't measure everything.  Where the measurements indicate little or no likelihood of audible difference, one side accepts that , the other believes that (sighted) report of audible difference trumps measurements.

Could people please look again at Gag Halfrunt's proposal.

Quote from: MichaelW on 2009-05-04 17:54:51

Could people please look again at Gag Halfrunt's proposal.

German c't magazine has tried this (MP3 vs. CD audio) with 12 listeners out of 300 who had applied in 2000. Equipment was a pair B&W Nautilus 803 speakers, a Marantz CD14 as DAC and a Marantz PM14 integrated amp. It was a huge success for MP3, which was still in early stages when compared to todays tuned encoders. MP3 at 256kbit/s reached exactly the same statistical score as CD audio (501 points) and MP3 at 128kbit/s was slightly off (439) with only 1% probability of error. Most of the time, when differences between MP3-128 and CDA could be perceived, MP3 was rated higher than CD audio. All attendees had expressed to have better than average ears before the test. AAC wasn't available to the public back then.

I would also like to see a new round of this with current encoders.

You seem to think published DBTs (or lack of same) are our ONLY sources of information on hardware.  This implies that measured performance of hardware never indicates whether it will be audibly different.  Is that what you believe?

It also implies that the sound of the hardware is the only criterion we use for selecting hardware....is that what you believe?

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2009-05-03 12:47:25

I know some people actually believe that, but in fact that is an idealistic expectation.  It is all about image. Look at how Atkinson cherry-picks points to reply to. Look at how people here get distracted by that.

Actually, Mr. Atkinson's evasiveness has been repeatedly commented on, and seems to be quite apparent to most here. I don't think he's scoring any points at all with that little trick.

Quote from: krabapple on 2009-05-04 17:01:13

You seem to think published DBTs (or lack of same) are our ONLY sources of information on hardware.  This implies that measured performance of hardware never indicates whether it will be audibly different.  Is that what you believe?

It also implies that the sound of the hardware is the only criterion we use for selecting hardware....is that what you believe?

No... and no.

That being said, I am highly suspect of measured performance ratings made by less than scrupled loudspeaker manufacturers. SoundStage AV is a useful source of information, but for a UK buyer it leaves one with a very small pool of products. I'm not sure I trust the measurements of magazines otherwise.

However, I am also aware that this means many people use no selection process whatsoever apart from price, because there's nothing other than the creative writing versions of audio magazines these days.

German c't magazine has tried this (MP3 vs. CD audio) with 12 listeners out of 300 who had applied in 2000. Equipment was a pair B&W Nautilus 803 speakers, a Marantz CD14 as DAC and a Marantz PM14 integrated amp. The test was supervised by a recording engineer of Deutsche Grammophon. It was a huge success for MP3, which was still in early stages when compared to todays tuned encoders. MP3 at 256kbit/s reached exactly the same statistical score as CD audio (501 points) and MP3 at 128kbit/s was slightly off (439) with only 1% probability of error. Most of the time, when differences between MP3-128 and CDA could be perceived, MP3 was rated higher than CD audio. All attendees had expressed to have better than average ears before the test and had to provide some proof of qualification to get into the final selection. AAC wasn't available to the public back then.

I would also like to see a new round of this with current encoders.

Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on 2009-05-04 15:23:21

Any idea what the difference is between the two versions?

Hehe, you'll love this .  The link to these files was originally posted by Michael Fremer over in the "Furutech demag" thread at the Stereophile forum.  One of the files was taken after "LP demagnetization"  and the other not.  If I recall correctly, Axon looked at these and found a 0.6 percent speed difference, which in itself raises some questions ("hey, what do you want from a $100,000 turntable anyway?").

Failing that, someone will invent a Ward-Off MP3 spell they can cast.

Please don't lump loudspeakers in with all other classes of home audio hardware.  Every 'objectivist' accepts that loudspeakers (and to an extent other transducers) are likely going to 1) sound different ; 2) be particularly difficult to set up a good DBT for  and 3) have less definite metrics for judging sound quality than we have for mere difference.  (But even given that, Stereophile itself usually publishes substantial and useful bench tests of loudspeakers...far more comprehensive than most other audio journals I've seen)

For CD players, cables, amps, preamps, however, the question is present at the start : do the really sound differemt at all?  And there we have more than just DBT results from which to make reasonable predictions.

If you establish an audio system that uses a good pair of loudspeakers ('good' in this context implies it performs well from both audiophile and objective standings) but then connect it to what audiophiles would dismiss as a ho-hum design (because it doesn't have the right label or doesn't weigh enough), you are simply giving them ammo to shoot down the test.

Even if their ammo is nothing but blanks, it still makes a loud noise to other audiophiles.

So, you make the test as audiophile-friendly as possible, using expensive cables, tables and the rest (albeit you make it clear you are doing so under sufferance). Turn your nose up at the temple bells, though.