| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
One problem with your point of view. JA wasn't in the room at the time, and wasn't even aware of what was happening. And yet, even he heard a difference! He originally thought it was a different pressing!
So while this discovery wasn't conducted under strict laboratory conditions, there's enough evidence to demonstrate that the alleged effects of demagnetizing vinyl records does deserve further study to confirm if this is either true or not.
And as far as your American education system is concerned, I wouldn't trust it one damn bit. Even my own Canadian catholic high school didn't try to change the laws of nature with some religious mumbo-jumbo.
Intelligent design. Hmpf. What's wrong with you people?
Pop Quiz
Part 1
"My wife has a BA in Experimental Psychology, and I have two children with PhDs in Cancer Reasearch. They'd see those debilitating flaws, and perhaps others, about instantly."
"There must be 100,000s or more people in just the US who have enough education and/or work background to see the above flaws."
"I take the many comments supporting the above alleged experiment from people who should see the same flaws as an indictment of the teaching of Science by the American educational system."
~ Hmmm, let's see, can anyone find the logical fallacies in these statements? (I have a link to Zen and the Art of Debunkery handy iin case anyone is stumped.)
.....................................
Part 2
Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear (again), when George Tice summarized the REAL problems for folks who have trouble with getting solid results with tweaks. Can anyone recall (from 2 days ago) what they are?
1. The Audio system is not revealing enough. (I realize this one is a difficult pill to swallow. Randi thinks all high end systems sound the same, i.e., stellar; chances look good so do most Naysyaers.). You think your system is stellar, am I right? (That's the editorial "you")
2. The subject of the test is either incapable of hearing differences the tweak produces or lacks the experience in listening to tweaks. Or are DBTers simply older gentlemen who've lost their hearing above 12 Hz?
(Another bitter pill.)
3. Something is wrong with the procedure for the test. I.e., Tsk, Tsk, someone didn't follow instructions.
4. Naysayers would never dream of admitting they heard the tweak work. (Geez, this one is sooo obvious!) It would require eating too much crow on Randi's Forum or Skeptical Community.com or Hydrogen Audio.
Ok, so this one's not one of Geroge's, it's mine.
Cheerio
First I need to mention my sister is deaf, so I have the privilege of discussing things with Otologists and teaching professors. Yes, dishabituation exists, but it does take time for the auditory mechanism to recover before the same selection can once again be used for ABing. One of the keys is changing selections at proper intervals. 3-4 ABs per selection is about it.
If one does 15 or 20 ABs in a row using the same selection, obviously dishabituation has no chance of occurring. The test is basically worthless imo.
And of course there are always the concerns of spl levels which desensitize the auditory system, and of course memory, etc. Of course these afflictions also occur during sighted listening as well.
Personally, although not dbt in nature, I take days, weeks, months, or even years (in the case of the 11A) of testing before coming to a final conclusion.
I think it is just good practice to be careful and balanced.
Take care Axon.
Mr. Krueger made no logical flaws in stating his opinions. But let's actually look at his criticism of the experiment itself, again, something you evidently do not want to look at:
Quote:
"The above is *not* an experiment that is sufficient to support the conclusion that is stated above. It has two glaring errors that I personally would have noticed when I was in middle school back in the early 1960s:
(1) Not bias-controlled.
(2) There is no control sequence that is identical except for the operation of the demagnetizer."
Fortunately, the list you provide from Mr. Tice covers the experiment:
"3. Something is wrong with the procedure for the test. I.e., Tsk, Tsk, someone didn't follow instructions."
So, Mr. Krueger's criticism of the test comes under No. 3. in the list you supply. Thank you for confirming that Mr. Krueger is correct.
We've been through this one too with "Sharpeners" and "Levelers" but that thread didn't last since it's difficult to whip up forty pages of, "I'm OK and you're OK, let's buy each other a COKE and sing about it."
MF's system is listed with his reviews and his speakers were reviewed and then subsequently measured in his room. You can find that information in the Stereophile archives.
Obviously not.
Yea, Arrrrrnie! How long's it been?
Possibly it had nothing to do with "demagnetizing plastic"?
We have three inconclusive "test" results that are being interpreted in various fashions, not much to go on there. OTH we have numerous reports from the subjective camp that confirm exactly what has been reported by scores of other observers.
I've been told that would be even more impossible for Arnie to do than it would be to "demagnetize plastic".
Then you would be wrong and not sufficiently curious to go check the Furutech pages.
According to Ethan, if you listen more than once, you'll hear something different. If you move your head at all, you'll hear something different. If you think you can hear something different, you'll hear something different. If you are an audio pro who cannot be fooled, then no matter how many times you listen and move your head around, you won't hear something different. And this proves DBT's work and why it's better to measure the signal than it is to listen to the music.
However, he stated his opinions as if they were facts.
LOL, so still none of the believers are willing to stick their neck out and show they can hear the effect of "demagnetizing" an LP? The effect is profound and "obvious even to skeptics," and Toadstool heard a difference in the first three seconds, yet these people write 1000-word excuses rather than listen to a couple of 10-second clips and tell us what they heard. I rest my case.
Can any of you spell "disingenuous coward?" I didn't think so!
Also, when Frog refers to FC's demag test I should listen to, does this mean the files I tried to download repeatedly over the course of a week? Obviously I tried, and I would have gladly stated publicly what I heard or did not hear. Again, kudos to JA for mailing me the MF files so I could at least try those and comment here.
--Ethan
You know, I was thinking about that just last night, that it's possible for trace amounts of ferrous material to be in a vinyl record. But how would that affect the sound whether magnetized or not? If record needles were still made of steel I suppose some interaction is possible. But needles are made from non-magnetic gems, which prevents magnetization from having an effect.
I agree with that for the most part, but it leaves out the possibility for delusion. I'm quite confident that delusion is the main driving force in this discussion.
--Ethan
I genuinely believe you're acting like an ass and I'm not afraid to say it. Does that help?
No, that doesn't help even a little. However, what would help is for you to state which files you think are Before and which are After.
--Ethan
>>> "Hell yeah! (I agree. I would rather have $2000 to spend on new records than on a demagnetizing device, but that is simply my preference.)" <<<
I understand completely what you are meaning with that sentence. The cost of ANYTHING would exercise anyone's decision making and, given $2000 of hard earned money, that would be your personal decision as to where to spend it.
But, by concentrating on the COST of an object alone, you are glossing over the problem (for the audio industry) caused by such a device as a demagnetiser "having an effect on the sound from a disc" - be it an LP or a CD !!!
The reason why it is a problem for the audio industry is because the device should not be doing what it is doing. And, if it IS doing what people are claiming it is doing, then it is something which SHOULD be investigated.
In the video recording of the Stereophile debate at the Montreal show, you say that improving the sound by applying a demagnetiser to a disc "Doesn't scare me". It may not 'scare' you but you should certainly be 'curious'. Correction, you should certainly be EXTREMELY curious, if not bordering on being quite worried. You should be worried because you don't know where the additional information (heard after applying the demagnetiser) had been hiding !
From the same video recording of the talk, I get the impression that John Atkinson realises the seriousness of it all and certainly Michael Fremer does or else why would he say that "He didn't want it (the demagnetiser) to work, he really didn't" and that the "device sat around on the floor for three months before he plucked up the courage to try it." The implications if the device DOES what people say it does is considerable.
As I said in an earlier 'posting', if Michael Fremer can describe the effect of applying a demagnetiser to a disc as :-
>>> "I trusted mine when I heard what the Furutech did, despite my utter cynicism about it (which is why it sat on the floor for 3 months before I tried it).
What I heard was so obvious, so repeatable, so clear, it was like "is that the Empire State Building?" Not "I'd better do an A/B/X to prove it really is the Empire State Building" (I know that analogy is not valid). The point is, not one skeptic---and I'm talking recording engineers, mastering engineers whose names you know, and the editor of the magazine have all heard the difference....the only reason. The only reason you wrote what's above is because you haven't experienced it. Because had you, even if you don't trust your own ears (or your own eyes I guess), this is an easily heard, easily repeatable phenomenon. It's a HUGE difference." <<<
And you, Stephen can describe your experience as:-
>>> "We only had time to try it with one LP, but, with that one LP, it made a big improvement. There is a difference and it is obvious and it is immediate. The applause at the very beginning of the LP sounds more like real applause, more like pairs of human hands coming together to make sound, and less like Styrofoam or static." <<<
Then that means that AFTER applying the demagnetiser you were both hearing additional information which allowed you to better resolve the information which was on the disc - and which MUST HAVE BEEN on the disc all the time BEFORE the demagnetiser had been applied !!! Meaning that even with the very expensive turntable which Michael Fremer had been using, he HAD NOT been 'hearing/resolving' all that additional information on the disc PRIOR to using the demagnetiser !!!!!!!!!!!!!
This logic shows WHY there is a problem facing the audio industry. Not only could Michael Fremer 'hear' the improvements in the sound (i.e additional information) but so could you, and so could John. So can Robert Deutsch when he chooses to apply the demagnetiser to some CDs when he finds that they are not giving him the good sound he is searching for !!!
So, Stephen, the actual COST of the device should not be of first concern for people seriously involved in the audio industry - and I must surely regard you as being 'seriously involved' in the audio industry, No, Yes ? The implications - for the audio industry - have nothing to do with the COST of the device. The implications are the same, even if the device was free !!
One cannot really expect the Ethan Winer's of this world to seriously investigate what must be going on because he is on record as saying
>>> "The difference between me and guys who are certain they can "hear capacitors" and hear the effect of "demagnetizing plastic" is that my hearing is thus proven superior to theirs. I never once was fooled into thinking I heard such silliness that so obviously does not exist." <<<
And :-
>>> "It IS ridiculous Stephen! And anyone who understands even the most basic aspects of science and audio knows this." <<<
Why would anyone with the frame of mind like Ethan's be prepared to spend time and energy investigating something which they regard as 'ridiculous' ?
Ethan talks about 'even the most basic aspects of science and audio' !!!
Yes, let us look at the 'basic aspects of science'. Surely Ethan must be aware that one can permanently polarise plastics ? So, I ask the question "Could something, over time, create a temporary polarisation ?" The vinyl disc is always tracked in ONE direction by the cartridge (which has a magnetic field) - in the one direction from the outer edge to the inner hole - so, could a temporary polarisation be induced on the vinyl surface over a period of time ? An effect sufficient enough to prevent ALL the information on the disc being correctly resolved ? By influencing with another polarisation (by virtue of applying a demagnetiser) could the original temporary polarisation be either eliminated or altered - so allowing ALL the information on the disc to now be resolved more correctly ? Even after the demagnetiser has been applied, could the replaying of the same disc, over time, build up another temporary polarisation on the surface of the vinyl disc ? Is this why Furutech recommend demagnetising discs, again, every few months or so ? And, is this why some people find doing just that, again gives an improvement in the sound ?
Does the 'temporary polarisation' concept also explain how people can hear an improvement in the sound after aiming a hair dryer containing tourmaline at a disc. The descriptions THEY give of the improvements they hear in the sound are practically identical to the descriptions of the improvements in the sound from people who have applied a demagnetiser to a disc !!
The FULL information is there, STORED on the disc ALL the time. Both before applying a demagnetiser etc and after applying a demagnetiser. Does the logic of this mean that for the people who have never applied a demagnetiser etc to their discs, then they are NOT resolving and have NEVER resolved ALL the information available on the discs they listen to ??????
Irrespective of what equipment they have and irrespective of what rooms they listen in ?? THIS is what I mean by the implications of it all !!
When you know - from experience - that magnets in a room (polarised objects) have an effect on the sound in that room, when you know - from experience - that batteries in a room (polarised objects) have an effect on the sound in that room, then the suggestion that 'some form of polarisation' may be involved is not as outrageous as it may first seem.
When you know - from experience - that chemicals have an effect on the sound - then such as Dieter Ennemoser with his C 37 lacquer (improving sound) and Sonus Faber with their lacquer which they apply to their speaker cabinets which is 'friendly to audio' and Nordost with their ECO 3 liquid which they say can be applied to the outer insulation of all cables (including AC power cords) - to improve sound - these no longer appear so outrageous !!
I cannot repeat often enough. There is 'something going on' which affects 'sound' and which should be seriously investigated - and not constantly dismissed as 'ridiculous'. Also, as I have said often enough. It will not be some 'new science' - it will be a better understanding of science (or sciences) which exist already - just not applied previously to audio !!
To quote you again, Stephen:-
>>> "Of course, my primary position is that the deMag influenced the sound. Because:
1. we played the record
2. we deMagged the record
3. we played the record again
4. there were immediate and obvious differences
I simply believe, based on my experience, that the deMag influenced the sound. That is what I reported. I am not concerned with what the deMag does exactly, or how. I do not think that a similar difference in sound would have resulted had we, say, blown on the record or thought nice thoughts or whatever." <<<
If you, Stephen, are "not concerned with what the deMag does exactly, or how" the people commercially involved in audio certainly should be !! If people with BOTH the cheapest audio equipment or with the most expensive audio equipment are NOT resolving correctly ALL the musical information which is on the discs and which is therefore available to them, then this is serious !!
I fully understand, with your sentence that "you are not concerned with what the deMag does, or how" you were meaning that you know it works and it would be pointless Ethan (or others) trying to convince you that it didn't !! You had heard it and that was enough for you !! My point in referring to your sentence is that, in my opinion, for 'professionals in audio' it should not be enough !!
To quote Francois Caron's reply to Arny :-
>>> "One problem with your point of view. JA wasn't in the room at the time, and wasn't even aware of what was happening. And yet, even he heard a difference! He originally thought it was a different pressing! So while this discovery wasn't conducted under strict laboratory conditions............"
>>> "there's enough evidence to demonstrate that the alleged effects of demagnetizing vinyl records does deserve further study to confirm if this is either true or not." <<<
How true !!!!!!! What about Robert Deutsch's experiences with hearing improvements in the sound from applying a demagnetiser to CDs ?????????????? Ditto all the other people who have had similar experiences - with DIFFERENT discs, through DIFFERENT equipment, in DIFFERENT rooms, in DIFFERENT locations ?????
Exactly as Jan points out :-
>>> "OTH we have numerous reports from the subjective camp that confirm exactly what has been reported by scores of other observers." <<<
Regards,
May Belt.
Great post.
I absolutely agree that we can't necessarily put down the differences to demagnetization.
I was mostly trying to point out Ethan's hegemony regarding Stephen's report of hearing differences in light of Arny's results.
Arny and Stephen heard differences, but not Ethan. I'll leave the 'why' part out!
I'm still fascinated by the potential to measure performance from play to play, even with no 'treatments' and comparing results.
Tantalizingly close now to having data to go with what some consider to be an urban legend of vinyl playback - vinyl 'rest' after being played.
Thanks for the answers, Axon, I don't expect Ethan will address his inability to hear the gross changes that Arny measured.
Hi Axon, Just wondering how you came to this conclusion concerning clipping?
I have several CDs where some tracks sound fine, others so harsh during loud passages that I can't stand to listen to them. I confirmed that there was clipping in the digital data on the CDs.
I'm sure that masking might sometimes cover mild clipping, however I believe that this often explains the harshness heard in many CDs.
I have a snapshot of the waveform, I'll try to find it and make it available here.
Ethan, after the responses you've received from Frog and particularly from Stephen along with a few other's who sit on "the other side" of your opinions, your post is what I would call truly disingenuous - and all the more insulting because you continue to rant at those who have taken you down a few notches.
You continue to insult people with your holier than thou attitude. You continue to insist only you are in possession of "The Truth" when it has become more than apparent what you have is no more than a slice of the pie. You have become the BOZO baloon that pops back up everytime it gets smashed to the ground. Except BOZO was happy to be BOZO.
Why do you do it, Ethan? Why do you continue to insult people when a consensus could easily be reached that would simply end all of the bickering, name calling and forty page threads that go nowhere? Telling us once again you have "The Truth" and we don't and someday we'll see you have been right all along is making you sound more and more like Dick Cheney and it isn't the answer. You've been given the answer to that statement ...
Now that's from someone who is not trying to stir the pot and stoke the flames and that is a reasonable answer to all of this back and forth that has gone on for years on this and dozens of other forums where you have battered people with your version of "The Truth". But you come back and insult SM and the rest of us with more of the same BS. Saying it twenty times more is making you look more and more like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. You are Rush Limbaugh insulting Colin Powell when Powell says we should move beyond the rhetoric.
So why do this? Why just start back with the insulting blather after you have been told we don't care? You have no more of the truth than anyone else. Why not accept that and move on to something more productive?
Since you bring it up again why haven't you taken FC's challenge? The files can be loaded, I know, I did it with a screwed up computer, so telling us how hard you tried is not an excuse, as it is with Arnie telling me he will ignore my challenges it is a way out for you. Why I don't know since not one of us expects an answer we haven't already heard a hundred times should you actually take the FC test.
From where I sit, Ethan, Frog has you nailed, you will not partake in any test that you do not control. How disingenuous is that? I won't even approach how cowardly that is but I think you can follow that simple logic.
Ethan, you have become the loudmouthed ranter on this forum who simply must be right no matter what anyone else says or offers as evidence. After years of this you are no more right than you were at the beginning of it all. Anyone so bent on not hearing or measuring anything while insisting they are above all of the noise of the discussion can no longer be an objective reporter. You have become the dicsussion.
This challenge you throw in everyone's face has grown old as has the bullshit of your files. Realize why no one will respond to your test and go your own way without further embarrassment to all concerned.
Please?
Good grief, Ethan! How is anyone supposed to take you as anything more than a sad joke?
The "uber-cynic" act went out with Vaudeville.
Would it help if I said I can't figure out how to get them to play on my PC? Probably not.
You want me listen to four, 10 second wave files that you claim sound identical yet I
This is precious since you're the one who accused me of not knowing how to download and play audio files.
Tip for Michael: Just click the link and the file should play. If you want to download it first (recommended), right-click instead, then select Save Target As or similar wording for your browser. Once you tell it where on your hard drive to save the file, you can play it from there as often as you want.
Yes, exactly. If you're not willing to do that, then you're trolling and not contributing to the discussion. Just like the others who can hear a big difference but are terrified to say publicly which file is which.
--Ethan
""3. Something is wrong with the procedure for the test. I.e., Tsk, Tsk, someone didn't follow instructions."
So, Mr. Krueger's criticism of the test comes under No. 3. in the list you supply. Thank you for confirming that Mr. Krueger is correct."
.................................................................................
But I'm not talking about that kind of procedure, I' m referring to being all thumbs, like the audio engineer on this forum who subjected the CD to very long period of demagnetization (using a hand-held demag IIRC - not the Furutech), working on some silly, ill-conceived theory of heat being the mechanism and ignoring a call for very short cycle times for the demag device. HE is the Pro, HE is the Decider.
But getting back to the Tice Reasons Why Audiophiles have Trouble Getting Results from Tweaks for a second: If you don't mind my saying so, Tice's 4 Reasons trump the Naysayers call for precise testing (DBT) protocols. I don't care if the DBT Protocols are God's own, or from jj's personal stash, the Tice Criteria - i.e., that the audio system is not revealing enough AND/OR the subject is inexperienced or simply can't hear - overshadow any DBT Protocol - or ANY other kind of test procedure. The Tice Criteria are undoubtedly to blame for why so many Naysayers claim to have proved some tweak or another doesn't work. Well, actually, being a generally lazy bunch, they usually only claim that somebody somewhere, using proper DBTs, will prove they don't work.
"An ordinary man has no means of deliverance." - Wm Burroughs
~ Cheers
That was a joke Ethan, at your expense. I'm not surprised you missed that.
Let me clarify my position further - you're familiar with the 'ignore' feature on the forum? I've put you on 'irrelevant'.
Got it totally. You too are terrified to state publicly which file is which. Why am I not surprised?
--Ethan
You forgot the smiley face, Ethan. Try again.
You're all a bunch of chickens (except Jan).
LOL! Actually, I've noticed a lot of things that Ethan has been sidestepping... not the least of which is my challenge to him to test his listening skills against mine by downloading FC's CD Demag files. Ethan has sidestepped Arny's revision of his measurement's. Ethan has sidestepped the fact that he wasn't able to hear a single difference between any sound card from $60 to $600, but his friend was. Ethan has sidestepped what Axon pointed out about Ethan's ignorance of petroleum engineering (which didn't stop Ethan from chiding Stephen on his ignorance of petroleum engineering??!). And as you've pointed out, Ethan complains about the gross flaws in vinyl, but yet can't hear any difference. Ethan claims a vinyl disc will naturally sound different with every play, and this is what he uses to explain the differences Stephen heard. Yet if this is so, it does not explain why ETHAN could not hear those differences!! Especially when he keeps telling us he's a "professional audio expert" with "professional listening skills". LOL!
Arny can't tell the difference between the right and left channel, or the before and after file. So there's no telling what his measurements really mean.
Axon can't say WTF the other guys were measuring, because his measurements say something different.
Ethan may be The Naked Emperor, but I think he's only one in a row of naked emperors in this thread!
Um, can I take a guess? I'm guessing it's probably because you're the biggest known coward on this forum. Too terrified to download FC's files and take a blind test that you can't cheat at, as I and Jan have challenged you to.
You ignore that challenge as many times as I've mentioned it, while you demand others take your scam vengeance test? The only response to that is, fried or bbq'ed?!
Well obviously, the reason you're the only one who can spell it is because you are one. And speaking of "disingenuous coward", why exactly are you addressing questions meant for me to someone else again? Too much of a coward to even ask me directly?
Also, when Frog refers to FC's demag test I should listen to, does this mean the files I tried to download repeatedly over the course of a week? Obviously I tried, and I would have gladly stated publicly what I heard or did not hear. Again, kudos to JA for mailing me the MF files so I could at least try those and comment here.
Yeah, DUH, those are the files I'm referring to when I challenged you to download FC's CD Demag files 3,000 times now. I can never tell if you're playing dumb or if you really are. What other CD Demag files do you think FC posted that me and Jan listened to exactly? Don't say you "tried" to download the files, just DOWNLOAD THEM ALREADY. Me and Jan were able to do so, what's your problem? Do you require JA to download them for you, put them on a CD and send you them thru the mail? If you can't figure out how to use a computer, find any 10 year old and your block, and he'll download FC's files for you. THEN you can talk about people taking your silly test, kay.
Ethan Whiner Strikes A Pose:
Nathan's projecting the wrong chicken. For those not familiar with the Chicken Hawk comix, Foghorn Leghorn starts off talking a big game but always seems to wind up on the losing end of the stick.
I just tried again with the same result - "No free download slots available."
If you continue to blame me when the problem is clearly not at my end, that just proves how disingenuous you are. Now, if you'd like to mail me a CD, that'd be great. Address here:
www.ethanwiner.com
I have no reason not to audition the files and comment. I'm the most open and honest person in this forum. Versus the name-calling chickens who know they can't really hear what they claim. So when challenged to prove they can really hear it they hide behind endless excuses and more name-calling.
--Ethan
If you don't look at the screen, all the chickens look identical. :-)
And Ethan has not yet addressed the fact that I heard a difference between what I thought were 2 different pressings of the same album, from outside Michael's listening room. I had no expectation bias; I was not paying attention as I was setting up my speaker measuring kit; yet I heard a clear difference in the bass.
I have no idea why some can't hear differences. Over on Hydrogen Audio, the denizens are insistent that low-bit-rate MP3s are sonically transparent when used properly, yet at this past week's dems I performed in Colorado, almost everyone had no problem detecting the degradation introduced by an MP3 at 128kbps after listening to a 24-bit/88.2kHz version of the same recording. Independently, the same descriptors kept coming up in each of the 10 sessions: "flat," "lifeless. "uninvolving."
So who is right here: Ethan and the logical positivists at HA, who are adamant that there no difference to be detected? Or those like Stephen Mejias, me, and the Colorado 'philes, who simply and honestly report what we perceive?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Note: I use the term "logical positivist" in the sense that their position reduces to "I can think of no reason why there should be an audible difference, ergo there is no difference."
A chicken? Ouch. I haven't been called a chicken since grade school. And if I remember correctly, that guy was also trying to get me to do something stupid.
Ethan, your disingenuousness is glaring.
I would agree with you about no expectation bias. However, some might argue that you were not substantially in the same listening position for both trials, or were you? This would question test validity, but not address whether you are in fact correct with respect that there is a real difference.
You clearly heard a difference, as you reported, and was surprised at finding out it was the same LP pressing, but 'treated'. It appears that your report means that the difference was large enough to notice, and not subtle. If so, then this difference should be easy to pick out in an nearly any type of listening test, ABX, DBT or not.
I listened to Ethan's Frog A, B, C, D, over the computer and through older AKG headphones. I don't hear any difference. I downloaded those four files, will burn those onto CD and play over my stereo to see if I can hear anything different.
EDIT: I don't have a whole lot of time to try this, which is why I didn't get around to this until now. Especially after reading how much trouble others had in downloading the original files, I just said ...later.
Ethan, without trying to start any arguments with you, can I please point out to you one fact? Your entire argument is now concerned with other people's truthfulness and their bravery. You have made this whole issue a personal grudge match. What do you expect in return?
When your stance is reduced to calling someone schoolyard names, what position do you actually own? When you can't take a bit of a joke, what have you become? Dick Cheney? Rush Limbaugh?
Step back from this, Ethan, and get some perspective on this. It is only an audio forum.
Why not try something that hasn't been said before? That might at least be interesting. Surely there must be some other approach to this than constant attack.
Capitulation to the fact we all have our own priorities perhaps? Would that be so difficult?
How many times did you correctly identify which was which? Or did you just hear something and think to yourself "Hey, that sounds different?" In which case maybe it did and maybe it didn't. If you're so sure you can tell Before from After, I urge you too to download my four files and tell us which is which. The files are only ten seconds long. It won't take you more than a minute or two.
Wow, I'd never suggest that 128 kbps is good enough not to hear degradation. I use a quality encoder, and I can almost always hear the loss in quality, and the added warbling and birdies. At least for music with cymbals or other such HF content. Now, 192 kbps is pretty darn transparent, and 256 kbps is probably not detectable by anyone using only their ears. But 128 kbps?
You can use the term however you want, but that has never been my position. All I ask is for people to prove they can hear a difference. If they can't, or won't, they only reinforce what I've been saying all along - comb filtering, placebo effect, expectation bias, and arrogance. ie: my ears are better than "science."
I would never say that if we can't explain something then it must not exist, even though some people try to stuff those words into my mouth. Indeed, when this comes up I always point out the value of a null test. A null test can identify any changes or artifacts, even if one doesn't know what to look for.
--Ethan
The return of Ethan, the string-pulled windup troll.
Not only that but the files that Ethan is requesting we use have twice been manipulated since MF's originals. Once from AIFF to WAV and a second time when subjected to Ethan's trimming. I know that some will argue that Digital generations are perfect but I don't believe it, because I've heard differences. Such a small difference (remember I considered the difference to be slight) could have obliterated by those two generations. That's why I have no interest in comparing them and going "on the record." Plus I was the first one out of the gate to post my opinion before I knew which sample was which so I feel it would also be irrelevant.
Not at all Jan. My entire argument is that the same people who insist they can distinguish Before from After are unable to do so when they aren't told in advance which is which. This could be settled immediately, but those people will never participate because they know they can't really hear a difference. So in the end I guess it really does come down to honesty!
--Ethan
Converting any digital program to another format changes its composition. Evan Ethan knows the fallacy in his reprogrammed arguments.
Not so. This is not a copy generation! Converting AIFF to Wave changes only the header info, not the data. In this case the data order was also reversed for each word from low-high to high-low. But the data itself was not changed at all. The low-high stuff is put into the proper order when the file is read from disk by your media player software. So what gets sent to your sound card for playback is identical, bit for bit, from either file.
Same for extracting a 10 second segment. All that happens is a range of words are written to disk rather than the entire source file. But none of the data was changed. Not even a little.
--Ethan
LOL, you guys are showing your ignorance!
Nice one, Ethan.
You're the nimrod replying to his own posts.
Very interesting. Thanks. And of course after the musical signal went from the output of the phono stage (and preamp?) it then went through the analog stage(s) inside the converter box and then digitized. So how much did the converter box change the signal?
Yes, those steps would also logically reduce differences in the samples as well but they were strictly speaking necessary for the process of distributing the samples via the forum. Ethan's changes are extra, unnecessary steps the have the potential to degrade the integrity of the sound.
Ethan, you heard no differences.
Arny heard, what, 20 out of 30?
What was your score?
I mean, you wouldn't just play them each one time and declare them sonically identical, right?
Since you won't acknowledge the things Anry heard, how about describing your own "no difference" results?
I'll leave aside the fact that you could not hear the huge channel to channel differences.
It took me numerous attempts over a period fo about half a day to download all four files. This was due to the (probably intentional) flakiness of the file sharing site. They promise that if you pay them a few bucks a day, downloading them will be a breeze.
They are in fact the same file 4 times - bit-for-bit identical. Not only that, but they must be ancient - the music is not very pleasant-sounding.
Let's do an ABX BDT on "pleasantness".
If it can't be measured, it can't be heard!
Or, as Ethan describes his skills - "Many things can be measured but none of them can be heard."
Good points and I must say (with the exception of long term listening which I have no experience in) they do agree with my personal experience with ABX testing. It is possible to overdo it.
I also know of some tests that get MORE sensitive at lower volumes, not less, due to equal loudness curve shifts (and perhaps distortion increases internal to the ear).
That said, I think some people are quick to categorize issues like this as being intrinsic issues to all ABX tests, when in reality it is only a potential flaw. In the current conversation, I don't believe that, given what has been stated by all sides so far, it is an insurmountable issue to being able to get a positive p<0.01 ABX result out of Michael's samples.
Do you have any citations on habituation in the literature, as far as its magnitude to reduce test sensitivity?
If the record's magnetic field was non-constant across its surface, it would induce a voltage in the pickup coils in the cartridge. Note though that this voltage is quasiperiodic in nature (the fact that the needle traces a spiral on the record means that the magnetic field very nearly repeats itself every 1.8 seconds) - and based on the distance between the coils and the record surface, this voltage probably has no frequency content above 200hz. It's a kinda terrible explanation for any sound differences above that.
The magnetic field itself can of course generate a force on the cartridge magnets or anything else ferromagnetic. Again, the distances involved means that this is probably going to be a low frequency phenomenon - but this force could couple into the suspension and generate some kind of wow or flutter.
That said, IIRC, the last time I tried to estimate the magnitude of either of these things I came up with answers that just barely crept above the thermal noise floor of the cartridge itself. And no evidence has been provided demonstrating either of these effects at any magnitude whatsoever. (And I've tried)
Delusion is fully built into what I'm saying. Everybody's deluded. You speak of delusion like Stephan, Michael and John saw a six-foot-tall bunny in that room. My point is that everybody sees that bunny, even you and me.
Don't fall for it, it's a trap! (reg. tm.). I don't know what he did to them, but I have done a direct comparison between Ethan's files and the AIFF's, and they are simply not the same quality. Maybe they degraded inadvertently, or maybe Ethan did things to degrade them in order to trip me up (let's not forget he created them to try to embarass me, as he made clear in his rant about how I would never guess which is which!). I know at the very least they went through a conversion from sowt AIFF to window-friendly WAV, and he put them through at least one other process to trim them, and that he's claiming the two sound exactly the same, yet he's never even heard the AIFF's to be able to say that.
Couldn't agree more. MF's originals is a fragile enough difference to some listeners that it could easily be obliterated by conversions and processing (and no, I don't buy fall for false "bits is bits" arguments), and after listening to Ethan's files, that's exactly what happened. Arny has objectively measured Ethan's files and says they are "bit for bit identical", while objective measurements for MF's files show they weren't identical.
Furthermore, since Ethan has recently asserted that bit for bit identical files will automatically yield no real differences, why does he even bother to ask people to test his files?
I had NO trouble downloading or playing MF's original files. See my report on that in this thread. Downloading Ethan's files is a waste of time, because he screwed with them. Although it may be some trouble, it would be more productive to download Fresh Clip's files, the test challenge that Ethan has always been too afraid to take. It focuses on CD demagnetization and it too uses 4 files, but at least FC tells you how many copies of the original there are, and he doesn't degrade the files, so you stand a good chance of hearing differenes (I did, and so did all other members who downloaded those files).
Pages