Fig.6 Sony SCD-XA777ES, left-channel departure from linearity, 16-bit CD data (2dB/vertical div.).
Fig.7 Sony SCD-XA777ES, waveform of undithered 1kHz sinewave at -90.31dBFS, 16-bit CD data.
The analog output-stage…
search
DAC linearity, as assessed using CD data (fig.6), was superb, any amplitude error remaining below 2dB down to -110dBFS. The player's reproduction of an undithered 1kHz sinewave at -90.31dBFS from CD was essentially perfect (fig.7), with no DC offset apparent, and perfect symmetry between the waveform's positive- and negative-going halves.
As a card-carrying member of the Audio Engineering Society and an avid audiophile, I was particularly disturbed by the ideas expressed at the 1990 AES Conference entitled "The Sound of Audio." (A report on the papers presented appears in this month's "Industry Update" column.) The tone of the three-day session in May was set during the Conference Chairman's opening remarks. He said that an AES conference on the sound of audio was "unusual" and "out of the mainstream." Further, he expressed a common underlying attitude among the AES that "audiophile claims" (of musical differences between…
The book's central theme, the relationship between science and human values, is particularly appropriate to the chasm that exists between those who pursue musical truth by listening and those who pursue it through measurement. The goals of both are the same, but the underlying modes of thought are very different. In addition, the entire 412 pages of Zen could be considered an answer to Dr. Lipshitz's question: "Ah, but how do you know what is good?"
I have more than a passing interest in this question. A large part of my job—indeed, of my life—is to decide what is good and what is not…
The primary weapon used by the audio engineering establishment to support their position that no differences exist between competently designed and manufactured products is the blind listening test. The blind test, in which the subject must identify sonic differences without knowing the identities of the devices under test, is considered the ultimate weapon in the war against those flat-earthers, the audiophiles. According to the objectivists, if one cannot pass such a test, one's entire philosophical foundation—the validity of listening—is rendered a heap of rubble. In addition, there is…
Perhaps this explains why some people don't hear differences in components. Is there a fundamental difference in the way people experience music (footnote 9)?
I am not entirely convinced that blind testing will never reveal differences. Although blind tests will tend to obscure differences, it may be possible to devise a blind test that satisfies the objectivists, yet is run in such a way that the subject has every condition in his favor—except, of course, knowledge of the component's identity. The subject would need to be aware of the trap of trying to intellectualize and quantify his…
Letters in Response appeared in the October and November 1991 issues of Stereophile:
EDITOR'S NOTE: "As We See It" in the July 1990 issue of Stereophile, entitled "Deeper Meanings" and written by Robert Harley, addressed the nature of "quality" in a hi-fi context. His essay had been triggered by a conversation Bob and I had had with Stanley Lipshitz at last May's AES Conference on "The Sound of Audio" concerning the correlation—or, more properly, the lack of correlation—between good measured performance and "good" sound quality. I had raised the example of the Wadia 2000 D/A processor as…
Perception & polarization
Editor: Two comments on Robert Harley's "As We See It" essay on value judgments in equipment reviewing:
Editor: Two comments on Robert Harley's "As We See It" essay on value judgments in equipment reviewing:
First, underlying the quality issue, I see a polarization of belief between people who instead put their faith in any method (or ideology) as a potential guarantor of certainty or truth. This polarization ultimately derives from divergent premises about the relationship between observation/experience and "reality." Traditional methods of science are grounded in a mechanistic world-view, one premise of which is a clear conceptual distinction between an…
Robert Harley a charlatan?
Editor: Not surprisingly, Robert Harley misses the point [in "Deeper meanings"] of that 1987 Stereo Review amplifier comparison. Golden Ears like his were asked to set up the conditions and their recommendations were followed! Is he clever enough to understand the implications?
Editor: Not surprisingly, Robert Harley misses the point [in "Deeper meanings"] of that 1987 Stereo Review amplifier comparison. Golden Ears like his were asked to set up the conditions and their recommendations were followed! Is he clever enough to understand the implications?
No, he clearly is not a charlatan. He's far worse—utterly sincere!—Mike Silverton, Brooklyn, NY
Translational errors & fudge boxes
Editor: As an AES member and regular reader of Stereophile, I took interest in Robert Harley's commentary regarding the Golden Ear/…
Value judgments & experiments
Editor: As a lifelong lover of serious music and the author of more than 50 scientific papers, I am well acquainted with both "subjective" and "objective" approaches to knowledge. I also have the good fortune to be married to a professional musician, a violinist, and have witnessed many times the manner in which musical judgments are made. Thus I was much interested in Robert Harley's thoughtful piece on the evaluation of audio equipment (Stereophile, Vol.13 No.7). Herewith a few comments stimulated by Harley's remarks:
Editor: As a lifelong lover of serious music and the author of more than 50 scientific papers, I am well acquainted with both "subjective" and "objective" approaches to knowledge. I also have the good fortune to be married to a professional musician, a violinist, and have witnessed many times the manner in which musical judgments are made. Thus I was much interested in Robert Harley's thoughtful piece on the evaluation of audio equipment (Stereophile, Vol.13 No.7). Herewith a few comments stimulated by Harley's remarks:
First of all, I was surprised…
What is good!
Editor: In Vol.13 No.7, Robert Harley wrote a scathing rejection of those who do not share his particular view of audio evaluation. In his closing paragraph he wrote, "now to get back to Dr. [Stanley] Lipshitz's question that prompted this essay: 'Ah, but how do you know what is good?' The question was clearly not meant to be answered."
Editor: In Vol.13 No.7, Robert Harley wrote a scathing rejection of those who do not share his particular view of audio evaluation. In his closing paragraph he wrote, "now to get back to Dr. [Stanley] Lipshitz's question that prompted this essay: 'Ah, but how do you know what is good?' The question was clearly not meant to be answered."
I have heard the description "warm" approvingly used when the sound was the result of the obvious nonlinear distortions produced by vacuum tubes. Furthermore, I am totally repulsed by what members of the German SS regarded as "good."—…