Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JimH]

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=92538

[jgreen]

JimH, your comments are well-measured and on point. 

The linked thread at HA has yet to hit on the salient point, IMO; namely, that certain players (WMP from a few years ago, at least) sweeten the default sound.  Like Pepsi, it's preferable when compared to Coke, but no one would choose it when compared to nothing.

As regards jumping in at HA, I agree with Alex.  No one denies JimH the right to stand up for his life's work, but the experts here need to join in slowly, as the discussion demands.  Yes, they need to join in, but only when outrageous claims demand rebuttal. 

Unless you're putting out a call for breathless FanBoys like me?  MC roxx!! 

[glynor]

Like Pepsi, it's preferable when compared to Coke

Shut yo mouth there mista.

[MrC]

Really, and this coming from neergj, nontheless!

(never cared for any "cola" drinks personally)

[DarkPenguin]

Fentiman's Curiosity Cola is very good.

[JimH]

Still more:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=92656

[InflatableMouse]

The reason why I decided to stay away from HA a long time ago.

I feel they have lost touch with the emotional side of music and have forgotten how to enjoy something so basic to human nature. Each time I try and read some of their forums I trow up a little.

Not that I don't think discussion is good, it is - their scientific approach from some/most of their core members is just over the top and for me they often argue for the sake of arguing.

[flac.rules]

The reason why I decided to stay away from HA a long time ago.

I feel they have lost touch with the emotional side of music and have forgotten how to enjoy something so basic to human nature. Each time I try and read some of their forums I trow up a little.

Not that I don't think discussion is good, it is - their scientific approach from some/most of their core members is just over the top and for me they often argue for the sake of arguing.

I don't agree, in fact, I don't see that much of a connction, being intereseted in television quality doesn't mean you can enjoy emotinal feelings connected to a work of art.  Or being a Neuroscientist doesn't mean you can't enjoy the emotional pleasure of human contact. How things work, and emotions conveyed through art is something that for the most part can be discussed apart from each other.

I think the reason HA-members can seem a bit over the top is beacuse people get a bit fed up and feel the need for strong words, because un-scientific BS has such a strong foothold in audio reproduction. People feel they must use strong wording to make the field more scientific again.

[InflatableMouse]

You're absolutely right.

That's why I said "I feel" and "for me" ... I refrained from stating anything as fact.

[JimH]

Another one I started on Convolution.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=92723&st=0#entry781169

[nwboater]

Another one I started on Convolution.
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=92723&st=0#entry781169

Jim - Have you considered starting a thread at Computer Audiophile? They are somewhat Mac centric but might be worthwhile. It's a fairly user friendly forum and might be good exposure for MC.

Rod

[candycane]

The reason why I decided to stay away from HA a long time ago.

I feel they have lost touch with the emotional side of music and have forgotten how to enjoy something so basic to human nature. Each time I try and read some of their forums I trow up a little.

Not that I don't think discussion is good, it is - their scientific approach from some/most of their core members is just over the top and for me they often argue for the sake of arguing.

With all due respect, I don't think you understand the basis of hydrogenaudio's approach.  Neither I nor many others find anything "over the top" regarding their views on the scientific method - I find it more accurate that they rigorously maintain consistency with the scientific method.  They can be a bit rude to those who post in their forums and do not adhere to their Terms of Service, I'll grant you that.  The posts that enjoy the greatest negative reponses are those that claim to be scientific but are in fact cherry-picking, distorting, or deliberately misleading people regarding valid scientific methods.  Also keep in mind that Hydrogenaudio is merely adhering to scientific principles that have been established and validated starting about 400 years ago - Hydrogenaudio has not created any new scientific theories or methods.  The TAS article is a fine example of an attempt to claim to be scientific and is obviously in violation of many core principles to valid scientific/statistically valid studies, and as such deserves as much contempt as one can deliver.  In other words, if you want to claim that ripping speed or whatever impacts sound even when bit-identical, then either state your belief as an opinion (which is fine - we are all entitled to our opinions), or produce a valid scientific analysis, but don't claim a scientific basis when you have not adhered to well-established principles for such.   Hydrogenaudio is hardly unique in their principles regarding studies and claims - every single credible publisher of peer-reviewed research in all engineering, mathematical, scientific and medical fields (and all other fields that use data) follow the same approach.
 
I see nothing related to one's emotional attachment to music and one's views on a scientific approach.  If anything, hydrogenaudio posters' emotional responses to those who violate scientific principles in making their claims regarding audio is strong evidence otherwise.

Now back to my music....

[drmimosa]

OT, but here's an interesting "double-blind" test that probably wouldn't pass the Hydrogenaudio TOS test either:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivecadence/2012/01/02/144482863/double-blind-violin-test-can-you-pick-the-strad

[flac.rules]

You're absolutely right.

That's why I said "I feel" and "for me" ... I refrained from stating anything as fact.

I am not sure what you are saying here? That theres no point in disagreeing on opinions? Almost everything written in hear is opinion, no matter if its explicitly stated or not. What is meant to be fact usually is reasonably easy to spot. I disagree with you opinions of the "HA-crowd"

[candycane]

OT, but here's an interesting "double-blind" test that probably wouldn't pass the Hydrogenaudio TOS test either:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivecadence/2012/01/02/144482863/double-blind-violin-test-can-you-pick-the-strad

Was your comment a veiled shot at hydrogenaudio, did you not read the article, are you questioning the test's adherence to double blind testing, or are you unfamiliar with hydrogenaudio's ToSs?  The violin test was specifically mentioned as being "double blind", which obviously meets HA's ToS for claims if the test actually was double blind, and I've not seen anyone anywhere (other than you) question the validity of the test's methodology, analyses, or conclusions.

But maybe you've caught something that peer review of the published study overlooked - please provide your evidence that the test does not meet the standards for a valid double blind test or other deficiencies in the study.

[Frobozz]

A feature that would get the attention of the Hydrogenaudio folks would be an ABX testing component in MC.  Even neater would be the ability to compare/test the audio in two zones.  That would allow for some interesting ABX testing that can't be done in Foobar.  Interesting testing like being able to ABX things like ASIO against Direct Sound or compare two different DACs or two different VST effects, etc.  The Foobar users will be jealous.

ABX testing can be a useful tool for some types of audio comparisons.

[JustinChase]

A feature that would get the attention of the Hydrogenaudio folks would be an ABX testing component in MC. 

I would think it would be even more useful/impressive if MC made it double blind for you.  i.e. no way for you to tell which is which, just a "button" to switch between the 2, and the results of your preferences only provided after completed.  Maybe the "button" could just be prefer/not, and selecting it starts the next test sample, possibly the same again, possibly the other.  MC stores the preferences and reports your findings only after 10-20 samples (or whatever would be considered an appropriate sampling). 

[candycane]

The idea of an ABX feature within MC seems like a great idea.  Not to make anyone jealous or show up any other product or user commuity, but to allow MC users to more effectively evaluate the impact of changes to their MC setup.  Hopefully as MC expands its PEQ and DRC capabilities (among other features), we users will have increasingly powerful settings to tweak, and it is getting increasingly more difficult to evaluate tweaks without an ABX feature.

I think Foobar2000's built-in ability for ABX just allows the comparison of two different tracks (so one can compare different encodings and the like), but does not allow ABX of different Foobar2000 configurations or settings.  What I think would be neat in MC would be the ability to compare playing the same track with two different settings (different PEQ settings, different convolver settings, etc).

If anyone also likes this, what kind of settings would you like to compare?  To have any hope of implementation, I think we'd need to prioritize what settings interest us most, and only if this is even technically feasible.

[flac.rules]

Isnīt it possible to implement it in the program as just two zones which the user doesnīt know which is which, so any thing that can be changed between zones can be changed in the ABX-mode?

[Frobozz]

I would think it would be even more useful/impressive if MC made it double blind for you.  i.e. no way for you to tell which is which, just a "button" to switch between the 2, and the results of your preferences only provided after completed.  Maybe the "button" could just be prefer/not, and selecting it starts the next test sample, possibly the same again, possibly the other.  MC stores the preferences and reports your findings only after 10-20 samples (or whatever would be considered an appropriate sampling). 

That's how Foobar does it.  It's double blind.  And some statistics theory for how they've done the buttons and choices.  It's stuff that would be covered in a college course on "design and analysis of experiments" or similar statistics course.

MC can do things Foobar can't, like zones.  Take advantage of that to test things that aren't easy to set up or even impossible to set up in Foobar.  Being able to blindly test two different room correction setups would be neat and useful.  There's many possibilities for how a testing component could be used.

Foobar's ABX testing is mostly useful for testing one codec against another (like 256 kbps mp3 against lossless).  Testing in MC could made to be useful for more than just codec testing.

[drmimosa]

Was your comment a veiled shot at hydrogenaudio, did you not read the article, are you questioning the test's adherence to double blind testing, or are you unfamiliar with hydrogenaudio's ToSs?  The violin test was specifically mentioned as being "double blind", which obviously meets HA's ToS for claims if the test actually was double blind, and I've not seen anyone anywhere (other than you) question the validity of the test's methodology, analyses, or conclusions.

But maybe you've caught something that peer review of the published study overlooked - please provide your evidence that the test does not meet the standards for a valid double blind test or other deficiencies in the study.

Candycane, these are great questions, thanks for your response...I definitely have thoughts about this study in particular which may raise interesting parallels to the use of DBX testing in audio. Since it's way off topic from the thread and board, I'll start a new thread on the "Music Politics, etc." board using your response to start.

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?board=14.0

Cheers!

[Vincent Kars]

Some fun at AA too
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=102388

[paul.raulerson]

Jim - Have you considered starting a thread at Computer Audiophile? They are somewhat Mac centric but might be worthwhile. It's a fairly user friendly forum and might be good exposure for MC.

Rod

Boy, I would second that Jim. Besides, even us CA "Mac" guys are running MC lately. Heck, I am listening to it right now. I admit, I get puzzled sometimes by little things in MC, but nothing serious. And almost always a result of just not figuring out where you hid the setting I am looking for.

But seriously, I am a Software and Systems Engineer, with creds in Math and Physics too. Those folks over at Hydrogen are in my sole opinion, a little light in the head. They seem to know what all the words mean, but loose the thread when they put it together with ideas.
Certainly welcome if that's what they want, but the vast majority of the scientific and engineering world doesn't seem to arrive at the same conclusions they do.

I know that MC sounds different to me than say Amarra, Decibel, Pure Music, and other players on a Mac, and each of them sounds different from the other.

Anyway, you are brave man to venture into those waters.

-Paul

[JimH]

Sorry, Rod.  I missed that.

Here's a thread at Computeraudiophile.com:
http://www.computeraudiophile.com/content/JRiver-Owners-Thread

Chris Connaker, the founder of CA, is a good friend.  He's also in Minneapolis and we see him from time to time.  He introduced us to our neighbor, John Stronczer, of Bel Canto.  There's a bit of an audiophile mafia here.  Audio Research is in town.  Magnepan.  A couple of others whose names I've forgotten.

[JimH]

Some fun at AA too
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/vt.mpl?f=pcaudio&m=102388

More here:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/10/102805.html

[Listener]

More here:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/pcaudio/messages/10/102805.html

I was involved in that exchange.

It 's like West Side Story.

Bill

[JimH]

  Ha ha.

Thanks for what you said.