Everything that matters regarding Wine and Audiophilia

[hjulenissen]

I think that some of the analogies brought up deserves fair discussion. If anyone reading this disagrees, I suggest clicking "back" on your browser button.

This is why I am pissed off with the tone of so many comments in this thread. They display a conceited assurance that because they don't find something to be worthwhile, it must therefore be wrong, stupid, a waste of money, unscientific, etc, etc.

Come on folks! Act like grown-ups. Don't be so insular that just because something is outside your own zone of perception, others must therefore have the same experience (or lack of it).

In all fairness, I think this is a biased and unfair way to represent the discussion. Me and others did not base our critisism on our own lack of abilities , but what has been published in peer-reviewed science.

I suggest reading www.aes.org or googling for Floyd Toole.

A lot of audiophile stuff is right there with tinfoil-hats, conspiracy theories etc. Of course I cannot prove it wrong, but no one has been able to prove it right, and if they do we would have to rewrite a lot of physics and perception books.

A word of warning (again) to those that engage in personal insults. Stop pissing in the pool. I won't hesitate to delete people's accounts and ban them without warning if this continues.

For having a different world-view than yourself? For asking other people to "act like grown-ups"?

If you or other writers bring any analogy into your articles, I trust that you are grown-up enough to face critisisms that you are wrong, that your analogies are naiive and that your articles would have been better without them.

-h

[michael]

I'm almost certain that Mark will not respond to this comment, because he's fed up with the negative comments on the audio side-show issue.

I will make one observation of my own though. Mark got an email the other day from one of the world's most respected audio equipment designers. This gentleman was distressed at the negative tone of the discourse here on the forum, and therefore decided not to weigh in directly.

His comment to Mark was that he supported all of Mark's contentions re his audio analogies. Since this person has five star credentials in the pro audio world I am personally satisfied that the continuing attacks against Mark are simply pissing in the pool.

Michael

[Bryan Conner]

I'm almost certain that Mark will not respond to this comment, because he's fed up with the negative comments on the audio side-show issue.

I will make one observation of my own though. Mark got an email the other day from one of the world's most respected audio equipment designers. This gentleman was distressed at the negative tone of the discourse here on the forum, and therefore decided not to weigh in directly.

His comment to Mark was that he supported all of Mark's contentions re his audio analogies. Since this person has five star credentials in the pro audio world I am personally satisfied that the continuing attacks against Mark are simply pissing in the pool.

Michael

I decided to do what I should have done earlier.  I did a little searching on Google on the topic of high-end power cables.  In the beginning, I would have said that it would be impossible for a power cable to make a noticeable difference in sound quality over a "stock/standard" cable.  After becoming better informed on the subject, I now understand how this is possible and therefore understand the point the Mark was making with his analogy. 
If I was in search of the best sound quality available, and I had invested a lot of money in this quest already, I would not hesitate for a minute to invest a few hundred dollars in a power cable. 

[hjulenissen]

His comment to Mark was that he supported all of Mark's contentions re his audio analogies. Since this person has five star credentials in the pro audio world

I read about a guy who has five stars in the alternative crowd. He claims that sleeping under a magic pyramid will cure cancer. Must be right then?

My point being: using guru straw-men for supporting a poorly supported claim does not make it any less poorly supported. Audiophiles and audiophile magazines (with some exceptions) largely live in a different reality from the research being done in the relevant fields or the physics that are being practiced by e.g. electronic engineers or audiologists. Magic stones, magic felt-tip-pen, rolling toilet-paper around your speaker cables...

I am personally satisfied that the continuing attacks against Mark are simply pissing in the pool.

You have talked about personal attacks and pissing in the pool a couple of times. Can you reference those more concretely?

-h

[Alan Goldhammer]

With respect to Micheal's post above, I respect Mark's opinions and beliefs about both wine and high end audio.  This does not mean, however, that I have to agree with them which I think is the key issue here.  I'm not attacking anyone personally or otherwise, I am only going by what I know (which is considerable in both cases).  With the exception of loud speaker design and the configuration and properties of one's listening room the remainder of the audio chain makes little or no difference provided one has decent electronics (the key is to have an amplifier with enough power to drive the speakers without clipping).  Costly interconnects and power line conditioners make no difference other than to the bottom line of the company selling them (my relatives who own a high end audio store can well attest to the financial advantages on this particular point).  I have done several blind tests of such equipment that were very well designed and there was nobody in the group (eight of us who both enjoy music and perform) that could reliably tell the difference.  Until Randi's $1 M competition is won this is where things will stand.

Not all of us are experts on everything and not all purported experts are really expert.  The first lesson that a scientist learns is to remain skeptical and "trust but verify."  Unfortunately, I'm not prepared to trust an audio designer who I don't know.

The only other thing that I will note is that Micheal's pictures that are posted to this site come (and have come from) a variety of different cameras.  All of us (at least I hope so) can recognize that one can capture good images with cameras that have a variety of sensor sizes.  We should not feel slighted in the least that we don't have the biggest and best digital set up.

[kwalsh]

I will make one observation of my own though. Mark got an email the other day from one of the world's most respected audio equipment designers. This gentleman was distressed at the negative tone of the discourse here on the forum, and therefore decided not to weigh in directly.

His comment to Mark was that he supported all of Mark's contentions re his audio analogies. Since this person has five star credentials in the pro audio world I am personally satisfied that the continuing attacks against Mark are simply pissing in the pool.

The issue there is that the audio world is sadly full of many "tin-foil hat" types and the "most respect audio equipment designers" often fit into that category - especially when not referenced by name.  As a result, it seems like all the audiophile discussion is a dead end that is really of no value on this forum.

Despite having commented on the audiophile analogies myself I have to agree with you.  That aspect of the article has become a completely distracting and useless side-show.  Perhaps that is evidence Mark should have left it out in the first place, or not.  I think it is clear there isn't any value in discussing it any more!

If by "pissing in the pool" you mean polluting the discussion with something that is certainly not going to improve the discussion I completely agree.  It doesn't matter who is "right" at this point.  It is a side show.

Ken

[dreed]

Rather than trust someone's words, why doesn't someone produce some test results that show the difference?

By this I mean set up an audio studio, run some wave forms through a hifi rig, record the output, replace the power cables, rinse and repeat.

What do I mean by this?

Well, something like the graphs on this page:
http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/transports/oppo-bdp-93/oppo-bdp-93-bdp-95-on-the-bench

If audio test gear can measure the differences between the audio output of a pair of BluRay players, then why couldn't it do the same for power cords?

If we can hear the difference then I'm sure high quality microphones and a test rig will also be able to detect the difference.

When there is some hard evidence that supports this, I'll listen.

So long as I've got to just trust someone else's words, I'm going to remain sceptical.

In this I'm happy to be a doubting Thomas.

[kwalsh]

Rather than trust someone's words, why doesn't someone produce some test results that show the difference?

Because there is no difference in blind ABX testing.  Every time someone has tried they have failed.  When someone tried to claim the Randi prize the cable manufacturer pulled out of the test and refused to participate.

Every time an audiophile fails the blind ABX test they make an excuse about why they couldn't tell the difference and then attempt to create a non-blind test.  They claim blind testing somehow makes it impossible to hear the difference but that there still is a difference.

That's why the discussion is fruitless.  Convince a religious person deities don't exist, or convince an atheist they do.  You'll get just as far and it will be just as productive.  And in this case, just as relevant to photography as the audiophile comparisons.

So I'd follow Michael's advice and just leave it alone.

Ken

[tho_mas]

The issue with Mark D's analogies is … they do not help a bit to work out the actual topic he is talking about.

To me it's deeply irritating when someone compares high end audio, high end wine or high end anything with high end photography… but the same person is not able to present at least a medicore proof or example of what he is actually talking about.
I remember the essay "does equipment affect creativity". http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/does_equipment_affect_creativity_some_new_jewels_from_alpa.shtml
There is that paragraph about fine craftmanship ending with the quote "It is truly impressive to watch a fine photographer work with fine equipment when true synergy is achieved."
Directly after that quote there is the image "Alfa in Fog".
The image is not only extremely boring (to me)… from a technical point of view (craftmanship!) it's also totally flawed (objectively).
Actually the image is an insulting impudence towards the reader.
In a way it's the same with the sloppy comparision of the flowers in the last essay: a lot of hot air about things that do not lead anywhere but only little effort to show the point he is trying to make for his readers.
I don't care. But honestly I understand those who feel fooled because they would not have expected to find such strange essays on LuLa.

[LesPalenik]

So long as I've got to just trust someone else's words, I'm going to remain sceptical.

That's what the pope and catholic clergy said when Galileo suggested that perhaps the Earth isn't the center of the universe.

[dreed]

That's what the pope and catholic clergy said when Galileo suggested that perhaps the Earth isn't the center of the universe.

But that was able to be proved with mathematics and science.

If that myth can be debunked with mathematics and science, why can't we apply real science and scientific methods to verifying claims about whether or not different power cables make a difference? Or would you prefer that it remains religious debate?

[michael]

You have talked about personal attacks and pissing in the pool a couple of times. Can you reference those more concretely?

-h

Yes, you and your posts. Either call it a day, leave, or if you continue with your attacks you'll be banned.

Michael

[graphius]

While I know very little about high end audio, I agree that the analogy is flawed, but in a more fundamental way. It is a total red herring.
If I can read between the lines of the article, and what Michael R has been saying, I think the gist is that we should be aware of all the small details that go into making a good image. I agree whole heartedly with this sentiment, however the article in question goes on to "prove" that medium format photography is better than everything else. This is the issue I have with the article. If you extend this concept then Mr. Dubovoy should be using a scanning large format back. Also there could never have been any good photographs before the current crop of MF backs. This is blatantly false.
I will say that Mark Dubovoy's knowledge is probably orders of magnitude deeper than mine, and I will most definitely concede that for his work, MF is probably the best tool. But there is the rub. I will say it again. For the type of work MD does MF is best. However, for other types of work other formats may be better, and for those other styles and art forms, other small and seemingly insignificant details are very important.
Personally, I am looking forward to the next installment to see if Mr Dubovoy can explain his concepts better.

Apologies to Mark if I am off base, in that case I really don't get it....

[32BT]

But that was able to be proved with mathematics and science.

Huh, when was that proven?

Oddly enough you get a call from an extra terrestrial alien at "the other side" of the universe and it asks you for directions to earth. There is a slight problem however; it doesn't know the words "left" and "right".  So it asks you to explain the difference…

Science and mathematics are merely about models that we create to make meaningful predictions. Scientist sometimes seem rather eager to mistake the model for some kind of universal a priori reality. The scientist goes: "if I can not measure it, then you can not hear it". The humanoid goes: "perhaps if you change your method, you can measure it". The scientist then goes: "Perhaps if I use a more complex model, I can predict when you make this mistake".

At which point it obviously becomes a rather meaningless exercise in statistics. Luckily, the alien has a 50/50 change of actually getting the correct directions to earth so it can observe our odd discussions about photography. I strongly suspect that "the force" will guide him in the opposite direction…

[Steve Weldon]

Man, you guys take your analogies seriously..   

I use them all the time when writing different photography pieces, but they're only intended to get you to look in a certain direction, not find the "x marks the spot" pirate treasure..

Btw -  I love high-end audio.. and have for decades.  I'm a believer that the listening room has far more effect on music than does the equipment you put in the room.  There are too many variables to count including how well you've protected and maintained your ears over the years.. not to mention how well you've learned to listen (akin to photography and seeing).  If a power cord serves your ears, or even results in more vibration to serve how you feel music.. more power to you. 

My Velodyne vPulse in ear headphones arrived on Tuesday.  I've sacrificed sleep so I could have the time I wanted/needed to enjoy these.  I have earphones costing 10x as much that don't sound as good.  Wonderful items.

[John.Murray]

What bothers me the most is that Mark, who clearly has a high degree of knowledge and technical sophistication, with experience to match, is reporting from the heart.

I'm definately an audiophile and personally received a fair amount of ridicule for my opinions regarding digital audio vs: analog.  Without exception, everyone has immediately appreciated the difference.  It's easy to express opinions and scoff at others, it's quite another to have an open mind and admit that measurement vs: the human experience have a fair degree of separation.....

[dmerger]

You have talked about personal attacks and pissing in the pool a couple of times. Can you reference those more concretely?

Yes, you and your posts. Either call it a day, leave, or if you continue with your attacks you'll be banned.

Michael

Michael, I’m surprised by your response since it seems out of character.  Maybe your friendship with Mark influenced you, which is understandable.  Hjulenissen’s comments on this topic have been civil and haven’t included personal attacks.  It’s a big change for you to threaten to ban someone for civil disagreements about the substance of what someone wrote.  

Since this person has five star credentials in the pro audio world I am personally satisfied that the continuing attacks against Mark are simply pissing in the pool.

Michael

This statement is also out of character.  I’ve never known you to take the second hand opinion of one person as the absolute truth regarding photography equipment.  In this case, there are also many highly qualified professionals and professional organizations that contradict Mark’s unnamed authority, which makes accepting this person's assertion as closing all discussion seem all the more out of character.

[allenmacaulay]

...it's quite another to have an open mind and admit that measurement vs: the human experience have a fair degree of separation.....

This is one of the things that's a huge problem in audio, there's not much research into the correlation between various measurements and listening perceptions.  Most in the industry have little to no idea of which measurements are important and how they relate to the things that listeners hear (the BBC and NRC did some research into this, but not too many picked up & followed it), so it's not uncommon that someone would measure a bunch of stuff and claim that it's "perfect" and beyond listener perception without knowing how much those things matter or if they even matter at all.  Which is a big part of why the industry is such a mess and populated by kooks.

As for why power cords & signal cables make a difference, it has to do with our noisy power grid and all the EM interference we have in the air these days, along with the crappy power supplies & grounding found in many pieces of audio gear, not to mention questionable circuit design.   Those interconnects end up working as filters to help keep noise out of the circuits so that the audio components can perform as designed.  If we had perfect power supply, grounding, shielding, and circuit design, then power cords & signal cables wouldn't make a difference.

Continuing with the first point, I suspect the situation is rather similar in photography.  We have a whole bunch of measures like dynamic range, noise, MTF charts, DXO numbers, and so forth but as far as I can tell there's still a fair bit of dispute on how those measurements correlate to viewer perceptions.  I don't know if any formal research has been carried out  to better help us understand these things (I'd think there must be, probably buried in a journal somewhere), but from what I've seen on the interwebs there's not much of an agreement on anything and it's still a heck of a mess.  I'm not really interested enough to try and sort it all out, to me it doesn't matter, I'm only dabbling in photography as a part-time hobby so it's not important to me.

[welder]

Huh, when was that proven?

Oddly enough you get a call from an extra terrestrial alien at "the other side" of the universe and it asks you for directions to earth. There is a slight problem however; it doesn't know the words "left" and "right".  So it asks you to explain the difference…

Science and mathematics are merely about models that we create to make meaningful predictions. Scientist sometimes seem rather eager to mistake the model for some kind of universal a priori reality. The scientist goes: "if I can not measure it, then you can not hear it". The humanoid goes: "perhaps if you change your method, you can measure it". The scientist then goes: "Perhaps if I use a more complex model, I can predict when you make this mistake".

At which point it obviously becomes a rather meaningless exercise in statistics. Luckily, the alien has a 50/50 change of actually getting the correct directions to earth so it can observe our odd discussions about photography. I strongly suspect that "the force" will guide him in the opposite direction…

I hate to risk stumbling into another sideshow argument, but science seems to get maligned so much...

Scientists will be the first to tell you that scientific theories "prove" nothing. But the thing about theories is that they are testable, and the more evidence that accumulates the better confidence we have that the theory resembles the way reality works. In the case of the earth revolving around the sun and not being the center of the universe, I think we have accumulated enough evidence to make a reasonable assumption that the theory has at least some basis in truth. Do you disagree or have contrary evidence that the earth is the center of the universe?

(And I'm not sure what aliens trying to figure out the meanings of "left" or "right" have anything to do with anything, but I'm pretty confident it would not be that difficult to explain the concept using some basic geometry and a common point of reference.)

[John Camp]

Yes, you and your posts. Either call it a day, leave, or if you continue with your attacks you'll be banned.

Michael

Michael, I’m surprised by your response since it seems out of character.  Maybe your friendship with Mark influenced you, which is understandable.  Hjulenissen’s comments on this topic have been civil and haven’t included personal attacks.  It’s a big change for you to threaten to ban someone for civil disagreements about the substance of what someone wrote.

Hjulenissen's comments haven't all been temperate -- go back and read them.

Michael is correct that much of the additional comment after the first few were piling on, or pissing in the pool, or whatever you want to call it. The fifteenth person to say that Mark's comments about audio cables were stupid wasn't extending the conversation. I think we should give this topic up.