So, you voted that Roger Russell is a genius?

treitz3

Well, see if he is or not. I'm actually giving ammunition to those who do not believe. Try it out and get back to us.

http://www.libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm

Do you hear a difference?

dorokusai

I don't even understand that link.

Jstas

Dude, you really need to seek professional help. This obsession isn't healthy.

treitz3

It's just a discussion. No harm, no foul. I'm actually giving THEM ammunition. When was the last time you saw that?

Apparently, it's a null test to let you know what difference [after adding and subtracting/aligning the signal] cables/PC's/etc make. Proof positive that our ears are fooling us and that RR is correct.

Jstas

treitz3 wrote: »

Lord, don't get me started on you. It's just a discussion. No harm, no foul. I'm actually giving THEM ammunition. When was the last time you saw that? Never mind. Don't answer.

Apparently, it's a null test to let you know what difference [after adding and subtracting/aligning the signal] makes. Proof positive that our ears are fooling us and that RR is correct.

I don't need professional help, I'm perfectly happy the way I am. What is it? I'm ok, you suck. Is that how it goes?

I try to stay out of the wire debate. I think there are merits to both sides. I think the doubters have science on their side and it's hard to refute it. At the same time, I don't think the believer's ears are necessarily lying to them. I think they just don't fully understand what they are hearing and when some science dude tries to wrap some numbers around it to bring some understanding and meaning to what the believers think is unquantifiable, it gets ugly. Many times, both sides are saying the same thing and too pig-headed to see that.

treitz3

Damn, you answered.

F1nut

You mean to tell me that somone actually thinks that RR is a genius? That's some funny stuff.

RuSsMaN

Who gives a flying....

decal

WTF is Roger Russell ?

byfthalone

decal wrote: »

WTF is Roger Russell ?

wasn't there a movie named "Who's Afraid of Roger Russell"? :biggrin:

Joe08867

Dude WTF is this post about?

Make a recording, tweak it to make a second, line them up and subtract the common frequencies, play what is left over. WTH will that get me?

heiney9

Joe08867 wrote: »

Dude WTF is this post about?

Make a recording, tweak it to make a second, line them up and subtract the common frequencies, play what is left over. WTH will that get me?

A big **** headache.

Cables matter in my rig, end of story for me. People can continue to argue all they want. All that matters to me and only me, is there is an audible difference, many feel the same as I do in their own rigs, some don't feel that way and some are unwilling to try.

Have fun, enjoy your rig and music coming out of it.

H9

heiney9

Sorry Tom, but this post is a little beneath you. Cable threads *never* are logical, civil, or even thought provoking anymore. All the trolls show their true colors and it basically is pandering the lowest common denominator.

H9

Joe08867

How is it a cable thread? I guess that is where I lose track.

H9, I agree cables can make or break a system.

TouchOfEvil

who framed roger rabbit?

mhardy6647

all you really need to know about Roger Russell is that he was responsible for the McIntosh C26 preamp. If you've ever heard a C26, any discussion of the guy is pretty much moot :-)

http://www.roger-russell.com/c26pg.htm

Oh, and if you haven't heard one... don't feel bad.

EDIT: well... in fairness, I am glad that he set up a Mac history page; it is very handy.

unc2701

I feel like we've already had this talk. The coke can won.

inspiredsports

decal wrote: »

WTF is Roger Russell ?

A fuzzy little terrier's brother? :biggrin:

DarqueKnight

treitz3 wrote: »

Well, see if he is or not. I'm actually giving ammunition to those who do not believe.

This is not "ammunition". This is just another pitiful attempt at diverting attention toward inappropriate audio evaluation methods by a member of the small, yet very vocal, radical anti-audiophile faction within the Audio Engineering Society.

treitz3 wrote: »

Try it out and get back to us.

http://www.libinst.com/Audio%20DiffMaker.htm

No thanks. No need...unless someone can explain to me how this measurement tool is relevant to the evaluation and enjoyment of stereophonic music. My primary means of music enjoyment is not listening to WAV files on my computer.

I did read the 2008 AES 125th Convention paper "draft" that was linked to on the Audio Diffmaker page:

Link: Detecting Changes in Audio Signals by Digital Differencing

The first thing that stuck me as odd was the fact that the author still has a "draft" posted rather than the actual final paper that was presented at the AES 125th Convention in 2008. Above the title there is a sentence that states.

"Text of paper presented at the 125th AES Convention, October 3, 2008".

Had the actual final form of the paper presented at the AES convention been posted, the section above the title would have the standard AES convention disclaimer that is appended to every AES convention paper:

"The papers at this Convention have been selected on the basis of a submitted abstract and extended precis that have been peer reviewed by at least two qualified anonymous reviewers. This convention paper has been reproduced from the author's advance manuscript, without editing, corrections, or consideration by the Review Board. The AES takes no responsibility for the contents."

Now that those preliminaries are out of the way, I would like to express a few thoughts about the "Digital Differencing" paper.

1. The paper violates a basic rule of scientific evaluation: testing must be conducted under conditions representative of actual use.

Pg. 5: "...a selected piece of program material (music or test signal), on the order of 10 to 60 seconds long, is recorded as it is played through each path."

Pg. 8: "Tests made to date using microphones recording output signals from loudspeakers have not been successful because of noise and perhaps other factors. Tests using analog signal sources such as tape recorders and phonograph turntables are unlikely to be repeatable enough to be successful."

The introduction section of this paper mentions audiophiles three times. It appears that the author is proposing this test method and apparatus for evaluating audiophile-quality audio systems. How can this method have any relevance to audiophile stereo systems when the author specifically states that signals from source components and loudspeakers cannot be measured by the method? Furthermore, who listens to music in 10 to 60 second snippets?

2. The author is obviously not aware that the ABX method has been shown to be experimentally and mathematically inappropriate for multi-dimensional stimuli such as the sound field produced by stereo loudspeakers:

Page 1: "Objective testing methods for audible effects, such as double-blind A/B or ABX, do exist and are capable of verifying audibility of some changes in an audio signal or system."

The above is true for some types of audio, but not stereophonic audio. Since the paper specifically addresses audiophile subjective evaluation methods and since audiophiles listen to high quality stereo systems, the author should have demonstrated how his methodology was relevant to the evaluation of audiophile-quality stereo systems. I don't know of any audiophiles whose primary method of music delivery is WAV files through a computer-based system. Do you?

3. Like most in the anti-audiophile naysayer community, the author appears to be ignorant of how stereo works and what the design goals of its inventors were, as evidenced by this statement:

Page 2: "For these audiophiles, believable conclusions are achieved only through "sighted" listening tests in which the listener already knows what he is listening to at each moment, describes the sound "subjectively" and (at least consciously) trusts only his ears. Such results, though, are of little or no use in engineering developments or scientific research."

Really?

One of the early researchers in stereophonic home audio systems found that "hearing is also assisted by sight". [Somerville, T., "Survey of Stereophony", Proceedings of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, Convention on Stereophonic Sound Recording, Reproduction and Broadcasting, London, March 1959, pp. 201-208.]

The author should read some of the peer-reviewed scientific papers written by Dr. Harvey Fletcher and other Bell Telephone Laboratories researchers on subjective evaluation of stereo systems. Those Bell Labs researchers were the same people who invented home stereo systems. Interestingly enough, the same people who invented stereo and who used sighted subjective, yet scientific, test methods with trained listeners and formal documentation procedures are the same people who used blind ABX methods in their telephone signal analysis work.

There is an appalling lack of understanding in the anti-audiophile community that subjective methods can be every bit as accurate, scientific and repeatable, as the so-called "objective" methods when done properly with trained listeners using a formal evaluation methodology supported by careful documentation of what is heard.

4. As an audiophile, I am interested in evaluating differences in stereophonic performance parameters such as image placement, image weight, image clarity, image detail, tactile sensations and sound stage dimensions. These are the stimuli stereo was created to provide to the music lover. The author did not make it clear to me how comparing WAV files on my computer will aid in the evaluation of those stimuli. It is always interesting, and telling, that the methodologies proposed by the anti-audiophile naysayer community never offer any methods for evaluating the types of stimuli that stereo was designed to produce, i.e., a three-dimensional representation of a musical performance. They always seem to want to divert a listener's attention away from a properly set up stereo system and toward some booby trapped, pseudo-scientific test method that has no relationship to the way serious music lovers listen to music provided by high quality stereo systems.

quadzilla

I think you got trolled in your poll.

markmarc

What DK said