Jump to content

LHC

Members
  • Content count

    1,705
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About LHC

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    SA
  • Country
    Oz
  1. Audio myths and misconceptions

    We have argued this many times before, it is not all people. Toole developed a measure for accuracy and their work found that its correlation coefficient with the preference of (healthy hearing) listeners is 0.93. This is not 100% correlation. And don't forget, to turn it into a probability, one has to square the correlation coefficient, so it is even a smaller number, around 0.87.
  2. Audio myths and misconceptions

    You need to ask someone from within the industry. I think they all do some form of testing.
  3. Audio myths and misconceptions

    Sure. You are imo talking about sighted listening. There is no correlation between measurement and sighted listening impressions. The correlation that your correspondent means is wrt controlled listening. If one could only talk about controlled listening results, then it would be near impossible to find the data to answer the original question. For example a manufacturer would release a product, publish the measurements, but rarely (if ever) publish detailed controlled listening results. I would argue they would only release the results if they are favorable to the product; less than favorable results don't get to see the light of day.
  4. Audio myths and misconceptions

    I think there are examples of product that measures well, and are liked by some, but disliked by others. I don't know of a product that measures well and disliked by everyone. Indeed it would be interesting if such product existed.
  5. Audio myths and misconceptions

    I agree with you, the willingness to learn has to come from all sides too.
  6. Audio myths and misconceptions

    What may be shocking is that there people today that still argues the earth is flat! But that is off topic. The thing that puzzled me is why are some audiophiles who like Naim products referred to as 'flat earthers'? I never found the reason for that.
  7. Audio myths and misconceptions

    I recalled reading that. But I think you are muddling up here if you pursue this line of argument. Lets tease out what is the logical implication. So we have a LP buying forum that is (70%) dominated by audiophiles. As only 19% of that forum nominates better sound as their purchasing reason - then if we focus on those audiophiles only, about 27% would hold that view. But if we were to project the result to the broader audiophile community where there are many who do not buy LPs, that percentage would naturally fall drastically. For argument sake, lets assume half of the audiophiles are digital only, then the claim of 'superior vinyl sound' could be attributable to only 13.5% of the whole community. Again this just illustrates that claim is not a myth.
  8. Audio myths and misconceptions

    The other point about flat earth is that it is indeed quite flat at the local level. The earth's curvature around a football oval is tiny. So sighted observations are correct, but they are no good if we were to extrapolate them to a global scale (i.e. beyond the domain of validity of the observations). So what is the point? The point is that proper discussions could be conducted only by carefully defining the terms, parameters and assumptions involved with precision and accuracy. Yes, exclusive is better than inclusive in that regard. I think when this is done in a rigorous way, you will find that people agree more than they disagree.
  9. Audio myths and misconceptions

    I was responding to your earlier post that superiority of vinyl was a widely held view (you did not explicitly indicate to limit to audiophiles only). The forum surveyed was a LP buyers forum, but not an audiophile forum. On can only assume they buy vinyls, but we shouldn't extrapolate what else they believe in without further data. For the purpose of that survey it was suitable as it seeks out the various reasons for people to continue to buy vinyl and be drawn to it. When that paper was discussed on SNA, it was taken that survey represented the general public's opinion. I thought the vinyl revival started around nine years ago; the survey would have caught the early stage of that boom. I do not know if a similar survey of audiophile community exists, and we might get a different set of data. If such data exists, I would gladly use them. BTW I have to disagree that 19% of a population can be called 'widely held'. It goes show that without a 'strong form' definition of myth, people will just waste time disagreeing due to the arbitrariness and ambiguity. No one would dispute that the majority view is considered widely held, so why not use that?
  10. Audio myths and misconceptions

    If what you mean by the 'superiority of LPs' is that they sound better, than this not a widely held view. The various reasons why people purchase LPs (and drive sales boom) was surveyed in a paper discussed in an earlier thread. https://www.stereo.net.au/forums/topic/120597-some-science-around-why-some-people-prefer-vinyl/ In that paper by TomiNokelainen and OzgurDedehayir, they found that only about 19% of LP buyers list better sound as a reason. While 19% is a significant size, it is not widely held.
  11. Audio myths and misconceptions

    Well all I can say is that if you believe that "Hires audio sounds better" is not a myth then it certainly is a misconception to many.that have contributed to this thread. You seem to be hung up on a definition. I would agree with this. Treating it as a possible misconception would keep the focus solely on falsifying the claim. On the other hand I am not hung up on a definition. Careful definition is important to establish a hypothesis and setting up the testing method to validate it. It makes for tedious and boring conversations, I get that
  12. Audio myths and misconceptions

    That is fair enough. Then I will withdraw my previous conclusion the straw poll result shows that 'hi-res audio is better than CD' as a widely believed view due to a lack of high quality evidence. If there are better statistical data out there, then I would gladly use them.
  13. Audio myths and misconceptions

    There is no inconsistency. The hi-res survey was a straw poll of low quality, small sample size, and likely to have significant errors. But what else have we got that is better?
  14. Audio myths and misconceptions

    Ok, lets check how widely believed this claim is. Here is an informal survey of this claim from two years ago. The survey result shows that 31.11% believe hi-res audio sound better than CD in general. While 28.89% are unsure, they believe hi-res audio can sound better on some occasions. 13.33% believe hi-res is better only because they are mastered better. The survey categories are not really precise, but one could probably say 44.44% believe hi-res audio as sounding better than CD in general. This is just shy of a majority; however given 28.89% are a 'maybe', I think one can certainly make the case that the hi-res claim does meet the first criteria of being a myth. [Due to the low quality of the straw poll, I am withdrawing my last sentence/conclusion. This example should be treated as illustrative rather than conclusive.]
  15. Audio myths and misconceptions

    I am not hosing down anything. Are you scared of precision and accuracy in discussion?
×