«

In article <>, Eric Stevens
<> wrote:

> >> >>there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
> >> >>people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
> >> >>they can't.
> >> >
> >> > They can if the audio gear is good enough and the appropriate music is
> >> > used.
> >>
> >> They can, HE can't obviously.
> >
> >nobody can, outside of luck. repeated double-blind tests prove this.
>
> The weasel words are 'properly encoded'. I agree with you that
> properly encoded digital music can't be distinguished from the best
> analogue but bog standard MP3 as it used to be (and often still is) is
> audibly inferior. But, as I said, it has to be the right music on the
> right gear to hear the difference.

it's not weasel words. the proper way to compare is between the best of
each, not the best of one versus the worst of the other, unless of
course, you have an agenda.

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:37:30 -0500, nospam <>
wrote:

>In article <>, tony cooper
><> wrote:
>
>> >> >there have been many tests where so called audiophiles can't tell the
>> >> >difference. the best is monster cable speaker wire versus coat hangers.
>> >> >the coat hangers won.
>> >>
>> >> I have no idea what tests you are referring to,
>>
>> >><http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/03/audiophiles-cant-tell-the-difference-between-monster-cable-and/>
>> >
>> > ...and it looks like a group of 12 self-professed "audiophiles"
>> > recently couldn't tell the difference between Monster 1000 speaker
>> > cables and plain old coat hangers. Yeah, coat hangers. The group was
>> > A-Bing different cables, and unbeknownst to them, the engineer
>> > running the test swapped out a set of cables for coat hangers with
>> > soldered-on speaker connections. Not a single one was then able to
>> > tell the difference between the Monster Cable and the hangers, and
>> > all agreed that the hangers sounded excellent.
>>
>> All that proves is that some people who self-profess to be audiophiles
>> have tin ears and that coat hangers conduct as well as Monster cables.
>
>they conduct as well as monster cables and that test proved it.
>
>audiophiles, the very experts who supposedly know what to listen for
>and who sell this rubbish to unsuspecting people, can't hear any
>difference. how would the average person notice?

An "audiophile" is simply someone who has a great interest in
high-fidelity sound reproduction. Look it up. You don't need to be
an "expert" to have great interest.

The article stated that these audiophiles were "self-professed".
Experts don't "self-profess".

>feel free to cite a double-blind test where someone can consistently
>and reliably tell the difference, i.e., not a lucky guess. you can't
>because wire is wire. there is no difference to find. the whole premise
>is ludicrous.


>> You self-profess to be an expert in market research by visual
>> observation on airplanes and extrapolation of bogus data. You are the
>> coat hanger of market research.
>
>nonsense. you refuse to believe what's actually happening in this
>industry, even when the evidence is staring at you in the face. what
>better way than to actually observe it than by going out into the real
>world and looking around, rather than mindlessly point to meaningless
>numbers that can be spun to mean anything you want them to mean.

I'm enough of an expert in market research to know that someone
walking down the aisle of an airplane and counting brand usage is
producing nothing but meaningless numbers if he projects those numbers
to some sort of market share conclusion.

>> >> but the music involved
>> >> might have something to do with the listener's ability to determine
>> >> the quality of the sound.
>> >
>> >it didn't.
>>
>> How do you know this? The article didn't state what type of "music"
>> was used.
>
>it doesn't matter what type of music was used. wire is wire. the laws
>of physics apply regardless of what type of music it is.

Of course the type of music makes a difference. You are talking about
the reproduction of sound and discerning the clarity of what you hear
compared to what it should sound like or what it sounds like on the
other system. There is some "music" that would sound the same no
matter what wire was use.

>do you really think the electrons will behave differently depending on
>if it's jazz, classical, rap or gregorian chants?

The issue isn't whether or not the electrons jump about the same based
on the wire, but what the listeners thought they heard. I could hear
two versions of Rubha Creagan Dubha played on the bagpipes and not be
able to tell if they were different or not.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"nospam" <> wrote in message
news:080220121017436125%...
> there have been many tests where so called audiophiles can't tell the
> difference. the best is monster cable speaker wire versus coat hangers.
> the coat hangers won.

Considering the number of times the audiophool press have claimed "a lifting
of the seven veils" for every crackpot idea known to man, I'm not surprised.
My favourite was the idea of spending thousands on power main cables for
amplifiers (not as speaker cables but for the 110V/230V) The idea that was
more important than the miles of cable from the power station, and all the
transformers etc. in between still amazes me, but it wasn't just an April
1st joke apparently, it did the rounds for quite some time. I'm glad many of
those "writers" have since recanted some of their looney ideas. It must suck
for many to still be associated with such ignorance for ever on the internet
now though

Trevor.

In article <>, tony cooper
<> wrote:

> >> You self-profess to be an expert in market research by visual
> >> observation on airplanes and extrapolation of bogus data. You are the
> >> coat hanger of market research.
> >
> >nonsense. you refuse to believe what's actually happening in this
> >industry, even when the evidence is staring at you in the face. what
> >better way than to actually observe it than by going out into the real
> >world and looking around, rather than mindlessly point to meaningless
> >numbers that can be spun to mean anything you want them to mean.
>
> I'm enough of an expert in market research to know that someone
> walking down the aisle of an airplane and counting brand usage is
> producing nothing but meaningless numbers if he projects those numbers
> to some sort of market share conclusion.

then you aren't as expert as you think you are. first of all and as i
said back then, it's not solely on airplanes, it's everywhere. second,
just look at apple's financials. how do you reconcile the fact that a
company with such a tiny market share by your numbers has had
consistent growth outpacing the market for many years and is now the
most valuable tech company based on market cap?

obviously, a lot of people are buying their products, which explains
why they are so commonly seen in a wide variety of venues. if apple
really did have as tiny a share as you seem to think, then one wouldn't
expect to see anywhere near as many, and that's clearly not the case.

> >> >> but the music involved
> >> >> might have something to do with the listener's ability to determine
> >> >> the quality of the sound.
> >> >
> >> >it didn't.
> >>
> >> How do you know this? The article didn't state what type of "music"
> >> was used.
> >
> >it doesn't matter what type of music was used. wire is wire. the laws
> >of physics apply regardless of what type of music it is.
>
> Of course the type of music makes a difference.

nonsense. it makes no difference whatsoever.

if two pieces of wire are electrically identical, there won't be any
difference in what you hear no matter what is played through them. how
could there be?

> You are talking about
> the reproduction of sound and discerning the clarity of what you hear
> compared to what it should sound like or what it sounds like on the
> other system. There is some "music" that would sound the same no
> matter what wire was use.

*all* music will sound the same if the wires have the same electrical
characteristics. ultimately, it's nothing more than electrons bouncing
around and they don't care what music it is, or that it is even music
at all. it could be dc.

> >do you really think the electrons will behave differently depending on
> >if it's jazz, classical, rap or gregorian chants?
>
> The issue isn't whether or not the electrons jump about the same based
> on the wire, but what the listeners thought they heard. I could hear
> two versions of Rubha Creagan Dubha played on the bagpipes and not be
> able to tell if they were different or not.

actually, it *is* about what the electrons do.

"nospam" <> wrote in message
news:080220121537307306%...
>> All that proves is that some people who self-profess to be audiophiles
>> have tin ears and that coat hangers conduct as well as Monster cables.
>
> they conduct as well as monster cables and that test proved it.

No, you simply measure the impedance if you want to prove it, and the copper
monster cables DO conduct better than wire coat hangers. What the test
proves is the difference is not a major problem.


> audiophiles, the very experts who supposedly know what to listen for
> and who sell this rubbish to unsuspecting people, can't hear any
> difference. how would the average person notice?

The people who pay big money for the stuff are the audiophiles (audiophools)
NOT those making money from promoting more ways to extract money from
suckers.
Any correlation of either with acoustic perception accuarcy is purely
coincidental.


> feel free to cite a double-blind test where someone can consistently
> and reliably tell the difference, i.e., not a lucky guess. you can't
> because wire is wire. there is no difference to find. the whole premise
> is ludicrous.

There clearly is a *measureable* difference between wires. What is unkown is
just how much difference there needs to be in any given audio set up, for
anyone, let alone average people to tell the difference. Most people realise
the difference are totally negligable at less than $1 a metre, not $100's of
dollars per metre!
Those that don't, who cares?


> Wire is wire. the laws of physics.....

Say nothing of the sort!


Trevor.

In article <jgv9mn$u5i$>, Trevor <>
wrote:

> > there have been many tests where so called audiophiles can't tell the
> > difference. the best is monster cable speaker wire versus coat hangers.
> > the coat hangers won.
>
> Considering the number of times the audiophool press have claimed "a lifting
> of the seven veils" for every crackpot idea known to man, I'm not surprised.
> My favourite was the idea of spending thousands on power main cables for
> amplifiers (not as speaker cables but for the 110V/230V) The idea that was
> more important than the miles of cable from the power station, and all the
> transformers etc. in between still amazes me, but it wasn't just an April
> 1st joke apparently, it did the rounds for quite some time. I'm glad many of
> those "writers" have since recanted some of their looney ideas. It must suck
> for many to still be associated with such ignorance for ever on the internet
> now though

i posted a link about audiophile grade power cables that exposed it to
be nothing more than plain wire, but to think that it even could make a
difference versus the miles of who knows what to the grid, is flat out
ludicrous.

here's one that's even better: denon had a $500 audiophile grade
ethernet cable. it has 'high purity copper', therefore it must be good.
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9967991-1.html>

you know you have a special cable when the price goes up 20-fold after
being discontinued. some of the comments are hilarious:
<http://www.amazon.com/Denon-AKDL1-Dedicated-Link-Cable/dp/B000I1X6PM/>

"nospam" <> wrote in message
news:080220121017446179%...
>> > there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
>> > people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
>> > they can't.
>>
>> I see, your hearing is as bad as your vision. How sad for you.
>
> i guarantee you can't tell the difference anywhere near as well as you
> think you can.

What you guarantee is pretty worthless without specifying bit rates, music
types, listening conditions or any other relevant criteria, and also
compensation when you fail to fullfill the guarantee!
But I guarantee I *CAN* pick an MP3/AAC from the source wave file using an
A-B test 100% of the time for some material at some bit rates, with lower
levels of success for the highest bit rates using recent "popular" music.
What YOU can manage is your problem!

Trevor.

In article <jgvai0$vp6$>, Trevor <>
wrote:

> >> All that proves is that some people who self-profess to be audiophiles
> >> have tin ears and that coat hangers conduct as well as Monster cables.
> >
> > they conduct as well as monster cables and that test proved it.
>
> No, you simply measure the impedance if you want to prove it, and the copper
> monster cables DO conduct better than wire coat hangers. What the test
> proves is the difference is not a major problem.

do you have those measurements? didn't think so.

*if* there's an electrical difference, there *might* be an audible
effect. some differences won't matter. nobody is going to notice a
difference of a fraction of an ohm, for example.

> > audiophiles, the very experts who supposedly know what to listen for
> > and who sell this rubbish to unsuspecting people, can't hear any
> > difference. how would the average person notice?
>
> The people who pay big money for the stuff are the audiophiles (audiophools)
> NOT those making money from promoting more ways to extract money from
> suckers.
> Any correlation of either with acoustic perception accuarcy is purely
> coincidental.

there's a sucker born every minute.

> > feel free to cite a double-blind test where someone can consistently
> > and reliably tell the difference, i.e., not a lucky guess. you can't
> > because wire is wire. there is no difference to find. the whole premise
> > is ludicrous.
>
> There clearly is a *measureable* difference between wires.

depends on the wire.

14 gauge lamp cord at pennies a foot is going to be the same as 14
gauge monster cable at $5 a foot or whatever they charge, mainly
because that's all that monster cable *is* (plus some fancy looking
insulation to make it look cool).

nobody is suggesting that 30 gauge copper wire is going to sound the
same as the same length of 12 gauge wire, especially with a high
wattage amp behind it. obviously, there will be a very measurable
difference between those.

"nospam" <> wrote in message
news:080220121017456224%...
>> >>there's no audible loss in quality with a properly encoded mp3 or aac.
>> >>people think they can tell the difference, but in double-blind testing,
>> >>they can't.
>> >
>> > They can if the audio gear is good enough and the appropriate music is
>> > used.
>>
>> They can, HE can't obviously.
>
> nobody can, outside of luck. repeated double-blind tests prove this.

So if one test for one bit rate proves one person can't tell the difference,
you claim nobody can tell the difference for any material at any bit rate.
What a sad deluded fool you are!
Thousand of tests HAVE proven that MANY people can tell the difference for
MANY recordings at MANY bit RATES using MANY different Codecs. That's why
research is ongoing to improve them. Obviously not necessary for you though!

Trevor.

In article <jgvbcj$1hg$>, Trevor <>
wrote:

> So if one test for one bit rate proves one person can't tell the difference,
> you claim nobody can tell the difference for any material at any bit rate.
> What a sad deluded fool you are!
> Thousand of tests HAVE proven that MANY people can tell the difference for
> MANY recordings at MANY bit RATES using MANY different Codecs. That's why
> research is ongoing to improve them. Obviously not necessary for you though!

thousands of tests? which ones show that someone can consistently and
reliably the difference between 320 kbit aac versus the original
uncompressed audio, which eliminates everything other than the
encoding, and do so more than just blind luck?