Article: Why We Need Audiophiles, The subjective perspective Options

[2tec]

I'm interested in what the HA community thinks about this new Gizmodo article, or blog, about Michael Fremer, an audio reviewer from Stereophile, which clearly goes completely against the grain around here. For instance:

"We play my solid 256kbps VBR MP3 of "Heroes" off my iPod; it sounds like shit. Free of pops and crackles, yes, but completely lifeless, flat in every way. This is the detail that matters: Audiophiles are basically synesthesiacs. They "see" music in three-dimensional visual space. You close your eyes in Fremer's chair, and you can perceive a detailed 3D matrix of sound, with each element occupying its own special space in the air. It's crazy and I've never experienced anything like it." ~ Why we need audiophiles

[botface]

Just thought I'd throw in a couple of observations.

We all love music or we wouldn't be here. I can't speak for everyone but I assume that most of us love music because of the emotional response it triggers. So, why are we surprised if some people let their emotions "tell" them things that are probably not true. Isn't it just a difference between individuals of where the emotional stops and the logical takes over?

Do musicians have better ears than the rest of us? Probably not. However, they (and engineers, producers etc) are more habituated to sound as they spend more time exposed to music even when not deliberately listening to it. If they play an acoustic instrument and perhaps play in a band or ensemble of some kind they have a much better idea than the rest of us what their instrument and other "real" instruments sound like before any engineering has been done on them. I'm willing to accept that some professional musicians are more sensitive to deviances from "true" as a result.

There is an inconsistency with the collective HA position (maybe that's just because it is collective). On the one hand we're happy to accept that while most lossy encoders are able produce results that are transparent to most people, most of the time, there are problem samples for every codec that some people can easily identify. This doesn't surprise us as we know a lossy copy is different to the original and some people are more sensitive to these differences than others. On the other hand if somebody claims to be able to hear a difference in two items that we know are measurably different - cables or 24/96 vs 16/44 perhaps - we say that they must be wrong as the differences are too small to detect. Again, I'm willing to accept that some people have better ears than others and maybe they can hear things that I can't. Having said that they should be able to demonstrate their ability reliably and repeatably in a blind test

[[JAZ]]

On the one hand we're happy to accept that while most lossy encoders are able produce results that are transparent to most people, most of the time, there are problem samples for every codec that some people can easily identify.
[...]
On the other hand if somebody claims to be able to hear a difference in two items that we know are measurably different - cables or 24/96 vs 16/44 perhaps - we say that they must be wrong as the differences are too small to detect.

I believe you got that wrong. Let me show you why:

First, what we accept is that lossy encoders, most of the time, do what they are designed to do, which is reproduce an encoded audio signal(*1) which is indistinguishable(*2) from the original, and using much less bits to store that signal compared to the original.

Problem (aka killer) samples define either an error in the implementation, or a deficiency of the format or methods used by that format. Some people are more sensitive to some types of artifacts, but that doesn't mean we accept they to tell us so without an accepted methodology.

Then, you throw in that we don't accept that a measurable (by hardware or software) difference could be heard by someone.

Well, of course, we do not accept that, if it is not proven by accepted methods, just like we would do with one person throwing in a killer sample.

In other words, the importance, for us, is to ensure that when talking about audio, only the audible differences are taken in consideration.

That's the corner stone of it all.


(*1) audio signal, specifically one in the range of the human perception
(*2) indistinguishable, not able to tell the difference, using accepted methods ( ABX/DBT )