• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Audiophilia - From skeptic to believer



A "Sticky" from that site:

Do not discuss DBT in this or other forums

Since we've seemingly been inundated lately with these discussions, I find it necessary to spell it out clearly and explicitly:

We do not engage in the discussion of double-blind testing (DBT) of cables on this site.

We do this not because DBT is or is not an legitimate means for decision-making. Rather, in our experience we find that these discussions repeatedly break down rather quickly into nasty circular arguments by competing camps of true believers. We've come to the conclusion that there's no particularly worthwhile end to be served by this line of discussion, and as such we're asking that the membership not engage in it.

Thanks...
 
That is exactly how science works. Eliminate all the other variables other than that for which you are testing.
That's how science works because they don't know any better. They don't think that different variables combined gives a different end result than each variable separated. Scientists don't know how it works, they just find things by accident.
 
But then if you are trying to hear tweaks that extreme you'd probably best move into an anechoic chamber.
 
ES: I think I've wasted enough ime in this forum already, but one thing that's intriguing me: what's with all of that white packing material all over the place? Surely it stops the equipment dissipating heat.
 
But then if you are trying to hear tweaks that extreme you'd probably best move into an anechoic chamber.

He doesn't need carpeting or an anechoic chamber. He does all of his listening using headphones - and he uses "reference trance music" mp3s.
 
Good grief he's got vinyl flooring! He could at the very least get a thick heavy carpet put down if he's going to be listening to high end audio in there.

But then if you are trying to hear tweaks that extreme you'd probably best move into an anechoic chamber.
I use earspeakers because loudspeakers distort the sound.

ES: I think I've wasted enough ime in this forum already, but one thing that's intriguing me: what's with all of that white packing material all over the place? Surely it stops the equipment dissipating heat.
It isn't packing material, it is ERS Paper shielding.
 
The test was double blind from the beginning to the end.

BZZZT! Wrong again! When you changed what you were testing for after you failed the test, it was no longer a double blind test.

You cheat, Patrick, because you are afraid of losing. Apparently your mother taught you cheating was OK, and this excerpt from your MySpace page shows you were a victim of child abuse:

When I was 3 years old I was already hanging out in bars, when I was 4 years old I was breaking into houses and stuff, when I was 5 years old I was stalking girls.

(snip)

I remember I was fighting against kids in kindergarten (I took a couple Karate lessons), I don't remember if they started bleeding or not. I was showing them my penis too. I was urinating in gym class and in my bed. I was urinating on the stones in sauna too, the house smelled for weeks.

(snip)

I was already cheating in sports when 5 years old, I was doing orienteering and mother would hide in the bushes after the start and run the track with me until the end, then I ran the last hundred meters by myself, I was winning gold medals.

Your endeavour to post here is just another way of saying "look at my penis." We are not impressed.

When reality comes crashing down on your head, it's going to be rather sad.

Some definitions of "hubris" I found while googling:

a lack of some important perception or insight due to pride in one's abilities

Need to defy the whole and be detached in a never completed search for satisfaction; cause of discontent; lack of rythm; confidence in the mind in place of the self; kind of suffering associated with ignorance; superior and careless behavior; defiance.

Excessive pride displayed by a character and often taking the form of a boastful comparison of the self to the divine, the gods, or other higher powers--often also resulting in harsh punishment

excessive pride which usually leads to the downfall of the tragic hero in Greek drama
 
Last edited:
ES: I think I've wasted enough ime in this forum already, but one thing that's intriguing me: what's with all of that white packing material all over the place? Surely it stops the equipment dissipating heat.
That is must likely why his equipment BROKE.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
This is quite possibly one of the most useless and semi-disturbing threads I have ever read.

:)
 
The problem is you were assuming other humans wouldn't see a difference just because you didn't see it yourself, guess who's the one with the broad brush... Why would I upconvert if I haven't done hours of comparisons? I do the same with audio, if I don't hear a difference, I remove the tweak. If I have a tweak that I don't yet know if it makes a difference, I remove it, I don't want it to be in my system if I don't know what it does.

I don't think you understood what I was saying about upconversion. The thing isn't that there is no difference, the thing is that you're just anti-aliasing the source when you upconvert it, or applying some other pixel-averaging algorithm. I have no idea why you would do "hours of comparisons" with the video. If you're scaling it up, you might as well anti-alias the picture.

A lot of free video players can do the exact same thing that Video Enhancer does - namely, apply what is essentially an AA pass to the whole picture. You can download players that allow quite precise control over their deblocking and upscaling filters, to balance the sharpness of viewing the source at its native size with the blurriness created by the filters.

If you really want to maintain the sharpness of the video, you might want to consider just displaying the unscaled video in your display (most video players will allow this). It won't use the full display, but if you're really using a 1080p source you'll fill about 75% of the screen. It won't look blocky like upscaled (but not filtered) video, and it won't look blurry like upscaled and filtered video.

What are you viewing, anyway, regular DVDs? You got an HD-DVD or a Blu-Ray hooked up?

Nowhere did I say "there is no difference." However, if you're sitting back far enough your eye cannot physically discern a difference! It isn't a matter of personal preference anymore, it's a function of maximum human visual accuity, display technology, pixel density, and simple mathematics.

Course, if you're upconverting a standard DVD to your display resolution, you'd have to be back pretty far. If you were using a source actually originally stored at 1080p you'd probably stop seeing a distinct difference... I dunno, maybe beyond 6-10 feet or so.

Finally, if you're going to go so far as to say that video enhancer actually adds detail to the original picture, then you're full of crap and don't know what you're talking about.

I don't doubt that many of your tweaks adjust the sound of your system, and I'm sure you adjust it to your preference. I think you're being silly for spending so much money on your "tweaks." I think a lot of this process is so ultimately subjective that you could obtain the same results by spending a couple thousand on decent upper mid-end consumer gear and just relaxing and listening to the music rather than obsessing about the nuance of the sound, but I know this is about the process of tweaking to you, and you consider it money well spent. Whatever, that's your business.

What I do doubt are things like your claims that a power cable can measurably alter the sound of your stereo system. Given my knowledge of how the system works and produces sound, those claims sound highly dubious.

All I asked was that you explain how it works, in non-amibiguous technical terms.
 
I don't think you understood what I was saying about upconversion. The thing isn't that there is no difference, the thing is that you're just anti-aliasing the source when you upconvert it, or applying some other pixel-averaging algorithm. I have no idea why you would do "hours of comparisons" with the video. If you're scaling it up, you might as well anti-alias the picture.

A lot of free video players can do the exact same thing that Video Enhancer does - namely, apply what is essentially an AA pass to the whole picture. You can download players that allow quite precise control over their deblocking and upscaling filters, to balance the sharpness of viewing the source at its native size with the blurriness created by the filters.

If you really want to maintain the sharpness of the video, you might want to consider just displaying the unscaled video in your display (most video players will allow this). It won't use the full display, but if you're really using a 1080p source you'll fill about 75% of the screen. It won't look blocky like upscaled (but not filtered) video, and it won't look blurry like upscaled and filtered video.

What are you viewing, anyway, regular DVDs? You got an HD-DVD or a Blu-Ray hooked up?

Nowhere did I say "there is no difference." However, if you're sitting back far enough your eye cannot physically discern a difference! It isn't a matter of personal preference anymore, it's a function of maximum human visual accuity, display technology, pixel density, and simple mathematics.

Course, if you're upconverting a standard DVD to your display resolution, you'd have to be back pretty far. If you were using a source actually originally stored at 1080p you'd probably stop seeing a distinct difference... I dunno, maybe beyond 6-10 feet or so.

Finally, if you're going to go so far as to say that video enhancer actually adds detail to the original picture, then you're full of crap and don't know what you're talking about.

I don't doubt that many of your tweaks adjust the sound of your system, and I'm sure you adjust it to your preference. I think you're being silly for spending so much money on your "tweaks." I think a lot of this process is so ultimately subjective that you could obtain the same results by spending a couple thousand on decent upper mid-end consumer gear and just relaxing and listening to the music rather than obsessing about the nuance of the sound, but I know this is about the process of tweaking to you, and you consider it money well spent. Whatever, that's your business.

What I do doubt are things like your claims that a power cable can measurably alter the sound of your stereo system. Given my knowledge of how the system works and produces sound, those claims sound highly dubious.

All I asked was that you explain how it works, in non-amibiguous technical terms.
It's pretty obvious that you get more detail if you combine two pictures into one, assuming both pictures aren't identical. I guess the skeptics watch movies with the movie paused. They do the same thing with everything, they just pause it and cluelessly try to measure it. They don't know the big picture.

I'm posting this picture so they sane people can see what skepticism is all about. For the skeptic this upconversion has the "same detail", and they don't bother upconverting because "their eyes cannot physically discern a difference" because they choose to run away from the screen instead of sit closer to the truth.

sr_org_big.jpg

sr_srsr.jpg


"SR works when several low resolution images contain slightly different views of the same objects. In this case total information about the object is much higher than information in one frame. Best case is when an object moves in the video. If it doesn't move at all and it's identical in all frames, no extra information can be extracted."
http://www.thedeemon.com/articles/what_is_super_resolution.html
 
Last edited:
The audiophiles don't need someone else to tell them what they are hearing, unless they have hearing damage. It is better to remain unbiased and don't trust anyone but yourself. I don't believe what anyone says, not even after it has been "proven". But for some reason the skeptics suddenly change their minds after proof is written on little piece of paper. Why didn't the skeptics believe it before? Because they don't have a mind of their own, they need someone else to say what is true and what isn't. They are afraid to use their own mind, because they are afraid to be wrong. But they fail to realize, being wrong about something makes you stronger. Skeptics need to face their fears, otherwise they remain weak. Try some tweaks and find out the truth by yourselves.

What I take from this post and a few others from you is that you actually think your own perception is better than a scientific study. Clearly you've learned nothing at all from Randi's site. Human perception is flawed and often leads us to the wrong conclusions.

I'm assuming your login name is intended to be ironic as I find you anything but skeptical.
 
What I take from this post and a few others from you is that you actually think your own perception is better than a scientific study. Clearly you've learned nothing at all from Randi's site. Human perception is flawed and often leads us to the wrong conclusions.
So the humans for some reason believe that they are humans? They are not true skeptics, they are believers. A true skeptic is one who doesn't believe he is human or any other race.

I'm assuming your login name is intended to be ironic as I find you anything but skeptical.
I'm skeptic to the skepticism of Randi's site.
 
So the humans for some reason believe that they are humans? They are not true skeptics, they are believers. A true skeptic is one who doesn't believe he is human or any other race.


I'm skeptic to the skepticism of Randi's site.
:dl: :id: :pigsfly

Paul

:) :) :)
 

Back
Top Bottom