E-Mail 'Whom Can You Trust?' To A Friend

Email a copy of 'Whom Can You Trust?' to a friend

* Required Field






Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.



Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.


E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...

17 thoughts on “Whom Can You Trust?

  • January 19, 2019 at 11:42 am
    Permalink

    Mark

    All of *this* is about “building a business” and not about accumulating facts.

    You are not to interfere if you are not behind the effort to “build,”, please.

    Barry

    • January 20, 2019 at 8:29 am
      Permalink

      You’re right…it’s about doing business no matter what the facts. How is that helpful to the consumers? It’s not. So the myths and hoaxes continue.

    • March 12, 2019 at 7:11 pm
      Permalink

      Perfesser, I think I forgot to tell you that I would prefer the book, and the disks. With so much content online, I regularly get the Jones to look and feel a real book. Thank goodness for libraries!
      Regards,
      T

  • January 19, 2019 at 12:26 pm
    Permalink

    “I’ll write about who you can trust in a future post. ”

    … with apologies to “X Files” …

    “Trust No One”

    • January 20, 2019 at 8:31 am
      Permalink

      There are experienced and skilled people providing information and opinion. You just won’t find many of them working for magazines, websites, manufacturers, organizations, record labels etc.

  • January 19, 2019 at 5:22 pm
    Permalink

    I do not understand statements like “Audio quality is not measurable”. It is similar to arguments between science and religion which basically comes down to math/measurement vs faith. I consider audiophiles as being religious people who’s believe system is based on faith like e.g. vinyl record have some non measurable quality that makes them superior to digital records. It is impossible to argue with people who’s arguments are solely based on faith.

    • January 20, 2019 at 8:37 am
      Permalink

      There are very strong parallels between religion/faith and audiophilia. The myths in audiodom are taken without facts to back them up and persist in spite of being thoroughly refuted. I have no problem with people expressing a subjective opinion about a specific piece of equipment or cable, but then to discount technological and physical facts goes too far.

  • January 19, 2019 at 9:26 pm
    Permalink

    In two months it will be 45 years since I went from being an audiophile to being an audio scientist and engineer. That moment happened by complete surprise when I suddenly understood how sound and acoustics works. That changed everything for me. I understood for the first time exactly what I was hearing. I also understood how to engineer sound, to mold it and shape it the way I wanted to. 45 years of experimentation and I am satisfied with what I have done. I’ve only built two versions of this strange machine and neither cost over $3000 to build. Of course some of the equipment was bought used. The current version uses two main speakers enhanced with a lot of inexpensive tweeters for very wide dispersion. Three stereo amplifier with no more than 300 watts total, 16 surround speakers, Several equalizers, and three digital processors. No special wires were used. They are the kind that would have been used in the 1960s. The equipment would be called “mid fi” by audiophiles at best. The DSPs were infringements on my US Patent. Only one such model was ever made. It has a couple of inherent design flaws built into its firmware. It took me several years to solve them with workarounds.

    This is a complex machine. It’s based on a lot of math. It recreates the effect of very large room acoustics convincingly. That means convincing reverberation, envelopment, a sense of space, and what you’d call a very wide and deep sound stage which was not one of its goals. It can also reproduce the tonality and dynamics of live music. There is no one right reconstruction of the original sound. However, there are qualities of that sound due to the properties of the sound field it reproduces that are equivalent if not scientifically identical.to live sound.

    I have nothing to sell and no advice to give. All I can say is don’t believe anything anyone tells you. It’s all wrong. The equipment you can buy no matter how expensive or who makes it doesn’t come remotely close to being able to do what it was originally intended to. That problem has beaten this industry to a pulp. They say it can’t be done. I say THEY can’t do it. And once my patent was issued they had no interest in it. I watch all of them like a dog chasing its tail with amusement.

    • January 20, 2019 at 8:39 am
      Permalink

      I always appreciate your comments but to say the all information provided by anyone is wrong would include you too! Your goal of recreating the sound of a live performance is not the goal of most recording engineers, equipment designers, and acousticians. There are a variety of different experiences that have value in audio engineering and reproduction.

  • January 20, 2019 at 7:48 pm
    Permalink

    On the AQ letter, where Bill Lowe mentions posting files so you can hear the difference in their cables, where are such files posted?

    • January 21, 2019 at 12:13 pm
      Permalink

      He mentioned he’s done some posts about the digital differences but I didn’t dig heavily into his site to find some examples. If you find any, please let me know. It would be very interesting.

  • January 22, 2019 at 7:13 pm
    Permalink

    Ethan is a God among mortals. Paul is a shyster. You can “chastise” Ethan all you want, he knows more than you, a lot more. Seriously,.. WAY more..

    • January 23, 2019 at 6:57 am
      Permalink

      I have a great deal of respect for Ethan, have his book (and have read it), and count him among my FB friends. His experiences parallel mine to a large degree although I believe my experience as a practicing audio professional in the area of high resolution exceed his (I have produced the largest catalog of real HD audio recordings on the planet). We have somewhat different skill sets. I was very surprised to have to tug at him about his HD challenge files…that test utterly fails because of the source content and his admitted attempt to “fabricate” ultrasonic content in the standard-res versions. As a practicing audio engineer, experienced electronic repair technician, computer scientist (MS), professional musician (guitarist), and composer (Ph.D.), I would put my credentials up against his any day of the week. You obviously feel differently. You’re entitled to your opinion. Thanks.

      • January 24, 2019 at 3:13 am
        Permalink

        Ethan seems like a great guy, and he’s always very helpful, but I think he sometimes falls into the “objectivist” trap that we already know everything there is to know about audio, so there’s no longer any need to do further research or experimentation. A manufacturer, I think it was the head of Ayre, who also seemed at least somewhat scientifically minded and he disliked Stereophile, said about the objectivists that they claim to be scientific minded, but are the most stubborn people and the least interested in doing tests and experiments, which is what science is all about. And I think the guy had a point. We should always test things about, although some things are superfluous to test yet again, although yet another test showing no difference just supports the objectivists position. So my position is usually “sure, let’s test it properly to get it over and done with instead of keeping on talking about it :-)”.

        But there are a few people in the objectivist camp who are more stubborn than Ethan for sure. I think Ethan has been trying to argue with the subjectivist camp for close to 20 years, with no result, and I think he’s starting to become tired. I’ve only been arguing with the subjectivists for 3-4 years, and I’m already becoming tired :-).

  • January 24, 2019 at 7:09 pm
    Permalink

    It’s “whom”, you know.

    • January 25, 2019 at 7:59 am
      Permalink

      Yep, I think I would agree…doing a little research, a couple of sites said it was acceptable either way.

  • January 31, 2019 at 12:59 pm
    Permalink

    In truth, most information related to home audio cannot be trusted at all. The whole field is filled with misconceptions and outright lies. One has to look very hard for information from rational scientists and engineers. This state of affairs has two causes. First, hobbyists and even mass market buyers want to believe they are buying something that is superior, so they demand to be lied to. Doing so is quite easy because most people–including high end magazine writers no little about audio and lack critical thinking skills. They rely on their intuition, which is notoriously misleading. Second, the high end subjectivists have seized the field, supported by manufacturers who know they can make more money by misleading people. Finding correct information involves quite a bit of effort that is going to result in many people feeling bad about their expensive equipment. Most fans are not going to put forth the effort. Search for “The Audio Critic” and read the later issues, but be aware the even this is not entirely correct.

Comments are closed.