A comprehensive DVD & HDTV formats FAQ

I came across this large FAQ yesterday.
It has a ton of info on the upcoming HDTV, explanations of all the resolution formats, dvd and cd info in general, etc etc etc
the DVD Demystified FAQ link

Hey! I just wasted 45 minutes reading all that stuff. Try not to post links with so much good info, eh?

You keep posting crap like that and we won't get to ask stupid newbie questions anymore!!! Cut it out...

I was just trying to relieve the Q&A pressure from you lads.
It has just been so hectic on the boards lately.

Yes, chess, interesting reading. Now let me give you and the others the old double-blind test results here which may still be of some interest, especially the interconnects and speaker wires. Then,anyone who hasn't read Self's devastating analysis of audio voodoo should study it here .

JohnK,
Thanks for the links.
I read the analysis by Doug Self and WHOLE HEARTEDLY believe his ideas about audio subjectivism.
His short definition of the subjectivist position is EXACTLY what i encounter each time i throw out a comment to 'audiophiles' to the effect of doubting whether there is a difference b/w amp X&Y, or cd player A&B, etc.

* Objective measurements of an amplifier's performance are unimportant compared with the subjective impressions received in informal listening tests. Should the two contradict the objective results may be dismissed out of hand.
* Degradation effects exist in amplifiers that are unknown to engineering science, and are not revealed by the usual measurements.
* Considerable latitude may be used in suggesting hypothetical mechanisms of audio impairment, such as mysterious capacitor shortcomings and subtle cable defects, without reference to the plausibility of the concept, or gathering any evidence to support it ."

His idea is very much supported by the ABX blind tests (although some of their results come from a low number of test subjects). I find it very interesting how 7 of 10 amps tests provided no significant, detectable difference in sound when most audiophiles describe EVERY amp as having this or that different characterstic. Of course the cable tests were even more decisive. The DAC tests were short but again, interesting to note how a VERY old cdp (14bit DAC) is distinguishable from a newer model (16bit DACs?), but the 2 newer models resulted in the same sound.

Mr. Self's general conclusion on the acoustic psychological principle is also sound (and note how it applies to any science in general):

"It has been universally recognised for many years in experimental psychology, particularly in experiments about perception, that people tend to perceive what they want to perceive. This is often called the 'experimenter expectancy' effect; it is more subtle and insidious than it sounds, and the history of science is littered with the wrecked careers of those who failed to guard against it. Such self-deception has most often occurred in fields like biology, where although the raw data may be numerical, there is no real mathematical theory to check it against."

Crunching through scientific databases has shown me personally that this is all too true. Always trying to find a pattern or an explanation for the numbers to fit a hypothesis when none may exist in the first place.
Ask sushi if he has ever written up a journal paper where the bottom line was how your experiments revealed nothing at all.

So then we come full circle again. Why do 'hifi" components exist and why do ppl buy them?
As Mr. Self so clearly states again:

"there will always be people who will believe what they want to believe despite the hardest of evidence."

I believe this describes "religion" does it not?

Very interesting reading indeed.
Thanks again JohnK. That was refreshing.

In reply to:
I believe this describes "religion" does it not?

Yes, and interestingly yet, there is probably very little correlation between the "spirituality" or religiousness of a person and how much he tends to delve into the non-data-based, subjective "audiophiledom." I gues this itself would present an interesting Ph.D. thesis project in sociopsychology.

In reply to:
Ask sushi if he has ever written up a journal paper where the bottom line was how your experiments revealed nothing at all.

Yes, surprisingly, I recently wrote ONE paper (for the first time) with a completely negative set of results. And that's after several hundred publications in my scientific career so far. It is VERY true that 99% of "negative data" remain unpublished, and that sometimes poses the problem in the field.

At any rate, papers containing data affected by "experimenter bias" are rampant in my field (medical sciences). I would estimate well over a half of all published papers contain more or less "hoax" data, depending of the specific sub-field. And this is regardless of the prestige of the journal where the paper is published. And I am talking about a real "scientific" community here, where every publication has to go through a grilling peer-review process. I don't even want to start commenting on those numerous "pseudo-scientific" communities out there, including the world of audiophiles.

In defence of the scientific community, though, one great thing about the field is its self-policing capabilities. An author who repeatedly publish "unreproducible" results will quickly be eliminated from the community; he/she will not be able to sustain his/her career as a cutting-edge scientist.

Oh, incidentally, I am a devout Christian.

Glad you enjoyed the info, chess(although I saw nothing relevant to religious beliefs there). What a relief that despite Dr. Blondlot, we don't have to take extraordinary efforts to protect ourselves against N-rays!

Yes, those dreaded N-rays.
Can you imagine if all our speakers put out those horrible vibes?

Well put sushi.
I recall back in the nineties an experiment on nuclear fusion i believe which was supposed to be a break through in solving the world energy crisis.
It was about as large a hoax as that Floridian sect having cloned babies.

gotta love the sciences