About
Free floating ideas and complaints.
Tonestack.net was launched by Csaba Horváth sometime around 2016. After the first few years and many initial attempts, the concept slowly took shape. (And still changing...)
I like to walk new paths, discover new methods, but also having both feet on the ground. I have an engineering degree and informal musical background, but we know there are some things money can't buy and there are some things that you can't get from formal education...
I wasn't satisfied with the typical answers, arguments, test methods I found in audio discussions either, no matter which side they came from. Subjectivism is deeply flawed (ignorance is bliss). Subjectivism hasn't provided any result yet, it has just created a market for extraordinary products to fool people. The main problem, however, is that it's very easy to create an article or video that looks "scientific" and yet is full of nonsense. Nonsense may come from anywhere, in any form... Also, arguments are often based on weak arguments rather than strong, conclusive arguments.
Thank to the internet (forums, blogs, YouTube) it's getting harder and harder to find a structured, coherent view about a topic. The game is rigged, as it looks like a vicious circle of attention stealing, following of authorities and generated repetitive content (million times repeated claims and lies, though sometimes you can't skip repeating yourself, I understand that). There is another vicious circle: learning requires certain skills that must be learned "somehow". In the church people learn the wrong answers. In school we learn the (mostly) right answers in the wrong way. This explains a lot...
Often people don't understand science because they have no idea what a real argument is, how a real argument "smells and tastes", or how to solve complex problems by breaking down to simple steps. Or how to identify different types of problems and find the right tool (Does the issue require a new test, measurement, mathematical deduction or reinterpretation of the problem? Or source of the problem is an incorrect definition, too much simplification, bad questioning...?).
As I see it, there is still too much confusion surrounding ABX testing. And the problem is that a lot of nonsense comes not just from layman but from experts (looks like a mutually reinforcing process). I'm not opposed to blind tests, but I'm opposed to the idea that sighted tests are the source of all problems and blind tests are the way out of any kind of craziness. Moreover, searching for the truth with double blind tests and/or statistical methods is a hopeless endeavour. Statistical methods are a poor substitute for logic, reason and experimental methods. I believe that any problem must be understood in such depth that ABX testing (the "weakest link") can be omitted. Also, the way the data is organized is more important than any data analysis framework.
Fun with YouTube
This tricky YouTube playlist is my brainchild, though more sophisticated versions also exist. Almost 400 songs at one place, composed by real musicians and played on real instruments. The video player is very easy to use: recommended videos are randomly picked until a video is selected, then the algorithm switches to searching for related videos for the next few clicks.
Click on the image to load the playlist
New from the workbench
Summarizing complex and broad topics is always a challenge. "Sound reproduction, audio measurements & fidelity: the 10 basic rules" covers the science and logic behind sound reproduction and audio measurements with only a few words.
Lossy audio compression is an exciting, yet neglected and misunderstood field of audio technology. Unfortunately, it's really hard to find a source that explains the logic behind MP3, AAC, or Opus in an easy-to-read style - if such a source exists at all. One can read Wikipedia or tech articles (pdfs) all day long without understanding anything about the technology. (more in: Lossy audio compression: principles, methods, misconceptions)
Csaba Horváth
Only music
