ralphpnj wrote:
Julf wrote:
Because even scientists admit they don't know everything!
Absolutely true. However one should keep in mind that within the
scientific and engineering there are ways to indicate just how sure
they are of what they know. So there are theories, theorems,
excellent points made in this thread.
getting the bit stream perfectly from A - B is not the issue. it is
always the finicky analog part that is problematic. and there is more
analog in electronics that people realize, and it is treacherous. people
should know that, with analog designs,
Another sad fact can be that audiophile equipment can be badly designed
so that factors that should not matter actually do ? :)
Power amps that's gets unstable without special speaker cables etc .
Or circuit design with very bad or none power supply rejection ratio
,which demands uber designed
Dogberry2 wrote:
The USB cable argument is not merely unlikely; it is factually
impossible. It is no more in question or uncertain than the existence of
electrons. The notion of you could be wrong when someone states a fact
of physical law is the problem under discussion. Some people
Because even scientists admit they don't know everything!
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
Stereophile publish reasonably thorough measurements with their reviews
- how many hi-fi magazines do this? - I think is a useful resource.
Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/
SB Touch
darrenyeats's
darrenyeats wrote:
Stereophile publish reasonably thorough measurements with their reviews
- how many hi-fi magazines do this? - I think is a useful resource.
True and the measurements sections often produce the most hilarious
displays of tongue tied, twisted prose since with many digital
It seems it must be stressful and exhausting to be an Audiophile. So
much FUD and anxiety. The constant questioning of whether the system is
all it can be and the questing for the upgrade that will make it sound
so much better. I am so fortunate as a Music Enthusiast to not have to
engage in any
ralphpnj wrote:
The joke is really on everyone who happens to care about getting good
sound from their audio equipment since many of the reviewers and editors
in the high end audio press are considered to be experts (more like
self appointed experts) but their actual knowledge of the science
probedb wrote:
We just need them to make a comment like the Birmingham is a Muslim
only city on Fox News, and then have to apologise about all their BS
over the years ;)
They seem to get away with much worse gaffes all the time (especially
when talking about digital audio).
To try to
pablolie wrote:
i agree with you. totally.
i am not sure why in this day and age we still think writers ought to be
subject matter experts. pretty much every opinion article in the wall
street journal betrays the fact every publication has an agenda these
days... they stopped making money
darrenyeats wrote:
The USB cable's not impossible, just very unlikely. You could be wrong
(though I believe you are right).
I agree many audio reviews are a joke.
The USB cable argument is not merely unlikely; it is factually
impossible. It is no more in question or uncertain than the
Dogberry2 wrote:
The USB cable argument is not merely unlikely; it is factually
impossible.
A USB cable cannot affect the digital processing of course, and I didn't
write that it would. It is not impossible it could play a part in
interference upon analogue components - that is unlikely but
Julf wrote:
Because even scientists admit they don't know everything!
Absolutely true. However one should keep in mind that within the
scientific and engineering there are ways to indicate just how sure they
are of what they know. So there are theories, theorems, axioms, laws,
etc. Theories
Yes power supplies will filter noise but this is a matter of high noise
rejection rather actual removal (also balanced interconnects, they have
a high common mode rejection ratio, not literally 100% removal of
noise). This is the problem with real world devices.
In many cases, what gets through
darrenyeats wrote:
Or perhaps I imagined it. No matter, my point again is that it isn't
impossible just unlikely; and what's more many audiophiles don't have
properly engineered or properly configured equipment so that
assumption isn't safe when pooh-poohing impressions.
I love that last
pablolie wrote:
honestly i dont think why some people have such an emotional reaction to
someone blowing 10k on a USB cable. i think it silly, but hey, i think
it is a bigger societal issue that doesn't fall under audio. it's just
some people don't really know what to do with their money,
It's not impossible, just very unlikely. You could be wrong (though I
believe you are right).
I agree many audio reviews are a joke.
Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/
SB Touch
darrenyeats's Profile:
i agree with you. totally.
i am not sure why in this day and age we still think writers ought to be
subject experts. pretty much every opinion article in the wall street
journal betrays the fact every publication had an agenda these days...
hey stopped making money with subscriptions a while
darrenyeats wrote:
The USB cable's not impossible, just very unlikely. You could be wrong
(though I believe you are right).
I agree many audio reviews are a joke.
The joke is really on everyone who happens to care about getting good
sound from their audio equipment since many of the
pablolie wrote:
honestly i dont think why some people have such an emotional reaction to
someone blowing 10k on a USB cable. i think it silly, but hey, i think
it is a bigger societal issue that doesn't fall under audio. it's just
some people don't really know what to do with their money,
honestly i dont think why some people have such an emotional reaction to
someone blowing 10k on a USB cable. i think it silly, but hey, i think
it is a bigger societal issue that doesn't fall under audio. it's just
some people don't really know what to do with their money, and hence
they blow it
Hi there.
I'm running USB filters since a long time. There's nothing esoteric
about them.
It's simple physics.
These devices just filter the noise on pretty noisy USB data, power and
ground leads.
These effects can easily be measured.
How much it impacts the DAC soundquality/soundexperience
Julf wrote:
No need to. The important criteria is audible.
No. Good engineering means optimizing what is relevant, not what is
irrelevant. You can spend an endless amount of time and money reducing
noise - where would you stop, if all you went by was the lower, the
better?
As I
Mnyb wrote:
I never thinks it's is that easy as just follows the money , its a
culture with a believe system an anti science one sadly . Rational
arguments have little meaning .
For example that if you measure , like Archimago has done on several
occasions the DAC outputs exactly the
soundcheck wrote:
Open lines or ports usually act like antennas/transmitters/reflectors.
That even applies to RCA jacks.
There are physical interferences.
Properly terminating open ports is a very well known measure to get
interferences down.
Where? Where does it says this? If anything
soundcheck wrote:
Every (radio) engineer (1 semester) knows about EMI/RFI effects.
Of course. Every engineer also knows that there is a level that is low
enough that the noise doesn't have any effect.
There's nothing to prove here.
Except that the USB termination actually makes an audible
darrenyeats wrote:
It seems DAC manufacturers (including the 'non-foo' pro firms) are not
stopping though.
That's good. And there's an obvious reason for not stopping.
Audiophiles and Reviewers are driving them nuts. ;)
And companies like iFi are popping up with battery driven 200$
soundcheck wrote:
Hmmh. Define: Noise
No need to. The important criteria is audible.
I do know one thing - the lower, the better - over the entire bandwidth.
No. Good engineering means optimizing what is relevant, not what is
irrelevant. You can spend an endless amount of time and money
soundcheck wrote:
These devices get measured in a clean test bed. That's why peripheral
changes in real world scenarios can have and usually have impact -- even
on Femto Clock DACs.
Yes, good to bear in mind what measurements are and what they are not!
But still very useful of course.
I
Julf wrote:
Of course. Every engineer also knows that there is a level that is low
enough that the noise doesn't have any effect.
Hmmh. Define: Noise
The noise we're talking about is a complex bucket full of everything.
It's comprising of all kind of different noise types.
People tend to
Every engineer does as much as a specification asks for. Usually no
more.
USB or networks were never build with Audio in mind.
If a bit gets lost. It's send once more.
That's not good enough, neither for medical, nor for lab, nor for audio
applications.
Every (radio) engineer (1 semester)
Julf wrote:
But what AudioQuest is claiming is that their filter will bring benefits
even when used on unused USB connectors (not just the one you connect
your DAC to).
Well ofcourse:) any pc like thingy have plenty of outputs .
Yeas some tweaks have some actual physics involved , next
Open lines or ports usually act like antennas/transmitters/reflectors.
That even applies to RCA jacks.
There are physical interferences.
Properly terminating open ports is a very well known measure to get
interferences down.
If and how this impacts your soundexpierence is a different thing.
alfista wrote:
No thanks, rather not corrupt my mind.
My morals are another matter :) I could do with the $$$ he got for
writing that blurb.
I don't believe that Mr. Lavorgna received or took any money for writing
that blurb but I do believe that by writing that nonsense plus all the
other
ralphpnj wrote:
The amazing stuff that I really want is not the damn jitterbug but
rather whatever Mr. Michael Lavorgna is taking.
No thanks, rather not corrupt my mind.
My morals are another matter :) I could do with the $$$ he got for
writing that blurb.
Grumpy Bob wrote:
Amazing stuff.
Can't make it up...
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
'Here's a USB device'
(http://www.audiostream.com/content/audioquest-jitterbug) that's
supposed to benefit your audio when plugged into an unused USB socket!
According to AudioQuest, sonic benefits can be gained by plugging a
Jitterbug into most any unused USB port that's connected to your
Grumpy Bob wrote:
'Here's a USB device'
(http://www.audiostream.com/content/audioquest-jitterbug) that's
supposed to benefit your audio when plugged into an unused USB socket!
Amazing stuff.
Robert
What you'll hear, if you hear what I heard, is greater clarity,
dimensionality, and
probedb wrote:
Any reason this warranted a duplicate thread?
No. This thread was apparently automatically created when I replied to
an e-mail post instead of logging into the web interface to reply.
Sorry!
--
Touch - GW Labs upsampler - TacT RCS 2.2X - Convolver PC (Win7 +
Any reason this warranted a duplicate thread?
'last.fm' (http://www.last.fm/user/probedb)
probedb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7825
View this thread:
darrenyeats wrote:
I agree that AB or ABX test is no different to sighted in terms of
expecting no difference.
Actually you might be surprised. Expectation bias is a subconscious
thing. Take someone who claims they hear no difference between two audio
components and get them to do an ABX test.
As I wrote earlier, I've done plenty of blind testing and I plan to do
more in the future. So I don't think I'd be surprised.
I don't believe blind ABX confers any advantage over sighted in terms of
preconceptions about A and B sounding the same.
Of course, if you don't tell the listener the
From my experience a true, pure blind test is very difficult to set up
in a meaningful way. I am amazed when I see equipment reviews on the
Internet and the pictures show the equipment is being evaluated in a
very unfair environment, clearly set up poorly.
So for a start, I like to be involved
i don't get the creationist metaphor. creationists chose to *believe*
something childish and naive, rather than confront evidence and find a
pragmatic path that -magically- even the pope embraces. personal belief
doesn't have to lead to ignorance.
i don't think these forums are like that. this
Is not the whole topic a bit sidetracked , there is not much of a
mechanism by with properly designer USB cables could affekt the sound
anyway ,so why not worry about abx testing artefacts for another case .
The product outputs the same signal regardless off cable so worry about
listening for
pablolie wrote:
i don't get the creationist metaphor. creationists chose to *believe*
something childish and naive, rather than confront evidence and find a
pragmatic path that -magically- even the pope embraces. personal belief
doesn't have to lead to ignorance.
Go check out any proper
I have dithered back and forth about trying once more to get my point
across, as I have attempted several times over the past 20 or so years.
However, I feel that it's a fool's game as nobody in this arena is even
remotely interested in furthering the discussion.
The participants fall into
pablolie wrote:
so the other question becomes - if you're hung up on tests, is it to
justify to yourself and others that you made a superior choice?
I think that works the other way too - some audiophiles dislike blind
tests and measurements, because they have a fear of the tests somehow
doctor_big wrote:
I feel that it's a fool's game as nobody in this arena is even remotely
interested in furthering the discussion.
That might be your impression of the situation.
The second sub-group are those who swap gear and hear clear differences.
These chappies are far more sensible.
darrenyeats wrote:
But I have less confidence in the result where I fail to hear a
difference blind than where I fail to hear a difference sighted. (Yes, I
fail to hear differences sighted, quite often.)
That's an odd thing to say. Expectation bias can exist in the form of
I'm sure
doctor_big wrote:
.. the anti-subjectivist against the possibility of ANY value
whatsoever in high-end gear..
As long as the buyer understands the difference between the value of
quality and the (often perceived) value of price.
doctor_big wrote:
and (I suspect) hidden gear
As I read through the last 30 or so posts I came to the conclusion that
several forum members find ABX testing to fall short in some areas but
what I have not read is anyone discussing the way the vast majority of
audio equipment is evaluated in high end audio magazines, which truth be
told, is
RonM wrote:
That's an odd thing to say. Expectation bias can exist in the form of
I'm sure there's not going to be any difference between these sources.
A sighted test would quite possibly be influenced by this expectation.
A proper blind test in this situation would be one where there was
Julf wrote:
Absolutely. I was about to make that point too. This discussion started
from the premise that two pieces of gear that measure the same sound the
same, and that is largely true, and we should not underestimate the
psychological factors that make a $50 000 amp that looks like it
doctor_big wrote:
I completely disagree. Abx is good for determining if a subject can
identify X.
Just not sure why that would be useful information. If you can identify
X, it means you can tell a difference between A and B.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In
Julf wrote:
Just not sure why that would be useful information. If you can identify
X, it means you can tell a difference between A and B.
ABX in the context of audio gear tests the subject not the equipment.
It's confusing and confounding.
We've already established that ABX can't reveal
Have there been instances of two different amps that measure the same
being reliably shown as sounding different via ABX?
Jason
doctor_big's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=15196
View this
ralphpnj wrote:
edit: You can trust what i'm saying since, as you can plainly see for my
avatar, i have a golden ear.
lmao! :d:d:d:d
johann's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10177
View this
Julf wrote:
Doing a diff is an excellent too for verifying if a piece of waveform
in, waveform out gear (so amps, cables, file formats etc., but not
speakers) makes *any* difference at all. It is not very good for
determining which of two different things is better.
ABX has the same issue
johann wrote:
Isn't Is there any difference a good start?
Absolutely.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
doctor_big wrote:
Have there been instances of two different amps that measure the same
being reliably shown as sounding different via ABX?
Have there been instances of two different amps that can't be told apart
in an ABX being reliably shown as actually sounding different?
To try to
Julf wrote:
Have there been instances of two different amps that can't be told apart
in an ABX being reliably shown as actually sounding different?
I'm betting your definition of 'actually sounding different' makes this
a circular argument.
I have less confidence in a result where I hear a
Julf wrote:
Have there been instances of two different amps that can't be told apart
in an ABX being reliably shown as actually sounding different?
Jesus Christ - It's like trying to nail jello to a wall. That's the
type of behaviour I see on fundy Christian websites. Never a straight
doctor_big wrote:
Jesus Christ - It's like trying to nail jello to a wall. That's the
type of behaviour I see on fundy Christian websites. Never a straight
answer.
Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster! Maybe it is because you are trying to
nail things to the wall that makes your questions be
darrenyeats wrote:
I'm betting your definition of 'actually sounding different' makes this
a circular argument.
Not necessarily. What is your definition for actually sounding
different?
A lot of these discussions are predicated on ideas like: there is the
right way to do it and by
Julf wrote:
ABX, when properly executed, has the pro that it mostly takes the
expectation bias out of the picture, allowing you to listen with just
your ears.
I'd say it takes a way the expectation bias for those who think there is
a difference but not necessarily if you think there is no
johann wrote:
I'd say it takes a way the expectation bias for those who think there is
a difference but not necessarily if you think there is no audible
difference.
Fair enough - but what method would do that? You can't really make a
person hear a difference if they don't hear a
johann wrote:
I'd say it takes a way the expectation bias for those who think there is
a difference but not necessarily if you think there is no audible
difference.
Expectation bias works both ways. And expectation bias is but one of
many cognitive heuristics and biases known to exist, and
Julf wrote:
Fair enough - but what method would do that? You can't really make a
person hear a difference if they don't hear a difference
They should simply not take part in such tests. :)
johann's Profile:
garym wrote:
Expectation bias works both ways. And expectation bias is but one of
many cognitive heuristics and biases known to exist, and tested
extensively in the psychology literature (primacy effect, recency
effect, and many others). To your point if someone thinks there is no
audible
johann wrote:
They should simply not take part in such tests. :)
Indeed - no joke. For anyone seriously interested in listening tests, I
really recommend 'ITU-R BS.1534'
(http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.1534-2-201406-I/en) and 'ITU-R BS.1116'
Julf wrote:
Sure. Which is why we can have a rational discussion about the pros and
the cons. ABX, when properly executed, has the pro that it mostly takes
the expectation bias out of the picture, allowing you to listen with
just your ears. What, in your view, are the cons?
I have done
I agree there is definitely the danger of test fatigue. That is why,
for a proper test, you need enough test subjects so that no one subject
needs to do it for too long in one go.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the
pablolie wrote:
i fundamentally disagree with the premise that, from a certain point
on, gear tends to sound the same provided it is good enough. not at
all.
gear sounds vastly different. the million dollar question is to
ascertain whether it merely sounds *better* or more *accurate* or
i also view comparing-testing as a hassle. it is exhausting, since
listening to details and writing my impressions takes away from simply
enjoying the music, which is what i sit in front of my system for. i
*love* not to think about the equipment, and simply sit and enjoy the
music. but sometimes
doctor_big wrote:
How much would you think it reasonable to spend on a pair of
floorstanding speakers for a medium-sized (say, 16x20ft) room?
That is a hard question, because it really boils down to how much would
you think it reasonable to spend on your hobby?. How important is
listening
-- Original Message --
From: Julf julf.6q5...@no-mx.forums.slimdevices.com
To: audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com
Sent: 1/3/2015 4:44:51 AM
Subject: Re: [SlimDevices: Audiophiles] Oh-oh, the ethernet/USB cable
dispute all over again ...
doctor_big wrote:
How much would you think
doctor_big wrote:
With regard to choosing a pair of speakers, if the room is a constant
then wouldn't measurements of the speakers tell you how they'd sound?
IE: two speakers that measure the same should sound the same in the same
listening room?
As Darren pointed out, no two speakers
Julf wrote:
As Darren pointed out, no two speakers measure the same, but even if
they did, they would still sound different if they had the drivers
placed differently, had different shape/size baffle, etc - stuff that
affects how the speakers interact with the room.
Fair enough.
Another
doctor_big wrote:
Are measurements important when it comes to speakers?
Does size matter? :)
I would say that measurements are really important when it comes to
speaker-room interaction. It is very hard to achieve a decent frequency
response without nasty room resonances unless you use
Julf wrote:
Does size matter? :)
I would say that measurements are really important when it comes to
speaker-room interaction. It is very hard to achieve a decent frequency
response without nasty room resonances unless you use in-room
measurements.
With regard to choosing a pair of
Nothing measures the same ...!
Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/richpub/listmania/byauthor/A3H57URKQB8AQO/ref=cm_pdp_content_listmania/203-7606506-5721503.
SB Touch
doctor_big wrote:
So I take it you're not an audiophile?
I just like music, and have a keen interest (and some professional
experience) in audio technology, but that's all.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery
Julf wrote:
I just like music, and have a keen interest (and some professional
experience) in audio technology, but that's all.
How much would you think it reasonable to spend on a pair of
floorstanding speakers for a medium-sized (say, 16x20ft) room?
Jason
ralphpnj wrote:
Ah, my mistake. Under those conditions I would that the less expensive
setup would sound the same as the more expensive setup the vast majority
of the time and in those few instances where they do sound different the
differences would be fairly minor.
As for my idea of a
doctor_big wrote:
It's a little clearer. But still some questions:
(I'll say better here but I understand your point about different
and personal choice as to which is preferred) The $5k amp can sound
better than the $200 amp. And the $50k amp may well sound better than
the $5k amp (am
doctor_big wrote:
Fascinating! So a combination of the D1 and one of these TPA31XXD2 amps
would sound as good as / indistinguishable from, say, a dCS stack
feeding a set of Pass Labs mono amps? Given of course, a compatible
speaker load? And, just to clarify the parameters, assuming they're
ralphpnj wrote:
Sorry to have to use this word: depends, as in it depends on a quite a
few factors. What kind of speakers, where are the speakers be placed,
how loud do you like to listen to music, will you be using a subwoofer,
etc. All of these factors are important and should be taken
ralphpnj wrote:
Jason,
I think you are mistaking sonic performance for build quality. The
Nelson Pass mono amps are built like small tanks and are able to handle
even the most difficult speaker loads. The high build quality should
make the Pass amps trouble free for many years but from a
Julf wrote:
For the DAC part, I am pretty sure the 140 Audioengine D1 that drives
my genelecs is more than transparent and accurate enough, and in fact
even the 24 UCA-202 combined ADC and DAC that I use for room
measurements 'seems to be good enough'
doctor_big wrote:
Another question: What's the cheapest amp/DAC combo you can think of
that is transparent and accurate and will sound the same as any other
competently-designed components regardless of price?
For the DAC part, I am pretty sure the #8364;140 Audioengine D1 that
drives my
ralphpnj wrote:
Still another problem is the law of diminishing returns - a $200 amp may
offer 95% of the performance of a $50,000 amp and a $5000 amp may offer
98% of the performance of a the same $50,000 amp. Often one has to
decide if the huge increase in price justifies the small
doctor_big wrote:
How much would you think it reasonable to spend on a pair of
floorstanding speakers for a medium-sized (say, 16x20ft) room?
The short answer is $200. The Infinity Primus 363 is frequently on sale
at Amazon for either $99 each or $107 each with free shipping. (
doctor_big wrote:
I'm a touch confused: very similar isn't the same, and my
(admittedly superficial) reading of this and other threads in here sees
repeated use of words like indistinguishable to describe the sound of
two amps and DACs that measure the same, regardless of cost.
Build
doctor_big wrote:
I thought I was pretty clear: With the same speakers. And with speakers
that match the load and sensitivity needs of the amp. I perhaps didn't
overtly state the same room, but it was implied.
So in those conditions, the amps/DACs would sound the same, is that
right?
doctor_big wrote:
I took a brief look at one of the other guy's ABX DBT that was linked to
up above... to me that was just plain confusing. As soon as the X
appears, all bets are off. I firmly don't believe that ABX is good for
anything except showing how to confound a test and confuse
garym wrote:
I must interject. Your statement above indicates that you don't
understand what an ABX test is or its acceptance in the scholarly
research literature. Google ABX Test and you'll find some useful
explanations. ABX is a scientifically valid method of doing a double
blind AB
doctor_big wrote:
I understand exactly what an ABX test is. I also understand how useful
it can be. But in my opinion it's not a valid way to determine
preference in audio gear. It will clearly show whether the participant
can identify X. That's not of concern to me. There has been test
garym wrote:
Sorry, your statement above still indicates a misunderstanding of ABX
tests. They are not about identifying the X. They are a method for
determining whether A is different from B.
Whatever. That's semantics. The subject has to determine if X is A or
B. It's still not relevant,
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
