righthookmike
Active Member
I have to say this is one of the more fun discussions I've seen. I'm gladdened to see actual thought provoking responses and opinions
All interesting but commenters here should not confuse engineering with basic science. Engineers use equipment to measure things but only measure what their equipment is capable of measuring. Science is both physical phenomena theory ( no limits) and measurable experiments (limited by equipment.)Hello friend. Hey, listen...we know how it is. Believe me, most of us have been there too. You've spent years toiling in the muck of audiophilia. You read ALL the reviews. You watched ALL the youtube videos. You visited ALL the other forums where everything always makes a difference. You bought the cables and the little bridge thingies for them to sit upon and the benefits were magical. You bought the $1000 IEMs that only truly sang after 250 hours of burn-in. Not 200 hours...or 225 hours, but 250 hours! It must be that for the magic to appear! You converted your entire music library to super high res and enjoyed the blissful new details that never were revealed by the awful, cludgy mess that was 16/44 cd. Never have your ears been assaulted by the likes of bluetooth audio or lossy mp3! You searched endlessly for the perfect dac...the dac that truly brought the magic! You bought one after another, each more expensive than the last, searching for the one, true dac that sounded better than all the rest...
And then you arrived here...and posted about your dac discovery, and were told that a dac shouldn't sound like anything at all! Suddenly your audio reality came crashing down around you. How can this be? Why shouldn't a dac sound great?? Why would expensive dacs even exist if they all sound the same??? Wounded, you lash out angrily! It's idiocy! It's retarded! These people have dead ears! It hurts. We understand. It's been a long time and you've spent a lot of money, all for naught. But once the pain diminishes and you've had time to deal with your emotions just give it some thought. Do some reading here and once your ban is lifted, maybe ask a few questions. Instead of locking your eyes shut against the bright light of objectivity...just open them up a little. Just a squint! Let a bit of that light in and bask in a warm, tubey glow that actually means something! Perhaps, as with many of us, a weight will begin to lift off your shoulders. Perhaps there is freedom in this new reality! You might discover that there is a different way...a way that wields real magic. A way that actually answers questions and reveals truth while at the same time leaving your wallet fat and happy! Welcome my friend. Welcome to ASR where the truth shall set you free!
All interesting but commenters here should not confuse engineering with basic science. Engineers use equipment to measure things but only measure what their equipment is capable of measuring. Science is both physical phenomena theory ( no limits) and measurable experiments (limited by equipment.)
that's what Paul Klipsch said "we live in the midrange"One thing that irritates me is when people describe high frequencies above a few kHz as 'treble'. The fundamental frequency for a soprano maxes out at around 900-1000Hz, everything above that is just overtones, and almost nothing of any importance happens over 10kHz. Take a look at the spectrogram of any music track and you'll see a bright band of energy happening between 100 and 1000Hz, usually maximal around 400Hz. This is where the music lives.
I always used to argue against expensive hifi being a status symbol since at one time almost nobody knew you had it, unlike a Rolex (the expensive watch everybody knows about) of a car, which you can show off.Ah OK, I was referring to the ones who are willing to buy it. Fidelity can be a factor to them, but status also. And status at these price ranges can definitely be the main motivator.
And almost to the minute, someone posts something asinine on a ”science” forum implying:
(1) we know and can measure all there is about sound and human hearing
(2) if experiential data doesn’t exactly mirror a handful of measurements (many generalized and all limited) then the experiential data is incorrect 100% of the time
(3) “measurements” are more important than human perception when it comes to music/sound preference
One of the earliest tests hereClearly someone should to TOFTT, buy one of those ground boxes, and drop ship it to Amir for T&TD
One of the earliest tests here
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ignal-grounding-preliminary-measurements.476/
This was looked into 5 years ago here,Depends on how you look at it They claim to be reducing noise on the signal ground like a good ground would do as well. The problem is grounding is a mess in audio. If they want to spin it that they filter all of the radiated noise pick up that is clearly audible, without the box, which I think is non sense so be it. If this is what people claim to be hear?? It's a "passive" box with multiple inputs who knows what's going on but they could be simply star grounding through their cables. They could be isolated. They could be shorting inputs on the unused analog interconnects.
Rob
Electronic measurements are actually fairly straightforward since the only contact with the outside world are the connectors which only have an electrical signal on them with magnitude frequency and phase (and there is nothing else), all of which are easily measured so if the reassuringly expensive capacitor, for example, makes a big subjective improvement it is easy to show if its real or imagined.Buster Chestnut said:
And almost to the minute, someone posts something asinine on a ”science” forum implying:
(1) we know and can measure all there is about sound and human hearing
Raistlin65 said
I don't think that's what most of the regular members here think.
We know that sound can be measured.
We don't always know how human physical hearing/the brain will interpret it.
> unfortunately Buster is correct. I can go back and provide specific quotes if necessary but some people have posted that unless you can provide measurements for what you are saying, your posts are basically worthless and not welcome
For a very few “golden ears” posters perhaps. The vast majority of posts are “harman curve” this and “SINAD” that, purporting some derivative silver bullet that supplants personal preference as if it’s a zero-sum game.
Telling people “your ears deceive you- you shouldn’t actually like product X over product Y! Buy product Y instead!“
Absolutely zero difference between that and buying something bc a certain reviewer likes it. Just pure hypocrisy.
I think you are cherry-picking your examples. I sense much more overall hostility (even if passively expressed) on other audio forums. I suppose it depends on whose ox is being gored. Every conclave of humans will have those who are lass tactful than others, and those who tire of repeatedly backing up their conclusions and resort to terse dogmatism.
But the Harman curve is the ultimate subjective test, being a model of what listeners of all backgrounds generally preferred. It’s not supposed to be a target and using it as such is making some big assumptions about room reflections and how they reach the listener in proportion to direct radiation. I personally prefer a flatter response at the listening position, without the downward spectral tilt, but I don’t have much in the way of early reflections in my arrangement.
SINAD is what I call necessary but not sufficient, at least for power amps (where they are often measured into unrealistic loads). But, as has been said here repeatedly, the enthusiasm for SINAD measurements over audibility thresholds (which are subjectively ascertained) is for good engineering, since there is no reason not to have good SINAD performance these days.
You must understand that people who have studied this in depth based on data (including controlled subjective data) have earned the right to form some conclusions. Those who say those conclusions are false based on their own uncontrolled perceptions are rather bold to think they will be persuasive, don’t you think?
Rick “my advice: read more widely” Denney
Buster Chestnut said:
And almost to the minute, someone posts something asinine on a ”science” forum implying:
(1) we know and can measure all there is about sound and human hearing
Raistlin65 said
I don't think that's what most of the regular members here think.
We know that sound can be measured.
We don't always know how human physical hearing/the brain will interpret it.
> unfortunately Buster is correct. I can go back and provide specific quotes if necessary but some people have posted that unless you can provide measurements for what you are saying, your posts are basically worthless and not welcome
Well, you did use measurements, so touché!
To be clear, the establishment here has no issue with personal preferences that perhaps don't measure as well. It's just when one claims something is "definitely better because I heard it" or "unmeasurable, but I know" implying that it would be the case for all that will get push back and scrutiny. Because it's a naive and uninformed position.
Too much Groupthink and Too Little Critical Thinking
The two most obvious characteristics of posts in far too many threads on this forum, with the approaching one thousand posts in this thread being a singularly-good example are:
- A massive concentration of Groupthink. New members are drawn to the group and repeat the group speak even though "G" is small, the group is huge.
The subject of a thread, even where the technology is quite clear, such a cables, is soon taken over by clones who demonstrate little technical knowledge, but parrot what they have read on the thread. They berate anyone unfortunate to offer any questions or alternative opinions. It is hard to see any advantages to boutique cables or similar nonsense, but given the way a large number of members approach this question it is rather embarrassing to agree with the obvious science and be on the same side as these all too numerous individuals.
The continued references to DBT is a painful example of this groupthink combined with ignorance. Valid DBT's of overall audio questions are almost never run, but the single answer to many questions often refers to DBT. It is a way for those who know little to believe they are spouting some universal truth.
IMO Amir has begun his educational video series partly (mainly?) in response to the demonstrated ignorance of a huge huge number of the members here.
- A miniscule quantity of Critical Thinking. Even measuring the critical thinking changes its value.
Too much Groupthink and Too Little Critical Thinking
The two most obvious characteristics of posts in far too many threads on this forum, with the approaching one thousand posts in this thread being a singularly-good example are:
- A massive concentration of Groupthink. New members are drawn to the group and repeat the group speak even though "G" is small, the group is huge.
The subject of a thread, even where the technology is quite clear, such a cables, is soon taken over by clones who demonstrate little technical knowledge, but parrot what they have read on the thread. They berate anyone unfortunate to offer any questions or alternative opinions. It is hard to see any advantages to boutique cables or similar nonsense, but given the way a large number of members approach this question it is rather embarrassing to agree with the obvious science and be on the same side as these all too numerous individuals.
The continued references to DBT is a painful example of this groupthink combined with ignorance. Valid DBT's of overall audio questions are almost never run, but the single answer to many questions often refers to DBT. It is a way for those who know little to believe they are spouting some universal truth.
IMO Amir has begun his educational video series partly (mainly?) in response to the demonstrated ignorance of a huge huge number of the members here.
- A miniscule quantity of Critical Thinking. Even measuring the critical thinking changes its value.
Controls are fundamental. If insisting on controls for extraordinary claims is Groupthink, that group is Reality-Based....Make-believe has no place in technical discussions.
Most all of us accept that Amir's tests are objectively done and provide an honest view of relative performance. There is value to that. It is a lot less clear precisely how these measurements impact the real world listening experience. It is that experience that most subjective reviewers outside of ASR focus on.