SOtM Launches sMB-Q370 Motherboard

19 hours ago, Archimago said:

That is quite well defined and certainly measurable beyond any science we know to have significance for human hearing abilities

Do you seriously think that we can explain everything we sense with electronic measurements?  I use the word "sense" on purpose because we definitely sense vibrations that we don't "hear" in the conventional use of the word. 

To be true, your statement means that we have  defined exactly how we hear and that we can precisely measure everything that pertains to it. It implies our knowledge is so far advanced that we understand precisely how the human body senses vibration and exactly how our brain processes this information, and beyond understanding how all of that happens, we have electronic instruments that are capable of precisely measuring everything that pertains to this process... . ..... dream on. 

19 hours ago, Archimago said:

To speculate that there's "something else" out there is fine but this cannot really be taken seriously unless there's some hint of what we're talking about. That's like saying "it's possible" that the Boogeyman lives under my bed. As adults I trust there's no need to be concerned, right?

No, definitely not.. .. sorry, your analogy is humorous but meaningless.  You imply that science is so far advanced that we not only understand everything, we can also measure  everything .. ... again.. dream on. Much of what we are discovering today was not even conceived of several years ago. I have an electronics and scientific background, but I'm not so delusional to think that mankind has reached the point that there is nothing left to discover or that we even have the vision to know what these things might be. 

I know you are deeply involved in using measurements to explain outcomes. I respectfully suggest that your desire to be able to explain everything with measurements has clouded your ability to think beyond what your instruments are capable of measuring or the possibility that you aren't even measuring everything things that matters

I also respectfully suggest you head over to Audio Science Review and join the "if I can't measure it you can't hear it" cult (that is an attempt at  sarcastic humor and I hope you take it as such)

“Everything that can be invented has been invented.” Charles H. Duell , Commissioner of US patent office. 1889

1 hour ago, bbosler said:

Do you seriously think that we can explain everything we sense with electronic measurements?  I use the word "sense" on purpose because we definitely sense vibrations that we don't "hear" in the conventional use of the word. 

 

To be true, your statement means that we have  defined exactly how we hear and that we can precisely measure everything that pertains to it. It implies our knowledge is so far advanced that we understand precisely how the human body senses vibration and exactly how our brain processes this information, and beyond understanding how all of that happens, we have electronic instruments that are capable of precisely measuring everything that pertains to this process... . ..... dream on.

 

Your response is irrelevant to Archi's post. Archi and others have measured the output from DACs fed a signal from devices with and without all the various audiophile "noise reducers" and "jitter reducers". The result: basically no difference in the jitter output, distortion, or noise floor of the DAC. 

You can claim all sorts of things are going on. But other than fairy tales, please tell us how the DAC output is actually changed by these devices? If jitter doesn't change, frequency response doesn't change, distortion doesn't change, and noise floor doesn't change - then what effect do these devices actually have? Just saying "it's something unknown we can't measure" is a nonsense response. If you want to claim a MB like this or any other audiophile device "does something" - tell us what it does. 

Saying it "reduces noise" is, by itself, a meaningless statement. What's the effect of the "noise reduction"? On what part of the audio is it operating?

And of course, evaluations of such products are almost always done with sighted listening comparisons. So they are basically meaningless.

And look, in the end, if you want to buy this MB, and "feel" that it actually does something - go right ahead. Just don't make unsubstantiated claims for it. All you can legitimately claim for such a device is that in your system, with your ears, and in a sighted comparison you think it sounds better. No one can say or prove you wrong.

But any broader claim that it actually has some more universal application to SQ for any other listener or that it "really" does something is baseless. 

13 hours ago, bbosler said:

this is the Audio Science Review position. "I see no difference when I measure these 3 things. these 3 things are all that matter,  so therefore these devices are identical." Once again, and then I will drop it since you are not "hearing" what I am saying. You and others have decided what the relevant parameters are and that nothing else matters. The ASR guy has also decided that even though some things do measure differently, these differences are beyond what a human can detect. 

I am hearing you. And no, that's not my position. I don't claim there isn't anything else and everything is known and can be measured. I also don't claim the the $200 devices they test at ASR all sound as good as some of the best equipment. (Although I do suspect that lots (noy all) of people who claim to hear the differences actually couldn't under blind conditions).

But "differences beyond what a human can detect" have been measured- for the things that we know how to measure. To say that these same vanishingly small measured differences that have actually been shown in listening tests to be undetectable by listeners are somehow magically making a system sound different is simply nonsense.  If you want to make such claims, then it has to be on the basis of some other, as yet unknown or unmeasured type of difference. That's why I said such claims have no basis other than for the individual making them. If you want to claim they have some broader basis, you have to know what they are so they can be evaluated by others - or at least test them in blind listening. If they are only heard in sighted conditions by a certain group of individuals, that means zip in terms of if such a device actually does anything. That's basic logic and science, and doesn't depend on us knowing about any as yet unknown parameters. 

If SOtM wants to claim that such a motherboard improves SQ, saying it "reduces noise" is in itself a meaningless claim. It's no different than me saying if I put a small magnet in my hands and wave them a certain way while playing music, it "changes the energy" in the room and the SQ  improves. 

Show how it is improving the end result coming out of the DAC or the speakers. And you don't have to measure some mysterious unknown variable. Have it properly tested under blind conditions and show us that listeners can actually hear a difference when this product is installed.

If you really have confidence in your product you could do that. With this product it wouldn't be difficult at all. Nor would it be expensive. 

If they could show such an actual difference with listeners, they'd sell more product. So why do you think a company like SOtM never does this?

A motherboard designed to produce less noise in an audio chain is part of a solution. In the same way as a mains filter that audio components plug into, at the wall. Both are a means of improving upon the less than adequate engineering of nearly all audio gear. Yet in the bizarro world of audiophiles, one is a sensible precaution, but the other is money making snake oil ...

One day, audio gear won't need all these band-aids - but in the meantime I think it's reasonable to buy and use whatever gets the job done, for the individuals who are fussy about what they hear, .

A couple of pics to show where the sclk-ex connects to the board .

18 hours ago, bbosler said:

 

which is impossible.. How does one make a claim based on an unknown then say what that unknown is so it can be evaluated? 

 

 

 

 

 

and so ends the discussion at least from my end... you seem to believe that tests have been designed and carried out that prove what can and cannot be detected . I have no faith that these tests are valid nor does a large % of the audiophile community

 

 

 

 

I said, in fact, the opposite. The rabbit hole is your creation.  I said no special tests or measurements are necessary. Just do unsighted comparative listening. Anyone who knows anything about human perception knows that humans are highly influenced by expectation biases. It's been shown to be true for audio perception also. Human nature doesn't suddenly change when a hi-fi system is involved. 

"The audiophile community" is in large part a joke. Often like the anti-vaxxers and other science deniers. "We will hold onto our beliefs no matter what, and we will never actually test them, b/c then we might find out we don't have golden ears and can't actually hear all those things we claim to be able to." That's the real reason for most of the resistance. It's more fun to hold on to beliefs than deal with reality. Wouldn't it be terrible if you found out you couldn't hear any difference between a $1000 component and a $5000 one? Or a $5000 one and a $20000 one? 
 

5 hours ago, firedog said:

Just do unsighted comparative listening.

5 hours ago, firedog said:

The rabbit hole is your creation.

and therein lies the crux of the matter....  "just do" as if it is a simple matter. It is not.

unsighted = blind listening which you obviously believe to be valid. I do not.  Many do not. People who believe measurements tell everything like the ASR cult do. As I said,  the debate about blind testing is endless and pointless. It is such  a huge bone of contention that many forums ban even mentioning it. 

this is probably one response too many since that is the rabbit hole you are apparently unaware of. We are on the edge of it and  I will not go down it.. .I certainly did not create it .   ........ so ....... good day

17 hours ago, bbosler said:

unsighted = blind listening which you obviously believe to be valid. I do not.

based on what?

You are aware of the many tests of human perception, including sound/listening perception,  that show expectation bias and results influenced by "sight"? 

So what is a question of "belief" here? 

And please stop grouping me with your prejudicial comments about "the ASR cult".  Your stereotypes about people who "believe measurements tell everything" are neither accurate nor relevant. 

1 hour ago, bbosler said:

 

as I said

 

 

Answering your question will continue yet another endless, pointless debate. If you care to look into it you will find a multitude of them Here are a few links to get you started although it is by no means exhaustive. . enjoy.. 

 

https://www.head-fi.org/threads/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths.486598/#:~:text=Blind tests mean the listener does not know,image%2C product reputation is hidden from the listener

 

https://www.stereophile.com/features/113/index.html

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/blind-listening-letters

 

https://www.pooraudiophile.com/2014/08/blind-audio-testing.html

 

 

Thanks. Your articles acutally back up my point, and not yours. I suggest your read them again.

In unsighted listening, many listeners can't hear differences between components. That's exactly what I said. I didn't say there were no differences or that no listeners can hear them.

In sighted listening audiophiles almost always describe dramatic differences and "veils being lifted". In unsighted listening, most of those same audiophiles can't hear those supposedly dramatic differences. The reason is that the differences either aren't actually there, or if they are, they are often small, and not as dramatic as described. The majority of listeners, even audiophiles, can't hear them. If you find out you can't hear the difference between 2 components, why by the more expensive one, other things being equal?

Most audiophiles are afraid to test themselves, b/c they are afraid to find out they don't have "golden ears". It's very satisying to think you are a member of some especially talented listening group, even if you aren't in actuality.

The same thing would probably happen with the MB described here if people compared it unsighted. 

There are (or at least used to be) listening skills tests and courses online. Most audiophiles fail them. It takes a lot of time and work for people to pass them, and many never do. They can't actually hear many of those things they claim to hear. They are just imagining them. That's fine if they just want to enjoy their components. The problem is when they assume and tell others that they should "upgrade to X" because it "reduces noise" and will improve what they hear. The likelihood is that it actually won't. 

11 hours ago, firedog said:

Thanks. Your articles acutally back up my point, and not yours. I suggest your read them again.

My point for the links was simply that their is a lot of debate about the topic which will never be resolved ... my links clearly show that.... which is obvious if you had actually read them. The first link is a forum thread with 990 pages and  about 15,000 posts. You responded in about an hour that it backs up your point,  but no way you read it. If you had you would have  read there is passion on both sides. The second is in part Atkinson saying he has been fooled by these tests. You can read the others if you care to.

BUT, that was not my initial point, which was  "Just because we have some measurements doesn't mean we are measuring everything that is relevant." You then started down the blind listening rabbit hole and here we are, which pretty much proves my point that it is a rabbit hole.

I do agree with the poster who said another thread should be started that consists of actually reporting results of it in use. That seems to me more useful than just speculating like you are that it will not have any effect. As a serial poster I'm sure you have another tact to take so have at it. 11,000 posts in 12 years  is an impressive feat, my 300 in 3 pales in comparison. 

11 hours ago, firedog said:

The same thing would probably happen with the MB described here if people compared it unsighted. 

 

On 12/25/2021 at 11:59 AM, firedog said:

any broader claim that it actually has some more universal application to SQ for any other listener or that it "really" does something is baseless. 

4 hours ago, extracampine said:

Having the source and endpoint separated by ethernet cable seems to negate the need for an "audiophile" motherboard in the source PC. Or am I missing something?

There are 2 types of people in this world - those who understand binary and those who don't

On one side are the scientists who say it is all bits, it is all asynchronous  binary data, so sources, servers, re-clockers, cables, motherboards, and so forth don't make any difference since they all deliver the exact same data to the endpoint. "You can't provide me any measurements that show any difference in the data stream from a $26,000 Taiko Extreme and a $100 Raspberry Pi."

On the other side is the crowd who claim profound differences with different servers. That a USB cable or even the power cord to the computer makes a significant difference. "I don't care about measurements. I hear what I hear and I hear a difference."

So no, you aren't missing anything as that is the crux of the debate. It is ongoing and seemingly endless. My only advice is try it for yourself and decide. You are certainly not going to find the answer by reading about it on internet forums. 

BTW the joke is actually there are 10 types of people in this world - those who understand binary and those who don't