Additional information will bias one to believe claims made

[mav52]

Oh freaking cares. He said this, he said that. My god it's just audio and everyone hears or likes or dislikes something differently. People should be able to express their idea's without having to defend their statement in some forum court of law. At times it sounds like a bunch of grade school kids arguing. Sorry if I offended anyone with my post.

[NOMBEDES]

Has anyone hooked up an expensive cable to their HP printer to see if they get blacker blacks?

Just asking. BTW Is this a "no snark zone"?

[Paul R]

Has anyone hooked up an expensive cable to their HP printer to see if they get blacker blacks?

Just asking. BTW Is this a "no snark zone"?

 

Don't know about blacker blacks, but it makes the sound of one less obnoxious. S'Fact!

 

Must pass the high frequency better. Of course, you have to be careful with those printers - they have a built in HACF instruction. That would be Halt And Catch Fire for you non-assembly language types...

 

-Paul

[NOMBEDES]

Don't know about blacker blacks, but it makes the sound of one less obnoxious. S'Fact!

 

Must pass the high frequency better. Of course, you have to be careful with those printers - they have a built in HACF instruction. That would be Halt And Catch Fire for you non-assembly language types...

 

-Paul

 

 

Damn, I HATE the HACF instruction. Foiled yet again.

[thesurfingalien]

Hi Paul,

 

To reply, MMDIV and again with due respect:

 

Hi Peter -

 

Perhaps I see a difference you do not. And I thought I was clear I was talking mostly about people on other boards, as well as the few instances of such behavior here. I thought I was very clear I was not talking about Dennis or Julf.

l

 

I did not mention Dennis or Julf at all in my reply. I believe them to be quite able to stand their ground without my aid. However, you posted here on CA with an example about someone who frequented CA for about a year who got confused because of postings here.

 

Personally, I do not think I have ever told someone here they are or are not hearing something, or made fun or ridiculed someone because they can or can not hear something. (Edit -that isn't exactly true. I do owe Julf an apology. Sorry Julf.) Or because they believe something I disagree with. For example, I disagree with you on several issues, but I do not believe I have ever said or implied anything that would make you feel bad.

l

 

No you probably did not (I have not read all you wrote on CA) and yes, you never made me feel bad at all.

 

All I can say, is go read some of the other audio boards. Take especial note of how they gather like vultures around anyone with an outlier opinion or theory. Look here, even doing a bit of semantic analysis, and I think you will easily be able to identify what I am talking about purely by the difference.

 

CA is much better about freedom of expression, respecting other people, and supporting people with outlier opinions. That applies if those outlier opinions are conventional or un-conventional.

l

 

I am well aware of the other boards you are thinking of (and perhaps some others). Not always that pleasant. Unfortunately.

 

As for me posting things to make me appear "smarter than" someone else - huh. Well, as dumb and ignorant as I feel most of the time, that is a remark I do not think I resemble. Especially as I do not write for publication or pay here.

 

When I do write for pay or publication, that requires a whole different level of care, thought, and editing before publication. This is more like a "pub" conversation to me. YMMV.

l

 

I think you have misread what I wrote. Please re-read. Regardless of being payed or not, what you write here is public and therefore for all to see. I am sort of lost with regards to the relevance of this remark.

 

 

Paul, don't get me wrong, but you did not react to the essential issue I brought up; the threshold idea. That was the true intention of what I wrote...

 

 

Regards,

Peter

[Paul R]

Hi Paul,

 

Paul, don't get me wrong, but you did not react to the essential issue I brought up; the threshold idea. That was the true intention of what I wrote...

 

Regards,

Peter

 

Hello Peter -

 

I read and believe I understood what you wrote.

 

I mildly disagree with your thinking in regard to the "threshold" subject. Also, I suspect this disagreement is rooted in cultural perceptions. For that reason, and because it would almost certainly be personal and uninteresting to most, I am unwilling to dispute or debate it.

 

-Paul

[sjoc2000]

Oh freaking cares. He said this, he said that. My god it's just audio and everyone hears or likes or dislikes something differently. People should be able to express their idea's without having to defend their statement in some forum court of law. At times it sounds like a bunch of grade school kids arguing. Sorry if I offended anyone with my post.

 

Agreed. I'm thinking that often times the potential and engagement in a dispute is far more attractive than the actual subject for some. I think it was Paul that said in essence, frequently these mild to heated disagreements are just two sides of the same coin.

 

For the "believers", of their position, as far as judgement about equipment and sonics, it really doesn't matter if you get someone else to agree with your position or not, just enjoy the music the way you want to enjoy the music...

 

Jim

[esldude]

I think it does matter some sjoc2000.

 

If you come to a forum like this for information, guidance, to learn from the experience of others then it is better if that reported experience is accurately reported and understood. That doesn't stop with someone being truthful about what they heard. Especially when some listening experiences happen in circumstances where humans are well known to get fooled. Such experience can then represent anything from misinformation (though not intended as such), to outright foolishness, to borderline cases that are hard to make a decision upon, and on across the spectrum to things being what is reported for clearly well known reasons.

 

The very first response to this post from Alex said maybe I should give the people on CA more credit. It isn't about their passion, truthfulness or earnestness however. I am not questioning that. It is about audiophiles in some fair percentage operate as if the same foibles of human senses don't apply to them because they are careful. I think it worth pointing out that it applies to them like anyone. That is an area where taking proper care seems not to happen so much.

 

People are quite quick to trust their ears as the final arbiter when that isn't always the best policy. Because rarely is it just their ears.....it is their ears, their expectation bias, the myths and tales of the audiophile community in their minds that means they aren't in a position to just trust their ears. Then when asked to just trust their ears, and yes only their ears, results are often so very different. Rather than use and learn from that information it gets ignored, or vilified by some. Then we also have the situations where very well understood properties of physics say you can't hear what some are claiming to hear. Again, trust your ears vs trusting physical properties of the material world, especially when your ears were operating in a 'mentally noisy' environment, I think the ears should be more suspect than they usually are.

 

One can take the same information in the links at the start of this thread another way if they wish. Use it to maximize their likely satisfaction regardless of what is going on. Learn how to be more likely to hear the best things in ways they feel are more enjoyable.

[sandyk]

it is their ears, their expectation bias, the myths and tales of the audiophile community in their minds that means they aren't in a position to just trust their ears. Then when asked to just trust their ears, and yes only their ears, results are often so very different. Rather than use and learn from that information it gets ignored, or vilified by some. Then we also have the situations where very well understood properties of physics say you can't hear what some are claiming to hear. Again, trust your ears vs trusting physical properties of the material world, especially when your ears were operating in a 'mentally noisy' environment, I think the ears should be more suspect than they usually are.

 

Hi Dennis

Let's not forget here , that "expectation bias" works the other way around too. With many EEs,(and a few others) the presently accepted theoretical side of things (including USB cables, software players etc.) may be so compelling, that their brain may not let them hear differences, unless they are so large that they almost come up and bite them on the bum ! (grin)

 

Kind Regards

Alex

[sjoc2000]

and the beat goes on... :0)

 

Thanks for your post esldude. If you have seen any of my previous posts on this general subject, then you know my "bias" tends toward objective data to support qualitative claims, "why is that so?".

 

But, a good short article on this subject;

Can sound quality be measured? | The Audiophiliac - CNET News

Although concerned with design brings up some good points, that is that our limitations in understanding and measuring sonics may be such that certain reported qualitative reports are not necessarily incorrect, but are not well enough understood to be described objectively. That understanding not only includes the physics of sound, but psycho physiological factors, etc., as well.

 

So the disagreement may be about whether the earth rotates about the sun or visa versa, but it's the 12th century.

 

In the meantime, getting someone to agree with our position or belief, lacking a complete understanding, may be more about winning and losing than about actually being right.

 

Jim

[esldude]

Steve Guttenberg's article is garbage. He repeats too many old baseless complaints. Like test tones are too simple and predictable. Like in the 1970's engineers pushed for ever lower THD based upon the belief if it measured better it would sound better (in fact manufacturers pushed for lower THD as a means to sell product). Then to saying room correction and normally results in sound quality running from not bad to truly horrendous, and on and on. Sure he makes it sound like it is the 12th century. But it isn't. So you might interpret this as more about winning on a position. I think it more about being honest and using what is known, not decrying it because the results aren't as expected.

 

 

You could do much better as point of departure than the article by SG.

[mayhem13]

I think it does matter some sjoc2000.

 

If you come to a forum like this for information, guidance, to learn from the experience of others then it is better if that reported experience is accurately reported and It is about audiophiles in some fair percentage operate as if the same foibles of human senses don't apply to them because they are careful. I think it worth pointing out that it applies to them like anyone. Rather than use and learn from that information it gets ignored, or vilified by some. Then we also have the situations where very well understood properties of physics say you can't hear what some are claiming to hear.

 

Well said!

 

I wonder if I posted, this morning, for the first time, I was able to take flight......yep.....flapped my arms and took off just like a bird. Would or should such a claim draw controversy and skepticism?......or should the tolerance of the forum format allow me to make such a claim? Maybe......just maybe.....we all should just accept every claim presented from Alien abductions to forecasting the future? Sure, some will argue that my point is on the extreme end of the argument....but is it?....who gets to draw the line on accepted sciences?......as to what's fringe or fact? Practicality and sensibility will dictate our own individual responses to such claims regardless. Personally, I'd be more inclined to believe a person's claim to a UFO sighting than I would DAC chip identification through listening.........and I'm sure others would be more inclined towards belief in other areas of applied sciences vs fiction or folklore. The fact that 80% of the world's population believes in a God is IMO a clear example of just how strong expectation bias can be......especially when the eternal soul depends upon it.

[sandyk]

The fact that 80% of the world's population believes in a God is IMO a clear example of just how strong expectation bias can be......especially when the eternal soul depends upon it.

 

Now there's an idea for yet another poll. (grin)

What percentage of qualified EEs believe in a God? After all, his/her existence can't be objectively verified .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"If you can't hear the difference between an original CD and a copy of your CD, you might as well give up your career as a tester. The difference between a reconstituted FLAC and full size WAV is much less than that, but it does exist."-Cookie Marenco. cookiemarenco.com

[esldude]

Don't know the need for such a poll, but I would guess the believers would be less than 50%. Probably down around the 20-25% range.

[One and a half]

Now there's an idea for yet another poll. (grin)

What percentage of qualified EEs believe in a God? After all, his/her existence can't be objectively verified .

 

Please explain a little more.

 

Electrical Engineers are inherently creative enough to bring you digits to audible sound waves some with close to perfection, others cramped and stifled by bean counters. I don't see the relationship about being objective; anything that's to do with a deity as if that's some finality or ultimate goal you seek judgement on.

 

Good luck with your poll, the outcome may surprise you.

[Paul R]

Well said!

 

I wonder if I posted, this morning, for the first time, I was able to take flight......yep.....flapped my arms and took off just like a bird. Would or should such a claim draw controversy and skepticism?......or should the tolerance of the forum format allow me to make such a claim? Maybe......just maybe.....we all should just accept every claim presented from Alien abductions to forecasting the future? Sure, some will argue that my point is on the extreme end of the argument....but is it?....who gets to draw the line on accepted sciences?......as to what's fringe or fact? Practicality and sensibility will dictate our own individual responses to such claims regardless. Personally, I'd be more inclined to believe a person's claim to a UFO sighting than I would DAC chip identification through listening.........and I'm sure others would be more inclined towards belief in other areas of applied sciences vs fiction or folklore. The fact that 80% of the world's population believes in a God is IMO a clear example of just how strong expectation bias can be......especially when the eternal soul depends upon it.

 

How about a little statistical analysis to back up your opinion there? Why should anyone believe you when what you state is so obviously against observable and audible facts?

 

Are you telling me you CANNOT hear a difference between a DAC with an ESS Chip in it - say a Wavelength Cosecant with a denominator module - and a DAC with a Wolfson chip in it - say a Wavelength Cosecent with a Numerator module?

 

If you think those DACs sound the same, then I can assure you that you are quite mistaken. And they are easily identified one from the other, by nothing more than listening. It is not all the chip of course, but rather obviously, the different chips were chosen for their sound, at least to some degree.

 

Personally, if someone repeatedly states that any audible difference like that is not identifiable, or even audible, I start asking what agenda they are trying to pursue. So far, they always have one. Usually they are coming out with the next great VolksDAC or something.

 

The next most frequent line is "protecting the people from the nasty marketeers telling lies" - and while it is sometimes true that marketeers will tell lies, the good ones don't. There are a lot of good "marketeers" in the audio industry - mostly because they are honest people just trying to make a living doing what they love. Not only do they hear a difference, they make a difference.

 

-Paul

[sjoc2000]

Well said!

 

I wonder if I posted, this morning, for the first time, I was able to take flight......yep.....flapped my arms and took off just like a bird. Would or should such a claim draw controversy and skepticism?......or should the tolerance of the forum format allow me to make such a claim?

 

1.) Well, objectively - factually, in a large group, a very small number are sincerely going to ask what you had for breakfast, and exactly how did you flap your arms? :0)

 

2.) Most will dismiss your claim as absurd, the voyeurs will hang around hoping for some entertainment.

 

3.) A very small number will demand that you be arrested or worse.

 

Then 1 & 3 will begin to engage in a battle, while the 2's look on in astonishment. In a forum, should any of these groups be discouraged or banished? That would a contradiction to what a forum is. There are generally always enough 2's around to keep things on an even keel.

 

By the way, my grandson wants to know how high you went...

 

Enjoy the music - Jim

 

P.s. Esldude; now the SG article isn't garbage, there were a some good points in there. Like your fractal avatar. :0)

[shum3s]

2012 Presidential Candidates Religious Backgrounds | Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. According to the Pew Research Center; 51% of the members of the "American Association For the Advancement of Science" believe in some form of a deity or higher power. That would make up a majority! Sam

[Paul R]

2012 Presidential Candidates Religious Backgrounds | Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. According to the Pew Research Center; 51% of the members of the "American Association For the Advancement of Science" believe in some form of a deity or higher power. That would make up a majority! Sam

 

LOL! That's great, but... it means that 49% of the members do not believe and does that mean we have a "tyranny of the majority" there? The majority might take it as their mandate to convert the godless heathen or something, since they are a majority! (grin)

[Julf]

51% of the members of the "American Association For the Advancement of Science" believe in some form of a deity or higher power.

 

I have an engineering background, and I definitely believe in higher power. Give me more kilowatts!

[mayhem13]

How about a little statistical analysis to back up your opinion there? Why should anyone believe you when what you state is so obviously against observable and audible facts?

 

Are you telling me you CANNOT hear a difference between a DAC with an ESS Chip in it - say a Wavelength Cosecant with a denominator module - and a DAC with a Wolfson chip in it - say a Wavelength Cosecent with a Numerator module?

 

If you think those DACs sound the same, then I can assure you that you are quite mistaken. And they are easily identified one from the other, by nothing more than listening. It is not all the chip of course, but rather obviously, the different chips were chosen for their sound, at least to some degree.

 

Personally, if someone repeatedly states that any audible difference like that is not identifiable, or even audible, I start asking what agenda they are trying to pursue. So far, they always have one. Usually they are coming out with the next great VolksDAC or something.

 

The next most frequent line is "protecting the people from the nasty marketeers telling lies" - and while it is sometimes true that marketeers will tell lies, the good ones don't. There are a lot of good "marketeers" in the audio industry - mostly because they are honest people just trying to make a living doing what they love. Not only do they hear a difference, they make a difference.

 

-Paul

 

" I believe i can fly......spread my wings and touch the sky......"

 

Ooops...that's a song lyric or something...sorry.

 

Statistical data to back which opinion?........i have many.

 

You're not likely to convince me that i'm mistaken about anything, rest assured.

 

But......back on topic. Who could actually say they are unbiased?.......about anything? If i buy a $40 Shiraz or Cabernet, it's GONNA taste excellent even if it's cat piss.......but i've learned my lesson.......i no longer buy $40 bottles of wine......and i record most of my favorite TV programs.....just so i can fast fwd through the commercials.

[Paul R]

" I believe i can fly......spread my wings and touch the sky......"

 

Ooops...that's a song lyric or something...sorry.

 

Statistical data to back which opinion?........i have many.

 

You're not likely to convince me that i'm mistaken about anything, rest assured.

 

But......back on topic. Who could actually say they are unbiased?.......about anything? If i buy a $40 Shiraz or Cabernet, it's GONNA taste excellent even if it's cat piss.......but i've learned my lesson.......i no longer buy $40 bottles of wine......and i record most of my favorite TV programs.....just so i can fast fwd through the commercials.

 

Let's get back to answering the very clear question:

 

Are you telling me you CANNOT hear a difference between a DAC with an ESS Chip in it - say a Wavelength Cosecant with a denominator module - and a DAC with a Wolfson chip in it - say a Wavelength Cosecent with a Numerator module?

 

Forget anything else, can you answer than question?

[Julf]

If i buy a $40 Shiraz or Cabernet, it's GONNA taste excellent even if it's cat piss.....

 

But at least it is an honest cat trying to make a living doing what it loves!

[esldude]

But at least it is an honest cat trying to make a living doing what it loves!

 

 

Touche'

[Paul R]

But at least it is an honest cat trying to make a living doing what it loves!

 

Let me introduce you to my little kitty.... (grin)