Civility

[4est]

5 hours ago, esldude said:

 

It is possible for $5000 DACs to have $200 in parts.  

Of course, but what is the point? There have always been items overpriced for what is inside. This is not an audiophile only sort of problem.

[jabbr]

@plissken

 

maybe be we are talking cross purposes here, let me make my point more clearly but if you’d like to get into technical details we could bring this to a more appropriate thread.

 

I think we agree that FIFO is best — and for that matter Ethernet which tends to use FIFO may be better than USB for this reason. Unclear that USB *at the DAC receiver* does because implementations  are hidden in SoCs. Looking at transmitters (at the PC) won’t help. 

 

But, for example, if the receiver uses a PLL then reclocking/cleaning the transmitter might actually help. Again, I’d always recommend properly designing the receiver — FPGA implementations make FIFO easy so let’s assume that when FPGA present, they are doing it correctly.

[jabbr]

5 hours ago, esldude said:

 

It is possible for $5000 DACs to have $200 in parts.  

Right. Some stuff is polish on a pig. Alternatively there may be a $20 FPGA with $4800 in IP ... that’s why technical discussions are helpful

[Samuel T Cogley]

12 hours ago, wdw said:

 

To my mind, you seem somewhat paranoid.

 

Though I do wonder why you need to humiliate people...from your post.

 

"But some apparently "feel" their gear."  

 

Really, Coggly Dimwit?..that is just purely insulting...hey and that, my comment, on a civility thread I started.

 

"really a thread about "feeling vs. knowing", and those who "feel" are the ones demanding civility?"

 

Seriously, you need to get out a bit more.  And, of course, the "knowing" is all on your side...absolutely charming...you're just a wonderful guy.

 

A perfect example of the typical myopic, asymmetric view of "civility".  And the fact that you are the OP of this thread only reaffirms the point I'm trying to make.  Perhaps practicing what you preach will make you appear less like a hypocrite?  Just a thought.

[firedog]

No one should get jumped on called names or classified as delusional for reporting what they hear, whether you think it defies science or not.

On the other hand, those making the claims shouldn't be claiming that anything they hear has any application to anyone or any system other than their own, unless they have done some kind of testing that shows it has/does.

 

If someone does say something like, "I switched cables and my system sounded different...", they are obviously referring to what they heard, and there is no reason to make snide remarks about the person reporting what they heard, even if you think it can't be. When you make those remarks, are you under the delusion that your remark is going to make them hear something different or take back what they wrote? Are you under the delusion that your remark is constructive?

 

Again, if they make some wider and apparently unscientific claim to greater significance for what they heard, feel free to point it out without resorting to ad-hominem attacks. 

 

By the way, when ML or someone else says "it's just a hobby" I have to agree with them. If they think something sounds better and enjoy it, why does it matter whether they are fooling themselves or not? If I've decided to "delude" myself, I don't need you scolding me.

None of us are children and none of us need self appointed guardians to protect us from "wasting our money". As long as a person isn't making claims beyond what they hear, no harm is done. We are all capable of reading a cable review and the various easy to find arguments about cables and making up our own minds if we should buy them or not. Personally, I've bought a few audio items that might be "snake oil" just for fun. How does it harm any of you if I "mess up" my system and report that I like the "distortion and coloration" I've introduced?

[rando]

On 9/25/2017 at 8:48 PM, mourip said:

You might want to avoid the hardware forums. The music forums are a garden in comparison.

 

Having taken @mourip up on the invitation if anything I've found the opposite is true.  There is much of the raw beauty and greatly varied landscapes of untamed natural spaces in there.    

 

The hardware forums?  Only rich garden soil could be choked by such a wide variety of noxious plants yet still hold enough nutrients to support a small hardy assortment of desirable growth.  Truly amazing is how easily even the most prickly overgrown weed, bit of a self defense mechanism methinks, can be uprooted from it's shallow bed.  It could be such a nice community garden full of  highly cultivated specimens returning to an unthreatened state.  The tricky part would be making everyone understand you can't cleanse a garden with fire and roses only like a drop or two of blood.  Preferably unscorched and in soil not actively being compressed by a dead body atop it.  

 

 I'd point out all can now safely take me off ignore and please return to extolling your irrepressible logic on self government and fair play.  

[Ralf11]

I think a Methods section would help.

 

If someone does say something like, "I switched cables and my system sounded MUCH better...", they can fill in specifics of what changed - drums less muffled?  wider soundstage?  less treble glare?

 

Putting what the system is in a profile and relating what music was listened to will also help.

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, firedog said:

No one should get jumped on called names or classified as delusional for reporting what they hear, whether you think it defies science or not.

On the other hand, those making the claims shouldn't be claiming that anything they hear has any application to anyone or any system other than their own, unless they have done some kind of testing that shows it has/does.

 

If someone does say something like, "I switched cables and my system sounded different...", they are obviously referring to what they heard, and there is no reason to make snide remarks about the person reporting what they heard, even if you think it can't be. When you make those remarks, are you under the delusion that your remark is going to make them hear something different or take back what they wrote? Are you under the delusion that your remark is constructive?

 

Again, if they make some wider and apparently unscientific claim to greater significance for what they heard, feel free to point it out without resorting to ad-hominem attacks. 

 

By the way, when ML or someone else says "it's just a hobby" I have to agree with them. If they think something sounds better and enjoy it, why does it matter whether they are fooling themselves or not? If I've decided to "delude" myself, I don't need you scolding me.

None of us are children and none of us need self appointed guardians to protect us from "wasting our money". As long as a person isn't making claims beyond what they hear, no harm is done. We are all capable of reading a cable review and the various easy to find arguments about cables and making up our own minds if we should buy them or not. Personally, I've bought a few audio items that might be "snake oil" just for fun. How does it harm any of you if I "mess up" my system and report that I like the "distortion and coloration" I've introduced?

 

 I totally agree and well put.

 

When I first joined CA some years back I was astonished at the level of adversarial comments. People trolling around to crash threads and railroad them for their personal sport or amusement. Sarcastic swipes and put downs of subjective opinion. Far from civil.

 

It got me wondering why where the "objectivists" (as they called themselves) doing this. They couldn't see the irony, it seemed to me (IMO) of how subjective they were, invoking science but some far from following the creed.

 

I pondered all sorts of explanations as to motives. I believe the common denominator is that they felt somehow threatened about their authority base, their expertise undermined and maybe felt disenfranchised . Some of course just had bully personality types. Some I am sure felt genuinely frustrated that people were making observations that didn't accord with their understanding of the universe.

 

But why the need to incessantly strike out and be uncivil? It still puzzles me. You think they would just get bored of doing it. Indeed some notably have but alas, there seems always a new wave.

[Ralf11]

You are a clinician, a neurologist, right?

 

You, too, would be frustrated if fake nostrums were shilled in your (more important) field?

 

Beyond that, and beyond consumer protection issues; there is a detriment to society and civilization when the scientific approach to understanding reality is undermined, and idiocy reigns.

[esldude]

3 hours ago, firedog said:

No one should get jumped on called names or classified as delusional for reporting what they hear, whether you think it defies science or not.

On the other hand, those making the claims shouldn't be claiming that anything they hear has any application to anyone or any system other than their own, unless they have done some kind of testing that shows it has/does.

 

If someone does say something like, "I switched cables and my system sounded different...", they are obviously referring to what they heard, and there is no reason to make snide remarks about the person reporting what they heard, even if you think it can't be. When you make those remarks, are you under the delusion that your remark is going to make them hear something different or take back what they wrote? Are you under the delusion that your remark is constructive?

 

Again, if they make some wider and apparently unscientific claim to greater significance for what they heard, feel free to point it out without resorting to ad-hominem attacks. 

 

By the way, when ML or someone else says "it's just a hobby" I have to agree with them. If they think something sounds better and enjoy it, why does it matter whether they are fooling themselves or not? If I've decided to "delude" myself, I don't need you scolding me.

None of us are children and none of us need self appointed guardians to protect us from "wasting our money". As long as a person isn't making claims beyond what they hear, no harm is done. We are all capable of reading a cable review and the various easy to find arguments about cables and making up our own minds if we should buy them or not. Personally, I've bought a few audio items that might be "snake oil" just for fun. How does it harm any of you if I "mess up" my system and report that I like the "distortion and coloration" I've introduced?

 

Not being personal firedog, but I particularly dislike this post. 

 

If you go to see David Copperfield (or other magicians), the novelty and entertainment is being tricked into perceiving that he made an elephant disappear.  You don't then go out and proclaim he can do 'real magic'.  You simply think it is a craftily done illusion.  One that tricked you.  One that made use of the imperfection of human sensory perception, and the subsequent world building that goes on inside your mind. 

 

The issue with those who think it uncivil to point out ethernet cables aren't changing the playback quality is not that those who think they heard it did experience that as so.  It is to insist the perceptual process is sacrosanct and calling it into question is a personal affront to the perceiver.  That explaining how your subjective perception was necessarily in error is somehow uncivil.  The problem is less with those pointing out the way ethernet works than with the insistence of the perceiver claiming special status that should not be questioned.  

 

If one likes distortion or coloration or effects I wouldn't call that snake oil.  The snake oil with such devices is to deny they are changing the signal or to claim they are closer to the accurate rendition of the signal.   Tubed products come to mind.  For some music and to some preferences they can sound better.  To claim they have some closer version of fidelity rather than admit they have a coloration that tricks perceptions is how things go off rails.  

 

Real snake oil is to charge money for an object or device or process that actually doesn't change the sound while preconditioning the customer to hear what he wants to hear.  Some people are addicted to the feeling they get following such activities.  If they find the price acceptable that is fine, but giving them equal footing in figuring out good audio practices or in denying how things work is not a wise path to take.  

[mansr]

10 minutes ago, esldude said:

Real snake oil is to charge money for an object or device or process that actually doesn't change the sound while preconditioning the customer to hear what he wants to hear.  Some people are addicted to the feeling they get following such activities.  If they find the price acceptable that is fine, but giving them equal footing in figuring out good audio practices or in denying how things work is not a wise path to take.  

What people choose to believe in, and spend money on, is of course ultimately their problem. However, it irks me when someone asks for advice how to best upgrade their system with a budget of $1000, and the first answer they get is to spend it all on a fancy power cord. That is not helpful. If someone then suggests that new speakers would offer much more of an improvement, the accusations of incivility start flying.

[vmartell22]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

No one should get jumped on called names or classified as delusional for reporting what they hear, whether you think it defies science or not.

On the other hand, those making the claims shouldn't be claiming that anything they hear has any application to anyone or any system other than their own, unless they have done some kind of testing that shows it has/does.

 

If someone does say something like, "I switched cables and my system sounded different...", they are obviously referring to what they heard, and there is no reason to make snide remarks about the person reporting what they heard, even if you think it can't be. When you make those remarks, are you under the delusion that your remark is going to make them hear something different or take back what they wrote? Are you under the delusion that your remark is constructive?

 

Again, if they make some wider and apparently unscientific claim to greater significance for what they heard, feel free to point it out without resorting to ad-hominem attacks. 

 

By the way, when ML or someone else says "it's just a hobby" I have to agree with them. If they think something sounds better and enjoy it, why does it matter whether they are fooling themselves or not? If I've decided to "delude" myself, I don't need you scolding me.

None of us are children and none of us need self appointed guardians to protect us from "wasting our money". As long as a person isn't making claims beyond what they hear, no harm is done. We are all capable of reading a cable review and the various easy to find arguments about cables and making up our own minds if we should buy them or not. Personally, I've bought a few audio items that might be "snake oil" just for fun. How does it harm any of you if I "mess up" my system and report that I like the "distortion and coloration" I've introduced?

 

 

A couple of things

 

1) In general,  we don't "think" it defies science. We know it defies science, and it will be the case until a peer reviewed scientific process proves otherwise. Then, it will be accepted. Until challenged again. 

 

That is the nature of the process. I balk at any suggestion that science is a belief system.  It is not. Both subjectivists and objectivists will splatter on the ground after a fall. That is gravity. That is the knowledge we obtain from science. It will happen because it is not a belief system; gravity is an objective fact, understood thanks to science. Whether you "believe in science" or not!

 

2) Problem is the that subjective won't accept scientific process, so claims will continue to be made!

 

3) Re: "the switch the cables, heard a  difference" situation, my guess is that the sticky point is when the cable in question is an ethernet cable. Someone put it very succinctly in another thread: "people, an ethernet cable is DATA cable,  NOT AN AUDIO CABLE"   It definitely drives me crazy that fact tends to be forgotten/overlooked, etc. I assume it also drives other people that agree crazy too... therefore have to get into it! 

 

4) I commend you and your very civil  post and you are right; snide comments, put downs, etc come quick and easy in the conversation. In my opinion is currently there is a lot misunderstanding about science and Audio has become another battleground...

 

v

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

You are a clinician, a neurologist, right?

 

You, too, would be frustrated if fake nostrums were shilled in your (more important) field?

 

Beyond that, and beyond consumer protection issues; there is a detriment to society and civilization when the scientific approach to understanding reality is undermined, and idiocy reigns.

 

 A long story but ended up a spine physician including pain medicicne and rehabilitation. I did work in the area of brain impairments and as well in organic brain syndromes neuropsychology / neuropsychiatry.

 

Fake "nostrums are continuously shilled" as you call it are IMO in my profession arguably more than in audio. I would also say that the stakes a far higher in my profession - health and harm.

 

Firstly though you have to question what about them you consider "fake". If people believe that doing something makes them feel better who the hell am I to say "Nope,sorry you're delusional" or "its all just placebo". So long as there is no harm I say good for you. Now I am assuming here that a) there is no evidence for their claim and b) they are not substituting their treatment and missing out on what I consider more appropriate treatment.

 

When treating people in spinal unit sometimes we would get an "hysterical" paraplegic. Much rarer these days I think. A wise psychiatrist taught me " don't challenge their belief systems, give them a reason to get better while saving face". You stiil need to address the psychiatric problems at the root but that kinder approach still resonates

 

I get the frustration, I really do. But I don't join medical fora and take sarcastic swipes at patients who don't align with my "educated" view and feel the need to ridicule them. I just don't get that - call me weird if you want.

 

My little narrative describing my experience on CA was a *genuine* synopsis of how I felt. I was confronted by people who were extremely clever and waaaay better at sarcasm than me. They were also very funny, so found myself chuckling sometimes. But at the end of the day it was at "subjectivists" expense and I could not get to enjoy the hobby I joined CA to talk about.

 

I started striking back,albeit less skilled. At one point I offended/compromised somebody for which I deeply regret. It struck at my own self worth and selfishly this was important to me.

 

 

 

[mansr]

5 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

If people believe that doing something makes them feel better who the hell am I to say "Nope,sorry you're delusional" or "its all just placebo".

I don't know about you, but the FDA does exactly that.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Just now, mansr said:

I don't know about you, but the FDA does exactly that.

 

Re-read my post Mansr. Yes and the FDA and TGA (Oz) has a job ensuring treatments are safe and not making false claims. I am talking of the myriad of other dubious interventions patients pursue that do not fall under that licensing umbrella.

 

The point is it does not "irk" me. It can't irk you without your consent. Maybe question why it "irks" you. Just say IMO your money is better spent improving your speakers than expensive cable. Is that really so hard? If someone else suggests otherwise does it really rock your psychological world? Are you that fragile?

[crenca]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

 

Not being personal firedog, but I particularly dislike this post. 

 

If you go to see David Copperfield (or other magicians), the novelty and entertainment is being tricked into perceiving that he made an elephant disappear.  You don't then go out and proclaim he can do 'real magic'.  You simply think it is a craftily done illusion.  One that tricked you.  One that made use of the imperfection of human sensory perception, and the subsequent world building that goes on inside your mind. 

 

The issue with those who think it uncivil to point out ethernet cables aren't changing the playback quality is not that those who think they heard it did experience that as so.  It is to insist the perceptual process is sacrosanct and calling it into question is a personal affront to the perceiver.  That explaining how your subjective perception was necessarily in error is somehow uncivil.  The problem is less with those pointing out the way ethernet works than with the insistence of the perceiver claiming special status that should not be questioned.  

 

If one likes distortion or coloration or effects I wouldn't call that snake oil.  The snake oil with such devices is to deny they are changing the signal or to claim they are closer to the accurate rendition of the signal.   Tubed products come to mind.  For some music and to some preferences they can sound better.  To claim they have some closer version of fidelity rather than admit they have a coloration that tricks perceptions is how things go off rails.  

 

Real snake oil is to charge money for an object or device or process that actually doesn't change the sound while preconditioning the customer to hear what he wants to hear.  Some people are addicted to the feeling they get following such activities.  If they find the price acceptable that is fine, but giving them equal footing in figuring out good audio practices or in denying how things work is not a wise path to take.  

 

16 minutes ago, vmartell22 said:

 

 

A couple of things

 

1) In general,  we don't "think" it defies science. We know it defies science, and it will be the case until a peer reviewed scientific process proves otherwise. Then, it will be accepted. Until challenged again. 

 

That is the nature of the process. I balk at any suggestion that science is a belief system.  It is not. Both subjectivists and objectivists will splatter on the ground after a fall. That is gravity. That is the knowledge we obtain from science. It will happen because it is not a belief system; gravity is an objective fact, understood thanks to science. Whether you "believe in science" or not!

 

2) Problem is the that subjective won't accept scientific process, so claims will continue to be made!

 

3) Re: "the switch the cables, heard a  difference" situation, my guess is that the sticky point is when the cable in question is an ethernet cable. Someone put it very succinctly in another thread: "people, an ethernet cable is DATA cable,  NOT AN AUDIO CABLE"   It definitely drives me crazy that fact tends to be forgotten/overlooked, etc. I assume it also drives other people that agree crazy too... therefore have to get into it! 

 

4) I commend you and your very civil  post and you are right; snide comments, put downs, etc come quick and easy in the conversation. In my opinion is currently there is a lot misunderstanding about science and Audio has become another battleground...

 

v

 

 

 

I want to second these two posts.  The subjectivist position at the end of the day appears to reject the objectivist position (obviously and expectedly) but also want to carve out a special status for itself, a kind of "don't tread on me" and even more,wants to exclude views that don't agree with it as some kind of "personal" affront.

 

I asked for a synonym that would be acceptable to subjectivists upstream for "delusional" because if you switch out one in spec CAT 5 cable for another, and claim even minor auditory benefits (putting aside the possibility that you made some other significant change in the process in some way you are not aware), I submit you are delusional (or whatever the civil synonym for the term is).  That's "ok", I have been and will continue to be deluded myself about many things.  

 

I recognize the need for civility, and even recognize that particular objectivists can use and abuse things like "science", etc.  However, subjectivism appears to be doing something different in that it appears to want to be handled with kid gloves otherwise a criticism becomes personal and uncivil.

 

[wdw]

So it is completely hopeless....!

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 hours ago, crenca said:

 

 

 The subjectivist position at the end of the day appears to reject the objectivist position (obviously and expectedly) but also want to carve out a special status for itself, a kind of "don't tread on me" and even more,wants to exclude views that don't agree with it as some kind of "personal" affront.
 

 

Not trying to antagonize you but just interchange the two terms subjectivist and objectivist and I would agree.

3 hours ago, crenca said:

However, subjectivism appears to be doing something different in that it appears to want to be handled with kid gloves otherwise a criticism becomes personal and uncivil.

 

It becomes personal and uncivil when it becomes personal and uncivil.

[wdw]

5 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Not trying to antagonize you but just interchange the two terms subjectivist and objectivist and I would agree.

 

It becomes personal and uncivil when it becomes personal and uncivil.

 

Love ya!  

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 hours ago, vmartell22 said:

we don't "think" it defies science. We know it defies science, and it will be the case until a peer reviewed scientific process proves otherwise.

 

For "reporting what they hear" that you do not. This is what you conclude as defying science and you know this because....

 

4 hours ago, vmartell22 said:

Both subjectivists and objectivists will splatter on the ground after a fall. That is gravity. That is the knowledge we obtain from science. It will happen because it is not a belief system; gravity is an objective fact, understood thanks to science. Whether you "believe in science" or not!

 

Sigh

[Ralf11]

I'd say a cheap placebo is fine in audio - and I have championed ergonomics and other non-audible aesthetics as valid.  But people need to keep that separate from SQ (to the extent possible given the Oxford cross-sensory labs findings on various sensory input interactions).

 

 

[Ralf11]

re for what they hear... true if hearing could be checked at the end point of perception

 

false if I can jam some electrodes into their copy of my avatar...

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 hours ago, esldude said:

The issue with those who think it uncivil to point out ethernet cables aren't changing the playback quality is not that those who think they heard it did experience that as so.  It is and calling it into question is a personal affront to the perceiver.  That explaining how your subjective perception was necessarily in error is somehow uncivil.  The problem is less with those pointing out the way ethernet works than with the insistence of the perceiver claiming special status that should not be questioned.

 

Dennis I often agree with a lot of what you say but - it is not pointing out that ethernet cables aren't affecting SQ, it's the way it is pointed out. Typically "delusional" meant and used as a pejorative, contemptuous term. The defense is usually to insist the perceptual process is sacrosanct. "That explaining how your subjective perception was necessarily in error is somehow uncivil" is uncivil, or at least inflammatory, if you are supposed to be having a discussion, not lectured.

 

Remember, it is typically the "subjectivist" being approached in the first place. They generally didn't invite your criticism and would be quite happy going about their business without it. It seems to me a little tact is required.Is that unreasonable.

 

There are some subjectivits that will react in a pre-conditioned hostile way. less rather than more if approached civilly.

[esldude]

32 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

For "reporting what they hear" that you do not. This is what you conclude as defying science and you know this because....

 

 

Sigh

That is a misrepresentation in at least some considerable number of cases.  Often under the same conditions we 'hear' the same things.  Like the disappearing magician's elephant all in the audience may experience the 'impossible' event of an elephant going poof! into thin air.  Some may believe in the magic as having accomplished that while others interpret that differently in a way that isn't at odds with physics. 

[esldude]

5 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Dennis I often agree with a lot of what you say but - it is not pointing out that ethernet cables aren't affecting SQ, it's the way it is pointed out. Typically "delusional" meant and used as a pejorative, contemptuous term. The defense is usually to insist the perceptual process is sacrosanct. "That explaining how your subjective perception was necessarily in error is somehow uncivil" is uncivil, or at least inflammatory, if you are supposed to be having a discussion, not lectured.

 

Remember, it is typically the "subjectivist" being approached in the first place. They generally didn't invite your criticism and would be quite happy going about their business without it. It seems to me a little tact is required.Is that unreasonable.

 

There are some subjectivits that will react in a pre-conditioned hostile way. less rather than more if approached civilly.

I am not first in this thread to ask, what would you call it, or what term would be acceptable not to get subjectivists riled up when pointing out their perceived experience is not what they think it is?  Delusion is a loaded term.  Illusion?  What would work?  Any suggestions?

 

I also know while I prefer being tactful and never look forward to upsetting people, it is tiring to go over the same exact well known issue over and over.  Sometimes I will not care if I upset them.  No it rarely improves matters.