OK, I tried hydrogen audio. It didn't go too well.

[sullis02]

what I'm a little surprised about is that there seems to be so very little discussion about room acoustics on this forum which seems comparably a much more important influence than different cabling for instance.

 

 

LOL. D'ya think?

 

In a nutshell that is my objection to the hype around 'hi rez', cabling and other ephermera .

 

In 2014 there are corner cases where choice of digital filtering and pathologically bad cabling make a difference.

 

But the 2 elephants in the room for pretty much every consumer audio consumer have been and remain:

 

1) poor mastering of the 'software' product

2) poor room acoustics (abetted by , um, idiosyncratic loudspeaker design)

 

Why is that? Do all of you already have perfectly treated listening rooms so that it makes sense to concentrate purely on (even minuscule aspects of) your gear?

 

+1

 

Btw, on Hydrogenaudio I'm user 'krabapple'.

[sullis02]

Oh, there are a lot of well reasoned and interesting posts there. But there are a lot of fanatical posts there too.

 

Often, hundreds of posts get deleted after a person is driven away.

 

AFAIK, objectionable posts are put in the Recycle Bin thread -- with a note as to which TOS was violated -- and not deleted.

[wgscott]

DSP, Room Correction, and Multi Channel Audio

[sullis02]

Kal and I are both scientists. I've published numerous times in the top journals (like Science, Nature and Cell) and have served on numerous federal grant review panels. I am well aware of what scientific peer review is. It has absolutely nothing to do with, nor anything in common with, the posturing of self-annointed experts on the internet imposing imaginary standards. Thankfully.

 

Which doesn't really address what I wrote, especially as I granted that HA is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. As for having *standards*, please try getting a paper on audible difference published in a peer-reviewed psychophysiology journal without adhering to the equivalent of Hydrogenaudio's TOS #8 (i.e., double blind protocol). I'll wait.

 

(btw, I've published in Nature, Science, and a bunch of other journals too, in fact a whole lot if you count non-first authored/PI ones, but that's just chest beating in this context, isn't it? And you've never met scientists who postured? Is your field related to audio?)

[wgscott]

Biophysics. Your assumption that I believe any of the audiophool cable crap is similarly laughable, as is your inability to notice that there is an entire sub-forum (which I linked for you) devoted to the topic you think doesn't exist here.

[sullis02]

Biophysics. Your assumption that I believe any of the audiophool cable crap is similarly laughable,

 

 

...as well as nonexistent. Really, I don't know you from Adam, and made no such assumption about you. Are you somebody I *should* know, beyond being someone who was butthurt when HA binned his posts?

 

as is your inability to notice that there is an entire sub-forum (which I linked for you) devoted to the topic you think doesn't exist here.

 

It's not a matter of *not noticing that*, or thinking *it doesn't exist here*, it's a matter of replying to another's guy's post on the topic of whether the knowledge of common, readily audible problems informs typical 'audiophile' obsessions. (Btw: ~180 threads in the DSP subforum. >3000 threads in the DAC/Room Correction forum. Just sayin')

 

Do you find that audiophiles, here and elsewhere, generally acknowledge how *miniscule* the audible differences between DACs, hi rez vs redbook, playback softwares, cables, et al., are, in the big scheme of things?

 

Do they readily acknowledge the fallibility of 'sighted' quality evaluation, or the reasons that scientific controls exist, for that matter?

 

And do you think you could get a paper published about audible difference in a credible journal, *without* adhering to a 'TOS #8'?

[wgscott]

[beanbag]

Welcome to ComputerAudiophile, where there is digital noise in your analog signal, and analog noise in your digital signal.

[EuroDriver]

welcome to computeraudiophile, where there is digital noise in your analog signal, and analog noise in your digital signal.

 

 

+ 1

 

lol

[esldude]

 

It's not a matter of *not noticing that*, or thinking *it doesn't exist here*, it's a matter of replying to another's guy's post on the topic of whether the knowledge of common, readily audible problems informs typical 'audiophile' obsessions. (Btw: ~180 threads in the DSP subforum. >3000 threads in the DAC/Room Correction forum. Just sayin')

 

Do you find that audiophiles, here and elsewhere, generally acknowledge how *miniscule* the audible differences between DACs, hi rez vs redbook, playback softwares, cables, et al., are, in the big scheme of things?

 

Do they readily acknowledge the fallibility of 'sighted' quality evaluation, or the reasons that scientific controls exist, for that matter?

 

And do you think you could get a paper published about audible difference in a credible journal, *without* adhering to a 'TOS #8'?

 

Hi Krabapple,

 

First a bit of forum history. The DSP Room correction forum is maybe a year old, I think a bit less. I with others pestered Chris to get one. I did so because we can't do much about bad mastering, but the other problem of the room/speaker interface there is a chance to improve. I am glad Chris set it up, but the DAC forum has been here since the beginning so naturally it has more total activity.

 

The room, whether through DSP or other measures is where big genuine improvements are possible. Not so many seem aware of it. Many audiophiles even seem to ridicule it. I wish they could hear systems with and without it. I think some eyes (ears?) would be opened. If the money spent on high end rubbish that is borderline fraud were spent on DSP solutions we could fund some fabulous improvements in just a short period of time.

 

I, and I believe I can speak for wgscott, are aware of how sighted evaluation is flawed. I am not a scientist by profession. I too however share some of Bill's opinion that some of the blind test ideas at HA could be handled better. Almost as bad as being an objectivist in most audio forums, suggesting controls and changes might be worthwhile at HA get one treated as if they must be a subjectivist audiophile who doesn't get it. The derision builds too quickly to explain how that isn't the case.

 

I most definitely understand how that happens. It is amazing the forums one can get banned from or at least find it difficult to post with any effect just by telling the truth, pointing out problems that should not cause much disagreement, and saying your wacky, crazy, impossible claims have no chance of being correct. So a 'safe haven' of people who have experienced that can become something of the same in reverse. Just one of those things about being human.

 

It is good HA is in existence, but it could be better. And yes I realize even the most basic blinding of evaluations has more validity than any sighted comparisons. If I could get one thing across to do with sighted comparisons that would help, even in that flawed procedure it would be the need to be super persnickety about level matching. Even sighted, I have seen plenty of believed differences in components evaporate once you matched levels.

[wgscott]

Thanks, Dennis.

 

What I wrote 2.5 years ago is better than anything I can come up with now:

 

I think if I had said something like "I use Audirvana Plus, because it sounds much better than iTunes," that would have been a reasonable point to ask for some objective evidence. But notice that never happened, with me or with them. I never made any such assertion (knowing the probable outcome), and they never asked. Being a moderately successful scientist by any reasonable standard, I don't really feel I need to prove anything to some anonymous goof-balls on the internet who, having recently discovered what a hammer can do, look everywhere to find some nails.

 

They aren't scientists.

 

They are anonymous keyboard bullies who slavishly ape what they wrongly perceive to be the aims and methodology of the natural sciences. It actually reminds me more of how things are done in the so-called social sciences (behavioral psychology and so on).

 

My sin was simply that I did not allow them to bully me. The "moderator" guy (and it almost certainly was a guy) clearly interpreted this as a "lack of respect". It takes a twisted perspective to see it that way, but clearly their self-imposed idiot-logical confines and bizarre rules and rigidity prevent them from seeing it any other way. The behavior is much more reminiscent of a religious cult. I spend almost all my time with scientists. My wife is one. Most of my friends are. None behave this way. Not one.

 

As for double-blind tests, they are resorted to when nothing better is available. They are quite helpful in determining things like the efficacy of drugs. I think it would be wrong to dismiss the utility of such a thing out of hand. But in many fields of science, there is no need for such a primitive approach. All good experiments are designed to test hypotheses. Double-blind tests are useful for testing a null hypothesis. But they can't take you much further.

[YashN]

What made you think it's an unbiased forum?

 

One day, also try using a human head as avatar

 

I thought this was fairly innocuous. I imagine I will have been banned before I finish typing this.

 

I didn't even post a poll (push or otherwise). I simply answered it. As simply and objectively as I could.

 

2012 Unix Audio Player Usage Poll - Hydrogenaudio Forums

[YashN]

Hi Krabapple,

 

Oh no, please...

[Jud]

Oh no, please...

 

No need for this. Dennis and Bill have certainly assisted me in the process of formulating my ideas about audio, providing lots of helpful (and occasionally provocative, but who among us hasn't?) comments.

[prot]

Welcome to ComputerAudiophile, where there is digital noise in your analog signal, and analog noise in your digital signal.

 

+100

 

I am wondering though about the nature of the noise in many CA users' heads ... must be analog cause it sounds so much "better" than digital...

[Paul R]

Thanks, Dennis.

 

What I wrote 2.5 years ago is better than anything I can come up with now:

 

And while it ma be a little less true now that was then, it is certainly a well thought out summation of Hydrogen Audio. It was built as more of cult following than a true forum for scientific exchange. And it is anything but open. Lots of good information there sometimes, but it comes at a price.

 

Upon occasion, advocates of HA show up here, filled with missionary zeal and enthusiasm. Often they at first appear to be reasonable and interesting people, but their contributions soon devolve into ridicule and taunts. Hardly useful, or even effective.

 

A lot of people here are passionate about the hobby, and a hobby it is. If Joe Smith really likes software player "A" better than "B", and believes he can clearly hear a difference between them, good for him! On the other hand, if someone goes to the effort to try and rigorously prove something, good for him too. Neither one deserves or should expect ridicule.

 

The thing is, audio is a hobby. Hobbys rarely need to be protected against misinformation or craziness. In fact, sometimes they look for the crazy, and enjoy it all the more because it *is* crazy. Other's go almost crazy trying to point out that what is happenings impossible, unreasonable, and in plain speak, imaginary. They Lord!

 

Look folks, I am not a professional astronomer, but I have dropped significant money on binocs and scopes, and I enjoy it as a hobby immensely. But I am quite aware that the guy with the Rowe-Ackerman Schmidt Astrograph has a bit of an advantage over the guy with a Orion kit. I do not believe I have ever seen another AA guy ridicule the guy with the Orion. And the guy over there with the Meade MAX2-ACF20 that makes my mouth water? He is the least likely of all to ridicule anyone. (*sigh*)

 

It should be like that in Audio, and it often is around here. I do not see a lot of that kind of good behavior over on the gasbag forums. I do read them for the information available, and I can post over there, but I am far more likely to get a reasonable answer here. Or of the answer is really tough, pointers to places to go and do a bit research. Or just a bit of help with this or that setting or configuration. Much more like AA than the myriad other audio sites out there.

 

I believe it is because of the quality of people over here, many of whom would be the smartest person in the room in almost any company. While there are some smart cookies over on HA, many there seem to have bought into the cult mentality. Odd, and a bit disturbing. Still, I just think about metalaw, and either do not interact with them, or else treat them how they want to be treated. (shrug)

[beanbag]

The cult of what?

[audiventory]

Need remember that science theory's proving is not dogma in last instance:

1. Any proving always exists in certain conditions (famous in audio forums Nyqvist theorem)

2. Practical realization of theory different by pure theory (input conditions is not achieved)

3. Sooner or later people find new features in already "proved" theory (not agreed with current) and theory re-birth.

 

Sometime "crazy" (out of dogma) people either right or find some interesting features what show new direction.

 

Sometime "scientific" experiments executed either on small numbers of tests or some conditions is not mentioned.

 

For true scientific approach need: more open mind; test, check and again check; always ask "why?" and "it still work?" himself.

 

And ... less hate to opponents

[Paul R]

The cult of what?

 

I am not interested enough to find out what - the behavior of many members there is clearly cult like, and it suggests a central authority that defines the dogma for the entire group. That's enough for me, but YMMV. I suggest you read Bill Scott's experience there again myself.

 

-Paul

 

P.S. I have a history of dealing with a certain pseudo science cult in the U.S that makes me very wary of, and almost always opposed to most cults. The nut job cult I had to deal with has ideas that can make even the wildest audio ideas and theories seem down right scientifically conservative!

[Jud]

And ... less hate to opponents

 

Indeed. In the context of audio, it is good to think of others not as "opponents" at all, but simply as people with different ideas. Consideration of different ideas can be helpful.

[Guidof]

Need remember that science theory's proving is not dogma in last instance:

1. Any proving always exists in certain conditions (famous in audio forums Nyqvist theorem)

2. Practical realization of theory different by pure theory (input conditions is not achieved)

3. Sooner or later people find new features in already "proved" theory (not agreed with current) and theory re-birth.

 

Sometime "crazy" (out of dogma) people either right or find some interesting features what show new direction.

 

Sometime "scientific" experiments executed either on small numbers of tests or some conditions is not mentioned.

 

For true scientific approach need: more open mind; test, check and again check; always ask "why?" and "it still work?" himself.

 

And ... less hate to opponents

 

+1!

[YashN]

Not sure what you mean, Jud. Is Dennis or Bill Krabapple?

 

No need for this. Dennis and Bill have certainly assisted me in the process of formulating my ideas about audio, providing lots of helpful (and occasionally provocative, but who among us hasn't?) comments.

[YashN]

Exactly, Yuri,

 

At least some people trained as Scientists have kept the spirit of Science alive and keep open minds and continue to experiment.

 

Others unfortunately claim to use Scientific methods, but make claims without listing their assumptions. Yet others think things cannot be possible because of a text they read or something like that and won't even do a two-minute test to check.

 

Yet others fight nail and tooth for ABX testing, and when that is provided to them, they start to doubt the ABX testing!

 

Need remember that science theory's proving is not dogma in last instance:

1. Any proving always exists in certain conditions (famous in audio forums Nyqvist theorem)

2. Practical realization of theory different by pure theory (input conditions is not achieved)

3. Sooner or later people find new features in already "proved" theory (not agreed with current) and theory re-birth.

 

Sometime "crazy" (out of dogma) people either right or find some interesting features what show new direction.

 

Sometime "scientific" experiments executed either on small numbers of tests or some conditions is not mentioned.

 

For true scientific approach need: more open mind; test, check and again check; always ask "why?" and "it still work?" himself.

 

And ... less hate to opponents

[wgscott]

Not sure what you mean, Jud. Is Dennis or Bill Krabapple?

 

No.

 

Post 201, top of this page, last line.

[YashN]

Yes, that's what I thought. So I didn't mean anything negative about Dennis or Bill (don't know who they are).