Should blind testing discussion be banned on CA? POLL

[PeterSt]

Or foul : Causing disgust.

 

I agree.

[Jud]

It isn't just two people who feel as they do. Experts' opinions are frequently posted here or referred to as fact, when they are just opinions like yours or mine.

 

 

Since I'm a lawyer (just helping to make the world a better place! ), I immediately think of the legal criteria for admissibility of expert evidence. The opinions of experts are allowed to be used as evidence in U.S. courts (Canada as well, don't know enough about other nations to say), whereas the opinions of non-experts are not. Though experts' opinions are allowed into evidence, it is up to the "finder of fact" (the judge, or the jury if it's a jury trial), using their own life experience, to decide what weight to give the opinion, taking into account the expert's experience, education, and the evidence or facts on which the expert relies to draw his or her conclusions.

 

Getting back to audio, I use my own life experience (including my listening experience) to evaluate what weight to give the opinions I read from "experts" (professionals in the field) here. I tend (as I assume most folks do) to give more credence to those who (1) have the most specifically applicable knowledge, and (2) reach conclusions that either accord with my personal experience or make sense as extensions of that personal experience.

 

The result is that I do tend to take statements by certain people as fact (perhaps provisionally, i.e., until and unless disproved or replaced by something that makes more sense to me). I have little doubt most people here do the same. It's just that we all pick different experts to believe.

[jriver]

Since I'm a lawyer (just helping to make the world a better place! ), I immediately think of the legal criteria for admissibility of expert evidence. The opinions of experts are allowed to be used as evidence in U.S. courts (Canada as well, don't know enough about other nations to say), whereas the opinions of non-experts are not. Though experts' opinions are allowed into evidence, it is up to the "finder of fact" (the judge, or the jury if it's a jury trial), using their own life experience, to decide what weight to give the opinion, taking into account the expert's experience, education, and the evidence or facts on which the expert relies to draw his or her conclusions.

And even experts don't agree sometimes.

 

Would an engineer from a company that produces audiophile grade products normally be considered an "expert" in audio engineering?

[Paul R]

It is targeted towards Haswell CPUs but I'm sure the general concepts & approach, not the specific code however, could apply to other platforms. SBGK would best answer this.

 

Since Haswell CPUs are all about power management and performance, I would guess that optimizations for Haswell would target power and minimum processor usage in a different way than on say, a Xeon or Celeron processor. Or rather, they should.

 

 

I think it is probably the PS in the Mac that is the weak link

I disagree, but it isn't really important. I take it you feel that a PC from Best Buy is superior to a Mac Mini? I can assure you, the Mac mini power supply is quite a bit more expensive and definitely quieter than the HP boxes in Best Buy.

 

Well, yes, the issue is that we are trying to band-aid hardware (computer) not designed for the function we want of it so it requires unnecessarily intricate efforts to design & apply these band-aids. The best approach to categorising what needs to be addressed is to look at what causes fluctuating power draws within the PDN of the computer. The components that immediately spring to mind are - any spinning devices as their motors usually draw substantial current in peaks - so fans & drives are primary targets & removing/replacing them with non-spinning devices helps - although just because a device is doesn't have a motor doesn't mean it now doesn't have peaky current draws so an SSD can still be improved by using a separate supply to it. What would probably be of great service to computer audiophile considerations would be a full analysis of the computer sub-units & their current usage profiles.

 

Ah- here is where we agree in part, and diverge in opinion. The computer is not designed to play music, true. But - it isn't supposed to be. It is designed to move bits and bytes around from place to place, and perform operations on those bits and bytes. Every player on the market I can find right now is a general purpose computer, even the ones that are billed as appliances. They are all depending upon general purpose software to instruct them how to manipulate and move those bits and bytes to a I/O port and send them on their way to the device that is special purpose and is designed to play music. Even craptastic machines delivered off the boat 8 miles offshore on a dark and moonless night can do that.

 

The device that really makes the music, and is special purpose, and all that good stuff is of course, the DAC. And it absolutely should be impervious to any electrical noise or other junk getting though to it from the computer, stray RFI, surges and noise from the electrical grid, feedback crap from poorly designed amplifiers, and so forth. If this is true, then all the electrical nonsense in the world won't affect the sound of the music. And in some DACs, for instance, Peter's new NOS1a, I think that ideal is pretty close to being realized. Other DACs too.

 

But of course, the vast majority of DACs did not even put on galvanic isolation for the USB or S/PDIF ports until the past couple years. So it has made a difference. And people like John Swenson tracked electrical noise from the drive in the computer to the clock in the DAC, making it not a possibility, but a died in the wool fact.

 

But laying all that on the software player, that's a bit of a stretch. It is three layers away from the problem! Again, not that it isn't possible, but I would far rather depend upon the DAC to get it right, or as previously noted, run music servers on RT OS's where one has much better control over all the OS factors claimed to make a difference.

 

In general though, if computers were built to isolate & minimise ground plane noise cross-contamination, we would be a log way towards having an audiophile computer platform

[/Quote]

 

I see this as slapping at a symptom instead of addressing the real issue.

 

 

I disagree - they are only right in an ideal world but it's time to wake up to reality & deal with what we have now. Yes, in an ideal world the ground current cross-contamination considerations, I mentioned above would be addressed in the computer & DACs would be relatively immune also. But as it stands now, we have such a complex mix of fluctuating current noise swimming around the ground plane of a computer & we have a D to A conversion process that is very sensitive to fluctuations in ground plane noise then we have a highly reactive & sensitive system which seems to be affected by the processes which are seemingly benign - such as software applications which differ in code & therefore in process load & ultimately in current profile usage - such is the sensitivity of such a system.

 

Oh no, bits *are* bits - unitary pieces of information holding exactly one of two possible values. And this bit and that bit, if of equal value, are identical. None of that is really disputable. When you hear stuff about "bit rot" - that is talking about the physical media, optical or magnetic, degrading. That kind of stuff will cause non-subtle audible errors that everyone agrees on. The few that are holdouts and claim their bits are better than someone else's bits are frankly, wrong.

Note: This is an often misused and abused fact by the fanatical fringe. When taken out of context it can be an very stinging insult. That isn't the case, the people who object usually hear something different, and are annoyed about being dismissed. The dismissers are usual gleeful about being able to jab someone - inaccurately - for being non-scientific.

 

I don't disagree about the effect of cleaning up noise - power noise and all other kinds too - in the computer, I just think it is addressing the symptom rather than the problem. And doing it in software is slapping at a symptom of the symptom with tissue paper. It is certainly worth doing if the DAC is affected, just not the "solution." A better DAC - or cleaning up the power to your existing DAC - is indicated to me.

 

iFi iUSB Power works bloody wonders for the sound of even high quality USB DACs, in my experience.

 

YMMV.

 

-Paul

[elcorso]

I don't think he can. His ego would not stand the hit...

 

The ego of all participants, not just Mayhem*

 

Jiddu Krishnamurti thinking about ego:

 

• “Self-centered attention and activity, positively or negatively, is the cause of strife and pain. How seriously is each one considering this problem? How earnest are we about discovering the truth of the nature and activity of the ego, the self? Our meditation and spiritual discipline have no meaning if first we are not clear upon this point. True meditation is not self-expansion in any form. So until we can have a common understanding of our purpose, there will be confusion, and right relationship between us will not be possible”.

(Bold is mine).

 

• “Is the ego always harmful? Is selfishness ever beneficial?”

 

• “Isn't the origin of conflict ego? If there is no ego there is no becoming.”

 

Now, a joke:

 

“It is said that only ten people worldwide understood Einstein . If no one understands me my, am I a genius?”

 

Cheers!

 

Roch

[PeterSt]

Since Haswell CPUs are all about power management and performance, I would guess that optimizations for Haswell would target power and minimum processor usage in a different way than on say, a Xeon or Celeron processor. Or rather, they should.

 

YMMV.

 

YoYMMVPaul,

 

The processor is not even in charge of that; the OS is. In the end it is the combination of course, but the OS rules.

Now, you can continue theorizing about it, but you can also try XXHighEnd and see it all happening. I know, earlier in the thread you said you did, but you didn't. And of course you don't need to, but if you want to know ...

No need to tell you where to look, because you'll know where to look, right ?

 

Start with getting yourself a power meter if you don't have one. Easy enough. Now use something like a nice 6 core (=12) and see the ~100Watts drop to under 50Watts. But observe what is doing that.

Whether this makes a different to the sound ... up to you.

 

Peter

[PeterSt]

“It is said that only ten people worldwide understood Einstein . If no one understands me my, am I a genius?”

 

Ok, let's do it : Me ... myself, ... ehh ... hmm and I.

D*mn, only get to three.

grrr

[alfe]

Ok, let's do it : Me ... myself, ... ehh ... hmm and I.

D*mn, only get to three.

grrr

 

Just write a decoding software to understand you:)

You get to four

[mmerrill99]

Since Haswell CPUs are all about power management and performance, I would guess that optimizations for Haswell would target power and minimum processor usage in a different way than on say, a Xeon or Celeron processor. Or rather, they should.

Sure, & I think we are maybe in agreement, I don't know for sure?

 

 

 

I disagree, but it isn't really important. I take it you feel that a PC from Best Buy is superior to a Mac Mini? I can assure you, the Mac mini power supply is quite a bit more expensive and definitely quieter than the HP boxes in Best Buy.

No, I'm not down on Macs nor do I think a cheapo PC is better than a base level Mac (which is very much more expensive) but I do think that Mac users tend not to be interested in tweaking the innards & PC users have no such compunction, as a general rule. In order to achieve great performance from a computer (PC or Mac) requires dirty hands & attending to computer's electrical innards.

 

 

 

Ah- here is where we agree in part, and diverge in opinion. The computer is not designed to play music, true. But - it isn't supposed to be. It is designed to move bits and bytes around from place to place, and perform operations on those bits and bytes. Every player on the market I can find right now is a general purpose computer, even the ones that are billed as appliances. They are all depending upon general purpose software to instruct them how to manipulate and move those bits and bytes to a I/O port and send them on their way to the device that is special purpose and is designed to play music. Even craptastic machines delivered off the boat 8 miles offshore on a dark and moonless night can do that.

 

The device that really makes the music, and is special purpose, and all that good stuff is of course, the DAC. And it absolutely should be impervious to any electrical noise or other junk getting though to it from the computer, stray RFI, surges and noise from the electrical grid, feedback crap from poorly designed amplifiers, and so forth. If this is true, then all the electrical nonsense in the world won't affect the sound of the music. And in some DACs, for instance, Peter's new NOS1a, I think that ideal is pretty close to being realized. Other DACs too.

I agree but we seem to be far off a DAC with immunity. I don't know Peter's DAC but it does sound interesting. Doe sit work with any PC or are there restrictions on hardware ?

 

But of course, the vast majority of DACs did not even put on galvanic isolation for the USB or S/PDIF ports until the past couple years. So it has made a difference. And people like John Swenson tracked electrical noise from the drive in the computer to the clock in the DAC, making it not a possibility, but a died in the wool fact.

 

But laying all that on the software player, that's a bit of a stretch. It is three layers away from the problem! Again, not that it isn't possible, but I would far rather depend upon the DAC to get it right, or as previously noted, run music servers on RT OS's where one has much better control over all the OS factors claimed to make a difference.

I didn't say that the software player was the saviour in all of this - what I said was that given such a shaky collection of hardware & interfaces upstream of the DAC that I'm not surprised small changes in the electrical milieu upstream can be causing an audible effect in the DAC. These upstream changes seem to involve ground noise fluctuations which can come from all aspects of the operation of the computer - from spinning disks, to memory accesses - it's such an unsuitable device for audio that it's on the edge most of the time. I don't men on the edge of stability because this is one benefit with digital audio - we can reach a pretty reasonable quality of sound, despite all the obstacles. What I mean is that the D to A system needs as much care & attention to it' operation as does a very good phono stage requires.

 

I see this as slapping at a symptom instead of addressing the real issue.

Perhaps but denying that an application changes the sound based on this principled view of things is simply denying the reality of where we are at the moment. Sure, in time, with special purpose hardware that addresses these problems we will have less sensitivity to these issues & it may be of no more importance which playback software we use but until then we need to face up to our situation. I see all this tweaking & experimenting as part & parcel of the investigations needed to develop a view on what & where the critical factors are. Only then will we be in a position to design a hardware platform that addresses these issues

 

 

Oh no, bits *are* bits - unitary pieces of information holding exactly one of two possible values. And this bit and that bit, if of equal value, are identical. None of that is really disputable. When you hear stuff about "bit rot" - that is talking about the physical media, optical or magnetic, degrading. That kind of stuff will cause non-subtle audible errors that everyone agrees on. The few that are holdouts and claim their bits are better than someone else's bits are frankly, wrong.

Note: This is an often misused and abused fact by the fanatical fringe. When taken out of context it can be an very stinging insult. That isn't the case, the people who object usually hear something different, and are annoyed about being dismissed. The dismissers are usual gleeful about being able to jab someone - inaccurately - for being non-scientific.

 

I don't disagree about the effect of cleaning up noise - power noise and all other kinds too - in the computer, I just think it is addressing the symptom rather than the problem. And doing it in software is slapping at a symptom of the symptom with tissue paper. It is certainly worth doing if the DAC is affected, just not the "solution." A better DAC - or cleaning up the power to your existing DAC - is indicated to me.

Bits are bits is the shorthand for the argument "is there anything else on the communication line that effects the audible end result" We all know that but some just keep blabbing on with this mantra as if it had any meaning, as if the opposite party is stupid, etc.

 

iFi iUSB Power works bloody wonders for the sound of even high quality USB DACs, in my experience.

 

YMMV.

 

-Paul

Yes, it's one of the areas that needs to be addressed inside the computer - the power to the USB section as well as the VBUs power. But even when all these elements are addressed we still seem to have the surges in current draw that USB & network PHYs cause & this in itself causes ground noise which can get through to the DAC's clocks or analogue stage

[Paul R]

Haven't tried it recently Peter, but I certainly have worked with it a bit here and there. It's impressive, but I am not sprouting theory. Most of that is from knocking my head hard against software/hardware interactions. Usually coming back well bruised.

 

I'll try it again over the weekend if I have time. Playing with a JRiver ID this weekend.

 

There is nothing in the universe more dangerous than a hardware engineer with a compiler, or a software engineer with a meter. Both can draw different, odd, and incorrect conclusions from the same data.

 

A lot of the basic improvements in Haswell have nothing at all to do with the OS.

 

Haswell improvements:

 

• On-chip voltage regulator: Fully Integrated Voltage Regulator. This is an industry first, Intel said. Combines multiple voltage regulators into one. This reduces the motherboard footprint, leading to smaller and sleeker devices.
  
  
• Power optimizer: Manages power consumption for the platform (entire device). This chip (inside Haswell) alone has as much compute power as an Intel 486 processor.
  
  
• Active power reduction: Aggressive use of lower-power circuits.
  
  
• Idle (standby) power reduction: Reduced by 20X over the previous generation. Architected new, ultra-low-power processor states.
  
  
• Power planes: Added new power planes that can shut down most of the CPU transistors in standby mode.
  
  
• Transistor leakage: Excessive leakage, which wastes power, is a big problem as transistors get smaller. On Haswell's Tri-Gate (3D) transistors, Intel was able to reduce the leakage of the transistors by a factor of two to three, without impacting performance.
  
  
• Lowered minimum operating voltage: Lowered the minimum functional operating voltage. This reduces the active power.
  

 

YoYMMVPaul,

 

The processor is not even in charge of that; the OS is. In the end it is the combination of course, but the OS rules.

Now, you can continue theorizing about it, but you can also try XXHighEnd and see it all happening. I know, earlier in the thread you said you did, but you didn't. And of course you don't need to, but if you want to know ...

No need to tell you where to look, because you'll know where to look, right ?

 

Start with getting yourself a power meter if you don't have one. Easy enough. Now use something like a nice 6 core (=12) and see the ~100Watts drop to under 50Watts. But observe what is doing that.

Whether this makes a different to the sound ... up to you.

 

Peter

[Paul R]

Sure, & I think we are maybe in agreement, I don't know for sure?

 

Believe it or not, we pretty much agree on almost everything. I am just grousing at the idea of using software to bandaid what looks to me to be an essentially hardware problem.

 

You can sure take some good slugs at it in software, but I agree with you, the basic problem is hardware. I think the concentration should be on the DACs more than the computer, but that is really only opinion. It might be better to concentrate on the computers, or both sides of the issue.

 

Yours,

-Paul

[Superdad]

If you mean try suggested PS changes then yes, delving into the details is recommended. If, however, you mean try to ascertain the mode of operation - I don't see that progressing matters until we understand & have sufficient measurements to derive the mode of operation. As I said, it seems to me that separation of supplies between individual parts of the computer reaps sonic benefits & what that suggests is some or more isolation of ground noise between parts of the computer - ground noise which is the result of internal self-generated noise in parts of the computer. Computers are not built with a sufficiently high electrical noise spec to address the use that we want from them - D to A conversion somewhere along the chain - they are simply speced to deal with digital communication which is relatively noise immune.

 

It is targeted towards Haswell CPUs but I'm sure the general concepts & approach, not the specific code however, could apply to other platforms. SBGK would best answer this.

 

I think it is probably the PS in the Mac that is the weak link

Well, yes, the issue is that we are trying to band-aid hardware (computer) not designed for the function we want of it so it requires unnecessarily intricate efforts to design & apply these band-aids. The best approach to categorising what needs to be addressed is to look at what causes fluctuating power draws within the PDN of the computer. The components that immediately spring to mind are - any spinning devices as their motors usually draw substantial current in peaks - so fans & drives are primary targets & removing/replacing them with non-spinning devices helps - although just because a device is doesn't have a motor doesn't mean it now doesn't have peaky current draws so an SSD can still be improved by using a separate supply to it. What would probably be of great service to computer audiophile considerations would be a full analysis of the computer sub-units & their current usage profiles.

 

In general though, if computers were built to isolate & minimise ground plane noise cross-contamination, we would be a log way towards having an audiophile computer platform

 

 

I disagree - they are only right in an ideal world but it's time to wake up to reality & deal with what we have now. Yes, in an ideal world the ground current cross-contamination considerations, I mentioned above would be addressed in the computer & DACs would be relatively immune also. But as it stands now, we have such a complex mix of fluctuating current noise swimming around the ground plane of a computer & we have a D to A conversion process that is very sensitive to fluctuations in ground plane noise then we have a highly reactive & sensitive system which seems to be affected by the processes which are seemingly benign - such as software applications which differ in code & therefore in process load & ultimately in current profile usage - such is the sensitivity of such a system.

 

Merrrill:

 

I mostly agree with your above points, but I also believe that there is much more that can and will be done in the future to move beyond and negate the need a lot of these efforts to ultra-clean the computer environment. I am talking about data interfaces to and in the DAC, and inter-chip methods not in use at all in present-day products. Sadly, I can not reveal more of what I am referring to since this is a very advanced are John Swenson has been working on and for which we are developing products for the coming two years. (It is also part of the reason he has been somewhat quiet in these discussions lately as it gets hard to talk about real solutions without spilling the beans on the technique itself.)

 

So for now we all go on putting bandaids on the computer end hardware, and of course reducing EMI/RFI, packet noise, ground plane noise, and all sorts of bursty activity will always be a good thing. You may also see an audio-purpose, built-from-the-proccesor outward Linux card this year--one that optimizes everything from RAM to all the I/O, with everything superfluous completely shut down. Won't be from my company though.

 

And yes, lumped into the bandaid pile (but a very effective one based on our own testing--but the market will decide) is my forthcoming USB Regen device that produces a "new" USB signal right at the input of the DAC. I mention it here only for clarity about where I see it fitting, because it isn't going to be the end-all cure either.

[Daudio]

The processor is not even in charge of that; the OS is. In the end it is the combination of course, but the OS rules.

 

Peter, & Paul,

 

The Application is the top layer of our processing stack (to extend the OSI model a bit). Everything else (OS, drivers, CPU, busses, registers, hardware, comm) is there to serve the Application.

 

To (ab)use another model, I can see the Application as the Frontal Cortex, generating the goals and tasks, that lower, subconscious machinery elaborates into effective actions

 

Also, that different applications can use the software and hardware resources differently, means to me that they can thus have different side-effects in achieving the same goals, perhaps even sounding differently.

[mmerrill99]

Merrrill:

 

I mostly agree with your above points, but I also believe that there is much more that can and will be done in the future to move beyond and negate the need a lot of these efforts to ultra-clean the computer environment. I am talking about data interfaces to and in the DAC, and inter-chip methods not in use at all in present-day products. Sadly, I can not reveal more of what I am referring to since this is a very advanced are John Swenson has been working on and for which we are developing products for the coming two years. (It is also part of the reason he has been somewhat quiet in these discussions lately as it gets hard to talk about real solutions without spilling the beans on the technique itself.)

 

So for now we all go on putting bandaids on the computer end hardware, and of course reducing EMI/RFI, packet noise, ground plane noise, and all sorts of bursty activity will always be a good thing. You may also see an audio-purpose, built-from-the-proccesor outward Linux card this year--one that optimizes everything from RAM to all the I/O, with everything superfluous completely shut down. Won't be from my company though.

 

And yes, lumped into the bandaid pile (but a very effective one based on our own testing--but the market will decide) is my forthcoming USB Regen device that produces a "new" USB signal right at the input of the DAC. I mention it here only for clarity about where I see it fitting, because it isn't going to be the end-all cure either.

 

Excellent. Alex C - I knew about most of these initiatives, except for the Linux card, audio purposed device

Great to see all this is happening soon - 2015 will be an interesting year - I wonder how many will be left in the bits-are-bits camp or will it be inhabited by tumbleweed ?

[Superdad]

Now let's look at what happens when the observer is also the designer or involved with the design in some way. Now we must both include and consider the intensity of MOTIVATION in the observer's conclusions. It's plain to see the internal conflicts of you approach the mechanisms rationally. Certainly there are methods for altering the sequential influence of perceptual mechanisms to benefit the validy of the observation. It's the reason this thread exists in the first place. And as an objectivist, i would concede that ABX and DBT are not perfect solutions.....or even ideal for the sake of discussion. But if ABX and DBT are employed properly in conjunction with other methodology and the results of the observations are quantified in an objective and statistical manner, the results reach a suitable level of accuracy.

 

Major corporate development employs these methods all the time from developing a new shampoo to a new flavor of chicken nugget sauce. I'm not saying that a small audio development firm has to go to these lengths when designing a DAC or similiar, but some degree of measure of each method should be responsibly employed.

 

Hopefully I've gotten my viewpoint across here as there seems to be a growing suggestion that I'm a shut down nay sayer or hard line objectivist. That's simply not the case.....but of course there's a level of bias involved here so.......LOL.

 

Gosh Anthony, no offense to you or any actual sufferer, but sometimes I think you are bi-polar. You can go from spewing vulgar insults to posting intelligent and thought-provoking arguments in a calm and polite manner. My way of saying thanks and trying to put the other things behind us.

 

 

A couple of points/questions regarding your above postulations:

 

a) With regards "motivation," are you implying commercial motivation? I took it that you are since McGowan's post about their new firmware was part of that discussion and you seemed to question the method and result. No matter. I just want to point out to all that a majority of the high-firms (both large and small, past and present) are founded by people who are passionate about sound and music. Trust me, there are many far easier and more lucrative ways to make a living than in the niche of high-end audio! And of course their real skill level and aptitude for advancing audio science varies greatly.

But, and I will again use the example of PSA and the new firmware, when a company works at improving their product, feels they have succeeded, and releases the upgrade to their users for free, it is hard to accept the notion that their motivation was strictly financial. I probably read your post all wrong in this matter, but it did come to mind…

 

b) Where I really have a tough time with your and Dennis's questioning of results from a manufacturer's internal process of refinement of their products (be they firmware, s/w, a resistor type, a capacitor, an output device, or a beefier PS), is when such products/upgrades are released to the public and whole host of people around the world listen to it and rave about the improvement. This week is a great example, given the release of major firmware updates to both the Auralic Aries and the PS Audio DS DAC. Regardless of the manufacturers' mix of internal processes--generally a confluence of ideas, bench trials testing, and listening choices--the proof is in the pudding.

[Superdad]

...2015 will be an interesting year - I wonder how many will be left in the bits-are-bits camp or will it be inhabited by tumbleweed ?

 

Yes, many things are possible. I find working with John to be endlessly fascinating/exciting and hope that we can bootstrap ourselves into position for development of more ambitious products and technologies.

 

I have a favor to ask Merrill: Your posts are generally very cogent and thought provoking (especially when you and David, et al get into the neuroscience/psychology stuff!), but it would be great if you could begin to leave off the polarizing snark. This group is polarized enough, and I think the way to improved civility and continued substantive conversation is for us all to be less inflammatory--even in off-hand remarks. If we do that then maybe all "sides" will follow suit. Thanks.

--Alex C.

[jriver]

I have a favor to ask Merrill: Your posts are generally very cogent and thought provoking (especially when you and David, et al get into the neuroscience/psychology stuff!), but it would be great if you could begin to leave off the polarizing snark.

 

Comments like this, for example:

Gosh Anthony, no offense to you or any actual sufferer, but sometimes I think you are bi-polar.

[Superdad]

It isn't just two people who feel as they do. Experts' opinions are frequently posted here or referred to as fact, when they are just opinions like yours or mine.

 

And usually without the sort of inflammatory language you've used in your post.

 

Why not just say you disagree and leave it at that?

 

Jim, those were extremely out of context quotes you used. I was responding as civilly as I could muster to some ad hominem attacks, some of which were ongoing and vulgar. Perhaps you should go back and reread my post: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/should-blind-testing-discussion-be-banned-computer-audiophile-poll-23277/index35.html#post397637

[Superdad]

Comments like this, for example:

 

No, use the whole quote Jim! I said:

 

Gosh Anthony, no offense to you or any actual sufferer, but sometimes I think you are bi-polar. You can go from spewing vulgar insults to posting intelligent and thought-provoking arguments in a calm and polite manner. My way of saying thanks and trying to put the other things behind us.

 

Considering the sort of stuff that came before, my comment seemed an appropriate prerequisite to giving him the compliment.

 

You know Jim, there is a popular audio forum that is great for short, drop-in-anywhere and snipe posts. It's called AudioAsylum.

[esldude]

Forget about identical files.

You have your own rip, two different rip from Alex and they all sound different.

Do you think that your curiosity should try to find what's the heck is behind that?

 

Again not sure exactly what you are asking about. Are you asking if I had a rip of my own and I had an Alex rip and they sounded different would I be curious and try to figure out why? The answer is yes I would. So far all bit identical rips I have tried from any source when played back on the same equipment sound the same.

 

Alex at one time sent me two files that were different. One had been reduced something like 40 db, delayed a few milliseconds and added back to the original. One was clean. Those sounded different, and I described them as such. Not exactly news that two different files might sound different.

 

As I have tried to make clear, I am not an uncurious person. But being curious based upon differences I don't hear, and have tried to hear isn't very effective.

[Jud]

And even experts don't agree sometimes.

 

Happens entirely too often for a poor audiophile. :-/ There is stuff that is evidently ridiculous (yes, even to me); I'd use the "quantum" stuff as an example. (Though I have no idea if the person pushing that stuff is an engineer.) But there are sometimes fairly strident disagreements between very smart people (e.g., DSD, with any number of knowledgeable folks on both sides), and then what's a fella to do? (On that particular front, I happily listen to DSD, since it provides access to either music or particular masterings unavailable in PCM, and don't really care on an abstract level which is supposed to be better.)

 

Would an engineer from a company that produces audiophile grade products normally be considered an "expert" in audio engineering?

 

Yes. Of course, there are experts and there are experts. In my youth, when the red blood of a litigator flowed through my veins (physicians among us - I know veins don't have red blood; it's an expression), I worked on a billion-dollar litigation involving parts of the Canadian government, several of the world's largest oil companies, and a Fortune 150 American corporation. There were probably (hard to recall exactly this many years later) over 100 experts total, working on subjects like finite element analysis, thermodynamics calculations that took three weeks of time on one of the world's fastest supercomputers (now you could probably do them on your iPhone).... Even in that rarefied atmosphere, it did not take long to identify who really understood a subject in depth and would do well in a courtroom.

[sandyk]

Alex at one time sent me two files that were different. One had been reduced something like 40 db, delayed a few milliseconds and added back to the original. One was clean. Those sounded different, and I described them as such. Not exactly news that two different files might sound different.

 

Dennis

 

They weren't from me, they were from John Kenny.

 

Alex

[YashN]

I have had users prefer the sound of one method of loading the data into ram over another method so don't discount ripping using a linear supply just because known science doesn't have a theory. Is the noise present at the time of writing captured in the stored data ? The author of rewriter thinks the magnetic parts are being refreshed, not sure about that (but he does think thet effect wears off over time).

 

Not noise stored, but tiny, tiny voltages, leaving the unit of magnetic storage unsaturated. To be able to derive a bit from these 'analog' levels, disk electronics and amplifiers have to work a lot => energy consumption => noise on the ground plane + EMI/RFI.

 

So, presumably, a file copy makes the medium more saturated and thus less 'noisy' when read back into RAM.

 

It's a proxy test or proxy explanation for what sandyk has been telling us for a while now.

Easy test to do, either with RewriteData or just your own file system copy operation and listening with Bug Head Green....

 

Takes more time to listen that to actually do it.

 

Similar phenomenon in DRAM when the sense amps and the refresh cycle kick in: there's a need to derive digital values from the analog representation => noise...

 

Therefore, his RewriteMemory (avoid cache, use MMX or other registers for newer processors), makes a fresh copy in DRAM => less Sense amp work when sending to the DAC => less jitter.

 

Maybe the effects of any nearby graphics processor or the effects of the motherboard traces switching when accessing DRAM have a larger effect, but it all adds up.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Foul.

Also foul.

 

Yes Jim IMO and obviously others here that it is wrong (perhaps foul to use your"inflammatory" word) for you to present yourself as holding a monopoly on the truth and as representing scientific and objective conclusions

 

It isn't just two people who feel as they do. Experts' opinions are frequently posted here or referred to as fact, when they are just opinions like yours or mine.

 

Jim, a rather strange statement from someone who IMO presents his opinions as fact.

 

SinceI'm a lawyer (just helping to make the world a better place!

 

Is that an oxymoron Jud ? <Kidding>

 

 

I immediately think of the legal criteria for admissibility of expert evidence.The opinions of experts are allowed to be used as evidence in U.S. courts

 

Here in Oz too. In the nineties when things were much more litigious here I got subpoenaed to court on a weekly basis to give evidence (the government since moved the goal posts as we say to stop costly litigation and settlements occurring). It did impress me that much of the focus was on establishing your credentials.

 

Getting back to audio, I use my own life experience (including my listening experience) to evaluate what weight to give the opinions I read from "experts"(professionals in the field) here. I tend (as I assume most folks do) to give more credence to those who (1) have the most specifically applicable knowledge,and (2) reach conclusions that either accord with my personal experience ormake sense as extensions of that personal experience.The result is that I do tend to take statements by certain people as fact (perhaps provisionally, i.e.,until and unless disproved or replaced by something that makes more sense tome). I have little doubt most people here do the same. It's just that we allpick different experts to believe.

 

Yes, me too. It explains nicely how you resolve the situation when experts often disagree.

Ithink you are a bit confused. I didn't comment on the MIT stuff. I also was nottrying to discredit AlexC. He quoted Paul McGowen and I thought much less of the writing of McGowen and how it was pitched. I think no more of it now. Ifyou think that discredits me then I think you credit the wrong people. Thecomment about ignoring physiology was in regard to McGowens outlined methodsnot the MIT info.

 

Dennis, I agree that McGowan presented his view as more factual than interpretation based.It is however in my opinion evidence based.For example The MIT paper (which you endorse ?), although not directly addressing the same topic, does IMO support the blog which is why mmerrill posted it I believe. It simply points out that hearing perception goes beyond the cochlea and indeed as pointed out by the MIT paper is the job of the brain. It is highly probable IMO the McGowan is right in saying perceptual abilities can adapt to changes in hearing acuity. The McGowan blog mentions *some* of the relevant physiology and focusing on the memory and training aspects relevant to his post. It wasn’t meant to be an MIT paper or thesis. You can take a cynical view that this is all a ploy to sell a product if and because there was no disclaimer about motivations and bias mentioned. However it doesn’t invalidate the general principles he was espousing. I believe you were overly critical in dismissing it and more likely need to revisit your *motivation*. That doesn’t discredit you but the ad hominem attack on AlexC IMO does…I would need to reread this but my pc is playing up making that difficult to verify. If wrong, I sincerely apologize.Firefox keeps on for some weird reason defaulting back to "page 10"of this post.

 

 

Ican only judge your [Mayhem's] conclusions based on the accumulation of whatyou say - summarised, IMO, in your reply to an excellent Audiophileneuroscience's post:

GoshAnthony, no offense to you or any actual sufferer, but sometimes I think youare bi-polar. You can go from spewing vulgar insults to posting intelligent andthought-provoking arguments in a calm and polite manner. My way of sayingthanks and trying to put the other things behind us.

 

IMO Anthony's posts blow hot and cold in the rationality department based on his prevailing mood.We all can be accused of that a little, Anthony a lot (IMO).

 

Justwrite a decoding software to understand you

 

I'm sure even Peter had a chuckle at this one ;-)

 

 

 

Yes,many things are possible. I find working with John to be endlesslyfascinating/exciting and hope that we can bootstrap ourselves into position fordevelopment of more ambitious products and technologies.

 

I for one, truly appreciate hearing about what you and John Swenson are up to. IMO helping to further the hobby and the science (unlike some). Could you have a commercial agenda? Well so could the person looking for the cure for cancer but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater (for those reaching for their keyboards,no I'm not equating the importance of curing cancer with audio development). I already know of some, and suspect it applies to many, 'experts' that just dont bother to post in CA or other forums coz they just dont want the angst.

 

Ihave a favor to ask Merrill: Your posts are generally very cogent and thoughtprovoking (especially when you and David, et al get into theneuroscience/psychology stuff!), but it would be great if you could begin toleave off the polarizing snark. --Alex C.

 

LOL, no sooner than you posted this but you got snarked….that'll learn ya !! (still chucking).

 

Btw leaping to Merrill's defence, I think he is most moderate in his replies. Agreed about the cogent and thought provoking.

[sbgk]

Not noise stored, but tiny, tiny voltages, leaving the unit of magnetic storage unsaturated. To be able to derive a bit from these 'analog' levels, disk electronics and amplifiers have to work a lot => energy consumption => noise on the ground plane + EMI/RFI.

 

So, presumably, a file copy makes the medium more saturated and thus less 'noisy' when read back into RAM.

 

It's a proxy test or proxy explanation for what sandyk has been telling us for a while now.

Easy test to do, either with RewriteData or just your own file system copy operation and listening with Bug Head Green....

 

Takes more time to listen that to actually do it.

 

Similar phenomenon in DRAM when the sense amps and the refresh cycle kick in: there's a need to derive digital values from the analog representation => noise...

 

Therefore, his RewriteMemory (avoid cache, use MMX or other registers for newer processors), makes a fresh copy in DRAM => less Sense amp work when sending to the DAC => less jitter.

 

Maybe the effects of any nearby graphics processor or the effects of the motherboard traces switching when accessing DRAM have a larger effect, but it all adds up.

 

interesting stuff