A novel way to massively improve the SQ of computer audio streaming

[ElviaCaprice]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

Actually you don’t have that empirical knowledge unless you have measured the system phase error which you haven’t. Empirical means something.

Yes, like listening with our ears in comparison.  Thatis empirical enough for this group.  Otherwise we could be waiting for a long time for any instrument to be constructed that confirms what we already heard.

[jabbr]

21 minutes ago, ElviaCaprice said:

Yes, like listening with our ears in comparison.  Thatis empirical enough for this group.  Otherwise we could be waiting for a long time for any instrument to be constructed that confirms what we already heard.

Right so believe what you want and who knows why you hear what you hear . and arbitrarily choose to believe who you want to believe. Sounds random to me.

 

What actual evidence do you have that this entire thread isn’t just a couple of blokes who agree with each other at a pub?

 

Thats fine, but that’s all.

[mozes]

4 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Right so believe what you want and who knows why you hear what you hear . and arbitrarily choose to believe who you want to believe. Sounds random to me.

 

What actual evidence do you have that this entire thread isn’t just a couple of blokes who agree with each other at a pub?

If we were here to produce scientific knowledge,  I agree we would have to ensure that we have reliability and validity regarding planning, collecting and interpretating data. The truth is far from that. We are just a bunch of audiophiles who have common interest in how to reproduce the best SQ from computer related devices. So some of our empirical findings are probably neither supported nor explained by scientific evidence, but we see the proof when we listen to our systems. The empirical reportings of other members on this thread have elevated my system beyond my expectations and I am grateful to everyone who shared their experience on this thread.

[rickca]

Deleted

[ElviaCaprice]

30 minutes ago, jabbr said:

Right so believe what you want and who knows why you hear what you hear . and arbitrarily choose to believe who you want to believe. Sounds random to me.

 

What actual evidence do you have that this entire thread isn’t just a couple of blokes who agree with each other at a pub?

 

Thats fine, but that’s all.

That all has worked so far for these blokes.   As I'm sure for most on this forum.  You few blokes that need measurements, good luck to you somewhere else. 

[Theobetley]

39 minutes ago, mozes said:

If we were here to produce scientific knowledge,  I agree we would have to ensure that we have reliability and validity regarding planning, collecting and interpretating data. The truth is far from that. We are just a bunch of audiophiles who have common interest in how to reproduce the best SQ from computer related devices. So some of our empirical findings are probably neither supported nor explained by scientific evidence, but we see the proof when we listen to our systems. The empirical reportings of other members on this thread have elevated my system beyond my expectations and I am grateful to everyone who shared their experience on this thread.

Profound and well said.

 

If you don't enjoy music don't come here and stir stuff up. The rest of us are trying to learn from others. I will have to admit the worlds greatest audiophiles are right here on CA.

[austinpop]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

Right so believe what you want and who knows why you hear what you hear . and arbitrarily choose to believe who you want to believe. Sounds random to me.

 

What actual evidence do you have that this entire thread isn’t just a couple of blokes who agree with each other at a pub?

 

Thats fine, but that’s all.

 

Funny - I recently met several folks ("blokes") from this thread at a "pub" at RMAF. Can't say we agreed about much of anything, least of all what to drink!

 

But in all seriousness, I am going to invoke my OP privileges here: we are NOT going down this rathole. If we do, I will be getting Chris's help to delete posts as needed.

 

Why don't I just stipulate up front that this thread is intended for people who trust their ears, and are willing to share their listening impressions. Audio science and measurement skeptics are welcome to start another thread.

[ismewor]

19 minutes ago, austinpop said:

 

Funny - I recently met several folks ("blokes") from this thread at a "pub" at RMAF. Can't say we agreed about much of anything, least of all what to drink!

 

But in all seriousness, I am going to invoke my OP privileges here: we are NOT going down this rathole. If we do, I will be getting Chris's help to delete posts as needed.

 

Why don't I just stipulate up front that this thread is intended for people who trust their ears, and are willing to share their listening impressions. Audio science and measurement skeptics are welcome to start another thread.

+1 

i second to that.

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, austinpop said:

Why don't I just stipulate up front that this thread is intended for people who trust their ears, and are willing to share their listening impressions. Audio science and measurement skeptics are welcome to start another thread.

 

No problem, there is very little harm allowing monkeys to sit at typewriters ?

 

Have a great thread.

[Johnseye]

That heated up pretty quickly. It didn't have to. As long as we don't posture defensively and close our minds to one path over the other, we can have productive dialogue. As long as we don't take the approach of if it can't be proven with an oscilloscope (choose your instrument) it doesn't exist, then we'll be ok.  I personally like hearing those in the electronics profession share their knowledge. There's a lot to learn and one day what we hear will be validated through a scope. Because some things can't today doesn't make them wrong. That shouldn't be what our discussion is about. 

 

So let's take a deep breath and get back to talking about how to improve our sound quality whether that's through experience or engineering. 

[austinpop]

15 minutes ago, Johnseye said:

That heated up pretty quickly. It didn't have to. As long as we don't posture defensively and close our minds to one path over the other, we can have productive dialogue. As long as we don't take the approach of if it can't be proven with an oscilloscope (choose your instrument) it doesn't exist, then we'll be ok.  I personally like hearing those in the electronics profession share their knowledge. There's a lot to learn and one day what we hear will be validated through a scope. Because some things can't today doesn't make them wrong. That shouldn't be what our discussion is about. 

 

So let's take a deep breath and get back to talking about how to improve our sound quality whether that's through experience or engineering. 

 

I got no problem with that! 

[marce]

Well, that was interesting.

I will bow out myself as I don't want to get in any bun fights.

One thing though, a couple of you are using the word empirical incorrectly, you don't want any science so realise that you have NO empirical data, it is subjective opinions only...

Have fun.

[ElviaCaprice]

9 hours ago, Johnseye said:

That heated up pretty quickly. It didn't have to. As long as we don't posture defensively and close our minds to one path over the other, we can have productive dialogue. As long as we don't take the approach of if it can't be proven with an oscilloscope (choose your instrument) it doesn't exist, then we'll be ok.  I personally like hearing those in the electronics profession share their knowledge. There's a lot to learn and one day what we hear will be validated through a scope. Because some things can't today doesn't make them wrong. That shouldn't be what our discussion is about. 

 

So let's take a deep breath and get back to talking about how to improve our sound quality whether that's through experience or engineering. 

I agree Johnseye,  but they aren't here to help find scientific measurements that support what we are hearing (empirically).  No, for some reason they feel threatened by the support this thread has gained and want to discredit it, with whatever pseudo tech talk means possible.  As you can see we can't even agree on the definition of empirically, in which they insist their definition is the only correct one.

Here is the Oxford definition:

em·pir·i·cal·ly

/əmˈpiriklē/

 

adverb

• 1. by means of observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

 

and then in case they insist on defining observation, here is where we disagree, we take the first case, they take the second only.

Observation is the active acquisition of information from a primary source. In living beings, observation employs the senses. In science, observation can also involve the recording of data via the use of instruments

[ElviaCaprice]

50 minutes ago, marce said:

I will bow out myself as I don't want to get in any bun fights.

One thing though, a couple of you are using the word empirical incorrectly, you don't want any science so realise that you have NO empirical data, it is subjective opinions only...

Have fun.

Proof enough that your intention here was to only discredit by diminutizing our own empirical observations.

[marce]

Pathetic and childish...

Does your attitude move the audio hobby forward, no, 

proof of nothing, I could have put up a one line reply and achieved what you accuse me of, instead I spent more time than I have to spare carefully formulating my reply and hopefully adding to the collective understanding... And especially to avoid simple mistakes that will bugger up your super clocks, but ...

All you have done is pull people down and act like a bit of a bully... 

 

[ElviaCaprice]

13 minutes ago, marce said:

Pathetic and childish...

Does your attitude move the audio hobby forward, no, 

proof of nothing, I could have put up a one line reply and achieved what you accuse me of, instead I spent more time than I have to spare carefully formulating my reply and hopefully adding to the collective understanding... And especially to avoid simple mistakes that will bugger up your super clocks, but ...

All you have done is pull people down and act like a bit of a bully... 

 

Then I apologize if you feel that way, that was never my intention.  We welcome any information that adds to the collective understanding.

[marce]

Sorry for getting tetchy but as I said if I wanted discredit, it is easier to do with less words. I have major differences in beliefs between myself and those of a more subjective nature, by the same token I have major disagreements with my missus regarding furniture, decor even the time of day... That said we can still discuss our viewpoints and each take a little extra away.

[jabbr]

5 hours ago, ElviaCaprice said:

Then I apologize if you feel that way, that was never my intention.  We welcome any information that adds to the collective understanding.

 Ok but what you said was:

18 hours ago, austinpop said:

 

Funny - I recently met several folks ("blokes") from this thread at a "pub" at RMAF. Can't say we agreed about much of anything, least of all what to drink!

 

But in all seriousness, I am going to invoke my OP privileges here: we are NOT going down this rathole. If we do, I will be getting Chris's help to delete posts as needed.

 

Why don't I just stipulate up front that this thread is intended for people who trust their ears, and are willing to share their listening impressions. Audio science and measurement skeptics are welcome to start another thread.

 

The definitional error is in the active rejection you are exhibiting toward measurement in an electronics field. In the days of Benjamin Franklin, primary senses has a critical role in advancing our understanding of electricity but in the past few centuries, our collective understanding has become so advanced that the active rejection of measurements is ludicrous. Particularly when the discussion is about clock upgrades which is itself s highly technical topic. 

 

If you don’t want to learn that is your choice. Do you have any idea why the path a clock takes to its target is important?

[austinpop]

58 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 Do you have any idea why the path a clock takes to its target is important?

 

Yes, I do. I could write a short treatise on proper termination, impedance matching, and the importance of clock cable length. Oh wait - if you bother to actually go back to the index and look, I’ve done that before, as have others.

 

Are you here to participate and contribute to the subject of this thread? If so, welcome!

 

But if you are here to lecture us, and try to convince us that we couldn’t possibly be hearing what we are hearing, then please move along. Nothing to see here.

[Ralf11]

I'm a dreamer, not a streamer so only check this lengthy thread sporadically, but confirmation bias is a problem for "people who trust their ears" to the extent they don't control for confirmation bias.

 

I am fine with "people who are willing to share their listening impressions" without any controls, and have asked several people do so on various pieces of equipment.  But it is a type of information that has to be accorded less weight than a valid listening test, with controls and statistical tests.

 

** NOTE: None of the above requires instruments to quantify any aspect of the sound.  Nor is a mechainsitic theory required ot explain anything either. 

[Ralf11]

I am interested in why the path a clock takes to its target is important...

 

 

[Johnseye]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I'm a dreamer, not a streamer so only check this lengthy thread sporadically, but confirmation bias is a problem for "people who trust their ears" to the extent they don't control for confirmation bias.

 

I am fine with "people who are willing to share their listening impressions" without any controls, and have asked several people do so on various pieces of equipment.  But it is a type of information that has to be accorded less weight than a valid listening test, with controls and statistical tests.

 

** NOTE: None of the above requires instruments to quantify any aspect of the sound.  Nor is a mechainsitic theory required ot explain anything either. 

 

Ralf, this has been discussed extensively in this thread already.  The general consensus is that those who are A-B testing are doing what they can to remove bias.  Not to the extent of a DBT in every situation but as close as possible to remove bias.  I don't think anyone here wants to fool themselves, or others.  You have to take someone's listening results with a grain of salt though, because you never know what variables were accounted for.

 

That said, I think this thread has been accepted as sharing listening impressions, take it for what it is and don't expect anything more.  With that in mind, use what you read with discretion.

[Ralf11]

Thx, I am fairly discrete

 

 

 

but am happy to use integrated designs when appropriate.

[Johnseye]

30 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Thx, I am fairly discrete

 

 

 

but am happy to use integrated designs when appropriate.

 

Sounds like you read my post from another thread.  I agree.  Integrated designs make sense where appropriate.  It really comes down to how the manufacturer wants to design their product.  Something's got to give because of size constraints.

[Ralf11]

yes,   also - I felt a need for some punnery today