Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?

[esldude]

Because when you can't even get across that a music file is recorded in monophonic sound when someone insists they hear imaging well what is left you could usefully discuss without someone uselessly disagreeing because "they hear"?

[esldude]

51 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

There will always be people who adhere to the plainly ridiculous.  Other than putting in a couple of words to prevent plain misinformation going uncorrected, drawn out arguments with these folks just give them an excuse to continue.

 

So why dwell on them?  Is that what you’d tend to do at a local bar or club?  I think you and just about all the rest of us would gravitate toward friendly chats with folks we like, or best of all, folks we like who can teach us about stuff we want to learn.

My complaint is not that there are people who disagree or have another opinion.  My complaint is when a large enough number of people simply retreat to "I hear" and nothing you can say, do or demonstrate trumps the craziest of ideas, then there is no area of common ground left.

 

So sure if at local bar or club I would end up chatting with people who would be interesting to be around.

 

On the other hand, going into a country and western themed bar knowing how much I generally abhor country music might not be a smart choice as to where to go.  Going into a  bar where most of the patrons wish to drink, and get into a refreshing bar fight before the night ends also is not a wise choice (for me).  Either of those could still have some worthwhile people in them.  Just not a high probability of being happy with either of them.   So if you end up in such a place it probably is wise to recognize the kind of place it is and mosey on down the road to a different place.

[esldude]

17 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

I wasn't thinking of a specific subgroup of audiophiles. Don't all audiophiles think there are differences in at least some playback gear? -- could you clarify?

Maybe he means people like me.  I believe everything other than transducers* can be and are fully transparent.  Exceptions would be gear designed to have a sound so it is different than all the others.  If the others are transparent and interchangeable, you have to put in sound character to have something to sale in audiophile circles.  The other exception would be amplifiers which do need some matching with widely varying speaker loads. 

 

*  transducers would be microphones, phono cartridges, tape heads, headphones and speakers.

[esldude]

21 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Interesting. An honest question: why participate in CA then, if all that matters are transducers why not participate in fora devoted to speakers and other transducers?

Well I originally came to CA when there were just beginning to be high quality ways to feed bit perfect audio from your computer to DACs in a high end playback system.  There were things to learn about good ripping practices, and over the years various ins and outs of modern playback software.  While here I suppose it got to be a comfortable community.  So while here one gets in these other discussions.  The rest should be easy enough to figure out.

As for forums about speakers, I don't participate like I once did in those.  I do participate in some recording forums where microphones are a common topic.

[esldude]

5 hours ago, jabbr said:

Fair enough. I think that each person can decide at which point music reproduction is "good enough" and at the end of the day, if the system is enjoyable to listen to, that is the most important consideration. At what point did you decide that digital reproduction had become perfect? What led you to this decision?

First off, I didn't say perfect.  I said audibly transparent.  Maybe like Bob Stuart saying MQA is audibly lossless.  Not perfect, but not audible as normally used. The what was a series of listening tests, experiences and looking at what does what.

 

One that was made public here.  Finding I could not hear a difference in digital original files and the 4th generation of them having been sent thru an AD/DA loop.  Finding I could only sometimes, on some music hear the 8th generation copy.  This with a couple of pieces of $400 gear, no expensive cables, power supplies or USB isolators.  I posted those and saw little reason to think others could hear it based upon their choices in a poll and other people's messages or posts simply saying they couldn't hear it.

 

Comparing straight wire with wire having an AD/DA stage in the middle.

 

A recording magazine posted files a few years back where they took 3 pairs of microphones, playing over 8 different mic-preamps using a Bosendorfer that can play itself in a large studio (rumored to be Abbey road).  Prices ranged from $450 to something over $10k for the pres.  Firstly, just like here very few would venture making a choice.  In time, they let people rank the undisclosed preamps by preference.  The $450 unit was most preferred, followed by an $8k unit, etc. etc.  Price certainly didn't correspond with preference in this case. There was good reason to think people weren't hearing real differences as votes were nearly an even split.

 

A fellow doing a similar test on his own posted files of some 11 preamps ranging from $250 to about $12k.  Listening without knowing which was which I thought two sounded different.  The rest I ranked.  Did that again, and rankings were all jumbled except for the two.  Pretty much the results other people had with his test posting.  Investigation of the files after they were revealed indicated the most obvious file was down - 3db at 18 khz and down enough to matter into the midrange.  The other was strangely shelved down somewhere around 4 khz by 1.25 db if I remember rightly.  The others were within +/- .04 db to 20 khz (mostly closer than that except at extremes). 

 

Another test of ADCs by a magazine with files posted.  Similar results.  One had a frequency aberration.  The only one reliably picked out.   It is nearly conventional wisdom among many pro recording people AD converters are a solved problem.  Maybe not everyone, but many, maybe most of them.  Need an ADC, few hundred bucks is plenty for one. 

 

Analog circuits connected to these devices are good enough too or you wouldn't get those results.

 

So taken altogether not hard to come to the conclusion that nothing between microphone and amp need be nor likely is audible unless someone makes it audibly different (read colored to taste) or performs some kind of processing.  Are there people who hear better than me?  Sure.  Is there better gear than I have?  Sure.  Are there hidden large improvements waiting to be made in audio?  Other than transducers and the psycho-acoustic processing of sound,...NO.   There may be minor improvements. 

 

Over and over when you do find people can hear a difference it is when there is uneven FR, overload, or noise.  Otherwise when the labels are hidden differences are scarce.  What else would you expect given what is clearly known about hearing, and the current levels of very low distortion, low noise and flat response.

[esldude]

53 minutes ago, NOMBEDES said:

There is something wrong with us.

I blame the Television, MTV, video games, Newt Gingrich (SP) and the anonymous nature of the internet. 

Why do we devolve into vicious name calling over audio cables? 

Cables do not "sound" better or worse, they sound different.

I maintain that most audio controversy can be explained by the vast variation in human hearing rather than empirical fact.

Why do politicians put party over country?  Because we keep electing them.

Respectful discourse is dead. We have become course. 

No one here on the internet knows if they are typing notes to a dog.

Woof.

 

I knew it was a dog on the other end.  The give away was course for coarse. 

 

Meant in good humor my furry friend.

[esldude]

1 hour ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Well, think about it. Every time you use a dust cloth, it wears down the dusted surface just a tiny bit, like water flowing over rocks. It's a trade-off.  

Maybe digital files have a break-in period. You have to play them enough to smooth the rough edges off.

[esldude]

33 minutes ago, Daudio said:

 

Anyone else notice a flurry of silly, OT, distracting, posts following one that might be a little unsettling to those 'Righteous' keepers of the objectivist, pseudo-scientific, flames ?

 

Nope.   Do you have any examples?

[esldude]

Just now, christopher3393 said:

 

DOH! oh, well...how'bout those new cat8 cables by Wireworld that keep appearing in the banner at the top of the page. Tempted?

I am still waiting on the report from the U of Miami professor that Wireworld promised me.  Sorry, inside joke from a couple years back. 

[esldude]

8 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

I do wonder to what extent this overgeneralization is caused by not having more precise descriptive language.  For example, let's just say a particular USB cable has led to a reduction of noise in someone's system such that formerly obscured details become clearer.  (If you don't like the USB cable example, pick any other aspect of the system that you feel might credibly cause such an effect.)  We really don't have very good descriptive terms for these occurrences, beyond the hoary and derided "lifting of veils," descriptions more apt for frequency response changes, and other similar stuff from the analog world of 40 years ago.  

 

I've never yet read a description of the sound of jitter that I could use to actually identify it in an audio sample - come to think of it, I've never read much of a description of how jitter sounds at all.

 

Think the sound of a leslie speaker.  Or singing into a window fan.

Speaking of, some interesting jitter-like measurements I saw awhile back.   Result of a ceiling fan.

 

Second post on this page, and the next several posts discuss it.

 

http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/close-in-jitter.1621/page-15

 

It looks very much like the same effect of close in jitter.  I have tried it and it is quite noticeable with tones and less so though still noticeable with music.  It creates sidebands around all sounds the same as jitter would do. 

[esldude]

8 minutes ago, Wavelength said:

 

~~~

I have tested a boat load of cables here. Some over $1000 could barely work with some of the dacs I had here. Some $10 ones worked really good and better than others.

 

The big problem I have with cable companies is that nobody owns the test equipment that I have to test these cables? Why not?

 

Thanks,

Gordon

I can answer that question.  Because they can run a damned profitable business without it.  Because the technical attributes have nothing to do with how successful that business is.  Because audiophiles in some substantial portion reject technical measures of things most especially cables.  Any good business man would look at the cost of your test equipment, the time and trouble of the whole procedure, and the bottom line he already has.  Knowing what works in the business he would take about 1 femto-second to decide your testing gear, testing program the whole idea is completely irrelevant to his business.

[esldude]

Silo-ed knowledge?

 

Is that like holding knowledge in a silo?

 

Or is silo-education some method I am unfamiliar with like the Montessori method?

 

Or a school of music they have in Silo City in Buffalo, New York? 

 

 

[esldude]

10 minutes ago, mansr said:

Could be relevant to farming. Or ICBM systems.

Or maybe it was a complement.  Your brain is like sieve means it holds onto nothing.  If your brain is like a silo it stores it all until needed.

 

Oh well, reminds me of a cool song anyway.

 

 

 

[esldude]

10 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Could digital USB cables be affected by EMI?

 

I'm glad I read far enough on this thread to see the wave audio post.

I would say heavily effected.  It literally could control what music is played upon your system.

 

http://www.universalmusic.com/label/emi/

 

[esldude]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

it would be better if you got effect/affect right ;]

Actually that was intentional.  Buy choosing EMI music you effected the change in the USB.  Apparently that part wasn't clear.  Sorry.

[esldude]

4 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to speak for Gordon but we could discuss which measurements would be appropriate -- another topic -- but there really aren't any that are published by the manufacturers of the cables -- he said he didn't think they have the equipment

 

I have suggested that one measure would be the analogue output line width of a pure digital tone fed into the DAC.

Well there are no standard parameters for that test.  What would you suggest?

[esldude]

11 hours ago, jabbr said:

If I were ever in the business of selling USB cables I would provide measurements that supported the product I were selling. If pure USB conformance then impedance etc -- If I were claiming improvement in phase noise then phase error measurement and DAC output would be another. 

 

Theres actually a lot more hats been written about this over the last few decades (how to measure that is) more than a wide spectrum FFT

Well instead we get claims of low jitter (which don't pan out that we can tell).  More often than that we get claims of superior USB cable reducing errors.  You always know it is snake oil then as the cheap cables don't have an error problem. I think it goes back to my response to Gordon Rankin.  These guys in these companies are good businessmen, and they know they don't need measures, no testing equipment etc.  It wouldn't enhance the bottom line. I bet they would put your USB cable outfit out of business. 

[esldude]

13 hours ago, jabbr said:

I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to speak for Gordon but we could discuss which measurements would be appropriate -- another topic -- but there really aren't any that are published by the manufacturers of the cables -- he said he didn't think they have the equipment

 

I have suggested that one measure would be the analogue output line width of a pure digital tone fed into the DAC.

I commented on this earlier, and somehow just remembered what you were referring to was more, FWHM, full width at half maximum which is a measure in optics.  Typically half maximum power.  In terms of audio it would be probably more reasonable to use half voltage.  So full width (in hertz) at half voltage. 

 

Now with pedestrian devices that number is already about 1 hz wide. And Full Width at 1/1000th voltage is about 1.5 hz wide. 

 

So in terms of spectral width what parameters would you think more telling?  And why do you think this is an audibly significant measure?

[esldude]

22 minutes ago, jabbr said:

I don't know the limits of audibility--

Typically we use dB in audio so these units more familiar to discuss than voltage ratios. Close in phase error is highest so best to look at. Suppose a so-called femtosecond clock  is using a 1khz offset down -150 dB -- do you think that would likely be audible? Not many volts there  Would -70 dB be more likely audible? That's going to be very close in.

I'm  just pointing out what the electrical correlates are at the DAC output, i.e. If there is a claim that a "bad cable" that worsens "jitter" then this test will demonstrate that.  What is actually audible would need to be tested.

Well the available evidence of masking, frequency sensitivity, and direct jitter all would lead to the idea such very close in jitter is not audible. So I was interested in why you think it important. A cable could be a little better or worse meaning nothing. So is it just anecdotal description you are looking at? USB cable makers are uninterested in measuring those things.  All they need is suspicion and claims of better because jitter.  The digital boogey man that keeps on giving.

[esldude]

Well I cross posted while you answered some of my questions. What I would like to see is testing like Benchmark shows, immunity to high levels of jitter. So if we throw huge amounts of jitter at asynch DACs does it get into the output. I believe mansr had done this before.  I have too working with long cables without seeing anything.

[esldude]

56 minutes ago, jabbr said:

After educating myself, and speaking with people who I respect and then doing even more reading, I've come to this hypothesis-- that close-in phase error is an important but overlooked factor in digital audio circuits-- ymmv

So what have you read that was convincing?

[esldude]

2 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Life isn't black or white / all or nothing. 

Sometimes it is.

[esldude]

43 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Yes, some things are black and white, such as my first television. A 12" black & white.

Still have my first TV.  12 inch b&w.  All vacuum tube and still works.  

[esldude]

10 minutes ago, beerandmusic said:

my fishers better than your fisher

Actually that's my Fisher or yours looks like mine.

[esldude]

2 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

Well, to be fair it was $600 new, but I see now going for $400, so I'd say "inexpensive:, rather than "cheap".

Keep in mind it can also be used as a bit "transport", since it does have optical out, which can then be use with the fancy DACs.

I'm not one who hears big differences if any at all with DACs, regardless of price, though I must admit a recent comparison between the Chord Dave and Berkeley had me a bit puzzled, as the Dave indeed seemed to have a "sound" which I couldn't quite put my finger on. I will have to revisit, as being a non-believer, I cannot discount it being due to the "test" conditions, aka sighted...and my fallible perceptions!

I've done enough blind tests to know about witch effects.

A good example.  Often the complaint is people of a more objective bent don't hear differences.  Or if they every heard a good system they would understand.  Well, just like everyone else we hear these things too.  We just know not to implicitly trust what we heard under those conditions.  If the perception is strong or clear enough it is well worth investigating.  Yet even then much of the time it was nothing more than sighted bias/prior priming effecting what we heard.