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

[Jud]

1 minute ago, Albrecht said:

But most important to your original OP, - how many people would want to try this cheap/free microphone room test if the poster would've filled the writing with a lot of anti-audiophile hyperbole implying that the mic test was/is REAL: compared to a comparative analysis of "outrageously priced audiophile cables?"

 

Yes, I agree this is absolutely key.

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

Too often (in an empirical world) the open-minded person says "let me try it and see," - as opposed to, - "let me tell you why this can't work, and why what you're experiencing is not real."

 

Of course, before we get all self-congratulatory, it's good to note that we *can* go through the trial and error method literally "too often."  There is, sadly, not enough time to do all we want.  So it can be very helpful to try to limit alternatives to the most promising ones.

[Jud]

Help The Humor Impaired

 

Please give generously.

[Jud]

OK, folks, descending into personalities again....

[Jud]

1 minute ago, wgscott said:

 

Maybe it was Trey Anastasio.

 

OK, that I can see....

[Jud]

40 minutes ago, mansr said:

Overgeneralising is definitely common among audiophiles. It happens easily when one doesn't, or refuses to, understand why an observed effect is occurring. A prime example is assuming that behaviours of analogue signal connections apply equally to digital interfaces leading to the crazy talk of USB cables having great bass response and whatnot.

 

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.

[Jud]

38 minutes ago, Daudio said:

Happy to formally Ignore you now...

 

Why stop there?  Can’t we all be included in the fun?

[Jud]

11 minutes ago, mansr said:

you're still among the stupider posters on CA

 

I thought “more stupid” was the preferred form.  Tch, tch, our educational system....

[Jud]

1 hour ago, Don Hills said:

 

Google to the rescue. I searched for "jitter audio samples".

First hits:

http://www.sereneaudio.com/blog/what-does-jitter-sound-like

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT_1UATci3c

 

 

 

Was it recorded with a single mic?

[Jud]

17 minutes ago, Daudio said:

 

Et tu, Brute ?

 

Well this is hardly Shakespeare.

 

You just appear to have a dislike for so many people on the thread, and concerned as I am about being with the “in crowd,” it seemed to me I’d be stuck with a rather small, lonely group if I were one of the few you didn’t ignore.

[Jud]

28 minutes ago, Daudio said:

Are you so... distracted... that you can't see the difference between liking/disliking a person, and calling out their rude and malicious behavior ?

 

You mean like going to the trouble of PMing someone to direct a torrent of curses at them?  Or unleashing a flood of negative personal remarks in my thread?

 

Yes, this is precisely the sort of conduct that derails otherwise valuable threads.  We had Gordon Rankin here posting about USB cables, and now it’s kids calling each other names on a playground.  Thanks.

 

You are of course free to reply, but I won’t be reading it.

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, esldude said:

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

 

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

 

 

Now that was just mean.  

[Jud]

6 hours ago, AJ Soundfield said:

I'm wondering if this thread wasn't a ruse by Jud to get the knives vs gunfight fantasy loons to go postal

 

If you don’t assume I’m cleverer than I appear you’ll be more accurate.  

 

I don’t waste time thinking up such stuff.

[Jud]

Bill, that was very funny.

 

Hope you found some lyrics to copy and paste so you didn’t have to count all the “nah”s!

[Jud]

3 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

components that can be objectively shown not to interfere with the sound of the recording.

 

In some thread or other I mentioned comparing the sound of two different pairs of output *capacitors* (in the right and left channels, respectively, of a DAC), and several properties of capacitors (other than capacitance and voltage specs) were mentioned that might affect the sound.

 

So if you've gone to the extent of comparing all the relevant measurements of all the individual components of all the equipment in your signal chain that might affect the analog output, plus the circuit topology of each item of equipment, plus the resulting topology of your system as a whole, I salute you! 

 

But face it, none of us does that.  What we can do as a shortcut is credit the results of scientifically performed listening tests, which you have for all the equipment in your signal chain, and then your system as a whole, right?  Well, it's unlikely any of us has gone to that extent either.  (Though if you have, you crazy ol' objectivist, once again, you have my admiration.)

 

OK, so then where are the vast majority of us, realistically and practically speaking?  Making more or less informed judgments about what ought to affect the sound.  Some of us like to inform ourselves with specs and measurements and audio engineering or  audio engineering-related experience; others of us like to inform ourselves with our ears; still others of us like to do both.  I'm in the latter category, full well realizing the potential for my ears to lead me astray.  But I like music through my system, and I bought stuff used (amp, speakers) or just cheap (DAC) so I didn't spend a fortune.  Overall I'm happy, and maybe that's the measurement to be most concerned with. 

[Jud]

4 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Yeah, ok, I'm crazy, but not that crazy  For me, an objective piece of evidence is also a blind test. I take with a grain of salt all the sighted reports on these forums. When someone says that XYZ 'lifted a veil' or 'reduced noise' or produced 'quieter background'. I tend to discount it. I don't know what that person actually heard or didn't, what veil was lifted, or what noise was reduced. I discount it even more if I don't understand how XYZ is supposed to accomplish what is claimed or if it seems to violate known laws of Physics. 

 

I may be even more of a skeptic than you - I also take with a grain of salt many reports of blind audio tests.

 

On the other hand, I think many specs (if conservative and reliable) and measurements are a great help, as is just a better understanding of the way various components work.

[Jud]

4 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

 

So, how we inform ourselves regarding the sound quality of our audio systems is, realistically and practically, finally a matter of... taste?    That is interesting!

 

Tempting, but not what I meant, and a little too facile.

 

I know of several people on the forum who did (and still do) blind tests and measurements of their equipment (often very good equipment, contrary to myth), which demonstrated to them that differences they heard in sighted listening weren’t real.  So their decisions about what to trust are based on their own experiences.

[Jud]

I see we are starting to get back into well worn grooves again.  Oh well....

 

My little contribution:

 

Back when I was a youth, a mere stripling, and dinosaurs roamed the earth, I had a receiver with an FM reception strength meter connected to our outdoor TV antenna with a long run of "antenna wire."  I noticed that moving this wire around (near the receiver where it was accessible) made a difference in FM signal strength.  Thus my introduction to RF reception and cables! 

 

A while ago I had a test piece in my system's USB chain that had the anomalous effect of causing the favored path for noise from my laptop's SMPS to run through the preamp and become quite audible.  So I learned that even an innocuous item of equipment being changed could cause noise to take a different path.  And once I had this test piece in the circuit, I could use it as a "noise sniffer," to very audibly tell what conditions reduced the noise.  Some surprising things happened, such as an Ethernet isolation transformer audibly reducing the noise.  I thought the built-in Ethernet isolation in the certified Blue Jeans Cat 6a cable should be quite sufficient.

 

My guess is that any audible effects (if they exist) having anything to do with USB input would be the result of noise, either noise from sources external to the DAC, or self-noise in the DAC circuitry.  As a speculative example I'd mention the Corning "optical" USB cable, which included very thin copper power and ground wires in a 10 meter long cable.  Yep, it's just a bit of plain copper wire.  But as installed in people's systems, could that relatively higher resistance path cause noise currents to run elsewhere than to/through the DAC?

 

At this point no one's demonstrated an answer to that; and even for people like Gordon Rankin who have the measurement equipment, I don't know what role if any installation in "real world" system conditions with all their RFI, EMI and noise currents, plays in his testing.

 

Yup, shielding and balanced operation, isolation transformers, etc., should certainly help with many aspects of noise.  How many of you folks have measured noise in your systems with and without these components, then conducted thorough, reliable blind tests to make sure any measured differences were audible?

[Jud]

Just now, AJ Soundfield said:

You know Einsteins rumored definition of insanity, yes?

 

Exactly.  Stop the Insanity! 

[Jud]

2 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I'm currently using an ethernet USB extender that allows me to place my PC in another room. As a side benefit, it also provides some level of galvanic isolation, regeneration (hub) and a separate source of power to the outgoing USB. In a blind test (and even in a sighted test) I can't find a difference between the ethernet extension and a straight, short USB cable. My chain includes an SU-1 DDC, so perhaps that eliminates some of the differences that would otherwise be audible.

 

I'd be willing to try the Corning cable, as well. I'd probably want to see if the two copper wires could be interrupted and fed with a separate power supply. And yes, I will conduct blind tests to confirm if I can really hear the difference. I also do try to measure all new components for noise and jitter at the output of the DAC, but admittedly, my measurement equipment is not the best: a Behringer 24/96 ADC feeding an older Macbook with a Toslink input.

 

Yes, but what kind of blind test?  Not something that involves switching in 2-4 seconds, surely?  I know these sorts of “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” blind tests aren’t subject to some of the same problems as sighted ones.  But that seems to me akin to saying “I may not be taking any drugs to help my arthritis, but at least I’m not wearing one of those stupid bracelets!”

 

I’m interested in what attracted you to the idea of the SU-1.

[Jud]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

Perhaps also a waste of space.

 

But those of us interested in relativity already knew that.

[Jud]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Usually not 2-4 second, but less than a minute to switch with the help of an assistant.

 

The phrase “close but no cigar” comes to mind.  

 

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

SU-1 was primarily to enable DSD512 and native DSD to my DAC, which only supports DSD256/DoP.

 

Would you think the difference in noise levels (between DSD256 and DSD512) to be audible, or just curious and it wasn’t too expensive?

 

(Not meaning to press you or ask for justification - I do have an “ulterior motive,” and it’s to show we are not all so very different.)

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Maybe God, at the time of creation, had full knowledge that imperfections in the USB protocol would create future debates about digital cables?

 

You, sir, are today’s winner of the Internets.

[Jud]

2 hours ago, plissken said:

That's not what I said.

 

If someone speculates and the speculation is 100% incorrect. It's still incorrect regardless of how vehemently they speculate.

 

Sorry, when someone is just so fundamentally incorrect and giving out advice you want the person that knows how it actually works to stay mum?

 

I'll generally get into it with someone that won't put on the blinders and do ears only, bias controlled, evaluation. Even more so if they are a manufacturer.

 

Of course new knowledge doesn't change the way's things sound. Including changes that are just 100% self delusion.

 

 

 

pliss, I remember seeing you post at least one response when a question that had to do with law was being discussed.  It was obvious to me you were in unfamiliar territory, yet you had the same assertiveness you bring to your other posts.  So how am I to evaluate your assertive posts when it is not a subject that is so familiar to me and I have no way to tell if you really know what you’re talking about or not?

[Jud]

37 minutes ago, rickca said:

Galileo had some good observations to back up his theories.  Didn't help him much.

 

But I must point out this is an example of what everyone plainly knew from personal observation being completely wrong, and the scientist being oppressed for trying to change everyone’s subjective “knowledge.”

 

A favorite quote about these situations is the following from Carl Sagan:

 

“They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

 

Not every voice crying in the wilderness is correct.  Sometimes no one credits them because they really are wrong.

 

On the other hand, none of us, subjective, objective, whatever, is Galileo.