USB audio cracked... finally!

[Albrecht]

7 hours ago, lucretius said:

 

I would suggest that the lack of a reliable basis of evidence for belief is enough for skepticism or disbelieve. We need to put the burden of proof where it belongs.

deleted

[Albrecht]

12 hours ago, Speed Racer said:

 

As far as I can tell that is a list of products owned by people that think any cable Peter will sell them is the best thing they have ever heard.....

There's a lot of mid-end on that list....Stuff that could likely be mated with associated gear that a listener may not not be able to discern a difference.

[Albrecht]

8 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

either somebody needs to rip one of these things apart to find out what's inside, or they need to X-ray it

 

 

or use x-ray crystallography

Why? I'm sure that comparative listening will be fine. No reason to go any further....

[Albrecht]

On 8/15/2017 at 6:54 AM, Jud said:

Kids, kids - plenty of room for all sorts of views.  Being friendly about it is so easy.

 

Here, simple: I learn plenty from folks who look for objective explanations.  I also love gabbing about what I’ve heard, and read carefully the impressions of people I’ve found have tastes similar to mine.  These two things are not in conflict.

 

We know the physics of human powered vehicles is well settled, but to Larry’s point, it would get quite old being told to hop on a dyno and prove it every time you said you liked Campy cranksets better.

I agree. But I do think that you're missing the point, and missing the big difference. One person is saying a device improves the performance of their system and they are describing their experiences and testing. The other person is making a claim that that person is lying to themselves and demanding that they provide proof that they are not delusional. (This is demeaning; it also implies, or may imply that the accuser is omniscient, *knowing* that something could not happen, even though they did not conduct, or were not at, the same location, at the same time. This "knowing" from the accuser is really just gross speculation).

 

[Albrecht]

14 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I demand it with my money. It's in everyone's financial interest to do the same. If you want to believe the marketing hype it's your prerogative,  but don't be surprised if you are paying for some oil from a certain slithering reptile.

 

 

Except that rarely happens. "Snake oil" or fraud is so incredibly rare, that it essentially doesn't happen. And of course, what you call "marketing hype" gets proven or disproven all the time by either an enhanced listening experience or not. The goal isn't some kind of objective effectiveness,  like does that car actually go 0 to 60 in 40 seconds, but does this item help MY WHOLE SYSTEM make the instruments on Copland's "Fanfare for the Common Man" seem more realistic and powerful? It's easy to take an individual out of context.

 

There's no way that an USB cable change is ever going to affect a Sony boombox (whose plastic speakers separate), in the same way that a LAMM/Avalon/Meitner will. (Those are extreme examples, - but an illustration of what is, and what isn't in context).

Many of these products also offer a money back guarantee, - something that you never get with Gucci purse or a Ferrari

[Albrecht]

5 hours ago, mansr said:

Advertising comes in many guises, including this post of yours.

It is a gross mis-representation to call SuperDad's post advertizing. I call BS on that. Essentially you are saying that because Superdad responded to a post with the moniker "SuperDad" that that is an advertisement; and therefore ridiculous.

[Albrecht]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

You have the right to discuss your subjective impressions. I have the right to ask for objective data and measurements. We can both do this without constantly trying to defend our positions.

 

 

But you don't have the right to disparage the individual by calling them "slithering reptiles" And you certainly should understand that NONE of these products were designed for any kind of what-you-call objective measured performance. I would hope that no manufacturer would give a flying "F" about how it "measures" by itself, out of the context of other components that it's interacting with. Good performance on the test bench,  out of context, is not what ANY of these products were designed for. What they were designed for was to enhance the listening experience. If you're not interested in enhancing the listening experience, - go buy a pickup truck.

All of these manufacturers make SUBJECTIVE build decisions that are designed for a SUBJECTIVE experience. It often so happens that  a $.33 capacitor has a variance of 30% as opposed to a Dueland, (for example) that has a variance of 5%.

Of course, you can make assumptions all day long, - and certainly "better" parts don't always end up being applied to contribute to the overall sound... But could be one element of how the design and final outcome are all about improving the experience.

[Albrecht]

1 minute ago, kumakuma said:

 

It may not be paid advertising but it falls into my definition of marketing because Alex is communicating to his market (us) the message that his products are so good that he doesn't need to buy ads.

 

 

What product did he mention? Did he mention uptone audio at all? So, - in other words, - Alex shouldn't be allowed to post here at all? Because someone might possibly click on his moniker and find out that he is a manufacturer? Otherwise, how would anyone know? I am willing to bet that at least someone read Alex's post without knowing that he's a manufacturer. With respect, - that is a stretch that I find silly.

Of course, this is Chris' site, with his rules, and he finds manufacturer participation of value. Whether you or i agree is just something that we'll have to live with. And finally, (silly also to continue with this), I would hazard that there are more than 50 manufacturers who post all over these forums.... Like us, - they're all audio enthusiasts who are really into good sound, and enhancing the listening experience. (READ: NOT INTO MAKING MONEY IN THE MARKETPLACE).

For if they were, - they'd be in another field entirely......

[Albrecht]

4 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

Marketing is simply communicating with your market. It can be done in a number of ways including paid advertising or by simply posting messages here that raise your credibility with your target market. 

 

The fact that you didn't pick on the subtle message that Alex was conveying doesn't mean it wasn't marketing.

 

Whether he realized it or not, Alex was using Cialdini's principle of Social Proof in his message. I suggest that you, or anyone else interested in the subject, read Cialdini's book, Influence.

 

Chris requires manufacturers to identify themselves like Alex is doing in his signature. He also allows them to engage in other forms of marketing such as buying banner ads and sponsoring forums. The fact that many (like Alex) pay him for these additional marketing opportunities indicates that their participation here is not always just because they are fellow audiophiles.

Hi,

I equate marketing with selling. I think that we may disagree on how we define marketing. I am not interested in the principle of Social Proof. I can say that though that once we start attaching different meanings to the same words, we run the risk of communication breakdown. No way that you are going to convince me that merely posting on a subject means that Alex is selling a particular product.

Finally, - and this is something that I forgot to mention, - isn't there a rule that prevents from manufacturers/designers from selling outside a designated area? In the area designed for such, they can, - outside that area, - they are just another enthusiast.

[Albrecht]

4 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

Albrecht, maybe you want to keep arguing the subjective vs. objective point in every thread,

 

 

No i don't and don't.

 

[Albrecht]

35 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

Within the field of business, sales and marketing are related but separate fields and are typically performed by different people within a corporation.

 

I would consider what Alex was doing marketing (communicating with his market) but not really sales as he was making no overt attempt to sell his product.

 

I used the term "Social Proof" in the way that marketers understand it and the way Cialdini uses it in his book, Influence.

 

Thanks for your explanation. I understand better what you mean here.